Russian Orthodox statement on The Church of England's decision to allow female bishops

[pablope]

Authority is no substitute for truth. I just can’t see how the late Pope’s argument holds, is true. In Ordinatio Sacerdotalis he makes assertions which may be true, but which aren’t properly substantiated, and which have implications problematic for essential dogmas of the Christian faith.

Okay…but who do you believe would espouse that truth authoritatively? (that is my question)

[SIGN]If not JPII, who do you think should speak authoritatively about it and who would you accept?[/SIGN]

Who would you accept as speaking the truth authoritatively, that once that person speaks, there is no more question about women priests?

 

[Novocastrian]

Okay…but who do you believe would espouse that truth authoritatively? (that is my question)

[SIGN]If not JPII, who do you think should speak authoritatively about it and who would you accept?[/SIGN]

Who would you accept as speaking the truth authoritatively, that once that person speaks, there is no more question about women priests?

Christ, I suppose

I think we’re all capable of speaking the truth. That doesn’t mean we necessarily will. Human fallibility means that the authority is conditional. By way of example, if a Roman Catholic bishop stops teaching Roman Catholic doctrine, he loses his authority to teach in the Roman Catholic Church…

 

[Tomdstone]

Well…St. John Paul II has spoken authoritatively on this…is this not enough for you?

If not JPII, who do you think should speak authoritatively about it and who would you accept?

Some might interpret that as a disciplinary decision not a dogmatic one.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

The Church of England believes that the whole Christian people, guided by the Bishops, can proclaim what is true. The problem is implementing that.

The Church of England has institutionalised chaos; the Church of Rome has a Papal monarchy which has been rejected by the vast majority of Eastern Christians, the Reformers, and would likely be rejected by a great many ancient Fathers. I suppose one picks one’s poison when it comes to the failure of men to adequately bear witness to Him who is Truth.

Obviously I disagree about the early Church Fathers (and am pretty sure they do too, according to what they have written).

But that aside, in the CoE model you present there is no way to tell whether the whole Christian people, guided by the Bishops, have proclaimed what is true or not (or I suppose, whether or not such a proclamation has actually occurred). The CoE is beginning to say a whole host of things that the whole Christian people, guided by the bishops, have appeared to proclaim in the past is false. The whole Christian people, guided by the bishops, has in the past affirmed an all male priesthood, the sinfulness of contraception, etc etc. But now the CoE says that stuff is wrong, often saying that such things are just products of their times. But are we not also just as likely to be products of our times? Who’s to say which is the fad and which is the truth?

So essentially, the difference is that the CoE says that God instituted a system that demonstrably cannot do what it is meant to do, that is just incapable of showing what is actually true, and that Catholics say that God instituted a system that some people don’t like.

And again, this women bishop thing is a perfect example: under the CoE model you present, we have a flat out contradiction between the truth that is revealed now and the truth that was revealed in the past. The two solutions are that the model is false, or that it is impossible to tell when this proclaiming has actually happened, therefore making the truth inaccessible. Which kind of violates the whole purpose of the Incarnation.

 

[Novocastrian]

Obviously I disagree about the early Church Fathers (and am pretty sure they do too, according to what they have written).

Let’s just say I can’t see many of them signing up to Pastor Aeternus.

But that aside, in the CoE model you present there is no way to tell whether the whole Christian people, guided by the Bishops, have proclaimed what is true or if, as the CoE is beginning to say about a whole host of things that the whole Christian people, guided by the bishops, have said in the past, is false. That is, the whole Christian people, guided by the bishops, has in the past affirmed an all male priesthood, sinfulness of contraception, etc etc. But now the CoE says that stuff is wrong, often saying that such things are just products of their times. But are we not also products of our times? Who’s to say which is the fad and which is the truth?

There are ways of telling, just not infallible ways.

So essentially, the difference is that the CoE says that God instituted a system that demonstrably cannot do what it is meant to do, that is just incapable of showing what is actually true, and that Catholics say that God instituted a system that some people don’t like.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m no great apologist for the way the Church of England conducts its affairs. This isn’t, however, the same as being backed into the corner of needing to accept Papal Infallibility in order to teach the Christian Faith. The truth of a bishop or theologian’s doctrine ought to be measured against the standard of the Scriptures interpreted reasonably, coherent with the Church’s traditional rule of faith.

The question then becomes whether the ordination of women is coherent with that rule of faith, etc.

And again, this women bishop thing is a perfect example: under the CoE model you present, we have a flat out contradiction between the truth that is revealed now and the truth that was revealed in the past. The two solutions are that the model is false, or that it is impossible to tell when this proclaiming has actually happened, therefore making the truth inaccessible. Which kind of violates the whole purpose of the Incarnation.

You’re assuming that the male-only priesthood was a revealed truth. If it was, then I grant you we have a contradiction. Presumably we can see things which we would now recognise as historically contingent things once accepted as truth, which can be demonstrated to be false on the basis of a rational reading of Scripture; e.g. the historic permissibility of slave-ownership by Christians.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I get the feeling relations weren’t getting anywhere in the first place, but this doesn’t help. All this can do is split the Anglican church up further between conservatives and Liberals.

 

[Celtic_Maiden]

In the Church of England homosexual clergy are required to be celibate. The American Church has other ideas…

You mean Church of England, Protestant and Reformed, as they are reforming themselves away from Tradition, where do you find women priests in the Bible, or Bishops for that matter ?

 

[Novocastrian]

I get the feeling relations weren’t getting anywhere in the first place, but this doesn’t help. All this can do is split the Anglican church up further between conservatives and Liberals.

I do fear that this may be the case, and pray that it is not.

 

[Novocastrian]

You mean Church of England, Protestant and Reformed, as they are reforming themselves away from Tradition, where do you find women priests in the Bible, or Bishops for that matter ?

I find the ordination of women compatible with the Biblical presentation of the Church, and the Bible’s theological anthropology. I am, however, fallible; I may be shown to be wrong.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I do fear that this may be the case, and pray that it is not.

What direction do you see the Anglican church going, if I might ask? How deep are the divisions in your estimation?

 

[Novocastrian]

What direction do you see the Anglican church going, if I might ask? How deep are the divisions in your estimation?

This might sound like a cop-out, but I think it’s too early to tell. The American Church is certainly on the brink of real disaster, both internally due to its ordination of bishops who clearly have no intention of abiding by the Church’s teaching, and externally due to its refusal to heed the warnings of its sister Churches.

The Church of England is harder to analyse. The powers that be are quite liberal, though not always in a relativistic way. The Anglo-Catholics are still around, and the conservative evangelicals are growing in strength. An interesting development is the increasing doctrinal (at least Trinitarian, Christological and Soteriological) orthodoxy of the middle ground, which nonetheless accepts the ordination women, and treads a careful line re: homosexuality. Archbishop Welby might be a good example, as would Bishop (formerly of Durham) Wright.

With God’s grace, who knows what will happen…

 

[Seraphim73]

Well…St. John Paul II has spoken authoritatively on this…is this not enough for you?

If not JPII, who do you think should speak authoritatively about it and who would you accept?

If the completely unanimous practice, the witness of Tradition and Scripture are not enough I can’t imagine where else one would look for an answer to this question.

 

[Tomdstone]

This might sound like a cop-out, but I think it’s too early to tell. The American Church is certainly on the brink of real disaster, both internally due to its ordination of bishops who clearly have no intention of abiding by the Church’s teaching, and externally due to its refusal to heed the warnings of its sister Churches.

The Church of England is harder to analyse. The powers that be are quite liberal, though not always in a relativistic way. The Anglo-Catholics are still around, and the conservative evangelicals are growing in strength. An interesting development is the increasing doctrinal (at least Trinitarian, Christological and Soteriological) orthodoxy of the middle ground, which nonetheless accepts the ordination women, and treads a careful line re: homosexuality. Archbishop Welby might be a good example, as would Bishop (formerly of Durham) Wright.

With God’s grace, who knows what will happen…

What is the relation between the Anglican Church, the Church of England, the American Anglican Church and the Episcopal Church? Are they the same Church or are they totally different Churches?

 

[Seraphim73]

The Church of England believes that the whole Christian people, guided by the Bishops, can proclaim what is true. The problem is implementing that.

Yes but what is true does not change. Female “bishops” are an innovation plain and simple.

 

[Tomdstone]

If the completely unanimous practice, the witness of Tradition and Scripture are not enough I can’t imagine where else one would look for an answer to this question.

At one time, it was unanimous and the witness of Tradition and Scripture for women to wear headcovering in church. However, that has changed.

 

[pablope]

If the completely unanimous practice, the witness of Tradition and Scripture are not enough I can’t imagine where else one would look for an answer to this question.

Well…did you see Novacastrian’s reply, in post 16:

Authority is no substitute for truth. I just can’t see how the late Pope’s argument holds, is true. In Ordinatio Sacerdotalis he makes assertions which may be true, but which aren’t properly substantiated, and which have implications problematic for essential dogmas of the Christian faith.

 

[Tomdstone]

Yes but what is true does not change.

Isn’t it true that women were traditionally and in accordance with Scripture required to wear headcovering in Church? I have seen many women without headcovering in Eastern Orthodox Churches in the USA.

 

[Novocastrian]

What is the relation between the Anglican Church, the Church of England, the American Anglican Church and the Episcopal Church? Are they the same Church or are they totally different Churches?

The Church of England is the ancient Church in this country, reformed during the sixteenth century. The Anglican Communion is a worldwide fellowship of Churches which mostly began as overseas provinces of the Church of England within British colonies. The Episcopal Church is one of these.

 

[pablope]

Originally Posted by pablope View Post
Okay…but who do you believe would espouse that truth authoritatively? (that is my question)

So we are all infallible? You are infallible?

That doesn’t mean we necessarily will. Human fallibility means that the authority is conditional.

Pardon, I am not understanding you here…what od you mean by "that the authority is conditional??

By way of example, if a Roman Catholic bishop stops teaching Roman Catholic doctrine, he loses his authority to teach in the Roman Catholic Church…

And who or what is the measure when that RC bishop is not teaching the correct doctrine? Who would tell him he has lost his authority to teach?

[/QUOTE]

 

[Novocastrian]

Okay…how do you propose Christ will let His truth be known? Do you expect Him to appear and speak? If not, then who do you think should speak on His behalf on earth?