Court dismisses query over women bishops by Shiranikha Herbert, Legal Correspondent Posted: 19 Jun 2015 @ 12:28 THE Court of the Vicar-General of the province of Canterbury dismissed the legal objection of the Priest-in-Charge of St George's, Hanworth Park, London, the Revd Paul Stewart Williamson, to the election of the Archdeacon of Hackney, the Ven. Rachel Treweek, as Bishop of Gloucester. Fr Williamson had filed written particulars of objection dated 5 June 2015, and appeared at the hearing of his objection on 15 June before the Vicar-General, the Rt Worshipful Timothy Briden. The objection did not relate to the suitability of the Bishop-elect for episcopal office, but asserted that, as a matter of principle: "A woman cannot be made a bishop in the Church of England." Click here for the rest of the article: http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2015/19-june/news/uk/court-dismisses-query-over-women-bishops
Whatever the ,'Law,' says, I agree with Paul Williamson! Neither Addition, or Diminution. S.Paul said it and it has been the practice of the Church in Britain, for some two thousand years, give or take a few. The intrusion of women's orders in to the Church is very definitely an addition and when it is seen after reading Archbishop Bramhalls contribution regarding apostolic traditions etc, after consideration, even in a negative manner,I do think they've taken a step to far!
Friend, My belief is that the Filioque should be dropped cleanly ,quietly and as efficiently as possible! Years ago, a friend told me that the Orthodox Churches weren't really interested either way and they would allow some of their churches to keep it, if they insisted. I believe I was misled. Now, I think we should change it because it is an unwarranted intrusion on the teachings of Niceae and it is another move away from Apostolic Christianity and the Orthodox do obviously mind. I'm sorry, I didn't explain this in my first missive ,I'd just spent hours exchanging and fitting my new printer! Which, I was told, a child could do in five minutes!
I concur. I personally have stopped saying it. I also understand the printer issue. The saying around these parts is 'there are no printers in heaven, they all go to hell where they belong!'
Why? Scripture affirms the Filioque to be a true statement. The church fathers agree with it. The Articles declare it. The Filioque is engrained in the very nature of our Anglican heritage. The councils did not deal with every doctrine of the faith and even if they had, they have no guarantee of infallibility. I wish the Filioque had been added through the concillliar channels but truth is truth. Our beliefs do not ultimately rest on the decrees of the councils but on the revealed faith of the Apostles. Do you guys really believe that the Holy Ghost proceeds from The Father alone, without Christ? I think a number of the modern errors we deal with today in the church can be traced to the fact that people want the gift of the Holy Ghost without going through the Son.
The matter is honestly beyond me, were it left to me, the clause would be omitted, but I rest assured that the English Church has, since about 1871, assured the Orthodox Church that we hold the same belief on this subject as they do! I don't have the intellect to put forward a more positive position, as it were! Either way, as long as it causes no more separation, I can live with it, or without it!
One also notes that Lambeth Fathers on three occasions have urged member Churches to consider dropping it. And my dear Lowly Layman, including the filioque also allows a contorted understanding of the Holy Trinity running a real risk of subordination - hence some of the eastern concern. So we are surrounded with heresy on every side - but we are not defeated - rather we are united - One Church, One Faith, One Baptism, One God and Father of us all,
Has there been widespread embracing of subordination in the Anglican communion? Or in the rest of western christianity for that matter over the last 1200 years or so that we've been using the filioque? I don't believe so. I think your fears may be a tad misplaced PB. It would appear to me that dropping the filioque in order to better fit in with our eastern brothers would be a pretty thankless undertaking. The Orthodox churches do not consider Anglicans part of the true church for many reasons beyond just the filioque, and our belief that we will all be one if we just remove the filioque is entirely one sided. From the EO perspective, being more orthodox will never make you Orthodox unless you actually become Orthodox....close but no cigar in other words. If you are truly concerned that our Anglican faith should be like the EOC, then you'll need to drop the "God from God" line from the Nicene Creed as well. The EOs say that was an illicit western add-on as well. And even if we get our two versions of Nicene Creed to match perfectly, we still have exactly two more creeds than they'll accept. And exactly what errors are we expecting the orthodox to correct? Will they stop kissing icons and praying to saints? Will they affirm the truths contained in the 39 Articles? Why not? Wouldn't that go a long way to unifying the schism? The Nicene creed was developed over time to address the heresies cropping up against the Church. It was changed...added to. The west just added again. Some might argue that only Ecumenical Councils have the power to modify the creed, but Anglicans find the creeds' source of authority not in the councils that compiled them but on the most certain warrant of Scripture. If tradition has developed a change in the creed that is founded on scriptural truth, who are we to give it up? I think our time would be much better spent inviting the EOC to adopt the filioque. I've said before that I don't like how the filioque got added to the creed, but it's here, it true, and so it's here to stay.
Interested members may take a look at this link containing the discussion of the Filioque at the recent meeting of the College of Bishops: http://www.anglicanink.com/article/acna-keeps-filioque-clause
It would seem quite strange for ACNA to follow suggestions from the Lambeth fathers given that they are highly critical of the Lambeth Conference, The Anglican Communion, and the Archbishop of Canterbury. At every point of its history from the 3rd Council of Toledo to the coronation of Henry II in Rome, the question of authority and politics seems to be somewhere in the mix. As far as I can see the 'God from God' line was in both Nicea and Constantinople. (I have checked) I do see a difference between affirming a theology of Procession in line with Augustine, Aquinas and John of Damascus, Cyril of Jerusalem, and making changes to the creed acclaimed at three of more oecumenical councils. I am yet to be convinced that the Third Council of Toledo changed the Creed deliberately, it may well be one of the accidents of history. I think it is entirely consistent to accept the 39 articles and reject the filioque clause.