Arcadia Discussion Zone

"The last effort at a compromise move proposed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, failed. The national assembly voted to ordain women as Bishops in the Anglican Church. During the weekend leading up to this historic vote, 70 members of the Clergy met in Leicester, central England with Catholic Bishop Malcolm McMahon of Nottingham. They discussed coming into full communion with the Catholic Church. Some Press reports present the dispute as 'traditionalists' versus the 'enlightened.' In reality it is a division between those who want to move away from Christian orthodoxy and orthopraxy and those who seek to be faithful to the historic Christian faith handed down to us from the Apostles. In truth, what brought the Anglican Communion to this insurmountable division is as fundamental a theological issue as one can imagine; the structure, nature, mission and purpose of the Church. In his typical manner, Damien Thompson of the Telegraph described it quite clearly, 'Tonight the Church of England finally acknowledged something that has been obvious since 1992, when it decided to ordain women priests: that it remains, despite the Oxford Movement, and as John Henry Newman came to believe very firmly, a Protestant Church.' However, there are many within the Anglican Communion who held onto a very different vision, a catholic ecclesial vision." - Catholic Online



"A woman stands before you, dressed in clerical garb. Her eyes cast towards the heavens, her arms are outstretched in the orans, a posture signifying the dignity of the priesthood. Is this a scene from an Anglican liturgy, presided over by a female priest, approved since 1992? Or is this a Mass held by a dissident feminist Catholic group, flaunting Church authority and tradition? No, this priestess appears on the cover of the video documentary, The Hidden Tradition, and she represents what the makers of that film would have us believe was once commonplace in the early Church – women priests. Many special interest groups, advocating women’s ordination, attempt to use history as an argument in their favour. To the unwary, these claims can look credible. One of the dangers of this kind of pseudo-history is that it exposes Catholics and non-Catholics alike to misinformation. It is not uncommon to find people with no real motivation regarding the women’s ordination issue who simply believe, matter of fact, that the early Church used to ordain women. In reality, it is anything but matter of fact. It is fringe history, and should be challenged wherever it is found." - Turris Fortis

On that point I wholeheartedly agree. It is pseudo-history and should be recognized as such. I have no problems at all with those who believe the church (small "c") ought to be changed to reflect modern social values, I for one think that shows integrity. I do, however, have problems with those who re-write the past to claim that their modern vision was the original intention and structure, and that for perfidious purposes, the faithful have been wilfully and maliciously misled. History is biased, ugly, unfair; but re-writing history to undermine the authority of those they challenge is extremely unethical. If you don't like the way the church operates, by all means work to change it from within or walk away and start your own. Have the moral courage to call the church out on their lack of inclusiveness and take a stand for what you believe in. Re-writing history undermines that moral courage, it is an act of cowardice.

TCP

Tim, you very much over use the word "pseudo-history". I believe that Mary Magdalene was the beloved disciple who authored the 4th gospel. That she had been the one who annointed Jesus as the "messiah". That she and Jesus were married and they had at least one child. I have told what I believe to anybody who would listen. Now please tell me again, how in hell does that make me a coward.

Yes, we all know what you believe, Bill, you repeat it constantly. I'm sorry you are forced to rely on your own editorial revisions to substantiate your beliefs, but that is your choice and you're welcome to it. You're a coward because you cannot face the fact that there is nothing in scripture that backs you up and you can't bring yourself to admit it. Ergo, you make up your own "facts" about edits and what "must have been" edited out to hide your fear of being made a fool. Anything else I can help you with?

And yes, Bill - "pseudo-history" applies. Cope as best you can.

TCP

Lets see Tim, you think, wait a minute, you do not believe in the resurrection, but you believe that the scriptures are actual history. I am not sure what I believe in about the resurrection, but I am a coward. You say I am into pseudo-history, but you do not believe the scripture is true. Or do you? How is what I am into any more pseudo-history, then what you believe. The fact is Tim, you are an ass, and what you say here proves it, but I still think you are a nice guy.

The historical veracity of the textual material contained in the Judeo-Christian scriptures is not something I would ever vouch for. I've made that point several times, but I suppose you find it more useful and convenient to ignore that proviso. I don't imagine that you are incompetent to grasp the concept, ergo you must be unwilling to do so. I believe that the scriptures are "authentic" (as opposed to "historically viable") in that I do not doubt their age or origin. I do not accept the notion that anyone could possibly know what might have been edited out without benefit of evidence of edits and the redacted material - something that you base your "beliefs" on without proof because it suits you, for whatever reason you might find such ideas suitable. Those who embrace "alternative" interpretations based not on evidence, but rather on lack of evidence, are, in fact, embracing pseudo-history. I'm sorry if that upsets you, Bill, but the shoe fits.

TCP

OMG! I wonder if he wants you to wear the wig too?

Maybe, but I myself don't play those games (not that there's anything wrong with that) the "you still are a nice guy" comment, was my feeble attempt at sarcasm.

MICMACS...

TCP

Wait! Veritas...come back! Return. Let us discuss.

The Anglican Church has always been divided: High, Low and Broad...your views are only one facet of that trinity. I think 150 years ago, you would have had a very difficult time selling a church with a more Catholic view...why, you almost sound like a dissenter.

You mention Newman and the Oxford Movement....let us discuss his brother, shall we?...because he was a part of the Unitarian/Transcendental movement, with such people as: Joseph Priestly, George Elliot, and Ralph Waldo Emerson.

See, the truth of the matter is, that when a 'gentleman' is born into this world there are only so many fields that he can enter that is suitable for his station in life. The clergy is one of them...and it really doesn't matter which religion. It is and always has been nothing more than a good ole boys club...in the manner of "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous."

What was it Jesus said about having the best seat at table? Anyway....

The argument about women leaders in the Anglican Church is a cover for something else the church is up to....why are Oxford principals searching for living family members of the oldest families in the UK????

Tell me something Veritas...do you know Trevor Page? or Tony Beck? Were you a friend of the Bishop of Shefield (Fallows)?

"Nothing more surely eats out the heart of religion, which is love, than a spirit of religious exclusiveness and of judging others."
F.W. Robertson

When the church leaders say a woman cannot join their ranks, they are 'judging' her to be unfit for the role. Jesus said "Judge not." You would think his reps here on earth would know that.

Over the years I've heard too many self-righteous clergymen and lay people alike say that being a Christian OBLIGES them to judge, and to judge harshly. It always calls to mind Gandhi's quote about Christians being so unlike Christ. I wonder where the disconnect occurred?

TCP

I don't know TCP. Whatever happened within the church for its actions to be so contrary to the religion it supposedly IS, has caused a great deal of pain, sorrow and confusion for people who actually do have faith. FWR's quote above comes from that place....he fell out with many of his contemporaries(sp) over just that disconnect....The Rev. Boyd comes to mind; he had some pretty nasty things to say about women.