Topic: Church of England votes No on women bishops

[biro]

The Church of England today rejected the ordination of women to the episcopate.

From the article:

Twenty years after the introduction of women priests, the issue has continued to divide traditionalists - among those on the Church's evangelical and Anglo-Catholic wings - from reformers.

Had the motion been backed by the synod, the proposed legislation would have made its way through Parliament before receiving royal assent.

[minasoliman]

What exactly was the "compromise" that Archbishops Rowan and Justin were talking about.  It sounded like two diametrically opposite opinions being voted upon, not a compromise.

[ialmisry]

Delaying the inevitable.

[NicholasMyra]

Delaying the inevitable.

[Shiny]

Delaying the inevitable.

[Kerdy]

I say good for them. 

[Asteriktos]

I say good for them. 

Someone forgot to send you the memo about the proper Orthodoxical response. Anything to do with Anglicans/Episcopalians is bad. If they do something bad then it's bad and should be treated with disgusted condescension. If they do something good then it's just a delay or mistake that will be made bad in due time.

[Cyrillic]

Delaying the inevitable.

[Ashman618]

Delaying the inevitable.

It's inevitable Mr. Anderson

[Kerdy]

I say good for them. 

Someone forgot to send you the memo about the proper Orthodoxical response. Anything to do with Anglicans/Episcopalians is bad. If they do something bad then it's bad and should be treated with disgusted condescension. If they do something good then it's just a delay or mistake that will be made bad in due time.

Someone sure did forget to send me that memo.  In that case:

Delaying the inevitable.

[jmbejdl]

I say good for them. 

Someone forgot to send you the memo about the proper Orthodoxical response. Anything to do with Anglicans/Episcopalians is bad. If they do something bad then it's bad and should be treated with disgusted condescension. If they do something good then it's just a delay or mistake that will be made bad in due time.

Someone sure did forget to send me that memo.  In that case:

Delaying the inevitable.

Even if it is, it's a good thing to delay it. I'm quite encouraged that it had the hardest time passing with the lay members. Maybe I'm naive (wouldn't be surprising) but it seems to me that if the congregations are more traditional than their clergy there is still some hope for the Church of England (or a part of it at least). It's truly a shame to see how far the Anglicans have departed from the faith since the 1930s, a point that was drummed home quite spectacularly to me this last Saturday in Walsingham.

James

[Cyrillic]

The only good thing that has come from the Anglican church has been the Tracts for the Times and the Fathers of the Church series. Sad thing that the Tractarian movement was so anti-EO.

[qawe]

Delaying the inevitable.

[primuspilus]

Delaying the inevitable.

[Iconodule]

I say good for them. 

Someone forgot to send you the memo about the proper Orthodoxical response. Anything to do with Anglicans/Episcopalians is bad. If they do something bad then it's bad and should be treated with disgusted condescension. If they do something good then it's just a delay or mistake that will be made bad in due time.

If they're already in communion with women bishops, and have women priests, it really is delaying the inevitable, and incoherent as well.

[Tallitot]

I say good for them. 

Someone forgot to send you the memo about the proper Orthodoxical response. Anything to do with Anglicans/Episcopalians is bad. If they do something bad then it's bad and should be treated with disgusted condescension. If they do something good then it's just a delay or mistake that will be made bad in due time.

If they're already in communion with women bishops, and have women priests, it really is delaying the inevitable, and incoherent as well.

exactly, makes no sense. if you female deacons and priests (the CofE does) why not have female bishops?

[Tallitot]

and not to mention the temporal head of the CofE is a woman.

[primuspilus]

and not to mention the temporal head of the CofE is a woman.

I think you mean the "Episcopal" Church. The Anglicans are in communion with them, but they are a somewhat separate entity.

PP

[ialmisry]

and not to mention the temporal head of the CofE is a woman.

I think you mean the "Episcopal" Church. The Anglicans are in communion with them, but they are a somewhat separate entity.

PP

Talliot is acting out his queen obsession.

[ialmisry]

I say good for them. 

Someone forgot to send you the memo about the proper Orthodoxical response. Anything to do with Anglicans/Episcopalians is bad. If they do something bad then it's bad and should be treated with disgusted condescension. If they do something good then it's just a delay or mistake that will be made bad in due time.

Someone sure did forget to send me that memo.  In that case:

Delaying the inevitable.

Even if it is, it's a good thing to delay it. I'm quite encouraged that it had the hardest time passing with the lay members. Maybe I'm naive (wouldn't be surprising) but it seems to me that if the congregations are more traditional than their clergy there is still some hope for the Church of England (or a part of it at least). It's truly a shame to see how far the Anglicans have departed from the faith since the 1930s, a point that was drummed home quite spectacularly to me this last Saturday in Walsingham.

What happened there?

[ialmisry]

I say good for them. 

Someone forgot to send you the memo about the proper Orthodoxical response. Anything to do with Anglicans/Episcopalians is bad. If they do something bad then it's bad and should be treated with disgusted condescension. If they do something good then it's just a delay or mistake that will be made bad in due time.

Just sparing them the cruelty of false hope.  Even if they wanted to turn the ship around, away from the precipice, I don't think the mechanism exists anymore.

[ialmisry]

I say good for them. 

Someone forgot to send you the memo about the proper Orthodoxical response. Anything to do with Anglicans/Episcopalians is bad. If they do something bad then it's bad and should be treated with disgusted condescension. If they do something good then it's just a delay or mistake that will be made bad in due time.

If they're already in communion with women bishops, and have women priests, it really is delaying the inevitable, and incoherent as well.

exactly, makes no sense. if you female deacons and priests (the CofE does) why not have female bishops?

so that it can be consistently incoherent?

We had women deacons for centuries, without women bishops.

[Tallitot]

and not to mention the temporal head of the CofE is a woman.

I think you mean the "Episcopal" Church. The Anglicans are in communion with them, but they are a somewhat separate entity.

PP

Talliot is acting out his queen obsession.

no obsession. the british monarch is the head of the CofE and the current one is a woman. if that staement is incorrect show me the references.

[genesisone]

and not to mention the temporal head of the CofE is a woman.

Would you oppose having a woman as president of the parish council?

***not trying to start another discussion here - just trying to clarify that Tallitot distinguishes between temporal and spiritual authority

[ialmisry]

and not to mention the temporal head of the CofE is a woman.

I think you mean the "Episcopal" Church. The Anglicans are in communion with them, but they are a somewhat separate entity.

PP

Talliot is acting out his queen obsession.

no obsession. the british monarch is the head of the CofE and the current one is a woman. if that staement is incorrect show me the references.

That the statement is correct has no bearing on your obsessing.

[ialmisry]

and not to mention the temporal head of the CofE is a woman.

Would you oppose having a woman as president of the parish council?

***not trying to start another discussion here - just trying to clarify that Tallitot distinguishes between temporal and spiritual authority

only if she is not a queen.

[Tallitot]

and not to mention the temporal head of the CofE is a woman.

Would you oppose having a woman as president of the parish council?

***not trying to start another discussion here - just trying to clarify that Tallitot distinguishes between temporal and spiritual authority

no. i was remarking about the british monarch's role in the CofE and that the current monarch is a woman. i see nothing wrong with female clergy.

[Tallitot]

and not to mention the temporal head of the CofE is a woman.

I think you mean the "Episcopal" Church. The Anglicans are in communion with them, but they are a somewhat separate entity.

PP

Talliot is acting out his queen obsession.

no obsession. the british monarch is the head of the CofE and the current one is a woman. if that staement is incorrect show me the references.

That the statement is correct has no bearing on your obsessing.

i don't think mentioning the british monarch in a discussion of CofE polity is 'obsessing".

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

I say good for them. 

Someone forgot to send you the memo about the proper Orthodoxical response. Anything to do with Anglicans/Episcopalians is bad. If they do something bad then it's bad and should be treated with disgusted condescension. If they do something good then it's just a delay or mistake that will be made bad in due time.

The proposal failed because it did not receive two/thirds vote in each of its three separate "houses", not because it was not supported by a healthy majority. Here were the votes:

House of Bishops: 44 for/3 against or 94% for women bishops.

House of Clergy: 148 for/45 against or 77% for women bishops.

House of Laity: 132 for/74 against (just six votes short of two thirds) or  64% for women bishops.

