Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Women bishops?

  Another fine mess for the CofE!


Physiocrat said...

Absolutely null and utterly void so how are they priests? If they are not offering a sacrifice they are ministers and they might just as well appoint women. However, the CoE will end up as a women's club.

motuproprio said...

Pope (Alexander) had it about right when he wrote "Willing to wound and yet afraid to strike".

gemoftheocean said...

If it's not too personal a question, what prompted you to swim the Tiber?

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.

"Your name is Peter and on this rock I will build my Church."

Holy Orders and gender:

Not a gender-neutral theological bequest:

"Only a baptized man(vir) validly receives sacred ordination." The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry...... The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible. - CCC1577

Psalm 109:4 "The Lord hath sworn, and he will not repent: Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech."


Acts 6:3,6 "Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business...These they set before the apostles; and they praying, imposed hands upon them."

II Timothy 1:6 (St. Paul to Timothy, whom he ordained) "For which cause I admonish thee, that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by the imposition of my hands."

Here's a longer answer why Tradition that remains sacred (set apart) remains not-gender-neutral:


nickbris said...

Another example of how a vociferous minority can rule the roost, I think this is what they call DEMOCRACY

Katie said...

With regard to it being the laity who failed to vote the measure in sufficient numbers the phrase sensus fidelium comes to mind.

Delia said...

Unfortunately, I fear that it may become our problem, if it is true that Parliament can overrule the Synod's decisions. If so, they will surely try to impose their equality legislation, which would amount to a direct attack on religious freedom. And that would affect all of us.

Nicolas Bellord said...

Father: Do Catholic priests burst into tears when they realise that they are not going to get a bishopric?

Like Katie I wonder whether this was sensuum fidei or perhaps even the Holy Ghost - a bit late in the day though!

GOR said...

I was surprised by this outcome as the indications were that a ‘majority’ was in favor of it. But when doctrine is decided by popular vote – or government interference - what else can one expect? Once removed from the Rock that is Peter, a community is adrift and rudderless. I expect a motion for disestablishment to ensure ‘equality’ as the State seeks to impose its rules on the CofE.

The outgoing Ab. of Canterbury laments that the church has ‘lost credibility’ over this. I would suggest, Archbishop, that this happened a long time ago - once the State co-opted the church for its own ends. As Shadow Minister for Culture, Helen Goodman put it, the controversy will continue “despite the call to [of?] the world being so strong”.

So the objective of the church is to conform to the world…? I think the Member of the Parliament’s Ecclesiastical Committee got it backwards.

John Kearney said...

May I congratulate those who voted against women bishops and won the vote. I am sorry nobody seems to be congratulating you on your victory. I do not know if you were right or wrong but I think you deserve some thankful mention.

RichardT said...

GOR said "I was surprised by this outcome as the indications were that a ‘majority’ was in favor of it"

A fairly large majority was in favour of it, but amongst the laity it fell just short of the two thirds majority it needed to pass.

RichardT said...

"If they have female priests, then what is the problem with bishops?"

I have heard two arguments, neither of which seems very convincing.

One (mostly the evangelicals) is that priests mostly act under delegated authority of their bishop, and so the biblical ban on "women in authority" only really applies to bishops.

The other (mostly the anglo-catholics) is that they have been able to ignore female priests, thanks to some unusual ecclesiastical structures, but the structures offered to allow them to ignore female bishops were not strong enough.

There is also the practical problem that while you can generally tell whether a 'priest' is male or female, you cannot tell whether a male 'priest' was 'ordained' by a male or a female 'bishop'. Life therefore gets more complicated.

Also in the future, when even male 'priests' will have been 'ordained' by a female 'bishop', and therefore invalid, those opposed to women priests could become a much more ghettoised minority.

The Lord’s descent into the underworld
