|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dead Horses: Women Bishops - what now?
|
TonyK
Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
Sergius-Melli - nowhere did I say that you used the term 'priestess' - I was using it as an example of unacceptability in the context of this discussion. Nor have I accused you of any particular stance on this subject.
What I done is to make a polite request not to use a term which some may find offensive in this setting. If you are unhappy with this please raise the matter in the appropriate place - on the Styx Board.
Incidentally, a search through our mutual friend (Google) doesn't give any hits for the abbreviation CoW in any related context....
And Thurible has cross-posted with me on this..
Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
I am astonished, as a relative liberal on OoW, that we are so ready to abandon the via media. Did Paul tell the Judaizers to leave the church at the Council of Jerusalem? A much more important issue.
Actually I'd argue it was part of the same basic issue - who's in and who's out. And whilst we don't have a statement of agree or leave in quite that form, the Judaisers lost. Gentiles were fully included in the church.
Carys
Yep that is very true. I was more tackling it from the other end of the continuum - I am (probably on balance) a supporter of OoW, I disagree with other supporters of OoW saying that opponents of OoW should be forced out. Except on grounds of heresy, this "Agree with us or leave" line never seems to enter the NT church. Perhaps because they all lived and worshipped together, they were never able to put the doctrinal difference above the fact that the other person is another member of the Body of Christ.
I am sad that you felt as you did (it is good to be reminded, actually, as a man, of the emotion some feel over this). I think for many at the vote it was not a rejection of OoW, but a recognition that those who hold the view that is still held by the majority of the worldwide church, and has been for 2000 years, should not be thrown out without space made for them. Even if we disagree with them.
I think we've got to the nub out the issue. Is the Ordination of Women a first or second order issue? I think it's the final element of the argument that started at the Council of Jerusalem and that we can't just agree to disagree on it. Those who still think that there is a compromise which will enable supporters and opponents of the OoW to live together in the same church don't see it as first order issue. Paul was the innovator at the council of Jerusalem because he saw what God was doing. I think we're at a similar point now.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ButchCassidy
Shipmate
# 11147
|
Posted
Entirely agree - whether this is a first/second order issue (i.e. whether the issue is so significant that it should be followed by the whole church, even if that forces opponents to leave) is central. However I believe the consecreation of women to the episcopate is a second order issue. two reasons come to mind:
1) My miniscule knowledge of Anglican tradition. As far as I know, the creators of the original Elizabethan settlement, who were battling with the first/second order issue throughout, agreed that the critera for a first order issue are heresy (i.e. against the Nicene Creed)or matters that pertain to salvation. Matters indifferent to salvation included the whole range of Protestant/Catholic disagreements, and general matters of church order such as this. This is how such divided camps have stayed in the same church.
2) From the New Testament. The issue of Judaisers was a first order issue because it pertains to salvation, i.e. what Gentiles must do to be saved. Paul makes it clear to the Galatians: 'whoever preaches a different Gospel, let him be condemned'. And even the Judaisers have found a form of home in the Church - cf Messianic Jews.
This is not to say that OoW to the episcopate is a minor issue - second order issues include utterly important ones like the authority of the Pope for example. Yet they do not pertain to salvation but to church governance, and I do not think that is sufficient to evict people from a church that sets out to be the church for all (English) Christians.
Posts: 104 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Sergius-Melli wrote on the Styx thread:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
I have to say that I have no issue with the use of CoW and hadn't noticed the word it spelt , but given the CofE now use ordain not consecrate of bishops, OoWttE of OoWaB might work ie OoW to the episcopate or as bishops.
To me that is a complete rewriting of terminology, and represents a complete rewriting of theology in this area, and the CofE should know better!
Unless the CofE does not, and never did, believe that (as the BCP says) 'there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church; Bishops, Priests and Deacons', then theology has nothing to do with it. Ordination to the sacred ministry is ordination, to whatever order. The fact that the Prayer Book also refers to 'making' deacons and 'consecrating' bishops is an alternative terminology, admittedly. But using the word 'ordination' of all three orders is only clarifying what the Church already teaches.
But on the matter referred to the Styx, I certainly didn't read Sergius-Melli's abbreviation as casting any slur on women, or women bishops in particular. I suppose in some contexts it might be read so, and therefore better avoided. But I'm sure he had no such intention.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Sergius-Melli wrote on the Styx thread:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
I have to say that I have no issue with the use of CoW and hadn't noticed the word it spelt , but given the CofE now use ordain not consecrate of bishops, OoWttE of OoWaB might work ie OoW to the episcopate or as bishops.
To me that is a complete rewriting of terminology, and represents a complete rewriting of theology in this area, and the CofE should know better!
Unless the CofE does not, and never did, believe that (as the BCP says) 'there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church; Bishops, Priests and Deacons', then theology has nothing to do with it. Ordination to the sacred ministry is ordination, to whatever order. The fact that the Prayer Book also refers to 'making' deacons and 'consecrating' bishops is an alternative terminology, admittedly. But using the word 'ordination' of all three orders is only clarifying what the Church already teaches.
But on the matter referred to the Styx, I certainly didn't read Sergius-Melli's abbreviation as casting any slur on women, or women bishops in particular. I suppose in some contexts it might be read so, and therefore better avoided. But I'm sure he had no such intention.
I didn't see CoW as a slur either.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Hosting
Hi there, As Tony's not around yet and it's coming up on other threads, can I just post a wee reminder that discussion of host and admin rulings belongs in The Styx. Comments on disputed abbreviations therefore belong on the Abbreviations thread in the Styx.
thanks very much!
Louise
Dead Horses Host
Hosting off
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Is the Ordination of Women a first or second order issue?
I appreciate how strongly you feel about this, but from here you can see that about 65% of the world's Christians belong to churches which don't ordain women. These statistics may not be perfect, but they illustrate that for much of the world, this is a non issue. Here, it's often treated as if it's the most important issue facing world Christianity. If one accepts the sacramentalism of Catholicism or Orthodoxy, with its Apostolic Succession, one inevitably belongs to a church which doesn't ordain women. Are we all required to become Protestants in order to address this issue, even if we reject Protestant theology in favour of the Catholic or Orthodox way.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Is the Ordination of Women a first or second order issue?
I appreciate how strongly you feel about this, but from here you can see that about 65% of the world's Christians belong to churches which don't ordain women. These statistics may not be perfect, but they illustrate that for much of the world, this is a non issue. Here, it's often treated as if it's the most important issue facing world Christianity. If one accepts the sacramentalism of Catholicism or Orthodoxy, with its Apostolic Succession, one inevitably belongs to a church which doesn't ordain women. Are we all required to become Protestants in order to address this issue, even if we reject Protestant theology in favour of the Catholic or Orthodox way.
Most of those Christians live in countries where feminism is not a widely-discussed topic. Particularly amongst Roman Catholics living in the West, there has been discussion about women's role in the church so I don't think the suggestion that this is a subject no one else cares about is correct. For me, women's ordination is about recognising the equality of men and women under God, which while not an issue of salvation is at the the next tier of issues. It's about justice imo, which God cares about.
Also, Anglicans have Apostolic succession, and we're not all Protestants. Neither are the 'truly catholic' Anglicans all faithful Forward In Faith adherents as some blogs and other publications would have people believe.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Yes, the reason this is a significant question, and a Dead Horse, is precisely because the Anglican Communion does claim to be Catholic and sacramental, and to ordain people to the threefold ministry of the Catholic church.
I know that many Protestants, particularly Lutherans and Methodists, have a view of the ministry very similar to Anglicans. But ISTM the principle is the same: if we were just commissioning preachers of the Word we wouldn't be speaking the same language as the Catholics and Orthodox, so it would be a non-issue.
Some of us believe that the Anglican church is called to a prophetic role in acknowledging a new dimension, revealed by the Holy Spirit, of the Truth once revealed. And if that sounds arrogant, it's not meant to, nor is it suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church for example does not contain vast amounts of wisdom that we have yet to grasp. Just as inventors and scientists 'stand on the shoulders of giants' when making new discoveries, so we can only discern the truth that we do because we have been nurtured in the universal tradition of the Church.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
First, sorry if I was being really arsey on Wednesday, I allowed my frustrations at work filter through to other things that day:
- The Church of England and Rome do speak of the Ordination of Bishops, but never without speaking also of the Consecration of Bishops, where Deacons and Priests are solely talked of, in the same use of the terminology, as being Ordained. I didn't express myself clearly enough (again more to do with the effects of a weakness of self-control than anything else). But that is by the by and I will happily move on.
Not a fully thought through point here really, but bouncing something around:
If the Elevation of Women is a second order issue, not Church breaking, and something that is within the local Church's discretion to decide based on the cultural and governance context, is it not right therefore that to allow both positions to exist within the same Province is within the remit of a second order issue?
If there need not be homogeony on the issue across the Catholic and Apostolic Church, it can be posited that to then say that within the local Church there needs to be homogeony on the issue turns it into a quasi-first order issue within the local Province.
It would seem to my not thoroughly thought through idea that we can't have our cake and eat it - we can have Women Bishops on the grounds that it is second order issue, but does that then leave open the possibility that a Province can then have a differing of opinion and governance within itself on the issue based on the cultural context most appropriate to areas within it?
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
...from here you can see that about 65% of the world's Christians belong to churches which don't ordain women. These statistics may not be perfect, but they illustrate that for much of the world, this is a non issue.
Really? Because a person belongs to a church that doesn't ordain women, it's a non issue? The CofE and CinW don't ordain/ consecrate women to the episcopate: does that mean that women bishops is a non-issue for members of those churches? There are no- none, not one- RCs for whom ordination of women is an issue? Honestly?
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
There are no- none, not one- RCs for whom ordination of women is an issue? Honestly?
A rather brief glance around google would give the impression that there seems to be a great many Roman Catholics who feel that women should be Ordained to the Priesthood and Elevated to the Episcopate...
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
A rather brief glance around google would give the impression that there seems to be a great many Roman Catholics who feel that women should be Ordained to the Priesthood and Elevated to the Episcopate...
As I've said many times around here, if The Church ever settles in favour of women's ordination, I would gladly accept it. What I won't do is leave the Church, where I've finally, after many years, found a spiritual home, to join a church I don't want to be part of, just because it ordains women.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
A rather brief glance around google would give the impression that there seems to be a great many Roman Catholics who feel that women should be Ordained to the Priesthood and Elevated to the Episcopate...
As I've said many times around here, if The Church ever settles in favour of women's ordination, I would gladly accept it. What I won't do is leave the Church, where I've finally, after many years, found a spiritual home, to join a church I don't want to be part of, just because it ordains women.
That still doesn't explain why you think the issue of women's ordination to be a total non-issue for all RCs and Eastern Orthodoxen when it's clearly not. Whilst clearly the Anglican church isn't the most democratic ever, don't you think that since there is a way (albeit convoluted and far from perfect) for Anglican laity to make their voices heard to the leadership, that is why we have women priests and the RCC and EOC don't? In theory all the laity could want OoW (I know this isn't the case right now) but unless the leadership agreed, it wouldn't happen. Nothing to do with it not being a big deal to the members of those churches.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
As I've said many times around here, if The Church ever settles in favour of women's ordination, I would gladly accept it. What I won't do is leave the Church, where I've finally, after many years, found a spiritual home, to join a church I don't want to be part of, just because it ordains women.
No one is asking you too. People have just pointed out that no Church seems to be so black-and-white on the issue when you look under the skin (I've not looked into the Orthodox Churches or all the non-conformist ones, but I would hold that there are at least members of the congregations that aren't in-line with current official positions on things even if there are no clergy who have come out publicly with a position.)
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Whilst clearly the Anglican church isn't the most democratic ever, don't you think that since there is a way (albeit convoluted and far from perfect) for Anglican laity to make their voices heard to the leadership, that is why we have women priests and the RCC and EOC don't? In theory all the laity could want OoW (I know this isn't the case right now) but unless the leadership agreed, it wouldn't happen. Nothing to do with it not being a big deal to the members of those churches.
Whilst I quibble about your characterising of the Anglican Church (any change from where we are and I would start to worry we were getting into congregationalist territory and truly would be open to be being classed as Protestants, but anyway...) you are quite right that the governance structures of the Churches are different and therefore any outcry from the laity is more difficult in the RC and Orthodox traditions.
But the laity, and clergy, are doing things as this link would demonstrate .
From what I understand as well, the means by which Rome has 'safeguarded' itself against women Priests has now made it virtually impossible to go down that route at a later date without some doctrinal gymnastics, or the potential to use Mary's position as co-redemtrix, but of course I may be wrong...
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Whilst clearly the Anglican church isn't the most democratic ever, don't you think that since there is a way (albeit convoluted and far from perfect) for Anglican laity to make their voices heard to the leadership, that is why we have women priests and the RCC and EOC don't? In theory all the laity could want OoW (I know this isn't the case right now) but unless the leadership agreed, it wouldn't happen. Nothing to do with it not being a big deal to the members of those churches.
Whilst I quibble about your characterising of the Anglican Church (any change from where we are and I would start to worry we were getting into congregationalist territory and truly would be open to be being classed as Protestants, but anyway...) you are quite right that the governance structures of the Churches are different and therefore any outcry from the laity is more difficult in the RC and Orthodox traditions.
But the laity, and clergy, are doing things as this link would demonstrate .
From what I understand as well, the means by which Rome has 'safeguarded' itself against women Priests has now made it virtually impossible to go down that route at a later date without some doctrinal gymnastics, or the potential to use Mary's position as co-redemtrix, but of course I may be wrong...
Doctrinal gymnastics is hardly new for Rome! If Limbo can be ditched as doctrine and saints be de-sainted like St Christopher (not sure what the official term is) then allowing women to be priests could easily be done. Surely allowing women to the diaconate should be OK with Rome, when we know the NT church had female deacons.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
May I drop in to this coversation to point out that the "Roman" position is one that applies to the whole world. The "Anglican" position in this discussion is one that applies only in England -- it is by no reasonable use of the term "Anglican". And it ignores totally the actual experience of real Anglicans over a number of decades with respect to ordained women, of all three sacred orders of ministry.
John
eta: "real Anglicans" meaning only that those I am referring to are just as "anglican" as the people currently speaking inaccurately of t heir position as "the anglican position".
[ 26. January 2013, 01:30: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
John, sorry, I don't quite understand you - are you referring to those elsewhere in the Anglican Communion who have had women bishops before now?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
From what I understand as well, the means by which Rome has 'safeguarded' itself against women Priests has now made it virtually impossible to go down that route at a later date without some doctrinal gymnastics, or the potential to use Mary's position as co-redemtrix, but of course I may be wrong...
Doctrinal gymnastics is hardly new for Rome! If Limbo can be ditched as doctrine and saints be de-sainted like St Christopher (not sure what the official term is) then allowing women to be priests could easily be done.
Apples and oranges, Jane.
The concept of the limbo of infants was never more than a theological speculation or hypothesis. There has never been any defined doctrine on it, and people are still at complete liberty to accept or reject it.
Similarly, ancient feasts of saints like St Christopher, whose cults preceded the formal canonisation process we have now, are subject to suppression as universal ones if the Church deems it appropriate. In the case of St Christopher, the cult and feast (celebrated locally) are still in fact approved by the Church, and he remains in the Roman Martyrology.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Sexism and racism are both supremacist positions which use irrelevant accidents of birth...
And there we have the totally secularist mindset displayed for all to see. It is not an ACCIDENT of birth, it's the choice of God what sex and 'ethnic group' you are. Of course if you assume that God doesn't have a hand in the matter, then we have a different theology - but not one that is recognisably Christian, even on the reductionist description of God as 'Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer'; deism is not generally acceptable as Christian...
Missing the point - the point is that race and gender are both irrelevant as to the value of the person, which is what racism and sexism denies.
That is true - to an extent. However, it is easy and glib, if not absurd if I'm honest, to compare the lack of OOW to the epsicopate to the atrocities that have been committed to blacks by whites. It is equally offensive to Jews when the unthinking occasionally compare the injustice committed to them to the Holocaust. Even a cursory visit to Auschwitz would disabuse them of that notion.
Injustice? Very likely. But I am not aware that the General Synod of the Church of England has raped, murdered, tortured, branded, and sold any group to be chained in slavers at Bristol or elsewhere. Language occasionally lets go of reality, as just one or two of these posts have shown.
Yes, men and women are created equal. I look forward to the day when both genders will share the fullness of episcopal ministry in the Church of England. However, none have a right to be so ordained, be they men or women.
I also recognise that there are theological objections to the consecration of women to the episcopate, although I do not share these opinions. My belief in the ordination of women to all three Holy Orders is based solely and absolutely on the theology of Holy Order - not on 'rights'. To use such secular rhetoric can lessen the strong argument for women's consecration that already exists and will no doubt prevail - in God's time, not ours.
My disappointment was with the reaction to a supposedly democratic vote and the wish immediately to change the system because it did not go our way. It was not even a vote against women in the episcopate, but how it was to be implemented. I felt the no confidence debate was unjust (as it was later perceived) and displayed immaturity from both men and women. I have not followed who was most to 'blame' as it were, but gladly concede that immaturity is gender blind.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
No-one has the 'right' to be ordained. But everyone has the right to be treated as a human being with equal value to any other.
If one accepts that it is part of the nature of women to be incapable of receiving holy orders (in the same way as men are incapable of giving birth) then the question of rights does not enter into the debate.
However, supporters of OoW (as bishops as well as priests) claim that there is nothing about being female that disqualifies a woman from ordination. Therefore, while no one person, male or female, can claim an individual right to be ordained, I would have thought it followed that every adult Christian should have the right to be considered as a potential priest on the same basis as any other.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
(To Sebby not Angloid -cross posted)
Again you deliberately ignore the full spectrum of discrimination from great to relatively small to pretend that one system of privilege (sexism/male supremacy) isn't like all the others, so the Church doesn't need any of that 'secular' rights nonsense. If justice is to be written off as 'secular', it's time for the Church to pack up. Without the 'secular' push for equality, sexist theology would still be going mostly unexamined and unquestioned. It's a fiction to pretend the amelioration of women's position in religion is nothing to do with that nasty 'rights' stuff they should just shut up about as we only do 'theology'.
People are angry that sexism is still being upheld in the Church of England. You can quibble on tactics without trivialising that.
[ 26. January 2013, 13:42: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
John, sorry, I don't quite understand you - are you referring to those elsewhere in the Anglican Communion who have had women bishops before now?
What else could I mean?
This discussion is using "Anglican" to refer to the Church of England...which at this point has no women bishops. "Anglican" in normal usage, at least on this international board, refers more broadly to the "Anglican Communion"...many of whose members have women bishops, and have had them for a couple of decades. If you are comparing "Roman" -- which is a global reference -- to "Anglican" you have to refer to the global reference of that word.
Or, of course, you could simply compare "Roman" to "Church of England", which is what you are actually talking about. Because this conversation is not at all about Anglicanism anywhere in the world outside England.
And, BTW, I would point out that the CofE is in full communion with those women bishops, not only in other Anglican churches but in the Lutheran churches which signed the Porvoo agreement. And, since some people around here seem to think more highly of Lambeth resolutions than I do, I would also point out that the 199x Lambeth conference (I believe) recognised the validity of Women bishops... which is why several attended both recent Lambeth conferences as full members.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
From what I understand as well, the means by which Rome has 'safeguarded' itself against women Priests has now made it virtually impossible to go down that route at a later date without some doctrinal gymnastics, or the potential to use Mary's position as co-redemtrix, but of course I may be wrong...
Doctrinal gymnastics is hardly new for Rome! If Limbo can be ditched as doctrine and saints be de-sainted like St Christopher (not sure what the official term is) then allowing women to be priests could easily be done.
Apples and oranges, Jane.
The concept of the limbo of infants was never more than a theological speculation or hypothesis. There has never been any defined doctrine on it, and people are still at complete liberty to accept or reject it.
Similarly, ancient feasts of saints like St Christopher, whose cults preceded the formal canonisation process we have now, are subject to suppression as universal ones if the Church deems it appropriate. In the case of St Christopher, the cult and feast (celebrated locally) are still in fact approved by the Church, and he remains in the Roman Martyrology.
My name is Jade.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
My name is Jade.
Oops. I think I must always have been reading it wrongly. My apologies, Jade.
[ 27. January 2013, 19:54: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
OK shippies (and sorry for the double post), there is clearly a consultation process going on next week to decide how the legislative process for women bishops should continue.
I figure that we have a wide range of Church of England members on this site with a wide range of views on this particular matter - those who wish to see a single clause measure (me), those who would prefer to see no legislation, and those who would like to see legislation which contains some (varying) level of provision for those who disagree with the ordination/consecration of women.
Can we lay aside our more hellish tendencies and come up with any ideas for legislation/other approaches which might stand a fighting chance of finding a broad base of acceptance amongst the CofE? I'd really like to hear positive suggestions of what people would like to see rather than simply (although that is inevitable) criticisms of other people's ideas and how things have been thus far.
My opening gambit would be to offer a single clause measure. (Which I understand will be totally unacceptable to some, but let's see where it goes...)
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
My opening gambit would be to offer a single clause measure. (Which I understand will be totally unacceptable to some, but let's see where it goes...)
There is the, for want of a better phrase, the 'Welsh Model' that is currently here in the CiW, where the provision is split into two parts. The first is a 'sinlge clause' bill which would allow for the Consecration of Women to the Episcopate, however this cannot be put into action until a second bill is agreed to which allows for provision for theological objectors who wish to safeguard pastoral provisions ( see here).
There is a problem with this though in that ++Barry and all the other Bishops seem to have stuffed those seeking provision regarding the integrity of the Apostolic Ministry and Sacraments as they see it by saying no 'flying Bishop' is to exist ( see here), so I'm not sure that the plans will ever come to anything (unless they go back on what they have already said and allow for the possiblility of a 'flying Bishop' for 'traditionalists'.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Emendator Liturgia
Shipmate
# 17245
|
Posted
Far be it for this colonial Anglican to tell the mother provinces what to do, but I can reflect on our history here. As a Province we have recognized that God does indeed call both men and women to the threefold orders, though the path to enlightenment has been neither smooth, quick or without controversy.
Does that mean that all dioceses have both men and women as priests, let alone as bishops. By no means. There is no legislation to allow for 'flying bishops', probably because diocesan ecclesiologies means that, on the whole, those who are opposed to the OoW, whether from a catholic or a reformed stance, are on the whole gathered together in one diocese or another.
This is, of course, not the whole picture.For instance, we are part of a diocese which forbids women to be ordained to the priesthood. However, there are quite a few parishes and communities, and individuals, who would welcome the ministry of a woman priest and bishop. Sadly, any woman priest or bishop who does visit the diocese is not allowed to exercice any fucntion above that of a deacon. To my mind view that is against Church order as one's ordindation is surely valid and connot be refused.
What is intresting is that those dioceses which objected to the ordination of a woman to the priesthood are, in some cases at least, moderating their views due to gentle influence of either/both clergy and laity, and are softening their stance and opening up alternative possibilities.
Australia, like many/all non-CoE provinces, have the benefit of not being established churches, though it took us to the 1950s to break the quasi nexus that confined us to current practices and laws of the CoE.
--------------------
Don't judge all Anglicans in Sydney by prevailing Diocesan standards!
Posts: 401 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Quite frankly I think that it says a lot for the tolerance and generosity of the rest of the Ancglican Church of Australia that they don't just tell Sydney to fall in or fuck off.
Or does money come into it somewhere?
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:
Does that mean that all dioceses have both men and women as priests, let alone as bishops. By no means. There is no legislation to allow for 'flying bishops', probably because diocesan ecclesiologies means that, on the whole, those who are opposed to the OoW, whether from a catholic or a reformed stance, are on the whole gathered together in one diocese or another.
That's the exact opposite of the Anglican provinces in the UK. As far as I know all dioceses in both England and Wales (and I guess the same is true of Scotland and Ireland as well) have women priests. And in England all or almost all dioceses will have at least some parishes that reject the sacramental ministry of ordained women. So priests and bishops on both sides have to live with the other side, at a diocesan and a deanery level - sometimes at a parish level.
Also there are one or two diocesan bishops who will not ordain women on doctrinal grounds (and another one or two who never have). So alongside the Flying Bishops we have the Suffragan Shuffle where one bloke always ends up doing the women to save his boss the embarrassment.
(OK, its not really as blatant or as crude as that, but...)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
So alongside the Flying Bishops we have the Suffragan Shuffle where one bloke always ends up doing the women to save his boss the embarrassment.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
I don't think I've seen any suggestion that the individual geographical dioceses within the CofE should be allowed to choose whether or not to have female bishops and clergy. I imagine that there would be opposition to that sort of move from many quarters.
There were some suggestions that "proper provision" could be made by creating one or more new non-geographical dioceses specifically for those who will not accept women priests or bishops. What do people think of that? There was, IIRC, opposition that this would be a complete departure from the existing diocesan structure so should be resisted. Is there not an additional problem that all diocesan bishops in the CofE should be in communion with Canterbury. Both +Rowan and now +Justin support women priests and bishops, and I don't see how a bishop who does not support them could be in communion with Canterbury, especially given all of this talk about "collegiality"...
For that matter does the Bishop of Chichester consider himself to be in communion with Canterbury? Ebbsfleet? Richborough? Beverley?
Is talk of new dioceses or a third province ever going to get anywhere?
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
So alongside the Flying Bishops we have the Suffragan Shuffle where one bloke always ends up doing the women to save his boss the embarrassment.
(OK, its not really as blatant or as crude as that, but...)
You are too kind, or too polite, Ken. Sometimes it's exactly like that*.
anne
*Well, as long as by 'doing' you mean ordaining. If you mean anything else I withdraw my remark. Especially the 'too polite' bit.
--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
And some next steps have been published here.
Approximately they're going to write a completely new measure by locking people with a range of views in intensive meetings until they agree about something. Options involving official structures defined in the measure for opponents of women bishops are out (e.g. flying bishops or a 3rd province). Also, the new measure should be simpler than the last one, and the code of practice should be known at the time of the vote on the measure.
It looks like once they've got this new measure, they try to ram it through.
Thinking Anglicans report here. I notice scorn is being poured on it. It might just work, or alternatively it might be a very good first step in writing a 3rd measure.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
