Church of England

[mkrol]

The Cuurch of England has voted against consecrating women Bishops. Interestingly the Bishops and Clergy voted for only the House of Laity voted against. So many Anglicans are moving closer to full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. Consecration of women Bishops would make unity impossible.

Now, I’m not sure how the decision-making in the CofE works, but I’d imagine the House of Laity would in some way be representative of the opinions of, well, laity.

I therefore find odd the commentary from various journalists and CofE clergy about the Church being “hopelessly out of touch” (etc. etc.) with the faithful, when it is precisely among the faithful that the required majority to pass the measure was lacking.

It also suggests to me that the Anglican Churches’ rapid drift away from orthodoxy in recent decades has been driven more by political activism from the top-down than by a gradual heterodox drift of the laity. To be sure, there has probably been a bit of both, but to see the measure fall short of the two thirds majority in the House of Laity when the House of Bishops voted 44 to 3 for the measure really does suggest that the Church leadership is out of touch, but not in the way that they think.

Of course, I don’t believe that “in-touch-ness” or “out-of-touch-ness” is any meaningful measure by which to judge a religious group, because if the laity are wrong, then I would of course prefer the leadership to be right, even if it means being out of touch. I just find it odd that the democratisers in this venerable Protestant communion should be so inept at representing the demos.

 

[Jimmygill88]

I had to smile at the reply from a Cardinal when asked about the ordination of women he just said ‘its theologically impossible’ it doesn’t matter who lays hands on whom or says which prayers. It’s just not possible to make a woman a priest. The clearer that the Catholic Church is about this the more credibility it gains with people of other faiths.

 

[ltwin]

Now, I’m not sure how the decision-making in the CofE works, but I’d imagine the House of Laity would in some way be representative of the opinions of, well, laity.

I therefore find odd the commentary from various journalists and CofE clergy about the Church being “hopelessly out of touch” (etc. etc.) with the faithful, when it is precisely among the faithful that the required majority to pass the measure was lacking.

It also suggests to me that the Anglican Churches’ rapid drift away from orthodoxy in recent decades has been driven more by political activism from the top-down than by a gradual heterodox drift of the laity. To be sure, there has probably been a bit of both, but to see the measure fall short of the two thirds majority in the House of Laity when the House of Bishops voted 44 to 3 for the measure really does suggest that the Church leadership is out of touch, but not in the way that they think.

Of course, I don’t believe that “in-touch-ness” or “out-of-touch-ness” is any meaningful measure by which to judge a religious group, because if the laity are wrong, then I would of course prefer the leadership to be right, even if it means being out of touch. I just find it odd that the democratisers in this venerable Protestant communion should be so inept at representing the demos.

The way I understand the situation, everyone in the Church of England has pretty much accepted the idea that there will be women bishops. At the same time, there is a sizeable part of the church that is theologically opposed to female bishops, the Anglo-Catholics and traditional evangelicals.

Early on promises were made to these groups that there would always be a place in the CofE for them, and that when women bishop’s were finally consecrated there would be adequate provision for these groups.

The defeated legislation was defeated over this protection. Anglo-Catholics and evangelicals were not satisfied with the protection that they were given, while the radical liberal women’s groups in the CofE thought that the few protections granted went too far.

So, I don’t think this defeat should be seen as a defeat for women bishops. The Church of England will inevitably have women bishops. This particular legislation just did not satisfy anyone.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Now, I’m not sure how the decision-making in the CofE works, but I’d imagine the House of Laity would in some way be representative of the opinions of, well, laity.

I therefore find odd the commentary from various journalists and CofE clergy about the Church being “hopelessly out of touch” (etc. etc.) with the faithful, when it is precisely among the faithful that the required majority to pass the measure was lacking.

It also suggests to me that the Anglican Churches’ rapid drift away from orthodoxy in recent decades has been driven more by political activism from the top-down than by a gradual heterodox drift of the laity. To be sure, there has probably been a bit of both, but to see the measure fall short of the two thirds majority in the House of Laity when the House of Bishops voted 44 to 3 for the measure really does suggest that the Church leadership is out of touch, but not in the way that they think.

Of course, I don’t believe that “in-touch-ness” or “out-of-touch-ness” is any meaningful measure by which to judge a religious group, because if the laity are wrong, then I would of course prefer the leadership to be right, even if it means being out of touch. I just find it odd that the democratisers in this venerable Protestant communion should be so inept at representing the demos.

