|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: New Bishop of Sheffield anti women's ordination
|
David Goode
Shipmate
# 9224
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
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.
There are couple of interesting statements in their leaflet on communion:
"Parishes, clergy and people are in full communion with their bishop when they can receive the sacramental ministry of all those whom their bishop ordains."
and
"Normally, holy communion is received within a context of full communion. For us, this means receiving communion in Society parishes or from bishops and priests of The Society."
Posts: 654 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
The Society is planning for a time when that sort of if it's a man then they're valid isn't necessarily true.
So there are within the C of E:
1. Priests who think only men can be priests
2. Priests who think women can be priests, and are men ordained by men (etc.)
3. Priests who are women, or men with a woman somewhere up the line.
The Society think that 1 and 2 are priests, and 3 are not priests. If they were concerned with ensuring "sacramental integrity" for the largest number of their sympathizers, should they not keep a register of 1 and 2?
Certainly if you are of that persuasion you might want to make your home in a parish with a priest who shares your opinion, but if you're travelling, surely what you want is to know whether Father So-and-so is a priest, rather than whether he is a priest who shares your opinions.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
The Society is planning for a time when that sort of if it's a man then they're valid isn't necessarily true.
So there are within the C of E:
1. Priests who think only men can be priests
2. Priests who think women can be priests, and are men ordained by men (etc.)
3. Priests who are women, or men with a woman somewhere up the line.
The Society think that 1 and 2 are priests, and 3 are not priests. If they were concerned with ensuring "sacramental integrity" for the largest number of their sympathizers, should they not keep a register of 1 and 2?
Certainly if you are of that persuasion you might want to make your home in a parish with a priest who shares your opinion, but if you're travelling, surely what you want is to know whether Father So-and-so is a priest, rather than whether he is a priest who shares your opinions.
Yes, spot on. Although I'd note that it's not just priests who think that - you've got laity who very much align against those 3 too.
At the moment people to whom it *really* matters in a campaigning way go for 1, but it would be fair to say in the laity that there are many who align/fellow travel with 1 but are happy enough with 2 (I reckon my benefice of 7 churches might by the skin of its teeth go for 1 if pushed but no one's pushing). As I said, 3 isn't really an issue at the moment because the numbers are vanishingly small, but it will be in the future.
So yes, a register of 1 and 2 would make more sense *now*. However, the trad ACs went willingly for a compromise which is going to change the norms of priesthood in the CofE so a Society for position 1 is intended to guard against the time when position 3 is mainstream and position 2 is small. Which is the logical eventual outworking.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
sorry, missed edit window - stick an er on the end of that last small
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Yes, spot on. Although I'd note that it's not just priests who think that - you've got laity who very much align against those 3 too.
Yes, of course.
(Perhaps we should add a "4. Priests who don't think priests exist" to the list
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif) )
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Yes, spot on. Although I'd note that it's not just priests who think that - you've got laity who very much align against those 3 too.
Yes, of course.
(Perhaps we should add a "4. Priests who don't think priests exist" to the list
)
Oh, that group exist too. For those of them who don't believe women can be "not-priests", I believe they usually seek episcopal oversight from the bishop for those who don't believe in bishops or women. (Commonly called the Bishop of Maidstone). ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
The Society don't worry too much about male priests ordained by men who don't want to join their membership list, because they don't want to join their membership list. They wouldn't claim it is meant to be a list of all 'acceptable' priests, but a list of priests who are definitely 'acceptable'.
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
As I said, 3 isn't really an issue at the moment because the numbers are vanishingly small, but it will be in the future.
Just logged back on and re-read my own post - to clarify, clearly the number of priests who are women is not "vanishingly small" - I meant the men with women somewhere up the line.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by David Goode:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
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.
There are couple of interesting statements in their leaflet on communion:
"Parishes, clergy and people are in full communion with their bishop when they can receive the sacramental ministry of all those whom their bishop ordains."
and
"Normally, holy communion is received within a context of full communion. For us, this means receiving communion in Society parishes or from bishops and priests of The Society."
So, effectively a communion within the wider communion of the Church. Very much not a CofE approach, whatever your grounds (OoW or disagreements about the nature of the Eucharist) for taking 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
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by David Goode:
There are couple of interesting statements in their leaflet on communion:
"Parishes, clergy and people are in full communion with their bishop when they can receive the sacramental ministry of all those whom their bishop ordains."
and
"Normally, holy communion is received within a context of full communion. For us, this means receiving communion in Society parishes or from bishops and priests of The Society."
So, effectively a communion within the wider communion of the Church. Very much not a CofE approach, whatever your grounds (OoW or disagreements about the nature of the Eucharist) for taking it.
Yes. They're little more than parasites, living off the Church of England, with homes provided, stipends, and pensions. They want to have their host and eat it, pun intended.
[ 21. April 2017, 16:14: Message edited by: David Goode ]
Posts: 654 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by David Goode:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by David Goode:
There are couple of interesting statements in their leaflet on communion:
"Parishes, clergy and people are in full communion with their bishop when they can receive the sacramental ministry of all those whom their bishop ordains."
and
"Normally, holy communion is received within a context of full communion. For us, this means receiving communion in Society parishes or from bishops and priests of The Society."
So, effectively a communion within the wider communion of the Church. Very much not a CofE approach, whatever your grounds (OoW or disagreements about the nature of the Eucharist) for taking it.
Yes. They're little more than parasites, living off the Church of England, with homes provided, stipends, and pensions. They want to have their host and eat it, pun intended.
You are both assuming that this is only the view of a group of clergy. According to the Bishop of Beverley, there aren't enough clergy of the view for him to be able to staff all the parishes that have asked their diocesan for his oversight. I don't figures have to hand, but I would reckon that they probably have a better record than average of paying the parish share asked of them by their dioceses too.
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Clergy or laity, it's not the CofE way.
--------------------
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:
Clergy or laity, it's not the CofE way.
There's not, and never has been, a CofE way. At least not since the Restoration. And prior to that the CofE way was to bend the knee to whichever thing the monarch of the day favoured, and burn everyone who didn't.
Of course, if we are going to claim that we must do things the historic CofE way, then the traditionalists are well within their rights to point out that that way didn't involve ordaining women for most of the 2000/1700/1400/500 years (pick a reference event) we have to go on...
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
For a long time the great thing underpinning a lot of CofE ecclesiology was comprehension: within a fairly well defined band of liturgical practice, allowing rather a broad range of theological opinion to be accommodated. A lot of this was done by a rather deliberate refusal to define things too closely, and a disinclination to follow things through to what might be seen as their logical conclusion (or even in some cases really to start ging anywhere near that path). The great example of this concerns what happens at the Eucharist, but I think there are others. And it worked. You might deeply disagree with another member of the CofE about what would be for some rather a major point of theology, but you didn't let that get in the way of things. You have a reasonable degree of common practice and that's the framework within which you are united.
Now, supporter of OoW as I am I can see that for opponents of OoW, this is where maintaining a framework of common practice becomes a bit tricky, especially where you have women bishops. But, to return to the subject of the OP, I think +Philip North was willing to try to see how far this could be done and he deserved the chance to try. but when you, Tom, start talking about 'impaired communion' with your Bishop just because he has a different view of what happens at the Eucharist than you do, I really start to wonder whether you actually understand CofE ecclesiology at all.
--------------------
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
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
...Now, supporter of OoW as I am I can see that for opponents of OoW, this is where maintaining a framework of common practice becomes a bit tricky, especially where you have women bishops. But, to return to the subject of the OP, I think +Philip North was willing to try to see how far this could be done and he deserved the chance to try.
He had the chance to try. He chose not to take it.
anne
--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
A bit unfair and rather uncharitable.
A small(ish) but vociferous group made it very clear that they would refuse to work with him if he took up the appointment.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Exactly so.
--------------------
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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Which in-and-of-itself is a bit bizarre. The no-women-priest brigade have their own flying bishops, is there any provision for female-ordination affirming flying bishops in diocese headed by anti female-ordination bishops?
If not, why not? And if there isn't, why isn't it reasonable for the majority to refuse to co-operate with the bishop until there is?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
I have a question which Betjemaniac or TomM might know the answer to. Why does a priest applying to be on the list of the Society of St Wilfrid and Hilda need to make a declaration that he will concelebrate only with male priests and receive only when male priests preside ?
The purpose of the list is to provide sacramental assurance that a priest is ordained by a bishop in the male apostolic succession. It would seem sufficient to make a declaration to that effect. My reason for thinking that was that in a vacancy, or if the priest was ill or on holiday, the church might not be able to find a traditionalist catholic available. Surely it would be useful for them to know all priests who they would consider validly ordained, regardless of theological conviction.
--------------------
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
mr cheesy - The flying bishops operate as assistant bishops in each diocese they care for parishes in, by the license of the diocesan. Every diocese is required to have (at least) an assistant bishop who ordains women. In Chichester, this is covered by (at least) one of the suffragans. In London, by all of the area bishops (though not the suffragan). In Sheffield, if +Philip had taken the post, the Bishop of Doncaster would have been in a position to take up such responsibility. ETA: For this purpose, an assistant bishop is an active one, rather than a retired one who helps out.
moonlitdoor - I don't know. I suspect that the nature of the Society as a group for like-minded individuals is part of the motivation - it is not just a list of 'valid' priests. I know of a number of priests who are not members of the Society who routinely cover parishes that are either affiliated or of that tradition.
[ 26. April 2017, 19:50: Message edited by: TomM ]
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
mr cheesy - The flying bishops operate as assistant bishops in each diocese they care for parishes in, by the license of the diocesan. Every diocese is required to have (at least) an assistant bishop who ordains women. In Chichester, this is covered by (at least) one of the suffragans. In London, by all of the area bishops (though not the suffragan). In Sheffield, if +Philip had taken the post, the Bishop of Doncaster would have been in a position to take up such responsibility.
Maybe we think that's not good enough. Maybe we don't want to be in communion with a bishop who doesn't ordain women, we don't want to be in any sense under a diocesan bishop who doesn't ordain women or be around people who were ordained by a bishop who doesn't ordain women. Where is our alternative episcopal oversight?
We don't want just some other bishop in our diocese, surely we should be entitled to have one organised by Province in England.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
mr cheesy - The flying bishops operate as assistant bishops in each diocese they care for parishes in, by the license of the diocesan. Every diocese is required to have (at least) an assistant bishop who ordains women. In Chichester, this is covered by (at least) one of the suffragans. In London, by all of the area bishops (though not the suffragan). In Sheffield, if +Philip had taken the post, the Bishop of Doncaster would have been in a position to take up such responsibility.
Maybe we think that's not good enough. Maybe we don't want to be in communion with a bishop who doesn't ordain women, we don't want to be in any sense under a diocesan bishop who doesn't ordain women or be around people who were ordained by a bishop who doesn't ordain women. Where is our alternative episcopal oversight?
We don't want just some other bishop in our diocese, surely we should be entitled to have one organised by Province in England.
Now the old Act of Synod is gone, there is no difference whatsoever in any given diocese between the status of any of +Beverley, +Ebbsfleet, +Richborough and +Maidstone, and a diocesan assistant. There are 'regular' bishops who function as assistants in other dioceses too: +Peterborough is licensed as an assistant bishop in the Diocese of Ely, and takes primary episcopal care of the deanery within the city of Peterborough that lies in the Diocese of Ely. +Brixworth and +Huntingdon recently spent extended periods as assistant bishops in Leicester and St. Edmundsbury as the Archbishop's delegate during an episcopal interregnum in those dioceses. So when there is a clear pastoral need, such border crossing gets licensed and done.
What used to be called PEVs are suffragans to the two Archbishops who have very little actual responsibility in their home dioceses, but have licenses in a number of other dioceses.
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Is not the answer that only those willing to ordain women as priests become diocesan bishops, while those not so prepared may only be assistants - perhaps 1 to every half dozen dioceses?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Is not the answer that only those willing to ordain women as priests become diocesan bishops, while those not so prepared may only be assistants - perhaps 1 to every half dozen dioceses?
Honestly? Yes - that or a third province... I'd certainly go along with what you suggest personally now we are where we are.
However, it's not the answer that got the legislation passed the other year - *that* to my mind is where the problem is.
I think the Trad Catholics would go for your suggestion with their heads now, but the problem for many is their hearts - it's not the deal that was done. There was a massive rush to compromise at pretty well any cost, to get the vote through, which is unravelling like morning mist in the first light of day.
What we now see are attempts to unpick/revist, without either accepting that the step with most integrity would be to rescind/suspend the Women Bishops legislation until such time as it could be re-passed properly (which clearly is a total non-starter presentationally - even if it was suspended for 5 minutes and then railroaded through as a single clause Measure), or doing so much damage to trust in the process that it doesn't set back LGBT rights in the Church of England a couple of decades.
IMO there's a real danger that the ConEvos (in particular) will watch all this and draw the conclusion that any deal on the table on sexuality in the future will be like female episcopal consecration - a set of concessions to get the thing through General Synod, which aren't worth the paper they're written on in the aftermath.
Honestly, the whole thing couldn't more clearly telegraph "never compromise with liberals again" if it tried.
IMO, there's far more than WO at stake here - through mishandling this the ripples will spread ever further across the CofE pond. That's the real tragedy.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I have a question which Betjemaniac or TomM might know the answer to. Why does a priest applying to be on the list of the Society of St Wilfrid and Hilda need to make a declaration that he will concelebrate only with male priests and receive only when male priests preside ?
I can only give you my interpretation, which is twofold:
1) as has been pointed out it's a membership/mutual support association for the like-minded as much as a register of "legit" priests
2) and this is the one that I've never seen written down, but it's the elephant in the room. Trust is gone. It's the corollary to what is often written down - "this is hospice care for the traditionalists, who will die off." Society priests explicitly assent to the theology of the trads. That doesn't make them better priests, but the thinking follows that they do at least agree with the people who want that assurance, rather than just providing that assurance through accident of ordination rather than conviction. If the Society can hold, then the position theologically can hold. If the Society can't, then it'll become an atomised theological position and die out.
Before anyone goes off the deep end, I'm not a member of the Society, nor do I worship in a Society church, or under a Society priest. I offer the answer merely because it was asked as a straight question, and I know enough Society/FiF people to have formed a view.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Is not the answer that only those willing to ordain women as priests become diocesan bishops, while those not so prepared may only be assistants - perhaps 1 to every half dozen dioceses?
I thought one of the main arguments that was popular in favour of the ordination of women to the episcopate was the removal of the stained glass ceiling over certain candidates? Such a scheme would merely put it over different ones.
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
Thanks to TomM and Betjemaniac for answering my question. I asked it just because I was interested in the answer, and not in any way argumentatively, so I am glad that you did choose to reply.
--------------------
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
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
I thought one of the main arguments that was popular in favour of the ordination of women to the episcopate was the removal of the stained glass ceiling over certain candidates? Such a scheme would merely put it over different ones.
It's not directly comparable - discriminating against someone on the basis of an unchosen, unhideable characteristic and saying that certain views exclude someone from office are not morally equivalent.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
I thought one of the main arguments that was popular in favour of the ordination of women to the episcopate was the removal of the stained glass ceiling over certain candidates? Such a scheme would merely put it over different ones.
It's not directly comparable - discriminating against someone on the basis of an unchosen, unhideable characteristic and saying that certain views exclude someone from office are not morally equivalent.
At which point it starts to look like we are only interested in secular equality and not theology. I don't want to say the two are equivalent, but that sort of response leads in that direction.
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
When the question of those opposed to women in Holy Orders comes up, it's usually accompanied by terms such as misogyny, equal rights, sexism and discrimination. While that may be true of some Con Evo types with their weird ideas on headship, it doesn't in any way apply to Anglo-Catholics such as Bishop Philip North. When the women's bishops debate was raging a few years back, Archbishop Rowan Williams said that while he didn't agree with the opponents, he recognised that their opposition came from a deeply held theological position. The same theology which led Pope John Paul II in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 1994 to write, "The Church does not consider herself authorised to admit women to priestly ordination." TomM has tried valiantly to do what Archbishop Rowan did, which is to understand and defend a position even when he disagrees with it.
The theology of a sacrificing priest, of the Apostolic Succession, who stands at the Altar in persona Christi, and re-presents the sacrifice of Calvary in an unbloody form at every Mass, is held, with minor variations by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches who make up two thirds of Christendom and to whom the ordination of women is a non issue. To them Christ is truly present in the Bread and Wine. But to most Protestants this would be a load of hocus pocus. At a Methodist Last Supper, for example, there would be no sacrifice, nobody representing Christ, and no need to believe in Christ's presence in the Elements. The Church of England, having held together in uneasy tension for 450 years, has now come down firmly on the Protestant side of that divide.
The C of E has a perfect right to do that. By its own democratic processes it ordained women, first to the priesthood, and now to the episcopate. But it always had a problem with those pesky few who saw the process as an innovation too far. So it tried, and tried hard to find a solution, with promises that this small rump could be allowed to "flourish" within existing ecclesial structures. But the situation with Bishop Philip proves this to be a sham. Although he has been praised as a great pastor even by women clergy with whom he's come into contact, the equality police won't let him exist, let alone flourish. After the extreme Anglo-Catholics departed for the Ordinariate, and it was only about 1500 of them, the rest of the AC's should have realised that the game was up. That far from being allowed to flourish, they're being kept on life support until they die off.
Opposing the ordination of women on the grounds of theology or ecclesiology is a position which men and women the world over share. It's nothing to be ashamed of, because it's still the position of the majority of the Christian world. But those who hold that view don't belong in the Church of England which has chosen another path, and they need to wake up to the reality of that.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The theology of a sacrificing priest, of the Apostolic Succession, who stands at the Altar in persona Christi, and re-presents the sacrifice of Calvary in an unbloody form at every Mass, is held, with minor variations by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches who make up two thirds of Christendom and to whom the ordination of women is a non issue. To them Christ is truly present in the Bread and Wine. But to most Protestants this would be a load of hocus pocus.
Most Protestants? Given that Lutherans, Reformed, and if I understand correctly Methodists all affirm the Real Presence (though they may understand it differently from RCs and the Orthodox), I'm not sure about "most Protestants."
Where most Protestants would disagree is on the understanding of the priesthood and the relationship between the priesthood and the sacrifice of the Mass. Catholics would say a valid priesthood is a necessary prerequisite to the Real Presence. Protestants who affirm the Real Presence would say it depends solely on the promise of Christ and the action of the Holy Spirit. So it's the nature and function of the priesthood that's really at issue.
I'll leave it someone Orthodox to say whether the Orthodox understanding of the priesthood and the sacrifice of the Mass are only at minor variance with Catholic understanding. My impression has been that the differences in understanding are more than minor, but maybe I'm wrong on that.
And I guess it could be noted that belief in a certain nature of the priesthood and the influence institutional sexism and misogyny are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
And I guess it could be noted that belief in a certain nature of the priesthood and the influence institutional sexism and misogyny are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Yes but my point is that it's the understanding of the nature of the priesthood, even if you have a very different understanding of it, which motivates Catholics to oppose women's ordination, and not feelings of sexism and misogyny. The only thing they are doing wrong is to try to keep this understanding within the Church of England when it's obvious that the C of E has moved on to a different understanding.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
While the Orthodox Divine Liturgy is fuller than a Catholic Liturgy in that it commemorates the Resurrection and Ascension, not just the sacrifice, it still understands the sacrifice and priestly role in much the same way.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
And I guess it could be noted that belief in a certain nature of the priesthood and the influence institutional sexism and misogyny are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Yes but my point is that it's the understanding of the nature of the priesthood, even if you have a very different understanding of it, which motivates Catholics to oppose women's ordination, and not feelings of sexism and misogyny.
Having a sexist "understanding of the nature of the priesthood" is still sexism.
[ 18. May 2017, 15:32: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos:
Having a sexist "understanding of the nature of the priesthood" is still sexism.
Thank God the majority of the Christian world isn't as fixated on this issue as people here seem to be!
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
In other words, you're pleased that the majority of "the Christian world" doesn't recognize women as fully human, made in the image of God. If they did, they'd recognize that there's no reason women can't offer the unbloody sacrifice.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
I'm less concerned whether bishops ordain (or don't) women than by the ordination of many people who seem unsuited for the role of either pastor or leader.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doone
Shipmate
# 18470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I'm less concerned whether bishops ordain (or don't) women than by the ordination of many people who seem unsuited for the role of either pastor or leader.
Hear, hear! ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
Posts: 2208 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
In other words, you're pleased that the majority of "the Christian world" doesn't recognize women as fully human, made in the image of God. If they did, they'd recognize that there's no reason women can't offer the unbloody sacrifice.
It's not that. I just don't accept that every Christian (almost) in South America and in Russia is a misogynist with a desire to discriminate against women.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
In other words, you're pleased that the majority of "the Christian world" doesn't recognize women as fully human, made in the image of God. If they did, they'd recognize that there's no reason women can't offer the unbloody sacrifice.
It's not that. I just don't accept that every Christian (almost) in South America and in Russia is a misogynist with a desire to discriminate against women.
And yet that is what the churches are doing.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
It's not that. I just don't accept that every Christian (almost) in South America and in Russia is a misogynist with a desire to discriminate against women.
Neither do I. Between those who do believe women should be ordained and those who accept what they're told by the hierarchy I suspect the True Believers in male-only priesthood are a minority. It would, of course, also be fair to say that much of the world still has a major issue as regards attitudes to women which does tip over into misogyny.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by arethosemyfeet:
Between those who do believe women should be ordained and those who accept what they're told by the hierarchy I suspect the True Believers in male-only priesthood are a minority.
I would agree with that, but many members of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, who either believe strongly in the theology of their churches, or who are completely inculturated within their traditions, may not find women's ordination important enough to be a motive to change churches. It seems here that many members of the Church of England think it's important enough to effectively expel those who disagree.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by arethosemyfeet:
Between those who do believe women should be ordained and those who accept what they're told by the hierarchy I suspect the True Believers in male-only priesthood are a minority.
I would agree with that, but many members of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, who either believe strongly in the theology of their churches, or who are completely inculturated within their traditions, may not find women's ordination important enough to be a motive to change churches. It seems here that many members of the Church of England think it's important enough to effectively expel those who disagree.
The obverse of that is that people who deny the ability of an institution to make a decision which puts that institution at variance with other similar institutions are expecting to remain in good standing and indeed in positions of authority in the first institution, rather than leaving for the other institutions which have not made the same decision. To my mind, it is up to them to prove why they have the right to do something that perverse.
[ 21. May 2017, 18:41: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
--------------------
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
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The obverse of that is that people who deny the ability of an institution to make a decision which puts that institution at variance with other similar institutions are expecting to remain in good standing and indeed in positions of authority in the first institution, rather than leaving for the other institutions which have not made the same decision. To my mind, it is up to them to prove why they have the right to do something that perverse.
I agree with you. I don't think there's any reason or even true integrity in someone who opposes women's ordination to remain in the Church of England, because the C of E has made that decision and is now totally committed to it, unlike 25 years ago when it was described as a "period of reception." But that would be an individual decision. Is it right for the C of E to push people out who consider themselves to be loyal Anglicans? There are many reasons why some Anglicans find it difficult to cross the Tiber or join the Orthodox Church. Attachment to an imagined "English" style of worship. Loyalty to family or friends, or even love of their own church building. It isn't always an easy decision.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The obverse of that is that people who deny the ability of an institution to make a decision which puts that institution at variance with other similar institutions are expecting to remain in good standing and indeed in positions of authority in the first institution, rather than leaving for the other institutions which have not made the same decision. To my mind, it is up to them to prove why they have the right to do something that perverse.
I agree with you. I don't think there's any reason or even true integrity in someone who opposes women's ordination to remain in the Church of England, because the C of E has made that decision and is now totally committed to it, unlike 25 years ago when it was described as a "period of reception." But that would be an individual decision. Is it right for the C of E to push people out who consider themselves to be loyal Anglicans? There are many reasons why some Anglicans find it difficult to cross the Tiber or join the Orthodox Church. Attachment to an imagined "English" style of worship. Loyalty to family or friends, or even love of their own church building. It isn't always an easy decision.
Conversely, I agree that it is far from an easy decision. I have a fair number of friends caught on this dilemma. I'm just beginning to think that the sacrifice the C of E is making to continue to accommodate them is growing rather than diminishing over time. And the idea that their ranks are swelling is completely perverse.
I really can't help feeling that the Ordinariate was supposed to be an authentic solution to this, rather than simply B XVI's coup de grace to the unity of the C of E. Now that it's almost dead in the water on these shores, I'm not sure where we go from here.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
