I ran into a Lutheran Woman Priest. Felt a little odd seeing her

[guanophore]

I think “bible believing Christian” is an expression used by some, probably fundamentalist evangelical, churches. Tomster used it, probably with disparaging intent, to describe me and the three female ministers in my locality. I imagine it is literally true for the ministers, although perhaps not the way they would describe themselves, as they serve mainline denominations (Anglican, Methodist, United Reformed). I was pointing out that it is not at all true of me. As it happens it could not be true of me since I am not a Christian of any description. Perhaps Tomster was unaware of that, which would be good because it would imply that I am dutifully well behaved here!

LOL, but it brings up the query of why you are even here at all!?

I have enjoyed reading your “well behaved” posts.

 

[Picky_Picky]

LOL, but it brings up the query of why you are even here at all!?

I have enjoyed reading your “well behaved” posts.

Thank you. Likewise.

Why I’m here? I happen to have affection and great respect for the Church of England, although of course I am not a member, except to the extent that an Englishman is a member by default. In fact I find myself rather partisan in her defence. I arrived here some time when her good name was being traduced, or perhaps just the usual myths about her being repeated. GKC, being a sort of relative of hers, knows much more than I do about her, but often even he looks on her with a stern regard, so I have to have my armour ready girded. I try not to attempt more than the odd comment about the CofE and the Anglican Communion, but sometimes my resolve weakens …

 

[GKC]

Thank you. Likewise.

Why I’m here? I happen to have affection and great respect for the Church of England, although of course I am not a member, except to the extent that an Englishman is a member by default. In fact I find myself rather partisan in her defence. I arrived here some time when her good name was being traduced, or perhaps just the usual myths about her being repeated. GKC, being a sort of relative of hers, knows much more than I do about her, but often even he looks on her with a stern regard, so I have to have my armour ready girded. I try not to attempt more than the odd comment about the CofE and the Anglican Communion, but sometimes my resolve weakens …

Stern regard indeed. Or maybe, more like one thinks of the elderly aunt, that one of whom one doesn’t speak all that much, in public, these days. But whom one remembers, in her prime, with affection.

GKC

 

[Spacetoon]

Doh. To follow my own suggestion, that should be “woman Lutheran ministers” of course. Not all languages have different words for Catholic vs. Lutheran clerics, but since English has I’ll try to remember to use them.

This site is a new site that develops an online platform for Electronics Engineering tutorials by videos and articles. Not just theoritically but also practically. This is you right begin to make yourself proffesional and enhance your electronics understanding skills. best-electronics-tutorials.com

the best electronics tutorials that can make you speak electronics best-electronics-tutorials.com

best-electronics-tutorials.com >>> How transistor works

الكترونيات,متحكمات,برمجة,تحكم,روبوت,برامج,كتب,هندسة كهربية,هندسة الكترونية,مشاريع, افكار مشاريع ,مقالات, محاضرات,دورات,طاقة متجددة,
دورة الكترونيات كاملة , الإلكترونيات , الكهرباء , التلفزيون ,الجوال , شبكات, الهاردوير, صيانة, دوائر , مشاريع, البرامج, كتب ,
أصلاح, ورشة, plc ,scada , كهرياء السيارات , الكترونيات ، دورة الكترونيات مجانية،
دورات مجانية، دورات اونلاين،
PIC microcontroller, AVR, robots, electronics, electronics tutorial, electronics tips,
electronics design , breadboard, microcontroller, microcontroller course, arduino,
arduino course, Raspberry pi,transistor, multimeter, fluke, oscilliscope, electronics component,
resistor,capacitors, secrets of electronics, eevblog, mjlorton, pyroedu
, nptelhrd, story of electronics,best electronics tutorials, Afrotechmods, multimeter tutorial, electronics lectures

www.eletorial.com

Site

 

[Tomster]

On another board where I post, I’m occasionally accused of looking too much at sacramental intent. Which, given the intertwined relationship of sacramental intent and sacramental form, in the judgement in Apostolicae curae, seems to me a hard thing to do.

Sacramental intent is the simplest of the necessary requirements for confecting a sacrament, validly, to satisfy. It is* facere quod facit ecclesia*, to intend to do what the Church does, in the sacrament, as in your para 4. As Apostolicae curae says, sacramental intent is an interior state, not given to external demonstration or verification in itself. That’s why, if all the other external sacramental aspects (form, matter, minister, etc) are valid, the sacramental intent is normally assumed to be valid, also. This relates to your para 3, and is why even an atheist, with intent facere quod facit ecclesia, even not understanding what that might be, can, for example, validly baptize.

However, if there is an external factor which raises a question (determinatio ex adiunctis)) of the intent as other than valid, this may permit a determination of invalid sacramental intent, from that factor. In the judgement of Apostolicae curae, this was said to be the use of the Edwardine ordinal. Which, in your closing para, leads to the question of Ott’s assertion, and how that might reflect on the joint OC/Utrecht/Anglican consecrations, absent something to serve as the determinatio, all other sacramental factors not being exceptional.

I remain curious, absent a formal statement paralleling Apostolicae curae

GKC

Perhaps this may help. Go to the source itself as regards intent.

In the book “Cranmer on the Lord’s Supper”, 1928, second impression, we see in black and white what the real intentions of Thomas Cranmer were.

An interesting non-Catholic imprimatur is given to Thomas’ treatise from the outset:

“A Defense of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Savior Christ, with a confutation of sundry errors concerning the same grounded and established upon God’s Holy Word, and approved by the consent of the Most Ancient Doctors of the Church. Made by the Most Reverend Father in God, THOMAS, Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England and Metropolitan.”

It sounds as though the treatise about to be given is an authoritative one given by an archbishop within a certain jurisdiction and with an attempt to surround it with a certain glow of infallibility.

The treatise is divided into five parts:

1. The first is of the true and catholic doctrine and use of the sacrament of the body and blood of our Savior Christ.
2. The second is against the error of transubstantiation
3. The third teacheth the manner how Christ is present in his holy Supper
4. The fourth is of the eating and drinking of the body and blood of our Savior Christ
5. The fifth book [part] is of the oblation and sacrifice of our Savior Christ

The whole book contains numerous one to four page treatments on a variety of subjects dealing with the priesthood, the Pope as Antichrist, the popish mass is not a sacrifice propitiatory, no difference between the priesthood of the laity and the ordained priesthood and many, many more topics which clearly reveal the Archbishop’s intent.

In “Cranmer’s Godly Order” written by Michael Davies+, the author gives us a very succinct outline of Cranmer’s intentions.

"Cranmer’s programme for overthrowing the established liturgy had four stages. It has already been explained in Chapter VIII [of Davies’ book] why he deemed it imprudent to do too much too soon. The first stage was to have certain portions of the unchanged traditional Mass in the vernacular. The second stage was to introduce new material into the Mass none of which would, from the Catholic standpoint, be specifically heretical.

The third stage was to replace the Mass with an interim English Communion service of an ambiguous nature, ‘destined to give place to a work still more radically altered’. While clearly intended to be Protestant, this service did not completely exclude a Catholic interpretation. The fourth and final stage was to replace this interim service by one which was specifically Protestant and could not be interpreted in any other way."

Clearly, Leo XIII knew what Cranmer’s intentions were when he proclaimed Anglican orders absolutely null and void.

I don’t know if copies of this volume are still out there for purchase. But, if one can be found, it would be good addition for your library.

 

[GKC]

Perhaps this may help. Go to the source itself as regards intent.

In the book “Cranmer on the Lord’s Supper”, 1928, second impression, we see in black and white what the real intentions of Thomas Cranmer were.

An interesting non-Catholic imprimatur is given to Thomas’ treatise from the outset:

“A Defense of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Savior Christ, with a confutation of sundry errors concerning the same grounded and established upon God’s Holy Word, and approved by the consent of the Most Ancient Doctors of the Church. Made by the Most Reverend Father in God, THOMAS, Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England and Metropolitan.”

It sounds as though the treatise about to be given is an authoritative one given by an archbishop within a certain jurisdiction and with an attempt to surround it with a certain glow of infallibility.

The treatise is divided into five parts:

1. The first is of the true and catholic doctrine and use of the sacrament of the body and blood of our Savior Christ.
2. The second is against the error of transubstantiation
3. The third teacheth the manner how Christ is present in his holy Supper
4. The fourth is of the eating and drinking of the body and blood of our Savior Christ
5. The fifth book [part] is of the oblation and sacrifice of our Savior Christ

The whole book contains numerous one to four page treatments on a variety of subjects dealing with the priesthood, the Pope as Antichrist, the popish mass is not a sacrifice propitiatory, no difference between the priesthood of the laity and the ordained priesthood and many, many more topics which clearly reveal the Archbishop’s intent.

