quote:

---

The church didn't grow when women became priests. It continued to decline. What makes people think that women bishops is a magic cure for decline?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edify:

quote:

---

The church didn't grow when women became priests. It continued to decline. What makes people think that women bishops is a magic cure for decline?

---

That's true, but resisting a principle that is self-evidently just is hardly likely to arrest decline.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
The parts of the church that are growing tend to be the ones who oppose women bishops.

The church didn't grow when women became priests. It continued to decline. What makes people think that women bishops is a magic cure for decline?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Perhaps those opposed to women bishops thought that everything would carry on in the same old way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edify:

quote:

---

The church didn't grow when women became priests. It continued to decline. What makes people think that women bishops is a magic cure for decline?

---

That's true, but resisting a principle that is self-evidently just is hardly likely to arrest decline.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Perhaps those opposed to women bishops thought that everything would carry on in the same old way.

---

Actually, the evidence is that those who voted against (certainly those who spoke in the chamber) are perfectly well aware that the Church of England will end up with women bishops in the very near future. What they wanted was something better for opponents than was offered in the measure they voted for.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Panda:
ISTM that while the house of clergy accurately represents the clergy of the CofE, the house of laity seriously doesn't. It seems to be made up of people with lots of spare time to go to committee meetings, and lots of interest in making their voices, and the voices of their hobby-horses heard, unlike the regular worshippers who just want to get on with the work of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Perhaps those opposed to women bishops thought that everything would carry on in the same old way.

---

Actually, the evidence is that those who voted against (certainly those who spoke in the chamber) are perfectly well aware that the Church of England will end up with women bishops in the very near future. What they wanted was something better for opponents than was offered in the measure they voted for.

---

Except that those who want women bishops will now trounce those against in the Synod elections and when it comes to revoting on the Measure, leave them with no provision or protection. Nothing.

---

quote:

---

The Queen should do an episode of undercover boss where she tries to get a job as a Bishop in that Church Of England she's in charge of.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Panda:
ISTM that while the house of clergy accurately represents the clergy of the CofE, the house of laity seriously doesn't. It seems to be made up of people with lots of spare time to go to committee meetings, and lots of interest in making their voices, and the voices of their hobby-horses heard, unlike the regular worshippers who just want to get on with the work of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
...those who want women bishops will now trounce those against in the Synod elections and when it comes to revoting on the Measure, leave them with no provision or protection. Nothing.

They've shot themselves not in the foot, but the head.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edify:
Is it that the majority requirements are absurdley high? There was an overwhelming majority in the Houses of Bishops and Clergy and a majority - 64% - in Laity. Surely that is good enough?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by balaam:
... Thus far the same as twenty odd years ago. But there's a difference between the debates. In the Ordination of women debate there were some women who were saying that they believed God was calling them to the position of priest in the church of England. I have not heard of any women saying they are being called to be C of E bishops.

And that's the clincher. If God is actually calling women to be bishops in England we should not stand in his way.

I am convinced by the arguments, but the lack of women saying, "I've been called," is the reason that I'm not as enthusiastic as I was before.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Panda:
ISTM that while the house of clergy accurately represents the clergy of the CofE, the house of laity seriously doesn't. It seems to be made up of people with lots of spare time to go to committee meetings, and lots of interest in making their voices, and the voices of their hobby-horses heard, unlike the regular worshippers who just want to get on with the work of God.

---

That sounds exactly like most PCCs to me, so what's not representative about it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edify:
Canon Rosie Harper, vicar of Great Missenden, Buckinghamshire, said that failure to agree to the consecration of women as bishops ‘’will inevitably be seen as the act of a dying Church more wedded to the past than committed to hope for the future."

So, is this the beginning of the end for the C of E?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adrian1:
Maybe the time has come for issues as important as this to not be decided by the General Synod but by ballot of Electoral Roll members. At least then we could perhaps prevent the will of the majority being thwarted by the demands of a minority which, though extremely vocal, is numerically tiny.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adrian1:
Maybe the time has come for issues as important as this to not be decided by the General Synod but by ballot of Electoral Roll members. At least then we could perhaps prevent the will of the majority being thwarted by the demands of a minority which, though extremely vocal, is numerically tiny.

---

Is this just polemic, or are you serious? Would you be happy to settle, say, lay presidency or a continued commitment to the Incarnation on this basis? Sounds a tad tantrumy to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by balaam:
Meanwhile back in the real world, while I was in favour of women bishops I was not as fully in favour as I was of women priests. I've heard the political, sociological and theological debates and agree that there is no reason why women should not become bishops.

Thus far the same as twenty odd years ago. But there's a difference between the debates. In the Ordination of women debate there were some women who were saying that they believed God was calling them to the position of priest in the church of England. I have not heard of any women saying they are being called to be C of E bishops.

And that's the clincher. If God is actually calling women to be bishops in England we should not stand in his way.

I am convinced by the arguments, but the lack of women saying, "I've been called," is the reason that I'm not as enthusiastic as I was before.

---

quote:

---

"I am going to try to represent the mother attribute of God," Wamukoya said. "A mother is a caring person but at the same time, a mother can be firm in doing whatever she is doing."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adrian1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adrian1:
Maybe the time has come for issues as important as this to not be decided by the General Synod but by ballot of Electoral Roll members. At least then we could perhaps prevent the will of the majority being thwarted by the demands of a minority which, though extremely vocal, is numerically tiny.

---

Is this just polemic, or are you serious? Would you be happy to settle, say, lay presidency or a continued commitment to the Incarnation on this basis? Sounds a tad tantrumy to me.

---

I'm being deadly serious. I think if such matters were left to ordinary church members in the pews there would be a far better prospect of good sense prevailing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adrian1:
Maybe the time has come for issues as important as this to not be decided by the General Synod but by ballot of Electoral Roll members. At least then we could perhaps prevent the will of the majority being thwarted by the demands of a minority which, though extremely vocal, is numerically tiny.

---

Is this just polemic, or are you serious? Would you be happy to settle, say, lay presidency or a continued commitment to the Incarnation on this basis? Sounds a tad tantrumy to me.

---

quote:

---

At Coventry Cathedral he became involved in conflict resolution and peace building in war-torn areas around the world

---

quote:

---

Though with a scornful wonder
Men see her sore oppressed,
By schisms rent asunder,
By heresies distressed:
Yet saints their watch are keeping,
Their cry goes up, “How long?”
And soon the night of weeping
Shall be the morn of song.

---

"How long, O Lord" pretty much sums it up. What happened yesterday has attracted bucket-loads of scornful wonder already.

I'm praying for Justin Welby in the hope that his conflict resolution skills might find a way from this night of weeping towards a morn of song. Yesterday was a grim day. Maybe today should be a pray and reflect day?

My independent nonco congo, which remains conservative on some issues, has had women elders for 15 years - following a not inconsiderable debate. Nobody bats an eye today. Nor would they if the next church pastor/lead elder was a woman.

Character and gifting are the determinants for us now. We know it was not always seen that way. We know the scriptures and traditions. It seems better to us the way it is now than the way it was. Collectively, before God, we have changed our mind.

I have no idea even if it is possible that the C of E might reach that kind of resolution, given its large multi-congregational membership, its international links and the width of co-existing views. I do hope and pray you can find a better way soon. The sort of "scornful wonder" this has attracted, on top of the internal anger and pain, demonstrates this is a crap public witness to the One who prayed that we might all be one, just as He and the Father are One. I hope at least everyone sees that today. That might at least be a starting point.



[ 21. November 2012, 07:53: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I heard on the news that the bishops are holding an extraordinary meeting this morning.

Let's hope they can do something extraordinary.



[ 21. November 2012, 08:04: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adrian1:
Maybe the time has come for issues as important as this to not be decided by the General Synod but by ballot of Electoral Roll members. At least then we could perhaps prevent the will of the majority being thwarted by the demands of a minority which, though extremely vocal, is numerically tiny.

---

Is this just polemic, or are you serious? Would you be happy to settle, say, lay presidency or a continued commitment to the Incarnation on this basis? Sounds a tad tantrumy to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
A news item FYI

Swaziland gets first female Anglican bishop

quote:

---

"I am going to try to represent the mother attribute of God," Wamukoya said. "A mother is a caring person but at the same time, a mother can be firm in doing whatever she is doing."

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
If the Church of England ever decided to question the incarnation, why should the House of Laity be more competent to pronounce on it than the laity as a whole? It's not as though the Church of England claims any special revelatory authority for the General Synod.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:

And to those of you who think the people in favour of women bishops should leave - why should we, when we outnumber you almost two to one even in General Synod?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

I understand the anger and frustration, but castigating Synodical structures and lay members simply because you do not agree with the result on this occasion looks a bit churlish to me.

---

quote:

---

Lay member Alison Ruoff said she had voted against the ordination of women bishops in order to keep the Church together.

"There are hundreds of churches in the Church of England which are standing with us and we were doing what was right for them - it's not just me," she said.

"This is to make sure that we can walk together as one Church of England - a broad Church, yes, but we want to be there without splits, without divisions."

The Rev Prebendary Rod Thomas, chairman of the conservative evangelical grouping Reform, said: "We have avoided what could have been a disastrous mistake for our unity and witness."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
@Chesterbelloc, the frustration is because 42 out of 44 dioceses using the same voting structure voted this measure through

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
Membership of General Synod is effectively only open to those with time on their hands and plenty of money - retired middle-class people, in other words.

---

Why can't Synod meet over a weekend, probably somewhere like Birmingham ( I know) which is easily accessible from most parts of the country? Indeed, why does it have to 'meet' very much at all? Couldn't most of the discussion take place online?

Maybe the Ship of Fools could put in a bid to run the C of E.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
Maybe the Ship of Fools could put in a bid to run the C of E.

---

quote:

---

I think that is very dependent on how it plays out over the next year, but the damage done today could have significant fallout. Poor Justin. He just got a chalice full of deadly poison.

---

quote:

---

In the very slightly longer term, 2 further reforms ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:

1. Justin withdraws his acceptance of Canterbury.
2. Rowan departs on schedule.
3. The CPC (a) refuses to recommend anyone at all for Canterbury and, if other vacancies come up, forward female names only.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
@Chesterbelloc, the frustration is because 42 out of 44 dioceses using the same voting structure voted this measure through

---

I think that's the really astonishing thing here. It's one thing for a vote to be lost if it's known that it's going to be tight and that different sub-bodies have opposing views. But when you've got such an overwhelming number of previous votes having gone the same way, something extremely weird is going on to have it fall at the 'overall' vote.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Just a question. I haven't been following this very well beforehand, but what were the expectations before the vote? Were the odds already that this would be voted down? Or was it a complete surprise?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Just a question. I haven't been following this very well beforehand, but what were the expectations before the vote? Were the odds already that this would be voted down? Or was it a complete surprise?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Dear right, Boogie: it seems the cojones are lacking, never mind the spirit...

Meanwhile, our (male, FiF) vicar is being VERY quiet - could it be he's worried about the reaction of his 90% female congregation, 2 female wardens and 95% female PCC???

And those fools in Laity represent US???

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fifi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
@Chesterbelloc, the frustration is because 42 out of 44 dioceses using the same voting structure voted this measure through

---

I think that's the really astonishing thing here. It's one thing for a vote to be lost if it's known that it's going to be tight and that different sub-bodies have opposing views. But when you've got such an overwhelming number of previous votes having gone the same way, something extremely weird is going on to have it fall at the 'overall' vote.

---

A touch too simplistic, I fear. It's true that 'an overwhelming number of previous votes (went) the same way' - but they were votes requiring simple majorities only. Anyone who checked the arithmetic on those votes would have seen that there wasn't a 2/3 majority in the House of Laity and that there was therefore every chance it would fall, when it came to final approval.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You'd think, but the bloke being interviewed on Newsnight back on Monday on the FiF side had a congregation almost entirely composed of elderly women who fully agreed with their vicar's position. I was going to say that God alone knows why; but actually I do know the reason, and it's deeply saddening to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You'd think, but the bloke being interviewed on Newsnight back on Monday on the FiF side had a congregation almost entirely composed of elderly women who fully agreed with their vicar's position. I was going to say that God alone knows why; but actually I do know the reason, and it's deeply saddening to me.

---

What do you think the reason is?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Dear right, Boogie: it seems the cojones are lacking, never mind the spirit...

Meanwhile, our (male, FiF) vicar is being VERY quiet - could it be he's worried about the reaction of his 90% female congregation, 2 female wardens and 95% female PCC???

And those fools in Laity represent US???

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
They've been theologically convinced that their second-class role in the church is God ordained.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
They've been theologically convinced that their second-class role in the church is God ordained.

---

If you said 'they are theologically convinced', I would be happier. I don't like the implication that FiF women can't think for themselves even if I don't agree with their conclusions.

---

I'm not really that bothered which it is; I am however concerned that it's possible for people to believe that God wants them to be second class. It weirds me out. We don't accept this "equal but different" crap anywhere else because we know full well it means "so men are in charge."
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Back to the question of "What now", try this for size:
a quote given to several media by the Chairman of REFORM, the Revd Prebendary Rod Thomas
My overall conclusion is that it is very good news for the Church of England. We have avoided what could have been a disastrous mistake for our unity and witness.

The biggest problem would seem to be persuading people like this that their "taking a stand" (as they see it) gives witness to many of the great un-churched that the CofE is a backward looking, non-inclusive, misogynist club.

OK, so that's women and gays alienated, so who will they go for next? Redheads? the unmarried? dog-owners?

And some church going people are surely now asking if this version of the CofE is a club of which they wish to continue being a member.

