|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Headship bishops
|
Chas of the Dicker
Apprentice
# 12769
|
Posted
there was much mention in todays debate on the woemn Bishop's measure of Conservative Evengelical 'Headship' anglicans having a Bishop or Bishops to represent their constituency. surely Bishops of whatever gender or personal theology are there to be the prime pastors of all Christians within their anglican Diocese. I would be happy javascript:void(0)with any sort of Bishop who was a) competent b) able to work with and respect people who disagreed with her or him. it's probably too much to put c) constantly in touch with the Parishes and clergy, even for those who would like to be!
--------------------
Chas of Blacklands
If you know exactly what you are going to do, why do it? (Picasso)
Posts: 35 | From: Hastings, East Sussex, UK | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
I am a maverick.
My Church has had the equivalent of women Bishops for years and I am quite happy with that.
But I seriously doubt the motivation behind the C of E move.
To me all that matters is ordination into the ministry of the Church. There is no greater privilege than to serve as a minister/priest.
There is no "career structure" in my Church to which one might aspire. Some are 'elevated' to higher positions but that is by the way.
An Anglican woman priest said on radio today that now women can happily join the ministry since there are no obstacles left. God help us. To join the ministry in the hope/expectation of becoming a Bishop is to make a travesty of our 'calling'.
Ministry is not a career. It is not just another 'job'.
Anglicans don't seem to get this. For them it is all about 'career structure' and possible 'preferment'. Or so it is for some.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
How is this 'headship bishop' thing supposed to work? Even leaving aside the question of whether the CofE would feel the need to make a similar concession were there a similarly small but noisy and rich minority who beleieved, as some Christians have done, in the Biblically-ordained inferiority of black people ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif) , is this going to be yet anoither flying Bishop, or will it be a sop to appease that constituency- a suffragan in, say, Chichester or Southwell (to name two at random) who will not actually be able to offer any pastoral oversight for the great majority of those who share his eccentric views?
And then there's the obvious, final question: when is the great majority of the CofE going to have the balls to tell these headship neanderthals to shut up and fit in or fuck off- and if they do the latter and take their money with them, so be it?
[ 14. July 2014, 17:32: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
What happens when there is a female ABC ?
--------------------
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
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
It is a nonsense to equate the justice of women bishops with the demand for more bishops "of our ilk".
Once you start demanding "quotas" for CE bishops or whatever else, you reach the point of madness. The question should be "is this person able to be a bishop for the whole of the diocese, rather than simply for his/her own constituency? The reason that there aren't many CE bishops in the C of E is not because they have been deliberately excluded (as women have been until today), but that very few people have shown any ability to understand how to work across different church traditions.
In fact, I would go as far as to say that those people who HAVE become CE bishops have frequently proved exactly why CE's don't usually make good bishops. The likes of Wallace Benn have not been good bishops. Of course, the whole absurdity in all of this is that the vast majority of CEs don't even pay attention to bishops anyway. So it's not that they are being excluded from something that they are really interested in. It is all about status and power - "we ought to have our own bishop.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
The demand for con-evo bishops is, of course, an ecclesiological dog's breakfast, driven by realpolitik. Conservative evangelicals don't even believe in the episcopacy. It's all about power.
Instead of indulging the demand, a far better response by the Church of England would've been to call their bluff about discrimination in the appointment process, and introduce elections for bishops.
If it had done that, of course, there'd have been no more jobs for the boys (and now, the right sort of girls). Faced with the end of their clubhouse, a con-evo bishop was a small price to pay.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
What happens when there is a female ABC ?
I think the C of E will have broken up before then. The few liberal protestants who remain in the (tiny) established church will all be delighted.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
There's been a female Presiding Bishop in the US for a number of years, and, while there has been some of the usual misogynistic ranting in the fringes, I don't think there has been any increase in the "splittist" groups.
Similarly, we've had women as bishops in Canada for quite a while, and there hasn't been an increase in the decline-rate of the church (although there hasn't been a decrease either, FWIW)
All you've done with your little snark is to confirm your personal position in the "snark" area, way over there.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
What happens when there is a female ABC ?
I think the C of E will have broken up before then. The few liberal protestants who remain in the (tiny) established church will all be delighted.
Hmm. What makes me think that the predicted breakup of the CofE, were it to occur, which it won't, will make certain other people delighted?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Indeed. Wishful thinking, often from people who've swum the Tiber/ Bosphorus/ Volga.
[ 14. July 2014, 21:29: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Hmm. What makes me think that the predicted breakup of the CofE, were it to occur, which it won't, will make certain other people delighted?
I'm not delighted Karl, not at all - the C of E was the Church of my baptism. I probably didn't make it clear that I don't believe the C of E will break up soley because of women Bishops. There are many issues creating disunity within Anglicanism and ecumenically.
I could be wrong about the C of E breaking up. If a huge number of people leave and either join other denominations or quit church altogether, is that a break up? The so-called Anglican Communion has already broken up, to all intents and purposes. I don't have a crystal ball and I can't read the future, but things are not looking very rosey in the C of E garden these days.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Ministry is not a career. It is not just another 'job'.
Anglicans don't seem to get this. For them it is all about 'career structure' and possible 'preferment'. Or so it is for some.
Wholeheartedly agreed, except for the idea that "Anglicans" in general don't get this. Some do, some don't. But honestly we've had that problem in the Church (not just Anglican) for a very very long time now. Hundreds of years ago there were terrible attitudes among many clergy which treated it all as a career path for second sons of nobility and so on, lots of worldly power, etc., but we still endured, and I am sure God called people despite the corruption. So, too, with this. So I think it is a good move--if women can be priests then I think there's no obstacle to them becoming bishops (which we have in our own corner of the Anglican Communion here in the US).
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chas of the Dicker
Apprentice
# 12769
|
Posted
some of the best - and some of the most powefully eccentric -clergy (with appropriate historical perspective) were people ordained for all the wrong reasons who then discovered the divine compassion.
--------------------
Chas of Blacklands
If you know exactly what you are going to do, why do it? (Picasso)
Posts: 35 | From: Hastings, East Sussex, UK | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
I got the impression that the plan is that the headship bishop will be a flying bishop. There seems to be a belief that even in places like Chichester it's hard for a headship evangelical to be an ordinary suffragan without annoying non-evangelicals too much.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
I got the impression that the plan is that the headship bishop will be a flying bishop. There seems to be a belief that even in places like Chichester it's hard for a headship evangelical to be an ordinary suffragan without annoying non-evangelicals too much.
This is getting rediculous - Anglo-catholic flying bishops and evangelical flying bishops - both of whom could one day be under the authority of a female archbishop! Or have I missed something?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
Con Evos don't need a bishop provided for them in the same way as ACs - if a local church wants an overseer of some kind, they would have no problem locating/appointing one.
What they require is to avoid having to submit to a female leader - and so a creative way of rethinking how the oaths of obedience are taken would surely answer the need. If we can't be bothered with that, the Metropolitan could simply appoint a retired chap to be known as "Biblical Bishop at Lambeth" or something. He could be the figurehead they all swear at, so to speak.
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
I got the impression that the plan is that the headship bishop will be a flying bishop. There seems to be a belief that even in places like Chichester it's hard for a headship evangelical to be an ordinary suffragan without annoying non-evangelicals too much.
This is getting rediculous - Anglo-catholic flying bishops and evangelical flying bishops - both of whom could one day be under the authority of a female archbishop! Or have I missed something?
It's not quite as ridiculous as you think, but almost.
The claimed reason why the bishops think there should be a headship evangelical bishop is so that the college of bishops has among its number someone who can represent and express the conservative evangelical opinion, not so that people can have a bishop of the right flavour.
I'm sure that ConEvo parishes won't see it that way when they get an Anglo-Catholic flying bishop, and they'll keep the ombudsman nice and busy working out whether they can actually express a particular objection to women bishops that means they're guaranteed the ConEvo flying bishop.
And proponents of women bishops will be under the impression that the flying bishops are flying under the authority of the diocesan bishop of the parish they happen to be flying in at the time, so they could be under the authority of a woman bishop, even before there's a woman archbishop. Opponents of women bishops will try very hard to argue that this isn't the case.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
There won't be AC opponents for very long because there's nothing in the guidelines requiring the preservation of a distinctive male episcopal "pool" which perpetuates itself (as in a Third Province). There will be male priests & bishops for the trad parishes, yes - ordained by the female diocesan...
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
There won't be AC opponents for very long because there's nothing in the guidelines requiring the preservation of a distinctive male episcopal "pool" which perpetuates itself (as in a Third Province). There will be male priests & bishops for the trad parishes, yes - ordained by the female diocesan...
Exactly - in other words they've had it!
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
I'm afraid so
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
..only one place left for them now (or two if you include Eastern Orthodoxy):
Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham
As for evangelicals, it's anyone's guess where they will go, if anywhere.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
There won't be AC opponents for very long because there's nothing in the guidelines requiring the preservation of a distinctive male episcopal "pool" which perpetuates itself (as in a Third Province). There will be male priests & bishops for the trad parishes, yes - ordained by the female diocesan...
This relates to one of these details of the FiF position that I've never completely understood.
Imagine a man is consecrated by a bunch of bishops. Some are considered 'proper bishops' by FiF. Some aren't (either because they are women or because they are improperly ordained). There are at least 3 'proper bishops' present. Is that man a 'proper bishop'.
If he is a proper bishop, there's little chance of them running out of 'proper bishops'. If not, I want to understand why; I understood that the reason why there are multiple bishops present is in case one of them is improperly ordained, so why is it not appropriate to just ignore the 'non-proper bishops' and see if what's left is a proper ordination.
[ 15. July 2014, 14:53: Message edited by: *Leon* ]
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by *Leon*:
quote:
And proponents of women bishops will be under the impression that the flying bishops are flying under the authority of the diocesan bishop of the parish they happen to be flying in at the time, so they could be under the authority of a woman bishop, even before there's a woman archbishop. Opponents of women bishops will try very hard to argue that this isn't the case.
I have to say that if the objection is to women being in authority over men, then the pass has well and truly been sold. When I was a Curate I was, at one point, under the authority of female churchwardens; a male incumbent can fall under the authority of a female archdeacon and, since 1558, the C of E has, intermittently, been under the authority of a female Supreme Governor. If you can accept that little lot, I'm not sure what the objection to the canonical authority of a female Diocesan or Suffragan Bishop is. And it is fairly difficult, from a really snake belly low conservative evangelical POV to set forth a principled objection to a woman Bishop performing the sacramental functions of a Bishop.
Which might make the whole thing look a bit suspect to an unsympathetic observer.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
All this nonsense will fizzle out once they discover that the sky doesn't fall in when they have women bishops, archbishops and ABCs.
One day they will look back and laugh at themselves.
[ 15. July 2014, 15:13: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
We'll laugh & laugh.
Leon - a good point, though the number of bishops is to ensure the consecration is regular & not illicit. One bishop can validly ordain another, though there's rarely the need.
It's a question for liturgical theology as to whether it is only the bishop presiding who is ordaining & the others laying on hands to welcome into the order, as is the case with presbyters, but that's not so important.
The main matter concerns intention. If an ordaining bishop is deliberately introducing elements into the rite which are at odds with what the Church does, then is he intending to ordain a bishop of the universal Church or simply commissioning a minister of this particular denomination?
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
The main matter concerns intention. If an ordaining bishop is deliberately introducing elements into the rite which are at odds with what the Church does, then is he intending to ordain a bishop of the universal Church or simply commissioning a minister of this particular denomination?
Well, the situation for some time has been that evangelicals think they're simply commissioning a minister of a particular denomination and anglo catholics think they're ordaining a bishop of the universal church, therefore nothing will change.
(And, as an aside, supporters of women bishops would not consider that they are introducing an element into the rite, but at most removing an element from the selection process. Therefore it's hard to argue their intention would be affected by having made a deliberate introduction.)
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
To clarify - if the ordaining bishop at a consecration permits a person not considered to be a bishop by the wider Church to act in a way that only a bishop can (laying on hands, eg), then it might call the intention of the rite itself into question.
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
To clarify - if the ordaining bishop at a consecration permits a person not considered to be a bishop by the wider Church to act in a way that only a bishop can (laying on hands, eg), then it might call the intention of the rite itself into question.
By 'the wider church' you presumably include the Roman Catholic church. Since the ordaining bishop at any Anglican ordination presumably knows that the RC church considers his orders to be utterly null and void, then I don't see what would change with women bishops.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Whatever the rights and wrongs of yesterday's vote,the problem that won't go away is the very small number of suitable candidates of either (any?) sex for bishoprics.
By voting to allow women bishops they've increased the available pool by c18% - Big deal.
In the meantime, we still carry on with the charade of all the suffragans who, frankly, are surplus to requirements and an unaffordable luxury.
As for making sure there is on the bench of bishops someone acceptable to the con-evo lunatic fringe (we all know they think women should be kept in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant) this must be resisted at all costs. In any case, since so many con-evos view the traditional hierarchy of the CofE as being optional when it comes to matters of doctrinal or liturgical discipline, why waste time and effort seeking to keep them in - we should be driving them out.
If they want their own little church where women "know their place" and there is complementarity, there is already a worldwide organisation they can join - its called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
...As for making sure there is on the bench of bishops someone acceptable to the con-evo lunatic fringe (we all know they think women should be kept in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant) this must be resisted at all costs. In any case, since so many con-evos view the traditional hierarchy of the CofE as being optional when it comes to matters of doctrinal or liturgical discipline, why waste time and effort seeking to keep them in - we should be driving them out.
If they want their own little church where women "know their place" and there is complementarity, there is already a worldwide organisation they can join - its called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
That's very sad - evangelicals can leave, they don't matter. Anglo-catholics can leave as well and join the Ordinariate - you don't care much about them either.
Who's left? Just a tiny bunch of liberal-protestants who pride themselves in being sure they always know best.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
That's very sad - evangelicals can leave, they don't matter. Anglo-catholics can leave as well and join the Ordinariate - you don't care much about them either.
Who's left? Just a tiny bunch of liberal-protestants who pride themselves in being sure they always know best.
I think I understand where L'organist is coming from.
Why should the majority bend over backwards for people who give every appearance of not giving a damn? In theory, I'm all for compromise and working together and keeping the C of E as a broad church. I've been committed to that throughout the past 20 years. But there comes a time when, to be perfectly honest, you start to wonder why the hell you bothered. If people are so determined to keep themselves to themselves, then let them go.
For a long time, I refused to see Conservative Evangelicals as the C of E equivalent of the Militant Tendency - extremist infiltrators undermining the organisation from the inside. But now I am not so sure. I see the damage done to deaneries, dioceses and the C of E as a whole by a small group of intransigent hardliners. Was it really worth it?
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chas of the Dicker:
some of the best - and some of the most powefully eccentric -clergy (with appropriate historical perspective) were people ordained for all the wrong reasons who then discovered the divine compassion.
Indeed and amen. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
As usual, l'organist is spot on.
I'm sure this is a very unoriginal question, but does anyone know by what mental contortions this 'headship Bishop' will be able to reconcile his beliefs about women with taking the required Oath(s) to the Queen?
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
...As for making sure there is on the bench of bishops someone acceptable to the con-evo lunatic fringe (we all know they think women should be kept in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant) this must be resisted at all costs. In any case, since so many con-evos view the traditional hierarchy of the CofE as being optional when it comes to matters of doctrinal or liturgical discipline, why waste time and effort seeking to keep them in - we should be driving them out.
If they want their own little church where women "know their place" and there is complementarity, there is already a worldwide organisation they can join - its called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
That's very sad - evangelicals can leave, they don't matter. Anglo-catholics can leave as well and join the Ordinariate - you don't care much about them either.
Who's left? Just a tiny bunch of liberal-protestants who pride themselves in being sure they always know best.
Hardly a tiny minority if they've just cleared the 2/3 of each of the houses of synod. If the rest of us are tiny what does that make the less than a third (despite being over-represented in the House of Laity) that cordially hate each others guts when not engaged in alliances of conveniences against the liberals.
I really shouldn't rise to this sort of rubbish but can I point out that the negotiating strategy of the "Girls Have Cooties" brigade in the C of E, both hot-prot and pseudo-Papist, has been to roundly denounce the rest of us as Apostate whilst noisily demanding the moon on a stick. Hows that working out for y'all?
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
...As for making sure there is on the bench of bishops someone acceptable to the con-evo lunatic fringe (we all know they think women should be kept in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant) this must be resisted at all costs. In any case, since so many con-evos view the traditional hierarchy of the CofE as being optional when it comes to matters of doctrinal or liturgical discipline, why waste time and effort seeking to keep them in - we should be driving them out.
If they want their own little church where women "know their place" and there is complementarity, there is already a worldwide organisation they can join - its called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
That's very sad - evangelicals can leave, they don't matter. Anglo-catholics can leave as well and join the Ordinariate - you don't care much about them either.
Who's left? Just a tiny bunch of liberal-protestants who pride themselves in being sure they always know best.
There are Anglo-Catholics who are welcoming of women being ordained, thank you very much.
Why are the more strident Evangelicals even in the CoE when they believe in very little that is distinctly Anglican? It seems to be for power and control, and having more resources than if they were Baptists or Independent.
--------------------
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
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
There are Anglo-Catholics who are welcoming of women being ordained, thank you very much.
I would even go so far as to say that they are a majority of Anglo-Catholics. I think most people would consider Rowan Williams to be Anglo-Catholic, for example.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
There are Anglo-Catholics who are welcoming of women being ordained, thank you very much.
I'm certainly one of them, as mentioned on another DH thread today.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
...Hardly a tiny minority if they've just cleared the 2/3 of each of the houses of synod. If the rest of us are tiny what does that make the less than a third (despite being over-represented in the House of Laity) that cordially hate each others guts when not engaged in alliances of conveniences against the liberals.
I really shouldn't rise to this sort of rubbish but can I point out that the negotiating strategy of the "Girls Have Cooties" brigade in the C of E, both hot-prot and pseudo-Papist, has been to roundly denounce the rest of us as Apostate whilst noisily demanding the moon on a stick. Hows that working out for y'all?
It just seems strange. Let's face it - your pews are empty on Sunday mornings. Most people have found other things to do, work or go shopping at Tesco - and you want to get rid of people?
Well, good luck with that - it's your funeral.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
StevHep
Shipmate
# 17198
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
There are Anglo-Catholics who are welcoming of women being ordained, thank you very much.
I'm certainly one of them, as mentioned on another DH thread today.
I struggle to understand in what sense you mean Catholic. In my most recent blog I make the point that it is just not possible to argue convincingly that at any point in the history of the Church would an Ecumenical Council have voted in favour of women's ordination. Which means that it was not a doctrine present implicitly or explicitly in the Apostolic deposit of faith nor a feature of the pre-schism undivided Church. It is, therefore an innovation which by definition makes it incompatible with Catholicism defined in any historic way.
--------------------
My Blog Catholic Scot
http://catholicscot.blogspot.co.uk/
@stevhep on Twitter
Posts: 241 | From: Exeter | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
I struggle to understand in what sense you mean Catholic. In my most recent blog I make the point that it is just not possible to argue convincingly that at any point in the history of the Church would an Ecumenical Council have voted in favour of women's ordination. Which means that it was not a doctrine present implicitly or explicitly in the Apostolic deposit of faith nor a feature of the pre-schism undivided Church. It is, therefore an innovation which by definition makes it incompatible with Catholicism defined in any historic way.
Anglo-Catholicism in the C of E has always been a sort of "Cafeteria catholicism" - that is, they pick the bits they like, and move their tray past the things they don't want on the way to the checkout. That's why John Henry Newman eventually gave up on it and converted to Roman Catholicism.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
There are Anglo-Catholics who are welcoming of women being ordained, thank you very much.
Why are the more strident Evangelicals even in the CoE when they believe in very little that is distinctly Anglican? It seems to be for power and control, and having more resources than if they were Baptists or Independent.
Well it's worth pointing out that there are Evangelicals who are welcoming of women being ordained as well. The so-called strident Evangelicals are a tiny minority from what I can see. Holy Trinity Brompton and its network of churches supports OOW and women bishops, and they are certainly the most influential evangelical bloc within the CofE - including former parishioner Archbishop Welby.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
I struggle to understand in what sense you mean Catholic. In my most recent blog I make the point that it is just not possible to argue convincingly that at any point in the history of the Church would an Ecumenical Council have voted in favour of women's ordination. Which means that it was not a doctrine present implicitly or explicitly in the Apostolic deposit of faith nor a feature of the pre-schism undivided Church. It is, therefore an innovation which by definition makes it incompatible with Catholicism defined in any historic way.
Anglo-Catholicism in the C of E has always been a sort of "Cafeteria catholicism" - that is, they pick the bits they like, and move their tray past the things they don't want on the way to the checkout. That's why John Henry Newman eventually gave up on it and converted to Roman Catholicism.
You mean he passed his tray past the "CofE" hatches and decided what he liked was the RC offering so picked that?
Picking and Choosing - everyone does this.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, delicious irony there. Newman didn't like what was on offer, so found something else on offer.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, delicious irony there. Newman didn't like what was on offer, so found something else on offer.
Complete rubbish, but I thought the topic was about Evangelical headship bishops?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, delicious irony there. Newman didn't like what was on offer, so found something else on offer.
Complete rubbish, but I thought the topic was about Evangelical headship bishops?
Well, exactly, but somebody started going on about cafeterias, so I thought I'd chip in.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Persephone Hazard
Ship's Wench
# 4648
|
Posted
I'm intrigued by the idea that the main objections to all this are coming from the anglo-catholics, but that's because in my experience the ACs and other Anglican high church types are actually the most liberal branch of the CoE at the moment. That's certainly true in London. But then in practice I don't think I know a single Christian of any sort in real life any more who is against the ordination of women - you just don't come across it like you used to. There's one single solitary FiF church near here and all the other local churches just sort of pretend they don't exist and get on with things around them. "No, we don't talk to those guys. All a bit of an embarrassment really."
This is a totally stupid question, probably, but - is it now technically possible for a woman to become an Archbishop, or would something further have to change before that could happen?
[ 16. July 2014, 13:13: Message edited by: Persephone Hazard ]
--------------------
A picture is worth a thousand words, but it's a lot easier to make up a thousand words than one decent picture. - ken.
Posts: 1645 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
An Archbishop is just a terribly grand Bishop. If you can have a lady Bishop you can have a lady Archbishop. In practice, you usually have to have been at least a Diocesan Bishop before being appointed as Archbishop so it will take time for female bishops to percolate through the system.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, delicious irony there. Newman didn't like what was on offer, so found something else on offer.
Complete rubbish, but I thought the topic was about Evangelical headship bishops?
Well, exactly, but somebody started going on about cafeterias, so I thought I'd chip in.
Was that a pun? Well OK, I'll just have beans on toast and a cuppa (no sugar I use my own sweetners) - ta.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
An Archbishop is just a terribly grand Bishop. If you can have a lady Bishop you can have a lady Archbishop. In practice, you usually have to have been at least a Diocesan Bishop before being appointed as Archbishop so it will take time for female bishops to percolate through the system.
I'm not so sure these days - look at the speed Justin Welby and Katharine Jefferts Schori were fast-tracked into their current positions.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
