Church of England Synod votes overwhelmingly in support of women's bishops

[Novocastrian]

Yet the Crown has nothing whatsoever to say about it. Seems to me the difference is more of a “tomato tomahto” sort of thing than something of substance. But I will say that Edward VIII’s famous “for the woman I love” abdication always puts a smile on my face.

Well, Synod sits under the authority of the Queen-in-Parliament.

 

[Novocastrian]

I have no iron in this fire, but I will just say, in relation to your first objection, that there are those among the proponents of women bishops who will sort of agree with your first sentence but suggest that the absence of women bishops in the past has also been for social reasons.

I am sometimes inclined to agree with that reasoning.

 

[malphono]

Well, Synod sits under the authority of the Queen-in-Parliament.

And the Queen has no authority in Parliament (that, along with most other royal prerogatives, having been ceded lock, stock, and barrel, by Victoria when she was a silly little 18 yo girl).

 

[Novocastrian]

And the Queen has no authority in Parliament (that, along with most other royal prerogatives, having been ceded lock, stock, and barrel, by Victoria when she was a silly little 18 yo girl).

I’m not sure that you understand the UK constitution or its history.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I am not surprised by this action; in-fact, I would have been surprised had the Church of England not ruled in favor of female bishops since female priests were allowed years ago. Also the Anglican Churches in Europe are in full-communion with Lutherans [Provoo Communion] where women archbishops are now consecrated.

This transition to female ordination continues to grow among many Christians and has been a blessing to the Church in my opinion.

 

[malphono]

I’m not sure that you understand the UK constitution or its history.

Has the constitution changed since 1837???

 

[ephesians4]

Has the constitution changed since 1837???

Yes, pretty much constantly.

I’m pretty torn on this.

On the one hand, I honest can’t see any strong theological reasons to prevent the ordination of women. And I say that as someone who considers himself, and tries, to be theologically orthodox.

On the other hand, I feel this is a bad move for two reasons

(1) It isn’t being done for theological reasons, but for social ones. This is about liberalism and socio-political correctness, not theological anthropology, ecclesiology or sacramentology. And that is just wrong!

(2) The episcopate is meant to be a sign of unity in the Church. While I don’t think consecrating a woman as a bishop is as gravely sinful and scandalous as consecrating an unrepentant sinner (I’m sure people are aware of examples), it puts in jeopardy hopes of future re-union with the Roman, Byzantine and Oriental Churches.

As an Anglo-Catholic myself, this is fairly well in line with my views on it.

The primary concerns are really not theological ones, but flying in the face of tradition creates issues for unity - not only with other churches, but within the C of E itself.

That unity is something that seems to get incidentally damaged quite a lot from on high, by parliament or the EU, and indeed by other interests - and quite specifically Christian churches rather than institutions of any other religion.

I’m not sure what to make of that, but I do find it quite troubling.

 

[benjohnson]

Schism already happened a few hundred years ago. This is just more bitter fruit. Do Government Churches really promote unity and communion?

While this situation isn’t quite a “Government Church” - I think any ‘default’ church in any society is detrimental to the church as it becomes a pawn for the powerful to shape the weak.

Kierkegaard wrote well on this:

“What Christianity needs is not the suffocating protection of the state; no, it needs fresh air, it needs persecution, and it needs God’s protection. The state only works disaster, it wards off persecution and thus is not the medium through which God’s protection can be conducted. Above all, save Christianity from the state. By its protection it smothers it to death.”

 

[Novocastrian]

Has the constitution changed since 1837???

Yes and no. Yes in the obvious sense of things like the various Parliament Acts of the 20th century, no in the sense that the Crown remains the fount of all constitutional authority in the UK.

Edit: I’m aware that this isn’t really the time or the place to discuss constitutional history.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Has the constitution changed since 1837???

Yes. It changes frequently. I suppose 1867 might be thought the first time after 1837.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Yes and no. Yes in the obvious sense of things like the various Parliament Acts of the 20th century, no in the sense that the Crown remains the fount of all constitutional authority in the UK.

Edit: I’m aware that this isn’t really the time or the place to discuss constitutional history.

Yes, sorry, I tripped over you, and you are right, this isn’t the place.

 

[malphono]

Yes and no. Yes in the obvious sense of things like the various Parliament Acts of the 20th century, no in the sense that the Crown remains the fount of all constitutional authority in the UK.

Methinks this another “tomato-tomahto” comparison. Since Victoria ceded the royal prerogatives, the Crown no longer has any say in anything to do with the CoE. Not that the Crown much got involved after Cromwell anyway, but it was still possible. Not any longer. I also find it rather humerus, though, that the title “Fidei Defensor” is still held by the Crown. That should, by rights, have been stripped away and shelved at least by Cromwell’s reign.

Edit: I’m aware that this isn’t really the time or the place to discuss constitutional history.

Although it’s rather more interesting than a discussion of high priestesses, I’ll grant that, and will unsubscribe from this thread.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Methinks this another “tomato-tomahto” comparison. Since Victoria ceded the royal prerogatives, the Crown no longer has any say in anything to do with the CoE. Not that the Crown much got involved after Cromwell anyway, but it was still possible. Not any longer. I also find it rather humerus, though, that the title “Fidei Defensor” is still held by the Crown. That should, by rights, have been stripped away and shelved at least by Cromwell’s reign.

Although it’s rather more interesting than a discussion of high priestesses, I’ll grant that, and will unsubscribe from this thread.

I think you may be confusing the Crown with the Queen. There is a distinction.

 

[Novocastrian]

Methinks this another “tomato-tomahto” comparison. Since Victoria ceded the royal prerogatives, the Crown no longer has any say in anything to do with the CoE. Not that the Crown much got involved after Cromwell anyway, but it was still possible. Not any longer. I also find it rather humerus, though, that the title “Fidei Defensor” is still held by the Crown. That should, by rights, have been stripped away and shelved at least by Cromwell’s reign. Although it’s rather more interesting than a discussion of high priestesses, I’ll grant that, and will unsubscribe from this thread.

As a final comment: the royal prerogatives have never, ever been ceded from the Crown. If they are not exercised, that is by convention alone. The Queen is quite legally entitled to declare war, make peace, appoint ministers, pardon criminals; she simply does not do so. Even those powers ceded to parliament (not part of the prerogative) are still exercised by the Crown’s authority, since parliament’s authority is the Crown’s own; hence ‘the Queen-in-parliament’.

 

[GKC]

It certainly has, already. There has been movement in both directions, but not, I suggest, in very large numbers. Americans, living in their unique world of the free religious marketplace, are ever ready to predict schism. They perhaps underestimate the tendency of a national church to work hard for unity and communion.

No, not in large numbers. But we Continuers over here are a pitiful remnant ourselves.

And I know folks here who are working with the few over there who are interested.

GKC

 

[Picky_Picky]

No, not in large numbers. But we Continuers over here are a pitiful remnant ourselves.

And I know folks here who are working with the few over there who are interested.

GKC

Pitiful? Nonsense! I sometimes think a requirement for self deprecation should be a 40th article for Anglicans.

 

[GKC]

Pitiful? Nonsense! I sometimes think a requirement for self deprecation should be a 40th article for Anglicans.

In numbers, pitiful.

But if it were an Article I recognized, qua “Articles”, it would be the only one.

GKC

 

[Picky_Picky]

In numbers, pitiful.

But if it were an Article I recognized, qua “Articles”, it would be the only one.

GKC

Yes, you don’t surprise me. One of Prince Rupert’s men, perhaps, (what I remember being called Wrong But Wromantic) or at the very least in the train of General Monck. Actually you may be on to something. The Church of the One Article, perhaps. Sounds attractive. Could be a goer.

 

[GKC]

Yes, you don’t surprise me. One of Prince Rupert’s men, perhaps, (what I remember being called Wrong But Wromantic) or at the very least in the train of General Monck. Actually you may be on to something. The Church of the One Article, perhaps. Sounds attractive. Could be a goer.

I may schism out, and start one myself.

But my attitude toward the XXXIX is a common one. Like Anglicans, generally, it is a motley assemblage, and not normative for any, generally, who are not bound (theoretically) by the Subscription Act of 1571.

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

Not the first time the Church of England has stepped outside Catholic teaching. We care because why.

Because Anglicans rank third* on the “Most Catholic” list.

• Well, of course that’s only assuming that you count the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox as one category instead of two, and don’t count tiny groups like the Assyrian Church of the East and PNCC.