I've looked at his paper (http://www.latimertrust.org/download/66comment.pdf) on women and the church, and it is very much the old style "this is what the bible says and these texts prove it" approach.
"For the same scriptural reasons outlined above, if episcopacy is the exercise of authority through teaching and discipline, it is not a defensible form of ministry for women. The issue is not simply that of oversight in the diocese but of modelling biblical patterns of relationship and responsibility."
That is a quite appalling thing for a minister in a church which already accepts women priests has to say! Most of his arguments almost seem like "roll the clock back" moves, to do away with women priests. He leans over heavily on a few key texts. Maybe he should join the Plymouth Brethren; the last time I heard that kind of argument was an Exeter University from them.
I compared it with N.T. Wright's much better http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm.At the moment NTW also seems to have caused a certain amount of annoyance to the Anglican fundamentalists by presenting a different perspective on atonement theories, and critiquing theirs!
I don;t know if this Simon Vibert is the same one who is based in Wimbledon, or if there are several! (http://www.wimbledonchurch.co.uk/people/simon_vibert.htm); he also has an aggressively anti-Catholic sermon (or diatribe) on the Eucharist (http://www.wimbledonchurch.co.uk/articles/communion.htm), in which he says "Jesus was not talking about some future perpetual act of sacrifice going on down the history of the church. He was talking about one sacrifice, the sacrifice he is about to make on the cross....".
Other notable comments: "One practical consequence of this is that it is important that we use appropriate church language when we gather to break bread and drink wine. First, I don't think we should use the word 'Priest' for that is an inappropriate word for my job...Secondly I don't think that we should use the word 'Altar', because the table at the top is not a place where a sacrifice is being made, rather it is a place where a meal is being prepared. ...There is no change in the substance of the bread or the wine. The bread remains bread; the wine remains wine.". I doubt if he understands what Aquinas meant "substance" in Aristotelian categories! It would be interesting to know how he deals with left over bread. John Macquarrie in his book 'A Guide to the Sacraments" (which is one of the few to appreciate the subtelty in Aquinas idea of transubstantiation), mentions that how the bread is disposed of is an interesting pragmatic test of how it is perceived (i.e reserved, eaten, or just thrown away).
WYCLIFFE HALL, Oxford, is the focus of a dispute involving allegations of a culture of bullying and intimidation, and of an ultra-conservative attitude to women.
The governing Council of the theological college, a permanent private hall of the University, is chaired by the Bishop of Liverpool, the Rt Revd James Jones. This week it said that it had embarked on a review of the college's governance.
The complaints centre on the management style of the Principal, the Revd Dr Richard Turnbull, and his appointment of the Revd Simon Vibert as Vice-Principal. Mr Vibert had made public his belief that women should not teach men.
He co-wrote, with the Revd Dr Mark Burkill and the Revd Dr David Peterson, a Latimer Trust paper that argued that a woman on her own should not teach men about faith or lead a congregation (Ministry Work Group Statement concerning the ministry of women in the Church today.
Since Dr Turnbull was appointed in 2005, six full-time or part-time academic staff have resigned posts. In a letter of resignation to Dr Turnbull in March, the former director of studies, Dr Philip Johnston, accused him of leadership "without significant regard for your staff colleagues". Dr Johnston wrote that the new Vice-Principal had been appointed despite a "very strong consensus" of staff and students in favour of a different candidate…
.jpg)
Posts
3 comments:
Just on the issue of Simon Vibert's views of the sacraments and the ministry, they're pretty well identical with those held by Archbishop Thomas Cranmer. In Cranmer's last Prayer Book there is no 'altar', only the Lord's Table, there are no manual actions during communion and the curate may have "to his own use" any left-over bread, rather than consuming it.
Of course one may argue that Cranmer was wrong, too. But one cannot argue that Vibert's position is inherently un-Anglican.
That is fair comment, but I was not saying that he was not unAnglican, just that his use of the word "substance" seemed to be picking on a rather naive idea of transubstantiation; John Macquarrie's Guide to the Sacraments notes how subtle Aquinas was on this matter. Of course, Cramner's position was revised extensively in the Elizabethan settlement and after which is why the CofE adopted the 1668 prayer book, which is quite different in many respects from Cramner's last prayer book, especially with the words about the body and blood, and moves back to a more "Catholic" kind of position (as the Tractarians saw). Incidentally, Elizabeth I used a complete rendering of a revised prayer book in Latin.
I notice you did not address Reverend Viberts comments on the status of women in the church?
A last note: the Anglican rubrics provide that, ‘Any consecrated bread and wine which is not required for purposes of communion is consumed at the end of the distribution or after the service.’ This provision for reverent consumption dates back to the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.
Post a Comment