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 45)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  ...  51  52  53 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women]
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 Gildas:
I can just about see why a conservative Roman Catholic might use the word "deformation" but it makes no sense for an Anglican to use it. If the Reformation were wholly iniquitous then one ought not to be a member of a Reformed church. End of. File under lack of intellectual and existential seriousness.

As a liberal anglo-catholic I have sometimes used the term 'deformation' because it seems to me that all our denominations have been deformed by schism. All the various gifts and treasures have been divided up so that no one church possesses the fullness of the catholic faith.

I started to think of this when we became a LEP with Lutherans. They wanted to celebrate 'Reformation Sunday' and I said i couldn't possibly see why anyone would want to celebrate schism.

--------------------
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 
Would "The Renaissance Schism(s)" be a more neutral term than either reformation or deformation?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478

 - Posted      Profile for Organ Builder   Email Organ Builder   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:


I started to think of this when we became a LEP with Lutherans. They wanted to celebrate 'Reformation Sunday' and I said i couldn't possibly see why anyone would want to celebrate schism.

That sounds like a really tactful way to begin building mutual understanding.

Most of the Lutherans I've met have a better understanding of the real abuses and corruption rampant in the Renaissance hierarchy than the average churchgoer. I also think as Anglo-Catholics we sometimes have a tendency to gloss over those abuses even more than Roman Catholics do, because of our own fascination with the medieval church.

When we understand why Lutherans celebrate the Reformation, we will have made a step forward toward healing schism. If there is one thing that makes me want to clobber my fellow Anglo-Catholics over the head with a tastefully bejeweled processional cross, it is the attitude that the only group worth talking to about ending the schism is Rome.

--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson

Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Would "The Renaissance Schism(s)" be a more neutral term than either reformation or deformation?

Not really, it would imply that the Reformation was the same sort of thing as the Great Schism when you had two Popes, largely agreed as to dogma and praxis, but divided by the question as to which one of them was the rightwise heir of St. Peter. Or indeed the schism of 1054 which was, I recall, a dispute over the use of unleavened bread and whether or not the Pope or the Ecumenical Patriarch was the biggest swinging dick in Christendom.

This is not the same sort of thing, really, as what happened in 1517 and subsequently. I think the best term is Protestant Reformation. Anglo-Catholics who think that the Queen crossed her fingers during the Coronation Oaths can save appearances, if they like, by calling the events in this blessed realm the English Reformation. But really Anglicanism is protestant and that is no bad thing.

We believe in the Authorised Version, the Book of Common Prayer, the rule of law, Parliamentary Democracy, not making windows into men's souls, the Music of George Friedrich Handel, custodial sentences for nonces, the autonomy of the reasoning intellect under God, standing alone after the fall of France, tolerance for eccentrics and blessed lunatics, the poetry of Herbert, Betjeman, Eliot and Hill, the Hanoverian Succession, the National Health Service, self-determination for the inhabitants of Gilbraltar and the Falkland Islands, the hymns of John Mason Neale and not taking ourselves too seriously. [clutches lapels, starts sounding like Jim Hacker] We are not now that strength which in old days Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Sorry, I may have got a bit carried away, there. [Biased]

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618

 - Posted      Profile for betjemaniac     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Would "The Renaissance Schism(s)" be a more neutral term than either reformation or deformation?

We believe in the Authorised Version, the Book of Common Prayer, the rule of law, Parliamentary Democracy, not making windows into men's souls, the Music of George Friedrich Handel, custodial sentences for nonces, the autonomy of the reasoning intellect under God, standing alone after the fall of France, tolerance for eccentrics and blessed lunatics, the poetry of Herbert, Betjeman, Eliot and Hill, the Hanoverian Succession, the National Health Service, self-determination for the inhabitants of Gilbraltar and the Falkland Islands, the hymns of John Mason Neale and not taking ourselves too seriously. [clutches lapels, starts sounding like Jim Hacker] We are not now that strength which in old days Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Sorry, I may have got a bit carried away, there. [Biased]

[Overused]

--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....

Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483

 - Posted      Profile for iamchristianhearmeroar   Author's homepage   Email iamchristianhearmeroar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Bumping a very old thread, but it seems appropriate with GS just around the corner.

Seems the CofE might have women bishops regardless of the GS vote. Reported here

--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/

Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I had to chuckle at that, an election process 'which favours the old and the fanatical' (Guardian, see above post).

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Oscar the Grouch

Adopted Cascadian
# 1916

 - Posted      Profile for Oscar the Grouch     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I can't work out the reasoning for announcing this "plan C".

Is this some kind of PR thing? It would go like this: the vote on women bishops is pretty certain after all the discussions. So although Plan C is not going to needed, we announce it to make the archbishops look strong and decisive.

Or are the archbishops genuinely afraid that, after all the delays, the discussions and the compromises, there is still a genuine possibility of the measure falling again? In which case, not only has Welby's initiative failed, but GS members will have utterly failed to pay any heed to the outpouring of disgust and anger at the last vote.

So there we have it, folks. Are the archbishops posturing, or have they and GS completely screwed up (again)?
(Answers on a postcard, please. Send them to where you like; no one will read them, anyway)

--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu

Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532

 - Posted      Profile for Byron   Email Byron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I can't work out the reasoning for announcing this "plan C".

Is this some kind of PR thing? It would go like this: the vote on women bishops is pretty certain after all the discussions. So although Plan C is not going to needed, we announce it to make the archbishops look strong and decisive.

Or are the archbishops genuinely afraid that, after all the delays, the discussions and the compromises, there is still a genuine possibility of the measure falling again? In which case, not only has Welby's initiative failed, but GS members will have utterly failed to pay any heed to the outpouring of disgust and anger at the last vote.

So there we have it, folks. Are the archbishops posturing, or have they and GS completely screwed up (again)?
(Answers on a postcard, please. Send them to where you like; no one will read them, anyway)

It's probably been leaked to put pressure on opponents. "Vote against it, you could lose everything."

As this vote is supposed to be about how change is implemented (the "whether" was decided back in '08), anyone who can't vote on those terms ought to have recused themselves.

Since they haven't, and their votes are in bad faith as a result, I've no problem with a bit of mild coercion.

Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Mark Betts

Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074

 - Posted      Profile for Mark Betts   Email Mark Betts   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I haven't come on here for a while, but I was expecting a separate thread for Women Bishops, as the consequences for ecumenical relations with the historic Church are far more serious than they were for the Ordination of Women.

I could easily say that it is none of my business anymore. Well, not directly it isn't, but we should all at least want Church unity shouldn't we?

Anyway, the vote is today for the C of E. There is only one acceptable outcome (one wonders why bother having a vote) - so I think the writing is already on the wall.

--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."

Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Which is more important, church unity, or recognising the God-given talents of over half the human race?
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Due to suddenly being seized with a long extension and over running the editing window, sorry about the second post.

Oh, and it isn't really my business any more, except that there's no way of resigning, but the reason I left and went to the Quakers was because of the way the original kerfuffle about priesthood was argued. I'm not saying debated, because there was strong evidence of visceral stuff that doesn't belong in debate. And it was really that no-one stood out and told the extremists not to be so silly. (That's the ones who went on about uncleanness, and said very rude things to women and about women.) Positions based on the Bible, or on the hope of unity were reasonable. Undisguised misogyny, not. And it was about.
I was brought up Congregationalist, with that denomination's views on the priesthood of all believers, which of course led to bias. (As did what happened in our church when the minister had a different interpretation of primus inter pares than was found in the church's teachings.)
I had been brought up not to recognise any significant differences between men and women, apart from those required for procreation, and to find that I belonged to the spiritually inferior near majority of the human race was a bit of a shock. Especially when visible signs of spiritual inferiority usually seemed to favour men for their exposure.

It seems to me that any group (and this includes practically all organised religion - not sure about candomble and voodoo) which emphasises that women are unable to take certain places in society (or, as in a report this morning, teach that women need to be beaten into goodness - not a Christian group, that) needs to be thought about very, very carefully before anyone wants to claim it is good to be joined with. And that joining is better than treating women as fully human.

I know some women don't agree with me. Anne Widdecombe was on the radio this morning, but I don't know what she said because I didn't want to throw the radio out of the window. I gather one of her debating points was that no women were chosen to lead in the early church, which I have also gathered over the years is not completely supported by evidence both within the Bible and in archaeology. The person who rang up to counter that point managed to base her position on material which has not been shown convincingly to be valid.

[ 14. July 2014, 14:34: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
Oscar the Grouch

Adopted Cascadian
# 1916

 - Posted      Profile for Oscar the Grouch     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've just been reading some of the speeches in the debate. It's so depressing. Some are just reworked versions of every previous debate, without any acknowledgement that the basic principle has already been decided and that this debate should be about HOW women bishops are introduced. And once again, it would seem that too many GS members have ignored the clear intention of diocesan synods across the country.

The other depressing thing is how some speakers are using this debate as a naked opportunity for bargaining. "Conservative Evangelicals should have at least 10 bishops".

As I write, the debate is ongoing. I suspect that the measure will be passed, but this is hardly a good day for the C of E, given the poor nature of the debate.

--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu

Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 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 Penny S:
Which is more important, church unity, or recognising the God-given talents of over half the human race?

To which many will argue - unity - John 17 and all that.

Also that the Church recognises the talents of women and praises their use in jobs that matter - in the world, at the cutting edge of evangelism.

Bishops are mere administrators.

--------------------
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
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Be that as it may, they may now administrate whilst possessing two X chromosomes.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
LawyerWannabe
Apprentice
# 14186

 - Posted      Profile for LawyerWannabe   Email LawyerWannabe   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As expected, the Anglican episcopate has been opened to women:

General Synod votes in favour in all three houses:

Bishops: 37 in favour, 2 against, 1 abstention.

Clergy: 162 in favour, 25 against, 4 abstentions

Laity: 152 in favour, against 45, 5 abstentions.

It will be interesting to see how other Churches act - I believe that the Russian Orthodox Church cut off all discussion etc with the Swedish Lutherans when they decided to go for mixed episcopate.

In case, it will be interesting again to see how the Pan-Orthodox Synod will deal with this.

--------------------
But, for my own part, it was Greek to me.

Posts: 14 | From: Birmingham | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Be that as it may, they may now administrate whilst possessing two X chromosomes.

And women who do not possess two X chromosones - trans women in possession of a gender recognition certificate are recognised as women by law and by the CoE, and there are trans women priests.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
LawyerWannabe
Apprentice
# 14186

 - Posted      Profile for LawyerWannabe   Email LawyerWannabe   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Too late to edit...

I am curious what is meant by "episcopal femininity" which will now enrich the Church...

--------------------
But, for my own part, it was Greek to me.

Posts: 14 | From: Birmingham | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483

 - Posted      Profile for iamchristianhearmeroar   Author's homepage   Email iamchristianhearmeroar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, that is now done and dusted. Speech of the day has to go to a member of the laity: John Spence.

--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/

Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LawyerWannabe:
Too late to edit...

I am curious what is meant by "episcopal femininity" which will now enrich the Church...

It can't be anything to do with the frocks. 'Scuse facetiousness.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LawyerWannabe:
...In case, it will be interesting again to see how the Pan-Orthodox Synod will deal with this...

Interesting, but hardly a question which should have carried any great weight in the discussion
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Daily Telegraph has spotted an interesting synchronicity in the lectionary for today.

Somewhere in 1 Timothy

Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
Mark Betts

Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074

 - Posted      Profile for Mark Betts   Email Mark Betts   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Be that as it may, they may now administrate whilst possessing two X chromosomes.

