|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dead Horses: Women Bishops - what now?
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The ones who are mopst frustrating aren't the definite nos so much as the "I support women's ordination women but..." brigade.
Exactly. These are the folks on the rector search committee who wouldn't dream of opposing the ordination of women, but who ask, "But is our parish ready for a female priest?"
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
However, I think there would be a reasonable-sized group who would say 'Definitely yes'.
Of course. I'm pretty sure the "defintely no" camp is a minority, possibly quite a small one. Maybe half of the strongly marked Anglo-Catholics and a quite small number of the very most doctrinally conservative evangelicals.
The ones who are mopst frustrating aren't the definite nos so much as the "I support women's ordination women but..." brigade. There are people, including some very extreme theological liberals, who seem quite happy to put party before principle (and at least one of them posts a lot on this thread)
Why do such comments always remind me of Martin Luther King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail? This isn't anything like the same scale of injustice MLK was talking about but it's a pettier version of exactly the same logic.
quote:
Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The ones who are mopst frustrating aren't the definite nos so much as the "I support women's ordination women but..." brigade.
Exactly. These are the folks on the rector search committee who wouldn't dream of opposing the ordination of women, but who ask, "But is our parish ready for a female priest?"
An excellent question to ask actually. The female priest called to the parish not ready for a female priest will wish the search committee had asked themselves the question before calling her to a parish where a 1/3 of the congregation rejects her just because she is female. Perhaps, she'll be lucky and all the people truly open to having a female priest will accept her but that's not likely. Who wants to be thrown to the wolves so that somebody else can score cheap political points and feel good about themselves for doing so?
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
That explains why nearly all of them were old women, then. Everybody else has either left or died...
I know a terrifyingly large amount of young women within the Anglican church who are complementarians. Unfortunately because of their particular views on the roles of women, they're breeding.
--------------------
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
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Who wants to be thrown to the wolves so that somebody else can score cheap political points and feel good about themselves for doing so? [/QB]
I suspect the answer to this is 'most women who feel called to the ministry of Priest'. Not that they want to suffer persecution of course - but I have no doubt that most of those who have sought ordination over the last 20 years have done so in the full knowledge that they may have to minister to those who are bigoted and present Christ and His Sacraments to them nevertheless.
I would hope every Christian knows that our witness has to be faithful to Christ, even unto death. I suspect that most women who seek ordination are prepared to do no less.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
If one can have women priests, then obviously one can have women bishops. I don't get what there's even to discuss there. The Anglican church has already ordained women. End of story, really.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:
Who wants to be thrown to the wolves so that somebody else can score cheap political points and feel good about themselves for doing so?
I suspect the answer to this is 'most women who feel called to the ministry of Priest'. Not that they want to suffer persecution of course - but I have no doubt that most of those who have sought ordination over the last 20 years have done so in the full knowledge that they may have to minister to those who are bigoted and present Christ and His Sacraments to them nevertheless.
I would hope every Christian knows that our witness has to be faithful to Christ, even unto death. I suspect that most women who seek ordination are prepared to do no less. [/QB]
The existence of search committees in the first place suggests the church believes some people are better suited for some parishes than others and visa versa. A parish in which a sizable portion of the congregation will reject the priest before they even know her is not a good fit for that priest. Most congregations in TEC are ready for a female priest. Forcing one on a congregation that is still struggling with the issue serves no purpose other than being spiteful.
Now, if the search committee really believes a female priest is right for them, the vestry had better be prepared to support her because let me tell you what will likely happen. For every person who actually opposes female priests in theory, a few more are open in theory to having a female priest until they actually have one. They'll turn on Mother New Priest in short order. Mother New Priest won't be able to do anything right. Vestry better be prepared for gossip and complaints about ever cotton picking thing imaginable. Sooner or later, some if not most of them will leave and take their pledges with them. It doesn't stop there. Another group of parishioners really have no problem with a female priest at all. However, they are friends with the people who are upset and leaving and many of them will blame Mother New Priest for all the problem. Lastly, there will be a group of people who like Mother New Priest but don't like all turmoil in the congregation. They'll think it best if Mother New Priest finds another congregation and they can get back to the good ol days when Father So and So was there. Only a strong vestry can help Mother New Priest weather than storm and thrive. More often than not, even if the Mother New Priest survives, the church will be barely staying a float. Those left will be traumatized by the whole thing. It will likely take years or even decades for them to move past it. And for what? So, a political agenda could be advanced?
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Now, if the search committee really believes a female priest is right for them, the vestry had better be prepared to support her because let me tell you what will likely happen. . . .
Shorter BA, cast in terms of an American sports metaphor: if you want to be Jackie Robinson, you need a Branch Rickey and an at least moderately sympathetic commissioner.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If one can have women priests, then obviously one can have women bishops. I don't get what there's even to discuss there. The Anglican church has already ordained women. End of story, really.
Of course! Why on earth has the church spent 20 years trying to sort it out, and why has the clusterfuck of General Synod been national news for the last 48 hours? There's nothing to discuss - Ingo has spoken!
Actually, I more or less agree that ordaining women should have sorted all this out, but I can understand how you could have the view that bishops are a different matter, even though I don't agree with the reasoning behind it. And even if I couldn't understand that view, there are self-evidently people who hold it, and who are preventing further progress, so airily dismissing all this wrangling isn't helpful, and has only the most tenuous connection to reality.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
From the Suffragan’s Bishops Act 1534:
And that everie Archebyshope and Byshop of this Realme and of Wales and els where within the Kynges Domynyons, beynge dysposed to have any Suffragane, shall and maye at their liberties name and elect that is to saie everie of theym for their peculyer Diocise, two honest and discrete spirituall parsonnes beynge lernyd and of good conversacion, and those two personnes so by them to be named shall present to Kynges Highnes by their writinge under their seales makynge humble request to his Magestie to gyve to one suche of the said two parsonnes as shall please his Magestie suche title name stile and dignite of Byshope of suche of the Sees above especified as the Kynges Highnes shall thinke moste convenyent for the same;
No mention there of the gender of the persons whose names are to be presented. They simply have to be honest and discrete spirituall parsonnes beynge lernyd and of good conversacion. There’s nothing in the 1898 Act either, and a quick check through the Church Measures section of the UK Legislation site did not show any reference to gender either.
Dark Knight has set out how the ordination of women as priests proceeded here. The Appellate Tribunal here then held that there was nothing in canon law applicable here which prohibited the consecration of women priests as Bishops., and there are now 3 women as suffragans. Is there anything elsewhere in English canon law which would prevent a bishop, using the existing procedures, presenting a woman as a suffragan?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
Canon C2.5:
quote:
5. Nothing in this Canon shall make it lawful for a woman to be consecrated to the office of bishop.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Thank you Thurible, but that begs the question: is there something elsewhere which positively makes it unlawful? This is a negative provision saying that says is that there is nothing in this Canon to make it lawful. Or is it as here, where the Appellate Tribunal found that there was nothing in our canon law which made the consecration of women unlawful?
[ 22. November 2012, 09:52: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
@ The Great Gumby
True, but I suspect IngoB was simply pointing out what some regard as "slippery slope" consequences.
It has been argued by others that the defence lines were and are there, not so much to protect the church from women priests and bishops, but gay priests and bishops.
"If gender differences don't matter, why should sexual preferences?"
Well, its a good question. For years my own views have been that good character and appropriate gifting are the central substance of the biblical guidance. Those should be derived essentially from our common understanding of "called to be Christ- like". Other factors (gender, race, class, inbuilt orientation, etc) do not have anything to say about character and gifting in the common journey to Christ-likeness.
So, personally, I would much rather the church everywhere took that as the essential guiding principle. But it doesn't, because that principle was not recognised clearly enough in tradition. And as you say, we all have to live with that and work it out somehow.
What is a hard lesson to learn is that the character and gifting principle, which is behind equal opportunities thinking, seems to have been better grasped in the secular world.
Here is that bit of Rowan again.
quote:
.. it seems as if we are wilfully blind to some of the trends and priorities of that wider society
.
"Equal opportunities" is a good trend in the wider society, precisely because it says we shouldn't judge people's suitability for roles, for reasons which are related to suitable talent, or character, or relevant experience. Treating folks on their merits.
We sure have a lot of explaining to do if we wish to challenge that understanding on the basis that we've never done it this way before, and therefore should retain some special exemptions.
[ 22. November 2012, 10:23: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Oscar the Grouch on another thread:
They will not get their Holy Grail, because what ever next comes to the table won't be what they want and they are not going to get any greater concessions than have already been offered.
Unless you want to see this whole process kicked into the long grass for years to come, you will need to be more flexible. Without the special intervention of the archbishops, it can't come back to synod for a minimum of three years, and there would be no point bringing back the same bad legislation to a synod which has rejected it by its own voting rules.
The new archbishop needs to engage with the opponents in FiF and Reform over the coming weeks and months. If he can't offer any sort of province or diocesan structure, and I don't see why not, he will need to find out what is the minimum level of alternative or extended oversight which they can realistically live with, write it into new legislation and use his powers to bring it before synod next year.
Groups like GRAS and WATCH will have to realise that, if they want their main goal, which is women bishops, they will need to be more gracious and tolerant of those who disagree with them. IngoB is right. If the C of E believes it can ordian women to the priesthood, then they can also be bishops, and should be asap. It just requires a larger dose of graciousness.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ken:
The ones who are mopst frustrating aren't the definite nos so much as the "I support women's ordination women but..." brigade.
It is indeed these people who has scuppered this vote, but they aren't necesarily unprincipled. Perhaps they genuinely belive that the C of E needs to find a formula which won't unchurch opponents. It rests entirely with finding a form of oversight which opponents can accept. This can't be beyond possibility.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Unless you want to see this whole process kicked into the long grass for years to come, you will need to be more flexible. Without the special intervention of the archbishops, it can't come back to synod for a minimum of three years, and there would be no point bringing back the same bad legislation to a synod which has rejected it by its own voting rules.
The new archbishop needs to engage with the opponents in FiF and Reform over the coming weeks and months. If he can't offer any sort of province or diocesan structure, and I don't see why not, he will need to find out what is the minimum level of alternative or extended oversight which they can realistically live with, write it into new legislation and use his powers to bring it before synod next year.
Groups like GRAS and WATCH will have to realise that, if they want their main goal, which is women bishops, they will need to be more gracious and tolerant of those who disagree with them. IngoB is right. If the C of E believes it can ordian women to the priesthood, then they can also be bishops, and should be asap. It just requires a larger dose of graciousness.
As was so clearly demonstrated in the debate on Tuesday, there really is nothing new to be said on this topic, but that's not stopping anyone else from having a go, so....
Those calling for more talking, more negotiating - and I lost count of the number of opponents of the consecration of women who stood up on Tuesday and said they were ready to talk right now, tonight - need to explain why this talking will be better, more effective, than the 10 years of talking that has gone before.
What will be said that hasn't been said? What will be offered that hasn't been explored? General Synod had the Rochester report in 2004, the Guildford report in 2006, reports from the Manchester group in 2008, the revision committee in 2009, a draft measure in 2010, and countless interim reports, studies and so on. Are we to keep going until every Bishop in the CofE gets his own report? These reports represent years of work and prayer, largely unthanked, by intelligent, diligent theologians and experts from different parts of the church. Were they wasting their time and energy or should we take their thoughtful advice into consideration?
These are genuine questions. What is going to be said that hasn't been said? And if there is nothing new to be heard, what is all this talking going to be for? What is there to distinguish this new conversation from a simple delaying tactic?
anne
--------------------
‘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
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
originally posted by Oscar the Grouch on another thread:
They will not get their Holy Grail, because what ever next comes to the table won't be what they want and they are not going to get any greater concessions than have already been offered.
Unless you want to see this whole process kicked into the long grass for years to come, you will need to be more flexible. Without the special intervention of the archbishops, it can't come back to synod for a minimum of three years, and there would be no point bringing back the same bad legislation to a synod which has rejected it by its own voting rules.
The new archbishop needs to engage with the opponents in FiF and Reform over the coming weeks and months. If he can't offer any sort of province or diocesan structure, and I don't see why not, he will need to find out what is the minimum level of alternative or extended oversight which they can realistically live with, write it into new legislation and use his powers to bring it before synod next year.
Groups like GRAS and WATCH will have to realise that, if they want their main goal, which is women bishops, they will need to be more gracious and tolerant of those who disagree with them. IngoB is right. If the C of E believes it can ordian women to the priesthood, then they can also be bishops, and should be asap. It just requires a larger dose of graciousness.
If you really believe that, then you've become so self-deluded as to be comatose.
Face the facts - especially after today's discussion in Parliament. Do you seriously think for one nano-second that MPs are now going to accept anything that is provides even greater "protection" to "traditionalists"? You don't need to read between the lines - just read what they are saying. What they expect - even demand - is that women are permitted to become bishops as soon as is possible and without any appearance of discrimination.
FiF and Reform et al may think that they can block anything for now - but my gut instinct is that this is going to come flying back within a couple of months. And the pressure on General Synod to accept what will then be on offer will be intense. It will be a "new" arrangement. And as sure as eggs is eggs, it will be far more like the "single clause motion" that is so feared by FiF.
MPs like Tony Baldry and Chris Bryant tried to warn General Synod not to play with fire. FiF and Reform refused to listen. They are now likely to come to regret that. Any provision HAS to be accepted by Parliament. Do you really think Parliament is going to find institutional sexism acceptable? Dream on.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
originally posted by Oscar the Grouch on another thread:
They will not get their Holy Grail, because what ever next comes to the table won't be what they want and they are not going to get any greater concessions than have already been offered.
Unless you want to see this whole process kicked into the long grass for years to come, you will need to be more flexible. Without the special intervention of the archbishops, it can't come back to synod for a minimum of three years, and there would be no point bringing back the same bad legislation to a synod which has rejected it by its own voting rules.
No. What is needed is to show those who are already trying to split the Church of England by wilfully perverting the concessions they were offered to create the current flying bishops that slate packing can be done both ways and the sentiment of the Church of England is overwhelmingly in favour of women bishops.
What needs to be done is evicting the current house of Laity at the next opportunity then saying that as the so-called Conservatives who are demonstrably trying to undermine the episcopal structure of the Church of England are not prepared to play nice then the gloves can come off. Motion 1: Female bishops with no apology. Motion 2: An end to any concessions at all. An end to Flying Bishops. Motion 3: A resolution that the next Archbishop of Canterbury and the next Archbishop to be elected will be picked from an all-women shortlist. Demonstrate to them that if a fight is what they want then a fight is what they will get. Because it is obvious that when offered concessions they will take them past all reason.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceannaideach
Shipmate
# 12007
|
Posted
I would disagree with motion three Justinian. Appoint the person who is right for the job. Don't appoint a woman for the sake of appointing a woman.
--------------------
"I dream of the day when I will learn to stop asking questions for which I will regret learning the answers." - Roy Greenhilt OOTS
Posts: 199 | From: Shakespeare's County | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
Parliament is certainly less likely now to accept institutional sexism under the guise of 'providing an honoured place for traditionalists' than it was at the beginning of the week.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ceannaideach:
I would disagree with motion three Justinian. Appoint the person who is right for the job. Don't appoint a woman for the sake of appointing a woman.
Justinian is an atheist. He no more cares about the health of the Church of England than the Pope. Any church concerned with appeasing atheists is already irrelevant. Oddly, nothing terrifies Christians wanting to appease atheists like being labeled irrelevant.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The ones who are mopst frustrating aren't the definite nos so much as the "I support women's ordination women but..." brigade.
Exactly. These are the folks on the rector search committee who wouldn't dream of opposing the ordination of women, but who ask, "But is our parish ready for a female priest?"
An excellent question to ask actually. The female priest called to the parish not ready for a female priest will wish the search committee had asked themselves the question before calling her to a parish where a 1/3 of the congregation rejects her just because she is female. Perhaps, she'll be lucky and all the people truly open to having a female priest will accept her but that's not likely. Who wants to be thrown to the wolves so that somebody else can score cheap political points and feel good about themselves for doing so?
I am in the position of having worked through with a woman in much those situation. I have also spent eight years with her successor another woman minister. The first one was painful but the second one was far better received and I suspect largely because of the first ministry.
Often the only way to prepare a church for women's ministry is for it to have a woman cleric. If you wait for them to change it will never happen
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Unless you were married to one of those women, I've been closer to the situation than you.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Frank Field tabled an Early Day Motion last year requiring that the CofE should no longer be allowed to continue the exemption from the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. He was interviewed this week and said that the Church of England had been granted an exemption to allow it to work through these issues, but they'd now had 37 years, and Parliament should insist the Church of England sorts itself out now.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by Ceannaideach:
I would disagree with motion three Justinian. Appoint the person who is right for the job. Don't appoint a woman for the sake of appointing a woman.
Justinian is an atheist. He no more cares about the health of the Church of England than the Pope. Any church concerned with appeasing atheists is already irrelevant. Oddly, nothing terrifies Christians wanting to appease atheists like being labeled irrelevant.
Oh, Justinian cares about the health of the Church of England. I would far rather an honest and moral CofE than a Sam Harris style torture supporting atheist. Right now the CofE goes out of its way to appease reactionary sexists and homophobes, and this doesn't seem to make the blindest bit of difference - but means that the liberal wing of the CofE has nothing to offer because it's too polite and concerned with not offending sexists and homophobes. A CofE that provided genuine moral leadership (as it sometimes did fifty years ago) is something I'd like to see happen - and is something that would make it a whole lot stronger. This can not happen until the liberals start wall-to-wall carpeting the reactionaries.
And for the record the mandating the next archbishop be female wasn't quite a joke suggestion. It's a suggestion that I'd want to see put on the table and to attain strong support rather than to pass all three houses (not that it ever would). If more people vote to mandate that the next archbishop selected is female than vote against female bishops, that would send a message that might help at least slow the CofE's drive towards making itself irrelevant that's only been emphasised by the recent result.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Any church concerned with appeasing atheists is already irrelevant.
But one that continually appeases bigots is doing God's Work, right?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Yes, I'd rather belong to a church where those who disagree with the ordination of women can feel comfortable rather than one which appeases atheists. Female bishops are not essential to the spread of the gospel. Jesus didn't appoint one single female apostle. Does that mean God doesn't call women to be priests and bishops? No. Does it mean the Church of England shouldn't ordain women to the priesthood and consecrate female bishops? No, it doesn't. Any priest can theoretically be a bishop and I'm certain at least one female priest in the Church of England would make an excellent bishop.
That said, female bishops are not part of the essence of the gospel. They can't be. The Church has not consecrated female bishops for most her history. Jesus did mention God rather often. The Church has always believed in God. So, yes, I'd rather the church appease a dying minority that opposes female bishops rather than atheists longing for the good ole days of the Hanoverian Church.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed...
Frank Field tabled an Early Day Motion last year requiring that the CofE should no longer be allowed to continue the exemption from the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
I still take a keen interest in this because I have close friends who it all effects. But I'm glad I'm out. If you want to live in an Erastian church where politicians can tell you what to believe, then good luck.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Curiosity killed...Frank Field tabled an Early Day Motion last year requiring that the CofE should no longer be allowed to continue the exemption from the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
I still take a keen interest in this because I have close friends who it all effects. But I'm glad I'm out. If you want to live in an Erastian church where politicians can tell you what to believe, then good luck.
Was that addressed to me? because if so, it doesn't apply. I'm out, dechurched and can't see any reason to go back.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I don't see it as "appeasing the atheists". I see it as "not giving the more militant atheists some fucking obvious ammunition, and not putting off other atheists from ever reconsidering their atheism."
Atheists are not the enemy. They are the mission field. Giving them reasons to think of the church as a misogynistic dinosaur will hardly assist there.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Unless you were married to one of those women, I've been closer to the situation than you.
And of course what happened in that situation is exactly what will happen everywhere else. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
In my experience, the people who ask the question about being ready for a female priest (and about many other kinds of change) are in large part anticipating a problem they think other people will have.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
However, I think there would be a reasonable-sized group who would say 'Definitely yes'.
Of course. I'm pretty sure the "defintely no" camp is a minority, possibly quite a small one. Maybe half of the strongly marked Anglo-Catholics and a quite small number of the very most doctrinally conservative evangelicals.
The ones who are mopst frustrating aren't the definite nos so much as the "I support women's ordination women but..." brigade. There are people, including some very extreme theological liberals, who seem quite happy to put party before principle (and at least one of them posts a lot on this thread)
That sounds like me! I am not putting 'party before principle' - i have many criticisms of anglo-catholicism, which is what I now work in a church of a very different churchpersonship.
My opposition to the legislation that failed is principled - the principle that it is wrong to break the promises that were made; the principle that an inclusive church should not unchurch people etc.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
However, I think there would be a reasonable-sized group who would say 'Definitely yes'.
Of course. I'm pretty sure the "defintely no" camp is a minority, possibly quite a small one. Maybe half of the strongly marked Anglo-Catholics and a quite small number of the very most doctrinally conservative evangelicals.
The ones who are mopst frustrating aren't the definite nos so much as the "I support women's ordination women but..." brigade. There are people, including some very extreme theological liberals, who seem quite happy to put party before principle (and at least one of them posts a lot on this thread)
That sounds like me! I am not putting 'party before principle' - i have many criticisms of anglo-catholicism, which is what I now work in a church of a very different churchpersonship.
My opposition to the legislation that failed is principled - the principle that it is wrong to break the promises that were made; the principle that an inclusive church should not unchurch people etc.
What promises? Ender's Shadow came up with a couple of suggestions on the hell thread - and I showed all of them he's come up with so far to be wishful thinking. While the Anti-OOW brigade is in massive violation of even the whole episcopal framework with their hyperinflating the role of flying bishops.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
...These are genuine questions. What is going to be said that hasn't been said? And if there is nothing new to be heard, what is all this talking going to be for? What is there to distinguish this new conversation from a simple delaying tactic?
What's new is a cold dose of reality. No proper provision for dissenters, no women bishops. End of story.
What's next is that one of the old schemes for special dioceses, or special provinces, or whatever, will be resurrected and put to the next General Synod, and they will pass it, and the Diocesan Synods will pass it, and Parliament will pass it, and we will have women bishops with the safeguards which were promised to dissenters back in 1992, and with the dissenters continuing to be valued members of the Church.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
...These are genuine questions. What is going to be said that hasn't been said? And if there is nothing new to be heard, what is all this talking going to be for? What is there to distinguish this new conversation from a simple delaying tactic?
What's new is a cold dose of reality. No proper provision for dissenters, no women bishops. End of story.
What's next is that one of the old schemes for special dioceses, or special provinces, or whatever, will be resurrected and put to the next General Synod, and they will pass it, and the Diocesan Synods will pass it, and Parliament will pass it, and we will have women bishops with the safeguards which were promised to dissenters back in 1992, and with the dissenters continuing to be valued members of the Church.
What was promised back in 1992 was additional pastoral oversight at the bishop level to allow space. With flying bishops, you have taken so much more than that that it is absurd - and by doing so have undermined the episcopal nature of the Church of England. It was also explicitely to allow space as a temporary measure (see the hell thread for citations) - you've had twenty years of space, and of trying to fragment the Church of England.
What's needed is a cold dose of reality for the slatepacking opponents of OOW. You don't want to play nicely? You get forced out of the roles where you were supposed to represent people and then no provision at all is offered.
[ 22. November 2012, 15:53: Message edited by: Justinian ]
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Holy Smoke, you do know Parliament is preparing to either disestablish the Church of England, or remove the exemptions from the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, don't you?
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Holy Smoke, you do know Parliament is preparing to either disestablish the Church of England, or remove the exemptions from the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, don't you?
I hadn't heard more than mutterings about either. But both would be genuine cold doses of reality.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Frank Field announced he was going to present a private members bill to Parliament today to call
quote:
for the cancellation of the church's exemptions from equality legislation. "When we gave exemptions under the Sex Discrimination Act we were assured that the church didn't want to discriminate and that it would bring forward measures to eliminate such discrimination,"
- more about the debate here
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
...These are genuine questions. What is going to be said that hasn't been said? And if there is nothing new to be heard, what is all this talking going to be for? What is there to distinguish this new conversation from a simple delaying tactic?
What's new is a cold dose of reality. No proper provision for dissenters, no women bishops. End of story.
What's next is that one of the old schemes for special dioceses, or special provinces, or whatever, will be resurrected and put to the next General Synod, and they will pass it, and the Diocesan Synods will pass it, and Parliament will pass it, and we will have women bishops with the safeguards which were promised to dissenters back in 1992, and with the dissenters continuing to be valued members of the Church.
Not-Going-To-Happen
As Tony Baldry said in the House of Commons today:
quote:
"I have made it clear to the General Synod on a number of occasions that Parliament simply would not approve any Measure that introduced women bishops as second-class bishops."
Be assured that anything remotely like special provinces or dioceses will be seen by Parliament as precisely creating "second-class women bishops". So there's no point pinning hopes on something that MPs have already ruled out.
Equally, there is no way that women will be forced to back down in such a humiliating way. If something like you suggest were to come to the table, women priests would just refuse to have anything to do with it and then wait for the Bishops to get slaughtered by Parliament. The Bishops HAVE to do something. In a very short space of time, they HAVE to say how they are going to get out of this mess and get to the point where there are women bishops (NOT second-class). The way forward to that cannot lie in giving ever more concessions to the small minority of refuseniks. The only way forward that I can see with a remote possibility of working is to produce something that women will accept and then present it to General Synod (possibly in an emergency session) with the unequivocal message of "accept this now or else Parliament will do it for us."
If you're lucky, it won't be the dreaded single clause measure. But I now suspect that even that might be back on the table.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Holy Smoke, you do know Parliament is preparing to either disestablish the Church of England, or remove the exemptions from the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, don't you?
I do know perfectly well that they will do neither, but feel free to keep hoping.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
(I am BTW a supporter of WO, but also a supporter of the current system of safeguards)
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Frank Field announced he was going to present a private members bill to Parliament today to call
quote:
for the cancellation of the church's exemptions from equality legislation. "When we gave exemptions under the Sex Discrimination Act we were assured that the church didn't want to discriminate and that it would bring forward measures to eliminate such discrimination,"
- more about the debate here
As a matter of fact he predicted this entire outcome over a year ago and put the first early day motion to prepare the way in February 2011.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Unless you were married to one of those women, I've been closer to the situation than you.
Yes, but you equally will not have had the second.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
However, I think there would be a reasonable-sized group who would say 'Definitely yes'.
Of course. I'm pretty sure the "defintely no" camp is a minority, possibly quite a small one. Maybe half of the strongly marked Anglo-Catholics and a quite small number of the very most doctrinally conservative evangelicals.
The ones who are mopst frustrating aren't the definite nos so much as the "I support women's ordination women but..." brigade. There are people, including some very extreme theological liberals, who seem quite happy to put party before principle (and at least one of them posts a lot on this thread)
That sounds like me! I am not putting 'party before principle' - i have many criticisms of anglo-catholicism, which is what I now work in a church of a very different churchpersonship.
My opposition to the legislation that failed is principled - the principle that it is wrong to break the promises that were made; the principle that an inclusive church should not unchurch people etc.
What promises? Ender's Shadow came up with a couple of suggestions on the hell thread - and I showed all of them he's come up with so far to be wishful thinking. While the Anti-OOW brigade is in massive violation of even the whole episcopal framework with their hyperinflating the role of flying bishops.
Others like thurible have also made links to the promises.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
american piskie
Shipmate
# 593
|
Posted
I know this is jokey, and the jokiness is not intended in any way to give hurt to women: I think that minimally we have to find ways quickly of giving the Church the advantage of women's voices in the College of Bishops and the House of Bishops.
I wonder whether we might not in this interim take some hints from our friends in the Ordinariate? The clerics who preside over these extraordinary bodies are full members as far as I can determine of the national Episcopal Conference although they are not in episcopal orders. Perhaps until times do improve, as Suffragan sees fall vacant, they can be allowed to lapse, and Archdeacons appointed to carry out everything but the confirming and ordaining? And these archdeacons might reasonably be made full members of the College of Bishops? Indeed, I go further, and suggest we adopt more of the Ordinariate's curious customs: why shouldn't these women be allowed to use the pontificalia? Spain and Italy have their Mitred Abbesses, I'd really look forward to seeing a Mitred Archdeacon in action.
The House of Bishops is a tougher nut to crack as it has some real existence. But is it really out of the question for the selection committee of the next vacant See to select a woman, for HM to nominate her, for the Chapter to act on the conge d'elire and elect her, and for HM to invest her with the temporalities. We'd get along fine for the interim, waiting until it was legal to consecrate her; perhaps a neighbouring bishop could fly in and do the sacramental bitties. The Elect of Worcester or of Exeter, say, has a nice medieval ring to it.
More immediately, couldn't the members of the H of B invite to their meetings as speaking observers a substantial number of women clerics? Perhaps even (shock, horror) invite some woman bishops from another province to regularly assist them with their counsel? This would send out a clear signal that the bishops intend to have their way on the issue.
Posts: 356 | From: Oxford, England, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Oh FFS:
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.”
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
Now of course Anglican have always stretched the envelope; Evangelicals lose liturgy by using non-standard services, Papists use the Roman Missal, and libruls bless same sex relationships. It's what we Anglican do; to suggest +Andrew is a unique offender in this is silly. But the commitment to a 'permanent' place for the dissidents did emerge as a element in the post 1992 settlement. THIS WAS A MISTAKE. But we've got to live with it - or forever accept that our promises are valueless.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
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.”
Ah yes. Distorted Proof Text #1.
This was at the Lambeth Conference in 1998 - a conference that contains all the provinces of the Anglican Communion - of which some but not all ordain female priests and bishops. It was saying that because the CofE and TEC were ordaining female priests, TEC was ordaining female bishops, and I forget who still had a male only priesthood.
This therefore has nothing to d-o with what happens within a province, referring explicitely as it does to the relationship between provinces. Are you a province?
Now for the quotemining.
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
And he did give continued space. So far you have had twenty years of space. Twenty years to determine whether the ordaining of female priests was a mistake and twenty years of space.
Further, if you would care to actually read rather than merely quotemine, you'd find that in the very speech you link, George Carey is explicit that at least some of the provisions in place are temporary and time limited rather than intended to last forever.
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.
That intention has been kept. It has been kept completely and in entirety. It is not carte blanche merely a statement of what the Church of England intends to do at that time - and your own link provides explicit evidence that this was a temporary arrangement. That you claim that something that was, even going by your own sources, intended to only be temporary, was a promise to do something permanent merely says things about either your honesty or your degree of wishful thinking.
And while we're at it - anyone care to explain why this wouldn't work as alternative provision:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Yes, there should be an honoured place for traditionalists - may I suggest that the honoured place is specifically the Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham. They can maintain a specific confraternity of male priests, ordained by male bishops with a male pedigree, with a third order attached for the laity to keep in touch.
They can maintain a traveling roster and visit each cathederal on a monthly basis to offer the eucharist. (The church as a whole can support this by maintaining funds in trust to maintain this in perpetuity.)
Meanwhile, the church could ordain female bishops and carry on with the rest of the business of the church.
In the time between the monthly celebrations, traditionalist laity could participate in non-eucharistic services. The diocesan would maintain their authority in respect to managing the affairs of the diocese, and pastoral support (after all that would be acceptable from a female deacon or canon ?).
The church could also make a commitment to always have at least one male Archbishop.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ButchCassidy
Shipmate
# 11147
|
Posted
To make a pedantic point, Frank Field cannot be proposing to repeal the exemption for religious organisations in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, since the relevant part (section 19) of that Act has already been repealed by s211 Equality Act 2010. He is more likely to be trying to repeal schedule 23 Equality Act, which contains the current form of the religious exemption....
...except that the Equality Act exemption applies to all "organisations the purpose of which is to practice a religous belief". I.E. Field would either have to:
a) repeal it for all religions, which neither party would allow (Tories lose support in the marginal middle England seats, Labour lose support in Respect-leaning inner cities) or
b) repeal it for the CofE alone, which in theory he could justify on the grounds of it being the established church, but infact would be impossible because it would open the government up to 100000 religious discrimination claims from Anglicans (either under the Equality Act itself or Art 9 Sch 1 Human Rights Act - freedom of religion), which the government would struggle to defend (since the European Court of Human Rights would not take account of the its established church point).
Have to say that despite broadly agreeing with WO theologically, would probably have voted no due to lack of provision for opponents, and the subsequent sight of the WO supporters lobbying for secular state intervention makes me even more sure, really ugly. Disestablishment is preferable to state intervention. What has light to do with darkness people?
Posts: 104 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Private Members Bills don't generally become law and 10 Minute Rule Bills and Early Day Motions never do. As this has pretty much nixed the Church of England as an effective opponent of gay marriage (it's an ill wind), I suspect that Cameron will take the view that Synod broke it so Synod can fix it whilst he deals with grown up things like the Economy, the Eurozone, International Terrorism and sitch whilst the C of E contemplates its navel.
The press will, of course, make a big deal of this because alleging the C of E has pissed it's moral authority up the wall will be a handy stick to beat us with over gay marriage (from the left) and over Episcopal criticisms of high finance concern for Christ's Poor (from the right). The Archbishop will be able to point to the Leveson report and wonder who died and made the press arbiters of moral authority.
Obviously, it's not ideal but there is a solution and that is to resurrect the idea of a Third Province. One of the non-bovine spongiform traditionalists can be Consecrated as Archbishop of Ultima Thule or some such and any parish that wishes can join said province in the case of a motion passed by the parochial church council followed by an election in which 2/3 of the electoral roll support said motion. There will be no cross subsidy of the Province from Canterbury and York (and vice-versa) and both England and Ultima Thule will have their own Synods whose rulings are binding on the respective provinces but not the other and the two groups will send observers but not vote. All the Parishes in the Third Province will be taken to have passed resolutions A, B and C but there will be no reason not to co-operate on local matters when desirable.
The Traditionalists get what they want, we get what we want and we both get a bit of space from each other which will do us all good. What's not to like?
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
That's third province solution isn't it ? I was hoping what I suggested would mean a smaller split - what do you think ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
Perhaps until times do improve, as Suffragan sees fall vacant, they can be allowed to lapse, and Archdeacons appointed to carry out everything but the confirming and ordaining? And these archdeacons might reasonably be made full members of the College of Bishops? Indeed, I go further, and suggest we adopt more of the Ordinariate's curious customs: why shouldn't these women be allowed to use the pontificalia? Spain and Italy have their Mitred Abbesses, I'd really look forward to seeing a Mitred Archdeacon in action.
Now THAT is the most sensible thing i have read about all this.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