 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
The biggest problem would seem to be persuading people like this that their "taking a stand" (as they see it) gives witness to many of the great un-churched that the CofE is a backward looking, non-inclusive, misogynist club.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
The biggest problem would seem to be persuading people like this that their "taking a stand" (as they see it) gives witness to many of the great un-churched that the CofE is a backward looking, non-inclusive, misogynist club.

---

You know the feeling when you play your favourite song to a friend, or invite them to a concert by your favourite band? 'Will they feel the same way about this song, I hope they don't think it's unlistenable rubbish!'

Well, I got that feeling listening to the radio yesterday, hearing various people defending the 'No' position. No doubt my reaction simply shows my view on this issue, but I was taken aback by how strong my reaction was - a feeling of despair that people are going to think the C of E (and Christians generally) are sexist and horrifically out of touch.

---

quote:

---

But that sense of a Synod which, for admirable, praiseworthy reasons gives a very strong voice to the minority – that sense of Synod needs some explaining and some exploring if it is not simply to be seen as a holding to hostage of Synod by certain groups.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Karl: The Liberal Backslider:
You'd think, but the bloke being interviewed on Newsnight back on Monday on the FiF side had a congregation almost entirely composed of elderly women who fully agreed with their vicar's position. I was going to say that God alone knows why; but actually I do know the reason, and it's deeply saddening to me.

---

quote:

---

You'd think, but the bloke being interviewed on Newsnight back on Monday on the FiF side had a congregation almost entirely composed of elderly women who fully agreed with their vicar's position.

---

quote:

---

OK, so that's women and gays alienated, so who will they go for next? Redheads? the unmarried? dog-owners?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:

quote:

---

You'd think, but the bloke being interviewed on Newsnight back on Monday on the FiF side had a congregation almost entirely composed of elderly women who fully agreed with their vicar's position.

---

There are several possible explanations:

1. The vicar is deluded; either his congregation is just pretending to agree with him, or he is ignoring any signs of revolt.
2. The vicar thinks his congregation agrees with him, but actually they are just going to his church because they've been going there for about the last 70 years and they don't see why they should go anywhere else just because the vicar (who's only been there about ten years) is a misogynist. They think of it as their church, in fact, and he is merely an incidental detail - like that badly worn gargoyle just above the West window.
3. They really do agree with him, because they were brought up to believe they were second-class citizens and not to expect anything more.
4. Any or all of the above (assuming this church has more than one member).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
That explains why nearly all of them were old women, then. Everybody else has either left or died...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

The parts of the church that are growing tend to be the ones who oppose women bishops.

The church didn't grow when women became priests. It continued to decline. What makes people think that women bishops is a magic cure for decline?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
Why can't Synod meet over a weekend, probably somewhere like Birmingham ( I know) which is easily accessible from most parts of the country? Indeed, why does it have to 'meet' very much at all? Couldn't most of the discussion take place online?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fifi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
@Chesterbelloc, the frustration is because 42 out of 44 dioceses using the same voting structure voted this measure through

---

I think that's the really astonishing thing here. It's one thing for a vote to be lost if it's known that it's going to be tight and that different sub-bodies have opposing views. But when you've got such an overwhelming number of previous votes having gone the same way, something extremely weird is going on to have it fall at the 'overall' vote.

---

A touch too simplistic, I fear. It's true that 'an overwhelming number of previous votes (went) the same way' - but they were votes requiring simple majorities only. Anyone who checked the arithmetic on those votes would have seen that there wasn't a 2/3 majority in the House of Laity and that there was therefore every chance it would fall, when it came to final approval.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Panda:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
The parts of the church that are growing tend to be the ones who oppose women bishops.

The church didn't grow when women became priests. It continued to decline. What makes people think that women bishops is a magic cure for decline?

---

FFS Leo, it does not need to be done as a cure for decline. It needs to be done because it is the right thing to do. Don't you dare suggest that's it's just for when we're desperate and there's no better reason.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by balaam:
42 out of 44 diocese have voted in favour of the proposals, I presume they got the 67% of necessary votes in the laity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
I don't think the legislation as passed over women priests precludes the appointment of a woman as a Suffragan

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
As for what the majority view in the CofE actually is, well I don't know for sure, because no-one ever asked them. My mildly-informed guess is that the largest body of opinion within the CofE the issue is probably something like "Women Bishops? Don't really mind either way but can't see anything wrong with the idea."

And the next largest is likely to be "Women Bishops? You mean we aren't allowed to have women bishops? Since when? Whyever not?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:
However, I think there would be a reasonable-sized group who would say 'Definitely yes'.

---

quote:

---

Yes, there should be an honoured place for traditionalists - may I suggest that the honoured place is specifically the Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham. They can maintain a specific confraternity of male priests, ordained by male bishops with a male pedigree, with a third order attached for the laity to keep in touch.

They can maintain a traveling roster and visit each cathederal on a monthly basis to offer the eucharist. (The church as a whole can support this by maintaining funds in trust to maintain this in perpetuity.)

Meanwhile, the church could ordain female bishops and carry on with the rest of the business of the church.

In the time between the monthly celebrations, traditionalist laity could participate in non-eucharistic services. The diocesan would maintain their authority in respect to managing the affairs of the diocese, and pastoral support (after all that would be acceptable from a female deacon or canon ?).

The church could also make a commitment to always have at least one male Archbishop.

---

quote:

---

Whatever the motivations for voting yesterday, whatever the theological principle on which people acted, spoke; the fact remains that a great deal of this discussion is not intelligible to our wider society. Worse than that, it seems as if we are wilfully blind to some of the trends and priorities of that wider society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
The ones who are mopst frustrating aren't the definite nos so much as the "I support women's ordination women but..." brigade.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:
However, I think there would be a reasonable-sized group who would say 'Definitely yes'.

---

Of course. I'm pretty sure the "defintely no" camp is a minority, possibly quite a small one. Maybe half of the strongly marked Anglo-Catholics and a quite small number of the very most doctrinally conservative evangelicals.

The ones who are mopst frustrating aren't the definite nos so much as the "I support women's ordination women but..." brigade. There are people, including some very extreme theological liberals, who seem quite happy to put party before principle (and at least one of them posts a lot on this thread)

---

quote:

---

Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
The ones who are mopst frustrating aren't the definite nos so much as the "I support women's ordination women but..." brigade.

---

Exactly. These are the folks on the rector search committee who wouldn't dream of opposing the ordination of women, but who ask, "But is our parish ready for a female priest?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
That explains why nearly all of them were old women, then. Everybody else has either left or died...

---

quote:

---

Who wants to be thrown to the wolves so that somebody else can score cheap political points and feel good about themselves for doing so? [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:

quote:

---

Who wants to be thrown to the wolves so that somebody else can score cheap political points and feel good about themselves for doing so?

---

I suspect the answer to this is 'most women who feel called to the ministry of Priest'. Not that they want to suffer persecution of course - but I have no doubt that most of those who have sought ordination over the last 20 years have done so in the full knowledge that they may have to minister to those who are bigoted and present Christ and His Sacraments to them nevertheless.

I would hope every Christian knows that our witness has to be faithful to Christ, even unto death. I suspect that most women who seek ordination are prepared to do no less. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Now, if the search committee really believes a female priest is right for them, the vestry had better be prepared to support her because let me tell you what will likely happen. . . .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
If one can have women priests, then obviously one can have women bishops. I don't get what there's even to discuss there. The Anglican church has already ordained women. End of story, really.

---

quote:

---

5. Nothing in this Canon shall make it lawful for a woman to be consecrated to the office of bishop.

---

quote:

---

.. it seems as if we are wilfully blind to some of the trends and priorities of that wider society

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Oscar the Grouch on another thread:
They will not get their Holy Grail, because what ever next comes to the table won't be what they want and they are not going to get any greater concessions than have already been offered.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken:
The ones who are mopst frustrating aren't the definite nos so much as the "I support women's ordination women but..." brigade.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Unless you want to see this whole process kicked into the long grass for years to come, you will need to be more flexible. Without the special intervention of the archbishops, it can't come back to synod for a minimum of three years, and there would be no point bringing back the same bad legislation to a synod which has rejected it by its own voting rules.

The new archbishop needs to engage with the opponents in FiF and Reform over the coming weeks and months. If he can't offer any sort of province or diocesan structure, and I don't see why not, he will need to find out what is the minimum level of alternative or extended oversight which they can realistically live with, write it into new legislation and use his powers to bring it before synod next year.

Groups like GRAS and WATCH will have to realise that, if they want their main goal, which is women bishops, they will need to be more gracious and tolerant of those who disagree with them. IngoB is right. If the C of E believes it can ordian women to the priesthood, then they can also be bishops, and should be asap. It just requires a larger dose of graciousness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:

quote:

---

originally posted by Oscar the Grouch on another thread:
They will not get their Holy Grail, because what ever next comes to the table won't be what they want and they are not going to get any greater concessions than have already been offered.

---

Unless you want to see this whole process kicked into the long grass for years to come, you will need to be more flexible. Without the special intervention of the archbishops, it can't come back to synod for a minimum of three years, and there would be no point bringing back the same bad legislation to a synod which has rejected it by its own voting rules.

The new archbishop needs to engage with the opponents in FiF and Reform over the coming weeks and months. If he can't offer any sort of province or diocesan structure, and I don't see why not, he will need to find out what is the minimum level of alternative or extended oversight which they can realistically live with, write it into new legislation and use his powers to bring it before synod next year.

Groups like GRAS and WATCH will have to realise that, if they want their main goal, which is women bishops, they will need to be more gracious and tolerant of those who disagree with them. IngoB is right. If the C of E believes it can ordian women to the priesthood, then they can also be bishops, and should be asap. It just requires a larger dose of graciousness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:

quote:

---

originally posted by Oscar the Grouch on another thread:
They will not get their Holy Grail, because what ever next comes to the table won't be what they want and they are not going to get any greater concessions than have already been offered.

---

Unless you want to see this whole process kicked into the long grass for years to come, you will need to be more flexible. Without the special intervention of the archbishops, it can't come back to synod for a minimum of three years, and there would be no point bringing back the same bad legislation to a synod which has rejected it by its own voting rules.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ceannaideach:
I would disagree with motion three Justinian. Appoint the person who is right for the job. Don't appoint a woman for the sake of appointing a woman.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
The ones who are mopst frustrating aren't the definite nos so much as the "I support women's ordination women but..." brigade.

---

Exactly. These are the folks on the rector search committee who wouldn't dream of opposing the ordination of women, but who ask, "But is our parish ready for a female priest?"

---

An excellent question to ask actually. The female priest called to the parish not ready for a female priest will wish the search committee had asked themselves the question before calling her to a parish where a 1/3 of the congregation rejects her just because she is female. Perhaps, she'll be lucky and all the people truly open to having a female priest will accept her but that's not likely. Who wants to be thrown to the wolves so that somebody else can score cheap political points and feel good about themselves for doing so?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ceannaideach:
I would disagree with motion three Justinian. Appoint the person who is right for the job. Don't appoint a woman for the sake of appointing a woman.

---

Justinian is an atheist. He no more cares about the health of the Church of England than the Pope. Any church concerned with appeasing atheists is already irrelevant. Oddly, nothing terrifies Christians wanting to appease atheists like being labeled irrelevant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Any church concerned with appeasing atheists is already irrelevant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed...
Frank Field tabled an Early Day Motion last year requiring that the CofE should no longer be allowed to continue the exemption from the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:

quote:

---

Curiosity killed...Frank Field tabled an Early Day Motion last year requiring that the CofE should no longer be allowed to continue the exemption from the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

---

I still take a keen interest in this because I have close friends who it all effects. But I'm glad I'm out. If you want to live in an Erastian church where politicians can tell you what to believe, then good luck.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Unless you were married to one of those women, I've been closer to the situation than you.

---

And of course what happened in that situation is exactly what will happen everywhere else.

In my experience, the people who ask the question about being ready for a female priest (and about many other kinds of change) are in large part anticipating a problem they think other people will have.
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:
However, I think there would be a reasonable-sized group who would say 'Definitely yes'.

---

Of course. I'm pretty sure the "defintely no" camp is a minority, possibly quite a small one. Maybe half of the strongly marked Anglo-Catholics and a quite small number of the very most doctrinally conservative evangelicals.

The ones who are mopst frustrating aren't the definite nos so much as the "I support women's ordination women but..." brigade. There are people, including some very extreme theological liberals, who seem quite happy to put party before principle (and at least one of them posts a lot on this thread)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:
However, I think there would be a reasonable-sized group who would say 'Definitely yes'.

---

Of course. I'm pretty sure the "defintely no" camp is a minority, possibly quite a small one. Maybe half of the strongly marked Anglo-Catholics and a quite small number of the very most doctrinally conservative evangelicals.

The ones who are mopst frustrating aren't the definite nos so much as the "I support women's ordination women but..." brigade. There are people, including some very extreme theological liberals, who seem quite happy to put party before principle (and at least one of them posts a lot on this thread)

---

That sounds like me! I am not putting 'party before principle' - i have many criticisms of anglo-catholicism, which is what I now work in a church of a very different churchpersonship.

My opposition to the legislation that failed is principled - the principle that it is wrong to break the promises that were made; the principle that an inclusive church should not unchurch people etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anne:
...These are genuine questions. What is going to be said that hasn't been said? And if there is nothing new to be heard, what is all this talking going to be for? What is there to distinguish this new conversation from a simple delaying tactic?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Holy Smoke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by anne:
...These are genuine questions. What is going to be said that hasn't been said? And if there is nothing new to be heard, what is all this talking going to be for? What is there to distinguish this new conversation from a simple delaying tactic?

---

What's new is a cold dose of reality. No proper provision for dissenters, no women bishops. End of story.

