|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women]
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
I feel we might be veering off the point here: if 'Eucharistic hospitality' is to be claimed as one of the marks of 'respect' for women's ministry, how does this work in practice, given that this isn't RC/Anglican oecumenism, and the women incumbents presumably have their own altars to attend to? And how do we get around the problem of sacrilege?
--------------------
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
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
Not using the word 'sacrilege' to describe other people's Christian ministries would be a small step, but, I think, an important one.
--------------------
"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
|
|
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Not using the word 'sacrilege' to describe other people's Christian ministries would be a small step, but, I think, an important one.
But if opponents of OoW are right, this is precisely what they are. Now, I used the word as part of an explanation as to why Eucharistic hospitality might be thought impossible: I did not say that I routinely describe such acts thus to those who officiate at them. I don't. But if asked, I would have to: or are you saying that the only way we can 'respect' the ministries of women is by pretending to believe something other than we do? Isn't that just another way of saying that only by agreeing with you can we respect you?
--------------------
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
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Not using the word 'sacrilege' to describe other people's Christian ministries would be a small step, but, I think, an important one.
But if opponents of OoW are right, this is precisely what they are.
If I believed that the Church of England was not just encouraging sacrilege, but institutionalising it, I'd leave. At once. It'd be the only moral decision to make.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
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? ...
In the time it has taken me to type this post, there have probably been thousands of acts of sacrilege committed around the world by non-Catholic ministers / pastors / clergy / churchcritters. Are all those acts of sacrilege tolerable because they happened under someone else's roof? Or is it just that walking into someone else's church and snubbing their celebrant might result in far more negative consequences than in one's own church? ISTM, the [again, generic] desire to express one's theological disrespect in this situation arises more because it's an opportunity to act like a bully, not because of incontrollable outrage over one particular act of sacrilege among millions.
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
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? ...
In the time it has taken me to type this post, there have probably been thousands of acts of sacrilege committed around the world by non-Catholic ministers / pastors / clergy / churchcritters. Are all those acts of sacrilege tolerable because they happened under someone else's roof? Or is it just that walking into someone else's church and snubbing their celebrant might result in far more negative consequences than in one's own church? ISTM, the [again, generic] desire to express one's theological disrespect in this situation arises more because it's an opportunity to act like a bully, not because of incontrollable outrage over one particular act of sacrilege among millions.
And precisely where have I implied that I or indeed anyone else deliberately seek out occasions to express our disapproval? Your comment bears no relationship to the scenarios under discussion.
--------------------
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
If it's such an act of sacrilege why have a number of Popes permitted it in one of the greatest churches in Rome?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charlie-in-the-box
Shipmate
# 17954
|
Posted
Hi all, I was ordained in the United Methodist Church, and I am a woman (so I'm told). My son died, I lost my faith, quit believing for a while, obviously resigned. I ended up Catholic, too long to explain, wait for the movie. Here's what I was told.
Priests are male because the Church (meaning Catholic Church) is "the Bride of Christ" and the priests are "married to the Church". And since we all know that same sex marriage is worse than sleeping with Satan, obviously we can't have women priests married to a bride (female Church).
I won't even begin to debate the crap in that logic unless we all want to go to hell and rip this to shreds because I can't do it without swearing.
I have left the Catholic faith for many reasons and am currently open to interviews in other faiths. I have to be able to argue and debate, I will not be part of denying gays and women their rights, and I like to just plain be rebellious. As you can imagine, that was not well received in the Catholic Church.
So, that's what I was told. You can do what I did with it or talk about it, if you think it even dignifies a response.
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif) ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
Charlie-in-the-box
http://rosarygirl1962.blogspot.com/
Posts: 55 | From: Island of Misfit Heretics | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
That makes priests not part of the Church, doesn't it?
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
If it's such an act of sacrilege why have a number of Popes permitted it in one of the greatest churches in Rome?
You have a choice of: a) ecumenical courtesy at a radical level, b) a sort-of recognition of Anglican orders (à la B16's "I cannot say that there is no grace there," c) continuing with a precedent, or d) inconsistency, or e) a mix of all four.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Not using the word 'sacrilege' to describe other people's Christian ministries would be a small step, but, I think, an important one.
But if opponents of OoW are right, this is precisely what they are. Now, I used the word as part of an explanation as to why Eucharistic hospitality might be thought impossible: I did not say that I routinely describe such acts thus to those who officiate at them. I don't. But if asked, I would have to: or are you saying that the only way we can 'respect' the ministries of women is by pretending to believe something other than we do? Isn't that just another way of saying that only by agreeing with you can we respect you?
I'd say that you clearly don't respect women's ministry if you think it sacrilege. You could probably manage to show courtesy if you were so inclined, but you cannot show any genuine respect because you have none to show. If you think something is a sacrilege, I don't see how you could possibly respect it.
It might be possible for someone opposed to women's ordination on other grounds to be respectful of it. I would (as far as I can tell) put quite a few (not all) Catholic and Orthodox disputants on this board into that category, since they argue the point positively on the basis of the symbolism that an all male priesthood is supposed to convey, and negatively on the basis of a purported lack of authority to break with tradition. I disagree with those arguments but I would not say that they are inherently disrespectful of women and women's ministry. Once you start calling someone's vocation a sacrilege, though, you can't meaningfully claim to respect their ministry.
And no, it's not up to women priests, or their supporters, to come up with some fig leave to cover the obvious offensiveness of your stated opinions. I don't, in fact, think that only people who agree with me can be respectful, but there are nonetheless some opinions that are incompatible with respect and 'this is sacrilege' is one of them.
It works both ways, of course. A page or so back, I called some of Tommy1's arguments 'monumentally stupid'. I'm not going to ask you to suggest ways in which I could respect those arguments given my firm and sincere belief in their idiocy: plainly I don't respect them and I am quite content that you should draw the inference from my language that this is the case. I don't use words like 'monumentally stupid' to describe things that I respect - nor do I use words like 'sacrilege' for them. If you respected women's ordained ministry, you wouldn't either.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Charlie-in-the-box:
Hi all, I was ordained in the United Methodist Church, and I am a woman (so I'm told). My son died, I lost my faith, quit believing for a while, obviously resigned. I ended up Catholic, too long to explain, wait for the movie. Here's what I was told.
Priests are male because the Church (meaning Catholic Church) is "the Bride of Christ" and the priests are "married to the Church". And since we all know that same sex marriage is worse than sleeping with Satan, obviously we can't have women priests married to a bride (female Church).
I won't even begin to debate the crap in that logic unless we all want to go to hell and rip this to shreds because I can't do it without swearing.
I have left the Catholic faith for many reasons and am currently open to interviews in other faiths. I have to be able to argue and debate, I will not be part of denying gays and women their rights, and I like to just plain be rebellious. As you can imagine, that was not well received in the Catholic Church.
So, that's what I was told. You can do what I did with it or talk about it, if you think it even dignifies a response.
I note from you're blog you're considering joining the Episcopal Church. It sounds like a good fit. I hope it works out for you.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Not using the word 'sacrilege' to describe other people's Christian ministries would be a small step, but, I think, an important one.
But if opponents of OoW are right, this is precisely what they are. Now, I used the word as part of an explanation as to why Eucharistic hospitality might be thought impossible: I did not say that I routinely describe such acts thus to those who officiate at them. I don't. But if asked, I would have to: or are you saying that the only way we can 'respect' the ministries of women is by pretending to believe something other than we do? Isn't that just another way of saying that only by agreeing with you can we respect you?
I'd say that you clearly don't respect women's ministry if you think it sacrilege. You could probably manage to show courtesy if you were so inclined, but you cannot show any genuine respect because you have none to show. If you think something is a sacrilege, I don't see how you could possibly respect it.
It might be possible for someone opposed to women's ordination on other grounds to be respectful of it. I would (as far as I can tell) put quite a few (not all) Catholic and Orthodox disputants on this board into that category, since they argue the point positively on the basis of the symbolism that an all male priesthood is supposed to convey, and negatively on the basis of a purported lack of authority to break with tradition. I disagree with those arguments but I would not say that they are inherently disrespectful of women and women's ministry. Once you start calling someone's vocation a sacrilege, though, you can't meaningfully claim to respect their ministry.
And no, it's not up to women priests, or their supporters, to come up with some fig leave to cover the obvious offensiveness of your stated opinions. I don't, in fact, think that only people who agree with me can be respectful, but there are nonetheless some opinions that are incompatible with respect and 'this is sacrilege' is one of them.
It works both ways, of course. A page or so back, I called some of Tommy1's arguments 'monumentally stupid'. I'm not going to ask you to suggest ways in which I could respect those arguments given my firm and sincere belief in their idiocy: plainly I don't respect them and I am quite content that you should draw the inference from my language that this is the case. I don't use words like 'monumentally stupid' to describe things that I respect - nor do I use words like 'sacrilege' for them. If you respected women's ordained ministry, you wouldn't either.
Good. The point is then made that, when proponents of OoW tell opponents to 'respect' women's ministry, what they do in fact mean is 'agree with us'. Why am I unsurprised?
--------------------
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
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Why am I unsurprised?
That's an easy one! It's because you are reading your own preconceptions, rather than what I actually wrote.
I said that I thought it was possible to be opposed to the ordination of women and be respectful, but impossible to be respectful if you think it a sacrilege. If you think that opposition to OoW necessarily implies thinking it a sacrilege, then you have a problem being respectful, but that's your problem, not mine.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Why am I unsurprised?
That's an easy one! It's because you are reading your own preconceptions, rather than what I actually wrote.
I said that I thought it was possible to be opposed to the ordination of women and be respectful, but impossible to be respectful if you think it a sacrilege. If you think that opposition to OoW necessarily implies thinking it a sacrilege, then you have a problem being respectful, but that's your problem, not mine.
Saying that you are allowed to disagree with OoW only for the reasons you respect, and no others, would suggest that the respect problem is on your end, but I doubt there's any point debating it further.
Is there, in your view, any way for one to respect the ministry of a woman whilst holding her orders and Eucharists to be inavlid? How would this respect manifest itself in actions?
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Is there, in your view, any way for one to respect the ministry of a woman whilst holding her orders and Eucharists to be inavlid? How would this respect manifest itself in actions?
Haven't we been around this once already? In the same way in which the Pope has managed to show respect for the ministry of male Anglican priests.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Saying that you are allowed to disagree with OoW only for the reasons you respect, and no others, would suggest that the respect problem is on your end, but I doubt there's any point debating it further.
You're allowed to disagree with OoW for any reason you like.
What you can't do - not because it's not allowed, but because it is actually impossible as it is a contradiction in terms - is disagree with OoW for reasons which imply that it outrageous to the religious sensibilities of right-minded people and offensive to the Lord our God, and then claim to be 'respectful' of it. You can't be respectful of sacrilege. Sacrilege is, by definition, an abuse of what you believe to be sacred. Calling something a sacrilege is a declaration of implacable disrespect for it - and disrespect which you must believe to be justified.
Personally, I'd prefer you to drop the pretence of respect altogether and have the bottle actually to set out arguments why women's ordination is so shocking that you would call it sacrilege. I'll willingly engage with those arguments with all the respect I feel is due to them*. I really don't get why, having called OoW 'sacrilege', you think it's somehow my job to perfume your turds and explain how respectful you are. Sorry. Can't do it.
(*none)
quote:
Is there, in your view, any way for one to respect the ministry of a woman whilst holding her orders and Eucharists to be inavlid? How would this respect manifest itself in actions?
