Comments: General Synod - February 2012 - online papers

GS 1858X doesn't exist; I think the explanation is already in GS 1858.


It's "ecclesiastical" ...

Posted by american piskie at Saturday, 14 January 2012 at 6:16pm GMT

I've removed the link to GS 1858X, although I think that this paper does exist. An "Explanatory Note" is not the same as an "Explanatory Memorandum". Have a look at GS 1852 (last page) and GS 1852X to see what I mean.

I've also removed the link to GS 1822Y as that doesn't work either.

I've also corrected the spelling, which I copied from the CofE website.

Posted by Peter Owen at Saturday, 14 January 2012 at 11:56pm GMT

Having read the conditions of the Draft Measure, discussing the delegation of authority by the diocesan bishop, that was overwhelmingly agreed to by most diocesan synods; it is sad that the Bishops Meeting seem to prefer the alternative arrangement: where 'Flying Bishops' would continue to minister is a diocese - without the express permission of a woman Bishop.

This bending backwards to accommodate the opponents of women in the ordained ministry of the Church would send the wrong sort of signal to the broad constituency of the Church, that has already experienced the charism of women's ministry - to the extent that the C.of E. could probably not continue to wo/man its parishes without them.

When will this particular brand of unjust discrimination - together with that against the LGBT community in the Church - be finally put to death? Perhaps when the Church is in its death throes, maybe?

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Sunday, 15 January 2012 at 10:07am GMT

"it is sad that the Bishops Meeting seem to prefer the alternative arrangement: where 'Flying Bishops' would continue to minister is a diocese - without the express permission of a woman Bishop."

Really? Truly sad.

I don't suppose the diocesan-who-happens-to-be-a-woman could send Ye Olde Bailiff to arrest any "flying" trespassers in her diocese? ;-/

Lord, REFORM your Church!

Posted by JCF at Sunday, 15 January 2012 at 9:17pm GMT

Just read Draft Measure: it still allows a diocesan bishop (say one who refuses to ordain women) to be out-of-communion with one of his priests. This has been an ongoing problem with the previous situation, and it remains. How a church can allow a bishop, in effect, not to recognise the orders of a legally-ordained priest in his diocese is beyond me. Heck, the Draft even allows him to excuse himself from having to minister pastorally to a woman priest or to those men ordained by a woman -- this is theological bonkers (see paras 77-81). I don't think this is episcopacy, but the repudiation of it....

I know others have said this, but where is the provision for bishops not to ordain men or for parishes in dioceses where the diocesan won't ordain women to petition for episcopal ministry by one who does? After all, the Draft makes allowances for the theological convictions of parishes to be taken into account (not only can they insist on a male priest, but also a like-minded male priest).

I'm all for a huge tent, but this is a church of several tents stuck together by chewing gum.

I'm rather ashamed.

Joe

Posted by Joe at Monday, 16 January 2012 at 3:35pm GMT

To the Bishops and above all the Archbishops I would say
-the great majority of the Dioceses voted against the following motion they support and in this way revealed that the Church of England as whole does not want it

- WOMEN and supporters have always made it clear that we HAVE compromised.We wanted a single clause measure but we accepted a Code of Practice but this is a step too far
The Archbishops have never listened to us preferring to give in to a vociferous minority

- theologically this is appalling. It sets up a separate strain of bishops who must be 'untainted' but are in fact heretical

- if those opposed cannot accept canonically consecrated male bishops because they have ordained women they are virtually rejecting the Church of England and its laws. If they really believe such men have ceased to be true bishops as they have ordained women priest according to the will of the Church then perhaps they are in the wrong church and should move to one where they are happy and an ordinariate awaits them.

Posted by Jean Mary Mayland at Monday, 16 January 2012 at 6:05pm GMT

Jean Mayland, all too predictably I have to say, is once again demonstrating a level of intolerance that is bordering on the oppressive. How on earth she can argue that this so-called "separate strain of bishops" is "heretical" is beyond me. Those she is so vociferously criticising and seeking to undermine are doing nothing more than being faithful to that which has been the teaching and tradition of the Church as received from Christ himself and handed down through his apostles. She would be up in arms if anyone applied the word heretical to her, no doubt claiming subjugation and oppression herself. Disgraceful! Now we are really seeing, in a post like hers, the true colours of some of those who would prefer to see the Church of England without any last vestige of catholicity.

Posted by Benedict at Tuesday, 17 January 2012 at 4:59pm GMT

"which has been the teaching and tradition of the Church as received from Christ himself and handed down through his apostles." - Benedict -

Have you chapter and verse on this, Benedict? I don't recall Jesus ever saying anything about Bishops in the Church - either men or women, so we can't go on that assumption, can we?

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Wednesday, 18 January 2012 at 8:28am GMT

Father Smith, you as well as I know that this has been the received wisdom of the Church from interpretation of the Scriptures in the various councils. Furthermore, what of the millions of Christian Catholics and Orthodox who still hold to the views that traditionalists do in the Anglican Communion, a Communion which, it has to be said, is numerically inferior. Are you really suggesting that the tail should wag the dog?

Posted by Benedict at Wednesday, 18 January 2012 at 11:27am GMT

The Reverend Smith seems awfully sure of *his* assumptions :) It's just assumptions that don't match his that are in doubt, apparently.

Posted by Clive at Wednesday, 18 January 2012 at 5:47pm GMT

Many theologians to day would reject the idea that Jesus intended to found a church. Many others would reject this ‘pipe line’ view of the apostolic succession.

Imust point out that the concept of ordained priesthood did not develop until after Apostolic times.In the New Testament we read of elders and overseers but not priests and bishops as such In the earliest period it is impossible to say with precision who conducted the Eucharist It is only in a document of the late first century, ‘the first Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians’ that the author draws a sharp distinction between clergy and laity – the bishop-presbyters are said to ‘offer the gifts’ but the phrase in the Clementine use of the term does not necessarily refer to the Eucharist.

The Tradition continued to develop.Many of us regard women priests and bishops as a legitimate development of Tradition.

As far as heresy is concerned has Benedict heard of Donatism?

As far 'last vestiges of the catholic faith': see the speech by Sister Rosemary at the General Synod in July 2010.

Posted by Jean Mary Mayland at Wednesday, 18 January 2012 at 6:03pm GMT

My immediate response to Benedict and Clive here is to say that 'Tradition' is not immune to judicious reformation - in the light of modern understandings of the Scriptures; the respective moderation by successive Councils of the Church; The European Reformation; and accordning to the Anglican format: Scripture, Tradition AND REASON.

Reason, by virtue of being God-given, ought never be excluded from an assessment of how 'Tradition' might be reviewed. The Holy Spirit is not dead, but is alove and active in a 'Listening Church'.

Pope John XXIII - God rest his soul! - was keen to reform the Roman Catholic Church with his motif of 'Semper Reformanda', but unfortunately, his successors have turned back the clock on that. Let not our Anglican Churches do the same.

It is important to understand that Jesus was crucified for his 'reformation' of the Church in his day. "What I require is mercy, not sacrifice"

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Wednesday, 18 January 2012 at 10:17pm GMT

To Jean Mayland: Donatus taught that the effectiveness of the sacraments depended on the moral character of the minister. Why have you introduced this rather spurious line of reasoning into a discussion about women bishops? Those who oppose the ordination of women to the episcopate are not doing so because of doubt about their moral character. And which theologians,at least notable ones, reject the idea that Jesus intended to found a church? Who said "You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church?"

Posted by Benedict at Wednesday, 18 January 2012 at 11:24pm GMT

'Who said "You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church?" '

Well, that's the problem:

You don't know, anymore than we do. It may have been Jesus, but we know He didn't *write* the account of His having said that. In any case, He was unlikely to have said that, as such - His mastery of modern English would seem to be unlikely at that time, and the word translated as "church" is quite likely to have had different connotation, and, perhaps, denotations in the period the statement allegedly took place.

Is that your only proof, then?

Posted by MarkBrunson at Thursday, 19 January 2012 at 4:39am GMT

"I don't recall Jesus ever saying anything about Bishops in the Church - either men or women, so we can't go on that assumption, can we?"

But those of us with misgivings are apparently expected to go along entirely with the assumptions of the proponents.

I think it's completely valid to say to oppononents of WO "you could be wrong," but then surely it must follow that proponents of WO could also be wrong? In my experience, those of us with misgivings are more than ready to admit we could be wrong, but those pushing for ever greater changes are never prepared to admit the same.

And the uncertainty is what underlies the quest for sacramental assurance - for some of us that leads to the Ordinariate or Rome directly, for others it is the reason for appeals for provision within the CofE.

I suspect it's also the reason why proponents refuse to even countenance the idea they could be in error - for if they did they would feel some obligation to provide for traditionalists. And they don't.

It's completely clear that Fr. Ron and his ilk have a total double standard. His assumptions are right and anyone else's are wrong. That's fine, if that's who you are, go for it. But don't pretend otherwise.

Posted by Clive at Thursday, 19 January 2012 at 5:34pm GMT

Well, Clive, if it makes you happy, I don't play the liberal hypocrisy game. My positions *are* right, and the positions of those who oppose *are* wrong. I certainly don't think anyone who doesn't believe that, yet crusades tirelessly to curtail the beliefs of others is worthy of the right to speak.

Posted by MarkBrunson at Friday, 20 January 2012 at 10:52am GMT

"And the uncertainty is what underlies the quest for sacramental assurance" - Clive, on Thursday -

Now where have I heard that phrase before?

And what, exactly, does it mean, for an Anglican?

Posted by Father ron smith at Sunday, 22 January 2012 at 9:33am GMT

@Mark: I commend your integrity and I agree with you - not on WO itself but on the question of worthiness to speak, which is why I personally have never sought to curtail the beliefs of others - at least, not intentionally.

I crossed the Tiber not because I know one way or the other if ordained Anglican women are really priests in the wider catholic church, but precisely because I couldn't be sure.

I think there are many within Forward in Faith who share that perspective and they do not seek to curtail others' beliefs or their practice of those beliefs, but merely ask that the CofE live up to what is still its official position - that both accepting and rejecting women's ordination are valid and respected positions. Conversely, the majority of the 'pro' forces do believe that they are right and therefore they must annihilate the opposition. It is my contention that almost all the 'pro' force thinks as you do, Mark, but not all of them have the integrity to come out and say it as you do. I respect you for it.

As to asking what something (anything!) means to an Anglican, well, that's up there with "How long is a piece of string?" I suspect the answer depends on the individual Anglican, whether there is an "R" in the month and what's trending on Twitter that day :)

Posted by Clive at Tuesday, 24 January 2012 at 4:53am GMT

Thank you, Clive, and I commend you on crossing the Tiber! You see, I am not committed to annihilating *the* opposition, but to annihilating opposition. In this, we are not in opposition because you are no longer in a place in which this is a question - you are not "of my flock," so to speak, and God's Grace is wide enough to provide many pastures.

In one slight point, though, I hope I have misunderstood you:

"It is my contention that almost all the 'pro' force thinks as you do . . . "

I trust you are *not* implying that the "con" force feels differently. If they do, what unworthy scoundrels to bring it up, rather than leave, as you did!

Posted by MarkBrunson at Tuesday, 24 January 2012 at 11:41am GMT

Mark... what I'm trying to say is that (in my experience and among my friends who are still in the CofE) those who have not left have already accepted that women priests are a reality, and women bishops must also be. They're not seeking to stop those who want that from having it, merely asking that the CofE continue to find them a home within which they can live. To that extent it's a more nuanced and "live and let live" position than that of WATCH, et al.

Those who couldn't live with women bishops at all are probably already in an Ordinariate. I don't move in evangelical circles so I can't speak knowledgeably about those opposed on "headship" grounds. It's possible theirs might be a more hard-line "anti" position.

Posted by Clive at Monday, 30 January 2012 at 4:57pm 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.