Posted                       

quote:

---

The report of the Working Group presented four new options as a way forward and proposed that the General Synod should consider those options at its meeting in July. The Working Group also proposed a timetable which would involve the legislation starting its formal stages in the Synod in November and receiving Final Approval in 2015.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Saturday 6 July
7.30 am Holy Communion in Central Hall
9.30-1pm Reflection, discussion and worship in small groups
2.30 pm Further group discussion followed by private plenary session
6.20 pm Evening worship
Monday 8 July
7.30 am Holy Communion in Central Hall
9.30 am – 1 pm
9.30 am Morning Worship
Women in the Episcopate: Report from the House of Bishops
Legislative Business
Any items of legislative business from Special Agenda I proposed to be dealt with under the Procedure for Deeming will be debated at this point if a debate is required. If debate is not required on any of these items, the First Report by the Business Committee on the Work of the Elections Review Group will be taken.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charles Read:
And we are spending all day Saturday at the July Synod is groups beinmg nice to each other before we have a brief debate on the Monday:

quote:

---

Saturday 6 July
7.30 am Holy Communion in Central Hall
9.30-1pm Reflection, discussion and worship in small groups
2.30 pm Further group discussion followed by private plenary session
6.20 pm Evening worship
Monday 8 July
7.30 am Holy Communion in Central Hall
9.30 am – 1 pm
9.30 am Morning Worship
Women in the Episcopate: Report from the House of Bishops
Legislative Business
Any items of legislative business from Special Agenda I proposed to be dealt with under the Procedure for Deeming will be debated at this point if a debate is required. If debate is not required on any of these items, the First Report by the Business Committee on the Work of the Elections Review Group will be taken.

---

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
I think the proposals are confusing, and they don't seem to address the traditionalists main problem as I understand it - which is to maintain some all male unbroken lineage of ordination.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
We will be campaigning against this until the liberals realize that we mean business. Get rid of the resolutions and the flying bishops and you will declare war on the Tradition of our Church. Also, the legislation was defeated only last November, why are they bringing it forward again so soon? Very sinister stuff, yet again.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
We will be campaigning against this until the liberals realize that we mean business. Get rid of the resolutions and the flying bishops and you will declare war on the Tradition of our Church. Also, the legislation was defeated only last November, why are they bringing it forward again so soon? Very sinister stuff, yet again.

---

Because it's clear that the vast majority of the church believe that God is both willing and able to call women to be Bishops? That may be the church shouldn't be standing in the way of that? That a lot of the claims by the misogynist faction to just want to be able to believe what they believe have proved to be false, that they continue to want to exert control over the whole church? Nothing sinister about deciding to be done with the disingenuous pretences that the "conservatives" will vote to allow women Bishops so long as enough "accommodation" is made for their prejudices. That was never going to happen without breaking the church in two. There were already people who voted against November's compromise because it made too much accommodation; it's time to see whether they were the ones who tipped the balance.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
the vast majority of the church believe that God is both willing and able to call women to be Bishops?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
the vast majority of the church believe that God is both willing and able to call women to be Bishops?

---

THE Church? The vast majority of the church is Roman catholic and Eastern orthodox - neither of whom have a majority in favour of women being ordained.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Except that the Anglican church has never considered itself (excepting a few heretics, perhaps) as 'the' Church. So it simply is not true to say that the majority in the Church is in favour of female ordination: to think in terms of our parochial CofE provinces (two provinces out of so many!) is to cut ourselves off from any notion of a united Church (Et unum sint and all that). This has always, it seems to me, been the strongest argument on the side of the Traditionalists. Perhaps before the CofE starts tilting at these particular windmills, it needs to debate what exactly it believes itself to be, in the context of the wider Church, and precisely why it feels it has the authority to make this change.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Except that the Anglican church has never considered itself (excepting a few heretics, perhaps) as 'the' Church. So it simply is not true to say that the majority in the Church is in favour of female ordination: to think in terms of our parochial CofE provinces (two provinces out of so many!) is to cut ourselves off from any notion of a united Church (Et unum sint and all that). This has always, it seems to me, been the strongest argument on the side of the Traditionalists. Perhaps before the CofE starts tilting at these particular windmills, it needs to debate what exactly it believes itself to be, in the context of the wider Church, and precisely why it feels it has the authority to make this change.

---

If you support the marriage of clergy, or if you believe in the validity of Anglican orders, then this boat has left for you. The RCs deny both (though they admit the first is not a matter of doctrine) and the Orthodox deny the second. The CofE moved briskly ahead with both, paying no attention at all to what the RCs believe (or, in fact, to what the Orthodox believed, although I doubt the Orthodox were large on Cranmer's horizon).

Why, if you believe clergy can marry, and that CofE clergy are validly bishops, priests and deacons despite the disapproval of the RCs and Orthodox, do you want to wait for their approval before moving on the consecration of female bishops (because you already have female priests and deacons)?

And if you don't believe clergy can marry and don't believe CofE clergy are validly ordained, are you really part of the CofE, and why do you care?

John

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
as though the debate has been had

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
I do wonder whether there were those after the council of Jerusalem who wanted an honoured place for the party of the circumcision...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
Thank you to IamChristianhearmeroar for linking to my blog post here.

I'm getting loads of grief on Stand Firm from the USA ecclesial Right, who think I've sold the pass on provision, but I do think there is a real danger that the more they cover their ears and shout "Nothing but a Measure will do", the more we are in danger of Parliament just legislating for us. So my realpolitik proposal is a way of saying "You'd be better off voting for something than getting nothing."

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
I'm getting loads of grief on Stand Firm from the USA ecclesial Right, who think I've sold the pass on provision, but I do think there is a real danger that the more they cover their ears and shout "Nothing but a Measure will do", the more we are in danger of Parliament just legislating for us. So my realpolitik proposal is a way of saying "You'd be better off voting for something than getting nothing."

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
I'm getting loads of grief on Stand Firm from the USA ecclesial Right, who think I've sold the pass on provision, but I do think there is a real danger that the more they cover their ears and shout "Nothing but a Measure will do", the more we are in danger of Parliament just legislating for us. So my realpolitik proposal is a way of saying "You'd be better off voting for something than getting nothing."

---

I'm inclined to agree. Particularly as I know people in not a few dioceses who are members of diocesan synod who are for the first time ever seriously considering standing for the house of Laity at General Synod, taking paid vacation time to do so, simply so they can vote in favour of women becoming Bishops in the next General Synod. If they don't accept a reasonable provision this Synod, the next one looks like having a good chance at becoming hostile to the 'traditional' view. I think they massively shot themselves in the foot in November, since I genuinely believe that is the best they had a chance of getting, anything now will be second-best.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
We will be campaigning against this until the liberals realize that we mean business. Get rid of the resolutions and the flying bishops and you will declare war on the Tradition of our Church. Also, the legislation was defeated only last November, why are they bringing it forward again so soon? Very sinister stuff, yet again.

---

Because it's clear that the vast majority of the church believe that God is both willing and able to call women to be Bishops? That may be the church shouldn't be standing in the way of that? That a lot of the claims by the misogynist faction to just want to be able to believe what they believe have proved to be false, that they continue to want to exert control over the whole church? Nothing sinister about deciding to be done with the disingenuous pretences that the "conservatives" will vote to allow women Bishops so long as enough "accommodation" is made for their prejudices. That was never going to happen without breaking the church in two. There were already people who voted against November's compromise because it made too much accommodation; it's time to see whether they were the ones who tipped the balance.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
So when you think about it, the Church of England cannot accept or allow this innovation, as it is contrary to the C of E's own doctrine. Therefore those of us opposed to cross dressers at the altar are not merely "traditionalists" but a small remnant upholdeng the actual doctrine of our own particular Church (the Church of England).

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vade Mecum:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
So when you think about it, the Church of England cannot accept or allow this innovation, as it is contrary to the C of E's own doctrine. Therefore those of us opposed to cross dressers at the altar are not merely "traditionalists" but a small remnant upholdeng the actual doctrine of our own particular Church (the Church of England).

---

This is the truly galling point, I think: that CofE hasn't merely decided to tell most of the other parts of the Universal Church to sod off, but also most of the previous generations of its own worshippers and theologians (many of whom, we hope and believe, are present to us in the company of saints). It is a total casting aside of the traditional understanding of the essence of the Christian Church.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
Further, the General Synod has yet to explain where it gets its authority to make this change. The great Richard Hooker often spoke of "the Church with her Authority", so where is the authority for this change? English Canon law of 1571 is clear:

"Preachers shall behave themselves modestly and soberly in every department of their life. But especially shall they see to it that they teach nothing in the way of a sermon, which they would have religiously held and believed by the people, save what is agreeable to the teaching of the Old or New Testament, and what the Catholic fathers and ancient bishops have collected from this selfsame doctrine."

We're there high priestesses under the Old Covenant? Were the Apostles or early Church bishops women? Did the Catholic fathers and anciene bishops teach that women could exercise priestly office? No. No. No.

So when you think about it, the Church of England cannot accept or allow this innovation, as it is contrary to the C of E's own doctrine. Therefore those of us opposed to cross dressers at the altar are not merely "traditionalists" but a small remnant upholdeng the actual doctrine of our own particular Church (the Church of England).

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:

We're there high priestesses under the Old Covenant?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:

We're there high priestesses under the Old Covenant?

---

There were prophets and pastors who were women. That's enough.

Christian priests are presbyters, elders of the church. Not sacrificing kohanim. Their ministry is, or ought to be, pastoral and prophetic. No blood need be spilled. They have no special right or duty to enter into the Holy of Holies because the vail of the Temples is torn and God dwells with us in Jesus Christ. The old priestly ministry is now entirely subsumed in the workl of Jesus and does not need to be repeated. We are not all elders, not all presbyters, but insofar as we are all in Chrsit we all participate in that ongoing priestly ministry.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:
Vade mecum

I have the right to say that I think that traditionalists are going to get almost nothing of what they want because of what they orchestrated in November 2012 because that is precisely what I think. I'm not smug about it.

Actually, I think their "theological conscientious objections" to women in all orders of ministry are dressed up sexism. I think we should not have allowed the established church a get out clause at all when everyone else was obliged to stop discriminating on the grounds of gender.

As for not being in step with the church throughout history I am not in the slightest concerned about that. If we had kept in step with the church throughout history then we would still have slavery. We learnt (eventually) that keeping other people as your possession is just plain morally and ethically wrong, and not only a shameful thing for a Christian to do, but something so bad that we should legislate for whole societies not to do it. But the preservers of tradition would have been presiding over their slave plantations today if we had listened to what Christian tradition said about slavery.

There comes a time in the affairs of men and women, when a kind of ethical revelation takes place. It took place over slavery, and it is still taking place over the capacity and the rightness of opposing sexism and opening up the whole of human society to men and women equally. It is taking place rapidly in an analogous way over the place of LGBT people and the moral wrongness of discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual orientation. I rather think this ethical revelation is a work of the Holy Spirit which blows wherever s/he wills. The Spirit's activity is found as much in the world as in the Church (despite all efforts to domesticate the Dove), so it surprises me not at all to hear huffing and puffing from "traditionalists" who, in my view, hold morally repugnant views about women that they should be ashamed of.

I respect entirely your right to hold and speak a completely contrary view to my own I just don't respect the view itself. And I look forward to the day when we have women bishops who are recognised throughout our church as the equal of men. "Traditionalists" who want to stay will have to deal with them and negotiate with them.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:

We're there high priestesses under the Old Covenant?

---

There were prophets and pastors who were women. That's enough.

Christian priests are presbyters, elders of the church. Not sacrificing kohanim. Their ministry is, or ought to be, pastoral and prophetic. No blood need be spilled. They have no special right or duty to enter into the Holy of Holies because the vail of the Temples is torn and God dwells with us in Jesus Christ. The old priestly ministry is now entirely subsumed in the workl of Jesus and does not need to be repeated. We are not all elders, not all presbyters, but insofar as we are all in Chrsit we all participate in that ongoing priestly ministry.

---

On whose AUTHORITY do you declare this? I've got the doctrine of Ken here, not the doctrine of the old and new Testaments as received and believed in the Ancient Catholic Church. Quite frankly your personal interpretation of scripture is cute but carries absolutely no authority. Same with Jade and her harridan esque line of questioning.

Prove women bishops from the Fathers and then I will take you seriously.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:
Vade mecum

I have the right to say that I think that traditionalists are going to get almost nothing of what they want because of what they orchestrated in November 2012 because that is precisely what I think. I'm not smug about it.

Actually, I think their "theological conscientious objections" to women in all orders of ministry are dressed up sexism. I think we should not have allowed the established church a get out clause at all when everyone else was obliged to stop discriminating on the grounds of gender.

As for not being in step with the church throughout history I am not in the slightest concerned about that. If we had kept in step with the church throughout history then we would still have slavery. We learnt (eventually) that keeping other people as your possession is just plain morally and ethically wrong, and not only a shameful thing for a Christian to do, but something so bad that we should legislate for whole societies not to do it. But the preservers of tradition would have been presiding over their slave plantations today if we had listened to what Christian tradition said about slavery.

There comes a time in the affairs of men and women, when a kind of ethical revelation takes place. It took place over slavery, and it is still taking place over the capacity and the rightness of opposing sexism and opening up the whole of human society to men and women equally. It is taking place rapidly in an analogous way over the place of LGBT people and the moral wrongness of discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual orientation. I rather think this ethical revelation is a work of the Holy Spirit which blows wherever s/he wills. The Spirit's activity is found as much in the world as in the Church (despite all efforts to domesticate the Dove), so it surprises me not at all to hear huffing and puffing from "traditionalists" who, in my view, hold morally repugnant views about women that they should be ashamed of.

I respect entirely your right to hold and speak a completely contrary view to my own I just don't respect the view itself. And I look forward to the day when we have women bishops who are recognised throughout our church as the equal of men. "Traditionalists" who want to stay will have to deal with them and negotiate with them.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I think you've replied to the wrong post?

Again, why is Our Lady's priesthood (as demonstrated in those ancient mosaics and icons) not good enough? Ancient and early medieval veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary is hardly marxist infiltration!

And 'harridan' (along with priestess and bishopess - which are not welcome on the Ship) is sexist. And the 'anti-marxist thought crime' or as normal people call it, insulting a sister made in the image of God, is found in Genesis 1:27 and Galatians 3:28. God abhors sexism, it's about time you did too.

---

Our Lady's supposed priesthood is the most tenuous and ridiculous notion, gleaned by people entirely unfamiliar with nuanced thought. You'll be telling us that because sometimes copes are put on her statues it means Anglo-Catholics consider her a priest...

--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vade Mecum:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I think you've replied to the wrong post?

Again, why is Our Lady's priesthood (as demonstrated in those ancient mosaics and icons) not good enough? Ancient and early medieval veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary is hardly marxist infiltration!

And 'harridan' (along with priestess and bishopess - which are not welcome on the Ship) is sexist. And the 'anti-marxist thought crime' or as normal people call it, insulting a sister made in the image of God, is found in Genesis 1:27 and Galatians 3:28. God abhors sexism, it's about time you did too.

---

Our Lady's supposed priesthood is the most tenuous and ridiculous notion, gleaned by people entirely unfamiliar with nuanced thought. You'll be telling us that because sometimes copes are put on her statues it means Anglo-Catholics consider her a priest...

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vade Mecum:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I think you've replied to the wrong post?

Again, why is Our Lady's priesthood (as demonstrated in those ancient mosaics and icons) not good enough? Ancient and early medieval veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary is hardly marxist infiltration!

And 'harridan' (along with priestess and bishopess - which are not welcome on the Ship) is sexist. And the 'anti-marxist thought crime' or as normal people call it, insulting a sister made in the image of God, is found in Genesis 1:27 and Galatians 3:28. God abhors sexism, it's about time you did too.

---

Our Lady's supposed priesthood is the most tenuous and ridiculous notion, gleaned by people entirely unfamiliar with nuanced thought. You'll be telling us that because sometimes copes are put on her statues it means Anglo-Catholics consider her a priest...

---

*is Anglo-Catholic*
*considers Our Lady a priest*

Sorry, but how is depicting Mary wearing *vestments* and baptising John in the womb not hinting at priestly identity? It is a perfectly valid line of reasoning. I am entirely familiar with nuanced thought, I just don't subscribe to the mental gymnastics involved in (rightly) venerating Our Lady but (wrongly) dismissing her actual power. Mary as intercessor is surely extremely priestly?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
Leftists showing their hand again - all the arguments for priestesses and bishopesses have to be secular because the Catholic argument for it is completely non-existent. This is nothing but a Marxist infiltration job and I for one am not fooled.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
On whose AUTHORITY do you declare this?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bax:
Is there really any prospect of parliament legislating on an issue which, although political, is also theological?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indifferently:
Sexism? Where exactly does this anti-Marxist thought crime appear in the Bible?

Leftists showing their hand again - all the arguments for priestesses and bishopesses have to be secular because the Catholic argument for it is completely non-existent. This is nothing but a Marxist infiltration job and I for one am not fooled.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
In fact, Marxists have often been very sexist. I used to know the Redgraves, and they were involved in the WRP, a Trotskyist party, anyway, there was a huge rumpus when the leader (a Mr Gerry Healey) was discovered having very close encounters with young girls in the movement. Cue headlines about 'Red Sex Slaves', etc.

And there are tons of stories like this in the left-wing movement - I remember when women were asked to make the tea in some groups!

True, there have been some pro-women sentiments also, see for example, Alexandra Kollontai, who set up women's groups, and fought for women's rights, after the Russian revolution.

But feminism has often been intensely denigrated by Marxists, and vice versa.

---