tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post6511774915688690731..comments2024-03-19T08:14:09.776+01:00Comments on The Ugley Vicar: Collegiality – the vertical dimensionAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-33563334121294732942012-03-11T04:03:23.764+01:002012-03-11T04:03:23.764+01:00Phew!Phew!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-23706150122902693832012-03-08T11:19:10.955+01:002012-03-08T11:19:10.955+01:00Ahh ok. I see the logic has now occurred to you.
...Ahh ok. I see the logic has now occurred to you. <br /><br />Andrew Godsall, ExeterAndrew Godsallnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-38429178719146340672012-03-08T11:15:01.024+01:002012-03-08T11:15:01.024+01:00Andrew, I'd rather leave it there, thanks.Andrew, I'd rather leave it there, thanks.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-57361801590150547142012-03-08T11:11:45.511+01:002012-03-08T11:11:45.511+01:00I'm not sure who you are accusing of trolling ...I'm not sure who you are accusing of trolling John, but I'm not sure Nigel or Fern or I would agree with you.<br />At the moment it simply looks as if you can't explain. <br /><br />Let's see if Nigel can explain it shall we? If you really can't explain why you don't object, I can't really answer your question and show you the logic. <br /><br />Andrew GodsallAndrew Godsallnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-35621435804942799942012-03-08T10:52:32.159+01:002012-03-08T10:52:32.159+01:00Andrew, if you can't work it out then I can...Andrew, if you can't work it out then I can't explain it to you. I do think this discussion has run its course with too many hares being started and too little real content.<br /><br />At the moment it is in danger of descending into mere 'trolling'.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-83187244250683192642012-03-08T10:50:00.767+01:002012-03-08T10:50:00.767+01:00Yes John. It needs explaining. I am utterly at a l...Yes John. It needs explaining. I am utterly at a loss to know why you don't object. The bishop asks a very clear question to the congregation, indeed to the diocese: 'Is it now your will that they should be ordained?' Is he just asking this question for fun? Does it have no real meaning? Nigel is claiming that to go ahead and ordain would be so dangerous as to fracture the unity of the Church. Surely no one wants to do that? You have the power to stop that happening by objecting when the bishops asks if it is your will. <br /><br />So spell it out for us. Tell us why you don't object. The I can show you the logic. <br /><br />AndrewAndrew Godsall, Exeternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-45554700162717774932012-03-08T10:34:16.311+01:002012-03-08T10:34:16.311+01:00Andrew, it surely doesn't need explaining does...Andrew, it surely doesn't need explaining does it? Think of when you've seen, or heard of, services and special occasions being interrupted.<br /><br />Meanwhile, show me the logic!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-44851386205692004542012-03-08T10:32:38.452+01:002012-03-08T10:32:38.452+01:00Dear Nigel and John
Please explain to me why stan...Dear Nigel and John<br /><br />Please explain to me why standing up and raising your objections at an ordination service would cause great distress? That might get us to heart of the matter. <br /><br />AndrewAndrew Godsallnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-65539490964317167212012-03-08T09:56:30.400+01:002012-03-08T09:56:30.400+01:00Andrew, once more you seem to be working with a ve...Andrew, once more you seem to be working with a very parochial "little englander" a-theological view of the Church of England which would make Hooker et all spin and turn in their collective graves. Please bear in mind that according to the CofE's own articulated view of the presbyteral ordination of women this can never have been said to have been received if it is just received by the CofE; in other words if opposition to this innovation in the CofE was finally crushed. Furthermore as Hooker pointed out (in another context) even if Rome, Orthodoxy, Presbyterianism, and everybody else all agreed that female presbyteral ordination was a good thing what would that prove?? It would merely and only prove that they have the fleeting arbitary consensus of the moment but not the consensus of the ages. BTW way do you still think that a bishop who ordains into his college of priests priests who are deemed not to be priests by his other priests is still in all honesty a focus of unity in the diocese?Nigel Atkinsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-28928266502751423222012-03-08T09:30:41.381+01:002012-03-08T09:30:41.381+01:00Andew, I fail to see the logic of your latest repl...Andew, I fail to see the logic of your latest reply to Nigel.<br /><br />He gives as his reason for not voicing an objection every year to the ordination of women that it would cause great distress - the same reason I would give.<br /><br />You reply "Basically you are admitting that your cause is lost, and that actually standing up to object would not be the collegiate thing to do."<br /><br />No, he isn't. Nor do his actions or his reasons imply that.<br /><br />To paraphrase the line from Jerry Maguire, "Show me the logic!"Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-20432708680568115842012-03-08T09:02:01.774+01:002012-03-08T09:02:01.774+01:00Dear Nigel
