Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 6 of 10     «   Prev   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   Next   »
christopherdombrowski

Registered:
Posts: 86
Reply with quote  #76 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronTraas
Prior to the changes in the CoE ordination ritual (I don't know the specifics -- this isn't my area of expertise), Rome recognized CoE orders.


Yep. It was the 1552 BCP. All clergy ordained with the English Missal before 1534, with it after 1534, and with the 1549 BCP were considered legitimate.
christopherdombrowski

Registered:
Posts: 86
Reply with quote  #77 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronTraas
Rome has no theological problems with deaconesses -- there is no sacramental ordination.


I must say, while it could be argued that the deaconesses did not have the liturgical function that male deacons did, literally they had almost exactly the same ordination service which was identified as a major ordination (cheirotonia) rather than a minor one (cheirothesia).
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,567
Reply with quote  #78 
The same reasoning could be. And the collegiality argument is to me the best argument against WO. But it is not based on reason, on Scripture, on theology. It just says "don't rock the boat". A valid request, but I was wondering just what the theological arguments that started the ban on women might be. So far, no one seems to have come up with any that are convincing.

Of course I don't believe in ordination. I don't believe in God, and it is hard to see how one could get ordination without. As an academic question I am though interested in whether one should believe in ordination with. So far, I am again unconvinced That is largely because of my view that only you picked up on, that priests seem like an order of magicians, commanding God through ritual. Which doesn't seem a very satisfactory idea to me.
christopherdombrowski

Registered:
Posts: 86
Reply with quote  #79 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponocrates
So the RCC view is that the orthodox have valid orders because they could trace their apostolic succession by a road not through Rome, but the Anglicans can't?


No, it's because they made numerous Protestantizing changes to the fundamental forms of Baptism, the Eucharist, and Ordination in the 1552 BCP.
christopherdombrowski

Registered:
Posts: 86
Reply with quote  #80 
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello
The Roman position is that changes in the ordination formula in 1549 under Edward VI by deleting certain explicit references to the sacrificial nature of the priesthood invalidated Anglican orders, making Anglican priests and bishops mere laymen unlike Eastern Orthodox priests and bishops whose orders (though schismatic) Rome does not question.


I'm pretty sure that it was 1552, rather than 1549. I think the 1549 BCP was actually recognized as legitimate by Rome. And it's even used in some Western rite Orthodox communities.
christopherdombrowski

Registered:
Posts: 86
Reply with quote  #81 
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello
I know.  It's a mess.  It just means I basically ignore what goes on outside my parish (and my "virtual" one).


By this I mean no condemnation or condescension: doesn't that seem a bit of a "bury your head in the sand" approach?
christopherdombrowski

Registered:
Posts: 86
Reply with quote  #82 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
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.


That Roman associates first came to England via Augustine of Canterbury and that Christianity had long before already been in the British Isles I will not argue against. That much is true. However, that most certainly does not justify some inherent right to independence. The hierarchy of the British Isles gradually became exclusively subject to Rome. And if we are to bring in the matter of collegiality, it becomes clear that the Church Universal recognized the whole the former area of the Western Roman Empire as the jurisdiction of Rome; to have a truly collegial attitude, the CofE must recognize this canonical right.

As to Romish innovations, heresies, blasphemies, and idolatries, I will not entirely argue against this either. As a conservative Oriental Orthodox Christian, I hold similarly critical views of the Roman church. However, I am sure that I do not agree entirely with what those supposed innovations were. From an Eastern view, the Reformers quite often misidentified the errors of Rome. And they also generated many more peculiar errors themselves. The Thirty Nine Articles also seem to be far from perfectly orthodox. And given the traditional teaching regarding doctrinal succession, the attitude that the CofE could have been submerged in the heresies of Rome and then arise out of it with ecclesiastical perfection without association with the Church that is without heresy appears quite nonsensical.
christopherdombrowski

Registered:
Posts: 86
Reply with quote  #83 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
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."


Not sure what you're getting at here...?
christopherdombrowski

Registered:
Posts: 86
Reply with quote  #84 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
But it is not based on reason, on Scripture, on theology.


