Women Bishops and the Revision Committee
MCU has published a paper that welcomes the Revision Committee’s change of policy. However, it questions the emphasis on seeking to satisfy the opponents of women bishops while showing no comparable concern for the majority appalled by the continuing gender discrimination.
The paper argues
* that the proposed proliferation of different classes of bishops (women, men consecrated or not consecrated by women, men who do or do not ordain women, etc) should be resisted;
* that church leaders should resist the influence of magical views of the sacraments, treating priests and bishops as if the value of their ministry depended on whether their appointment followed precise rules;
* that the ‘theology of taint’ – the idea that a bishop who has once ordained a woman priest is no longer an acceptable bishop – is not acceptable and no allowance should be made for it;
* that resistance to change, while characteristic of many reactionary religious campaigns, is unrealistic since churches do, and need to, make changes;
* that the increasing appeal to the individual conscience as though it were a basic unchanging fact, rather than an expression of what the individual currently believes to be true, should be resisted;
* and that the current reactionary mood among church leaders is in danger of being made permanent by the proposed Anglican Covenant.
I think it was Fr. Kimel who once famously observed that where orthodoxy becomes optional it is eventually proscribed. This would seem to be a strong indicator of the of progressive dogmatizing of heresy within the Anglican Communion.
ICXC NIKA
John
No, Ad Orientem it was Fr Richard John Neuhaus and is now known as Neuhaus’s Law.
I stand corrected.
The battle lines seem to be well drawn in the Church of England.
This will be trench warfare, with no quarter given.
An utter shame.
“that the increasing appeal to the individual conscience as though it were a basic unchanging fact, rather than an expression of what the individual currently believes to be true, should be resisted”
I love it! What grounds have they for changing 2,000 years of tradition, not to mention Scriptural prohibitions, save an appeal to, er, conscience…?
In the section entitled “theology of magic”, they say, ” Proper norms for administering the sacraments are there for a reason, which we can understand and therefore vary in appropiate circumstances.” While I agree with the statement that sacramental acts do not constrain God, it seems to me to be going too far to say that the intention of the participants is the only factor in determining a valid sacrament. Would Anglicans say that rice wine, for example, could be used in the eucharist and that would not necessarily invalidate the sacrament?
This notion that subjective intention is the only criteria for determining the validity of sacraments is angelism.
Re # 6
Their sacramental theology does indeed reduce the sacraments to magic. It is totally inconsistent with the teaching of the Fathers and the Apostolic Church. There are no Sacraments outside the Church.
ICXC NIKA
John