What's next is that one of the old schemes for special dioceses, or special provinces, or whatever, will be resurrected and put to the next General Synod, and they will pass it, and the Diocesan Synods will pass it, and Parliament will pass it, and we will have women bishops with the safeguards which were promised to dissenters back in 1992, and with the dissenters continuing to be valued members of the Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Holy Smoke, you do know Parliament is preparing to either disestablish the Church of England, or remove the exemptions from the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, don't you?

---

quote:

---

for the cancellation of the church's exemptions from equality legislation. "When we gave exemptions under the Sex Discrimination Act we were assured that the church didn't want to discriminate and that it would bring forward measures to eliminate such discrimination,"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Holy Smoke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by anne:
...These are genuine questions. What is going to be said that hasn't been said? And if there is nothing new to be heard, what is all this talking going to be for? What is there to distinguish this new conversation from a simple delaying tactic?

---

What's new is a cold dose of reality. No proper provision for dissenters, no women bishops. End of story.

What's next is that one of the old schemes for special dioceses, or special provinces, or whatever, will be resurrected and put to the next General Synod, and they will pass it, and the Diocesan Synods will pass it, and Parliament will pass it, and we will have women bishops with the safeguards which were promised to dissenters back in 1992, and with the dissenters continuing to be valued members of the Church.

---

quote:

---

"I have made it clear to the General Synod on a number of occasions that Parliament simply would not approve any Measure that introduced women bishops as second-class bishops."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Holy Smoke, you do know Parliament is preparing to either disestablish the Church of England, or remove the exemptions from the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, don't you?

---

I do know perfectly well that they will do neither, but feel free to keep hoping.



(I am BTW a supporter of WO, but also a supporter of the current system of safeguards)
 

---

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Frank Field announced he was going to present a private members bill to Parliament today to call

quote:

---

for the cancellation of the church's exemptions from equality legislation. "When we gave exemptions under the Sex Discrimination Act we were assured that the church didn't want to discriminate and that it would bring forward measures to eliminate such discrimination,"

---

- more about the debate here

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Unless you were married to one of those women, I've been closer to the situation than you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:
However, I think there would be a reasonable-sized group who would say 'Definitely yes'.

---

Of course. I'm pretty sure the "defintely no" camp is a minority, possibly quite a small one. Maybe half of the strongly marked Anglo-Catholics and a quite small number of the very most doctrinally conservative evangelicals.

The ones who are mopst frustrating aren't the definite nos so much as the "I support women's ordination women but..." brigade. There are people, including some very extreme theological liberals, who seem quite happy to put party before principle (and at least one of them posts a lot on this thread)

---

That sounds like me! I am not putting 'party before principle' - i have many criticisms of anglo-catholicism, which is what I now work in a church of a very different churchpersonship.

My opposition to the legislation that failed is principled - the principle that it is wrong to break the promises that were made; the principle that an inclusive church should not unchurch people etc.

---

What promises? Ender's Shadow came up with a couple of suggestions on the hell thread - and I showed all of them he's come up with so far to be wishful thinking. While the Anti-OOW brigade is in massive violation of even the whole episcopal framework with their hyperinflating the role of flying bishops.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The Lambeth Conference of Bishops,1998
Resolution III.2 of the Lambeth Conference 1998 called upon the “Provinces of the Communion to affirm that those who dissent from, as well as those who assent to, the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate, are both loyal Anglicans and to make such provision, including appropriate Episcopal ministry, as will enable them to live in the highest possible degree of communion, recognizing that there is and should be no compulsion on any bishop in matters concerning ordination and licensing.”

Specifically Carey promised the House of Lords:

quote:

---

Our intention is to give continued space within the Church of England to those of differing views on this subject.

---

Lords debate

Now of course Anglican have always stretched the envelope; Evangelicals lose liturgy by using non-standard services, Papists use the Roman Missal, and libruls bless same sex relationships. It's what we Anglican do; to suggest +Andrew is a unique offender in this is silly. But the commitment to a 'permanent' place for the dissidents did emerge as a element in the post 1992 settlement. THIS WAS A MISTAKE. But we've got to live with it - or forever accept that our promises are valueless.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The Lambeth Conference of Bishops,1998
Resolution III.2 of the Lambeth Conference 1998 called upon the “Provinces of the Communion to affirm that those who dissent from, as well as those who assent to, the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate, are both loyal Anglicans and to make such provision, including appropriate Episcopal ministry, as will enable them to live in the highest possible degree of communion, recognizing that there is and should be no compulsion on any bishop in matters concerning ordination and licensing.”

---

Ah yes. Distorted Proof Text #1.

This was at the Lambeth Conference in 1998 - a conference that contains all the provinces of the Anglican Communion - of which some but not all ordain female priests and bishops. It was saying that because the CofE and TEC were ordaining female priests, TEC was ordaining female bishops, and I forget who still had a male only priesthood.

This therefore has nothing to d-o with what happens within a province, referring explicitely as it does to the relationship between provinces. Are you a province?

Now for the quotemining.

quote:

---

Specifically Carey promised the House of Lords:

quote:

---

Our intention is to give continued space within the Church of England to those of differing views on this subject.

---

Lords debate

---

And he did give continued space. So far you have had twenty years of space. Twenty years to determine whether the ordaining of female priests was a mistake and twenty years of space.

Further, if you would care to actually read rather than merely quotemine, you'd find that in the very speech you link, George Carey is explicit that at least some of the provisions in place are temporary and time limited rather than intended to last forever.

quote:

---

It was strongly argued in evidence to the Ecclesiastical Committee that Clause 2 should either be withdrawn or extended to cover future diocesan bishops. Left as it is, the argument went, priests opposed to the legislation would be unlikely to accept senior office in future. To make such an extension, however, would in effect be to legislate for the continued geographical separation of the Church of England into areas where women priests may operate and areas where they may not. The provision restricting Clause 2 to bishops in office when the canon comes into effect was included at the request of the majority of the House of Bishops in order to maintain the unity and collegiality of the episcopate.

---

That intention has been kept. It has been kept completely and in entirety. It is not carte blanche merely a statement of what the Church of England intends to do at that time - and your own link provides explicit evidence that this was a temporary arrangement. That you claim that something that was, even going by your own sources, intended to only be temporary, was a promise to do something permanent merely says things about either your honesty or your degree of wishful thinking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
Yes, there should be an honoured place for traditionalists - may I suggest that the honoured place is specifically the Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham. They can maintain a specific confraternity of male priests, ordained by male bishops with a male pedigree, with a third order attached for the laity to keep in touch.

They can maintain a traveling roster and visit each cathederal on a monthly basis to offer the eucharist. (The church as a whole can support this by maintaining funds in trust to maintain this in perpetuity.)

Meanwhile, the church could ordain female bishops and carry on with the rest of the business of the church.

In the time between the monthly celebrations, traditionalist laity could participate in non-eucharistic services. The diocesan would maintain their authority in respect to managing the affairs of the diocese, and pastoral support (after all that would be acceptable from a female deacon or canon ?).

The church could also make a commitment to always have at least one male Archbishop.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by american piskie:
Perhaps until times do improve, as Suffragan sees fall vacant, they can be allowed to lapse, and Archdeacons appointed to carry out everything but the confirming and ordaining? And these archdeacons might reasonably be made full members of the College of Bishops? Indeed, I go further, and suggest we adopt more of the Ordinariate's curious customs: why shouldn't these women be allowed to use the pontificalia? Spain and Italy have their Mitred Abbesses, I'd really look forward to seeing a Mitred Archdeacon in action.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
Disestablishment is preferable to state intervention.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
*DT wonders if her font is back-ground coloured by accident ...*

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
*DT wonders if her font is back-ground coloured by accident ...*

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by balaam:
Disestablishment may be good for the church (a moot point) but not for the country. A group of people who are part of the government process and outside the party political system looking at the morality of proposed legislation can only be good for the country. The Lord Bishops would need to be replaced by something if the church is to be disestablished.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
This.

As in, Justinian's refutation of the idea that the promise was made seems quite convincing.

And secondly, what are the issues with the suggested provision in that post as a proof of concept ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
a proposal I didn't think was a third province ?

---

quote:

---

When the decision-making body of the established church deliberately sets itself against the general principles of the society which it represents then its position as the established church must be called into question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Others like thurible have also made links to the promises.

---

quote:

---

Posted by Gildas Private Members Bills don't generally become law and 10 Minute Rule Bills and Early Day Motions never do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I must say, I'm disturbed by how few people commenting here seem in the least concerned by the politicians flexing their muscles at the Church of England over this matter. Massive political pressure on the Church to conform to current social expectations - and no-one's worried?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I must say, I'm disturbed by how few people commenting here seem in the least concerned by the politicians flexing their muscles at the Church of England over this matter. Massive political pressure on the Church to conform to current social expectations - and no-one's worried?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Of course, if it were disestablished I imagine it would be harder to justify the exemption from equalities legislation that the C of E seems to have at the moment...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I must say, I'm disturbed by how few people commenting here seem in the least concerned by the politicians flexing their muscles at the Church of England over this matter. Massive political pressure on the Church to conform to current social expectations - and no-one's worried?

---

Disestablishment, it's the way forward. If the C of E became just another faith group then all they'd have to do is follow the law like any other organisation (religious or otherwise). There'd be no question of politicians flexing their muscles in the C of E's general direction...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
If the C of E cannot or will not sort out a basic problem of justice, then I hope that MPs will step up and make the C of E start acting sensibly.

It will come to something when the C of E needs MPs to tell it what justice should look like.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The Lambeth Conference of Bishops,1998
Resolution III.2 of the Lambeth Conference 1998 called upon the “Provinces of the Communion to affirm that those who dissent from, as well as those who assent to, the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate, are both loyal Anglicans and to make such provision, including appropriate Episcopal ministry, as will enable them to live in the highest possible degree of communion, recognizing that there is and should be no compulsion on any bishop in matters concerning ordination and licensing.”

---

Ah yes. Distorted Proof Text #1.

This was at the Lambeth Conference in 1998 - a conference that contains all the provinces of the Anglican Communion - of which some but not all ordain female priests and bishops. It was saying that because the CofE and TEC were ordaining female priests, TEC was ordaining female bishops, and I forget who still had a male only priesthood.

This therefore has nothing to d-o with what happens within a province, referring explicitely as it does to the relationship between provinces. Are you a province?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:

Now for the quotemining.

quote:

---

Specifically Carey promised the House of Lords:

quote:

---

Our intention is to give continued space within the Church of England to those of differing views on this subject.

---

Lords debate

---

And he did give continued space. So far you have had twenty years of space. Twenty years to determine whether the ordaining of female priests was a mistake and twenty years of space.

Further, if you would care to actually read rather than merely quotemine, you'd find that in the very speech you link, George Carey is explicit that at least some of the provisions in place are temporary and time limited rather than intended to last forever.

quote:

---

It was strongly argued in evidence to the Ecclesiastical Committee that Clause 2 should either be withdrawn or extended to cover future diocesan bishops. Left as it is, the argument went, priests opposed to the legislation would be unlikely to accept senior office in future. To make such an extension, however, would in effect be to legislate for the continued geographical separation of the Church of England into areas where women priests may operate and areas where they may not. The provision restricting Clause 2 to bishops in office when the canon comes into effect was included at the request of the majority of the House of Bishops in order to maintain the unity and collegiality of the episcopate.

---

That intention has been kept. It has been kept completely and in entirety. It is not carte blanche merely a statement of what the Church of England intends to do at that time - and your own link provides explicit evidence that this was a temporary arrangement. That you claim that something that was, even going by your own sources, intended to only be temporary, was a promise to do something permanent merely says things about either your honesty or your degree of wishful thinking.

---

quote:

---

Ender's Shadow: Let's be clear who the biggest victims in this scenario are: it's the clergy ordained post 1992 who took seriously the belief that the CofE wasn't going to go monochrome on this issue. You're telling them that they've been deceived. It's their lives that are being screwed with. It's an open question as to who is responsible for the deception - but to pass the buck to FiF won't do, because 'the rest of the church has bent over backwards to accommodate the sexists'...

---

1. women priests were an experiment that were going to go away;
2. the Church could continue to operate a church within a church

quote:

---

posted by South Coast Kevin Of course, if it were disestablished I imagine it would be harder to justify the exemption from equalities legislation that the C of E seems to have at the moment...

---

quote:

---

C 2 Of the consecration of bishops

1. No person shall be consecrated to the office of bishop by fewer than three bishops present together and joining in the act of consecration, of whom one shall be the archbishop of the province or a bishop appointed to act on his behalf.

2. The consecration of a bishop shall take place upon some Sunday or Holy Day, unless the archbishop, for urgent and weighty cause, shall appoint some other day.

3. No person shall be consecrated bishop except he shall be at least thirty years of age.

4. No person shall be refused consecration as bishop on the ground that he was born out of lawful wedlock.

5. Nothing in this Canon shall make it lawful for a woman to be consecrated to the office of bishop.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Of course, if it were disestablished I imagine it would be harder to justify the exemption from equalities legislation that the C of E seems to have at the moment...

---

It would enjoy the same exemption as every other religious body, indeed, in the light of the article 9 rights we all enjoy, it would be difficult to see how any other position could be countenanced.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
@Ender's Shadow, is that addressed to me?

I agree with IngoB and others who say that women bishops were inevitable when women priests had been agreed.

The Law or Canons of the Church of England have been changed many times over the years since 1604 or whenever. It's the requirement to change those Canons that mean the constitutional change votes of two thirds majorities. It will then require the approval of Parliament. But there would be no ways of changing those canons legally if they were meant to be set in stone at around 1600.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Honestly? I would be worried if Parliament DIDN'T start to get involved. No church (established or not) should expect to practice injustice with impunity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yerevan:
Interesting quote from Tory backbencher Eleanor Laing:

quote:

---

When the decision-making body of the established church deliberately sets itself against the general principles of the society which it represents then its position as the established church must be called into question.

---

For me this pretty much sums up why established churches are a terrible idea from a Christian point of view. The church 'represents' God, not society. OOW is a good idea because it is (IMO) what God wants. As a Christian I don't personally give a flying fuck what 'society' wants.

---

Exactly

I'll even throw in a .
 

---

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
TripleTiara, SouthCoastKevin et al,

---

I presume you mean Trisagion as I have not made any comments here.
 

---

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
Doublethink, your idea is not incredibly dissimilar to the Society of St Wilfrid and St Hilda.

Thurible
 

---

Posted by ButchCassidy (# 11147) on :
 
Apologies Fr!

And another for Yerevan
 

---

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
...there was a suggestion that a woman bishop should be consecrated under the existing legislation. I'm pointing out that that would be illegal under the present canon law. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Honestly? I would be worried if Parliament DIDN'T start to get involved. No church (established or not) should expect to practice injustice with impunity.

---

This is dangerous! The Catholic and Orthodox Churches, which together make up 60% of the world's Christians, and are international, universal organisations, don't ordain women, and there's no liklihood that they will any time soon. Is the UK parliament going to try and intervene to change this? And try taking on the muslims and see how far you get! But nobody is compelled to belong to any of these organisations. Interference from parliament would be an outrage which I'd be willing to die opposing!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yerevan:
Interesting quote from Tory backbencher Eleanor Laing:

quote:

---

When the decision-making body of the established church deliberately sets itself against the general principles of the society which it represents then its position as the established church must be called into question.

---

For me this pretty much sums up why established churches are a terrible idea from a Christian point of view. The church 'represents' God, not society. OOW is a good idea because it is (IMO) what God wants. As a Christian I don't personally give a flying fuck what 'society' wants.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
TripleTiara, SouthCoastKevin et al,

As I said up-thread, it is important to understand that the CofE does NOT have a specific exemption.

It has exactly the same exemption (in Sch 23 Equality Act) as all other religious organisations who 'practice a religious belief', including the RC church, Muslims etc.

That is why Field etc cannot do as they threaten. Because they would either have to remove the exemption for all religions, which would cause a political storm, or remove it for the CofE alone, which is discriminatory against the CofE and would be challenged in the courts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yerevan:
Interesting quote from Tory backbencher Eleanor Laing:

quote:

---

When the decision-making body of the established church deliberately sets itself against the general principles of the society which it represents then its position as the established church must be called into question.

---

For me this pretty much sums up why established churches are a terrible idea from a Christian point of view. The church 'represents' God, not society. OOW is a good idea because it is (IMO) what God wants. As a Christian I don't personally give a flying fuck what 'society' wants.

---

I do. I do because when society has come further in declaring the equality of the sexes than the church, and defending the church means defending institutionalised sexism to society, then something's extremely wrong.

We should be leading society in issue like these, not being dragged along kicking and screaming by them.

---

Couldn't have put it better myself.


 

---

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :
 
Meanwhile David Cameron has told the C of E to "get with the programme". You can always trust Call-Me-Dave to come up with the most thoroughly vacuous contribution to any debate.
 

---

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Has anyone else noticed the irony of CallmeDave ticking off someone else for being sexist? Isn't he the one who doesn't think the government needs to bother with all that tedious checking of their policies to make sure they comply with anti-discrimination legislation? And most of his Cabinet is male.
 

---

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Should parliament intervene on this issue Anglo-Catholicism in the UK is dead.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Should parliament intervene on this issue Anglo-Catholicism in the UK is dead.

---

You can say that again. Two words: Assize Sermon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Others like thurible have also made links to the promises.

---

OK. In the absence of you being willing to say why you think any promises were ever made, I searched the Ship of Fools forum with the following string " site:forum.ship-of-fools.com ship of fools thurible women bishops promises". And followed every link on the front page, and searched every thread for the word promise and every single post by Thurible on the linked page.

You know the nearest thing to an actual citation of promises I found? A post by you three years ago on procedural issues......And you may have been banging the drum about these promises, leo. But you're going to have to work hard to show that any promises intended to be permanent ever existed when they are against the spirit and letter of the General Synod and against the express words of the Archbishop of Canterbury at the time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:
Doublethink, your idea is not incredibly dissimilar to the Society of St Wilfrid and St Hilda.

Thurible

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
I think it would mean the C of E is dead as a representation of authentic Christianity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
I am actually reconsidering my position in this because of a link (in Hell, by Spawn) to a booklet that outlines the promises and what has happened since then.

This booklet puts a larger context round the stuff I read in Forward in Faith literature - I am beginning to think that many FiFers are perpetuating a false view of history - much like anglo-catholicism as a whole, I have come to think.

Alarm bells started to ring foe me some years back when Abndrew Burnham started talking of a 'see' of Ebbsfleet and I heard intercessions for 'Andrew our bishop' that completely ignored Mike, our diocesan.

---

quote:

---

Has anyone else noticed the irony of CallmeDave ticking off someone else for being sexist? Isn't he the one who doesn't think the government needs to bother with all that tedious checking of their policies to make sure they comply with anti-discrimination legislation? And most of his Cabinet is male.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:
A query:-

Criticism of the arrangements put in place in 1993 is often met with, "Well, we had to put those complicating systems in place, otherwise the legislation would never have got passed".

But surely General Synod had already determined in 1992, by 2/3 majorities in all three Houses, that ordination of women should be possible, and had done so without any caveats about PEVs or alternative oversight? What is the basis for saying that the legislation could not have been passed without these arrangements?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
What promises? Ender's Shadow came up with a couple of suggestions on the hell thread - and I showed all of them he's come up with so far to be wishful thinking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
My own blog has a narrative account written for atheists* and people who know almost nothing about the CofE of what I've reconstructed of what really happened.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
Maybe once the voting lists are published?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
Maybe once the voting lists are published?

---

Do we know when this might be?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
I wonder if you could bring us another blog showing how the PEV Party and the Headship Party cuddled up in order to win the day. Maybe once the voting lists are published?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:
I have to say I'm confused by this focusing on the fact that Bishop Andrew talked of not having the legal authority to set up councils and all the rest. A couple of sentences before, he does talk about how it was done in consultation with the ABC.

There was no template and he was trying to bring a sense of unity and purpose to a disparate group of people for whom he had been asked to provide extended episcopal care.

As for the idea that he wrong to call it a See, for goodness' sake! That's what a bishop's charge is. I can't find the one for Bishop Andrew but here is his successor's. I suppose he could've gone round referring to the "Suffragan See of Ebbsfleet" but it's a bit of a mouthful.

Thurible

---

• There are rules to prevent something coming back to the same synod, so some sort of finessing of the rules would be needed just to enable this
• There has been a awful lot of talking, and a bit more talking is unlikely to make substantial progress
• Any further concessions to those opposed to female bishops may antagonise the 'pro' camp, who could vote it down
• Having defeated the motion, the 'anti' camp might prefer to see this off the synod agenda for the near future
• if the subject comes back and is rejected again, the CofE looks (more) ridiculous

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:
In the intercessions, I think both should be mentioned but I think only one is appropriate during the Canon (if one mentions the bishop) - and that would be the one whose presbyterium the priest is a full member of.

Thurible

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:
I have to say I'm confused by this focusing on the fact that Bishop Andrew talked of not having the legal authority to set up councils and all the rest. A couple of sentences before, he does talk about how it was done in consultation with the ABC.

There was no template and he was trying to bring a sense of unity and purpose to a disparate group of people for whom he had been asked to provide extended episcopal care.

As for the idea that he wrong to call it a See, for goodness' sake! That's what a bishop's charge is. I can't find the one for Bishop Andrew but here is his successor's. I suppose he could've gone round referring to the "Suffragan See of Ebbsfleet" but it's a bit of a mouthful.

Thurible

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
If you are praying for a bishop in the canon, you are using the Roman rite - which opens another can of worms.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
One of the things that might push this to the next election period of General Synod is that members of the House of Laity don't come up for election until 2015. No substantial changes in that body until those elections, not without a lot of broken eggs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
One of the things that might push this to the next election period of General Synod is that members of the House of Laity don't come up for election until 2015. No substantial changes in that body until those elections, not without a lot of broken eggs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Let's try and interpret the whole motion. Consider the statement: 'to make such provision, including appropriate Episcopal ministry...' Now, as far as I'm aware, Provinces don't need 'Episcopal ministry' to be provided, but people do. Therefore the 'those' must be people, not provinces. QED

---

quote:

---

The word 'continuing' is, to be fair, ambiguous. The test for what was meant is surely offered by the attitude to opponents of OOW that was shown over the next few years; rather than say 'OK - no opponents are to be ordained so that your group will die off', instead the 'escape clause' for those who weren't able to accept the shift was put in place, but with an explicit statement that you don't need to use this escape clause because your long term future is ensured. And this lack of clarity has persisted in the present proposal; IF it had been presented honestly as a statement 'OK - we done the discernment thing, decided that OoW is now the only acceptable belief for a member of the CofE, and now it's our way or get lost', then that makes for a coherent place.

---

quote:

---

BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT HAS BEEN BEING ARGUED FOR, and if you think that would have got through Synod, your sense of the CofE is very distorted.

---

quote:

---

Let's be clear who the biggest victims in this scenario are: it's the clergy ordained post 1992 who took seriously the belief that the CofE wasn't going to go monochrome on this issue.

---

quote:

---

You're telling them that they've been deceived. It's their lives that are being screwed with. It's an open question as to who is responsible for the deception - but to pass the buck to FiF won't do, because 'the rest of the church has bent over backwards to accommodate the sexists'...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
As for your self-deluding clergy, let me point back to the fact that no new bishops thinking as they did would be appointed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
If that's not a signal that the CofE is going to go to all bishops accepting female priests - because no new ones who don't can be created, I don't know what is. So your clergy need to literally have ignored the actual 1992 provision while thinking they had a vocation.

---

quote:

---

There will be no discrimination against candidates either for ordination or for appointment to senior office in the Church of England on the grounds of their views about the ordination of women to the priesthood.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
If you are praying for a bishop in the canon, you are using the Roman rite - which opens another can of worms.

---

Probably but not necessarily: there's the one that has square brackets and suggests prayers for the Church with an ellipse (Prayer G in CW?)

Thurible

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
If that's not a signal that the CofE is going to go to all bishops accepting female priests - because no new ones who don't can be created, I don't know what is. So your clergy need to literally have ignored the actual 1992 provision while thinking they had a vocation.

---

Que?

I suppose you have specified 1992 but the 1993 Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod (which, of course, came in before any women were admitted to the priesthood) was quite clear that:

quote:

---

There will be no discrimination against candidates either for ordination or for appointment to senior office in the Church of England on the grounds of their views about the ordination of women to the priesthood.

---

In what way does that exclude the possibility of those who cannot accept the ordination of women becoming bishops?

Thurible

---

quote:

---

Except as provided by the Measure and this Act no person or body shall discriminate against candidates either for ordination or for appointment to senior office in the Church of England on the grounds of their view or positions about the ordination of women to the priesthood.

---

quote:

---

the Measure” means the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 1993;

---

quote:

---

(1)A bishop of a diocese in office at the relevant date may make any one or more of the following declarations—
(a)that a woman is not to be ordained within the diocese to the office of priest; or
(b)that a woman is not to be instituted or licensed to the office of incumbent or priest-in-charge of a benefice, or of team vicar for a benefice, within the diocese; or
(c)that a woman is not to be given a licence or permission to officiate as a priest within the diocese.
...
(8)In this section “relevant date” means the date on which the Canon enabling a woman to be ordained to the office of priest is promulged.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:

---

Except as provided by the Measure and this Act no person or body shall discriminate against candidates either for ordination or for appointment to senior office in the Church of England on the grounds of their view or positions about the ordination of women to the priesthood.

---

A very different matter as I think you will agree.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:

---

Except as provided by the Measure and this Act no person or body shall discriminate against candidates either for ordination or for appointment to senior office in the Church of England on the grounds of their view or positions about the ordination of women to the priesthood.

---

A very different matter as I think you will agree.

---

I don't know about Thurible, but I can't see why it's so very different. It means exactly the same thing, except with the usual and staring-you-in-the-face-obvious legal preamble: no one can be discrimintaed against for selection for orders merely because of their opposition to the ordination of women. Where do the provisons of the Act limit or change that prohibition on discrimination?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
I really don't want to see the church I love and am sometimes exasperated by, being bullied by the state. Who is this Eleanor Laing anyway? She appears to be Scottish Conservative who can't find a constituency in her own country where she's likely to get in. That also raises the 1920s arguments again.

I also don't see why we should listen to the opinions of atheists. It's none of my business how the BHA chooses its leaders or conducts its meetings. I wouldn't expect them to regard my views as relevant to how they conduct their affairs. Why should unbelievers think they have any title to comment on how we do things?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
Essentially, because the CofE is an established church. To the point that unelected bishops that those same unbelievers had little say in choosing and know next to nothing about, have a say in changing the laws we all live under - including the unbelievers.

You want them to butt out, then you need to choose to disestablish.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
Possibly, but if you put your officials in a position where they have power over unbelievers - then you can't reasonably object if those unbelievers express their views on how you choose those officials.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:

What I am wondering is how this has worked out in practice. I believe (but may be very wrong) that Eric Kemp, Bishop of Chichester 1974-2001, made full use of these provisions with the result that no female priests practised priestly ministry in that diocese. John Hind, Bishop of Chichester 2001-2012, did not and could not make use of these provisions and so female priests are licensed in the diocese of Chichester (although John Hind did not personally ordain women).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
the history of England sees the calling of parliament in the middle ages, and major leaders of the church - which was an semi-independent institution - were called to it, mainly because they were major landholders. These were bishops were appointed by the Pope and kings alternatively, and abbots. Following the Reformation, the abbots disappear, and the bishops become totally appointed by the king. This, of course, in the context of a congruence of church and state that is totally alien to our experience.

In the 450 years since things have changed substantially,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:

What I am wondering is how this has worked out in practice. I believe (but may be very wrong) that Eric Kemp, Bishop of Chichester 1974-2001, made full use of these provisions with the result that no female priests practised priestly ministry in that diocese. John Hind, Bishop of Chichester 2001-2012, did not and could not make use of these provisions and so female priests are licensed in the diocese of Chichester (although John Hind did not personally ordain women).

---

I believe that his successor, who himself will not ordain women, has promised that the next suffragan to be appointed (presumably replacing +Benn) will do so. At least one cheer for this progress in that intractable diocese.

---

quote:

---

I'm in a slightly unusual position on this. I have a sneaking suspicion God is a lot less bothered about whether women can or should be bishops than we are. I do though suspect he's fed up with the time and energy we've wasted on this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by roybart:
However, the content and tone of many of the posts defending the "traditionalist" side of the dispute have, frankly, turned me off and made me rethink.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by roybart:
However, the content and tone of many of the posts defending the "traditionalist" side of the dispute have, frankly, turned me off and made me rethink.

---

I realise that neither lot intended this. Yet, back in the days of the original debate twenty years ago, I used to comment that I'd only got to listen to one of the enthusiastic advocates for either side, to be immediately temporarily converted to the opposite point of view.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
I realise that neither lot intended this. Yet, back in the days of the original debate twenty years ago, I used to comment that I'd only got to listen to one of the enthusiastic advocates for either side, to be immediately temporarily converted to the opposite point of view.

---

This! On most things on the ship. I read a thread and find myself agreeing with someone, then the very next post will refute it in a blindingly clever way and I'm on that side now! Best to keep quiet, read everything and then come to a conclusion.

But when you said "neither lot intended this" I (mis-)interpreted it at first as regarding the actual synod vote! Which has got me thinking... do you think there is any possibility that some of the "No" voters voted that way because they assumed the "Yes" vote would win overwhelmingly? That some of them didn't realise it would have been that close, and if they had they would have voted "Yes"?

I can see a case where someone who wanted women to become Bishops might have thought they were going to get their way, but for some obscure political cover, wanted to be able to say they voted "No", not realising that they were condeming the "Yes" vote to lose.

I'm not condoning that stance, but has anyone who is closer to the synod heard this may well have been part of the cause?
 

---

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
Links to how your representatives in the synod voted are now available.

[ 26. November 2012, 21:04: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
 

---

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
Whereas, this is what the diocesan synods said when they were asked a few years ago.
 

---

Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :
 
Thanks, DT. My diocesan synod HofL voted 37-23 in favour. Notwithstanding this result, and the diocesan vote across all three houses being Carried, the lay reps to GS voted 6-1 against.

I'd love to hear them explain why.
 

---

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
So if your reps had reflected the view of your diocese proportionally - the measure would have passed ?

Should we just blame you then ...
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:

What I am wondering is how this has worked out in practice. I believe (but may be very wrong) that Eric Kemp, Bishop of Chichester 1974-2001, made full use of these provisions with the result that no female priests practised priestly ministry in that diocese. John Hind, Bishop of Chichester 2001-2012, did not and could not make use of these provisions and so female priests are licensed in the diocese of Chichester (although John Hind did not personally ordain women).

---

I believe that his successor, who himself will not ordain women, has promised that the next suffragan to be appointed (presumably replacing +Benn) will do so. At least one cheer for this progress in that intractable diocese.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:
I think they need the permission of the Primate, rather than just the diocesan.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:
I think they need the permission of the Primate, rather than just the diocesan.

---

It's my understanding they aren't allowed to do anything specific to being a bishop whilst in England. There is a general principle that all visiting bishops are only to operate at all in a diocese with the permission of the diocescan.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:
I think they need the permission of the Primate, rather than just the diocesan.

---

It's my understanding they aren't allowed to do anything specific to being a bishop whilst in England. There is a general principle that all visiting bishops are only to operate at all in a diocese with the permission of the diocescan.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:
I think they need the permission of the Primate, rather than just the diocesan.

---

It's my understanding they aren't allowed to do anything specific to being a bishop whilst in England. There is a general principle that all visiting bishops are only to operate at all in a diocese with the permission of the diocescan.

---

'aren't allowed' by what restriction?

Canon B43 of the Canons of the Church of England (which seem to deal more with what CofE clergy may do elsewhere, rather than what clergy from elsewhere may do in the CofE) states that a bishop may not do bishopy things in another diocese without the permission of the diocesan (and the permission of the archbishop of the province in the case of ordination or consecration). But I'm not aware of any particular legal restriction on female bishops from elsewhere being invited to, for example, preside at communion in England if the incumbent and diocesan wish it.

So I'm wondering if such legal restriction exists, or just an agreement among CofE bishops that such things will not, at present, be permitted.

---

I've attended a Eucharist presided over by a visiting, female TEC bishop in a significant CofE church of the catholic tradition. I am positive that this was with the joyful consent of the Diocesan and incumbent. Certainly she also preached in the cathedral of the same diocese in the same week at a large diocesan service (wearing her mitre during that service too.) No-one at that service was in any doubt that she was a bishop and a welcome guest of both the Diocesan and the diocese.

[ 27. November 2012, 12:24: Message edited by: anne ]
 

---

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Wearing a mitre was more than +Katherine J-S was allowed to do at Southwark! But I presume the question was 'what if female bishops are invited to confirm or ordain?', seeing as they are the specifically episcopal sacramental functions. No diocese/parish that allows women priests to celebrate the eucharist could refuse a bishop in that role.
 

---

Posted by Shire Dweller (# 16631) on :
 
Thank you for the Stats Doublethink

When I noticed that the Diocese of Lichfield's laity General Synod vote was not reflective of the Diocesan Synod vote, I thought 'well that's not representative of the parishes'...

Diocese of Lichfield – Laity Vote

Diocesan Synod: 71% in favour (46 of 64 votes*)
General Synod: 57% in favour (4 of 7 votes)

But then I saw the Diocese of Winchester's voting figures and was very surprised at how unrepresentative they were in the General Synod.

Diocese of Winchester – Laity Vote

Diocesan Synod: 61% in favour (37 of 60 votes*)
General Synod: 14% in favour (1 of 7 votes)

*Have not counted abstentions

Whilst of course you can criticise this pop-analysis by saying that the percentages between the Diocesan and General synods are never going to match, I think this is evidence that those who get themselves onto General Synod are not very representative (or perhaps are too 'party aligned' to care about “representing” the views in their Diocese)

I'd say that at least one more vote should have come from Lichfield and at the very least two more from Winchester. If I was in Winchester I'd feel like writing to the Bishop about it!
 

---

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
Wearing a mitre was more than +Katherine J-S was allowed to do at Southwark! But I presume the question was 'what if female bishops are invited to confirm or ordain?', seeing as they are the specifically episcopal sacramental functions. No diocese/parish that allows women priests to celebrate the eucharist could refuse a bishop in that role.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shire Dweller:
[...] I saw the Diocese of Winchester's voting figures and was very surprised at how unrepresentative they were in the General Synod.

Diocese of Winchester – Laity Vote

Diocesan Synod: 61% in favour (37 of 60 votes*)
General Synod: 14% in favour (1 of 7 votes)

[...]

If I was in Winchester I'd feel like writing to the Bishop about it!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
I think the most interesting thing about the voting figures is that the laity followed the same voting patterns regardless of sex, and there's no statistically significant difference between them and the male clergy. The female clergy were massively in favour (as you'd expect), but the rest of the clergy and laity were all pretty much identical in how they voted.

As for what that means, draw your own conclusions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
This idea doesn't explain the overwhelming vote in the house of bishops though, unless it's that almost all bishops have ordained women, and so most bishops also believe in the validity of women's priesthood, and thus see no bar to women being bishops.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
This idea doesn't explain the overwhelming vote in the house of bishops though, unless it's that almost all bishops have ordained women, and so most bishops also believe in the validity of women's priesthood, and thus see no bar to women being bishops.

---

I suspect there is a fair bit of truth in this - the idea of a bishop admitting to the idea that the idea that they might have attempted to ordain somebody and that it didn't 'take' would be a bizarre one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:

I think I read it on a twitter link, rather than on the Ship, the interesting piece of info that it is the female Archdeacon of Canterbury (Ven. Sheila Watson) who installs Bishops on behalf of the ABC. So she will be installing any who voted against as well as for the measure. I should think that would, at the very least, give them food for thought (and turn all notions of 'authority' on their head)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
No - the explanation is far more simple; it's largely the case that only bishops who are willing to ordain women have been appointed since 1992. So we now have almost all bishops on one side. And it's a bad career move to reject doing so...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
No - the explanation is far more simple; it's largely the case that only bishops who are willing to ordain women have been appointed since 1992. So we now have almost all bishops on one side. And it's a bad career move to reject doing so...

---

More to the point only bishops willing to be responsible for female priests have been ordained since 1992 with the exceptions of the three 'Flying Bishops'. And with 40% of active clergy being female, it is impossible to do the job of a bishop effectively while believing over a third of the priests you are responsible for are invalid.

---

True. There are still people who believe that women can be priests but not bishops, but they're a fairly small minority. By the way, does anyone know how Richard Chartres is? It was rotten luck for him to be ill on the day of such an important vote.

It's highly likely that the various discrepancies can be explained by selection bias, with female clergy obviously selected from a pool of people who have no problem with women in the church. But given that we have female clergy, and they aren't going to go away, why are the antis still in the church if they object so much? And if women as priests isn't enough reason to leave, why reject such an obvious and natural consequence of their existence, if not to continue the fight over ordination by other means?

I'm struggling to see any explanation of these results that can portray everyone's actions as genuinely honorable.
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
No - the explanation is far more simple; it's largely the case that only bishops who are willing to ordain women have been appointed since 1992. So we now have almost all bishops on one side. And it's a bad career move to reject doing so...

---

More to the point only bishops willing to be responsible for female priests have been ordained since 1992 with the exceptions of the three 'Flying Bishops'. And with 40% of active clergy being female, it is impossible to do the job of a bishop effectively while believing over a third of the priests you are responsible for are invalid.

---

quote:

---

It's highly likely that the various discrepancies can be explained by selection bias, with female clergy obviously selected from a pool of people who have no problem with women in the church. But given that we have female clergy, and they aren't going to go away, why are the antis still in the church if they object so much?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
The Great Gumby asked

quote:

---

It's highly likely that the various discrepancies can be explained by selection bias, with female clergy obviously selected from a pool of people who have no problem with women in the church. But given that we have female clergy, and they aren't going to go away, why are the antis still in the church if they object so much?

---

You'll have to ask them directly as it's not my POV. But I would point out that the most obvious answer is that they see themselves as members of the Church of England - a church that was founded on the principal of encompassing all whatever their own conflicting views may be individually. The desire that a segment should clear off out of it or be forced into conformity comes only from the puritan sector of the pro-OOWP side. Puritanism isn't a vague insult - it has an exact meaning, and purifying the church to agree with me is that definition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Earwig:
With regards to what happens next - there's a statement from the meeting of Archbishop's Council.

Council wants the House of Bishops to look at the legislation and come back with a plan in 2013, and bring this to Synod again in July 2013.

So, are sort of where we were back in July 2012, plus a crushing disappointment?

---

quote:

---

As part of their reflections, many council members commented on the deep degree of sadness and shock that they had felt as a result of the vote

---

quote:

---

The Council therefore recommended that the House of Bishops, during its meeting in a fortnight's time, put in place a clear process for discussions in the New Year with a view to bringing legislative proposals before the Synod in July.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

If the idea is to create another delay of three to four years, I think that things will begin to get very nasty indeed. I just hope the good bishops (and the bad ones!) really appreciate that and show some degree of urgency.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Basically - what Oscar the Grouch said (with a few additional thoughts).

Does it seem feasible that some solution could be found that would pass General Synod next July? Given the current state of play and the composition of Synod is it likely that any agreement can be reached?

Presumably the House of Bishops would want to be reasonably confident of the legislation getting passed. Having the legislation rejected again would surely be worse than not bringing forward legislation in the fist place - or is the pressure to 'do something' too great?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:

If this motion is put and synod again rejects, then the word is that a Private Member's Bill will be moved to strip the CofE of various rights and privileges to bring it into line with other denominations. The Queen would remain Governor but that would be the only remnant of establishment.

Of course, you may think this a good idea ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
I really can't for the life of me see what the objection is to a continuation of the current system of 'flying bishops'. It would satisfy the desire of the conservatives for a statutary system (while not pandering to particular party theologies), and would require the minimum of change to current arrangements. The only objections seems to come from the most extreme radical feminist elements, who start complaining about any mention of gender where bishops are concerned.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
The only objections seems to come from the most extreme radical feminist elements, who start complaining about any mention of gender where bishops are concerned.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
The only objections seems to come from the most extreme radical feminist elements, who start complaining about any mention of gender where bishops are concerned.

---

I don't see this as extreme at all. Gender shouldn't come into it, any more than race does.

---

quote:

---

This was never a vote against women bishops, as even the most diehard opponents of OoW, know that women are already 40% of the C of E priesthood, and women bishops are coming soon. It was a vote against inadequate provision for dissenters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
This is beginning to look more like an Irish referendum every day! Ask a question, and when you don't get the answer you want, ask it again, accompanied by threats of cataclysmic doom, in the hope of scaring people into changing their opinion. Or bend and change the rules to ensure that you get the answer you want!
...This was never a vote against women bishops, as even the most diehard opponents of OoW, know that women are already 40% of the C of E priesthood, and women bishops are coming soon. It was a vote against inadequate provision for dissenters. But now they are coming up with a solution. Eliminate the dissenters. Give them nothing and then they have two choices. Live against your conscience, or foxtrot oscar! Equality is the new fascism. All people are equal, but some are more equal than others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
I really can't for the life of me see what the objection is to a continuation of the current system of 'flying bishops'. It would satisfy the desire of the conservatives for a statutary system (while not pandering to particular party theologies), and would require the minimum of change to current arrangements. The only objections seems to come from the most extreme radical feminist elements, who start complaining about any mention of gender where bishops are concerned.

---

quote:

---

Is some sort of secession from the national church -- analogous to this month's decision by the Diocese of South Carolina to "disassociate" itself from the national Episcopal Church -- within the realm of possibility?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

As for gender, FiF do not merely want a male bishop or priest, they want one who is in the apostolic succession, ordained/consecrated by a male.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Armin:
In order to be a member you need the time to attend meetings, and the money to travel all over the country to get to them. As a result it has to be almost entirely made up of retired middle class people, and is deeply reactionary on most issues.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

As for gender, FiF do not merely want a male bishop or priest, they want one who is in the apostolic succession, ordained/consecrated by a male.

---

This is the elephant in the room, that rarely gets mentioned even in Dead Horses. FinF talk about the need for 'assurance' of sacramental validity. They can't accept women priests or bishops because they believe they can't be part of the apostolic succession. <snip>

---

quote:

---

roybart asked

quote: Is some sort of secession from the national church -- analogous to this month's decision by the Diocese of South Carolina to "disassociate" itself from the national Episcopal Church -- within the realm of possibility?

I can't see how that would work in the CofE, given the entirely different establishment structure. Any of us can dissociate ourselves at any time, individually or as a group. But we leave the structure (church, diocese etc.) behind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by roybart:
Perhaps U.S. Americans, with our history of Rebellion and Civil War, are quicker to consider the option of "secession" than are contemporary Anglicans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by roybart:
Honest Ron Bacardi posted:

quote:

---

roybart asked

quote: Is some sort of secession from the national church -- analogous to this month's decision by the Diocese of South Carolina to "disassociate" itself from the national Episcopal Church -- within the realm of possibility?

I can't see how that would work in the CofE, given the entirely different establishment structure. Any of us can dissociate ourselves at any time, individually or as a group. But we leave the structure (church, diocese etc.) behind.

---

Thank you for your take on this question, Honest Ron.

I was intrigued by The Economist's new annual, The World in 2013, which predicted a rather dire year for the CofE establishment, ignored as it more or less is by conservative Bible-centered Christian parishes on one side, and by the mass of secular society on the other. The writer concludes: "These evangelical parishes will remain lively and wealthy. But they are the exception, not the rule. The typical Anglican parish will be older, smaller, shabbier and more female in 2013, with fewer services, less cash and an over-stretched ministry."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
AIUI you were once an Anglican and are now a Roman Catholic. In that case, you presumably now believe that Anglican orders are null and void. Why, then, are you so concerned about the supposed inadequacy of the provision that might be made within the CofE for those of your erstwhile co-religionists who object to women bishops? Surely, from your POV, it would be better if no provision were made for them, so that they might recognise the reality of their situation and the more readily see the desirability of submission to the one true Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (TM)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vulpior:
In the last sentence of your post, you say that the trad Anglo-Catholic types don't believe women can be part of the apostolic succession. I think that for some at least, it is more that they can't believe it without word from Rome (etc).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH* on the RCC and OoW:
I don't see it happening in my lifetime, but never say never!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
Peter Hitchens' view. That would be someone writing in the Daily Mail asking "Who are the bigots now?"

---

Yes, as is apparent in my link. So off you go from there, on a spree mainly of ad hominem attack that evades his principal point, which I summarized.

---

quote:

---

Was there or was there not an earlier proposal to ordain women to the episcopacy, which the proponents of women's ordination rejected because it contained a measure that would allow its opponents to live in peace?

---

quote:

---

It's not hyperbolic at all. As for being the last acceptable bastion of homophobia in Britain, I think that would be the RCC. Homophobia in the C of E is definitely crumbling. I am gay and my opposition to homophobia is clear enough, but I'm not a one-issue guy. If your blindness to the good will and moral inflence of the church (including the RCC if it comes to that) and its members is altogether as complete as you imply, than I can't see that you have a legitimate dog in this fight.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
Where "Live in peace" means "Continue to be sexists." Why is protecting bigotry considered important?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
Where "Live in peace" means "Continue to be sexists." Why is protecting bigotry considered important?

---

THIS is my question too.

Those who want accommodations are asking for the right to continue in their exclusion of half the population - why do they need protecting?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Is it conceptually possible for the Magisterium to change its mind?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Is it conceptually possible for the Magisterium to change its mind?

---

Although Pope John Paul II effectively closed the matter of women's ordination in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, who knows what is conceptually possible when needs must?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
...The then Pope specifically chose to word the original document in such a way as to close the matter for good - which Catholic teaching holds that he can do. There is no loophole for a retraction...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

If the idea is to create another delay of three to four years, I think that things will begin to get very nasty indeed. I just hope the good bishops (and the bad ones!) really appreciate that and show some degree of urgency.

---

In what ways do you think it would get very nasty indeed? What can people do?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Is it conceptually possible for the Magisterium to change its mind?

---

Although Pope John Paul II effectively closed the matter of women's ordination in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, who knows what is conceptually possible when needs must?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Holy Smoke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
...The then Pope specifically chose to word the original document in such a way as to close the matter for good - which Catholic teaching holds that he can do. There is no loophole for a retraction...

---

Isn't there something called the Ultramontane Heresy, whereby the Pope attempts to assume more power and authority than is rightfully his?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
I think it has been used to refer to Pious IX's promotion of the idea of Papal Infallibility. If he can be shown to have been in error, then the whole argument re JPII closing discussion is surely moot.

---

quote:

---

"in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Rather more interesting I would have thought is the status of a letter written by "Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" at a time when he was not Pope. Would I be right in thinking that though of considerable authority, that means it is only persuasively Magisterial and not technically Infallible?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
Vatican 2 has been, and is being re-written at an indecent rate of notts, along with the history that goes with it.

---

quote:

---

And now the liturgy changed back again to match !

---

quote:

---

At the Council, Ratzinger and Wojtyła did all they could at their then rank, discretely to argue against, and undermine the work and enthusiams of the Council.

---

quote:

---

But they were (comparatively) biding their time - awaiting their chance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Holy Smoke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
...The then Pope specifically chose to word the original document in such a way as to close the matter for good - which Catholic teaching holds that he can do. There is no loophole for a retraction...

---

Isn't there something called the Ultramontane Heresy, whereby the Pope attempts to assume more power and authority than is rightfully his? I think it has been used to refer to Pious IX's promotion of the idea of Papal Infallibility. If he can be shown to have been in error, then the whole argument re JPII closing discussion is surely moot.

---

You think the definition of papal infallibility by Pius IX was Ultramontanist!?
 

---

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Is it conceptually possible for the Magisterium to change its mind?

---

Although Pope John Paul II effectively closed the matter of women's ordination in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, who knows what is conceptually possible when needs must?

---

Of course it can ! And likely will - given time.

Vatican 2 has been, and is being re-written at an indecent rate of notts, along with the history that goes with it.

And now the liturgy changed back again to match !

At the Council, Ratzinger and Wojtyła did all they could at their then rank, discretely to argue against, and undermine the work and enthusiams of the Council.

But they were (comparatively) biding their time - awaiting their chance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
At the Council, Ratzinger and Wojtyła did all they could at their then rank, discretely to argue against, and undermine the work and enthusiasms of the Council.

But they were (comparatively) biding their time - awaiting their chance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
At the Council, Ratzinger and Wojtyła did all they could at their then rank, discretely to argue against, and undermine the work and enthusiasms of the Council.

But they were (comparatively) biding their time - awaiting their chance.

---

There's no need to allege some subtle and cunning plot, a wicked and sinister subterfuge. In the 1960s these were bright young clergy in early middle age. More recently they have been bright elderly clergy. In 1962, Fr Ratzinger was 35. He is now 85. That is sufficient explanation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Oh, for goodness' sake, ES. If someone is "accused" of being as bright at 85 as at 35, how is that ageist? It looks rather more like a compliment. The point Enoch was making was that long years of experience tend to take the edge off youthful optimistic naivite, as I'm sure you are aware.

---

quote:

---

Laura Sandys MP:
As we know, the Church has been skirting around the issue for many years. According to the timetable my hon. Friend has presented, when will the vote come back to Synod to be reconsidered?

Sir Tony Baldry MP:
I hope that, if we can crack on with fresh legislation being presented to the Synod in July, the matter can be eventually resolved by the finish of this Synod in 2015.

Anne McIntosh MP:
May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work he is doing? I hope that the message will go out from the House today to the Synod that we are waiting for its members to make legislation or else we stand prepared to introduce legislation of our own within that time frame.

Sir Tony Baldry MP:
The clear message from Parliament and the country as a whole to the Church was that this issue cannot be parked. It has to be resolved as speedily as possible and I know that the next Archbishop of Canterbury fully and wholly endorses that approach. I am sure he will make that very clear when he meets colleagues next Thursday.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eigon:
In the diocese of Hereford, there's a protest planned this Sunday - women attending church services are being asked to wear an apron, indicating that the church thinks they're only useful for making the tea!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eigon:
In the diocese of Hereford, there's a protest planned this Sunday - women attending church services are being asked to wear an apron, indicating that the church thinks they're only useful for making the tea!

---

Are they going to be wearing anything else, or just aprons???

Mow THAT would be a publicity stunt and a half!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bad man:

]Laura Sandys MP:
As we know, the Church has been skirting around the issue for many years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eigon:
This is rural Herefordshire - we're not terribly racy round here. I think it will be aprons over their coats!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
Why can't Synod meet over a weekend, probably somewhere like Birmingham ( I know) which is easily accessible from most parts of the country? Indeed, why does it have to 'meet' very much at all? Couldn't most of the discussion take place online?

---

It doesn't meet much. Usually only twice a year, sometimes three times. Of the two meetings, one is over a weekend. Next year there are nine days definitely scheduled, with an option for another three if needed.

That's not that much really. Plenty of people spend more time than that away on work or other trips. I once used to spend more than that many days a year on Labour party or trade union matters. If you are committed to something, nine days a yeaar isn't a huge amount.

It meets once in London, once in York, because its legally a sort of joint meeting of the Convocations of Canterbury and York, and those bodies met in those cities. So pretty much everyone in England is nearis to at least one of the two, other those in the far south-west. And dicoceses do pay expenses to Synod members as far as I know.

My feeling is that the problem with Synod isn't the time commitment, its that it is so detached from what most people int he pews notice or care about. They tend not to know who is standing or who represents what, so they impose no mandate on their representatives. A strongly opinionated vicar might, but the laity probably rarely do. And even then, when the reps get to vote for General Synod members they know little about them unless they openly stand on a party line. I suspecyt there are secret caucuses and whips around but unless you are in on it you won't know which is which.

Anyway, I can't talk. I've been a Deanery Synod member for years and now I'm on Dicocesan Synod, so I've sort of become one of the usual suspects.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anne:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eigon:
This is rural Herefordshire - we're not terribly racy round here. I think it will be aprons over their coats!

---

As a Herefordian born and bred, I cannot allow this slur to pass unchallenged. We can be plenty racy* - have you never been to Kington?

anne

*still might not take our aprons off, of course!

---

Ahem: Bishops Castle.

 

---

Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :
 
You're quite right, of course!!
(Lovely place, Bishop's Castle - and Kington).
 

---

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eigon:
(Lovely place, Bishop's Castle - and Kington).

---

quote:

---

(ii) a clear embodiment of the principle articulated by the 1998 Lambeth Conference "that those who dissent from as well as those who assent to, the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate are both loyal Anglicans",

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
How do you give an honoured place to sexism? We didn't create an honoured place for slave owners.

Carys

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
One aspect of this that hasn't had much attention so far is the implications for the election of a new GS in 2015.

I think the Powers That Be will want to get this matter resolved before then.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
How do you give an honoured place to sexism? We didn't create an honoured place for slave owners.

Carys

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

The provision mooted in the past by the pro-women bishops' camp was sexist because it was based on gender rather than apostolic succession 'pedigree'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fifi:
Accusations of 'sexism' would seem to fly in the face of the well-attested fact that the overwhelming majority of those unable in conscience to receive this innovation are women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fifi:
Accusations of 'sexism' would seem to fly in the face of the well-attested fact that the overwhelming majority of those unable in conscience to receive this innovation are women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
just a bit of blue sky thinking: I know that the Canon Law of the CofE is part of the law of the land, but it's been stated upthread (or on a similar one, by I think Carys) that there is no explicit bar in CofE Canon Law to the consecration of women Bishops.

If this is correct, what- apart from pissing some people off and pleasing a lot of others- would happen if the Archbishops and some of the other senior bishops just said 'sod Synod' (or more accurately 'sod the minority of the House of Laity') and consecrated some women as Bishops- not a diocesan or even a suffragan, so no worries about going through the Crown appointments process, just non-stipendiary Assistant Bishops in some dioceses?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

The provision mooted in the past by the pro-women bishops' camp was sexist because it was based on gender rather than apostolic succession 'pedigree'

---

Can you unpack that for us, leo?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

The provision mooted in the past by the pro-women bishops' camp was sexist because it was based on gender rather than apostolic succession 'pedigree'

---

Can you unpack that for us, leo?

---

I am fairly sure that you now what i meant - but others clearly don't.

The code of practice merely offered a MALE priest. He may have been ordained by either a male or a female bishop.

The code was, thus, assuming that it was the 'male' that mattered, regardless of who ordained him.

'Pedigree' is a convenient, though probably insulting, shorthand term for describing what the so-called traditionalists are concerned about - tracing her lineal descent of who ordained whom - Peter, Linus, Cletus, Lawrence..... Fred, Paul, Mike... It sees apostolic succession as being passed on, like a baton in a relay race, through tactile laying-on-of-hands. Break the chain, so to speak, and any sacramental act performed by a 'priest' isn't valid. Bread and wine remain bread and wine, sins aren't absolved etc.

Of course, most of us know, or think we know, that the term 'apostolic succession' has not always been understood as tactile. There have been broken links. The succession has been seen as faithfulness to apostolic teaching etc. However, the bigger Western church and the Eastern Orthodox both regard tactile succession as important/essential. So if we have bishops whose orders are in doubt, we distance ourselves even further ecumenically.

The argument starts top break down when one points out that Rome regards our orders are invalid anyway.

It breaks down even further when one tells a 'traditionalist' that 'valid' is not an Anglican concept. We have the notion of 'authorised. instead.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
How do you give an honoured place to sexism? We didn't create an honoured place for slave owners.

Carys

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
How do you give an honoured place to sexism? We didn't create an honoured place for slave owners.

Carys

---

OK - so you are prepared to break off all relations with the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches? That's the implication of your logic. You cannot have a principle applied within your own church that excludes faithful members of the body of Christ from your communion, but continue to pretend that all's well with Rome and Constantinople. So unless you're prepared to kick the Roman Catholics in your 'Churches Together' organisation out the door, you're being a hypocrite.

---

quote:

---

If this approach quoted above, but not held by the writer him / her self, I believe, is not taint then what ? Pompous ? Patronising ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
OK - so you are prepared to break off all relations with the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches? That's the implication of your logic. You cannot have a principle applied within your own church that excludes faithful members of the body of Christ from your communion, but continue to pretend that all's well with Rome and Constantinople.

---

quote:

---

So unless you're prepared to kick the Roman Catholics in your 'Churches Together' organisation out the door, you're being a hypocrite.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
It is almost unreadably badly written. But yes, it looks like what I mean by the theory of taint. Maybe its deliberatly written in such a complex and over-florid style to make it deniable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
We've been through this over and over again on this forum. About three times in this thread probably. Someone says "thory of taint" someone else comes up and says "no they don't think that at all, its like this..." and goes on to describe exactly that, in all but name.

---

quote:

---

When FiF - of which I was once a Council-attending member - refrain from concelebration with priests who have acted as alternates for or have concelebrated with women priests, etc. they are not doing so because they think such priests' orders are thereby nullified by "taint". If they believed that, they would not accept the orders of the PEVs - who have themselves been consecrated by bishops who have ordained and concelebrated with women. Why that isn't more obvious to people I just don't know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sebby:

but to suggest as you do, that to oppose it is 'sexism', is precisely the response that does the cause for women's ordination such harm. It is notable how many women themselves oppose women's ordination - amongst them most vociferously, consistently and vigorously, my mother.

The only valid objection can be theological or ecclesiological. I would do my opponents the courtesy of assuming charitably, that their objections were such.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:
...getting the business finished in GS before 2015 could be tricky, even with general cooperation and a following wind.

---

quote:

---

It would, therefore, be possible for legislation introduced in 2013 to complete all its stages in the lifetime of this Synod, which ends in July 2015.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
What happens is that someone - not infrequently yourself - suggests that FiFers do not consider the orders of bishops and priests who ordain or concelebrate with women to be valid, and I or someone else points out that this is provably false.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
One person arguing for greater provision for those unable to accept the ministiry of women as priests and bishops likened them to vegetarians invited to Christmas dinner and them being the one's who could say whether the proposed menu was suitable provision.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:
...getting the business finished in GS before 2015 could be tricky, even with general cooperation and a following wind.

---

It is interesting that the latest bulletin released by the C of E about this (which can be found here) says this:

quote:

---

It would, therefore, be possible for legislation introduced in 2013 to complete all its stages in the lifetime of this Synod, which ends in July 2015.

---

OK - there are plenty of caveats. But that seems to be the direction that the Bishops are taking. A bold move - but I think the right one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
What happens is that someone - not infrequently yourself - suggests that FiFers do not consider the orders of bishops and priests who ordain or concelebrate with women to be valid, and I or someone else points out that this is provably false.

---

I'm not going to try to answer for ken. But I just want to point out the fallacy in this statement.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
As to the RCs and Orthodox, yes I disagree with them on this issue and think that they are missing what God is doing now (in the way that the party of the circumcision was missing what God was doing then), but I disagree with them on various other points, and other Anglicans would on more. But they have their own authority systems and Churches Together is about working on them. So like Ken I don't get the charge of ypocrisy.

Carys

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
However, most of the people I have been arguing with on this are also impossibilists
Carys

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The PEVs themselves get their orders from bishops who also ordain women. They are (some of them, anyway) suffragans of the Archbishop of Canterbury. He ordains/has ordained most of them. He also ordains women. The PEVs are cornerstones of the whole FiF set-up. What would be the point of them if they were not really bishops because they were ordained/consecrated by bishops who ordain women too?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
What happens is that someone - not infrequently yourself - suggests that FiFers do not consider the orders of bishops and priests who ordain or concelebrate with women to be valid, and I or someone else points out that this is provably false.

---

I'm not going to try to answer for ken. But I just want to point out the fallacy in this statement.

---

If you think it's fallacious, you just haven't been following the relevant threads. I could give you a link to where folks have accused FiFers or rejecting the orders of such priets if you like. Alas, I can't provide you with any link to where they have backed down when disproven.

Also, I've given the argument that FiF use to justify their decision in general not to recieve communion from or to concelebrate with priests who concelebrate with/act as alternates to women priests. Whether you choose to believe it or not is up to you. But throwing a moral tantrum about its perniciousness is not identical to showing that it is reasonably contrued as "insulting, crass and offensive". If you choose to disregard their reasoning that's no skin off my nose. But it's always best to take your co-religionist opponents at their word to begin with, I always find.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I'm going to try this once more then I'm giving up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

Either you just don't understand the point, just don't want to concede it or are just jerking me around.

---

• ineffective,
• less effective, or
• of questionable effectiveness

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carex:
Focusing specifically on the FiF position on male bishops who ordain women priests to simplify matters, it seems that there are several different ways to see it.

1) Because they ordain women priests, their orders are somehow tarnished, and they can't do bishopy things properly.

2) That they are "valid" bishops, but because they ordain women priests their ability to "bishop" to FiF is somehow:

• ineffective,
• less effective, or
• of questionable effectiveness

3) That their bishopness would still be effective, but FiF don't want to have anything to do with them because they ordain women priests.

[...]

#1 appears to be the definition of "taint" that Chesterbelloc that arguing against.

#2 appears to be what Ken and others mean when they use the phrase "taint".

---

quote:

---

If they refuse to celebrate with them or take communion alongside them then they really don't recognise them as genuine ordained ministers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
@Albertus-- the circles in which I have had heard this discussed hold a very different opinion entirely from i) or ii) as he describes...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Of Anglican anti-OWP folk, I do not know personally of any who hold the impossibilist position, although I have heard of them, and I think that they are a fringe element on the fringe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

As far as Angloid's point about the lack of certainty of Anglican orders as being Catholic, those who hold that generally stop being Anglican and go elsewhere. The remainder of the objecting minority seems happy enough with compromise;

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Most FiF parishes are not resolution "C" parishes BTW - or at least they weren't a few years ago when I last enquired.

---

quote:

---

363 parishes had petitioned for extended episcopal oversight, 802 had passed resolution A (under which a woman may not preside at Holy Communion) and 966 resolution B (under which a woman may not be incumbent of the parish). Under the Act of Synod the three provincial episcopal visitors have a spokesman and advisory role in relation to all those unable to receive the ministry of women priests as well as a direct oversight role for many of the 363 parishes who have petitioned for extended Episcopal oversight. For some of the 363 parishes oversight is provided by diocesan or other suffragan bishops who do not ordain women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

As far as Angloid's point about the lack of certainty of Anglican orders as being Catholic, those who hold that generally stop being Anglican and go elsewhere. The remainder of the objecting minority seems happy enough with compromise;

---

I know this. But since (unless they are 'impossibilist") their argument is that women priests and bishops would not be recognised by the wider Church (i.e. Rome and the Orthodox) I can't understand their certainty that male Anglican priests are indeed priests, when they are not recognised by the 'wider Church' either. If they are happy with that compromise why quibble about bishops?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Of Anglican anti-OWP folk, I do not know personally of any who hold the impossibilist position, although I have heard of them, and I think that they are a fringe element on the fringe.

---

Given that traditional conservative Evangelicals are very thin on the ground within the Episcopal church, ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Of Anglican anti-OWP folk, I do not know personally of any who hold the impossibilist position, although I have heard of them, and I think that they are a fringe element on the fringe.

---

Given that traditional conservative Evangelicals are very thin on the ground within the Episcopal church, ...

---

Just for the sake of clarity, Agustine (and I, for that matter) are not part of the Episcopal Church, which has no jurisdiction in Canada. If you're going to react, please have your facts secure before doing so.

John

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
One of the reasons for seeking 'C' status is the fact that bishops have sent male proponents of OoW into 'A' and 'B' parishes - i.e. they've not really respected the parishes' choices. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
One of the reasons for seeking 'C' status is the fact that bishops have sent male proponents of OoW into 'A' and 'B' parishes - i.e. they've not really respected the parishes' choices. However that's not a theologically valid position, merely a sign that bishops can't be trusted...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anne:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
One of the reasons for seeking 'C' status is the fact that bishops have sent male proponents of OoW into 'A' and 'B' parishes - i.e. they've not really respected the parishes' choices. However that's not a theologically valid position, merely a sign that bishops can't be trusted...

---

OK, I hope that I have followed the argument so far, and I have found the discussion about different understandings of the words taint, validity and so on, genuinely enlightening. But I don't understand this 'reason for seeking C status.'

Are the parishes described above really saying that a male priest who is prepared to respect their views on this point, without agreeing with them, is unacceptable? Given that he doesn't break any of the commitments of the 'A' and 'B' resolutions, what is the objection?

Anne

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
One of the reasons for seeking 'C' status is the fact that bishops have sent male proponents of OoW into 'A' and 'B' parishes - i.e. they've not really respected the parishes' choices....

---

So how would having alternative oversight affect that, except by requiring any new incumbent to place himself under the jurisdiction of a PEV, which any priest who was not in sympathy with Resolution C would presumably be unwilling to do? I mean, I take it that Resolution C doesn't affect advowsons or anything like that?

---

I'm not sure, but I would imagine that if a 'C' parish has the bishop or the diocese as the patron, this responsibility would be transferred to the PEV. That would certainly make sense

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Anne - I think this is the point at which there are likely to be two divergent answers - one from the ConEvo side, one from the A/C.

I'm aware that some parishes (very few) are reported as having voted for "C" status because they think their ordinary is a flake and not to be trusted. But the main reason that the FiF side is making life so problematic right now is that the consecration of women as bishops immediately raises future issues of "sacramental assurance" to them, as I believe they express it. Or in other words, they can do many things to co-exist with women in neighbouring parishes or indeed conducting non-eucharistic services of their own. But having a woman ordaining priests (as well as acting as the ordinary) introduces a new set of problems for them that OoWP doesn't.

I don't agree with this for other reasons entirely, but I can understand the point they are making, from their perspective. And as this thread is on "what now?", the matter of sacramental assurance for them may well be where the answer to getting them to withdraw their opposition lies.

I haven't quite got my head around how the ConEvo constituency sees this point, or other potential barriers to them, so I would rather someone such as ES responded on that.

---

The Evangelicals spent the 19th century buying up patronages, and the first half of the 20th century being marginalised by bishops who couldn't actually force them out, but tended to ignore them. By the middle of the 20th century however much of the rest of the CofE was in rapid decline, whereas the Evangelicals were thriving. The result was that a very large proportion of ordinands were Evangelicals, far more than their proportion in the pews. Bishops were therefore forced accept their ministry in MotR parishes, and a few even made it to the bench. However the traditional Conservative Evangelical attitude to the CofE is that it's mostly a harmless irrelevance, providing a useful boat from which to fish, and parish churches in which to preach the gospel. In that context I suspect most with such an attitude will merely want to be left alone - including not having to appoint women as incumbents. I suspect some might go so far as to argue that 'canonical obedience' to a woman bishop is meaningless, since she shouldn't be in authority, so they will ignore bishops AS THEY HAVE FOR THE PAST 50 YEARS; this approach is of course entirely parallel to the attitude of the liberals to the creed which they interpret to mean what they want it to mean. As I've argued previously, historically the CofE was a loose confederation of parishes that largely ignored each others' idiosyncrasies. Unfortunately the central structures have been given life (as they NEVER had before - so it's not a case of 'reinvigoration') as more bishops have been appointed, more archdeacons made full time and more diocesan staff appointed, almost all of whom are not sympathetic to the conservative Evangelical tradition....
 

---

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
If you want a congregational rather than episcopal church, why not join a congregational rather than episcopal church ?
 

---

Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
If you want a congregational rather than episcopal church, why not join a congregational rather than episcopal church ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enders Shadow:
[because it provides] a useful boat from which to fish, and parish churches in which to preach the gospel.

---

 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
So bearing in mind the ConEvos in the CofE see it as mostly an irrelevance, why do they think they should block the will of the majority who a) don't, and b) want women bishops?
 

---

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Qoheleth.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
If you want a congregational rather than episcopal church, why not join a congregational rather than episcopal church ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enders Shadow:
[because it provides] a useful boat from which to fish, and parish churches in which to preach the gospel.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Qoheleth.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
If you want a congregational rather than episcopal church, why not join a congregational rather than episcopal church ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enders Shadow:
[because it provides] a useful boat from which to fish, and parish churches in which to preach the gospel.

---

---

Frankly, that sounds like a parasitic strategy - how do those following it, justify it ?

---

quote:

---

The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

---

quote:

---

It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching or ministering the sacraments in the congregation, before he be lawfully called and sent to execute the same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by men who have public authority given unto them in the congregation to call and send ministers into the Lord's vineyard.

---

Article 23

The absolute focus of a CE will therefore tend to be to the work of the church that they are able to undertake locally. If they are looking for a ministry reaching a wider community, they will demonstrate true ecumenism by seeking to work with whoever they can in the wider church. They could not be defined as parasites because the cost of what they received from the wider church - the ministry of bishops and the diocese - was paid for by the historic endowments of the church, in which they had as good a claim as any. And ultimately they would argue that their theology is probably as close to that of the Reformers as anyone else, so why should they be singled out for criticism for the areas in which they don't conform to the wider church.

As far as opposition to women bishops is concerned, it's a bit of an ask to expect them to vote for something for which they are against. But their aim is to find a system for ensuring that their position will not become unsustainable, and it is very legitimate for them to argue that voting for a 'code of practice' THAT HASN'T EVEN BEEN WRITTEN YET is absurd. I would expect that at least some of them might well vote in favour of the legislation if reasonable safeguards are in place.

It's not fair to describe their theology as 'congregational' - more accurately it might be to challenge them as setting each parish up as an independent diocese, given that the incumbent of a parish is almost as hard to replace as a bishop, whereas a congregational church is always free to sack its pastor. However given the scale of 'churches' which attract the designation of 'diocese' in the 2nd and 3rd century, they may well have the best of the argument that the size of 'diocese' they operate is wiser than the stupid sized ones that we've had in England since forever.

But the ultimate line of defence for the CE is to turn back the phrases of the liberals in calling for the CofE to be a broad church on to them; IF the CofE is to be a home for all types of Christians, then it is legitimate for CEs to expect to be offered a home there. To exclude them, but allow many whose engagement with traditional orthodoxy is passing at best to remain, is more than a smidge hypocritical.
 

---

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
I would have thought conservative evangelicals, by rejecting the real presence, pushing sola scriptura et al, not to metion the historic episcopate, are a fair distance from traditional orthodoxy themselves, seeing as how they explicitly reject Tradition as a source of authority.

[ 26. December 2012, 14:08: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
 

---

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I would have thought conservative evangelicals, by rejecting the real presence, pushing sola scriptura et al, not to metion the historic episcopate, are a fair distance from traditional orthodoxy themselves, seeing as how they explicitly reject Tradition as a source of authority.

---

quote:

---

Article XXVIII
Of the Lord's Supper
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves, one to another, but rather it is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith

The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

---

quote:

---

Of the Authority of the Church
The Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies and authority in controversies of faith; and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God's word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ: yet, as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of salvation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I would have thought conservative evangelicals, by rejecting the real presence, pushing sola scriptura et al, not to mention the historic episcopate, are a fair distance from traditional orthodoxy themselves, seeing as how they explicitly reject Tradition as a source of authority.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The articles are specifically English, not Anglican, and certainly don't define traditional orthodoxy.

---

Hmm - given that it's the CEs' assertion that the CofE was originally CE and has been subverted by enyryists since its foundation, you appear to be admitting that they have a far better claim to the deeds of the CoE than the rest of the CofE. So when you complain about their beliefs, you're admitting that you're in the wrong when you speak as a member of the CofE.

Wonderful what a bit of church history can do to one's perspective
 

---

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The articles are specifically English, not Anglican, and certainly don't define traditional orthodoxy.

---

Hmm - given that it's the CEs' assertion that the CofE was originally CE and has been subverted by enyryists since its foundation, you appear to be admitting that they have a far better claim to the deeds of the CoE than the rest of the CofE. So when you complain about their beliefs, you're admitting that you're in the wrong when you speak as a member of the CofE.

Wonderful what a bit of church history can do to one's perspective

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Caroline Divines - Liked by Trad-Caths but only actually read by the late T.S. Eliot and largely ignored in practice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Its had to say this in public - but Ender's Shadow is right about the history, and also about the ecclesiology of many Anglicans today, and not just conservative evangelicals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
However, he's only right about post-reformation Anglican history: as Arethosemyfeet points out, our history goes back much further.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
What distinctively Anglican features predate the split with Rome?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
However, he's only right about post-reformation Anglican history: as Arethosemyfeet points out, our history goes back much further.

---

What distinctively Anglican features predate the split with Rome?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
What distinctively Anglican features predate the split with Rome?

---

Suspicion of the Pope seems to have been one of them. Judging by Chaucer, not taking clerical pretensions as seriously as the clergy would wish, seems to be another. A deeply ingrained Pelagianism, so implicit that many in the CofE and CinW can't see why it's inadequate even when it's explained to them, goes back to the C5.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Only a third province will end this.

---

quote:

---

Subsequent to the ordination of women as bishops the Church of England's ecumenical agenda and that of the new province are unlikely to follow the same trajectory. The aim of the new province would be reconciliation with the great churches of East and West. The Church of England would, by then, finally and self-consciously have surrendered that objective.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ashworth on another thread:
I'm not in favour of the ordination of women and I am a member of FinF. However, I am not a hard line millitant member and I have not, as yet, considered joining the Ordinariate or moving over to Rome in any way. I want to to be able to remain in the CofE for as long as possible and would like to be able to worship in churches of my tradition that use an Anglican Rite.

---

quote:

---

Although I do still consider myself to be a catholic I know that the C of E is becoming more and more protestant

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nenuphar:
Ashworth, you have my sympathies (and prayers). Holy Mother Church called to me ever since I was 18, and I too stuck my head in the sand until I was 49. (I was a committed practising Anglican all this time.) It was the issue of authority which made me swim the Tiber: while not opposed to women priests per se, I felt that if the Holy Spirit wanted so great a change in His priesthood, He would tell the Roman and Orthodox churches as well. As you will know, they both believe maleness is an inherent part of the priesthood. I didn't (and still don't) think He would inspire just a relatively small part of the worldwide church alone. One Sunday morning, my husband got up and said, "Right, we're going to Sacred Heart." I spent much of that first Mass trying to cover up the tears which ran down my face (of joyful emotion, don't misunderstand me!). When finally we were received and were able to receive communion (and it was a painfull 11 months when we could only have a blessing) I - thinking I was the only one to say this - said, "I feel as though I have come home." I have since found out that over and over converts say this!

Arethosemyfeet, I would say one of the key differences between catholic/orthodox priests and protestants, is that the former have been given the power (and intend to) be the conduit by which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. As far as I know, Protestants neither claim to, nor want to, do this. If/when Anglicans lack a true priesthood, the bread and wine are not transubstantiated and communicants do not receive Our Lord: the service, while reverent and meaningful, will only literally be "in remembrance" of the Last Supper. The Greek word "remembrance" (can't do the Greek, sorry!) is a rare one which actually means "to make present again", in the same way as the Jews believe that at the Passover Seder they ARE present again as at the first Passover. "This IS the night...)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sebby:
The recent vote in the House of Laity has placed me in a predicament. I have always supported the OOW; indeed, I attended one of the very first celebrations in 1992. If women deacons and priests, then why not bishops? They are all part of Holy Order. Needless to say, the CofE didn't quite understand this, and started with deacons and worked upwards. That said, women bishops are entirely logical and inevitable.

However, the rhetoric, hysteria, mardy-baby like behaviour of supporters of women bishops following the vote in Synod appalled me. The complete twaddle spoken by John Prichard about involving the state made me wonder if this retired bishop had the beginnings of dementia.

All this, combined with the disgraceful no confidence debate on Dr Giddings (a man for whom I had little time before this), has made me determined to vote against the proposed legislation for the ordination of women as bishops on the grounds that the time is not yet right; greater maturity is needed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nenuphar:
Arethosemyfeet, I would say one of the key differences between catholic/orthodox priests and protestants, is that the former have been given the power (and intend to) be the conduit by which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. As far as I know, Protestants neither claim to, nor want to, do this. If/when Anglicans lack a true priesthood, the bread and wine are not transubstantiated and communicants do not receive Our Lord: the service, while reverent and meaningful, will only literally be "in remembrance" of the Last Supper. The Greek word "remembrance" (can't do the Greek, sorry!) is a rare one which actually means "to make present again", in the same way as the Jews believe that at the Passover Seder they ARE present again as at the first Passover. "This IS the night...)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

We could try and throw a few thousand volts through those deceased equines too, and see how far they run, but it wouldn't answer my question, which was about the idea that the CofE had become more protestant in recent years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sebby:
I can hardly be called 'sexist', nor is the 'uppity blacks' argument appropriate; indeed, to compare a vote about provision for those who do not share our views to the disgraceful offence of slavery and racism, is akin to those who frequently equate the views of others to whom they disagree to 'the Nazis' or 'Hitler'. Slavery and oppression of blacks involved the most appalling violence, abuse, torture and death. To use such an analogy in this issue is at best unreal, at worst disgusting and unmeasured.

Neither would it be a question of voting against one's conscience. More, one's conscience has been sharpened by the unChristian-like venom of people one assumed were liberal and on one's 'side' - if that word is even an appropriate one to use within the Christian church.

Similarly, if it was a question of 'Rights' then there is no argument anyway. It can only be an argument of theology, one which I happen to accept.

I have always considered myself a liberal. However, the unreasonableness of those who called for the 'No Confidence' vote, and the rhetoric of a couple of recent posts on here, stretches one's belief in liberality to..well, a little further than expected.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
Sexism and racism are both supremacist positions which use irrelevant accidents of birth...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
Sexism and racism are both supremacist positions which use irrelevant accidents of birth...

---

And there we have the totally secularist mindset displayed for all to see. It is not an ACCIDENT of birth, it's the choice of God what sex and 'ethnic group' you are. Of course if you assume that God doesn't have a hand in the matter, then we have a different theology - but not one that is recognisably Christian, even on the reductionist description of God as 'Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer'; deism is not generally acceptable as Christian...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
it's the choice of God what sex and 'ethnic group' you are

---

quote:

---

The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
God made them high and lowly,
And ordered their estate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
.....I do recall however, when women were first ordained in the Anglican Church of Canada some 25 years ago, and also when the thee and thou language was changed, and how divisive and argumentative it all was. It isn't anymore.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Ashworth - where do you see yourself liturgically/musically etc? If you had to identify yourself with a strand within the CoE, ignoring the OoW issue, where would you put yourself? Is OoW the make-or-break issue for you? If it is, I think your liturgical preferences are going to have to take a back seat (as they do for most people, really).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet
The question is really, 'is the sexism justified'. To which it seems that those who mourn the break with Rome would answer 'yes", and those who consider that Rome should change, not us, would answer 'no'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ashworth:

The church I have worshipped in for the past 10 years or so was Common Worship but has also recently moved over to the new Roman rite, but interestingly with a few Common Worship variations mainly through me insisting! We do actually use a wide variety of music and we are relaxed in our worship. The reason why I made my original points is that we are very small in numbers, are in a long interregnum with no signs of an end to it and also we have only passed Resolutions A and B and so are not FinF. I was thinking about what alternatives I have if my current church closes or is forced to change it's style of worship.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think "appalling" is a strong word to use of a bit of liturgical arsing about. It's really not a big issue in the scheme of things. The church worries too much about minutiae like this. Thinking that they're not minutiae is half the problem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ashworth:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Ashworth - where do you see yourself liturgically/musically etc? If you had to identify yourself with a strand within the CoE, ignoring the OoW issue, where would you put yourself? Is OoW the make-or-break issue for you? If it is, I think your liturgical preferences are going to have to take a back seat (as they do for most people, really).

---

My liturgical and my musical preferences have taken a back seat for the last 20 years!

Ignoring the OoW issue my preference would be for a church with full catholic ceremony and teaching, with everything being done decently and in order but within a relaxed and slightly informal setting. Having decided to try and remain within the CofE it would, if possible, be Common Worship with the few usual additions but not the full new Roman rite. Musically I would like a modern, lively setting of the Mass of the type enjoyed at such places as the Walsingham Youth Pilgrimage. I would like a mixture of traditional hymns and modern worship songs - with everything from plainsong through to Graham Kendrick and indeed much more modern.

There are a very few FinF churches that are like this but not in my diocese - I visited a church in the London Diocese last year that fitted this discription apart from it being on the new Roman rite. The FinF churches in the diocese where I live are mainly now new Roman rite and strictly New English Hymnal. Two of these churches are also eastward facing which is not what I would naturally choose.

The church I have worshipped in for the past 10 years or so was Common Worship but has also recently moved over to the new Roman rite, but interestingly with a few Common Worship variations mainly through me insisting! We do actually use a wide variety of music and we are relaxed in our worship. The reason why I made my original points is that we are very small in numbers, are in a long interregnum with no signs of an end to it and also we have only passed Resolutions A and B and so are not FinF. I was thinking about what alternatives I have if my current church closes or is forced to change it's style of worship.

---