THE Church of England has paved the way for ordination of its first women bishops with new legislation that it hopes will prevent Anglicans splitting over the issue.
A draft law released yesterday, which has taken nearly two years to complete, could lead to the first women bishops being ordained in 2014, 20 years after female priests were first welcomed into the church.
It would bring the Church of England into line with Anglicans in America, Canada and Australia, while simultaneously widening the gulf with Catholics in Rome.
“Anglicans in America, Canada and Australia, while simultaneously widening the gulf with Catholics in Rome.”
How is it that Anglicans exist “in America, Canada and Australia”… but Catholics exist “in Rome”?
“It gives them enough concessions to hang on until they retire. They’re not going to go over to Rome for seven-and-a-half grand a year and lose their pension.â€
What cynicism.
[2] I noticed that as well – although the statement comes from a ‘source.’ I always find it a bit difficult to locate the news in R. Gledhill’s busy repetitions of her favored narratives.
[blockquote]”Christina Rees, a senior campaigner for women bishops in the General Synod, welcomed the draft law.
“It will finally show that we value women alongside men,†she said.”[/blockquote]
If this is the basis of ‘value’ – then it speaks volumes as to the dearth of theological seriousness in the CoE, and the proponents of this change.
Meanwhile, the uncharitable resistance to any structural protection for their fellow church members leads me to question the [i]raison d’être[/i] of this organization.
🙄
Shoddy legislation designed to kill the last embers of hope within Anglo-Catholicism. It might just about work for mysognist elderly clergy who want to hang on in but for us young priests it is a death sentence. Oh and I will not need to survive on 7.5k per annum in Rome- If I go- and it is very likely I shall- then the plan would be for my church in the Ordinariate to continue to maintain a stipend needed to raise and support a family…
but Ruth Gledhill would not report on that as- with the wider C of E- she is enjoying the game of throwing cold water on the Ordinariate (cf. +York claiming its not *real* Catholicism) and sowing seeds of fear amongst those who might be interested. Nice try but I am neither frightened nor put off.
Sad stuff. I’ve never found the idea of “false consciousness” terribly useful as a tool of cultural analysis but wonder if it might work if one were to apply it to the western Anglican churches.
Well, well, wellie, wellie, well, just what the ABC wants to be lined up with EcUSA/TEc and against Rome and Constantinople and Tradition that even he cannot in honesty circumvent. Odds on for the PB to head the episkopal kom-union after July’s meeting!
The legislation first has to pass all three houses of General Synod. Unless and until that happens, there will be no women bishops in England.
The legislation is likely (although not assured) to pass the houses of clergy and bishops. However, it is the house of Laity which is the great unknown.
Pray for those orthodox anglicans in England who are agitating to stop this measure. Pray for the members of Synod that they will understand the true impact of this measure on their church’s standing in the Anglican Communion and with the rest of the world.
Pray also for the orthodox within CofE, anglo-catholics, evangelicals and others, that they find the sort of practical unity that their brethren have displayed at Jerusalem and in ACNA.
#6 It looks to me that the Revision Committee rejected the proposals put forward by the Archbishop of York. (I presume this represents the views of both Archbishops). He suggested, as I read it, more or less, some kind of continuation of the ministry of the “Flying Bishops”.
I haven’t followed all of this closely, but it looks to me as if the Revision Committee actually voted in principle to support such a proposal one month (October 8) and announced it with a press release (http://www.cofe.anglican.org/news/pr9509.html), only to vote down every possible implementation of it the next (November 13). Press release http://www.cofe.anglican.org/news/pr10509.html. Astonishing stuff.
I have no idea what to make of such a volte-face. The report of the Committee is concerned to show how, despite the 12 – 7 vote in favor, the Revision Committee was always divided on quite what they had voted in favor of on October 8.
The Report itself is, on this matter, confusing to an outsider and has the appearance of being a little defensive about this key moment. It seems to respond to, unstated, criticism both about the October 8 vote and the decision to publicize it. It states that the October 8 in principle vote in favor of some kind of “flying bishop” solution, was “perfectly in order” and was not “taken lightly”. It also goes on to recount how that decision was then nullified by (presumably, not lightly taken and perfectly ordered though contradictory) votes taken just a month later.
I don’t see the big deal. This is just the logical next step. Every Anglican has already accepted that W/O is not beyond the pale by virtue of simply being Anglican. To be Anglican is to be in full sacramental communion with women clergy and those who claim to ordain them. It does not matter whether to CofE has them or not. TEO does. And the CofE has been and remains in full communion with TEO.
You are who you are in communion with.
That’s not quite true. The Communion self consciously exists in a state of impaired communion – thus, at present, those women ordained as bishops within TEC cannot function as bishops within the COE. That is, the COE is in sacramental full communion with some bishops ordained in TEC but not others. Various Lambeth resolutions and reports of Communion bodies refer to this reality.
Ad Orientem’s comment at #10 is quite incorrect.
Firstly, you are not “who you are in communion with”. Ad Orientem holds to the bizarre belief that christian churches are obliged to formally cut communion ties not only with heretical churches, but also with other churches who have not cut ties with the heretical churches! This was not the patristic practice, nor was it the apostolic practice.
Secondly, cutting communion ties is a MAJOR step to be taken only after a long process of exhortation, prayer and warning, not the frivolous step that Ad Orientem appears to contemplate. Many Anglican provinces have cut ties with TEC and it is clear that many more will follow.
Furthermore, one must have regard to the interests of those laity and clergy (sometimes entire congregations or dioceses) within heretical churches who remain faithful – we are responsible to provide for the needs of our faithful brethren, and this requires careful prayer and consideration.
Most Anglicans disagree with the ordination of women to the priesthood. However, it is not seen as a communion-breaking issue per se, but one requiring all efforts to convince erring brethren of their error.
As for CofE and women bishops, at this point it has not happened. The Lord willing, it will not happen.
Re # 12
Michael,
If you wish to call Sts. Athanasius, Basil the Great, Cyprian and Maximos the Confessor as also the Canons of the Church “bizarre,” I suppose that is within your right. But your claim that…
[blockquote] This was not the patristic practice, nor was it the apostolic practice. [/blockquote]
…is demonstrably false. This issue has been thoroughly addressed on many other forums.
It is indeed the immemorial discipline of the church to sever communion with heretics. Communion is symbolic of full agreement on essential matters of faith. To be in communion with someone is to affirm that they they hold no theological opinions that are either condemned heresy or outside the bounds of acceptable theologumen.
Your view is a modern novelty utterly inconsistent with the history of the early church and the unaltered discipline of not only the Orthodox Church but also the Roman Catholic.
[i] Canon XLV.
Let a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, who has only prayed with heretics, be excommunicated: but if he has permitted them to perform any clerical office, let him be deposed.
Canon XLVI.
We ordain that a bishop, or presbyter, who has admitted the baptism or sacrifice of heretics, be deposed. For what concord hath Christ with Belial, or what part hath a believer with an infidel? [/i]
-From the Apostolic Canons
ICXC NIKA
John
To add to what John wrote, I will cite the “Acacian Schism” between Rome and Constantinople (and Alexandria and Antioch) between 484 and 519. Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople from 471 to his death in 489, accepted (and perhaps even formulated) the “Henotikon” of 482 which tried to end the dispute over the Council of Chalcedon by putting forth an ambiguous formula which could be read in a Chalcedonian and anti-Chalcedonian way, and which mentioned “three ecumenical councils” (thus passing over the fourth, Chalcedon, in silence). Acacius himself was a supporter of Chalcedon. For this ambiguous formula, and for the implicit denegration of Chalcedon in it, he was excommunicated by Pope Felix in 484. Later popes excommunicated Acacius’s successors on the same basis. When, in the 490s, the Emperor Anastasius (b. ca. 430; emp. 491-518) tried to reopen negotiations with Rome, and claimed that Acacius and his successors in Constantinople had been excommunicated unjustly because they were “Chalcedonians” in their views, Pope Gelasius replied that “Hoc igitur modo recidens, in consortium damnatorum, est damnatus Acacius, qui eorum damnationem antequam prevaricator exstitisset, fuerat exsecutus,” in other words, because of his willing maintenance of communion with heretics, he too has been excommunicated (the whole of Cap. II and III of Gelasius’s letter to Fausto Magistro, his factor in Constantinople, is an extended denunciation of those who claim to be orthodox but maintain communion with the heterodox):
(Migne, Patrologia Latina, 56, col. 628-633)
Ad Orientem,
I have not at any time referred to the beliefs of Athanasius as “bizarre”. I have referred to your belief as bizarre, because it differs from that of Athanasius, and indeed to that of the early church in general.
You are quite right that this issue was dealt with recently on a thread on TitusOneNine. I quoted from Athanasius and demonstrated that it was NOT his belief, nor of the bishops of his time that anyone should be excommunicated merely because he himself had failed to excommunicate heretics. You were on that thread, and you had no reply.
I referred to and cited documents from Athanasius, also from the Council of Sardica which dealt with this precise issue. Again, no response from you.
You now cite from one version of the so-called “Apostolic Canons” – how is this supposed to support your argument? That it was a teaching by some bishops in the 5th and 6th century – yes, I agree. But no earlier than the 5th century.
I should add, for readers unfamiliar with these documents, that there are several versions of the “Apostolic Canons”, however none date earlier than the 5th century AD and they are not “apostolic” despite their name. They represent a series of teachings which were put forward by various senior bishops during the fifth and sixth centuries, and (erroneously) claimed to be of apostolic authorship.
Neither the apostles nor the patristic church taught that anyone should be excommunicated merely because they had failed to excommunicate heretics.
If some bishop from the 5th century believed contrary to the Apostles, why should any Christian have the slightest interest in the teachings of that bishop?
Dr William Tighe at #14,
Why is a decretal of Gelasius at the end of the 5th century relevant to this issue? It certainly illustrates that by this period, some senior leaders in both east and west were using the concept in order to reinforce their turf wars with the other half of the empire. But that in itself does not indicate that the teaching had any apostolic or sub-apostolic basis.
Indeed, all it really does is illustrate the principal that by this period a number of teachings contrary to those of the Apostles were creeping into the church. Athanasius would have been surprised (not to say mortified) not only at the teaching, but also in the way it was used by leaders in both east and west to fracture the true unity of the church.
On the contrary, Athanasius himself was willing “to fracture the true unity of the Church” when doctrinal orthodoxy was an issue; cf, the facts adduced in my article:
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-03-036-f
concerning which (if I may mention it) I was pleased to find a laudatory (and unsolicited) commendation of its central thesis in a private correspondence I had with Dr. Nazir-Ali. (I will mention as well that the ultimate genesis of the article was a brief e-mail exchange I had with Canon Harmon late in 2004 in which we were trying to work out the meaning of the Windsor Report’s reference to “the Canons of Nicaea” and whether any of the Nicene canons had any actual relevance to the situation with which that report was concerned — it seemed [and still seems to me] not.)