Overall, the combined votes amounted to 324 for (or 73%) and 122 against (or 27%).

Delaying the inevitable, indeed.

[ialmisry]

and not to mention the temporal head of the CofE is a woman.

I think you mean the "Episcopal" Church. The Anglicans are in communion with them, but they are a somewhat separate entity.

PP

Talliot is acting out his queen obsession.

no obsession. the british monarch is the head of the CofE and the current one is a woman. if that staement is incorrect show me the references.

That the statement is correct has no bearing on your obsessing.

i don't think mentioning the british monarch in a discussion of CofE polity is 'obsessing".

you "mention" her and other queens and their relatives a lot.

[Marc1152]

and not to mention the temporal head of the CofE is a woman.

Would you oppose having a woman as president of the parish council?

***not trying to start another discussion here - just trying to clarify that Tallitot distinguishes between temporal and spiritual authority

no. i was remarking about the british monarch's role in the CofE and that the current monarch is a woman. i see nothing wrong with female clergy.

That may be because in Judaism the Clergy are teachers and not Priests (these days) Christian Priests are living icons of the incarnate God who has consistently reveled himself as a Man.  Here , see for yourself:



 

[ialmisry]

I say good for them. 

Someone forgot to send you the memo about the proper Orthodoxical response. Anything to do with Anglicans/Episcopalians is bad. If they do something bad then it's bad and should be treated with disgusted condescension. If they do something good then it's just a delay or mistake that will be made bad in due time.

The proposal failed because it did not receive two/thirds vote in each of its three separate "houses", not because it was not supported by a healthy majority. Here were the votes:

House of Bishops: 44 for/3 against or 94% for women bishops.

House of Clergy: 148 for/45 against or 77% for women bishops.

House of Laity: 132 for/74 against (just six votes short of two thirds) or  64% for women bishops.

Overall, the combined votes amounted to 324 for (or 73%) and 122 against (or 27%).

Delaying the inevitable, indeed.

Yes, unfortunately the clerics will not get the welcome that the bishops returning from Florence got.

[jmbejdl]

I say good for them. 

Someone forgot to send you the memo about the proper Orthodoxical response. Anything to do with Anglicans/Episcopalians is bad. If they do something bad then it's bad and should be treated with disgusted condescension. If they do something good then it's just a delay or mistake that will be made bad in due time.

Someone sure did forget to send me that memo.  In that case:

Delaying the inevitable.

Even if it is, it's a good thing to delay it. I'm quite encouraged that it had the hardest time passing with the lay members. Maybe I'm naive (wouldn't be surprising) but it seems to me that if the congregations are more traditional than their clergy there is still some hope for the Church of England (or a part of it at least). It's truly a shame to see how far the Anglicans have departed from the faith since the 1930s, a point that was drummed home quite spectacularly to me this last Saturday in Walsingham.

What happened there?

Probably nothing unusual. It just so happens that on Saturday we went to the Orthodox shrine at Walsingham which is within the Anglican one. A large number of small and individually not so significant details of what I saw led to me realising just how far Anglicanism has moved from the faith that was evidently held at the time the shrine at Walsingham was re-established, which was in the 1930s. The change in attitude to Orthodoxy in the meantime was also quite clear, and certainly wasn't for the better.

James

[Hesychios]

I say good for them. 

Someone forgot to send you the memo about the proper Orthodoxical response. Anything to do with Anglicans/Episcopalians is bad. If they do something bad then it's bad and should be treated with disgusted condescension. If they do something good then it's just a delay or mistake that will be made bad in due time.

Just sparing them the cruelty of false hope.  Even if they wanted to turn the ship around, away from the precipice, I don't think the mechanism exists anymore.

Sadly I have to agree.

[ialmisry]

I say good for them. 

Someone forgot to send you the memo about the proper Orthodoxical response. Anything to do with Anglicans/Episcopalians is bad. If they do something bad then it's bad and should be treated with disgusted condescension. If they do something good then it's just a delay or mistake that will be made bad in due time.

Someone sure did forget to send me that memo.  In that case:

Delaying the inevitable.

Even if it is, it's a good thing to delay it. I'm quite encouraged that it had the hardest time passing with the lay members. Maybe I'm naive (wouldn't be surprising) but it seems to me that if the congregations are more traditional than their clergy there is still some hope for the Church of England (or a part of it at least). It's truly a shame to see how far the Anglicans have departed from the faith since the 1930s, a point that was drummed home quite spectacularly to me this last Saturday in Walsingham.

What happened there?

Probably nothing unusual. It just so happens that on Saturday we went to the Orthodox shrine at Walsingham which is within the Anglican one. A large number of small and individually not so significant details of what I saw led to me realising just how far Anglicanism has moved from the faith that was evidently held at the time the shrine at Walsingham was re-established, which was in the 1930s. The change in attitude to Orthodoxy in the meantime was also quite clear, and certainly wasn't for the better.

James

Is it WRO Orthodox who have the Orthodox shrine?  I remember there was a shock when the Anglican custodians of their shrine there went off to the Vatican-supposedly it was so "Anglo-Catholic" that most already thought they had already gone.

[minasoliman]

and not to mention the temporal head of the CofE is a woman.

Well that's the problem with the Church of England, and any other Church that identifies a political head as a head of the Church.  Perhaps the beginning of her downfall was her establishment from the start.

[jmbejdl]

I say good for them. 

Someone forgot to send you the memo about the proper Orthodoxical response. Anything to do with Anglicans/Episcopalians is bad. If they do something bad then it's bad and should be treated with disgusted condescension. If they do something good then it's just a delay or mistake that will be made bad in due time.

Someone sure did forget to send me that memo.  In that case:

Delaying the inevitable.

Even if it is, it's a good thing to delay it. I'm quite encouraged that it had the hardest time passing with the lay members. Maybe I'm naive (wouldn't be surprising) but it seems to me that if the congregations are more traditional than their clergy there is still some hope for the Church of England (or a part of it at least). It's truly a shame to see how far the Anglicans have departed from the faith since the 1930s, a point that was drummed home quite spectacularly to me this last Saturday in Walsingham.

What happened there?

Probably nothing unusual. It just so happens that on Saturday we went to the Orthodox shrine at Walsingham which is within the Anglican one. A large number of small and individually not so significant details of what I saw led to me realising just how far Anglicanism has moved from the faith that was evidently held at the time the shrine at Walsingham was re-established, which was in the 1930s. The change in attitude to Orthodoxy in the meantime was also quite clear, and certainly wasn't for the better.

James

Is it WRO Orthodox who have the Orthodox shrine?  I remember there was a shock when the Anglican custodians of their shrine there went off to the Vatican-supposedly it was so "Anglo-Catholic" that most already thought they had already gone.

No, it's Eastern Rite. It was set up by some Russians at the invitation of the Anglicans in the '30s. We had a very interesting day talking with Fr. Phillip, visiting the other two Orthodox churches (nice to see Orthodox churches in England that actually look Orthodox inside) and celebrating Vespers at the shrine, but seeing this microcosm of more traditional, more catholic,  Anglicanism which is so different from anything I have seen in Anglicanism in my lifetime, kind of drummed home the changes. The number of women priests wandering around and the fact that finding the Orthodox shrine seemed to have been almost deliberately obscured gave somewhat different impressions but ones which rather led to the same conclusion.

James

[orthonorm]

I say good for them. 

Someone forgot to send you the memo about the proper Orthodoxical response. Anything to do with Anglicans/Episcopalians is bad. If they do something bad then it's bad and should be treated with disgusted condescension. If they do something good then it's just a delay or mistake that will be made bad in due time.

If they're already in communion with women bishops, and have women priests, it really is delaying the inevitable, and incoherent as well.

The incoherent is every argument I read against women in the priesthood and episcopate.

The only decent argument is one for pastoral reasons: to suffer the weak's need, in the manner St. Paul counseled those in Romans.

Nothing to schism over, but nothing against it.

Do I have to source hearsay? Cause Fr. Alexander Schmemann (who every one in the OCA and those Orthodox celebrating American Thanksgiving must think of this time of year) has nice quip regarding this issue, but I've only heard it from a couple of his students.

And Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh make some rather pointed and sourced statements on the matter himself.

[orthonorm]

and not to mention the temporal head of the CofE is a woman.

Well that's the problem with the Church of England, and any other Church that identifies a political head as a head of the Church.  Perhaps the beginning of her downfall was her establishment from the start.

Except they are at times correct.

[FormerReformer]

I say good for them. 

Someone forgot to send you the memo about the proper Orthodoxical response. Anything to do with Anglicans/Episcopalians is bad. If they do something bad then it's bad and should be treated with disgusted condescension. If they do something good then it's just a delay or mistake that will be made bad in due time.

If they're already in communion with women bishops, and have women priests, it really is delaying the inevitable, and incoherent as well.

The incoherent is every argument I read against women in the priesthood and episcopate.

The only decent argument is one for pastoral reasons: to suffer the weak's need, in the manner St. Paul counseled those in Romans.

Nothing to schism over, but nothing against it.

Do I have to source hearsay? Cause Fr. Alexander Schmemann (who every one in the OCA and those Orthodox celebrating American Thanksgiving must think of this time of year) has nice quip regarding this issue, but I've only heard it from a couple of his students.

And Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh make some rather pointed and sourced statements on the matter himself.

Truth be told, my problems with women's ordination have less to do with theology and ecclesiology and more to do with guilt-by-association and anecdotal evidence. Simply put: I have never seen an example of an ordained woman who was truly "called to the ministry". Every single example I have ever seen has become a priest, not from love of God and a desire to share His Word, but (a) because now they can and they're going to show that old boys club a thing or two, feminist politics becomes the evangelistic talking point, Christ Resurrected is completely ignored; and (b) to advance a wishy-washy syncretic religion where Buddhism and Islam are just as valid expressions of Divine Revelation as the Christian faith.

Could the Church someday allow the ordination of women? Perhaps, I'm certainly not qualified to say one way or the other. Should it, so long as the main drive behind said ordination is "women are just as good as men" and not "does this particular woman exhibit the Christian nature and pastoral gifts we expect in a priest"? Absolutely not. Of course, the main problem is that the same woman who exhibits a Christian nature will have the humility to adhere to Tradition and not seek advancement.

[orthonorm]

I say good for them. 

Someone forgot to send you the memo about the proper Orthodoxical response. Anything to do with Anglicans/Episcopalians is bad. If they do something bad then it's bad and should be treated with disgusted condescension. If they do something good then it's just a delay or mistake that will be made bad in due time.

If they're already in communion with women bishops, and have women priests, it really is delaying the inevitable, and incoherent as well.

The incoherent is every argument I read against women in the priesthood and episcopate.

The only decent argument is one for pastoral reasons: to suffer the weak's need, in the manner St. Paul counseled those in Romans.

Nothing to schism over, but nothing against it.

Do I have to source hearsay? Cause Fr. Alexander Schmemann (who every one in the OCA and those Orthodox celebrating American Thanksgiving must think of this time of year) has nice quip regarding this issue, but I've only heard it from a couple of his students.

And Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh make some rather pointed and sourced statements on the matter himself.

Truth be told, my problems with women's ordination have less to do with theology and ecclesiology and more to do with guilt-by-association and anecdotal evidence. Simply put: I have never seen an example of an ordained woman who was truly "called to the ministry". Every single example I have ever seen has become a priest, not from love of God and a desire to share His Word, but (a) because now they can and they're going to show that old boys club a thing or two, feminist politics becomes the evangelistic talking point, Christ Resurrected is completely ignored; and (b) to advance a wishy-washy syncretic religion where Buddhism and Islam are just as valid expressions of Divine Revelation as the Christian faith.

Could the Church someday allow the ordination of women? Perhaps, I'm certainly not qualified to say one way or the other. Should it, so long as the main drive behind said ordination is "women are just as good as men" and not "does this particular woman exhibit the Christian nature and pastoral gifts we expect in a priest"? Absolutely not. Of course, the main problem is that the same woman who exhibits a Christian nature will have the humility to adhere to Tradition and not seek advancement.

I think these are great points. But from day one people have had to stand up to "tradition" to show the Church the truth.

These are terribly difficult things. And I get your point and am sympathetic to it, although I think you put too much on the accepting "tradition" aspect, when truth at times arises from discord, if you believe St. Paul, who did a lot of things against "tradition".

Great post, especially your candor.

