homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Special interest discussion   » Dead Horses   » Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women] (Page 42)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  ...  51  52  53 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women]
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
There were people in the early days of ordination of women who were part of the provision who saw their jobs as temporary. So the belief that the measures were temporary was quite widespread.

There is nothing in the Act of Synod that says that the PEVs are temporary. Now some people might have the expectation that the end result of the 'discernment' mentioned in the introduction to the Act would be an agreement to stop appointing PEVs but such an expectation is not to be found in the actual text of the Act.
The very language in the act itself says it was meant to be temporary - as I went into on the previous page. The Act itself allows the PEVs and such measures to allow for a period of discernment, and to allow everything to be reversed if discernment were to lead to the conclusion that ordaining women was a really bad idea and that apostolic succession should not go through them at all.

quote:
The decision to continue to ordain priests who do not accept ordination of women was not made by the PEVs. It is actually in the text of the Act itself.
quote:
1.Except as provided by the Measure and this Act no person or body shall discriminate against candidates either for ordination or for appointment to senior office in the Church of England on the grounds of their view or positions about the ordination of women to the priesthood.
So in fact it would have been contrary to the Act if the PEVs or indeed any other Bishop had refused ordination to someone on the grounds that they were opposed to the ordination of women. Given that I'm not sure what you think they should have done differently
Actually followed the text of the act. "Except as provided by this act and this measure". What was provided by the act and the measure was that female ordinations were valid and no one should be thrown out of the Church of England because of it. Also everyone should accept the validity of the other positions - which people who refuse to accept female ordination don't. So yes, under the act and the measure refusing to accept female priests should have made you as invalid for taking holy orders as refusing to accept male ones.

quote:
Sorry to have to repeat myself but the Church doesn't ordain anyone, Bishops do and the Act allows them to both ordain women or to refuse to ordain women.
Indeed. But it does not enable them to ordain people who refuse to be in communion with the Church of England. Such people are people who refuse point blank to recognise the validity of opposing positions to theirs.

The Act of Synod knowingly created an unstable compromise that could not work long term. It did it because it wanted to allow for discernment in case it was wrong, and it did it in case the result of the discernment was that it wanted to reverse course. And it did it to allow as many as possible to still stay together.

But the act of synod was inherently temporary and a trial.

quote:
Now here's a curious thing. Why should you have more sympathy for older opponents of women's ordination than younger ones.
Because change is hard and admitting you were wrong for 50 years is harder than admitting you were wrong for 10.

quote:
Although the Act says "the integrity of differing beliefs and positions concerning the ordination of women to the priesthood should be mutually recognised and respected" I suspect that you don't actually do this.
It certainly isn't being done by FiF ordaining people who point blank refuse to acknowledge the validity of other priests.

quote:
If by openness you mean 'everyone agree as quickly as possible that ordination of women is correct' well then that's not real openness is it?
1993 was 20 years ago. "As soon as possible" is 20 years. Riiight.

quote:
Also given Section 1. of the Act I quoted above what exactly do you think they should have done differently?
Ebbesfleet's website not hosting for almost 10 years a version of the Act of Synod that omitted the words "Except as provided by this act and this measure" would have been a start.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
How the blue fuck do you manage to read that as me suggesting that the opponents of women's ordination are not part of the Church of England? It so obviously means the opposite.

Because of what you said earlier that "We, as a church, think that women can be ordained".
Do you really find it so hard to accept that you are part of a church that ordains women*, that when I say that the church (institutionally) thinks women can be ordained, you read that as me saying "you are not part of my church"? Seriously?

I don't suppose for a moment that it will do any good, but personally speaking I fully accept that we are part of the same church, I would wish that to continue as long as we both wish to be Anglican, and am in favour of all reasonable accommodation being made to allow us both to continue in membership. Your reading of my posts to infer the opposite was as inaccurate as it was groundless.

I would say, though, that if you want your views to be respected on their merits, an utterly unrealistic refusal to accept that the church does actually ordain women and regards their sacramental ministry as valid, and expressing that refusal by desperate and unconvincing terminological quibbling is not the way to carry on. Doing so suggests to me an irrational aversion to female ministry that goes deeper than the theological. But it's up to you whether you care about giving that impression, I suppose.


(="a church within which women are ordained")

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry, Tommy1, I happen to live in a country that accepted various kinds of equality many years ago. My church, the ACC, accepted the ordination of women many years ago, and the ordination of women as bishops as well (although certain male priests have not yet managed to accept this). The sky has not fallen.

ALL churches have decreasing memberships, even the evangelical megachurches. Why? Quite possibly, what they are offering is seen as pointless or irrelevant by an increasing number of the potential members.

Bleating about how women lack a penis indicates that you haven't worked out your problems yet.

No-one has yet determined the significance of a penis in religious observances, although many have remarked upon the insecurity of the penis-bearers as their assumption of automatic access privilege and power is shown to be questionable.

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
Have you ever heard of any attempt by an anti-OoW priest to re-baptise someone on the grounds that their baptism was invalid because it had been carried out by a female priest? Why not?

Because it is not a requirement for a valid baptism for the person performing the baptism to be ordained.

quote:
Unless, of course, you mean that the Church of England doesn't ordain anyone, male or female.
Yes, that is what I'm saying.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Horseman Bree

More emotive rhetoric from you in place of logical argument I see.

Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
That same Act expects all concerned to work with fellow clergy.

The exact wording of Section 3.a.(ii) of the introduction says
quote:
(ii) the highest possible degree of communion should be maintained within each diocese
given both support and opposition to women's ordination are explicitly recognised as ligitimate points of view in section 3.a.(iii) of the introduction explicitly recognises both support and opposition as valid theological perspectives then section 3.a.(ii) cannot be interpreted as excluding opposition.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I didn't say that the Act did not allow for the support of male priests who could not accept women priests. I said that male priests choosing to get ordained into a subsection of the church that refused to accept women priests and refused to work with women priests have lost sympathy from much of the community outside the church and most of the community inside the church. And have acted against the Act.

And this current rearguard action that you seem to be a part of is coming 20 years after the decision, after most of the church has moved on, after so many women have been ordained that if you removed women priests now you wouldn't have a church in much of the country.

Where are you showing that you are prepared to work with women priests as proscribed by the Act? Because everything you have said has indicated that you are not.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Blimey, Tommy1; your side lost this argument years ago, as Curiosity killed ... says. Maybe you should join the Roman Catholic Church or the Plymouth Brethren!

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I didn't say that the Act did not allow for the support of male priests who could not accept women priests. I said that male priests choosing to get ordained into a subsection of the church that refused to accept women priests and refused to work with women priests have lost sympathy from much of the community outside the church and most of the community inside the church. And have acted against the Act.

You are making a distinction between priests who were already ordained at the time and priests who ordained later. Such a distinction may be found in people's sentiments both now and at the time but it cannot be found anywhere in the actual words of the Act.

Now to address the specific claim that the Act specifically provides for the exclusion from ordination of men opposed to women's ordination based on the phrase 'Except as provided by the measure and this Act'. You claim the the Act provides for this by saying that the process of discernment should be as open as possible. That suggests that people who are opposed to women's ordination stand in the way of the process being as open as possible and that there should be as few of them as possible in the Church. Which suggests that you think that the process should not be as open as possible to the notion of rejecting women's ordination. Which means that its not as open as possible but only open in one direction. Now I realise that this is what many people at the time thought but it is not found anywhere in the text of the Act, nor can it be if the rest of the Act is to make any sense.

In fact in the text of the Act the only discrimination on the grounds of position on the ordination of women found in the Act are in sections 4 and 5 where it says that certain Bishops, in particular the PEVs shall be appointed to represent those opposed. In other words the only such discrimination allowed is in favour of those opposed.

Please note this is not an argument about the merits or otherwise of women's ordination but about what the Act actually says. GRAS to their credit understand this which is why they want it and its provisions abolished.

Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The very language in the act itself says it was meant to be temporary - as I went into on the previous page. The Act itself allows the PEVs and such measures to allow for a period of discernment, and to allow everything to be reversed if discernment were to lead to the conclusion that ordaining women was a really bad idea and that apostolic succession should not go through them at all.

There is nothing in the text of the Act that precudes the possibility of the result of the period of discernment to be a descision to continue with PEVs indefinitely.


quote:
Also everyone should accept the validity of the other positions - which people who refuse to accept female ordination don't.
Someone can respect the position of one who supoorts women's ordination as being both sincere and valid yet false.
quote:
quote:
Now here's a curious thing. Why should you have more sympathy for older opponents of women's ordination than younger ones.
Because change is hard and admitting you were wrong for 50 years is harder than admitting you were wrong for 10.
Such sentimentalism may have been in the minds of some of those who voted for the Act but it is not in the text of the Act. The Act does not ban opponents of women's ordination from being ordained, it does the opposite. If you want the Act and its provisions abolished that's one thing. saying that Act says the oppositeof what is actually says is another.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Equally, there is nothing in that Act to say that PEVs are permanent. Provision and people not driven out is what it says, not empire build so we can ensure that the CofE is forced to create an ordinariate or schism.

