Church of England backs women bishops

[Indifferently]

The problem is unbelief. The problem is that we have unbeliever bishops and unbeliever clergy and unbeliever laity in our church. The beginning of obedience is faith. Without faith, man can do nothing to please God. The only thing we can do is preach Christ. If these men come to know the Lord they will hunger and thirst after righteousness, wishing to know God’s will and obey his Word.

Our problem is unbelief, and if unbelief is universal in the church hierarchy, apostasy will naturally follow.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

I’m not at all.

Genesis 1.27:

וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ, בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ: זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה, בָּרָא אֹתָם.

And God created the human in His image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

*Adam *is grammatically masculine but means ‘human’ in an inclusive sense; the exclusive word would be ish, which has the feminine equivalent ishah. The distinction between *adam *and ish is roughly equivalent to that between anthropos and aner in Greek. The former can legitimately be translated inclusively, the latter cannot.

Do you mind telling us where you got that Hebrew from?

I’m no expert, but to me it looks like modern Hebrew.

Traditional Hebrew would not have used vowels.

 

[aicirt]

Wait a sec, by jove!
From what you say here, then…it is Eve who is the first priest!

She is the one who “sinned” and ate the fruit and caused this fall you speak of.
She is the one who made the mistake and listened to the snake. Adam didn’t have any interaction with the snake.
The only reason Adam ate it was because Eve gave it to him and he was following her lead!

.

Adam was responsible because it was to Adam that God entrusted the earth. Adam should have known better and stood firm. He didn’t. He submitted to the whims of Eve. Not too different than the subject of this thread: COE should be paying attention to what God wants and not to what some women want. God is in charge. His Eden, His rules.

 

[Novocastrian]

Do you mind telling us where you got that Hebrew from?

I’m no expert, but to me it looks like modern Hebrew.

Traditional Hebrew would not have used vowels.

It’s the Masoretic text, from an online version of the 1917 JPS Tanakh. The vowels show how it was pronounced in mediaeval Galilee, and are printed in most modern Jewish Bibles, and in critical editions such as the BHS.

mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm

 

[Novocastrian]

The problem is unbelief. The problem is that we have unbeliever bishops and unbeliever clergy and unbeliever laity in our church. The beginning of obedience is faith. Without faith, man can do nothing to please God. The only thing we can do is preach Christ. If these men come to know the Lord they will hunger and thirst after righteousness, wishing to know God’s will and obey his Word.

Our problem is unbelief, and if unbelief is universal in the church hierarchy, apostasy will naturally follow.

I’m not sure about universal, but it certainly has the upper hand. Anglicanism is increasingly looking like the mediaeval church; in desperate need of reform, which I hope may happen without further schism.

 

[Novocastrian]

I don’t mean to be rude, but I think you’re consistently ignoring my questions.

You implied that women were ‘incapable and unsuitable’ based on your question of what makes them incapable and unsuitable to offer a sacrifice to God.

It’s repeatedly been intimated that males sacrifice, and that females don’t. I’m asking why this is the case.

All I need to explain to anyone who truly wants to understand this is what the Church and the Magisterium , Pope , and early Church Fathers have taught on the ordination of women. One, it is not allowed, never was, never will be.

Even if that is the case, I’m asking why. One imagines that there ought to be a reason. And if there is a reason, that it should stand up to criticism.

Two, God was made flesh as a male, not female. The Lord Jesus Christ was married to his Church, the Catholic Church which is his bride(female) . In a similar way, a female priest cannot be married to the Church for that same reason. If you want to know more about why the Church is the bride of Christ, and how it all relates by Scripture, see the teaching in the Churches dogmatic Constitution: LUMEN GENTIUM None of the apostles were female. Why?

I accept that the Church is the bride of Christ. But I, a male, am married to Christ as part of the Church, yes? Why can’t it be that a woman, female, might be married to the Church as part of Christ?

I believe like homosexual marriage, there will be many more of these issues that will be at the forefront in the coming years. They will continue to challenge and test all Christian faiths, teachings and dogmas.

With sadness I agree that this is likely to be the case.

 

[GKC]

Actually if the Anglican is Anglo Catholic or High Church they would probably become Orthodox, Western Rite before Lutheran.

