quote:

---

Originally posted by Gunner:
A thought which has been troubling me for sometime is whether one can still be a catholic within the Church of England and the Anglican Communion?

---

quote:

---

While I am pro-women ordination I did feel the haste to which we have gone about this without the full mind of the catholic church is problematic. Can one still be a catholic in the CofE without necessarily joining FinF? Or is FinF the only chance of remaining a Catholic and true to the tradtional teachings of the church? Mind you, I do have doubts as to whether Flying Bishops out of Communion with their fellow bishops is atrue sign of catholicity.

---

quote:

---

What will become of folk like me when women become bishops as well they will? When certain folk of the church don't recognise the bishop where then is the catholic church?

---

quote:

---

Do folk like me have a place in the CofE? Are we destained to struggle on or does one move on and when does that decision happen?

---

And who exactly are folk like you? On your other thread, someone pointed you in the direction of Affirming Catholicism as an alternative to FiF. Was that not acceptable?
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
I am an Anglican who certainly considers herself Catholic, and I see no reasonable ("We've never done it that way" does not qualify as reasonable in my book) impediment to women's ordination.

I respect those who DO have reasoned objections to it, and if everyone were truly concerned about our duty to "represent Christ and his Church wherever (we) may be," we wouldn't be facing schism.

This also goes for those on the other side who are so determined to force issues like gay marriage and the ordination of active homosexuals that they could wreck the Church, and don't seem to care any more than the conservatives do.

Rossweisse // who would like to see more genuine tolerance
 

---

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :
 
Just a question from a very Catholic Anglican, Gunner - and one which I am asking only out of curiosity. Has this worry arisen because ++Rowan undoubtedly will consecrate women as bishops? I also was wondering if you were concerned that future attempts to (in whatever fashion) accept the primacy of Rome, while having Rome withdraw its official lack of acceptance of the validity of Anglican Orders, could be hampered by this. I know that what I shall say here is uncharacteristically cheeky of me, but some of the arguments which Rome has used were poorly set forth. For example, that women were not present (and therefore ordained) at the Last Supper, could be used (though it never has, of course) as an argument against women receiving Communion or attending the Eucharist... and the argument that Jesus did not ordain his own mother... well, since she bore him in the flesh, it nearly seems excessive.

Father Gregory (who may well take me apart later on this thread, which is fine, since we can use a little stimulating thought here!) can explain the theological objections to the ordination of women (which, I believe, are the same with the Orthodox as with Rome.) One may argue "either way" on either the basis of sacramental theology or ecclesiology, and, while I have no great familiarity with FinF, I believe the latter is their favoured mode.

It seems very Catholic to me to believe that, while God is perfect truth, our comprehension of His will comes about by the continuous inspiration of His Church by the Holy Spirit. As the simplest example, the very first Christians, already confronted with the astounding fact of the Incarnate Logos risen from the dead, hardly would have understood the Trinity as God's "true identity" at once. Hints of the recognition would come through in early worship - this or that scholar would argue on various grounds - and that early recognition would not be formally and stated for several centuries. It always was true - but the understanding came to us, by divine power, with allowance for that a rigidly monotheistic Jewish community in 1st century Palestine could not be greeted with, "Happy Easter - I'm the second person of the Trinity."

Conflict (as we see in Paul's epistles) is as old as the church, and schisms (not to mention heresies, but that's not the issue here) are little younger. It is sad, but true, that the unity of the Church would be torn through the centuries.

Now, following my line of presentation (and if you'll excuse my levity), it seems that God could reveal that to now ordain women to the priesthood is His will for the Church, without this being accepted by all sister churches concurrently. Granted - universal acceptance of important doctrines is a mark of catholicity, but, after all, the time since women's ordination became possible is a blink in the eye of history!

The Catholic view has always, I believe, been that the priesthood is an extension of Jesus' own High Priestly ministry. It therefore can be argued that the "iconic" dimensions of that extend to priests being of his gender (as is part of RC belief), or that humanity is sufficient.

Note that I am not saying "Canterbury's a trend setter - the others need to get with it," which would be a deplorably pompous and disrespectful statement! I am merely responding to your concern that accepting Canterbury's viewpoint rather than Rome's means being non-Catholic.

I would say you are quite correct that the consecration of women as bishops can cause further confusion and "splits." (Though, considering that the office of bishop "comes before" that of presbyter, if one accepts the ordination of women at all, naturally they can be bishops.) Indeed, if people do not accept the ordination of women as valid, they could be forced, in conscience, to find another sister church - all the more if, with a lady bishop, the validity of ordinations to the priesthood could be in question. One cannot compromise one's faith.

My concern is not anyone's expression of integrity or fidelity, but an ostensibly Catholic appeal for the sake of other agenda. It would not be without precedent in the history of schism...
 

---

Posted by PaulTH (# 320) on :
 
I don't think there's much to add to Newman's Own's full and well expressed post. I don't think that the social customs of first century Palestine should be binding on us. One of the most radical things about Jesus was the equality with which He treated wmomen, unusual enough in His day to raise eyebrows. I can't believe that God has any objections to this.

It's only on ecclesiological grounds that a case can be made out against the ordination of women. Does the Church of England have the right or indeed the competance to ordain women ireespective of the views os sister churches? Even then it depends on who you call a sister church. The Methodists would insist on equality in any necociations on church unity.

From a personal point of view, I have no objections to wmomen bishops as I don't to women priests, who, in gerneral are doing an excellent job, but this isn't about competance for the job. There are some Anglocatholics who cannot- and I emphasise that in place of won't accept women priests or male priests ordained by women bishops. As one who cares passionately about the future of our national church I hopw ++ Rowan will look favourably upon the formation of an independent province. It's a natural progression from the Act of Synod and is the only thing which can prevent another mass exodous to Rome of Orthodoxy.
 

---

Posted by Gunner (# 2229) on :
 
It would be quite right to consider that the first century customs weren't binding upon us if Jesus Christ hadn't been around. However, and if my simpole mind it is a big however, when Jesus was on earth he was very God as well as very man. And while I accept that Our Lord's attitude towards women was very progressive and radical, even though he was God, he didn't commission women as apostles. I may be wrong but if Jesus is very God surely he of all people who like to break social customs would have done so on this issue.

As for the issue of divorce and remarriage Our Lord says things which can be very painful but it its the God Incarnate we believed said such things. And for the Law while Jesus never mentions the issue of homosexuality, I would have thought that by his refernce to the ideal of man leaving and clinging to his wife suggests that sex outside marriage is not considered the ideal or right.

If we don't trust any of the Scripture Tradtion and Reason then we could be right to make it up as we go along, to be socially influenced rather than to influence society. And if we don't trust the word of God as reported in Scripture as the words issued from Our Lord I would have thought we may as well pack up our faith and be humanists instead.

I struggle with these issues. I feel that women should be ordained priests. But who am I or who is this little blob of a sister church to go UDI on these subjects without considering the unity of the wider church and the catholicity we proclaim.

The results so fdar have been:
1. The Unity talks with Rome and Orthodoxy have been scuppered.
2. Within our own communion the sacrament of unity the Eucharist is a sore point of divsion.
3. Fellow priests are not in communion with one another and their bishops.

The fragmentation of Anglicanism means that rather than searching for truth and catholicity we are splintering into many protestant sects each doing what is right in their own eyes.
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
I thought 'catholic' meant universal and inclusive. Using that understanding, more of us are catholic that you might think.

'I believe in the Holy Ghost, the holy, Catholick Church, the Communion of Saints, the Forgiveness of sins, the Resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.' sayeth the creed which those of us who go to Mattins and/or Evensong say every Sunday.
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
A Third Province is a non-starter, and I think the Act of Synod will have to be repealed, as it leaves no option for women bishops- and now we have women priests, there is no logic in not having women bishops. Indeed , it is just that we do so.

I feel sorry for those who feel that they will have to depart as a result of this decision, but there are denominations which would share their views on this matter, and I think the importance of giving women equality outweighs the importance of keeping them on board. I am sure they will be welcomed in other churches, and think that, not a third province, is the only realistic answer, if they cannot accept the existence of women in both priesthood and episcopate.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Elizabeth

Orthodoxy does not hold to the "iconic" argument against female ordination. The priest need have no "natural resemblance" (Aquinas) to Christ the High Priest in respect of his gender, race or anything else other than his humanity (but even then I suspect that an alien convert to the Christ-of-the-humans would have no difficulty either in becoming a priest ... I am making a serious point).

Paul ... you are correct that the substantial objections are ecclesiological but I would also embrace Christ's actual practice (to which Gunner has referred). Nonetheless, Gunner, although St. Mary Magdalene was technically an apostle; she is referred to in the Orthodox Church as "equal to the apostles" as is St. Helen, St. Nina and many other women. Rome has a good point also that the Mother of God's dignity exceeds that of the apostles (we refer to that in our hymns).

Gunner .... I am now on didgy ground because we are not supposed to comment on the trials of other churches. Nonetheless I can say this ... the Church of England has a right to expect full compliance with its ordination policy. To do otherwise would be to compromise its own organic unity. The Act of Synod is misconceived (except as to the severance package). Such a thing will not happen again .... and in any event ... the issue is the laity, not just the clergy.
 

---

Posted by Fr.Philip (# 2801) on :
 
Reading all of the above I get the feeling that Anglicans use the same words to mean different things.

It is possible to believe in a Catholic Chuch without belonging to it incidentally.

Do you use these words and have the generally same meaning throughout the C. of E. and Anglicanism generally? Catholic, Church, communion, priest, salvation?

Also I wonder if Anglicans concentrate too much on the role of the clergy and not enough on the Laity. One I was an Anglican priest... a long while ago and well before women were ordained priest (hence my question above: I think things have changed since I was about!)... when I left the C. of E. (I was a happy Anglican and those folk helped me enormously in my Christian pilgrimage) I became a lay person again. The sheer joy of it! I had a far fuller "ministry" and brought more people to Christ, was able, at last to stop talking about the Church all the time and concentrate on the Saviour (as I still do now that I am an Orthodox priest) have a real job with a real insight into how secular work is etc. I think that all this concentration on who is and who aint Ordained is a snare.

I agree with Fr. Gregory: It does seem odd to have an Ordination policy going back 10 years and have people in disagreement with it but still hanging about (some of them getting paid too)! Tell them to clear off! (And if they are priests: defrock them!)
 

---

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr.Philip:

I agree with Fr. Gregory: It does seem odd to have an Ordination policy going back 10 years and have people in disagreement with it but still hanging about (some of them getting paid too)! Tell them to clear off! (And if they are priests: defrock them!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Gunner .... I am now on didgy ground because we are not supposed to comment on the trials of other churches. Nonetheless I can say this ... the Church of England has a right to expect full compliance with its ordination policy. To do otherwise would be to compromise its own organic unity. The Act of Synod is misconceived (except as to the severance package). Such a thing will not happen again .... and in any event ... the issue is the laity, not just the clergy.

---

Comment away Fr Gregory, you make good sense. You've put my point of view for me!
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Thurible

There ain't just one show in town.
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
But, Thurible, having women in the priesthood is part of the Church of England now.

Surely the fact this happens at St. Chad's says to you that many people who regard themselves as catholic really don't have a problem with this. Nor did the male concelebrant.

The only answer is for you to accept the presence of women, if you really do feel called to the Church of England - or perhaps Orthodoxy may be a better place for you. I don't want to force you out - but if I had to choose, then its more important for women to be in the priesthood than for us to allow discrimination because of the beliefs of some who wish to keep the priesthood all male.It isn't - and it never will be again, in the Church of England. Things have changed, and I think for the better on that score. Its no good pretending that women are not there, because they are, and they are here to stay. Surely you can see that the possibility of withdrawing female ordination in the Church of England is nil ? It has happened, and its a permanent change.
 

---

Posted by PaulTH (# 320) on :
 
Gunner and Father Gregory
I take your (collective) point that Jesus didn't appoint women as Apostles, but could He have done in that culture? Who would have listened to them? The case of Mary Magdalene, first witness of the resurrection has been made. My point is that the esteem in whicj Jesus held women was radical, but what you'd expect from the Son, who knows that all are equal in th eyes of the Father.

Jesus not appointing women as Apostles, still, IMO belongs within the realm of first century near eastern culture, rather than divine law. As Thurible said, the Church of England is in a real mess over this issue. Thurible despairs because he believes in the C of E and can't find a way out of this impasse. I despair because this impasse threatens to destroy the church as we know it. I hope ++ Rowan's great intellect will come up with an answer to this one.
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I suppose the question about whether Christ appointed women apostles depends on what we mean by "apostle"? If we mean by that a title, then it's debatable whether Jesus appointed anyone an Apostle at all. If, on the other hand, we mean a role - that of telling others about Christ (with the additional proviso of being sent directly by Christ I suppose) - then we have several examples. Most notably Mary Magdelene after the Resurrection and the Samritan woman at the well.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Yes Alan ... the issue isn't about "apostle." St. Mary Magdalenr readily fits the bill. The issue is about community leadership. There are more NT apostles than the 12-1+1+1, (deduct Judas, insert Mathias, add Paul).

Paul ... Jesus shows no sign of moderating his radical cutting edge in other areas ... why so in this one? Just a thought ... not conclusive I know but it adds more balance to the cultural relativity argument.
 

---

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
Thurible wrote

quote:

---

No problems there. It was when she started to concelebrate that I realised I was in a real mess. I didn't receive the Sacrament, because I thought that her presence had invalidated the Mass, despite accepting the orders of the male Principal Concelebrant.

---

quote:

---

If a random lay person (male or female) were attempt to concelebrate (for want of a better term) would not invalidate the Mass?

---

Carys
 

---

Posted by SpO-On-n-ng (# 1518) on :
 
The temporary provisions of the Act of Synod were specifically for a period of discernment to decide whether or not it was God's will that women be ordained priest. At some point we have to reach an answer on that, and pretty clearly for the majority of the CofE the answer is going to be 'yes'.

I'm more than happy that individual parishes should have the right to say that their traditions should be respected and that they should not therefore be asked to accept a woman priest. I'd prefer it if they didn't insist on having a specific resolution, because no other tradition needs one, but if it helps, OK.

What is not, AFAICS, tenable is the idea that the Church of England should continue for too much longer to hold the 'two integrities' position, for the simple reason that the passage of time makes the two integrities untenable. Early on it's just about reasonable to say 'we don't know whether God has called women to be priests' but at the end of ten years you ought to have some idea. The logic of saying 'two provinces of the Church of England believe that women are priests but one does not' completely defeats me. That isn't a separate province, it's a separate church.

And on the whole subject of 'contagion', so that a woman concelebrating somehow prevents the bread and wine becoming the body and blood why is this not solved for good traditionalists by Article XXVI - of the Unowrothiness of Ministers?
 

---

Posted by Gunner (# 2229) on :
 
Dear Fr G,
I totally agree that The Act of Synod was misconcieved and is basically a severance package. I wrestle not because I want the best financial package but because I feel emotionally tied to the CofE. If ever I felt there was no longer a place for me here I would go and NOT expect to be paid for my conscience. It is the cost one has to pay and not to be paid for having a conscience.

I still hang on wrestling and praying and trusting that at the end of everything God is God and nothing will chance that - not even our church myopia
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Gunner

I respect your own personal position about money but I think that it was reasonable that the Act made provision for retraining and resettlement costs. Some of us did believe that the "terms and conditions of our employment" had been significantly reconfigured.

As to the emotional attachment ... is it emotional or is it based on the view (erroneous in my opinion) that Anglican forms and identity are essential to the Church's mission to the whole nation?
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I think Spoooong got it absolutely right. There is no possibility that those women who have already been ordained will have their ordination removed - the vast majority of the Church of England supports the ordination of women.
And I agree that to have a third province would be a separate church, particularly once women are bishops - which they will be.

I wonder if those who do still oppose women priests think that the Church of England will change its mind ? Surely they know this will not happen ? And surely they realise that a Third Province is a total non-starter ?
 

---

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Orthodoxy does not hold to the "iconic" argument against female ordination. The priest need have no "natural resemblance" (Aquinas) to Christ the High Priest in respect of his gender, race or anything else other than his humanity.

---

[pedantic point]
Thomas actually does not make the "natural resemblance" argument. He makes the (even less appealing) argument that women can't be priests because "it is not possible in the female sex to signify eminence of degree, for a woman is in the state of subjection" (ST Suppl. 39.1). It's a slight variation on the "natural resemblance" argument, but a variation nonetheless.[/pedantic point]

FCB
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
So what actual harm mightl a third province do that hasn't been done already?

And how will it be less harmful than a complete formal schism?

And in a situation where CofE parishes are effectively non-territorial, and have been since the invention of the railway train (or possibly since the almost synchronous invention of Anglo-Catholicism) - more than half of the worshippers at a typical service live within the parish boundaries - why do we have to stick to the territorial principle for bishops?

And if a similar separate-but-equal episcopal oversight was agreed for Methodists in formal reunion with the CofE, would you have the same

Sudden bad thought - maybe the CofE should let them go and let them take their church buildings with them - after all, they are far too expensive for us to maintain - lumber them with the costs of it all what a charitable act of downsizing that would be
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
A third province would essentially be a separate church operating within the Church of England : I think the honest thing to do would be to set up a separate institution, which could come to some arrangement with the Anglican Communion ( itself a fairly irrelevant talking shop in any case )

Yes, I'd go along with you on the buildings. There are too many Anglican churches anyway. In our suburb there are four - one High, one MoR/low, two MoR. The latter three have congregations of approx 40 each. They all maintain a building, which costs considerable amounts of money to maintain. Two vicars service the two united benefices and so have twice the normal amount of committees etc. to go to.

I think the answer is obvious.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
more than half of the worshippers at a typical service live within the parish boundaries

---

quote:

---

lessthan half of the worshippers at a typical service live within the parish boundaries

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
I think the honest thing to do would be to set up a separate institution, which could come to some arrangement with the Anglican Communion

---

I thought that was more or less what a "third province" was meant to be?

The alternative being that some or all of the FiF priests, with or without their congregations and church buildings, leave the Anglican communion altogether either to Rome or as a separated denominational church.

And presumably a few evangelical churches as well, though I am skeptical about how many would feel the need to. However much you disagree with women priests and bishops (& most evangelicals-in-the-pew don't) there isn't the pressure to secede if you don't have a "high" doctrine of episcopacy or apostolic succession. There isn't the notion of "taint" which some of the anglo-catholics feel.
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
No,it isn't, Ken, which is the problem. Its essentially a 'church within a church', with their Province having an equivalence with York and Canterbury, but be a no-go area for women priests.

I just think its not feasible and would absolutely change the catholic order of the Church of England in a way which simply isn't acceptable - and I do hold those views about episcopacy and apostolic succession, I just don't think a schism is the way to deal with them. What would be produced would be far from catholic order.
 

---

Posted by Gunner (# 2229) on :
 
We already have a 'church within a church' system operating with PEVs.

I agree that the ordination of women was an act of faith and that a period of discernment should be prayerfully employed. What is wrong by both extremes is that they have already made up their minds. The FinFs have already said 'No, never' while the Aff Caths have said 'Yes, here to stay.' None of these positions sho9uld be cast in stone.
 

---

Posted by Amanuensis (# 1555) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

lessthan half of the worshippers at a typical service live within the parish boundaries.

Which may or may not be true in general, but is true of my present church, I think my present parish church (which is different), and at least 3 and perhaps 4 of the previous 6 parish churches I've been a member of.

---

quote:

---

There are some Anglocatholics who cannot- and I emphasise that in place of won't accept women priests or male priests ordained by women bishops.

---

But the church to which they belong has ordained them. Why is disobedience to the church permissible in this case? That is what I can't understand. These people are anglo-catholic. It is such a [non pejorative use of word follows] Protestant thing to hold to one's own conscience rather than the teaching of the Church. Yet they do it - they plead conscience over obedience and refuse to recognise the sacraments of the church to which they belong. So cannot does equal won't. Ironic, IMHO.

Not much chance of a female priest at my parish any time soon. We are the only anglo-catholic parish in town not formally aligned with FiF, but I suspect a number of prominent parishioners feel sympathy for that organisation.
 

---

Posted by Gunner (# 2229) on :
 
I heard, and I may be wrong, but a Luteran Church ordained women for many years, and fater years of reflection they came to the conculsion it was not the right thing to have done. Has anyone else heard this?

If this is the case, they were, as the CofE is, in a position of discernment. If we are in that process of'reception' we can't get go full steam and consecrate women. The wounds are too raw, the pain is still sharp and we are not in communion with one another. Although 10 years of women in the priesthood may seem a long time in the grand scheme of things it isn't.

We should perhaps wait and pray...
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I agree that the Act of Synod has started the 'church within a church' process - although still within the authority of Canterbury and York. However, I am opposed to the Act of Synod, I think it should be repealed, because it simply cannot be sustained long-term.

I honestly think that to continue as we are prolongs the agony. I can see no reason why we would ever come to the conclusion that it is wrong to ordain women. Theologically, there is simply a difference of opinion. The experience of having women priests has undoubtedly been positive, and I can see no real need for further prayer in the hope that one side or the other will change their minds. I do not think a third province is viable, and I think that the decision will have to be made as to whether those who oppose women priests wish to stay in a church which has them or not. If not, then other structures need to be looked for - but not within the Church of England. Two integrities has no integrity.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
But why isnt it viable? How will it inconvenience the rest of us?
 

---

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
Gunner -- the C of E may still be in a process of discernment, but the other branches of the Anglican Communion are not.

Lambeth in the late 80s confirmed the rightness of ordaining women, but left it to individual churches to decide whether it was appropriate for them as a matter of culture and discipline, not as a matter of theology. Many African churches, therefore, do not ordain women, but some are now beginning to as their societies change. In Canada, the first women in the Arctic were ordained much later than in the rest of the country, because it had to be culturally acceptable to the Inuit.

In several provinces or national churhces, there have been female priests for 20-25 years. Female bishops participated in and voted at the last Lambeth Conference -- they are in the photo, too.

If the C of E were to decide that the theology of female ordination is wrong, it would cut itself off from the rest of the Communion, including both Wales and Scotland (not a problem, I know, to those in the C of E who forget that there are many times as many Anglicans in the world as live in England, and are under the delusion that we look to the C of E for a lead more than to other sister churches).

This in no way means I think the church should disregard the need of those people who do have theological problems. And the C of E has to work its own problems out by itself. However, it may wish to consider the experience of its sisters. The Canadian experience is that those who treated the first 10-15 years as a time of discernment (and did not start with the position that there was nothing to discern), have come to believe that ordination is theologically right.

John Holding
 

---

Posted by Gunner (# 2229) on :
 
20-30 years may seem like an awful long time but it isn't - it's a mere blink of the eye. For those Anglicans who have lived through the times when women were not ordained and considered themselves amongst the vast majority of catholic christians thought the 2,000 years of Christainity to have male only priests, can be forgiven if they seem peeved. We can't just assume that because the church is aping popular culture that it has it right! It may be right for women to be ordianed. But it can never be right for a few Christains to have made that decision without the full consent of the catholic church. And for those Anglicans who can't not won't accept it we have to forgive them if they feel uncomfortable when the CofE has moved its goal posts. There has to be compassion from all quarters.

For thse difficult questions it can't be right for Anglicans to go out alone no matter what they personally believe. To caliam to be catholic and then sticking 2 fingers up to the vast majority of catholic christians is wrong.

It can be now surprise that the ecumenical relationships between Anglicans and Catholics and Orthodox has become quite icy.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Gunner

Looking at it now from the "other side" as it were, the reasons for ecumenical coolness (I wouldn't go as far as "icy") have more to do with Anglican attitudes to doctrine rather than any one particular issue. Orthodoxy and Catholicism are broad churches insofar as we interpret the fullness and diversity of the dogmatic traditions of our respective communions, but there are very well marked out limits. In Anglicanism we see a similar diversity but expanding and attenuated in content because there do not seem to be any generally agreed limits. Partly, in England at least, this has to do with establishment, being all things to all people and being the repository of English culture, (two heretics such as Darwin and Newton, brilliant though they were and true in their fields are buried in Westminster Abbey). Many Anglicans see this as a strength since so many theological positions can be accommodated .... but on what grounds can they coinhere in one Church? How can Christians who do and don't believe in the historical veracity of the Incarnation as "an event of the Word become flesh" inhabit the same church? Dom Aidan Nicholls rightly observed in "The Panther and the Hind" that, henceforth, ecumenism with Anglicanism would have to be on a group by group basis rather than with the communion as a whole. The communion as a whole does not seem to speak with one coherent theological voice. Anglicanism is that most English of things ... a compromise ... or more tartly perhaps, a coexistence.
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Its not viable, Ken , because it will destroy the episcopal and catholic order of the Church of England - which is why affirming catholics are more opposed to it than evangelicals, who don't thuink those matters are so important. Its not a matter of inconvenience, its about what it will do to the structures of the Church of England in terms of their catholicity. Schism, officially sanctioned and sectioned, is no way forward
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
The Church of England is certainly a co-existence , as you describe it, Gregory - the fact that I , Gunner, and ken all are Church of England attenders speaks volumes!

That breadth has always been seen as a strength in a national church. Perhaps it is less feasible than it once was.
 

---

Posted by PaulTH (# 320) on :
 
Although I fear for the future of the C of E, There is a point where I agree with Merseymike and disagree with Gunner. Gunner says that the fact that we have women priests shouldn't be set in stone any more than FiF's objections to them should. But it is set in stone in the sense that the C of E isn't going to take a backward step on such a major change.

Hence my agreement with Merseymike. A third Province which isn't in communuion with the other two provinces for fear of taint, isn't part of the same church. The sad fact for those who are totally unable to accept the ordination of women
is that they will have to find another church to belong to. Within the next couple of years the question, both simple and yet painfully difficult
will be, "Do you want to belong to this church or don't you?"
 

---

Posted by angloid (# 159) on :
 
Thurible writes

quote:

---

I disagree with too much of Roman Catholicism to make that move; I feel called to be an Anglican priest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by angloid:
If the objection is that Rome is too authoritarian, well you can't have it both ways. There are many (R) catholics who shrug their shoulders and just get on with living the faith whatever the pope says.

---

But, you see, this is why I left the Roman church. It felt like extreme dishonesty to call myself RC but say "I don't believe dogma X and I choose to do Y, which the pope said not to."
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Paul

I knew such people in the CofE. They thought of themselves as Old English (Roman) Catholics finding a temporary home in the Church of England which they held to be of sufficient (just) ecclesiastical integrity in which to remain. Their reluctance to take the final step had nothing to do with residual Anglicanism but rather an Englishness which thought of the RC in Britain as slightly too Irish or culturally distinct. I suppose it's a distant grandchild of those tractarian sympathies that thought of RCism as "the Italian Mission." I can't see how they could possibly stay with the consecration of women to the episcopate except perhaps as a "faithful remnant" within a rigidly defined ecclesiastical enclosure where they could still dream of a collective deal with Rome. This will not happen.
 

---

Posted by IanB (# 38) on :
 
I have a suggestion. Many of the posts so far seem to be under the apprehension that people are considering leaving the CofE (or possibly other Anglican Churches) primarily because of the ordination of women.

Now I don't for a minute doubt that there are some people who would put up their hands and say it describes their position. But it has been known for a long time that there are many even within FiF who are not actually opposed to the ordination of women as priests. And FiF represents the pressure group founded on this premise! According to a recent survey it may describe about 40% of them. Many of those who left back in '92 declared themselves as possibilists in this. So far as I know most of them still do. I happen to know a couple of people who left then - one of them has absolutely no views on the matter at all. It would not have troubled him. And take a look here - we have Gunner who is actually in favour, considering leaving.

If you don't understand why this is - and it has nothing to do with being contrary - then all the indicators are that you are missing the point. Furthermore, the constant appeals to an idea of catholicity that has no basis in history or practice might just suggest that this might have something to do with it too.

Ian
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Well, Ian, have a look at the FiF website, or new Directions - and the dominant issue is clear. It is the priesthood of women, and their likely acceptance into the episcopate.
Otherwise, the Church of England has always been a 'mixed bag', and it is over that issue that the conservative catholic wing wish to see schism - nothing else.
 

---

Posted by IanB (# 38) on :
 
Merseymike - I'm not denying that it is the presenting issue before us - by no means. That's not what I meant at all. This deserves a longer post which I will try to put together. Meanwhile I would just reiterate that if you think this is the issue and this alone, then the statistics I cited do not bear out your supposition.

Ian
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I would also say that the realm of 'possibility' extends only to the change being made also by the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches.
Why can't Anglicans, being equal and valid with regard to apostolic succession, take the lead ? Do the Orthodox or Roman Catholics consider Anglican opinion before they make a statement which changes their position ? Of course not.

I think that those Anglicans who do not feel that Anglicanism cannot make the first move have a very negative view of their own denomination - as has been indicated in previous posts. Personally, I don't particularly want us to become RC or Orthodox. I think the Anglican tradition has much to offer to the catholic church
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Are those statistics from the Cost-of-Conscience commissioned survey, Ian ? If so, I would regard them with a wheelbarrow or two of salt.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
I would gently remind you MM that the Orthodox Church has had no ecumenical council after the Great Schism whereas Rome has had many (but not ecumenical in our view) and Protestantism has just done its own thing anyway, (nothing wrong with that according to its own self understanding). We have not done anything over which we would have had to consult. I'm talking about primary issues here of course.
 

---

Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
I hear Christmas in Florence is very pleasant...

But rather than baiting Father Gregory, I do actually have something I wanted to add. If the Anglican Church is valid (and one assumes that those who are members consider it to be such) then why shouldn't it press ahead with changes which might be antagonistic to non-Anglican Churches? Does branch theory allow for different branches having different theologies, or not? If it does, then no problem. If it doesn't...

well, that's the thing. I've never really understood branch theory anyway, given, say, dogmas specific to one branch, such as the dogma of papal infallibility. To what extent can the Catholic Church be a valid branch under the Anglican view if it is promulgating dogmas which are in error?
 

---

Posted by Bagpuss (# 2925) on :
 
I've been really busy of late so come in on this a bit far down the line, but for what it's worth ......

I'm a female Anglo - catholic who is in favour of the ordination of women (and I would be if I was male!)

What really gets my goat is that when women were ordained those clergy who were against it were given the opt out package and there are people I know of who chose to ignore that knowing what the C of E was doing and chose to stay in a church where women were ordained despite being against it.

OK I know the laity didn't have the same choice and many walked but equally many are supportive. Perhaps I'm being a bit naive here but in my diocese the same form goes out to potential ordinands, both male and female - with the little tick box for those who want to be seen by an 'untainted' priest. At the Maundy Thursday renewal of ordination vows there is a separate service for the women haters.

What message does this actually send out? Well we've ordained the women but actually they are second class citizens.

I'm a trainee RE teacher and at the moment we're looking at prejudice and the work of Martin Luther King for short course GCSE. Next week we look at the teachings of the church. I'm looking forward to some really interesting responses to the question of does the modern chuch actually follow its own teachings? I'm throwing this open to the kids and not going to influence them in any way but it should make fascinating stuff.

Sorry aware I'm not too coherent tonight - shattered
 

---

Posted by Amanuensis (# 1555) on :
 
Gunner, I'm sure you will ignore me again but this is tired stuff.

You said in your OP that you wanted to talk about whether your spiritual home is in the C of E (I paraphrase). ISTM that what you actually want to do is re-hash the arguments of 10 years ago.

Respect to your point of view, but you are not saying anything that was not said in the synod debates.
 

---

Posted by Gunner (# 2229) on :
 
I suspect that many FinFers won't join Rome because they can't cope with discipline. In Rome one has to obey and stick to the Roman Rites whereas in Anglo-catholicism one can camp it up as much as you can. In fact one of the selling points in some Anglo-Cath shrines is how camp it can be.

To join Rome would have to be on the basis that one has come to the conculsion that this is where God is leading you to not because the CofE has become unpleasant.
 

---

Posted by SpO-On-n-ng (# 1518) on :
 
On the question of the time taken to discern, no-one is suggesting that women will be consecrated as Bishops in the CofE tomorrow. GRAS points out that even if you start the process now it is going to take several years to complete.

If there was any sign that the ordination of women had made a lot of "don't knows" come down on the side of not ordaining women, then there would be a point to saying that the process of discernment has to continue. But I don't see any evidence of that. Again, unless we believe that there is a real possibility of the CofE now changing its mind and deciding that women's ordinations were invalid, we have to move towards regularising the current position which was specifically declared to be temporary. It will be at least five years from now before all the processes are gone through; I really don't see that 15 years discernment is too short a time before the final decision is taken.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SpO-On-n-ng:
If there was any sign that the ordination of women had made a lot of "don't knows" come down on the side of not ordaining women, then there would be a point to saying that the process of discernment has to continue. But I don't see any evidence of that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
I hear Christmas in Florence is very pleasant...

---

Tell that to Pope Honorius

quote:

---

Does branch theory allow for different branches having different theologies, or not? If it does, then no problem. If it doesn't...

---

quote:

---

well, that's the thing. I've never really understood branch theory anyway, given, say, dogmas specific to one branch, such as the dogma of papal infallibility. To what extent can the Catholic Church be a valid branch under the Anglican view if it is promulgating dogmas which are in error?

---

quote:

---

Article XIX. Of the Church.

THE visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred: so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
Thanks for the explanation of the branch thing, though. How does this idea of everyone being in partial error gel with Jesus' promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
If the Anglican Church is valid (and one assumes that those who are members consider it to be such) then why shouldn't it press ahead with changes which might be antagonistic to non-Anglican Churches?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
The thing that enabled the ordination of women to the priesthood in the CofE was the Synod deciding that it wasn't a theological issue, but one of church government.

---

Could you post a link to this? I really really want to see what arguments in favour of the O of W which are not rooted in "people were silly and dumb and mean in the Old Days but we are sensible and smart and nice now." Most of what I have heard in favour of women's ordination has been that kind of thing and it's really only been people on the Ship who have argued in any other way...

David
on the verge, tentatively and potentially, of accepting women's ordination as valid; this must be a banner week or something
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
If you consider the Church of England to be a valid and SUFFICIENT expression of the Body of Christ in the world, and you trust the Church as empowered by the Holy Ghost, then the Church's decision to ordain women (or whatever) should pose no problem to you, because you believe in the Church's sufficiency and inspiration.

---

quote:

---

If ordaining women strikes you as the same sort of thing as setting people on fire and burning them to death, I'm not sure what else I can say.

---

quote:

---

The analogy is not only faulty in that the difference in degree and implication is ludicrous, it is also a completely different issue.

Burning heretics does not affect the validity of the Sacrament. And ordaining women doesn't murder anybody.

---

Well, that's what I'm asking: what is the distinction? Is it that one is a moral issue and the other is one of ecclesiology? Because if I read you right, then you seemed to be saying, "Whatever the church says, since it has sufficiency, must be right." Which didn't seem to make sense to me.

quote:

---

And even if we WERE talking about judicial murder by torture, it comes down to the same thing. You either trust in the Church or you don't.

---

So... if the church really did start approving of it again, faithful Anglicans would be obligated to agree with it or leave?

quote:

---

When the Synod of the Church of England votes that instead of celebrating Holy Communion we should instead sacrifice pregnant ladies on the altar whilst we sing Moody Blues songs in our underpants, I shall then decide that I have no confidence in the Church as the Body of Christ and leave it.

---

quote:

---

And I wouldn't have to refer to the Church of Rome to make that decision.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
something which several agreed-upon valid churches have, in the past, claimed was right, which they now don't.

---

"agreed-upon valid" by whom?

I am a communicant member of a church I believe to be valid. I don't feel the need to reference other churches that someone else agrees are valid.

If I did, would that not imply that I did not have faith in the sufficiency of my own tradition to decide its own ecclesiological governance?

And if I felt that way, why would I still be a member?

I don't see what these other (valid or not) people, or people in the past have anything to do with it.

I am an Anglican in the 21st century, and the ordination of women has not convinced me that the Church is in error, or had invalidated itself or compromised the efficacy of its rites. End of story.

Some people may well believe that the Church has done those things. I respect their belief (even if I think they misunderstand). What I do not respect is why the compromise their own integrity and mine by remaining in a Communion they believe to be flawed, compromised, or invalid.

And of course I wonder what they were ever in there for in the first place, if they felt that the validity of the Church of England as Christ's Body was so tenuous and fragile.
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
I'm getting confused now.

HT said

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
something which several agreed-upon valid churches have, in the past, claimed was right, which they now don't.
-----------------------
"agreed-upon valid" by whom?

---

My apologies for being unclear. Several churches -- both the RC and the C of E -- have done or approved of things in the past (both sides burned heretics, for example) which all concerned don't approve of now. "Agreed-upon valid" was a ghastly construction and should be struck from the record. What I should have said, and say now, is that the C of E did things we don't believe are right -- the RC has done things which modern RCs do not approve of (but which they do say were not ex cathedra issues, so does the C of E have something similar, i.e., a line above which things are analagous to "ex cathedra" and which other things are not?). (The "agreed-upon validity" thing was meant re those Anglicans, including me, who see the RC as valid as well, but it wasn't necessary for the discussion at all, so I retract it.)

quote:

---

I don't see what these other (valid or not) people, or people in the past have anything to do with it.

---

Apart from Rome -- I don't understand how "people in the past" DON'T have anything to do with it. What I hear you saying, and if I am wrong please tell me so because I'm mis-hearing you, is that the C of E -- because of being valid and sufficient -- can declare doctrinal and ecclesiastical things to be true -- and that to doubt that is to deny its validity/sufficiency -- but that if it did or said anything UNtrue or wrong in the past, then that doesn't matter because it's not what it's doing or saying now. So if it approved of burning heretics in the past, and does not now, -- well, in my view that shows that either (on the grounds that it was wrong to do so in the past) its beliefs are not intrinsically going to be always right, regardless of its validity/sufficiency -- or that matters of doctrine on certain levels, or of certain kinds, are going to be right always, while others are not as absolute -- somewhat like the RC idea of "ex cathedra" as opposed to lower levels of theological discourse. But if it could be wrong in the past on some matter, can it not be wrong now? Does it lose its validity if it makes a mistake?

I do not think that it does -- though my concerns over W.O. and what it might do (if they are not valid priests, not due to doctrinal errors) to Apostolic Succession, are posted on the P.G. thread in D.H.

I rather thought you might say, perhaps, that the approval of the burning of heretics was indeed a grievous error, but that the ordination of women was a different sort of matter -- that the church does and always has been able to determine such things as a matter of ecclesiology, possibly with some helpful web links , while burning 'orrible 'eretics was a moral matter which the church had no power to alter and therefore, while still retaining its validity as a church body, sacraments, etc., terribly incorrect in this matter, and able to change to a better view. (And, correspondingly, while able to ordain women or men or whomever, or free to change the order of the Communion service in various ways, that the church could still be right or wrong in its moral doctrine today.) It sounds to me as if you are saying, "whatever the church, as it is at the moment, says, is right, because it is valid and sufficient," which (if I hear you right) then leads me to ask how far that goes; we have a host of clergy, including bishops, all over the doctrinal landscape right now on many issues (apart from the "hot-button" ones like WO and gay issues; I'm thinking of the Resurrection of Christ, the Virgin Birth, the existence of Hell or lack thereof, etc.). If an act of Synod determined X, Y or Z, does that mean it's intrinsically going to be correct?

I can't help but think I misunderstand you, and my apologies for that but I'm genuinely trying to understand your position.
 

---

Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
If an act of Synod determined X, Y or Z, does that mean it's intrinsically going to be correct

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
If an act of Synod determined X, Y or Z, does that mean it's intrinsically going to be correct

---

The short answer (for me) is yes.

---

quote:

---

Obviously there are some pronouncements that one could imagine that I could not accept. That crisis would either be resolved by my deciding that I was the equal to the Holy Ghost and knew better than the Church, or by my deciding that the Church was bereft of the Holy Ghost and in error and I needed to leave.

---

quote:

---

It seems to me that people who remain in the Chruch of England (or the ECUSA for that matter) and do not like women priests, but still remain, are clearly saying that the Church is correct to ordain women but they personally don't like it. So it's not doctrinal or theolgical or even ecclesiological, or what Rome does or what they did in the past, it's a personal preference.

---

I don't think they're saying that at all; many of them very clearly say that they are in genuine doubt over whether women can or ought to be ordained priests. Remaining in the Church doesn't mean that they agree with everything it does by a long shot. (Does it mean that, for example, before women's ordination, the women who were seeking to be priests were (because they remained within the Anglican churches) therefore in agreement with the denial of their ordination, and suddenly changed their view once the church changed its practice/position?)

I think it may be a matter of a different notion of "what church is" and of what its relationship to the HG is, as I am wondering above.

Why do you not see what the church has done in the past (and in the above case, not only a few centuries back, but a few decades) as relevant to whether it can be in error or not? If the church held a certain position and then reversed it (which has certainly happened in various cases, hasn't it?), would you argue that the Holy Spirit had changed His mind? Or that the church can indeed make mistakes?

David
 

---

Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I think it may be a matter of a different notion of "what church is" and of what its relationship to the HG is, as I am wondering above.

---

quote:

---

------------------------
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I think it may be a matter of a different notion of "what church is" and of what its relationship to the HG is, as I am wondering above.
-----------------------------

No, actually what I am saying is that this is an issue of the individual's relationship to and conception of the Church.

---

quote:

---

As for all those deceptively simple counter-arguments from the "past": the Church changes. End of story.

---

Don't know why "past" is in quotes -- the events in question were definitely in the past, no question. And if they're "deceptively simple," well, they're certainly effective (if false) at deceiving me! Yes, the church does change -- but I thought what was at issue was whether or not its doctrines or practices could be in error. If it says "women are not able to be priests" one day and then says "women are able to be priests" another, the two mutually exclusive positions cannot both be right, can they?

quote:

---

The question remains, do you believe that the Church (in change as in stasis) is led by the Holy Ghost or not?

---

Do you then think it was the Holy Spirit leading the church to burn heretics in the past?

It seems to me that for the Church to be led by the Holy Ghost is not the same thing as for all of its actions, or even all of its doctrines at a given moment, to be controlled by the Holy Ghost.
 

---

Posted by IanB (# 38) on :
 
Apologies for having been away after threatening to post something earlier.

HT - just a query about your line of argument. Are you saying that in some way that deciding to do something as a church makes it right because it is the church doing it? ( and presumably must therefore be inspired?). Different churches seem to have come to opposite conclusions about quite a few things. If the Holy Ghost is indeed the Spirit of Truth, how does your view cope with this?

Ian
 

---

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
ChastMastr wrote,

quote:

---

If we believe in the church's "validity and sufficiency" then it would, if I read you right, mean that it was perfectly right to do so in the past, unless (1) its validity and sufficiency are on-again off-again or (2) these are things of a different kind -- and if so, what kind?

---

quote:

---

there isn't the pressure to secede if you don't have a "high" doctrine of episcopacy or apostolic succession. :

---

quote:

---

Either we believe that the Church has the authority to do this, or we don't

---

quote:

---

8.2.3. The proposal for the consecration of women to the episcopate tends to violate both conditions of 8.2.1. above, for it sanctions what God through his Scriptures has forbidden, the exercise of decisive control of the teaching function by women in the context of a local congregation of believers which includes adult males. It is then female episcopacy which manifests not redeemed and recreated humanity, but fallen humanity. It is thus female episcopacy which denies the re-creative work of the Gospel.

8.2.4. The proposal is doubly serious for a primary concern in the episcopal office is the preservation of true teaching and obedience to it, whereas a female bishop will be a visible symbol of a church's disobedience.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gunner:
While I am pro-women ordination I did feel the haste to which we have gone about this without the full mind of the catholic church is problematic. Can one still be a catholic in the CofE without necessarily joining FinF?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
It is more likely that an Arian bishop could become Orthodox in his teaching than a woman priest be stripped of her ordination should the Church (however defined) subsequently reject her ministry.

---

quote:

---

Is the only way to remian catholic and Anglican to be party to a 3rd Province?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gunner:
The Church of England and the Anglican Communion has no authority what so ever on the matters of doctrine. If we claim to be catholic christians then we surely must submit to the teaching of the faith which the vast majority of catholics believe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gunner:
To do our own thing makes Anglicans protestant and if we are we should abandon any pretence to be catholic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH:
Very well put texas veggie. I agree with Gunner that however catholic we may feel as Anglicans, our freedom of thought puts us in the protestant camp of world churches.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gunner:
I really do believe that Anglicans have No authority to change matters of doctrine. What are you saying that if the Church of England decides that her catechism should say that we believe in the non-literal resurrection, the non-virginal conception, that one God who is neither Father, son or spirit then we have the authority to do so?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
This thread has made fascinating reading. I wish to help clarify the evangelical position on women in the episcopate

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Of course the decisive moment in the move to ordain women in England was the Synod accepting that it wasn't a matter of theology but of order.

More akin to deciding what vestments to wear, or how many parishes there should be in a deanery, than to attempting to redefine the holy and undivided Trinity.

The die was cast at that point, and the process will continue until we have women bishops.

There are, in a very real sense, no arguable grounds against it any more. I mean arguable within the framework of the CofE as it now exists.

---

quote:

---

The haste to elevate women to the episcopate seems to have more to do with political correctness rather than any desire to look for truth. Seeking truth may take time and we should do this together not alone. One fear I have is that the motivation to elevate women to the episcopacy is to make the talks between Anglicans and Methodists that much more easier for Methodists to accept.

---

quote:

---

I have been blamed for defering to RC on mater of authority. If thats what it sounds like then tough. We can't ignore a church which is universal, has all the sacraments and valid orders and 2000 years of exploration and mature theological reflection. Anglican should be in partnership with RC and OC not trying to pull in the opposite direction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gunner:
One fear I have is that the motivation to elevate women to the episcopacy is to make the talks between Anglicans and Methodists that much more easier for Methodists to accept.

---

quote:

---

We can't ignore a church which is universal, has all the sacraments and valid orders and 2000 years of exploration and mature theological reflection. Anglican should be in partnership with RC and OC not trying to pull in the opposite direction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
But, Gunner, if we are simply followers, 'junior' to Rome and the Orthodox churches, then why be Anglican at all. Why not simply rejoin Rome ?

---

quote:

---

specifically, if (as JP-II et al. claim) the priest needs to be male to represent the Christ-figure of the Eucharist, that means that Christ's masculinity was far more important to the Incarnation than his humanity per se. Consequently, that casts into grave doubt Christ's basic ability to offer salvation to women in the first place. Because Christ's humanity is paradigmatic humanity, then in effect an over-emphasis on his masculinity therefore transforms humans into two species, with women getting the short end of the soteriological stick (as 't were).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
When the Church of Rome goes its own way--establishing the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary as dogma, for instance, it also does injury to the possibility of unity within the Church. And do you think that gives Rome pause for even half a minute if she believes herself to be right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by texas.veggie:
I further submit that the ordination of women fundamentally concerns Incarnational theology and Soteriology: specifically, if (as JP-II et al. claim) the priest needs to be male to represent the Christ-figure of the Eucharist, that means that Christ's masculinity was far more important to the Incarnation than his humanity per se. etc etc.... {with apologies for truncating this! Ansel.}

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
When the Church of Rome goes its own way--establishing the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary as dogma, for instance, it also does injury to the possibility of unity within the Church. And do you think that gives Rome pause for even half a minute if she believes herself to be right?

---

quote:

---

If we claim to be catholic christians then we surely must submit to the teaching of the faith which the vast majority of catholics believe.

---

quote:

---

The idea that there can be no legitimate teaching ministry (for women)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

Of course human leadership in the Church is ultimately male. It resides in Jesus Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Of course human leadership in the Church is ultimately male. It resides in Jesus Christ.

---

human leadership in the Church is ultimately human. that's the real point.

Male? Female? Whatever. He had to be one or another. 50-50 shot, I'd have thought.
 

---

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
And by the same token the Church's leadership (not quite sure why you distinguish 'human' leadership) is ultimately Jewish, since Jesus Christ is a Jew.
We know very little of Our Lord's distinguishing features (his particularities, if you want to be particular). And yet I suppose we would all find them of incredible importance if we did. I believe it was Augustine who believed that we would rise in his likeness--all of us 33 years old, all of us bearded. Few persons believe this today. The question is, to what degree ought those ordained by the church to ministerial priesthood to resemble Jesus? Is it enough for them to be human? Should they be fully male (no monorchidism here, mate!)? What if they're missing a finger? Does this still make ordination impossible for a Roman Catholic, or have the rules been changed? Of course Gentiles get ordained--the apostolic succession would have ended centuries ago otherwise. And the clergy, unlike Our Lord, are not without sin.
 

---

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
Cross-posted with you there, Texas Veggie. Agree about the humanity. There are some horridly funny medieval fablieaux in which the Christian clerk seduces the Jewish girl and persuades her that he is an angel and that she is going to bear the Messiah. She then persuades her parents of the same, and everything is fine until the baby is born AND IT'S A GIRL
 

---

Posted by Neil Robbie (# 652) on :
 
Ken, are you suggesting that having the authority to appoint priests or revoke licences, select or refuse ordinands, grant or suspend livings is the same as preaching?

Neil
 

---

Posted by Neil Robbie (# 652) on :
 
I'm sorry for the double post.

Gunner, you view the consecration of women into the episcopate as something which goes against the authority of Rome, which, given the Anglican church's roots in the Reformation, its subsequent doctrinal drift to the present reality of a broad church and Article XIX "the Church of Rome hath erred...in matters of faith" (and hath not repented) this seems a difficult position to hold.

You also said that

quote:

---

I really do believe that Anglicans have No authority to change matters of doctrine.

---

quote:

---

The Church has...authority in Controversies of Faith; And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another

---

• mankind by his fallen nature can not trust himself on matters of doctrine
• elevating the church's authority over Scripture places fallen man above God's self-disclosure
• Fallen mankind will be inconsistent in time and place on matters of doctrine according to cultural and philosophical trends of that time and place

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
When the Church of Rome goes its own way--establishing the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary as dogma, for instance, it also does injury to the possibility of unity within the Church. And do you think that gives Rome pause for even half a minute if she believes herself to be right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
When the Church of Rome goes its own way--establishing the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary as dogma, for instance, it also does injury to the possibility of unity within the Church. And do you think that gives Rome pause for even half a minute if she believes herself to be right?

---

Well, yes, it does -- at least these days. Recently a lot of highly placed folks have been agitating for Mary to be proclaimed "co-redemptrix" (the theology is not quite so screwy as it sounds, once your look into how the term is explained, but that's not my point here). However it doesn't look like it's going to happen any time soon, and the big hold up in Rome is over how this would affect ecumenical relations: mainly with the Orthodox, but also with protestants. So, yes, at least these days, Rome does care what other churches think.

FCB

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
Ken, are you suggesting that having the authority to appoint priests or revoke licences, select or refuse ordinands, grant or suspend livings is the same as preaching?

---

Of course not. They are different ministries to which members of the church are appointed. So?
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
It just occured to me, while looking at another thead here, that the rules say that all Church of England bishops must be appointed by the Queen (or King)

By law, the King or Queen of England has to be a member of the Church of Scotland. They swear an oath to that efect at their coronation. When in Scotland they are just an ordinary parishioner at their local church - and our present Queen does, as far as I know, attend her local Kirk & take communion.

So the Church of England is really Presbyterian, as its "head" submits to Presbyters of another church
 

---

Posted by anglicanrascal (# 3412) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
So the Church of England is really Presbyterian, as its "head" submits to Presbyters of another church

---

HEAD??? We have one head, Christ. (We also appear to have a Supreme Governor, but that is QUITE a different matter )
 

---

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
I hope the anglicans don't mind a RC interloper barging in on the discussion.

Amos, though I'd consider myself a "post-liberal" Catholic (though not a reactionary), I'm not too keen on the promulgation of Mary's staus as co-redemptrix as dogma. For one thing, it has nowhere near the witness in the tradition or the base of popular piety that the Immaculate Conception did.

And, yes, obviously Rome thinks it has the authority to promulgate new teachings that demand assent from the faithful. But couldn't an Anglican think that Anglican's have such authority, and still think that they ought not to use it because of the harm it would do to Christian unity? (And then a lot would depend on which group of Christians you care about unity with.)

Of course, what odd in this is that many liberal and many conservative Anglicans would seem to agree that the Anglican church has no dogmatic authority. It's just that conservatives (of the anglo-catholic variety) think that the Church as a whole does possess this authority, and liberals think that nobody does. . . indeed, that dogma is a bad idea.

FCB
 

---

Posted by day_thomas (# 3630) on :
 
Amos said

quote:

---

And yet I still say, when Rome believes herself to be right, she does not hesitate for a moment at the thought that the Anglicans and the Orthodox might disagree.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
So the Church of England is really Presbyterian, as its "head" submits to Presbyters of another church

---

HEAD??? We have one head, Christ. (We also appear to have a Supreme Governor, but that is QUITE a different matter )

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:
Of course, what odd in this is that many liberal and many conservative Anglicans would seem to agree that the Anglican church has no dogmatic authority. It's just that conservatives (of the anglo-catholic variety) think that the Church as a whole does possess this authority, and liberals think that nobody does...

---

... and the evangelicals think that God does
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
no, Ken, the evangelicals think that the Bible does!
 

---

Posted by Neil Robbie (# 652) on :
 
And as the Bible is God's Word written (Article XX) to despise God's word is equivalent to despising God.

Is it possible to respect someone, to obey them, to revere them, to love them but to disrespect their words, to disobey their words, to dishonour and to hate their words? No, because our words are the product of our character and so God's word reveals his character.

God has authority and, therefore, his word is authoritative.

Sorry, that was tangential.

Ken, so...you said

quote:

---

They aren't like officers in an army or managers in a corporation. They aren't our bosses.

---

quote:

---

But the Bible isn't'God's word '

---

quote:

---

"Whoever has seen me has seen the Father"

---

quote:

---

“These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”

---

quote:

---

“Heaven and earth will pass away but my words will not pass away”

---

quote:

---

it was written by men in the first century and before. It may well have been inspired by God

---

quote:

---

We just don't worship it, thats all

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward Green:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

Of course human leadership in the Church is ultimately male. It resides in Jesus Christ.

---

Are you suggesting that Jesus is still Male?

---

Eight days after his birth Jesus proved just how male he was (ouch!). Then St Paul goes and messes us all up with Galatians 3:28 telling us that in Christ there is neither male nor female! Confused or what?
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
No, Neil, self-authentication is not adequate, and inspiration is being inspired by onne's faith to write - you have summised the rest because it fiots with your preconceived, self-authenticating view of the Bible.

You don't need the Bible to worship God. And God has revealed Himself through the everyday lives of people, and has continued to do so for the past 2000 years - the world did not stop in the first century.
If the Church does not learn from knowledge and experience, then it deserves to be regarded as nothing but an irrelevant relic
 

---

Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
Sadly the views espoused by Neil Robbie are not very original. I believe they belong to a 19th heresey known as fideism. He says

quote:

---

God has chosen to reveal himself only through the incarnate Christ and the written record of Christ. As he has chosen to do this then there is no other way to know God ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
the bible has self-authenticating authority over fallen humans.

---

quote:

---

What I am saying many may disagree with but this has been the teaching of the church for almost 2000 years. It is now up to the modernisers to convince tradtionalist that this is the will of God and is acceptable by the whole church not just a few members of a divided communion.

---

quote:

---

surely it's safer and truer to suggest that the Holy Spirit authenticates the scripture

---

quote:

---

2 Peter 1:19 And we have the the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star (ie Jesus) rises in your hearts.

---

quote:

---

2 cor 4:6. For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
This is turning into a rather perfunctory liberal vs conservative discussion on biblical interpretation, which I am sure may be confined to the home of expired equines

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
Ken, so...you said

quote:

---

They aren't like officers in an army or managers in a corporation. They aren't our bosses.

---

My response regarding the role of a bishop as 'manager' of ordinands, 'boss' (hirer and firer) of priests, 'leader' of a diocese

---

But (sticking to subject of the original post) in the Church of England as at present established bishops are not the hirers and firers of priests, nor are they in any real sense the leaders of their dioceses.

The appointment of parish priests is mostly in lay hands, requiring the agreement and co-operation of the patrons (mostly church charities these days, sometimes bishops, more rarely secular corporations, and still on occasion individuals) of the PCC (or churchwardens in some cases), and of the bishop. Any one of those three has an effective veto.

(Of courser you could say - quite accurately - that in this case the churchwardens and lay patrons are excercising a minstry of eldership & so are in a New Testament sense presbyters, and I'd agree with you, but that still doesn't make them bishops )

Bishops of course are subject to lay appointment, in the person of the Prime Minister, and when we get rid of that Erastian stain on the Church of England I hope and pray that the appointment of bishops will still be largely or partly in lay hands.

quote:

---

This is where the CofE's prospective consecration of female bishops denies the re-creative work of the gospel.

---

And that is where (straying off the topic ) I disagree with you. To be honest I find this approach so infected with Gnosticism that it is hardly Christian at all, let alone evangelical. It gets very near attributing gender to God. But that is another dead horse.
 

---

Posted by Gunner (# 2229) on :
 
Does the Scripture used so often to prop up the aegument in favour of womens ordination that "There is enither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male or female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" Gal 3.28 really stand up to scrutiny? Was Paul talking about women being priests at all? I don't know, I'm not sure.

Of course both male and female have been redeemed and saved by the life and work of Christ. Both are equal in the sight of God. But was Paul here in Gal about Baptism and salvation, not Ordination?

In Scripture we see God incarnate only chose men to be his apostles. Do we know why God wouldn't go the extra mile and select women to be among his apostles? Jesus was God and he could and did turn the tables upside down - why not on this issue? Why was he so quiet? Was it because women have a dignity and honour which is only theirs in ministry and that SOME men where chosen to follow a different path?

I don't know for sure not being a scholar. But we have had 2000 years of witness and tradition. The Church of England has in this brave/mad experient, potentially put back the cause for Christian unity decades. We in the church of England have to remeber we are still in a period of reception 'discernment' whatever you want to call it. Surely less than 10 years of women priest is hardly enough time to race blindly on to women bishops. Doing what you think is right in haste can lead to many dangers. It may be that in the fullness of time that RC comes to accept women's ordination to the priesthood. I would suggest that until that happens we shouldn't go further on this troublesome and divisive matter.
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Of course the decisive moment in the move to ordain women in England was the Synod accepting that it wasn't a matter of theology but of order.

---

It was finding this out recently which (as readers of "Priestly Genitalia" in Dead Horses have seen) permitted me to accept female priests (and bishops). It's a wholly different argument than the (unconvincing) ones I had been familiar with, and I'd even come up with something similar but didn't know anyone had actually argued for it, much less the C of E, till a good conversation with a friend of mine.
 

---

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
JFTR, following on from Gunner's post above, my little reference to the Galatians scripture was simply to highlight that Jesus, the man was obviously a bloke, whereas according to St Paul's interpretation of the Christ, the efficacy of the ministry of the Holy Spirit (arguably genderless, tedious though that would be to argue) was not gender-related.

Is it on this thread or another? I've already suggested that the work that is mediated by priests - as indeed work mediated by any member of the church - including celebration of communion, exercise of authority etc, are all functions of Holy Spirit ministry; if you like, or as St Paul might debateably describe it 'in Christ' ministry. IMHO this removes our rather sad, but understandably human need to obsess over reproductive mechanics, and concentrate on the building of the kingdom, through the work of Christ's Spirit regardless of the externals.

It's all been said a million times. Either we are convinced or not. Though speaking as someone whose mind was gradually, almost imperceptibly changed through the course of the early 90's, neither stance need be petrifyingly static!
 

---

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
Gunner --

The C of E has been ordaining women for only 10 years, fine.

But Anglican churches in Canada, the US, New Zealand, Australia, at a minimum, have been doing so for over 25 years. Now unless you believe that those churches are not real, please, please stop limiting your vision of Anglicanism to what happens in England and Rome.

I work on the, possibly naive, assumption that the C of E and the Anglican Church of Canada (for example) are sisters, with rather more in common than they have with other churches (for example the Swedish Lutherans or Rome). Sisters listen to each other, and consider each other before they worry about those with whom they are more remotely connected. And, as for Rome, you may consider her the mother of us all, but that is an image of limited historical but no theological merit.

My reaction to your comments is that you seem to consider the C of E as an entity unto itself, and focus on Rome to the exclusion of the other churches of the Anglican communion. From my perspective, that suggests a very narrow and (if you will forgive me) warped focus on Anglican practice and belief.

John Holding
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
And continuing John Holding's metaphor, for those of us in the CofE our nearest sisters, after the other members of the Anglican Communion, are of course the Methodists here in England, then maybe the Scottish Kirk and perhaps other Reformed national churches, then the Scandinavian & German Lutherans - who of course we are (mostly) technically in communion with.

Among that sisterhood of churches there is pretty much agreement about the ordination of women. The CofE has been one of the slowest to recognise it.

We have been dragging our heels...
 

---

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
My old systematics prof (RC) used to remind us that Jesus did not ordain *any* priests. And then he would say, with a twinkle in his eye, "Do you think that Jesus intended the Pope? Do you really think so?"

On the other hand, last month's edition of the Parish Magazine of the Church of St. Augustine of Hippo (Victorian Anglo-Catholic shrine in Birmingham) contained a nice little prayer by St. Augustine in which the Blessed Virgin is praised as, not merely the mother of our Lord, but the first of His disciples.
 

---

Posted by Gunner (# 2229) on :
 
Other Anglican churches arcoss the world may have ordained women for 20-30 years. But and it is a big but this is a very breif period of time to make such conclusive judgements. Jusgements which could endanger reuinion with our Roman brothers and sisters. The question we have to ask ourselves is whether we have the authority to do that. I am unsure.
 

---

Posted by Neil Robbie (# 652) on :
 
John, you said

quote:

---

But Anglican churches in Canada, the US, New Zealand, Australia, at a minimum, have been doing so for over 25 years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
John, you said

quote:

---

But Anglican churches in Canada, the US, New Zealand, Australia, at a minimum, have been doing so for over 25 years.

---

And the Diocese of Singapore, Malaysia, Nigeria, Rwanda, and many more who have never ordained women? What thought was given to the effect North American unilateral action would have on them and the communion as a whole?

---

quote:

---

What voice will the fast growing parts of the Anglican communion, the 2/3rds world church, have in the debate regarding the consecration of women bishops?

---

quote:

---

How will moving from parochial female ministry to provincial female ministry affect the unity of the communion let alone ecumenical relationships?

---

quote:

---

This needs serious thought before further damaging unilateral action, unless the pro-women lobby intends dismantling the communion and, if it does, it ought to be open and honest about it.
Neil

---

Please explain to me what the 'pro-women lobby' is? When that has been clarified, then by Neil's own defintion we shall know who the anti-women people are (not that that isn't already becoming apparent .....
 

---

Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gunner:
But was Paul here in Gal about Baptism and salvation, not Ordination?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gunner:

In Scripture we see God incarnate only chose men to be his apostles. Do we know why God wouldn't go the extra mile and select women to be among his apostles?

---

No more than we know why God wouldn't go the extra mile to select any black gentiles -- though undoubtedly there were a few within reach of Israel at the time.

Shhh, though ... let's don't let Desmond Tutu know that, by your logic, his ordination is on dodgy grounds!
 

---

Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on :
 
<broken record mode>

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gunner:
The question we have to ask ourselves is whether we have the authority to do that.

---

quote:

---

the sooner we can detach ourselves from what are pre-modern sects, the better

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
Is the marginalisation of Christianity in western society a symptom of a modern culture or of a church which sold out to modernism?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by texas.veggie:
Acutally, I'd go so far as to say that it wasn't even possible to hold fundamentalist tennets before modernism came along.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gunner:
How is God the Holy Spirit telling one small part of the Church to be divise and ordain women and homosexuals and the other part of the church, the vast majority not? Can a house divided apart stand?

---

quote:

---

As for ignoring the largest growing part of the Anglican communion well that is arrogance. It is arrogant to assume that we in the West have such superiority over those other Anglicans who have held to the traditional faith, practice and teaching of the faith are some how wrong. It is the West who have the fastest declining church numbers not the otherway round. Why should the Western Anglican tail shake the whole of the dog? It just won't do.

---

quote:

---

Why don't the modernisers come clean and tell us that they want faith on their terms, with its pick and mix attitude and lax sexual ethics. Why don't they say that they have sold out to humaism and feminism and every ism they can think of. These folk want to be balnd not the salt of the earth which is distinct and unpopular with the world. They want to sleep with the world, bask in its comfort and hope that they won't look irrelevent in this post-secular, post-modern world. But when we do something like this we merely sell out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gunner:
How is God the Holy Spirit telling one small part of the Church to be divise and ordain women and homosexuals and the other part of the church, the vast majority not? Can a house divided apart stand?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
resurrects premodern notions as a reaction to modernity, as does fundamentalism, it only has itself to blame.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
I think it is largely a pointless network whose fundamentalist membership has little in common with the approach taken by Anglicans in the West. I see little reason for it to stay together...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
the sooner we can detatch ourselves from what are pre-modern sects, the better.

---

What's wrong with pre-modern? Is God "modern"? If you think "modern" or "post-modern" is in any way privilieged over "pre-modern" ("non-modern"? "a-modern"?) you are stuck in a little village of your own language, culture and time. Almost by accident you happen to be right about the ordination of women though
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
Why should the church seek to modernise (i.e. conform to the patterns of this world and reject scripture and tradition) when a) no one outside the church cares b) modernism has failed and post-modernism is failing?

---

quote:

---

I apologise for my unfortunate use of the word 'lobby'. It was a careless way of grouping North American, British and Kiwi liberals who wish to move the rest of the communion (strong anglo-catholics, conservative evangelicals and 2/3rds world church) into something which goes against their convictions. To neglect the convictions of other members of the communion, and to act unilaterally is tyranny.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by texas.veggie:
[QUOTE]Why would all but one of the sacraments be open to both genders?

---

Ummm... as far as I know of in the Anglican Communion, both sacraments - Holy Baptism and the Lord's Supper - are open to both men and women.
 

---

Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:

quote:

---

Originally posted by texas.veggie:
[QUOTE]Why would all but one of the sacraments be open to both genders?

---

Ummm... as far as I know of in the Anglican Communion, both sacraments - Holy Baptism and the Lord's Supper - are open to both men and women.

---

quote:

---

8.1.4. To this extent the effect in terms of churchmanship will be to eliminate progressively strong anglo-catholics and conservative evangelicals from various areas. This effect is not difficult to predict. It is perhaps true that some do not foresee this result, but such people should be acutely aware that this is the perceived likely result by those constituencies mentioned. Some in them feel that they are facing not just marginalisation, but elimination, albeit over a period. Faced with that, some will perhaps simply leave, as happened in 1992. Others perhaps will feel that they cannot faithfully accept female oversight, and will accordingly look for male oversight from bishops in the Communion who feel able, or even obliged, to provide it.

8.1.5. Naturally, the progressive elimination of strong anglo-catholicism and conservative evangelicalism might actually appear to be an incentive in some minds. If so, that agenda needs to be honestly and openly stated, and the church must weigh quite how pluriform it is prepared to be.

8.1.6. If, on the other hand, such elimination is not an intentional result of the present proposal, then the majority needs to give extremely careful thought as to how it can dispel the suspicions that currently exist. The Act of Synod at least points the way here. Suspicions might be dispelled by a process of differential oversight, which is not designed to phase out, although even here there would need to be an ability not just to ordain and discipline, but also to consider and adopt ordinands for training, as would happen with a geographically defined bishop.

8.1.7. The objection to the foregoing is that this would represent a significant rupture in Anglican church polity. The answer is that the current proposal will produce this in any event. The question facing us is what kind of rupture is least damaging. This at least has the merit of maintaining episcopal oversight within the overall frameworks of the Provinces of Canterbury and York, rather than the oddity of an Anglican Missionary Province to Britain.

---

quote:

---

Bollocks, Mike. Being Anglican has never been about accepting the authority of bishops.

---

quote:

---

No chance, Neil.I'm looking for the Act of Synod to be abolished, not extended to allow conservative evangelicals to pretend they are still in the Church of England when they don't accept the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury. They have a choice : accept that decision, or leave.

---

quote:

---

Bollocks, Mike. Being Anglican has never been about accepting the authority of bishops.

---

quote:

---

bishops that united the church, rather than the Holy Spirit

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Bollocks, Mike. Being Anglican has never been about accepting the authority of bishops.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
No chance, Neil.I'm looking for the Act of Synod to be abolished....

---

quote:

---

They have a choice : accept that decision, or leave.

---

quote:

---

I am not too sure whether we do ordain women because it is right. I suspect that we ordain women because of the sell-out to a secular wold view.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gunner:
Yes I agree that plenty Reformed Churches in the 2/3 world have women ministers. However, with all due repect to my Baptist and Reformed brothers and sisters they would admit that they are NOT ordaining men or women to the priesthood. Their notion of ministry is differnt to that of the catholic church and they wouldn't want to be consiered priests.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Professor Yaffle:
In my darker moments I wonder if opposition to the ordination of women is based soley upon misogyny or hidebound conservatism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
If we don't have apostolic suceesion, then we are not part of the one catholic church - are we?

---

As we are part of the one catholic church, then if we don't have apostolic succession, obviously apostolic succession is not neccessary to be part of the catholic church.

Silly question - if a group of catholic Christians who had no bishop among them found themselves isolated on a desert island, cut off from their home church, were to appoint one of their number to be a bishop, would they thereby cease to be catholic Christians?

You seem to imply that they would cease to be Christians. I know that back in the 19th century Newman and Manning would have said that, which is the reason they gave for going to Rome.

I know that a lot earlier Hooker would not have said that, he would have agreed that they had the right to appoint priests and bishops from amongst themselves.

(Hey - a totally on-topic post on the 4th page of a thread! Wow! )
 

---

Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
If we don't have apostolic suceesion, then we are not part of the one catholic church - are we?

---

As we are part of the one catholic church, then if we don't have apostolic succession, obviously apostolic succession is not neccessary to be part of the catholic church.

Silly question - if a group of catholic Christians who had no bishop among them found themselves isolated on a desert island, cut off from their home church, were to appoint one of their number to be a bishop, would they thereby cease to be catholic Christians?

---

quote:

---

a sort of anti-Christian demon-possessed Manicheism or Catharism that lives on in the church of Rome

---

quote:

---

What would catholic Christians have to do to cease to be catholic? As long as they keep calling themselves such, is that not enough?

---

quote:

---

how can Rowan claim to be a catholic and an archbishop if he is promoting beliefs which are opposed to scripture, tradition and reason.

---

quote:

---

This seems to actually translate as 'promoting views which Gunner doesn't like'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
John, the debate was centred on modernism versus the rest of the world and the Rt Rev Hall was expatriate modern Brit not the rest of the world.

---

quote:

---

SO, on what basis would you say the ordination and consecration of women being postulated? Ability and equality? Everyone acknowledges that there are many women who are naturally gifted and able in leadership and are therefore well suited as ministers, vicars, priests, bishops etc. Recent statistics on American start-up businesses support this fact.

But the wider question for the church must surely be; is the fact that women are able to lead a good reason for them to lead?

Rather than argue it from a traditional or biblical basis, which restricts the debate to an ugly moralism, we should ask wider sociological questions.

---

quote:

---

What is happening in the post-feminist west concerning male-female relationships? Are male-female relationships functional? Has the post-feminist divorce rate got anything to do with female ascendancy in the work place?

---

quote:

---

Has the one female parent family with serial boyfriends got anything to do with female bread-winning?

---

quote:

---

Closer to home, in the church. Is the single Christian women's complaint of the Bridget Jones syndrome (the inability of thirty-something women to find a strong, loving, caring man, as most modern men are spineless, weak-kneed, limp-wristed wets) got anything to do with men not taking responsibility?