Sure. Of course there is.
The starting point, of course, is to respect women. You have to accept that men and women are worth the same - created with the same divine love, capable of the same virtues, redeemed by the same grace.
From that it follows that you should want men and women to have the same opportunities to serve God. You should want women to be ordained, even if you are not yet convinced they can be, just as you should want all people to be saved, even if you believe there's a Hell. If it turns out the women can't be ordained, you would regret it.
Therefore you should not engage in the sort of shunning, mocking and condescending behaviour that has in actual fact formed part of the experience of - most? almost all? all? - women ordained in the CofE. You should certainly not display the sort of pathological aversion to admitting that your church ordains women that has recently characterised this thread. You should not use words like 'sacrilege'. And by that, I don't mean that you should courteously refrain from using that language (though that would be start). You shouldn't want to. You should be genuinely sorry that, for reasons you cannot control and would change if you could, your fellow Christian's vocation must, in your view, be frustrated.
If your Church disagrees with you and then ordains women, even if you think it a mistake, you should be at least a little pleased for your brothers and sisters who, lacking your objections, find themselves blessed by the ministry and good female priests. If you cannot in conscience take communion from a woman, you should abstain as unobtrusively as possible. You certainly should not demand that you be ministered to only by priests and bishops who have not involved themselves in ordaining women (in full and lawful accord with the rules of your church) and require new structures to be set up to insulate you from them.
There are many opponents** of OoW like that. Possibly the majority are like that. But they don't get noticed here so much as the other sort, because they tend not to say monumentally stupid and grossly offensive things on the subject on discussion boards.
(**'opponents' is perhaps the wrong word. I'm describing people who cannot personally accept that communion celebrated by a woman is valid: they need not be, and many are not, politically opposed to women being ordained and ministering to those who can accept it.)
--------------------
"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
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Absenting themselves as unobtrusively as possible when a Eucharist is about to be celebrated with a woman.
Absolutely no respect at all, then
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Absenting themselves as unobtrusively as possible when a Eucharist is about to be celebrated with a woman.
Absolutely no respect at all, then
It is a strong statement that the absentee thinks women are unclean and corrupting and they are scared of being infected by them.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Personally, I'd prefer you to drop the pretence of respect altogether and have the bottle actually to set out arguments why women's ordination is so shocking that you would call it sacrilege. I'll willingly engage with those arguments with all the respect I feel is due to them. I really don't get why, having called OoW 'sacrilege', you think it's somehow my job to perfume your turds and explain how respectful you are. Sorry. Can't do it.
This is precisely the point I'd hoped to bring the discussion to: because you're right, it is impossible to respect a sacrilege. The point being that when proponents demand that opponents 'respect' women's ministry, they are in fact asking the impossible. I don't really go in for the language of respect, and am usually very happy IRL to set out cogent arguments against OoW, but I was just wondering what the respect-demanders (not including you here) actually wanted that was possible.
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Is there, in your view, any way for one to respect the ministry of a woman whilst holding her orders and Eucharists to be inavlid? How would this respect manifest itself in actions?
Haven't we been around this once already? In the same way in which the Pope has managed to show respect for the ministry of male Anglican priests.
How? By giving them a church to celebrate in when they come to visit us? But they have their own altars, as I've said: they aren't a foreign communion visiting for oecumenical dialogue. So how do you envisage that working in practice?
--------------------
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
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
This is precisely the point I'd hoped to bring the discussion to: because you're right, it is impossible to respect a sacrilege. The point being that when proponents demand that opponents 'respect' women's ministry, they are in fact asking the impossible.
So are you saying you find it impossible to uphold 3(iii) of the Act of Synod?
quote:
the integrity of differing beliefs and positions concerning the ordination of women to the priesthood should be mutually recognised and respected;
Then it's your problem.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
This is precisely the point I'd hoped to bring the discussion to: because you're right, it is impossible to respect a sacrilege. The point being that when proponents demand that opponents 'respect' women's ministry, they are in fact asking the impossible.
So are you saying you find it impossible to uphold 3(iii) of the Act of Synod?
quote:
the integrity of differing beliefs and positions concerning the ordination of women to the priesthood should be mutually recognised and respected;
Then it's your problem.
No, it's everyone's problem, because the Act as passed is unworkable: respect for differing viewpoints and the legitimacy of opposition to OoW are irreconcilable, unless we operate with a definition of 'respect' which is meaningless, or (as has been the case) don't examine it too closely.
Or is there something we've missed?
--------------------
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
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I'd be happy with a repeal of the Act, and a straightforward clause inserted in existing Canon law that acknowledges that women and men are ordained on an equal footing.
I suspect you wouldn't be. But both proponents and opponents agreed to the 1993 Act. If you're saying it's unworkable because you can't respect a fellow priest's ministry, the ball's firmly in your court.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Of course it's unworkable: but to be frank, it's the opponents of OoW who have to accept that they are out of step with what is now the mainstream position of the CofE. they are not going to get OoW repealed so it's their problem: they have to find a way to live with it, or find somewhere else that suits them better. It's not quite a case of Fit In or Fuck Off, but it is pretty much aa case of Shut Up or Ship Out - which are both dignified and decent options.
IME those with real integrity have realised this.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Of course it's unworkable: but to be frank, it's the opponents of OoW who have to accept that they are out of step with what is now the mainstream position of the CofE. they are not going to get OoW repealed so it's their problem: they have to find a way to live with it, or find somewhere else that suits them better. It's not quite a case of Fit In or Fuck Off, but it is pretty much aa case of Shut Up or Ship Out - which are both dignified and decent options.
IME those with real integrity have realised this.
I think the Traditional Catholics want their pretty churches, their congregations, their nice salaries and benefits, their wives and families, and the relative freedom that the C of E offers them to improvise liturgically and in other matters (although they do protest against restrictions on their freedom to disapprove of women's ordination and the ordination of gays)...they basically want to be left alone with their pride intact, and for the reasons listed above (plus some genuine sense of loyalty) they don't want to join the Ordinariate. I am not arguing that they are entitled to this, but quite a few entered the priesthood feeling that they would always be able to have it without feeling like an embarrassment to the rest of the church. That said, I agree that it just doesn't work to have a subset of priests who disagree on the validity of the ordination of women so much that they cannot stand working with a woman as their ordinary.
For anyone who argues against women's ordination - how can you say that men and women are equal in any meaningful sense of the word when women cannot be called to the highest positions of authority in the Church? I know that "equality in dignity" can mean different roles and different senses of "authority" but I just cannot help but see declaring women unordainable as reflecting a belief that men are better suited to the highest positions of governance in matters of the Church. You can say what you want about what equality of dignity means, but that kind of thinking about men and women and authority just seems unjust. It seems like no matter what is written in the rest of scripture, the very fact that the first chapters of scripture say that men and women are both created in God's image is enough to make it obvious that that is unjust. And the C of E and the RCC both seem to agree that all other impediments to equality in the roles men and women can have in society should be removed except for women's ordination (although only a subset of the C of E opposes this) and gay marriage. I'm not going into gay marriage here but I feel like there is some kind of fundamental disconnect in the thinking of opponents of women's ordination who promote women's equality elsewhere.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
This is precisely the point I'd hoped to bring the discussion to: because you're right, it is impossible to respect a sacrilege. The point being that when proponents demand that opponents 'respect' women's ministry, they are in fact asking the impossible.
So are you saying you find it impossible to uphold 3(iii) of the Act of Synod?
quote:
the integrity of differing beliefs and positions concerning the ordination of women to the priesthood should be mutually recognised and respected;
Then it's your problem.
