The Church of England OK's female bishops

[wisdomseeker]

They do vote though its not a pure democracy there as 3 houses, bishops, preists, and laeity. And for the record the Catholic church also elects its Pope so there is an aspect of democriization in the CC already. One man shouldn’t be given the power of the Pope. I think the schism and the reformation are evidence of that.

election of the pope is no democracy.

any way this is not about electing bishops.

 

[nhylan]

election of the pope is no democracy.

any way this is not about electing bishops.

Indirectly it is, bishops cast the votes. The churches of the communion are more Democratic that the Roman church but the masses aren’t the ones that pushed this vote through.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

. . . One man shouldn’t be given the power of the Pope. I think the schism and the reformation are evidence of that.

The continued fragmentation of the non-Catholic religions shows the result of no central authority.

 

[Nine_Two]

Democracy means everyone, or a significant segment of the population can vote. Just Cardinals being able to vote is not a democracy.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

But the Orthodox have no “central” authority either and they have no such chaos? Is it the authority problem or is it the Elizabethan Compromise and wobbly foundations to begin with when it comes to not being confessional in nature as a christian body?

The continued fragmentation of the non-Catholic religions shows the result of no central authority.

 

[CARV]

But the Orthodox have no “central” authority either and they have no such chaos? Is it the authority problem or is it the Elizabethan Compromise and wobbly foundations to begin with when it comes to not being confessional in nature as a christian body?

To be sure, the Queen of England was the central authority. The Catholics and protestants didn’t play nice in the Church of England because they believed in comprehensivness. They didn’t want to end up in London tower. If Queen Elizabeth II would just do the same thing, there would be no controversy.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The key word in your post is “was.” Agreed. But what does that matter now? Given the loosey-goosey nature of Anglicanism, the Queen or monarch in power really has had very little power to control much of anything in the Anglican world for a long time! Neither has the Archbishop of Canterbury. Both monarch and ABC are really more figure heads and traditional bells and whistles than anything. Think of the last time that a King or Queen really was a central authority in Anglicanism. How can the Queen stave off the Diocese of Sydney from allowing lay people to “consecrate” the Eucharist? How can the Queen stop ordinations of homosexuals in the U.S.? Same with the ABC. Both are impotent. The ABC is a tie to tradition, nothing more. Rowan has proven how weak and pitiful the office really is.

To be sure, the Queen of England was the central authority. The Catholics and protestants didn’t play nice in the Church of England because they believed in comprehensivness. They didn’t want to end up in London tower. If Queen Elizabeth II would just do the same thing, there would be no controversy.

 

[Dale_M]

Indirectly it is, bishops cast the votes…

I just wanted to make a small correction. The pope is elected by cardinals who are under 80 years old. The number of bishops is much greater than the number of cardinals.

Its not really a democracy, more of a oligarchy. Sure a vote is taken, but not of the entire Catholic Church.

 

[Netty1]

The continued fragmentation of the non-Catholic religions shows the result of no central authority.

I think you are right Joe. I know you were responding to a comment about the election of Popes, but I think your comment holds true in a wider sense.

I cannot help but feel that there are so many examples of non-Catholic denominations, including the C of E, who do not reflect the central authority of God as laid down in Scripture, and the ordination of female “priests” is just one example of this continuing fragmentation.

The Anglican Church, and the C of E in particular, is ripping itself apart. It is uncomfortable to watch, but I hope those who are unhappy will take up Pope Benedict’s invitation to find a home within the RCC.

 

[Bluegoat]

But the Orthodox have no “central” authority either and they have no such chaos? Is it the authority problem or is it the Elizabethan Compromise and wobbly foundations to begin with when it comes to not being confessional in nature as a christian body?

But would you say the Orthodox are confessional either? What is “orthodox” is more than what is written down.

But they are answerable to each other. A bishop or local church that becomes heterodox will no longer be recognized by the other bishops. In Anglicanism there is no accountability for the bishops and local churches, from other bishops or the laity. There is no way to get rid of a heretical bishop.

I also don’t think it is just chance that things really began to go to Hell in a hand-basket after the new modern liturgies were introduced. The only reason the CC hasn’t been totally buggered too is the central authority. But the problem here isn’t really the Anglican lack of central authority, it is the liturgy which embodies an entirely different vision of Christianity.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Agreed, blue. When I say “confessional,” I really refer more to bodies like the Lutherans and Reformed, who have an agreed-to, written, confessional belief structure, like the Augsburgh Confession, etc. Anglicanism lacks that and I think their attempt at being lex orandi, lex credendi (which is more catholic) but yet claiming Protestantism as part of their platypus personality doesn’t work.

And you’re correct, the Anglicans are not like the Orthodox. I was merely pointing out to the poster that a central authority has never been present in Orthodoxy and yet they’ve thrived and managed to have few heresies or issues other than surviving communists and the incursion of Islam. I agree with you that orthodoxy is more than a mere written word, true enough.

I agree also with what you said about the modern liturgy.

You lost me with your last statement. Please clarify for me.

But would you say the Orthodox are confessional either? What is “orthodox” is more than what is written down.

But they are answerable to each other. A bishop or local church that becomes heterodox will no longer be recognized by the other bishops. In Anglicanism there is no accountability for the bishops and local churches, from other bishops or the laity. There is no way to get rid of a heretical bishop.

I also don’t think it is just chance that things really began to go to Hell in a hand-basket after the new modern liturgies were introduced. The only reason the CC hasn’t been totally buggered too is the central authority. But the problem here isn’t really the Anglican lack of central authority, it is the liturgy which embodies an entirely different vision of Christianity.

 

[Bluegoat]

You lost me with your last statement. Please clarify for me.

I said:

I also don’t think it is just chance that things really began to go to Hell in a hand-basket after the new modern liturgies were introduced. The only reason the CC hasn’t been totally buggered too is the central authority. But the problem here isn’t really the Anglican lack of central authority, it is the liturgy which embodies an entirely different vision of Christianity.

What I meant by that last bolded part is this - The Catholic Church has also adopted the same style of modern liturgy, which I think is based on a theology that is fundamentally different than traditional catholic Christianity. But they haven’t fallen apart like the Anglicans, I think because of the authority of the Magisterium.

Some people might argue that this shows that that particular kind of authority is good and necessary - it’s certainly a plausible POV. I don’t think that is really the case - the mistake isn’t the lack of central authority, it is the changes in the theology behind the liturgy. Partly I say this because the Church maintained itself without that authority for many years, and the OC still does. But also, I think the Roman Church has seriously suffered due to the liturgical changes as well.

Notwithstanding, I think there are issues with how Anglican bishops are held accountable, as I said before.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think the folksy koombaya guitar-strumming, communion-in-the-hand, hand-holding during the Our Father, and blandness of the post Vatican II liturgy is indeed a tragedy. But the essential meaning, structure, sacrifice, and theology has not changed an iota. I don’t think the Mass changes drove people away. I think the pathetic, and I mean PATHETIC catechesis in the Church drove many many people away. For decades Catholics, including myself as a kid and teen, didn’t have a dang clue about theology or church history or sacramental theology. I didn’t understand soteriology, the Eucharist, the communion of saints, the liturgy, you name it. Catechesis is still bland, rote, and pitiful. The Church stopped being missionary-minded. The Gospel wasn’t preached from the roof tops. The Mass wasn’t the problem. The catechesis and in more recent years the PR nightmares haven’t helped. What has kept things together is Catholics who love their Church, Marian devotion to a large degree, the papacy, titans like John Paul II who energized the youth, World Youth Day, JP2’s role in the downfall of communism, and I think the Holy Spirit. I don’t think Benedict has been anywhere near the envigorating, energetic, inspiring, funny at times, deep figure that JP2 was. He was the pope my whole life. He felt like an uncle. Personality in the papacy does a lot. I wish he were back. But I think there is more that has kept Catholics together than just a central authority. I think it’s all those factors.

I said:

What I meant by that last bolded part is this - The Catholic Church has also adopted the same style of modern liturgy, which I think is based on a theology that is fundamentally different than traditional catholic Christianity. But they haven’t fallen apart like the Anglicans, I think because of the authority of the Magisterium.

Some people might argue that this shows that that particular kind of authority is good and necessary - it’s certainly a plausible POV. I don’t think that is really the case - the mistake isn’t the lack of central authority, it is the changes in the theology behind the liturgy. Partly I say this because the Church maintained itself without that authority for many years, and the OC still does. But also, I think the Roman Church has seriously suffered due to the liturgical changes as well.

Notwithstanding, I think there are issues with how Anglican bishops are held accountable, as I said before.

 

[SteveVH]

I’m a convert who made that swim across the Tiber, and I feel for those C of E traditionalists who may now think they have no spiritual home. I urge any Church of England member who is unhappy with this unholy mess to walk into a Roman Catholic Church and talk to a priest - what do you have to loose after these recents events? I did exactly that, and it was the best thing I ever did.

It’s just my opinion, but I think the problem is that the Church of England is “neither fish nor fowl” as the old saying goes. It is not “Catholic”, no matter how much the Church of England traditionalists try to protest that it is, because it came into being via the hands of an adulterous monarch rather than by the hands of God. But by equal measure, and because of that erroneous claim to “Catholicism”, neither is it fully Protestant.

Individual members, both clergy and laity, have to now make a decision: to become fully Catholic by joining the Roman Catholic Church, or to embrace a fully Protestant church with no claim to being Catholic in any way, or to remain within the Anglican fold and endure an ever-increasing departure from Scripture to satisfy liberals who, imho, put their own agenda and politics before the will of God.

I watched a debate on television about this a couple of weeks ago here in the UK and it served to remind rne why I could not even begin to contemplate life in the Church of England anymore. Two women “priests” were arguing for female ordination and for female bishops. Their arguments were totally secular and only touched on Scripture at points where they obviously felt secure enough to bend the interpretation to fit their needs.

While watching them, and also watching clips of women “priests” officiating in church, every fibre of my being was screaming inside, “this is not right”. It felt wrong on so many levels, not just Scriptural ones.

I’m a woman and can argue quite clearly for my rights when needed, but the “right” to be a priest is not in my hands. I think this issue was in the hands of Christ 2’000 years ago, and He made His choice. I think Scripture clearly shows that this was something He decided was not to be. He had His divine reasons, so who am I to question His decision?

It’s just my personal opinion, and I hope I don’t offend anyone, but either one follows Scripture, or one does not. There is no middle ground I feel. Christ did not give us the option to “pick and mix” what we wanted from His instructions.

The issues are not going to go away for the Church of England. In fact, it is clear to see the situation will get worse the further down the “liberal” road it gets, hampered by a weak Archbishop of Canterbury and a synod which allows itself to be dictated to by an increasingly secular “interest group” approach.

It has been awhile since I have read such a heartfelt, intelligent and convincing post. It is great to have you on this forum. A wonderful priest, Fr. John Bowe, now deceased, use to say “Knowledge makes a bloody entrance”. Not being of the Church of England, it is difficult for me to understand why those, who claim to be “Catholic”, do not just become Catholic. I cannot imagine a Catholic wanting to claim to be Anglican. I realize that I must be missing some very necessary information, but could you explain the hesitancy in just converting. Is it their wish to bring along uniquely “Church of England” precepts?

Thanks.

 

[John_Paul_Jones]

I think the** folksy koombaya guitar-strumming**, communion-in-the-hand, hand-holding during the Our Father, and blandness of the post Vatican II liturgy is indeed a tragedy.

I agree with most of what you said except for the part about the guitar - I really don’t understand anti-guitar sediments I hear from people. The tradition of playing string instruments can be trace back to the Old Testament. There are many musical instruments that are mentioned in the OT - like the harp & the lyre, whether these instrument are the exactly the same in ancient times, translations for similar instruments - I’m not sure. The guitar is a string instrument very much like the lyre and the harp and the difference between them is the position of the strings in relation to the body. David (who played the harp) is probably the most popular string instrumnents players from the Bible. The fact he wrote the Psalms and the fact they were accompanied with string instruments should add to the legitimacy of them in prayer/worship.

I don’t see the folk gutiar as the problem, the quality of the style of music might be lacking, but I believe the folk guitar is just as legimate an instrument to be use during Mass as the organ. John Foley S.J. wrote many folksy songs that are just as beautiful and inspirational as older material that comes from Middle Ages.

 

[SteveVH]

I agree with most of what you said except for the part about the guitar - I really don’t understand anti-guitar sediments I hear from people. The tradition of playing string instruments can be trace back to the Old Testament. There are many musical instruments that are mentioned in the OT - like the harp & the lyre, whether these instrument are the exactly the same in ancient times, translations for similar instruments - I’m not sure. The guitar is a string instrument very much like the lyre and the harp and the difference between them is the position of the strings in relation to the body. David (who played the harp) is probably the most popular string instrumnents players from the Bible. John Foley S.J. wrote many folksy songs that are just as beautiful and inspirational as older material that comes from Middle Ages. I don’t see the folk gutiar as the problem, the quality of the style of music might be lacking, but I believe the folk guitar is just as legimate an instrument to be use during Mass as the organ.

Oh, come on now. I’m sure somewhere in the Psalms it references playing to God on loud Wurlitzers.

 

[John_Paul_Jones]

Oh, come on now. I’m sure somewhere in the Psalms it references playing to God on loud Wurlitzers.

Where would David plug the Wurlitzer for it to work?

 

[ChemicalBean]

Oh, come on now. I’m sure somewhere in the Psalms it references playing to God on loud Wurlitzers.

“Praise him with the mighty Wurlitzer, with reedy pipes and bellows.” (a missing chunk of Psalm 150, kind of like commandments 11-15)

 

[SteveVH]

“Praise him with the mighty Wurlitzer, with reedy pipes and bellows.” (a missing chunk of Psalm 150, kind of like commandments 11-15)

Nice. I knew it was there somewhere.

 

[SteveVH]

Where would David plug the Wurlitzer for it to work?

The same place they pugged in the flutes and stringed instruments, of course.