DRAFT legislation for women bishops has drawn cautious responses since its publication last week…[earlier this month]. There is a prevailing desire not to question what the proposed Code of Practice could do before the General Synod examines it in detail in February.
The response of the traditionalist Catholic body Forward in Faith has been the most uncompromising. While it welcomed publication of the further report and associated documents, the organisation opposes in principle the Code that is at the heart of the proposals.
“We have consistently argued that a Code of Practice (with no transfer of jurisdiction) will not provide the security which tens of thousands of faithful and loyal Anglicans need in order to live with integrity in the Church of England after the ordinaÂtion of women to the episcopate. Nothing in these documents changes that situation,” a terse statement on its website said….
“We welcome also the proposed provision . . . for those who dissent from this development. It has been our concern throughout that the maximum provision should be made which does not compromise the Catholic order of the Church of England.”
How do your accomplish this and still have women Bishops? Catholic and women biships are mutually incompatable. This will lead to further isolation of the Church of England and the Anglican Communion as a whole.
A third province (i.e., tolerating coexistence) is a compromise, one which was rejected out of hand by the supporters of women bishops. On the contrary, FiF has been clear about the range of approaches that would be consistent with their beliefs – the supporters of women bishops are the ones who have been quite uncompromising. If the WO supporters are confident in being correct, then I suggest a review of Romans 14.
🙄
For a brief, pointed and to-the-point response from an English Anglo-Catholic friend of mine, see the most recent posting here:
http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/
“WATCH believes that the 20 years’ experience of women as bishops elsewhere in the Anglican Communion shows that mutually acceptable arrangements work well on an informal basis.”
WATCH can believe that little pixies dance on their kitchen tables. Doesn’t make it so.
Experience elsewhere in the Anglican Communion (and the Nordic Lutheran churches) has shown that dissenters are first tolerated, then pressured, and finally hunted to extinction. Prime example of the later Fr. R J Neuhaus’ principle that “Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will eventually be proscribed.”
This is a fine case of passing rules that are thought fair by all — except those to whom they apply. Very little point in the exercise.
Amen to what tired wrote. As I’ve noted before, WO is inherently divisive: many people cannot accept the validity of these orders, and, for Anglo-Catholics, the assurance of the sacraments, which is of paramount importance, is compromised. In a very important sense, WO literally takes away the Church, in the Catholic view.
On the other hand, the orders of males are not in dispute by anybody.
Unless there is a project to rip the church apart, or, at best, an indifference to that eventuality, it’s clear WO should be discarded. Christ prayed, “that they all may be one.”
#5 Phil: That argument can be carried farther. Anglican orders are inherently divisive, because many people (e.g., Roman Catholics) cannot accept their validity; but the orders of Roman Catholics are not in dispute by anybody. Unless there is a project to rip the church apart, it’s clear that the practice of ordaining Anglicans should be discarded.
Ross #6, that would have been a good argument to make in the 16th century, but I think we’re all living with the world as we found it now. Still, think about it – there is merit in the argument even today.
Obviously, we are at a juncture, broadly stated, where we are the ones deciding whether a church-dividing action is taken or not, not living with the church-dividing actions of a long-ago age. As we see with WO, or with Gene Robinson, the revisionist answer is always, “go ahead and tear it apart, it will make me feel better.” My suggestion is only that the Christian world is divided enough; maybe the revisionists could do what the Apostle told us, which is to put the jackhammer down and defer to their scandalized brothers and sisters.
Ross, #6. The one is not like the other. Women in the episcopate are inherently divisive, not only with regard to ecumenical hopes but within the Church itself. Reform, representing a great number of conservative Evangelical Anglicans and FiF, representing a great number of Anglo Catholics, both feel as though they are being pushed to the edge of a precipice. This could mean division within the CofE. With regard to Anglican orders in the eyes of the RC’s… things are not always as straightforward as they seem. If Anglican orders were viewed in the same light as the Baptist pastorate, for example, RC’s would have little concern with ther CofE consecrating woman bishops. Compare RC attitudes to the Eastern Church a hundred years ago with attitudes today.
All of this to say, whether we consider the question ecumenically or with regard to internal division, women bishops will be extremely damaging to Christian unity.
#3 Dr. Tighe, that blog wouldn’t belong to one of the contributors to Quo Vaditas by any chance? Just finished your gift and a wonderful collection it was, too.
Thanks again…mrb
#9, No, Fr. Hunwicke wasn’t one of the contributors to QV, but he’s “one of the gang,” so to speak.
Since FIF believes God hears the prayers of men more than women, it’s easy to understand why they aren’t impressed.
RE: “Since FIF believes God hears the prayers of men more than women . . . ”
Hee hee.
JW’s comments are always taken utterly seriously on this blog because he is able to demonstrate a deep and well-informed grasp of theology. One can tell that he truly “listens” to those of differing perspectives, in the inclusive way that all us Episcopalians “listen.”