Given that there is a relevant number of people in that boat (or in a neighbouring skiff), all in a situation created by the Act of Synod and the Lambeth conference statements, it's a problem for the CoE's authorities. They recognize this, and have been trying to square the circle. But these longstanding (if definitely illogical and possibly unworkable) commitments, I don't think that we can reasonably blame the the dissenters for their situation. Telling them to shape up or ship out (and telling them to shut up or ship out is basically the same thing) is incompatible with these commitments.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
But the commitments can't work. That has to be resolved somehow- and 'shut up or ship out' is the only workable way.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
I've just read something that i did not know about before - that Richard Hooker claimed that it was an Anglican duty to reform things which Rome would not reform.
Given that anglo-catholics use Hooker to claim that we are the historic church in this land, that the break with Rome was not setting up a new church, they are picking and choosing when they say that the C of E hasn't the authority to ordain women until the wider Western Churches do so.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Given that there is a relevant number of people in that boat (or in a neighbouring skiff), all in a situation created by the Act of Synod and the Lambeth conference statements, it's a problem for the CoE's authorities. They recognize this, and have been trying to square the circle. But these longstanding (if definitely illogical and possibly unworkable) commitments, I don't think that we can reasonably blame the the dissenters for their situation. Telling them to shape up or ship out (and telling them to shut up or ship out is basically the same thing) is incompatible with these commitments.
It strikes me that the authorities (for the want of a better word...) have gone more than the extra mile to respect the antis. In return, we have sacrilege.
I can't see any way of squaring this circle, except by a simple repeal of the 1993 Act, and a single clause addition to Canon. Then everyone knows where they stand.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I think the Traditional Catholics want their pretty churches, their congregations, their nice salaries and benefits,
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I've just read something that i did not know about before - that Richard Hooker claimed that it was an Anglican duty to reform things which Rome would not reform.
Given that anglo-catholics use Hooker to claim that we are the historic church in this land, that the break with Rome was not setting up a new church, they are picking and choosing when they say that the C of E hasn't the authority to ordain women until the wider Western Churches do so.
I for one have never used Hooker to claim this, nor met anyone else who has, and have no problem 'admitting' that he is wrong. Hooker is not part of some secret AC Magisterium...
--------------------
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
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
But the commitments can't work. That has to be resolved somehow- and 'shut up or ship out' is the only workable way.
The integrity of that position means that undertakings are to be repudiated, that provisions for the minority are to be ended, and that any objections will lead either to marginalization or disciplinary action. The alternative is maintaining the current (or similar) anomalous semi-jurisdiction, a situation which, as I keep on reminding people, was the political deal to obtain OWP.
To choose either of the two seems to be distasteful to the majority. Still (to draw a parallel), the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes happened anyway.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
How? By giving them a church to celebrate in when they come to visit us? But they have their own altars, as I've said: they aren't a foreign communion visiting for oecumenical dialogue. So how do you envisage that working in practice?
Anglicans have their own altars in Rome too. In practice this means revoking the resolutions barring women from celebrating in or being incumbent of certain churches, and replacing it with a requirement that those parishes have access to a communion service celebrated by a male priest or to communion from the reserve sacrament so consecrated each week. It also means that when a women is celebrating in those churches, those who feel unable to receive from her still go for a blessing, just as Catholics and Anglicans will do at each others' or at joint services.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
How? By giving them a church to celebrate in when they come to visit us? But they have their own altars, as I've said: they aren't a foreign communion visiting for oecumenical dialogue. So how do you envisage that working in practice?
Anglicans have their own altars in Rome too. In practice this means revoking the resolutions barring women from celebrating in or being incumbent of certain churches, and replacing it with a requirement that those parishes have access to a communion service celebrated by a male priest or to communion from the reserve sacrament so consecrated each week. It also means that when a women is celebrating in those churches, those who feel unable to receive from her still go for a blessing, just as Catholics and Anglicans will do at each others' or at joint services.