In “Cranmer’s Godly Order” written by Michael Davies+, the author gives us a very succinct outline of Cranmer’s intentions.

"Cranmer’s programme for overthrowing the established liturgy had four stages. It has already been explained in Chapter VIII [of Davies’ book] why he deemed it imprudent to do too much too soon. The first stage was to have certain portions of the unchanged traditional Mass in the vernacular. The second stage was to introduce new material into the Mass none of which would, from the Catholic standpoint, be specifically heretical.

The third stage was to replace the Mass with an interim English Communion service of an ambiguous nature, ‘destined to give place to a work still more radically altered’. While clearly intended to be Protestant, this service did not completely exclude a Catholic interpretation. The fourth and final stage was to replace this interim service by one which was specifically Protestant and could not be interpreted in any other way."

Clearly, Leo XIII knew what Cranmer’s intentions were when he proclaimed Anglican orders absolutely null and void.

I don’t know if copies of this volume are still out there for purchase. But, if one can be found, it would be good addition for your library.

.

It is kind of you to continue to try to help me.

The intent in question is not the intent of Cranmer in writing a Rite of consecration/ordination, nor does it involve anything Cranmer might have believed, in writing that, nor asserted in any other place. Intention, as used in this discussion, as used in* Apostolicae curae*, refers to the sacramental intent in a particular sacramental action. Which, in AC was judged sacramentally invalid, not from any intent of Cranmer, but from the use of the form Cranmer influenced. The distinction is that a sacramental intent occurs only in a sacramental action.

Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION may perhaps help. It covers “intention” in detail.

I own Davies’ CRANMER’S GODLY ORDER, as well as the other 2 volumes in his Liturgical Revolution trilogy, all in 1st editions.

GKC

 

[Picky_Picky]

.

It is kind of you to continue to try to help me.

The intent in question is not the intent of Cranmer in writing a Rite of consecration/ordination, nor does it involve anything Cranmer might have believed, in writing that, nor asserted in any other place. Intention, as used in this discussion, as used in* Apostolicae curae*, refers to the sacramental intent in a particular sacramental action. Which, in AC was judged sacramentally invalid, not from any intent of Cranmer, but from the use of the form Cranmer influenced. The distinction is that a sacramental intent occurs only in a sacramental action.

Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION may perhaps help. It covers “intention” in detail.

I own Davies’ CRANMER’S GODLY ORDER, as well as the other 2 volumes in his Liturgical Revolution trilogy, all in 1st editions.

GKC

I am aswim! If you have time and inclination, could you take me through this slowly?

My understanding was that the form was not on the face of it invalid, since rites with similar apparent defects had been validly used elsewhere; but was invalid because of the differences which had been effected (by Cranmer) from previous rites used in the English Church. The effecting of these differences implied that the rite could not encapsulate the intent to ordain into the sacrificial priesthood (thus the intertwining of form and intent).

If that is anywhere near the truth (and it probably isn’t!) isn’t the whole point of the problem from Leo’s point of view the intent of Cranmer in constructing the different form? Or at any rate the intent of the bishops in using a form which had been constructed with Cranmer’s intent?

 

[GKC]

I am aswim! If you have time and inclination, could you take me through this slowly?

My understanding was that the form was not on the face of it invalid, since rites with similar apparent defects had been validly used elsewhere; but was invalid because of the differences which had been effected (by Cranmer) from previous rites used in the English Church. The effecting of these differences implied that the rite could not encapsulate the intent to ordain into the sacrificial priesthood (thus the intertwining of form and intent).

If that is anywhere near the truth (and it probably isn’t!) isn’t the whole point of the problem from Leo’s point of view the intent of Cranmer in constructing the different form? Or at any rate the intent of the bishops in using a form which had been constructed with Cranmer’s intent?

No, as to the first question in para 2. Yes, as to the second. It was the sacramental intent in the use of the form (assumed invalid, from its construction, when and by whom), and used as the method *determinatio ex adiunctis * to make that determination, that was the intent involved. As noted, Clark discusses this at length, op. cit.

GKC

 

[Picky_Picky]

No, as to the first question in para 2. Yes, as to the second. It was the sacramental intent in the use of the form (assumed invalid, from its construction, when and by whom), and used as the method *determinatio ex adiunctis) * to make that determination) that was the intent involved. As noted, Clark discusses this at length, op. cit.

GKC

Thank you. Time for me to put my head into a bucket of cold water,

 

[GKC]

Thank you. Time for me to put my head into a bucket of cold water,

Things are complicated.

GKC

 

[Picky_Picky]

Things are complicated.

GKC

Yes, complicated. But occasionally, very occasionally, I think I’ve got the main thrust clear. Thank you.

Gurgle, gurgle.

 

[GKC]

Yes, complicated. But occasionally, very occasionally, I think I’ve got the main thrust clear. Thank you.

Gurgle, gurgle.

You are very welcome. And remember, I am an opinion, not an authority.

An informed opinion, of course.

Also remember: head in bucket/head out of bucket, in that order and with an equal number of repetitions.

GKC

 

[Picky_Picky]

You are very welcome. And remember, I am an opinion, not an authority.

An informed opinion, of course.

Also remember: head in bucket/head out of bucket, in that order and with an equal number of repetitions.

GKC

 

[Tomster]

pablope;12416895:

Maybe.

The Edwardine ordinal, in the form considered in Apostolicae curae

, was “cured”, in the change in 1662. AC makes no definitive statement as to that change, and how it would affect the charge of invalidity of form, if at all.

The use of the original ordinal was the fact taken as allowing determinatio ex adiunctis, to conclude an invalid sacramental intent, in 1559. This was not directly due to the actual structure of the form (which was not exceptional; other rites with the same defect were and are considered as transmitting Orders validly) but from the circumstances in which the form was composed. Absent that original form, using the 1662 form, and assuming that all other sacramental factors were valid, Ott’s assertion as to the ability of any validly consecrated bishop (including schismatic ones) to confer orders validly, if illicitly, leads to the question of what does the Dutch Touch mean, if anything to the RCC, and why.

I’ve read varying opinions. Still watching for a definitive statement, analogous to AC. Remaining curious, in the meanwhile.

GKC

Actually, GK, your first statement is false.

"Apologists for the validity of Anglican Orders have made much of the slight revisions made to the Ordinal in 1662. The words ‘for the office of and work of a priest in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands’ were added to the indeterminate form of the 1552 Ordinal. The complete form read: Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven, and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained. And be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God, and of his holy sacraments: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen

The word ‘priest’ does not occur in this form, which remained unchanged when the 1552 Prayer Book was restored to use with some revisions under Elizabeth I in 1559, after the return to the traditional rites during the reign of Queen Mary. The failure to use this word in the form itself, although the word priesthood is used elsewhere in the rite, is of considerable significance. Apologists for the validity of Anglican Orders lay great stress on the fact that an ancient form has now been discovered (The Sacramentary of Seraphion), where the word is also not used. The comparison is irrelevant as there is far more significance attached to the removal of the word from an existing form than its failure to appear in an ancient one.

The same apologists also lay considerable stress on the fact that Pope Leo claimed that the addition of the extra words in the 1662 revision showed that the Anglicans themselves realized that the 1552 form was inadequate. They allege that the Pope was mistaken and that these changes were made to rule out the claim of Presbyterians that the Orders of bishop and priest are really one and the same. Nothing is lost in conceding this argument; it does not affect the theological point at issue, namely the Pope’s judgment that these changes were not capable of imparting validity to an invalid rite.

The complete 1662 form reads as follows: Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven: and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained. And be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God, and of his Holy Sacraments; in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

It will be noted that, even with this addition, it is simply a case of an "office’ being ‘committed’ to the ordinand, and the assistance of the Holy Ghost is invoked to help him fulfill it worthily. There is no suggestion here (or anywhere else in the rite) that new powers which he did not possess before have been conferred upon him. "Committed’ is not a sacramental word. The Church does not ‘commit’ sacraments, she ‘confers’ them.

Pope Leo XIII took the 1662 changes into consideration but ruled that they could not be considered as imparting validity to a rite which had never been valid: “Any words in the Anglican Ordinal, as it is now, which lend themselves to ambiguity, cannot be taken in the same sense as they possess in the Catholic rite. For once a new rite has been initiated, in which, as we have seen, the Sacrament of Order is adulterated or denied, and from which all idea of consecration and sacrifice has been rejected, the formula, “Receive the Holy Ghost,” no longer holds good, because the Spirit is infused into the soul with the grace of the Sacrament, and so the words “for the office and work of a priest or a bishop,” and the like no longer hold good, but remain as words without the reality which Christ instituted.”

From 'The Order of Melchisedech" by Michael Davies pps 39 - 41.

I’m glad you have this book.

 

[GKC]

GKC;12417007:

Actually, GK, your first statement is false.

"Apologists for the validity of Anglican Orders have made much of the slight revisions made to the Ordinal in 1662. The words ‘for the office of and work of a priest in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands’ were added to the indeterminate form of the 1552 Ordinal. The complete form read: Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven, and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained. And be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God, and of his holy sacraments: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen

The word ‘priest’ does not occur in this form, which remained unchanged when the 1552 Prayer Book was restored to use with some revisions under Elizabeth I in 1559, after the return to the traditional rites during the reign of Queen Mary. The failure to use this word in the form itself, although the word priesthood is used elsewhere in the rite, is of considerable significance. Apologists for the validity of Anglican Orders lay great stress on the fact that an ancient form has now been discovered (The Sacramentary of Seraphion), where the word is also not used. The comparison is irrelevant as there is far more significance attached to the removal of the word from an existing form than its failure to appear in an ancient one.

The same apologists also lay considerable stress on the fact that Pope Leo claimed that the addition of the extra words in the 1662 revision showed that the Anglicans themselves realized that the 1552 form was inadequate. They allege that the Pope was mistaken and that these changes were made to rule out the claim of Presbyterians that the Orders of bishop and priest are really one and the same. Nothing is lost in conceding this argument; it does not affect the theological point at issue, namely the Pope’s judgment that these changes were not capable of imparting validity to an invalid rite.

The complete 1662 form reads as follows: Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven: and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained. And be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God, and of his Holy Sacraments; in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

It will be noted that, even with this addition, it is simply a case of an "office’ being ‘committed’ to the ordinand, and the assistance of the Holy Ghost is invoked to help him fulfill it worthily. There is no suggestion here (or anywhere else in the rite) that new powers which he did not possess before have been conferred upon him. "Committed’ is not a sacramental word. The Church does not ‘commit’ sacraments, she ‘confers’ them.

Pope Leo XIII took the 1662 changes into consideration but ruled that they could not be considered as imparting validity to a rite which had never been valid: “Any words in the Anglican Ordinal, as it is now, which lend themselves to ambiguity, cannot be taken in the same sense as they possess in the Catholic rite. For once a new rite has been initiated, in which, as we have seen, the Sacrament of Order is adulterated or denied, and from which all idea of consecration and sacrifice has been rejected, the formula, “Receive the Holy Ghost,” no longer holds good, because the Spirit is infused into the soul with the grace of the Sacrament, and so the words “for the office and work of a priest or a bishop,” and the like no longer hold good, but remain as words without the reality which Christ instituted.”

From 'The Order of Melchisedech" by Michael Davies pps 39 - 41.

I’m glad you have this book.

I have many books. I’m glad I have them all.

Anglicans who worried about such things pointed out that the word “priest” occurred 6 times (I think) in the Preface to the Ordinal, as Davies hints at.

And the last para is both why I put “cured” in quotes and why I think I know what the likely statement from Rome might be, as to the Dutch Touch, if one was to be given.
That’s the concept that the Ordinal possesses a nativa indoles ac spiritus, which renders the words themselves, which were judged invalid not in themselves (as Davies notes, other Rites share the same form, but not for the same reason), but from the context in which they were written and by whom, incapable of conveying valid orders, even if the valid intent of the minister is not in question (i.e., as stated by OC Bishop van Vlijmen, at the first joint consecration). I’ve see the point discussed. And I have my own opinion. But I’m curious. And watching for a formal statement from Rome, without particularly expecting to see one, to see if Ott can be limited by the *nativa indoles ac spiritus * attributed to the Ordinal.

I have a 'satiable curiosity in some matters.

That being said, you’re right. My first para was inaccurate, as to the comment on the “cure”. I like inaccurate as opposed to “false”, but tastes differ.

GKC

 

[Tomster]

GK, like you, I am curious.

Has anyone from the Established Church ever written a detailed account of the discussions leading up to the ordination of women?

Davies, in his book “The Order of Melchisedech”, mentions that the Evangelical party, the largest group within the Established Church, played a significant role in this matter.

I am curious as to what their external intent was. I have discussed this with some of my compatriots and some have thought that possibly the Evangelical party was trying to deliberately undermine the ARCIC discussions. Which, if that was case, they surely succeeded.

 

[Tomster]

.

It is kind of you to continue to try to help me.

The intent in question is not the intent of Cranmer in writing a Rite of consecration/ordination, nor does it involve anything Cranmer might have believed, in writing that, nor asserted in any other place. Intention, as used in this discussion, as used in* Apostolicae curae*, refers to the sacramental intent in a particular sacramental action. Which, in AC was judged sacramentally invalid, not from any intent of Cranmer, but from the use of the form Cranmer influenced. The distinction is that a sacramental intent occurs only in a sacramental action.

Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION may perhaps help. It covers “intention” in detail.

I own Davies’ CRANMER’S GODLY ORDER, as well as the other 2 volumes in his Liturgical Revolution trilogy, all in 1st editions.

GKC

Then what do you think Cranmer’s intent was when he wrote his new Ordinal?

 

[Yeoman]

I saw this Lutheran Priestess and I couldn’t help but to feel very odd and uncomfortable. She seemed like a nice person but I couldn’t get myself to say hello. I hope to be able to remove this uncomfortableness in the future.

Going way, way back to the original post here, I suppose the correct term is to say something like “Reverend” (obviously “Father” is out), and I generally don’t have a problem interacting with a female member of most of the Protestants clergy.

What I do wonder about is this. In my community there’s an extremely active female member of a Protestant church that’s highly liberal and socially active. Sometime ago she announced that she had same gender attraction and she might be living with another woman (not sure on that). So intellectually I don’t have a problem with according respect by title to a female Lutheran, or Episcopal clergywoman, even though I don’t regard their orders as valid and hold the Catholic view on who can validly hold orders. I struggle, however, with according the same respect to a person who publicly has stated that she doesn’t take St. Paul literally, who is extremely socially active and who shows up at everything. I’d feel differently if she was just an activist, but wearing a Roman Collar and all and advancing these views bothers me, and I wonder if I should publicly afford her a title or not.

Thoughts?

 

[GKC]

GK, like you, I am curious.

Has anyone from the Established Church ever written a detailed account of the discussions leading up to the ordination of women?

Davies, in his book “The Order of Melchisedech”, mentions that the Evangelical party, the largest group within the Established Church, played a significant role in this matter.

I am curious as to what their external intent was. I have discussed this with some of my compatriots and some have thought that possibly the Evangelical party was trying to deliberately undermine the ARCIC discussions. Which, if that was case, they surely succeeded.

If so, you may be right, indeed. But no, I’m not aware of any consideration of that, from a scholarly standpoint.

Anglo-Catholics would be the group most offended by the idea, evangelicals the ones least concerned one way or another.

The CoE first “ordained” women in 1994, by which time I doubt that the ARCIC was much of a vital force. Which is too bad; when Pope Paul and ++Ramsey first set up the ARCIC, roughly 25 years before, it was a hopeful time. The personal relationship between His Holiness and Cantuar was something unique. You will likely recall that the Pope gave Ramsey both an episcopal ring and an episcopal pectoral cross, which are worn by the Archbishops of Canterbury on appropriate occasions, such as in Papal visits/audiences. Things seemed to be looking better than at any time since the end of the Malines Conversations, forty years before. Then it all went off the cliff.

I don’t know, though, of any attempt to derail the ARCIC, on the part of CoE evangelicals.

GKC

 

[Tomster]

If so, you may be right, indeed. But no, I’m not aware of any consideration of that, from a scholarly standpoint.

Anglo-Catholics would be the group most offended by the idea, evangelicals the ones least concerned one way or another.

The CoE first “ordained” women in 1994, by which time I doubt that the ARCIC was much of a vital force. Which is too bad; when Pope Paul and ++Ramsey first set up the ARCIC, roughly 25 years before, it was a hopeful time. The personal relationship between His Holiness and Cantuar was something unique. You will likely recall that the Pope gave Ramsey both an episcopal ring and an episcopal pectoral cross, which are worn by the Archbishops of Canterbury on appropriate occasions, such as in Papal visits/audiences. Things seemed to be looking better than at any time since the end of the Malines Conversations, forty years before. Then it all went off the cliff.

I don’t know, though, of any attempt to derail the ARCIC, on the part of CoE evangelicals.

GKC

:tiphat: thank you!