The wording of that Act is vague to enable it to be accepted by all at the time. Unfortunately the weasel words (undoubtedly with fingers crossed behind backs) have been interpreted in ways I am sure were not intended or foreseen.

Continuing to hold the CofE to ransom is counter-productive. I know I'm not the only person who doesn't want this to happen in my name, and I'm no longer on any roll, this wasn't the only thing that made me leave, but it was one of several.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Curiosity K: seconded, except that I haven't actually left yet. Just edging towards the door.

If I had to deal with those who uphold Tommy1's attitude, the "abandon ship" would sound, because the rocks on which that ship would founder would be coming too close.

He doesn't seem to realise that the majority has already jumped ship, to become "spiritual, but not religious" or just "none". Who needs intense politicking on a DH?

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
There is nothing in the text of the Act that precudes the possibility of the result of the period of discernment to be a descision to continue with PEVs indefinitely.

Indeed. That was one possibility at the outset.

However we are no longer at the outset of the discernment period. When both PEVs in the Province of Canterbury declared that they did not intend to remain with the Anglican Communion but instead join the Roman Catholic Church (via the Ordinariate) the idea that PEVs could remain separate from the rest of the Church of England was shown to be a farce.

If this had not happened, who knows whether it would be on the cards now? Probably not. But the compromise allowing PEVs was shown to be a mistake when two out of the three of them thought little enough of the Church of England that they decided to leave it.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
The Act does not ban opponents of women's ordination from being ordained, it does the opposite.

You're complaining about the injustice of denying ordination to a certain group? Fuck me, but do you have a gift for irony!

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
The Act does not ban opponents of women's ordination from being ordained, it does the opposite.

You're complaining about the injustice of denying ordination to a certain group? Fuck me, but do you have a gift for irony!
I'm not complaining about anything. I'm simply pointing out what the Act of Synod says. Any irony you perceive is in the Act itself.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Blimey, Tommy1; your side lost this argument years ago, as Curiosity killed ... says. Maybe you should join the Roman Catholic Church or the Plymouth Brethren!

That isn't what our church has said. It says that it respects both 'integrities' and that it will continue to make provision for them - which is why the women bishops measure is taking so long to get right.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
the compromise allowing PEVs was shown to be a mistake when two out of the three of them thought little enough of the Church of England that they decided to leave it.

No - +Andrew and +Keith didn't leave because of role of PEVs as previously exercised. They left when Synod voted out amendments that would allow the continuation of PEVs. The 'compromise' was about to be undone with the act of Synod being rescinded.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Now, I don't have any sympathy with men who chose to be ordained into a church that was ordaining women and refuse to work with women. That smacks of sour grapes to me.

I have enough sympathy for priests or parishes within the CofE, who have been lifelong members of the CofE who had the changes imposed and who still cannot accept women priests to believe provision should be in place to support them.

This distinction that you keep making between those opposed who were opposed before 1993 and those who became opposed after that date seems illogical but is characteristic of liberalism.

Now liberals will sometimes talk about 'dialogue' and 'respecting one another's convictions' but the reality seems to me that liberals recognise only one legitimate reason for disagreeing with them. They think it is legitimate for someone to disagree with them because he is not used to their ideas or does not understand them. If they think that is the case then they will talk about 'dialogue' and 'listening to one another'.

However if they think they are dealing with people who are both familiar with and understand a liberal idea and still reject it then all the talk about tolerant dialogue turns to furious denunciations.

Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:

However if they think they are dealing with people who are both familiar with and understand a liberal idea and still reject it then all the talk about tolerant dialogue turns to furious denunciations.

True.

I am liberal and never could tolerate intolerance.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Tommy1 - where did I say anything about not having a dialogue or intolerance? How many women priests do you talk to? How many church services do you attend led by women priests?

I continue to attend different churches and a range of services led by both men and women and in different traditions, including a number of churches where women priests do not serve.

What I have repeatedly said is that those men who chose to become ordained within a church that has agreed to ordain women, whilst refusing to accept those women as priests, have refused to accept that church as it is; and that means that the date of the Act makes a difference.

I am arguing that there is a difference between providing for those who were within the church when the Act was passed and those who have chosen to become ordained after the Act was passed, because the passing of the Act changed the acceptance of women priests by the church as a whole. Those who were ordained into that church after the Act was passed and refuse to accept women priests are being wilfully blind to what the Church of England had decided.

The Act is flawed, both sides would agree with that. The problem now is how to go forward from the current position. Trying to force the church back to where it was over 20 years ago is not an option.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:

However if they think they are dealing with people who are both familiar with and understand a liberal idea and still reject it then all the talk about tolerant dialogue turns to furious denunciations.

True.

I am liberal and never could tolerate intolerance.

I guess you're talking about the liberal definition of the word tolerance meaning not "the ability or willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behaviour that one dislikes or disagrees with" but rather "the ability or willingness to agree completely with liberal ideas about egalitarianism"
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:


What I have repeatedly said is that those men who chose to become ordained within a church that has agreed to ordain women, whilst refusing to accept those women as priests, have refused to accept that church as it is; and that means that the date of the Act makes a difference.

I am arguing that there is a difference between providing for those who were within the church when the Act was passed and those who have chosen to become ordained after the Act was passed, because the passing of the Act changed the acceptance of women priests by the church as a whole. Those who were ordained into that church after the Act was passed and refuse to accept women priests are being wilfully blind to what the Church of England had decided.

A person can be ordained into a Church and yet think that is significantly mistaken about something. One can accept that it has made a decision about something and yet think that decision is an error. This is obvious because liberals do this all the time. Liberals within various churches are constantly saying their churches have got things wrong about this that and the other and when they do they will often say the church in question needs 'dialogue'. When a non-liberal dissents about something suddenly 'dialogue' is inappropriate.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Let's twist anything I'm saying, not answer it and instead attack a liberal tolerance that you're reading into my answers?

I have and continue to argue that provision should have been and still should be made for people within the CofE who cannot accept women priests.

But after the passing of Act things did change and new ordinands did also need to respect the requirement of working together with women priests in the Church of England as it had now become - and that has not happened.

I'd be interested how you'd answer the paragraphs you snipped and ignored in the quoted post.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
*snip* What I have repeatedly said is that those men who chose to become ordained within a church that has agreed to ordain women, whilst refusing to accept those women as priests, have refused to accept that church as it is; and that means that the date of the Act makes a difference.

I am arguing that there is a difference between providing for those who were within the church when the Act was passed and those who have chosen to become ordained after the Act was passed, because the passing of the Act changed the acceptance of women priests by the church as a whole. Those who were ordained into that church after the Act was passed and refuse to accept women priests are being wilfully blind to what the Church of England had decided.

The Act is flawed, both sides would agree with that. The problem now is how to go forward from the current position. Trying to force the church back to where it was over 20 years ago is not an option.

The problem with this is that the Act said nothing about that. No line was drawn between those ordained before, or those ordained after. As an example, the initial Canadian conscience clause (the one which the House of Bishops unilaterially repudiated in 1982) did not apply to those ordained after (I think) 1979. If this had been included in the Act of Synod, then your argument holds very strongly. The Act of Synod said in effect that Willful Blindness was just fine and, indeed, it was clear from the politics of the time that it wouldn't have gotten through if it had said otherwise. Likely a stronger measure could have passed about 5-6 years later, but proponents of OWP wanted a measure through more quickly.

As it didn't and as for the next twenty years men were deaconed and priested into the Resolutions church-within-a-church (the Latin ecclesiola in ecclesia is a nice phrase), all within an authorized and canonical setting, they have a justifiable (perhaps wrong, but justifiable) belief that the protections of the provision would apply to them.

The CoE is left with a choice between repudiating an undertaking to the minority or prolonging the arrangement. Either might well be distasteful but the votes so far would suggest that the majority are unwilling to entirely repudiate their concession to the minority. Redrawing the arrangement might, however, be an opportunity to draw the line and say that, after this date, ordinands are expected to accept OWP (if that's what you want to do).

PS I believe that one of the Baltic churches (was it Estonia?) reversed its decision on OoW so, while highly unlikely and unworkable, there is a precedent.

Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
liberals do this all the time.

People do this all the time. Which is mostly fine.

What people can't do is join an organisation that ordains women to be their equals within that organisation, and then refuse to work with, or even acknowledge the existence of, those same women.

If you have evidence of 'liberals' (and yes, you have to have some metric of liberality in order to prove your point) systematically ignoring, shunning or excluding anti-OoW evangelicals and catholics, let's have it. Otherwise, this particular diversion fails.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Augustine the Aleut, I agree with you, I've already said:

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The Act is flawed, both sides would agree with that. The problem now is how to go forward from the current position. Trying to force the church back to where it was over 20 years ago is not an option.

and

quote:
Equally, there is nothing in that Act to say that PEVs are permanent. Provision and people not driven out is what it says, not empire build so we can ensure that the CofE is forced to create an ordinariate or schism.

The wording of that Act is vague to enable it to be accepted by all at the time. Unfortunately the weasel words (undoubtedly with fingers crossed behind backs) have been interpreted in ways I am sure were not intended or foreseen.

And the Act also said:

quote:
(3) The General Synod regards it as desirable that –
  1. all concerned should endeavour to ensure that –
    1. discernment in the wider Church of the rightness or otherwise of the Church of England’s decision to ordain women to the priesthood should be as open a process as possible;
    2. the highest possible degree of communion should be maintained within each diocese; and
    3. the integrity of differing beliefs and positions concerning the ordination of women to the priesthood should be mutually recognised and respected;

And this church within a church has not respected both integrities or the requirement to maintain "the highest possible degree of communion" within Dioceses, which was a requirement of the Act and people ordained later should also have

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But after the passing of Act things did change and new ordinands did also need to respect the requirement of working together with women priests in the Church of England as it had now become - and that has not happened.

I still can't see a satisfactory justification, other than sentimentality why you think this requirement falls less heavily on old priests than on new ones.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
And the Act also said:

quote:
(3) The General Synod regards it as desirable that –
  1. all concerned should endeavour to ensure that –
    1. discernment in the wider Church of the rightness or otherwise of the Church of England’s decision to ordain women to the priesthood should be as open a process as possible;
    2. the highest possible degree of communion should be maintained within each diocese; and
    3. the integrity of differing beliefs and positions concerning the ordination of women to the priesthood should be mutually recognised and respected;

And this church within a church has not respected both integrities or the requirement to maintain "the highest possible degree of communion" within Dioceses, which was a requirement of the Act and people ordained later should also have
As I've said before a person can respect the integrity of the view that women can be priests as being both sincere and valid yet wrong. As for 'the highest possible degree of communion' that depends on what people think is possible. And again there's the point that these aims draw no distinction between new priests and old priests.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But after the passing of Act things did change and new ordinands did also need to respect the requirement of working together with women priests in the Church of England as it had now become - and that has not happened.

I know several FiF priests who work well together with and respect the ministry of women ministers.

It is only their sacramental acts that divide them.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
The problem with this is that the Act said nothing about that. No line was drawn between those ordained before, or those ordained after. As an example, the initial Canadian conscience clause (the one which the House of Bishops unilaterially repudiated in 1982) did not apply to those ordained after (I think) 1979. If this had been included in the Act of Synod, then your argument holds very strongly. The Act of Synod said in effect that Willful Blindness was just fine and, indeed, it was clear from the politics of the time that it wouldn't have gotten through if it had said otherwise. Likely a stronger measure could have passed about 5-6 years later, but proponents of OWP wanted a measure through more quickly.

Putting aside theological questions for a moment and just looking at it from a practical point of view I have to agree with this. In fact it wouldn't even have required a stronger measure. If the Synod had simply passed the Ordination of Women Measure exactly as it was worded and had also passed the financial provisions measure but had not passed the Act of Synod at all the results would have, I suspect' been as follows

i) The number of clergy opposed leaving would have been significantly higher
ii)Would be ordinands opposed would have been discouraged from staying in the Church of England
iii)Even without an official policy of excluding ordinands opposed Bishops would be within their rights to further discourage them and also ensure colleges like Oak Hill were prevented from teaching theology that was anti-women's ordination.

The result of all these things would be that active opposition would have quickly dwindled to almost nothing and a single clause measure to allow women bishops would have passed within a few years.

Given however that the Act did pass then FiF the Church Society and Reform (as well ordinands supporting them) have acted quite within their rights in continuing to oppose women's ordination.

Forgive me if I'm being a little too cynical but I have a suspicion that the motive for passing the Act of Synod for at least some in the Church leadership was not any concern for people's consciences but rather it was a concern that if too many clery and laity left, either to the Roman Catholic Church, independent protestant congregations or even an ANCA style rival Anglican Church that this might have damaged their 'market share'.

Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Tommy1 writes:
quote:
Forgive me if I'm being a little too cynical but I have a suspicion that the motive for passing the Act of Synod for at least some in the Church leadership was not any concern for people's consciences but rather it was a concern that if too many clery and laity left, either to the Roman Catholic Church, independent protestant congregations or even an ANCA style rival Anglican Church that this might have damaged their 'market share'.
I do think that you're too cynical in that regard. My feeling is that authorities' likely motivations (which some might call cynical, I suppose) is that many clergy and laity opposing OWP would change their minds as they saw women priests in operation-- which has happened to a fair extent -- and the perpetual Anglican propensity for that which is imperfect with peace than that which is perfect without it.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Augustine the Aleut, in my experience many people did change their minds when they saw OOW in practice. I posted this example back on the previous page:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But I also come from a parish that provided an alternative male led service for the first 10 years, and when it became impossible to guarantee that the priest at that service would be male, there was a discussion with the congregation concerned. That congregation no longer required a male priest and were happy to attend with female priests - a combination of people changing their minds, dying or otherwise moving on. Very few, one or two, moved to an ABC resolution parish.



--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Tommy1 writes:
quote:
Forgive me if I'm being a little too cynical but I have a suspicion that the motive for passing the Act of Synod for at least some in the Church leadership was not any concern for people's consciences but rather it was a concern that if too many clery and laity left, either to the Roman Catholic Church, independent protestant congregations or even an ANCA style rival Anglican Church that this might have damaged their 'market share'.
I do think that you're too cynical in that regard. My feeling is that authorities' likely motivations (which some might call cynical, I suppose) is that many clergy and laity opposing OWP would change their minds as they saw women priests in operation-- which has happened to a fair extent -- and the perpetual Anglican propensity for that which is imperfect with peace than that which is perfect without it.
I'm sure that was an important as well. It would be wrong to be entirely cynical about the motivations of the Church's leadership. At the same time I think it would be wrong to be wholly uncynical.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
aig
Shipmate
# 429

 - Posted      Profile for aig     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by Leo [
QUOTE] I know several FiF priests who work well together with and respect the ministry of women ministers. [/QUOTE]

I hope said FIF priests respect the ministry of the women priests they work with.

--------------------
That's not how we do it here.......

Posts: 464 | From: the middle bit at the bottom slightly to the right | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]

It is only their sacramental acts that divide them.

Pretty much everything then as that's a fundamental issue.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I have and continue to argue that provision should have been and still should be made for people within the CofE who cannot accept women priests.

Presumably you'll apply the same grace to those who oppose same sex marriage (and relationships) generally?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
<tangent in response to EM>Currently the CofE hasn't agreed SSM, so what you are arguing for is the position of the whole church. Neither are blessings of SSM officially allowed, although the Pilling Report argued that should be allowed in November 2013.

I guess it would work in a similar way to the current position on marriage of divorcés where churches opt in, through PCC agreement or choose not to, as the case may be.

If you meant to ask anything else that would be another DH thread on homosexuality.</tangent>

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688

 - Posted      Profile for Vade Mecum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by aig:
Originally posted by Leo
quote:
I know several FiF priests who work well together with and respect the ministry of women ministers.
I hope said FIF priests respect the ministry of the women priests they work with.
I would be interested to know precisely (or even loosely) what people mean when they say this: how does one go about 'respecting' the ministry of any priest, let alone one you do not believe to be validly ordained/ordainable? What exact practical actions, expressions and/or gestures count as respecting someone's ministry? Serious question.

--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What i meant was, from those i know, talking to them at chapter rather than ignoring them, working together on pastoral issues like food banks, referrals, inviting them to preach and assist, bible story, prayer groups and daily Offices.

Absenting themselves as unobtrusively as possible when a Eucharist is about to be celebrated with a woman.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cottontail

Shipmate
# 12234

 - Posted      Profile for Cottontail   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by aig:
Originally posted by Leo
quote:
I know several FiF priests who work well together with and respect the ministry of women ministers.
I hope said FIF priests respect the ministry of the women priests they work with.
I would be interested to know precisely (or even loosely) what people mean when they say this: how does one go about 'respecting' the ministry of any priest, let alone one you do not believe to be validly ordained/ordainable? What exact practical actions, expressions and/or gestures count as respecting someone's ministry? Serious question.
I'm not a priest. I'm a minister. So quite apart from the woman thing, that means that Roman Catholics and the Orthodox would be unable to accept communion when presided over by me. Some Anglicans would also have a struggle with this. A friend who is an Anglo-Catholic priest once told me that he could take communion from me, but only by not understanding it as a sacrament. At the time I told him he would be more honest not to take it at all.

In retrospect, though, I think he got something right. I believe he is absolutely wrong to doubt the sacramental validity of my church's communion. But nevertheless, at least he recognises communion as administered by me as valid within my tradition and according to my tradition's own understanding. In similar fashion, I have friends and colleagues who are Roman Catholic priests. We obviously disagree on all sorts of theologies and ecclesiologies, but they recognise my ministry as valid within my church, and are thoroughly respectful of it and of me. I even had an elderly priest tell me once that he had no problem with women ministers at all, because we weren't actually priests anyway, were we!