I don’t know if it’s the same in the Church of England, but my experience in the United Methodist Church was that the clergy were usually much more “progressive” than the laity.

 

[waterbrook]

The way I understand the situation, everyone in the Church of England has pretty much accepted the idea that there will be women bishops. At the same time, there is a sizeable part of the church that is theologically opposed to female bishops, the Anglo-Catholics and traditional evangelicals.

Early on promises were made to these groups that there would always be a place in the CofE for them, and that when women bishop’s were finally consecrated there would be adequate provision for these groups.

The defeated legislation was defeated over this protection. Anglo-Catholics and evangelicals were not satisfied with the protection that they were given, while the radical liberal women’s groups in the CofE thought that the few protections granted went too far.

So, I don’t think this defeat should be seen as a defeat for women bishops. The Church of England will inevitably have women bishops. This particular legislation just did not satisfy anyone.

This is a good summary of the situation. I think the laity need to be more aware of the consequences of the election of parish officers and recognise that this will provide the pool of candidates and electorate of deanery, diocesan synods.

 

[GKC]

A view of the vote:

anglicanink.com/article/liberal-member-synod-explains-his-no-vote-women-bishops

GKC

 

[Eilrahc]

The Cuurch of England has voted against consecrating women Bishops. Interestingly the Bishops and Clergy voted for only the House of Laity voted against. So many Anglicans are moving closer to full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. Consecration of women Bishops would make unity impossible.

They still got a long way to go, because they already have female priests.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

The Cuurch of England has voted against consecrating women Bishops. Interestingly the Bishops and Clergy voted for only the House of Laity voted against. So many Anglicans are moving closer to full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. Consecration of women Bishops would make unity impossible.

This should remind us on why the Church isn’t a democracy (or shouldn’t be).

I am pleasantly surprised by the outcome of the vote. But I also think it’s a last-gasp against the rising tide of modernism within the Church of England. I don’t think it will last too long. But I can bet that there will now be repercussions against the Church of England for the vote. I’m not sure if disestablishment will occur, but maybe the Church might be forced to conform to the Equality Act.

 

[waterbrook]

This should remind us on why the Church isn’t a democracy (or shouldn’t be).

I am pleasantly surprised by the outcome of the vote. But I also think it’s a last-gasp against the rising tide of modernism within the Church of England. I don’t think it will last too long. But I can bet that there will now be repercussions against the Church of England for the vote. I’m not sure if disestablishment will occur, but maybe the Church might be forced to conform to the Equality Act.

I can see where you are coming from but I think this unlikely.

 

[vera_dicere]

Its a little illogical. If they have women “priests” how can they deny women the title of bishop?

Its quite a shame, while I’m certainly no fan of Protestantism, its sad to see a Christian church cracking into pieces.

Either this’ll blow over and a few years later they’ll revote and women will get in, the COE will fracture again, or the State will intervene, which may or may not have consquences for every other “anti-woman” religion.

 

[waterbrook]

I believe David Cameron has said he does not intend to intervene.

 

[ltwin]

Its a little illogical. If they have women “priests” how can they deny women the title of bishop?

It’s not illogical. There are two tradtionalist views in the Church of England, the Anglo-Catholics and the traditional evangelicals.

From an Anglo-Catholic viewpoint, women priests have no effect on the entire apostolic succession of the church. The only problem female priests present is the validity of their sacramental acts, etc. If you do not want a woman as your priest, you simply go to a parish with a male priest. However, once female bishops are consecrated, this affects the validity of all orders.

For traditional evangelicals, the concern is not apostolic succession. What concerns them is the principle of male headship. The argument can be made that even though there are women priests, as long as there are only male bishops then male leadership of the church has been maintained. If you cannot submit to a female priest, then you need only find a parish with a male priest. However, once you have dioceses presided over by women, male headship is over.

What both groups want is assurance that they will never have to submit to female bishops. The defeated legislation only required that their views be “respected” but did not obligate the church to provide alternative oversight for them.

 

[GKC]

It’s not illogical. There are two tradtionalist views in the Church of England, the Anglo-Catholics and the traditional evangelicals.

From an Anglo-Catholic viewpoint, women priests have no effect on the entire apostolic succession of the church. The only problem female priests present is the validity of their sacramental acts, etc. If you do not want a woman as your priest, you simply go to a parish with a male priest. However, once female bishops are consecrated, this affects the validity of all orders.