Do Roman Catholics go to Anglican priests for blessings? And if they do, are they meant to? Laymen can no more impart blessings than celebrate Mass, unless we are to understand them as asking for, rather than imparting, a blessing. And I doubt that's what many women think they are doing when standing at the altar rail: isn't it just as patronising/regressive/whatever to make mental reservation in re what she thinks she's doing (she thinks she's doing X but I know better so it's alright) as it is to abstain from communion?
And surely the revocation of the resolutions, allowing women to celebrate &c is just pretending we don't believe what we do believe, as discussed somewhat circularly above?
[ 07. January 2014, 18:22: Message edited by: Vade Mecum ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Vade mecum asks: quote:
Do Roman Catholics go to Anglican priests for blessings? And if they do, are they meant to?
I'm not sure if they are meant to, but I have seen both lay and ordained RCs receive blessings from a newly-minuted Anglican bishop, in the presence of their Latin ordinary. This might have been a one-off.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Laymen can no more impart blessings than celebrate Mass
You mean God doesn't impart blessings? I need a priest?
Damn!
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
But the commitments can't work. That has to be resolved somehow- and 'shut up or ship out' is the only workable way.
The integrity of that position means that undertakings are to be repudiated, that provisions for the minority are to be ended, and that any objections will lead either to marginalization or disciplinary action.
Yes, I'm afraid it does. Can you think of a more workable way forward?
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Laymen can no more impart blessings than celebrate Mass, unless we are to understand them as asking for, rather than imparting, a blessing.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Lay people bless non-communicants all the time in the CofE. The person distributing communion can be a priest, a reader, a server, or anyone else authorised by the bishop. They say "The body of Christ..." to people taking communion, and pray something like "The Lord Jesus Christ bless you" to others.
Consecrating the elements is a priestly function. Giving them out (and blessing those who don't receive) isn't. I don't know (or much care) whether the RCC permits its faithful to come up for a blessing at an Anglican communion service, but whether it does or not, coming up for a blessing does not imply acceptance of the validity of the celebrant's holy orders, since the distribution of communion and speaking the associated prayers is something that Anglican praxis allows lay people to do. Routinely.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Vade mecum asks: quote:
Do Roman Catholics go to Anglican priests for blessings? And if they do, are they meant to?
I'm not sure if they are meant to, but I have seen both lay and ordained RCs receive blessings from a newly-minuted Anglican bishop, in the presence of their Latin ordinary. This might have been a one-off.
As I've already mentioned, it was encouraged when I was at university. The descriptions of Archbishop Rowan's celebration in Rome mention that the Vatican official who read the Gospel also went to the Archbishop for a blessing. I also seem to recall previous Popes encouraging ABC's to join them in giving the benediction at the end of Mass.
[ 07. January 2014, 20:19: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I think the Traditional Catholics want their pretty churches, their congregations, their nice salaries and benefits,
?????
So a Trad Cath priest will be much more financially better off and secure in the Ordinariate? Really?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Laymen can no more impart blessings than celebrate Mass, unless we are to understand them as asking for, rather than imparting, a blessing.
Lay people bless non-communicants all the time in the CofE. The person distributing communion can be a priest, a reader, a server, or anyone else authorised by the bishop. They say "The body of Christ..." to people taking communion, and pray something like "The Lord Jesus Christ bless you" to others.
Consecrating the elements is a priestly function. Giving them out (and blessing those who don't receive) isn't. I don't know (or much care) whether the RCC permits its faithful to come up for a blessing at an Anglican communion service, but whether it does or not, coming up for a blessing does not imply acceptance of the validity of the celebrant's holy orders, since the distribution of communion and speaking the associated prayers is something that Anglican praxis allows lay people to do. Routinely.
Lay people 'giving' blessings, rather than praying that the 'blessee' receive them, is a serious abuse, and theologically in error: as Gerasu points out, only God imparts blessings, and the channels He chooses for this grace are His priests. When the priest blesses one not receiving the MBS, he imparts something objectively real: it is not merely an 'accompanying prayer'. The CofE canons are silent when it comes to Readers giving blessings, and so we must assume that neither they nor laymen can do so.