---

quote:

---

Sorry...in conclusion, do women in church leadership reinforce the cultural male-female dysfunctionality or provide an alternative model of God's ordained functionality, love, respect and order?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gunner:
...While I am pro-women ordination I did feel the haste to which we have gone about this without the full mind of the catholic church is problematic....

---

I started to write this, and tossed it as unhelpful. I read the rest of the first page of the thread and decided I had to jump right in.
I'm posting from Canada. It's been over 25 years since the Anglican Church of Canada started ordaining women, and sixty since the ordination of the first woman in the Anglican communion.
Religious Tolerance page on history of ordaining women

shows it's been 150 years for the Protestants.

You know, that's a long time, in human terms. What exactly did you mean by haste?

For five years, the Anglican Church of Canada has had bishops who happen to be women.

Why not just get over it, and tell the Flying whatevers to take a flying leap, right back into the witch-burning Middle Ages.

Recently in Canada, we celebrated the seventieth anniversary of the "Persons Case", a legal challenge where the Law Lords of the House of Lords ruled that women were persons in the eyes of the law.

We have to make two things very distinct:

• The Church, The Mystical Body of Christ and
• The Church, a legal and temporal entity created and administered by human beings

quote:

---

Originally posted by texas.veggie:
I further submit that the ordination of women fundamentally concerns Incarnational theology and Soteriology: specifically, if (as JP-II et al. claim) the priest needs to be male to represent the Christ-figure of the Eucharist, that means that Christ's masculinity was far more important to the Incarnation than his humanity per se.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
...And liberals deny its authority, but they do so only by elevating themselves to a position of critique above the bible, and use fallen human faculty to deny its authority.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Professor Yaffle:
In my darker moments I wonder if opposition to the ordination of women is based soley upon misogyny or hidebound conservatism.

---

You are obviously a very nice person. I tend to think that quite a lot of the time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
...

[QUOTE]
Sorry...in conclusion, do women in church leadership reinforce the cultural male-female dysfunctionality or provide an alternative model of God's ordained functionality, love, respect and order?

---

Both, of course. Just exactly the same as men in church leadership.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gunner:
on the issue of women's ordination, I think it is therefore incumbent upon such folk to convince the vast majority of catholic christendom that this move is from God and not merely a concession to humanism, feminism and other ideological gods of our age.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gunner:
Given that ++ Rowan has made his private opinions public surely these will ineveitably become policy? If that is the case, how can Rowan claim to be a catholic and an archbishop if he is promoting beliefs which are opposed to scripture, tradtion and reason. Isn't he furthering the breakup of the Anglican Communion?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gunner:
just wanted to remind you of what Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury said of the Church of England " the Church of England has no creeds of it's own, only those of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, undivided between East and West." Need I stress the point further?

---

quote:

---

Would you agree that much of the rift in the church could be mended when we let Jesus' speak for himself in his word, rather than finding ways of neglecting him, twisting his words and imposing our own agenda on them? Or would you like to propose an alternative authority to that of the Lord Jesus?

---

I think you already have, Neil.

Its called Bibliolatry
 

---

Posted by SpO-On-n-ng (# 1518) on :
 
clip-clop, clip-clop, clip-clop
 

---

Posted by Neil Robbie (# 652) on :
 
Merseymike and Spong

I'm sorry if my questions about Jesus' attitude to scripture offend you. I do not wish this discussion to break down into a liberal-evangelical slagging match, which it is danger of becoming. I do wish to point out that I am offended by the persistent reference to Bibliolatry on this thread, I've said it before "I do not worship the bible".

As an Anglican evangelical, I believe that the answer to the issue of women in the episcopate is to be found in scripture, but that is not to say this is not a complex issue nor that we already know all the answers. What I am also offended about is the reluctance of some to take the biblical debate seriously by simply writing the bible off because it doesn't suit one's theological position. This is exactly the sort of liberal tyranny which I tried emphasise earlier in the thread, that if the CofE is truly pluriform, we need to listen to and accommodate all theological positions within the church. By simply ignoring the likes of Gunner and me, and pressing on with their own agenda, liberals are exercising intolerance and narrowness in the extreme.

Regarding your accusation of bibliolatry, I take that as a smoke-screen, a convenient excuse not to engage with the serious questions I asked about the nature of Hebrew scripture and Christ's attitude and relationship to them.

Evangelicals acknowledge that the bible witnesses to the reality of the triune God. This presupposition is a circular argument, that the triune God has written the words of scripture because the words of scripture tell us that it is so. But, what other way is there to know God's character, the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit? I am genuinely interested to know what presupposition do you work from?

If you establish some presupposition that the bible is not the word of God, even though it says it is, then how can you be sure of knowing the true Jesus? Rather than continuing to squabble over things, I would love to know your understanding of the person of Christ, please don't reply to this post with criticism of my theology but let me know how you know Jesus.

Neil
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Through worship, through the Sacraments. through everyday life experiences, through the work of the Holy Spirit, through reason and consideration, through the insights of modernity, science and progress, through the work of liberal theologians helping me to make sense of things, through the eyes of the Church Fathers and the Saints of History, through my own past and history.
And through the Bible too. But all of those things make me feel that the conservative interpretation is very limiting. It is through those eyes that the Bible can live for today.

One thing though. Lets just say that all Bibles were pulped tomorrow. Would Christianity still exist ? Would the personhood of Jesus exist without the four books which were written directly about His life ? Of course!
 

---

Posted by Neil Robbie (# 652) on :
 
Thanks Merseymike, now tell me more.

Taking all the sources of knoweledge of Jesus which you listed, tell me about the character of Christ as you know him.

Not only am I genuinely interersted in the way the character of Christ has developed for you, but I think this may lead us to us understanding each other regarding the issue of this thread. I do not think that our (Catholic, Liberal or Evangelical)understanding of the natures and person of Christ can be seperated from the role of women in the episcopate. We'll see as this goes on...

Neil
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Jesus is Love. I can't really say very much more profound than that - I see Jesus as a way which we can start to glimpse the greatness and glory of God, by His example and message
 

---

Posted by Gunner (# 2229) on :
 
Neil,
I have to agree with you on this one. Being an Anglican and Catholic it can appear that when one holds up Tradition and Scripture up in any argumen these are often knocked down or merely disregarded for some sense of perverse reasoning.

It is often a pity that Scripture, Tradtion and Reason aren't used as tools in equal measure to discern the will of God. At the end of the day we have to have the humility to say we may have it wrong, no matter which position we take.
 

---

Posted by Neil Robbie (# 652) on :
 
Merseymike,

Yup, then we're in agreement...Jesus is love.

Do you think there is any merit in a new thread..."Jesus is..." or "Would the real Jesus please stand up?" or something along these lines. We can come back to the divisive stuff later, once Jesus has united us all.

Neil
 

---

Posted by mrgrumble_au (# 3611) on :
 
Atlast!
Something we can all agree on!
Jesus is love!

(Thinks 'but what is love?')

Oh well!


 

---

Posted by Gunner (# 2229) on :
 
Yes Jesus is love and more much more!

If ACs and Evangelicals press for a 3rd Province and get it, how will they work together? Will this have become in effect the Broad Church of England?
 

---

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
Further on the Geoffrey Fisher quote -- can I note that it only applies in England, it appears. It certainly does not apply anywhere else in the Anglican communion.

But then, I have already on this thread pointed out how inappropriate but typically English it is to look only at England (and Rome) for a definition of Anglicanism.

John Holding
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
In reply to Gunner : no, it would be a very argumentative body indeed, given that Reform and Forward in Faith actually agree on very little except dislike of the more liberal incarnations of their respective 'wings' of the Church, and dislike of women's ministry.
 

---

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gunner:
Yes Jesus is love and more much more!

If ACs and Evangelicals press for a 3rd Province and get it, how will they work together? Will this have become in effect the Broad Church of England?

---

Only if they have enough respect, humility and Christlikeness to welcome, embrace and include their liberal brothers and sisters in Christ...
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
I think we are at cross purposes about the NSD.

Fisher - as quoted here, I have no idea what else he might have said on the matter - was talking about credal doctrine.

And that is true - the Anglican churches (including but not limited to the Church of England ) have never introduced any new creeds, any Christological definitions or new statements of belief that all members are required to assent to. There's no new or specifically Anglican theory of the atonement, or doctrine of the Trinity.

Of course the Anglicans must have some distinctive doctrines on other matters, at any rate on eccesiology, because otherwise, (at least outside England), they'd all be Lutherans or Roman Catholics or Presbyterians or whatever.
 

---

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
In reply to Gunner : no, it would be a very argumentative body indeed, given that Reform and Forward in Faith actually agree on very little except dislike of the more liberal incarnations of their respective 'wings' of the Church, and dislike of women's ministry.

---

Merseymike,
We in Forward in Faith don't dislike women's ministry; indeed, we're strong advocates of it. We don't believe in women's ordination which is a very different thing.

Thurible
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I think that is semantics : ask the women who have, for years felt utterly marginalised by FiF. Its like 'here and no further' - and it clearly places limits on women's ministry which are not placed on men.

FiF also believe all gays should be celibate, but many who preach that in public or sit on their hands whilst others fight the battles certainly don't practice it in reality.

Frankly, I have little time for FiF.
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw (# 2252) on :
 
It's good to finally have access to an on-line PC again, after a prolonged period of Shiplessness!

The topic on this thread is close to my heart, and I must confess to only having skim-read the foregoing pages, so forgive me if I repeat something that's already been said.

I'm sure there must be a mediating position between "CofE can do what the hell it likes without taking Rome's view into account" and "CofE can't cough unless the Pope clears it first". My problem is that I'm not sure where to draw the line - I'm certain, for example, that we can't unilaterally define Trinitarian dogma. I'm equally certain that we can allow clergy to marry post-ordination unilaterally.

What is the difference? I suspect that we have liberty on matters of practice, but not on matters of doctrine. I dislike a lot of what the current papacy stands for, but we cannot ignore Rome if we claim to be Catholics (if for no other reason than the sheer number of baptised Christians who owe their allegiance to it), nor can we stop praying and working for unity - whatever the pitfalls. John Macquarrie once made the point that any ecumenism which ignores Rome is merely a pan-Protestantism. I'd qualify this with a nod in the direction of Orthodoxy, but the general point is sound.

Anyway, happy New Year.


 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Why only a nod in the direction of Orthodoxy?

Why is there any reason to pay more attention on doctrinal matters to Rome than to any other ancient church?
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0