Ugh God forbid the church of england gets taken over by this heresy. He has already worked a Miracle when he protected the Church this past November, and I pray he will continue to ever do so. The majority of Anglicans strenuously and furiously refuse this heresy, and God knows the good people are on his side, and not on the side of the world.
I'm not sure if I'm 100% clear either, but I know someone who was ordained priest in the Church of Ireland. When she moved to England, she had to obtain a licence to undertake priestly duties in England. I suspect that this was a formality.
Here we go, at least as far as the CofI is concerned: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukcm/1995/2/section/1
And I think this covers the fact that Wales and Scotland aren't "overseas" either: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukcm/1967/3/section/6
You know, I'm curious. What will you do when they do get voted in? And by 'good people' do you mean this unholy alliance largely composed of representatives from the effete gin-and-lace brigade and the Anglo-Baptist guitars-and-stage-lighting groups? Curious tools by which to effect his will don't you think. I didn't think you were the sort to throw your lot in with such types!
I wasn't aware we threw in with types, when we stood for the truth? Did you just in effect get characterized as a gin-and-lacer yourself, issuing a dandy rejection, if brought in proximity "with those [fill in the blank] people ?" Plank in the eye, our Lord teaches, Alcibiades, plank in the eye....
I honestly don't know what you're getting at Warty old boy. No matter how many times I read the questions, I haven't the faintest clue what you're trying to accuse me of being. Or why you're trying to accuse me of being this or that. I wasn't aware my life needed to be labelled thusly. But you did duck the first question, I noticed that. But all I merely wondered is to why Happy Clappies and esepcially thurible swingers, who presumably are so riddled with error on nearly every front, can suddenly discern the will of God in this one instance, in your expert opinion. I mean, is this really what you would call a defender of truth and orthodoxy?
Well, a RC once told me that, "there is no such thing as an unanswered prayer", and I suspect that in your case God will answer your prayer by allowing the CofE to elect women bishops, as it will assuredly do. The "miracle" last November was a contrived electoral tactic by a number of lay people. The majority of people in theCofE, and its sister churches in Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Australia, New Zealand and, I think Canada and the USA are in favour of women bishops. Incidentally, by no means all Anglo-Catholics are against women priests. Our priest, for example, isn't. And she's a woman.
It would be quite an interesting quandary for her if she was against women priests, I imagine. And I don't wish to imply that all Anglo-Catholics are against women priests and bishops- but it is undeniable that there is a loud anglo-catholic phalanx that is part of the opposition movement. I just merely wonder if there is not something a little disingenuous on Stalwart's part that the 'truth' is somehow sustained and carried through by people that presumably in his eyes live their lives entirely based on heresy and error? How does that happen? Doubtless though, he will find a good explanation for his convictions that heretics can perform miracles.
Actually there is a strongly anti-women priest Vicar near here. He is also anti-gay and anti-RC. I've heard him described as "an evangelical literalist". I do in fact know three women priests who were formerly RC. They wanted to be RC priests but failed the medical. And I know another (not a former RC) who would, I think, be an RC priest but has to settle for high Anglicanism.
Well played dear seagull, well played! "tis difficult to separate dearly loved traditions from what JC taught. I do love priestly toques with pom-poms as posted by Alcibiades. Great picture. One can smell the smoke wafting ever heavenwards.
As a one man jury, I've always been out on the biretta, though there is a marvelous little blog (http://domusbirettarum.blogspot.co.uk/) on the topic. The picture comes from the gloriously chaotic website of St. Silas the Martyr (http://www.saintsilas.org.uk). The 'Corpus Christi' ones are quite impressive too. Even if the vicar seems to have a fondness for buckled shoes... It's all good fun really.
You really do base your opinions on associations? Is it as elemental as that? Truth is truth, I don't care who believes it. Not just Anglicans but all Christians who conservatively view Scripture and Christianity (rather than the world) as their spiritual compass share this belief. Add to it the fact that the majority of the Anglican communion, strenuously, and sometimes furiously, rejecting this view. There, you can have a good people in your corner, if types could have an influence on truth. With modernists they'll sell you down the river for a new secular fashion of the pagan world, nothing you can rely or stand on.
In England we seem to have developed a cadre of none-too-bright "New Atheist foot soldiers": they appear to follow the errant teachings of Dr Dawkins, without any great intellectual back up. One told me, "we atheists just love the truth". Seems like you do too. See also St John, 18:38. A small minority in the CofE strenuously and sometimes furiously reject women priests. I feel sorry for them (the minority, that is, not the women priests).
John Betjeman has a line in one of his poems in which he refers to, "...the curious Anglo-Norman Parish Church of Kentish Town" and I suspect that it could indeed be St Silas, which might have been a bit too Anglo-Catholic even for him. But apparently the present priest has increased attendances considerably. The RCs, incidentally, seem to find this sort of thing a bit odd....."we're not like that any more".
Alright, alright, keep your hairshirt on. Though I am surprised that you would subscribe to such a sadly modern view of truth. For the ancients, the idea that somehow a person could come to understand 'truth' without behaving in a 'truthful' manner would have seemed absurd. The aim of the philosophy of the ancients and your own Church Fathers was to make their acts one with their beliefs and at that point you would achieve wisdom. It's a journey, not a body of knowledge. Now you tell me that I can act any way I please but as long as I get the nod from other 'conservatives' I've 'found' the truth, stumbling into it like the iceberg that sunk the titanic. Truth at discount prices! Why have principles when all I have to do is tell they're not fit to be priests and that apparently is being on the side of the angels. Why even bother thinking; it's all in the final conclusion which has already been pre-determined by Stalwart! I suppose this is the inevitable result of the post-google age. The scales have truly fallen from my eyes.
A small minority of Christians fought for and upheld the divinity of Christ in Arian times. The Council of Nicea itself had to fight for acceptance and it took many years until the tables were turned. The Church is not a social club or a political party. Truth is not about numbers, it's about faithfulness to the word of God.
Fifty years ago, only a minority of people in the CofE would have been in favour of women priests. We are now very grateful for them. Thank God. And our faithfulness has not been diminished.
If I recall my ecclesiastical history correctly, the idea that the Son was consubstantial with thew Father, simultaneously identical and separate, was the novel position that actually fought hard to get accepted by the minority. Varying levels or grades of divinity was in fact a far more natural idea to the Greek speaking world which also has the convenience of not seeming to threaten God's platonic immutability, and of course the idea of shaking that absolutely singular monotheism would have been quite challenging for the Jews. I think Nicene Theology cuts against the grain of your rhetoric. More than that, if you compare the Nicene creed of 325 to a creed presented by Eusebius of Caesarea to the council, there's actually largely agreement. This 'stick-in-the-mud-man-the-barricades-do-or-die' mentality is missing, everyone's being conciliatory. More than that, Eusebius explains why the Nicene creed is perfectly acceptable for an Arian theology. The question isn't whether it was or wasn't, just the observation that conciliation and mutual recognition as far as was possible were what produced thise creeds.