2 May 2008 by Simon Sarmiento
Two articles by Pat Ashworth in today’s Church Times set out to explain what the Manchester report really says. See
Women bishops: choose path you want, says group
Manchester report: the conclusions summarised
“We believe that consensus will only be achieved if arrangements are made which are acceptable to those for whom they are intended, and which will . . . ‘remain in perpetuity’ for as long as they are needed.” If consensus were a mark of catholicism, this sort of rambling only serves to demonstrate why both the Catholic group and FiF members should have swum the Tiber or escaped to nonconformism long ago. The fact is that this whole question was pre-empted 16 years ago – the existence of such exotic and interesting birds as the bishops of Beverly, Ebsfleet, Richborough… Read more »
“But none of those structures would be catholic by the standards of those who build them.”
Well said, kieran.
God bless those made female, whom You in Your wisdom called to holy orders! 🙂
Both Reform and FIF say that they do not believe in departing from Scripture and tradition…yet they both accept the ordination of women deacons….not allowed until 1985.
So why not a fourth province for those opposed to women deacons and holding to the older C of E tradition?
“Both Reform and FIF say that they do not believe in departing from Scripture and tradition”
They can say what they like. Evangelicalism is a departure from tradition BY DEFINITION. One cannot claim to be an Evangelical and adhere to traditional Christianity. FIF, well, as I understand it, they’re largely Anglo-Catholic. Reform would certainly claim that means they have departed from Scripture, I figure. That’s part of what makes all this so funny. There’s this ignoring of the obvious that continues no matter how loud people laugh at the self-delusion.
@Robert Ian Williams: To be fair to the people at FiF and Reform, there is a pretty solid case for a precedent for deaconesses in the early Church. Even the Orthodox are considering re-introducing them as an order. Thus it’s not a question of “introducing them in 1985”, but of *re*introducing them after well over a millennium. However, clear precedents in tradition for female priests or bishops are on much more shaky ground and quite controversial. I know there are some cases such as Junia and the “Bishopess” Theodora that are quoted, but they are hotly contested and above all… Read more »
“Invariably those of us of a more Anglo-Catholic stripe have to resort to other lines of argument to justify priestly Holy Orders for women.” Like the idea that since the priest’s priesthood is merely a sharing in the priesthood of Christ and the priest thus represents Christ in the Mass. Surely what is being represented is His humanity, not His maleness. To suggest that maleness is an integral part of the Incarnation at least suggests, though I can come up with counter arguments, that the Incarnation is only salvific for slightly less than half the population. An all-male priesthood thus… Read more »
@Ford Elms: I think the pertinent phrase is “the congregation is thataway”. 😉 Certainly I’m all for women’s ordination. (Sometimes I joke that I like women’s ordination so much, I’d like to abolish the male variety. *laugh*) But there is one line of reasoning that some opponents have brought forth where I haven’t found a good 100% airtight answer yet: namely, that the Church lives from the means of grace, and that the only way to be sure of the means of grace is to have people in the priesthood who we can be absolutely certain are capable of being… Read more »
Women as Bishops, you only have to watch the Vicar of Dibley, to realise that women bishop just would not be right, and neither would God