Talk:Holy Orders
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
Holy Orders is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
WikiProject Anglicanism To-do:
|
|||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale. |
[edit] Other denominations
What about Holy Orders in Eastern Orthodoxy? Or Holy Orders in Anglicanism?
This is Wikipedia. Put in a subhead and start typing. I started with what I know best, and people added things. (Notice that the entry makes no claims to completeness even for Catholicism - it says 'in modern Catholicism'. I hope we'll get the history eventually). --MichaelTinkler
- I would -- except I don't know anything about them, and I am too lazy to do any research myself :) I was just hoping someone else might know, and chime in...
[edit] Priestly ideals
The article says:
- Not all priests have lived up to these ideals: see Catholic priests' sex abuse scandal.
Catholic priests have broken every commandment. There have been mass murderers among them, serial adulterers, thieves and con-artists. In past centuries indulgences (forgiveness) was sold. And what about the Spanish Inquisition?
Yet several articles about the Catholic Church here at Wikipedia mention none of that but with unseemly prurient interest they mention at the slightest excuse the recent sex abuse scandals.
I am inclined to remove the remark I have quoted. Would I be right to do so?
Ok, new user. Forgive my lack of computer skills. Yes, I agree priests have broken all the commandments. But that needs to stay seperate from the theology of Holy Orders. The one is not the same as the other, though of course evil, esp in God's minister, effects not only the doer, but all people as well.
Dave
Psb777 11:32, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Holy Orders in Eastern Orthodoxy
On the subject of Holy Orders in the Eastern Orthodox Church there is an error, though one that is commonly made, and is even in some books. The article says that one is tonsured to the rank of reader and subdeacon, and this phrase is used in common speech, though it is not technically correct. The tonsure occures prior to the ordination of a man to the rank of reader. He is ordained a reader by the laying on of hand of the celebrant ( which is normally a bishop, though for these lesser orders an archimandrite or abbot may perform this ordination). The ordinand is then latter ordained to the rank of subdeacon by laying of of hands. In the Greek a distinction is made in these two types of ordinations. The lesser form is called chirothesis ( for minor orders) and the greater one is called chirotony ( for major orders). This may be an arcane point, but it is very significant and I would like to hear some feedback before I make any changes. I am new and I don't wish to step on any toes.
--Frmaximos 03:50, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] problem with researching religion
people make the hugest emphases on the smallest details, therefore making it nearly impossible to absorb everything they say. to put it bluntly, its extremely boring. im doing a project on the history of religious orders and i nearly fall asleep when reading pages about it. i wish everything could be more clear and concise. on christianity- yes there are many faults with the religion, for example, if God created adam and eve, and they were perfect, why did they eat the forbidden fruit (which is never identified as an apple in the bible). we also come to the question why is there evil in the world? if god is a loving being why did he put evil in the world and why does he allow the innocent to die (helpless babies etc.) yes of course there is the common saying that it was meant to happen, but who wants a god that ordains the death of their family? these same imperfections plague the church as well. we cant expect them to be perfect because they are human. to me, christianity is an example of how powerful the mind is, if you catch my drift. look at what we can make ourselves believe. to make it fair, this is applicable to all religions, excluding buddhism. buddhism has been called the "perfection of natural religion", one that focuses on the power found inside of ones self instead of outside in some nonexistent (opinion) being.
some philisophical questions
what is truth what is evil can god create a rock he cant lift?
my name is Sky, skyd@culver.org, aim:culverpolopimp feel free to respond.
by the way, as i have just learned anyone can make a post on this page by clicking the plus (+) tab at the top of the page.
TUESDAY OCTOBER 19th 2004
hello I like you
December 6
Thomas' Summa Theologiae answers some of your questions. Here is my shot at it. truth is what IS, not what we want it to be. We can know truth, but not all truth all at once.
What is evil? Other than a lack of good? I would suggest a lack, period. Evil is nothing where there should be something.
Last, it depends what you mean by lift.
Dave
[edit] Ordination for Women
In today's evangelistic organizations, women are ordained as a matter of course. All it takes is a desire to be a minister and a willingness to serve other's in His name. While some organizations require a college degree and years of study, other organizations will ordain for the asking. In each it is up to the degree of study or time one wants to put into it.
Many 'organized' churches also ordain women who feel called to minister to others in that capacity. While some differentiate on what a woman can do in that capacity, many don't.
- I'm not clear on what you mean by "evangelistic organizations." Parachurch organizations? Denominational missionary agencies? Please feel free to expand the section on the ordination of women, but be sure to specify when and where your comments apply. If you do plan to expand it, you might want to create a user account so your name doesn't appear as your address "12.216.83.20." --Flex 14:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] holy orders & ministry
Whilst the entry I added could go under the definition, it is more introductory than definitional. It would IMO unbalance that definition. If the Article was Ordination rather than holy orders then it would be easier. Paul foord 01:29, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] seperate ordiantion entry
The entry for ordiantion redirects here and that's not correct since this article forms part of the series Christianity. Not all ordiantions are Christian, and this article is really mostly slanted towards the Catholic church.
[edit] "Priest" etymology
This article is the very first time anywhere I've seen it mentioned that "priest" might be derived from the Latin "praepositus". As far as I know, Christian priests have never been called that, not even in Rome, and in Greek they're called "presbyteros" to this day, so this etymology seems unlikely at best. Is there a reference for it anywhere? Csernica 04:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. I've always understood the term to have developed similarly to presbyterate and presbyter. Then again, I've been wrong before. -- Essjay · Talk 05:16, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
-
- From what I understand, the etymology is somewhat uncertain. The American Heritage Dictionary entry seems to confirm this: "Middle English preost, from Old English prost, perhaps from Vulgar Latin *prester (from Late Latin presbyter; see presbyter) or from West Germanic *prvost (from Latin praepositus, superintendent; see provost)." --Flex 14:01, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Again, first I've ever heard of this. I'll check the OED when I have a chance. Is there any evidence anywhere, I wonder, for Christain priests ever having been called "praepositus"? They were certanly called "prester" at one time. Csernica 20:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
-
[edit] defintion of a hoy order
[edit] defintion of a holy order
[edit] Two small changes
Careful readers will note two small chages under Catholic holy orders. They are orders, not degrees of ordination. This is often confused, but the rite ordains one to an order.
Second, while Leo 13 did declare Anglian orders null, it has never been taught infallibly. Theoretically, the Church could change her mind in light of new information.
I find the inclusion of Anglicans seeking ordination from Old Catholic bishops interesting, as I have know Anglicans to do it for precisely the issue of apostolic succession.
Dave
[edit] External links
I removed this link:
as it appears to be a dig, not a reference. Discuss humanism, link to the article on humanism, but this link seems to be a fork in disguise.
Also this one:
- Women Elders, an essay on the ordination of women in the Presbyterian tradition
which is already linked from ordination of women, to which it is specific.
Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 10:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Judaism and humanism
The section on ordination of homosexuals includes accounts of Judaism and humanist organizations on having homosexuals in leadership roles. However, the article is titled "holy orders", and its introduction presents this term solely in a Christian context. Is semicha (the ordination of a rabbi) ever called Holy Orders in the Jewish tradition? If so, the introduction should reflect this; if not, the discussion of homosexual rabbis is irrelevant to this article and should be moved, probably to Homosexuality and Judaism. Similarly, unless there is a humanist religious organization which uses the term "holy orders" with regard to the ordination of its leaders/celebrants, the humanist section should be removed, or moved to an article about organized humanism. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- In the absence of any objection, I've removed the sections on Judaism and humanism as not relevant to the term Holy Orders per se. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Homilies v Sermons
The article subsection 'Process and Sequence' says that transitional deacons are licensed to preach sermons. In the Catholic Church anyone can preach a sermon, but a homily, preached after the gospel and relating to the day's scripture readings is reserved to priests and deacons. I don't know about other denominations, but surely the article should be more accurate? Does anyone have an objection to saying something like, 'deacons are able to preach the homily after the Gospel at mass' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesblythe (talk • contribs) 11:34, March 19, 2006
[edit] Monks as Bishops in the East
While the practice has generally been to ordain monks to the Episcopate, there is no rule that says that is the way it has to be.
[edit] Merge with Ordination proposed
The Ordination article is very weak and has no references. Nearly all of its content is duplicated here, and covered more thoroughly. Incoming links seem to be almost randomly distributed acrosss the two articles. So I think a merge is in order. What do you think? What do you think the title of the merged article should be? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- My initial reaction would be against the merge because of the extreme bias in this article toward Roman Catholic and Anglican concepts. Those of us who are Reformation Protestants (Lutherans, Presbyterians, United Churches, etc.) would be rather misrepresented. Perhaps if the two articles were in fact merged, the resultant article should be titled "Ordination" rather than "Holy Orders", since the former term incorporates the latter, but not vice versa. Emerymat 00:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Non-Anglican protestants are described much better at this article than at Ordination. Please try to fix the bias you see here, as bias is not acceptable, even if a merge does not happen.
- I think we should consider Ordination and Holy Orders as a title. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- But see, the bias begins with the title itself, "Holy Orders". This is simply not a term that Reformation Protestants use. Emerymat 12:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I know the title is a problem. So, should we merge to Ordination or merge to Ordination and Holy Orders or find a way to keep the two articles separate without confusing people, or something else? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- I would be in favor of the merging, and I supose either title would be acceptable. My preference would be for simply "Ordination", as I think that incorporates Holy Orders, but I recognize that could be my own bias. So, while my vote would be for merging to an article titled "Ordination", I guess would not oppose merging to one titled "Ordination and Holy Orders" if others felt it necessary. Emerymat 22:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I know the title is a problem. So, should we merge to Ordination or merge to Ordination and Holy Orders or find a way to keep the two articles separate without confusing people, or something else? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- But see, the bias begins with the title itself, "Holy Orders". This is simply not a term that Reformation Protestants use. Emerymat 12:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
-
Oppose ordination is also a concept in Buddhism with cognate concepts in other religions 152.91.9.219 01:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Oppose Many protestants familiar with ordination ceremonies have never called this "Holy Orders" MPS 15:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose I'm a bit late to the discussion, but Holy Orders and Ordination are not the same thing. It is possible to be ordained without undergoing Holy Orders. It may be better to remove the "Other Concepts of Ordination" section to Ordination and have a link to it rather than discuss the other concepts on a page specifically on Holy Orders. The Dark 13:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Way to "Roman" of a suggestion for the vast majority of even Christian denominations, let alone non-Christian religions.--LanceHaverkamp 04:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Removed merge tags, article is now broader than Christianity Paul foord 12:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Uh, all of the opposition arguments here are really stupid, and do not preclude a merge into ordination. You do understand that "merge" does not mean "replace", right? I read most of the arguments here as actually being in favor of merging, in fact if not in word. Therefore I'm putting the tags back. Because really, both articles need not exist, and currently this one is of the lower quality. So what can be salvaged from it should be incorporated into ordination and this article should be deleted. --70.131.58.28 (talk) 05:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Ordination discusses ordination among all religions. Holy Orders is a Christian sacrament. Ordination and Holy Orders are similar, but they are not the same thing, and they must have separate articles on Wikipedia. I understand your argument, but trying to discuss Holy Orders within an article about ordination within all religious, would make the article much too long. If you are displeased with the quality of Holy Orders, please edit the article to improve it. Merger however is inappropriate. Consensus was already reached opposing merger. Dgf32 (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Why is it done?
What is missing here, it seems to me, is a clear, concise explanation of why Holy Orders is necessary. What does it confer upon the recipient of the Sacrament? Obviously a title (priest, deacon, etc.), which is laboriously explained, but what authority or powers does it place upon the recipient?
Thank you.
- I will double check the article for the "why" you mention is lacking. However, to answer you question, the "why" is the sacramental character that the Sacrament of Holy Orders provides. As Catholics, we believe that through the Sacrament, the gift of the Holy Spirit is given. The Holy Spirit then "imprints" a character on the soul, and empower the person to act in the name of the Church and to be ministers within the Church.DaveTroy 09:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bias?
Why does this page only include Judeo-Christian holy orders? Doesn't every religion have a holy order of some type?
wrc_wolfbrother 03:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Wolfbrother, the answer would be NO, as to how you ask your question. Does every religion have some type of "designated" worship leader, I would answer "yes." But here HOLY ORDER refers to a sacrament -- a concept that doesnt' exist outside of Christianity. Further, "Order" here refers to a group to which you are configured into -- again not a universal concept. For example, in Shintoism, the Emperor of Japan is the High Priest ex officio, not by virtue of ordination. Another example would be Jewish Rabbi's.....they aren't necessarily priests, rather they are scholars of the law. In other traditions, one is a priest because you're from a priestly family.DaveTroy 16:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Child Molestation
I think this article shuld talk about priests' child molestation since so many have done it.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumarine (talk • contribs)
[edit] Inconsistent intro
Current article reads in part Holy Orders in the Roman Catholic (Latin: sacri ordines), Eastern Catholic, Eastern Orthodox (ιερωσυνη, ιερατευμα, Свештенство), Oriental Orthodox, Anglican, Assyrian, Old Catholic, Independent Catholic churches and some Lutheran churches are the three orders of bishop, priest and deacon, or the sacrament or rite by which candidates are ordained to those orders. These Churches regard ordination as a sacrament (the sacramentum ordinis). Protestant denominations, however, have varied conceptions of the church offices, but none of them considers ordination a sacrament... (my emphasis). However, all Lutheran churches are protestant... Lutheranism is a major branch of Protestant Christianity... according to our article. Some rephrasing needed, but it will be a bit tricky, I can see what it's trying to say and it's all important. Andrewa 02:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] reworking
This page included quite a bit of outdated, irrelevant, hanging material,m and also hopelessly confused Orthodox, Catholic and anglican and Lutheran theologies (just for instance, "Roman Catholic" and "Eastern Catholic" kept being referred to as if they were two different theologies and Christian sets of beliefs). This should clarify and organize things a bit.24.164.159.234 21:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- The "Roman Catholic" and "Eastern Catholic" division that you see was incorrectly thrust into many articles. They are a hold over from an edit war in 2006 when a small group was trying to make the case that the term "Roman Catholic" refered only to the Latin Rite and could never be used to refer to the entire Church in union with Rome. This still needs to be corrected in many places across Wikipedia. -- SECisek 17:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] revisions
1. The 39 Articles are still printed in British editions of the BCP. 2. Adaptations, such as that adopted by the Episcopal Church USA in 1801, are still printed in other BCP's (see BCP for USA, 1979; BCP for Canada 1959). 3. The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral repeats the distinction whereby Baptism and Eucharist are sacraments. 4. Lambeth Resolution 11 of 1888 repeats this. 5. Even those who downplay the definitiveness of the articles admit that they are still "authoritative." 6. To say that most Anglicans have a Catholic notion of Holy Orders is, frankly, ridiculous: even such Anglo-Catholic documents as Newman's Tract 90 are incompatible with the definitions of the Council of Trent -- which is why Newman became Catholic.
At the end of the day, the theology of the Eucharist of the Anglican communion stands in deliberate contrast to that of the Roman Catholic Church. As the RC's center their understanding of Orders on the understanding of the Eucharist, so there is a significant divergence in their understanding of all the other sacraments, including Orders. The current presentation of this article, and its contrast between Roman Catholic/Orthodox understanding of Orders and the Anglican understanding is perfectly accurate and fair. If it weren't, RC's and Orthodox bishops wouldn't be reordaining Anglican clergy who convert.
BTW, I'm making absolutely no judgment on which side is more correct, Biblical, evangelical, apostolic etc. This is a simple matter of dispassionate analysis. To make it brutally short: either Orders is a sacrament or it is not; either Eucharist is a sacrifice or it is not; either a priest sacrifices or he does not -- RC/Orthodox say yes; while individual Anglicans may have their own feelings, Anglican Communion official statement is "not yes", either outright "no," or at minimum "not exactly."
This article in its present state fairly reflects that.24.164.159.234 (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- In reply:
- In the cathecism currently used to confirm young men and and women in the Episcopal church, it discusses the 7 sacraments (see: Sydnor, William. Looking at the Episcopal Church. USA: Morehouse Publishing.) It makes it quite clear that Baptism and Eucharist are the Dominical Sacraments, but only the lowest, schismatic parishes today would be hard line on the number of sacraments at two.
- No one would claim that the 39 articles are "authoritative". No one in the entire Anglican communion is obligated to pay them any mind except Clergy of the Church of England who are only asked to acknowledge that the Articles are "agreeable to the Word of God". Again, the laity are not, and no other Churches of the Anglican Communion make such a requirement. (see The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church by F. L. Cross (Editor), E. A. Livingstone (Editor) Oxford University Press, USA; 3 edition p.1611 (March 13, 1997)) They do not have any force what so ever, unlike canon law in The Roman Catholic Church.
- They are included in the prayer books as an "historic statement of faith".(Ibid). To say that Anglican do not have a sacraficial, Catholic understanding of the mass is frankly, not NPOV. Please see Apostolicae Curae, which does a good job of fleshing out both positions, historical and current.
- BTW Newman became a Roman Catholic for many reasons, but if one was could be pointed to it was probably because of the political alliance with anti-Papal Prussia and subsequent religious arrangement made at the time that a joint Anglican-Lutheran bishopric should be established in Jerusalem. That was too much for Newman to take. It was not because tract 90 disagreed with fundamental Roman ideas. His path to canonization continues today.
- The communion is in a state of flux and will probably look very different in a few years, but these are the facts as they now stand. I have reverted to reflect this and will cite the article as above when I have a chance. Again, look at Apostolicae Curae which contains the crux of both arguements nicely. -- SECisek 16:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Reducing Newman's problem with the Jerusalem bishopric to a mere political distaste for Prussians is absurd. Apostolicae Curae is also an odd document to cite, as it is the Catholic Church's utter and complete rejection of the very argument you are making. That the Anglican clergy have to acknowledge the 39 articles IS what makes the authoritative: the archbishop of canterbury, primate of all England and senior bishop of the whole Anglican Communion is asked at his installation, "Led by the Holy Spirit, [the Anglican Church] has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons. In the declaration you are about to make will you affirm your loyalty to this inheritance of faith as your inspiration and guidance under God in bringing the grace and truth of Christ to this generation and making him known to those in your care?"
That's quite a bit more than simply saying "Yeah, once upon a time somebody cared about the 39 Articles."
The use of the term "dominical sacrament" versus "other" sacraments is an absolute, word for word denial of Trent.
The issue here is not who is right or wrong, Anglican versus RC. This issue is whether their understandings of Orders and Eucharist (the two being inextricably connected) are the "same," as you would like the article to say. They manifestly are not. SOME Anglicans may WANT them to be the same, but the Anglican Church, as an institution, holds positions which are specifically contradicted by Trent, or they refuse to deny positions specifically condemned by Trent. That's why clergy are reordained by the RC Church if they convert.
Yes, Anglicans have a tradition of latitudinarianism, but that's the point here: is it NOT "not NPOV" to cite the official statements of the institution, as it continues to be held and printed in official texts, that the Mass is not a sacrifice; it IS POV to take one position within Anglicanism (the very high Anglo-Catholic) and treat it as the psoition of the church, which it is not, much as Anglo -Catholics may hope to someday CHANGE the official position of their church.24.164.159.234 04:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Did you read the article on Apostolicae Curae? I would guess not or you would have noticed that article presents both sides in a NPOV manner, unlike what you are attempting to do here. If you had read it you would see that you are wrong to say that clergy are reordained when converting to Rome, most are conditional reordained with words to the effect of If you are not already a priest - see the case of Graham Leonard, where Rome ruled that there was prudent doubt that he was not already a valid priest. See the converts at Anglican Use who's reordinations were conditional - they were allowed to keep their wives in the Latin Rite and continue to use the Prayer Book as well. If you had read the article on Apostolicae Curae you would see that it includes all the info on the encyclical Saepius Officio - where the Archbishops of Canterbury and York clearly stated that the priesthood as understood in the Anglican communion is a sacrafical one. They pointed out to deny this is to be willfully ignorant of the Anglican position, much as you are doing above. To suggest there are not seven sacraments in Anglicanism is absurd when I have citation in front of me that states there are. To claim the 39 Articles are authoritative when I have a citation (from the Oxford Press, no less) to the contrary is to purposely misunderstand the Anglican position.
- All of this will be undeniable in the comming years as the Anglican communion as it has existed is likely to disolve, and almost certainly more and more parishes will be recieved back into Roman obediance. I can assure you that the precedence set by John Paul II in the case of Graham Leonard will be followed. These are not the days of Christopher Holywood. The Nag's Head Fable has long been discredited.
- Somebody else already corrected the article, so no matter. --SECisek 16:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, you cannot explain NPOV the situation without clearly understanding the sacramental theology of both curches. The only reason conditional redordination exists is because of the insertion of Old Catholic lines of apostolicity into the Anglican lines: the OC's are certainly valid in Rome's eyes, the C of E's are not, and the presence of an OC bishop at a C of E ordination raises the issue of doubtful form. You can't "assure me" of a goddam thing, unless you are Josef Ratzinger in disguise, and the Nag's Head has nothing to do with the Roman position in Apostolicae Curae (you keep harping on the Wiki article -- I "advise" YOU to read the actual document; I have, in Latin, and it certainly does not say what you claim). I don't give a good goddam what OUP sdays -- MY citation is the oath talken by the Archbishop of Canterbury himself at his installation just four years ago...for god's sake. I am very NPOV in this, as I have continually said, because I make no judgment or claim as to who is right, and I just clrify what each side says. You are clearly an Anglo-Catholic trying to make your position within the spectrum of Anglican opinion the official one. It is not.24.164.159.234 00:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I give up on attempting to make contributions to this article. I found an article that was incredibly, outright wrong (see my initial edits many days ago), that had been left standing by all the pious bleaters now screaming "POV" at me. I made some changes, and find that the article is daily blindly reverted by someone who has hijacked it to push a particular agenda within one particular church of one communion of Christianity, This is why Wikipedia, once something admired, has become the punchline of jokes on TV and in the academic aula. For the information of anyone who cares, this article now is not an NPOV exploration of various views of orders, but a manifesto by the British community of the Anglo-Catholic wing of the high-church party to try to get Rome to kiss them to make up for Edward VI.24.164.159.234 00:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Non est, quod mihi succenseas. Cassianus iudex es. Non aequum facis. Tu in vitio es. Sed ad rem, reclamo, quantum possm. Ex animi mei sententi, Saepius Officio ex se inellegitur. Theologia mihi imprimis placeret, nisi nimiae theologorum contentiones me offenderent. Ne sis mihi iam morea, vale! -- SECisek 00:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
