1/3 Of Church Of England Clergy

[BG45]

[url="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1403106/One-third-of-clergy-do-not-believe-in-the-Resurrection.html"]One third of clergy do not believe in the Resurrection[/url]

[quote]By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent 12:01AM BST 31 Jul 2002

[b]A third of Church of England clergy doubt or disbelieve in the physical Resurrection and only half are convinced of the truth of the Virgin birth, according to a new survey.

The poll of nearly 2,000 of the Church's 10,000 clergy also found that only half believe that faith in Christ is the only route to salvation.
[/b]
While it has long been known that numerous clerics are dubious about the historic creeds of the Church, the survey is the first to disclose how widespread is the scepticism.

Few bishops would now share the views of the former Bishop of Durham, the Rt Rev David Jenkins, who caused a scandal in the 1980s when he contrasted the Resurrection with a "conjuring trick with bones".

[b]Nevertheless liberal clergy, who represent about one in eight of the total, remain profoundly uncertain about the Church's core doctrines. In the survey, two thirds of them expressed doubts in the physical Resurrection and three quarters are unconvinced by the Virgin birth.

Similar levels of belief were found in organisations such as Affirming Catholicism, a liberal Anglo-Catholic group of which the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, is a founding member.[/b]

Although Dr Williams holds firmly orthodox views on the Resurrection and the Virgin birth, the proportion of members of Affirming Catholicism who believe without question in the two doctrines is 35 and 24 per cent respectively.

Doubts are even greater among members of the [b]Modern Churchpeople's Union, a liberal group whose president is the Bishop of Lincoln, the Rt Rev John Saxbee: only a quarter believe in the physical Resurrection and just eight per cent in the Virgin birth.[/b]

The survey, carried out by Christian Research, did find that clergy were more orthodox on other doctrines.

[b]More than 75 per cent overall accept the doctrine of the Trinity and a similar proportion believe that Christ died to take away the sins of the world. More than 80 per cent were happy with the idea that God the Father created the world.
[/b]
Unsurprisingly, the organisations whose members were the most traditional were Reform, a conservative evangelical group, and Forward in Faith, a traditionalist umbrella body.

The Rev Robbie Low, a member of Cost of Conscience, the traditionalist organisation which commissioned the survey, said: "There are clearly two Churches operating in the Church of England: the believing Church and the disbelieving Church, and that is a scandal.

"Increasingly, positions of authority are being placed in the hands of people who believe less and less. It is an intolerable situation where the faithful are increasingly being led by the unfaithful." He added that doubts about the core doctrines of the Church were higher among women priests and their supporters.

[b]Only just over half of the admittedly small sample of female clergy in the survey said they believed in the bodily Resurrection and the figure fell to exactly a third when it came to the Virgin birth.[/b]

The Rev Nicholas Henderson, the general secretary of the Modern Churchperson's Union, said he was not surprised by the figures. Clergy, faced with intelligent and educated congregations, increasingly had to think "very carefully" about how to present complex doctrine credibly.

He was also critical of plans by the bishops to revive heresy trials for clergy who publicly questioned key Church teachings.

Dr Peter Brierley, the executive director of Christian Research, said the survey had been undertaken among 4,000 churches and reflected a representative sample of clergy, in terms of churchmanship and belief.

In findings reported earlier this month, the survey also showed that a quarter of the clergy still described themselves as "implacably opposed" to women bishops.
[/quote]

The bold is mine at the disbelief of just how many in the CoE disbelieve the virgin birth and in the Resurrection.

[jegudiel]

Very sad.

When I was a kid, one of the highlights of getting ready for Christmas, for me, was to watch the broadcast of the service from a cathedral in England. It was very well done, very reverent and beautiful. The singing was amazing. Back then, I had respect for the Anglicans because, our differences aside, they still presented a decent liturgy. You got the sense that it was really Christmas.

Now, however, I feel so sad for them. How far they have fallen, in some ways; it must really hurt many of them to see the things their church is going through. I am glad about the Ordinariates set up by the Pope. I hope this helps many people. I have to pray for them.

[Guest Ralph]

I think it is perhaps a convenient thing that a similar study has not been done of Roman Catholic clergy in various countries. Let us remember that an infidel layman masquerading as a cleric in the Anglican community can do only so much damage. An infidel who is the pastor of a Catholic Church can be far more destructive.

[Nihil Obstat]

Isn't the commonly-cited statistic something like 30% of Catholic priests don't believe in the Real Presence?

[Guest Ralph]

If so, then it is it is not possible for the communicants at those parishes to have even a moral certainty that they are receiving the Body and Blood of Christ. One cannot minimally intend that which one has manifestly proclaimed not to believe in.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Ralph' timestamp='1295852439' post='2203717']
If so, then it is it is not possible for the communicants at those parishes to have even a moral certainty that they are receiving the Body and Blood of Christ. One cannot minimally intend that which one has manifestly proclaimed not to believe in.
[/quote]
Well I'm not sure I believe that number myself. I've never seen the study, never even heard of a study being done. That's just the number that gets tossed around.

[Papist]

[quote name='Ralph' timestamp='1295852439' post='2203717']
If so, then it is it is not possible for the communicants at those parishes to have even a moral certainty that they are receiving the Body and Blood of Christ. One cannot minimally intend that which one has manifestly proclaimed not to believe in.
[/quote]

[font="Arial"]The Eucharist being the Body and Blood of Christ does not have any dependence on if the recipient believes or not. I understand it, if the priest[validly ordained] uses the proper form and has the intent to confect the bread to the Body and Blood of Christ is all that is required.[/font] Even if the priest is suspended a divinis, because he has no jurisdiction, perhaps due to the lack of incardination, transubstantiation stills happens.

Edited January 24, 2011 by Papist

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

[quote name='BG45' timestamp='1295841580' post='2203680']
[url="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1403106/One-third-of-clergy-do-not-believe-in-the-Resurrection.html"]One third of clergy do not believe in the Resurrection[/url]

The bold is mine at the disbelief of just how many in the CoE disbelieve the virgin birth and in the Resurrection.
[/quote]

<sigh> I thought one of the goals of Phatmass was not to criticize other religions.

Two things: First, slightly less than 1/5 of Church of England clergy even answered the poll in the first place. Second, the vast majority of Phatmass posters are located in the U.S. or Canada, and this poll concerns the Church of England, which does not include the U.S. or Canada.

I, too, am very sad to read of the beliefs of some C of E clergy. And, were I to be living in England, I would consciously seek out a parish with a pastor with more orthodox beliefs. But, I am not located in England. And, it is the task of the Church of England to "clean out its own house," although we can certainly pray for them. However, I'm not sure why the Church of England is of any more concern to orthodox Catholics than the Presbyterians, Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, and other non-Catholic Christians, and I don't see similar polls posted here on the beliefs of the clergy of any of these groups.

As an Anglican, I have far too much respect for the Catholic Church to post articles on the number of Catholics who use birth control, or on Catholic priests who are less than orthodox in their beliefs. May I ask for similar respect for Anglicans? Thanks.

Edited January 24, 2011 by IgnatiusofLoyola

[BG45]

I'm certain I wouldn't want to see the numbers for Catholic priests because I'd be afraid of the similarities.

Iggy, I wasn't making an effort to criticize other religions by posting an article from the nation where the Church of England is located, and would express the same feelings I did if this was a survey of Catholic clergy in England. You're right, if we split hairs it's more of a 1/5, but that's not the way that the media reports surveys, or any other survey group does, because in order to have true numbers one would have to poll every person in a population instead of relying on inferential statistics. I agree that most people on this board are from the United States and Canada, but I can still think of three off the top of my head that are in Europe and one in England in particular and issues within Christianity in one group tends to be an issue amongst other groups around the world, because we as humans tend to have similar hopes, doubts, and fears.

As for people not having posted about the polled beliefs of other groups, perhaps they've not been polled or it's not as visible? I posted this because a friend in England sent me the link on another inter-faith dialogue board that I belong to, mentioning how surprised he was as a non-Christian to see such numbers and that he found it to be quite interesting.

As for the last topic you raised, you already have that similar respect, because I'd call out a Catholic group of clergy on this issue as I would for the CoE in this thread. [url="http://www.themorningbulletin.com.au/story/2010/02/13/meet-the-priest-who-doesnt-believe-in-god/"]The first instance that comes to mind is that of Fr. Peter Kennedy in Brisbane, who was removed from his duties because he was actively preaching in a Catholic church that there is no Virgin Birth, there is no priesthood, and that [b]Jesus did not exist[/b].[/url] He goes on at some length with his misguided beliefs both in the article and in his book, not so modestly called "Peter Kennedy. The man who threatened Rome". In his defense, his case does show glaring problems with the Mass attendance of Catholics, 13%, and of how widespread wrong teachings sometimes are in the Catholic church. But, if it will make you feel more respected, I'll hold my tongue next time a friend sends me a link and not repost it without almost any comment as silence can construe negative intent rather than just a reposting of information wholesale. Sorry if it caused any hurt feelings.

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

[quote name='BG45' timestamp='1295900076' post='2203883']
I'm certain I wouldn't want to see the numbers for Catholic priests because I'd be afraid of the similarities.

Iggy, I wasn't making an effort to criticize other religions by posting an article from the nation where the Church of England is located, and would express the same feelings I did if this was a survey of Catholic clergy in England. You're right, if we split hairs it's more of a 1/5, but that's not the way that the media reports surveys, or any other survey group does, because in order to have true numbers one would have to poll every person in a population instead of relying on inferential statistics. I agree that most people on this board are from the United States and Canada, but I can still think of three off the top of my head that are in Europe and one in England in particular and issues within Christianity in one group tends to be an issue amongst other groups around the world, because we as humans tend to have similar hopes, doubts, and fears.

As for people not having posted about the polled beliefs of other groups, perhaps they've not been polled or it's not as visible? I posted this because a friend in England sent me the link on another inter-faith dialogue board that I belong to, mentioning how surprised he was as a non-Christian to see such numbers and that he found it to be quite interesting.

As for the last topic you raised, you already have that similar respect, because I'd call out a Catholic group of clergy on this issue as I would for the CoE in this thread. [url="http://www.themorningbulletin.com.au/story/2010/02/13/meet-the-priest-who-doesnt-believe-in-god/"]The first instance that comes to mind is that of Fr. Peter Kennedy in Brisbane, who was removed from his duties because he was actively preaching in a Catholic church that there is no Virgin Birth, there is no priesthood, and that [b]Jesus did not exist[/b].[/url] He goes on at some length with his misguided beliefs both in the article and in his book, not so modestly called "Peter Kennedy. The man who threatened Rome". In his defense, his case does show glaring problems with the Mass attendance of Catholics, 13%, and of how widespread wrong teachings sometimes are in the Catholic church. But, if it will make you feel more respected, I'll hold my tongue next time a friend sends me a link and not repost it without almost any comment as silence can construe negative intent rather than just a reposting of information wholesale. Sorry if it caused any hurt feelings.
[/quote]

BG45--I don't know you THAT well, but I think I know you well enough that I didn't feel your decision to post this article was personally directed at me. So, no hard feelings.

But, I do get discouraged sometimes, because it seems to me that when articles with negative statistics etc. are posted, Anglicans seem to be the subject of more of the negative articles compared to all the many other Christian non-Catholic denominations. That could be because I only notice the Anglican articles, but I don't think so. (Although I vaguely remember a recent thread about the Mormons, whom I don't even consider Christians, but wasn't the thread on the Lame Board, and mostly related to Mormon advertising, not their beliefs? I forget and may have that wrong.) And, "universal" issues, such as ugly vestments, lame music, and most liturgical dance are fair game for criticism, as least as far as I am concerned, as long as the Catholics get their equal share of the negative comments.

A good part of my feelings are related to the principle of "I can criticize my mother, but no one else can criticize her." The Anglican church certainly has its problems, and its share of people that I wish didn't consider themselves Anglicans. But, it is different if I bring up those problems, because it is my "family," versus if those issues are brought up on a Catholic forum.

On the same principle, as a non-Catholic, I don't post articles that contain negative statistics or criticisms of the Catholic Church. If a Catholic wishes to post those articles, that is different--he or she is part of the "Catholic family." I also tend to withhold comment on many (actually most) Catholic theological issues, because my role here is mostly to listen and learn, and I appreciate the fact that a Catholic forum welcomes me.

Okay, I confess, I did post the other week that I don't like holding hands during the Our Father. But, I didn't say that as a criticism of the Catholic church, only of the practice itself. I equally dislike holding hands with strangers when attending a Protestant service--it's not solely a Catholic practice. And, it was very comforting to realize that others feel uncomfortable holding hands with strangers, especially during a worship service. Up to that point, I thought it was just me, being antisocial.

I personally welcome Phatmass' guideline of not criticizing other religions. There are more than enough other things to talk about.

Edited January 24, 2011 by IgnatiusofLoyola

[BG45]

Thanks

The only Mormon thread I've seen recently was over in Transmundane Lane, asking for how to dialogue with Mormons, but there could be one over in the Lame Board too. And I totally understand the idea of criticizing family but no one else can, and I respect it.

[Guest Ralph]

[quote]The Eucharist being the Body and Blood of Christ does not have any dependence on if the recipient believes or not. I understand it, if the priest[validly ordained] uses the proper form and has the intent to confect the bread to the Body and Blood of Christ is all that is required. Even if the priest is suspended a divinis, because he has no jurisdiction, perhaps due to the lack of incardination, transubstantiation stills happens.
[/quote]

The intention of the minister is my concern here. The Summa states:

[i]Consequently, others with better reason hold that the minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the whole Church, whose minister he is; while in the words uttered by him, the intention of the Church is expressed; and that this suffices for the validity of the sacrament, except the contrary be expressed on the part either of the minister or of the recipient of the sacrament.[/i] Pt.3 Q64 RTO2

The point at issue is what constitutes a contrary expression. Some commentators have opined that this means the minister must make a contrary expression during the consecration, but this opinion is without apparent foundation. On the contrary, the Church has long rejected the validity of sacraments administered by ministers whose publicly manifested theology is contrary to the intention required in the sacrament. It is on this basis that the baptisms of the Latter Day Saints are held to be invalid and converts from this religion are baptized during their reception inthe Church. A mormon minister need not mention his heretical Christology or opposition to Trinitarianism during a Baptism, it is already manifested publicly in his speech and in the settled theology of his religion.

What the Church provides for its members is the moral certitude of valid sacraments in the absence of any specific credible evidence to the contrary. If a minister has not given any specific reason to doubt his intention, we may not doubt his intention cynically. This is a negative doubt, an unreasonable doubt that cannot affect moral certitude.

However, in the case of priests who have publicly stated their doubt of the Real presence or any of the doctrines which are essentially connected to it (e.g. the Resurrection and orthodox Christology) they have made a readily knowable contrary expression to proper intent.

In simpler terms, we are not allowed to doubt the validity of the Eucharist on the basis of what [i]we think[/i] about a priest, but only on the basis of what [i]he teaches and proclaims[/i].





[quote name='Ralph' timestamp='1295915496' post='2204006']
The intention of the minister is my concern here. The Summa states:

[i]Consequently, others with better reason hold that the minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the whole Church, whose minister he is; while in the words uttered by him, the intention of the Church is expressed; and that this suffices for the validity of the sacrament, except the contrary be expressed on the part either of the minister or of the recipient of the sacrament.[/i] Pt.3 Q64 RTO2

The point at issue is what constitutes a contrary expression. Some commentators have opined that this means the minister must make a contrary expression during the consecration, but this opinion is without apparent foundation. On the contrary, the Church has long rejected the validity of sacraments administered by ministers whose publicly manifested theology is contrary to the intention required in the sacrament. It is on this basis that the baptisms of the Latter Day Saints are held to be invalid and converts from this religion are baptized during their reception into the Church. A mormon minister need not mention his heretical Christology or opposition to Trinitarianism during a Baptism, it is already manifested publicly in his speech and in the settled theology of his religion.

What the Church provides for its members is the moral certitude of valid sacraments in the absence of any specific credible evidence to the contrary. If a minister has not given any specific reason to doubt his intention, we may not doubt his intention cynically. This is a negative doubt, an unreasonable doubt that cannot affect moral certitude.

However, in the case of priests who have publicly stated their doubt of the Real presence or any of the doctrines which are essentially connected to it (e.g. the Resurrection and orthodox Christology) they have made a readily knowable contrary expression to proper intent.

In simpler terms, we are not allowed to doubt the validity of the Eucharist on the basis of what [i]we think[/i] about a priest, but only on the basis of what [i]he teaches and proclaims[/i].




[/quote]

[Papist]

Ahhhh...that's what I said. The celebrant[priest] must have the intention of confecting the Sacrament.

The four main things necessary for a valid celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass:

minister: The celebrant must be a validly ordained priest.
intention: The celebrant must have the intention of confecting the Sacrament.
matter: The elements of the Mass must be wheaten bread and grape wine, made without additives.
form: The proper form (words) of consecration must be used. According to the Council of Trent, these requirements cannot be altered by anyone, not even the Church itself, since they were established by Christ.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1295921683' post='2204032']
Ahhhh...that's what I said. The celebrant[priest] must have the intention of confecting the Sacrament.

The four main things necessary for a valid celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass:

minister: The celebrant must be a validly ordained priest.
intention: The celebrant must have the intention of confecting the Sacrament.
matter: The elements of the Mass must be wheaten bread and grape wine, made without additives.
form: The proper form (words) of consecration must be used. According to the Council of Trent, these requirements cannot be altered by anyone, not even the Church itself, since they were established by Christ.
[/quote]
A celebrant likely couldn't have the intention of confecting the Sacrament validly if he did not believe in the Sacrament in the first place.

[Guest Ralph]

Nihil -

I certainly think your analysis is correct, in the case of a sacramental minister with knowledge. However, the laity would not know nor could they morally act upon such without the minister expressing his lack of faith. If a priest does express critical lack of faith rendering him unable to hold proper intention, then it would be unwise to attempt to receive any sacraments from him.