CofE General Synod and Women Bishops

r3nu4l

So I don't know if anyone is following this issue or not but it appears that for quite a few of the bishops in England, the ordination of women priests is fine but women Bishops are another kettle of fish and two loaves altogether!

So much so that some Bishops are threatening to take up the offer from the Pope for fast-trace conversion to Roman Catholicism.

It seems to me that this is a rather strange way of looking at things and I don't know why it's such a big deal within their church laws. Also, surely for these people converting to Roman Catholicism means accepting the Virgin birth? Is that not hypocritical?

Can someone explain this to me?

Fanny Cradock

r3nu4l wrote: »

So I don't know if anyone is following this issue or not but it appears that for quite a few of the bishops in England, the ordination of women priests is fine but women Bishops are another kettle of fish and two loaves altogether!

So much so that some Bishops are threatening to take up the offer from the Pope for fast-trace conversion to Roman Catholicism.

It seems to me that this is a rather strange way of looking at things and I don't know why it's such a big deal within their church laws. Also, surely for these people converting to Roman Catholicism means accepting the Virgin birth? Is that not hypocritical?

Can someone explain this to me?

Just a point of clarification. The Anglican Communion upholds the virgin birth.

r3nu4l

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Just a point of clarification. The Anglican Communion upholds the virgin birth.

Ah, so that makes it easier then? What do they not uphold? What's the difference other than women priests?

Also, isn't it terribly hypocritical to say women can be priests but not a bishop?

Piano man

All Christians uphold the virgin birth, as far as I know, because it is explicit in the Bible.
Catholics believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, ie, she was a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus, which is far more implicit.
Most Protestants don't believe that Mary remained a virgin after Jesus' birth.
Though that is a recent development, probably due to a misreading of translations since the Reformation. Even Martin Luther and John Calvin held the Catholic view.
For more info, read the following:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007sbs.asp
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512sbs.asp

God bless

Fanny Cradock

As I'm neither Protestant or Catholic I'm not the best to answer your questions. However, AFAIK, the CofE does technically allow the ordination of women priests and women bishops. In the wider Anglican community there has been women bishops since the late 1980's when Rt. Rev. Barbara Harris was ordained Bishop Suffragan of the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts.

zoomtard

Women bishops are also possible in the Church of Ireland, they just have never happened. YET

I think that the debate within the CofE has been slightly mis-represented here by the Irish Times and other sources and isn't really that big a deal. It is a more a conversation about how they tolerate dissenting voices from the massive majority who want the ordination of female bishops.

r3nu4l

It's not just Ireland or the Irish Times that are 'misrepresenting', it's also the BBC and most of the UK Broadsheets. I think 'misrepresenting' is putting it very strongly.

As I said, according to the media here, this row is destabilising and undermining the power of Archbishop Rowan Williams. Indeed, according to the media here some of the Bishops have openly said that they are considering becoming Roman Catholics. So as I say, hypocrits, women priests are okay now but if they convert then they'll be telling us they're not okay...Smacks of not just hypocricy but double standards imo.

zoomtard

Yeah but they were just saying things, weren't they? Those Bishops aren't about to swim the Tiber yet. There is a sense in which church "politics" are always wrong and then another sense in which they are ok. It is cool that some Bishops and priests in the CofE would lobby to have their vision enacted and some of the more over-the-top comment from this is caused by them saying things in the moment they probably regret.

The constant narrative about Rowan Williams is that he is being "undermined". If he was being undermined as often as the press suggest, the guy would have sunk deep into the ground. He is not a leader with Pope-like powers and he is a man with a rare, most suspect, historically great grasp of theology trying to navigate through phenomenally choppy waters. Its hard stuff to fit into a newspaper headline so the complexity gets chopped out.

Same thing with the priest who oppose this. They opposed female ordination too. But they consider church unity more important than their personal views. Women bishops were (as we now see) decades down the line. So there is no hypocrisy in their individual stances (even though I disagree with them).

PS: Certainly "misrepresenting" was too strong a word. I accept that.

wolfsbane

zoomtard wrote: »

Yeah but they were just saying things, weren't they? Those Bishops aren't about to swim the Tiber yet. There is a sense in which church "politics" are always wrong and then another sense in which they are ok. It is cool that some Bishops and priests in the CofE would lobby to have their vision enacted and some of the more over-the-top comment from this is caused by them saying things in the moment they probably regret.

The constant narrative about Rowan Williams is that he is being "undermined". If he was being undermined as often as the press suggest, the guy would have sunk deep into the ground. He is not a leader with Pope-like powers and he is a man with a rare, most suspect, historically great grasp of theology trying to navigate through phenomenally choppy waters. Its hard stuff to fit into a newspaper headline so the complexity gets chopped out.

Same thing with the priest who oppose this. They opposed female ordination too. But they consider church unity more important than their personal views. Women bishops were (as we now see) decades down the line. So there is no hypocrisy in their individual stances (even though I disagree with them).

PS: Certainly "misrepresenting" was too strong a word. I accept that.

I agree. Keeping the show on the road is the most important thing for most of the objectors, no matter where the road may lead.

Homosexual priests? Deplorable! If they come in, we might leave. [But homosexual priests came and they didn't leave].

Homosexual bishops? Deplorable!. If they come in, we might leave. [But homosexual bishops came in and they didn't leave].

Women priests? Deplorable! If they come in, we might leave. [But women priests came in and they didn't go].

Women bishops? Deplorable! If they come in...
_________________________________________________________________
2 Corinthians 2:17 For we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as from God, we speak in the sight of God in Christ.