[minasoliman]

and not to mention the temporal head of the CofE is a woman.

Well that's the problem with the Church of England, and any other Church that identifies a political head as a head of the Church.  Perhaps the beginning of her downfall was her establishment from the start.

Except they are at times correct.

I don't think it's ever correct to make a political figure a spiritual head.  Neither do I think a spiritual figure should take political office either for that matter.

[Elisha]

I say good for them. 

Someone forgot to send you the memo about the proper Orthodoxical response. Anything to do with Anglicans/Episcopalians is bad. If they do something bad then it's bad and should be treated with disgusted condescension. If they do something good then it's just a delay or mistake that will be made bad in due time.

If they're already in communion with women bishops, and have women priests, it really is delaying the inevitable, and incoherent as well.

The incoherent is every argument I read against women in the priesthood and episcopate.

The only decent argument is one for pastoral reasons: to suffer the weak's need, in the manner St. Paul counseled those in Romans.

Nothing to schism over, but nothing against it.

Do I have to source hearsay? Cause Fr. Alexander Schmemann (who every one in the OCA and those Orthodox celebrating American Thanksgiving must think of this time of year) has nice quip regarding this issue, but I've only heard it from a couple of his students.

And Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh make some rather pointed and sourced statements on the matter himself.

Truth be told, my problems with women's ordination have less to do with theology and ecclesiology and more to do with guilt-by-association and anecdotal evidence. Simply put: I have never seen an example of an ordained woman who was truly "called to the ministry". Every single example I have ever seen has become a priest, not from love of God and a desire to share His Word, but (a) because now they can and they're going to show that old boys club a thing or two, feminist politics becomes the evangelistic talking point, Christ Resurrected is completely ignored; and (b) to advance a wishy-washy syncretic religion where Buddhism and Islam are just as valid expressions of Divine Revelation as the Christian faith.

Could the Church someday allow the ordination of women? Perhaps, I'm certainly not qualified to say one way or the other. Should it, so long as the main drive behind said ordination is "women are just as good as men" and not "does this particular woman exhibit the Christian nature and pastoral gifts we expect in a priest"? Absolutely not. Of course, the main problem is that the same woman who exhibits a Christian nature will have the humility to adhere to Tradition and not seek advancement.

I think these are great points. But from day one people have had to stand up to "tradition" to show the Church the truth.

These are terribly difficult things. And I get your point and am sympathetic to it, although I think you put too much on the accepting "tradition" aspect, when truth at times arises from discord, if you believe St. Paul, who did a lot of things against "tradition".

Great post, especially your candor.

Like the discussion - let's keep it going!

When I hear people scoff at Met. KALLISTOS's statement of women's ordination still "an open question", I think those scoffing just don't understand why he says it.  It is similar to the reasoning for arguments against homosexual activity.  Unfortunately for us (the Church), there really hasn't been well-explained, concise arguments against these issues from a theological/ecleisiological/etc. point of view.  When someone questions why, there should be a cogent (and somewhat concise) answer that can be easily put forth to "close" the question.  With our various languages/cultures and (dis-)organized religion, there is a real challenge to answer the "Why can't/not/isn't/etc ...?" difficult questions.  Too often we just get the scoffing, "well that's icky/unnatural/wrong/unbiblicaletc" and just gives room for the one who asks the question to give an easy counter example.

[Elisha]

and not to mention the temporal head of the CofE is a woman.

Well that's the problem with the Church of England, and any other Church that identifies a political head as a head of the Church.  Perhaps the beginning of her downfall was her establishment from the start.

Except they are at times correct.

I don't think it's ever correct to make a political figure a spiritual head.  Neither do I think a spiritual figure should take political office either for that matter.

Of course, the easy counter example to this is someone bringing up Casesar/Tzar/Byz Emperor.

[orthonorm]

and not to mention the temporal head of the CofE is a woman.

Well that's the problem with the Church of England, and any other Church that identifies a political head as a head of the Church.  Perhaps the beginning of her downfall was her establishment from the start.

Except they are at times correct.

I don't think it's ever correct to make a political figure a spiritual head.  Neither do I think a spiritual figure should take political office either for that matter.

I agree. But that doesn't make them wrong all the time.

Nice to see you back mina.