|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Anglican Women Bishops soon?
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
A recent survey undertaken in the CofE must make disturbing reading for all those who thought that women bishops was already in the bag. My prediction: the pros will press on regardless, the Act of Synod will be withdrawn courtesy of Bishop Saxbee and others. Care to read the tea leaves?
Read the press reports here:-
CofE Survey - Women Bishops
[ 10. March 2003, 01:31: Message edited by: Erin ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I still think it is too early to bring in women bishops - after all these years of male priests only, 8 years is not very long for people to get used to the idea of women priests. Although I think women bishops will come in eventually, more time is needed for the church to acclimatise itself to having women priests, especially as more and more are being ordained each year. Come back and discuss it again in 10 years' time, say I.
(prepares to be knocked down in flames ![[Flaming]](graemlins/angryfire.gif) )
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
I'm intrigued as to the figures for opposition to the ordination of women bishops.
I myself have reservations - not because I think women can't be Bishops but because I'm not sure that the CofE is ready for them. I would oppose rescinding That Act for the same reason. I suspect that the reluctance cited by the surveys is on the same grounds.
It's possible that the hierarchy has finally decided to take no notice of opinion on the ground, but if the polls are right and if I'm right as to the reasons for them (neither of which are givens!) then I suspect that any attempt to bounce the Church into the ordination of women bishops will, presumably, founder at General Synod.
I may, of course, be wrong. Incidentally, if it is not an impertinent question, Father G., why the interest? The Anglican communion already has women bishops. And as an Orthodox priest you are in no danger encountering women bishops or priests in your own hierarchy.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
I hope that there will be women bishops in England quite soon; they are not likely to be any better or worse than the men bishops we have already.
Some of the latter are OK, some not.
It will mess up bits of the CofE for a while though; we've just got to get on with it and do the best we can.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Weslian
Shipmate
# 1900
|
Posted
If these figures are correct I cannot for the life of me see why the General Synod passed the vote to discuss the Anglican/Methodist Covenant by over 300 votes. Don't they know that there is no way to organic union which the with the Methodists which the Covenant commits us to working towards unless there are women bishops?
Part of the problem is that the dioceses vary so much. Guildford Diocesan Synod passed a vote a fortnight ago which I gather asked General Synod to get on with women bishops as soon as possible.
--------------------
Sex, Shopping, Work, Christian Doctrine, Entertainment, Art, Sport.
Posts: 563 | From: somewhere too posh for my own good | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Weslian
Shipmate
# 1900
|
Posted
Sory to double post, but I have just seen the news about ++ Rowan. This puts the Anglican/Methodist Covenant in a very different perspective. In his current diocese of Monmouth he has agreed that there can be an ecumencial (C in W, Meth, URC) bishop to cover part of east Cardiff. While he recognises that the first one has to be a man, (and Methodism has very reluctanctly agreed that) he has said that 'the Anglican Chruch in Britian is moing ahead' on the issue of women bishops and hopes that when a second ecumenical bishop is appointed in seven years time it will be open to men and women; indeed if that does not happen he recognises that the Anglican commitment to the idea could properly be called into question.
I know this is Wales, but through the code, I think we can assume Rowan will take a clear lead in a positive direction on this issue, and my prayer is that his holiness and sincerity will win a good few of the doubters over.
--------------------
Sex, Shopping, Work, Christian Doctrine, Entertainment, Art, Sport.
Posts: 563 | From: somewhere too posh for my own good | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Professor Yaffle
This is what I just don't get about some Anglicans, (not necessarily yourself ... anyway, I've not looked at your profile). They seem to think that this is only something for them to consider internally and that its impact on other Christian churches is of no real concern. I am raising this because the CofE needs to know that in no uncertain terms that it will not be "business as usual" if women are consecrated to the episcopate. Any nearness that we once shared is now rapidly receding into the distance .... which is a crying shame!
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Father Gregory - I'm not oblivious to the "this will screw up ecumenism argument". My Diocesan Bishop opposes the ordination of women on exactly those grounds.
I am a little bit cynical however - I can't imagine the Orthodox saying "we mustn't do x as it will annoy the Anglicans".
I think there are two positions one can take. Either the Church of England is a legitimate part of the Catholic and Orthodox Church with valid orders and can ordain whoever they like to those orders. Or one take the position that the Church of England's orders are not valid - which is, as I understand, it the position of the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics.
Being an Anglican I take the first of those two positions. If I thought that the second position was correct I would embrace Orthodoxy. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I wouldn't dream of telling the Orthodox how they should organise their own church. Perhaps they could extend us the same compliement.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Professor Yaffle:
...I am a little bit cynical however - I can't imagine the Orthodox saying "we mustn't do x as it will annoy the Anglicans"....(T)he point I'm trying to make is that I wouldn't dream of telling the Orthodox how they should organise their own church. Perhaps they could extend us the same compliement.
Bravo and amen, Prof. Our orders are indeed valid (and if one tries to make sense of the tortuous RC logic that claims to prove that they're not, one is prone to a severe attack of cognitive dissonance), and we shouldn't grovel to either the RCC -- which has largely reinvented itself since Vatican II in any case -- or the Orthodox, who until relatively recently didn't seem to have a problem with our orders.
A generation ago, in fact, in much of the United States, the Greek Orthodox were encouraged to attend Episcopal churches. (They had no seminaries in this country at the time, and churches were very few and far between.) The Orthodox churches' hostility toward us seems to have at least as much to do with turf questions (at least, again, in the USA) as with doctrinal same.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918
|
Posted
Santiago, thank God the RC church (that is all of us, not the hierarchy!!!) is not consistent. There are plenty of us who personally regard the ordination of Anglican and orthodox clergy as valid and who have no problem in receiving communion from these clergy at Mass.
I continue to live in hope for the ordination of an RC woman in my lifetime (faint hope at 50).
By the way, are there any other women bisops in the Anglican community apart from the Bishop of Dunedin?
--------------------
quod scripsi, scripsi
Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hagar
Shipmate
# 1338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by multipara:
By the way, are there any other women bisops in the Anglican community apart from the Bishop of Dunedin?
I think that there are 2 female Bishops in Canada and several in the US.
Posts: 67 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Newman's Own
Shipmate
# 420
|
Posted
As an aside regarding concelebration - I am Anglican, formerly Roman Catholic, and never doubted the validity of Anglican orders, yet am fairly certain that the RC code of canon law forbids concelebration by priests of other sister churches. If I'm not mistaken, an RC priest who allows an Anglican one to concelebrate (not attend the Eucharist, of course, but actually concelebrate) could be excommunicated.
I definitely could see Bishop Rowan doing all he could to promote the ordination of women to the episcopate. This certainly makes sense as far as sacramental theology is concerned - "bishop" comes before "presbyter," so it would naturally follow that accepting the ordination of women at all means acceptance of their being bishops. (I am inclined, nonetheless, both to doubt that any priest, of either sex, with no more than 10 years experience is ready for the episcopate anywhere - but that is purely practical.) I do, of course, see the serious problems which could result with such ordinations - those who currently do not accept women priests (or, in some cases, the authority of bishops who ordain them) surely will go into schism if the bishop is a woman.
As far as ecclesiology is concerned, this seems a confused situation. (Fr Gregory can speak for the Orthodox, but the Romans I know, including priests, either accept Rome's argument against the ordination of women - based on sacramental theology, not misogyny, I must add - or are eager to see women ordained.) I suppose the argument will continue: did Christ work through his church to indicate that women should now be ordained, and the C of E did so before the others, or did the Anglican Church, in accepting this, cut herself off from the catholic church (if, indeed, she was a member in the first place). These are not my views - I am setting forth the areas of arguments themselves.
But may I add one weary sigh? Whether one wants to argue for or against is fine with me, as long as it is based on ecclesiology, sacramental theology, or other sound principles. It really irritates me when this is argued as if it were a matter of "rights."
--------------------
Cheers,
Elizabeth
“History as Revelation is seldom very revealing, and histories of holiness are full of holes.” - Dermot Quinn
Posts: 6740 | From: Library or pub | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848
|
Posted
While a firm supporter of women in ministry of all kinds, I think it would be extremely foolish for the CofE to introduce women bishops at this stage, based on the survey. We have yet to see what the long term results of the priesting of women are, and tension is still running high... We all need time to cool off.
(I wasn't aware that the majority of A-Cs in Britain are anti-women/FiF... I find that somewhat sad. But then, A-Cs in my diocese are forced to be liberal in a way... ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) )
Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
Fr Gregory's link leads to a website that advertises itself thus:
"Trushare, A Christian Web Service,
working with
FORWARD IN FAITH Worldwide!"
Make of that what you will.
I am always suspicious of these "x% of the clergy believe such and so" polls. Where are all these pulpits from which vicars are spouting heresies and hetrodoxy?
Also, the Anglican Church of Canada and the ECUSA have had lady bishops for some time now. Surely the "nearness" has been receeding into the distance for some time now?
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
Thank you, Newman's Own.
I am one who wrestled with the question of women's ordination from a standpoint of theology and tradition, and finally came to the conclusion that it was right in terms of higher criticism, ancient practice and the Church's evolving understanding. However, I respect the views of those who have gone through the same process and come out on the opposite side.
What I have trouble respecting is both the reactionary who doesn't think things through and the radical ditto. Too many have seen this either in terms of "we've always done it this way" (often with a thinly disguised layer of misogyny beneath the argument) or "it's a matter of civil rights." We have seen a great deal too much of both in ECUSA.
I think a bishop should have been ordained for at least 15 years before getting the right to purchase purple shirts, and should have been a pastor first. This would eliminate the appalling likes of -Barbara Harris, who did not attend seminary, never held down a parish (except as a highly disposable interim) and apparently never learned the most basic aspects of toleration and compromise.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
I would be interested in hearing the views of a member of one of the Orthodox churches who had not left the Anglican Communion over the ordination of women.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918
|
Posted
Outside of N America, are there any other Anglican women bishops apart from the Bishop of Dunedin?
I was rather taken with her when she visited Sydney a few years back. She preached at St James' King St, Sydney but did not preside at the Eucharist, presumably due to the dim view of female clerics held by the hierarchy of the Anglican Archdiocese of Sydney.
--------------------
quod scripsi, scripsi
Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Women Bishops in the US:
Jane Dixon, Bishop Suffragan and Acting Bishop of Washington
Carol Gallagher, bishop Suffragan Elect of Southern Virginia
Barbara Harris, Bishop Suffragan of Massachusetts
Carolyn Irish, Bishop of Utah
Katharine Jefferts Schori, Bishop of Nevada
Chilton Knudsen, Bishop of Maine
Mary Adelia McLeod, Retired Bishop of Vermont
Catherine S. Roskam, Bishop Suffragan of New York
Catherine Waynick, Bishop of Indianapolis
Geralyn Wolf, Bishop of Rhode Island
Outside the US:
Penelope Jamieson, Bishop of Dunedin, New Zealand
Victoria Matthews, Bishop of Edmonton, Canada
Ann Tottenham, Bishop Suffragan of Toronto (Credit Valley), Canada
Source: the ever-fabulous Louie Crew
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
I would be interested in hearing the views of a member of one of the Orthodox churches who had not left the Anglican Communion over the ordination of women.
You mean somebody who is Orthodox, but who didn't leave Anglicanism because of the ordination of women? I think that's what you mean. That would be me, if that's what you mean. I mean I was an Anglican, but my move from Anglicanism to Orthodoxy had nothing whatever to do with the ordination of women.
But if you mean something else then probably it's not me.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Katie H. L.
Shipmate
# 1996
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Women Bishops in the US:
Jane Dixon, Bishop Suffragan and Acting Bishop of Washington
Carol Gallagher, bishop Suffragan Elect of Southern Virginia
Barbara Harris, Bishop Suffragan of Massachusetts
Carolyn Irish, Bishop of Utah
Can you tell me -- what is the difference between a Bishop Suffragan and a plain Bishop?
Sometimes this is all so confusing! ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Katie
--------------------
Katie L. just using her middle initial for a while.
Posts: 606 | From: San Francisco, USA | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by zealous convert:
Can you tell me -- what is the difference between a Bishop Suffragan and a plain Bishop?
Bishops preside (if that is the right word) over a diocese; suffragan bishops assist bishops (because the workload is seen as too great for one person) and will often have responsibilites within part of a diocese. Suffragan bishops are known as assistant bishops in some places.
Suffragans are fully 'bishops' and can ordain, confirm etc.
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Katie H. L.
Shipmate
# 1996
|
Posted
ah HAH!
That makes sense, most of the women listed were that type of bishop.
Just for the record, hooray for women bishops, bring on the women bishops, more more more women bishops. ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
But I do suppose 10 years ordained is kind of soon to be one.
Katie
--------------------
Katie L. just using her middle initial for a while.
Posts: 606 | From: San Francisco, USA | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Degs
Friend of dorothy
# 2824
|
Posted
Actually Nunc Dimittis, I wasn't aware that the majority of A-Cs were anti-women/FinF.
I feel sure that the vast majority of parishes have not passed any of the resolutions indicative of opposition, nor are they members of FinF.
Such opposition as there is (significant yes)is not restricted to A-Cs. 'Reform' works just as hard on this isssue from an evangelical stand point.
There will be women ordained to the episcopate in the CofE, of that I have no doubt. The crucial step has been taken already in admitting them to the priesthood.
If that has impaired our communion with other parts of the Church, there is nothing we can do to change that. Moving on can't make it worse.
If we believe that we have done right, then we must do more.
--------------------
The preest when he hath sayd and red all: he gyueth the benedyccion upon all those that be there present and then he doth tourne hym from the people retournynge thyther from whens he came.
Posts: 2388 | From: a land that I heard of once in a lullaby | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
And if it's not appropriate for the Anglican ordinations to be dissed by RC or orthodox, then it's also not appropriate for other denominations (Methodist/Elim etc.) to be dissed by the Anglicans. All are part of the Church.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
mistake - "Orthodox" -
and this time I nearly wrote "Orthosox". Do you wear them, Father G and Mousethief?
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
I find it strange that people who are arguing that women should not be ordained as Bishops, should use the tactics of politics, to produce reports, which contain threats of a mass exodus from the Church of England.
If I were a member of a Committee, and we had to make a decision about something, and one of the options would go against my conscience, I may decide to resign from the Committee, if that decision was made. What I would not do, is announce it beforehand as a threat. That would go against my sense of personal integrity.
Suppose it is the will of God that women be ordained as Bishops, and the Church of England are taking a lead. How should we view a mass exodus of dissenters, from a Scriptural viewpoint?
My take is this. When God is going to use a person or a community to fulfill His purposes, He does some pruning first. It may seem a harsh view to take, but these things could happen, because God is going to do a wonderful thing through the Anglican Communion. He's already been doing this, through the ALPHA courses. Not only has the ALPHA course been a good thing from an evangelistic point of view, but also ecumenically, because it has spread throughout the Protestant churches, and Roman Catholic churches too.
I don't have my mind made up on this issue, but I think what I've just written, could be an antidote to the poisonous threatenings which are attempting to divert the Anglican Communion from doing the will of God, through posturings.
These posturings remind me of small boys in the park, jumpers for goalposts, and the little guy threatening his friends that he will take his football away (soccer ball) if they won't do what he wants.
As far as perceived interference from Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church goes, I think it is fine to make a statement, but trying to get involved in the debate, is going too far. Both churches believe they've got it 100% right, so there is no room for debate, as they have no motivation whatsoever to change their position. Dialogue to understand why we believe what we believe, yes, but debate to find the truth, no.
I started going back to the Anglican church this Sunday. It's wonderful that Rowan Williams has been appointed. He is someone that I feel I can look to for good leadership.
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Professor Yaffle:
Or one take the position that the Church of England's orders are not valid - which is, as I understand, it the position of the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics.
Now I don't know for certain the position of the Orthodox and RC, but if they already view Anglican orders as invalid then whether or not to ordain women as priests or bishops isn't a subject that will affect ecumenism. If Anglican orders are already invalid, whatever is done won't invalidate them.
Cue for a Monty Python quote:
"You're only making it worse for yourself!"
"Making it worse?! How could it be worse?!"
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saint Osmund
Pontifex sariburiensis
# 2343
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
Suppose it is the will of God that women be ordained as Bishops, and the Church of England are taking a lead. How should we view a mass exodus of dissenters, from a Scriptural viewpoint?
Remember the remnant of Israel?
As for suffragan bishops, Zealous Convert, (I hope you're well) these should only exist where the Diocesan bishop is also the Archbishop of the Province. In no other circumstance should the workload of any diocese ne too much for the Bishop. If this is the case however, the diocese is too large, and the solution is more, smaller dioceses.
Otherwise, the integrity of the Episcopate is threatened.
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Gregory:
I am raising this because the CofE needs to know that in no uncertain terms that it will not be "business as usual" if women are consecrated to the episcopate. Any nearness that we once shared is now rapidly receding into the distance .... which is a crying shame!
And who's fault is that?
quote:
Originally posted by Santiago:
When I worked in the USA, I was regularly invited to concelebrate.
You must tell me more about this. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
And if it's not appropriate for the Anglican ordinations to be dissed by RC or orthodox, then it's also not appropriate for other denominations (Methodist/Elim etc.) to be dissed by the Anglicans. All are part of the Church.
Firstly I recognise Methodist Orders, though I don't know what their take on Apostolic Succession is.
However, although I agree with you, that we all are part of the Church, it is important to draw a distinction here.
I'm familiar with Apostolicae Curae and commentaries on it, and the grounds for RC non-recognition of Anglican Orders (utterly null and completely void, I think is the term used), are that the Apostolic link was broken. The Anglican Church doesn't see that this is the case.
This is quite a different situation from Anglicans not recognising the 'orders' of ministers in churches that deny Sacramental Priesthood. If a church declares itself not to be part of the Apostolic Succession, then it has itself declared that it does not have have any orders. The argument over validity becomes futile.
Finally, as for the question of the majority of Catholic Anglicans in England being anti-women's ordination, although instinctively I would probably agree with this, I'd be wary of thinking that it was a vast majority. The problem with those of us who don't fall within this group is that we're too damn quiet about everything. FiF are always in the limelight for one reason or another. When was the last time you heard about Aff-Cath other than here?
We must pray.
x
Posts: 2965 | From: here | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
Alexis, you understood me correctly. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Barbara Harris has retired, by the way; I cannot immediately recall the name of the new suffragan bishop of Massachusetts, but she also is African-American. Barbara Harris, was, in my opinion quite a good, old-fashioned bishop (though her sermon was tedious), and it is worth noting that Fr. Andrew Mead asked her for her episcopal blessing before he left the Advent for St. Thomas's.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
AD wrote:
quote:
We must pray.
which strikes me as the most sensible comment so far
One of the things that I've always found truly weird about the whole "ordination of women" thing is the way people work themselves up into a lather about a whole bunch of stuff that may or may not happen. So here, for your delectation, is the story so far:
- The ordination of women will make people leave the CofE in droves - didn't really happen. Most either learned to live with the fudged solution or probably would have left anyway. Ordination of women being the final staw and all that. Meanwhile, the rest of us are just getting on with it
- It will put a stop to any reunion between the CofE and the RCs and the Orthodox - surely after however many hundreds of years since the various splits all sides would have realised that there is no way that we're all going to be one big, happy one church family. We're all too different. But accepting each other and working locally would be a start ... And this seems to have carried on reguardless. (With a few exceptions of course]
This is the 21st Century ... there will be women bishops in the CofE. Hopefully in my lifetime ![[Happy]](graemlins/happy.gif) I'm also expecting the first non-white Pope to arrive at some point. Is God really so small that you don't think he can cope with this sort of stuff?!
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
Angelus,
"Remember the remnant of Israel?"
It never entered my mind to compare those who accept women as Bishops, to Baal worshippers.
I'm surprised you can do so. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spong
Ship's coffee grinder
# 1518
|
Posted
If you look through the material linked in the OP carefully, there are clearly some issues with the methodology. The survey went to 4000 stipendiary clerics, which is pretty good seeing as there are only about 10,000 to choose from. But it was a questionnaire, and less than half of them returned it. By definition they will be the people who have strong views on the subject, and the sample will be skewed.
The laity sample was 2,500, which would be fine if it was a random sample of the pews. It was taken from 'Christian Research's database'. But 76% of them returned it. This (almost by defnition) means that it was NOT a random sample of the pews - a 76% return rate is phenomenal. Looking at Christian Research's own website it seems that it's likely to be the churchwardens, secretaries etc that they have on file. I'm not at all sure that is a representaitve sample.
Finally, the trushare website has the actual questions asked. I wouldn't want to say anything defamatory, but I was rather surprised that the main question did not simply ask whether people were in favour or against women bishops. The option for being in favour was 'I am looking forward to having a woman bishop in our diocese', which seemed a slightly less than hepful way of putting it to me...
--------------------
Spong
The needs of our neighbours are the needs of the whole human family. Let's respond just as we do when our immediate family is in need or trouble. Rowan Williams
Posts: 2173 | From: South-East UK | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
That website does look rather odd - or at any rate the survey does.
What do they mean by "traditionalist"? If it is true that only "seven out of ten traditionalists" believe in the resurrection then it is very different from anything I'd call a "traditionalist"! If thta was true it would cdrtainly vindicate the prejudices of the Evangelical Anglicans I used to hang out with when I was first converted, who assumed that all "High Church" clergy were theologically liberal.
The survey actually indicates that the vast majority of the CofE are OK with women bishops. Over 60 percent positively in favour, and most of the rest wishy-washy.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
[Tangent and clarification alert]
The American women bishops listed are Episcopalian? Is that Anglican, but in America? (Does that make sense?)
Oh, and there's two Canadian bishops listed, and one New Zealand one. I'm guessing they're part of the Anglican church worldwide?
So if branches of the Anglican church outside Britain could ordain woman as priests way before the CofE, and then (more recently) ordain women as Bishops, why is there such a huge fuss? It obviously didn't split their branches, or cause a mass exodus, etc. Or have I got the link between CofE, Episcopalians, Aglicans in Canada/New Zealand etc. completely wrong?
[/Tangent and clarification alert]
Viki
PS Feel free to reply in PM's if this is gonna derail the thread too much. Thanks.
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
Sarkycow,
Everyone knows the British are always 20 years behind the Americans. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saint Osmund
Pontifex sariburiensis
# 2343
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
Angelus,
"Remember the remnant of Israel?"
It never entered my mind to compare those who accept women as Bishops, to Baal worshippers.
I'm surprised you can do so.
stoppit.
Sarkycow, the C of E, and the American Episcopal Church are in full Communion with each other, within the Anglican Communion of Churches, so yes, Episcopalians are Anglicans.
x
Posts: 2965 | From: here | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Saint Osmund
Pontifex sariburiensis
# 2343
|
Posted
You do realise don't you ChristinaMarie, that my response was what it was because you had won.
Posts: 2965 | From: here | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
No, I don't wear Orthosox. Such cheek!
My personal opinion, as an Orthodox who didn't leave ECUSA over women bishops (or women priests for that matter -- indeed it was a woman priest who, ultimately, was responsible for my becoming Anglican in the first place) is that the CofE will do what the CofE will do, and it's none of my business, not being a member thereof, or in a church which is in communion therewith.
If you want more specific answers you will have to ask more specific questions.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by angelus domini':
As for suffragan bishops, Zealous Convert, (I hope you're well) these should only exist where the Diocesan bishop is also the Archbishop of the Province. In no other circumstance should the workload of any diocese ne too much for the Bishop. If this is the case however, the diocese is too large, and the solution is more, smaller dioceses.
Otherwise, the integrity of the Episcopate is threatened.
I don't see how this threatens the integrity of the episcopate. Also, we don't have archbishops in the Episcopal Church. Our primate is called the presiding bishop. I have no idea who leads the provinces within the ECUSA - we practically never hear anything about the provinces, as the diocese is the main unit of organization.
The Diocese of Los Angeles has 150 churches, which is clearly too many for one bishop to visit in a year, so we have a bishop suffragan and a third assisting bishop. The bishop suffragan was elected by the diocesan convention in the usual way, and the assisting bishop was simply hired by the diocese to help with the workload - before resigning the post he was Bishop of Minnesota. Chopping up the diocese into smaller pieces would mainly mean more administrative expenses and more duplication of effort. I think the size of the diocese is one of its strengths.
We almost got a woman for diocesan bishop in the last election - a woman was first runner-up. I'm sorry she wasn't elected because I liked her vision for the future of the diocese best of all the candidates', not because she's female. Given that the ordination of women is already a reality in the Anglican Communion in general and specifically in the CofE, I think what we should be talking about is who would be the best person for the job. Sooner or later the best person for the job in the CofE is going to be a woman.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by angelus domini':
You do realise don't you ChristinaMarie, that my response was what it was because you had won.
Aw Angelus! You give up too easily! I was looking forward to a bit of banter.
I'm all depressed now, and I can't see any ravens!
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saint Osmund
Pontifex sariburiensis
# 2343
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I don't see how this threatens the integrity of the episcopate. Also, we don't have archbishops in the Episcopal Church. Our primate is called the presiding bishop. I have no idea who leads the provinces within the ECUSA - we practically never hear anything about the provinces, as the diocese is the main unit of organization.
Exactly! The diocese is the main unit of organisation, and it is headed by its bishop. All other secondary functions aside, this is what bishops are for. They are the Sacramental (and administrative) leaders of their respective dioceses. A diocese is headed by a bishop, not by an episcopal team. And by giving the bishop assistant bishops, we have diminished his pivotal role as the High Priest to whom his diocese owes its allegiance, and under whoe presidency the Sacraments are celebrated and administered.
My own diocese of Manchester has three Suffragans in addition to the Ordinary, taking care of the diocese's 300+ parishes. Each bishop has his own little episcopal area. In effect, what has been created is a mini-province, with three dioceses, in everything but name.
I am not trying to diminish the good that has come from this set-up. Practically, having smaller areas has worked well, and we get to actually see the bishop from time to time, but we can't call him 'Our bishop' because he isn't, he is the assistant of Our bishop, whom we never see, never hear from, (and don't like, if I'm honest). Now I come to think about it, as +Christopher now has his diocese being taken care of by his three assistants, what does he actually do?
It would simply be a lot more sensible, and more in keeping with the ancient Tradition of the Church to have a bishop presiding over a diocese, and if, for practical and other reasons, that means having a smaller diocese, then so be it. There's nothing theological to suggest that a diocese need be large.
I think that the Church is going in the right direction by putting bishops more in touch with their episcopal areas, but the way they've gone about it is yet another Anglican half-measure. They just don't have the guts to change the number and size of dioceses. If they're going to do it, they may as well do it properly. I see +Stephen as my bishop, and not +Christopher. +Stephen does all of the things that the Ordinary would do, in the area where I live and worship and have my being.
And if the above argument fails to convince, then the more pressing matter may well. And that is that this current set-up also makes it difficult to know who to genuflect to when both bishops pass by in procession.
x
Posts: 2965 | From: here | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Weslian
Shipmate
# 1900
|
Posted
I think most dioceses in England have a suffragan. In Guildford there is the Bishop of Dorking. It had never occured to me that it might raise problems of episcopal oversight, the diocesan bishop always seems to be the boss. He just needs a bit of help with his confirmations!
One thing though: are suffragan bishops in England appointed by the Prime Minister or just diocesans?
--------------------
Sex, Shopping, Work, Christian Doctrine, Entertainment, Art, Sport.
Posts: 563 | From: somewhere too posh for my own good | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Fr. G, if having women bishops is okay with God as far as my denomination is concerned, then I really don't give a fig what the Orthodox think about it. It has not been my impression, in any case, that there was a looming reunification between the Orthodox Church (or any branch thereof) and the Anglican Church anywhere. It seems to me that there are more stumbling blocks than women bishops to such an effort in any case. For example, women priests. And whatever the Anglican Church in the UK chooses to do, in the U.S. Episcopal Church, there have been women priests for decades and women bishops for scarcely less time, so I really can't see that there's any pulling the Anglican Communion back from this brink you think we're toppling at the edge of...
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Not that I'm unwilling to listen to the opposing view, by the way, just that I don't think the Anglican Communion ought to be making decisions on whether it might annoy the Orthodox or not.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
