Ian wrote: > On 4 Nov, 22:06, Alwyn <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote: >> Ian wrote:
>>> He's only offering to take the chauvinists and the homophobes.
>> He's offering sanctuary to those who would feel more comfortable in >> the Church of Rome. I do not believe they are so many.
> But what seems odd is that the only criterion appears to be "not > liking the idea of women priests or gay people". Do these > considerations really override all th eother doctrinal differences.
> I agree with you that there probably won't be many. Those who are > doctrinally closest to Rome, the Anglo-Catholics, are traditionally > very tolerant of gay people - to put it mildly - and the evangelicals > who hold the strongest views about gays and women are doctrinally > miles away.
>>> Williams will probably be glad and certainly be lucky to see the >>> back of them.
>> But Akinola and his lot will still be around to cause trouble. There >> is little danger of Evangelicals defecting to Rome, though Nazir >> Ali, who has something of a Catholic background, has said he'd >> consider it.
> Although it seems clear that Williams wants to maintain the communion > if at all possible, I think he might be better just to let the > evangelicals go and form their own little church. I suspect that the > hardliners who have taken over parishes would take few of the > parishioners with them. A bit of grumbling about guitars is one thing: > actually leaving the C of E is quite another.
> The evangelicals know this, of course, which is why there tactic is to > create as much trouble as they can without the rest of the communion > turning round and telling them where to go.
> Ian
I remember the other day on the radio the service was from a church in Aberystwyth. (Presumably of "The Church in Wales"). They had guitars and things like that. I said to an Anglo-Catholic friend who'd missed the broadcast, "Don't worry, it was the Boogie-Woogie Rock'n'Roll Church, so you didn't miss much!"
Joking apart, though, I hope there will continue to be a place in the Anglican Communion for all, since that is what 'Inclusive' means (or should mean).
> Joking apart, though, I hope there will continue to be a place in the > Anglican Communion for all, since that is what 'Inclusive' means (or should > mean).
It seems to me that this is taking traditional Anglican tolerance and inclusiveness too far. I do not see how people who oppose women clergy can conveniently be together in the same church as those who do not. ut another way, I personally would not want to be a member of a church in which some of the members expressly failed to recognise some of the officially ordained clergy.
>> Joking apart, though, I hope there will continue to be a place in the >> Anglican Communion for all, since that is what 'Inclusive' means (or >> should mean).
> It seems to me that this is taking traditional Anglican tolerance and > inclusiveness too far. I do not see how people who oppose women clergy > can conveniently be together in the same church as those who do not. ut > another way, I personally would not want to be a member of a church in > which some of the members expressly failed to recognise some of the > officially ordained clergy.
I think that is right. Though I can understand a willingness to allow some temporary accommodation for those who dissent, especially as they entered a Church that was differently organised, I do not see that any permanent dissent could be accepted.
Methodism in Britain has ordained women for some 30 plus years now and certainly there were some difficult moments in the earlier years, and i know of some female colleagues who had a very hard time of it. But on the whole that atmosphere has dissipated; no doubt a few stubborn folk still dislike the idea, but there is and never has been any suggestion that women ministers could be set aside by some places or people. Indeed, we have a rule that presumably came about as a result of some actual incidents' it states that no minister is permitted to step in, for example to officiate at a marriage, because the participants object to having a woman minister involved.
Today it is quite normal to have women Superintendents, women as Chairs of Districts, and women as President of Conference. There is no glass ceiling (though no doubt some people, given the choice, would vote for almost any man to try to avoid electing a woman. But that too is changing rapidly.)
--
Revd. Eric Potts
"Faith, hope and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love."
> The Church Crimes was reporting on a Forward in Faith meeting that > seemed to be quite keen on heading Rome-wards.