Likewise, the distribution of communion is properly the work of a priest or deacon. Laymen distributing is dodgy theologically and justified if at all only in necessity (and yes, definitions of this vary wildly). Even CofE canons make it clear (IMO) that the Ordinary distributer of the sacrament is the priest, with exception of readers (Canons B12 and E4 seem to say mildly different things in this regard).
--------------------
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
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I think the Traditional Catholics want their pretty churches, their congregations, their nice salaries and benefits,
?????
So a Trad Cath priest will be much more financially better off and secure in the Ordinariate? Really?
I was more laughing at the idea that an Anglican stipend could ever be considered "nice", relatively speaking or no. And the idea that the majority of AC churches are pretty is fairly fatuous, once you leave the headline London ones aside: most of them are falling down, and the funds fro repair are woefully absent. RC churches IME (which is small, admittedly) tend to be better cared for, both physically and financially (possibly, I admit, because there is no legacy of historic churches or parishes to maintain).
Also worth bearing in mind is, ISTM, that married priests with children who cross the Tiber often end up in teaching jobs with better salaries and housing (necessity?). This is anecdotal evidence in the extreme though, so point taken on that issue. But we're talking small fry, here: neither is anywhere near average.
--------------------
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
Actually, once housing is taken into account CofE stipends are fairly generous. I seem to recall calculations that put the full cost of pay + benefits well north of £30 000.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
But the commitments can't work. That has to be resolved somehow- and 'shut up or ship out' is the only workable way.
The integrity of that position means that undertakings are to be repudiated, that provisions for the minority are to be ended, and that any objections will lead either to marginalization or disciplinary action.
Yes, I'm afraid it does. Can you think of a more workable way forward?
mmm. Yes, but there is little political support for it and much against it-- to continue with Act-of-Synodisesque provisions, which the objectors will diminish in number and influence as they continue in their ghetto/ecclesiola. IIRC almost no new parishes are coming under the resolutions and a number have moved off them as their priests leave or retire or die.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Actually, once housing is taken into account CofE stipends are fairly generous. I seem to recall calculations that put the full cost of pay + benefits well north of £30 000.
But housing shouldn't be taken into consideration, because it also saps massive amounts of money from stipends for heating &c, and not being owned by the clergy, doesn't actually benefit them financially unless they take lodgers. But this is tangential.
--------------------
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
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
The presumed value of the housing cost is rated as taxable in their income, so I would assume it "counts". Otherwise, the clergy would have to pay for their own housing, which would imply a significantly larger actual payment of income.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Lay people 'giving' blessings, rather than praying that the 'blessee' receive them, is a serious abuse, and theologically in error: as Gerasu points out, only God imparts blessings, and the channels He chooses for this grace are His priests.
Forgive me if I've got the wrong end of the stick, but I don't think this is what Garasu meant... I suspect (s)he'd agree with me that any Christian is most welcome to pronounce a blessing on another (either in a formal, church service context, or indeed any other context), and that ordained status is thoroughly irrelevant to this.
--------------------
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
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
The CofE canons are silent when it comes to Readers giving blessings, and so we must assume that neither they nor laymen can do so.
Since they do it regularly, without controversy, and with the approval of their priests, I see no reason to assume any such thing.
The point is not what (you think) Anglicans should do - it's what they in fact do do. And Anglicans (outside of an A-C minority) don't see the distribution of communion and all accompanying commentary as a specifically priestly job. An Anglican who for whatever reason asks for a blessing instead of the sacrament does not thereby imply that the person doing the blessing is a priest - he or she frequently won't be, and everyone involved will know it. So a visiting Catholic does not impliedly accept Anglican orders by receiving a blessing, because in the CofE lay people do in fact bless non-communicants. Whether you think they should or not.
--------------------
"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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
