Sunday, 30 October 2005

civil partnerships: earlier CEN analysis

Back in August, an analysis of the bishops’ Pastoral Statement, written by Andrew Goddard, was published in the Church of England Newspaper but not on their website: The Civil Partnership Act and the Church of England. This escaped my attention at the time.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Sunday, 30 October 2005 at 3:16pm GMT
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Church of England
Comments

The Swedish Riksdag instituted Registered Partnerships in 1993, in force from 1994.

In 1997 the Bishop's Conference affirmed these, each Bishop issuing slightly different guide-lines for Blessings in her or his diocese.

Last Thursday the Synod made changes to the Swedish Canons, making these Blessings of Partnerships official adding 2 statements saying amongst other things, that the Church must not meddle in activities purported to "cure" gays and lesbians, and that being homosexual or having registered a Partnership shall be no hindrance to ordination or employment in the Church of Sweden.

Today the Congress of the Social Democratic party approved a motion to amend the 1987 Marriage Act to make marriages gender neutral on the lines of the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Canada.

Just for your edification ;=)

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Sunday, 30 October 2005 at 7:02pm GMT

Forgott: This means there is now a majority in Parlament, the PM Mr Persson having blocked the issue for several years.

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Sunday, 30 October 2005 at 7:35pm GMT

Excellent news.

Posted by: Merseymike on Sunday, 30 October 2005 at 7:52pm GMT

Congratulations, Goran. The spirit of Erastes is alive and well in Sweden. I look forward to the Swedish Parliament repealing the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.
(The ghost of Kierkegaard looks on from across the water.)
Mark

Posted by: Mark Beaton on Sunday, 30 October 2005 at 9:22pm GMT

Bravo!

Thank you for more GOOD NEWS!

Posted by: Leonardo Ricardo on Sunday, 30 October 2005 at 10:28pm GMT

Oh no, they won't. Nor will Synod.
Only in your imagination.

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Sunday, 30 October 2005 at 11:01pm GMT

Um, I imagine Kierkegaard is cheering on this blessed development --- along w/ the rest of the saints (the Eternal Party kicks into even *higher* gear! :-D). Yay Sweden!

[Mark, your sarcasm --- raining on our parade, to mix metaphors --- is exceptionally unappealing here. :-( To share the blessings of marriage among all loving couples is completely *in accord with* the faith of the the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed! :-)]

Posted by: J. C. Fisher on Monday, 31 October 2005 at 6:38am GMT

To say a few words about Mr Goddard's article, it is clear and well written. One of the best I've seen from the anti-modern side.

Funny the ChofE Newspaper did not publish it on line.

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Monday, 31 October 2005 at 10:01am GMT

Actually, Judith, I had a serious point, which is that Swedish Lutheranism has become so Erastian that it appears to be little other than an arm of government policy. This has been going on for many years, even though it's now disestablished. ('Kulturprotestantismus', I believe, is the term.) Yet there is also a schism in the Church of Sweden. The intervention of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Kenya (along with Norwegian and South African bishops) parallels 'in parvo' what has happened to Ecusa, and we will see African and Indonesian Lutherans moving apart from Sweden (or vice versa). Kierkegaard in favor of same-sex relations? Don't think so. It's hard to imagine him cheering about anything! :)

Posted by: Mark Beaton on Monday, 31 October 2005 at 11:46am GMT

Further to my last post, here is background information from Pr Yngve Kalin about the decision of the Swedish Church. It's amazing to people from an Anglo-American background to discover how much this is a (party) politically controlled and constituted organization. That's what I meant by Erastian. I understand the Church of England has soem links with the Swedish Church through the Porvoo (?) agreement.
http://kalin.nu/english/resist.htm

Posted by: Mark Beaton on Monday, 31 October 2005 at 2:41pm GMT

The Anglican churches of the UK and Ireland, not merely the Church of England, are in full communion with the Church of Sweden, and all the other churches of the Porvoo Communion, see
http://www.porvoochurches.org/

Posted by: Simon Sarmiento on Monday, 31 October 2005 at 3:50pm GMT

Mark Beaton

I don't know where you get your Norwegian and South African bishops from, but I would be somewhat wary of Mr Kalin's depiction of the Church of Sweden if I were you...