And women who do not possess two X chromosones - trans women in possession of a gender recognition certificate are recognised as women by law and by the CoE, and there are trans women priests.
[Devil] I might have guessed that was coming!

--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."

Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oscar, where do you find the speeches? I've done some searching but only found Welby's.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009  |  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 Mark Betts:
I haven't come on here for a while, but I was expecting a separate thread for Women Bishops, as the consequences for ecumenical relations with the historic Church are far more serious than they were for the Ordination of Women.

I could easily say that it is none of my business anymore. Well, not directly it isn't, but we should all at least want Church unity shouldn't we?

Anyway, the vote is today for the C of E. There is only one acceptable outcome (one wonders why bother having a vote) - so I think the writing is already on the wall.

Relations WITH the historic church? The CofE is part of the historic church, whatever Rome or Constantinople may think. Any move toward unity will require dropping of Papal claims of infallibility, and once that is done then any issues that are not central to the faith are up for discussion. Until it happens, the fact that the CofE has decided to ordain and consecrate women who are called to the priesthood is an irrelevance.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Mark Betts

Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074

 - Posted      Profile for Mark Betts   Email Mark Betts   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LawyerWannabe:
It will be interesting to see how other Churches act - I believe that the Russian Orthodox Church cut off all discussion etc with the Swedish Lutherans when they decided to go for mixed episcopate.

This is true:
The frustrations of ecumenical Protestants
quote:
In case, it will be interesting again to see how the Pan-Orthodox Synod will deal with this.
Not sure quite what you're getting at here, but I can easily see how this could create deep division in the EO Church if, say, one of the Orthodox Churches decided to venture into a "mixed" episcopate - but I can't see that happening any time soon, somehow.

--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."

Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Mark Betts

Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074

 - Posted      Profile for Mark Betts   Email Mark Betts   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
...Relations WITH the historic church? The CofE is part of the historic church, whatever Rome or Constantinople may think.

The CofE (as a "Church" in its own right) is less than 500 years old - that's not historic IMO.
quote:
Any move toward unity will require dropping of Papal claims of infallibility, and....
Woah! Hold it there a second. We would agree with that. Go on...
quote:
...once that is done then any issues that are not central to the faith are up for discussion. Until it happens, the fact that the CofE has decided to ordain and consecrate women who are called to the priesthood is an irrelevance.
The problem there is that were it possible for you to convince the RC Church to change her ways (re. Papal Supremacy) you have meanwhile been piling up more blocks to Church Unity.

--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."

Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012  |  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 Penny S:
The Daily Telegraph has spotted an interesting synchronicity in the lectionary for today.

Somewhere in 1 Timothy

That was on 13th February. The reading this morning was Luke 17

--------------------
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
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry - I got there via a link in the report of the vote today and didn't take on board that the date was different. It's still funny.

And isn't 1 Timothy one of those the authorship of which is debated?

Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
CL
Shipmate
# 16145

 - Posted      Profile for CL     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Absolutely delighted with that. The CofE has finally gotten off the fence and stated boldly to the world that it is irredeemably Protestant and abandoning it's nonsense claims of catholicity. Hopefully we'll see the end of pointless and inane ecumenical foolishness like ARCIC now too.
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
deano
princess
# 12063

 - Posted      Profile for deano   Email deano   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Absolutely delighted with that. The CofE has finally gotten off the fence and stated boldly to the world that it is irredeemably Protestant and abandoning it's nonsense claims of catholicity. Hopefully we'll see the end of pointless and inane ecumenical foolishness like ARCIC now too.

Except of course for AffCath members who do lean towards Catholicism, but are far more liberal on issues like women bishops. Don't fret, we wont let our church go too far down the candle!

--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot

Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532

 - Posted      Profile for Byron   Email Byron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thank God that's finally done with. Twenty years of "reception" exceeded even Anglicanism's love of splinters up the ass. I should feel overjoyed, but this has dragged on for so long I'm merely relieved.

I hope the campaigners for equal ordination will now rededicate their efforts to fight for the equality of lesbian and gay Christians. That this was put on hold until equal ordination was achieved already leaves a bad taste. If we had to choose, I don't believe that a handful of women getting a palace was a higher priority than lesbian and gay Anglicans having to suppress their sexuality for life.

In any case, what's done is done. If those resources are now redirected, we'll know that this was a campaign for equality, albeit a flawed one. If they're not, then we'll be faced with the horrible possibility that it was driven first and foremost by self-interest.

If it was, that could be just as damaging as the church's institutional misogyny.

Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Absolutely delighted with that. The CofE has finally gotten off the fence and stated boldly to the world that it is irredeemably Protestant and abandoning it's nonsense claims of catholicity.

This only makes sense if you think that keeping an all-male episcopate was some kind of don't-drop-the-chain-of-succession backup plan in case the C of E decides that, actually, women can't be priests after all.

There isn't, as far as I know, a rational Catholic argument that permits female priests but not female bishops, and the women priest decision has long since been made.

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Carys

Ship's Celticist
# 78

 - Posted      Profile for Carys   Email Carys   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I haven't come on here for a while, but I was expecting a separate thread for Women Bishops, as the consequences for ecumenical relations with the historic Church are far more serious than they were for the Ordination of Women.

I could easily say that it is none of my business anymore. Well, not directly it isn't, but we should all at least want Church unity shouldn't we?

Anyway, the vote is today for the C of E. There is only one acceptable outcome (one wonders why bother having a vote) - so I think the writing is already on the wall.

Rome isn't the only church with whom there are unity talks. The Anglican-Methodist Covenant is much closer to producing results and the absence of women bishops is a major stumbling blocks there.

Carys

--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise

Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
CL
Shipmate
# 16145

 - Posted      Profile for CL     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Absolutely delighted with that. The CofE has finally gotten off the fence and stated boldly to the world that it is irredeemably Protestant and abandoning it's nonsense claims of catholicity.

This only makes sense if you think that keeping an all-male episcopate was some kind of don't-drop-the-chain-of-succession backup plan in case the C of E decides that, actually, women can't be priests after all.

There isn't, as far as I know, a rational Catholic argument that permits female priests but not female bishops, and the women priest decision has long since been made.

There isn't, it's totally incoherent and irrational from a Catholic point of view. If women can be priests they can be bishops, period (they can't be either but that's neither here not there); the last 20 years has been a prolonged exercise in trying be both fish and fowl.

What we finally have now is the last shred of the fig leaf being ripped away from those who claim to be Catholic Anglicans; either they have to accept that the CofE is and always has been Protestant and accept/reconcile themselves to their own Protestantism, or leave - whether it be for the Tiber or the Bosphorus.

Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
We should all want church unity, as Mark Betts says- but not in the sense of 'everybody should join the Russian Orthodox Church' or 'everybody should join the RCC (which should then in turn go back to the dear departed days of the Blessed John Charels McQuaid)'.
Frankly, I don't give a stuff what the RCC or the Orthodox, who don't recognise Anglican orders anyway, think of the decision, and I don't think any other Anglican should either.

[ 14. July 2014, 21:34: Message edited by: Albertus ]

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Absolutely delighted with that. The CofE has finally gotten off the fence and stated boldly to the world that it is irredeemably Protestant and abandoning it's nonsense claims of catholicity.

This only makes sense if you think that keeping an all-male episcopate was some kind of don't-drop-the-chain-of-succession backup plan in case the C of E decides that, actually, women can't be priests after all.

There isn't, as far as I know, a rational Catholic argument that permits female priests but not female bishops, and the women priest decision has long since been made.

There isn't, it's totally incoherent and irrational from a Catholic point of view. If women can be priests they can be bishops, period (they can't be either but that's neither here not there); the last 20 years has been a prolonged exercise in trying be both fish and fowl.

What we finally have now is the last shred of the fig leaf being ripped away from those who claim to be Catholic Anglicans; either they have to accept that the CofE is and always has been Protestant and accept/reconcile themselves to their own Protestantism, or leave - whether it be for the Tiber or the Bosphorus.

Except that one can identify as neither Catholic or Protestant (and not Orthodox), which I imagine many Anglicans do. Accepting women as bishops is not any kind of defining belief for Protestants, and neither is it any kind of barrier to being a Catholic - many RC laity would welcome women being ordained. The RCC may not view them as good Catholics but they've not become Protestants just because of that one issue.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532

 - Posted      Profile for Byron   Email Byron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
[...] There isn't, as far as I know, a rational Catholic argument that permits female priests but not female bishops, and the women priest decision has long since been made.

There isn't, it's totally incoherent and irrational from a Catholic point of view. If women can be priests they can be bishops, period (they can't be either but that's neither here not there); the last 20 years has been a prolonged exercise in trying be both fish and fowl.
Anglican "compromise" at its most ingloriously incoherent. If there was ever an example of the golden mean fallacy ...
quote:
What we finally have now is the last shred of the fig leaf being ripped away from those who claim to be Catholic Anglicans; either they have to accept that the CofE is and always has been Protestant and accept/reconcile themselves to their own Protestantism, or leave - whether it be for the Tiber or the Bosphorus.
Yup, and they've got a shiny new clubhouse to head off to.

The Church of England is, at present, keeping up the pretense by continuing to ordain men who refuse to recognize women's priesthood. If it has any sense, this pretense will soon be dropped.

That is, admittedly, a major "if."

Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
The Church of England is, at present, keeping up the pretense by continuing to ordain men who refuse to recognize women's priesthood. If it has any sense, this pretense will soon be dropped.

That is, admittedly, a major "if."

The Church of England: doggedly pursuing the via media between sense and stupidity since 1688.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  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 CL:

What we finally have now is the last shred of the fig leaf being ripped away from those who claim to be Catholic Anglicans; either they have to accept that the CofE is and always has been Protestant and accept/reconcile themselves to their own Protestantism, or leave - whether it be for the Tiber or the Bosphorus.

Bollocks. Catholicity is not defined by an all-male priesthood.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Mark Betts

Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074

 - Posted      Profile for Mark Betts   Email Mark Betts   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
...Bollocks. Catholicity is not defined by an all-male priesthood.

No - but one way to define a Catholic would be as one who assents to the WHOLE of the Catholic faith - creeds, councils, dogma, the Church Fathers, everything - which is why some argue that it is not (nor ever was) possible to be Catholic within the Church of England. It may look like a Catholic, it may walk like a Catholic, it may talk like a Catholic - but that doesn't make one Catholic.

--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."

Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hmmm, Mark, a bit of a strange claim as, for the fist millennium or so of it's life, the CofE was undoubtedly Catholic, by any reasonable definition. Goodness, we even had a Pope!

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mark Betts

Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074

 - Posted      Profile for Mark Betts   Email Mark Betts   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Hmmm, Mark, a bit of a strange claim as, for the fist millennium or so of it's life, the CofE was undoubtedly Catholic, by any reasonable definition. Goodness, we even had a Pope!

OK - correct. But I was referring to the C of E as a "Church" in its own right, after breaking with Rome.

--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."

Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The Church of England: doggedly pursuing the via media between sense and stupidity since 1688.

Would that be senidity or stupise?

As a RC, I believe that Anglican orders are invalid anyhow. The title "bishop" in the CofE is hence simply honorific, meaning something like "senior lay member of a renegade church". I have no doubts that women can fill that role just fine... And it seems unkind to complain about play-acting in the case of Anglican episcopal rites for women, if the very same play-acting is politely acknowledged in the case of their male counterparts. If the layman Mr Welby can style himself "archbishop" among RCs, at least for social purposes, then surely a laywoman Mrs/Ms Welby can do so as well. The facile hope that one day the entire Anglican episcopate could be properly ordained en masse, and become RC, is no more. But I doubt that many people in the CofE have been dreaming about that. And those who dreamt about in the RCC should go easy on the weed.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Oscar the Grouch

Adopted Cascadian
# 1916

 - Posted      Profile for Oscar the Grouch     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
As a RC, I believe that Anglican orders are invalid anyhow. The title "bishop" in the CofE is hence simply honorific, meaning something like "senior lay member of a renegade church". I have no doubts that women can fill that role just fine... And it seems unkind to complain about play-acting in the case of Anglican episcopal rites for women, if the very same play-acting is politely acknowledged in the case of their male counterparts. If the layman Mr Welby can style himself "archbishop" among RCs, at least for social purposes, then surely a laywoman Mrs/Ms Welby can do so as well.

And THAT, my friends, is why a goodly number of RCs can go fuck themselves.

What ever makes you think any sane and sensible person would want to be associated with such pompous drivel?

(It's a good job I have enough good RC friends to know that this kind of twaddle is not universally held among RCs)

--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu

Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
What ever makes you think any sane and sensible person would want to be associated with such pompous drivel?

What precisely did you find "pompous" in what I said there? It was intended to be rather "clinical".

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
(It's a good job I have enough good RC friends to know that this kind of twaddle is not universally held among RCs)

Luckily, their opinion is largely irrelevant. RC doctrine and governance is not determined by popular vote.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
What ever makes you think any sane and sensible person would want to be associated with such pompous drivel?

What precisely did you find "pompous" in what I said there? It was intended to be rather "clinical".
It's kind of the Catholic equivalent of the "isn't it cute that you think your invisible sky friend only listens to you if you speak through your penis" statements you'd get from some of the less respectful atheists.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
What we finally have now is the last shred of the fig leaf being ripped away from those who claim to be Catholic Anglicans; either they have to accept that the CofE is and always has been Protestant and accept/reconcile themselves to their own Protestantism, or leave - whether it be for the Tiber or the Bosphorus.

Well, no; for many of us who believe that we in the Anglican churches do have Apostolic Succession, valid sacraments, etc., the ordination of women isn't a change which invalidates that.

I wrestled with this myself for years--indeed, here on the Ship. I understand the concerns of people who are honestly not convinced of the validity of OOW, because I've been there. But for a lot of us it just means that now women are being ordained in the very same Apostolic Succession, and dispensing valid sacraments. Not even a change in doctrine, for that matter--just in practice, which I think is a key issue.

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
<crosspost, answers Crœsos>

It sure wasn't a diplomatic post, but is it "pompous" just because I state clearly what the official RC position on Anglican orders actually implies for RCs?

I think this points to a dilemma. If Anglicans buy into the Catholic sacramental scheme, then they could complain about me being disrespectful to ++Welby (under their assumption that the Anglican church retains the fullness of the sacraments). But of course then they run immediately into RC problem with the ordination of women. And that is not that we know that women cannot be ordained. But that we do not know that they can be ordained, and that we have no definitive way of finding out. Since the Anglicans have not presented any new Divine revelation either, but merely human arguments about "justice and equality", they are in the same boat. And if they believe in the Catholic sacramental scheme, then they cannot risk messing it up either. However, if Anglicans do not buy into the Catholic sacramental scheme, then my comments are simply factual. One does not imply much for the other, since but for superficial resemblance they are just not the same. The only thing they could critique there is my assumption that for example Mr Bergoglio is anything more than a senior lay member of the RCC.

[ 15. July 2014, 02:58: Message edited by: IngoB ]

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It's kind of the Catholic equivalent of the "isn't it cute that you think your invisible sky friend only listens to you if you speak through your penis" statements you'd get from some of the less respectful atheists.

Yeah, I think that words like "renegade" and "play-acting" are not quite clinical per se, and really do come across as rude in this case. Obviously we don't agree about these matters, but we can still be respectful to each other.

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  ...  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