You asked:
"But let me ask you. I...Dear Nigel<br />You asked: <br />"But let me ask you. Is the fact that there is no yearly objection the reason why you hold that there is no opposition?"<br /><br />I did in fact make it plain a few posts ago that I know there is opposition. I even gave an indication of the level of that opposition - small, less than 10%. <br /><br />What I think the lack of yearly objections indicates is that the 'opposition' realise what the consensus is. The resounding answer of 'It is' to the question by the bishop also indicates the will of the people. That would be the will of God's people. <br /><br />You then say: <br /><br />"No doubt I could pitch up and voice my objections. But that would give me brief intense exposure and I would not be allowed to voice my objection the following year. It would also cause great distress and anxiety to all present and is probably not a wise Christian response."<br /><br />Basically you are admitting that your cause is lost, and that actually standing up to object would not be the collegiate thing to do. For which I offer respect. <br /><br />Andrew Godsall, ExeterAndrew Godsallnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-82073936829327846912012-03-07T16:40:53.800+01:002012-03-07T16:40:53.800+01:00Thanks Andrew Thanks Fern. I do not necessarily be...Thanks Andrew Thanks Fern. I do not necessarily believe that 100% of the folk have to agree before "any change is made to anything". But you miss, I fear, the significance of what happens when the Orders of the Church are not interchangeable. This is due to the fact that the Ministry exists in order to promote the unity of the Church. Calvin claimed that the Ministry exists as a "principal bond by which believers are held together in a single body" (cf 1 Corinthians ff). This insight is so crucial it is enshrined in one of the major legal and theological sinews of the CofE namely Canon A4 (please go and read it). THUS although there are deep seated theological differences between Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals these never resulted in one side claiming that the others were not clergy at all!! For despite differences in other areas both sides still acknolwedged each others Orders.However in the dispute in hand Bishops who ordain women presbyters are introducing a class of presbyters/priests whose orders are not recognised by a significant section of the college of presbyters in each diocese. In other words they are introducing a class of priests who are not deemed to be presbyter/priests at all. Now this is breaks the unity of the diocese in one fell stroke as the ministry is fractured and it creates (what Rowan Williams has called in connection with the Jeffrey John debacle) a massive "ecclesiological deficit". Thus, Fern, this goes deeper than the debates of whether one is a protestant presbyter or a catholic priest which is why the CofE was able to accommodate the rise of Anglo Catholicism (with no need of Acts of Synods or Codes of Practices) as there still existed the mutual recognition of orders. When I appeal to the universal church all I am saying here is that from earliest times only men were presbyters/bishops. This was the unyielding, unwavering position of the Church as it was only the schismatic sects (such as the Montanists who felt that the Holy Spirit was prompting them to do something new and who purported to have female priests). Just briefly Fern it is completely illogical to have female priests and to bar them from the Episcopate. Andrew, the fact that the RC's do not recognise our orders has nothing to do with the current debate. I believe the Orthodox currently do although are in the process of reassessing that judgement in the light of our innovations. You are right Andrew. No doubt I could pitch up and voice my objections. But that would give me brief intense exposure and I would not be allowed to voice my objection the following year. It would also cause great distress and anxiety to all present and is probably not a wise Christian response. But let me ask you. Is the fact that there is no yearly objection the reason why you hold that there is no opposition? Thanks to both. NigelNigel Atkinsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-2829197090907819662012-03-07T14:23:27.037+01:002012-03-07T14:23:27.037+01:00Nigel, like Andrew, I'm puzzled by your refere...Nigel, like Andrew, I'm puzzled by your references to the 'world-wide Church universal' as support for your arguments when there is no common understanding in that body of the nature and function of the priesthood itself. Similarly, there is no common understanding of whether priests should remain celibate, of what happens during the Eucharist and a host of other matters. Anglican orders are not accepted as valid by most of the world-wide Church universal so where does that leave you? You seem to seize on gender as the common factor and ignore the much more fundamental question of the nature of the thing.<br /><br />Even the opposition to women's ordination in the 'parochial' Church of England is divided. Evangelicals differ in their reasoning from the Anglo-Catholic wing because of totally different views of priesthood.<br /><br />Speaking as one who supports women's ordination but is lukewarm about women bishops because it is so divisive and only ever likely to involve a small number of women just as it currently involves only a small number of men, I support proper provision for those who cannot accept episcopal oversight from a woman. The problem. however, is that it is practically impossible to maintain two integrities for any length of time because of the lack of agreement over the nature of the priesthood.<br /><br />To say that "I cannot accept oversight from a woman bishop" is a stance that can be accomodated whereas saying that "I cannot accept oversight from a woman bishop and I do not recognise as valid the orders of anyone who has been ordained by one" is an entirely different matter. It IS unresonsable to expect clergy to come with 'pedigrees'. Fern Winter, LondonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-30382376229567505592012-03-07T11:57:20.782+01:002012-03-07T11:57:20.782+01:00Thanks Nigel. Your logic is not wrong IF you belie...Thanks Nigel. Your logic is not wrong IF you believe that 100% of the people in every branch of the church have to agree before any change is made to anything. The Church does not take that view. Hence we have divisions. <br />Sadly, the RC Church and the Orthodox Churches do not recognise that you and I are priests at all. So there is a division there. They do not recognise our sacrament of holy communion as a valid sacrament. So there is a division there.<br /><br />But please do tell me why you would be barred from voicing your objections if you attended an ordination? And why do people not raise any objections at that crucial question in the service if, as you claim, so many people hold these objections? <br />Andrew Godsall, ExeterAndrew Godsallnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-53188619139293249152012-03-07T09:47:24.616+01:002012-03-07T09:47:24.616+01:00Thanks Andrew. I have prayed for you and will cont...Thanks Andrew. I have prayed for you and will continue to do so. But I still feel that you are missing the central thrust of what i have been saying. Has the whole (and by this I do not just mean the CofE) Church accepted that men can be priests. Yes. Has the whole Church (including the Church of England) accepted that women can be priests? No. Thus the Church is divided over female presbyteral orders. It is here the division occurs. Those who pursue this divisive action cannot be said to be pursuing the peace of the Church. Please show me where my logic is wrong. NigelNigel Atkinsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-16515813415714879762012-03-07T08:35:35.710+01:002012-03-07T08:35:35.710+01:00Nigel
No intention to dodge questions. But time is...Nigel<br />No intention to dodge questions. But time is limited and you ask a lot of them. Some I have answered before, but find you don't like the answers. <br />The ecclesiological question: the C of E has concluded after years of discussion that its life is ordered by a mix of decisions/advice within the House of Bishops - bishops having a role in teaching - and the decision of its provincial synod. Since the mid 1970s those two bodies have consistently concluded by consensus that there are no theological objections to the ordination of women. Some people do not accept or welcome this decision, but it has been taken carefully and legally. Provision has been made for those who did not wish to accept this development but numbers are small. Less than 10% of parishes in this diocese take advantage of alternative episcopal oversight. In some dioceses no parishes do so. <br />The pneumatological question: how do I know the spirit works through the bishops who ordain? I see the fruits of the spirit in their work. St Paul taught us to look for those fruits. <br />I am sure you have the gift of the spirit. But we also know that spirit gives different gifts to different people. I don't know you, so I do not know what your gifts are. But I know God gives them to you, as God does to each of us. <br />Tell me why you would be barred from voicing your objections if you attended an ordination? And why do people not raise any objections at that crucial question in the service if, as you claim, so many people hold these objections? <br />Apols if I missed any questions. Time is short. Off to church. Pray for me as I