For traditional evangelicals, the concern is not apostolic succession. What concerns them is the principle of male headship. The argument can be made that even though there are women priests, as long as there are only male bishops then male leadership of the church has been maintained. If you cannot submit to a female priest, then you need only find a parish with a male priest. However, once you have dioceses presided over by women, male headship is over.

What both groups want is assurance that they will never have to submit to female bishops. The defeated legislation only required that their views be “respected” but did not obligate the church to provide alternative oversight for them.

Though I’d say that one can find evangelicals in the CoE who are supportive of the apostolic succession point, I’d agree, in general.

GKC

 

[FabiusMaximus]

I can see where you are coming from but I think this unlikely.

Maybe not yet, but as the British liberal establishment becomes more radicalized, I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s more on the table in the future.

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .Calling Anglicans laity playing dress up is remarkably uncharitable and not at all the example set by Pope Benedict who has a warm personal friendship with the present Archbishop of Canterbury.

Usbek de Perse,

Thank you for the above comment. I get tired of the cheap shots hurled at Anglicans. Our Communion remains in crisis. Nothing like kicking you, when you’re already down.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Well, agreed, if they sincerely believe they have valid orders. But how much more uncharitable is it to leave them in that illusion?

Dolezal,

As a Catholic, you must believe Anglican orders are invalid. You are bound by Apostolicae Curae.

What I meant to suggest was that Anglicans converting to Catholicism usually do so because they are dissatisfied with what is going on in their church, such as changes to the liturgy and the ordination of women and non-celibate openly homosexual men to the priesthood. Add women bishops to that, and I suspect many more will seek to return to Rome.

As a good friend once told me, running from something is not a reason to run to the Catholic Church. To enter into Communion with Rome, one must embrace Catholicism with one’s whole heart. Anything less, would be dishonest and disrespectful to the Catholic faith.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

*(Archbishop Rowan) Williams said in the aftermath of that decision, the church risks being seen as “willfully blind” to the demands from wider British society; it must do away with institutional and theological sexism.

“We have, to put it very bluntly, a lot of explaining to do,” he told the General Synod. “Whatever the motivation for voting yesterday, whatever the theological principle on which people acted and spoke, the fact remains that a great deal of this discussion is not intelligible to our wider society. Worse than that, it seems as if we are willfully blind to some of the trends and priorities of that wider society.”* Article here.

With the concern of the current, and next ABp of Canterbury setting theology by popular opinion it seems the trouble will continue.

 

[waterbrook]

*(Archbishop Rowan) Williams said in the aftermath of that decision, the church risks being seen as “willfully blind” to the demands from wider British society; it must do away with institutional and theological sexism…

With the concern of the current, and next ABp of Canterbury setting theology by popular opinion it seems the trouble will continue.*

Agreed this is a thorny issue and has been for quite some time. However to ignore the context in which the Christian lives is to ignore the fact that God’s activity is not limited by the boundaries of the Church.

 

[godismyfather]

I have read a lot of postings here and I have noticed that so many of you have so much against this Pope!!! He has been doing his best to bring all Catholics together and he is going as far as bringing all christians together instead of seperating them from each other and declaring wars on one and an other! Pope Benedict is for re unification of all christians and I could not agree more with him! Look what is happening to our churches today! Why do we need so much seperations, when it is time for all of us to come together??? Did not we have enough of them already druing last three centuries!!! What did we gain from all these sepations so far??? Nothing! We are braking our faith in pieces and weakenning our Catholic faith instead of fighting together against the real dangers!

 

[waterbrook]

I have read a lot of postings here and I have noticed that so many of you have so much against this Pope!!! He has been doing his best to bring all Catholics together and he is going as far as bringing all christians together instead of seperating them from each other and declaring wars on one and an other! Pope Benedict is for re unification of all christians and I could not agree more with him! Look what is happening to our churches today! Why do we need so much seperations, when it is time for all of us to come together??? Did not we have enough of them already druing last three centuries!!! What did we gain from all these sepations so far??? Nothing! We are braking our faith in pieces and weakenning our Catholic faith instead of fighting together against the real dangers!

Sorry, I haven’t seen derogatory posts about the Pope on this thread. We are talking about the Church of England.