Charismatic v institutional - what happened next?

13»

Comments

  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    I thought it only went back to Gregory the Great?
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    I thought it only went back to Gregory the Great?

    Not even that far.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    It is argued about a great deal in the West, but priestly celibacy and all that goes with it is as much church as the rosary in most places.

    Very much so. Beyond that, I'll go quietly.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    It is argued about a great deal in the West, but priestly celibacy and all that goes with it is as much church as the rosary in most places.

    So was the Mass in Latin right up until the point when it wasn't. As the shortage of priests becomes more acute Rome will inevitably expand allowing married priests beyond the current Eastern Rite and former-Anglican enclaves.

    maybe, but the tendency in Australia, where local priests have always been in short supply, is to import priests. Most came from Ireland in my youth, but these days they are often from Africa and East Asia.

    The supply from Ireland dried up as Ireland became wealthier and the abuses enabled by the church caught up with it. I fully expect the same to happen elsewhere.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Yes we have a couple of lovely and massively popular Indian priests here in NW England, and the parish in Wales that we sometimes attend has a West African priest who covers a a large geographical area (not much chance of a Welsh language Mass there.)
  • Our local (Cardiff) parish has a priest from Ghana; and our local Methodist minister is also Ghanaian though from a different part of the country. He's been in Britain for some years and I believe his home Church wants him back to teach in their Seminary as he is very highly qualified!
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    Compulsory celibacy is a discipline and not a doctrine of the RC Church. Another discipline is that a priest is 'incardinated' into a diocese. He cannot, as a rule, accept a post in another diocese and he can, as a rule, be moved from one parish to another within the same diocese by the bishop.
    In practice, of course, some priests can be 'excardinated' and move to another diocese, though once again the local bishop would decide whether to accept him or not.

    Priests who belong to religious orders, like the Jesuits, would owe canonical obedience to the authorities of the religious order and be moved by them.

    Again, although the bishop has the power, for the good of the faithful, to move a priest, there are occasionally cases of priests who do not want to move or who may actually resist being moved. Usually priests are 'asked' if they will take on a certain task in a particular parish.

    I get the impression in the Anglican church that it is the parish who choose a priest from a list of applicants and the bishop who rubberstamps this. I suppose that the Anglican bishop can refuse to confirm a particular priest in a post.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Forthview wrote: »
    <snip>
    I get the impression in the Anglican church that it is the parish who choose a priest from a list of applicants and the bishop who rubberstamps this. I suppose that the Anglican bishop can refuse to confirm a particular priest in a post.
    The situation varies across the different Anglican provinces.

    In England, the patron (who may be an individual, or the bishop, or a trust, or an institution such as a cathedral dean and chapter or an ancient educational institution) is responsible for presenting a candidate to a parish. The Parish appoints representatives who have the right to refuse the proposed person. The bishop may refuse to license the person proposed, but this would be utterly exceptional if the candidate is a priest in good standing in the Church of England.

    Usually, the parish and patron co-operate in a process which produces a parish profile and a person specification, and may include advertising the post. There is usually an interview process which nowadays is likely to involve more than one candidate for the post - if sufficient applications are received. The interview is likely to involve parish representatives, the bishop or another senior clergy person from the diocese, and one or more people on behalf of the patron.

    The number of people involved grows if the appointment involves more than one parish.

    The process can break down if, say, the patron pushes for a candidate the parish doesn’t like. The bottom line, if there is a long-enough failure to appoint, is that the responsibility falls to the diocesan bishop, or, failing that, the provincial archbishop.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Forthview wrote: »
    Compulsory celibacy is a discipline and not a doctrine of the RC Church. Another discipline is that a priest is 'incardinated' into a diocese. He cannot, as a rule, accept a post in another diocese and he can, as a rule, be moved from one parish to another within the same diocese by the bishop.
    In practice, of course, some priests can be 'excardinated' and move to another diocese, though once again the local bishop would decide whether to accept him or not.

    Priests who belong to religious orders, like the Jesuits, would owe canonical obedience to the authorities of the religious order and be moved by them.

    Again, although the bishop has the power, for the good of the faithful, to move a priest, there are occasionally cases of priests who do not want to move or who may actually resist being moved. Usually priests are 'asked' if they will take on a certain task in a particular parish.

    I get the impression in the Anglican church that it is the parish who choose a priest from a list of applicants and the bishop who rubberstamps this. I suppose that the Anglican bishop can refuse to confirm a particular priest in a post.

    They can and do refuse to move. There are parishes that have had the same priest for twenty years and more. They are moribund.
  • wabalewabale Shipmate
    A few comments on "immediate post-NT period 'charismatic-style' ministries". The spreading of the New Testament books and their apostolic authority must have been a real dampener to the more imaginative of the prophets. The good news, now in written form, saw off all the opposition. The early church had an amazing (and as far as I know unequalled) 'R rate' in passing on the message and making new christians. Much evangelism was probably accomplished by the example of ordinary christians - because they were honest, for example, and looked after the sick. And they got their message from the reading of the Scriptures. Prophets were perhaps phased out more by the growing canon of New Testament books than by clashes with the bishop, presbyter etc., who became increasingly important as the guardians and interpreters of Scripture. In every part of the world, and in every denomination, in one way or another. And here we are!
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    'r-rate' made me think of covid.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Forthview wrote: »
    I get the impression in the Anglican church that it is the parish who choose a priest from a list of applicants and the bishop who rubberstamps this. I suppose that the Anglican bishop can refuse to confirm a particular priest in a post.

    I am not sure of the rules and procedures in other dioceses here, but the procedure for us involves the formation of a nomination committee comprised of some elected to the position by the annual synod, and others elected by the particular parish; there is a majority of parish nominators. For a set period (either a year or 18 months, I can't remember), the nomination committee may propose a name to ++Sydney - who most definitely does not rubber stamp. Of course, things move much more smoothly if the person nominated is a member of the Anglican Church League, rather than an outsider.
  • wabalewabale Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    'r-rate' made me think of covid.

    Fair comment. I assumed R-rate was a general term, but it seems to be applied just to diseases. And looking back at some notes, I seem to have remembered the growth rate of Christianity over-optimistically. There is apparently quite a good argument (in 'The Rise of Christianity' by Rodney Stark) that the average growth rate of the Christian Church was roughly 40% per decade from the beginning to AD 300, when there were perhaps 5 million or so Christians. This, as the author points out, is impressive, but no greater than the growth rate of, say, the Mormons in more modern times. My attempt to highjack the term 'R-rate' for good was misplaced. And, of course, the real period of 'mushroom growth' followed the adoption of Christianity as the state religion in the 4th century.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Wow. I'm gunna check that book out.
Sign In or Register to comment.