Apologies for my delay in noticing this post.
The ecumenical cost is the highest of all in this case. If it were up to me, we would have refrained from ordaining women for the sake of entering into closer unity with the Roman and Orthodox Churches.Russian Orthodox tell Archbishop of Canterbury: ordain women bishops and you can forget about unity
They were warned a year ago. Now unity is a complete impossibility.
“Supreme Governor.” Why do you ask?Is Prince Charles going to be the head of the Church of England?
That’s beautiful, and after a quick reading I can’t find anything I disagree with.We also can’t ignore Jesus the Bridegroom. This explains it better than I can.
brantpitre.com/~brant243/jesus_bridegroom_single_cd_outline.pdf
I didn’t know if the monarchy still had anything to do with the Church of England other than being members of it.“Supreme Governor.” Why do you ask?
It’s mostly a ceremonial role, at least by convention, much like the monarch’s role in government.I didn’t know if the monarchy still had anything to do with the Church of England other than being members of it.
Still Supreme Governor, per the Act of Supremacy, 1559.I didn’t know if the monarchy still had anything to do with the Church of England other than being members of it.
Ok, great. Then why can’t we say the same of the priesthood. Why can’t we say, oh, the priesthood of Christ is masculine, but it can contain individual females on the basis that the priesthood is more than the sum of its parts?The Church has a feminine nature, that of a Bride, when found in relation to Christ, her Bridegroom. The Church has a feminine nature, that of a Mother, when found in relation to her children, the people of God. Yet the members of the Church are also the Body of Christ! Wait a minute, Christ is male, how can a female be the body of a man? How can a man be the member of a woman?
It has to do with relationships. The Church as a body represents a different reality than her parts. A man cannot be married to a breast or a uterus but to a woman. A man is not a father to a sperm cell or an eyelash but to a child. The relationship of Christ to His Church is a mystery expressed in the Sacrament of Matrimony. The relationship of the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity is also expressed in Matrimony, and likewise the priesthood can be expressed in these terms. The Priest as Man, Husband, and Father.
And, specifically, under Canon A7 in ecclesiastical law:Still Supreme Governor, per the Act of Supremacy, 1559.
GKC
We acknowledge that the Queen’s excellent Majesty, acting according to the laws of the realm, is the highest power under God in this kingdom, and has supreme authority over all persons in all causes, as well ecclesiastical as civil.
Apologies, I made that more personal than it needed to have been. I’m sorry. My point is that obedience to Christ is good, but it doesn’t mean we can’t have more complicated discussions about theology and his Church, provided that the ultimate goal of such discussions is obedience.You criticized me for not being sophisticated in my argument, I don’t need to be, I don’t have a problem with how Jesus set up His Church.
Because clearly the Church is the bride, just like Israel was the bride. The twelve tribes were the male sons of Jacob. Jesus’ becomes the fulfillment the Davidic Kingdom because of Saint Joseph’s family line not Mary’s.Ok, great. Then why can’t we say the same of the priesthood. Why can’t we say, oh, the priesthood of Christ is masculine, but it can contain individual females on the basis that the priesthood is more than the sum of its parts?
I suspected there was a nuance available. But would not the Parliamentary authority suffice?And, specifically, under Canon A7 in ecclesiastical law:
No worries!Apologies, I made that more personal than it needed to have been. I’m sorry. My point is that obedience to Christ is good, but it doesn’t mean we can’t have more complicated discussions about theology and his Church, provided that the ultimate goal of such discussions is obedience.
Yep, but most of the 1558 Act appears to be repealed by the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1969, with only article VIII remaining in force. Only the bare bones of ecclesiastical statute law from the mediaeval and Reformation parliaments is still on the statute books. The effective legislation has, for the most part, been codified in the Church’s own canon law, which is of course still part of the law of the land.I suspected there was a nuance available. But would not the Parliamentary authority suffice?
GKC
I’m now looking for the few unrepealed elements of the Reformation legislation. A minute selection:I suspected there was a nuance available. But would not the Parliamentary authority suffice?
GKC
Thanks. I like knowing things that can be definitively known.Yep, but most of the 1558 Act appears to be repealed by the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1969, with only article VIII remaining in force. Only the bare bones of ecclesiastical statute law from the mediaeval and Reformation parliaments is still on the statute books. The effective legislation has, for the most part, been codified in the Church’s own canon law, which is of course still part of the law of the land.
FYI: legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1969/52/schedule
Rare for our lot!Thanks. I like knowing things that can be definitively known.
GKC