If Evangelical minded then maybe Lutheran. Of course there are many Continuing Anglican churches that one may choose from today. Which of course is just adding more denominations to the already long list. Most Anglicans don’t agree with one another, so it will be the individual who chooses the church that fits his/her beliefs, (very protestant).

Actually except on CAF and some websites, most Anglicans don’t claim to be catholic, this is new, just as it is in some Lutheran churches. Also even if any thought they were Catholic at one time women priests and bishops have ended that belief forever. Of course, some just won’t give it up. Just as GKC states they are a motely crew.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

Sadly, they are that.

But for Anglicans to refer to themselves as Catholic is not all that new. Vernon Staley wrote that old Anglican classic THE CATHOLIC RELIGION, back 3 years before Apostolicae curae, the Catholic League was formed before WWI. Off the top of my head.

But, motley. Yep.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I’m not sure about universal, but it certainly has the upper hand. Anglicanism is increasingly looking like the mediaeval church; in desperate need of reform, which I hope may happen without further schism.

I would favor that. But what would constitute reform is the first stumbling block.

GKC

 

[GKC]

In

You implied that women were ‘incapable and unsuitable’ based on your question of what makes them incapable and unsuitable to offer a sacrifice to God. If it’s not equality that you’re questioning, then certainly you’re ignoring distinction . You then beg the question by assuming the Church err’s on the practice of not allowing female ordination, based on these assumptions. No explanation I give will satisfy your reasoning if that’s how you go about beginning to understand this.

What your argument also seems to be about is that you understand what the Catholic Church teaches on this matter, but you do not agree with it. Being Anglican, that’s perfectly understandable. There are many Catholics who share your views as well, the difference is, they, like the Pope is bounded by the teachings of our Lord and Sacred Tradition. They can crow till the sun rises and sets, they will not change the teaching on this matter.

All I need to explain to anyone who truly wants to understand this is what the Church and the Magisterium , Pope , and early Church Fathers have taught on the ordination of women. One, it is not allowed, never was, never will be. Two, God was made flesh as a male, not female. The Lord Jesus Christ was married to his Church, the Catholic Church which is his bride(female) . In a similar way, a female priest cannot be married to the Church for that same reason. If you want to know more about why the Church is the bride of Christ, and how it all relates by Scripture, see the teaching in the Churches dogmatic Constitution: LUMEN GENTIUM None of the apostles were female. Why?

I could cite the early Church Fathers, from St. Epiphanius to Tertullian, to St. John Chrysostom and the biblical basis has already been mentioned in Timothy. I can’t expect you to fully understand our views as Catholics without you fully accepting and understanding how our Magisterium and Sacred Tradition handed down by our Church Fathers fits into this belief we hold. That’s why we don’t have to vote on this matter today. This was already made clear to the Church for over 1500 years.

I believe like homosexual marriage, there will be many more of these issues that will be at the forefront in the coming years. They will continue to challenge and test all Christian faiths, teachings and dogmas. All I can say is I am glad that the Catholic Church has seen them all, even abortion dates back to the early days of the Church. These issues will divide, confuse, confound and weaken many other Christian churches. It’s just my theory for now, but for now, i’m sticking with it, and the Catholic Church.

In general, I agree.

GKC

 

[Novocastrian]

I would favor that. But what would constitute reform is the first stumbling block.

GKC

Indeed.

Also, I’ve been meaning to recommend this to you for a while: amazon.co.uk/Search-Authority-Theological-Reformation-Enlightenment/dp/0567026485/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1405430133&sr=8-2&keywords=paul+avis

Apologies if I’ve already done so.

 

[Novocastrian]

Actually except on CAF and some websites, most Anglicans don’t claim to be catholic, this is new, just as it is in some Lutheran churches.

It’s (at the very least) implicit in the Church of England’s uninterrupted use of the Creeds. She has professed belief in the Catholic Church since before the Reformation.

 

[SyroMalankara]

If you think the Hebrew text, read by Aramaic and Greek speaking Hebrews means what you think it means - why do none of the native Aramaic speaking or Greek speaking Churches ordain women to the priesthood, and never have? Are they all just a bunch of sexists? Do they not know how to read their own languages?

 

[Novocastrian]

If you think the Hebrew text, read by Aramaic and Greek speaking Hebrews means what you think it means - why do none of the native Aramaic speaking or Greek speaking Churches ordain women to the priesthood, and never have? Are they all just a bunch of sexists? Do they not know how to read their own languages?

I don’t think the text of Genesis by itself is enough to settle the question of the ordination of women. Far from it. But within the context of a discussion of humans being the image of God incarnate, it’s clearly relevant.

Incidentally, the LXX supports my translation, insofar as it translates אָדָם as ἀνθρωπος rather than ἀνηρ.

I don’t read Syriac, so I can’t give you an opinion on that one.

 

[GKC]

Indeed.

Also, I’ve been meaning to recommend this to you for a while: amazon.co.uk/Search-Authority-Theological-Reformation-Enlightenment/dp/0567026485/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1405430133&sr=8-2&keywords=paul+avis

Apologies if I’ve already done so.

You have not, though perhaps you do know that that’s the way into my heart: books.

I will be making my regular book ordering run, likely today or tomorrow. This will be added, Looking over the description and the chapters, I expect I will be reading it with one lifted eyebrow, minimum. But that is of no concern. I don’t buy books limited to those I agree with, anymore than I would limited to those I already know. I just buy books.

GKC

 

[Novocastrian]

You have not, though perhaps you do know that that’s the way into my heart: books.

I will be making my regular book ordering run, likely today or tomorrow. This will be added, Looking over the description and the chapters, I expect I will be reading it with one lifted eyebrow, minimum. But that is of no concern. I don’t buy books limited to those I agree with, anymore than I would limited to those I already know. I just buy books.

GKC

It was surprisingly balanced. His reading of the Reformers is, to my mind, excellent. Sola scriptura and eucharistic theology, esp. of Jewel, read in a way that I must try to reproduce on these forums at some point in the future.

 

[GKC]

It was surprisingly balanced. His reading of the Reformers is, to my mind, excellent. Sola scriptura and eucharistic theology, esp. of Jewel, read in a way that I must try to reproduce on these forums at some point in the future.

Always glad to expand/deepen my data base, then draw idiosyncratic conclusions.

GKC

 

[SyroMalankara]

I don’t think the text of Genesis by itself is enough to settle the question of the ordination of women. Far from it. But within the context of a discussion of humans being the image of God incarnate, it’s clearly relevant.

Incidentally, the LXX supports my translation, insofar as it translates אָדָם as ἀνθρωπος rather than ἀνηρ.

I don’t read Syriac, so I can’t give you an opinion on that one.

How many women priests does the Greek Church have?

 

[Novocastrian]

How many women priests does the Greek Church have?

None. Deacons though, I suppose.

But, as I said, that wasn’t my point. My point was that both men and women bear the image of God, just as men and women are baptised into Christ. That stands, quod erat demonstrandum.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Novocastrian will know better than me, but the impression I gained from watching part of the debate at York was that much of the Anglo-Catholic wing of Synod was either approving of the consecration of women bishops or was willing – in many cases with considerable grace – to accept the change, trusting in the fulfilment of the promises that their position will safeguarded. Acceptance was less forthcoming, I thought, from the conservative evangelical “headship” wing. I heard nobody say the change would cause them to leave the church.

In all, more than 80% of Synod voted in favour. It has been alleged that in the pews the figure is nearer 90%.

 

[GKC]

Novocastrian will know better than me, but the impression I gained from watching part of the debate at York was that much of the Anglo-Catholic wing of Synod was either approving of the consecration of women bishops or was willing – in many cases with considerable grace – to accept the change, trusting in the fulfilment of the promises that their position will safeguarded. Acceptance was less forthcoming, I thought, from the conservative evangelical “headship” wing. I heard nobody say the change would cause them to leave the church.

In all, more than 80% of Synod voted in favour. It has been alleged that in the pews the figure is nearer 90%.

Those for whom that change would mean an exodus likely left earlier. My sense of the overall reception of the move was similar to yours. With the additional observation that I read a number of statements to the effect that the provisions (unknown) for protection of those who could not receive this innovation were sufficiently strengthened from 2 years ago that many opponents could vote “abstain”, rather than against. And some did vote for it, purely for harmony. Odd, I know.

GKC