Church of England backs women bishops

[guanophore]

-the long slow dance between the Anglicans and Romans will continue unabated however-

in reality there will never be unity between the two if the Roman Catholic Church does not change on issues of human sexuality -and it shows not one bit of inclination that it will do so

May God grant that she may hold fast to the Apostolic faith without wavering until He comes again.

the sides are drawn up -on the left all the mainline Protestants - Old Catholics and other catholic splinter groups versus on the right the Roman Catholics-Orthodox and Southern Baptists

The forces of the right have the numbers

Those who have clung steadfastly to the Apostolic faith have the Truth, regardless of numbers. I think that the numbers will continue to drop as the faithful around the world are swept away by modernism.

As Jesus said, steep and narrow is the Way and few find it.

 

[SteveVH]

in reality there will never be unity between the two if the Roman Catholic Church does not change on issues of human sexuality -and it shows not one bit of inclination that it will do so.

Why is it that the Catholic Church needs to change? What do you find wrong with Catholic teaching on human sexuality?

 

[Picky_Picky]

That is what is so sad and somewhat surprising to me. They had to have know what this would do, and yet they made this choice. I gave them a lot more credit than that and am very interested as to how the average Anglican will view this and the future of this faith tradition (that is if there is such a thing as an average Anglican, motley crew that they are. ).

My understanding is that opinion polls show substantial majorities of the English motleydom in favour of women bishops. Moreover every diocese in England voted in favour. There’s a long, long drawn-out process in the Church of England for changes as significant as this, with laity and clergy at every level involved and, in General Synod, a heavily weighted majority in each House required. My ill-educated guess is that the average Anglican in England thinks it should have been done long ago and is relieved that the process is at last complete.

 

[SteveVH]

My understanding is that opinion polls show substantial majorities of the English motleydom in favour of women bishops. Moreover every diocese in England voted in favour. There’s a long, long drawn-out process in the Church of England for changes as significant as this, with laity and clergy at every level involved and, in General Synod, a heavily weighted majority in each House required. My ill-educated guess is that the average Anglican in England thinks it should have been done long ago and is relieved that the process is at last complete.

Well, that is wonderful then. If it is popular among the people then who is the Church to say any different?

 

[Picky_Picky]

Well, that is wonderful then. If it is popular among the people then who is the Church to say any different?

That’s a strange reaction. You said you’d be very interested to know what the view of the average Anglican might be; I’ve tried to tell you. Why you should roll your eyes at the prospect of the Church of England acting according to the faith and conscience of its bishops, clergy and laity I don’t know. But there.

 

[GKC]

That’s a strange reaction. You said you’d be very interested to know what the view of the average Anglican might be; I’ve tried to tell you. Why you should roll your eyes at the prospect of the Church of England acting according to the faith and conscience of its bishops, clergy and laity I don’t know. But there.

It may be through a comparison of the faith and conscience of the current generation(s) and the faith once delivered to the Saints. As interpreted.

GKC

 

[SteveVH]

That’s a strange reaction. You said you’d be very interested to know what the view of the average Anglican might be; I’ve tried to tell you. Why you should roll your eyes at the prospect of the Church of England acting according to the faith and conscience of its bishops, clergy and laity I don’t know. But there.

My frustration lies in the evident probability that the CoE was listening more to the world than it was adhering to the apostolic faith. There is certainly nothing in Sacred Tradition or Scripture that supports such a thing. But your point is well taken. I asked the question. Forgive me for reacting the way I did.

 

[Picky_Picky]

My frustration lies in the evident probability that the CoE was listening more to the world than it was adhering to the apostolic faith. There is certainly nothing in Sacred Tradition or Scripture that supports such a thing. But your point is well taken. I asked the question. Forgive me for reacting the way I did.

Thank you for that reply. And of course I understand your view of the decision – it is not to be surprised at. I know that those of your opinion see the CofE as listening to the world, influenced by secular arguments for gender equality. Certainly those arguments have not been absent from the debate. I hope you will credit also that, though it may be mistaken, the CofE does believe it is also listening to the Holy Spirit.

At least, most of its members do: there is a degree of motley about this, of course.

 

[SteveVH]

Thank you for that reply. And of course I understand your view of the decision – it is not to be surprised at. I know that those of your opinion see the CofE as listening to the world, influenced by secular arguments for gender equality. Certainly those arguments have not been absent from the debate. I hope you will credit also that, though it may be mistaken, the CofE does believe it is also listening to the Holy Spirit.

At least, most of its members do: there is a degree of motley about this, of course.

Well, I don’t think I know of a single denomination that would claim it is not listening to the Holy Spirit and this has resulted in nothing but further division. It is self evident that not everyone is listening, even though all claim to be doing so. So while I will acknowledge that this is the claim, I cannot give them “credit” for making such a claim while witnessing the outcome.

Peace.

Steve

 

[GKC]

thank you for that reply. And of course i understand your view of the decision – it is not to be surprised at. I know that those of your opinion see the cofe as listening to the world, influenced by secular arguments for gender equality. Certainly those arguments have not been absent from the debate. I hope you will credit also that, though it may be mistaken, the cofe does believe it is also listening to the holy spirit.

At least, most of its members do: There is a degree of motley about this, of course.

gkc

 

[JonNC]

I think that the “disaffected Anglican” is, like James Thurber’s unicorn, a mythical beast, in these days. Most of the exodus, or realignments, from official Anglicanism is probably in the past, save for those who might find the ACNA a good fit. Those for whom such things as the proper subject for the sacrament of orders, including the Episcopate, are a concern, have mostly left, already, or are prepared to accommodate.

Personal opinion.

GKC

Interesting. Thanks. That makes sense. It is probably similarly why large shifts away from the ELCA have not materialized.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

gkc

Interesting. Thanks. That makes sense. It is probably similarly why large shifts away from the ELCA have not materialized.

Jon

I respect both of your opinions and views as representatives of your respective faith communities, and I would like to ask you a question or two. These are honest questions that come to mind for me; I do not mean them as an attack upon you or your churches.

1. When you see your Church (Anglican and Lutheran, respectively) fragmenting into various branches (for example, ELCA, LC-MS, etc.), do you ever stop to consider that this could not be what Jesus had in mind when He prayed that we would all be one?
2. And since each of these groups claims to be rightly dividing the Word of God (which they follow as the sole infallible rule of faith for the believer) while arriving at conflicting and contradictory positions on a number of issues, how can whichever branch you happen to be perched upon at present have a legitimate claim to being the one, true Church that Jesus founded? Is it simply a matter of believing that your small branch is the correct one and everyone else in all of Christendom is in error?

 

[KjetilK]

When you see your Church (Anglican and Lutheran, respectively) fragmenting into various branches (for example, ELCA, LC-MS, etc.), do you ever stop to consider that this could not be what Jesus had in mind when He prayed that we would all be one?

It seems I never tire of saying this, but Lutheranism (and Anglicanism, imo) is not ‘a Church,’ but an ecclesial tradition. To illustrate the problem with such a question, let me change a few words:

When you see your Church (Byzantinian and Alexandrian, respectively) fragmenting into various branches (for example, the Coptic Catholic Church, the Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church, the Russian Church (Moscow patriarchate), etc.), do you ever stop to consider that this could not be what Jesus had in mind when He prayed that we would all be one?

Such a question will be equally harmful to Churches in communion with Rome, since they are questions about Lutheranism and Anglicanism, as such. What about the Ordinariate, for instance? If Anglicanism is the problem, then the Ordinariate is part of that problem.

 

[benjohnson]

do you ever stop to consider that this could not be what Jesus had in mind when He prayed that we would all be one?

Not to speak for others… but for me this is a horribly difficult question for me.

The appropriate thing to say is that God does not desire division and leave it at that.

But what do we do about the Quakers? From a Lutheran perspective, they get just about everything wrong - they’re not sacramental in a way we agree with, they aren’t liturgical in a way we’d expect, etc.

But I can’t quite put my finger on it but… they have something about them that indicates they Light of Christ within them and in a way that astounds me. It especially comes out when they respond to evil done to them.

Forgive my rambling… this is an easy question if we just toe the line, but a difficult one when you confront Christians that have qualities that you admire from traditions that aren’t orthodox.

 

[JonNC]

=Randy Carson;12504363]I respect both of your opinions and views as representatives of your respective faith communities, and I would like to ask you a question or two. These are honest questions that come to mind for me; I do not mean them as an attack upon you or your churches.

Hi Randy,
First, when I see your name at the top of a post, the last thing that would come to mind would be to expect a dishonest question, or an attack.

1. When you see your Church (Anglican and Lutheran, respectively) fragmenting into various branches (for example, ELCA, LC-MS, etc.), do you ever stop to consider that this could not be what Jesus had in mind when He prayed that we would all be one?

It is not possible that our divisions is what Christ had in mind, not only within Lutheranism, but also within Christendom, though I would surmise that He expected them.
But regarding Lutheranism specifically, Father K has already alluded to some of my response, that we do not see ourselves as “a church”, but instead part of “THE Church”, which has numerous traditions, some of them in communion with each other, some not.
Additionally, I see our more liberal Lutheran siblings as having a different view of scripture, and even more so the confessions. If one views the confessions as quatenus, a true confession of the faith “in so far as” it agrees with scripture, then one has greater latitude to “reconsider” such things as female ordination, and how same gender attraction should be dealt with in the Church. IF, OTOH, one holds a “quia” point of view, that the confessions are faithful to scripture, then these kinds of things become impossible.

The truth is that in the vast amount of doctrine, Lutherans of all stripes are of one mind (well, as close to one mind as Lutherans can get ). It is these peripheral things we disagree on, but this isn’t meant to downplay those divisions.

1. And since each of these groups claims to be rightly dividing the Word of God (which they follow as the sole infallible rule of faith for the believer) while arriving at conflicting and contradictory positions on a number of issues, how can whichever branch you happen to be perched upon at present have a legitimate claim to being the one, true Church that Jesus founded? Is it simply a matter of believing that your small branch is the correct one and everyone else in all of Christendom is in error?

Well, wouldn’t you say that your really big branch of Christendom is the correct one, and all the others are in error?
I have to go, but I ill expand on this part later.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi Randy,
First, when I see your name at the top of a post, the last thing that would come to mind would be to expect a dishonest question, or an attack.

I’m not sure everyone feels that way, but I’m working on it. And thanks.

The truth is that in the vast amount of doctrine, Lutherans of all stripes are of one mind (well, as close to one mind as Lutherans can get ). It is these peripheral things we disagree on, but this isn’t meant to downplay those divisions.

True of all Christians, I think.

I’m curious,…Would you feel closer to conservative Catholics or to liberal Lutherans?

Well, wouldn’t you say that your really big branch of Christendom is the correct one, and all the others are in error?

Sure. But isn’t that easier than for someone in a tiny little branch to make that claim?

 

[JonNC]

=Randy Carson;12507072]I’m not sure everyone feels that way, but I’m working on it. And thanks.

To borrow your own words to me in another thread, “the clarification is good for those with less history than we have.”

True of all Christians, I think.

I’m curious,…Would you feel closer to conservative Catholics or to liberal Lutherans?

If I moved to a town that only had a Catholic church, and an ELCA church that had a female pastor, I would probably seek out RCIA.

Sure. But isn’t that easier than for someone in a tiny little branch to make that claim?

Perhaps, but Christ’s Church was, at one time, “the tiny branch” it seems to me. But back to your comment:

. And since each of these groups claims to be rightly dividing the Word of God (which they follow as the sole infallible rule of faith for the believer) while arriving at conflicting and contradictory positions on a number of issues, how can whichever branch you happen to be perched upon at present have a legitimate claim to being the one, true Church that Jesus founded? Is it simply a matter of believing that your small branch is the correct one and everyone else in all of Christendom is in error?

For many, it seems, it is a matter of conscience, and I’m not speaking of “finding a church in one’s own image”. But division within a tradition is not limited to Lutheranism. The very existence of what are broadly called protestant communions are in fact a division within the western Church. There are even divisions of a more recent nature with the Old Catholics, some of whom still maintain succession, in the the view of the Vatican.
All of us, no matter the tradition, can look inward and see divisions, some more serious than others. It isn’t what Christ intended, and all we can do is pray for unity to be restored by the only one who can restore it; the Holy Spirit Himself.

Jon

 

[Contarini]

Point taken. And is this theological argument based in Scripture or Tradition, or is it based upon appeasing secular society?

It’s based on the Incarnation, like all the rest of the Christian Faith. It is based on the belief that Christ assumed human nature, in which all humans share, for the salvation of all human beings. The traditional practice was clearly based, historically, on the belief that femininity was a defective expression of humanity. St. John Chrysostom, for instance, said, “no women may be ordained, and most men may not,” because no women and few men are sufficiently rational. Similarly, St. Thomas Aquinas said that women lack the “hegemonic faculty.” In the absence of this cultural belief, which Christians today pretty uniformly reject, the historic, orthodox faith of the Church requires ordination to be open to women. To say otherwise is to say that women do not share in the nature Christ assumed for our salvation, and thus that they cannot be saved (or are saved by some means other than Christ).

Edwin

 

[SteveVH]

First of all, you do realize that you are responding to a post of mine from July 14th don’t you?

The traditional practice was clearly based, historically, on the belief that femininity was a defective expression of humanity.

Say what? Then what in the heck was the Church doing by elevating Mary to the highest stature of any other human besides her Son?

St. John Chrysostom, for instance, said, “no women may be ordained, and most men may not,” because no women and few men are sufficiently rational.

No, what he said was:

“When someone has to preside over the Church and be entrusted with the care of so many souls, then let all the female sex give way before the magnitude of the task—and indeed, most men also!” (St. John Chrysostom, On the Priesthood)

Similarly, St. Thomas Aquinas said that women lack the “hegemonic faculty.” In the absence of this cultural belief, which Christians today pretty uniformly reject, the historic, orthodox faith of the Church requires ordination to be open to women. To say otherwise is to say that women do not share in the nature Christ assumed for our salvation, and thus that they cannot be saved (or are saved by some means other than Christ).

So it just boils down to a bunch of bigoted men. Other than, “that’s quite a leap” I really haven’t got much to say. I do find it strange that there wasn’t even one ECF, out of all these holy men, that was not a bigot and argued for female priests. So I really don’t see any evidence at all that the orthodox faith of the Church required female priests.

 

[conRep12]

Novocastrian, why should there be women bishops? You apparently are able to poke holes in all the arguments why there shouldn’t be, but have you offered positive reason why there should be? It seems the burden of proof after 2,000 years of tradition never ordaining women should rest on those in 2014 who claim women should be ordained. Novelty still demands reason even when tradition has none (or seems to have none in in your estimation).