|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: New Bishop of Sheffield anti women's ordination
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
What i think is objectionable about The Society is its register of 'sound' clergy: see here for the registration declaration for priests, and especially the points about having been ordained in the historic male line and only concelebrating with, and receiving communion from, male clergy ordained in that line. ISTM that:
(i) You can't go digging around into ordination history to check that there's no woman in there way back when (as may doubtless become the case over time)without essentially setting up a priesthood within the priesthood
(ii) There's a difference between quietly avoiding situations where you might have a conscientious objection to participation- which I think could just be possible, even for a diocesan bishop- and making a declaration that you will do so, so that you can go onto the 'approved' list. Quiet avoidance gives some room for mutual flourishing: making declarations of theological conviction narrows that room down.
Oh, and yes, +Chichester and all the other bishops should be asked to resign from in. in fact the whole bloody thing should be suppressed by the Archbishops, although I doubt whether they have the legal power to do so or, if the have, the balls to use it. Every bit as objectionable as those parallel structures that some conevos are setting up (again, without AFAICS an adequately robust response from the Archbishops).
I am aware of the registration declaration.
For those who cannot accept the ordained ministry of women - those to whom we have accepted as holding a validly Anglican position - how else should we arrange things so that they know they have confidence they are genuinely receiving the sacraments? The Society didn't exist before we had women in the episcopate because it wasn't necessary, they could identify a priest whose ministry they could receive on sight. Now that is not possible: if you can only be ordained by someone who is ordained, if there is a break in the chain then the ordination does not happen. From the point of view of those who cannot accept the ordained ministry of women, that means they need to know there are no female bishops in the line.
And I thought those critical of the traditionalists were very concerned that they show integrity. The point about concelebration is them doing exactly that - it is a statement about genuinely having integrity, and not chopping and changing as the wind moves them.
But I'd love to hear suggestions of possible alternative arrangements, that don't merely come down to booting people out?
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
Anything like that sounds to me like cherrypicking among the five guiding principles. It fanatically ignores the first two, whilst focussing on the last 2 1/2.
I just don't see how this can work. Either women are validly priested or they aren't. And if they are, why would anyone waste their time looking for signs of a perfectly valid activity?
And yet, I don't want to see people of a catholic understanding excluded from the Church of England. They are my brothers and sisters, even if we do understand our relationship to our parents differently.
A conundrum to which I have no painless solution.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
... The point about concelebration is them doing exactly that - it is a statement about genuinely having integrity, and not chopping and changing as the wind moves them.
I'm not saying priest who don't recognise OoW should concelebrate with women, though ISTM one might consider it an opportunity to ensure that at least one celebrant is in your eyes validly ordained: it's signing a declaration to that effect.
You lot need to accept that it is you who are out of step with the rest of the CofE (which AFAICS +Philip North largely does, The Society apart). So you don't make a fuss and rock the boat and in return the rest of the CofE recognises how valuable the model of pastoral priesthood that so many of you live by is (and I mean that)and doesn't start jabbing fingers at you (as the Percys did in this case). That's the only way it can work. Here as elsewhere in the life of the Church a certain amount of fudge and not pushing things to their logical conclusions is what makes room for everyone to rub along.
--------------------
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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
should concelebrate with women, though ISTM one might consider it an opportunity to ensure that at least one celebrant is in your eyes validly ordained.
To concelebrate with them is to recognise their validity - which they don't. (Which is why, also, in local ecumenical projects, Anglicans aren't supposed to concelebrate with Methodists).
--------------------
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
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
@ThunderBunk
Surely it is only ignoring the first two principles to the extent that they are unrelated to the issue at hand?
The statement that is made in the declaration is very clear that they remain under the canonical authority of the Ordinary - who may be male or female, and may have been ordained by a man or a woman.
And it is impossible to read the 2nd principle without the 3rd. It is a settled decision, but in the context of it not being a universal position. And indeed the acknowledgement that to disagree with the decision is a proper Anglican position (cf. principle 4).
@Albertus
Why is signing a declaration worse than not knowing doing it? Surely it shows more integrity to be open and honest about one's position rather than hide it away by just not being available when such an occasion arises?
As I said several times previously this is not my position. But whilst it is a position that is out of step with the Church of England, it is very much in step with the vast, vast majority of the Church Catholic. It is a recent innovation. It has not been adopted by the Roman Catholics, the Orthodox, much of the Anglican Communion... its far more reasonable to speak about the Church of England being out of step with everyone else!
[ 17. April 2017, 19:05: Message edited by: TomM ]
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Don't matter a damn what the RCC thinks. AFATC none of our lot is properly ordained anyway- and that goes for Fr Spikey Romanmissal-Nomenstruatingroundmyaltarplease as much as it does for Mother Inclusive NongenderspecificGod. The whole point of the CofE being an independent part of the Church is that it makes its own decisions.
--------------------
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
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Don't matter a damn what the RCC thinks. AFATC none of our lot is properly ordained anyway- and that goes for Fr Spikey Romanmissal-Nomenstruatingroundmyaltarplease as much as it does for Mother Inclusive NongenderspecificGod. The whole point of the CofE being an independent part of the Church is that it makes its own decisions.
Any church that is completely independent is no Church at all. There is only one Church, one Body, that is sadly splintered. We are not complete without them. We are united in baptism into the one Lord.
Yes, we can make some of our own decisions, but as the Church, we cannot act unilaterally. When we do, and depart from the faith once received from the Apostles, we cease to be the Church. We might come to understand that faith more fully, but on our own we cannot know whether we have greater understanding or have departed from it.
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Goode
Shipmate
# 9224
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
Yes, we can make some of our own decisions, but as the Church, we cannot act unilaterally. When we do, and depart from the faith once received from the Apostles, we cease to be the Church. We might come to understand that faith more fully, but on our own we cannot know whether we have greater understanding or have departed from it.
I think you're confusing the living faith handed down to us from the Apostles with a dead and fossilised and slavish adherence to the customs and practices of a two thousand year-old patriarchal society.
Posts: 654 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by David Goode:
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
Yes, we can make some of our own decisions, but as the Church, we cannot act unilaterally. When we do, and depart from the faith once received from the Apostles, we cease to be the Church. We might come to understand that faith more fully, but on our own we cannot know whether we have greater understanding or have departed from it.
I think you're confusing the living faith handed down to us from the Apostles with a dead and fossilised and slavish adherence to the customs and practices of a two thousand year-old patriarchal society.
How so?
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Goode
Shipmate
# 9224
|
Posted
Because you seem to be saying that the Church of England, or indeed any other church, cannot do anything other than maintain a patriarchy in ministry because that's what the Apostles handed down to us.
Posts: 654 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
In case you hadn't spotted, I have said many times on this thread that I am in favour of the ordination of women to all three orders of ministry.
I'd suggest in this debate it is not the question of the gender of the ordinands that is where the Church of England is in danger of departing from the apostolic inheritance, but on the question of what we are ordaining them to. We are increasingly moving to a culture where ordination is approached as a right, where we are losing sight of vocations to patterns of life that don't involve holy orders, and where one can pick choose the pastors one is under not based on the validity of their orders, but on whether or not one agrees with them.
But I've said that a few times here too...
ETA: I recall a comment made by, I think, Metropolitan Kallistos in one of his books. He suggested the Orthodox could not condemn the ordination of women as contrary to the faith since no ecumenical council had ruled on the matter. (And he noted, providence had arranged for there to no longer be a Roman Emperor to call another council...)
[ 18. April 2017, 19:02: Message edited by: TomM ]
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
I'd suggest in this debate it is not the question of the gender of the ordinands that is where the Church of England is in danger of departing from the apostolic inheritance, but on the question of what we are ordaining them to. We are increasingly moving to a culture where ordination is approached as a right, where we are losing sight of vocations to patterns of life that don't involve holy orders, and where one can pick choose the pastors one is under not based on the validity of their orders, but on whether or not one agrees with them.
I don't see anyone who thinks ordination is a right, but I do see a number who think it is perfectly acceptable to have leaders who think that those who have been regularly ordained by the church are not proper. That's one thing to think in an edge of the church where you are talking to like-minded people, quite another thing to do when you are supposed to be the leader of everyone.
As to the "apostolic inheritance" nonsense, almost everyone else thinks that Anglican ordination is impaired anyway. So that's a very silly thing to be worried about.
quote:
ETA: I recall a comment made by, I think, Metropolitan Kallistos in one of his books. He suggested the Orthodox could not condemn the ordination of women as contrary to the faith since no ecumenical council had ruled on the matter. (And he noted, providence had arranged for there to no longer be a Roman Emperor to call another council...)
I fail to see what relevance this is to anything. It wouldn't matter what the Anglican view going forward on female ordination, that would make no odds to the Orthodox regarding the recognition of Anglican orders.
It seems like you a standard to measure the Anglican church that nobody else (that you want to impress) is actually impressed by.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Goode
Shipmate
# 9224
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
I'd suggest in this debate it is not the question of the gender of the ordinands that is where the Church of England is in danger of departing from the apostolic inheritance, but on the question of what we are ordaining them to. We are increasingly moving to a culture where ordination is approached as a right, where we are losing sight of vocations to patterns of life that don't involve holy orders, and where one can pick choose the pastors one is under not based on the validity of their orders, but on whether or not one agrees with them.
Now, that's a different argument. I can't say I had noticed in a more general sense what you argue, but then I'm not close to the action. Where I have noticed it, it's most definitely questioning validity, based on gender, and is inevitably going to extend further and further into a bishop's consecrators' backgrounds.
I don't see any integrity at all in the people who oppose equality of ordination, and who believe bishops are somehow tainted by a connection with ordaining women, remaining in the Church of England, which teaches and practices the opposite of what they believe. If these people had any integrity, they would leave and join a church that believes and teaches that what they believe is correct. They should resign their livings, move out of their provided accommodation, stop drawing their stipends, and freeze their pensions, and I just can't for the life of me imagine why they won't...
Posts: 654 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by David Goode:
If these people had any integrity, they would leave and join a church that believes and teaches that what they believe is correct. They should resign their livings, move out of their provided accommodation, stop drawing their stipends, and freeze their pensions, and I just can't for the life of me imagine why they won't...
But of course, as did the bishops who left for the Ordinariate, leave the date of departure long enough to get paid full freight by the C of E over the Christmas period and the following holidays. IIRC, at least 1 of them declined to carry out confirmations in the period between announcing resignation and actually going.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
In case you hadn't spotted, I have said many times on this thread that I am in favour of the ordination of women to all three orders of ministry.
Do you really believe that or is it expediency to run with both sides of the debate? After all, you say elsewhere that in ordaining women, the CofE has departed from the faith of the apostles.
We're all ordained into Christian service so it hardly matters does it? Priesthood is just another form of service
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
In case you hadn't spotted, I have said many times on this thread that I am in favour of the ordination of women to all three orders of ministry.
Do you really believe that or is it expediency to run with both sides of the debate? After all, you say elsewhere that in ordaining women, the CofE has departed from the faith of the apostles.
We're all ordained into Christian service so it hardly matters does it? Priesthood is just another form of service
Yes, I genuinely believe it. It is entirely possible however that in what I have written it is easy to confuse my own view with attempts I have made of some of my dear friends with whom I disagree in this issue.
And as to your final question, what leo said.
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by David Goode:
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
I'd suggest in this debate it is not the question of the gender of the ordinands that is where the Church of England is in danger of departing from the apostolic inheritance, but on the question of what we are ordaining them to. We are increasingly moving to a culture where ordination is approached as a right, where we are losing sight of vocations to patterns of life that don't involve holy orders, and where one can pick choose the pastors one is under not based on the validity of their orders, but on whether or not one agrees with them.
Now, that's a different argument. I can't say I had noticed in a more general sense what you argue, but then I'm not close to the action. Where I have noticed it, it's most definitely questioning validity, based on gender, and is inevitably going to extend further and further into a bishop's consecrators' backgrounds.
I don't see any integrity at all in the people who oppose equality of ordination, and who believe bishops are somehow tainted by a connection with ordaining women, remaining in the Church of England, which teaches and practices the opposite of what they believe. If these people had any integrity, they would leave and join a church that believes and teaches that what they believe is correct. They should resign their livings, move out of their provided accommodation, stop drawing their stipends, and freeze their pensions, and I just can't for the life of me imagine why they won't...
But, as the Five Guiding Principles say, it is a valid and acceptable Anglican position to say that women should not be ordained. They must recognise that we do ordain women, but are not required to accept that ministry.
As to the question of integrity, given my communion with the bishop who (God willing) will ordain me is impaired should I go too? (I believe the MBS to be Jesus, he's a bit more equivocal).
ETA: In reference to the typo in my prior post, 'attempts to communicate the views of my dear friends' would be closer to what I was trying to type!!
[ 19. April 2017, 18:38: Message edited by: TomM ]
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
But, as the Five Guiding Principles say, it is a valid and acceptable Anglican position to say that women should not be ordained. They must recognise that we do ordain women, but are not required to accept that ministry.
It seems to me that some of these positions are getting perilously close to Donatism.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
As to the question of integrity, given my communion with the bishop who (God willing) will ordain me is impaired should I go too? (I believe the MBS to be Jesus, he's a bit more equivocal).
Impaired communion? Aren't you being a bit overscrupulous here? I mean, most Bishops nowadays are pretty tolerant of those whose views stray, as you seem to be saying yours do, a bit away from the faith of the church as expressed in the XXXIX Articles. I'm sure he won't hold it against you and will be willing to ordain you anyway.
That was what you meant, wasn't it?
--------------------
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
|
|
David Goode
Shipmate
# 9224
|
Posted
In what way is your communion with your bishop impaired?
[ 20. April 2017, 05:38: Message edited by: David Goode ]
Posts: 654 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Priesthood is just another form of service
That you state this shows that you dfo not have a catholic understanding of ministerial priesthood nor of those who do.
I agree. I'd also contend that I base my belief and understanding from a biblical perspective.
If there was/is an ontological change at ordination as some claim, then we are looking at a caste of perfect men. I can't find that anywhere ...
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by David Goode:
In what way is your communion with your bishop impaired?
If one does not believe in women's ordaination and the bishop has ordained women, I'd guess necessarily your communion with him is impaired. I suspect it may also be the other way around.
The problem here is the stupid collegiate nature of the CofE which allows people who have opposite views to the vast majority to continue doing their thing under the banner of the church.
Which is all very well when the keep well away from the majority with their stupid ideas, but quite takes the biscuit when they're appointed to a position over the majority. Just leave already.
[ 20. April 2017, 07:12: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Goode
Shipmate
# 9224
|
Posted
Quite. These Five Guiding Principles are bollocks, and we should not be bending over backwards to accommodate people who excuse discrimination as a theological conviction. That the Church of England is allowing them to remain as a church within a church, and permit them to decide whose orders are valid and whose are not, is a disgrace.
But, I don't think that's what TomW is talking about with the impaired communion.
[ 20. April 2017, 07:59: Message edited by: David Goode ]
Posts: 654 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by David Goode:
In what way is your communion with your bishop impaired?
If one does not believe in women's ordaination and the bishop has ordained women, I'd guess necessarily your communion with him is impaired. I suspect it may also be the other way around.
The problem here is the stupid collegiate nature of the CofE which allows people who have opposite views to the vast majority to continue doing their thing under the banner of the church.
Which is all very well when the keep well away from the majority with their stupid ideas, but quite takes the biscuit when they're appointed to a position over the majority. Just leave already.
And where are the limits on acceptable views, oh great one? Are anglo-catholics who are in favour of the ordination of women acceptable still, or must we all bow the knee to the HTB charismatic religion that formed the current ABC? Who gets to decide?
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
As to the question of integrity, given my communion with the bishop who (God willing) will ordain me is impaired should I go too? (I believe the MBS to be Jesus, he's a bit more equivocal).
Impaired communion? Aren't you being a bit overscrupulous here? I mean, most Bishops nowadays are pretty tolerant of those whose views stray, as you seem to be saying yours do, a bit away from the faith of the church as expressed in the XXXIX Articles. I'm sure he won't hold it against you and will be willing to ordain you anyway.
That was what you meant, wasn't it?
That is what I was saying yes. My point was that our communion is impaired not simply because of the question of gender of ordinands. That is not the biggest gulf that exists in the Church of England today.
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Goode
Shipmate
# 9224
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
And where are the limits on acceptable views, oh great one? ...Who gets to decide?
General Synod.
Posts: 654 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Goode
Shipmate
# 9224
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
That is what I was saying yes. My point was that our communion is impaired not simply because of the question of gender of ordinands. That is not the biggest gulf that exists in the Church of England today.
Are you saying that the words one uses to describe one's understanding of the nature of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist are:
(a) sufficient to impair communion; and
(b) more of a problem than active discrimination against women?
Posts: 654 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
General Synod who said in 1993
quote:
the integrity of differing beliefs and positions concerning the ordination of women to the priesthood should be mutually recognised and respected
and in 2014
quote:
Since those within the Church of England who, on grounds of theological conviction, are unable to receive the ministry of women bishops or priests continue to be within the spectrum of teaching and tradition of the Anglican Communion, the Church of England remains committed to enabling them to flourish within its life and structures
So according to the body you think should the boundaries, the Church of England remains committed to enabling those of differing views on this question to flourish. Good to know. At some point those pointing at Synod as the decision making body might pay attention to what Synod said.
And that second post is a very fine misconstrual of the entirety of the point I was making. At least amongst those who claim to believe in the catholic faith, this cannot be a dispute over secular equality. It is not about discrimination. It is about the question of the nature of the priestly ministry Christ calls some of the members of his Church to. And so to deny that the Eucharist is the partaking of the sacrifice of Christ is a comparable question to who may celebrate it in persona Christi.
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
And where are the limits on acceptable views, oh great one? Are anglo-catholics who are in favour of the ordination of women acceptable still, or must we all bow the knee to the HTB charismatic religion that formed the current ABC? Who gets to decide?
The limits are self-evidently when someone is put in a position where they either (a) go against their own deeply held beliefs or (b) refuse to do the job as outlined.
That's not happened to Justin Welby. It might be true to say that he was influenced by HTB, but it is very hard to argue that this has any negative impact on Anglo-Catholics and regularly participates in Anglican services which are clearly nothing like HTB.
If it was argued that somehow having someone as a Bishop from a background in HTB was depriving Anglo-Catholics of something, then that would be fair comment, but it isn't. Not even slightly the same thing.
As a footnote, I think the HTB crowd should also leave the CofE already. But that's clearly not because they are disruptive when elevated to the bishopric.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Goode
Shipmate
# 9224
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
So according to the body you think should the boundaries, the Church of England remains committed to enabling those of differing views on this question to flourish. Good to know. At some point those pointing at Synod as the decision making body might pay attention to what Synod said.
And I already told you that I think that position is bollocks. I look forward to Synod deciding in due course to change it if the opponents don't just dissipate naturally.
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
And that second post is a very fine misconstrual of the entirety of the point I was making. At least amongst those who claim to believe in the catholic faith, this cannot be a dispute over secular equality. It is not about discrimination. It is about the question of the nature of the priestly ministry Christ calls some of the members of his Church to.
Christ calls men and women equally to the diaconal, priestly, and episcopal ministry, and I'm delighted that my church finally recognises that in its fulness.
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
And so to deny that the Eucharist is the partaking of the sacrifice of Christ is a comparable question to who may celebrate it in persona Christi.
You started off your explanation of your impaired communion with your bishop by talking about the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and now you've moved to whether or not the Eucharist is a partaking in the sacrifice of Christ. And tied it up with ideas of priests standing in persona Christi. And all the while sailing close to the submerged rocks of Donatism with your talk about what you perceive as the unworthiness of ministers on account of their beliefs hindering the effect of the sacraments.
Are you seeking ordination in the Church of England?
Posts: 654 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
So according to the body you think should the boundaries, the Church of England remains committed to enabling those of differing views on this question to flourish. Good to know. At some point those pointing at Synod as the decision making body might pay attention to what Synod said.
There is a very big difference between the Synod gracefully allowing the church-within-a-church to continue (which personally I think is nonsense, but can at very least be understood as a kindness) on one hand and on the other imagining that this means that Bishops who fundamentally disagree with church teaching should be appointed to diocesan bishop where they are expected to ordain those who are acceptable to the church and not just the church-within-a-church.
Using your daft example, that would be like the "HTB archbishop" refusing to allow anyone who wasn't a charismatic Anglican ordination - or refusing to acknowledge the ministry of an Anglo-catholic.
quote:
And that second post is a very fine misconstrual of the entirety of the point I was making. At least amongst those who claim to believe in the catholic faith, this cannot be a dispute over secular equality. It is not about discrimination. It is about the question of the nature of the priestly ministry Christ calls some of the members of his Church to. And so to deny that the Eucharist is the partaking of the sacrifice of Christ is a comparable question to who may celebrate it in persona Christi.