So that is how respect is shown to my ministry from those outside my tradition. It is all that is required of them. But just let anyone from within my own tradition question my vocation because I am a woman, and then you will see me get absolutely bloody furious. Because we have been ordaining women for nearly 50 years now, and all candidates for ministry are asked explicitly if they support the ordination of women to the ministry of Word and Sacrament. If any male colleague were to absent themselves from my ordination, my induction, from my presiding at communion, or from occasions where I am to preach, then I would take that very badly indeed, no matter how unobtrusively they did it. They are my colleagues - we are ordained by the same authority and are functionally equal in every way - and the bare minimum of respect one colleague owes another is their presence and their participation. If a colleague cannot do so, because he believes that my ordination is invalid, then he is effectively saying that he is not my colleague and I am not his. In that case, quite what we are doing in the same church is beyond me.

--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."

Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
I would be interested to know precisely (or even loosely) what people mean when they say this: how does one go about 'respecting' the ministry of any priest, let alone one you do not believe to be validly ordained/ordainable? What exact practical actions, expressions and/or gestures count as respecting someone's ministry? Serious question.

When I was at university we had full time Catholic and Anglican chaplains. We often had joint communion services with one rite being celebrated there and then with the other tradition providing elements that had been consecrated beforehand. We would each go an receive from our own tradition and then go and receive a blessing from the other tradition. I can't speak to the personal convictions of the chaplains but nothing in that practice would contradict the RC opinion that Anglican orders are invalid.

The examples offered by the behaviour of past Popes towards various Archbishops of Canterbury is likewise instructive. When has FIF asked a senior female Priest to address a conference? How many women have been invited to celebrate communion in churches opposed to the ordination of women?

Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688

 - Posted      Profile for Vade Mecum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
[...] How many women have been invited to celebrate communion in churches opposed to the ordination of women?

But to a Catholic theology, a layman 'celebrating' communion is a sacrilege, a sinful perversion of the Sacrament. Are you saying that we [generic 'we'] should show respect by inviting what we would consider sacrilege? Preaching is another matter: I used to attend an Anglo-Catholic church which was quite happy for a woman to preach, whilst nevertheless preventing one from celebrating.

--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
[...] How many women have been invited to celebrate communion in churches opposed to the ordination of women?

But to a Catholic theology, a layman 'celebrating' communion is a sacrilege, a sinful perversion of the Sacrament. Are you saying that we [generic 'we'] should show respect by inviting what we would consider sacrilege? Preaching is another matter: I used to attend an Anglo-Catholic church which was quite happy for a woman to preach, whilst nevertheless preventing one from celebrating.
Really? Then why was Archbishop Rowan invited to celebrate communion in the Basilica of Santa Sabina when he visited Rome in 2009?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
anne
Shipmate
# 73

 - Posted      Profile for anne   Email anne   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by aig:
Originally posted by Leo
quote:
I know several FiF priests who work well together with and respect the ministry of women ministers.
I hope said FIF priests respect the ministry of the women priests they work with.
I would be interested to know precisely (or even loosely) what people mean when they say this: how does one go about 'respecting' the ministry of any priest, let alone one you do not believe to be validly ordained/ordainable? What exact practical actions, expressions and/or gestures count as respecting someone's ministry? Serious question.
Depending on the circumstances and speaking entirely personally, 'respect' for my priestly ministry might involve the following:

Not calling me a priestess.
Not calling me a minister when you would call a man a priest, for example in the sentence : Our parish priest, Father Ted, was joined by Mrs Mary Jones, minister at St Botolphs.
Being prepared to receive communion at a service where I have presided at the Eucharist.
Being prepared to concelebrate with me at the Eucharist (where appropriate and when you would be prepared to concelebrate with a male priest.)
Being prepared to join with me in prayer for those being ordained, regardless of their gender and the gender of those being ordained alongside them.

These examples come to mind and are not ranked or ordered in any way. All of them are subject to some exceptions and there are certainly others, which I'll think of as soon as I press 'add reply'.
I have worked with priests and lay-people who did not support the OoW. Usually, politeness and common sense have meant that we have been able to work well and usefully together. Occasionally difficulties have arisen - for example, whilst a priest from a neighbouring AB parish can provide holiday cover for me, I cannot reciprocate. Sometimes simple errors or misunderstandings have cropped up and one or other of us has taken offence unnecessarily, and we have been able to work it out. Very rarely I have had experiences like those above, when the lack of respect for my vocation and ordination as a priest (rather than for me personally) have been made very clear.

anne

--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale

Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688

 - Posted      Profile for Vade Mecum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
[...] How many women have been invited to celebrate communion in churches opposed to the ordination of women?

But to a Catholic theology, a layman 'celebrating' communion is a sacrilege, a sinful perversion of the Sacrament. Are you saying that we [generic 'we'] should show respect by inviting what we would consider sacrilege? Preaching is another matter: I used to attend an Anglo-Catholic church which was quite happy for a woman to preach, whilst nevertheless preventing one from celebrating.
Really? Then why was Archbishop Rowan invited to celebrate communion in the Basilica of Santa Sabina when he visited Rome in 2009?
I have no idea. I imagine it was someone's idea of a nice oecumenical gesture. How many Roman Catholics attended, and of those how many communicated, would be a more interesting question. The latter would, I imagine, be 0%. Were they respecting ++Rowan's ministry or not?

--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
I would be interested to know precisely (or even loosely) what people mean when they say this: how does one go about 'respecting' the ministry of any priest, let alone one you do not believe to be validly ordained/ordainable? What exact practical actions, expressions and/or gestures count as respecting someone's ministry? Serious question.

When I was at university we had full time Catholic and Anglican chaplains. We often had joint communion services with one rite being celebrated there and then with the other tradition providing elements that had been consecrated beforehand. We would each go an receive from our own tradition and then go and receive a blessing from the other tradition.
Same here - our 2 chaplaincies did a joint Good Friday liturgy that way UNTIL the RC bishop got wind of it and forbade any future occurrences and moved the RC chaplaincy out of the shared building and appointed a new chaplain.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
[...] How many women have been invited to celebrate communion in churches opposed to the ordination of women?

But to a Catholic theology, a layman 'celebrating' communion is a sacrilege, a sinful perversion of the Sacrament. Are you saying that we [generic 'we'] should show respect by inviting what we would consider sacrilege? Preaching is another matter: I used to attend an Anglo-Catholic church which was quite happy for a woman to preach, whilst nevertheless preventing one from celebrating.
Really? Then why was Archbishop Rowan invited to celebrate communion in the Basilica of Santa Sabina when he visited Rome in 2009?
Was he celebrating an Anglican eucharist in a borrowed building? If so, that's basic hospitality. The same goes on all over the world where RCs offer their buildings for the occasional Anglican chaplaincies to ex pats.

That is a very different situation to one where he was concelebrating with RCs - which won't happen much before the second coming.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Was he celebrating an Anglican eucharist in a borrowed building? If so, that's basic hospitality. The same goes on all over the world where RCs offer their buildings for the occasional Anglican chaplaincies to ex pats.

Given that there is at least one Anglican church in Rome, such hospitality wasn't a necessity. It was a gesture of respect, one that caused a round of shit-fits among... less ecumenically minded RCs. There were RCs in attendance, including a Bishop, and a Vatican official who read the Gospel and received a blessing from the Archbishop. Now clearly none of this was meant as an acceptance of Archbishop Rowan's orders, but it is indicative of the level of respect with which a Priest may treat another whose orders they consider invalid.

Incidentally I made a typo earlier - the service was in 2006 rather than 2009.

[ 02. January 2014, 20:45: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]

Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
[...] How many women have been invited to celebrate communion in churches opposed to the ordination of women?

But to a Catholic theology, a layman 'celebrating' communion is a sacrilege, a sinful perversion of the Sacrament. Are you saying that we [generic 'we'] should show respect by inviting what we would consider sacrilege? Preaching is another matter: I used to attend an Anglo-Catholic church which was quite happy for a woman to preach, whilst nevertheless preventing one from celebrating.
Really? Then why was Archbishop Rowan invited to celebrate communion in the Basilica of Santa Sabina when he visited Rome in 2009?
I have no idea. I imagine it was someone's idea of a nice oecumenical gesture. How many Roman Catholics attended, and of those how many communicated, would be a more interesting question. The latter would, I imagine, be 0%. Were they respecting ++Rowan's ministry or not?
I believe Paul VI assigned the basilica (I had forgotten that it was S Sabina) for the use of archbishops of Canterbury, and that this was confirmed by J2P2. There was much frothing among some RC bloggers during ++Rowan's visit there a few years ago, but he was simply following precedent. Normally, senior prelates have been present, representing variously their cardinals and secretariats and, I think at least on one occasion, the pontiff du jour.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Was he celebrating an Anglican eucharist in a borrowed building? If so, that's basic hospitality. The same goes on all over the world where RCs offer their buildings for the occasional Anglican chaplaincies to ex pats.

Given that there is at least one Anglican church in Rome, such hospitality wasn't a necessity. It was a gesture of respect, one that caused a round of shit-fits among... less ecumenically minded RCs.
Given that this would have been 20 years after Assisi you would have thought they'd be used to things like that already.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  ...  51  52  53 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools