Women in the English Episcopate, May 2014

That's fair enough but please don't think that England is synonymous with Britain or the UK. That's all a bit sensitive this side of the Pond.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this intemperate phrase.

 

Oh man, are you guys still around? Every time I come back there is a new liberal around.

 

It has probably been mentioned elsewhere on this forum, but what it the problem with women Bishops? I presume there is a biblical statement that people feel forbids it or maybe there is some aspect of being a bishop that people feel is prohibited by the Bible.

I know there is a verse telling bishops to have one wife, but presumably this means as opposed to having two or more.

 

I think there's a verse in one of St Paul's letters saying that a woman shouldn't be in charge of a man. But then he also told women to cover their hair.

Meanwhile in NZ you already have an English woman bishop.

 

Man we're still around all right, and our numbers include His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of All England.

But remember, whilst we are pleased to have women priests and want women bishops, we oppose gay marriage and actively gay clergy.

And we don't resort to unpleasant, intemperate, unChristian language.

 

It is causing a rift in the Anglican community, that's what. The pro-women bishop people are schisming from the church, and it is sad for the rest of us to have to see them go while they're pointing nukes at us, threatening and suing everyone they can find, destroying lives, destroying churches, on their way out of christianity.
If you only knew how many of my friends were sued by the Episcopal church, forcing us out of our churches, suing the entire vestry and sometimes the whole parish, destroying lives, if we didn't condone their errors. It's demonic and diabolical is what it is.

 

Yet again, this is a highly intemperate, unAnglican reply.

Meanwhile in England the CofE is, as always, trying to accommodate the small minority of anti-feminists. And will probably succeed. We have lost scarcely anybody to the much vaunted but hapless "Ordinariate" or to the "Anglican Catholic Church" of Romney Marsh.

 

Sure it is. Have you read any of our literature?

I'm not talking about the Ordinariate, being glad that it failed. Rather what I have in mind is the fact that you've never had as few people in the church as now. All the conservatives who've left, told you on their way out, that you cannot sell out to the world and maintain an authentic witness to Christ. You are infecting the church with doctrines of a failed and heathen world.

All of what I'm saying is why we stand strong and will not let you do it. We are building a structure that excludes these errors from the Church. Christ made us a solemn promise that he will be with us to the end, to everlasting life.

 

If you're like any of the other liberals I've talked to, I'm sure you know.

Personally my biggest problem is that it goes against the direct revelation by God, the uninterrupted tradition of our holy Doctors and Fathers, as bishop Jewel wrote. There is a deep problem with making the secular world, with its suffrage votes and social-secular baggage, taking those who were leaders in that, to be more important than our holy apostles and our God. God has said here is what the church is, here is what men are, here are what women are. Men are to be like X, and not to be like Y. Women are to be like Y, and not to be like X. This is a fundamental teaching of God and of the Church. What else can matter with testimony like that.

 

I must try and find out why my quote option seems to have dissapeared.

Stalwart said

"Personally my biggest problem is that it goes against the direct revelation by God,-- -- -- God has said here is what the church is, here is what men are, here are what women are. Men are to be like X, and not to be like Y. Women are to be like Y, and not to be like X. This is a fundamental teaching of God and of the Church. What else can matter with testimony like that."

Well fair enough, what I am trying to find out is where God gave these testaments and revelations, so I can read them for myself and judge their validity.

 

i) Not many have. There were a few high profile absconders to Rome, mainly politicians, when women priests came in, but virtually no splinter churches. In my diocese, the numbers of "conservative's who've left" is negligible. And certainly we haven't had a plethora of splinter churches. One reason for this is not only that the CofE is broad church, but because it is so widespread here. In our town (popn. 15,000) we have two CofE churches, one liberal catholic and the other conservative evangelical. In an adjoining parish they still use the BCP, which some people prefer.

ii) Precisely how is the church I attend "infecting the church with the doctrines of a failed and heathen world". And, to get on to thinner ice, how is the CofE or Abp. Welby doing this? I say "thinner ice" because making derogatory comments about either is in breach of House Rules, though of course these are administered selectively and in a "relaxed" way.

But presumably you are accusing (nearly) all Protestant churches and possibly the RC Church of doing this as well?

 

Sure. I have been over this topic over and over in the past on this forum, but I can rehearse the points.

You can start from Genesis onward. Eve is held blamed for the sin of man. At the same time Adam is held to be the leader of humanity, so when Eve tricks him and he falls, we all fall with him, not with her. He's the covenantal head, and she lives under his headship. We are then, also, saved by another man, the super human God incarnate, who picked masculinity to incarnate himself and teach humanity. We are also taught that it was the masculine God the Father that created this world. Even the Holy Ghost, the humble, the unassuming third person of the trinity, is also a He, not even an It. Then, God appoints only and solely men for his bishops and priests. Sure there were women who helped spread the gospel in the NT, and it's a wonderful thing; they can help and lead missions even now. But I am talking about the bishops and priests that God established, not only in the NT, but in the OT, with Aaron and his line of priesthood. Or Melchisedek and his line of priesthood. It is a solely masculine affair to lead the human spiritual life, at home, in the world, and in the church.

The clergy are the spiritual fathers of the human race. A woman cannot be a father, nor act as a father.

 

And I'll repost what I wrote before:

...The apostolic prohibition against female priesthood was radical for its time.

You surely have heard of the female priestesses, in both the Greek and Roman cultures? Remember even something as recent as the movie "300" , with its famous depiction of the prophetess at the Temple of Delphi, who was able to speak the very words of God, something neither the male attendants, and certainly not Leonidas himself could do? Here is a still with her from the movie:



Here are other examples of how prevalent female priestesses were in the Culture into which Christians were born:



Some helpful articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestal_Virgin


In this context, then, the Christians' rejection of female priesthood was radical and unheard of. That Paul said that women must be silent in the Church, or, that "as man is in the image of God, so woman is not in the image of God, but in the image of man", that was radical. When Christ our Lord ordained only men, that was radical.

Far from accepting the mores of the culture around them, the Christians were radically opposed in important elements to it.

 

And so you're saying that the Church of England and the Archbishop of Canterbury have got it wrong? You must find that both depressing and uncomfortable. But remember, no disrespectful or derogatory remarks about either (House Rules)

 

All good Anglicans affirm the truthfulness of the 39 Articles, including the one on church councils: "when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them... have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture."

Till the Lord, in his perfect time, corrects the situation, we must keep calm and carry on.

 

Of course I am. Maybe you're new here but we've been having these debates for a while now, and the orthodox party of us have all said yes CoE is dead wrong on this, and Canterbury is making a grievous mistake in trying to sacrifice the Episcopacy to please the world. All he is doing is establishing emergency lines of succession, all over England, that go around CoE, with the ultimate aim in the future to displace the CoE hierarchy including his own See, due to becoming invalid.

I do not say any of this in a derogatory manner. It's just what it is. We should be able to criticize, unless the place has changed in the last 4 months.

 

Who was it, T.S. Elliot?, who said "There are no lost causes, because there are no won causes?" Anything the progressives pass in the Synod today can be rolled back away tomorrow.

We should have the long view in sight, including centuries. This is something man-made, vs. God, and God is very patient. There were Arian kings in Europe into the 700's AD, believe it or not. Far from being a spot-clean Christendom, it was still a battleground with the future uncertain even then.

 

i) I'm not. 518 posts.

ii) It is not "trying to sacrifice the Episcopacy

iii) How on earth did you reach that conclusion?

iv) You could have fooled me.

Remember, that as an active Anglican in the mother church of that faith, my claims for "validity" are every bit as great as those of members of small break-away churches: about whom I do not use intemperate language. I can sympathise with your differences with the mainstream Episcopal Church, but it is unfortunate that you and others feel the need to lay into those of England, Ireland, Wales, Scotland, Australia, Canada and NZ. The phrase, "everyone's out of step except our Johnnie" springs to mind.