Sure it is. It says something about the nature of the Church. We are to be of one mind with our brothers and sisters in Christ, and we are to uphold the unity of the Church by considering the judgments of all peoples and provinces rather than just our own, and we are not to offend their consciences by introducing innovations which are not accepted by them. To do otherwise is to essentially introduce several minds into the Body of Christ rather than one.

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
It just says "don't rock the boat".


Not really. That is not the concern behind it. And I do not agree with not rocking the boat. I don't have a problem with someone advocating for women's ordination and consequentially causing upset because of it. The problem is in not recognizing that that sort of judgment is to be made by the Church rather than by individuals.
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,768
Reply with quote  #85 
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopherdombrowski
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello
I know.  It's a mess.  It just means I basically ignore what goes on outside my parish (and my "virtual" one).


By this I mean no condemnation or condescension: doesn't that seem a bit of a "bury your head in the sand" approach?


Yes, I suppose it is, but it's the only approach I can come up with at present.  It is easier to ignore what goes on in other parishes than to ignore what goes on in one's own parish, and I have little doubt that as long as I live here there is no church in Dallas I could comfortably attend other than the one I do.  That and the fact that I tend to sort of live in the past anyway, am used to ignoring modern things I don't like, and identify historically and culturally with the Anglican tradition regardless of what's happened since 1976. 

In the end, much as WO irritates and even angers me, ultimately there are other issues, and the Roman Catholic Church (my only serious alternative since while I respect the Eastern Churches I am definitely a Westerner to the core and will never abandon the Western liturgical patrimony) does not seem to me to be a preferable alternative overall, largely but not entirely thanks to Vatican II (and by the way it's V2's effect on the liturgy and general progressivist implications, not its relatively nuanced approach to other Churches and religions, that I object to).   As problematic as it is to be an Anglican who doesn't accept WO, and I admit that it's problematic, due to our looser concept of the Church I'm not sure it's quite as problematic as being a Roman Catholic who doesn't accept Vatican II (or even the Ralliement of Leo XIII!).

In other words, an Anglican can say, "well I just don't go along with that," and still be a good Anglican, but a Roman Catholic cannot necessarily say that and still be a good Roman Catholic.   And while if it were controlled by traditionalists I might prefer a more authoritarian and coherent Church in theory, with things the way they are today I'm frankly grateful for the Anglican approach and Anglican ecclesiology.   Something one of our Episcopal priests said to my class during my instruction that was a revelation to me, on the differences between Anglicans and Roman Catholics: "We don't say the Church can't make a mistake."  That's why there's still a place in Anglicanism for those of us who don't accept female "priests."  And in 2010 in the West I think it's necessary to be able to say that the human part of the Church (being made up of, well, humans) can err, whatever side of the Tiber one is on.
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,446
Reply with quote  #86 
This was posted on the Cranmer site a few weeks ago, but the graph is taken from the Economist.   Just to show there is a big tent in the Anglican church.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_t2Ry7I5DNuQ/TPbYKhDsICI/AAAAAAAAGAo/WzHtg9KIsx0/s1600/Broad%2BChurch.jpg



__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,768
Reply with quote  #87 
Based on that chart I have strong sympathies with both "High Church" and "Traditionalists" (ironic considering their opposing attitudes towards the Pope) while disliking most of the rest.

However I could probably get along more easily with "Liberal Catholics" (as long as we avoided WO) and "Broad Church" (as long as their Guardian-liking didn't include republicanism) types than with "Low Church" or "Charismatics."

I'm pleasantly surprised to see it acknowledged (quite accurately) that a true High Church Anglican is likely to dislike both "women priests" and "gay-bashing."



Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,446
Reply with quote  #88 
We're on the same page, although I don't feel as strongly about WO as you.

* - sorry I widened the page with that graph.  Is there a way to reduce it?

__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,768
Reply with quote  #89 
Don't worry about it; at this rate we'll be on page 7 soon anyway.
christopherdombrowski

Registered:
Posts: 86
Reply with quote  #90 
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello
whatever side of the Tiber one is on.


That phrase seems a little silly. Isn't the Vatican on the near side of the Tiber?

Well, I know that I significantly disagree with some of what you said. But what you say seems to fit your priorities and seems internally consistent, so I respect your choice.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation: