homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » What has Rowan done this time? (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: What has Rowan done this time?
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I see that Ruth G has reported in The Times that an open letter has been sent to the Archbishop of Canterbury accusing him of attempting to set up "ghettoes" for women

quote:
Ms Southern wrote to the Archbishops to complain about their recent intervention in an amendment to go to General Synod next month, which urges “co-ordinate” bishops on the Church rather than accepting women bishops as entirely equal to male bishops.
and

quote:
The Church’s attempt to square the circle of women’s ordination versus traditionalists, including the solution last time of flying bishops — introduced when women priests were ordained — has been “extremely dysfunctional, cripples the ministry of women, in some diocese more than others, and has done nothing to bring about greater communion, but instead fosters division and discrimination and continues to damage the Church”, she wrote.
(I'm quoting chunks because the article requires registration for reading - free, though)

and

quote:
It is unprecedented in its open attack on such senior figures within the Church and gives an indication of how the authority of the Archbishops is being undermined by the endless quarrelling over women’s ordination and homosexuality.
Can anyone suggest why the Church in England is not capable of accepting women as priests, while many other countries have been able to deal with this for a generation or more? There is also the question as to why the process in England involves such convolutions as "flying bishops" and "co-ordinate" bishops, which seem to make things worse.

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
churchgeek

Have candles, will pray
# 5557

 - Posted      Profile for churchgeek   Author's homepage   Email churchgeek   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'll be interested to see what responses you get from British shipmates. To me, it's surprising given the C of E is the established church of a country that has had females both as monarchs and a prime minister - and, indeed, female monarchs appoint the ABC and are the head of the C of E, are they not? So is it a sacramental issue, then? Do people believe, as I heard (second-hand) someone say, "a woman cannot make the Mass"?

--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.

My article on the Virgin of Vladimir

Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Young fogey
Shipmate
# 5317

 - Posted      Profile for Young fogey   Author's homepage   Email Young fogey   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My guess is it's because the C of E is on the ropes in an irreligious country and its Anglo-Catholic minority is proportionally bigger in it than it was in the Episcopal Church, so Rowan is begging them not to leave, hence these convoluted compromises that don't make sense. It's only logical that the liberals are outraged at what he's trying to do.

--------------------
A conservative blog for peace

Posts: 961 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383

 - Posted      Profile for Yerevan   Email Yerevan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
I'll be interested to see what responses you get from British shipmates. To me, it's surprising given the C of E is the established church of a country that has had females both as monarchs and a prime minister - and, indeed, female monarchs appoint the ABC and are the head of the C of E, are they not? So is it a sacramental issue, then? Do people believe, as I heard (second-hand) someone say, "a woman cannot make the Mass"?
Answering as a non-Anglican, the problem is that some evangelicals think that women shouldn't preach a sermon, while some Anglo-Catholics think that women shouldn't preside over communion, and that the C of E is broad enough to have plenty of both. The C of E is also in the awkward position of being an increasingly evangelical established church in a liberal, secular society.

[ 24. June 2010, 07:46: Message edited by: Yerevan ]

Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Psyduck

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

 - Posted      Profile for Psyduck   Author's homepage   Email Psyduck   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yerevan:
quote:
The C of E is also in the awkward position of being an increasingly evangelical established church in a liberal, secular society.
That's interesting. Our experience in the C of S is that the move to the right theologically is vastly more salient in our ministry than in the membership - which is becoming polarized. Opposition to women's ordination, to the ministry and the eldership, which seemed to be disappearing, is certainly being reinforced in small sections of the Church which are a vocal network, but it's definitely a minority position, and none of the theological justifications really correspond to Anglican ones, except where there's an evagelical crossover.

The Kirk certainly sounds more evangelical than it used to, but I get the impression that's more because of a shared discourse that nobody really objects to. There isn't the gulf between evangelical and catholic discourses.

It's interesting to see two established Churches having to deal with similar social trends in very different ways. (Don't get me wrong - we haven't any room to boast! We have problems of a similar order of magnitude north of the Border, and are similarly unsure how to proceed.)

The other odd thing was that it was always a Scottish boast that Presbyterians had to be clear on every jot and tittle, while Anglicans seemed to be happy with anything that was vague enough that they could all sign up to. This seems to have been reversed over the last few decades.

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
badman
Shipmate
# 9634

 - Posted      Profile for badman     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
So is it a sacramental issue, then? Do people believe, as I heard (second-hand) someone say, "a woman cannot make the Mass"?

It seems that the opponents of women bishops, and of women priests, would answer yes to both your questions.

According to recent blogpost from the Forward in Faith camp:

quote:
There is no such thing as a woman bishop. She has no potestas ordinis or spiritual and pastoral care to delegate. She is not a bishop; that is our point.
I do not see how such a person can stay in the Church of England even if they are allowed a permanent church within a church as now proposed. Here's another Anglo Catholic who apparently agrees: :

quote:
Which catholic bishops are happily going to sit in a college of bishops where there are women. Surely one of the principal arguments catholics have made is that our bishops must be in communon. How can they be if they do not believe they or the people they ordain are bishops. It reinforces the evangelical argument that it is about maleness, but does nothing to help catholics.

For many, only a separate province where there is some form of separation can retain the integrity of catholics within the Church of England. I think the Archbishops recognise that too, but it seems now it is all too late. Many catholics will say 'Roll on the ordinariate'. It may well however help some of those who stay for whatever reason to receive the 'terminal care' they need.

I don't see how it can be right or even politic to say that any woman bishop for the indefinite future must have a male bishop sitting next to her to keep people happy who don't accept that she is in Holy Orders at all, when it isn't going to keep them happy.

I also don't think it is right for the long drawn out Synod process of these last many years, and the meticulous and consultative deliberations of the Revision Committee, to be swept aside by a last minute intervention from the Archbishops which looks, frankly, pretty half baked.

Posts: 429 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Yorick

Infinite Jester
# 12169

 - Posted      Profile for Yorick   Email Yorick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Only religiously bigoted or unmarried people could ever believe women are in any way inferior at preaching.

--------------------
این نیز بگذرد

Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I daresay the argument, Yorick, isn't that they are 'inferior' at preaching but that they shouldn't do it in the first place due to apparent scriptural proscriptions upon the practice.

I don't think any of those evangelicals who would oppose the idea of women preaching would do so on the grounds that they wouldn't be any good at it. They simply oppose it on the grounds that they are women and therefore do not have a willy.

The same, I imagine, would apply to squeamishness about female ordination on sacramental grounds ie. presiding at communion. It isn't that they wouldn't be any good at. It's simply that they don't have the necessary tackle. Although how that tackle comes into play during preaching or the celebration of the Eucharist is beyond me. [Razz]

But hey ... what do I know?

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Speaking as a British shipmate, and a member of the CofE, most of us ignore the flying bishop wing and just get on with life without worrying too much about them.

On the other hand, those who go on about it, are a bit like Devalera and the treaty, and look what that did to Michael Collins.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I daresay the argument, Yorick, isn't that they are 'inferior' at preaching but that they shouldn't do it in the first place due to apparent scriptural proscriptions upon the practice.

Ah, scripture. In this case, that word refers to the ramblings of one highly bigoted man that, because they agreed with the prejudices of another bunch of men who called themselves a Council, managed to get included in the Bible.

That process has much to answer for.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Benny Diction 2
Shipmate
# 14159

 - Posted      Profile for Benny Diction 2   Author's homepage   Email Benny Diction 2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Speaking as a British shipmate, and a member of the CofE, most of us ignore the flying bishop wing and just get on with life without worrying too much about them.

On the other hand, those who go on about it, are a bit like Devalera and the treaty, and look what that did to Michael Collins.

The trouble is Enoch just ignoring the Flying Bishops etc doesn't solve the problem.

I understand Rowan will be speaking to the Methodist Conference about the Methodist Anglican Covenant. There have been posts about that historically so I'm not going into that. But this will never come to anything until the CofE sort out the issue of women.

There have been women ministers in the Methodist Church for about 40 years and the new President of Conference (the head of the Methodist Church for a year) is a woman. Alison Tomlin.

--------------------
Benny Diction

"The Labour party has never been a socialist party, although there have always been socialists in it - a bit like Christians in the Church of England." Tony Benn

Posts: 859 | From: Home of the magic roundabout | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
Dave Marshall

Shipmate
# 7533

 - Posted      Profile for Dave Marshall     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Here's Lindsay Southern's letter if you prefer not to register with The Times.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826

 - Posted      Profile for LutheranChik   Author's homepage   Email LutheranChik   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Speaking as a Lutheran, I wonder what this rightwing retrenchment means for Anglican-Lutheran relations on the Continent and elsewhere, since most of the Euro-Lutherans I can think of ordain women. Even though it doesn't mean a lot (I don't think) when it comes to relations between the ELCA and TEC over here, I feel as if Canterbury has thrown Anglican-Lutheran relations in general under the bus. (And, speaking as a woman...well, let's not even go there. Which is what he seems to be saying to us in turn. [Mad] )
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
badman
Shipmate
# 9634

 - Posted      Profile for badman     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Benny Diction 2:
The trouble is Enoch just ignoring the Flying Bishops etc doesn't solve the problem.

I understand Rowan will be speaking to the Methodist Conference about the Methodist Anglican Covenant. There have been posts about that historically so I'm not going into that. But this will never come to anything until the CofE sort out the issue of women.

There have been women ministers in the Methodist Church for about 40 years and the new President of Conference (the head of the Methodist Church for a year) is a woman. Alison Tomlin.

This is I think the weakness of all the conservatives now - in which I include the GAFCON separatists in Nigeria and elsewhere, the conservative evangelicals in Anglican Mainstream rebranding themselves (for example in Chelmsford) as Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, with its own GAFCON separatist implications, and the conservative Anglo Catholics who say they prefer to go to Rome, via the new Anglican Ordinariate, than play any part in the Church of England as a whole unless they are given their own church within a church.

The problem is that there is no pleasing them. Huge concessions have been made to them. But they always bank the concessions and ask for everything else as well. Often they make their requests as demands, coupled with threats (of separation) and abuse (we are two churches, we are two religions, you are not Christians, you are not obeying the plain meaning of scripture).

If there is no pleasing them, what is the point of suffering the damage caused by making the concessions in the first place?

Logically, the Archbishop of Canterbury should start to track back towards the broad church (or liberal church) wing now. But this latest intervention suggests that he cannot change tack and will continue to think that the only disaffected part of the church which has to be placated is the part which is opposed to change. This makes him a hostage to the conservatives whatever the harm done to his relations with everyone else.

Posts: 429 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867

 - Posted      Profile for Spawn   Email Spawn   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by badman:
The problem is that there is no pleasing them. Huge concessions have been made to them. But they always bank the concessions and ask for everything else as well. Often they make their requests as demands, coupled with threats (of separation) and abuse (we are two churches, we are two religions, you are not Christians, you are not obeying the plain meaning of scripture).

If there is no pleasing them, what is the point of suffering the damage caused by making the concessions in the first place?

This is nonsense. Of course, it was obvious that the move to open the episcopate to women would create dissatisfaction and unhappiness among traditionalists - some would inevitably have left. But the Act of Synod proved to be extraordinarily effective in pacifying the Church of England during the 1990s. So the logic would suggest that we now offer further and greater provision to retain the traditionalist catholic contribution to the CoE. It turns out that the so-called 'Broad Church' which you talk about is much less capable of offering something imaginative and generous than the Archbishops of Canterbury and York.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm surprised this has not been booted into Dead horses yet.

It is only fair to offer alternative jurisdiction to those who do not accept women as bishops. Not to so is exclusive and intolerant.

--------------------
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
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If I was on the Revisions Committee, and had for many months carefully, prayerfully and widely consulted with the whole Church of England on the best way forward, I'd be greeting this 11th hour intervention with my head in my hands and my resignation letter in the post.

Synod will make its own mind up, and since WATCH are able to stomach the Revisions Committee's compromise, I can imagine that they'll form the necessary majorities.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It was only right to offer support for those in the CofE who believed that women could not be priests in 1994 - the goalposts were changed for those priests and they have every right to continue in their beliefs and being a part of the CofE.

But was it right to continue ordaining people into the CofE who believed that women shouldn't be priests? Personally I think we should have made sure that we were ordaining people who were willing to be part of the CofE as voted post 1994, so accepted that women could be priests, not continue ordaining those who wanted to be part of a subsection of the church. If we'd taken that view we'd still be supporting some ministers, but the problem would have started to go away as the whole church moved to accepting women priests.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And here is a link to what the Archbishops are actually proposing.

While I don't have a great deal of sympathy for Forward in Faith and their supporters, I can't see anything that justifies Ms Southern's hysterical posturing.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
fletcher christian

Mutinous Seadog
# 13919

 - Posted      Profile for fletcher christian   Email fletcher christian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ricardus, your link is the biggest fudge I think I've ever read. Apart from the fact that 1998 was a bit of a fudge, this move perpetuates an inherited two tier system in the C of E. How can that be in any way good? Basically - as I read it - what is being suggested is that the ordination of women as Bishops is now acceptable to the Anglican communion, but for those who are in the same church who refuse to accept their validity, we will accommodate you further. Good news for everyone sounds to me like good news for no one

--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan

Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688

 - Posted      Profile for la vie en rouge     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It is only fair to offer alternative jurisdiction to those who do not accept women as bishops. Not to so is exclusive and intolerant.

Just out of interest, if I were to change the word "women" to "homosexuals" in this sentence, would you still agree with it?

--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France

Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Ricardus, your link is the biggest fudge I think I've ever read. Apart from the fact that 1998 was a bit of a fudge, this move perpetuates an inherited two tier system in the C of E. How can that be in any way good? Basically - as I read it - what is being suggested is that the ordination of women as Bishops is now acceptable to the Anglican communion, but for those who are in the same church who refuse to accept their validity, we will accommodate you further. Good news for everyone sounds to me like good news for no one

I agree it's a fudge. It's the constant imputation of bad faith that riled me about Ms Southern's letter.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
On a personal note, I'm afraid I'm finding these days that with every step the CofE takes, I'm becoming more and more embarrassed to be a member of it. It seems like our leaders are barely capable of organising alcoholic refreshment in a brewery.
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867

 - Posted      Profile for Spawn   Email Spawn   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Ricardus, your link is the biggest fudge I think I've ever read. Apart from the fact that 1998 was a bit of a fudge, this move perpetuates an inherited two tier system in the C of E. How can that be in any way good?

Why is it necessarily bad? If it keeps the contribution of as many people as possible in the CoE then surely it's a good thing? I used to think that 'fudges', and 'two-tier' systems fell short of the ideal. But then I realised that everything falls short of the ideal.

quote:
Basically - as I read it - what is being suggested is that the ordination of women as Bishops is now acceptable to the Anglican communion, but for those who are in the same church who refuse to accept their validity, we will accommodate you further. Good news for everyone sounds to me like good news for no one
Well the ordination of women bishops is not acceptable to the whole of the Anglican Communion but I think I get what you're saying. Did you ever read the passage about going the extra mile?

And why is it good news for no-one? We will have women bishops and perhaps be able to avoid a horrible split. Sounds pretty good to me.

Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
fletcher christian

Mutinous Seadog
# 13919

 - Posted      Profile for fletcher christian   Email fletcher christian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
posted by spawn
quote:

And why is it good news for no-one? We will have women bishops and perhaps be able to avoid a horrible split. Sounds pretty good to me.

Right.... so those against the ordination of women (who have already been pandered to) get to continue to disagree with a passed vote at synod and effectively ignore the will of the church. They are permitted to continually state publicly that - even though they are a part of a church that has formally accepted the ordination of women - that they will refuse to accept their validity no matter what, and that the majority of the church is clearly deluded and heretical and not 'real'. they get to continue to empire build and mount a loud voiced resistance and are empowered by the knowledge that ABC will always listen to them and meet their needs.

On the other side you have women who are called to ministry in a church that has formally accepted the validity of their ministry, but they have to work alongside clergy and Bishop's who approve of that ministry because there are those who believe they are invalid. They are made to feel like second class citizens of the church, as if in some way smug clergy who talk about the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (as long as it's in tune with their thinking) and reject their colleagues ministry are Tesco finest, whereas ordained women are yellow pack in the bargain bin, gone past their best before date.

Explain how this is 'good news' to anyone? It's pathetic, deeply embarrassing and, most importantly, a rejection of will of the church, all supported by the head of same church.

Frankly, a split would have been better. A better move still would be the self removal of those who so clearly reject the will of the church in which they exist.

[Projectile]

[ 24. June 2010, 13:11: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]

--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan

Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867

 - Posted      Profile for Spawn   Email Spawn   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Right.... so those against the ordination of women (who have already been pandered to) get to continue to disagree with a passed vote at synod and effectively ignore the will of the church.

Well, I certainly don't agree with everything Synod says and does. Should I leave because of that? There is a role for conscience within Anglicanism.

quote:
They are permitted to continually state publicly that - even though they are a part of a church that has formally accepted the ordination of women - that they will refuse to accept their validity no matter what, and that the majority of the church is clearly deluded and heretical and not 'real'. they get to continue to empire build and mount a loud voiced resistance and are empowered by the knowledge that ABC will always listen to them and meet their needs.
Yep, that sounds to me like the Church of England as I have always known it.

quote:
On the other side you have women who are called to ministry in a church that has formally accepted the validity of their ministry, but they have to work alongside clergy and Bishop's who approve of that ministry because there are those who believe they are invalid. They are made to feel like second class citizens of the church, as if in some way smug clergy who talk about the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (as long as it's in tune with their thinking) and reject their colleagues ministry are Tesco finest, whereas ordained women are yellow pack in the bargain bin, gone past their best before date.
Phew, take a breath! Women's ordination wouldn't have passed in 1992 without some provision for traditionalists, and it certainly wouldn't have passed in Parliament without the promise to maintain as broad a church as possible by making further provision. ++Rowan and ++John have the job of ensuring that there's some continuity with that decision and with the promises made that there are two 'integrities' within the Church of England. I think the cost experienced by women in ministry of our generous and gracious decisions are much exaggerated. There are no 'no-go' areas for women priests and thousands of women are serving the CoE very happily and effectively.

quote:
Explain how this is 'good news' to anyone? It's pathetic, deeply embarrassing and, most importantly, a rejection of will of the church, all supported by the head of same church.
We just don't think that you're a bad person in the Church of England just because you have problems with the 'will of the church'. But let me explain again, it's good news because we get women bishops, and it's also good news because some effort is being made to help opponents remain part of the Church of England.

quote:
Frankly, a split would have been better. A better move still would be the self removal of those who so clearly reject the will of the church in which they exist.
I think you might be better suited to another Church with a Papacy and a magisterium. Clearly you don't realise that Anglicanism has for the most part existed as an experiment in keeping diametrically opposed people in the same Church. The sort of unanimity you seem to require is just not 'Anglican'.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I agree with Leo and I agree with Curiosity Killed.

I do not agree with the notion that we are entitled to insist on having either the Church or the call of God only on our own terms. It seems to me that this is what both those who in recent years have sought ordination within a no-women virtual diocese and Lindsay Southern are saying.

In case people didn't appreciate this, it is what I was getting at when I referred to Devalera and Michael Collins.

As for the suggestion that a split would be better, heaven forbid. Is the body of Christ to be divided yet again? Why is it that Rowan is repeatedly criticised for going the extra mile to try and do anything to prevent this?

As I see it, none of us has the right to say we can split the body so as to have our particular interpretation in all its pristine purity.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Dinghy Sailor

Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507

 - Posted      Profile for Dinghy Sailor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
On the other side you have women who are called to ministry[/QB]
Not according to a good proportion of the church. Should we ignore those people, those Christians? Are we and they part of different kingdoms of God?

--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
fletcher christian

Mutinous Seadog
# 13919

 - Posted      Profile for fletcher christian   Email fletcher christian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:

I think the cost experienced by women in ministry of our generous and gracious decisions are much exaggerated. There are no 'no-go' areas for women priests and thousands of women are serving the CoE very happily and effectively.

Bullshit

quote:

I think you might be better suited to another Church with a Papacy and a magisterium. Clearly you don't realise that Anglicanism has for the most part existed as an experiment in keeping diametrically opposed people in the same Church. The sort of unanimity you seem to require is just not 'Anglican'.

You have wilfully misunderstood me. The Anglican church does not hold absolutely everything in diametrically opposed tensions! My issue here is that the community of the church has already been asked to undergo a process of reflection and discernment and put it to a vote in a way that can be as democratic as possible. Some (a minority) are refusing to listen to this community of faith because it chose not to cast the vote in their favour. Being an anglican also means having a willingness to compromise and a knowledge of finding faith in community. It means that sometimes we will disagree with one another, but will work for the good of the church and community of faith and not for our own private empires of conscience. Anyone ordained in the anglican church already knows that this is the system into which they are ordained, but instead some are choosing to ignore it and forget that the vows they made at ordination require that they are in service to the church and it's people. The 'tension' of which you speak in the anglican church is finding a middle road. Sometimes this means that we have to forgo our own personal desires. This notion has been completely lost in this debate, but many would do well to be reminded that 'it's not all about you'

--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan

Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:Frankly, a split would have been better. A better move still would be the self removal of those who so clearly reject the will of the church in which they exist.
I think you might be better suited to another Church with a Papacy and a magisterium. Clearly you don't realise that Anglicanism has for the most part existed as an experiment in keeping diametrically opposed people in the same Church. The sort of unanimity you seem to require is just not 'Anglican'.
The problem is, though, that the High Anglican objection to women's ordination is based precisely upon the fact that Church Tradition has always taught against women priests.

I'm all for accommodating principled dissent, but if the justification for that dissent is that the Church's teachings should be obeyed, then I think someone has got themself a little confused ...

To put it another way: the Anglo-Catholic belief is that the Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church in the way of truth - hence appeals to Church Tradition as an authoritative revelation - and that the Anglican Church is part of the Catholic Church. The Anglican Church has decided to ordain women. Therefore, either women's ordination is the Holy Spirit's will, or else the Anglican Church is not part of the Catholic Church.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
fletcher christian

Mutinous Seadog
# 13919

 - Posted      Profile for fletcher christian   Email fletcher christian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think it is a grave over simplification to suggest that Anglo-Catholicism votes en masse against the ordination of women. You will find objectors in Anglo-Catholic parishes, in Evangelical, charismatic and middle of the road parishes. It's an unfair stereotype to suggest that Anglo-Catholics are the only ones to hold this opinion. You will find some Anglo-Catholics who have worked extremely hard for the recognition of the ordination of women.

--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan

Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It is only fair to offer alternative jurisdiction to those who do not accept women as bishops. Not to so is exclusive and intolerant.

Just out of interest, if I were to change the word "women" to "homosexuals" in this sentence, would you still agree with it?
Homosexuals are already barred from ordination in the C of E and it is a communion-breaking issue.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It is only fair to offer alternative jurisdiction to those who do not accept women as bishops. Not to so is exclusive and intolerant.

Just out of interest, if I were to change the word "women" to "homosexuals" in this sentence, would you still agree with it?
Homosexuals are already barred from ordination in the C of E and it is a communion-breaking issue.
I think you might want to rephrase that as it couldn't be more inaccurate if you tried.

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867

 - Posted      Profile for Spawn   Email Spawn   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
quote:

I think the cost experienced by women in ministry of our generous and gracious decisions are much exaggerated. There are no 'no-go' areas for women priests and thousands of women are serving the CoE very happily and effectively.

Bullshit
Precisely where is the bullshit in this paragraph? 'Cost much exagerated', 'no-go areas', or the happiness and effectiveness of women's ministry?

quote:
You have wilfully misunderstood me. The Anglican church does not hold absolutely everything in diametrically opposed tensions!
I assure you the Church of England does (unless of course you're saying that the Church of England isn't Anglican). In my own small parish church there is one woman who believes that the Gospel of St Thomas is superior to the canonical gospels and she's our PCC secretary. There are churches which believe diametrically opposed things about the Eucharist and all sorts of other things.

quote:
My issue here is that the community of the church has already been asked to undergo a process of reflection and discernment and put it to a vote in a way that can be as democratic as possible. Some (a minority) are refusing to listen to this community of faith because it chose not to cast the vote in their favour.
I just don't see there's a problem with this disagreement. We're still in what has been called a period of 'reception' it simply isn't over yet. That's why the CoE has agreed that there are two 'integrities' and that is why the Archbishops are seeking to make further and more generous provision for traditionalists.

quote:
Anyone ordained in the anglican church already knows that this is the system into which they are ordained, but instead some are choosing to ignore it and forget that the vows they made at ordination require that they are in service to the church and it's people.
That could be said of many positions of principled dissent in the Church of England - such as the partnered gay candidate who knows full well the teaching of the church but still goes ahead with ordination.

quote:
The 'tension' of which you speak in the anglican church is finding a middle road. Sometimes this means that we have to forgo our own personal desires. This notion has been completely lost in this debate, but many would do well to be reminded that 'it's not all about you'
I didn't speak of 'tension' as though Anglicanism was some grand narrative, synthesis or via media. It's nothing more than an historic accident in which diametrically opposed parties and traditions find themselves. Most of the time they squabble and ignore each other.

BTW, those who advocate women bishops also have to remember your final line: 'It's not all about you'.

Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
fletcher christian

Mutinous Seadog
# 13919

 - Posted      Profile for fletcher christian   Email fletcher christian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:

BTW, those who advocate women bishops also have to remember your final line: 'It's not all about you'.

Yes, you're quite right. They know it's not all about them because the church has already voted on this matter and the majority voted for it.

quote:

We're still in what has been called a period of 'reception' it simply isn't over yet.

That is incredibly naive

quote:

I assure you the Church of England does

Really? It holds 'absolutely everything in diametrically opposed views'? What is synod for in your view? Why would people even bother to cast a vote? Why is the community of faith even consulted if this is the case?


quote:

Precisely where is the bullshit in this paragraph? 'Cost much exagerated', 'no-go areas', or the happiness and effectiveness of women's ministry?

What you said was so dismissive and ridiculous thats its hard even to know where to start. 'There are no, no-go areas for women' Yeeees, that's why we are in a discussion about women and the episcopate, that's why it went to synod, thats why despite it being passed there, some feel the need to continue to declare them invalid. I bet the same people who hold such views would agree with you and welcome them with open arms to their parish and altar....or maybe not.

Have you actually listened to the experience of women in ministry in the C of E? Most of it isn't pretty. Yes, there are many who are happy in their ministry in supportive parishes. There are also vindictive laity and clergy who make their lives a misery and who intentionally attempt to dismantle their ministry for the sake of their 'cause'. Take the time to listen to them and you might hear something rather different from the nonsense you pedal here. The generous and gracious decision of which you speak is that the C of E will continue to accommodate those who see women's ministry as utterly invalid. Very affirming that! Boosts confidence no end knowing you have the support of other clergy!

--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan

Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2

 - Posted      Profile for Erin   Author's homepage   Email Erin       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Why is it that Rowan is repeatedly criticised for going the extra mile to try and do anything to prevent this?

Because the extra mile is never enough. At some point, you just have to tell them to suck it up, princess.

--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.

Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
fletcher christian

Mutinous Seadog
# 13919

 - Posted      Profile for fletcher christian   Email fletcher christian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I must apologise for saying a split would be better. I don't believe that. I'm afraid that it was a case of 'red mist'.

--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan

Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867

 - Posted      Profile for Spawn   Email Spawn   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
quote:

BTW, those who advocate women bishops also have to remember your final line: 'It's not all about you'.

Yes, you're quite right. They know it's not all about them because the church has already voted on this matter and the majority voted for it.
Democracy does not come first to my mind when I think about what is essential to the Church.

quote:
[QUOTE]
We're still in what has been called a period of 'reception' it simply isn't over yet.

That is incredibly naive

quote:

Naive perhaps, but it is supposed to be the 'official' view of the Church of England - reached by Synodical voting which you seem to set great store by.

quote:
Really? It holds 'absolutely everything in diametrically opposed views'? What is synod for in your view? Why would people even bother to cast a vote? Why is the community of faith even consulted if this is the case?
It's a strange phrase, holding 'absolutely everything in diametrically opposed views'. I would simply say that there are diametrically opposed views in the Church of England and I'm not going to engage in a witchhunt to get rid of anybody.

You ask what Synod is for? I've come to the view that it's to keep people busy who otherwise might do untold damage in parishes.

BTW, I don't think you're in the Church of England are you? All clergy moan all the time about their experience of ministry. I'm glad to see women are no different in this regard.

Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
fletcher christian

Mutinous Seadog
# 13919

 - Posted      Profile for fletcher christian   Email fletcher christian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:

Democracy does not come first to my mind when I think about what is essential to the Church.

That much is clear [Roll Eyes]

quote:

You ask what Synod is for? I've come to the view that it's to keep people busy who otherwise might do untold damage in parishes.

Would that be because the community of faith doesn't matter to you? Despots don't normally have happy lives and tend not to be remembered favourably in history.


quote:

Naive perhaps, but it is supposed to be the 'official' view of the Church of England - reached by Synodical voting which you seem to set great store by.


True, but the majority of people (the same majority who voted for the ordination of women, did not expect this situation to go on indefinitely; neither did they expect clergy in the service of the church to begin empire building.

quote:

All clergy moan all the time about their experience of ministry. I'm glad to see women are no different in this regard.

words fail [Disappointed]

--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan

Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867

 - Posted      Profile for Spawn   Email Spawn   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
words fail [Disappointed]

Thank God for that. I was wondering how long this exchange would go on.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Why is it that Rowan is repeatedly criticised for going the extra mile to try and do anything to prevent this?

Because the extra mile is never enough. At some point, you just have to tell them to suck it up, princess.
This is true.

The real problem is, we're living with the consequences of decades of having approached this issue from completely the wrong angle. First it was "Can women be deacons (though we'd never ask if they can be priests)?" Then it was "Can women be priests (though we'd never ask if they could be bishops)?" Now it's "Can women be bishops?" And nobody tell me that isn't how the arguments went, because they did. I was there. I read the papers and watched the interviews and saw the quotations, and that's exactly how the arguments went.

The sensible and slightly cynical among us, of course, never believed a single word that appeared in the parentheses.

What should have happened, back in the 60s and 70s, is that the question be put: "Can women receive holy orders?" - Yes or no. And it might have taken us longer to get a "yes", but then that would have been the point at which Erin's "suck it up, princess" moment kicked in, and the CofE wouldn't be the ridiculous bloody circus it's become today.

Instead we've got split after split, as a consequence of our leaders trying to be nice to everybody instead of having the balls (pun intended) to face a difficult issue square-on for once in their lives.

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It is only fair to offer alternative jurisdiction to those who do not accept women as bishops. Not to so is exclusive and intolerant.

Just out of interest, if I were to change the word "women" to "homosexuals" in this sentence, would you still agree with it?
Homosexuals are already barred from ordination in the C of E and it is a communion-breaking issue.
I think you might want to rephrase that as it couldn't be more inaccurate if you tried.
How is it inaccurate,. The C of E House of Bishops Issues in Human Sexuality is the standard - all ordinands are asked to sign up to it before they even go to a BAP.

Large parts of the Communion do not accept homosexual bishops or priests, or lay people even.

The fact that people lie about their sexuality is a different matter.

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It is only fair to offer alternative jurisdiction to those who do not accept women as bishops. Not to so is exclusive and intolerant.

Just out of interest, if I were to change the word "women" to "homosexuals" in this sentence, would you still agree with it?
Homosexuals are already barred from ordination in the C of E and it is a communion-breaking issue.
I think you might want to rephrase that as it couldn't be more inaccurate if you tried.
How is it inaccurate,. The C of E House of Bishops Issues in Human Sexuality is the standard - all ordinands are asked to sign up to it before they even go to a BAP.

Large parts of the Communion do not accept homosexual bishops or priests, or lay people even.

The fact that people lie about their sexuality is a different matter.

As far as I'm aware, ordinands aren't asked to "sign up" to anything. I certainly wasn't, and I was ordained the year after Issues (only ever intended as an interim document) was published.

The official CofE line is that practising homosexuals may not be ordained. In reality, we might say that "very few CofE bishops will publicly admit to having ordained practising homosexuals" (though, thank God, a brave few do).

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267

 - Posted      Profile for Spiffy   Author's homepage   Email Spiffy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Can anyone suggest why the Church in England is not capable of accepting women as priests [?]

Because they have girl cooties?

Yes, that's a serious answer. Because I can't see any reason otherwise.

There is, of course, the question posed to Canon Kearon by the Episcopal Church's Executive Council, an unofficial report of the entire meeting can be read at Katie Sherrod's blog.

But here's one of his responses that I found rather telling of the bifurcated mindset over there at Lambeth Palace.

quote:
Bishop Wendell Gibbs, Bishop of Michigan, asked the stumper, “The Church of England remains in full communion and ecumenical dialogue with the Old Catholic Church, which blesses same-sex unions, and the Church of Sweden, which has a partnered lesbian bishop and blesses same-sex marriages. Given this fact, how are we to reconcile the removal of Episcopal Church members from ecumenical bodies?

LONG silence ensued. He looked at Wendell like a calf looks at a new gate. He clearly didn't know where to go.

Canon Kearon hemmed and hawed and finally said that there are different types of full communion and that the sticking point is being able to represent the Communion vis a vis faith & order. Wendell stressed the point of who the Church of England is in communion with, but Canon Kearon had nothing more of substance to say.



--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account

Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This is simply one of these historical anomalies. The priesting of women would not have passed synod as easily without provision for dissenters, and it likely would not have been approved by the Commons without strong provisions. It was theoretically unworkable then, but was accepted by proponents as a way of getting their objective, sort of, and by dissenters as a way of keeping their objective, sort of. While ecclesiologically illogical, it did respect the principle of two integrities, which everyone said they liked at the time-- one would like to assume that they were honest.

If there had been a sell-by date, it would not have likely gone through. Proponents at the time did not insist on an expiry date or a fixed term, and this is the logical outcome.

At this point, the majority decides if they will honour obligations they would rather not have made/accepted, or if they won't. Either both sides will suffer, or one will, with the other triumphing. +++Rowan, as is often his lot these days, is trying to square the circle.

Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have no dog in this race, not being in the Anglican Communion any more, but I think it's unfair to accuse Rowan of trying to square the circle, as if that were some failing in himself. The fact is, there is a circle to be squared, and that is not a situation of his making.

You've got people very strongly on both sides of the women's ordination issue, and there does seem to be the danger of the Communion splitting asunder, so strongly does each side feel about its position. He would be seriously in remiss if he didn't try to square this circle. It seems the only two choices (I admit I'm no expert here) are (a) square the circle, or (b) watch the AC fall apart. I would expect any red-blooded ABC to try the first before giving in to the second.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
originally posted by fletcher_christian:
What you said was so dismissive and ridiculous thats its hard even to know where to start. 'There are no, no-go areas for women' Yeeees, that's why we are in a discussion about women and the episcopate, that's why it went to synod, thats why despite it being passed there, some feel the need to continue to declare them invalid. I bet the same people who hold such views would agree with you and welcome them with open arms to their parish and altar....or maybe not.

Have you actually listened to the experience of women in ministry in the C of E? Most of it isn't pretty. Yes, there are many who are happy in their ministry in supportive parishes. There are also vindictive laity and clergy who make their lives a misery and who intentionally attempt to dismantle their ministry for the sake of their 'cause'. Take the time to listen to them and you might hear something rather different from the nonsense you pedal here. The generous and gracious decision of which you speak is that the C of E will continue to accommodate those who see women's ministry as utterly invalid. Very affirming that! Boosts confidence no end knowing you have the support of other clergy!

Based on a majority vote at synod you want to throw all those people both lay and clerical who don't support the ordination of women out of the Church of England? I don't think that is a good idea. If you don't want to throw them out, you have to find a way to accommodate them.

It makes sense to only allow women priests and women bishops in places where they will be accepted. How many women priests do you think want to go to a church where the majority in the parish and the bishop don't believe they are validly ordained? The one I'm married to surely doesn't. It is better if diocese are allowed to be honest. Those are the better than the ones claiming to accept ordained women but don't.

--------------------
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
churchgeek

Have candles, will pray
# 5557

 - Posted      Profile for churchgeek   Author's homepage   Email churchgeek   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Bishop Wendell Gibbs, Bishop of Michigan

That's my bishop! [Big Grin]

--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.

My article on the Virgin of Vladimir

Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
fletcher christian

Mutinous Seadog
# 13919

 - Posted      Profile for fletcher christian   Email fletcher christian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:

Based on a majority vote at synod you want to throw all those people both lay and clerical who don't support the ordination of women out of the Church of England?

Where did you read that?

--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan

Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This sure looks like a DH to me. Down you go...

--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host

--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools