Comments: Affirming Catholicism to the Revision Committee

The Revd Clark is rewriting history. How in the world does he and the Board interpret that "those who dissent from, as well as those who assent to, the ordination of women to the priesthood and to the episcopate are both loyal Anglicans" means that those who dissent cannot call into question a woman priest's or bishop's orders? I am perfectly at liberty under the terms of such a statement to do just that, and I will. It is continuing to allow for two integrities. Neither the Revd Clark nor anyone else will force me into accepting a contrary proposition. I never fail to be amazed at the way in which Liberals can be so dogmatic, even to the extent of reinterpreting what is a clear statement that, despite my views, I am as much an Anglican as he is. There again, perhaps I shouldn't be surprised, given Liberal reinterpretation of the Scripture and Tradition of the Church.

Posted by Bromenblue at Monday, 2 November 2009 at 10:06pm GMT

"We believe that the removal of certain functions by statute from women who are consecrated bishops can carry no other inference than that it is legitimate to deny that they are truly ordained.
- Fr. Jonathon Clark : Affirming catholicism -

Affirming Catholics, in their letter to the Revision Committee of General Synod, surely have a very important point to make here. If women bishops (once appointed legitimately by the Church) are side-lined in their episcopal duties by a provision which denies them certain acts of episcope, then this would question the legitimacy of their appointment.

We have already experienced the problems where *flying bishops* are seen to be disruptive of so-called 'Catholic Order' in the Church. How is another *secondary order* of bishops (women) going to fulfil the original purpose of providing episcopal oversight in the Church of England.

This state of affairs is foreign to the other Provinces of the Anglican Communion which have accepted the ministry of women as priests and bishops in their Churches. Why on earth, if women are accepted as bishops in the Church of England, would the C.of E. want to knobble their ministry?

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Monday, 2 November 2009 at 11:19pm GMT

"Right on" Affirming Catholicism.

Posted by Lapinbizarre at Tuesday, 3 November 2009 at 12:21am GMT

One can dissent from a decision, without questioning its existence or reality. Those within the church who disagree with the decision to ordain women, and nevertheless stay, deserve the very highest degree of respect from the rest of us. To believe that the Church has not in fact ordained women is something else - it questions whether we are a Church with authority to do anything. If the Church of England cannot ordain women, why regard any of its sacramental acts as genuine?

Posted by Jonathan Clark at Tuesday, 3 November 2009 at 7:59am GMT

I find both this, and the statement from WATCH, to be crude and ugly. Behind the words is a clear message:

Let us squeeze hard, the traditionalists seem weak and we can smite them from the face of our church. Forget the promises made in 1992, forget the concessions those traditionalists themselves have made, forget the way they have been marginalised and demonised by us, ignore the Holy Father's ability to provide what we with our hearts of stone refuse to, ignore the ecumenical warnings of both ROme and Orthodoxy, ignore the commands of Christ to love those we hate, ignore the ABC's plea at the last Synod to be truly generous and supply something structural, ignore what the revision committee clearly thinks is fair and totally dismiss the notion that opponents just might have a valid theological objection.'

IT stinks and anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear can see that.

Posted by Ed Tomlinson at Tuesday, 3 November 2009 at 8:49am GMT

'Those within the church who disagree with the decision to ordain women, and nevertheless stay, deserve the very highest degree of respect from the rest of us'.
That's not exactly what orthodox Catholic Anglicans in the C of E have experienced in the last 15 years is it, Fr Clark? Why on earth would we expect to have such respect in the future? If we are so intent on nothing less than outright episcopal jurisdiction then the proven intolerance of Aff Caths., Watch, and fellow travellers to our constituency has a lot to do with it.

Posted by n. aston at Tuesday, 3 November 2009 at 9:10am GMT

Ed:

How long do you accommodate someone who would deny that a decision made is correct? I understand the idea of a period of adjustment, but 16 years? At that rate, the CoE will be accommodating the opponents of women's ordination forever...which is, as others have noted, simply a decision to have a church within a church, a rump gathering that refuses to accept what would be, by then, a long-held doctrine of the wider church. It would be as if, 500 years ago, the CoE had decided to make "accommodations" for those who continued to hold that the Bishop of Rome was the supreme head of the church worldwide...and still was making that accommodation today.

Posted by Pat O'Neill at Tuesday, 3 November 2009 at 11:03am GMT

Revd Clark is mincing words. The Church has ordained women, but the question for some of us is the legitimacy of those ordinations in the first place. And no, the Church of England has no authority to make such a massive and far reaching change to Church order on its own. It is sheer arrogance to suggest otherwise. Does Revd Clark really believe that our tiny branch of the Church is in some way being prophetic? I think not. And as justification for my own view, we'll find our Orthodox and Roman Catholic brethren will definitely not be jumping on the bandwagon of secularisation of the Church, in the way that some in Affirming Catholicism and other such liberal organisations seem to suggest or think. It is delusional. I am a dissenter, AND I DO question the reality, and nothing you say, Revd Clark, will change that. I have also to say that I am going to continue to be the "necessary abrasion" the Church of England so much needs at this time. You do not get rid of us so easily.

Posted by Bromenblue at Tuesday, 3 November 2009 at 11:24am GMT

Bromenblue
if you follow the Revision Committee and create a two tier episcopate, then you are not, in effect, recognising Two Integrities, because you are denying the integrity of women bishops.

Genuinely accepting two integrities has to mean coming up with a system that allows for women priests and bishops on equal terms with men, while at the same time making provisions for those who do not wish to be ministered to by women priests or bishops, or by male priests who were ordained by women bishops.

What the Revision Committee proposes amounts to a de facto denial of two integrities.

Posted by Erika Baker at Tuesday, 3 November 2009 at 11:26am GMT

Evidently they do deny that women can be priests or bishops, but when it comes to having women as bishops it presumably becomes make your mind up time for everyone. In a reasoning of dioceses, Churches, uniformity of ministry, someone has to give, and it is those at the wrong end of the decision. This is what happens when there is a fork in the road and the whole body is meant to go in one direction - others choose to say their goodbyes and go in the other direction. How fortunate for them that they won't have to be continuing, but there is apparently a galleon in dock.

Posted by Pluralist at Tuesday, 3 November 2009 at 11:30am GMT

Don't be daft Ed - the suggestion was that those who do not accept the ministry of women should be provided with male priests and bishops. It is unbelievable to suggest that because women are prepared to sanction such ministry is is somehow tainted!

Posted by Rosemary Hannah at Tuesday, 3 November 2009 at 1:02pm GMT

But Rosemary to send me a man to represent a woman is just SEXISM and maes me out to be sexist!!! I loathe that idea.

I dont reject the woman cos i want a man. I am not going to just be placated by hanging genitals...the person coming stands in place of the Diocesan. If that is a woman - whoever is sent- lacks sacramental validity in my eyes.

Posted by Ed Tomlinson at Tuesday, 3 November 2009 at 1:14pm GMT

Erika, the Revision Committee is seeking to allow for two integrities to coexist. That will only be possible where there is an honest recognition that those on my side of the debate simply cannot and will not accept the jurisdiction of a female bishop or indeed any of her brother bishops. If that means a two-tier epsicopacy, so be it, for the sake of the unity of the Church of England. We have managed thus far with the Act of Synod, and we can make any extension of that provision work too, given the chance. That is what the Church of England has always been about, holding our different traditions in a creative tension. Otherwise, by going down the alternative route you suggest we are heading for yet further strife and enmity. By saying what you have said you are trying to make square a circle. It will not work.

Posted by Bromenblue at Tuesday, 3 November 2009 at 1:25pm GMT

Was Mr Tomlinson ordained before or after the ordination of women happened? If it was after, then I fail to see why he has a problem here.

Posted by toby forward at Tuesday, 3 November 2009 at 1:54pm GMT

Bromenblue
I agree with you that the only way that the views of FiF can have any integrity is if they are based on the genuine theological conviction that it is impossible to ordain women. If you believed it was possible but simply didn’t like it, there would be no integrity in your view at all.

But what I don’t understand is your emphasis on the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox churches.
If anyone does not believe that the Church of England has the ability and the right to try and discern God’s will for it, and that it does not have the right to live by that discernment – then what on earth is any of you doing in this church in the first place?

How can you, with this emphasis on doing only what everyone else approves of, be priests in the CoE, when Rome has already declared your orders as null and void? How can you accept the sacraments from a priest who is not accepted by the whole Catholic church?

I can just about understand that you could hold this position while there was no real Roman Catholic presence in England, but now, there is perfectly acceptable and respected representation of Rome in Britain. How come you are all still here, in a church that is not accepted by those whose judgement is clearly more important to you?

Please, this is not a liberal telling you to get out. This is a genuine question because I do not understand this at all.

Posted by Erika Baker at Tuesday, 3 November 2009 at 2:16pm GMT

The real problem that keeps cropping up is that '2 integrities' really can't exsist side-by-side in the same church. If we say that the C-of-E had 'no right' to ordain women, how can we say that it had the right to split off from the pope, use English, set up synods, not follow papal doctrinal pronunciations or any of the rest? And we might ask the same of the various Orthodox churches, which I believe are not in communion even among themselves. Our 'way of being' a church is different from the RC Church, different from all the orthodox churches, the Reform churches, the Lutheran Church and on and on. That doesn't to the Anglican way of thinking (at least to most Anglicans) deny that we or any of the others are part of the holy, apostolic, catholic church, which surely would be poorer and less 'catholic' if any of us were not part of it. But to be different to the RC Church, doesn't mean 'not to be part of the church catholic' to most Anglicans, otherwise why be Anglican instead of Roman Catholic? Surely the break from the papacy was a lot more 'revolutionary' than making autonomous decisions 500 years later. And that is surely also what other churches do, including the RC Church, which I don't believe has ever asked the C-of-E what we think of X,Y,or Z. Maybe the real trauma in the women question for some Anglicans is that it underlines a way of being church which has been ours from the beginning, but which underlines our 'otherness' from the RC Church.

Posted by Sara MacVane at Tuesday, 3 November 2009 at 3:02pm GMT

Bromenblue
What do you mean by "any of her brother bishops"?
Does that mean you cannot accept any male bishop consecreated by a bishop who also happenes to ordain and consecrate women?
That view would, of course, have no integrity at all.

I can just about see how you believe that something particular happenens when a male bishop in the Apostolic line ordains another man and that you believe this does not happen should he ordain a woman.
But presumably, whatever it is you believe happenens happenes, because God makes it happen, not because of the bishop's theology.
The bishop's beliefs are entirely irrelevant.

So provided he is a validly consecrated bishop and the candidates have gone through the customary ordination process, then his ordinations of men are valid.

That he and I might think that his ordinations of women are also valid does not have to bother you if they do not personally affect you.

But that you should reject the men he consecrates too, simply because you don't see things the same way as he does - I actually cannot believe that that's what you're saying because it would undermine your whole argument that your objections are based on sound theology.

Please put me straight?

Posted by Erika Baker at Tuesday, 3 November 2009 at 4:48pm GMT

Sara MacVane makes some very good points.

Posted by Neil at Tuesday, 3 November 2009 at 6:04pm GMT

What the CofE needs to guard against though is making women's ordination a matter a dogma.

Posted by Neil at Tuesday, 3 November 2009 at 6:05pm GMT

"If that is a woman - whoever is sent- lacks sacramental validity in my eyes."

I could be wrong, but doesn't it say somewhere that God created Man, male and female, in His image? The first Creation narrative in Genesis perhaps?

Posted by Counterlight at Tuesday, 3 November 2009 at 6:40pm GMT

"If the Church of England cannot ordain women, why regard any of its sacramental acts as genuine?" - Posted by Jonathan Clark

I'd love an answer to this question, by opponents of OOW, who determined to (bodily) stay within the CofE.

"And as justification for my own view, we'll find our Orthodox and Roman Catholic brethren will definitely not be jumping on the bandwagon of secularisation of the Church"

Ignoring the equation of OOW w/ "secularization", can you really be so sure, Ed T, that "our Roman Catholic brethren" (assuming "brethren" to mean ALL Roman Catholics) are so dead-set against OOW? Or do you just mean the "brethren" in the Vatican: a far smaller subset?

Posted by JCF at Tuesday, 3 November 2009 at 7:27pm GMT

Interestingly the point was made at General Synod that the CofE has no concept in its formularies of the 'validity' of orders only the 'legality' - and what one is not in a position to do as far as C4 is concerned is to deny the legality of the orders. Whether or not you accept the priestly/episcopal ministrations of a woman is one thing, but you are not in a position to deny the legality of the odination.

Posted by Mark at Tuesday, 3 November 2009 at 7:42pm GMT

Can we at least not all agree that this document is a very poor piece of English? The first paragraph is a disgrace: if one of my students wrote it, I would run a red pen down it and write: 'Rewrite'. In the penultimate paragraph, note the misuse of 'inference'. Am I being snobbish and intellectually elitist? No doubt. Do we not all sometimes write sloppy English - because we're short of time or all wrought up? Yes, of course. But this is an official document, an official submission, from an organisation that prides itself on its theological seriousness. It is a disgrace.

Posted by john at Tuesday, 3 November 2009 at 7:54pm GMT

Thank you, Counterlight @ 6:40pm GMT!
Bromenblue, I don't think you recognize "two integrities". You expect us to make concessions to you, while you feel no need whatsoever to recognize us at all. You deny the validity of a woman's consecration as priest or bishop. Not only is she counterfeit, but any man or woman she subsequently consecrates as priest or (with others) bishop is also counterfeit. That’s fair enough by your logic, although I disagree. But you go further. Any male priest or bishop who consents to women priests or bishops, even if that male was consecrated by a male, is also counterfeit. So not only must priests and bishops be male, they must think properly male thoughts as well, in order to be “imago Christi”. I find it impossible to reconcile that concept with the notion that God – of whom Christ is part, in Christian theology – made us in God’s image, male and female.
In my opinion, it is sexist, unjust, uncanonical, and unbiblical to say that a woman bishop in her own diocese can be usurped by a "right-thinking" male flying bishop who refuses to recognize her validity, and has greater authority, just so you can be satisfied that the proper, um, equipment is being deployed to bless the sacraments.
As far as the Roman Catholic church and the various Eastern Orthodox churches are concerned, they do not share a unity of opinion. Some of them don’t recognize each other, as has been previously stated. The cross-directional excommunications that were the ultimate cause of the Great Schism of 1054 are still held to be in force by some of the parties. Why then, while hoping for and working towards one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church, shouldn't the CofE follow its own path towards truth and its perception of the Divine Will towards it? The CofE and ideally, all churches who consider themselves catholic and apostolic, should listen respectfully to each other, but no one of them has a monopoly on truth and authority, various popes’ decrees notwithstanding.

Posted by peterpi at Tuesday, 3 November 2009 at 8:32pm GMT

Bromenblue: "we'll find our Orthodox and Roman Catholic brethren will definitely not be jumping on the bandwagon"

Whenever anyone asks them, it is clear that the majority of Roman Catholics, certainly in our part of the world, are in favour of the ordination of women: therefore, opposition to it cannot be a touchstone of Catholicism, surely.

Or are ordinary Roman Catholics as wrong on this as they are in ignoring the Vatican's strictures against contraception and divorce? The doublethink that millions live with as a result of the disconnection between the hierarchy's unreality and the lived experience of the faithful is not proving an attractive feature of the RC Church in the West at the moment, and I am surprised that anti-women's ordination Anglicans would be so naive about it as to invoke it in defence of their position.

Posted by Fr Mark at Tuesday, 3 November 2009 at 8:56pm GMT

Romans 8.29 suggests that we are all (all who in Paul's terms are 'foreknown' by God) predestined to be conformed to the image of God's son - no gender distinction there, either.

Posted by Mark Bennet at Tuesday, 3 November 2009 at 9:11pm GMT

Erika Baker, I just saw your 4:48 post. Thank you for making that argument as well.

Posted by peterpi at Tuesday, 3 November 2009 at 9:49pm GMT

". And no, the Church of England has no authority to make such a massive and far reaching change to Church order on its own. It is sheer arrogance to suggest otherwise. Does Revd Clark really believe that our tiny branch of the Church is in some way being prophetic? I think not.'
- Bromenblue, on Tuesday -

Bromenblue, are you not being a little illogical in this statement? In challenging the Church of England's right to "make such a far-reaching change to Church Order on its own", you are akin to saying it had "no right" to challenge the Church of Rome by abandoning its submission to the Pope in the first place.

And as for being prophetic; this is precisely what other parts of the world-wide-Anglican Communion have already done; in the determination to include the priestly and episcopal ministry of women within the ecclesial system. The Church of England is only just catching up with what others of its sister Churches have already done.

Remember, we are not tied by our apron strings to Rome any more (in fact, since the 16th century), so that your protestations of the C.of E. doing something diofferent from other Christian bodies can bear ltitle weight in our reformed tradition -of which you, hitherto, have been content to be a constituent part. The Anglican Communion's catholicity does not depend on any allegiance to Rome or Constantinople - but on the Living Christ
whose Sacramental Life we uphold by Faith in Him.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Tuesday, 3 November 2009 at 10:11pm GMT

"the person coming stands in place of the Diocesan. If that is a woman - whoever is sent- lacks sacramental validity in my eyes."
- Ed Tomlinson -

Ed, the fact is - if you are looking for a Church body that does not ordain women - either as priests or bishops - what are you doing still in the Church of England? Surely your conscience, tender as it appears to be on this matter, could have never put up with the idea of women being able to stand in for Christ at the altar.

You keep on referring to the partriarchal Roman and Easter Orthodox Churches as the epitome of perfection in regard to their ministerial integrity. Why are you not, then, already part and parcel of that integrity? To speak any further of '2 Integrities', which really is an oxymoron as far as the present situation in the C.of E. is concerned, is to sincerely believe that both female and male clergy have equal integrity. This plainly, for F.i.F., is not so.
Please don't embarrass us all by pretending that the ordination of women bishops would produce anything different.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Tuesday, 3 November 2009 at 10:30pm GMT

Why does it make a difference if ordained post 1992? I joined a church that accepts theological opposition to WO as a vlid expression of faith and which had promised to honour such views as a valid integrity. But don't let facts obscure your mistepresentations

Posted by Ed Tomlinson at Tuesday, 3 November 2009 at 10:33pm GMT

Why not do away with bishops for an experimental period of a few decades and see if that improves things ? It probably would help quite a bit, on this point and others.

'Oversight' and pastoral care may be carried out in other and different ways and by various people.

I don't find the old structures very creative now,or the old, interminable arguments very constructive.

I think many 'ordinary', person in the street parishoners feel this way


Keeping the rumour of God alive and sharing hope can be done in many ways

Posted by Rev L Roberts at Tuesday, 3 November 2009 at 11:00pm GMT

"Why not do away with bishops for an experimental period of a few decades and see if that improves things ?"

Tell me this is just a troll to wind up people like me. 'Cuz it worked, but if I'm that gullible, I deserve it, so no blame to you.

"I don't find the old structures very creative now....I think many 'ordinary', person in the street parishoners feel this way"

I on the other hand have great respect for tradition in any form. It informs who I am. It connects me to something far bigger than I am, extending across time and space. I am very much defined by local ethnic tradition, and religious tradition is part of that. There's no sense of superiority, but I find it harder to relate to people who have no connection with the traditions, ethnic, religious, or otherwise that they have inherited. I don't understand how you know who you are.

Awareness of my own ethnic traditions helps me value and understand those of others. I also believe that one of the major problems with Western society is that we have lost connection with our ethnic traditions. Part of that comes from the racism of the past few centuries, but valuing one's ethnic traditions isn't racist, claiming they are superior to others is. "White Power"crap is nauseating, but valuing one's ethnic traditions doesn't have to be about supremacism of any form. We have lost contact with ours in the West, and people don't know who they are. I think that generates racism, actually, as people fill that void with all kinds of grievances and fears. There are small cultures in the Western world who have preserved what they can, but even then, there's the risk of becoming museum pieces. Thyere's a darned good many on this island who think the same way as I do.

Your attitude is a luxury afforded only by those who don't know what it is to have their ethnic identity eroded day after day. And I'm not talking about immigrants either. It's not immigrants destroying our local culture, they are enriching it. It's mass market urban western culture that's destroying us.

This whole "That's so old fashioned, we're so much better now, the old traditions are meaningless" stuff is just so tiresome. They are anything but meaningless to a darned good many of us actually.

Posted by Ford Elms at Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 3:11am GMT

There is an untruth often put about that the Church of England intended there to be a permanent dissenting party which would not accept women's priestly ministry and that bishops would be provided to oversee this rump. This is not the case. Arrangements were put in place for temporary provision during a time of reception. Any young man ordained after 1992 should have understood that this provision would disappear during the time of his ministry. It should, actually, never have been made in the first place, but that's a different story.

Posted by toby forward at Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 7:43am GMT

Ford
"Tell me this is just a troll to wind up people like me. 'Cuz it worked, but if I'm that gullible, I deserve it, so no blame to you."

"I think every Anglican diocese in the world should get rid of its bishop immediately"

Which of the two statements is the wind-up?
Only, the second one was advanced by you yesterday as a serious argument in a conversation we're having on another thread.

Posted by Erika Baker at Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 8:27am GMT

Just wishing to correct some misrepresentations of my arguments, which misrepresentations some Liberals on this site are so fond of articulating, I am concerned about the Apostolic continuum in respect of the Bishops of the Church and the far reaching change to that order implied by the innovation of women bishops. It is NOT, and I repeat NOT, to do with any concern about women not being equal or able to do what men can do. Ask any of my female friends, and they will tell you my track record on equality of opportunity. In a former career I sat on an Equal Opportunities Board promoting the equal rights of women in the workplace and in wider society. What you Liberals fail to grasp is that in this question for the Church, it is about authority, church order, received tradition, faith and interpretation of the Scriptures. Not ability to do a particular job. Furthermore, whatever is said about the Church of England, it has always been regarded as both Catholic AND Reformed, though the emphasis is clearly different, depending on which stable you come from. When I say I cannot accept the pastoral or sacramental ministry of women bishops or their brother bishops, it is precisely because they have removed themselves from the continuum by what they have done and assent to, but also because of the jurisdiction issue. If I see some irregularity in the orders of a female bishop, then I am bound to conclude that those Bishops she ordains or delegates, whether male or female, are themselves in an irregular position. To the point about people always haveing to concede to us, can I just say that for the last fifteen years of my ministry, I have striven at all times to work as closely and amicably as I can with female colleagues. For heaven's sake, my Rural Dean is a woman and we get on like a house on fire, because she's grown up enough to realise that we can actually agree to disagree and not let that interfere with our language or the way in which we approach one another. She's also intelligent enough to see where we're coming from, even though her perspective is different. For my part, I would say that both she and other women ministers have an authentic ministry in the Church, in the same way as I see Methodist ministers or United Reformed Ministers having an authentic and effective ministry, but not as priests. I do wonder, sometimes, whether contributors to this site say some of the things they do simply to act as rabble rousers.

Posted by Bromenblue at Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 8:28am GMT

Ford, don't be side-tracked by the Rev L Roberts. His postings do not reflect the us who represent the 'Thinking Anglicans' mainstream - let alone your own liberal catholic point of view. Rev. L appears unhappy with whatever might be proposed to continue the ethos of traditional Anglicanism. Whereas, you and I both know that the Church of England is undergoing a great deal of stress at the moment on at least these four fronts:
1. The possibility of the Ordination of women as Bishops in the C.of E. (this has already taken place in yours and my parts of the Communion).
2. The unreality of opposing the rights of gays to be priests in the C.of E. (gays have already been ordained in every part of the Communion).
3. The threat of a Covenant which could 'sort out' who may or may not be part of the Covenant.
4. The threat of a Roman Catholic 'takeover' of recalcitrant Anglioans who, either, do not agree with (a) women in ministry, or (b) gays in office.

N.B. All of these matters are considered to be adiaphorous, and not a matter of basic doctrine, in either my Church or yours. This may be why the Rev.L. is losing patience with the C.of E.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 8:31am GMT

"The Anglican Communion's catholicity does not depend on any allegiance to Rome or Constantinople - but on the living Christ". Yet another example of made up ecclesiology and theology by Ron Smith!

Posted by Bromenblue at Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 9:25am GMT

"Yet another example of made up ecclesiology and theology by Ron Smith!"

Not so, Bromenblue. It's fairly standard Anglicanism.

"I joined a church that accepts theological opposition to WO as a vlid expression of faith and which had promised to honour such views as a valid integrity."

Fr. Tomlinson, perhaps you could point us to this ironclad promise of continued male-only priesthood for all comers? When exactly was it made, and what did it say?

Posted by BillyD at Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 2:27pm GMT

Bromenblue
Any chance of answers to my questions of 3 November 2009 at 2:16pm GMT and 3 November 2009 at 4:48pm GMT on this thread, or is it easier to throw one liners at Ron (here) and Toby (on another thread)?

Posted by Erika Baker at Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 3:08pm GMT

Erika, the second comment was intended to express the frustration I have with the current situation. Between the right's accusations of apostacy and the left's claims of "pastoral emergency" it's all nauseatingly selfrighteous. How can love for others be apostacy? How is it in any way 'orthodox' to do the kinds of things +Orombi is doing? How is it a "pastoral emergency" that people living in the richest, freest, most priveleged societies that have ever existed on the face of the earth can't get married in a Church? Difficult, maybe, but "pastoral emergency"? I have no faith in either side. What's there to have faith in? Of course it was a wind up! I expected Rev L's was a similar wind up expressing similar frustration, and said so. Part of that frustration is that people like me simply can't understand what he sees as basic to Christian living and get snotty about it. I react exactly the same way to him. But we share the same frustration, I bet, so far forth as two such different people can experience "the same" anything. Perhaps we can use shared frustration as a starting point for unity. Nothing else seems to be working. "You and I think don't like each other. Let's unite around that!" And I wasn't suggesting abolishing the episcopate, but replacing the current one since, as a group, they seem completely unable to treat each other with any degree of simple Christian agape. The episcopate is, in my opinion, a vital part of the catholic faith. We can no more get rid of the episcopate than we can get rid of absolution, for instance. We can, however, replace the ones we have. If that isn't feasible, we can openly, publically call them to account, all of us, for their failure to live up to their ordination vows. It would mean some good people would be afflicted with the bad ones, but that's just the way it is. You can't drain an abscess this size without a bit of bloodshed and pain. It would mean all of us putting aside our own ideas of what the Church is and go back to the Two Commandments. Any bishop who can't manage to live up to those two basic points of our faith should be called on the carpet for it, right and left alike. I can't see any other way out of this. It puts us in the odd position where the sheep end up leading the shepherds, but God works in mysterious ways.

Posted by Ford Elms at Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 3:10pm GMT

Erika, the answer to your questions is implicit in my contribution of Wednesday 4th November at 8.31am.

Posted by Bromenblue at Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 4:08pm GMT

Certainly here is a direct quote from the Act of Synod 1993- a legally binding document which assured me of my place within the church:

Ordinations & Appointments:

no person or body shall discriminate against candidates either for ordination or for appointment to senior office in the Church of England on the grounds of their views about the ordination of women to the priesthood.

But it seems that the majority here would desire to break this act and discriminate against me- rudely and hurtfully telling me I should leave my church and should never have been ordained after 1992.

Furthermore at the time of the vote Synod proclaimed that all those against WO would ALWAYS have an honoured and equal place within the CHurch of England....a fact that many liberal bishops are now claiming they can ignore because they were not in office at the time.

there is nowt so dangerous as someone who leaves no space to have got it wrong....when we think we hold the only claim to 'justice' it is amazing how little of it we tend to excercise...

Posted by Ed Tomlinson at Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 4:56pm GMT

Bromenblue
I don't see how you have answered my questions.
Could I put them again, please?

Yes, the CoE considers itself both catholic and reformed. But it also considers itself emphatically not Roman Catholic or Orthodox and it has always made its own decisions through its Synods and based on its Canons.
So my question remains - if Rome's judgement is so important to you, why are you in a church whose orders have always been considered null and void by Rome, especially since there is a strong Roman Catholic presence in this country?

If the consent of the universal church is so important, then surely, you should not accept the CoE's insistence that its own priests are validly ordained, until the other churches all agree?

This, as I said, is not a snipe, but a genuine question.

Secondly, I would be grateful if you could explain what "brother bishops" are and why you would object to them. As I said, the only explanation I can imagine is so pathetic and un-theological that I am sure I do not understand what you are realy saying.

Posted by Erika Baker at Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 4:59pm GMT

Billy D, I don't think you'll find any evidence of iron-clad, permanent provision for dissenters. I've pushed people before on this and the answer seems to be that some members of Synod made these promises in informal gatherings and with no authority to speak for anyone. The actual legislation was clear that the POVs were intended to be a temporary arrangement while a process of acceptance took place.

Posted by toby forward at Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 5:22pm GMT

Billy D, you made a very sweeping statement about standard Anglicanism. In which Anglican doctrinal creed or writing did you find that "its catholicity does not depend on allegiance to Rome or Constantinople, but on the living Christ?" I can agree with what you say insofar that our Catholic order derives from the teaching of Christ Himself handed down through the apostles. And of course we owe allegiance to Rome and Constantinople as we and those two great Churches of East and West have a common order, whilst the Anglican Communion itself (beginning with the Church of England) grew from Roman Catholicism, because of Henry Eighth's desire to get his own way. The Reformers, it seems, are now at it again, seeking to dismantle received tradition and faith.

Posted by Bromenblue at Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 5:54pm GMT

"it is precisely because they have removed themselves from the continuum by what they have done and assent to, but also because of the jurisdiction issue."

Bromenblue, I understand exactly what you are talking about, because I used to feel the same way myself, and made all the arguments you make. My only question is: did not the Anglican Church 500 years ago remove itself from the continuum by breaking with Rome? The Pope certainly thinks so. That's my issue in this. For me, conservative Anglocatholics are in one of three positions. Either they agree with the CofE's rejection of Papal authority, in which case I don't understand the appeal to Papal authority on the issue of OOW. Or they accept the Papal claims, in which case they have always been duty bound to put themselves under the Bishop of Rome. Or they occupy an uneasy middle ground where they have always doubted the validity of rejecting Papal authority and OOW confirms their suspicions, in which case they are now duty bound to put themselves under the Bishop of Rome. It doesn't seem a tenable position to me to appeal as a catholic Christian to an authority who denies you are a catholic Christian. That's what I need clarified. I understand, and have made myself, the theological and ecclesiological arguments you make, they're already clear enough.

The Pope doesn't really care if we ordain women or not, since he sees all Anglican clergy the same way you see ordained women. His concern is that if we do it, the voices calling for OOW in his own Church will get louder, since we DO claim our clergy are just as much priests and bishops as his. Papal warnings about the damage done to our dialogue in this are quite funny. It's not like Popes are ever going to talk to us as another catholic body, after all. Whether or not we ordain women isn't going to change that.

Posted by Ford Elms at Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 7:06pm GMT

"the person coming stands in place of the Diocesan. If that is a woman - whoever is sent- lacks sacramental validity in my eyes." - Ed Tomlinson

Well then, if thine eyes offend thee, pluck them out! }-p

Posted by JCF at Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 7:42pm GMT

" For my part, I would say that both she and other women ministers have an authentic ministry in the Church, in the same way as I see Methodist ministers or United Reformed Ministers having an authentic and effective ministry, but not as priests. I do wonder, sometimes, whether contributors to this site say some of the things they do simply to act as rabble rousers."
- Bromenblue -

Howe condescending can one be? You, Brumenblue, have an obviously different point of view about women's ministry in the Church of England from the majority of your fellow male priests. One wonders why, if you are so desperately uncomfortable with women's ministry you are still a member of the Church of England - never mind being a priest within that Church? If I personally, felt that my Church was so out of Catholic and Apostolic Order in its acceptance of women's ministry, I would not be able to live with myself by remaining within its perjured constituency.

To say that the C.of E. for ever and a day would defend your personal right to denigrate its legal entitlement to ordain women is simply not correct. The provision for 'alternative episcope' (flying bishops) was meant for a period of discerment only. F.B.s are not at all a part of what one might call 'Catholic Order'.

For you and your fellow members of F.i.F to proclaim that you have an eternal licence to inhibit the working of the Holy Spirit in matters of who should or should not be acknowledged as the recipient of a valid call to ministry within the Church of England would be tantamount to giving you the equivalent of a Magisterium, which only Roman Catholics would claim to be heir to.

You don't seem to be able to understand that the C.of E. is not bound by any Magisterium, and has, ever since it's Reformation in the 16th century,
sought to proclaim the Gospel according to what it believes to be the guidance of the Holy Spirit. To resile from its Reformed tradition, the Church of England might just as well resign itself to agree to absorbtion by the upcoming Ordinariates of the Roman Catholic Church.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 8:40pm GMT

"no person or body shall discriminate against candidates either for ordination or for appointment to senior office in the Church of England on the grounds of their views about the ordination of women to the priesthood."

But there's nothing here about the "two integrities," or a promise that anti-WO types would never find themselves under the jurisdiction of a woman, but merely a promise not to discriminate against you based on those beliefs. I cannot see that you have been discriminated against in that fashion. You don't want to believe that women can (or ought) to be ordained? Fine, believe what you like. You want a guarantee that you'll never have to deal with women bishops? That's another thing altogether.

"Furthermore at the time of the vote Synod proclaimed that all those against WO would ALWAYS have an honoured and equal place within the CHurch of England."

Again, what exactly did Synod say?

Posted by BillyD at Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 9:34pm GMT

"And of course we owe allegiance to Rome and Constantinople as we and those two great Churches of East and West have a common order,"

I'm not following you here. How does sharing a common order equal allegiance? You must be using the word "allegiance" in some manner with which I am not familiar.

"...whilst the Anglican Communion itself (beginning with the Church of England) grew from Roman Catholicism, because of Henry Eighth's desire to get his own way."

Funny, I was taught that the Church of England predated the Reformation, and used the Henrician crisis as an excuse to break away from Rome.

Posted by BillyD at Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 9:39pm GMT

The AoS refers to 'views' on the ordination of women to the priesthood. That's fine, you can dissent - but the Act of Synod does not say that the Church of England will accommodate a separatist ecclesiology.

Posted by Mark Bennet at Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 9:50pm GMT

ABp Habgood, who is generally credited with having written the Act of Synod was very clear that it would last for as long as parishes wished to avail themselves of it. Both ABp expressed that view to both synod and parliament. If the ABps believed that, then why would a young ordinand doubt it??

Resolutions A&B are part of the same measure that permited WO and so both are as permanent or not as each other. The new legislation will need to repeal he entire 1994 measure and put something new in its place.

Posted by David Malloch at Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 10:05pm GMT

Ron if you want to play the 'non magisterium' card at least get your facts straight. The alternative is not- as you naughtily suggest- to go with the guidance of the HS. THe Anglican church was formed on the 39articles and prayer book. These make it explicitly clear that non- biblical innovation is an abhorence. Indeed that is the argument used to attack Catholic practices.

Indeed it is only since your lot (for want of a better phrase) abandoned the three legged stool of scripture, reason and tradition that the Anglican church has hit the rocks....

So if you really want to play the 'you are not Anglican so get out card' I suggest you get your coat as well! Because your way of thinking sits FAR FAR left field of what Anglicanism has ever understood itself to be.

Posted by Ed Tomlinson at Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 10:16pm GMT

Revd Ron Smith, how strange it is that the woman I was referring to doesn't see any of it at as at all condescending. She's actually far more rational than you are in your ramblings. You are simply so dogmatic, which is evident from many of your postings on all sorts of issues, that you are just completely incapable of actually seeing that someone can have a different point of view to yours. I pity those you minister to as a priest. I have never claimed to have a "licence to inhibit the working of the Holy Spirit". I simply have a particular understanding. You have yours, but you don't seem to be able to bear the fact that there are actually other priests out there, and female laity, by the way, who are coming from a different perspective. Erika, I am where I believe God has called me to be, for better or for worse. Remember, I was a member of the Church of England well before the advent of women priests or bishops, which in the great scheme of things, is a novelty. I therefore happen to be in this part of God's Church Catholic which is the Church of England, whose Catholicity depends not solely on Papal authority but just as importantly on Catholic apostolic order. However my own orders might be viewed by the magisterium, their validity stems from their connection with the tradition of the the unbroken continuum from before the Reformation. And you probably know as well as I do, that a huge amount of progress had been made with ARCIC in respect of understanding of priesthood, and we were moving, albeit slowly, towards better mutual understanding of priestly orders. Towards that full visible unity Christ so much longed for in his Church. The RCs and Orthodox pleaded with us not to go ahead with the ordination of women as any progress made in that direction would be set back irretrievably. The term "Brother Bishops" refers to those male Bishops either delegated or consecrated by a woman bishop to minister in the Church.

Posted by Bromenblue at Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 11:36pm GMT

David Malloch, whatever John Habgood may have said before the vote is not relevant. What matters is what was enacted, and that was clearly a temporary arrangement. As I said, promises of more were only informal, personal views, not the decisions of Synod. That's laying aside the stupidity and theological illiteracy of the Act of Synod itself.

Posted by toby forward at Thursday, 5 November 2009 at 8:06am GMT

Bromenblue
“I am where I believe God has called me to be, for better or for worse. Remember, I was a member of the Church of England well before the advent of women priests or bishops, which in the great scheme of things, is a novelty”

Thank you.
The issue of women’s ordination is only secondary, though, isn’t it? Because the CoE clearly believes that it has the right to make decisions and to tread new ground. To call new developments a novelty is, well, yes, they would be, being new.
But you are and always have been a member of a church that believes this about itself: that its canons and its synodical government enable it to discern God’s will for it and to follow that.
That not everyone always agrees with every decision is natural.
That provisions should be made for people who disagree with a major decision is possible.
But that people suddenly question the whole decision making process of their church, when they have previously accepted it, that is the thing I don’t understand.
If you really believe that this church cannot do what it clearly believes it can do, then you are more fundamentally at odds with your church than you state and the issue of women’s priest is merely the “presenting issue” that brings this discrepancy between its understanding of itself and your understanding into sharp relief.

Posted by Erika Baker at Thursday, 5 November 2009 at 9:16am GMT

" And of course we owe allegiance to Rome and Constantinople as we and those two great Churches of East and West have a common order, whilst the Anglican Communion itself (beginning with the Church of England) grew from Roman Catholicism."
- Bromenblue -

That's funny. I was always taught that the Church of England was a direct descendant of the Church IN England - well before the time of Augustine or of the Reformation. It was not until the Council of Whitby, in the 7th century, that the Celtic Church in England decided to join forces with the Bishop of Rome. However, in the 16th century, because of the politics of the time, and the excesses of Roman papal rule, the Church IN England (and many other places in Europe) decided to sever its links with the Pope. - that's the real story. Henry VIII's peccadillos was only one of the turning points for inevitable change and Reform-ation of the Church in Europe.

When Pope Leo decided to declare Anglican Orders null and void, at least from an Anglican point of view, he surrendered any right for successive Roman Pontiffs to be called *Infallible* - a title which the Church IN England, the Old Catholic Church, the Churches of the Eastern Orthodox persuasion, and all of the Protestant Churches have since repudiated.

For anyone but Roman Catholics to still subscribe to the idea of an 'Infallible' Papacy, would be tantamount to acknowledging their current state of apostacy. Now you, Bromenblue may believe that. I think that most of us 'Thinking Anglicans' in the Anglican Communion do not see things that way. However, I do believe, that for those who want to accept an infallible pope, they are perfectly free to do so, but they should not
be content to hide behind the integrity of other faith communities which do not.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Thursday, 5 November 2009 at 10:22am GMT

Revd Smith. Who mentioned papal infallibility? Not I. You do try to blind us with your knowledge, don't you. As you well know, even Henry VIII himself was from the Roman Catholic Stable before his run in with the Pope. The Reformation was the point at which the Church of England began taking shape. You also forget that the nature of the Reformation in England was far less extreme and radical than it was in Europe in that the Church of England maintained much of its Catholic identity eg. liturgy, threefold order of ministry, creeds etc. It has never been classified as a Protestant Church in the way that is the case in Europe. It seems to me you enjoy rewriting history and seek to be too clever by half. And Erika, the Synodical process in the past has decided that I am allowed to hold the view I have, and the latest murmurings from the Revision Committee suggest I may well yet be allowed the same in respect of my view with regard to the ordination of women to the episcopate. So yes, it may well be that this is God's will for us, if his will can simply be decided and defined by two thirds majorities. Or perhaps its just a case of the Synod being wilful and not prepared to listen to advice from what could have been classified as sister churches.

Posted by Bromenblue at Thursday, 5 November 2009 at 2:44pm GMT

re some earlier postings; Catholicity is a contested concept, inevitably. Adrian Hastings did his doctorate on a critique of Anglican understandings from a RC point of view, tho he subsequently changed his mind.The Oriental Orthodox present an interesting, and not dissimilar case to Anglicanism.The Conciliar tradition could also be helpful.Our present problems call,I think,for a fresh and more explicit understanding of what is "Reformed Catholicism" from an Anglican point of view, to help articulate our identity better both for ourselves and for our ecumenical partners.

Posted by Perry Butler at Thursday, 5 November 2009 at 3:35pm GMT

Toby,

Please provide evidence that what was enacted was clearly a temporary arrangement.

Parliament clearly believed otherwise, all the bishops I asked at the time believed otherwise. Also, the arrangements have no sell-by date. I can understand that you would like them to be temporary but where is the evidence that that was intended???

And, as I said, Resolutions A&B are a part of the measure - as permanent or temporary as the rest of the measure.

Posted by David Malloch at Thursday, 5 November 2009 at 5:56pm GMT

Bromenblue
I have never doubted that you are allowed to hold the view you hold, and I don't have a major problem with special provisions either, provided they don't end up creating a church within a church, but I should be able to live with whatever they decide as long as women priests and bishops are treated exactly the same as men.

It doesn't answer my question about your understanding of the CoE. In an earlier post on this thread you said "And no, the Church of England has no authority to make such a massive and far reaching change to Church order on its own. It is sheer arrogance to suggest otherwise" -and yet, that is precisely what the church believes.

In your last post to me you merely talk of Synod not being prepared to listen to "advice" from sister churches, which is a completely different tenor.

But if you genuinely should not believe that the CoE has the right to make its own discernments, whereas the church does believe that it has that right, then you really do have a fundamental problem that goes far beyond the issue of women priests.

Posted by Erika Baker at Thursday, 5 November 2009 at 6:22pm GMT

" Or perhaps its just a case of the Synod being wilful and not prepared to listen to advice from what could have been classified as sister churches." - Bromenblue -

Or, Bromenblue, could it just be you, and the 1/3 minority that are being what you are pleased to call 'wilful' and not prepared to listen to the majority of your colleagues in all of this?

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Thursday, 5 November 2009 at 6:31pm GMT

Revd Smith, I would call a third quite a significant minority actually, and we are not wilful, as you say. Remember a majority of members of the Anglican Communion may well have assented to the issue of women priests. That becomes a minority when talking about women bishops! And the Synod hasn't yet made its final votes. Many a slip twixt cup and lip! And Erika, there are some doctrinal issues, and women bishops is certainly one of them, that the Church of England should not be tinkering around with, as they strike to the very core of what the Church of England has been and is. If it always has the right to make its own discernments in that way, it could end up not believing anything. That's why the idea of synodical government is one that needs revisting. If you look at authority in the other two churches, tell me why it is that they are not in the mess that we are.

Posted by Bromenblue at Friday, 6 November 2009 at 8:26am GMT

"That's why the idea of synodical government is one that needs revisting. If you look at authority in the other two churches, tell me why it is that they are not in the mess that we are."
- Bromenblue -

With all due respect: Presumably you have always been aware that your Church, the Church of England, has decided (following the example of other Provinces like my own in New Zealand) to accede to the idea of Synodical Government.

Bishop George Selwyn, under whose leadership Synodical Government in the Church in N.Z. was first instituted, knew what he was about when he decided to extend his episcopal oversight to include the wisdom of both clergy and laity in what has become the typically 'Anglican' form of Church Government - Synodical.

I suspect that growing opposition to the explicit Roman Magisterium was one of the reasons for the Protestant Reformation in the fist place - the real protest not being so much about the place of Rome as the Magisterial governance of the Pope.

For you to want to change the form of governance in the C.of E. back to the hierarchical rule of the Episcopate, you would have to deny its claim to be both Catholic and Reformed, would you not?
If you really do want dogmatic rule - there's only one place to go.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Friday, 6 November 2009 at 9:42am GMT

Bromenblue
We are still talking cross purposes.
You may believe that the CoE did not have the right to make the decisions it did - it clearly thinks it had the right.
You may think that synodical government is wrong and that the other churches have a better system - the CoE clearly does not agree with you.

As for "the state we're in" - I personally prefer a lively debate to enforced obedience, and I prefer people who make their own moral decisions openly to those who, say, use contraception in secret because their church wouldn't allow it.

Whether a two third majority for anything is valid depends on the understanding the church has of itself which is reflected in its canons, not on whether individual members think it would be a good idea to change the system because they’re not happy with a particular decision.

In Rome, you don’t need any majority at all, those who participate in the discernment process in the CoE would have no voice there, and speaking of a two third majority as being significant in any way would be considered completely irrelevant. But then, emphasising a one third minority opinion would be equally irrelevant.

That's one of the reasons why I am emphatically not a Roman Catholic. I accept the right of the RC church to govern itself in the way it clearly claims for itself, and I make my own choice accordingly. In our mutual relationship, it's not the RC church that has the problem, it is a problem I have with the RC church.

Whereas you don't appear to accept the way the CoE governs itself and you doubt that the CoE has the right to do what it clearly believes for itself.

The fundamental question is still – why have you joined a church whose system of governance you oppose in principle?

Posted by Erika Baker at Friday, 6 November 2009 at 9:45am GMT

Revd Smith, please don't talk to me about dogmatic rule, as judging from your contributions on this site, you seem to be one of the most dogmatic individuals I have ever come across. And Erika, I didn't "join" the Church, I have been a cradle Anglican, in the Church of England, since my baptism, so I must assume that it is God who has called me here. And if that is the case, and God has given me freewill just as he has yourself, then I must surely be entitled to disagree with the way it governs itself without heading for another Christian community. Just as you say you have the right to make your choice accordingly, my membership of the Church of England gives me the same.

Posted by Bromenblue at Friday, 6 November 2009 at 10:24am GMT

Bronemblue and David Malloch - you both appear to be under some illusions.

The Resolutions A and B do not give us the Act of Synod and flying bishops. Res A/B are indeed part of the measure to ordain women and no-one is currently realistically trying to get rid od A/B - indeed a Code of practice would encompass them.

The AofS came later, without very much debate (none at diocesan level). I have read the transcript of the parliamentary debates and actually no undertakings of permanence were given.

The GS has actually made up its mind over women bishops - it had decided in favour. The current debate is over what provision to make for those who cannot accept women in sacramental leadership. If the current work of the revision committee fails at Feb synod, the GS has still decided there vwill be women bishops. The question then will be 'when?'

Posted by Frozenchristian at Friday, 6 November 2009 at 11:42am GMT

Bromenblue
You can, of course, feel you belong to a church you fundamentally disagree with.
I personally find that a very odd thing to do, because like it or not, you are bound by the structures of the church you join, so all you really achieve is to set yourself up for continuous disappointment.
But of course, that is your choice.

Only, to expect that the church changes its way of governance because you feel it does not suit you, is probably rather unrealistic.

It is not the church's responsibility to change to suit you, but it is yours to try and find a way of living within its structures.

Posted by Erika Baker at Friday, 6 November 2009 at 12:10pm GMT

Could someone please direct me to the actual texts of the Act of Synod and Resolutions A and B?

Posted by BillyD at Friday, 6 November 2009 at 5:28pm GMT

Erika, it is my hope and prayer that this is exactly what the General Synod will permit us to do, after the Revision Committee. Legal jurisidiction is now on the table, and that gives some assurance.

Posted by Bromenblue at Friday, 6 November 2009 at 6:00pm GMT

Billy D,

Here are the links:

The measure (includes A&B)

http://www.england-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/uk-church-measures/1993/pdf/ukcm_19930002_en.pdf

The Act of Synod

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/churchlawlegis/faq/episactofsynod.rtf

Posted by David Malloch at Friday, 6 November 2009 at 6:50pm GMT

Godspeed, Bromenblue, I admire your integrity.

Posted by Erika Baker at Friday, 6 November 2009 at 8:28pm GMT

Thank you, David Malloch, for those links. I find English legislative language particularly dense (or maybe I'm the one who's dense!); could someone now please tell me exactly which parts of the Act contains the promise people are talking about?

And can someone tell me what the system of flying bishops, or whatever they are called, is about? Since it seems that no parish had to accept a woman priest, and no one was (yet) going to be forced to accept the episcope of a woman, what was the need for this alternative oversight? Are we to understand that the anti-WO party in the CoE objects to even the episcope of a man who ordains women?

Posted by BillyD at Saturday, 7 November 2009 at 1:06am GMT

"Are we to understand that the anti-WO party in the CoE objects to even the episcope of a man who ordains women?"

In a word, yes.

Posted by Pat O'Neill at Saturday, 7 November 2009 at 12:30pm GMT

Are we to understand that the anti-WO party in the CoE objects to even the episcope of a man who ordains women?

Posted by: BillyD on Saturday, 7 November 2009 at 1:06am GMT

Yes, I'm afraid it's gotten that bad.

Posted by Rev L Roberts at Saturday, 7 November 2009 at 1:42pm GMT

Meantime, very important news from Fr Ed Tomlinson:

www.sbarnabas.com/blog/

All at TA will wish him and his family well.


Posted by john at Saturday, 7 November 2009 at 5:12pm GMT

""Are we to understand that the anti-WO party in the CoE objects to even the episcope of a man who ordains women?"

In a word, yes."

I'm still hoping that at least one of our contributors here can explain the theology of this to me.

Posted by Erika Baker at Saturday, 7 November 2009 at 7:09pm GMT

Thank you for the good wishes....

...as to :"Are we to understand that the anti-WO party in the CoE objects to even the episcope of a man who ordains women?" In a word, yes.

the other side of the coin could be:

"Are we to understand that those opposed to WO on theological grounds (please don't make me an anti) can no longer trust those who were meant to watch over them? Alas experience says 'yes'.

Now be really HONEST...how would we have fared WITHOUT our flying bishops?? A look to America might provide answers...

Posted by Ed Tomlinson at Saturday, 7 November 2009 at 7:27pm GMT

"Yes, I'm afraid it's gotten that bad."

Good heavens. I find that so very, very bizarre.

Posted by BillyD at Saturday, 7 November 2009 at 8:38pm GMT

Ed
I genuinely don't get it.
You believe that something happens when a man is being ordained that cannot happen when a woman is being ordained. So God bestows some kind of power to administer the sacraments on men that he does not bestow on women, however much a bishop may lay hands on them and say the right prayers.

That bit I can understand.
But why does it make a difference if the bishop is misguided enough (in your eyes)to believe that the women he ordains are validly ordained?

How does the bishop's belief invalidate the ordination of the men he ordains and who might end up serving in your parish?

If this is about something God does, then how can it be tainted by what bishops think?

Posted by Erika Baker at Saturday, 7 November 2009 at 10:17pm GMT

""Are we to understand that those opposed to WO on theological grounds (please don't make me an anti) can no longer trust those who were meant to watch over them?"

What exactly were you afraid would happen?

"Now be really HONEST...how would we have fared WITHOUT our flying bishops?? A look to America might provide answers..."

How so, Father? As far as I know, no parish in the United States has had to accept the appointment of a woman priest, and those parishes who object to women bishops but find themselves in dioceses headed by women have not had to accept their sacramental ministry; if you have contrary information, I wish you'd share it. The schismatic groups that refused to accept women priests and then tried to leave the Episcopal Church en masse (Fort Worth et al.) didn't even have to do it.


Posted by BillyD at Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 11:36am GMT

"Peter, meaning rock, is of Greek origin and is the name of the apostle on whom Christ founded his Church. Courageous, impulsive, passionate and strong, he is the apostle with whom I have always most identified. Not because I am any of those things but because I have a habit of opening my mouth and putting both feet in….just ask Tina Turna" - Ed Tomlinson on St. Barnabas Blog -

Ed, Congratulations on the birth of Benedict Peter

Noting your remarks (above) about the provenance of Peter, I am not too surprised about your agony with women clergy. Perhaps you have some esoteric yen for the Roman Primacy legend, which still permits the R.C. Church to claim that inerrancy is somehow connected with Peter's call by Jesus to be "the rock on which I shall build my Church"
Remember, this is the very same rock on which Jesus was abandoned at his trial in the courtyard of Herod; also the rock that was challenged by that other founding Apostle Paul, in later important controversies in the early Church.

It is sad that some exegetes still believe that Peter's rockability has never been challenged -time and time again in the history of the Church, and may yet prove to be only 1/12th of the total Apostolic Succession provenance endowed by Jesus.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Monday, 9 November 2009 at 7:38am 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.