There is something that puzzles me about these people, or at least those of them who are clerics. Priests are currently celebrating mass, hearing confessions etc. in the Anglican church just as if they were Catholic priests, yet when they move to Rome they will have to be retrained and re-ordained, since the RCs regard their current Orders as null and voice; furthermore, those bishops who are married will be unable to become bishops in the Roman church while their wife is alive. Have these people no respect then for their current function? If they do not, why do they persist in going through the motions of a false priesthood? If they do, why don't they feel insulted by the RC attitude and say so?
> The Church Crimes was reporting on a Forward in Faith meeting that > seemed to be quite keen on heading Rome-wards.
Or suppose I am a lay supporter of Forward in Faith: The masses I now attend are a sham and the Eucharist of which I partake are not a means of grace; any absolution I receive after Confession is bogus. If I believe that, shouldn't I have become a Roman Catholic ages ago for the sake of my eternal soul? If I do not believe it, what do I think about the church that is making these allegations?
I will presumably have to attend some sort of ceremony to be accepted into the Roman communion and will need to be confirmed by a Catholic bishop to become a full member. Is all this hassle really necessary?
Currently I am able to take communion in any Anglican church; after I become a Roman Catholic, it will become a mortal sin for me to do so. How do I feel about this new restriction on my freedom?
Alwyn <al...@dircon.co.uk> writes: > Matthew Vernon wrote: > > The Church Crimes was reporting on a Forward in Faith meeting that > > seemed to be quite keen on heading Rome-wards.
> Or suppose I am a lay supporter of Forward in Faith: The masses I now > attend are a sham and the Eucharist of which I partake are not a means > of grace; any absolution I receive after Confession is bogus. If I > believe that, shouldn't I have become a Roman Catholic ages ago for > the sake of my eternal soul? If I do not believe it, what do I think > about the church that is making these allegations?
If I was being especially naughty, I'd suggest that the concerns one must have about the validity of the sacraments presided at by an Anglican priest must be of similar magnitude to the concerns one would have about the sacraments presided at by a woman priest.
Obviously I cannot speak for FiF or its members, as I disagree with them quite strongly, despite being pretty high-church myself.
Matthew [I keep wanting to refer to FiF by their more perjorative name BiB, but I fear moderation if I do ;) ] -- "My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No-one will snatch them out of my hand". John 10 27-28 http://www.pick.ucam.org/
> If I was being especially naughty, I'd suggest that the concerns one > must have about the validity of the sacraments presided at by an Anglican > priest must be of similar magnitude to the concerns one would have > about the sacraments presided at by a woman priest.
Well, if I was an Anglican opposed to women priests - and _a fortiori_ women bishops - I would definitely want out, but, however High-Church I was, but I would only consider seeking refuge with the RCs if I considered that my spiritual life as an Anglican was a mistake.
My options would be: Set up a new denomination that is Anglican in tradition but not part of the Anglican Communion or join one of the Eastern churches. The latter have in general no position on the validity of Anglican orders, though they conditionally ordain Anglican priests who want to become Orthodox just in case, and there is little in their theology that is foreign to High-Church Anglicanism.
Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> writes: > On 2009-11-05, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> > [I keep wanting to refer to FiF by their more perjorative name BiB, > > but I fear moderation if I do ;) ]
> I can guess what "Bi" stands for, but what is the last "B"?
Bigotry.
Matthew
-- "My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No-one will snatch them out of my hand". John 10 27-28 http://www.pick.ucam.org/
-- Which of the seven heavens / Was responsible her smile / Wouldn't be sure but attested / That, whoever it was, a god / Worth kneeling-to for a while / Had tabernacled and rested.
Frederick Williams <frederick.willia...@tesco.net> writes: > Matthew Vernon wrote:
> > [...] being pretty high-church myself.
> May I ask which church you attend?
I go to the Cathedral in Coventry, which is a little less high than I'd like; I used to be at Little St Mary's in Cambridge, where there was more incense ;-)
Matthew
-- "My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No-one will snatch them out of my hand". John 10 27-28 http://www.pick.ucam.org/
On 5 Nov, 10:58, "- .. -- Tim .-." <timrea...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Joking apart, though, I hope there will continue to be a place in the > Anglican Communion for all, since that is what 'Inclusive' means (or should > mean).
Me too. That's why I detest the evangelicals for their attempts to use discrimination and prejudice in order to get their hands on C of E churches.
On 5 Nov, 12:56, loiner2003 <loiner2...@methodistchristian.co.uk> wrote:
> Indeed, we have a rule that presumably came about as a result of some > actual incidents' it states that no minister is permitted to step in, > for example to officiate at a marriage, because the participants object > to having a woman minister involved.
That, I think, is why the C of S explicitly bans anyone but the incumbent minister - if there is one - from celebrating marriages in church.
On 5 Nov, 10:36, Matthew Vernon <matt...@debian.org> wrote:
> Ian <ubergeek...@googlemail.com> writes: > > I agree with you that there probably won't be many. Those who are > > doctrinally closest to Rome, the Anglo-Catholics, are traditionally > > very tolerant of gay people - to put it mildly - and the evangelicals > > who hold the strongest views about gays and women are doctrinally > > miles away.
> The Church Crimes was reporting on a Forward in Faith meeting that > seemed to be quite keen on heading Rome-wards.
Those are the Anglo-Catholics, aren't they? Certainly, in my experience, attracted by the bells and smells side of things, but also have the highest proportion of gay priests and congregants in the C of E. I suspect this is sabre (sceptre) rattling.
On 5 Nov, 09:26, "Phil Saunders" <philip.saund...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "Ian" <ubergeek...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> > But what seems odd is that the only criterion appears to be "not > > liking the idea of women priests or gay people". Do these > > considerations really override all th eother doctrinal differences.
> OK so not wanting the church to condone and support wickedness and sin is > not a good reason?
What you meant, of course was "Not wanting the church to fall into the unthinking prejudices of a middle eastern Iron Age society from two thousand years ago ..."
On 5 Nov, 13:39, Alwyn <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> There is something that puzzles me about these people, or at least those > of them who are clerics. Priests are currently celebrating mass, hearing > confessions etc. in the Anglican church just as if they were Catholic > priests, yet when they move to Rome they will have to be retrained and > re-ordained, since the RCs regard their current Orders as null and > voice; furthermore, those bishops who are married will be unable to > become bishops in the Roman church while their wife is alive. Have these > people no respect then for their current function? If they do not, why > do they persist in going through the motions of a false priesthood? If > they do, why don't they feel insulted by the RC attitude and say so?
A friend of mine, who was the head of a major anglo-catholic organisation, used to be quite emphatic that (a) the C of E was part of the catholic churh and (b) the roman church therefore had no business or right to operate in England.
I wonder if there has been any flow from Rome to Canterbury as a result of annoyance with post Vatican II reforms. Have the "Catholic Truth" brigade ever thought of defecting?
> I wonder if there has been any flow from Rome to Canterbury as a > result of annoyance with post Vatican II reforms. Have the "Catholic > Truth" brigade ever thought of defecting?
I don't know about so-called 'cradle Catholics', but it is fairly common for Anglican converts to Catholicism to revert to their former faith after discovering too late what life in the Church of Rome was really like.
An Anglican cleric once told me that young men who entertained the notion of defecting to Rome used to be said to be 'flirting with Auntie'!
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009, Ian wrote: > On 4 Nov, 22:06, Alwyn <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>> But Akinola and his lot will still be around to cause trouble. There >> is little danger of Evangelicals defecting to Rome, though Nazir Ali, >> who has something of a Catholic background, has said he'd consider >> it.
> Although it seems clear that Williams wants to maintain the communion > if at all possible, I think he might be better just to let the > evangelicals go and form their own little church. I suspect that the > hardliners who have taken over parishes would take few of the > parishioners with them. A bit of grumbling about guitars is one thing: > actually leaving the C of E is quite another.
I think there's a little more of a spectrum of views within evangelicals than you appear to credit. I'm not sure whether Fulcrum and the Church Society are on speaking terms. I think you're looking for 'hard-line evangelicals' or 'ultra-conservative evangelicals' whereas fuzzy evangelicals like me who attends - and preaches at - a church describing itself as broadly evangelical feels pretty comfortable.
Robert -- I believe in getting into hot water; it keeps you clean. -- G.K. Chesterton
"Alwyn" wrote: > There is something that puzzles me about these people, or at least > those of them who are clerics. Priests are currently celebrating mass, > hearing confessions etc. in the Anglican church just as if they were > Catholic priests, [...] the RCs regard their current Orders as null > and void; [...] Have these people no respect then for their current > function? [...] If they do, why don't they feel insulted by the RC > attitude and say so?
I would guess that they think the RCC is incorrect about the validity of Anglican orders, and that that error is less important than the Anglicans' errors about the role(s) of women.
Suppose a teacher gets fed up with conditions in UK schools and leaves the country to teach somewhere else; and suppose teaching there is regulated roughly as it is here, and foreign qualifications aren't recognized there. Then they will have to go through a process analogous to what an Anglican -> RC priest will have to do. It seems to me that doing this is not necessarily irrational, if the person in question has a strong enough preference for the other country's education system over the UK's; and doing it doesn't mean thinking that there's really anything wrong with the UK's teacher training and accreditation.
The Anglican/RC situation is rather similar.
One difference: the RCC has actually given some thought to the question of whether Anglican orders are invalid. So it's not as if the Foreignstan government has simply declared that only their own certificates of teacher-worthiness are valid there, on the grounds that it would be too much work to keep track of the quality of everyone else's. It's more as if they've investigated the UK's system and decided it's not good enough. Even in that situation, I don't see why our hypothetical teacher couldn't disagree with that assessment and still move.
AIUI, the invalidity of Anglican orders is not a point of RC *doctrine*; that is, it's not something that RCs (even RC priests) are actually required to believe, or to profess that they believe. I am open to correction on this.
Ian wrote: > On 5 Nov, 10:58, "- .. -- Tim .-." <timrea...@hotmail.co.uk> > wrote:
>> Joking apart, though, I hope there will continue to be a place in the >> Anglican Communion for all, since that is what 'Inclusive' means (or >> should mean).
> Me too. That's why I detest the evangelicals for their attempts to use > discrimination and prejudice in order to get their hands on C of E > churches.
> Ian
Yes, the way I see it, they don't only want to be included, they want to run the show, and that is unacceptable.
Ian wrote: > On 5 Nov, 10:36, Matthew Vernon <matt...@debian.org> wrote: >> Ian <ubergeek...@googlemail.com> writes: >>> I agree with you that there probably won't be many. Those who are >>> doctrinally closest to Rome, the Anglo-Catholics, are traditionally >>> very tolerant of gay people - to put it mildly - and the >>> evangelicals who hold the strongest views about gays and women are >>> doctrinally miles away.
>> The Church Crimes was reporting on a Forward in Faith meeting that >> seemed to be quite keen on heading Rome-wards.
> Those are the Anglo-Catholics, aren't they? Certainly, in my > experience, attracted by the bells and smells side of things, but also > have the highest proportion of gay priests and congregants in the C of > E. I suspect this is sabre (sceptre) rattling.
> Ian
There are two main groups within Anglo-Catholicism, 'Forward in Faith', and 'Affirming Catholicism'. The second group is the Inclusive one, and is pro women in ministry at all levels, and pro full inclusion of LGBT people at all levels.
Tim. (I am a member of 'Aff-Cath', as it is often refered to.)
> On 5 Nov, 10:58, "- .. -- Tim .-." <timrea...@hotmail.co.uk> > wrote:
>> Joking apart, though, I hope there will continue to be a place in the >> Anglican Communion for all, since that is what 'Inclusive' means (or >> should >> mean).
> Me too. That's why I detest the evangelicals for their attempts to use > discrimination and prejudice in order to get their hands on C of E > churches.
> Ian
Thus shall they know you are my followers by how much you detest those you disgaree with.....
|
