Ship of Fools: Getting Touchy about Taint at Traditionalist Bishop's Consecration

Thread: Getting Touchy about Taint at Traditionalist Bishop's Consecration Board: Dead Horses / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=000627

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

So right after the first female bishop is consecrated in the C of E, there will be a consecration of a traditionalist SSC bishop to take care of parishes that don't want any bishops with any taint (ie, having laid hands on a female priest or bishop at ordination, or having been ordained (only as bishop, or even as priest or deacon???) by a bishop who had laid hands on a woman priest/bishop). So taint was removed when there were flying bishops (some flying bishops had hands laid on them by bishops with taint), but now taint is alive and well again.

But this is a big deal, because just about everyone will gotten on the laying hands on the female bishop train at her consecration, so that means that at the consecration of the traditionalist bishop to follow, neither the Provincial (++Sentamu) or even the Diocesan bishop will be invited to lay hands on. Wil this fly? How can a traditionalist Catholic bishop NOT have the diocesan bishop lay hands on him at his ordination as a suffragan to that ordinary? Don't suffragan bishops have to swear obedience to their diocesan bishop at their consecration or is the C of E different?

Here's the link. Gosh he's a young and handsome bishop-to-be. Those young hardcore Catholics (in the RCC too) often are. [Frown]

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/consecration.of.traditionalist.bishop.set.to.highlight.church.of.england.divisions/4634 9.htm

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Wow. That gives 'Noli Me Tangere' (do not touch me) a whole new meaning.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

So can such an untainted Bishop marry? Can he marry a woman priest or is this unlikely given the politics? Will said Bishop refrain from laying hands on future female Bishops?

I can't tell if this is a political fudge or representing a new religious rule. Any ideas?

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Can he shake hands with a woman bishop/priest if he wears gloves? And then throws them away? And then uses hand sanitizer?

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

As a clarification: the "laying on of hands" refers to putting your hands on the head of someone being ordained as part of the ordination rite and not to any other physical contact. The idea of "taint" is that if a bishop (only bishops can ordain deacons, priests, and other bishops, and traditionally three bishops act as consecrators of a new bishop) has laid hands on a woman in ordination, he must believe in women's ordination, and therefore have a flawed understanding of holy orders - and therefore cannot have valid intent when he ordains other, male priests and bishops - so his ordinations are not valid. (Also, if he was himself ordained by a female bishop, then he is not a real bishop because a woman cannot be a bishop or even a priest.)

I support women's ordination to all orders and this line of thinking does not make any sense to me for someone willing to be a bishop (!) in a church that they believe to be so infected with heresy that it is destroying its lines of apostolic succession by ordaining invalid bishops. Rather than stay in the C of E to try to keep some valid line of apostolic succession alive in it, it would seem much more sensible to just join the RCC or Orthodoxy at that point, if that is what you believe.

Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :

I've repeatedly tried and failed on this board to understand the logic here. I'm currently concluding there isn't any that stands up to the slightest scrutiny.

As I understand it, the logic for having lots of bishops present is that if (due to some administrative error) some aren't proper bishops, it doesn't matter. Therefore, I can see that (for any definition of 'proper bishop') someone might take the attitude that at least 3 proper bishops must be present at a consecration if the consecrated bishop is to be proper. What I don't understand is the idea that it would be problematic if non-proper bishops are also present.

I also don't understand how participating in a woman's ordination can affect the properness of a bishop. There seem to be 2 options here; Firstly the bishop who has ordained a woman is no longer considered a valid bishop. That seems inconceivable to a 'catholic' position as it implies that sacraments aren't permanent. (See threads on RC divorce). Alternatively, it could be that the bishop is considered a valid bishop but not one within the 'proper order' of 'the church'. This is essentially the roman catholic concept of licit-ness. The problems with this view is that from a Catholic (including RC) perspective, what really matters is validity and anglo-catholics tend to have a particular obsession with validity. Also, it's not quite clear what this 'church' whose 'proper order' isn't being followed actually is. It seems to be the Society of St Wilfred and Hilda. Which suggests that a schism is happening.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Yes, I think it's daft too. If sacraments are real but the ordination of women is not, then presumably all those present at the consecration of the first woman bishop are deluding themselves; but that doesn't mean they are no longer bishops, any more than running off with the organist would stop a priest from being a priest.

Does the Minster have to be decontaminated as well, or only the people taking part in the service?

I wish they'd just admit they have painted themselves into a corner...

Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :

This page appears to claim that only 2 bishops will ordain him. If so, that's very strange. I understood the minimum was 3.

Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
This page appears to claim that only 2 bishops will ordain him. If so, that's very strange. I understood the minimum was 3.

I think that is a misunderstanding of the ABY's statement, which IIRC said only two will assist - i.e. the principal consecrator plus two.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

From a traditional catholic perspective the validity of a sacrament requires valid form, matter, and intent. Take baptism for example. Anyone can baptize (even someone who themselves has not yet been baptized). All that is needed to baptize validly in terms of matter is enough water to make a few drops run down someone's head. As for form you need to be saying "(Name), I baptize you in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit/Ghost." But you also need valid intent - and if you've been running around baptizing people who deny Christ's divinity, baptizing non-human animals, or baptizing with beer, etc., it is possible that your beliefs about baptism differ from the Church's enough to make your intent defective so that even when you do a later baptism with valid form and matter, your intent makes the baptism invalid. I apologize for making such an offensive comparison (again, I support women's ordination!) but this is the thought process that a traditional catholic would have and I imagine this bishop-to-be thinks this way. I can't speak for a conservative evangelical's view on the matter.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

It's not about validity, it's about Communion. Nobody is saying that the sacraments of those who purport to ordain women are invalid, but they have impaired the communion which exists within the church by their innovation. To submit to their laying on of hands would therefore be a profound statement of communion where it does not (unreservedly) exist.

A lot of ill-intentioned people are vomitting up all the old taint notions - a theology I've only ever heard from the mouths of liberals - and it needs to stop.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and sounds like a duck, chances are it's a duck. Or, in this case, a theology of taint. Or "cooties" as it has been less charitably referred.

If communion is so drastically and permanently impaired, how can "traditionalists" even bear to swear canonical obedience to their Diocesan or Metropolitan? Surely if it's as bad as they claim they should be racing to the ordinariate or at least acknowledging their schism from the rest of the CofE and ceasing to draw a stipend from it.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

If this is how "Christian love" functions, it must be time to get rid of the whole concept of Christianity.

And I do believe that a certain person involved in the formation of the church had quite a lot to say about mindless rule-nit-pickers. If the various people involved in promulgating the concept of Christianity don't remember those strictures, then the less drastic solution would be to dump upper management and introduce a new set.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

And double-posting to reference the Urban Dictionary's definition of "taint"

NSFW, so all I will write here is that the word is a less-polite version of "perineum"

Thank you for getting me to look this up, but I now have the question: What does a perineum have to do with the ordination of bishops?

I had understood that they "Laid their hands on" the person's head. Is the new rite to involve the tipping-upside-down of the person (ruins all those fine clothes, doesn't it)?

And, in these enlightened times*, should ANY males be laying their hands of persons of the female persuasion?

* not, apparently, enlightened times in the C of E

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

This insanity won't last 10,000 years.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

You are right, we just need to be a bit more patient.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

And our bishops wonder why it is that general respect for the church is diminishing...

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

There are two points I want to make:

a) I don't think that this is what General Synod thought that they were getting when they voted it all through (including the five guiding principles). If an archbishop had said that one of the consequences of the vote would be this kind of nonsense, I suspect that many people would have voted the other way. Once again, there has been a degree of deception from the high ups in the C of E. (Let's not think for a moment that this is a decision made solely by Sentamu. I find it inconceivable that this wasn't agreed by both archbishops.)

b) Let there be no doubt that, as far as Sentamu is concerned, this is about setting a precedent. In other words; people, get used to it, because this is how things are gonna be now, every time a "traditionalist" is made a bishop. In his letter to the northern bishops, Sentamu says this:

quote:
" ...it is hoped that these arrangements will begin to shape good practice and custom."

Let's be blunt about this. It is unheard of and beyond comprehension that someone should be ordained bishop without the laying on of hands of either his metropolitan OR his diocesan bishop. It is an appalling decision and one that quite rightly is getting the mockery it deserves. Sadly, I suspect that Sentamu will get his way and that this will come to be regarded as the "test case" which sets a precedent that will not be changed.

Welcome to the institutionally schismatic C of E.

Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on :

Well Oscar tells it like it is.

I am intrigued about where he saw the letter though. The person who showed it to me was very reluctant to publicise it in full and in public.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
Well Oscar tells it like it is.

I am intrigued about where he saw the letter though. The person who showed it to me was very reluctant to publicise it in full and in public.

It was included as part of the Archbishop of York's
Statement

(Although I am slightly intrigued by Sentamu's comment: "This is a version of the notes giving details of the Consecration which I sent to the northern Bishops in December". Which implies that he has redacted the notes. The cynical part of me wonders what exactly was removed. [Paranoid]

)

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Can he shake hands with a woman bishop/priest if he wears gloves? And then throws them away? And then uses hand sanitizer?

stonespring:

quote:
As a clarification: the "laying on of hands" refers to putting your hands on the head of someone being ordained as part of the ordination rite and not to any other physical contact.

Er, yeah, I think I got that. I just couldn't resist playing. [Two face]

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Wondering why the anti-OoW people want to continue as part of a church that visibly throws away the rulebook when said A-OoWs make any demands.

Or why these flying bishops want to be ordained in a less-than-acceptable way.

Or why any of these hold-outs want to be in this church at all.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

A couple of questions that someone might like to answer:

1. When was the decision made to adopt this practice?
It was clearly made BEFORE Sentamu sent out his letter to the northern bishops in December. But when exactly? In other words, how long has this been in the pipeline?

2. Who were involved in making this decision?
I am assuming it is a given that both archbishops were involved. Who else was consulted? Clearly not WATCH, it would seem. Were there discussions with FiF? If so, is it not strange that one side of the "debate" are consulted about something in confidence?

And if FiF were NOT involved, why on earth was this decision made in the first place? After all, we know that there was no problem experienced when Sentamu ordained Glyn Webster and Martin Warner - as he himself is eager to point out. So what makes things so different now?

3. Which nincompoop thought that they could do this WITHOUT a row ensuing?
The fact that the original letter to the bishops seems to have been regarded as rather confidential suggests that they knew they were dealing with dynamite. Rather than all this cloak and dagger stuff, would it not have been more honest to say upfront what was going to happen?

It is protested strongly that this is NOT a "theology of taint". But - if there WERE a "theology of taint", isn't this exactly how it would look?

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Wondering why the anti-OoW people want to continue as part of a church that visibly throws away the rulebook when said A-OoWs make any demands.

But it isn't throwing away the rule book. To keep with your analogy, it is objecting when you discover that the rule book has "hidden rules" that have been drawn up in secret.

Is it "throwing away the rule book" to insist that ALL bishops in the C of E should be ordained in the same manner?

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

"Girls' germs, no returns!"

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
A couple of questions that someone might like to answer:

1. When was the decision made to adopt this practice?
It was clearly made BEFORE Sentamu sent out his letter to the northern bishops in December. But when exactly? In other words, how long has this been in the pipeline?

2. Who were involved in making this decision?
I am assuming it is a given that both archbishops were involved. Who else was consulted? Clearly not WATCH, it would seem. Were there discussions with FiF? If so, is it not strange that one side of the "debate" are consulted about something in confidence?

And if FiF were NOT involved, why on earth was this decision made in the first place? After all, we know that there was no problem experienced when Sentamu ordained Glyn Webster and Martin Warner - as he himself is eager to point out. So what makes things so different now?

3. Which nincompoop thought that they could do this WITHOUT a row ensuing?
The fact that the original letter to the bishops seems to have been regarded as rather confidential suggests that they knew they were dealing with dynamite. Rather than all this cloak and dagger stuff, would it not have been more honest to say upfront what was going to happen?

It is protested strongly that this is NOT a "theology of taint". But - if there WERE a "theology of taint", isn't this exactly how it would look?

On Q2, specifically "why now?" - I get the impression it's precisely to start a new way of doing things so that *when* the metropolitisn is a woman it will already be established that the metropolitan doesn't do OOW dissenting consecrations and the validity issue can be avoided altogether. As has been commented over at Thinking Anglicans, this is messy church writ large....

I think *that's* what's going on here, and taint is, as ever, an irrelevant sideshow. Someone is playing the long game and attempting to set a convention that removes future ABCs and ABYs from the picture before they are women. It actually seems to be an attempt to avoid a bigger and more explosive row even than this down the line.

(note I have said attempt....)

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Can he shake hands with a woman bishop/priest if he wears gloves? And then throws them away? And then uses hand sanitizer?

Ah. this could be like when activists with HIV visited the Clinton White House. People were still freaked out about casual contact, and the Secret Service showed up in blue gloves and other gear, IIRC.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Hazmat suit, burn zone....

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Wondering why the anti-OoW people want to continue as part of a church that visibly throws away the rulebook when said A-OoWs make any demands.

Or why these flying bishops want to be ordained in a less-than-acceptable way.

Or why any of these hold-outs want to be in this church at all.

But +Burnley isn't a flying bishop. The PEV for the province of York is +Beverley; Burnley is the suffragan in the diocese of +Blackburn.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Can he shake hands with a woman bishop/priest if he wears gloves? And then throws them away? And then uses hand sanitizer?
stonespring:
quote:
As a clarification: the "laying on of hands" refers to putting your hands on the head of someone being ordained as part of the ordination rite and not to any other physical contact.
Er, yeah, I think I got that. I just couldn't resist playing.

Perhaps the person being ordained could wear a biretta, then? [Devil]

To a non-Anglican, whose idea of ordination is very much one of "recognising gifts" and "setting people aside for ministry" rather than "addng people to the apostolic succession" or "effecting ontological change", this whole row seems, frankly, to be (a) preposterous; (b) superstitious; and (c - to quote our local Rector's comment to me this morning) an utter waste of Gospel time. (And said Rector is not an Evangelical, by any means).

[ 25. January 2015, 14:47: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

There's a piece on the BBC Sunday programme at about 37.45 minutes on this issue.
Ordination of woman bishop and "theology of taint"

Bishops taking part in laying hands on Libby Lane are asked to exercise "gracious restraint" and not lay hands during the ordination of the Bishop of Burnley.

Nothing to do with taint, nothing to see here, pass along please....

[ 25. January 2015, 15:02: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
To submit to their laying on of hands would therefore be a profound statement of communion where it does not (unreservedly) exist.

To declare oneself out of communion with all but 3 bishops makes a bizarre contrast with the decision to be consecrated. Doesn't consecration imply communion with most of the church?

This can't be a sustainable position in the long run, it would be better to get on with moving to a different church or starting a new church.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

I think that the lady who is to become bishop should make a serious fuss about the lack of proper ordination ritual. It is clearly an attempt to keep women from participating fully in the church, if the naysayers can get away with "she wasn't properly ordained, was she".

The corresponding bishop appointed to look after those poor dears, who need doses of sal volatile to keep them from fainting because of the existence of women, should also complain about the lack of proper process, because his tenure of office is also tainted.

Not bad for the good ol' C of E, to get BOTH sides of an argument to come out badly, while shooting the hierarchy in various feet at the same time. Glad I'm in a schismatic separate entity which didn't allow this foolishness.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

Not sure if this adds anything or not but it didn't look identical...

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Can he shake hands with a woman bishop/priest if he wears gloves? And then throws them away? And then uses hand sanitizer?
stonespring:
quote:
As a clarification: the "laying on of hands" refers to putting your hands on the head of someone being ordained as part of the ordination rite and not to any other physical contact.
Er, yeah, I think I got that. I just couldn't resist playing.
Perhaps the person being ordained could wear a biretta, then?

To a non-Anglican, whose idea of ordination is very much one of "recognising gifts" and "setting people aside for ministry" rather than "addng people to the apostolic succession" or "effecting ontological change", this whole row seems, frankly, to be (a) preposterous; (b) superstitious; and (c - to quote our local Rector's comment to me this morning) an utter waste of Gospel time. (And said Rector is not an Evangelical, by any means).

Is it time then, TF, to ask the schismatic denomination to which we both belong to break our ecumenical ties with the CofE? Given that our view on women's ordination is clearly opposed to that of Philip North's, who is becoming an ordained leader of that denomination?

Our declaration of principle, based on freedom of conscience, suggests that this is an acceptable accommodation.

Thanks for nothing CofE, once again, you're doing the rest of us no favours.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

OH, I'm just one of those Canadians who've been in a church that has ordained women for a generation or so. I don't remember hearing any fuss when we had the first (or any other) woman as a bishop.

Makes us improper Anglicans, doesn't it? Our arguments are all about really important God stuff such as property (which usually die down quite quickly, since they are almost irrelevant)

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

It's all very well being driven to proclaim during the service that it isn't in the Bible, but where in the Bible does it say one word about anyone being a bishop?
And the woman who rang up LBC to claim Biblical forbidding of women teaching men was assuming that her explanation was not being heard by any men, or she was herself in breach of what she was teaching.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
It's all very well being driven to proclaim during the service that it isn't in the Bible.

Did he see himself as "making a stand"? And did he really think he would achieve anything, except IMO looking a bit silly? After all, it's not as if we don't know that some folk disagree!

Posted by Ophicleide16 (# 16344) on :

He is the Rev. Paul Williamson and he has a history of protesting. He's previously tried to file court cases over the ordination of women, the legality of Charles & Camilla's marriage and various others. In other words, he's a self styled vigilante with a history of making a nuisance of himself.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

As Gore Vidal said, "For many folks over 40, litigation replaces sex."

Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :

He treasures his place in the small select list of vexatious litigants.

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Is it time then, TF, to ask the schismatic denomination to which we both belong to break our ecumenical ties with the CofE? Given that our view on women's ordination is clearly opposed to that of Philip North's, who is becoming an ordained leader of that denomination?

Our declaration of principle, based on freedom of conscience, suggests that this is an acceptable accommodation.

Thanks for nothing CofE, once again, you're doing the rest of us no favours.

I don't mean to pick on Baptists here (I am an ex-Baptist, I ceased to be...), but let's not pretend that the Baptist church in the UK, even BUGB affiliated churches, have an entirely positive attitude to women ministers. There are a huge number of UK Baptist churches who would simply refuse to call a female minister. Whilst the views of Philip North might be in contradiction with your own personal views, many Baptist churches would hold the same view (women can not be ministers) albeit for extremely different reasons.

This is not simply theory, two female Baptist ministers I know (one a relation by marriage, the other a very close friend) had an absolutely dreadful time in the settlement process, with churches to whom their name was sent either rejecting them straightaway; or meeting them, liking them but saying 'actually, there are one or two of our members here who don't accept the ministry of women, so we think it's best not to take this any further.'.

Now, sure, BUGB could say that to be affiliated a church must be prepared to call either a man or a woman as their minister, but that kind of top down edict isn't very Baptist.

I don't actually see a fundamental difference in the CofE and Baptist positions: part of each of our churches recognises the ministry/priesthood of women and part of each doesn't!

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Thank you. I had been wondering how to answer but was increasingly thinking of a response along the line of yours!

As it happens, this subject has been written about extensively in the most recent issue of the "Baptist Quarterly" (the journal of the Baptist Historical Society) with a lengthy article by the current Head of Ministry. The general thrust is very much in favour of female ministers, and how to give them true equality within the Denomination.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Two female Baptist ministers I know (one a relation by marriage, the other a very close friend) had an absolutely dreadful time in the settlement process, with churches to whom their name was sent either rejecting them straightaway; or meeting them, liking them but saying 'actually, there are one or two of our members here who don't accept the ministry of women, so we think it's best not to take this any further.'.

Just a small point, but wouldn't it be less dreadful for all concerned if this sort of essential information was kept on an updated file for candidates to refer to, rather than allowing candidates to apply for posts that they're never going to get? The CofE tries to avoid this sort of embarrassment, ISTM.

Regarding ExclamationMark's post about ecumelicalism, don't some Baptist churches have ecumenical relationships with the RCC, and with some evangelical denominations who don't accept women ministers? If this is the case then it's hardly fair to break off relations with the CofE just because some Anglicans don't accept women vicars or bishops.

[ 27. January 2015, 12:44: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

The CofE keeps a record of churches which have voted not to have a female incumbent (Resolutions parishes); what it doesn't do is keep a record of parishes which would really rather not have one but don't want to make it official. These are the parishes which are likely to shortlist one woman, because the Archdeacon insists on it, but would never appoint her.

[ 27. January 2015, 13:19: Message edited by: Amos ]

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
The CofE keeps a record of churches which have voted not to have a female incumbent (Resolutions parishes); what it doesn't do is keep a record of parishes which would really rather not have one but don't want to make it official. These are the parishes which are likely to shortlist one woman, because the Archdeacon insists on it, but would never appoint her.

Such hidden biases can be deeply frustrating - especially when archdeacons and bishops refuse to acknowledge that they are there.

In one deanery in my previous diocese, it has been over 10 years since a woman was appointed as incumbent in any of the parishes (all of which have had at least one vacancy in that time). None of them ever passed any of the Resolutions - they just found reasons to not appoint a woman. Even when the shortlist consisted of three women and a man, the parish appointed the man.

When I (gently) pointed this out to the archdeacon and asked if he didn't think it rather strange, I got brushed off.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
As Gore Vidal said, "For many folks over 40, litigation replaces sex."

I'm 55 and am happy to say, then, that the Mrs. and I sued the bejabbers out of each other last night.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Regarding ExclamationMark's post about ecumelicalism, don't some Baptist churches have ecumenical relationships with the RCC, and with some evangelical denominations who don't accept women ministers? If this is the case then it's hardly fair to break off relations with the CofE just because some Anglicans don't accept women vicars or bishops.

I had read exclamation mark as being rather derisory about the whole sorry mess and the way it was handled rather than a statement in favour of women as bishops.

Personally I will remain an Anglican but I have every sympathy for that view.

This is a historic moment when our church catches up, and we get immediately plunged into the most ludicrous statement made over consecrating a bishop which makes no consistent logical sense handled in the weakest possible way by the Archbishop and the leadership of the church. Snatched from the jaws of victory.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
This is a historic moment when our church catches up, and we get immediately plunged into the most ludicrous statement made over consecrating a bishop which makes no consistent logical sense handled in the weakest possible way by the Archbishop and the leadership of the church. Snatched from the jaws of victory.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

The only way to respond is to laugh, I reckon. Or play 'tag'?

The more I read and hear about it, the funnier it gets. And I haven't touched a drop, honest!

[Killing me]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
[QUOTE]I don't mean to pick on Baptists here (I am an ex-Baptist, I ceased to be...), but let's not pretend that the Baptist church in the UK, even BUGB affiliated churches, have an entirely positive attitude to women ministers.

Very true but the number has decreased to very few in each region. I've never come across the "taint" issue in terms of what happens and by whom at ordination/laying on of hands etc in a Baptist setting.

Just to clear it up, I have no personal opposition to women bishops and/or ministers.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
The CofE keeps a record of churches which have voted not to have a female incumbent (Resolutions parishes); what it doesn't do is keep a record of parishes which would really rather not have one but don't want to make it official. These are the parishes which are likely to shortlist one woman, because the Archdeacon insists on it, but would never appoint her.

And these are the worst, because this attitude is based on sheer prejudiced misogyny. If they believed as a matter of theological principle that women should not be priests, they would insist on passing at least one of the Resolutions. The Archdeacon should insist on an all-woman shortlist!

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I've never come across the "taint" issue in terms of what happens and by whom at ordination/laying on of hands etc in a Baptist setting.

Nor me - we just don't see ordination in that way.

I think that there may be more churches than we may imagine which won't take women ministers ... not that they'd necessarily say so "out loud". But I can't be sure.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Looking at ++Sentamu's statement about the consecrations:

http://www.archbishopofyork.org/articles.php/3204/forthcoming-consecrations#sthash.MKNM7N86.dpuf

"4. The oath of canonical obedience to the Archbishop will be reinstated into the liturgy and made by the candidate standing before the Archbishop. The Archbishop will also witness the oath of allegiance to the Sovereign before the service begins."

So Rev. North will swear obedience to ++Sentamu although he is in such impaired communion with him that he will not allow him to lay hands on him in his consecration?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Looking at ++Sentamu's statement about the consecrations:

http://www.archbishopofyork.org/articles.php/3204/forthcoming-consecrations#sthash.MKNM7N86.dpuf

"4. The oath of canonical obedience to the Archbishop will be reinstated into the liturgy and made by the candidate standing before the Archbishop. The Archbishop will also witness the oath of allegiance to the Sovereign before the service begins."

So Rev. North will swear obedience to ++Sentamu although he is in such impaired communion with him that he will not allow him to lay hands on him in his consecration?

Exactly. What about the women in local parish leadership under his "care" too?

It's too stupid even to laugh about

Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on :

This story is relevant:

BBC report

- though the BBC report is not totally accurate I think - the 'silent protest' was in fact a craft activity in Messy Church if I've understood aright the church's comments - which I can't now find!

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
If they believed as a matter of theological principle that women should not be priests, they would insist on passing at least one of the Resolutions.

I thought that the resolutions were abolished under the new arrangements made by synod - when they rescinded the Act of Synod.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Have I missed something? ++Sentamu has said clearly that he is not removing himself from the actual laying-on-of-hands because of a theology of taint. And he has said that But beyond saying his decision is "for prayer, not politics", has he actually given a clear reason for how he is handling this?

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :

And I don't quite get where the impetus came from - were "soundings" taken which suggested +North and others of his stripe might appreciate it, or is (as someone up thread has suggested) a rather canny piece of pre-pallning, so that when there's a woman as metropolitan, she can be in the room but not touching?

The latter, I think, has some merit to it, but ought to be said out loud if it's true. That it's a way of maintaining the metropolitan's authority within the spirit of the accommodations given.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
If they believed as a matter of theological principle that women should not be priests, they would insist on passing at least one of the Resolutions.
I thought that the resolutions were abolished under the new arrangements made by synod - when they rescinded the Act of Synod.

You may well be right, leo; I'm not up to speed with all that stuff. However I think that Amos was referring mainly to cases in the past, and if there are still parishes which are reluctant to accept women without making a formal statement against on theological grounds, they deserve to be called out on their bigotry. (I'm not suggesting in the least that anti-Oow people or parishes are bigoted, just those that don't have the courage of their commitment)

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

It all seems, to me, to be an excuse to legitimise prejudice.

And yet, when you meet personally with someone who just can't accept women priests (let alone bishops), the way they talk about it appears to be far from prejudice - they really do struggle.

I must admit I was rather hoping that, over time, the antis would gradually become acclimatised to the reality, and come to accept it.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

From the BBC article mentioned above:

"The laying on of hands is a part of the service of ordination for a bishop in the Church of England, which also includes the new bishop being anointed and being given the Bible"

Is this just another example of inaccurate religion reporting, or is now so common that it is considered standard procedure in the C of E unless the new bishop is really low-Church that anointing take place during the consecration? (Seeing that the lack of anointing in the rite of consecration used under Edward VI was one of the main arguments, among others, for the invalidity of Anglican orders in Apostolicae Curae, I find this interesting).

Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on :

Anointing is pretty much universal for priests and bishops. I would hope some bishops would not do it just to emphasize it's optional!

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

If some people are determined to paint themselves into an ever-shrinking corner it is impossible to stop them, even if they end by climbing up the walls. (Presumably eventually they will consecrate their own mini-archbishop.) But does the rest of the C. of E. have to keep bending over backwards to be nice to them until it disappears up its own fundament?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Logically that's what should already be happening. I don't see how the "no touch consecration technique" changes anything.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
It all seems, to me, to be an excuse to legitimise prejudice.

And yet, when you meet personally with someone who just can't accept women priests (let alone bishops), the way they talk about it appears to be far from prejudice - they really do struggle.

Just because they really do struggle doesn't mean it isn't prejudice. It means the prejudice is so ingrained it has become part of them [Frown]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Speaking personally I used to have a "bible-based" belief that homosexuality was wrong. (Different dead-horse I know but bear with me).

I felt incredibly bad about "having" to say that homosexuality was wrong and felt genuinely conflicted about it. I remember talking to a fellow evangelical about hearing of the life of a gay vicar who had made serious sacrifices to adopt a behaviourally disturbed child, and my immediate reaction that he was a far better man than I was and that it really seemed rather unfair to take the view of his sexuality that our church did.

It was a year or more before I rationalized the situation and realized that I wasn't bound to interpret the Bible as I had been.

I could well have had deep-seated prejudice guiding me, but I feel I can identify a period of time when my emotional response was to want to be supportive of gay people through the discrimination and struggles they experienced but couldn't reconcile this with other rules I had.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Wondering why the anti-OoW people want to continue as part of a church that visibly throws away the rulebook when said A-OoWs make any demands.

Or why these flying bishops want to be ordained in a less-than-acceptable way.

Or why any of these hold-outs want to be in this church at all.

As someone whose view of women's ordination is pretty much the same as Fr North's, I wonder the same things.

A clergyman with the courage of his convictions (and the ability to think through the implications of his ecclesiology) would have asked for a letter dismissory as soon as it became clear that women were to be ordained bishops. He seems all around like someone who'd be happier in the ACC-UK or another continuing group, but I'm sure (and this is the cynic in me talking) neither his living nor his pension would be quite as fat there.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

What about the oath of allegiance to the Sovereign? Are they going want to make the oath to the next male heir when a woman is on the throne? Do they need a flying royal or is that only a clipper ship sail? [Smile]

Posted by fullgospel (# 18233) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
So right after the first female bishop is consecrated in the C of E, there will be a consecration of a traditionalist SSC bishop to take care of parishes that don't want any bishops with any taint ivisions/4634 9.htm[/URL]

This not, in fact, the case.

He is to be an ordinary suffragan bishop in the Burnley diocese.

Not a PEV., in fact.

And nothing to do with dissident parishes or the SSC.

He happens to be an SSC member, not their bishop.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Sorry. I was mentally associating the old flying bishops (now gone) as being at least technically some suffragan bishop somewhere, but I really don't know the finer workings of episcopal jurisdiction in the C of E - and I often misinterpret things through my RC-based lens. I get now that he is just a normal suffragan bishop.

I never meant to imply that he was a bishop "for" the SSC. I meant that he is an SSC priest who is now becoming a bishop, so he is an "SSC bishop" sorry about the unclear language.

Posted by fullgospel (# 18233) on :

ah I see ! Btw

The 'flying bishops' / PEV have gone nowhere !

They have not flown

[ 01. February 2015, 21:23: Message edited by: fullgospel ]

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Pigs may fly....

Posted by bad man (# 17449) on :

Thiis from Forward in Faith today on why Philip North couldn't be consecrated by a male bishop or male Archbishop who had previously (at any time) consecrated a woman as priest or bishop:

quote:
For over twenty years traditional catholic priests have been granted ordination by bishops with whom they enjoy full communion (because they can receive the ministry of all the priests whom those bishops ordain). The ordination of women as bishops gives rise to a need for similar provision for ordination to the episcopate.

It's taint, isn't it? Or worse than taint, because it declares all Forward in Faith bishops and priests out of communion with all the bishops and archbishops who have ever ordained a woman as priest or consecrated a woman as bishop. We only have two archbishops; the Archbishop of York is already out of communion with them (on this showing) and the Archbishop of Canterbury will surely follow.

Sounds like they've almost left the Church of England already.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

This is just more proof of what I have said all along - namely that this whole "impaired communion" thing is rank poor theology which was created after the event to try and justify the initial actions.

First came the grandiose protest (rather ill-thought) - "any bishop who ordains women is no longer fit or welcome to ordain proper male priests." It was a knee-jerk protest with no theological rationale at all.

But then, having painted themselves into a corner on this matter, the F-i-F leaders realised that they had to come up with some sort of theological basis for their action. Lo and behold - "impaired communion" (which looks remarkably like "theology of taint").

I am wiling to accept that F-i-F don't support a theology of taint. But that's because they actually don't have any coherent theology in this particular matter.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by bad man:
Thiis from Forward in Faith today on why Philip North couldn't be consecrated by a male bishop or male Archbishop who had previously (at any time) consecrated a woman as priest or bishop:

quote:
For over twenty years traditional catholic priests have been granted ordination by bishops with whom they enjoy full communion (because they can receive the ministry of all the priests whom those bishops ordain). The ordination of women as bishops gives rise to a need for similar provision for ordination to the episcopate.
It's taint, isn't it? Or worse than taint, because it declares all Forward in Faith bishops and priests out of communion with all the bishops and archbishops who have ever ordained a woman as priest or consecrated a woman as bishop. We only have two archbishops; the Archbishop of York is already out of communion with them (on this showing) and the Archbishop of Canterbury will surely follow.

Sounds like they've almost left the Church of England already.

And, ironically, all three of the consecrating bishops were themselves consecrated by bishops who had ordained women.

John

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Either that or the rhetoric is a move towards setting up a third province by default - once you've got a bishop you've got the potential for a "church within a church", and it seems to me that this was what the anti-women brigade were after once they realised they'd lost the argument.

Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on :

Yes it is a de facto Third Province Look at this
The Society
-and especially what priests joining are to sign:
declaration

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
Yes it is a de facto Third Province Look at this
The Society
-and especially what priests joining are to sign:
declaration

Surely point four of the Declaration militates against your fanciful notion? It doesn't say "... and who believe in the male priesthood" or "...and who have never received communion from, or concelebrated with, a woman"?

Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Surely point four of the Declaration militates against your fanciful notion? It doesn't say "... and who believe in the male priesthood" or "...and who have never received communion from, or concelebrated with, a woman"?

It would be helpful if the society were to chose to graciously behave in a way that was as accommodating as their declaration allowed. There's nothing in that declaration that Phillip North (or priests ordained by him) couldn't agree to if he had been consecrated by John Sentamu.

Incidentally I note that the 3rd clause says 'at whose episcopal ordination male bishops presided' rather than 'at whose episcopal ordination only male bishops laid on hands'. So as far as I can see a traditionalist priest ordained by the next bishop to be ordained in the North (who I guess will be consecrated by a load of men and Libby Lane) could sign the declaration.

It seems to me that the declaration is a tad more liberal than the recent FiF statement.

Although, while I'm commenting on the declaration, I'm somewhat interested by the necessity of 'on grounds of theological conviction' in the 4th clause. That would prevent someone from becoming a priest of the society because their PCC politely asked them to, and they were happy to do so while they remained in that parish. I don't know whether that's the deliberate intent or an issue they hadn't considered. There are a fair number of anti-OOW parishes headed by pro-OOW priests. This wording ensures that these parishes can't ask their priests to become priests of the society. So either the society will encourage parishes to take a more hard-line approach to choosing priests or membership of the society won't mean that much on the ground.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I'm just wondering what Wilfrid and Hilda said when they were asked to act as patrons. Or whether they would have agreed on the subject, in life.

[ 04. February 2015, 15:53: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I'm just wondering what Wilfrid and Hilda said when they were asked to act as patrons. Or whether they would have agreed on the subject, in life.

Strange that you should ask. I was chatting to St Hilda the other day - she's patron of a school I have a vague association with and need her views from time to time. She told me that neither she or St Wilfrid was asked. Her comment was that she had spent her lifetime promoting reconciliation, indeed giving up her opinions on such matters as the date of Easter and matters of church governance to ensure unity. She was Not Pleased about the invocation. Apparently St Wilfrid was of a similar mind and while she preferred not to use his exact words, he had put his position very strongly.

Women bishops had been discussed at the pre-Christmas synod of Saints, bearing in mind the decision of the C of E now to consecrate them in line with other churches in the Communion. She did not feel free to pass on the comments of the Almighty, but suggested instead that I count the number of women bishops who had been struck by lightning. She then referred to the report on governance in the Chichester Diocese and the investigation there of child abuse claims as being a sort of thunderbolt.

[ 05. February 2015, 06:21: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Gee D [Overused]

Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I'm just wondering what Wilfrid and Hilda said when they were asked to act as patrons. Or whether they would have agreed on the subject, in life.

I note that wikipedia says 'Some modern historians see [wilfrid] mainly as a champion of Roman customs against the customs of the British and Irish churches'.

Although no citation is given, so I'll believe Gee D instead.

[ 05. February 2015, 08:55: Message edited by: *Leon* ]

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
As Gore Vidal said, "For many folks over 40, litigation replaces sex."
I'm 55 and am happy to say, then, that the Mrs. and I sued the bejabbers out of each other last night.

I suppose this crack allows me to say how relieved I am that the taint touched in the title of this thread isn't the one that first occurred to my besexed mind.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

bump

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0