Church of England backs women bishops

  • Thread starter Thread starter novo2kepha
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Novocastrian said:
I’m now looking for the few unrepealed elements of the Reformation legislation. A minute selection:

Sections I and III of the Sumbission of the Clergy Act (1533) - royal assent needed for constitutions and canons.
Sections III-V of the Appointment of Bishops Act (1533) - elections by chapters at Crown’s command, etc.
Section VIII of the Sacrament Act (1547) - both kinds.

More repealed by Synod since then, e.g.,

Act of Uniformity (1548), all unrepealed sections repealed by the Church of England (Worship and Doctrine) Measure 1974.
Click to expand...
More data!

Is the *Defensor Fidei * still attached to the Throne (following the 1544 Act attaching it, and Mary’s 2nd Act of Repeals, detaching it), by Elizabeth’s Act, unknown to me?

GKC
 
It is sad that in these days we need to address issues like this ordination of women to the office of priesthood. Perhaps the Lord Jesus should have taken more time to teach us directly about this subject. Be this as it may it is now on the shoulders of our generation to spell out the truth which God is searching in us. May be that is why He did not give to us concrete instructions on this particular subject. He wants us to find out why the ordination of women as clergy is not possible. The subject leaves me say this. We have not discussed the very important role which the Laity have. This is vitally important to know because it is the Laity which will answer our question why Jesus only permitted men to be selected to the ranks of the clergy. You see the Laity are in fact “feminine” before the Lord. This is why Paul can call the Church the bride of Christ. Of course in the role of the Church which Paul is stressing here he is saying the whole Church has this “feminine” quality before Jesus. Now this begs a question. What is the best source of the “feminine” we have. It is certainly found in the women of the Church and our best example is the Holy Mother of God.

Mary exemplifies what role the Church is to have before Jesus and more specifically the Laity. In Mary we the true value and worth of our vocation of what the Laity means to Jesus. The priests of the Church exemplify in a miniature way what Jesus means to Mary and to the Laity. The priest represents Jesus as being married to his Parish as Jesus is mystically married to His Church. Just as Jesus becomes this Groom so does the priest, so does any man who is married. Each of these grooms must have the feminine to be alongside the groom. The woman must represent what is the best of what the feminine represents. She cannot represent to be a groom. This only distorts what this natural relationship must exist upon. The problem with our Churches especially in the Catholic Church and the Eastern Churches was this lack of recognition of what the Laity means in this relationship, what the feminine has meant to God. The clergy received too much recognition in the past bypassing the Laity. The role of the Laity needs to be recognized in how important it is to God and especially to the Lord Jesus. Without the Laity said the Blessed John Henry Newman we as the clergy would be shown to be foolish. Just as the man needs to give rights to the woman he has married so the role of the Laity needs to be furthered shown in how important their vocation is in the Church to the Lord Jesus.
 
GKC said:
More data!

Is the *Defensor Fidei * still attached to the Throne (following the 1544 Act attaching it, and Mary’s 2nd Act of Repeals, detaching it), by Elizabeth’s Act, unknown to me?

GKC
Click to expand...
As far as I can tell, it is most recently attached to the Crown by Her Majesty’s proclamation of 29th May 1953, pursuant to the Royal Titles Act (1953). It is, I think, upon this basis that Her Majesty’s current use of Defensor Fidei stands.

thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/39873/supplement/3023
 
Had the Church of England the same structure of authority as does the Church of Rome or even as does the Eastern Churches there would have never been any ordinations of women. One of the reasons why this happening in the Church of England is this lack of authority. Each diocese within the Church of England throughout the world can act on its own authority. That is not how any Church needs to be represented. The reason why the Catholic Church and the Eastern Churches will never ordained women is because of its Episcopal authority. The Church safeguards herself from any deviant teaching because she has this authority within herself to protect herself. No one part of the Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church can do things on their own if it is not approved by the whole Church. If for instance an Eastern Bishop is deviating from certain Catholic practice he can be removed from his office. This type of discipline is not found in the Church of England.
 
chimo said:
Had the Church of England the same structure of authority as does the Church of Rome or even as does the Eastern Churches there would have never been any ordinations of women. One of the reasons why this happening in the Church of England is this lack of authority. Each diocese within the Church of England throughout the world can act on its own authority. That is not how any Church needs to be represented. The reason why the Catholic Church and the Eastern Churches will never ordained women is because of its Episcopal authority. The Church safeguards herself from any deviant teaching because she has this authority within herself to protect herself. No one part of the Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church can do things on their own if it is not approved by the whole Church. If for instance an Eastern Bishop is deviating from certain Catholic practice he can be removed from his office. This type of discipline is not found in the Church of England.
Click to expand...
Not “diocese within the Church of England throughout the world”. You’re likely thinking of the 38 autocephalic Churches of the Anglican Communion. Which can act on their own authority because they are independent, autonomous Churches, not part of the Church of England, but in communion with the CoE.

GKC
 
chimo said:
Had the Church of England the same structure of authority as does the Church of Rome or even as does the Eastern Churches there would have never been any ordinations of women. One of the reasons why this happening in the Church of England is this lack of authority. Each diocese within the Church of England throughout the world can act on its own authority. That is not how any Church needs to be represented. The reason why the Catholic Church and the Eastern Churches will never ordained women is because of its Episcopal authority. The Church safeguards herself from any deviant teaching because she has this authority within herself to protect herself. No one part of the Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church can do things on their own if it is not approved by the whole Church. If for instance an Eastern Bishop is deviating from certain Catholic practice he can be removed from his office. This type of discipline is not found in the Church of England.
Click to expand...
We are indeed a poorly organised Church, though I think you mean to refer to the Anglican Communion rather than the Church of England herself.
 
GKC said:
Not “diocese within the Church of England throughout the world”. You’re likely thinking of the 38 autocephalic Churches of the Anglican Communion. Which can act on their own authority because they are independent, autonomous Churches, not part of the Church of England, but in communion with the CoE.

GKC
Click to expand...
I was thinking more of the Anglican Church in Canada when one the Dioceses began to ordain women without consulting the other dioceses. You corrected me on the this description but it seemed to me that every diocese with the Anglican Church can act on its own without any central authority as found in the Eastern and Catholic Churches. If this type of government is not found directly within the Church of England in England please excuse me but it seems to me that the Church there is still acting out without any authority safeguarding it.
 
I think the reaction of some posters to this topic reveals considerable personal turmoil and perhaps dread for those Anglicans & Lutherans who oppose something that the Church has decided. Almost fearful.

Now there are female archbishops/ presiding bishops in both denominations and the work of the Lord goes on because that is what is most important.

Christ was an embryo inside the blessed Virgin. God is female also.
 
chimo said:
I was thinking more of the Anglican Church in Canada when one the Dioceses began to ordain women without consulting the other dioceses. You corrected me on the this description but it seemed to me that every diocese with the Anglican Church can act on its own without any central authority as found in the Eastern and Catholic Churches. If this type of government is not found directly within the Church of England in England please excuse me but it seems to me that the Church there is still acting out without any authority safeguarding it.
Click to expand...
Central authority is certainly hard to find in Anglicanism, yes. That being said, what Synod is directing in the CoE will be binding on the CoE, generally. However it is finally structured.

GKC
 
All of the ancient Apostolic Churches, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Roman Catholic Church, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the St Thomas Christians of India and even the Nestorian Church are all completely unified on this issue and have always been unified on this issue from the very beginning. That is enough for me. Why the need to innovate almost two thousand years later?
 
EvangelCatholic said:
I think the reaction of some posters to this topic reveals considerable personal turmoil and perhaps dread for those Anglicans & Lutherans who oppose something that the Church has decided. Almost fearful.

Now there are female archbishops/ presiding bishops in both denominations and the work of the Lord goes on because that is what is most important.

Christ was an embryo inside the blessed Virgin. God is female also.
Click to expand...
I did not realise this was a non-Catholic thread. My apologies if my discussion was too forward. I was raised in an Anglican Church but was baptised Orthodox. What I had seen happening to Anglican Church in Canada was not pretty. It was awful how Church leaders want to rid themselves of priests who were not for the ordination of women. It seemed to me as thousands of these priests left the Church in the United States and Canada it was certain another Church that would emerged but not the Church I had grown up with. If anything that was showing up it was this type of leadership that the more conservative priests could no longer be part of. It distressed me but at the same time I realised the landscape of Anglicanism would never be the same. The Church in Canada and the United States was fiercely divided and what this taught to me was, how can what the Anglican Church introduced be of any good if it divides the Church. As thousands of priests left the Church for good it made sense whatever Sacramental authority was disappearing as well.
 
chimo said:
I did not realise this was a non-Catholic thread. My apologies if my discussion was too forward. I was raised in an Anglican Church but was baptised Orthodox. What I had seen happening to Anglican Church in Canada was not pretty. It was awful how Church leaders want to rid themselves of priests who were not for the ordination of women. It seemed to me as thousands of these priests left the Church in the United States and Canada it was certain another Church that would emerged but not the Church I had grown up with. If anything that was showing up it was this type of leadership that the more conservative priests could no longer be part of. It distressed me but at the same time I realised the landscape of Anglicanism would never be the same. The Church in Canada and the United States was fiercely divided and what this taught to me was, how can what the Anglican Church introduced be of any good if it divides the Church. As thousands of priests left the Church for good it made sense whatever Sacramental authority was disappearing as well.
Click to expand...
You raise a good point. Does anyone have an idea of how many priests have left the Canadian Anglican /U.S Episcopal church over female ordination?
 
1 Timothy 3:2 New King James Version (NKJV):

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach

MJ
 
JonNC said:
Could be. Or it could mean more moving to continuing Anglican communions.

Jon
Click to expand...
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
 
Novocastrian said:
The latter part of your post is a straw man. I’m not arguing that it’s an equality or power issue at all. See my latest post.

This bit, however, doesn’t seem to make any sense. First, you’re arguing that the masculine nature of the priesthood excludes women, but the feminine nature of the Church includes men. You need to say why this is the case.

Second, you need to say why the unborn Christ and his mother are the prototype of the liturgical act, and why this is normative re: sex and the priesthood. You can’t just assert it. It’s equivalent to my just making up, on the spot a claim like, “Christ was enclosed within the feminine person of his Mother, just like the Eucharist is enclosed in the body of the Christian. Therefore only women can receive the Eucharist.” It’s nonsense! It doesn’t follow!
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top