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 | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Special interest discussion   » Dead Horses   » Getting Touchy about Taint at Traditionalist Bishop's Consecration (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Getting Touchy about Taint at Traditionalist Bishop's Consecration
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
[QUOTE]I don't mean to pick on Baptists here (I am an ex-Baptist, I ceased to be...), but let's not pretend that the Baptist church in the UK, even BUGB affiliated churches, have an entirely positive attitude to women ministers.

Very true but the number has decreased to very few in each region. I've never come across the "taint" issue in terms of what happens and by whom at ordination/laying on of hands etc in a Baptist setting.

Just to clear it up, I have no personal opposition to women bishops and/or ministers.

Posts: 3694 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
The CofE keeps a record of churches which have voted not to have a female incumbent (Resolutions parishes); what it doesn't do is keep a record of parishes which would really rather not have one but don't want to make it official. These are the parishes which are likely to shortlist one woman, because the Archdeacon insists on it, but would never appoint her.

And these are the worst, because this attitude is based on sheer prejudiced misogyny. If they believed as a matter of theological principle that women should not be priests, they would insist on passing at least one of the Resolutions. The Archdeacon should insist on an all-woman shortlist!
Posts: 12891 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I've never come across the "taint" issue in terms of what happens and by whom at ordination/laying on of hands etc in a Baptist setting.

Nor me - we just don't see ordination in that way.

I think that there may be more churches than we may imagine which won't take women ministers ... not that they'd necessarily say so "out loud". But I can't be sure.

Posts: 9231 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530

 - Posted      Profile for stonespring     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Looking at ++Sentamu's statement about the consecrations:

http://www.archbishopofyork.org/articles.php/3204/forthcoming-consecrations#sthash.MKNM7N86.dpuf

"4. The oath of canonical obedience to the Archbishop will be reinstated into the liturgy and made by the candidate standing before the Archbishop. The Archbishop will also witness the oath of allegiance to the Sovereign before the service begins."

So Rev. North will swear obedience to ++Sentamu although he is in such impaired communion with him that he will not allow him to lay hands on him in his consecration?

Posts: 1485 | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Looking at ++Sentamu's statement about the consecrations:

http://www.archbishopofyork.org/articles.php/3204/forthcoming-consecrations#sthash.MKNM7N86.dpuf

"4. The oath of canonical obedience to the Archbishop will be reinstated into the liturgy and made by the candidate standing before the Archbishop. The Archbishop will also witness the oath of allegiance to the Sovereign before the service begins."

So Rev. North will swear obedience to ++Sentamu although he is in such impaired communion with him that he will not allow him to lay hands on him in his consecration?

Exactly. What about the women in local parish leadership under his "care" too?

It's too stupid even to laugh about

Posts: 3694 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963

 - Posted      Profile for Charles Read   Author's homepage   Email Charles Read   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This story is relevant:

BBC report

- though the BBC report is not totally accurate I think - the 'silent protest' was in fact a craft activity in Messy Church if I've understood aright the church's comments - which I can't now find!

--------------------
"I am a sinful human being - why do you expect me to be consistent?" George Bebawi

"This is just unfocussed wittering." Ian McIntosh

Posts: 701 | From: Norwich | Registered: Jan 2003  |  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 Angloid:
If they believed as a matter of theological principle that women should not be priests, they would insist on passing at least one of the Resolutions.

I thought that the resolutions were abolished under the new arrangements made by synod - when they rescinded the Act of Synod.

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

Posts: 23024 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Have I missed something? ++Sentamu has said clearly that he is not removing himself from the actual laying-on-of-hands because of a theology of taint. And he has said that But beyond saying his decision is "for prayer, not politics", has he actually given a clear reason for how he is handling this?

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posts: 21258 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And I don't quite get where the impetus came from - were "soundings" taken which suggested +North and others of his stripe might appreciate it, or is (as someone up thread has suggested) a rather canny piece of pre-pallning, so that when there's a woman as metropolitan, she can be in the room but not touching?

The latter, I think, has some merit to it, but ought to be said out loud if it's true. That it's a way of maintaining the metropolitan's authority within the spirit of the accommodations given.

Posts: 6916 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
If they believed as a matter of theological principle that women should not be priests, they would insist on passing at least one of the Resolutions.

I thought that the resolutions were abolished under the new arrangements made by synod - when they rescinded the Act of Synod.
You may well be right, leo; I'm not up to speed with all that stuff. However I think that Amos was referring mainly to cases in the past, and if there are still parishes which are reluctant to accept women without making a formal statement against on theological grounds, they deserve to be called out on their bigotry. (I'm not suggesting in the least that anti-Oow people or parishes are bigoted, just those that don't have the courage of their commitment)

--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!

Posts: 12891 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Chorister

Completely Frocked
# 473

 - Posted      Profile for Chorister   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It all seems, to me, to be an excuse to legitimise prejudice.

And yet, when you meet personally with someone who just can't accept women priests (let alone bishops), the way they talk about it appears to be far from prejudice - they really do struggle.

I must admit I was rather hoping that, over time, the antis would gradually become acclimatised to the reality, and come to accept it.

--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.

Posts: 34561 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530

 - Posted      Profile for stonespring     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
From the BBC article mentioned above:

"The laying on of hands is a part of the service of ordination for a bishop in the Church of England, which also includes the new bishop being anointed and being given the Bible"

Is this just another example of inaccurate religion reporting, or is now so common that it is considered standard procedure in the C of E unless the new bishop is really low-Church that anointing take place during the consecration? (Seeing that the lack of anointing in the rite of consecration used under Edward VI was one of the main arguments, among others, for the invalidity of Anglican orders in Apostolicae Curae, I find this interesting).

Posts: 1485 | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963

 - Posted      Profile for Charles Read   Author's homepage   Email Charles Read   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Anointing is pretty much universal for priests and bishops. I would hope some bishops would not do it just to emphasize it's optional!

--------------------
"I am a sinful human being - why do you expect me to be consistent?" George Bebawi

"This is just unfocussed wittering." Ian McIntosh

Posts: 701 | From: Norwich | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343

 - Posted      Profile for Eirenist         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If some people are determined to paint themselves into an ever-shrinking corner it is impossible to stop them, even if they end by climbing up the walls. (Presumably eventually they will consecrate their own mini-archbishop.) But does the rest of the C. of E. have to keep bending over backwards to be nice to them until it disappears up its own fundament?

--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'

Posts: 411 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Logically that's what should already be happening. I don't see how the "no touch consecration technique" changes anything.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
It all seems, to me, to be an excuse to legitimise prejudice.

And yet, when you meet personally with someone who just can't accept women priests (let alone bishops), the way they talk about it appears to be far from prejudice - they really do struggle.


Just because they really do struggle doesn't mean it isn't prejudice. It means the prejudice is so ingrained it has become part of them [Frown]

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

Posts: 12553 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Speaking personally I used to have a "bible-based" belief that homosexuality was wrong. (Different dead-horse I know but bear with me).

I felt incredibly bad about "having" to say that homosexuality was wrong and felt genuinely conflicted about it. I remember talking to a fellow evangelical about hearing of the life of a gay vicar who had made serious sacrifices to adopt a behaviourally disturbed child, and my immediate reaction that he was a far better man than I was and that it really seemed rather unfair to take the view of his sexuality that our church did.

It was a year or more before I rationalized the situation and realized that I wasn't bound to interpret the Bible as I had been.

I could well have had deep-seated prejudice guiding me, but I feel I can identify a period of time when my emotional response was to want to be supportive of gay people through the discrimination and struggles they experienced but couldn't reconcile this with other rules I had.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472

 - Posted      Profile for Fr Weber   Email Fr Weber   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Wondering why the anti-OoW people want to continue as part of a church that visibly throws away the rulebook when said A-OoWs make any demands.

Or why these flying bishops want to be ordained in a less-than-acceptable way.

Or why any of these hold-outs want to be in this church at all.

As someone whose view of women's ordination is pretty much the same as Fr North's, I wonder the same things.

A clergyman with the courage of his convictions (and the ability to think through the implications of his ecclesiology) would have asked for a letter dismissory as soon as it became clear that women were to be ordained bishops. He seems all around like someone who'd be happier in the ACC-UK or another continuing group, but I'm sure (and this is the cynic in me talking) neither his living nor his pension would be quite as fat there.

--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."

--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM

Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772

 - Posted      Profile for Palimpsest   Email Palimpsest   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What about the oath of allegiance to the Sovereign? Are they going want to make the oath to the next male heir when a woman is on the throne? Do they need a flying royal or is that only a clipper ship sail? [Smile]
Posts: 2975 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged
fullgospel
Shipmate
# 18233

 - Posted      Profile for fullgospel   Author's homepage   Email fullgospel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
So right after the first female bishop is consecrated in the C of E, there will be a consecration of a traditionalist SSC bishop to take care of parishes that don't want any bishops with any taint ivisions/4634 9.htm[/URL]

This not, in fact, the case.

He is to be an ordinary suffragan bishop in the Burnley diocese.

Not a PEV., in fact.

And nothing to do with dissident parishes or the SSC.

He happens to be an SSC member, not their bishop.

--------------------
on the one hand - self doubt
on the other, the universe that looks through your eyes - your eyes

Posts: 364 | From: Rubovia | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530

 - Posted      Profile for stonespring     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry. I was mentally associating the old flying bishops (now gone) as being at least technically some suffragan bishop somewhere, but I really don't know the finer workings of episcopal jurisdiction in the C of E - and I often misinterpret things through my RC-based lens. I get now that he is just a normal suffragan bishop.

I never meant to imply that he was a bishop "for" the SSC. I meant that he is an SSC priest who is now becoming a bishop, so he is an "SSC bishop" sorry about the unclear language.

Posts: 1485 | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
fullgospel
Shipmate
# 18233

 - Posted      Profile for fullgospel   Author's homepage   Email fullgospel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
ah I see ! Btw


The 'flying bishops' / PEV have gone nowhere !

They have not flown

[ 01. February 2015, 21:23: Message edited by: fullgospel ]

--------------------
on the one hand - self doubt
on the other, the universe that looks through your eyes - your eyes

Posts: 364 | From: Rubovia | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Pigs may fly....

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

Posts: 5366 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
bad man
Apprentice
# 17449

 - Posted      Profile for bad man     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thiis from Forward in Faith today on why Philip North couldn't be consecrated by a male bishop or male Archbishop who had previously (at any time) consecrated a woman as priest or bishop:

quote:
For over twenty years traditional catholic priests have been granted ordination by bishops with whom they enjoy full communion (because they can receive the ministry of all the priests whom those bishops ordain). The ordination of women as bishops gives rise to a need for similar provision for ordination to the episcopate.
It's taint, isn't it? Or worse than taint, because it declares all Forward in Faith bishops and priests out of communion with all the bishops and archbishops who have ever ordained a woman as priest or consecrated a woman as bishop. We only have two archbishops; the Archbishop of York is already out of communion with them (on this showing) and the Archbishop of Canterbury will surely follow.

Sounds like they've almost left the Church of England already.

Posts: 49 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Nov 2012  |  IP: Logged
Oscar the Grouch

Adopted Cascadian
# 1916

 - Posted      Profile for Oscar the Grouch     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This is just more proof of what I have said all along - namely that this whole "impaired communion" thing is rank poor theology which was created after the event to try and justify the initial actions.

First came the grandiose protest (rather ill-thought) - "any bishop who ordains women is no longer fit or welcome to ordain proper male priests." It was a knee-jerk protest with no theological rationale at all.

But then, having painted themselves into a corner on this matter, the F-i-F leaders realised that they had to come up with some sort of theological basis for their action. Lo and behold - "impaired communion" (which looks remarkably like "theology of taint").

I am wiling to accept that F-i-F don't support a theology of taint. But that's because they actually don't have any coherent theology in this particular matter.

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

Posts: 3817 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by bad man:
Thiis from Forward in Faith today on why Philip North couldn't be consecrated by a male bishop or male Archbishop who had previously (at any time) consecrated a woman as priest or bishop:

quote:
For over twenty years traditional catholic priests have been granted ordination by bishops with whom they enjoy full communion (because they can receive the ministry of all the priests whom those bishops ordain). The ordination of women as bishops gives rise to a need for similar provision for ordination to the episcopate.
It's taint, isn't it? Or worse than taint, because it declares all Forward in Faith bishops and priests out of communion with all the bishops and archbishops who have ever ordained a woman as priest or consecrated a woman as bishop. We only have two archbishops; the Archbishop of York is already out of communion with them (on this showing) and the Archbishop of Canterbury will surely follow.

Sounds like they've almost left the Church of England already.

And, ironically, all three of the consecrating bishops were themselves consecrated by bishops who had ordained women.

John

Posts: 5905 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Either that or the rhetoric is a move towards setting up a third province by default - once you've got a bishop you've got the potential for a "church within a church", and it seems to me that this was what the anti-women brigade were after once they realised they'd lost the argument.
Posts: 2788 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963

 - Posted      Profile for Charles Read   Author's homepage   Email Charles Read   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes it is a de facto Third Province Look at this
The Society
-and especially what priests joining are to sign:
declaration

--------------------
"I am a sinful human being - why do you expect me to be consistent?" George Bebawi

"This is just unfocussed wittering." Ian McIntosh

Posts: 701 | From: Norwich | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688

 - Posted      Profile for Vade Mecum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
Yes it is a de facto Third Province Look at this
The Society
-and especially what priests joining are to sign:
declaration

Surely point four of the Declaration militates against your fanciful notion? It doesn't say "... and who believe in the male priesthood" or "...and who have never received communion from, or concelebrated with, a woman"?
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377

 - Posted      Profile for *Leon*   Email *Leon*   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Surely point four of the Declaration militates against your fanciful notion? It doesn't say "... and who believe in the male priesthood" or "...and who have never received communion from, or concelebrated with, a woman"?

It would be helpful if the society were to chose to graciously behave in a way that was as accommodating as their declaration allowed. There's nothing in that declaration that Phillip North (or priests ordained by him) couldn't agree to if he had been consecrated by John Sentamu.

Incidentally I note that the 3rd clause says 'at whose episcopal ordination male bishops presided' rather than 'at whose episcopal ordination only male bishops laid on hands'. So as far as I can see a traditionalist priest ordained by the next bishop to be ordained in the North (who I guess will be consecrated by a load of men and Libby Lane) could sign the declaration.

It seems to me that the declaration is a tad more liberal than the recent FiF statement.

Although, while I'm commenting on the declaration, I'm somewhat interested by the necessity of 'on grounds of theological conviction' in the 4th clause. That would prevent someone from becoming a priest of the society because their PCC politely asked them to, and they were happy to do so while they remained in that parish. I don't know whether that's the deliberate intent or an issue they hadn't considered. There are a fair number of anti-OOW parishes headed by pro-OOW priests. This wording ensures that these parishes can't ask their priests to become priests of the society. So either the society will encourage parishes to take a more hard-line approach to choosing priests or membership of the society won't mean that much on the ground.

Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm just wondering what Wilfrid and Hilda said when they were asked to act as patrons. Or whether they would have agreed on the subject, in life.

[ 04. February 2015, 15:53: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posts: 5758 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I'm just wondering what Wilfrid and Hilda said when they were asked to act as patrons. Or whether they would have agreed on the subject, in life.

Strange that you should ask. I was chatting to St Hilda the other day - she's patron of a school I have a vague association with and need her views from time to time. She told me that neither she or St Wilfrid was asked. Her comment was that she had spent her lifetime promoting reconciliation, indeed giving up her opinions on such matters as the date of Easter and matters of church governance to ensure unity. She was Not Pleased about the invocation. Apparently St Wilfrid was of a similar mind and while she preferred not to use his exact words, he had put his position very strongly.

Women bishops had been discussed at the pre-Christmas synod of Saints, bearing in mind the decision of the C of E now to consecrate them in line with other churches in the Communion. She did not feel free to pass on the comments of the Almighty, but suggested instead that I count the number of women bishops who had been struck by lightning. She then referred to the report on governance in the Chichester Diocese and the investigation there of child abuse claims as being a sort of thunderbolt.

[ 05. February 2015, 06:21: Message edited by: Gee D ]

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6621 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gee D [Overused]

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?"--Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon"
--"I'm not giving up--and neither should you." --SNL

Posts: 17664 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377

 - Posted      Profile for *Leon*   Email *Leon*   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I'm just wondering what Wilfrid and Hilda said when they were asked to act as patrons. Or whether they would have agreed on the subject, in life.

I note that wikipedia says 'Some modern historians see [wilfrid] mainly as a champion of Roman customs against the customs of the British and Irish churches'.

Although no citation is given, so I'll believe Gee D instead.

[ 05. February 2015, 08:55: Message edited by: *Leon* ]

Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
The Silent Acolyte

Shipmate
# 1158

 - Posted      Profile for The Silent Acolyte     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
As Gore Vidal said, "For many folks over 40, litigation replaces sex."

I'm 55 and am happy to say, then, that the Mrs. and I sued the bejabbers out of each other last night.
I suppose this crack allows me to say how relieved I am that the taint touched in the title of this thread isn't the one that first occurred to my besexed mind.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
bump
Posts: 5905 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
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

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools