THE diocesan synods of Liverpool, Newcastle, Oxford, Portsmouth, Southwark, and York debated the draft legislation on women bishops on Saturday, and all six backed it in all three houses.
But York diocesan synod went on to carry a following motion: “This Synod calls upon the House of Bishops, in exercise of its powers under Standing Order 60(b), to amend the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure in the manner proposed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York at the Revision Stage for the draft Measure.” This was carried by 62 to 24, with six abstentions.
In total, 42 out of the 44 dioceses have voted in favour of the legislaÂtion. London and Chichester voted against…
This article is nicely positioned closely to the Do It Yourself Suicide article.
Good, categorical evidence abounds that “women bishops” are completely incapable of protecting the faith handed down and standing firm against heresies.
Peter Ould and now free +Pete Broadbent have some interesting comment on what this means here.
#1 Dr Dr Robroy – the men aren’t doing that well are they? The Pelagianist diocese of Atlanta comes to mind. I think there are objections which can be made, but don’t think that is necessarily one which will fly – there are orthodox faithful women clergy, but we just hear from the loud spiky-haired TEC-in-a-bag ladies of WATCH and the equally ghastly and loud spiky-haired and badly dressed Friends-of-Kate on your side of the pond.
It’s even ghastlier than you think, Pageantmaster! Did you see the “consecration” of the new “Bishop” of Washington? Awful, to say the least!
Here’s what’s bizarre–can anyone name me an “orthodox faithful woman clergy/priest” who was elected or selected bishop? That would be an interesting sea to watch revisionists navigate…
Some claim that Geralyn Wolfe fits that description, but I don’t know………………..
[blockquote] “orthodox faithful woman clergy/priest†[/blockquote]
Oxymoron.
I agree with you, Pageantmaster. I mean, it wasn’t like the Risen Christ first revealed His Resurrection to a woman or anything. 😉 I don’t believe that male genitalia are required for the episcopacy. If I believed that and could overlook the Cult of Mary plus some other oddities/atrocities, I’d still be RC.
Nope, gender should neither exclude nor commend, and I wish that we as a Church could focus our attention on preaching and teaching the Good News. That’s far more important, and these squabbles detract from that. There’s the Ordinariate for those who are outraged and fixated on the gender of bishops, and please God that the doors be gentle on their behinds on the way out. Sorry, but I just wish we could move on and get on with Christ’s work. Catechesis is woefully lacking in many places and, yeah, the bishop chaps haven’t done a great job. Too much drama, too many distractions from schism threats?
Teatime2: “I don’t believe that male genitalia are required for the episcopacy.”
Well, that’s your opinion. St. Paul, St. Peter,…disagree with you. Gene Robinson agrees with you.
As I said, evidence abounds that female bishops can’t keep heresy out of the church. Give me one example of a denomination that hasn’t become awash in heresy with female episcopacy.
The emasculated churches don’t talk about Christian apologetics just feelings. The emasculated churches can’t attract people. As I said, the CoE is voting for their own demise. It will not survive women bishops. That’s just harsh reality.
#6 Who are you calling an Oxymoron?
No, #6, it’s not an oxymoron. Maybe a minority, but not an oxymoron.
#10 – I’m assuming #6 says oxymoron, because given the definition of the words, no woman could be an “orthodox” priest. Orthodoxy in and of itself demands the sacramental role of priest to be filled by a man, based on the history and theology of the historic church. A woman priest can be “orthodox” within whichever Christian group she is a part of vis-a-vis that group’s understanding of the Bible, but she can’t be “orthodox” in the greater church’s understanding. Then again, I’m also assuming you know that.
Re # 11
Branford,
You are correct. Female ordination is a doctrinal novelty that is contrary to Scripture, the consensus patri, the saints, and the universally received tradition of the apostolic and catholic church. Those who advocate or defend it do so by recourse to the same sort of theological distortions and contortions which have been employed to justify SSM and other forms of heterodoxy. Indeed a compelling argument could be made that W/O is merely the older sibling of SSM in the family tree of heresy.
The words I quoted in #6 are indeed an oxymoron.
A minor correction to my # 12…
consensus patri should be consensus patrum. Thanks to Dr Tighe for the Latin check.
#11 Branford you are correct – I was having a little fun.
#12/13 – Tsk tsk – you are sounding rather chippy today, AO, even with Dr Tighe as your spellcheck. There is no reason to believe women are any less faithful than men to Christ, although of course I am aware that your views on W/O have taken you into exile to hang out with the haloumi-eating referendum holders and the vodka-swilling Tartars and Slavs, but each to his own, I suppose.
I’m with you, Robroy and Ad Orientem. And thanks for your rather crude and wrongheaded commentTeatime 2. Its language so nicely mirrors that of the apologists for SSM and Gene Robinson’s “new thing.”