Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 5 of 10     «   Prev   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   Next   »
christopherdombrowski

Registered:
Posts: 86
Reply with quote  #61 
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello

I can remain a member of The Episcopal Church and not accept what happened in Minneapolis in the summer of 1976.


Sure, but it's not an isolated incidence. Far from being condemned, WO just built official support in TEC further and further from that point. Now your very Presiding Bishop is a woman.

I am not righting this as an attempt to attack WO. I just don't know that opposition to it can really be held in integrity in TEC, save perhaps with some highly dire perspective on its condition.
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,775
Reply with quote  #62 
I know.  It's a mess.  It just means I basically ignore what goes on outside my parish (and my "virtual" one).
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #63 
The 'canons' of TEC do not allow opposition to WO.

Thanks be to God, there is the ACNA, where diocese determine their own stance on WO.  Women 'priests' that is.  No she-bishops in ACNA.

The Dioces of the South (Anti-WO) sharing geography with the Diocese of the Gulf-Atlantic (Pro-WO), and both sharing geography with the REC Diocese of the South (A 'contiuum church' that has joined with ACNA).

__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
christopherdombrowski

Registered:
Posts: 86
Reply with quote  #64 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Bishop Burnham, one of the soon-to-be apostates


Woah! "Apostates"?! How exactly just this qualify as a matter of apostasy?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Which rather ignores the point that the division was forced by Rome and the absolutist Petrine claims


It is quite a common, but nonetheless false, myth that the doctrine of papal supremacy is relevant to this matter. England was within the Pope's canonically established jurisdiction any way you look at it. Papal supremacy was relevant in the East-West schism when the Pope started claiming authority over churches which he had not canonically been granted authority over. It's irrelevant to the English schism, however, as Rome had canonically been granted authority over essentially all of the area formerly constituting the Western Roman Empire. As it is, thus, the English schism was nothing less than a rebellion against canon law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Just say straight out that you're leaving because you can't stand either women or queers in orders


While many leaving the Anglican Communion now are doing so pretty much solely on this basis, I don't think it's far to generalize all of them that way. It would seem that some are legitimately converting to the dogmatic tradition of Rome. For instance, the bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion all officially subscribed to the entirety of the Catechism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Anyone likely to defend his flock against Roman poaching


I don't know about this "poaching" business. My guess is that the majority of initiating towards joining Rome is on the part of the converts themselves rather than Rome.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
and accuse Pope Benedict of aggressively promoting disunity


Disunity? How is coming into full communion a matter of disunity? If anything I would think it would be the opposite.
christopherdombrowski

Registered:
Posts: 86
Reply with quote  #65 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonServers
The East has had married priests and unmarried bishops for several centuries now


We have always had married priests.

Having no married bishops is about 1500 years old.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonServers
the 'division' between 'OK as Priest - NOT OK as Bishop' can be continued for a long time.  Not that I'd be at all happy with a woman who thought she was a priest, I think the 'distinction' is not inherently deadly.


Well, it doesn't threaten the historical, collective continuum of sacramental form like female bishops does. But if it is actually a matter of heresy, then it could possibly threaten the integrity of the faith just having female priests.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,665
Reply with quote  #66 
I'll let Elizabeth I speak for me, in words she used early in her reign to some Romish bishops. The language is perhaps a little strong and the history not entirely accurate, but I tend to agree with the gist:

Sirs,

As to your entreaty for us to listen to you we waive it; yet do return you this our answer. Our realm and subjects have been long wanderers, walking astray, whilst they were under the tuition of Romish pastors, who advised them to own a wolf for their head (in lieu of a careful shepherd) whose inventions, heresies and schisms be so numerous, that the flock of Christ have fed on poisonous shrubs for want of wholesome pastures. And whereas you hit us and our subjects in the teeth that the Romish Church first planted the Catholic within our realm, the records and chronicles of our realm testify the contrary; and your own Romish idolatry maketh you liars; witness the ancient monument of Gildas unto which both foreign and domestic have gone in pilgrimage there to offer. This author testifieth Joseph of Arimathea to be the first preacher of the word of God within our realms. Long after that, when Austin came from Rome, this our realm had bishops and priests therein, as is well known to the learned of our realm by woeful experience, how your church entered therein by blood; they being martyrs for Christ and put to death because they denied Rome's usurped authority.

