Ship of Fools: Purgatory: Anglican Women Bishops soon?

Thread: Purgatory: Anglican Women Bishops soon? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001136

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :

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 My prediction: the pros will press on regardless, the Act of Synod will be withdrawn courtesy of Bishop Saxbee and others.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 ]

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

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]

)

Posted by Professor Yaffle (# 525) on :

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.

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

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.

Posted by Santiago (# 2824) on :

Actually, it may happen sooner than any of us think.

According to the BBC Newsnight review of tommorrow's papers I've just seen, Rowan Williams IS to be the next Archbishop of Canterbury. [Yipee]

Whilst he is orthodox (with a small 'o') I think it is something he would encuorage.

Posted by Weslian (# 1900) on :

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.

Posted by Weslian (# 1900) on :

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.

Posted by Santiago (# 2824) on :

Double 'Amen' Weslian.

I haven't felt this good about the CofE, the Anglican Communion and ecumenical relations since I can remember.

Whatever direction Rowan takes, it WILL be done with prayer and with intelligence.

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :

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!

Posted by Professor Yaffle (# 525) on :

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.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

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.

Posted by Santiago (# 2824) on :

The RC Church isn't consistent.

If I am invited to 'share' [Roll Eyes]

in a RC Mass in England, I am expected to stand around like a spare p**** at a wedding. When I worked in the USA, I was regularly invited to concelebrate.

But then, the USA is a long way from Ratzinger!

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :

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?

Posted by Hagar (# 1338) on :

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.

Posted by Santiago (# 2824) on :

Thanks multipara for your affirmation.

It strikes me as nuts that my RC colleague in Chaplaincy and I can share the same altar, but not at the same time. [Confused]

Live in hope.

nil carborundum illegitimae!! [Flaming]

It is rather odd that there is all this fuss in the CofE about women bishops. We knoe that most English dioceses ahve been run by the bishops' wives for years. [Big Grin]

Posted by Santiago (# 2824) on :

'scuse the spelling mistakes. It is rather late here in the UK, and I confess that I cracked open a good bottle of claret when I heard the news about the new Achchbishop of Canterbury. [Help]

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :

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."

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :

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]

)

Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :

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?

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

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.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

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.

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :

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.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

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

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :

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

Posted by zealous convert (# 1996) on :

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]

Katie

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :

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.

Posted by zealous convert (# 1996) on :

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]

But I do suppose 10 years ordained is kind of soon to be one.

Katie

Posted by Santiago (# 2824) on :

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.

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

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.

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

mistake - "Orthodox" -

and this time I nearly wrote "Orthosox". Do you wear them, Father G and Mousethief?

Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :

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

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

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?!"

Posted by angelus domini' (# 2343) on :

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]

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

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Alexis, you understood me correctly. [Smile]

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.

Posted by Mrs Tubbs (# 440) on :

AD wrote:

quote:
We must pray.

which strikes me as the most sensible comment so far [Wink]

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]

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

Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :

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]

Christina

Posted by SpO-On-n-ng (# 1518) on :

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...

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

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.

Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on :

[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.

Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :

Sarkycow,

Everyone knows the British are always 20 years behind the Americans. [Big Grin]

Christina

Posted by angelus domini' (# 2343) on :

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

Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :

Angelus,

Okey-dokey! [Yipee]

Christina

Posted by angelus domini' (# 2343) on :

You do realise don't you ChristinaMarie, that my response was what it was because you had won. [Wink]

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :

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. [Smile]

Reader Alexis

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

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.

Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :

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. [Wink]

I'm all depressed now, and I can't see any ravens!

Christina

Posted by angelus domini' (# 2343) on :

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

Posted by Weslian (# 1900) on :

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?

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :

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...

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :

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.

Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :

Fr Gregory,

I think you're playing with loaded dice?

How can liaising with the Orthodox on the issue of womens' ordination, produce anything but a 'No! Don't do it!' response?

In my opinion, you are appealling to the Anglicans to be reasonable, in a way that can only produce one outcome.

If one cannot take a position that one's interpretation of Scripture, or Tradition can be wrong, then how can anything be negotiated with those who differ?

Christina

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
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.

Why start now? [Big Grin]

(just trying to lighten things up a bit...)

Reader ALexis

Posted by PaulTH (# 320) on :

Newman's Own gave a very sensible answer, as she always does in saying that this is more about ecclesiology and sacramental theology than it is to do with mysogony or rights. When I became an active member of the C of E in 1994, I was a supporter of women priests, believing that old fashioned attitudes were the only obstacle. Over the years I've become much more catholic, and while I think women are doing a great job in priesthood, I think Fr. Gregory in his OP is right.

As one who believes in the One Holy Cattholic and Apostolic Church, I question the C of E's right to go it alone on this issue, in antagonism to sister churches. There is now growing a body of "traditionalists" my regular church being an example, where we are increasingly dissatisfied with and rebellious to mainstream C of E practice in matters such as liturgy, and who maintain catholic sacramental theology. The issue of women bishops along with all the other farcical attempts by the C of E to appear relevant is going to cause a schism within a decade.

Unless arrangements can be made, as they were by the Act of Synod, to preserve the integrity of traditionalist within the church, there will be a wholesale exodous, of which I will probably be part.

Posted by Santiago (# 2824) on :

PaulTH some of the CofE's sister churches are very welcoming of the decision to ordain women to the priesthood, and of the possibility of their ordination to the episcopate.There's more to Christendom than Rome and Antioch!

And I wonder if the exodus over women bishops will be as 'impressive' as the exodus over women priests.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

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.

"Dissed" how, daisymay? Yes, they're part of the Church -- absolutely. But they're not a part of the Church Catholic. I don't think it's "dissing" specify that part.

Posted by IanB (# 38) on :

I've got a theory that I would be interested in hearing shipmates' views on, and it does have some bearing on this matter.

Basically, it says that most people don't primarily leave a communion (eg in this case the Anglican communion) over a single issue like this, though they may well leave a local church. An individual issue may more likely be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

Evidence? - I suppose the developing dustup in Canada over same-sex unions is as good as any. The bishop there, to judge by his publications, seems to be a syncretist. I would care far more passionately about that, but it seems that most people actually blow a fuse over more concrete outcomes, the so-called "presenting issues", though there has been mounting unease expressed in various anglican discussion forums for some time on the possible syncretism issue.

Also, I always used to conceive of organisations like FiF as being full of people implacably opposed to the priesting of women - for ever. There are such people of course, but it was only when I got round to talking to people from FiF parishes that I discovered that many were "possibilists". Quite a few of the the high-profile departures last time round were - and remain - possibilists, and some have said so in public. So clearly they were moved by other things.

It's been pointed out elsewhere that historically, it makes little sense to consecrate women to the priesthood and not the episcopate. If my theory is correct, if there are to be departures, then this may be a "presenting issue". In other words you won't be able to predict what happens just by trying to correlate it with numbers of people in FiF parishes etc etc. It will depend on many other things.

Views?

Ian

Posted by Weslian (# 1900) on :

Who says they are not part of the Church Catholic? Roman Catholics and Orthodox do, but not the rest of Christendom. I believe I am part of the Church catholic. I am bound by the doctines of the historic creeds under the Methodist deed of Union, whatever any Orthodox or Roman might say, I believe I am an ordained presbyter in that church.

In the end I think it is about the kind of God you believe in. I believe he answers my prayer when I pray that throught the power of the Holy Spirit the bread and wine become to us the body and blood of Christ, and His real presence dwells in them and those who receive them in faith. I get the feeling that Orthodox and Romans believe God can only answer that prayer if it is said by someone within their traditions, thus limiting the freedom of God. I do not believe God is bound by the rules of the Church in that way.

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Weslian:
I get the feeling that Orthodox and Romans believe God can only answer that prayer if it is said by someone within their traditions, thus limiting the freedom of God. I do not believe God is bound by the rules of the Church in that way.

I am truly sorry you have that feeling. I assure you that it is not something I was ever taught as an Orthodox, nor held by any of the Orthodox whom I know personally.

Reader Alexis

Posted by Fr.Philip (# 2801) on :

quote:
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.

Im an ex Anglican Priest who didnt leave the Anglican Church over the Ordination of Women. I always felt that I was (rather more positively) joining the Orthodox Church (for reasons explicit in the name). As a matter of fact I was a "Director of Ordinands" in the C. of E. and was very involved in furthering (if that be the correct word) the vocations of a number of very splendid women. I was also a Bishop's Chaplain and worked very happily with all the other clergy.

Validity: I think Orthodox have always affirmed that all Anglican Bishops, priests etc. (male or female)are Anglican Bishops etc. but tend to remain mute as to whether they are the same as Orthodox priests. Lay people, Bishops, priests and deacons as well as ministers of other Christian groups are treated with great respect. Generally no judgement is given (even secretly) as to validity. The individual would be required to ask themselves if their orders are valid (Bp, Pr, Dn, Sdn, R, A, D, lay)and act accordingly. Oddly the question of validity of orders is one Anglican clergy always ask me about and other protestants and Roman Catholic clergy never ask. Therem is a certain confidence about Orthodox Sacraments within the Orthodox Church but only a brave person would say that Divine Grace was withheld from the sacraments of other churches.

Someone noted (Im sorry Ive been working since 6.30am and it is now 11pm!!) that Orthodox seem to have gone off Anglicans. Yes... Orthodox were much confused by meeting Anglicans who were VERY Orthodox in outlook ... however those who were not were hidden from view. With closer aquantance came the realisation that in many ways Anglicans were really very different and a certain cooling has taken place. There is nothing frightening about that. Orthodox tend to think in hundreds of years and if things appear to be slow at least they are sure! A certain "stand offishness" is also meant lovingly!

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :

.... added to which (Fr. Philip) I will only add from a personal point of view that many of us Orthodox DO care what happens in the other churches insofar this brings other Christians closer or further away from us. I hope that this concern is reciprocated by otyer churches. In the end, each church has to act in accordance with its collective conscience. I don't think though that this collective conscience should be uninformed by the reactions of other churches. This seems to be an act of despair.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Weslian:
Who says they are not part of the Church Catholic? Roman Catholics and Orthodox do, but not the rest of Christendom....

The Church Catholic, that's who, of which Anglicans are also (obviously) a part. To be in the CC, one must have maintained the historic episcopate, the three orders of clergy, and the primacy of the sacraments, including a belief in the Real Presence. The Prots have obviously done none of the above. (And the Wesley boys, I believe, would agree!) This doesn't mean they're not a part of the Church (and lovely people in many cases), but Catholic? Nope. Sorry!

Posted by Fr.Philip (# 2801) on :

Fr. Gregory:

quote:
I will only add from a personal point of view that many of us Orthodox DO care what happens in the other churches insofar this brings other Christians closer or further away from us.

Absolutely. The Orthodox Church prays for the unity of all Christians at virtually every service. One cannot do that and be unconcerned about something that makes the tear larger.

Weslian:

quote:
I am bound by the doctines of the historic creeds under the Methodist deed of Union, whatever any Orthodox or Roman might say, I believe I am an ordained presbyter in that church.

Quite right. And I suspect that you would agree that I am clearly NOT an ordained presbyter in the Methodist Church. I suspect you might also think you are not an Orthodox or RC priest either.

quote:
I get the feeling that Orthodox and Romans believe God can only answer that prayer if it is said by someone within their traditions, thus limiting the freedom of God. I do not believe God is bound by the rules of the Church in that way.

If someone has given you that feeling then the Orthodox church (at any rate) has been disasterously misrepresented to you. It the prophets left in the camp story: Orthodox are always delighted to see goodness where goodness is. (We are not ones to think that what ever is not baptised may only have the appearance of good.) We tend to notice similarities rather than differences too. Having said that we are inflexible over what has been passed down to us. "Guard the Deposit" (As it used to say on a certain Anglican Theological College's Chamber pots!)runs through the Church like the letters through seaside rock.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
The Church Catholic, that's who, of which Anglicans are also (obviously) a part. To be in the CC, one must have maintained the historic episcopate, the three orders of clergy, and the primacy of the sacraments, including a belief in the Real Presence.

On your definition of CC, which is not necessarily the CC's definition (because what you believe to be the CC is not necessarily the CC).

quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
This doesn't mean they're not a part of the Church (and lovely people in many cases), but Catholic? Nope. Sorry!

And many others would say that we/they are part of the catholic church, and would continue to be so, even with women bishops (which the Anglican Communion, of which the CofE is part and in full communion with). Yes. Sorry!

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :

sorry - that last sentence should have read "the Anglican Communinn already has".

The title of the thread seem somewhat inaccurate.

Posted by Weslian (# 1900) on :

quote:
I get the feeling that Orthodox and Romans believe God can only answer that prayer if it is said by someone within their traditions, thus limiting the freedom of God. I do not believe God is bound by the rules of the Church in that way.

If someone has given you that feeling then the Orthodox church (at any rate) has been disasterously misrepresented to you. [/QB][/QUOTE]

I am sorry if my response was too generalist. It was really to Rossweisse, (whose denomination I know not), implying that I am not a part of the Church Catholic.

I could not say 'I believe in one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church,'in the creed if I felt I didn't belong to it. We might express our holiness, Catholicity and apostolicity differently than those with an historic episcopate, but we believe they are evident in our denomination in a way that is acceptable to God, if not to Rossweisse.

Interestingly, in the inteterests of ecumenism Methodists are prepared to accept the historic espicopate, and have set up a working party to devise a model that would work in our system. This committee can discuss many things: how big should a diocese be, how do they work collegially etc, but one thing is not up for discussion, the episcopate must be open to women. From some of the comments on this thread, that means that it will never be part of the historic episcopate in many people's eyes whatever else we agree to. It makes me wonder whether it is worth the effort for us.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Rossweise:

quote:

The Church Catholic, that's who, of which Anglicans are also (obviously) a part. To be in the CC, one must have maintained the historic episcopate, the three orders of clergy, and the primacy of the sacraments, including a belief in the Real Presence. The Prots have obviously done none of the above. (And the Wesley boys, I believe, would agree!) This doesn't mean they're not a part of the Church (and lovely people in many cases), but Catholic? Nope. Sorry!

So the meaning of "Catholic" has changed from "Universal" to mean its opposite?

And the Methodists were lying to me those times I've said the apostles Creed with them?

To be in the Catholic Church one must have maintained the doctrines defined in the ecumenical councils and the historic Creeds. That isn't the same thing at all.

I think I'm falling for a troll again... the oft-repeated claim that the CofE is "not Protestant" is, and always was, nothing but a troll.

(It calls itself Protestant and even collaborates with laws preventing anyone but a Protestant from marring the King. Totally off-topic - the complete inanity of the popular press when it comes to anything to do with the church was shown up this week by the drivel about Prince Charles now being able to marry Camilla Parker-Bowles. Any legal problem with that has never been anything to do with divorce but with her being, or having been, a Roman Catholic. To marry him either she has to give up her religion publically, or Parliament, not the Synod, has to change the Act of Settlement)

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :

I think the etymology of the word "catholic" is important if only because so many people of all religious traditions try to hijack it.

It means "(thrown) / towards the whole." I suppose we might render it "fullness." It can't mean "universal" in the mathematical sense of that word, (the whole set) because that begs the question as to what is included in the set and what is not. "Catholic" therefore can never be considered in isolation from what makes one "catholic."

I have said before that merely enshrining certain aspects of catholicity in a church's formularies, (eg., creeds, Scripture, 3 fold ministry etc), is not enough. Those aspects have to be understood and practised in line with the catholic witness of the Church across space and time. This witness is neither selective (haeresis - choice) nor idiosyncratic .... including novel / suspect elements as necessary or determinative.

One of the problems with women bishops (as indeed women priests) is that you either ordain or you don't. It's not a teaching that can be assessed, refined, moulded .... it's a binary act, on or off. Bearing in mind what is at stake here, decisions in this area must be prosecuted with even more care.

Posted by Astro (# 84) on :

quote:
The Church Catholic, that's who, of which Anglicans are also (obviously) a part. To be in the CC, one must have maintained the historic episcopate, the three orders of clergy, and the primacy of the sacraments, including a belief in the Real Presence. The Prots have obviously done none of the above. (And the Wesley boys, I believe, would agree!) This doesn't mean they're not a part of the Church (and lovely people in many cases), but Catholic? Nope. Sorry!

To me what you are saying reminds me of teh following story:

A man dies and goes to heaven, St Peter shows him around. Over there are the Methodists, and over there the Baptists, and round this corner are the Pentecostals.

The man then asks Peter who are behind that great big wall, to which Peter replies
"They are the church catholic, they like to think that they are the only ones here"!

Posted by angelus domini' (# 2343) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
The Church Catholic, that's who, of which Anglicans are also (obviously) a part. To be in the CC, one must have maintained the historic episcopate, the three orders of clergy, and the primacy of the sacraments, including a belief in the Real Presence. The Prots have obviously done none of the above. (And the Wesley boys, I believe, would agree!) This doesn't mean they're not a part of the Church (and lovely people in many cases), but Catholic? Nope. Sorry!

I'm not sure I'd be so rigid about the threefold Orders thingy, and so would probably include the Methodists. But yes, I am in agreement with everything else you have said, and I admire your courage in being able to say it here.

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
So the meaning of "Catholic" has changed from "Universal" to mean its opposite?

I mentioned over on page one of this thread that we do need to distinguish between non-recognition because of 'up-our-own-a***'ness and non-recognition because churches have chosen to exclude themselves.

'Catholic' has not changed its definition. I suppose I am saying that universality DOES have boundaries. To reject basic precepts of the Christian Faith clearly puts one without those boundaries.

Rossweisse has said nothing un-Catholic.

Posted by Santiago (# 2824) on :

Fr. Gregory I agree with your final paragraph entirely.

The reality is that it's 'on'!

Anglican women bishops soon? No, Anglican women bishops now! They already exist.

The 'damage' (if damage there be)is done.

The debate to which you refer in your OP is whether or not the CofE follows its sister provinces in the Anglican Communion. Which it will. I truly believe it is inevitable.

Posted by Panda the organist (# 2951) on :

Santiago said:

quote:
The 'damage' (if damage there be) is done.

Very true.

As I read in the Times' article about this famous '50% object to women bishops' survey, one particular priest was quoted as saying (if I remember it correctly - sorry, no time to go dig it up on the site) 'It's easy enough to pretend that women priests don't exist, but you can't ignore a woman bishop.'

It seems to me that the problem for most who are opposed (I'm loath to say traditionalist - Merbecke being my favourite mass setting!) is that they will finally have to stop pretending, as this priest apparently is, that they are the only Anglicans on the planet, and that there are wider views than those in the British Isles.

Otherwise, what is the point of there being a Communion?

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

So the meaning of "Catholic" has changed from "Universal" to mean its opposite?...
I think I'm falling for a troll again... the oft-repeated claim that the CofE is "not Protestant" is, and always was, nothing but a troll.
[/QB][/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, but I disagree with you on all counts. Upper-case "Catholic" does in fact mean what I said. Lower-case "catholic" means universal.

I'm not sure of what you mean by "a troll" in this context; in most online places, it's an unpleasant terms that indicates an anonymous, egregious troublemaker. If this is what you mean, it is not only inaccurate but highly insulting, and, as such, probably belongs in Hell.

Anyway, the Anglican Communion is NOT "Protestant" -- it is REFORMED. ("Fully Catholic and fully Reformed," as the saying goes.) There is a huge difference.

Methodists are Protestants, and if that makes them happy, fine. They are indeed members of the Church catholic. But we have the historic episcopate and all the rest of it, and we are Catholic. Deal with it.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

Gracious. We do seem to have some very prickly Protestants hereabouts. I had no intention of insulting anyone, but I do not agree with Humpty Dumpty on the subject of language: words do not simply mean what people want them to mean. The Protestants don't feel the need for Catholic authority (fine! their choice!), but they should look at the entire picture.

If anyone is genuinely unclear as to my own denomination, I am an Anglican -- a High Church Episcopalian with a strong preference for traditional language and the principles of the Royal School of Church Music. I don't have a problem with women bishops; I just wish that more of those I've encountered were concerned with matters of faith and spirituality as well as of secular politics and other unChristlike pursuits.

By the way, Chapelhead, I really like your avatar.

Posted by Paul Careau (# 2904) on :

Goodness me - pedantic denominational differences are go! As a Gnostic I daresay I could find some more substantial denominational differences with just about everyone here.

But - I thought this was supposed to be about women bishops? I see no problems with women bishops or even Archbishops. There was once a woman Pope I believe & she was considered quite a good Pope until her sex was discovered.

If I might poke a Gnostic oar in I'd say:

Whoever is inspired by the spirit is divinely ordained to speak - whether man or woman.

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Paul Careau:
There was once a woman Pope I believe & she was considered quite a good Pope until her sex was discovered.

An urban legend that has long since been disproved. The Catholic Encyclopedia has a great article on it here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08407a.htm

Reader Alexis

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :

Didn't the gnostics say that a woman should make of herself a man in order to be saved?

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :

I don't know about that, Father G., but in the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus says that he will make Mary a man so she can go to heaven.

Reader Alexis

Posted by Paul Careau (# 2904) on :

Fr Greg, I think you are referring to a comment in the Gospel of Thomas perhaps - where some challenges Jesus saying that surely only men can enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus replies that he will make women like men - so that that they too can enter the Kingdom of Heaven. It is a comment that is of limited relevance today however as the C1st AD represented more misogynistic times. It is however a fact that the Gnostics had many women Priests - either Tertullian or Irenaeus (I can't remember which one) once criticised Gnostics in a sermon that began with the statement "those wretched women..." (or something like that).

Posted by Paul Careau (# 2904) on :

I've found it, it was Tertullian. This is what he had to say about the Gnostic Church:

“These heretical women – how audacious they are! They have no modesty; they are bold enough to teach, to engage in argument, to enact exorcisms, to undertake cures, and, it may be, even to baptise!”

The naughty girls!

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :

This of course coming from a early church theologian who joined the Montanists .... a heretical pentecostal sect that believed that Christ had come again in various forms ... including a woman. They had a highly developed ministry of women. It seems that old Tertullian was a might bit confused so I don't think you can use him as a punch bag.

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

quote:
Methodists are Protestants, and if that makes them happy, fine.

Are they? Non-conformists, yes, but Protestants? I would say that Protestant really denoted those denominations formed at the Reformation - with the exception which you have already noted of the Church of England. Given that Methodism is a later of shoot of Anglicanism I can't see how that can be said to be Protestant if Anglicans aren't.

I know a number of Methodists who do not consider themselves Protestant - although I'm don't know if any of the others I know do consider themselves Protestants, it's never come up.

quote:
one must have maintained the historic episcopate, the three orders of clergy, and the primacy of the sacraments, including a belief in the Real Presence. The Prots have obviously done none of the above. (And the Wesley boys, I believe, would agree!)

I think you'd be wrong about the Methodists (not Wesley boys - it's derogatory and inaccurate). Admittedly they do not have the historic episcopate but as Weslian has mentioned they are prepared to accept it. As to Real Presence Weslian has already stated his belief in it (before you made this statement) and were seasick here he'd assure you of his. Read Wesley's Communion hymns, they are full of the real presence and Wesley was strong on frequent Communion - something which was very uncommon in the CoE in his time - one bishop had to write to a vicar to make him celebrate Communion on a third occasion in the year. I'm not quite sure whether I agree with Wesley's logic that in the NT presbyter and bishop were interchangeable and thus he as a presbyter could ordain, but on the other hand he only took that move after the bishop of London had refused to ordain ministers for America. I (an Anglican) certainly regard Methodism as being part of the Church Catholic.

Carys

Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Read Wesley's Communion hymns, they are full of the real presence and Wesley was strong on frequent Communion

also a little-publicised fact: Wesley prayed the rosary.

Posted by ce (# 1957) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:

I think you'd be wrong about the Methodists (not Wesley boys - it's derogatory and inaccurate).

I assumed that "Wesley boys" referred to the brothers Wesley rather than the Methodist Church in the sense that they were fairly high, (sacramental even) anglicans of their time and remained so throughout their illustrious lives.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Given that Methodism is a later of shoot of Anglicanism I can't see how that can be said to be Protestant if Anglicans aren't...I know a number of Methodists who do not consider themselves Protestant...

It's very simple: Anglicans retained the historic episcopate (Apostolic Succession); the Methodists dumped it, along with the Catholic understanding of the nature of the sacraments.

I don't understand how a Methodist could NOT be considered Protestant!

As for "the Wesley boys" being "derogatory" -- no, it's an attempt to be light-hearted. Some posters here seem to be a tad humor-impaired. Most unfortunate.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

<< also a little-publicised fact: Wesley prayed the rosary. >>

I would be very much surprised indeed to learn that any significant proportion of their followers do so. I remember the Kansas Methodists of my not-so-distant youth: they thought wine was of the Devil, and that Episcopal priests who wore clerical collars were Popish. I can just imagine that lot faced with a rosary! (Oh, but they're NOT Protestants...? cognitive dissonance alert!)

Incidentally, when speaking of "the Wesley boys" I didn't mean Methodists in general -- I would hardly be so gender-exclusive. I was talking about Sam, Charlie, et al.

Posted by Sean (# 51) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Given that Methodism is a later of shoot of Anglicanism I can't see how that can be said to be Protestant if Anglicans aren't...I know a number of Methodists who do not consider themselves Protestant...
It's very simple: Anglicans retained the historic episcopate (Apostolic Succession); the Methodists dumped it, along with the Catholic understanding of the nature of the sacraments.

I don't understand how a Methodist could NOT be considered Protestant!

As for "the Wesley boys" being "derogatory" -- no, it's an attempt to be light-hearted. Some posters here seem to be a tad humor-impaired. Most unfortunate.

Um, but there are plenty of low-church anglicans who don't believe in the real presence, and pleanty of high church methodists who do.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I'm not a Methodist, but I have the impression that American Methodism may be significantly different from British Methodism.

Moo

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

And I don't understand how the CofE could not be considered Protestant!

All that guff for centuries about a Protestant succession and a Protestant wind. Being Protestant was the defining category of the CofE for most of its history.

Anyway, Protestant and Catholic aren't mutually exclusive. Protestant and Roman Catholic might be, but we aren't talking about them, are we?

And you know what I mean by "troll" and you know it isn't meant to be derogatory, however humour-impaired you may be this week.

Posted by angelus domini' (# 2343) on :

Doesn't 'Protestant' refer to any group/individual who protests against Catholic belief/practice?

This refers not necessarily to those who did so at the Ref, surely. If you protest against articles of the Faith as handed down by the Apostles , than you're a protestant.

There are indeed protestant Anglicans, who, though in communion with said Communion, do not reflect the foundations and theology of Anglicanism. We are an Episcopal Church, holding to the Apostolic Succession, and we have Sacraments.

We are NOT a protestant Church.

Posted by Santiago (# 2824) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Anyway, Protestant and Catholic aren't mutually exclusive. Protestant and Roman Catholic might be, but we aren't talking about them, are we?

I am a catholic. Which means that I hold dear beliefs, traditions, rites etc., etc. that have their roots waaaaaay back in the history of the Church.

But that doesn't mean that I don't want to 'protest' about what is corrupt, or unjust or irrelevant and seek to 'reform' them.

That is why I am an Anglican, because I belive this is where I can blend all those things, and find a home.

Do I believe in the historic (catholic)threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons? YES [Cool]

Do I believe i that these orders are only open to men as they were in the beginning? NO [Mad]

I 'protest'. Time for a 'reformation'! [Yipee]

Posted by Professor Yaffle (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Angelus Domini:

quote:
This refers not necessarily to those who did so at the Ref, surely. If you protest against articles of the Faith as handed down by the Apostles, than you're a protestant.

I think that protestants were protesting against articles of the faith which hadn't been passed down by the Apostles but but which were corruptions which had entered the Church in the Middle Ages, at least in their opinion. They were attempting to get back to the early Church in the same way that the Renaissance was an attempt, in part, to get back to Classical Antiquity. Neither attempt succeeded entirely but it is not terribly fair to Luther and co. to suggest that the Church inherited doctrines, structures and beliefs from the Apostles which it then passed on until the sixteenth century when Luther promptly changed things.

Posted by SpO-On-n-ng (# 1518) on :

A quote from an essay by John S Pobee in 'The Study of Anglicanism' sums it up for me:

quote:
Anglicans everywhere love to appropriate the phrase 'the via media - the middle way. It is a phrase that captures Anglicanism as an institution that is at once Catholic, episcopal and Protestant. As originally enunciated, the Anglican divines claimed Anglicanism to represent the middle ground between the extremes of medieval Roman Catholicism and Anabaptism.'

ken is right, a defining characteristic of the CofE at least up to the Oxford Movement was that it was protestant. Ask any Church of England priest between say 1650 and 1750 whether he was protestant and he would have said 'yes'. That is the heritage that the whole Anglican Communion also takes with it.

But we are also episcopal, and in later centuries when some of the wounds have healed we have come to accept and welcome our Catholic heritage.

It's messy and uncomfortable. Tough - live with it. I might want to define Anglican as meaning liberal MOR, but I have to accept that I can't do so. Ditto anyone who wants to define it as being Catholic but not Protestant, or Protestant but not Catholic. It's not ours to define, we just inherit it, look after it, and pass it on...

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Professor Yaffle:
it is not terribly fair to Luther and co. to suggest that the Church inherited doctrines, structures and beliefs from the Apostles which it then passed on until the sixteenth century when Luther promptly changed things.

It certainly is true of the OT canon. [Razz]

Reader Alexis

Posted by angelus domini' (# 2343) on :

But many Lutheran Churches did hold to Catholic beliefs and practices, the Apostolic Succession, the Real Presence.

Because of their origins, do we brand them all protestant?

What does it mean to be a protestant today, in light of what you believe with regard to Catholicism? Put aside, for the timebeing what happened all those years ago.

quote:
I think that protestants were protesting against articles of the faith which hadn't been passed down by the Apostles but but which were corruptions which had entered the Church in the Middle Ages, at least in their opinion.

Well they were wrong, weren't they?

They did do some good however, and that was to open up ways of exploring the Faith, which Christianity overall has benefitted from.

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :

Laura,
I believe that those within the Church of England (particularly Forward in Faith) who do not accept the ordination of women generally take the position that this stance is based on ecclesiology, and that its not being accepted by Rome or the Orthodox would rule out its being Christ's will for his universal Church. That, I suppose, is why the Orthodox are often mentioned in such discussions. (Lots of precedent for that - during the Oxford Movement, many of the fathers defended positions considered too papist by appealing to the Orthodox practise.)

In general -
I think we need to be careful about assuming that everyone who opposes the ordination of women is "anti woman." (That I accept women's ordination does not matter - and I do not see Rome or the Orthodox as misogynist because of their position.) There are solid arguments, related to ecclesiology or sacramental theology, for either position. It can be possible in individual cases, of course, but assuming that those who espouse positions against women's ordination are using the theological positions to cloak misogyny.

I must admit that, strange bedfellows though they are, I find it rather annoying at times that both Affirming Catholicism and Forward in Faith sometimes act as if the only two issues in the church were women's ordination and homosexuality.

Posted by Santiago (# 2824) on :

quote:
Originally posted by angelus domini':
But many Lutheran Churches did hold to Catholic beliefs and practices, the Apostolic Succession, the Real Presence.

Because of their origins, do we brand them all protestant?

I think they would want to brand themselves as Protestant.

And the continental reformers were certainly not wrong to 'protest' about the corruption of the mediaeval church.

The sale of Indulgences was something on which Martin Luther had particular views - and rightly so.

Posted by angelus domini' (# 2343) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Santiago:

quote:
Originally posted by angelus domini':
But many Lutheran Churches did hold to Catholic beliefs and practices, the Apostolic Succession, the Real Presence.

Because of their origins, do we brand them all protestant?
I think they would want to brand themselves as Protestant.

Then we must inform them otherwise. They've been in Communion with us since Porvoo. They cannot be protestant. Surely that was the basis of the agreement establishing full communion.

quote:
And the continental reformers were certainly not wrong to 'protest' about the corruption of the mediaeval church.

The sale of Indulgences was something on which Martin Luther had particular views - and rightly so.

This was, as you say, corruption of the mediaeval church, which was not founded upon Catholic Faith. This was the way certain elements (and many they were) within the church made a few bob (or euros?) under the guise of opening the treasures of the Saints' prayers.

I maintain my original statement.

xxx

Posted by Santiago (# 2824) on :

angelus domini we're also in communion with the Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA (its full title) and have been for a lot longer than the Porvoo churches.

I think we're using the term in different ways.

I can see what you were saying about the reformers chucking out Apostolic Trad., and so withdraw my query. [Paranoid]

I can see myself as a 'protestant' and as a 'reformer' because the Church is in constant need of 'reformation' and there are always things to 'protest' about.

I know that I'm not using them in the classic way my Church History Prof. used them in my lectures at the Victoria University, but they are part of our past in the CofE, and I think we abandon their best expressions at our peril.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :

As far as I am concerned, I am a member of the Church of England, which is both Protestant and Catholic. I do not believe in the real presence, but if that is a test of Catholicity (?), then I think a whole can of worms is opened. It suggests that membership of the Catholic church depends on right belief, which sounds far too evangelical for many Catholics (can an infant be Catholic, if it is not old enough to have any comprehension of 'real presence'?).

But I'm not sure where this gets us on the subject of women Anglican priests. Or have we deicided that as Anglicanism has had women priests for decades the subject is just too much of a dead horse and we should just get used to it?

quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
By the way, Chapelhead, I really like your avatar.

My nice shiny new one, that Simon has so kindly provided. Thank you. I think it shows where I am coming from rather well. [Wink]

Posted by angelus domini' (# 2343) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
As far as I am concerned, I am a member of the Church of England, which is both Protestant and Catholic. I do not believe in the real presence, but if that is a test of Catholicity (?), then I think a whole can of worms is opened.

It isn't entirely. But I do feel that somebody ought to reach for a can-opener if this thread continues in this direction. [Wink]

quote:
It suggests that membership of the Catholic church depends on right belief, which sounds far too evangelical for many Catholics (can an infant be Catholic, if it is not old enough to have any comprehension of 'real presence'?).

An infant brought up in the Faith is Catholic until (s)he rejects doctrines such as the Real Presence. Since, as you have pointed out, an infant is incapable of doing if not old enough, then yes, an infant can be Catholic.

quote:
But I'm not sure where this gets us on the subject of women Anglican priests. Or have we deicided that as Anglicanism has had women priests for decades the subject is just too much of a dead horse and we should just get used to it?

Yes.

Posted by angelus domini' (# 2343) on :

Chapelhead, I just had a double take. I took a look at your avatar mentioned above, and misread the text beneath as 'ship's pornographer'. I'm sorry.

Perhaps I need to sleep and get rid of these obsessions that I've ben plagued with lately.

x

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :

Anyway .... can we get back to the thread now? ....

Posted by angelus domini' (# 2343) on :

Oooooooooo!! [Big Grin]

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :

Doh! [Embarrassed]

In my previous post, for "women priests" please read "women bishops".

quote:
Originally posted by angelus domini':
Chapelhead, I just had a double take. I took a look at your avatar mentioned above, and misread the text beneath as 'ship's pornographer'. I'm sorry.

And the difference is....? [Big Grin]

[Which is one way of saying, "Absolutely no need to apologise"].

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
angelus domini we're also in communion with the Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA (its full title) and have been for a lot longer than the Porvoo churches.

The Episcopal Church of America used to be named the Protestant Episcopal Church, but the word 'protestant' was dropped at least thirty years ago.

Moo

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

quote:
Incidentally, when speaking of "the Wesley boys" I didn't mean Methodists in general -- I would hardly be so gender-exclusive. I was talking about Sam, Charlie, et al.

I see, well that makes your original post less clear. Did you mean that the Wesleys would agree that you needed the Historic episcopate, threefold ministry and primacy of the sacraments (including the Real Presence) to not be Protestant? Or that the Wesley's like the protestants rejected those things - in which case you'd be wrong as John and Charles were both very high in their sacramental understanding. And BTW Samuel is later than John and Charles (grandson I think) and was an Anglican and not a Methodist.

Whether or not Methodism is Catholic I still think using Protestant of it is an anachronism if you do not regard Anglicanism as Protestant.

Anyway, as has been pointed out we've wandered somewhat from the OP. Personally I'm with the Methodists on this one - they state in the Anglican-Methodist Covenant that they regard the principle of the episcopate being open to women as well as men 'as something that the Methodist Church has received from God and wishes to share with the wider Church'. I like the fact that they are seeing it in positive terms and of God - rather than the all to frequent 'equal ops' arguments. To me, if a woman cannot represent Christ at the Eucharist than how can Christ's death be effectual for women (unless women are incomplete men of course, which I'm incapable of believing) and once you've allowed women priests I cannot see a logical argument against women bishops - whether the CoE is yet ready for it - or whether in fact there are any women priests ready for the episcopate is a separate question.

Carys

Carys

Posted by Santiago (# 2824) on :

Thanks moo.

I know that the 'P' word wasn't in everyday usage in ECUSA, but didn't know that it had been formally dropped.

I seem to recall as a priest in the Diocese of SE Florida (much less than 30 years ago) that it popped up now and again sa part of the title.

Probably just some folk being old-fashioned.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Santiago:
I know that the 'P' word wasn't in everyday usage in ECUSA, but didn't know that it had been formally dropped.

I don't think it has been.

From part of the ECUSA website.

quote:
Since 1837, efforts have been made to remove the word "Protestant" from the name of the church--mostly at the request of Anglo-Catholics. In 1964, General Convention added a preamble to the Constitution, which states the name of the church is "The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, otherwise known as The Episcopal Church (which name is hereby recognized as also designating the Church)."

Clearly, though, there are both internal and external wranglings over the name.

My two penn'orth

They're Anglican
They're Protestant
They're Catholic
They're here (or there)
They're proud
They have women bishops

I'm dealing with it.

How about you?

Posted by Santiago (# 2824) on :

Thanks Chapelhead.

I'm with you all the way!

That was the point of my original ref. to PECUSA in an earlier post to angelus domini!

The CofE is catholic, protestant, reformed - they're not mutually exclusive.

Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

The Episcopal Church of America used to be named the Protestant Episcopal Church, but the word 'protestant' was dropped at least thirty years ago.
[/QUOTE]

Are you sure? I know it has been dropped on publications and the like; but legally i think the PECUSA title still has binding force.

Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on :

oh, never mind. silly me. didn't read the following posts.

first time ever for that, y'know? [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And I don't understand how the CofE could not be considered Protestant!...

And you know what I mean by "troll" and you know it isn't meant to be derogatory, however humour-impaired you may be this week.

No, Ken, I don't know what you mean by "troll," but if all you can do is throw my own phrase back at me ("humor-impaired," copyright Rossweisse) and pretend you're being original, then there is probably no point in attempting to banter with you.

Where I come from, to call someone a troll (as in "Who's that walking on my bridge?") is a gross insult. I also know the meaning "to troll," as in fishing. But to say a CONCEPT is a "troll" is unknown to me. It may be your own personal usage, it may be an idiom wherever you live, but you can hardly expect everyone to understand you when you use obscure slang.

And for a long time "Protestant" in Anglicanism simply meant "not Roman Catholic." But I find that the word is simply inaccurate in terms of what we believe. Whatever some low church types may or may not believe is unimportant. Anglicanism itself affirms the Real Presence. I am aware that some Protestants may also endorse that, but it's not the rule.

The whole notion of Methodists who don't want to be called Protestants is just too surreal. Humpty Dumpty lives!

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by texas.veggie:
Are you sure? I know it has been dropped on publications and the like; but legally i think the PECUSA title still has binding force.[/QB]

The title has been dropped, no question about it. It is no longer used; we're ECUSA. But the Church still owns the copyright, to keep others from appropriating it in a potentially confusing manner. (And an attempt to do just that happened a couple of years ago.)

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carys: To me, if a woman cannot represent Christ at the Eucharist than how can Christ's death be effectual for women (unless women are incomplete men of course, which I'm incapable of believing) and once you've allowed women priests I cannot see a logical argument against women bishops - whether the CoE is yet ready for it - or whether in fact there are any women priests ready for the episcopate is a separate question. [/QB]

And there we find ourselves in complete agreement. I have equally scant patience for those who present this as a "civil rights" issue and those whose arguments basically amount to, "But we've never HAD women in those roles and so we CAN'T ever have women in those roles!"
The former don't understand the sacramental nature of Catholic orders. The latter are either unaware, or building firewalls in their heads to avoid knowing, that there certainly were ordained women in the Early Church, as demonstrated in both ecclesiastical and secular sources.

The biggest problem I've seen with women clergy in the US is the unfortunate tendency toward "affirmative action:" "Oh, we really OUGHT to have a WOMAN," instead of "We need to ascertain and follow God's will." That leads to messes like the Harris and Dixon situations, and that is destructive to the Church -- NOT the fact that they are women per se.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :

Since there seems to be more to say on this thread about whether the Anglican Church is Protestant, Reformed, Catholic, some combination thereof (no-one has yet suggested that it is Orthodox) than about the long-standing tradition of women Bishops in Anglicanism, I have started a thread on the nature of Anglicanism.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

quote:
Where I come from, to call someone a troll (as in "Who's that walking on my bridge?") is a gross insult. I also know the meaning "to troll," as in fishing. But to say a CONCEPT is a "troll" is unknown to me. It may be your own personal usage, it may be an idiom wherever you live, but you can hardly expect everyone to understand you when you use obscure slang.

hostly *cough*

Ken and Rossweisse,
If you want to take this personal argument about trolling forward can you do so in Hell, please?

Thanks!

Louise

host mode off

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Those who have read through the posts on PECUSA may or may not be interested in the story (perhaps an urban legend) of the organization of the pre-revolutionary Chinese church, the name of which translates as Holy Catholic Church in China. We are informed that the initial proposed name of the Protestant Episcopal Church translated into Chinese came back into English as the Assembly of Bickering Overseers. Perhaps an alternative name for houses of bishops???

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
The biggest problem I've seen with women clergy in the US is the unfortunate tendency toward "affirmative action:" "Oh, we really OUGHT to have a WOMAN," instead of "We need to ascertain and follow God's will." That leads to messes like the Harris and Dixon situations, and that is destructive to the Church -- NOT the fact that they are women per se.

The biggest problem I've seen with attitudes toward women clergy in the US is the unfortunate tendency for people on rector search committees to claim that they're all for women's ordination, but that their church "isn't ready for a woman rector".

Go here (same page I linked to before) and scroll down a ways to see how women priests are doing in the Episcopal Church. Just below the pictures of the women bishops are a graphic and a table of stats which show the "average parish size of selected subgroups" - women rectors have the smallest parishes.

Posted by SpO-On-n-ng (# 1518) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
[QUOTE]The biggest problem I've seen with attitudes toward women clergy in the US is the unfortunate tendency for people on rector search committees to claim that they're all for women's ordination, but that their church "isn't ready for a woman rector".

Interesting; the good old CofE with all its muddles about women's ordination does make this one more difficult. Due to our arcane system, we can't choose our own vicars, we can only reject the ones offered to us. Churches may pass A&B and therefore say 'we're against women's ordination', but if they don't then (in this diocese at any rate) it is made clear that it is not possible to reject a candidate simply on grounds of gender.

I'm not naive enough to think it doesn't go on under the guise of other reasons, but at least it's more difficult...

Posted by Professor Yaffle (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Angleus Domini:

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that protestants were protesting against articles of the faith which hadn't been passed down by the Apostles but but which were corruptions which had entered the Church in the Middle Ages, at least in their opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well they were wrong, weren't they?

Sancta Simplicitas !

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
The latter are either unaware, or building firewalls in their heads to avoid knowing, that there certainly were ordained women in the Early Church, as demonstrated in both ecclesiastical and secular sources.

That would be me, and the former -- please can you point me to the evidence for women ordained to the priesthood or the episcopate? Someone was going to send me a book on this but they never did... if it does, in fact, date back to the early catholic and Apostolic church then it changes a lot for me...

David
often anxious about whether his own church, presently with an interim priest, will select a woman sometime between now and September, thus forcing him to find a new church, because he's yet to be convinced of the validity of their ordination to the priesthood

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

Chastmastr asks: * please can you point me to the evidence for women ordained to the priesthood or the episcopate? *

I agree that it is more slender than for the diaconate, which I think most scholarly types accept by now -- it's pretty hard to talk one's way around Phoebe. However, Junia was an apostle; Prisca was a missionary and is widely thought to be an apostle too. Pliny's correspondence with Trajan concerning those pesky Christians makes mention of "female ministers." Other women's names occur in ways that can be taken in various ways, but they are certainly leaders, in worship as elsewhere in the life of the Church.

Once one removes the interpolation about "women remaining silent in church" (which occurs in different places in different early manuscripts) and recognizes that the Pastor is not Paul and thus lacks Paul's authority, I think it becomes more difficult to justify denying women the priesthood.

I do recognize the power of tradition, but I don't think we should be bound by that when it comes to denying calls. I understand and respect that others will disagree with me on this.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :

Which of the Ecumenical Councils was it that forbad women priests and bishops?

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :

Dear Chapelhead

No Ecumenical Council forbade abortion ... no Christian Church allowed it. I don't understand what point you are making.

Posted by Astro (# 84) on :

Fr G

I think Chapelhead is making a good point. As some of the early heretical groups had women priests, these were defined as heretical but I do not recall one of the reasons for this was that they had women priests.

I am not aware of anything until 17th century England when the Quakers and General Baptists were considered hetrodox because they allowed women to minister (but of course these women were not priests except in teh sense of teh priesthood of all believers)

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Nah, the "priesthood" of all believers is corporate participation in the sacrificial priesthood of Christ, in succession to the temple priests. Heiros/Cohen - different in the NTb from the ordained ministry of individuals, the presbytership, which is more like a Jewish rabbi than like an Aaronic priest in the temple.

Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Which of the Ecumenical Councils was it that forbad women priests and bishops?

quote:
Fr. Gregory replied:
Dear Chapelhead

No Ecumenical Council forbade abortion ... no Christian Church allowed it. I don't understand what point you are making.

Umm, huh? Didn't Chapelhead ask which Council forbade women priests and bishops, not which forbade abortion?

Or was Fr. G. responding to a post Chapelhead made earlier?

Viki

Posted by Professor Yaffle (# 525) on :

I think that Father Gregory is making the point that one doesn't have to point to a decree of an ecumenical council to say that something is precluded by/ has no precedent in Holy Tradition.

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :

Indeed, Professor, you have spoken truly. Indeed there are no overt sacramental references in St. John's Gospel. As Oscar Cullmann pointed out ... there doesn't have to be ... the Fourth Gospel is sacramental through and through.

Posted by Gracia (# 1812) on :

quote:
Chapelhead

Ship's photographer
# 1143

Posted 16 July 2002 07:07
Which of the Ecumenical Councils was it that forbad women priests and bishops?

quote:

Fr. Gregory

Posted 16 July 2002 13:40
Dear Chapelhead
No Ecumenical Council forbade abortion ... no Christian Church allowed it. I don't understand what point you are making.
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory

Fr.G - Chapelhead asked a question about women priests, and you answered a question about abortion
Are the 2 possibly linked in your mind??

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
No Ecumenical Council forbade abortion ... no Christian Church allowed it. I don't understand what point you are making.

That's because I wasn't making a point - I was asking a question. I am aware that some people ask questions where they know what the answer will be in order to make a point, and thus give a spurious impression of dialogue where there is none. However, I asked the question in order to elicit information.

Now that an answer has been provided, I can move on.

Fr Gregory - I take it that you regard abortion as wrong. Indeed, I am fairly sure that you have expressed this opinion on these boards. If someone takes this view (and I'm not saying that I do) abortion would seem to be a moral question, rather than a theological one (the moral and the theological may be linked, but they are hardly the same). Do I take it, then, that you regard the issue of women priests and bishops as a moral issue - that it would be morally wrong to allow them?

Secondly. One of the arguments against women priest in the Anglican Communion is that they were introduced without ecumenical agreement. The implication is that if an ecumenical council accepted women priests then they would be 'acceptable' and valid. Do you take the view that if an ecumenical council decided that abortion was acceptable that it would thus be acceptable? (Again I would stress that I am making no comment on my own view of the issue).

Thirdly, no ecumenical council has ever forbidden Japanese priests, and for the first fifteen hundred years of its history (if one discounts certain Urban Myths) no Japanese priests were ordained. Do you think an ecumenical council should have judged the issue before the Roman Catholic Church began to ordain Japanese Priests? (I am making the assumption that the RCC was the first to do so, I hope someone will correct me if I am wrong).

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sarkycow:
Umm, huh? Didn't Chapelhead ask which Council forbade women priests and bishops, not which forbade abortion?

Or was Fr. G. responding to a post Chapelhead made earlier?

No, I certainly did not introduce the subject of abortion into a thread about women bishops. I suspect that any attempt to connect the two is spurious, but perhaps Fr Gregory might enlighten us.

Posted by Gracia (# 1812) on :

Fr.G's Freudian slip (as I interpret it) got me to thinking (dangerous, I know!):

Certainly no male priest will EVER have an abortion - that, I think, we can count on.

On the other hand, no male priest will ever hold so much responsibility for another human life, as a woman who carries a DIFFERENT human life for 9 months.

Of course, that is irrelevant to the issue - or is it??

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :

Good grief folks ... this has already been explained! Simply and bluntly ... not everthing has to be subject of an Ecumenical Council to be binding on the Church. I used abortion as an example. There is no other question.

And no ... abortion is not simply a moral question ... it is a deeply theological issue to do with the creation of human life. How theological do you want to get?

And no ... the ordination of women is not simply a moral issue either ... gender relations and identity are deeply theological issues to do with creation.

All these contributions just tend to confirm me in my prejudice that many Protestant Christians like to be "theology-lite" and tend to divorce theology from ethics, dismissing the former and embracing the latter as more consonant with the "simple message of Jesus." Prove me wrong do!

Fr. Gregory in feisty mood. [Snigger]

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :

typo ... second line of last post .... substitute "connection" for "question."

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
All these contributions just tend to confirm me in my prejudice that many Protestant Christians like to be "theology-lite" and tend to divorce theology from ethics, dismissing the former and embracing the latter as more consonant with the "simple message of Jesus." Prove me wrong do!

Actually, it's up to you to back up such sweeping statements.

This is what Chapelhead actually said:

quote:
If someone takes this view (and I'm not saying that I do) abortion would seem to be a moral question, rather than a theological one (the moral and the theological may be linked, but they are hardly the same).

Not at all what you implied.

I for one am not at all mollified by the modification of "Protestant Christians" by the word "many," and am tired of your swipes at Protestants.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Simply and bluntly ... not everthing has to be subject of an Ecumenical Council to be binding on the Church

And how are we to know what is and what is not binding?

quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
I used abortion as an example. There is no other question.

("Connection" substituted for "question" in the next post).

A question on one subject was asked (in general, not of any particular person). It was answered with a reference to another subject. I don't think others can be blamed for assuming some connection, rather than jsut a random choice of example.

quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
All these contributions just tend to confirm me in my prejudice that many Protestant Christians like to be "theology-lite" and tend to divorce theology from ethics, dismissing the former and embracing the latter as more consonant with the "simple message of Jesus." Prove me wrong do!

Thank you for sharing your prejudices with us Fr Gregory.

Perhaps we could have a little more answering of questions, though.

Chapelhead, in 'not pleased with patronising swipes at his Christian tradition mood'.

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Thank you for sharing your prejudices with us Fr Gregory.

Is this appropriate for Purgatory?

Reader Alexis

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :

quote:
And how are we to know what is and what is not binding?

A very important question. I will answer it straightforwardly without allusive examples.

To be a part of Holy Tradition is to be a part of the checks and balances built into the Church's ongoing discernment. It's not what Bishop "X" says or prominent Professor "Y" teaches or what Mrs. "Z" thinks. It is the coming together of several different sources and their sifting in the mind of the Church. It is not simply a vote or a definition at a synod. It is a process which you have to be part of to understand experientially.

On the other matter .... this and the "Theology and Ethics" thread do offer clues as to why I think that contemporary Protestantism (outside fundamentalism) tends to be theology-lite and driven by semi-autonomous ethical concerns. I don't base this judgements on these threads of course but it does concern me when the same agenda keeps popping up.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Thank you for sharing your prejudices with us Fr Gregory.
Is this appropriate for Purgatory?

Reader Alexis

host comment

It looks to me like a fair comment on Father Gregory's.

quote:
All these contributions just tend to confirm me in my prejudice that many Protestant Christians like to be "theology-lite" and tend to divorce theology from ethics, dismissing the former and embracing the latter as more consonant with the "simple message of Jesus." Prove me wrong do!

where he actually uses the word prejudice himself.

I think his comment is pretty near breaching commandment 3 (insulting generalisations about others). But I'll give Father G the benefit of the doubt this time - if people are very offended with it would they take it to Hell please?

Louise

host mode off

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :

I apologise to all whom I have offended. I will keep my prejudices to myself in future.

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

quote:
Fr G said that many Protestant Christians like to be "theology-lite"

Are you admitting this statement is wrong and can not be supported or providing evidence to back it up?

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :

A retraction of what I have said has not been required of me by the Host Nightlamp. If it had been I would have had to reconsider and reassess my position. This is not the position as I now read it although the Host may wish to correct me on that perception.

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :

I should clarify Nightlamp that I, of course, know that you are also a Host. I was referring to the Host Louise who had made the adjudication with "Host mode on" (which you did not use).

Posted by Paul Careau (# 2904) on :

You orthodox Christians (and by orthodox I mean non-Gnostic) are all theology-lite! You're all children of the demiurge. [Razz]

Jesus says its OK to ordain women (in the Gospel of Thomas) - so whats the problem?

Posted by IanB (# 38) on :

Oh. It would be a pity if debate on this was stifled. Personally I have no problems with people discussing their prejudices. Everyone has them. I worry far more about people who have convinced themselves they don't have any.

I wasn't intending to participate in the discussion at this point but I am interested in what people have to say - I think Louise is right to let it run. Please continue if you can.

Thanks
Ian

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

I am not in host mode and can't be in purgatory I was simply speaking as some who reads these kinds of threads.

I realise my question was not clear, so do you stand by your opinion about protestant christians being theology lite or not and if you do how do you support it?

[The hostly intervention seemed to me to mostly over the use of the word prejudice. It is possible though after re-reading the hostly intervention that depending on your response we may need a new thread in hell or purgatory, personally I would rather it stayed here, I want a serious debate.]

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :

Dear Nightlamp

Right, well let us have a serious debate and keep this in Purgatory and I shall try and not breach Commandment 3. I referred to my view as a "prejudice" knowing that many here would see it precisely as that, a "prejudgement not based on a rational assessment of the evidence." Do I see my view as a prejudice or an insight based on evidence? See the new thread:- "Reductionist trends in contemporary Protestantism."

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
To be a part of Holy Tradition is to be a part of the checks and balances built into the Church's ongoing discernment. It's not what Bishop "X" says or prominent Professor "Y" teaches or what Mrs. "Z" thinks. It is the coming together of several different sources and their sifting in the mind of the Church. It is not simply a vote or a definition at a synod. It is a process which you have to be part of to understand experientially.

I find it interesting how apparently quite different groups can have similar ideas. This sounds to me remarkably like the Quaker approach (as I understand it), although possibly less rigorous.

Would the Orthodox, then, be prepared to sit down with the Anglicans to discuss this issue?

I'm sure the CofE would want to listen to others with whom it is in Communion (and who are in Communion with the CofE) on this issue. But I suspect that many of these are the groups who already have women bishops. Perhaps if the debate were widened...

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :

Dear Chapelhead

quote:
Would the Orthodox, then, be prepared to sit down with the Anglicans to discuss this issue?

Last week our Dean, Fr. Michael Harper, sat down with Abp. Rowan Williams, Met. John Zizoulas and others to do precisely this sort of thing.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0