Church of England backs women bishops

  • Thread starter Thread starter novo2kepha
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
BernadetteM said:
As a youth before I could find an Anglo Catholic parish, the low church did say the Apostles Creed as we had morning prayer 3 Sundays a month, however, no one felt that the would “catholic” meant they were part of the Catholic Church or that they were Catholic.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry to hear that. It’s in the creed because that’s precisely what the Church teaches. Reformed Catholicism.
 
No it is absolutely NOT! I mean, the people doing this are not Catholic, but it is still a terrible thing that they are doing it! :mad:

Women are not permitted to be members of the clergy, because Jesus and all of His Apostles were MEN. The Pope is the successor of Saint Peter and the Bishops are the successors of the other Twelve Apostles, who were, like I said, MEN. Due to this tradition established by Jesus Himself, all clergy MUST be men alone.
 
BernadetteM said:
As a youth before I could find an Anglo Catholic parish, the low church did say the Apostles Creed as we had morning prayer 3 Sundays a month, however, no one felt that the would “catholic” meant they were part of the Catholic Church or that they were Catholic.

The minister was called a minister, not a priest, also no title other than Mr. or Dr. and it was a large wealthy congregation that thought TEC was protestant.

Over the past years I have noticed many clergy in TEC refer to themselves as belonging to a catholic church. This was not the norm when I was much younger.

It really doesn’t matter as one can call themselves anything they wish and that does not make it so. I have no problem with those who choose to stay in TEC or become part of the Continuing groups (which are not accepted by the CoE as part of the Anglican Communion). One must do what their conscience leads them as long as they are honest about their choice. From reading a Continuing Anglo Catholic groups website, they accept the 39 Articles fully, which as a former Anglo Catholic our parish and others did not.

May God Bless those who stay and give them the strength to accept the new theology of the Anglican Communion. I have never had a problem with others belonging to a denomination as there are many good things that non Catholics practice, the social side is one Catholics and even many Episcopalians can learn from.

Bernadette
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t surprise me, motleyness, and all, but which Continuing group do you mean?

GKC
 
GKC said:
Wouldn’t surprise me, motleyness, and all, but which Continuing group do you mean?

GKC
Click to expand...
From my understanding when reading some of the threads the website “priest” believes in the 39 Articles. It is The Continuum. Although now that the Ordinariates are well established I think he has gone on to other issues and hopefully left the former Anglicans alone.

To be honest I have never read a Catholic website (not one like the SSPX), more like CAF that pounces constantly on protestants in general. Of course one must defend their beliefs and there are some Catholics who are rude, but in general they are the exception.

I am sure you have read the Continuum, as you are very much informed about so much of what has and is happening within the religious realm.

God Bless

Bernadette
 
BernadetteM said:
From my understanding when reading some of the threads the website “priest” believes in the 39 Articles. It is The Continuum. Although now that the Ordinariates are well established I think he has gone on to other issues and hopefully left the former Anglicans alone.

To be honest I have never read a Catholic website (not one like the SSPX), more like CAF that pounces constantly on protestants in general. Of course one must defend their beliefs and there are some Catholics who are rude, but in general they are the exception.

I am sure you have read the Continuum, as you are very much informed about so much of what has and is happening within the religious realm.

God Bless

Bernadette
Click to expand...
Yes, I think I know of what you speak. I even think I have met 1-2 of the regular posters, over the years.

I am not the same sort of thing. Anglicans are like that.

GKC
 
Female priests and bishops have substantially changed the theology of the Episcopal Church, I believe. Men tend to be more categorical and rule-bound in their doing of theology. Women are more affective and to give greater attention to “peace and justice” concerns. The result is a softer theology with fewer moral demands. So, in addition to widening the gap between Rome and Canterbury, the decision will result in changes in theology, e.g., Increased acceptance of homosexual practice
 
GKC said:
Ok. I’ve read it.

What could possibly go wrong. All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well. For we are in control.

I like the word “promulge”.

GKC
Click to expand...
What could possible go wrong? Quite. Although I recall being dubious that the flying bishops scheme would work in practice, but it seems to have done the trick for 20 years, and you’ll have noticed that those airborne sees will remain.

I think it was the agreement on the “five principles” plus the ombudsman mechanism (proposed I believe by a leading Reform evangelical) that added sufficient oomph behind the protestations of good faith to enable the substantial majorities.

I also like “promulge” and will begin using it today. We’ll see what my wife makes of it.
 
I have just listened to a podcast of a debate on ‘saving’ the Catholic Church. In it, when the topic of female priests came up, the Catholic apologist insisted on calling them ‘Priestess’. Is this the correct term?
 
novo2kepha said:
I have just listened to a podcast of a debate on ‘saving’ the Catholic Church. In it, when the topic of female priests came up, the Catholic apologist insisted on calling them ‘Priestess’. Is this the correct term?
Click to expand...
One wouldn’t normally call them that within the Church of England; it’s a polemical technique employed by some apologists to make them sound pagan. In this, it’s redolent of presbyterians who object to Catholic use of the term ‘priest’ as opposed to presbyter/elder.
 
Picky_Picky said:
What could possible go wrong? Quite. Although I recall being dubious that the flying bishops scheme would work in practice, but it seems to have done the trick for 20 years, and you’ll have noticed that those airborne sees will remain.

I think it was the agreement on the “five principles” plus the ombudsman mechanism (proposed I believe by a leading Reform evangelical) that added sufficient oomph behind the protestations of good faith to enable the substantial majorities.

I also like “promulge” and will begin using it today. We’ll see what my wife makes of it.
Click to expand...
I actually had some confidence in the flying squad idea, and did not see (from a distance) that it was a (total) failure. But I also knew it was a stop-gap, on the road to marginalizing the miscreants, and here we are further down the road. Can’t be long now.

GKC
 
GKC said:
or redolent of C.S. Lewis, a man I have collected, lo, these 50 years:.

episcopalnet.org/TRACTS/priestesses.html

GKC
Click to expand...
I know the essay. My problem with it is this move:
Why should a woman not in this sense represent God? Certainly not because she is necessarily, or even probably, less holy or less charitable or stupider than a man. In that sense she may be as “God-like” as a man; and a given women much more so than a given man. The sense in which she cannot represent God will perhaps be plainer if we look at the thing the other way round.
Click to expand...
Suppose the reformer stops saying that a good woman may be like God and begins saying that God is like a good woman. Suppose he says that we might just as well pray to “Our Mother which art in heaven” as to “Our Father”. Suppose he suggests that the Incarnation might just as well have taken a female as a male form, and the Second Person of the Trinity be as well called the Daughter as the Son. Suppose, finally, that the mystical marriage were reversed, that the Church were the Bridegroom and Christ the Bride. All this, as it seems to me, is involved in the claim that a woman can represent God as a priest does.
Click to expand...
Now it is surely the case that if all these supposals were ever carried into effect we should be embarked on a different religion. Goddesses have, of course, been worshipped: many religions have had priestesses. But they are religions quite different in character from Christianity. Common sense, disregarding the discomfort, or even the horror, which the idea of turning all our theological language into the feminine gender arouses in most Christians, will ask “Why not? Since God is in fact not a biological being and has no sex, what can it matter whether we say He or She, Father or Mother, Son or Daughter?”
Click to expand...
I don’t think his argument follows. For the simple reason that we have men and women representing God in the Bible - and in particular the idea of the image in Genesis 1 and 5 - as part of texts which clearly don’t lend any aid to the notion of feminising God Himself. It just doesn’t follow that a woman representing God necessarily leads to a doctrine of God’s femininity.

Now, I grant that it may in fact do so within certain quarters of the Church and community of theologians; there are plenty who would further this agenda, for better or for worse. But it doesn’t *necessarily *follow, which seems to me to be the crux of Lewis’s entire argument.
 
Novocastrian said:
I know the essay. My problem with it is this move:

I don’t think his argument follows. For the simple reason that we have men and women representing God in the Bible - and in particular the idea of the image in Genesis 1 and 5 - as part of texts which clearly don’t lend any aid to the notion of feminising God Himself. It just doesn’t follow that a woman representing God necessarily leads to a doctrine of God’s femininity.

Now, I grant that it may in fact do so within certain quarters of the Church and community of theologians; there are plenty who would further this agenda, for better or for worse. But it doesn’t *necessarily *follow, which seems to me to be the crux of Lewis’s entire argument.
Click to expand...
I was sure you knew it. It was just too apropos to let pass.

GKC
 
All I know is when the Church stopped talking about the real spiritual battle and feminized the mass in the 60s the men left and no matter devout mom is, if dad doesn’t attend mass the kids are not likely to attend mass when they are older.
 
KP3243 said:
All I know is when the Church stopped talking about the real spiritual battle and feminized the mass in the 60s the men left and no matter devout mom is, if dad doesn’t attend mass the kids are not likely to attend mass when they are older.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it was entirely a sex and gender thing, but undoubtedly true that something went particularly wrong in the 1960s-70s, and that it was the men who disappeared.
 
KP3243 said:
All I know is when the Church stopped talking about the real spiritual battle and feminized the mass in the 60s the men left and no matter devout mom is, if dad doesn’t attend mass the kids are not likely to attend mass when they are older.
Click to expand...
This past Sunday at Mass, I noticed all were female on the altar with the exception of the priest. And this includes the choir and organist. Don’t the priests and bishops see this?
 
I don’t know but it is a problem, I’m not saying they need to do Fundamentalist fire and brimstone type homilies but there needs to be some urgency about the battle around us seen and unseen.
 
Considering the argument for an exclusively male priesthood because “all the Apostles were men.” Seems to me to be a weak reed. All the Apostles were also (coincidentally) Jewish. So, must all Priests be Jewish, too?

(Incidentally, I’m not an advocate for ordination of women. Just questioning the strength of the argument.)
 
chimo said:
When the Church of England began to ordained women the Apostolic orders of the Church will soon become the same as the Protestant Churches. You lose whatever Apostolic orders you have when you begin to ordain women and certainly when you ordain them as Bishops. . . .
Click to expand...
The Church of England has no valid Apostolic Orders. That was investigated by the CatholicChurch a couple of centuries ago. In a nut shell, the result was that while validly ordained bishops did leave the Catholic Church and retained their power to ordain priests the Church of England altered their priestly ordination rites so that they were not ordaining priests. The ordination rite was later changed back but sufficient time had passed so that all of the validly ordained priests had died and only those who went through the new rite were still alive. Therefore the Apostolic Succession died when the last of the validly ordained priests died.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top