Female Bishops: Church Of England Renews Pledge To Ordain Women

[GKC]

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?

There is only one Church of England, though it has a few dioceses in territory outside of England. The Anglican Churches which comprise the Anglican Communion are not a part of the Church of England, though they mostly started from there. Originally, “Anglican” was synonymous with “Church of England”; there were no other Anglicans. As the British spread outward into colonies, the Church of England followed, under the Bishop of London, originally, in charge of colonial territories. As the colonies grew and matured, colonial bishops were appointed into them, still as part of the Church of England. And as the colonies matured into dominions, and eventually into independent nations, the colonial Churches became independent (eventually) too. Fully independent, self governing Churches, split from the Church of England. While the CoE does have a continued presence in portions of the old Empire (Gibraltar, for example), those Churches that you refer to as Church of England operating in Africa and Asia are not Church of England, but independent Churches sprung from the CoE, the mother Church of all Anglicanism. Usually (not always) these offspring Churches have “Anglican” in their name, as the Anglican Church of Canada, of South Africa, of Australia, you name it.

These independent Churches form what is called the Anglican Communion, independent Churches in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is both the Primate of the Church of England, and the head of the Anglican Communion. This office is not a Papal analogue; he has no actual authority over the Communion, but does exercise some influence. The analogy could be made to the British Commonwealth. The Monarch is the figurehead of the Commonwealth but no longer exercises any authority over the now independent countries, formerly colonies.

For all practical purposes, the first such independent Anglican Church to be established was the Episcopal Church, in the US. A fall-out of the Revolution.

It is all even more complicated than all that; this is the condensed version. But there is not an Anglican Church, referred to as the Church of England. There are 38 Anglican Churches, of various names, who are loosely associated in the Anglican Communion.

And this does not consider the Anglicans who are not in the Communion. As I said, complicated.

GKC

 

[GKC]

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??

Yes.

GKC

 

[Miriam1947]

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

Nah, they’ll say this would have been my body if Jesus had been female. How does an Anglican female priestess consecrate the host now? What do they say now? “This is my body”?

What do we call them. Father, mother? or perhaps Reverend which I guess could be asexual.

Whoa, how absolutely confusing this is.

 

[Peter_J]

…which Christianity?

Um … okay.

 

[MartinJordan]

Nah, they’ll say this would have been my body if Jesus had been female. How does an Anglican female priestess consecrate the host now? What do they say now? “This is my body”?

What do we call them. Father, mother? or perhaps Reverend which I guess could be asexual.

Whoa, how absolutely confusing this is.

In the Name of Father, and of The ?_ and of the Holy Spirit :hypno:

MJ

 

[ltwin]

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??

GKC, as always, explained the Anglican Chaos (I mean Communion ) very well. Please do not think about this “through Catholic eyes.” It would be more fruitful to see it through Orthodox eyes, in the sense that there is no one guy at the top but many different national/regional “autocephalous” churches.

In a church that has been given autocephaly, the head bishop (what Anglicans call the “Primate”, usually an Archbishop or Presiding Bishop) does not report to any higher-ranking bishop. The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church is not bound to obey the Archbishop of Canterbury. She is responsible and accountable to the General Convention of the Episcopal Church in the USA.

There are “four instruments of communion” that include the Archbishop of Canterbury as first among equals among all Anglican primates and spiritual (and symbolic) head of the Communion, the Lambeth Conference held every ten years and attended by bishops of the Communion at the invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Anglican Consultative Council which usually meets in 3-year intervals and consists of representative bishops, clergy, and laity chosen by the provinces. The Council operates the Anglican Communion Office (these are the bureaucrats who think they run the Communion). Then there is the Primates Meeting which is a meeting of all the chief bishops of the Anglican Communion.

So, to put it simply, there is no one in the Anglican Communion who has final authority. The Communion is based on mutual consent, not hierarchy. There is hierarchy at the provincial level, but this hierarchical nature does not extend to an international level.

 

[ltwin]

One other point to make. The decision to allow female bishops in the Church of England will be made by the General Synod of the Church of England. The actions of the English General Synod have no bearing outside of the CofE. Each national church has its own General Synod or General Convention. This is why there have been women bishops in America for years now. In fact, the Presiding Bishop of the American Church is a woman. However, their actions affected no province but their own. In the same way, the Church of England’s decision will not internally affect any other province.

There will be implications for communion. For example, what happens if the Archbishop of Canterbury is ever a woman? Now that will make it hard for some Anglicans outside of England to remain in Communion, but this is a matter of relationships between interrelated national churches, not one of internal church policy.

 

[GKC]

GKC, as always, explained the Anglican Chaos (I mean Communion ) very well. Please do not think about this “through Catholic eyes.” It would be more fruitful to see it through Orthodox eyes, in the sense that there is no one guy at the top but many different national/regional “autocephalous” churches.

In a church that has been given autocephaly, the head bishop (what Anglicans call the “Primate”, usually an Archbishop or Presiding Bishop) does not report to any higher-ranking bishop. The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church is not bound to obey the Archbishop of Canterbury. She is responsible and accountable to the General Convention of the Episcopal Church in the USA.

There are “four instruments of communion” that include the Archbishop of Canterbury as first among equals among all Anglican primates and spiritual (and symbolic) head of the Communion, the Lambeth Conference held every ten years and attended by bishops of the Communion at the invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Anglican Consultative Council which usually meets in 3-year intervals and consists of representative bishops, clergy, and laity chosen by the provinces. The Council operates the Anglican Communion Office (these are the bureaucrats who think they run the Communion). Then there is the Primates Meeting which is a meeting of all the chief bishops of the Anglican Communion.

So, to put it simply, there is no one in the Anglican Communion who has final authority. The Communion is based on mutual consent, not hierarchy. There is hierarchy at the provincial level, but this hierarchical nature does not extend to an international level.

This last is a point of contention in the current train wreck that is the Episcopal Church. Historically, there was no hierarchy beyond the diocesan bishop in the TEC. The office of the Presiding Bishop was administrative only, and originally went to the senior Bishop, by age. The office carried no ecclesiastical authority, in itself. The current Presiding Bishop, the gracious Katherine, has sought to grow that office into something of an Archbishopric. It is noted that she often affects a patriarchal crozier.

I am again impressed with your grasp of details in the whacky world of Anglicanism.

GKC

 

[theyoungmonk]

This is ridiculous pretty much they went and said “So we got defeated the first time this means we will have to vote again and change the way we vote on it until we get the result we want.”

Stupid beyond belief and also quite arrogant, but that is the norm for the liberal elite.

 

[liturgyluver]

This is ridiculous pretty much they went and said “So we got defeated the first time this means we will have to vote again and change the way we vote on it until we get the result we want.”

Stupid beyond belief and also quite arrogant, but that is the norm for the liberal elite.

Not exactly stupid. Despite 73% supporting the measure - and widespread popular support for it among the CofE congregations - it was narrowly defeated in one of the three voting synods, simply because it had been crowded out by conservative evangelicals. Although it seems odd to us Catholics, the CofE has always stated that it is committed to having women Bishops - the debate has been about the provisions for those who can’t accept women Bishops. The CofE remains alone among the Anglican Communion in being committed to providing provisions rather than a simpe unqualified support for them as has happened elsewhere.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Not exactly stupid. Despite 73% supporting the measure - and widespread popular support for it among the CofE congregations - it was narrowly defeated in one of the three voting synods, simply because it had been crowded out by conservative evangelicals. Although it seems odd to us Catholics, the CofE has always stated that it is committed to having women Bishops - the debate has been about the provisions for those who can’t accept women Bishops. The CofE remains alone among the Anglican Communion in being committed to providing provisions rather than a simpe unqualified support for them as has happened elsewhere.

You are quite right. And when you say defeated in one of the three houses, that’s right, but it got a clear majority in favour in that house, just it was a handful of votes short of the two-thirds majority required. Your “has always stated” is overstating it a bit historically (!) but it is true that the CofE takes the same position often taken by Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox: “were it possible to make a woman a priest, it would also be possible to make her a bishop”. The reason there has been a long gap between the CofE making women priests and the current move to admit women to the episcopate is because making provision for the minority who disagree is much more difficult where the authority of a diocesan bishop is at stake.

You might think it worthy of the CofE that it takes such heart-searching, painful trouble to try to find space for the minority as “loyal members of the Church of England” as the saying goes.

 

[liturgyluver]

You are quite right. And when you say defeated in one of the three houses, that’s right, but it got a clear majority in favour in that house, just it was a handful of votes short of the two-thirds majority required. Your “has always stated” is overstating it a bit historically (!) but it is true that the CofE takes the same position often taken by Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox: “were it possible to make a woman a priest, it would also be possible to make her a bishop”. The reason there has been a long gap between the CofE making women priests and the current move to admit women to the episcopate is because making provision for the minority who disagree is much more difficult where the authority of a diocesan bishop is at stake.

You might think it worthy of the CofE that it takes such heart-searching, painful trouble to try to find space for the minority as “loyal members of the Church of England” as the saying goes.

Yes, I agree with you. You are right - I certainly did overstate the historical position by using the word “always” Thanks for helpfully clarifying the true position.

 

[Picky_Picky]

What do we call them. Father, mother? or perhaps Reverend which I guess could be asexual.

Whoa, how absolutely confusing this is.

Certainly not “Reverend”. In Britain that is an honorific that acts as a modifier, not a noun: you can’t call a priest “Reverend”, whether male or female. If you really are deeply concerned about this matter, try Crockfords:

crockford.org.uk/standard.asp?id=116

 

[Peter_J]

GKC, as always, explained the Anglican Chaos (I mean Communion ) very well. Please do not think about this “through Catholic eyes.” It would be more fruitful to see it through Orthodox eyes, in the sense that there is no one guy at the top but many different national/regional “autocephalous” churches.

…

Good post; but I would like to chime in regard to this ^^ opening paragraph. Whether someone understands or not will have little to do with whether he/she is Catholic, on the one hand, or Orthodox on the other. In other words, there’s nothing intrinsic about Catholics with regard to not understanding it, it’s just individual differences that come into play.

People sometimes get an idea in their heads that Orthodoxy and Anglicanism are very similar to each other but very different from Catholicism – which oddly enough tends to be about as offensive to Orthodox as it is to Catholics. (Although, to be fair, I’ve also encountered many people who think that Orthodoxy and *Catholicism *are very similar to each other but very different from Anglicanism.)

 

[Peter_J]

The CofE remains alone among the Anglican Communion in being committed to providing provisions rather than a simpe unqualified support for them as has happened elsewhere.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Certainly not “Reverend”. In Britain that is an honorific that acts as a modifier, not a noun: you can’t call a priest “Reverend”, whether male or female. If you really are deeply concerned about this matter, try Crockfords:

crockford.org.uk/standard.asp?id=116

That has been an awkward situation. I have heard one female Episcopalian priest being referred to as “Mother” but that word can have negative cultural/colloquial consequences. Female Lutheran clergy go by Pastor as do male priests. Like Anglicans, some Lutheran clergy are called Father but mainly as a way to call them by their first name .

 

[ltwin]

Good post; but I would like to chime in regard to this ^^ opening paragraph. Whether someone understands or not will have little to do with whether he/she is Catholic, on the one hand, or Orthodox on the other. In other words, there’s nothing intrinsic about Catholics with regard to not understanding it, it’s just individual differences that come into play.

People sometimes get an idea in their heads that Orthodoxy and Anglicanism are very similar to each other but very different from Catholicism – which oddly enough tends to be about as offensive to Orthodox as it is to Catholics. (Although, to be fair, I’ve also encountered many people who think that Orthodoxy and *Catholicism *are very similar to each other but very different from Anglicanism.)

I didn’t say Orthodoxy and Anglicanism were similar in all respects. However, when it comes to being a collection of autocephalous churches, they certainly are.

Of course, this comparison is limited. As far as I’m aware, there is much theological uniformity within Eastern Orthodoxy. There is a lot less uniformity in doctrine and practice among Anglicans.

In Anglicanism, you have the most theologically liberal to the most theologically conservative and everything in between. You have the most “catholic”, both theologically and practically, and the most “reformed/Protestant”, both theologically and practically, and everything in between.

 

[GKC]

I didn’t say Orthodoxy and Anglicanism were similar in all respects. However, when it comes to being a collection of autocephalous churches, they certainly are.

Of course, this comparison is limited. As far as I’m aware, there is much theological uniformity within Eastern Orthodoxy. There is a lot less uniformity in doctrine and practice among Anglicans.

In Anglicanism, you have the most theologically liberal to the most theologically conservative and everything in between. You have the most “catholic”, both theologically and practically, and the most “reformed/Protestant”, both theologically and practically, and everything in between.

Motley.

GKC

 

[ltwin]

This last is a point of contention in the current train wreck that is the Episcopal Church. Historically, there was no hierarchy beyond the diocesan bishop in the TEC. The office of the Presiding Bishop was administrative only, and originally went to the senior Bishop, by age. The office carried no ecclesiastical authority, in itself. The current Presiding Bishop, the gracious Katherine, has sought to grow that office into something of an Archbishopric. It is noted that she often affects a patriarchal crozier.

The diocese in my area (South Carolina) is making just that contention. It astounds me that so many Episcopalians are so ignorant/confused about the legal and historical composition of their church. The balance of power in TEC has always been in the dioceses and parishes.

I am again impressed with your grasp of details in the whacky world of Anglicanism.

GKC

I got sucked into the drama via blogs like Stand Firm. This was back in 2008. I find the dysfunction and the at times tacky behavior (from a tradition that used to be the very definition of class) on all sides quite fascinating.

 

[SteveVH]

All of this history and dysfunction is very interesting. My question, however, is this: On what basis, either Scriptural or Traditional, does the Anglican Church believe it has the authority to ordain women? One poster has said it is in imitating Christ that they ordain women. Yet this goes completely against any example Christ gave us.

Thanks.