quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Surely it's not a kick in the teeth to all women? The CofE isn't answerable to all women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Surely it's not a kick in the teeth to all women? The CofE isn't answerable to all women.

---

That is surely questionable where a "National Church" is concerned, as it's not simply a "religious society". In a sense it is answerable to the entire population, not just its adherents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I can't say much about the theological arguments, but on a pragmatic level it doesn't make much sense to keep people like this man in the ministry if they can't reasonably apply for the office of bishop.
I agree that the Church needs clergy who can speak to the society, but as the gap between the two grows ever larger it must be harder and harder to find such people. Moreover, as the wider public grows ever more indifferent it must become ever more important to satisfy the people who actually participate in church life - and there must be a constituency that's quite satisfied with such a bishop. He has his gifts, from what I understand.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mancunian mystic:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Surely it's not a kick in the teeth to all women? The CofE isn't answerable to all women.

---

That is surely questionable where a "National Church" is concerned, as it's not simply a "religious society". In a sense it is answerable to the entire population, not just its adherents.

---

Thankyou - that's what I was getting at. As a non-Anglican woman, I still feel affected by this appointment. It's sad and disconcerting that our national church, as so often, is failing to reflect the growth of tolerance and equality in the society around it and is still giving positive encouragement to men who refuse to accept women's equality in ministry. By all means let them remain and minister within the communion, but appointing them to senior jobs seems to make a statement of approval that devalues women's ministry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:
Whilst he has so far proven to be a good bishop, he has also a track record of supporting women in and into ministry.

Prior to his episcopal ordination, whilst at St Pancras in London, he ran the North London Pastoral Assistants Scheme, which was open to and supportive of women discerning a vocation to the priesthood.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:
Whilst he has so far proven to be a good bishop, he has also a track record of supporting women in and into ministry.

Prior to his episcopal ordination, whilst at St Pancras in London, he ran the North London Pastoral Assistants Scheme, which was open to and supportive of women discerning a vocation to the priesthood.

---

I don't understand - he doesn't believe women are priests but is active in supporting women into priesthood. How does that work?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:
I don't know exactly what +Philip's view is, or how he expresses it. But I assume he recognises that the position of the Church of England is to ordain women, and according to the principles agreed by the General Synod, is trying to work for mutual flourishing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:

I don't know exactly what +Philip's view is, or how he expresses it. But I assume he recognises that the position of the Church of England is to ordain women, and according to the principles agreed by the General Synod, is trying to work for mutual flourishing.

From the North London scheme, there are currently seminarians at St. Stephen's House, Mirfield and Westcott (and probably elsewhere) - it's effectively an internship to enable discernment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:
Whilst he has so far proven to be a good bishop, he has also a track record of supporting women in and into ministry.

Prior to his episcopal ordination, whilst at St Pancras in London, he ran the North London Pastoral Assistants Scheme, which was open to and supportive of women discerning a vocation to the priesthood.

---

I don't understand - he doesn't believe women are priests but is active in supporting women into priesthood. How does that work?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:
Whilst he has so far proven to be a good bishop, he has also a track record of supporting women in and into ministry.

Prior to his episcopal ordination, whilst at St Pancras in London, he ran the North London Pastoral Assistants Scheme, which was open to and supportive of women discerning a vocation to the priesthood.

---

I don't understand - he doesn't believe women are priests but is active in supporting women into priesthood. How does that work?

---

Aaah you've discovered the fudge

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThunderBunk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:
Whilst he has so far proven to be a good bishop, he has also a track record of supporting women in and into ministry.

Prior to his episcopal ordination, whilst at St Pancras in London, he ran the North London Pastoral Assistants Scheme, which was open to and supportive of women discerning a vocation to the priesthood.

---

I don't understand - he doesn't believe women are priests but is active in supporting women into priesthood. How does that work?

---

Aaah you've discovered the fudge

---

Or you could call it respecting the integrity of the job he has been given. I suspect that the line he draws is that, within his understanding of the priesthood, women cannot be ordained to it but, since it is now clearly mandated by the church that there are at least two (actually far more, but two that are relevant for these purposes) understandings of the priesthood, he will not block those who express a vocation within a different understanding, though I would presume (I don't know, and of course he's not a diocesan bishop yet) that he would effectively delegate their discernment process to a suffragan.

---

quote:

---

posted by Jemima the 9th:
in his role as bishop, he has to not just assist in discernment (which he could side step) but actually take part in the ordination of women. Which he will not do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kingsfold:
An acquaintance of mine was sent to a Resolution A,B,C parish which was under alternative episcopal oversight to do his curacy. When he was ordained, they had to liaise with and get the PEV in to do the ordination so that he was ordained "properly", his diocesan having ordained women.

Presumably, if arrangements in that case had to be made to have the right sort of Bishop doing the ordination, arrangements within the Diocese of Sheffield can be made to have an equally right sort of bishop to ordain the women. Presumably the Suffragan Bishop (?Doncaster?) can do it?

---

You don't think that's an odd state of affairs? One thing to have a flying bishop such as Ebbsfleet, another to have a diocene bishop who won't ordain priests in the normal run of things.

It's a farce. Either he needs to ordain women or he needs to.. I don't know.. apply to be Bishop of Ebbsfleet or something.
 

---

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
Perhaps the female priests should seek alternative oversight?
 

---

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by kingsfold:
An acquaintance of mine was sent to a Resolution A,B,C parish which was under alternative episcopal oversight to do his curacy. When he was ordained, they had to liaise with and get the PEV in to do the ordination so that he was ordained "properly", his diocesan having ordained women.

Presumably, if arrangements in that case had to be made to have the right sort of Bishop doing the ordination, arrangements within the Diocese of Sheffield can be made to have an equally right sort of bishop to ordain the women. Presumably the Suffragan Bishop (?Doncaster?) can do it?

---

You don't think that's an odd state of affairs? One thing to have a flying bishop such as Ebbsfleet, another to have a diocene bishop who won't ordain priests in the normal run of things.

It's a farce. Either he needs to ordain women or he needs to.. I don't know.. apply to be Bishop of Ebbsfleet or something.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThunderBunk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:
Whilst he has so far proven to be a good bishop, he has also a track record of supporting women in and into ministry.

Prior to his episcopal ordination, whilst at St Pancras in London, he ran the North London Pastoral Assistants Scheme, which was open to and supportive of women discerning a vocation to the priesthood.

---

I don't understand - he doesn't believe women are priests but is active in supporting women into priesthood. How does that work?

---

Aaah you've discovered the fudge

---

Or you could call it respecting the integrity of the job he has been given. I suspect that the line he draws is that, within his understanding of the priesthood, women cannot be ordained to it but, since it is now clearly mandated by the church that there are at least two (actually far more, but two that are relevant for these purposes) understandings of the priesthood, he will not block those who express a vocation within a different understanding, though I would presume (I don't know, and of course he's not a diocesan bishop yet) that he would effectively delegate their discernment process to a suffragan.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
His understanding being at variance with others in the same denomination means that there is a lack of integrity somewhere - either by him or by the church allowing two opposing views to be equally valid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:

I don't know exactly what +Philip's view is, or how he expresses it. But I assume he recognises that the position of the Church of England is to ordain women, and according to the principles agreed by the General Synod, is trying to work for mutual flourishing.

From the North London scheme, there are currently seminarians at St. Stephen's House, Mirfield and Westcott (and probably elsewhere) - it's effectively an internship to enable discernment.

---

How many of those seminarians are women? I can't imagine any at St Stephen's, unless there has been a sea change of massive proportions.

Are you able to explain "mutual flourishing" please - indeed, that entire sentence?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I think you can have people who believe women shouldn't be priests in the same church as those who think they should, but I don't understand how you can have people who think women cannot be priests in the same church as priests who are women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

I've heard of a Methodist who disapproved of women clergy, but remained at his church when a woman minister arrived.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I think there are some things on which is is perfectly reasonable to say "we don't know what the answer to this is, so we allow any view."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Which of the two positions does this new bishop hold?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I think there are some things on which is is perfectly reasonable to say "we don't know what the answer to this is, so we allow any view."

---

That is a reason but it is the reason? It all suggests that an approach that is trying to please everyone whilst never taking a clear stand on anything.

It's expedient: probably in 1992 they thought all opposition would dry up quickly either by acceptance or by the die hards leaving for Rome. Neither has happened.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I think there are some things on which is is perfectly reasonable to say "we don't know what the answer to this is, so we allow any view."

---

That is a reason but it is the reason? It all suggests that an approach that is trying to please everyone whilst never taking a clear stand on anything.

It's expedient: probably in 1992 they thought all opposition would dry up quickly either by acceptance or by the die hards leaving for Rome. Neither has happened.

---

Most decisions the Church has made over the last two millennia have been about expediency. The Nicene Creed, for example, was the statement that could be put together by those bishops present at that Council. I very much doubt any of them thought it perfect, or that every point was agreed purely and simply on theological grounds.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

we have changed more than a few things without waiting for Rome so why is this one issue so different?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
That would be an ecumenical matter! Drink! Girls! Nuns! etc.

---

I mean, I could have just saved myself 10 minutes and multiple paragraphs and written that, yes....


 

---

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
Well, I'm grateful for your 10 minutes and multiple paragraphs (and Karl's joke!). You have elucidated what I suspected to be the case. There is then, I think, no hope for people like me who hope to see women appointed to positions at every level within the CofE. It's the business of "at best, not proved, at worst, no". How could such a thing ever be proved to their satisfaction? It cannot.

And for the life of me, I can't work out why people in the CofE would want to rejoin the branches of the whole church, when the rest of the whole church has doesn't recognise us as part of that.
 

---

Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
Well, I'm grateful for your 10 minutes and multiple paragraphs (and Karl's joke!). You have elucidated what I suspected to be the case. There is then, I think, no hope for people like me who hope to see women appointed to positions at every level within the CofE. It's the business of "at best, not proved, at worst, no". How could such a thing ever be proved to their satisfaction? It cannot.

And for the life of me, I can't work out why people in the CofE would want to rejoin the branches of the whole church, when the rest of the whole church has doesn't recognise us as part of that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
I have no calling to the priesthood. I'm a bog standard low CofE pew fodder, with a church history that started in the Elim Pentecostal, via the methodists, and went all over the show before I ended up in my current church. So about as far from TradAC as one could possibly be in the CofE.

Do I wish for unity in the church? Well yes, but istm that that unity will only come on the back of the sacrifice of those who wish for the opportunity for total equality. That is how the situation seems to me - for there to be unity, the only acceptable position to the RC & Orthodox is that women are not priests. It's not as though a compromise can be made, is it?

As a non-seminarian, it is difficult to explain perhaps, but that the gifts and calling of God do somehow not "take" because I'm a woman is just awful. Again, I know the priesthood is not a normal job, but really..."She's a very capable woman, and excellent with parishoners, but ofc she's not actually a priest." "She's a very capable woman, and excellent with patients, but despite her dedication to them, and her years of training, she's not actually a doctor".

The appt of +Philip does affect the appointment of women at every level in 2 ways, istm. Firstly, because of the need to maintain that unbroken line of appointment, a woman will never take the office of ABC. Less directly, because women in the CofE think "Sod this, I'm off", and there are fewer of us about in the first place.

---

But the point is we are not saying a woman will never become ABC. As when Philip North was first ordained bishop, someone else can do ordinations when required. (I believe it was at the ABY's initiative that the Bishop of Chichester presided over the ordination). Yes, to preserve that integrity there needs to be a line of male bishops (ordained by male bishops etc.) but that doesn't limit who can take any particular post.

And those women leaving because of it? Can I suggest it might be worth giving him chance first? To those he has served so far as a bishop he has proven a good and faithful pastor. We need to move beyond the headline that was in the Guardian over his views on the ordination of women, and get to something more like 'Bishop with heart for mission and concern for the poor and marginalised appointed to Sheffield' because it more really reflects the situation.

The march towards unity will be slow. I don't see how there could be formal unity between Canterbury and Rome without a recognition of women's orders. The Director of the Anglican Centre in Rome visited us last week, and suggested that it is entirely possible in his view, based on his experience working with the RCC with unity as the goal, that some arrangement could be made in the long term.

Your comment about whether or not orders 'take' (your word) reflects the point I made earlier - the biggest divide in the Church of England over ordination is not over whether women can be ordained or not. It is over whether there is something ontological and sacramental about priesthood. For those of us who believe there is, what the person does is only significant in so far as it reveals who they are. I (or anyone else) will never become a priest because of the training I am receiving, or because I become good at pastoral visiting, or taking funerals, or whatever. I will only ever become a priest if and when, God willing, a bishop lies his or her hands upon my head and invokes the Holy Spirit upon me. It is only something I can only become by the gift of Christ acting in his Church. At one level, no one can empirically know if they are a priest (they can know they are not though!), but we know how God has acted in the past, and we know that God is faithful, and will continue to act through the sacraments of the Church.
 

---

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
A small point - "take" was betjemaniac's word, not mine.
The rest I need to think about more deeply.
 

---

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
I'm intrigued by the concept of eventual union with "the rest of the church" and continued acceptance of branch theory, at least as set out above.

This means they are focusing only on the CofE, and writing off the whole of the rest of the ANglican Communion (such as it is). They are totally inward looking -- since they clearly don't think that ties with other Anglican churches "count", at least (and I would bet only) when it comes to the ordination of women.

Pardon me if I find the whole thing ever so slightly ... distasteful. A little tainted, if you will.

John
 

---

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:
1. Yes, to preserve that integrity there needs to be a line of male bishops (ordained by male bishops etc.) but that doesn't limit who can take any particular post.

2. Can I suggest it might be worth giving him chance first? To those he has served so far as a bishop he has proven a good and faithful pastor.

3. ....based on his experience working with the RCC with unity as the goal, that some arrangement could be made in the long term.

4. It is over whether there is something ontological and sacramental about priesthood. For those of us who believe there is, what the person does is only significant in so far as it reveals who they are.

5. a bishop lies his or her hands upon my head and invokes the Holy Spirit upon me. It is only something I can only become by the gift of Christ acting in his Church.

6. God is faithful, and will continue to act through the sacraments of the Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:
1. Yes, to preserve that integrity there needs to be a line of male bishops (ordained by male bishops etc.) but that doesn't limit who can take any particular post.

2. Can I suggest it might be worth giving him chance first? To those he has served so far as a bishop he has proven a good and faithful pastor.

3. ....based on his experience working with the RCC with unity as the goal, that some arrangement could be made in the long term.

4. It is over whether there is something ontological and sacramental about priesthood. For those of us who believe there is, what the person does is only significant in so far as it reveals who they are.

5. a bishop lies his or her hands upon my head and invokes the Holy Spirit upon me. It is only something I can only become by the gift of Christ acting in his Church.

6. God is faithful, and will continue to act through the sacraments of the Church.

---

1. Well if your own Bishop won't ordain you just because you're a woman, there's something wrong. Fudge.

2. How long has je been a Bishop[ with no discernible change? Can you really be a good and faithful pastor to all if you are denying them what is (arguably) theirs to embrace? Good and faithful to pastor to whom?

3. Some "arrangement? .." Since when did the CofE give assent to the RCC calling all the shots? I think at the 500th Anniversary of the Reformation we can really do better than that!

4. All life is sacramental (Psalm 24:1). What we all do reveals what we are. If this truly is at the heart of the issue, then the CofE is operating within the (non scriptural) framework of Platonic Dualism. If a priest has a sacramental calling then that sets him apart from the laity who do not have it "call no man Father ...).

5. Only God calls and equips. The Bishop's role is merely one which affirms, on behalf of the church, what has already happened and has been recognised by the church.

6. Of course God works through the sacraments but he also works through Grace which includes you and I. The church (institution) is not the sole means of grace - the church (koinonia) is the expression of grace.

None of that explains why Bishop North feels he can adopt this position, be a good pastor (and yes it was great that he spoke up for those on the margins) and remain in the CofE.

If he really cares for the marginalised then consider what his attitude towards women's ordination says about that.

By the way what does he believe on SSM?

---

quote:

---

I do find this "unbroken line" of ordination idea a bit strange, for several reasons. One is the semi-magical (to my eyes) view that the ordination will not "take" unless it's done by the correct episcopally-pure person.

---

quote:

---

what about the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches who not only say that "churches belonging to the FIEC should not have a woman pastor-teacher or women elders" but also "God created us male and female, and calls us to live according to our gender identity which is inseparable from our biological sex determined at conception [and] may not be changed or reassigned".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:


By the way, we've all got upset by the new Bishop's view on female priests - what about the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches who not only say that "churches belonging to the FIEC should not have a woman pastor-teacher or women elders" but also "God created us male and female, and calls us to live according to our gender identity which is inseparable from our biological sex determined at conception [and] may not be changed or reassigned".

(Stands back and waits for possible explosion).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The church (institution) is not the sole means of grace - the church (koinonia) is the expression of grace.

None of that explains why Bishop North feels he can adopt this position, be a good pastor (and yes it was great that he spoke up for those on the margins) and remain in the CofE.

If he really cares for the marginalised then consider what his attitude towards women's ordination says about that.

By the way what does he believe on SSM?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Baptist Trainfan wrote:

quote:

---

I do find this "unbroken line" of ordination idea a bit strange, for several reasons. One is the semi-magical (to my eyes) view that the ordination will not "take" unless it's done by the correct episcopally-pure person.

---

I don't think those of us in churches who follow this way of doing things regard it as (semi)-magical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
"God created us male and female, and calls us to live according to our gender identity which is inseparable from our biological sex determined at conception [and] may not be changed or reassigned".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:
And to +Philip's view on SSM? I've no idea.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
]And if he approves of SSM you could similarly ask why he 'feels he can adopt this position [...] and remain in the CofE'!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:

Whilst liberals in the CofE would tend to see this as about equality, to catholics it really tends not to be, at least not in the same sense in which it is to the secular world. We will do far better in communicating the gospel if we attempt a bit more working together and a lot less bickering about sex and gender.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:

Whilst liberals in the CofE would tend to see this as about equality, to catholics it really tends not to be, at least not in the same sense in which it is to the secular world. We will do far better in communicating the gospel if we attempt a bit more working together and a lot less bickering about sex and gender.

---

I appreciate your concern for communicating the gospel (honest, I do, there's no way to write that without it sounding sarky) and your thoughts over the ontological issues about ordination. And yes, even as a liberal, I'd want to work with people of different views to communicate the gospel.

The difference of views would be a whole lot easier for me to take if (for me) it wasn't couched in a hundreds / thousands of years history of women being assumed as not able to do things - decisions ofc largely made by a group of men.

So:
Should girls be educated? At best unproven, at worst no.
Should women be able to take degree courses? At best unproven, at worst no.
Should women be allowed to work, or to continue to work after marriage? At best unproven, at worst no.
Should women be paid equally for the work they do? At best unproven, at worst no.
Should women be allowed to be MPs / council leaders? At best unproven, at worst no.
Should women be allowed access to their children after divorce? At best unproven, at worst no.
Should women preach in church? At best unproven, at worst no.

There are thousands more, these are just those that sprang to mind whilst I've been in bed with the lurgy all weeekend. Those taking that "at best unproven, at worst no" line with all of the above were generally not doing so out of spite, but borne from a considered view that women were quite simply not up to the job. A view often based on deeply held moral or religious understanding.

At this stage we could divert into a lengthy tangent about the role of women in early Christianity, that it was a woman to whom Christ was first revealed after the resurrection etc etc, but I see to my delight that this is well covered in the priestly genitalia thread.

To some of us (granted, not to all by a long stretch!) this isn't "bickering about sex & gender" it's something with a deeply unpleasant historical echo.

Hope this makes sense. The lurgy is still with me, to some degree...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:
If we adopt a more traditional view, that there is a clear and definite divide, then it is reasonable to conclude that the divide may be a feature in who God calls to what ministries in the Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't think one even needs to go that far, though. The church as a whole has decided that women can be ordained as priests. A diocene bishop, who is pretty obviously a high representative of the church in relation to ordaination if nothing else, is supposed to be doing what the church tells him.

One thing being a "flying bishop" to minister to a minority that the majority has gracefully accepted need to be considered despite holding an opposite view. Quite another thing when you are in a position that is supposed to be supporting the church, not hindering it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:
Dafyd - I think I'd be hard pushed to claim there is empirical evidence that anyone is called to ordination. That's not to say there is no evidence, but it is rare for it to be empirical.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't think one even needs to go that far, though. The church as a whole has decided that women can be ordained as priests. A diocene bishop, who is pretty obviously a high representative of the church in relation to ordaination if nothing else, is supposed to be doing what the church tells him.

One thing being a "flying bishop" to minister to a minority that the majority has gracefully accepted need to be considered despite holding an opposite view. Quite another thing when you are in a position that is supposed to be supporting the church, not hindering it.

---

But the Church of England has also decided that the view that women cannot be ordained is an acceptable and mainstream view. To hold the view that women cannot be ordained is to hold a view that is supported by the Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Then the church is acting as if it is suffering from some kind of spiritual schizophrenia. If ordination is as important as you (and the CofE) claim - and personally I believe we're all ordained - then you have to come down on one side or another. Hedging your bets just won't do and, if as Bishop you reject the Synod view, you stand in opposition to a majority of your own church. Not a comfortable nor a happy place to be IMHO

---

quote:

---

Since those within the Church of England who, on grounds of theological conviction, are unable to receive the ministry of women bishops or priests
continue to be within the spectrum of teaching and tradition of the Anglican Communion, the Church of England remains committed to enabling them to
flourish within its life and structures;

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Then the church is acting as if it is suffering from some kind of spiritual schizophrenia. If ordination is as important as you (and the CofE) claim - and personally I believe we're all ordained - then you have to come down on one side or another. Hedging your bets just won't do and, if as Bishop you reject the Synod view, you stand in opposition to a majority of your own church. Not a comfortable nor a happy place to be IMHO

---

But, and I repeat, the Synod view is that expressed in the Five Guiding Principles, the 4th of which reads:

quote:

---

Since those within the Church of England who, on grounds of theological conviction, are unable to receive the ministry of women bishops or priests
continue to be within the spectrum of teaching and tradition of the Anglican Communion, the Church of England remains committed to enabling them to
flourish within its life and structures;

---

That the Church of England has a diversity of opinions on essential doctrinal matters is nothing new either. Taking as an example the Eucharist - there are members of the Church of England who are purely memorialist, there are members of the Church of England who are fully signed up to transubstantiation. And everything in between.

Or baptism. Again everything from a marker of a conversion and grace already received, with a preference to adults only, to the act of baptism being the conveying of that grace, and the water to be applied as freely and widely as possible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
'Your own church'? The C of E claims to be part of the wider western catholic church - the majority of which does NOT believe in ther OOIW.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
'Your own church'? The C of E claims to be part of the wider western catholic church - the majority of which does NOT believe in ther OOIW.

---

The western catholic church didn't ordain Bishop North - and they don't recognise his "orders" anyway. It's hardly his church or any Anglicans is it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:

1. As to 'Is it confusing?' Well yes sometimes. But the current Anglican consensus has the merit of allowing space to recognise that

2.None of us has a perfect handle on God. There are elements that we all overlook, but if we are endeavouring to work this out in communion with those who believe differently then we might approach a greater grasp of the underlying truth contained in the divine revelation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:

Too often the 'traditionalist' view adopts essentially the simple view I outlined, and ignores its limitations. Too often the 'liberal' view unreflectively adopts the current social mores without rooting it in a theology and it can easily be critiqued as only being concerned with worldly equality.

---

quote:

---

The priest at the altar must "image" Jesus since He (Christ) is the celebrating High Priest. In Catholic/Orthodox Eucharistic theology the celebrating priest is not merely a "worship leader" or a representative of Christ in the sense that an ambassador represents the Head of State. In these last two examples the gender of the representative is incidental to He/She who is represented. In the Church, Christ acts through the priest who in ESSENTIAL matters (ie. not being Jewish or circumcised) must configure to Christ Himself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:
Dafyd - I think I'd be hard pushed to claim there is empirical evidence that anyone is called to ordination. That's not to say there is no evidence, but it is rare for it to be empirical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
'Your own church'? The C of E claims to be part of the wider western catholic church - the majority of which does NOT believe in ther OOIW.

---

The western catholic church didn't ordain Bishop North - and they don't recognise his "orders" anyway. It's hardly his church or any Anglicans is it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BabyWombat:
As someone from TEC I have not paid close attention to this thread, until today, when I had a good read of it. I can only say that it prompts me to give thanks for TEC’s process. The clergy and people of the diocese in need of a bishop put together the profile of what they need/want/vision.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
Read this today.
Guardian report of Martyn Percy of Christ Church calling for resignation of North

In chasing up the reference to The Society, I realise I had come across it before elsewhere, and wondered just what St Wilfrid and St Hilda think of it, and now with its special membership card to prove clergy haven't been ordained by a woman. (Do they have a special knock on the door, and a password?)

Seriously, though, my current parish in which I coincidentally find myself isn't connected with them. Woman priest-in-charge, women readers, seem a give away of that. But, should someone who cannot be doing with that sort of thing arrive in a rural area with a grouped parish connected to the Society, surely they cannot be properly served according to the traditional concept that the CofE is for everyone. I would feel excluded if I found that 'my' church was tied up with the Old directions and Backward in Faith.

And yes, I know I am a Quaker, so this isn't really relevant, but there's no way of resigning after confirmation, is there, and I currently would like prayers from anyone. Except some little schismatic society whose beliefs are why I left in the first place.

---

quote:

---

‘The Society’, it says on the porch card, ‘guarantees a ministry in the historic, apostolic succession.’ Until last year, you could tell by looking who was a priest whose ministry we could receive, and who was not. But now we have male priests ordained by women bishops. We can’t receive their ministry, but how can you tell who ordained whom, for example, when you’re a churchwarden arranging cover in a vacancy? One of the reasons why the Bishops invite priests to register as Priests of The Society is to help answer that question. Deacons and ordinands can register as well. They sign a Declaration which commits them to what The Society stands for. Priests and deacons submit their letters of orders to prove they were ordained by a bishop whose orders we can recognize. The Society bishop sends them a Welcome Letter, so they can prove that they are clergy of The Society. We have begun to issue identity cards to priests.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Can someone please explain how Philip North can support women's ministry, yet not recognise them as priests?

What would happen if he were gravely ill in hospital and a woman brought the sacrament to him when he was unconscious? Would he then become "taint?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Can someone please explain how Philip North can support women's ministry, yet not recognise them as priests?

What would happen if he were gravely ill in hospital and a woman brought the sacrament to him when he was unconscious? Would he then become "taint?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Can someone please explain how Philip North can support women's ministry, yet not recognise them as priests?

What would happen if he were gravely ill in hospital and a woman brought the sacrament to him when he was unconscious? Would he then become "taint?"

---

Firstly, the 'theology of taint' is not something +Philip has suggested he subscribes to - and in any case it refers to issues with male priests and women involved in their ordination, not to women priests themselves or any effect on the Sacrament if they celebrate mass. The Society officially rejects a 'theology of taint'. It does exist amongst some members, but +Philip has never done anything to suggest that he's one of them.

Secondly, women acting as Sacred Ministers is not a problem - a woman bringing the Sacrament has not necessarily consecrated it herself. I am guessing in a hospital situation if the Anglican priest was a woman, he would request a Roman Catholic priest instead.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Exclamation Mark

What if under Bishop North a woman was appointed Archdeacon at Sheffield Cathedral, something that has not happened in the past?

They seem to have made the acceptance of the belief in the validity of woman's ordination as a matter of personal conscience. They, therefore, accept that other parts of the CofE have other stances and do not seek to impose their stance on those parts. Thus such people have separated out from their institutional role within CofE structures from that of personal devotion. Thus while not accepting communion from a woman priest, they would quite happily appoint women to senior posts within their diocese if that post was available to women and would support women in their career progression within and beyond the diocese. In the case of Sheffield with its history, this would clearly include the role of Archdeacon.

Jengie

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
His understanding being at variance with others in the same denomination means that there is a lack of integrity somewhere - either by him or by the church allowing two opposing views to be equally valid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by k-mann:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
His understanding being at variance with others in the same denomination means that there is a lack of integrity somewhere - either by him or by the church allowing two opposing views to be equally valid.

---

That is how it must be done in a National Church, lest you want it to be split.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
How can you reconcile personal conscience with an institutional role when core beliefs are conflicted? [/qb]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie jon:
More than that can a Baptist minister of the stance that women should not teach a man be a superintendent?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie jon:
More than that can a Baptist minister of the stance that women should not teach a man be a superintendent? Jengie

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
Well, crumbs. Bishop North has decided not to take up the post .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:


I've met Philip North a couple of times and all I can say is that this is mob rule of the worst kind - Jeffrey John all over again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:


I've met Philip North a couple of times and all I can say is that this is mob rule of the worst kind - Jeffrey John all over again.

---

Funny you should mention the long suffering Dr John who has been "rejected" as Bishop of Llandaff.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:


I've met Philip North a couple of times and all I can say is that this is mob rule of the worst kind - Jeffrey John all over again.

---

Funny you should mention the long suffering Dr John who has been "rejected" as Bishop of Llandaff.

---

It's been suggested for Philip North, but actually Lambeth and the Armed Forces is coming vacant and that wouldn't be a bad shout for Dr John - the military like a bit of catholicism with their Christianity and would have no dramas whatsoever with the, er, things other people have in the past had dramas with.

Wonder who I ring to make that happen....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:


I've met Philip North a couple of times and all I can say is that this is mob rule of the worst kind - Jeffrey John all over again.

---

Funny you should mention the long suffering Dr John who has been "rejected" as Bishop of Llandaff.

---

It's been suggested for Philip North, but actually Lambeth and the Armed Forces is coming vacant and that wouldn't be a bad shout for Dr John - the military like a bit of catholicism with their Christianity and would have no dramas whatsoever with the, er, things other people have in the past had dramas with.

Wonder who I ring to make that happen....

---

Bloody hell, things have moved on since Agony Atkins gained notoriety on Thought For The Day, in the 1990s, for a homophobic tirade, which began with a bit of throat clearing along the lines of "of course, no-one endorses the sort of prejudice that we've recently heard about in the Army".

---

quote:

---

If there was any organisation you could expect to turn on a sixpence when someone said "hang on chaps this isn't really cricket" it would be the armed forces.

I'm not saying it's been completely stamped out, but the army, navy and air force tend to do very well in Stonewall's annual list of gay-friendly employers.

---

quote:

---

We already have/have had Diocesan Bishops who do not ordain women as priests. How would the appointment of Philip North been any different from these situations?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It might have helped Philip North if he had distanced himself from some of the wilder views of The Society.

I still can't work out how he can affirm women's ministry on the one hand but deny their public ordination to the same

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:

I confess I do find it difficult to see how a Bishop who will not ordain everyone in their diocese can fulfill the role of a diocesan Bishop. The Bishop has the cure of souls in each and every parish in the diocese. How does that work if the Bishop, by their own beliefs, cannot be in communion with a certain proportion of their parish priests. What sort of a Bishop could sit idly by if they felt that a portion of the parishes in their diocese were receiving "sacraments" that were not actually sacraments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
Truthfully I've no idea what a successful compromise would look like. I didn't appreciate that Chichester was the only diocese without the Dean of Women's ministry, my apologies. But from the article I linked to, it is framed as a bold, progressive move, when really it's just catching up with everyone else. I still don't see the value of it, but then I will never be in ordained ministry.

I was furious and heartbroken when Bp North was appointed, which is entirely related to my own views about OOW. But I don't want people to not have a job either. Like I say, I don't want to be the bad guy. So the circle can't be squared to me. And I wasn't an ordained woman in the diocese of Sheffield, working under him. They're probably more gracious about it than me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edith:
Just musing what the response would be if women bishops refused to ordain men.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:

I suspect we not be able to reach agreement on this, but it remains my view (as a catholic committed to the ordination of women to all orders of ministry) that the tension that is being developed in places like Chichester, and that I believe all the evidence pointed would have developed under +Philip in Sheffield, is what will give the creative space to bring about the theology that will allow a less fudged solution in the longer term.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edith:
Just musing what the response would be if women bishops refused to ordain men.

---

Well, if they're white men, they could always join the board of Tescos, where they're in short supply, apparently
Such speculation is interesting, but I don't think it gets us anywhere. We are where we are because the opponents of OOW think that a) women should not be in a place of leadership, or b) Christ didn't choose female disciples* or c) the priest in some way represents Christ at the eucharist in a way in which his maleness is essential** or d) RCs and Orthodox churches do not ordain women and therefore neither should the Anglican church, lest it impede our chances of union with those churches***

So it's really difficult to imagine the shoe being on the other foot, outside of science fiction, I suppose. My imagination is small and can't manage the wrangling of history it would need to get us into that situation.

Though, if we're doing idle speculation , I'd say the reaction would be outrage.

*Cue debate about whether the disciples are in some way a blueprint for the priesthood, whether Jesus instituted the Bishop / priest / deacon arrangement etc

**Because he is the bridegroom, and the congregation are the bride. Including the male members of the congregation. And Jesus's maleness is essential in a way that his being Jewish, other physical characteristics, etc etc are not. Cue discussions about humanity & maleness, and what has not been assumed cannot be redeemed, and so forth. [Incidentally, in our sci-fi novel, these could be putative answers to TomM's question]

*** I am only low Anglican pew fodder, but to me there seem bigger fish to fry in these matters first.

tl;dr version: I'm going to follow betjemaniac's example (from the other end of the view spectrum) and go away and think and pray. Though with added TEA and GIN.
 

---

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
Though I'd add that theorising about what would happen if women refused to ordain men remind me of discussions I had with my daughters about this whole affair.

They see this as straightforward discrimination on a par with the Tescos comments etc. I've had to explain that the church is different, it's not about discrimination, it's about tradition and interpretation of scripture and so on and so on, and *** points in my previous post. They were pretty incredulous, but that's young idealists for you.
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
Though I'd add that theorising about what would happen if women refused to ordain men remind me of discussions I had with my daughters about this whole affair.

They see this as straightforward discrimination on a par with the Tescos comments etc. I've had to explain that the church is different, it's not about discrimination, it's about tradition and interpretation of scripture and so on and so on, and *** points in my previous post.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Something can be a "tradition" or based on "interpretation of scripture" and still qualify as "discrimination".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
They were pretty incredulous, but that's young idealists for you.

---

I'm old enough to be their Grandma, possibly even their Great Grandma and they make good sense to me.

Well done on trying to explain it to them.

Huia
 

---

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
Thanks, Huia.
 

---

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The strange thing is that no one in 1992 saw this coming. Was/is the assumption that its a game of chicken and that sooner or later someone will blink and one "side" will win the day if not the argument?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
As St Bob of Dylan said:

Your old road is rapidly aging
Please get out of the new one if you can't lend your hand

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Some people are born middle aged. Some of us never grow up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It's a ridiculous nonsense to think that you can run a church which is able to satisfy people who hold equal and opposite theological positions as ingrained as this. You can't have leaders that the one side think are somehow unable to be leaders due to some law-of-God, you can't have people in charge who refuse to accept the ordination view of the majority. It doesn't work.

Time the CofE woke up and sniffed the coffee, the church is an unholy alliance of up to 5 different churches with wildly different base theological positions which are incompatible. Nobody is gaining anything by pretending that the thing can be held together with sticky tape.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Agreed - and in some ways it would be so much easier if the minority just walked away. I get that completely - but many of us (me included) don't want to go. It's a big thing to walk away from a big part of your life and the church that formed you. Particularly in England with all the baggage of post-Reformation history, the Test Acts, etc.

---

quote:

---

I can only speak for myself obviously but despite accepting all the claims of Rome (and having therefore to subscribe to both Tract 90 and branch theory to hold tenuously to the idea that the CofE, or at least the Trad AC remnant of it, is the Catholic church in England, it's still a massive challenge to actually other myself and go across the Tiber; God is an Englishman after all, and those unconscious assumptions run deep however ridiculous.

I suppose in the long run these existential crises may be doing me some good....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
To me this whole crisis would have been avoided if everyone had had the courage of their convictions to leave rather than continuing to pretend that impossible differences could be overcome. They can't. Deal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul.:
True, but I think it's unfair to put the onus of "courage of their convictions" only on one side though. The current situation is as much a product of the Pro-OOW side agreeing to open-ended promises (first "two integrities", lately "mutual flourishing") for political expedience, as it is of the anti-OOW-er's for not simply buggering off.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
The way I would consider it is this: why when the CofE has officially come to a clear decision* that both men and women may be ordained to all three orders of ministry are we *increasing* the number of diocesan bishops who will not ordain women?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
A shipmate who used to be a regular in Ecclesiantics once argued that there ought to be a suffragan Bishop in every Diocese who didn't ordain women. I think that's probably too many surplus Bishops but I think a restoration of the PEVs might make more sense than imposing a Bishop on a Diocese which is largely in favour of OoW.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
A shipmate who used to be a regular in Ecclesiantics once argued that there ought to be a suffragan Bishop in every Diocese who didn't ordain women. I think that's probably too many surplus Bishops but I think a restoration of the PEVs might make more sense than imposing a Bishop on a Diocese which is largely in favour of OoW.

---

I can't remember who the proposer at Synod was in 1992 but it was actually seriously considered that that should be the case at benefice level, let alone diocesan! It was called the *name-of-proposer* scheme - would never have worked (on numbers of clergy quite apart from anything else) but it was mooted.

I do think at this stage the sensible way forward would be a third province (ducks for cover). I understand entirely why it kept getting ruled out but we are where we are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
A shipmate who used to be a regular in Ecclesiantics once argued that there ought to be a suffragan Bishop in every Diocese who didn't ordain women. I think that's probably too many surplus Bishops but I think a restoration of the PEVs might make more sense than imposing a Bishop on a Diocese which is largely in favour of OoW.

---

I can't remember who the proposer at Synod was in 1992 but it was actually seriously considered that that should be the case at benefice level, let alone diocesan! It was called the *name-of-proposer* scheme - would never have worked (on numbers of clergy quite apart from anything else) but it was mooted.

I do think at this stage the sensible way forward would be a third province (ducks for cover). I understand entirely why it kept getting ruled out but we are where we are.

---

Deanery, not benefice, if memory serves. (Well, I was 6 at the time. If memory from what I've read about it serves).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
I was for years against a third province, but actually betjemaniac I now agree with you on this.

Conservative Catholics have essentially taken steps to create a church within a church. I find that regrettable but understandable. Why not formalise that as a third non geographical province?

We have come this far without either side persuading the other of the veracity of its cause. The mixed economy approach does not seem to be working on the ground, vis Sheffield, so why not formalise what is a reality?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:
Some probably are, but my experience is that under the 5GP they are more involved, and less ghettoized than they were.

---

I'd totally agree with that from my own experience - the real militant tendency went to the Ordinariate straightaway. What was left on the Trad AC side were people who wanted to give it a go. Anecdotally, the Trad AC were much easier to deal with when the legislation was making its way through Synod than the ConEvos were - for "my" side it was all about having the space to flourish, no overt glass ceilings, and away you go.

Unfortunately that involved taking a lot on trust - and I recognise that that was needed on both sides after the leadership of the Taliban AC tendency during the 1990s and 2000s.

Where we've got to know is a lot of very upset people (admittedly on both sides but we're talking specifically about the Trad ACs here) - who find it difficult not to think that it was all along a case of "thanks for getting to a compromise which would see the legislation through, don't let the door hit you on your way out now we don't have to humour you."
 

---

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
I suppose, overall, I just feel betrayed by my church - and it wasn't even me who was going to Sheffield.

I appreciate that there're plenty of people who would have felt betrayed had +Philip been put into place, but the upshot is somebody was going to have their heart broken whichever way it went.

The CofE have decided it's fine to believe women can be priests, and that they can't. In some ways I genuinely wish they had just told us to clear off in the first place. But I suppose avoiding saying that openly has salved a few consciences somewhere.
 

---

Posted by Edith (# 16978) on :
 
Of interest

https://shefminequal.wordpress.com/opinion/disciples-think-they-dont-just-follow/
 

---

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
I would like to know the following statistics.

Given the number of New Bishops created since Women could be, what proportion of them were women?


Jengie
 

---

Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :
 
Roughly:

12 men and 8 women have been appointed to suffragan sees, with a further 2 vacant or with a retirement announced.

5 men and 2 women to diocesan sees, with a further 4 vacant or becoming vacant (one of those 4 being Sheffield)

Some of these might have been appointed just before it was possible to choose a woman, I'm only digging so far!!
 

---

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
That is fine. My digging had got me nowhere. Can I just check, if you know, whether the diocesan were not suffragans beforehand?

Jengie
 

---

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
Just to say that given those figures there is no evidence that men are being preferred to women as suffragan bishops, there is a 1 in 4 chance of getting this or a more extreme result if the odds were equal.

I would expect a delay with Diocesan Bishops due to them quite often being a second Bishop appointment.

Jengie
 

---

Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :
 
My information came from here:

http://www.peterowen.org.uk/articles/vacantsees.html

and here:

http://www.peterowen.org.uk/articles/vacantsuffragansees.html
 

---

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
Thanks

When I check for diocese then only the women in that time were not at least suffragans. So ten women to twelve men became Bishops since women could be.

Jengie
 

---

Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on :
 
Resolution:
news of episcopacy
 

---

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
The diocesan website- the diocesan website- refers to Dr Wilcox as 'The Very Revd Wilcox' !
 

---

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
As bad as our ABC (the equivalent of the BBC). Not so long ago, it referred to a rector as being "the reverend at the church"!!!!!!
 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
bump
 

---

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
A small thing, but as a little coda to the story, this really made me smile. I'm a huge fan of Catherine Fox's novels.
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
And another evangelical. The bench of bishops has become dangerously skewed, which bodes ill for those in the from the middle of the candle up.
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
But he's one of the more 'enlightened' evangelicals
 

---

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by anne:
But he was appointed. For good or ill, the decision was made, following due process, that +Philip North was the man for the job. If the point of the 'mutual flourishing' exercise was that a man with his beliefs should be as eligible to become a diocesan as any other candidate, then it worked. He was appointed.

Then he withdrew. Not as a result of failure in process or procedure, but because of personal insults and attacks. This is not about the process being affected or subverted by personal insult and attack (cf Jeffrey John) but because he couldn't take it. Maybe he was unprepared, maybe the insults in his direction were more virulent, obnoxious and offensive than those directed at senior women clergy, women bishops or Jeffrey John over the years although that seems ... unlikely. But nothing in this whole debacle tells me that the process is not fully capable of appointing another man who does not recognise the priestly orders of many of his clergy as a diocesan. Maybe the next one will be less loved, less pastoral, less supportive, but a bit thicker skinned.

anne

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
Albertus, can you explain the second part a bit to an interested observer but not one close to the action, please? I know there were objections to Philip North's appt from some of the female clergy in Sheffield, but what's Oxford got to with it? And what has their class to do with it?

(Confession, I am spectacularly middle class, so if being middle class is used in what looks like a derogatory way, the hackles are up pretty quickly).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
Yes, that's it. Martyn & Emma Percy. What made me so cross about this is that there is every reason to think that +Philip North would have made an excellent bishop for a diocese with some really difficult socio-economic problems, but because he didn't line up on this one issue- although he was prepared to make some accommodations and although female clergy who had worked with him before spoke highly of him, toys were thrown out of prams in the Christ Church deanery garden and the fallout put the kybosh on what could have been a chance to work out something new which might, just might, have pleasantly surprised everybody.

---

Amen and amen. The Percys should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. All the women clergy I know who have worked with or know Philip North speak very highly of him. Any protest came from people who didn't know him.
 

---

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
Thanks for the enlightenment, all. I appreciate it. I can certainly see Albertus's point in that Philip North's appt might just have pleasantly surprised everybody, and it is a shame that we won't now know.

However, we won't know about the possible positives which could have come from his appt, but we also have the unknown unknowns (sorry) which come from the absence of the appt of women to that role over the decades.

I keep coming back to anne's post on the previous page:

quote:

---

Originally posted by anne:
Then he withdrew. Not as a result of failure in process or procedure, but because of personal insults and attacks. This is not about the process being affected or subverted by personal insult and attack (cf Jeffrey John) but because he couldn't take it. Maybe he was unprepared, maybe the insults in his direction were more virulent, obnoxious and offensive than those directed at senior women clergy, women bishops or Jeffrey John over the years although that seems ... unlikely. But nothing in this whole debacle tells me that the process is not fully capable of appointing another man who does not recognise the priestly orders of many of his clergy as a diocesan. Maybe the next one will be less loved, less pastoral, less supportive, but a bit thicker skinned.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:...it's not surprising that the thought of more working-class people contaminating the CoE (in their mind) horrified some people. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
It is striking that the people who kicked up such a fuss about Philip North's supposed sexism are very slow to be concerned about classism within the CoE. There's apparently no room for those who cannot accept women as priests, but also no room for those who want the priesthood to be less white and middle-class. Acting like middle-class people are the victims here is like saying white people are the real victims of racism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
Should have said that there is one, just one, thing that IMO really should have stood in +North's way and that was his connection with The Society. I think he should have been told that if he were to accept the nomination to Sheffield he should cut all ties with this outfit. I don't know whether he was or wasn't and, if he was, how he responded.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
What i think is objectionable about The Society is its register of 'sound' clergy: see here for the registration declaration for priests, and especially the points about having been ordained in the historic male line and only concelebrating with, and receiving communion from, male clergy ordained in that line. ISTM that:
(i) You can't go digging around into ordination history to check that there's no woman in there way back when (as may doubtless become the case over time)without essentially setting up a priesthood within the priesthood
(ii) There's a difference between quietly avoiding situations where you might have a conscientious objection to participation- which I think could just be possible, even for a diocesan bishop- and making a declaration that you will do so, so that you can go onto the 'approved' list. Quiet avoidance gives some room for mutual flourishing: making declarations of theological conviction narrows that room down.
Oh, and yes, +Chichester and all the other bishops should be asked to resign from in. in fact the whole bloody thing should be suppressed by the Archbishops, although I doubt whether they have the legal power to do so or, if the have, the balls to use it. Every bit as objectionable as those parallel structures that some conevos are setting up (again, without AFAICS an adequately robust response from the Archbishops).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:
... The point about concelebration is them doing exactly that - it is a statement about genuinely having integrity, and not chopping and changing as the wind moves them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
should concelebrate with women, though ISTM one might consider it an opportunity to ensure that at least one celebrant is in your eyes validly ordained.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
Don't matter a damn what the RCC thinks. AFATC none of our lot is properly ordained anyway- and that goes for Fr Spikey Romanmissal-Nomenstruatingroundmyaltarplease as much as it does for Mother Inclusive NongenderspecificGod. The whole point of the CofE being an independent part of the Church is that it makes its own decisions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:
Yes, we can make some of our own decisions, but as the Church, we cannot act unilaterally. When we do, and depart from the faith once received from the Apostles, we cease to be the Church. We might come to understand that faith more fully, but on our own we cannot know whether we have greater understanding or have departed from it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Goode:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:
Yes, we can make some of our own decisions, but as the Church, we cannot act unilaterally. When we do, and depart from the faith once received from the Apostles, we cease to be the Church. We might come to understand that faith more fully, but on our own we cannot know whether we have greater understanding or have departed from it.

---

I think you're confusing the living faith handed down to us from the Apostles with a dead and fossilised and slavish adherence to the customs and practices of a two thousand year-old patriarchal society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:

I'd suggest in this debate it is not the question of the gender of the ordinands that is where the Church of England is in danger of departing from the apostolic inheritance, but on the question of what we are ordaining them to. We are increasingly moving to a culture where ordination is approached as a right, where we are losing sight of vocations to patterns of life that don't involve holy orders, and where one can pick choose the pastors one is under not based on the validity of their orders, but on whether or not one agrees with them.

---

quote:

---

ETA: I recall a comment made by, I think, Metropolitan Kallistos in one of his books. He suggested the Orthodox could not condemn the ordination of women as contrary to the faith since no ecumenical council had ruled on the matter. (And he noted, providence had arranged for there to no longer be a Roman Emperor to call another council...)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:

I'd suggest in this debate it is not the question of the gender of the ordinands that is where the Church of England is in danger of departing from the apostolic inheritance, but on the question of what we are ordaining them to. We are increasingly moving to a culture where ordination is approached as a right, where we are losing sight of vocations to patterns of life that don't involve holy orders, and where one can pick choose the pastors one is under not based on the validity of their orders, but on whether or not one agrees with them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Goode:

If these people had any integrity, they would leave and join a church that believes and teaches that what they believe is correct. They should resign their livings, move out of their provided accommodation, stop drawing their stipends, and freeze their pensions, and I just can't for the life of me imagine why they won't...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:
In case you hadn't spotted, I have said many times on this thread that I am in favour of the ordination of women to all three orders of ministry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Priesthood is just another form of service

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:
In case you hadn't spotted, I have said many times on this thread that I am in favour of the ordination of women to all three orders of ministry.

---

Do you really believe that or is it expediency to run with both sides of the debate? After all, you say elsewhere that in ordaining women, the CofE has departed from the faith of the apostles.

We're all ordained into Christian service so it hardly matters does it? Priesthood is just another form of service

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Goode:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:

I'd suggest in this debate it is not the question of the gender of the ordinands that is where the Church of England is in danger of departing from the apostolic inheritance, but on the question of what we are ordaining them to. We are increasingly moving to a culture where ordination is approached as a right, where we are losing sight of vocations to patterns of life that don't involve holy orders, and where one can pick choose the pastors one is under not based on the validity of their orders, but on whether or not one agrees with them.

---

Now, that's a different argument. I can't say I had noticed in a more general sense what you argue, but then I'm not close to the action. Where I have noticed it, it's most definitely questioning validity, based on gender, and is inevitably going to extend further and further into a bishop's consecrators' backgrounds.

I don't see any integrity at all in the people who oppose equality of ordination, and who believe bishops are somehow tainted by a connection with ordaining women, remaining in the Church of England, which teaches and practices the opposite of what they believe. If these people had any integrity, they would leave and join a church that believes and teaches that what they believe is correct. They should resign their livings, move out of their provided accommodation, stop drawing their stipends, and freeze their pensions, and I just can't for the life of me imagine why they won't...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:
But, as the Five Guiding Principles say, it is a valid and acceptable Anglican position to say that women should not be ordained. They must recognise that we do ordain women, but are not required to accept that ministry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:
As to the question of integrity, given my communion with the bishop who (God willing) will ordain me is impaired should I go too? (I believe the MBS to be Jesus, he's a bit more equivocal).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Priesthood is just another form of service

---

That you state this shows that you dfo not have a catholic understanding of ministerial priesthood nor of those who do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Goode:
In what way is your communion with your bishop impaired?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Goode:
In what way is your communion with your bishop impaired?

---

If one does not believe in women's ordaination and the bishop has ordained women, I'd guess necessarily your communion with him is impaired. I suspect it may also be the other way around.

The problem here is the stupid collegiate nature of the CofE which allows people who have opposite views to the vast majority to continue doing their thing under the banner of the church.

Which is all very well when the keep well away from the majority with their stupid ideas, but quite takes the biscuit when they're appointed to a position over the majority. Just leave already.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:
As to the question of integrity, given my communion with the bishop who (God willing) will ordain me is impaired should I go too? (I believe the MBS to be Jesus, he's a bit more equivocal).

---

Impaired communion? Aren't you being a bit overscrupulous here? I mean, most Bishops nowadays are pretty tolerant of those whose views stray, as you seem to be saying yours do, a bit away from the faith of the church as expressed in the XXXIX Articles. I'm sure he won't hold it against you and will be willing to ordain you anyway.
That was what you meant, wasn't it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:
And where are the limits on acceptable views, oh great one? ...Who gets to decide?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:
That is what I was saying yes. My point was that our communion is impaired not simply because of the question of gender of ordinands. That is not the biggest gulf that exists in the Church of England today.

---

quote:

---

the integrity of differing beliefs and positions concerning the ordination of women to the priesthood should be mutually recognised and respected

---

quote:

---

Since those within the Church of England who, on grounds of theological conviction, are unable to receive the ministry of women bishops or priests continue to be within the spectrum of teaching and tradition of the Anglican Communion, the Church of England remains committed to enabling them to flourish within its life and structures

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:
And where are the limits on acceptable views, oh great one? Are anglo-catholics who are in favour of the ordination of women acceptable still, or must we all bow the knee to the HTB charismatic religion that formed the current ABC? Who gets to decide?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:
So according to the body you think should the boundaries, the Church of England remains committed to enabling those of differing views on this question to flourish. Good to know. At some point those pointing at Synod as the decision making body might pay attention to what Synod said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:
And that second post is a very fine misconstrual of the entirety of the point I was making. At least amongst those who claim to believe in the catholic faith, this cannot be a dispute over secular equality. It is not about discrimination. It is about the question of the nature of the priestly ministry Christ calls some of the members of his Church to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:
And so to deny that the Eucharist is the partaking of the sacrifice of Christ is a comparable question to who may celebrate it in persona Christi.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:
So according to the body you think should the boundaries, the Church of England remains committed to enabling those of differing views on this question to flourish. Good to know. At some point those pointing at Synod as the decision making body might pay attention to what Synod said.

---

quote:

---

And that second post is a very fine misconstrual of the entirety of the point I was making. At least amongst those who claim to believe in the catholic faith, this cannot be a dispute over secular equality. It is not about discrimination. It is about the question of the nature of the priestly ministry Christ calls some of the members of his Church to. And so to deny that the Eucharist is the partaking of the sacrifice of Christ is a comparable question to who may celebrate it in persona Christi.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
As a footnote, I think the HTB crowd should also leave the CofE already.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Goode:
So do I, but there is a fundamental flaw in our argument, mr cheesy. If all the affluent HTB-like parishes leave the Church of England, who will pay for the stipends and pension contributions of the "Forward in Fatih" and Society types?!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Its more than 5 year since I asked an HTB type incumbent why he stayed in the CofE: the answer given was that the CofE (a) comes complete with organisational structure including buildings and pension scheme, and (b) rather than leave he and many of his friends thought the time had come for a takeover to begin. He wasn't joking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:

So we are only bound y what Synod says when you like it? When it promises a place to a particular group that you happen to disagree with then it's fine to ignore that position?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:
To say, as you and I both do, that Christ calls men and women as deacons, priests and bishops, in the current context of the Church of England, begs the question of what a deacon, a priest or a bishop is anyway. The discussion that is being swept under the carpet whilst departing the extension of the sacrament of order to women is the meaning of that sacrament. Those who oppose the ordination of women are actively clinging to the same understanding of that is those of us who are catholic anglicans and do accept the ordination of women. The rest of the CofE seems to be moving as rapidly as it can towards the commissioning of ministers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:
And that is why the question of the real presence, the Eucharist as sacrifice and the role of the priest in persona Christi all run into one. What is happening in the celebration of the sacraments? Catholics, of all persuasion, claim something objective.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:
This doesn't run into Donatism. I have not said I believe my bishop does not celebrate validly, but that our communion is incomplete because of the different understandings on what we receive in the celebration of our communion in the Mass.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:

And yes, I am a seminarian in the Church of England.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:

Mr Cheesy:
But Synod has not said that a group can continue. Synod has said that the group should be allowed to flourish. And that means recognising those the whole church discerns called to episcopal ministry to serve in that manner.

---

quote:

---

And do you want to try responding to what I actually said in referencing HTB rather than inventing a point I didn't make?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:

This doesn't run into Donatism. I have not said I believe my bishop does not celebrate validly, but that our communion is incomplete because of the different understandings on what we receive in the celebration of our communion in the Mass.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
If there was/is an ontological change at ordination as some claim, then we are looking at a caste of perfect men. I can't find that anywhere ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:

This doesn't run into Donatism. I have not said I believe my bishop does not celebrate validly, but that our communion is incomplete because of the different understandings on what we receive in the celebration of our communion in the Mass.

---

Here's the position I think is getting rather close to Donatism:

As I understand it, the position of the "Society" is that they will not receive communion from a "tainted" priest (meaning any priest who doesn't support a male-only priesthood and doesn't promise to likewise keep himself away from "tainted" priests).

Yet they do not have any scruples about kneeling at the altar rail alongside supporters of women priests, and will happily administer communion to such people.

("You" in the following is a Society member, not you personally, TomM:)

If you are happy to share communion with someone, but are not happy if he is presiding, what's going on?

If the someone is a woman, or a man ordained by a woman, it's clear: you don't think he's a priest, and so you don't think there's a valid Eucharist.

But if the someone is a man ordained by an unbroken line of men, you do think he's a priest, but think that he's wrong about women.

So what's the difference between receiving communion alongside him and receiving communion from him? I don't see an answer that isn't Donatism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:
But that's not the position of the Society. They accept the priestly ministry of any male priest ordained by a male bishop (etc.). As it happens, I served Mass for one today when the deacon was a priest who is (in your description, not the Society's) "tainted".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:
But that's not the position of the Society. They accept the priestly ministry of any male priest ordained by a male bishop (etc.). As it happens, I served Mass for one today when the deacon was a priest who is (in your description, not the Society's) "tainted".

---

Then it seems to me that either you or he (or both of you) need to take a hard look in the mirror and decide what it is that you actually believe in. Because at the moment he's taking his cake and eating it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:
Why?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:
Why?

---

Why what? How can it be anything other than a problem when someone sits in a Eucharistic service but refuses to receive from a specific deacon (assuming I'm understanding the grammar of your sentence correctly)?

By doing that, they're saying that the person doing the distribution is invalid and that everyone else who has received from them is invalid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:
But that's not the position of the Society. They accept the priestly ministry of any male priest ordained by a male bishop (etc.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:
But that's not the position of the Society. They accept the priestly ministry of any male priest ordained by a male bishop (etc.)

---

I withdraw (at least partially) my comment - I had misunderstood the Society's rules. They accept the priestly ministry of any male priest ordained by men etc., but only admit to membership of the Society men who think that women aren't priests.

But then they talk a lot about how the Society is important for providing sacramental assurance for the no-women crowd. The tagline on their website is "Providing ministry, sacraments and oversight which we can receive with confidence".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Yes but, and I don't expect people to like this, that's because they're in it for the long term. The whole thing is set up to ensure that it can work in 20-30 years time. There will come a point where the people to whom it is important will need to know the pedigree of the chap at the altar. At the moment, you can be pretty certain, if that sort of thing is important to you, that the man presiding was ordained by a man.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:

The Society is planning for a time when that sort of if it's a man then they're valid isn't necessarily true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:

The Society is planning for a time when that sort of if it's a man then they're valid isn't necessarily true.

---

So there are within the C of E:

1. Priests who think only men can be priests
2. Priests who think women can be priests, and are men ordained by men (etc.)
3. Priests who are women, or men with a woman somewhere up the line.

The Society think that 1 and 2 are priests, and 3 are not priests. If they were concerned with ensuring "sacramental integrity" for the largest number of their sympathizers, should they not keep a register of 1 and 2?

Certainly if you are of that persuasion you might want to make your home in a parish with a priest who shares your opinion, but if you're travelling, surely what you want is to know whether Father So-and-so is a priest, rather than whether he is a priest who shares your opinions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Yes, spot on. Although I'd note that it's not just priests who think that - you've got laity who very much align against those 3 too.

---

Yes, of course.

(Perhaps we should add a "4. Priests who don't think priests exist" to the list
)
 

---

Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Yes, spot on. Although I'd note that it's not just priests who think that - you've got laity who very much align against those 3 too.

---

Yes, of course.

(Perhaps we should add a "4. Priests who don't think priests exist" to the list
)

---

Oh, that group exist too. For those of them who don't believe women can be "not-priests", I believe they usually seek episcopal oversight from the bishop for those who don't believe in bishops or women. (Commonly called the Bishop of Maidstone).

The Society don't worry too much about male priests ordained by men who don't want to join their membership list, because they don't want to join their membership list. They wouldn't claim it is meant to be a list of all 'acceptable' priests, but a list of priests who are definitely 'acceptable'.
 

---

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:
As I said, 3 isn't really an issue at the moment because the numbers are vanishingly small, but it will be in the future.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Goode:

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Yes but, and I don't expect people to like this, that's because they're in it for the long term. The whole thing is set up to ensure that it can work in 20-30 years time. There will come a point where the people to whom it is important will need to know the pedigree of the chap at the altar. At the moment, you can be pretty certain, if that sort of thing is important to you, that the man presiding was ordained by a man.

---

There are couple of interesting statements in their leaflet on communion:

"Parishes, clergy and people are in full communion with their bishop when they can receive the sacramental ministry of all those whom their bishop ordains."

and

"Normally, holy communion is received within a context of full communion. For us, this means receiving communion in Society parishes or from bishops and priests of The Society."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Goode:
There are couple of interesting statements in their leaflet on communion:

"Parishes, clergy and people are in full communion with their bishop when they can receive the sacramental ministry of all those whom their bishop ordains."

and

"Normally, holy communion is received within a context of full communion. For us, this means receiving communion in Society parishes or from bishops and priests of The Society."

---

So, effectively a communion within the wider communion of the Church. Very much not a CofE approach, whatever your grounds (OoW or disagreements about the nature of the Eucharist) for taking it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Goode:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Goode:
There are couple of interesting statements in their leaflet on communion:

"Parishes, clergy and people are in full communion with their bishop when they can receive the sacramental ministry of all those whom their bishop ordains."

and

"Normally, holy communion is received within a context of full communion. For us, this means receiving communion in Society parishes or from bishops and priests of The Society."

---

So, effectively a communion within the wider communion of the Church. Very much not a CofE approach, whatever your grounds (OoW or disagreements about the nature of the Eucharist) for taking it.

---

Yes. They're little more than parasites, living off the Church of England, with homes provided, stipends, and pensions. They want to have their host and eat it, pun intended.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
Clergy or laity, it's not the CofE way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
...Now, supporter of OoW as I am I can see that for opponents of OoW, this is where maintaining a framework of common practice becomes a bit tricky, especially where you have women bishops. But, to return to the subject of the OP, I think +Philip North was willing to try to see how far this could be done and he deserved the chance to try.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:
mr cheesy - The flying bishops operate as assistant bishops in each diocese they care for parishes in, by the license of the diocesan. Every diocese is required to have (at least) an assistant bishop who ordains women. In Chichester, this is covered by (at least) one of the suffragans. In London, by all of the area bishops (though not the suffragan). In Sheffield, if +Philip had taken the post, the Bishop of Doncaster would have been in a position to take up such responsibility.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:
mr cheesy - The flying bishops operate as assistant bishops in each diocese they care for parishes in, by the license of the diocesan. Every diocese is required to have (at least) an assistant bishop who ordains women. In Chichester, this is covered by (at least) one of the suffragans. In London, by all of the area bishops (though not the suffragan). In Sheffield, if +Philip had taken the post, the Bishop of Doncaster would have been in a position to take up such responsibility.

---

Maybe we think that's not good enough. Maybe we don't want to be in communion with a bishop who doesn't ordain women, we don't want to be in any sense under a diocesan bishop who doesn't ordain women or be around people who were ordained by a bishop who doesn't ordain women. Where is our alternative episcopal oversight?

We don't want just some other bishop in our diocese, surely we should be entitled to have one organised by Province in England.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
Is not the answer that only those willing to ordain women as priests become diocesan bishops, while those not so prepared may only be assistants - perhaps 1 to every half dozen dioceses?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I have a question which Betjemaniac or TomM might know the answer to. Why does a priest applying to be on the list of the Society of St Wilfrid and Hilda need to make a declaration that he will concelebrate only with male priests and receive only when male priests preside ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
Is not the answer that only those willing to ordain women as priests become diocesan bishops, while those not so prepared may only be assistants - perhaps 1 to every half dozen dioceses?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:
I thought one of the main arguments that was popular in favour of the ordination of women to the episcopate was the removal of the stained glass ceiling over certain candidates? Such a scheme would merely put it over different ones.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:
I thought one of the main arguments that was popular in favour of the ordination of women to the episcopate was the removal of the stained glass ceiling over certain candidates? Such a scheme would merely put it over different ones.

---

It's not directly comparable - discriminating against someone on the basis of an unchosen, unhideable characteristic and saying that certain views exclude someone from office are not morally equivalent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The theology of a sacrificing priest, of the Apostolic Succession, who stands at the Altar in persona Christi, and re-presents the sacrifice of Calvary in an unbloody form at every Mass, is held, with minor variations by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches who make up two thirds of Christendom and to whom the ordination of women is a non issue. To them Christ is truly present in the Bread and Wine. But to most Protestants this would be a load of hocus pocus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
And I guess it could be noted that belief in a certain nature of the priesthood and the influence institutional sexism and misogyny are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
And I guess it could be noted that belief in a certain nature of the priesthood and the influence institutional sexism and misogyny are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

---

Yes but my point is that it's the understanding of the nature of the priesthood, even if you have a very different understanding of it, which motivates Catholics to oppose women's ordination, and not feelings of sexism and misogyny.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Croesos:
Having a sexist "understanding of the nature of the priesthood" is still sexism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
I'm less concerned whether bishops ordain (or don't) women than by the ordination of many people who seem unsuited for the role of either pastor or leader.

---

Hear, hear!
 

---

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
In other words, you're pleased that the majority of "the Christian world" doesn't recognize women as fully human, made in the image of God. If they did, they'd recognize that there's no reason women can't offer the unbloody sacrifice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
In other words, you're pleased that the majority of "the Christian world" doesn't recognize women as fully human, made in the image of God. If they did, they'd recognize that there's no reason women can't offer the unbloody sacrifice.

---

It's not that. I just don't accept that every Christian (almost) in South America and in Russia is a misogynist with a desire to discriminate against women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
It's not that. I just don't accept that every Christian (almost) in South America and in Russia is a misogynist with a desire to discriminate against women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by arethosemyfeet:
Between those who do believe women should be ordained and those who accept what they're told by the hierarchy I suspect the True Believers in male-only priesthood are a minority.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:

quote:

---

Originally posted by arethosemyfeet:
Between those who do believe women should be ordained and those who accept what they're told by the hierarchy I suspect the True Believers in male-only priesthood are a minority.

---

I would agree with that, but many members of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, who either believe strongly in the theology of their churches, or who are completely inculturated within their traditions, may not find women's ordination important enough to be a motive to change churches. It seems here that many members of the Church of England think it's important enough to effectively expel those who disagree.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The obverse of that is that people who deny the ability of an institution to make a decision which puts that institution at variance with other similar institutions are expecting to remain in good standing and indeed in positions of authority in the first institution, rather than leaving for the other institutions which have not made the same decision. To my mind, it is up to them to prove why they have the right to do something that perverse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The obverse of that is that people who deny the ability of an institution to make a decision which puts that institution at variance with other similar institutions are expecting to remain in good standing and indeed in positions of authority in the first institution, rather than leaving for the other institutions which have not made the same decision. To my mind, it is up to them to prove why they have the right to do something that perverse.

---

I agree with you. I don't think there's any reason or even true integrity in someone who opposes women's ordination to remain in the Church of England, because the C of E has made that decision and is now totally committed to it, unlike 25 years ago when it was described as a "period of reception." But that would be an individual decision. Is it right for the C of E to push people out who consider themselves to be loyal Anglicans? There are many reasons why some Anglicans find it difficult to cross the Tiber or join the Orthodox Church. Attachment to an imagined "English" style of worship. Loyalty to family or friends, or even love of their own church building. It isn't always an easy decision.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0