Female Bishops: Church Of England Renews Pledge To Ordain Women

[Jordan_Rizk]

The Church of England’s law-making body voted on Monday in favor of ordaining women bishops, but it will be at least two years before the measure, opposed by a minority of traditionalists, can be passed.

The vote was a boost for Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby who became head of the 80 million-member Anglican church in January, a few weeks after a blocking minority defeated the last attempt to allow women bishops in the English church, after 10 years of divisive debate.

After several hours of talks in York at the Anglican body’s national assembly, the General Synod, members voted overwhelmingly to pursue reforms to allow women bishops as a “matter of urgency”.

A committee will draft legislation that will be reviewed later this year but it is not likely to be given final approval before November 2015.

" affirms an inclusive approach that is consistent with our previous resolution: the commitment to ordaining women bishops on exactly the same basis as men, and the flourishing together of all parts of the Church," said Welby, 57, who is seeking to modernize the image of the church.

Dozens of Synod members spoke to urge the Church to move forward from the “train crash” of November’s shock result at the assembly - when a decision to ordain women bishops failed by six votes - and to return to a “path of reconciliation”.

“This better-than-expected result has drawn a line under last year’s disaster and lays the foundation for new legislation to permit women to be bishops,” said Robert Key, chair of the House of Laity, one of the Synod’s three chambers.

“It is only the start of a two-year process, but the Church of England is on the march again under new management.”

The route to final approval might still be rocky despite apparent strong support.

“This time the Synod used a straightforward vote that just needed a simple majority. If it had been voted in this way in November it would have got through too,” said Paul Handley, editor of the Church Times newspaper.

In November, the measure received 73 percent of the overall vote, but fell short of the required two-thirds approval in one chamber. The Synod could demand the same system of voting be used again.

Conservatives demonstrated significant opposition. “There will be a sense of gnawing anxiety on our part if we go down the route as it stands,” said Rod Thomas, chairman of the evangelical group Reform.

The Church approved the ordination of women priests in 1992, but delayed making them bishops because of opposition within its previously all-male clergy. Bishops play a key role in many Christian churches where only they can ordain new clergy.

Women already serve as Anglican bishops in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States, but Anglican churches in many developing countries oppose any female clergy and are working together to shield themselves against such reforms.

Rebecca Swinson, a reformer and member of church think-tank the Archbishop’s Council, said the next generation would wonder what all the fuss was about.

“My big hope is that my children will know a different normality to me and that they will not hear the words ‘women bishops’ ever again,” she told the Synod.

Source: Huffington Post

 

[MartinJordan]

Rebecca Swinson, a reformer and member of church think-tank the Archbishop’s Council, said the next generation would wonder what all the fuss was about.

“My big hope is that my children will know a different normality to me and that they will not hear the words ‘women bishops’ ever again,” she told the Synod.

Source: Huffington Post

Doubt it.

When the Bishop presents the consecrated Host during Mass holds it up and says “this is my body” Jesus is a female?

MJ

 

[SAVINGRACE]

I don’t understand are they going to push this through without the co-operation of the conservatives in Africa/Asia area who are very opposed to women Priests/Bishops?

Will they just put up with a portion of their church not supporting or implementing the changes or will they ignore that population?

 

[ltwin]

I don’t understand are they going to push this through without the co-operation of the conservatives in Africa/Asia area who are very opposed to women Priests/Bishops?

The Anglican Communion is an autonomous collective of Anglican provinces. Therefore, the Church of England can do whatever it wants whether other provinces agree or not. At the same time, conservative provinces can and will refuse to recognize these ordinations.

The same thing has happened with homosexual bishops consecrated in the United States. The conservative churches just broke communion with the American province.

Will they just put up with a portion of their church not supporting or implementing the changes or will they ignore that population?

Everyone knows there will be female bishops in the Church of England. That is a forgone conclusion. The “loyal opposition” (the Anglo-Catholics and the Evangelicals) at this point are simply trying to ensure that provision is made for them to remain within the CofE in good conscience.

When women priests were first approved, promises were made to the conservatives that there would always be a place for them in the CofE. However, the progressives in these recent attempts to pass women bishops have basically told conservatives that despite the promises that were made, they will have to accept women bishops on the progressive’s terms.

This is what is driving the opposition to female bishops now. The conservatives know they can’t win in the long term, but they are fighting for actual concessions that ensure (for evangelicals) they will never be under a female bishop’s oversight and (for Anglo-Catholics) they will always have a “pure” male line of succession with which to ordain their clergy.

For progressives, there is a strong push to give the conservatives only some of what they are asking for. For example, the recently failed proposal called for certain male bishops to exclusively minister to churches that don’t want female clergy in dioceses with a woman bishop. However, the progressives wanted the male bishop to be under the authority of the female bishop. He would be her delegate. For obvious reasons, neither evangelicals or Anglo-Catholics were satisfied. This is what drove them to pull off a very savvy political campaign at the last General Synod meeting. They were organized, and they were prepared.

 

[liturgyluver]

I don’t understand are they going to push this through without the co-operation of the conservatives in Africa/Asia area who are very opposed to women Priests/Bishops?

Will they just put up with a portion of their church not supporting or implementing the changes or will they ignore that population?

This has nothing to do with the Anglican provinces in Africa or Asia. These decisions are being taken by the Church of England for the Church of England and not on behalf of the other provinces in Africa or Asia as each national church has full autonomy.

 

[liturgyluver]

The Anglican Communion is an autonomous collective of Anglican provinces. Therefore, the Church of England can do whatever it wants whether other provinces agree or not. At the same time, conservative provinces can and will refuse to recognize these ordinations.

The same thing has happened with homosexual bishops consecrated in the United States. The conservative churches just broke communion with the American province.

Everyone knows there will be female bishops in the Church of England. That is a forgone conclusion. The “loyal opposition” (the Anglo-Catholics and the Evangelicals) at this point are simply trying to ensure that provision is made for them to remain within the CofE in good conscience.

When women priests were first approved, promises were made to the conservatives that there would always be a place for them in the CofE. However, the progressives in these recent attempts to pass women bishops have basically told conservatives that despite the promises that were made, they will have to accept women bishops on the progressive’s terms.

This is what is driving the opposition to female bishops now. The conservatives know they can’t win in the long term, but they are fighting for actual concessions that ensure (for evangelicals) they will never be under a female bishop’s oversight and (for Anglo-Catholics) they will always have a “pure” male line of succession with which to ordain their clergy.

For progressives, there is a strong push to give the conservatives only some of what they are asking for. For example, the recently failed proposal called for certain male bishops to exclusively minister to churches that don’t want female clergy in dioceses with a woman bishop. However, the progressives wanted the male bishop to be under the authority of the female bishop. He would be her delegate. For obvious reasons, neither evangelicals or Anglo-Catholics were satisfied. This is what drove them to pull off a very savvy political campaign at the last General Synod meeting. They were organized, and they were prepared.

This is an excellent post which explains perfectly the current position.

 

[Used2beSherryG]

The choice becomes ever clearer. If you want to follow Christ, come home to the Catholic Church where you belong.

 

[TK421]

It’s called Anglican for a reason. It’s a religion that was created by England for England. There will be lag, but the church in England can and will redefine itself to try to make it more palatable to UK tastes. The Episcopal church in the US is curiously much further along and has become a ‘progressive’ far wing within US denominations.

The Anglican churches abroad won’t be required to join in on the false enlightening, but it should be obvious to anybody that this is something that can and will cause a crisis of faith for both layman and clergy in Anglican communion and perhaps make them reconsider their congregation.

The need to liberalize (or radicalize) a religion never did make sense to me. When I was a teenager I came to hate Christian doctrine, which is why I simply stopped being a Christian for a time. I didn’t start making stuff up as I went. But I suppose each person can be vulnerable in different ways. “Take it or leave it” isn’t something I’ve wrestled too much with.

 

[GKC]

The Anglican Communion is an autonomous collective of Anglican provinces. Therefore, the Church of England can do whatever it wants whether other provinces agree or not. At the same time, conservative provinces can and will refuse to recognize these ordinations.

The same thing has happened with homosexual bishops consecrated in the United States. The conservative churches just broke communion with the American province.

Everyone knows there will be female bishops in the Church of England. That is a forgone conclusion. The “loyal opposition” (the Anglo-Catholics and the Evangelicals) at this point are simply trying to ensure that provision is made for them to remain within the CofE in good conscience.

When women priests were first approved, promises were made to the conservatives that there would always be a place for them in the CofE. However, the progressives in these recent attempts to pass women bishops have basically told conservatives that despite the promises that were made, they will have to accept women bishops on the progressive’s terms.

This is what is driving the opposition to female bishops now. The conservatives know they can’t win in the long term, but they are fighting for actual concessions that ensure (for evangelicals) they will never be under a female bishop’s oversight and (for Anglo-Catholics) they will always have a “pure” male line of succession with which to ordain their clergy.

For progressives, there is a strong push to give the conservatives only some of what they are asking for. For example, the recently failed proposal called for certain male bishops to exclusively minister to churches that don’t want female clergy in dioceses with a woman bishop. However, the progressives wanted the male bishop to be under the authority of the female bishop. He would be her delegate. For obvious reasons, neither evangelicals or Anglo-Catholics were satisfied. This is what drove them to pull off a very savvy political campaign at the last General Synod meeting. They were organized, and they were prepared.

Well said.

GKC

 

[SteveVH]

The Anglican Communion is an autonomous collective of Anglican provinces. Therefore, the Church of England can do whatever it wants whether other provinces agree or not. At the same time, conservative provinces can and will refuse to recognize these ordinations.

The same thing has happened with homosexual bishops consecrated in the United States. The conservative churches just broke communion with the American province.

Everyone knows there will be female bishops in the Church of England. That is a forgone conclusion. The “loyal opposition” (the Anglo-Catholics and the Evangelicals) at this point are simply trying to ensure that provision is made for them to remain within the CofE in good conscience.

When women priests were first approved, promises were made to the conservatives that there would always be a place for them in the CofE. However, the progressives in these recent attempts to pass women bishops have basically told conservatives that despite the promises that were made, they will have to accept women bishops on the progressive’s terms.

This is what is driving the opposition to female bishops now. The conservatives know they can’t win in the long term, but they are fighting for actual concessions that ensure (for evangelicals) they will never be under a female bishop’s oversight and (for Anglo-Catholics) they will always have a “pure” male line of succession with which to ordain their clergy.

For progressives, there is a strong push to give the conservatives only some of what they are asking for. For example, the recently failed proposal called for certain male bishops to exclusively minister to churches that don’t want female clergy in dioceses with a woman bishop. However, the progressives wanted the male bishop to be under the authority of the female bishop. He would be her delegate. For obvious reasons, neither evangelicals or Anglo-Catholics were satisfied. This is what drove them to pull off a very savvy political campaign at the last General Synod meeting. They were organized, and they were prepared.

And the splintering continues. This is what happens when a faith community is scattered without a Shepherd to guide the flock. They are left to wander and find their own way, some going this way, some going that way. This is exactly why there must be a pope. Female priests and bishops are not an issue in the Catholic Church. We have a definitive statement from our leader that prevents this from ever happening in our Church. The Church, very simply, does not have the authority to ordain women; never has and never will. The Church of England has succumbed to modernity.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

The Church of England represents Christianity in that nation [aside from several other denominations including Roman Catholic and Methodist, etc.]. They worship God and pray for the guidance of the holy Spirit. Having female clergy including bishops is a witness that the Church is following the holy Spirit as St Paul refers to as imitators of Christ.

 

[GKC]

The Church of England represents Christianity in that nation [aside from several other denominations including Roman Catholic and Methodist, etc.]. They worship God and pray for the guidance of the holy Spirit. Having female clergy including bishops is a witness that the Church is following the holy Spirit as St Paul refers to as imitators of Christ.

Which, it appears, took them not quite 500 years to realize.

GKC

 

[SteveVH]

They worship God and pray for the guidance of the holy Spirit.

So does every denomination and they all disagree as to what guidance they are receiving.

Having female clergy including bishops is a witness that the Church is following the holy Spirit as St Paul refers to as imitators of Christ.

Imitators of Christ? When did Christ choose women to be in such a role? This is exactly why Pope John Paul, II said this:

*"In fact the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles attest that this call was made in accordance with God’s eternal plan; Christ chose those whom he willed (cf. Mk 3:13-14; Jn 6:70), and he did so in union with the Father, “through the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:2), after having spent the night in prayer (cf. Lk 6:12). Therefore, in granting admission to the ministerial priesthood,(6) the Church has always acknowledged as a perennial norm her Lord’s way of acting in choosing the twelve men whom he made the foundation of his Church (cf. Rv 21:14). These men did not in fact receive only a function which could thereafter be exercised by any member of the Church; rather they were specifically and intimately associated in the mission of the Incarnate Word himself (cf. Mt 10:1, 7-8; 28:16-20; Mk 3:13-16; 16:14-15). The Apostles did the same when they chose fellow workers(7) who would succeed them in their ministry.(8) Also included in this choice were those who, throughout the time of the Church, would carry on the Apostles’ mission of representing Christ the Lord and Redeemer.(9)

1. Furthermore, the fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the Church, received neither the mission proper to the Apostles nor the ministerial priesthood clearly shows that the non-admission of women to priestly ordination cannot mean that women are of lesser dignity, nor can it be construed as discrimination against them. Rather, it is to be seen as the faithful observance of a plan to be ascribed to the wisdom of the Lord of the universe.

…Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

Invoking an abundance of divine assistance upon you, venerable brothers, and upon all the faithful, I impart my apostolic blessing.

From the Vatican, on May 22, the Solemnity of Pentecost, in the year 1994, the sixteenth of my Pontificate."*

They may be praying to the Holy Spirit, but they are listening to the spirit of modernity.

 

[GKC]

Which, it appears, took them not quite 500 years to realize.

GKC

Behold a mystery. I have no idea how that smiley face got there.

GKC

 

[CarolNoel]

So does every denomination and they all disagree as to what guidance they are receiving.

Imitators of Christ? When did Christ choose women to be in such a role? This is exactly why Pope John Paul, II said this:

*"In fact the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles attest that this call was made in accordance with God’s eternal plan; Christ chose those whom he willed (cf. Mk 3:13-14; Jn 6:70), and he did so in union with the Father, “through the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:2), after having spent the night in prayer (cf. Lk 6:12). Therefore, in granting admission to the ministerial priesthood,(6) the Church has always acknowledged as a perennial norm her Lord’s way of acting in choosing the twelve men whom he made the foundation of his Church (cf. Rv 21:14). These men did not in fact receive only a function which could thereafter be exercised by any member of the Church; rather they were specifically and intimately associated in the mission of the Incarnate Word himself (cf. Mt 10:1, 7-8; 28:16-20; Mk 3:13-16; 16:14-15). The Apostles did the same when they chose fellow workers(7) who would succeed them in their ministry.(8) Also included in this choice were those who, throughout the time of the Church, would carry on the Apostles’ mission of representing Christ the Lord and Redeemer.(9)

1. Furthermore, the fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the Church, received neither the mission proper to the Apostles nor the ministerial priesthood clearly shows that the non-admission of women to priestly ordination cannot mean that women are of lesser dignity, nor can it be construed as discrimination against them. Rather, it is to be seen as the faithful observance of a plan to be ascribed to the wisdom of the Lord of the universe.

…Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

Invoking an abundance of divine assistance upon you, venerable brothers, and upon all the faithful, I impart my apostolic blessing.

From the Vatican, on May 22, the Solemnity of Pentecost, in the year 1994, the sixteenth of my Pontificate."*

They may be praying to the Holy Spirit, but they are listening to the spirit of modernity.

Great post:thumbsup:

 

[SteveVH]

Great post

To claim that “Having female clergy including bishops is a witness that the Church is following the holy Spirit as St Paul refers to as imitators of Christ.” is completely unsupported by Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. I am still shaking my head in disbelief.

 

[pablope]

The Church of England represents Christianity in that nation [aside from several other denominations including Roman Catholic and Methodist, etc.].

This begs the question…which Christianity?

The C of E form of Christianity, according to what they want it or define it to be?

Or Christianity that has never lost its connection to its roots?

They worship God and pray for the guidance of the holy Spirit.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

The Anglican fathers would be so proud.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

This has nothing to do with the Anglican provinces in Africa or Asia. These decisions are being taken by the Church of England for the Church of England and not on behalf of the other provinces in Africa or Asia as each national church has full autonomy.

But there are Church’s of England operating in Africa and Asia. Are you saying that these congregations outside of England do not submit to their authority?

I’m confused if each national church of CofE has full autonomy does that mean they define their own Dogma and Discipline which is what is occurring in this instance?

 

[SAVINGRACE]

The Anglican Communion is an autonomous collective of Anglican provinces. Therefore, the Church of England can do whatever it wants whether other provinces agree or not. At the same time, conservative provinces can and will refuse to recognize these ordinations.

The same thing has happened with homosexual bishops consecrated in the United States. The conservative churches just broke communion with the American province.

Everyone knows there will be female bishops in the Church of England. That is a forgone conclusion. The “loyal opposition” (the Anglo-Catholics and the Evangelicals) at this point are simply trying to ensure that provision is made for them to remain within the CofE in good conscience.

When women priests were first approved, promises were made to the conservatives that there would always be a place for them in the CofE. However, the progressives in these recent attempts to pass women bishops have basically told conservatives that despite the promises that were made, they will have to accept women bishops on the progressive’s terms.

This is what is driving the opposition to female bishops now. The conservatives know they can’t win in the long term, but they are fighting for actual concessions that ensure (for evangelicals) they will never be under a female bishop’s oversight and (for Anglo-Catholics) they will always have a “pure” male line of succession with which to ordain their clergy.

For progressives, there is a strong push to give the conservatives only some of what they are asking for. For example, the recently failed proposal called for certain male bishops to exclusively minister to churches that don’t want female clergy in dioceses with a woman bishop. However, the progressives wanted the male bishop to be under the authority of the female bishop. He would be her delegate. For obvious reasons, neither evangelicals or Anglo-Catholics were satisfied. This is what drove them to pull off a very savvy political campaign at the last General Synod meeting. They were organized, and they were prepared.

Thank you for attempting to clarify this for me. I’m sorry but it still appears to be a bit of a dogs breakfast.

It is clearer now but I’m seeing this through Catholic eyes which is why I struggle to understand who has final authority.

So they are regionally autonomous but define their own individual Discipline and Dogma and still call themselves Anglican??