This is a stupid point. If you honestly believe that women cannot be ordained, then you shouldn't in all good conscience remain within a church which ordains women. That, one might think, is obvious to anyone who doesn't somehow have a chip on their shoulder which allows them to say to themselves "we're the REAL Church of England and we're staying, dammit".
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Goode
Shipmate
# 9224
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
As a footnote, I think the HTB crowd should also leave the CofE already.
So do I, but there is a fundamental flaw in our argument, mr cheesy. If all the affluent HTB-like parishes leave the Church of England, who will pay for the stipends and pension contributions of the "Forward in Fatih" and Society types?!
[ 20. April 2017, 10:24: Message edited by: David Goode ]
Posts: 654 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by David Goode:
So do I, but there is a fundamental flaw in our argument, mr cheesy. If all the affluent HTB-like parishes leave the Church of England, who will pay for the stipends and pension contributions of the "Forward in Fatih" and Society types?!
I still believe that the Anglican church is basically a collegiate of at least 5 sects which have no business being under the same umbrella because they fundamentally believe different things.
I believe that at root the only thing keeping them together is the finances. As that starts to buckle, then the chances of wealthy HTB or New Wine Anglican churches remaining are vanishingly small. The bit that is left when they leave is essentially non-viable.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Its more than 5 year since I asked an HTB type incumbent why he stayed in the CofE: the answer given was that the CofE (a) comes complete with organisational structure including buildings and pension scheme, and (b) rather than leave he and many of his friends thought the time had come for a takeover to begin. He wasn't joking.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Its more than 5 year since I asked an HTB type incumbent why he stayed in the CofE: the answer given was that the CofE (a) comes complete with organisational structure including buildings and pension scheme, and (b) rather than leave he and many of his friends thought the time had come for a takeover to begin. He wasn't joking.
I'd say that many HTB-type charismatic churches remain in the CofE because of the finances, but the tide of opinion is beginning to turn. I've heard, for example, of large charismatic churches which are refusing to pay for their parish share because they can't see the point of paying for central resources when they can pay for their own in-house.
As finances get tighter they'll get less and be expected to pay more - and see some of their cash go to churches that they fundamentally disapprove of - and they'll eventually pull the plug.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
David Goode:
So we are only bound y what Synod says when you like it? When it promises a place to a particular group that you happen to disagree with then it's fine to ignore that position?
To say, as you and I both do, that Christ calls men and women as deacons, priests and bishops, in the current context of the Church of England, begs the question of what a deacon, a priest or a bishop is anyway. The discussion that is being swept under the carpet whilst departing the extension of the sacrament of order to women is the meaning of that sacrament. Those who oppose the ordination of women are actively clinging to the same understanding of that is those of us who are catholic anglicans and do accept the ordination of women. The rest of the CofE seems to be moving as rapidly as it can towards the commissioning of ministers.
And that is why the question of the real presence, the Eucharist as sacrifice and the role of the priest in persona Christi all run into one. What is happening in the celebration of the sacraments? Catholics, of all persuasion, claim something objective.
This doesn't run into Donatism. I have not said I believe my bishop does not celebrate validly, but that our communion is incomplete because of the different understandings on what we receive in the celebration of our communion in the Mass.
And yes, I am a seminarian in the Church of England.
Mr Cheesy:
But Synod has not said that a group can continue. Synod has said that the group should be allowed to flourish. And that means recognising those the whole church discerns called to episcopal ministry to serve in that manner.
And do you want to try responding to what I actually said in referencing HTB rather than inventing a point I didn't make?
[ 20. April 2017, 14:08: Message edited by: TomM ]
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Goode
Shipmate
# 9224
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
So we are only bound y what Synod says when you like it? When it promises a place to a particular group that you happen to disagree with then it's fine to ignore that position?
No, not ignore it and pretend everything's fine with a church within a church. Quite the opposite. Rescind it.
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
To say, as you and I both do, that Christ calls men and women as deacons, priests and bishops, in the current context of the Church of England, begs the question of what a deacon, a priest or a bishop is anyway. The discussion that is being swept under the carpet whilst departing the extension of the sacrament of order to women is the meaning of that sacrament. Those who oppose the ordination of women are actively clinging to the same understanding of that is those of us who are catholic anglicans and do accept the ordination of women. The rest of the CofE seems to be moving as rapidly as it can towards the commissioning of ministers.
Parts of the Church of England may be doing that, but as both I and mr cheesy have said, we don't think they should be in the Church of England either. I can't see any sign that "the rest of the CofE" is doing what you claim. I think you're just making a lot of that up.
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
And that is why the question of the real presence, the Eucharist as sacrifice and the role of the priest in persona Christi all run into one. What is happening in the celebration of the sacraments? Catholics, of all persuasion, claim something objective.
I don't think many priests of the Church of England would deny that Christ is present in the Eucharist, though many would prefer not to speculate using our defective human reasoning and understanding on precisely how, and quite right, too. Nor would many claim that nothing happens when celebrating a sacrament. As for Eucharist as sacrifice in the sense you mean, and the notion of a priest standing in persona Christi, neither of these are taught by the Church of England.
Seems to me that you are measuring the Church of England by Roman Catholic standards and then expressing concern that it appears to fall short of them.
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
This doesn't run into Donatism. I have not said I believe my bishop does not celebrate validly, but that our communion is incomplete because of the different understandings on what we receive in the celebration of our communion in the Mass.
That's not what the Church of England teaches. Quite the opposite.
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
And yes, I am a seminarian in the Church of England.
I really do hope that you're not setting off on the wrong foot into frustration and disillusionment.
Anyway, the horse is still well and truly dead, so that's me done with flogging it for a while.
Posts: 654 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
Mr Cheesy:
But Synod has not said that a group can continue. Synod has said that the group should be allowed to flourish. And that means recognising those the whole church discerns called to episcopal ministry to serve in that manner.
Sorry - how exactly is allowing the church-within-a-church to continue not somehow allowing it to flourish? In what sense is it being allowed to die?
This isn't the whole church's problem, this is only a problem for those who think that they can deny women's ordination and yet continue to occupy positions within the hierarchy with responsibility for it.
The fact is that you can't have it both ways - and you certainly can't cry foul when the church has bent over backwards to help the anti-womens-ordination position for many years. Either put up - with the structures which are in place which allow you to continue in a little bubble of anti-woman nonsense - or shut up already. The rest of us are heartily sick of hearing you bleating away about how we're discriminating against you when you're absolutely free to (a) do your own thing under the auspices of the church and if you don't like it (b) to piss of to Rome or wherever else will take you.
quote:
And do you want to try responding to what I actually said in referencing HTB rather than inventing a point I didn't make?
No, because you're point was plainly stupid.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
This doesn't run into Donatism. I have not said I believe my bishop does not celebrate validly, but that our communion is incomplete because of the different understandings on what we receive in the celebration of our communion in the Mass.
Here's the position I think is getting rather close to Donatism:
As I understand it, the position of the "Society" is that they will not receive communion from a "tainted" priest (meaning any priest who doesn't support a male-only priesthood and doesn't promise to likewise keep himself away from "tainted" priests).
Yet they do not have any scruples about kneeling at the altar rail alongside supporters of women priests, and will happily administer communion to such people.
("You" in the following is a Society member, not you personally, TomM:)
If you are happy to share communion with someone, but are not happy if he is presiding, what's going on?
If the someone is a woman, or a man ordained by a woman, it's clear: you don't think he's a priest, and so you don't think there's a valid Eucharist.
But if the someone is a man ordained by an unbroken line of men, you do think he's a priest, but think that he's wrong about women.
So what's the difference between receiving communion alongside him and receiving communion from him? I don't see an answer that isn't Donatism.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
This doesn't run into Donatism. I have not said I believe my bishop does not celebrate validly, but that our communion is incomplete because of the different understandings on what we receive in the celebration of our communion in the Mass.
Here's the position I think is getting rather close to Donatism:
As I understand it, the position of the "Society" is that they will not receive communion from a "tainted" priest (meaning any priest who doesn't support a male-only priesthood and doesn't promise to likewise keep himself away from "tainted" priests).
Yet they do not have any scruples about kneeling at the altar rail alongside supporters of women priests, and will happily administer communion to such people.
("You" in the following is a Society member, not you personally, TomM:)
If you are happy to share communion with someone, but are not happy if he is presiding, what's going on?
If the someone is a woman, or a man ordained by a woman, it's clear: you don't think he's a priest, and so you don't think there's a valid Eucharist.
But if the someone is a man ordained by an unbroken line of men, you do think he's a priest, but think that he's wrong about women.
So what's the difference between receiving communion alongside him and receiving communion from him? I don't see an answer that isn't Donatism.
But that's not the position of the Society. They accept the priestly ministry of any male priest ordained by a male bishop (etc.). As it happens, I served Mass for one today when the deacon was a priest who is (in your description, not the Society's) "tainted".
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
But that's not the position of the Society. They accept the priestly ministry of any male priest ordained by a male bishop (etc.). As it happens, I served Mass for one today when the deacon was a priest who is (in your description, not the Society's) "tainted".
Then it seems to me that either you or he (or both of you) need to take a hard look in the mirror and decide what it is that you actually believe in. Because at the moment he's taking his cake and eating it.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
But that's not the position of the Society. They accept the priestly ministry of any male priest ordained by a male bishop (etc.). As it happens, I served Mass for one today when the deacon was a priest who is (in your description, not the Society's) "tainted".
Then it seems to me that either you or he (or both of you) need to take a hard look in the mirror and decide what it is that you actually believe in. Because at the moment he's taking his cake and eating it.
Why?
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
Why?
Why what? How can it be anything other than a problem when someone sits in a Eucharistic service but refuses to receive from a specific deacon (assuming I'm understanding the grammar of your sentence correctly)?
By doing that, they're saying that the person doing the distribution is invalid and that everyone else who has received from them is invalid.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
No, I don't think you are understanding the meaning of his sentence correctly. I assume he just means that he took the role in the eucharist known as 'Server'. That doesn't mean that he replaced the deacon for any purpose.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
Why?
Why what? How can it be anything other than a problem when someone sits in a Eucharistic service but refuses to receive from a specific deacon (assuming I'm understanding the grammar of your sentence correctly)?
By doing that, they're saying that the person doing the distribution is invalid and that everyone else who has received from them is invalid.
No you have not followed at all.
In this service there were four participants at the front (and then the congregation):
1. The priest celebrating
2. The deacon (actually in priest's orders, but serving as a liturgical deacon, there being no permanent deacons to hand)
3. The reader and intercessor (same person)
4. The server (me)
(1) does not accept the ordained ministry of women. (2) does. If the two priests' roles had been reversed (1) would have received from (2).
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
But that's not the position of the Society. They accept the priestly ministry of any male priest ordained by a male bishop (etc.)
I withdraw (at least partially) my comment - I had misunderstood the Society's rules. They accept the priestly ministry of any male priest ordained by men etc., but only admit to membership of the Society men who think that women aren't priests.
But then they talk a lot about how the Society is important for providing sacramental assurance for the no-women crowd. The tagline on their website is "Providing ministry, sacraments and oversight which we can receive with confidence".
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
But that's not the position of the Society. They accept the priestly ministry of any male priest ordained by a male bishop (etc.)
I withdraw (at least partially) my comment - I had misunderstood the Society's rules. They accept the priestly ministry of any male priest ordained by men etc., but only admit to membership of the Society men who think that women aren't priests.
But then they talk a lot about how the Society is important for providing sacramental assurance for the no-women crowd. The tagline on their website is "Providing ministry, sacraments and oversight which we can receive with confidence".
Yes but, and I don't expect people to like this, that's because they're in it for the long term. The whole thing is set up to ensure that it can work in 20-30 years time. There will come a point where the people to whom it is important will need to know the pedigree of the chap at the altar. At the moment, you can be pretty certain, if that sort of thing is important to you, that the man presiding was ordained by a man.
To that extent it doesn't matter much what the president's opinion on things is - an FiF acquaintance at the weekend summed it up as "it doesn't matter what they think they're doing, if they're using the right words then they're sacrificing a mass whether they believe they are or not" - and then referenced the Article on the Unworthiness of Ministers...
The Society is planning for a time when that sort of if it's a man then they're valid isn't necessarily true.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
