quote:

---

Originally posted by verticordian:
I'm just looking forward to the day when more evangelical churches allow women into leadership positions.

---

quote:

---

I offered the church my hands, head and heart. She did not want them. I was told to stay at home and do crochet.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I feel very, very sad for my sisters in Christ. This is another rejection of the gifts they have to offer. I'm reminded of what Florence Nightingale said more than a century ago:

quote:

---

I offered the church my hands, head and heart. She did not want them. I was told to stay at home and do crochet.

---

---

This



 

---

Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Could somebody tell me what happened?

---

About 72% overall voted in favour.

To break that down, that's 90% of bishops in favour, 77% of clergy in favour, and 64% of laity in favour.

So it's a 'no'.
 

---

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
insanity
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Would any other place have such a large 'yes' down as a 'no'?


 

---

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Could somebody tell me what happened?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Weeder:
I attend an Evangelical C of E Church. Our PCC are very much in favour of women Bishops, and responded to that effect.

---

But evangelical/charismatic/happy clappy churches I have attended are very much 'no, man is head of woman therefore women cannot do anything but lead worship or speak at women's conferences' which is really depressing. They make the point of being so much more spiritual than C of E and that in their style of worship etc. they're so much more modern and young and trendy (whatever that means) but their response to issues such as this is 200 years out of date.
 

---

Posted by Ceannaideach (# 12007) on :
 
If six people had voted yes then it would have gone through. SIX PEOPLE!
 

---

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Would any other place have such a large 'yes' down as a 'no'?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Would any other place have such a large 'yes' down as a 'no'?

---

Er, yes. Any voting body that required a two-thirds voting majority in three chambers/houses would have.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Would any other place have such a large 'yes' down as a 'no'?

---

Er, yes. Any voting body that required a two-thirds voting majority in three chambers/houses would have.

---

Can you name one?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
For me this is the fruit of the failure of the Church after 1992 to live up to the promises about the 'honoured status for those opposed' made during the OOW debates. That those proved to be of almost no value meant that when the changer came back for more, they found their promises to be nice - with even less teeth - to be disdained. Personally I suspect that the Third Province approach may be the best solution, given that no rational person can seriously trust the promises made; in retrospect the 1992 vote was squeaked through on the day with far too many hostages to fortune, which can't now be redeemed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
In 1992 they should have made no provision at all for those opposed. Either women are priests or they're not, and if they are, they are priests throughout the entire province. And if they are priests, they can be bishops.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ceannaideach:
If six people had voted yes then it would have gone through. SIX PEOPLE!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
OK

The now closed thread in Purgatory said something about gutted. So, I thought maybe Synod might have agreed to women bishops but with a ton of restrictions. The vote is a total no?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DunkDuffel:
The issue that galvanised the ever-so-slightly limited approval in the House of Laity was the provision for those who couldn't accept the ministry of women bishops.

I'm trying to be neutral but I really don't understand why this group haven't taken up the Pope's generous provisions for the to join the Ordinariate.

Any responses?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Weeder:

quote:

---

Originally posted by verticordian:
I'm just looking forward to the day when more evangelical churches allow women into leadership positions.

---

I attend an Evangelical C of E Church. Our PCC are very much in favour of women Bishops, and responded to that effect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Anyone for a Ship of Fools caucus on the next General Synod?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I know it's easy for me to say this as a male, but there's always next time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I know it's easy for me to say this as a male, but there's always next time.

---

How long will that take? And how many people will have left the CofE in disgust by then? How much more irrelevant will the church be in English society by the time it decides to treat women as made in the image of God?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Had it gone through you'd all be hailing it as a prophetic answer to prayer and evidence that the Holy Spirit is even able to guide synod to the glory of God. Not so the opposite. Funny that.

---

Is that what you say when the parishioners you'd been praying for die unhealed?
 

---

Posted by hilaryg (# 11690) on :
 
One of the problems is getting a proper representative House of Laity - if you hold paid employment and/or have family responsibilities then it's very difficult to commit to a position which involves much weekday attendance. And the vast majority of the time the agenda seems like boring stuff

Hence the positions get filled with retired volunteers with axes to grind.

I don't think I've got words to say how shocked and angry I am.
 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

Anyone for a Ship of Fools caucus on the next General Synod?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
In 1992 they should have made no provision at all for those opposed. Either women are priests or they're not, and if they are, they are priests throughout the entire province. And if they are priests, they can be bishops.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DunkDuffel:
Because they are conservative evangelicals?

allied to certain anglo-catholics.

My late Dad always said that politics wasn't a spectrum but a circle. The extremes bend round to meet one another. He, being German, meant radical socialism and National Socialism.

But the same principle applies to conservative evangelicalism and papist anglo-catholicism in this context.

---

Oh, you mean the spectrum from those who believe something to those who believe anything Or should I just point out that this has violated Godwin's law?
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
For me this is the fruit of the failure of the Church after 1992 to live up to the promises about the 'honoured status for those opposed' made during the OOW debates. That those proved to be of almost no value meant that when the changer came back for more, they found their promises to be nice - with even less teeth - to be disdained. Personally I suspect that the Third Province approach may be the best solution, given that no rational person can seriously trust the promises made; in retrospect the 1992 vote was squeaked through on the day with far too many hostages to fortune, which can't now be redeemed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ceannaideach:
If six people had voted yes then it would have gone through. SIX PEOPLE!

---

I don't think it is even that - three people who voted 'no' voting 'yes' would have changed it. So now we are stuck with years more wrangling.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DunkDuffel:
I'm trying to be neutral but I really don't understand why this group haven't taken up the Pope's generous provisions for the to join the Ordinariate.

Any responses?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
(How did your dogging of Nate Silver go on election day, by the way?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Just once, I'd like to see St. Punk the Pious post something that wasn't completely predictable.

(How did your dogging of Nate Silver go on election day, by the way?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garasu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
(How did your dogging of Nate Silver go on election day, by the way?)

---

Um... Really?!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Had it gone through you'd all be hailing it as a prophetic answer to prayer and evidence that the Holy Spirit is even able to guide synod to the glory of God. Not so the opposite. Funny that.

---

Is that what you say when the parishioners you'd been praying for die unhealed?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garasu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
(How did your dogging of Nate Silver go on election day, by the way?)

---

Um... Really?!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Organ Builder:
I don't think Ruth meant this.

Not safe for many workplaces, btw.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jigsaw:

And - yes, as others have said, this majority requirement is not democratic. Does the House of Laity, if not the whole GS, need to be reformed, and if so, how can this be achieved?

---

By a two-thirds majority in all three houses.
 

---

Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on :
 
Ruth, "idiots who think women should remain second-class members of the Church of England" are few and far between. And I am certainly not one of them.

I know this is Hell, but you surely have a more erudite knowledge of the issues at hand than that.
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Two thirds majority is the usual requirement for most constitutional changes on most charity governing documents. It's often required at two successive meetings.
 

---

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
Ruth, "idiots who think women should remain second-class members of the Church of England" are few and far between. And I am certainly not one of them.

I know this is Hell, but you surely have a more erudite knowledge of the issues at hand than that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garasu:
Pond difference?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I know it's easy for me to say this as a male, but there's always next time.

---

How long will that take? And how many people will have left the CofE in disgust by then? How much more irrelevant will the church be in English society by the time it decides to treat women as made in the image of God?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DunkDuffel:
My arithmetic says that the overall votes were:

Yes 224
No 122
Abs 2

That's a two thirds majority, overall.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Would any other place have such a large 'yes' down as a 'no'?

---

Er, yes. Any voting body that required a two-thirds voting majority in three chambers/houses would have.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
Because tolerating heritage sexism in the state religion worked out so well for Irish and Israeli women...

Better to have a longer battle than to agree to setting up structures which will only replicate and nurture more of the same.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
If this proportion of people had voted for the Police Commissioners last week (or even the government two years ago) everyone would be acclaiming a landslide victory.

I sat and listened (for as long as I could bear it) to the speeches from Synod and it was middle-class voice after middle-class voice. Call me an inverted snob if you like, but representative it wasn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Organ Builder:
Not safe for many workplaces, btw.

---

Perhaps not. But it's going on the Hell music appreciation thread when I set one up.


Oh, and can we have a BIT more vulgarity and general verbal spray please. This is Hell. We can provide you with a nice dead horse if you want to have a peaceable debate about the ordination of women. On this part of the Ship we prefer if you do things like... oh, I don't know... instead of flogging equines, try burning effigies.

Early on in the thread, someone explicitly held back from saying any more lest they got nasty. That's what we're here for, dearie. Getting nasty.

[ 20. November 2012, 21:17: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 

---

Posted by Ophicleide16 (# 16344) on :
 
I was surpised when the result was announced, but not disappointed- I don't believe the proposed legislation would have proved satisfatory in the long run.

Incidentally, brilliant opening statement by +Manchester: "Your Grace, as I was saying..."
 

---

Posted by glockenspiel (# 13645) on :
 
This is all new to me - that two-thirds in every house thing - does it apply to all motions??
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Standard committee and charity orders of incorporation usually require on two thirds majority for a change in constitution, not every vote. Often it is required two meetings in succession.
 

---

Posted by Arvan (# 13608) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Would any other place have such a large 'yes' down as a 'no'?

---

Er, yes. Any voting body that required a two-thirds voting majority in three chambers/houses would have.

---

Assuming any such other body exists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arvan:
US constitutional amendments need 2/3 in each of senate and representatives and 3/4 of the states.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arvan:
US constitutional amendments need 2/3 in each of senate and representatives and 3/4 of the states.

---

And what did giving women the vote need? Was that a topic seen as so massively significant as to be constitutional?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Bet the Bishops try something funny in the morning. GO POINTYHATS.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:

---

Originally posted by DunkDuffel:
My arithmetic says that the overall votes were:

Yes 224
No 122
Abs 2

That's a two thirds majority, overall.

---

No, it's not. Of a total of 348 votes, 232 would be a two-thirds majority.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Traveller:
I am so mad I am tempted to work towards standing for the next General Synod on a single issue - a single clause measure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
For my naive Australian don't-pay-much-attention-to-Synods part, I would have thought that if 42 dioceses want women, 42 dioceses ought to be able to just go ahead and HAVE women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Goodness. People have been saying to me that liberals in the Church were just as bad as the conservatives. To be honest I never really believed it, but seeing the reactions on the Ship over a mere postponement of the inevitable is sure opening my eyes.

---

Pity it's not opening your mind. That empty vessel has needed filling for awhile.

As I said to a mate on FB, this all seems very strange from down here. We consecrated our first female bishop, Kay Goldsworthy, in 2008. Frankly, that was way overdue.

with all you British mob as you figure out where to go from here.
 

---

Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
Just back from the pub. Grr.

The Kingdom of God is bigger than the stupidity of 6 lay people. Onwards and upwards. But sorrowing with my sisters (and brothers) tonight.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Pity it's not opening your mind. That empty vessel has needed filling for awhile.

As I said to a mate on FB, this all seems very strange from down here. We consecrated our first female bishop, Kay Goldsworthy, in 2008. Frankly, that was way overdue.

with all you British mob as you figure out where to go from here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
Just back from the pub. Grr.

The Kingdom of God is bigger than the stupidity of 6 lay people. Onwards and upwards. But sorrowing with my sisters (and brothers) tonight.

---

No, sir. The stupid ones are those who just could not abide adequate provision for those who cannot accept the ministry of women bishops. If they had exhibited that minimum of grace, women bishops would be on the way already.

I'm disappointed at your attitude toward the no voters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Isn't it too obvious to say - find a male bishop? It's not like the church is going to be swamped by women bishops (unless they are better qualified for that position).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
The stupid ones are those who just could not abide adequate provision for those who cannot accept the ministry of women bishops.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark Knight:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Goodness. People have been saying to me that liberals in the Church were just as bad as the conservatives. To be honest I never really believed it, but seeing the reactions on the Ship over a mere postponement of the inevitable is sure opening my eyes.

---

Pity it's not opening your mind. That empty vessel has needed filling for awhile.

As I said to a mate on FB, this all seems very strange from down here. We consecrated our first female bishop, Kay Goldsworthy, in 2008. Frankly, that was way overdue.

with all you British mob as you figure out where to go from here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Whatever Episcopal ministry means, it's got something to do with accepting the authority of those who end up set over you, not 'finding a bishop'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
And no, I don't give a shit about the feelings of people who don't like women's ordination, just like I don't give a shit about the feelings of people who want to insist that their racism isn't really racism. It was a mistake to make any provision at all for sexism in the church.

---

And that demonstrates precisely why adequate canonical/legal protection for traditionalists is necessary. Not all who claim the name of Christ act with discernment and grace. And that goes (double?) for those in authority.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Such protection is complete bullshit! There are female bishops in the Anglican Communion. Everyone in the communion is therefore in communion with female bishops. The idea of a separate little enclave makes no sense whatsoever. People who don't like female bishops should become Catholics or join up with one of the neo-retro-continuing-sorta-kinda-not-really Anglican groups. Like the one you belong to.

ETA: You realize that you've just argued in favor of separate protection for racists within the church, I hope.

[ 21. November 2012, 01:14: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
And no, I don't give a shit about the feelings of people who don't like women's ordination, just like I don't give a shit about the feelings of people who want to insist that their racism isn't really racism. It was a mistake to make any provision at all for sexism in the church.

---

And that demonstrates precisely why adequate canonical/legal protection for traditionalists is necessary. Not all who claim the name of Christ act with discernment and grace. And that goes (double?) for those in authority.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Such protection is complete bullshit! There are female bishops in the Anglican Communion. Everyone in the communion is therefore in communion with female bishops. The idea of a separate little enclave makes no sense whatsoever. People who don't like female bishops should become Catholics or join up with one of the neo-retro-continuing-sorta-kinda-not-really Anglican groups. Like the one you belong to.

ETA: You realize that you've just argued in favor of separate protection for racists within the church, I hope.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark Knight:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Goodness. People have been saying to me that liberals in the Church were just as bad as the conservatives. To be honest I never really believed it, but seeing the reactions on the Ship over a mere postponement of the inevitable is sure opening my eyes.

---

Pity it's not opening your mind. That empty vessel has needed filling for awhile.

As I said to a mate on FB, this all seems very strange from down here. We consecrated our first female bishop, Kay Goldsworthy, in 2008. Frankly, that was way overdue.

with all you British mob as you figure out where to go from here.

---

2008?

Zach is from the Diocese of Indianapolis. By 2008, Cate Waynick had been Bishop of the Diocese of Indianapolis for 11 years. And, yes, Cate is a woman.

---

quote:

---

I can only assume that in your mind your statement is somehow related to mine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Goodness. People have been saying to me that liberals in the Church were just as bad as the conservatives. To be honest I never really believed it, but seeing the reactions on the Ship over a mere postponement of the inevitable is sure opening my eyes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
Just back from the pub. Grr.

The Kingdom of God is bigger than the stupidity of 6 lay people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Whatever Episcopal ministry means, it's got something to do with accepting the authority of those who end up set over you, not 'finding a bishop'.

---

It also has something to do with us being in communion with each other. Several provinces in the Anglican Communion have female bishops, and they are all in communion with the Church of England -- so the idea that you're going to keep some corner of your church free from the touch of female bishops is laughable. If women are bishops in one province, they are bishops in all of them.

So suck it up, buttercup -- you have female bishops. It's just that none of them are English. Yet.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
The Kingdom of God is bigger than the stupidity of 6 lay people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
Just back from the pub. Grr.

The Kingdom of God is bigger than the stupidity of 6 lay people.

---

Um, would you care to flesh out exactly why you - an Anglican bishop - can publicly accuse these particular people of stupidity?

---

Oh, please.

Stop with the he-should-be-so-much-wiser-and-more-genteel-than-the-average-Christian stuff. He's annoyed, like many. This is Hell; people rant. Deal.

Or are you going to run and tattle to the UK yellow rags: "Ooooer! Miss! Look what Petey wrote?"
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
daronmedway:

If the incoming archbishop can tweet after the meeting, then pete173 can post on the Ship! Whyever not?

The archbishop-in-waiting tweeted "Very grim day, most of all for women priests and supporters, need to surround all with prayer & love and co-operate with our healing God."
 

---

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I didn't post my comment because I know what I posted you twit.

---

quote:

---

I have plenty of empathy for the supporters of that measure, since I am one of them and all. But there are people talking about leaving the church over this, and hell no I don't feel empathy for that. It is not understandable. We all know full well this just means another vote in 5 years.

---

quote:

---

I am sorry you are such a hateful shit that you felt the need to hijack this thread over this, Dark Knight.

---

You're not mad because I am hijacking the thread. Thread's going along fine without either of our contributions. You're mad because I am shitting all over you.

'Hateful shit' is one way of saying it. I prefer 'misanthrope' personally. Kind of stating the obvious, really. I am such a hateful shit that Rook placed me in a semi-final with orfeo a couple of years back for hell hosting duties. Fortunately for me, I won, and orfeo advanced to the final, where the poor bastard must have lost again and is now having to read every word of this shit.
 

---

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
daronmedway:

If the incoming archbishop can tweet after the meeting, then pete173 can post on the Ship! Whyever not?

The archbishop-in-waiting tweeted "Very grim day, most of all for women priests and supporters, need to surround all with prayer & love and co-operate with our healing God."

---

quote:

---

The Church of England has voted against allowing women to become bishops” Today I denounce the Church of England

---

quote:

---

So female Bishops don't make sense, but virgin births, resurrections, talking snakes and parting the seas all do?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
IF the CofE wants to continue its crass claims to be an genuinely all encompassing, inclusive, body, then it's got to get used to the idea that this inclusiveness has got to be for everyone, not just at the liberal end of the market. The gays want in - so let the opponents of women bishops stay and be accommodated. Because the alternative is to impose a doctrine test as viscus as the ones that the theological liberals used to complain about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Would someone mind telling me what was the perception of the wider common good amongst the blocking coalition?

---

quote:

---

standing on a 'practising gays out' platform. And someone else standing on a 'only baptise adults' platform. Oh, and someone else standing on the issue of Vestments / Eucharistic Doctrine / outlawing Penal Substitution etc etc.

---

quote:

---

Similarly the way that the provisions of the Act of Synod have been blatantly ignored <snip> means the level of trust here is pretty low. Then the attempts by those nice men in pointy hats to put some teeth into the protections are shouted down - and today's catastrophe shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Trust the bishops? I'd rather trust a corrupt politician I'd just paid off; <snip>
Now there's an interesting question as to whether I should continue in the CofE given that attitude, but I tend to go for the traditional conservative Evangelical attitude that it's the best available boat to fish from, even if it is taking in water wholesale, ignoring the bench entirely:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
IF the CofE wants to continue its crass claims to be an genuinely all encompassing, inclusive, body, then it's got to get used to the idea that this inclusiveness has got to be for everyone, not just at the liberal end of the market. The gays want in - so let the opponents of women bishops stay and be accommodated. Because the alternative is to impose a doctrine test as viscus as the ones that the theological liberals used to complain about.

---

You know what, I agree. I've long been a champion of diversity in the CofE, but as of yesterday that time has passed.

I now want to see every single bigoted fuckwit who thinks women are icky and can't abide the idea of them ever being in authority to fuck off to Rome where they fucking belong. They can have their little club for bigots with a lovely big neon "no girls allowed" sign over the door, and we can have a church that recognises and accepts the image of God within every human being. They can spend all their efforts in trying to hold back the advance of enlightenment for a few more years, and we can get on with living the Kingdom as fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.

I'm sick of appeasing these fuckers, and I'm no longer prepared to just wait until they all die off like the unevolved dinosaurs they are. I'm sick of having to say they have a valid theological interpretation of the ontological nature of the priesthood, or whatever bullshit big words they're using to draw attention away from the "no girls allowed" sign they've got nailed to the clubhouse door. Their theology is sexist bullshit. They are sexist bigots, and I'm all out of shits to give about how they feel about me saying that. I want them the fuck out of my church right the fuck now.

---

That's how I feel as well. Then I remember quite a few of the fuckers are good friends, with whom I would never question my 'communion' otherwise, and then I just want to

Not very hellish, except that the feeling does leave me deeply torn. And then I get all hellish and want to rip the blinkers from their eyes. Oh fuck. I don't know.
 

---

Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :
 
Is there a list of who voted against this?

For me, the critical question is whether, amongst that bunch, there are at least 6 radical WATCH types who aren't happy with the 'respect' language. If so, I seem to remember hearing the group of 6 can re-introduce the measure during this synod with 'non-significant' amended language, such as removing respect. I'm ready to bet there are zero conservative AffCath types who would switch votes in that situation.

Assuming (as I suspect) there aren't 6 such people, the house of laity is shockingly unrepresentative to the extent that we can be certain it's been gamed by politically clever people, and the majority need to play by the same rules. EVERYONE MAKE SURE YOUR DEANERY SYNOD REP FANATICALLY SUPPORTS YOUR VIEW ON WOMEN BISHOPS AND VIEWS THEIR PRIMARY ROLE ON DEANERY SYNOD AS TO MAKE SURE THAT VIEW IS ACTED ON.

Also, we need direct elections to general synod. I see no reason at all why that shouldn't be practical in this day and age.
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Alison Ruoff who has been quoted extensively is an evangelical member of General Synod and voted against
 

---

Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :
 
I'm very much in favor of diversity. However, people need to appreciate that about 99% of the church agrees about the extreme importance of the undiluted authority of 'their' bishop. Satisfying everyone is fundamentally impossible; you either exclude the minority who opposed this measure, you exclude the majority who supported it, or you exclude the 99% who want to see bishops having the authority traditionally given to them. That's why lots of very clever people have tried to come up with a solution, and this pigs ear of a measure is the best they could do.

Those who want to avoid a schism, I'd love to be with you, but you're fighting a battle against the axioms of logic.
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
What Leon and Marvin said.

I've been a member of the CofE for 46 years now, and I have no idea how the governance of the church works, how you get elected to deanery, diocese or General synods, or who those people are. I've certainly never been asked to vote for any representative - so to say it fails the Benn test is an understatement.

However, I'm going to make it my business from now on, and if I find I can replace anyone who voted against the Measure, I'm going to make it my business to get them out of that position of power, even if I have to replace them myself.
 

---

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
It's an interesting situation within the Anglican Communion worldwide, and maybe just as well that the Anglican Covenant wasn't brought to bear, as it could have been used to put considerable pressure on the C of E. But ultimately it's not going to be a communion breaking situation for the communion; however, very soon difficulties will arise. In the western world as clergy numbers decline there will be an increased number of clergy coming in a type of 'missionary' situation from overseas. All well and good; but the issue may be that they have been ordained by a woman Bishop and their ministry won't be accepted. The irony of that is that the parts of the communion that do have women Bishops were in some cases C of E mission fields, and its quite telling that even though such places are often more socially conservative, they have a better understanding of the image of God in all people. It's embarrassing to a very large chunk of the communion; but we'll get over it. We were in communion with you before this mess and we'll be in communion with you after.

Schism isn't the way either, nor leaving. I think it's a wake up call to be honest. Firstly, it has revealed a fatal in how the synod operates and it will need revision. Secondly, the church has essentially let the minority voice rule the day. I know that synod is difficult for people to attend who have family jobs etc; (maybe move it to a series of evenings) but if these things are truly important to people then they will have learnt the hard way that you cannot sit back and just hope that the right thing will happen - you have to be actively in it and part of it.
 

---

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Chorister:

quote:

---

All the Bishops will now be required to strip before all services, just to check one of them isn't a knavish woman in disguise.

---

Well, that would certainly make the Church more relevant. In some ways.
 

---

Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

However, I'm going to make it my business from now on, and if I find I can replace anyone who voted against the Measure, I'm going to make it my business to get them out of that position of power, even if I have to replace them myself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Isn't it too obvious to say - find a male bishop? It's not like the church is going to be swamped by women bishops (unless they are better qualified for that position).

---

Huh? Whatever Episcopal ministry means, it's got something to do with accepting the authority of those who end up set over you, not 'finding a bishop'. And a lot of the issue about the inadequacy of the provision for opponents is that there was perceived to be no guarantee that their concerns would really be respected. The unambiguous imposition of female priests on recalcitrant parishes and dioceses in the TEC despite many promises to the contrary when the legislation was being passed there means that the libruls have NO credibility when they line up saying the same nice things over here. Similarly the way that the provisions of the Act of Synod have been blatantly ignored (an advert for a vacancy in see that was honest enough to admit no opponents of women priests would be considered, for example) means the level of trust here is pretty low. Then the attempts by those nice men in pointy hats to put some teeth into the protections are shouted down - and today's catastrophe shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Trust the bishops? I'd rather trust a corrupt politician I'd just paid off; as Heinlein comments, a corrupt politician has to stay bought, once he's taken the money (that degree of credibility is all he's got to sell), whereas people with 'principles' have a remarkable ability to interpret those principles in accordance with the prevailing winds at the time. Now there's an interesting question as to whether I should continue in the CofE given that attitude, but I tend to go for the traditional conservative Evangelical attitude that it's the best available boat to fish from, even if it is taking in water wholesale, ignoring the bench entirely: “What’s the difference between Jurassic Park and the Church of England? Well, one’s a fantasy land populated by dinosaurs . . . and the other’s a blockbuster film.” Let them play in their fantasy land of synods and the House of Lords; and if we're lucky they'll keep their mouths shut.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark Knight:
'Hateful shit' is one way of saying it. I prefer 'misanthrope' personally. Kind of stating the obvious, really. I am such a hateful shit that Rook placed me in a semi-final with orfeo a couple of years back for hell hosting duties. Fortunately for me, I won, and orfeo advanced to the final, where the poor bastard must have lost again and is now having to read every word of this shit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:
So, the bishops accuse the laity of stupidity but expect the laity to trust them? As Chapelhead says, I wonder why they don't.

But this was not a vote about the admission of women to the episcopate: it was about this piece of legislation - which was bollocks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:

Why there were bishops abstaining yesterday, I've no idea

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by *Leon*:
I suspect that candidates for general synod may disguise their extreme views at hustings, but I don't have proof of this. To be safe, vote only for people who make their support for women bishops clear, and ignore any doubts you might have about whether those people are really Christians.

---

OK - so it's better to vote for someone on the one issue of women bishops, ignoring the fact that they don't believe a single line of the creed?

It's worth expanding this discussion to point out that the elections for General Synod are done on the Single Transferable Vote system. The simplest way to view this is that the voter gets to put the candidates in order of preference. If their first choice is eliminated as having the least votes, then their second choice 'counts'. So you can be very discriminating in the order that you use, though I tend to agree that manifestos do tend to be lacking in detail. However there are hustings, and I imagine most candidates next time will offer an email address for questions etc etc. Of course the core problem is having to be a Deanery Synod rep; as previously mentioned, the dreary evenings in dank church halls were definitely a low point in my Christian life, though there's no actual need to attend. Actually you won't be entirely surprised to hear that I did tend to try and stir things up
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Isn't it too obvious to say - find a male bishop? It's not like the church is going to be swamped by women bishops (unless they are better qualified for that position).

---

Huh? Whatever Episcopal ministry means, it's got something to do with accepting the authority of those who end up set over you, not 'finding a bishop'. And a lot of the issue about the inadequacy of the provision for opponents is that there was perceived to be no guarantee that their concerns would really be respected. The unambiguous imposition of female priests on recalcitrant parishes and dioceses in the TEC despite many promises to the contrary when the legislation was being passed there means that the libruls have NO credibility when they line up saying the same nice things over here. Similarly the way that the provisions of the Act of Synod have been blatantly ignored (an advert for a vacancy in see that was honest enough to admit no opponents of women priests would be considered, for example) means the level of trust here is pretty low. Then the attempts by those nice men in pointy hats to put some teeth into the protections are shouted down - and today's catastrophe shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Trust the bishops? I'd rather trust a corrupt politician I'd just paid off; as Heinlein comments, a corrupt politician has to stay bought, once he's taken the money (that degree of credibility is all he's got to sell), whereas people with 'principles' have a remarkable ability to interpret those principles in accordance with the prevailing winds at the time. Now there's an interesting question as to whether I should continue in the CofE given that attitude, but I tend to go for the traditional conservative Evangelical attitude that it's the best available boat to fish from, even if it is taking in water wholesale, ignoring the bench entirely: “What’s the difference between Jurassic Park and the Church of England? Well, one’s a fantasy land populated by dinosaurs . . . and the other’s a blockbuster film.” Let them play in their fantasy land of synods and the House of Lords; and if we're lucky they'll keep their mouths shut.

---

That leads me on to the PEVs, aka "flying bishops" which were created to cater for parishes, laity and clergy who were opposed to the ordination of women. Could they not become reserved posts for men, so that those in the CofE who find the concept of women clergy altogether too much could have their wishes fulfilled?

Then again, that may have been what the opponents of women bishops at Synod were holding out for, which on the grounds that PEVs exist is understandable, if plain wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
OK - so it's better to vote for someone on the one issue of women bishops, ignoring the fact that they don't believe a single line of the creed?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You'd end up having male clergy having to carry around an Apostolic Succession Pedigree document. It'd be like Crufts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Oh, for God's sake!

Justin has two choices: withdraw now or (and I'd LOVE to see this) consecrate a woman suffragan in the chapel at Lambeth as soon as he's enthroned and dare the EA/FIF et al to do anything...

Seriously: Bugger Synod.
Stop the special provisions NOW.
Lose the flying bishops PDQ.
Get Parliament to pass enabling legislation and consecrate a woman NOW.

If EA and FIF don't like it they can leave - join the Southern Baptist Convention or Exclusive Brethren or Rome or whoever.

---

quote:

---

Yes. Except these people are still family. Can we survive another round of estrangements, as happened 20 years ago? We lost a lot of beloved siblings, etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:
Better Together.

Thurible

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DunkDuffel:

I'm trying to be neutral but I really don't understand why this group haven't taken up the Pope's generous provisions for the to join the Ordinariate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:

quote:

---

Yes. Except these people are still family. Can we survive another round of estrangements, as happened 20 years ago? We lost a lot of beloved siblings, etc.

---

Still family maybe BUT, as many respected psychotherapists will tell you, there are families where relationships are so toxic that the best thing for all parties can be if the "we're family, we must stick together" nostrum is ditched.

I'd suggest that the CofE is at that moment now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Oh, for God's sake!

Justin has two choices: withdraw now or (and I'd LOVE to see this) consecrate a woman suffragan in the chapel at Lambeth as soon as he's enthroned and dare the EA/FIF et al to do anything...

Seriously: Bugger Synod.
Stop the special provisions NOW.
Lose the flying bishops PDQ.
Get Parliament to pass enabling legislation and consecrate a woman NOW.

If EA and FIF don't like it they can leave - join the Southern Baptist Convention or Exclusive Brethren or Rome or whoever.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You'd end up having male clergy having to carry around an Apostolic Succession Pedigree document. It'd be like Crufts.

---

Look, there's probably already a fault in the line of apostolic succession, somewhere between Saint Peter and that bloke in 1773 who'd done a spot of usury on the side.

I keep coming back to the monarch. The Anglican Church is an established, State church. Unless Jonathan Rhys Meyers steered me WAY off course (and I'd follow you anywhere Jonathan...), Henry VIII made it QUITE clear that HE was the head of the Church of England, not some bishop.

Which means that the Church of England has had a female leader for a huge proportion of the last couple of centuries. Victoria and ER II between them have been in charge for 123 of the last 175 years. You'd bloody well think someone had noticed by now.

---

quote:

---

from Tom M Not in a little Chapel. From the Chair of St Augustine in Canterbury Cathedral. Preferably during the enthronement service whilst everyone is watching.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Sorry Thurible, but I don't believe it healthy to continue a relationship with someone (or people) who make a decision on the competences of a person solely by their gender.

And that's what FiF, "Better Together", AffCath all boil down to.

Forward in Faith = Backwards to Bigotry

---

quote:

---

posted by Ender's Shadow ...then the obvious solution is for you to take your librul fundamentalism down the road to somewhere else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Yes, yes, and since I consider Apostolic Succession to be at best a pious fiction, it's not me you need to convince.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
But as the CofE has committed itself to giving an honoured place to those whom you find unacceptable

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
and dare the EA/FIF et al to do anything...

<snip>

If EA and FIF don't like it they can leave - join the Southern Baptist Convention or Exclusive Brethren or Rome or whoever.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stoker:
I see a clear Biblical instruction and principle not to have women in leadership of Churches, but there's no time for that Cheval de Mort.

However, I've not been able to work out clearly why the CofE are happy with women priests, but not bishops. If you are happy to have women in leadership roles in the Church, why not have them in the upper echelons?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
But as the CofE has committed itself to giving an honoured place to those whom you find unacceptable

---

That was a mistake, and one that needs to be rectified immediately. There is nothing worthy of honour in the sexist fuckwits and their bigoted theology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
There's something in that. If you're going to go all Biblical, then you should be insisting women say bugger all in church altogether and sit quietly with a hat on and ask their husbands about anything they don't understand, the poor little dears.

---

Someone has just said that to millions on radio 2 - and that women are easily deceived because Eve was deceived first, so shouldn't be in charge of anything.



Where DO they get these people from?
 

---

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
Chorister:

quote:

---

All the Bishops will now be required to strip before all services, just to check one of them isn't a knavish woman in disguise.

---

Well, that would certainly make the Church more relevant. In some ways.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:
Oh, do fuck off.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
But as the CofE has committed itself to giving an honoured place to those whom you find unacceptable

---

That was a mistake, and one that needs to be rectified immediately. There is nothing worthy of honour in the sexist fuckwits and their bigoted theology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stoker:
However, I've not been able to work out clearly why the CofE are happy with women priests, but not bishops. If you are happy to have women in leadership roles in the Church, why not have them in the upper echelons?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Someone has just said that to millions on radio 2 - and that women are easily deceived because Eve was deceived first, so shouldn't be in charge of anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Any solutions are either unworkable perpetuations of inequality or backtracking on promises that have taken on totemic symbolism.

---

• we will not throw anyone out who, in good faith and belief, was ordained believing women could not become priests;
• there will always be a wing of the CofE that does not believe in women priests

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Why the fuck should I be the one to fuck off? I'm the one preaching love and inclusion, they are the ones preaching bigotry and sexism. They should fuck off to whichever bigoted misogynist shack will take them and leave the church to those of us who actually believe in love.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I think there was also some mischievous interpretation. "There will always be a place" for those who do not believe in women in ministry could have been interpreted as:

• we will not throw anyone out who, in good faith and belief, was ordained believing women could not become priests;
• there will always be a wing of the CofE that does not believe in women priests

I suspect both sides were crossing their fingers behind their backs and choosing which version to go for. Which has led to PEV bishops continuing to ordain people to the CofE who do not believe in women's priesthood.

And that's what I think is wrong. It wasn't providing for those for whom the goalposts have changed, that was entirely reasonable. It was the mischievous empire building to ensure the continuation of that group in perpetuity.

If you choose to become a priest in an church that ordains women and men and refuse to accept that inclusiveness you're being wilfully blind. To then insist on your rights at this stage is unreasonable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stoker:
...I've not been able to work out clearly why the CofE are happy with women priests, but not bishops. If you are happy to have women in leadership roles in the Church, why not have them in the upper echelons?

---

There's something in that. If you're going to go all Biblical, then you should be insisting women say bugger all in church altogether and sit quietly with a hat on and ask their husbands about anything they don't understand, the poor little dears.

As in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnFvbOwToxA

If that, which is the "biblical" position, is too much to swallow, then stop playing "more Biblical than thou" and start weighing up the issue on the basis of justice, equality and fairness, which is what most people are actually doing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
What Thurible said.

Some of those who talk of bigotry, racism, sexism, etc. need to look in the mirror to see real bigotry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
Some of those who talk of bigotry, racism, sexism, etc. need to look in the mirror to see real bigotry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Any solutions are either unworkable perpetuations of inequality or backtracking on promises that have taken on totemic symbolism.

---

In which case we should clearly follow the course that removes the inequality. It's the only Christian thing to do.

---

quote:

---

Not sure whether it would do much for mission though!

---

Oh, and you think that refusing to consecrate women bishops (when we've had women priests for 20 years) WILL?

Nobody outside the C of E will understand this. They don't hear 'tolerance of traditionalists'. They see a glass ceiling.
 

---

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :
 
I'm generally for upholding the genuine concerns of minority opinions. And in any case, it's not my fight any more. But hey - let's not knock the Synod's democratically resolved decision. Is it not, after all, a triumph of clarity over equality? As we are constantly being reminded - even by women! - women are different. That difference would be hopelessly, ineradicably obliterated, were the church to let them wear purple frocks like the men.
 

---

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
IF the CofE wants to continue its crass claims to be an genuinely all encompassing, inclusive, body, then it's got to get used to the idea that this inclusiveness has got to be for everyone, not just at the liberal end of the market. The gays want in - so let the opponents of women bishops stay and be accommodated. Because the alternative is to impose a doctrine test as viscus as the ones that the theological liberals used to complain about.

---

quote:

---

Problem comes a bit down the line, when the flying bishop is a man, but it turns out that he was ordained by a bishop who themselves was ordained by a woman bishop who of course, what with having labia and tits on whatnot, can't be a real priest so can't validly ordain anyone.

---

quote:

---

Where DO they get these people from?

---

quote:

---

Because that was the belief of the organisation that you joined. When you became a member of the CofE, that's what it believed and practised. So it's therefore fundamentally unjust now to insist that it expell the people who still believe what it believed when you joined.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Goodness. People have been saying to me that liberals in the Church were just as bad as the conservatives. To be honest I never really believed it, but seeing the reactions on the Ship over a mere postponement of the inevitable is sure opening my eyes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stoker:
I see a clear Biblical instruction and principle not to have women in leadership of Churches...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
As one of those who was stupid enough to believe that the promises made to get the 1992 vote through were honest, I think it's deeply depressing that the real story is that leaders of the church were playing politics. And now we are reaping what they sowed...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
Heavens! It's almost as if organized religion is a backwards-clinging bastion of stupidity and blithe offensiveness.

Of course, it's not quite as much of a joke as thinking you need a parasitic organization in order to figure out how to be good people that support each other.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Given that the Americans had no compunction about consecrating Gene Robinson when the rest of the Anglican communion's bishops strongly opposed the move, making them act in a way effectively denying any acceptance of the wider church's episcopal status, it's clear that this is being proposed as a one way stream; we're supposed to accept that your bishops are kosher, but you don't take ours seriously. So don't be too surprised when you find that actually a woman bishop is not allowed to operate as such whilst in England, so no, de jure, we don't even recognise them as bishops.

---

quote:

---

Of course given that the US government has pretty much never kept a single treaty that it's made with the people they stole their land from, I guess we shouldn't be too surprised if Episcopalians don't take the idea of promises too seriously.

---

quote:

---

And of course the fact that lots of Episcopalian bishops are divorced and remarried shows how lightly they take the solemn vows made before God in the marriage service.

---

quote:

---

[b]But there are still a few of us who have this funny idea that a promise should just possibly be binding, even when it's a pain in the neck. Perhaps those promises shouldn't have been made. BUT THEY WERE. They were made to get the priesting legislation through. Now, of course, in the best tradition of the Bureau of Indian Affairs coming in and shredding on all those inconvenient treaties, we see the librul fundamentalists deciding to ignore those inconvenient promises.

So, given that promises are fundamental to civilisation - though the USA is testing the contrary hypothesis - do you believe that promises should be kept, or should I tell your children that their mummy is an untrustworthy fundamentalist? Or does that just go with the fact that she's an American? [/QB]

---

First, I don't have children. Second, your anti-American bigotry comes as no surprise, given how much other bigotry you cherish in your heart. Third, I don't feel at all bad about your church or mine not keeping promises to enforce sexism. Once upon a time, we promised the slave states they could keep holding slaves, and then we went back on that promise. Treating women and gay people as second-class in the church is not as excrable as holding slaves, but the principle of not recognizing people as full-fledged members of the church, people made in the image of God, is the same, so I am completely comfortable with anyone going back on promises made to bigots that we will exclude women and gays from complete inclusion in the church.
 

---

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
...
Personally I'd prefer those evangelicals who think that the CofE is the best boat to fish from either put up and shut up about what the CofE wants or went off to a church that they agreed with theologically.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stoker:
I see a clear Biblical instruction and principle not to have women in leadership of Churches...

---

Try reading the Bible then. Because you are wrong.
...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:

quote:

---

Curiosity killed ...: ...
Personally I'd prefer those evangelicals who think that the CofE is the best boat to fish from either put up and shut up about what the CofE wants or went off to a church that they agreed with theologically.

---

There isn't one to go to. What other church is there that is liturgical, evangelical, and doesn't ordain women?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
...
Personally I'd prefer those evangelicals who think that the CofE is the best boat to fish from either put up and shut up about what the CofE wants or went off to a church that they agreed with theologically.

---

There isn't one to go to. What other church is there that is liturgical, evangelical, and doesn't ordain women?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stoker:
I see a clear Biblical instruction and principle not to have women in leadership of Churches...

---

Try reading the Bible then. Because you are wrong.
...

---

I know you like to think that, Ken, but you are deluded.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:

---

I know you like to think that, Ken, but you are deluded.

---

quote:

---

If you think the supporters of women's ministry in the Church of England are all liberals and the anti-women party all conservatives then you are too ignorant of the situation to have an opinion on it.

OK, not as totally out of the loop a Mark the Bigoted's vile shite about feminists (a group pf people whose front doorsteps he is not fit to lick) but still pretty pathetically ignorant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
Zacchaeus, in response to the suggestion that Bishops should do a striptease before each service to prove they really are male:

quote:

---

Not sure whether it would do much for mission though!

---

Oh, and you think that refusing to consecrate women bishops (when we've had women priests for 20 years) WILL?

Nobody outside the C of E will understand this. They don't hear 'tolerance of traditionalists'. They see a glass ceiling.

---

Goodness me Jane R I made a jokey comment about naked bishops, and if you’d seem my diocesan....

– I never said anything about not having women bishops and mission
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 

quote:

---

originally posted by A. Pilgrim:
There isn't one to go to. What other church is there that is liturgical, evangelical, and doesn't ordain women?

---

The COE hasn't been that in 20 years. Let me suggest you start a mission of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod in the UK. Don't know what you would call it.
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Except the Missouri Synod women are already starting to make noise.
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Despite what the Catholic bishops might tell you, the debate about women priests is very much alive in the Roman Catholic Church too.
 

---

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
This is Hell so I am going to be a pedant.

Nobody sees here a glass ceiling. A glass ceiling is supposed to be one that exists but is invisible. Everyone knows it is there. Its a ceiling and there is no illusion women can get throught it. I suggest concrete might be more appropriate.

A glass ceiling would be if the CofE agreed to ordain women bishops and then failed to do so for twenty years.

Jengie
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
And while we're being pedantic ...

"Women" is not an adjective. The phrase "women bishops" makes me want to hurt someone. It's "female bishops."
 

---

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
"Women" is not an adjective. The phrase "women bishops" makes me want to hurt someone. It's "female bishops."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
]Someone has just said that to millions on radio 2 - and that women are easily deceived because Eve was deceived first, so shouldn't be in charge of anything.



Where DO they get these people from?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
And while we're being pedantic ...

"Women" is not an adjective. The phrase "women bishops" makes me want to hurt someone. It's "female bishops."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Someone has just said that to millions on radio 2 - and that women are easily deceived because Eve was deceived first, so shouldn't be in charge of anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
And while we're being pedantic ...

"Women" is not an adjective. The phrase "women bishops" makes me want to hurt someone. It's "female bishops."

---

Not that anyone much cares for me agreeing with them, but I've thought this many times. Were you, but any chance, and English major in college?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Now there's an interesting question as to whether I should continue in the CofE given that attitude, but I tend to go for the traditional conservative Evangelical attitude that it's the best available boat to fish from, even if it is taking in water wholesale, ignoring the bench entirely: “What’s the difference between Jurassic Park and the Church of England? Well, one’s a fantasy land populated by dinosaurs . . . and the other’s a blockbuster film.” Let them play in their fantasy land of synods and the House of Lords; and if we're lucky they'll keep their mouths shut.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
may I suggest that the honoured place is specifically the Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

I'll point out (again) that I am on the liberal side on this particular issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
And while we're being pedantic ...

"Women" is not an adjective. The phrase "women bishops" makes me want to hurt someone. It's "female bishops."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Let me be a counter-pedant. It's correct that 'women' is not an adjective here, but English allows the construction noun - noun, in some phrases, e.g. women doctors, women drivers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
... and make Walsingham a no-go area to the many others who feel an affinity with the place but are not of that tradition. .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
And while we're being pedantic ...

"Women" is not an adjective. The phrase "women bishops" makes me want to hurt someone. It's "female bishops."

---

Not that anyone much cares for me agreeing with them, but I've thought this many times. Were you, but any chance, and English major in college?

---

Let me be a counter-pedant. It's correct that 'women' is not an adjective here, but English allows the construction noun - noun, in some phrases, e.g. women doctors, women drivers.

---

quote:

---

And I'll point out (again) that I am not a liberal on this issue. Which is why I support women priests and bishops. Unlike, say, Leo - who is a as liberal as a wet blanket in a handcrafted macrame washing basket in the moderately syncretic self-criticism wing of the National Liberal Moderate's Club's annual trip to Somewhere Nice in the Middle of the Road...

---

quote:

---

...but has consistently argued against women bishops for years on this forum. Usually throwing in a disclaimer along the lines of "I support women bishops but not yet" before going into all the reasons he doesn't really want them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Let me be a counter-pedant. It's correct that 'women' is not an adjective here, but English allows the construction noun - noun, in some phrases, e.g. women doctors, women drivers.

---

It does, yet no one says "men drivers."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I'm getting that people are hurt here. But how about a different spin that doesn't lead us to the conclusion "This is the darkest day ever, and the Church is surely dead now."

Instead of "The measure to allow female bishops failed by six measly votes" we go with "The measure to allow female bishops failed by only six votes! Almost there! That's only six votes to absolute, crushing victory!"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Weeder:
He likes this, but wonders if saprophytic is more appropriate then parasitic?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marky Punk and the Pious Bunch:
Some of those who talk of bigotry, racism, sexism, etc. need to look in the mirror to see real bigotry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Everyone not singing "By the rivers of Babylon" over this must surely be the enemy, I guess.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:


But wrath is one of the seven deadly sins for a reason. Anger needs perspective.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I don't know how much psych classes you have had yet, but you do realize there is a pretty predictable reaction when you aim a statement like that at already angry people, right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
And while we're being pedantic ...

"Women" is not an adjective. The phrase "women bishops" makes me want to hurt someone. It's "female bishops."

---

Not that anyone much cares for me agreeing with them, but I've thought this many times. Were you, but any chance, and English major in college?

---

Let me be a counter-pedant. It's correct that 'women' is not an adjective here, but English allows the construction noun - noun, in some phrases, e.g. women doctors, women drivers.

---

It does, yet no one says "men drivers."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

Well, except maybe in golf.

---

 

---

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Glasses in Hell are always half empty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
It does, yet no one says "men drivers."

---

Quite true. I'm not sure if you are objecting to 'women drivers' on feminist grounds, then, or not; I'm just pointing out that it seems to be grammatical or acceptable. A lot of these things are idiomatic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I don't know how much psych classes you have had yet, but you do realize there is a pretty predictable reaction when you aim a statement like that at already angry people, right?

---

It was "aimed" at Orfeo, who doesn't seem to be one of the particularly wrathful ones to me. Forgive me if I am mistaken in that, Orfeo.

Though it seems was have gotten away from the topic of this thread and back to that Styx thread anyhow.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Goodness. People have been saying to me that liberals in the Church were just as bad as the conservatives. To be honest I never really believed it, but seeing the reactions on the Ship over a mere postponement of the inevitable is sure opening my eyes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Y'see, I don't see "Maybe this isn't so bad" as such a great invalidation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Y'see, I don't see "Maybe this isn't so bad" as such a great invalidation.

---

Actually, the invalidation I was referring to was being told that lacking a Y chromosome meant you couldn't be as Godly and spiritual as someone who had one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
It does, yet no one says "men drivers."

---

Quite true. I'm not sure if you are objecting to 'women drivers' on feminist grounds, then, or not; I'm just pointing out that it seems to be grammatical or acceptable. A lot of these things are idiomatic.

---

I'm objecting to treating "women" as an adjective but not "men." These things aren't idiomatic so much as idiotic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Incidentally, what is the CoE position on transgender clergy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
While everyone is (IMO rightly) hacked off at the unholy alliance that saw off the cause for women bishops yesterday, can I say that I resent the use of the "traditionalist" to describe one of the wrecking factions?

I am a traditionalist in that:

1. I think clergy should be pastors to ALL in their parish, not just those who come to church who they find congenial).
2. I don't take the view that any priest required to "do" more than 2 services on a Sunday is over-worked. Nor do I think hell will freeze over if a service - especially one with a baptism - runs slightly over the hour.
3. I think an Evensong congregation has the right to a sermon on the readings at the service, rather than one for the morning because the incumbent can't be arsed to prepare 5 minutes on a second theme.
4. I seriously question whether those clergy who mention that they take services on Christmas Day "even though it should be my day-off" are in the right job.
5. Ditto clergy who delegate the funeral of a current churchwarden to a lay-reader because the best date for the family is their day-off (I kid you not).
6. I don't think an ability to deal with the administrative bumpf from Diocesan Office in timely fashion is the number one priority for a good pastor, or for any parish looking for one.
7. I'm appalled at the insensitivity of people who live rent and council tax free with a working partner pleading poverty to a congregation that includes many living on far less - can they remind themselves that the basic parish stipend is more than the national average salary please.
8. I feel there is more to being a "traditionalist" than a liking for lace, incense and day trips to Norfolk - saying one's offices daily, for example; not hurrying a Matins because the church is cold and the congregation small; supporting events in your own church even if you're not the "star", etc
9. I have a naive feeling that it is humbug for people to do so much to (supposedly) stay in the CofE while refusing to use CofE liturgies - Roman Missal anyone?

I could go on...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
It does, yet no one says "men drivers."

---

Quite true. I'm not sure if you are objecting to 'women drivers' on feminist grounds, then, or not; I'm just pointing out that it seems to be grammatical or acceptable. A lot of these things are idiomatic.

---

I'm objecting to treating "women" as an adjective but not "men." These things aren't idiomatic so much as idiotic.

---

it's really depressing that there are people round who still defend phrases like this. What is this, 1952?

I for one have no problem at all listening to my English kin wail about this. They were there for us when Lambeth happened.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
I'm objecting to treating "women" as an adjective but not "men." These things aren't idiomatic so much as idiotic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
There's actually an insurance commercial to that effect, IngoB. But it wouldn't be such a great joke if the viewers didn't know the phrase "woman driver" is almost always used in a sneering, disparaging way. Quetzocoatl, Are you telling me you don't know that? because either you don't, and you've been living in a cave, or you know full well and that wide-eyed "why on earth are you being so sensitive?" post is complete BS.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
There's actually an insurance commercial to that effect, IngoB. But it wouldn't be such a great joke if the viewers didn't know the phrase "woman driver" is almost always used in a sneering, disparaging way. Quetzocoatl, Are you telling me you don't know that? because either you don't, and you've been living in a cave, or you know full well and that wide-eyed "why on earth are you being so sensitive?" post is complete BS.

---

I taught linguistics at a British uni, and one of the core ideas in linguistics is description not prescription. In other words, you describe usage, you don't recommend it, or criticize it. So I'm not really being 'wide-eyed'. Where did I say, 'why are you being so sensitive?'

I'm not convinced that 'woman driver' is always used disparagingly. Surely it has a neutral use, in insurance and other driving-related areas?

For a linguist, it's part of the noun/noun constructions in English, such as 'boy soldier', where the relationship is one of identity, (soldier who is a boy), quite different from say, 'child abuse', where the relation is accusative, that is, 'abuse of a child'. Fascinating stuff.

[ 22. November 2012, 07:47: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Please see my post above.

Because, yeah, pretty much when I was growing up, the only time one heard the phrase (outside of an insurance office ) was in the context of a bad joke.
 

---

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Drifting Star:
It's actually only 3 changed votes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Please see my post above.

Because, yeah, pretty much when I was growing up, the only time one heard the phrase (outside of an insurance office ) was in the context of a bad joke.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
You know, Zachy-boy, I have a lot of sympathy for compensating for a whiny, high-pitched overly-earnest early-20's with a general goal of maintaining reason and decorum - for yourself. Because, shit, you probably remember: you flipped so much you seemed acrobatic. I work at being zen a lot myself, with limited success - obviously.

But being all preachy about it on an internet forum? That's some weak sauce, son. And it belies the intrinsic superficiality of your attempt at reason über alles, because if you really were as controlled as you imply you wouldn't find a way to insinuate your (relatively) newfound philosophy into every fucking discussion.

If you can ignore my juvenile manner and rank hypocrisy, please hear my one actual suggestion. BE calm, and maybe people will learn from your example. Because the neo-calmness shrouded with unforgiving commentary about other people's un-calm foibles is annoying and counter-productive.

---

Dang! Rook. That's positively pastoral. Showing your true colours at last, eh?


[*Exit quickish stage left.*]
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm not convinced that 'woman driver' is always used disparagingly. Surely it has a neutral use, in insurance and other driving-related areas?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Great Gumby:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Drifting Star:
It's actually only 3 changed votes.

---

No, this is wrong. The commonly-quoted statistic of 6 votes is based on the assumption that 6 of the nays would have changed to ayes.

The voting figures among the laity were 132 for and 74 against. A swing of 3 votes would have made it 135-71. It's easy to tell whether the required margin has been achieved - just double the "no" vote and see if it's still less than the total for "yes". In this case, it obviously isn't, but if there was a swing of 6 votes, the totals would be 138-68 and the legislation would sneak through.

---

Thanks for that - I should do my own maths and not just quote others, especially when I've been bandying (my own, correctly calculated) percentages around everywhere...
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Excuse me, I'm not happy with the phrase 'man bishops'. I think my scrotum is being taken for a ride.

---

What makes you think you were supposed to be happy with it? And (I can't believe I'm saying this) what makes you think I care about your scrotum?

[EDIT: If this goes on much longer, I'm going to be getting complaint letters from "Outraged, of Putney".]

[ 22. November 2012, 08:40: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
And hasn't this thread gone downhill. From accusations that the established church is institutionally sexist and lambasting members of the House of Laity to a discussion of linguistics with a hint of Tits'n'Testicles.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Oh! You live in Putney!
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh! You live in Putney!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Why Putney and not the usual disgusted of Tunbridge Wells?

(Statement of interest, although I don't live there now, I used to live in Putney once upon a time.)

---

This is not the board for seeking help in resolving your bereavement issues; I merely note that this proves that you are a part of oppressive Metropolitan class that so long dominated the UK
 

---

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
For me this is the fruit of the failure of the Church after 1992 to live up to the promises about the 'honoured status for those opposed' made during the OOW debates. That those proved to be of almost no value meant that when the changer came back for more, they found their promises to be nice - with even less teeth - to be disdained. Personally I suspect that the Third Province approach may be the best solution, given that no rational person can seriously trust the promises made; in retrospect the 1992 vote was squeaked through on the day with far too many hostages to fortune, which can't now be redeemed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Why Putney and not the usual disgusted of Tunbridge Wells?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Man flu?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
For me this is the fruit of the failure of the Church after 1992 to live up to the promises about the 'honoured status for those opposed' made during the OOW debates. That those proved to be of almost no value meant that when the changer came back for more, they found their promises to be nice - with even less teeth - to be disdained. Personally I suspect that the Third Province approach may be the best solution, given that no rational person can seriously trust the promises made; in retrospect the 1992 vote was squeaked through on the day with far too many hostages to fortune, which can't now be redeemed.

---

This is emphatically not true based even on a cursory reading of events. The fluffy liberals have bent over backwards to try to accomotate the sexists and if they have any balls at all (remembering that the house of bishops does, at least legally), the next vote will be a straight up and down "we have tried to be nice and after the last vote it became incredibly obvious that the sexists weren't interested in any form of niceness." However the difference next time is that those on the side of being decent human beings are going to show the sexists that packing the House of Laity to carry your regressive agenda is a stunt that only works once.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Why Putney and not the usual disgusted of Tunbridge Wells?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Why Putney and not the usual disgusted of Tunbridge Wells?

---

I'd imagined a slightly out of date allusion to dear old Fr Fraser.

Thurible

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stoker:
I think the article calmly and succinctly addresses some of the views which the pro side of the issue superimpose onto the against side.

---

quote:

---

To read the articles and the weight given to the two side’s views, you could quite easily forget that over a third of the “normal” members of the CofE’s General Synod opposed the measure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Compound nouns are totally interesting, if you have that kind of mind

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stoker:
I think the article calmly and succinctly addresses some of the views which the pro side of the issue superimpose onto the against side.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Our marriage services should be disrupted because our promises can't be trusted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Our marriage services should be disrupted because our promises can't be trusted.

---

Totally bizarre hyperbole, but hey, it works for me, seeing as how you'd never let me get married anyway.

---

That's what Tom Robinson would have said once...
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
(A warning that this lengthy post is going drag up notions from the sections of my honours thesis that dealt with anti-discrimination law. We're in a whole new century and I still draw from the same well when seeing the endless variations on the same arguments...)

Re Stoker's linked article: I actually find much of it reasonably written, as far as it goes, but I wasn't terribly impressed by this particular line.

quote:

---

Go to any conservative evangelical church and you’ll find godly women doing all sorts of wonderful ministry,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Our marriage services should be disrupted because our promises can't be trusted.

---

Totally bizarre hyperbole, but hey, it works for me, seeing as how you'd never let me get married anyway.

---

That's what Tom Robinson would have said once...

---

Fine, then. You'd only let me get married to about 1 out of every 500 people I'd be mutually attracted to. Happy?
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Far too reasonable for Hell, Orfeo, but

eta:

quote:

---

no-one ever goes on to explain WHY God might have done this. And the God I believe in usually does things for sensible reasons, or at least some kind of reason. I don't hold with the idea that God is generally ineffable or capricious.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Far too reasonable for Hell, Orfeo,

---

quote:

---

Just a thought ... Here’s one motion for General Synod which would keep the debate on track: no one is allowed to speak if they don’t begin with “The Bible says…” and don’t include the word “but” in the same sentence. There’d still be a debate—but it would be a biblical one, not an increasingly myth-based one.

---

quote:

---

For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

---

Goodness me, it's been sitting there in 1 Corinthians 11:10 all along.

Conversely, 3 verses earlier it's made perfectly clear that men absolutely should NOT be wearing hats in church like that.
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 


You should totally make an internet meme about that!

[ 22. November 2012, 12:52: Message edited by: Evensong ]
 

---

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Yup - it's this sort of labelling and scapegoating that once upon a time would have had you laughed at is why conservatives really should have kicked you out a long time ago. Instead we drank the sedating lies of the liberals that they would 'play nice' - only to be later jerked awake when their promises proved to deceptions designed to let them subvert the institution.

Let's take this from the top again. In 1992 a very stupid promise was made in order to get the OoW legislation through then. Without that promise it would have failed. Because that promise was made, we are all lumbered with it. Now the obvious solution is to turn your back on that promise. However the consequence of this is that NO promise ever made by ANY Anglican ever again should be taken seriously. Our marriage services should be disrupted because our promises can't be trusted. No bishop in any synod ever again should be allowed to speak - because we know his words are worthless. Is that really what you want - a total breakdown in trust within the CofE? That's what people proposing this route are suggesting.

---

quote:

---

Paragraph 3: We now enter a process in which it is desirable that both those in favour and those opposed should be recognised as holding legitimate positions while the whole Church seeks to come to a common mind.

Those who for a variety of reasons cannot conscientiously accept that women may be ordained as priests will continue to hold a legitimate and recognised position within the Church of England.

---

quote:

---

“...if he reads the act of Synod carefully he will see that there is built into it a high degree of flexibility. The Archbishops say that they shall ordain from time to time and the ‘shall’ represents a commitment; ‘from time to time’ recognises that times may change. One has heard voices on one side saying, ‘We do not know what the future is.’ We have to live with those kinds of uncertainties. This is why we must not set proposals in concrete. We must make a commitment, give an assurance and go ahead in faith, not knowing what the future is going to bring.”
Archbishop of York July 1993

---

quote:

---

“Let us be absolutely sure that we are passing a pastoral act for pastoral purposes – a very different thing from passing legislation which could tie the church into further complications. I believe the act is needed for pastoral purposes and that we must vote for it, but we must be sure it is not legislation.”
Canon Ruth Wintle, General Synod July 1993 [p 690]

---

quote:

---

“The arrangements the House envisages are designed to ensure that appropriate pastoral Episcopal care is provided for those in favour and those opposed to the legislation, without undermining the authority of the diocesan bishop.”
The Archbishop of Canterbury (George Carey) in the House of Lords 2 Nov1993

“..The visitors *PEVs+ are intended to provide an extended ministry in certain agreed places, working with and through the diocesan bishops concerned…
The importance of lending them out and placing them strategically is so that they can do some ordinary episcopal work and be part of a diocesan team..”
The Archbishop of York (John Habgood) to General Synod July 1993 [p674]

---

quote:

---

“The assurances, the special provisions, the extraordinary episcopal oversight are all judged necessary—I accept that—but nevertheless they are symptoms of an illness which replaces trust and good will with the flawed logic of two integrities. It is a sad paradox that those most fearful of one development in the life of the Church should be blind to their collusion with another which seems far more obviously illegitimate within that same spiritual life.”
Lord Runcie, to the House of Lords 2 Nov 1993

---

quote:

---

And the apologia I gave was that of the Apostolic District, which was the term in canon law to describe a group that is not yet a diocese but might become so and has an apostolic administrator. Of course an administration, a jurisdiction, was the one thing we weren’t. We didn’t have the legal authority to do any of it. But that was what we were in search of becoming.
Andrew Burnham, Catholic Herald 13 Jan 2011

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
That's what Tom Robinson would have said once...

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Evensong, you just gave me a light bulb moment. Biblical support for women bishops:

quote:

---

For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

---

Goodness me, it's been sitting there in 1 Corinthians 11:10 all along.

Conversely, 3 verses earlier it's made perfectly clear that men absolutely should NOT be wearing hats in church like that.

---

Holy fuck, that was brilliant.
Still, it only takes care of the fundies. Won't keep the sacramental mob happy.
Now ... How could we proof text for them ...
 

---

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

Specifically Carey promised the House of Lords:

quote:

---

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

---

Lords debate

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
It's just possible that as a result of this, disestablishment could happen in a particularly shameful and embarrassing way - the State may decide it doesn't wish to be associated with the Church of England.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:
That photo has, of course, dear old Sir Tony wearing a Garrick Club tie.

I wonder how many female members there are...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I'm slightly perturbed by the number of Shipmates who can spot a Garrick Club tie at a distance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:
That photo has, of course, dear old Sir Tony wearing a Garrick Club tie.

I wonder how many female members there are...

---

About as many as there female bishops in the CofE.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
If people want to argue that there is a RELEVANT difference between men and women such that women are not suited to senior leadership in the church, then I'm all ears (although frankly it'd be much easier, as a matter of logic, to argue that they're not suited for the priesthood, rather than have the odd halfway position that currently exists).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
The fundamental problem I have with the assertion that God has decreed that men can perform a task and women can't is that no-one ever goes on to explain WHY God might have done this. And the God I believe in usually does things for sensible reasons, or at least some kind of reason. I don't hold with the idea that God is generally ineffable or capricious. So I expect some kind of attempt, at least, at articulating what it is about men that God prefers in this area.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Ms Leafe is now far better known than she was just a day ago.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eigon:
...if there was a membership card for the CofE, I'd have torn it up on Tuesday night...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dal Segno:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eigon:
...if there was a membership card for the CofE, I'd have torn it up on Tuesday night...

---

I have friends who have said that they are doing this as as result of Tuesday's vote. That is, leaving to go to another church, where women are welcome in all roles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Goodness. People have been saying to me that liberals in the Church were just as bad as the conservatives. To be honest I never really believed it, but seeing the reactions on the Ship over a mere postponement of the inevitable is sure opening my eyes.

---

My, do you have an education to come. Their rage and cries of betrayal are worse then the Bennites at the 1980 Labour Conference
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
The last thing we need though, Eigon, is for people who feel like that to leave. Then the mysogynists have won and the possiblity of women bishops being approved in the future even a more distant reality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Please see my post above.

Because, yeah, pretty much when I was growing up, the only time one heard the phrase (outside of an insurance office ) was in the context of a bad joke.

---

Would you consider 'woman doctor' and 'woman bishop' to be disparaging also?

---

quote:

---

In my dialect, 'woman doctor' is not disparaging

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Kelly Alves

I'm not sure how I am ignoring your point about 'women drivers', which I get, is for you sexist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Sexual symbolism is the core issue here, and it is consistent, coherent and effable. This is not Dead Horses, so I will just provide some links: If you want to read a brief and soft-spoken argument, here's C.S. Lewis, if you want a discussion at length and with plenty of fighting words, here's Peter Kreeft.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Kelly Alves

I'm not sure how I am ignoring your point about 'women drivers', which I get, is for you sexist.

---

The fact that you got that absolutely did not come across.

---

The clue is in the word 'also'. Thus, when I said, 'do you find 'woman doctor' disparaging also?', the 'also' means that I got that you found 'women drivers' disparaging. What else would 'also' mean?
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 


Who will rid me of this troublesome lexicographer?
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
(I'm telling you, orfeo. )

Let me put it another way-- your minimalist approach to conveying understanding and your exhaustive approach to reveling in pedantry gives me a knee- jerk judgement of your priorities.

[ 22. November 2012, 21:42: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 

---

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Man flu?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
(I'm telling you, orfeo. )

Let me put it another way-- your minimalist approach to conveying understanding and your exhaustive approach to reveling in pedantry gives me a knee- jerk judgement of your priorities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Exactly, DT.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
There have been several times in the past few years when I've wondered if I can in good conscience continue publicly to represent this increasingly shameful organisation; but never more so than the last couple of days.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
This is understandable as an initial reaction but at the risk of being 'pollyanna-ish' the key thing to remember is that the vote in favour of women bishops was overwhelming. Some kind of deal will be struck. All that is needed is a small concession to get back those six lay votes. We'll see a solution in a matter of months rather than years. And I predict a final approval vote in favour of women bishops in the next two years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The problem with any deal is that it's never going to be enough. Those who saw that the provision given in the Act of Synod as meaning a church within a church and saw it as permanent fixture are not going to accept anything less. Their actions showed that they either believed in a permanent church within a church or that women priests were a temporary blip, otherwise why would they continue ordaining men who did not believe women can be priests within this body? That is what has perpetuated this temporary provision.

The only thing that's going to be enough is a church within a church. And I don't think that's possible, partiularly while meeting the Sex Discrimination legislation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
Those who believe there was a promise rely on the Manchester Statement;

---

quote:

---

˜We now enter a process in which it is desirable that both those in favour and those opposed should be recognised as holding legitimate positions while the whole Church seeks to come to a common mind. The Church of England needs to understand itself as a communion in dialogue, committed to remaining together in the ongoing process of the discernment of truth within the wider fellowship of the Christian Church. Giving space to each other and remaining in the highest possible degree of communion in spite of differences are crucial, as we strive to be open to the insights of the wider Christian community.

---

quote:

---

the House of Bishops 'Bonds of Peace' document which accompanied the Act of Synod;

---

quote:

---

the lifting of the sunset clause in the main measure;

---

quote:

---

evidence given to the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament

---

quote:

---

and the Lambeth Conference resolution which assured both parties that they are 'loyal Anglicans'.

---

quote:

---

The language is of two 'integrities' and 'open reception' which has now fallen out of fashion. The promises in Synod were to provide space.

---

quote:

---

The language from the Archbishop was that the provisions contained in the Act of Synod were for as long as they were needed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
There's some worry that they're expecting Parliament to come riding to the rescue. This is as unhealthy as the erastianism conveniently adopted by traditionalists back in 1992 and 1993. My view is that Parliament will moan and winge about the church but won't and can't interfere. Their self-righteous debate the other day was ridiculous. Tony Baldry even implied that the Church of England was now a 'sect' - is the RC Church a sect which will not even debate ordination of women? Bloody ridiculous.

---

quote:

---

"I am a freemason, as the House knows. My purpose in initiating this debate is not, however, to defend freemasons or freemasonry; with my knowledge of freemasonry, I hope rather that I can assist the House and persuade the Home Secretary—and, indeed, the Government as a whole—to reconsider their proposals on freemasons.

I fully accept that some people find freemasonry slightly ridiculous. That is a matter for them, but if I and thousands of other men choose to be ridiculous in private, that is surely a matter for us. On other matters, I regularly get down on my knees and pray to a trinitarian God. I proclaim a creed that asserts baptism for the remission of sins and life after death. Some people believe in transubstantiation—that the bread and wine actually turn into the body and blood of our Lord.

Again, I suspect some people find some or all of those ideas ridiculous. Whether I believe them is a matter for me.


The state has no business seeking to build windows into men's souls".

Tony Baldry (Hansard 06/05/98)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:

The main obstacle now is whether Watch will accept any concessions at all. There's some worry that they're expecting Parliament to come riding to the rescue. This is as unhealthy as the erastianism conveniently adopted by traditionalists back in 1992 and 1993. My view is that Parliament will moan and winge about the church but won't and can't interfere. Their self-righteous debate the other day was ridiculous. Tony Baldry even implied that the Church of England was now a 'sect' - is the RC Church a sect which will not even debate ordination of women? Bloody ridiculous.

For all their criticism of the church, MPs hardly carry any moral authority themselves.

---

Second time in ten minutes I've agreed with Spawn! Definitely a record.
 

---

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
Jusinian, you really are a tiresome arsehole. Why argue with my post in which I clearly say that the promise is to maintain space. In other words, we are in broad agreement. Nevertheless, even if they're wrong, it's undeniable that 'assurances' were given. You're just getting hung up on whether those 'assurances' should ever have been understood as 'promises' by those involved. Well, you're not going to change anyone's mind about that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
Second time in ten minutes I've agreed with Spawn! Definitely a record.

---

Welcome to the dark side.
 

---

Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
Okay, Justinian, I'll withdraw the adjective. And I'll just point out that you're guilty of not reading my posts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
Assurances that space would be given were indeed made. Space was given for twenty years. No assurances were made that space would be given indefinitely - and indeed with the ban on new bishops opposing the ordination of women it is impossible to do so so any reading that that assurance was given is delusional.

---

quote:

---

My claim is that the assurances made have been fulfilled - as indeed by my reading they have. Apparently you are too illiterate to have read my actual post which says things like "Verdict: Promise Kept". Because had you done so you would realise that it was impossible to write that without there being some acknowledgement that some assurances were made.

---

quote:

---

And the real problem with MPs criticising the CofE is that they don't have much moral authority themselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
No assurances were made that space would be given indefinitely - and indeed with the ban on new bishops opposing the ordination of women it is impossible to do so so any reading that that assurance was given is delusional.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
Jusinian, you really are a tiresome arsehole. Why argue with my post in which I clearly say that the promise is to maintain space. In other words, we are in broad agreement. Nevertheless, even if they're wrong, it's undeniable that 'assurances' were given. You're just getting hung up on whether those 'assurances' should ever have been understood as 'promises' by those involved. Well, you're not going to change anyone's mind about that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Spawn, thank you for being pollyanna. But the question of whether I want to be a member of the CofE is only partly about the actual vote on Tuesday. It's also partly about whether I want to be a member of the same organisation as people like Giddings and Leafe. Right now I would rather call Entamoeba histolytica* my brother/sister in Christ than either of those two.


(* The organism that causes amoebic dysentery)

---

quote:

---

Members of the Church of England hold seemingly irreconcilable views on the issue of the consecration of women. Some are pushing hard for a solution they believe would end discrimination against women. Others resist, saying that it is not discrimination but religious conviction, and that they will soon be discriminated against because of their beliefs.

Ours is a broad Church, here to serve the people of this country. Both clergy and laity can be faithful members while holding divergent views on salvation, the authority of scripture, the Eucharist, the bodily resurrection and many other topics. There is a real danger that women in the episcopacy will become the only issue on which diversity is not tolerated.

Let us not become a narrow Church by making the consecration of women a "test act" for the 21st century.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:
I've only met Giddings once and expected to find him repellant. In all fairness, though, he was lovely. Very much a surprise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
But what's so different now? From your perspective, you have to live in the same church as Giddings and Leafe, but 20 years ago you had to live in the same church as Tony Higton and Margaret Brown.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:
(Quoting Fr Jonathan Beswick)

quote:

---

Others resist, saying that it is not discrimination but religious conviction

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
But what's so different now? From your perspective, you have to live in the same church as Giddings and Leafe, but 20 years ago you had to live in the same church as Tony Higton and Margaret Brown.

---

The point of the "last straw" is that it is a straw, not a three-ton weight.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
There's no self-awareness that threats to leave by the other side have led to angry accusations of emotional blackmail.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:
Laypeople aren't inferior to clergy, you know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
They get paid to be Christians, we have to pay.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Spawn, I really couldn't give a toss about the general atmosphere. Nor about those (to my mind) wrong-headed people who are looking for a reversal of the vote by Parliament. I'm just tired of year after year, decade after decade, of being embarrassed by an institution that I necessarily - because of the office I hold - publicly represent. I'm tired of having to try to explain the CofE. I'm tired of having to apologise for it. I'm tired of that sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach when I see the word "Church" in a headline and think "oh fuck, what now?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:
So, they're our employees.

---

quote:

---

And yet also our Fathers in God. ...

They are not, though, superior.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
... when did you realise that being in a broad and comprehensive church wasn't for you?...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:
Laypeople aren't inferior to clergy, you know.

Thurible

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
... when did you realise that being in a broad and comprehensive church wasn't for you?...

---

You're kidding, right? Broad and comprehensive? Where about 40% of the priesthood have just been told that whatever spiritual gifts they might have to exercise in the vocation to episcopacy, they're not wanted?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
The other point is that we didn't just tell the minority opposed to women's ordination to get lost.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
You seem to want to be in a church of the likeminded.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:
Firms hire advisers. The advisers are not superior.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pimple:
Suck it up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Spawn, I really couldn't give a toss about the general atmosphere. Nor about those (to my mind) wrong-headed people who are looking for a reversal of the vote by Parliament. I'm just tired of year after year, decade after decade, of being embarrassed by an institution that I necessarily - because of the office I hold - publicly represent. I'm tired of having to try to explain the CofE. I'm tired of having to apologise for it. I'm tired of that sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach when I see the word "Church" in a headline and think "oh fuck, what now?"

Some years ago, a friend of mine resigned from the clergy for similar reasons. At the time, he said something to the effect of "You realise that you've spent every day of your life banging your head against a brick wall. Then you realise that either you can carry on doing that, knowing you'll never knock the wall down, or you can turn around and walk away." That is a very good description of how I feel this week.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
[QUOTE]So, suppose someone asks me, "Why did Synod vote against women bishops?" Is "Because they're a bunch of brainless troglodytes who wouldn't know the will of God if it bit them on the arse" a sufficient explanation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:
Firms hire advisers. The advisers are not superior.

---

So clergy are merely advisors, hired by the laity to provide ideas that we can then follow or not according to our own whim? They have no extra status, jurisdiction or superiority, either in the church or the Kingdom, whatsoever? A bishop - nay, an archbishop - has no greater right or capacity to teach or speak on behalf of the church than the lowliest serf in the smallest congregation? They have no more right or authority to chastise those they perceive as being sinful than I have? They have no more ability or power to mediate between God and humanity than I have? They are not better than or superior to me in any way, shape or form?

They do not have the power to forgive (or refuse to forgive) sins, or to determine what acts of penance should be carried out? They are not the sole agents through whom the eucharist can be provided to the people, and without whom we cannot perform that most vital of Christian acts of worship? They do not have the automatic and incontestable right to sit as chairmen of every important committee in the church, from PCCs to Synod itself?

They are not, to segue into Biblical language, the shepherds and we their flock (in which case what the hell does the crook bishops carry symbolise?)?

Well, that's news to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[QUOTE] .... the lowliest serf in the smallest congregation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sebby:
Well, we have said to us these days that the laity need to be more prominient. A Lay Led Church. Now we have it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
And for me that's partly being driven out of my local church by people who only want one form of churchmanship and theology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
FOAD Spike.

What's driven me out the evangelical cadre who are using the CofE as the best boat to fish from as they make sure they "properly teach" a Biblical fundamentalism that includes PSA and YEC, no evolution, born again Christianity, believers baptism only, paedobaptism is totally unacceptable it's social Christianity.

Oh yes, compulsory use of the NIV. There are only 66 books in the bible. Anything else is heresy. Books from the Apocrypha must not be read in Church.

Catholics aren't Christian. Saints, stained glass and liturgical observance are Popery. Lenten observance is to be mocked and sabotaged.

Oh yes, and dissenting voices of any of this need to be sidelined and shut up.

---

Oh you've found some liberal Evangelicals then? After all, they use the NIV, not the AV... However I note that like all good liberals, they are very negative about things that REALLY AREN'T ACCEPTABLE. It's just that their choices as to what isn't acceptable aren't yours. Try proposing no women in orders in some CofE churches.

Yeah, if that your local Anglican shack, then I don't blame you for leaving it, because that is a near the end of one of the spectra in the CofE. However given the nature of the CofE, there'll almost certainly be something fairly different not THAT far away.
 

---

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
FOAD Spike.

What's driven me out the evangelical cadre who are using the CofE as the best boat to fish from as they make sure they "properly teach" a Biblical fundamentalism that includes PSA and YEC, no evolution, born again Christianity, believers baptism only, paedobaptism is totally unacceptable it's social Christianity.

Oh yes, compulsory use of the NIV. There are only 66 books in the bible. Anything else is heresy. Books from the Apocrypha must not be read in Church.

Catholics aren't Christian. Saints, stained glass and liturgical observance are Popery. Lenten observance is to be mocked and sabotaged.

Oh yes, and dissenting voices of any of this need to be sidelined and shut up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
When you get to the level of bishop, they're the ones who get to live rent-free in big mansions at our expense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
a prevailing attitude

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
All that is needed is a small concession to get back those six lay votes. We'll see a solution in a matter of months rather than years. And I predict a final approval vote in favour of women bishops in the next two years....

As far as 'promises' are concerned, both sides have a point. This is a pretty good summary of the evidence as far as synodical debates are concerned. ...

Sorry for an overly long and un-hellish post.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
When you get to the level of bishop, they're the ones who get to live rent-free in big mansions at our expense.

---

They've sold off most of the bishops' palaces and 'mansions'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pimple:
Suck it up.

---

Most of us probably will, in the end. We'll continue to apologise for the Church. We'll continue to explain. So, suppose someone asks me, "Why did Synod vote against women bishops?" Is "Because they're a bunch of brainless troglodytes who wouldn't know the will of God if it bit them on the arse" a sufficient explanation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PataLeBon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pimple:
Suck it up.

---

Most of us probably will, in the end. We'll continue to apologise for the Church. We'll continue to explain. So, suppose someone asks me, "Why did Synod vote against women bishops?" Is "Because they're a bunch of brainless troglodytes who wouldn't know the will of God if it bit them on the arse" a sufficient explanation?

---

As someone sitting on the sidelines, but has had to answer similar questions about their own church...

Hell, yes!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DunkDuffel:
How could the lay members of the General Synod ignore the overwhelming votes by the Diocesan Synods to approve Women Bishops?!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
The other point is that we didn't just tell the minority opposed to women's ordination to get lost.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
Sorry to triple-post. This needs correcting because Justinian hasn't read the sources properly. There was no ban on 'new bishops opposing the ordination of women'. There was a 'clause' which allowed existing bishops the power to say no to any women priests in their dioceses, but future-appointed bishops could not do this. As it was, because of the London Plan and the Act of Synod, no existing bishops took advantage of this power and as a result there were no 'no-go' dioceses for women priests.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
I still can't believe you're arguing with me. I said, for example, that no 'promises' could be binding on successors.

You didn't read my post. We aren't actually in any kind of major disagreement. But you don't deal with issues by a partial and simplistic 'verdict' of this kind. A small group of people understand those assurances as a promise to them - undergirded with the language of 'two integrities' and 'open reception'. My view is that the assurances lasted up until women bishops which is a game changer. Now new reassurances are needed.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

And the real problem with MPs criticising the CofE is that they don't have much moral authority themselves.

---

Is there an echo? I just said that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sebby:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PataLeBon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pimple:
Suck it up.

---

Most of us probably will, in the end. We'll continue to apologise for the Church. We'll continue to explain. So, suppose someone asks me, "Why did Synod vote against women bishops?" Is "Because they're a bunch of brainless troglodytes who wouldn't know the will of God if it bit them on the arse" a sufficient explanation?

---

As someone sitting on the sidelines, but has had to answer similar questions about their own church...

Hell, yes!

---

Although as a lay person (not church, but sorry -Lay) said in the pub a moment ago:

'but it wasn't a vote against women bishops was it? It was the wording of the legislation and the media ran with it, and stupid people who couldn't or wouldn't be prepared to analyse believed them'

---

I'm afraid I'm a bit confused about this whole thing.

People on this thread keep saying it's a vote against women bishops.

But I have heard others say it was no such thing. It was a vote against concessions to those opposed to women bishops. So it was therefore a vote FOR women bishops (with no strings attached).

Which is it.....?



 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
That's always the problem with No votes. You can have completely different, even opposing, reasons to vote No.

Witness the Australian republic vote some years back. The monarchists and those who wanted a more radical republican model banded together.
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Evensong, there are two main groups voting against this measure,

1. the Reform group who are conservative evangelicals who are voting on the headship issue - so although women priests may be just about OK, bishops are definitely not, because they will be in leadership;
2. the Anglo-catholic wing of the church who believe that women sacramentally cannot be priests, so bishops can't be either - and they're more likely to be voting against the legislation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

Those who are arguing against the legislation are looking back to the 1992 decision to ordain women. When that was enacted there was provision made for these priests who could not in conscience believe women could be priests. Many of the arguments above are discussing how that went.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[QUOTE] .... the lowliest serf in the smallest congregation?

---

Whoa! Hang on a minute .... it's one thing insulting people on here, it's another to do it to people who have no hope of defending themselves.

---

Dude, I was talking about myself. If you read the rest of the post that should be obvious
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spike:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

Those who are arguing against the legislation are looking back to the 1992 decision to ordain women. When that was enacted there was provision made for these priests who could not in conscience believe women could be priests. Many of the arguments above are discussing how that went.

---

Sadly, it runs even deeper than that. The whole "flying bishop" thing we have at the moment is that they only want bishops who have not "tainted" their hands by ordaining women, so that their little group of priests are "pure". Somehow (according to their logic) any man who has been ordained by a bishop who has also ordained women isn't really a "proper" priest. What they are worried about is that they may have a male bishop who was consecrated by an Archbishop who has also consecrated women, thus, by their logic, making his episcopal orders invalid.

---

So, wait, this is about... girl's germs?.

Good God. How old are these people, mentally? Nine?
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
And I was trying so hard to be non-provocative

Two things, most of the people quoted on the news here have been from Reform. I don't think I have heard anyone from the "traditional wing" of the Church going on record.

Secondly, Spike's comments on taint have been disputed in Purgatory - Barnabas62 has asked that discussion gets moved to Dead Horses and I'm not sure that's happened. I haven't encountered this commentary on taint in real life, just read about it on the Ship, where I've certainly seen it said. But the Ship does tend to attract the disaffected and extreme ends of religious expression.

And not all the Flying Bishops / PEVs empire built, some were more determined to force a permanent church within a church onto the CofE than others.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Presumably, there is great reluctance to get tough, and say to those objecting to women priests/bishops, look, either stay and lump it, or leave.

Is this considered to be very non-Christian?
 

---

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spike:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

Those who are arguing against the legislation are looking back to the 1992 decision to ordain women. When that was enacted there was provision made for these priests who could not in conscience believe women could be priests. Many of the arguments above are discussing how that went.

---

Sadly, it runs even deeper than that. The whole "flying bishop" thing we have at the moment is that they only want bishops who have not "tainted" their hands by ordaining women, so that their little group of priests are "pure". Somehow (according to their logic) any man who has been ordained by a bishop who has also ordained women isn't really a "proper" priest. What they are worried about is that they may have a male bishop who was consecrated by an Archbishop who has also consecrated women, thus, by their logic, making his episcopal orders invalid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:
Laypeople aren't inferior to clergy, you know.

---

Clergy are the ones who are in charge, be it of a parish or a diocese. They are the bosses, the leaders, the top brass. They're the ones who are quite literally at the front every Sunday, and who the church teaches we cannot receive the sacraments without. They get paid to be Christians, we have to pay. When you get to the level of bishop, they're the ones who get to live rent-free in big mansions at our expense.

Whichever way you spin it, that sounds pretty superior to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spike:
Sadly, it runs even deeper than that. The whole "flying bishop" thing we have at the moment is that they only want bishops who have not "tainted" their hands by ordaining women, so that their little group of priests are "pure". Somehow (according to their logic) any man who has been ordained by a bishop who has also ordained women isn't really a "proper" priest. What they are worried about is that they may have a male bishop who was consecrated by an Archbishop who has also consecrated women, thus, by their logic, making his episcopal orders invalid.

---

So, wait, this is about... girl's germs?.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Even when I was one - and was deeply involved in FiF - I never once met an anglo-catholic who believed that the orders of a bishop who has ordained women were somehow thereby "invalidated". That is simply not an argument that any anglo-catholics I knew ever used, even amongst themselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by k-mann:

quote:

---

Originally posted by DunkDuffel:
How could the lay members of the General Synod ignore the overwhelming votes by the Diocesan Synods to approve Women Bishops?!

---

Probably because they disagreed with it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:
Yes, the roles of the ordained are different to the roles of the laity (though, of course, some laity are licensed to preach, lead worship, etc., and there are even some stipendiary lay ministers) but my concern seems to be the implication that you are contrasting "superior" with "inferior" rather than, say, "more responsibility" with "less responsibility" or, even, "senior" and "junior".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Even when I was one - and was deeply involved in FiF - I never once met an anglo-catholic who believed that the orders of a bishop who has ordained women were somehow thereby "invalidated". That is simply not an argument that any anglo-catholics I knew ever used, even amongst themselves.

---

Then why are the PEVs needed? If all the CofE Bishops, who are all male, are fully, properly, validly, whateverly Bishops, why is another Bishop needed. If the relationship is impaired, what has impaired it if it isn't the 'taint' of ordaining women?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
As far as I'm aware, there isn't a single thing that the laity are allowed to do that a priest cannot also do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Even when I was one - and was deeply involved in FiF - I never once met an anglo-catholic who believed that the orders of a bishop who has ordained women were somehow thereby "invalidated". That is simply not an argument that any anglo-catholics I knew ever used, even amongst themselves.

---

Then why are the PEVs needed? If all the CofE Bishops, who are all male, are fully, properly, validly, whateverly Bishops, why is another Bishop needed. If the relationship is impaired, what has impaired it if it isn't the 'taint' of ordaining women?

---

I am not defending any of this, by the way, and have been out of the running to make what I say about the reasons for PEVs unreliable. But as I understand it, it is precisely because the relationship between a bishop and opponents to women priests had been impaired - the bishop ceased to be the symbol of unity within the dicoese for such people, and his pastoral authority was compromised for them. I think that was the gist of it.

But I can fully assure you that it has nothing to do with thinking the bishop's orders no longer valid. Proof of that? FiF (for example) had full priest members who were ordained by diocesans who had already ordained women priests too.

So can we drop the accusation that the trads think that bishops have validity-zapping cooties from having touched girls?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
It may not be common, but I have seen in action.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
It may not be common, but I have seen in action.

---

What does that mean?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Presumably, there is great reluctance to get tough, and say to those objecting to women priests/bishops, look, either stay and lump it, or leave.

Is this considered to be very non-Christian?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FooloftheShip:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
It may not be common, but I have seen in action.

---

What does that mean?

---

It means (poorly proof-read though it was), that I have been a member of the congregation of a church in which the parish priest ceased concelebration on the basis that the hands of the other priest may be "tainted" by his acceptance of the priesthood of women. On closer inspection, it's not quite the same thing, but it is closely related. I think I associated the two because I remember feeling the same about that as I did about the "classical" version of the "tainted hands" concept.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
As far as I'm aware, there isn't a single thing that the laity are allowed to do that a priest cannot also do.

---

Well, Catholic and Orthodox priests cannot marry. Catholic priests cannot stand for election to state legislatures or become combatant members of the armed forces.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:
We would not regard the orders of any bishop or priest ordained by a bishop invalid because that bishop had ordained women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
it is precisely because the relationship between a bishop and opponents to women priests had been impaired - the bishop ceased to be the symbol of unity within the dicoese for such people, and his pastoral authority was compromised for them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:
Because they don't want to be part of a presbyterium whose orders aren't fully interchangable.

Thurible

---

quote:

---

Chesterbelloc: In addition, it might be to avoid the awkwardness of compromising their (officially protected) beliefs about women in the priesthood by being ordained alongside women in the same ceremony. All of this is perfectly consistent with believing the bishop still to be a bishop and the male priests he ordains to be priests.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
As far as I'm aware, there isn't a single thing that the laity are allowed to do that a priest cannot also do.

---

Well, Catholic and Orthodox priests cannot marry. Catholic priests cannot stand for election to state legislatures or become combatant members of the armed forces.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Orthodox priests can marry.
As you were.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Orthodox priests can marry.
As you were.

---

No - men who are married at the time of ordination can be ordained, but a priest cannot enter into marriage after ordination. If his wife dies, he's stuck with being celibate. If he's not married when he's ordained, he is required to remain unmarried.

Orthodox BISHOPS cannot be married, so the pool for them is unmarried priests.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

I've seen this argument advanced against opponents of OoW so often on these boards and then refuted by others just as often - most recently yesterday, by Thurible in Purgatory - but back it comes again and again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Well, Catholic and Orthodox priests cannot marry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:
My background is one of traditional Anglo-Catholicism where the priest, robed in vestments and on his way to the altar, is bowed to by the congregation, as a sign of the fact that he is in persona Christi. Thurible

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sebby:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PataLeBon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pimple:
Suck it up.

---

Most of us probably will, in the end. We'll continue to apologise for the Church. We'll continue to explain. So, suppose someone asks me, "Why did Synod vote against women bishops?" Is "Because they're a bunch of brainless troglodytes who wouldn't know the will of God if it bit them on the arse" a sufficient explanation?

---

As someone sitting on the sidelines, but has had to answer similar questions about their own church...

Hell, yes!

---

Although as a lay person (not church, but sorry -Lay) said in the pub a moment ago:

'but it wasn't a vote against women bishops was it? It was the wording of the legislation and the media ran with it, and stupid people who couldn't or wouldn't be prepared to analyse believed them'

Quite interesting from a random unbeliever who couldn't care either way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

quote:

---

Chesterbelloc: In addition, it might be to avoid the awkwardness of compromising their (officially protected) beliefs about women in the priesthood by being ordained alongside women in the same ceremony. All of this is perfectly consistent with believing the bishop still to be a bishop and the male priests he ordains to be priests.

---

But why on earth would you want to be ordained into a church that is ordaining women if you feel their orders are not sacramentally valid?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

I've seen this argument advanced against opponents of OoW so often on these boards and then refuted by others just as often - most recently yesterday, by Thurible in Purgatory - but back it comes again and again.

---

But it wasn't refuted! What Thurible said was exactly what Spike and me are saying FiF do. He just called it something else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:
I'd appreciate it, though, if you would accept that you are wrong on the issue of whether or not we accept the orders of those ordained by women-ordaining bishops.
e

---

If you will not have those people as ministers in your churches and you will not accept communion when they preside what can it possibly mean to say that you do accept them as priests?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Well, Catholic and Orthodox priests cannot marry.

---

[...] I'm pretty sure the Catholic position is that a priest who gets married has broken his vows to the church and so has to stop working as a priest. But they would be validly married, so in that sense at least a priest can marry.

---

As I said, Catholic priests cannot marry. Just how does being forbidden to marry on pain of laicisation (i.e., abandoning the exercise of priesthood) not count as something a priest cannot do, in the sense relevant to Marvin's complaint?

But not only are you splitting hairs, if not outright equivocating, but you're also wrong. A priest who married without the necessary dispensation would find that his marriage was invalid in canon law: i.e., that he wasn't married at all.

IANACL, so will have to chow down on my word-pie if one should come along and refute me. But I'd like to think I will have the decency to admit I'm wrong rather than bluster on. ken.
 

---

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:


Both priest and thurifer are acting as Christ to us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
As I said, Catholic priests cannot marry. Just how does being forbidden to marry on pain of laicisation (i.e., abandoning the exercise of priesthood) not count as something a priest cannot do, in the sense relevant to Marvin's complaint?

But not only are you splitting hairs, if not outright equivocating, but you're also wrong. A priest who married without the necessary dispensation would find that his marriage was invalid in canon law: i.e., that he wasn't married at all.

IANACL, so will have to chow down on my word-pie if one should come along and refute me. But I'd like to think I will have the decency to admit I'm wrong rather than bluster on. ken.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:


Both priest and thurifer are acting as Christ to us.

---

As the congregation is to them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Even when I was one - and was deeply involved in FiF - I never once met an anglo-catholic who believed that the orders of a bishop who has ordained women were somehow thereby "invalidated". That is simply not an argument that any anglo-catholics I knew ever used, even amongst themselves.

---

Then why are the PEVs needed? If all the CofE Bishops, who are all male, are fully, properly, validly, whateverly Bishops, why is another Bishop needed. If the relationship is impaired, what has impaired it if it isn't the 'taint' of ordaining women?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zacchaeus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Even when I was one - and was deeply involved in FiF - I never once met an anglo-catholic who believed that the orders of a bishop who has ordained women were somehow thereby "invalidated". That is simply not an argument that any anglo-catholics I knew ever used, even amongst themselves.

---

Then why are the PEVs needed? If all the CofE Bishops, who are all male, are fully, properly, validly, whateverly Bishops, why is another Bishop needed. If the relationship is impaired, what has impaired it if it isn't the 'taint' of ordaining women?

---

A curate at an A+B parish near where I used to live, did not attend the pre-ordination retreat with his curate cohort and would not be ordained in the same service. In fact he was ordained in a seperate service in his own church by the PEV, obviousley I am not party to the ins and outs of what went on, but he refused to participate in chapter meetings as well, with the females clergy..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

I've seen this argument advanced against opponents of OoW so often on these boards and then refuted by others just as often - most recently yesterday, by Thurible in Purgatory - but back it comes again and again.

---

But it wasn't refuted! What Thurible said was exactly what Spike and me are saying FiF do. He just called it something else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spike:
Forgive me for being stupid, but why do you need PEVs? Please explain in simple language that stupid people like ken and I can understand.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
If that's not a refutation, what would be?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spike:
Forgive me for being stupid, but why do you need PEVs? Please explain in simple language that stupid people like ken and I can understand.

---

Maybe you'd be more likely to get an answer to that if either you or ken were to retract or attempt to substantiate your debunked assertion, and thus demonstrate that you're not just jerking us around.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I did check what you said. You said stuff about relationships being broken and bishops no longer being a symbol of unity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
And there's nothing wrong with this thread, for saying that the whole situation with women's ordination in the Anglican church is a crazy illogical mess.

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Nah, mostly she wanted everyone to stop wittering on about marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Except, Justinian, you are quoting two different pieces of legislation: you are quoting from the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 1993, which was the legal bit that passed through parliament. This legislation was added to by the General Synod in the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod 1993, which is what Thurible was quoting.

Two different things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Actaully, if you had checked, you'd have seen that my point was to challenge ken and Spike about a specific allegation: that the opponents of women priests generally hold that bishops who had ordained women and priests who had been ordained by such bishops have thereby invalid orders. Which is - provenly - bullshit. All the stuff about unity, and broken relationships I submitted to those who know better than me about it for potential correction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Nah, mostly she wanted everyone to stop wittering on about marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spike:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Actaully, if you had checked, you'd have seen that my point was to challenge ken and Spike about a specific allegation: that the opponents of women priests generally hold that bishops who had ordained women and priests who had been ordained by such bishops have thereby invalid orders. Which is - provenly - bullshit. All the stuff about unity, and broken relationships I submitted to those who know better than me about it for potential correction.

---

So I ask again, what are PEVs for?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Nah, mostly she wanted everyone to stop wittering on about marriage.

---

Well, with respect, she could have made that a lot clearer.

Her "get back to the point" post immediately followed six posts over more than two hours, none of which was on marriage and all but one of which were on the continuing issue of whether OoW-opponents accept the orders of bishops who ordain women or male priests ordained by them. Which they undeniably do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
Huh. This is interesting. Ebbsfleet are a bunch of liars - and I've just had to slap down Thurible in the other thread for being taken in by them.

On the Ebbsfleet website under the heading Resources/Legislation relevant to the See of Ebbsfleet they have what they claim to be the Act of Synod. A simple glance shows that the act starts with the word "Proposed".

The Church of England website has the actual act (which starts with the word "Passed"). Notably the Ebbsfleet version starts with the declarations

quote:

---

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

---

the real version starts

quote:

---

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

---

Ebbsfleet are outright lying about the Act of Synod that brought them into existance - what they claim to be legislation isn't. This goes some way to explaining the differences in what was supposedly promised that people are claiming.

---

The question, Justinian, is on what occasions DOES the Act of Synod allow such discrimination. If, as I suspect, they are extremely limited ones, then the summary presented is entirely accurate; having just scanned through the Measure, it seems the only scenario that appears in the measure is the appointment to parishes that oppose the OoW, where opposition is indeed an appropriate step. So, Justinian, you are bitching at gnats, a sign that you really are just trying to stir up trouble. Of course that's the fashionable thing to do - to throw as much bovine faecal material at your opponents in the hope that some of it will stick. But for a Christian to do that? I think a public confession before your next trip to communion is called for.
 

---

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Thank you, comet. But I was actually trying to be compliant with what I thought you were demanding. It appears I guessed wrongly about that. But, yes, I did think you were monitoring each post - I thought that's what hosts did.

[ 25. November 2012, 08:43: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
 

---

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
Eh. You were right, I was unclear. I tell ya, I try and try to get you all to read my mind, and it goes nowhere. Geez.

We monitor posts as we're available to do so. Which is why they try and get hosts from many timezones. I was just making my first read of the day when I posted, so I had some catching up to do. My post was vaguely aimed at all of page 9, essentially.

[ 25. November 2012, 08:48: Message edited by: comet ]
 

---

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Comet, you shame me - your price is above Ruby's. Thank you.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Who is this Ruby? And when did she become less valuable than comet?
 

---

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Comet, you shame me - your price is above Ruby's. Thank you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
actually, I'm not sure what the issue is and how there are grounds for such a strong accusation of "wilful liars" as if they are distorting the Act.

The "proposed" version says "There shall be no discrimination against" whereas the final Act passed says "no person or body shall discriminate against".

How is that such a major distortion as to warrant labelling them wilful liars? It seems more like Justinian has gone a-hunting in the hopes of finding some evidence - but that's all he comes up with? Not convincing.

Also not my fight, so I'd best just keep out of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Comet, you shame me - your price is above Ruby's. Thank you.

---

Pedant alert

Ruby's what?

---

Just a wee proverbial joke, Boogie.

[ 25. November 2012, 13:23: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
 

---

Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Even when I was one - and was deeply involved in FiF - I never once met an anglo-catholic who believed that the orders of a bishop who has ordained women were somehow thereby "invalidated". That is simply not an argument that any anglo-catholics I knew ever used, even amongst themselves.

---

Then why are the PEVs needed? If all the CofE Bishops, who are all male, are fully, properly, validly, whateverly Bishops, why is another Bishop needed. If the relationship is impaired, what has impaired it if it isn't the 'taint' of ordaining women?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PeteC:
Let's not have any thoughts on that. Ok? Start your own fucking thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
This is like Biblical proof-texting innit. People trying to read back what the text meant without seeing how those who wrote it actually implemented it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Why won't you admit that whatever else they're for they're not there because opponents of OoW reject the orders of every other bishop or priest? If they believed that, how could they accept even their own PEVs, who have been consecrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spike:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Why won't you admit that whatever else they're for they're not there because opponents of OoW reject the orders of every other bishop or priest? If they believed that, how could they accept even their own PEVs, who have been consecrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury?

---

Because he's never consecrated any female bishops?

---