pray for you. <br /><br />Andrew GodsallAndrew Godsallnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-40469069741123329262012-03-07T00:27:18.505+01:002012-03-07T00:27:18.505+01:00The consensus where Andrew?? It is not even the co...The consensus where Andrew?? It is not even the consensus in the Church of England at the moment as you know. For you know very well that when the Bishops of the diocese ordain women presbyters there are other presbyters in the college of presbyters who reject their orders. So I put it once again: how do your bishops act for the whole Church when in ordaining women they are only acting for the part of the Church that agrees with them? How on earth is that a consensus?? Now if only men were ordained (as I have said ad nauseam) everyone is agreed on question. Even the female presbyters are agreed on that as male presbyteral ordination is not the question in dispute. There is consensus here. The question that is still in dispute is whether women can be presbyters. There is no consensus here. I note you have not answered the ecclesiological question about the part taking what belongs to the whole and by a vote in a provincial synod presumptuously altering it. I note also that you have dodged the pnuematological question lamely saying that you know the bishops have the spirit but don't know why others don't. How do you know they have the spirit? If they do have the Spirit do those opposed have it?? If so is the Spirit contradicting himself?? I should perhaps go to every ordination and object but if I did it once I would be barred from ever attending another ordination again. I am very public about my views and everybody knows them but you know very well that such a display at an ordination would not be welcomed. But to close: Are you honestly telling me that you thought everyone in the diocese was in favour of the innovation because they did not object at an ordination service?Nigel Atkinsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-49855556267782833752012-03-06T23:25:38.232+01:002012-03-06T23:25:38.232+01:00Nigel
It would not be an action of the whole chur...Nigel<br /><br />It would not be an action of the whole church if only men were ordained. The consensus is that both men and women should be ordained. To only ordain men in the C of E would be to deny the will of the church. <br /><br />I dont know why you don't have the same prompting of the spirit that the great majority of our bishops have. All I know is that they have such a prompting. <br /><br />I think if you have such strong objections you need to be honest rather than polite and express your objections in response to the question the bishop puts at an ordination. He doesn't just ask it for fun. <br /><br />Andrew GodsallAndrew Godsallnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-77599372658791237772012-03-06T22:48:53.608+01:002012-03-06T22:48:53.608+01:00Thanks Andrew. You should understand that those o...Thanks Andrew. You should understand that those opposed would not necessarily come to the service in the first place and secondly if they did they would be polite enough not to interrupt. Are you honestly saying that because that does not happen there are not significant numbers of clergy and laity in your diocese who are opposed?? You know that is not the case and it seems as if you are being disingenuous. So I repeat. I think you a very, very aware that when these ordinations take place in the Cathedral it is not an action of the whole Church (as it would be if only men were ordained) and that significant numbers of clergy and laity dissent. I agree that the CofE is one branch of the whole tree. But by what authority does one branch unilaterally change that which belongs to all? You were the one who that claimed that the bishops who ordained female presbyters were following the promptings of the Spirit. My question then was how come all of us do not have the same prompting?? Or is the Spirit only given to those select few?Nigel Atkinsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-55607897164342010082012-03-06T21:52:51.939+01:002012-03-06T21:52:51.939+01:00Andrew, correction. "The Church of England de...Andrew, correction. "The Church of England decided in 1992 that women's ordination to the priesthood would happen" BUT recognized that this issue was not settled. That it is still not settled is clearly evidenced by the provisions (albeit grudging on the part of some) "for those who can't accept the development."Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-15070019071889116342012-03-06T21:49:55.450+01:002012-03-06T21:49:55.450+01:00John:
The Church of England decided in 1992 that ...John: <br />The Church of England decided in 1992 that women's ordination to the priesthood would happen and has simply made provision for those who can't accept the development. <br /><br />Nigel:<br />I think the Church of England is one branch of the Church - and it is the one you and i and many hundreds of women have been called to be priests in. <br />I am sure you are as spirit filled as any bishop Nigel. who said you were not?<br />Our bishops act on behalf of the whole diocese. I am privileged to go to many ordinations. When the bishops ask the question at an ordination 'Is it now your will that they should be ordained?' I have never heard anyone say 'No it isn't'....So I see no evidence of division. <br /><br />Andrew Godsall, ExeterAndrew Godsallnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-69439104715923817402012-03-06T21:16:44.415+01:002012-03-06T21:16:44.415+01:00Again Andrew you have a woefully parochial view of...Again Andrew you have a woefully parochial view of the Church of England!! You seem to think that the Church of England is the Church. How can the Church of England take something it inherited and did not invent or confect and claim the authority to change it by vote in a provincial synod?? Also Andrew if the consensus is that clear why are we having all these debates in synod regarding female bishops and codes of practise?? And if the Church of England is that clear why does it allow priests and parishes to reject the ministry of female clergy?? Please also explain why I am not as spirit filled as the majority of Bishops of the Church of England? Further you will know full well that whenever female priests are ordained in your local cathedral that that is not an action of the whole diocese as there are a number of clergy in the diocese who reject their ministry. You write that the bishops are "responding to the prompting of the Holy Spirit". The prompting of the Spirit leading to division?? I have my doubts.Nigel Atkinsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-11126573232433045152012-03-06T21:02:28.315+01:002012-03-06T21:02:28.315+01:00Perhaps I could throw in a reminder here that, acc...Perhaps I could throw in a reminder here that, according to the CofE's understanding of collegiality, "Consensus does not necessarily man coming to a single opinion."<br /><br />The consensus of the Church of England is that it has NOT decided, decisively (as it were) that women's ordination MUST be accepted.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-29697946762021581382012-03-06T20:57:13.691+01:002012-03-06T20:57:13.691+01:00"Clearly then if a bishop breaks with the con..."Clearly then if a bishop breaks with the consensus of his college of presbyters and with the consensus of his church he is clearly and unambigously breaking the unity of his diocese and of his church."<br /><br />The consensus of the college of C of E priests and bishops, and the consensus of the C of E is clear. That's why almost all the bishops in the C of E ordain women Nigel. It's the collegial thing to do, both vertically and horizontally. <br /><br />The Church of England's teaching is that women can be ordained Priest. You don't have to receive that teaching - we are that kind of church. but the teaching is very clear.<br /><br />Andrew Godsall, ExeterCanon Andrew Godsallnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-26805339626965919862012-03-05T23:15:44.140+01:002012-03-05T23:15:44.140+01:00Thanks Andrew. You begin with a blanket statement ...Thanks Andrew. You begin with a blanket statement that is not true. You should say "some evangelicals do not think that ordaining women flouts the authority of scripture". Others clearly do. But the point is this. You and I clearly disagree. But where do we agree?? We are both agreed that men can be ordained presbyters. In fact we are all agreed on this. In fact the whole CofE is agreed on this!! We are not agreed that women can be thus ordained.Clearly then if a bishop breaks with the consensus of his college of presbyters and with the consensus of his church he is clearly and unambigously breaking the unity of his diocese and of his church. You call that the leading of the Holy Spirit. On what grounds do you call that the leading of the Spirit? Majority vote?? That is thin theological ice you are skating on. I would rather call that disobedience. And why should these bishops claim that they are responding to the prompting of the Spirit? Do they have an access to the Spirit that I do not have? Why do I not have the same "prompting"? Moreover I have always regarded myself as a loyal son of the CofE!! Where exactly does the CofE's theology differ from mine? I would love to know as up until now I have always presumed myself to be a loyal Anglican and no one has ever called me anything but. In fact I have been called a faithful anglican a number of times even in the Church's official documents. You ask why have I not left?? I have not left because as yet the CofE does not demand I accept the innovation. Even if it did demand it I would still not accept the innovation and then be in open rebellion to the Church's teaching but I would still stay and argue my corner and try and bring the Church back to a sane mind and I would stay until driven out. Is this not what the Reformers did? Yours NigelNigel Atkinsonnoreply@blogger.com