|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Headship bishops
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
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.
KJS was Bishop of Nevada before becoming Presiding Bishop. Welby was Bishop of Durham before becoming ABC, albeit only for a year and a half.
The more recent (non-Anglican) exception was Cardinal Hume who went from being Abbot of Ampleforth to Archbishop of Westminster. Even his pace up the greasy pole was comparatively sedate compared to St. Ambrose who, IIRC, was Christened, Deaconed, Priested and Bishoped on his election to the See of Milan. I can't see that happening nowadays, though!
--------------------
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
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
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're confusing "bits they like" with, "everything except the bits they cannot accept in good conscience".
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
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're confusing "bits they like" with, "everything except the bits they cannot accept in good conscience".
IIRC from his Apologia, was Newman's move not predicated on a study of theological controversies of the patristic period? IIRC the logic he derived from that, and his belief that the CoE was an uncontrovertably Protestant and erastian entity was what moved him to Rome. What Mark describes as his motives applies more frequently to 20c converts.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
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.
Oh totally - the conservative evangelicals are just the loudest, though unfortunately often the richest too.
--------------------
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
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Persephone Hazard:
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?
I don't think the main objections are coming from the FiF end, I think they're coming from the conservative evangelical end. After all, FiF object to women's ordination but not for headship reasons, and don't generally insist on male headship elsewhere, as RCs wouldn't. Conservative evangelicals believe that women should only teach other women and children, which is not what FiF/RCs believe.
As to how mainstream the opponents are, I think it varies by location. In Northampton, most Anglican churches are FiF, and one of the two evangelical churches are con-evo. In East Sussex (not Brighton&Hove), conservative evangelicals are in the majority. Obviously in London, the picture is a lot more mixed than elsewhere.
--------------------
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
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
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.
KJS was Bishop of Nevada before becoming Presiding Bishop. Welby was Bishop of Durham before becoming ABC, albeit only for a year and a half.
The more recent (non-Anglican) exception was Cardinal Hume who went from being Abbot of Ampleforth to Archbishop of Westminster. Even his pace up the greasy pole was comparatively sedate compared to St. Ambrose who, IIRC, was Christened, Deaconed, Priested and Bishoped on his election to the See of Milan. I can't see that happening nowadays, though!
No, but if you look at the last three appointments to Canterbury they seem to have been based on the view that the someone with limited experience of bishoping (in the CofE: ++ Rowan had after all been a Bishop for ten years and the rough equivalent of an Archbishop) might be just the fresh breeze that the Church needs. And the CofE is thinking about how to fast-track some women bishops into the House of Lords. I think that the main reason that the next ABC isn't going to be e.g. Vivienne Faull is that ++Justin is only 58, rather than anything else.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
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.
The vast (vst) majority of Con Evos in other denominations (except perhaps new Frontiers) are totally in favour of women bishops. Baptists even have a female Gen Sec - our sort of equiv to the ABC. http://www.baptist.org.uk/Articles/369425/Introducing_Lynn_Green.aspx
Why, some of us have even been ordaining women since the 1920's! Does that put us even further down the slippery slope to hell?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
As for evangelicals, it's anyone's guess where they will go, if anywhere.
Well there's always a warm welcome in the Baptist Union - and we recognise their orders with no extras too
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Heavenly Anarchist
Shipmate
# 13313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
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.
The vast (vst) majority of Con Evos in other denominations (except perhaps new Frontiers) are totally in favour of women bishops. Baptists even have a female Gen Sec - our sort of equiv to the ABC. http://www.baptist.org.uk/Articles/369425/Introducing_Lynn_Green.aspx
Why, some of us have even been ordaining women since the 1920's! Does that put us even further down the slippery slope to hell?
Many in NFI churches, including myself, are in favour of female leadership too, despite the official position of our leadership. We have women preach in my church.
--------------------
'I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.' Douglas Adams
Dog Activity Monitor
My shop
Posts: 2831 | From: Trumpington | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
I struggle to understand in what sense you mean Catholic.
Sacramentally, liturgically, with Apostolic Succession (which I know the Roman Catholics do not accept that we have) and such.
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
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.
There's no need to be snarky or accusatory over doctrinal differences.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Why, some of us have even been ordaining women since the 1920's! Does that put us even further down the slippery slope to hell?
Wow, Baptists in the UK are different from the ones in the US, too! At least in the Southern Baptist Convention.
Plus the whole thing about submissive wives.
Very different - and at least we can read what Ephesians 5 really says about submission (ie it's to one another).
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Heavenly Anarchist:
[QUOTE] Many in NFI churches, including myself, are in favour of female leadership too, despite the official position of our leadership. We have women preach in my church.
Thanks HA - I did say "some!" I assume also that you mean it's to a mixed group.
The local NFI leadership wouldn't allow that despite being a relatively late set up: the only exception would be to a women only congregation.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
StevHep
Shipmate
# 17198
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
I struggle to understand in what sense you mean Catholic.
Sacramentally, liturgically, with Apostolic Succession (which I know the Roman Catholics do not accept that we have) and such.
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
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.
There's no need to be snarky or accusatory over doctrinal differences.
But surely the only warrant that you have for believing the Sacraments and the Liturgies have any value at all is because the Catholic Church said that they do. If the Church was rightly guided by the Holy Spirit in those matters what is your basis for judging that she is no longer so guided and/or was never so guided in those matters which you disagree with her about?
--------------------
My Blog Catholic Scot
http://catholicscot.blogspot.co.uk/
@stevhep on Twitter
Posts: 241 | From: Exeter | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
But surely the only warrant that you have for believing the Sacraments and the Liturgies have any value at all is because the Catholic Church said that they do. If the Church was rightly guided by the Holy Spirit in those matters what is your basis for judging that she is no longer so guided and/or was never so guided in those matters which you disagree with her about?
Let's reverse the question. Why, just because the Catholic Church is right about one thing, must it be right about everything, including things that look very much like they come from the spirit of a previous age and seem to be based neither on the teaching of the apostles nor on scripture? The Holy Spirit guides the church, most certainly, and the way to receive that guidance is generally prayer and contemplation. The RCC long since decided that it would trust that all such guidance has already been received and had been received correctly. I would say that there are issues where the RCC sadly passed off their cultural assumptions as universal truths without seeking that guidance, and that going back to those issues now may lead to a different understanding. The centralising tendency of the Papacy made that more likely.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
StevHep
Shipmate
# 17198
|
Posted
The point is that either we accept that the Church founded by the Apostles is guided by the Spirit on all matters essential for salvation and that therefore she teaches with authority or we say the only sure guide we have in these matters is our own private judgement. No halfway house can have either the authority to teach or the authority to negate what has already been taught in a definitive way.
--------------------
My Blog Catholic Scot
http://catholicscot.blogspot.co.uk/
@stevhep on Twitter
Posts: 241 | From: Exeter | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
The point is that either we accept that the Church founded by the Apostles is guided by the Spirit on all matters essential for salvation and that therefore she teaches with authority or we say the only sure guide we have in these matters is our own private judgement. No halfway house can have either the authority to teach or the authority to negate what has already been taught in a definitive way.
I would accept that the church is guided in all matters necessary for salvation. I suspect that the disagreement lies is the extent to which the RCC's definition of what is essential can be relied upon. Besides, we're not talking about private judgement, we're talking about private judgement far more when we talk about the Papacy than when we talk about the General Synod of the Church of England, and still more so when we're talking about the genuinely Ecumenical Councils - which Anglo-Catholics certainly do accept.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
StevHep
Shipmate
# 17198
|
Posted
A Provincial Synod does not have the authority to change the doctrines of a universal Church. If no Ecumenical Council has ever or will ever endorse a particular doctrine then we can safely conclude that that doctrine does not form a part of the Apostolic faith. Anglicans are welcome to make up whatever doctrines they like but they can only do so on the basis that they are a Protestant sect and cannot claim in any meaningful sense to be a continuation of that body established by St Augustine of Canterbury. Anglo-Catholics who think that the authority of synod overrides that of of the Apostles are simply Protestants who like incense and frilly vestments
--------------------
My Blog Catholic Scot
http://catholicscot.blogspot.co.uk/
@stevhep on Twitter
Posts: 241 | From: Exeter | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
The point is that either we accept that the Church founded by the Apostles is guided by the Spirit on all matters essential for salvation and that therefore she teaches with authority or we say the only sure guide we have in these matters is our own private judgement. No halfway house can have either the authority to teach or the authority to negate what has already been taught in a definitive way.
I would accept that the church is guided in all matters necessary for salvation.
Except its various branches can't quite agree on that. I'm told by some extreme calvinists that unless I believe in calvinism I show no evidence of saving faith, for example.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
A Provincial Synod does not have the authority to change the doctrines of a universal Church. If no Ecumenical Council has ever or will ever endorse a particular doctrine then we can safely conclude that that doctrine does not form a part of the Apostolic faith. Anglicans are welcome to make up whatever doctrines they like but they can only do so on the basis that they are a Protestant sect and cannot claim in any meaningful sense to be a continuation of that body established by St Augustine of Canterbury. Anglo-Catholics who think that the authority of synod overrides that of of the Apostles are simply Protestants who like incense and frilly vestments
Given that no ecumenical council has met since the 700s or is ever likely to again, the RCC is likewise constrained from pronouncing new doctrine. It doesn't seem to have obeyed this restriction, indeed it seems to have doubled-down on its prior assertions of authority. It is amazing how tightly you manage to define Catholicism. It's almost as if you start from the presumption that no-one outside the RCC can be Catholic and work backwards and identify points of disagreement as being fundamental to the faith.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Only one con-evo church in my area, to my knowledge, where the vicar doesn't accept women priests. He, allegedly, said he'd leave if women bishops are ever appointed. I shall watch with interest to see what happens, as I don't think the congregation as a whole share the more extreme of his views.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
But surely the only warrant that you have for believing the Sacraments and the Liturgies have any value at all is because the Catholic Church said that they do. If the Church was rightly guided by the Holy Spirit in those matters what is your basis for judging that she is no longer so guided and/or was never so guided in those matters which you disagree with her about?
As an EO, we do believe that the Roman Catholic Church did err in the things leading to the Great Scism - such as Papal Supremacy and the Filioque Clause. I know few will agree with me, but I would say that we are now the true guardians of Catholicity (hence the name Orthodox). That is why we have changed little since the 11th century, whereas the Roman Catholics have changed a great deal, especially since Vatican II.
Anyhow, this departure from the Catholic Faith in the Roman Catholic Church led to other problems which culminated in the Reformation - from which the Anglican Church arose, and many other Protestant denominations. Since those days, it seems the western Church cannot agree on anything and is destined to just keep on fragmenting. That is why I can no longer have confidence that the C of E, Roman Catholic or any western denomination, is always guided by the Holy Spirit.
--------------------
"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
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
I think one could (should?) argue that the orthodox have more right to regard themselves as the 'true' church than the Roman church, purely on the grounds of having carried on the link between Roman emperor and church.
On the other hand, the claims of the Syriac orthodox seem even better.
As for a 'headship' bishop being a new requirement: I'll reiterate that since the people who argue for complementarity and headship tend not to see the need for bishops, we don't have to worry to much about finding one they'd approve of.
--------------------
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:
I think one could (should?) argue that the orthodox have more right to regard themselves as the 'true' church than the Roman church, purely on the grounds of having carried on the link between Roman emperor and church.
On the other hand, the claims of the Syriac orthodox seem even better.
As for a 'headship' bishop being a new requirement: I'll reiterate that since the people who argue for complementarity and headship tend not to see the need for bishops, we don't have to worry to much about finding one they'd approve of.
One thing we should note is that while we've been going on about the "true" visible Church and Church history, these things mean nothing to CEs. Their only criteria for a Bishop is that he is "Bible based." That means in reality that he (it will always be a "he") understands the Bible in accordance with Evangelical interpretations. It would need a whole new thread if we are to discuss whether Evangelical interpretations are the "true" interpretations, but I think you already know where I stand on that. Please also note that these new Evangelical interpretations have come about since the first and second (more radical) waves of Reformers.
The "true" Church for them isn't a visible Church at all - it is the body of christians who interpret the Bible as I've explained above (please don't make me say "Bible based" again.)
--------------------
"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
|
|
leftfieldlover
Shipmate
# 13467
|
Posted
[[/QUOTE]There are Anglo-Catholics who are welcoming of women being ordained, thank you very much.
Too true. I used to work in a certain Oxford theological college which always had a handful of women students [who wished to be priests] as well as a substantial number of sympathetic men,
--------------------
I can gauge your mood from your approach to food.
Posts: 164 | From: oxford | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Makes sense. If Anglo-Catholics are willing to be ordained into a church whose orders Rome explicitly rejects, gender shouldn't matter. Male or female, according to the magisterium, all are laity.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chas of the Dicker
Apprentice
# 12769
|
Posted
My original concern in starting this thread was not really about women's ordination per se but whether someone holding to clear views about the Headship of the Male could effectively operate as a Bishop in our mixed economy denomination. This would not o0nly be because of a clash of values with women holding authority in the Diocese but also having to acknowledge as valid faith those who hold different views. It must be hard to pastor someone you don't regard as authentically Christian when they themselves are dure that they are. Bishop Martin of Chichester has gone a long way to separate his clear personal view of the impossibility of women's ordination with his episcopal and pastoral intervention in the Diocese to raise the profile of women's ministry, but his views are not the same as the Headship people who want a Bishop for themselves...
--------------------
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
|
|
Printer-friendly view