These accusations of "catering to the polititians" are little more than a post 1920 anti-general suffrage wet dream about the bad old days of Carolinian Absolutism...

The Calvinist King in 1687 merged the Church with the State organization ;=)

In reality the Church of Sweden has never been a hierarchic organization of the Roman kind. We never had mandatory celibacy, nor the "canonic" testament. We modified and used p a r t s of Canon law.

Our Parishes still own their property, incl. the church, hire the priest and so on.

The State tried to abolish this in the 1530ies but failed ;=)

And yes, we've had close relations with the Church of England since centuries back. Long before Borgå.

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Monday, 31 October 2005 at 4:15pm GMT

Surely Mr Beaton knows that Mr Kirkegaard was gay?

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Monday, 31 October 2005 at 4:29pm GMT

Our links with the Porvoo churches are indeed strong as was made clear in the gathering of our bishops at Trondheim last month. My view is that these relationships with churches that welcome LGBT people and provide for their welfare and spiritual support as well as blessing their unions will be on the Global South public agenda soon.
It seems to me a logical step for the GS policy makers to begin flagging up these relationships of full communion in their determination to isolate Rowan and other UK churches.
I foresee this issue may become central with the GS demanding a choice be made saying something like “Either you are with them – or us.”

Posted by: Martin Reynolds on Tuesday, 1 November 2005 at 9:35am GMT

Martin R, one of the differences from Anglicanism at the ecclesiological levels is that there are different Lutheran Fellowships in the world, such as ELCA and LCMS. The 'Global South' Lutherans of Africa (esp. Ethiopia and Tanzania) and Indonesia (Batak Church) are allied much more with LCMS and the Norwegian Church.

Posted by: Mark Beaton on Tuesday, 1 November 2005 at 10:36am GMT

Goran, why of course - that explains why he was obsessed with Regine Olsen all his life! :)
I do understand that it is very difficult for the catholic, confessional and evangelical elements in Sweden, but they are coming together, organizing and praying. I gather the Church of Sweden is considering 'open communion', i.e. for the unbaptized. I can't imagine the Church of England being too happy about that, although it is becoming widespread in Ecusa. Anyway, I do hope the new Mission Province will be reaching out with the Gospel to the 97% of Swedes who never attend church and especially the 'new Swedes' in Malmo.
Mark

Posted by: Mark Beaton on Tuesday, 1 November 2005 at 1:08pm GMT

I've been wondering, since hearing of this good news, why Abp Akinola had not done his usual fit of indignant righteousness over it. I'd assumed in my ignorance that the Church of Sweden was part of the Anglican Communion. So, I checked the AC site and couldn't see it - I thought, 'aah, that's why'. But I'd forgotten about Porvoo.

So, have I got this straight? The Church of England and of Ireland are in full communion with the Church of Sweden via the Porvoo thingy, which means really they are as one (thank God). And, at the moment, the CofE and of Eire are also in full communion with the Church of Nigeria and the Network and all those in the Anglican Communion of a 'reappraiser' persuasion (oh, go on then - thank God), which means really they are as one.

Right. So that means that the Church of Sweden and the Church of Nigeria are, if communion means anything in reality... AS ONE.

Fabby. It's that 'en kolpo' thing in action.

In order for the righteous 'reappraisers' to protest against, disassociate themselves from, and discipline such 'wickedness' as the blessing of gay relationships, clergy & bishops etc, they must either persuade the Churches of England and of Ireland to do that job for them by cutting off communion (I'm not sure the phrase 'ex-communication is appropriate as they are both independant bodies) with the Porvoo Churches or wresting themselves free from 'the bosom' by ex-communicating themselves as they keep threatening. (I suppose, technically, a third option is for the CofSweden to be excommunicated from the Porvoo, but I reeeeaaally can't see that happening).

G.K-S has suggested elsewhere that people underestimate the importance of this action in Sweden. I'm beginning to think he may be right.

Posted by: Augustus Meriwether on Tuesday, 1 November 2005 at 2:18pm GMT

oops, which may be pretty much what Martin R just said, sorry - it's late here.

Posted by: Augustus Meriwether on Tuesday, 1 November 2005 at 2:22pm GMT

I understand that the "Old Catholics" (also in full communion) are debating gay blessings in at least one of their synods soon too.

In the meantime the Roman Catholic Abp in Sweden said that the decision won't end dialogue, just widen the gap between denominations. (impaired communion anyone ?)

This is all hardly surprising of course. As society moves away from biblical/traditional objective morality onto new assumptions and behaviours based on humanism / relativism / individualism, tensions in the church are inevitable between those parts that seek to serve God and people based on their (current) socio-cultural perceptions, and those that seek serve God and people based on God's already revealed will !

Posted by: Dave on Tuesday, 1 November 2005 at 3:00pm GMT

On October 27th, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Stockholm expressley said: - Vi kommer inte att avbryta den ekumeniska dialogen med Svenska kyrkan trots att kyrkomötet i dag beslutat om en välsignelseakt för homosexuella par som ingått registrerat partnerskap.

Which means: We will not be breaking our Ecumenic dialogue with the Church of Sweden, in spite of the fact that the Kyrkomötet (Synod) today decided on an Act of Blessing for homosexual couples who have registered their Partnership.

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Tuesday, 1 November 2005 at 6:48pm GMT

Mark Beaton, in the Church of Sweden Communion is indeed open to all baptised in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, regardless of church or denominaton.

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Tuesday, 1 November 2005 at 6:51pm GMT

In fact there are already authorised liturgies for same sex blessings within the Old Catholic group of dioceses.

Posted by: Martin Reynolds on Tuesday, 1 November 2005 at 7:02pm GMT

Goran, what I actually wrote was:
'I gather the Church of Sweden is considering 'open communion', i.e. for the UNbaptized.'
This was reported by Pr Goran Beijer. This surprised me a little, because I thought EVERYONE in Sweden was baptized, on the first of the two occasions in their life when they go to church. ;=)
Mark (native English speaker and admirer of the early Ingrid Bergman)

Posted by: Mark Beaton on Tuesday, 1 November 2005 at 7:38pm GMT

Regarding the Church of Sweden, you all ought to know that the Bishops have no voting rights in the so called Synod (but that has the secular political parties, incl neo-fascists). What a mockery of the Apostolic, Catholic (and Episcopal) Church!!

Posted by: Peter on Wednesday, 2 November 2005 at 12:51am GMT

It looks like Goran "forgot" to tell you a few things, regarding what the Roman Catholic Bishop of Stockholm said:
"-Men vi beklagar djupt att Svenska kyrkan inför en speciell välsignelseakt för homosexuella par. Beskedet är ett avsteg från den traditionella kristna synen på att det sexuella samlivet enbart hör hemma i ett äktenskap mellan en man och en kvinna, det heliga förbund som Gud själv instiftat.
Beslutet kommer inte att leda till att vi avbryter den ekumeniska dialogen med Svenska kyrkan. Tyvärr kommer detta beslut att försvåra en framtida dialog och vidgar klyftan mellan oss."

Translated this means:
-We deeply regret that Church of Sweden introduces a special act of blessing for homosexual couples. This message is a departure from the traditional Christian view that the sexual life only belongs in the holy matrimony between a man and a woman, the holy covenant that God himself has instituted.
The decision will not mean that we will break the ecumenical dialogue withy Church of Sweden. We regret that this decision will make our dialogue more difficult and widen the rift between us.

That gave you a little wider perspective I hope!?

For sure the Roman Church continues the efforts to save sinners, even Church of Sweden nomenclatura, so it is their duty to continue the dialogue.

Posted by: Peter on Wednesday, 2 November 2005 at 1:19am GMT

I continue to be amazed by those posters who keep speaking as if the Church Universal has not changed its interpretations or understanding of Scripture from the time of Christ. The plain truth is that the Church, even the Church of Rome, and certainly the Church of England and the Anglican Communion, have changed many beliefs that were formerly held to be "the truth." We learn, and we grow, and sometimes we even admit that our former beliefs were not really correct. Otherwise, I would like hear some of these "evangelical" voices, or fundamentalist voices (whichever you prefer), tell me just when, in their structure of beliefs, the Church ceased to be able to change as its understanding changed. Was it 400? Was it 1200? Was it 1600? Was it 1900? Was it 1970? Please enlighten us, so that we can determine what changes may be acceptable to you, and should therefore be acceptable to the rest of the Anglican Communion, and what changes - after that immutable milestone - must be purged from our beliefs.

Posted by: Gerard Hannon on Wednesday, 2 November 2005 at 3:13am GMT

Mark Beaton,

I know what you said. I stated the truth.

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Wednesday, 2 November 2005 at 7:02am GMT

Goran, you know what I said but you did NOT answer my specific question, viz., 'Is the Synod of the Church of Sweden considering offering the sacrament of communion to people who have NOT been baptized in the name of the Trinity?' A supplementary question would be whether you, as an active Swedish Lutheran and internet pundit, approve of such a proposal. I'm sure you can see how all these questions (about sexual ethics, sacraments, church order, Erastianism and the natue of the catholic Church) are interrelated.
You have a lively style, Goran, but you never seem to engage ('dialog') with the actual questions I raise - which is your prerogative but it can't lead to any meeting of minds, only talking past each other. I try to avoid sarcasm (as opposed to teasing - part of my 'native English style' :)) and ad hominem remarks attacking the motives or character of those who disagree with me because I prefer to focus on the issue in discussion. That's how I think Christians should debate.
Mark

Posted by: Mark Beaton on Wednesday, 2 November 2005 at 10:33am GMT

Dear Peter,

We all (?) know what the Roman position on marriage is.

The n e w s was that Bishop Anders said he would not be breaking dialogue.

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Wednesday, 2 November 2005 at 11:23am GMT

I agree, Gerard.

Which casts the doubt on the notion of eternally revealed, unchanging religious truth as a concept.

Posted by: Merseymike on Wednesday, 2 November 2005 at 5:10pm GMT

Mr Beaton

I know how your questions are interrelated.

The Church of Sweden is NOT contemplating Communion to those not baptised.

Don't patronize me!

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Wednesday, 2 November 2005 at 7:44pm GMT

Gerard asks:
'Please enlighten us, so that we can determine what changes may be acceptable to you, and should therefore be acceptable to the rest of the Anglican Communion, and what changes - after that immutable milestone - must be purged from our beliefs.'
The Global South communique has largely answered your question with reference to the normative status of the BCP 1662 and the 39 Articles (rather than being just historical documents, as the 1979 Ecusa book treats them).
As for the Creeds defining trinitarian and christological belief, the Anglican Communion claims no power to amend these of itself since they belong to the unbroken church.
Seen in this light, many of the liturgical innovations in Ecusa, such as feminine pronouns for God and modalistic ascriptions, are un-catholic and sectarian, without biblical and conciliar basis. Evangelicals might agree that, in the words of the Pilgrim Father John Robinson, 'The Lord hath yet more light to break forth from His Word', but 'more light' will not contradict what went before.
Mark

Posted by: Mark Beaton on Wednesday, 2 November 2005 at 7:58pm GMT

Dear Mark,
you are very right and Goran is "huffing and puffing" about his own denomination. I know for sure that two out of the three Theological Collages (or "Pastoral Collages") in the Church of Sweden hold the view that non baptised should be welcomed to recieve Holy Communion (the one that doesn't is the "liberal evangelical" one, the other are extreme revisionists).The outcome of that training is to be seen all over the place, and it will soon be in the Coanon procedures (like the gay agenda). Goran has for long trying to portray CofS as something much more "orthodox" than what it is. In fact ECUSA has much more of the signs of catholicity, apostolicy and episcopacy than what CofS has had since the Reformation. Which says it all.

Posted by: Peter on Wednesday, 2 November 2005 at 11:18pm GMT

No thanks, Mark - many of us Anglicans just aren't evangelicals and have no intention of becoming so. As for the so-called Global South, I look forward to their departure - the sooner, the better.

Posted by: Merseymike on Wednesday, 2 November 2005 at 11:35pm GMT

Mark, thanks for your response. I would like to refrain from interpreting your remarks, but your posting doesn't really answer the questions I posed earlier on Nov 2nd.

Therefore, the only possible interpretation that I could make is that you consider either 1662 ("the normative status of the BCP 1662"), or 1801 ("the 39 Articles"), as the definitive date for determining the validity of interpretations of Scripture that differ from the very earliest days of the Church Universal.

Would you please clarify which of the two dates would be a correct statement for your own date of defining an unchangeable understanding of Scripture, and beliefs?

Posted by: Gerard Hannon on Thursday, 3 November 2005 at 3:31am GMT

For the present status of the BCP,Articles etc in the Church of England, Mark Beaton should read the Declaration of Assent made publically by every ordained minister at every significant stage of his ministry--where Articles,BCP etc are neither "normative" nor "just historical".(tho' both terms surely beg questions).Modern Anglicanism's doctrinal position in practice also owes a lot also to its current authorised liturgical texts and what has been achieved in ecumenical dialogue where this has been accepted (synodically)as consonant with Anglican teaching.(e.g. much of this is quoted after all in semi-official documents e.g. the House of Bishops statement on Lay Presidency or its response to the RC bishops on intercommunion.) I cant really see the C of E "re-confessionalising" itself by giving greater prominence to 1662/Articles...such a move would presumably have to start in the House of Bishops... Perry Butler,London

Posted by: Perry Butler on Thursday, 3 November 2005 at 7:57am GMT

Thank you, Peter. As I said, my information came from Pr Goran Beijer. He didn't think the proposal for communion for the unbaptized would pass at this point, but the fact that they're considering it shows how far they are willing to depart from catholic order and discipline. I agree that it's only a matter of time, as the doctrine of eucharist as 'open hospitality to everyone' takes root. In fact, this has already happened in some parishes in Ecusa. I am sure that everything that happens in the CoS is open and in accordance with local democratic politics. Which is exactly my point about it being an Erastian religious organization.

Posted by: Mark Beaton on Thursday, 3 November 2005 at 9:32am GMT

Peter wrote: “I know for sure that two out of the three Theological Collages (or "Pastoral Collages") in the Church of Sweden hold the view that non baptised should be welcomed to receive Holy Communion (the one that doesn't is the "liberal evangelical" one, the other are extreme revisionists)”.

There are only 2 Seminars in Sweden, consequently your characterizations are false. Slander. Nor do any of the 2 existing teach “that non baptised should be welcomed to receive Holy Communion”.

Where do you get your things?

And why do you not discuss this extreme Calvinist agenda in the context of the Calvinist Archdiocese of Sydney, which indeed is moving in the direction of lay presided Supper, lay Baptism, and Supper for the un-baptised?

The Church of Sweden is – I repeat – an ancient 1st Millennium Catholic Church, never very Roman, not even particularly Lutheran.

We did have a spot of bother with the Calvinist Carolingian Kings and their Absolutist State Church (and their Theonomy), but now (after regained autonomy in 2000) we are fine, thank you.

All this talk of the Church of Sweden being taken over by ugly Social Democrats and other “politicians” is the grumblings of a disaffected minority, which has spent the last 60 years in interior exile.

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Thursday, 3 November 2005 at 10:56am GMT

Dear Mr Beaton wrote:

“my information came from Pr Goran Beijer. He didn't think the pro-posal for communion for the unbaptized would pass at this point, but the fact that they're considering it shows how far they are willing to depart from catholic order and discipline. I agree that it's only a matter of time”.

Now facts: there was indeed such a ”Motion” – not a Proposal – at this Synod. It was killed in committee early October.

So no, “they” are not considering it. “They” killed it in committee ,=)

Where do you get your things? Added in translation?

And why do you not discuss this extreme Calvinist agenda in the context of the Calvinist Archdiocese of Sydney, which indeed is moving in the direction of lay Supper, lay baptism, and Supper for the un-baptized, instead of smearing the Church of Sweden?

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Thursday, 3 November 2005 at 11:06am GMT

Gerard H asks: 'Would you please clarify which of the two dates would be a correct statement for your own date of defining an unchangeable understanding of Scripture, and beliefs?'

Only time for a brief answer here, Gerard. As fas as Scripture is concerned, the words of Scripture mean what they meant at the time they were written. In US Constitution terms, this is called being an 'originalist' or 'textualist'. In linguistics it's called synchronic meaning.
As for the three 'Catholic Creeds', I can't see Anglicans going 'outside' these if they want to remain in ecumenical dialog. The terms 'trinity' and 'homoousion' are fine, provided they are understood as shorthand summaries of the Bible's teaching. That's what Gregory Nazianzen was doing in his great work, with 700 citations from Scripture.
Of course, if a church father like St Augustine offered an interpretation of St Paul which I am pretty sure is not what St Paul was saying, then I would disagree with Augustine. There is after all a great distinction between apostles and their interpreters.
Mark

Posted by: Mark Beaton on Thursday, 3 November 2005 at 3:49pm GMT

Giving holy communion to the unbaptised (at least in some circumstances) was, I'm sure, argued for by Geoffrey Wainwright in his "Eucharist and Eschatology" over 20yrs ago. Wainwright is scarcely a theological radical...Im not convinced myself...but its not just a product of "local democratic politics"

Posted by: Perry butler on Thursday, 3 November 2005 at 6:15pm GMT

Mark Beaton wrote: "I agree that it's only a matter of time, as the doctrine of eucharist as 'open hospitality to everyone' takes root. In fact, this has already happened in some parishes in Ecusa."

Such an irresponsible statement, regarding "Some parishes in" ECUSA, has no more validity than if I were to refer to "some crypto-fascist wife beaters" in the Church of Nigeria.

Sure, there are some wife-beaters in the Churches of both the USA and Nigeria, and maybe even in England, but it dishonors the quality of honest dialogue when these kinds of remarks are continually used in an attempt to denigrate the validity of any positions of the other body.

What parishes?

What percentage of all ECUSA parishes does this represent?

As someone who has worshiped at many Anglican parishes, in three continents, including many in the USA (California, Florida, Maine, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, Virginia), I have never encountered this.

Let's keep snide and, particularly, unsupported comments out of this dialogue; there is enough to honestly dispute, already, among us.

Posted by: Gerard Hannon on Thursday, 3 November 2005 at 8:04pm GMT

Goran,
You must have missed a few classes at your seminar! And as to being "Catholic" you just will have to look at the episcopacy in CofS (both the present situation with "lame ducks" and from the time of the Reformation) to understand that you are way out of line in your claim. Also, your view of the Roman Catholic period in Sweden will hardly give you a Ph.D. in the Universities in Uppsala or Lund. But please dream on if that is what you need to do to support the Swedish nomenclatura in their efforts to tranform Church of Sweden to something completely different than Catholic and Apostolic!

Posted by: Peter on Thursday, 3 November 2005 at 9:48pm GMT

I forgot:
"a disaffected minority, which has spent the last 60 years in interior exile"

Many would call an interior exile a Gulag, when it has been forced upon you by the combined powers of Erastianism and heretical teachings.

At least that is what the orthodox minority in CofS finds themselves in, which is a view shared by many more than themselves. Goran excluded.

Posted by: Peter on Thursday, 3 November 2005 at 9:54pm GMT

For Meryseymike, thanks for your affirmation regarding my thought process about the reality of a changing understanding of Scripture over 2000 years in the Church.

As to your phrase "Which casts the doubt on the notion of eternally revealed, unchanging religious truth as a concept," I think that I would instead rephrase that to insert the words "which may be understood differently over time" after the word "truth."

However, I don't want to get too pharisaical about this, as so many posters seem more hung up on parsing phrases, than upon being focused upon the basic message of Christ.

God may have revealed, but that does not necessarily mean that mankind actually has understood what was revealed, and it does not also mean that God could not further reveal elements of the truth, to men and women who didn't quite get it right before.

And I cannot deny that there may even be hope, through revelation, for extreme fundamentalists some day, and in the meantime, they may be considered as dedicated to their Christian beliefs as I am to mine. Still, the Church has gone through splits throughout the ages, and this will be no different when they depart Canterbury.

In any event, that is what I believe.

Posted by: Gerard Hannon on Thursday, 3 November 2005 at 10:27pm GMT

Peter wrote: "You must have missed a few classes at your seminar!"

I most certainly did. Especially the 3rd ;=)

Peter wrote: "And as to being "Catholic" you just will have to look at the episcopacy in CofS (both the present situation with "lame ducks" and from the time of the Reformation) to understand that you are way out of line in your claim."

I was talking of the Church, not of the Calvinist Superintendents appointed by the Absolutist Carolinian Kings.

Despite adversity, the Church – I repeat – the Church, remained Catholic and 1st Millennium.

Peter wrote: "Also, your view of the Roman Catholic period in Sweden will hardly give you a Ph.D. in the Universities in Uppsala or Lund."

Well, since both these Universities are full of sectarians probably it wouldn’t ;=)

But who cares? I know what I know from my own family history, which comprises a number of the 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th century bishops of Åbo and Viborg – that’s enough for me.

And as to Gulag, surely you have heard that the USA are now using the old Soviet one?

As to a Swedish Gulag, show me where it is!

Seriously, the internal exile since 60 years back is because many of them once sided with “the young Ingrid Bergman” politically. There was even a “church” Nazi party in the Diocese of Gothenburg, topped by 4 priests.

Only most of their children and grandchildren don’t know this.

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Friday, 4 November 2005 at 10:02am GMT

There is now a (Swedish Priests only) Statement against the Blessings of Registered Partnerships recently approved by the Synod of the Church of Sweden:

http://www.kalin.nu/deklaration

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Friday, 4 November 2005 at 1:50pm GMT

Dear Me! Goran is the "catholic" revisionist claiming his authority from "grand" ancestors (wonder what they think about his mission?)

Posted by: Peter on Monday, 7 November 2005 at 8:12am GMT

Göran said: "There is now a (Swedish Priests only) Statement against the Blessings of Registered Partnerships"

Dear Göran, a translation would be much appreciated !

Posted by: Dave on Monday, 7 November 2005 at 10:51pm GMT

Priestly Declaration brought about by the decision of the Church of Sweden to Bless Registered Partnerships

To:
The Parishes of the Church of Sweden and their decision-makers.
The Church of Sweden has decided upon an Official Rite for the Blessing of Registered Partnerships and introduced this in the Church Order (The Canons of 2000).
We, Priests in this Church, who have signed this Declaration believe this Decision to be at odds with the Command for Communal life and Marriage, that God through His Word has revealed for us, and that is defined as a Relation between one man and one woman. The Word of God does not allow us to Bless any other pared relation.
We are, as Priests, bounded by the oath of faithfulness towards Holy Scripture and the Confession of the Church, that we gave in our ordination, and therefore we distance ourselves from the decided Rite and wish hereby to make this public.

All Hallows Day, 1 November 2005
Yngve Kalin, curate in Hyssna

Note that this is comes a f t e r Synod and is adressed to the Parishes and Vestries, somewhat haughtily referred to as the "decision-makers". (Note that the anti-politics Mr Kalin himself is a local politician for the (Pentecostal) Christian Democrats, which was founded in 1964 when spanking was outlawed. ;=)

Curiously amongst all the opponents of the ordination of women, there is a (low) number of women priests signing... Their ordination is invalid, but their will be signatures accepted ;=)

Note that the subscribers think that The Blessing is t h e i r s, not God's.

The "Confession" referred to, is the Liber Concordiae of the German Lutheran Churches, not the 1593 Confessio fídei of the Church of Sweden.

(None of them pronouncing on Registered Parnerships ;=)

Mr Kalin and Mrs Karin Långström Vinge, a friend of mine from Seminar, will debate tonight at 22.00 ST on National Television.

There are several counter-lists for "learned and lay" circulating off and on the Internet.

In April this year, the number of priests in the Chruch of Sweden was 5.545.

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Tuesday, 8 November 2005 at 7:49am GMT

Dear Göran, many thanks for the translation. Much appreciated!

Posted by: Dave on Wednesday, 9 November 2005 at 10:54pm GMT
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.