As for our father being withdrawn from the supremacy of Rome by schismatical and heretical counsels and advisers; who we pray advised him more or flattered him than you good Mr Heath, when you were Bishop of Rochester? And than you Mr Bonner when you were archdeacon? And you Mr Turberville? Nay further, who was more an adviser of our father than your great Stephen Gardiner, when he lived? Are ye not then those schismatics and heretics? If so, suspend your evil censures.
christopherdombrowski

Registered:
Posts: 86
Reply with quote  #67 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
I see no sound theological argument against


The most significant theological reason against, IMO, is the argument from collegiality. Such a large change in the structure of the Church, if we are to truly respect the principle of being of one mind with our fellows in full communion, should require common consent of the communion as a whole, rather than simply be provincial synod. Deciding to ordain women simply the provincial synod is effectively essentially a semi-schismatic act in spirit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
I guess it comes down to whether you see priests as in effect an order of magicians, imbued with mystical powers and literally able to command God, or as leaders of a congregation in worship


The truth really includes the latter, but also includes more than that. The Priest is the one who is bestowed with the authority to call upon the grace of the Holy Spirit to bless, absolve, and consecrate. Certainly he does not compel, force, or command God. However, he is the one who Christ established as the one with the authority to direct these prayers, and thus the only through whom we can expect answers to these prayers.
christopherdombrowski

Registered:
Posts: 86
Reply with quote  #68 
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello
WO and homosexuality are two quite separate issues.  I wish they would not always be grouped together so casually the way the media often do when reporting on Anglican controversies.  One destroys catholic sacramental order, publicly & visibly abandons 2,000 years of tradition, and ruins the musical integrity of responsorial liturgy; the other does not.


Interesting. It is not often that I encounter someone who is highly oppositional to WO but not to matters related to homosexuality.
christopherdombrowski

Registered:
Posts: 86
Reply with quote  #69 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Plus, you either accept the Petrine claims or do not, and they are rather more than a detail. I would have thought that a sincere Anglican could never accommodate him or herself to them.


This is a legitimate enough criticism. Ultimately the truth or falsehood of the doctrines of papal supremacy and infallibility are even more fundamental and important than either WO or homosexuality, and too many of these dissenters show a lack of sufficient emphasis on the overall dogmatic tradition of Rome.


Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,665
Reply with quote  #70 
Christ said: "I am the way, the truth and the life. Nobody comes  to the Father except through me". He did not say: "I am the way, the truth and the life. Nobody comes to me except through various organisations I will eventually get round to establishing, give me a century or so will you please. Actually a couple of centuries might be nice."
christopherdombrowski

Registered:
Posts: 86
Reply with quote  #71 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
He could have said "the Anglican Church is a Christian church, and Catholics don't evangelise other Christians, especially whole congregations". But of course that would have been a major policy change, the present policy being that no church that does not submit to Rome is truly Christian.


Not really.

The present policy of Rome is that there are a number of organizations not submitting to it which are legitimate Christian churches with legitimate Sacraments, among them the Eastern Orthodox churches, the Oriental Orthodox churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Old Catholic churches, and the Polish National Catholic Church. Rome doesn't really evangelize to any of these anymore to the same extent.

However, they are of the opinion that the Anglican Communion does not sufficiently satisfy the Sacramental forms as the others do, and thus they are not really a church.
christopherdombrowski

Registered:
Posts: 86
Reply with quote  #72 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jovan66102
As female 'deacons' meant female 'priests',


I have heard this reasoning numerous times before, but it has never been sufficiently explained to me why it is the case. Actually, most of the time the people who claim it can't come up with any reason at all.
christopherdombrowski

Registered:
Posts: 86
Reply with quote  #73 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronTraas
Not true -- Catholics hold that the Orthodox churches (Eastern, Coptic, Oriental, etc.) are genuine Christian churches, even though we have non-neglegible differences in theology and discipline, and even though they do not submit to the authority of the pope. Unlike other Christian denominations, we recognize their orders and sacraments as genuine and efficacious.


From what I can see, however, this position is a modernist innovation and the teaching was otherwise before the 20th century.
christopherdombrowski

Registered:
Posts: 86
Reply with quote  #74 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Oh good. I hadn't realised that Rome accepted that there can be Christian churches that are not only not under the authority of the Pope, but ought not to be.


Not quite. It recognizes some Christian organizations rejecting its authority as legitimate churches, but it certainly does not recognize that as how it ought to be.
christopherdombrowski

Registered:
Posts: 86
Reply with quote  #75 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
It isn't necessary to have male preference. I though prefer existing systems of succession to not change, as change creates possible doubt as to who is the proper successor.


Couldn't the very same reasoning be applied to WO?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
I just observe that so far I have not been convinced that ordaining a woman is a theological impossibility.


If you don't even really believe in Ordination in the way that we do, then isn't the ordination of anyone in the way that we imagine a theological impossibility? And isn't whether a woman is ordained or not bound to not have the same meaning and thus not the same weight in its objections?
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation: