Senior clergy who have signed the letter include Canon Lucy Winkett, precentor at St Paul’s and Canon Jane Hedges, steward at Westminster Abbey. Both are women likely to be considered for the episcopate once it becomes possible to consecrate them.
More than 700 women priests have signed it, indicating they are backing the stance.
Canon Winkett told The Times: “We are saying that to consecrate women bishops is right, both in principle and in its timing. We believe now is the time to do it. But the way that it happens is important.
“The Church at large misjudges women if it really believes that we would support the consecration of women bishops at any price. We would regret very much a delay, but regretfully we would rather wait than see discriminatory legislation passed.”
When women were ordained to the priesthood over a decade ago, the Church of England passed an Act of Synod which created “flying bishops” to care for traditionalist parishes. Under that legislation, which will be repealed when women are ordained bishops, parishes can still opt to be cared for by a bishop other than their own diocesan, and to make their churches into “no-go areas” for women priests.
Of course; everyone recalls how rigorously the deeply held convictions of those opposed to WO were respected and affirmed by the pro-WO folk!
Irony of the year:
On the other hand:
Promise?
I rather think that Ruth has got the wrong end of the stick when she reports.
[blockquote]The women say they support those in the Church in Wales who a few weeks ago defeated a proposal to ordain women bishops because it included protections to safeguard opponents.[/blockquote]
It was on the contrary because of the refusal to include protections to safeguard opponents that the proposal was soundly defeated in Wales.
Given the uncompromising and intolerance shown in this letter from these priests who would rather split the church and drive out anglo-catholics of the FiF and propably some of the members of Affirming Catholicism it is quite likely that the general CofE and bishops will take the same view as the Synod of the Church in Wales and reject extending the Episcopate to women priests.
Personally, coming from the Evangelical end I have no deep objection to women bishops and would welcome some, however I find this intolerance and unwillingness to extend grace to those with whom you disagree completely unacceptable for future bishops. Although I would accept whatever decision my church made, having read this letter I would now oppose making women bishops; firstly because of the divisions that this will create within the CofE and secondly because of the divisions with Rome that will be cemented. We are on our last legs in our relationship with Rome thanks to TEC and it did not go unnoticed that the Pope spared the ABC a whole half an hour in his latest visit.
For me there is a further reason: this letter shows that the signatories including Canon Winklett [who should know better] are completely unsuited to be bishops. I hope that the half that did not sign it are made of better stuff.
Interestingly I am not alone in my view of the likely reaction of the bishops and our Synod looking at the comments on [url=http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/forum/thread.cfm?thread=6719]Fulcrum[/url]
Re #1: With regard to the treatment of anti-WO folk in pro-WO jurisdictions, it depends on where you are. Women have been ordained in Hong Kong for longer than in the USA and in Uganda and Kenya for about as long, yet I haven’t heard any complaints of discrimination against anti-WO folk there. In England, the Act of Synod provides what amounts to a legal right for clergy and parishes opposed to women priests to avoid ever seeing one. The same applies in several other Anglican provinces. Is there much more that those provinces could do to respect and affirm the views of anti-WO folk, short of asking the majority to abandon their deeply held pro-WO views?
While there certainly are some US dioceses where anti-WO men have trouble getting ordained, there are also two (three, counting San Joaquin) where pro-WO women absolutely cannot be ordained. Internationally, it seems pretty clear that far more Anglican women than men have been denied ordination because their views on this issue differ from those of their province or bishop. Obviously, there are far more Anglicans who have been denied their desire to receive Holy Communion at a Eucharist celebrated by a woman than there are Anglicans who have been forced to receive it under the same circumstances. Similarly, there are a lot more pro-WO folk—even in TEC, much less worldwide—who have been unable to receive Absolution after confessing to a woman priest than there are anti-WO folk who have been forced into a confessional with a woman cleric against their will.
Re #3—In fact, [i]both[/i] Ms. Gledhill and Pageantmaster are right about the situation in Wales. A majority of the Governing Body defeated a amendment to ordain women bishops with safeguards for dissenters, because both the opponents of women’s ordination and the strong proponents (who opposed safeguards) voted against it. The original proposal without safeguards was then voted down by a combination of the opponents of women’s ordination and those who had supported the amendment. There is thus support by a majority of the Governing Body for women bishops and support by a majority for safeguards, but not a majority who support both.
My post crossed with Pageantmaster’s latest. I agree that the same scenario that played out in the Welsh Governing Body could well be reenacted in the English General Synod. A clear majority that favors women bishops (and a different majority that favors protecting dissenters) could be frustrated by the combination of “no” votes from the anti-WO minority and the minority of pro-WO folks who oppose providing special protection for reasserters.
Isn’t it too late for this argument? If women are priests, then how can they not become bishops? This was the risk taken when the decision was made to ordain women and now there isn’t a way forward in so called “unity” except by accomodation of those opposing ordination of women. There will be ordination of women to the episcopate in England alright but there will be further disunity because the fight will go on until those previously accomodated are pushed out becausing they are hurting the feelings of women bishops. There is no room left in the Anglican inn for catholicity. But in the end, I think, catholics will leave.
#5 The major flaw in your reasoning is that nobody denies the validity of a male priest. That path – the path of the Catholic Tradition – represents unity on the matter of orders, while WO is inherently church-dividing.
The PECUSA made a massive mistake when they ignored almost 2,000 years of church tradition and went to WO without consultation with the whole communion. From this small leak in the dike the whole communion has been inundated by a vast flood that threatens to destroy this branch of the one, holy, cstholic church.
there are also two (three, counting San Joaquin) where pro-WO women absolutely cannot be ordained.
Dale, anti-WO women can’t be ordained there either. It’s because they are women, not because of what they believe. Where can you show any pro-WO men that are refused ordination in those dioceses? Of course, even if you could, it wouldn’t be the same thing, as discriminating against a novelty is hardly the same as discriminating against a traditional practice.
As for receiving the eucharist:
Obviously, there are far more Anglicans who have been denied their desire to receive Holy Communion at a Eucharist celebrated by a woman than there are Anglicans who have been forced to receive it under the same circumstances.
Are you so obtuse that you don’t understand that catholic minded opponents of WO can’t receive the eucharist from a women as no eucharist would be in existence there? Those people, men and women are truly denied the eucharist there. Your others are only denied their choice of celebrant, which is such a completely unimportant, if not downright childish and idolatrous attitude. Who cares who is celebrating, as long as Christ is truly made sacramentally present? I think your focus is seriously screwed up.
Really, your argument here was a horse’s ass of an argument.
“If women are priests, then how can they not become bishops?”
In Eastern Orthodoxy, married men can become priests but not bishops. AMiA (citing Romans 16:1-2) ordains women as deacons but not as priests. More generally, not everything permissible is mandatory.
First, I should identify my perspective. I am Roman Catholic. I left TEC about 5 or 6 years ago, but I have many friends still in it and great affection for the AC. I don’t believe in WO at all.
That said, I really don’t see any conceivable way that there can be any “protection” from women bishops. Bishops ordain priests and deacons. Bishops have larger voice in the church. I think there needs to be a complete split at the moment this is enacted — before any woman bishop has ordained one priest. The provinces (or whatever they would be called) would have to be kept so separate that they might as well be separate churches!
It will be nice if this doesn’t pass, but I tend to agree with these women, in a way. All or nothing. You know if it doesn’t happen now, it will someday soon.
It seems the choices for Anglo-catholics, evangelicals, or others that cannot accept women as bishops will be:
1. A completely separate church with it’s own hierarchy
2. Crossing the Tiber or Bosporus
I could be missing something, but what?
I should have added, of couse that that split should already have happened in TEC.
A number of people who accept the idea of ordaining women also believe that an ordained woman should not be the rector of a parish — support staff, fine, the head of a parish, no. Such people (and on some days I count myself among them) believe that women cannot be and should not be bishops, as that is an office that inherently has a headship dimension.
Irenaeus #11 it’s an imperfect church in rebellion and what you begin you will finish. There is no authority to stop it that will be authority in the last test. And when that so called authority is used up, there will be other surprising changes, too, such as lay presidents of the Eucharist. Orthodoxy is men priests, not women and they could change the marriage rule and not be commiting an offense against basics. Just as the Roman priesthood could – and now does – have married priests through the pastoral provision. And AMiA will be a train wreck in the end. Wait for it. There will be a train wreck over ordination of women to the priesthood in the AMiA. Rebellion, that started AMiA, will continue. Because the first rebellion, the Church of England, is the model.
My hat’s off to the RC bishop (do not recall his name) who said that he could see himself ordaining women to the priesthood if he had the authority to refuse such ordinations to the first 1,000 women who demanded it. Anglicanism continues to delegitimize itself as a potential “third branch,” all the while suffering the delusion that +Rowan’s 20 minutes spent in the company of the Pope demonstrated collegiality.
Geesh! They are never happy! The majority of women never seem to be happy or satisfied! What’s the world to do?
Typical demands from those who want what they want. It will happen, though, because we allowed women as priests. As rectors, as staff, as bishops—whatever role they play, ordain women and the church can no longer stand. I am regularly amazed at women who achieved ordination who now fight the homosexuals who are moving in the same direction for the same reasons. There is a priestess in my parish who puts herself forward as a conservative, orthodox Anglican. She needs to take her choice–having pushed to destroy what she now claims to be presents a distructive riddle for others.
So let us paraphrase:
We want an inclusive church that does not include those we disageee with.
This tells me (a res C priest) exactly why I should be very wary of just accepting the warm words and gfood will of those I disagree with. Having hijaked the plane the long term plan is to throw out the original crew and passengers.
Meanwhile, the decline of Western Anglicanism continues remorselessly. The simple fact is that most men are not interested in being (voluntarily) led by women, and a church that is primarily female and over 45 will become all the more so. This is already the case with Scottish Presbyterianism, IIRC. The exit of men will continue, and I don’t see things turning around, for all the whistling in the dark. I believe the NT does know of women in leadership, but it’s the ‘Priscilla and Aquila’ model of a married couple. Most ordained women end up espousing some form of liberalism or doctrinal indifferentism of an ‘inclusive’ sort.
The “headship” argument is a Protestant one that whould have no place in Anglican arguments against WO.
Except that Anglicanism is a Protestant church. Catholic and reformed, i.e. Protetant, is how I’ve always heard Anglicanism to be defined. The Via Media, remember?
Perhaps I misuderstood your point Rob. If you meant that a headship argument that negates one based on catholic orders so as to allow ordained women but forbid them as rectors or bishops, then I would agree, it should have no place, but, sadly, the two sides often act like the other is illegitimate.
#23 far from it Chris. here in England FIF have pushed FOR women bishops- becuase only having women priests is nonsensical and sexist. All they have asked is that they be given a safe haven in which to continue the faith as handed down to them and as is understood by the vast majority of Christians world wide. The request for a diocese seems generous and stops short of a full province.
We should remember that in 1992 Wo was passed as an innovation and for a period of reflection and that those opposed were declared to be of good standing and fully valid in their views. At what point has that changed so that the authors of this letter would refuse consecraton in order to remian martyrs and drum me out of the church?
Quite right RPP. 700 unladylike ladies, or priests and laity like yourself who we value? No contest. They may well have shot their bolt with this letter.
11. Irenaeus wrote:
“If women are priests, then how can they not become bishops?â€
“In Eastern Orthodoxy, married men can become priests but not bishops. AMiA (citing Romans 16:1-2) ordains women as deacons but not as priests. More generally, not everything permissible is mandatory”
How one can translate Romans 16:1-2 into the allowing female pastors, deacons, priests, ministers, etc. is beyond me.
Romans 16: 1-2 clearly states that, “Phebe our sister (in Christ)[that is not brother, pastor, minister, preacher, bishop, clergy, etc.], which is a servant [a servant is not a brother, pastor, minister, preacher, minister, bishop, clergy, etc]…for she had been a succourer[-someone who gives help in times of need or distress or difficulty]…”
Do you realize how many brothers and sisters there where in the Bible?
What we have is False Doctrine, False Religion, and a False Church within TEC, Church of England, AMiA, and throughout the Church.
No where will you find a female deacon, pastor, bishop, preacher, etc in the Bible. Female priests, deacon, pastor, bishop, preacher are oxymorons–these are masculine labels.
There is no question that I do not want a female priest or bishop precisely because I do not want a woman running my spiritual life and the life of my church. Sexist. Probably, but I don’t care much. The reason is that I do not want the feminine mind set, esp. the feminist mind set (for the one now begets the other as a common rule), as a master. And there IS such a thing as female nature as there is such a thing as male nature, an inherent whole-person cast that is in the genotype. Are women more tender hearted, caring, nurturing by nature? To be sure, but this is not what I want in a priest or a bishop. And that other men do not want it is clear from the number of men who do not go to church at all because standard Christianity is so feminine (as it is commonly taught). Christ was not thus, but this has become irrelevant. “Love” has become sentimentality, bathos, and “listening.” No wonder the homosexuals now take such a piece of the churches; to the women, they are much the same, and women increasingly run the churches. Larry
Should not some distinction be made between the representative (i.e. sacramental) qualities of the male priest in the Eucharist, and the question of male/female leadership characteristics?
I can think of a very devout and conservative Anglo Catholic priest of my acquaintance, whose style I would previously have described as contemplative, but who, by some of the standards listed, would be considered to have a more “feminine style” of leadership. On the other hand, I have encountered a number of female Evangelical priests who are far removed from what is described above, particularly in their homiletic style.
I support making provisions in the church for those who remain opposed to WO – I disagree with them, but I think their viewpoint is arguable from scripture and tradition. I think WO can also be supported by both scripture and tradition, but there should be room for disagreement.
That said, I’m a little shocked at the sexism in this thread, especially as in posts #25 and #27 (one who called the women “unladylike” and the other who accused them of being too feminine – which is it?).
After further thought, I apologize to the Elves for commenting on the other commenters instead of the article. I think the women who signed the letter are being divisive by being unwilling to tolerate those who disagree with them, dispite their protests that they are somehow protecting the unity of the church.
[i]Thanks for the apology and the clarification.[/i]
‘unladylike’ like ‘ungentlemanly’ means falling short of the admittedly old-fashioned standards which we used to expect of those in positions of authority, let alone standards for Christian leaders. I’ve been reading some of the reaction elsewhere in the British press and it has been almost universally critical of what comes across as a petulant emotionally blackmailing letter.
I was put in mind of the petulant and uncompromising statements made by the Presiding Bishop in some of her less guarded moments. We don’t want any of it here thankyou.
#27 Larry Morse,
I am a female and I firmly stand by your post above! God created the order of things and we humans have no business tampering with it! He is omnipotent I am not. He knows better than I and all humaniy….when will we get it?
#28: The first problem is that too many priests are indeed too feminine and the priesthood has favored that. This explains partly why homosexuals gravitate toward the priesthood. You and I have seen a hundred Episcopalian priests whose soft hands, damp brow and limp handshake are simply unpleasant at every level. And the church has favored this as it has favored the image of Christ as meek and mild and humble and acquiescent, and not a little spineless. such is Anglican “love.” Think of the stations of the cross pictures in which Christ has softly neat hair, blue eyes, well washed white skin and, if bearded, tidily bearded. He is always forgiving someone; somehow he is never making clear the hard law which is inherent in Christianity. He is mummy, never the lawgiver.
But he is the lawgiver, and he makes it clear when he says, “Better to be from Sodom and Gommorah than….” I am sure there are many f emale priests who are male, for our generation has taught them to be so. Humans are almost infinitely flexible and can be taught practically anything, even when it is against their indwelling nature. Do you want a male female priest? I don’t, for the female nature will always be present, underlying the tough veneer of the male, and it will always be using guilt, shame and remorse as tools for making men feel guilt for being what they naturally are. And men will continue to stay away in droves because Anglicanism will always be feminine, soft and accepting and inclusive and warm and nurturing. And as you can see from TEC, woman run, careless of the law and the discipline that Christ demands. Larry
Again, it might be wise to look at the actual situation in Anglicanism today with regard to this issue. It is simply not the case that support for ordaining women is only coming from Westerners who are politically liberal feminists and theologically Liberal Protestants. Like it or not, and many obviously do not, it is well within the Anglican mainstream in the Global South and elsewhere. While I certainly believe that opposition to women’s ordination is also within the mainstream and that conscientious objectors should be protected in some way, tolerance should be a two-way street.
The first province to ordain women was not the US, but Hong Kong. Following the US and Canada, the fourth and fifth Anglican provinces to ordain women to the priesthood were Kenya and Uganda. All four of the Anglican Instruments of Communion agreed at least thirty years ago that the practice of or opposition to women’s ordination should not be an adequate basis for breaking communion. Not a single one of the 44 autonomous Anglican churches has disagreed with that position.
Almost all these churches have women in Holy Orders; most have had female sacramental deacons (not just lay deaconesses) for decades. Many Catholic theologians (Roman or Anglo-) find no basis in Scripture or tradition for allowing women deacons but prohibiting women priests or bishops, Holy Orders being regarded as a single sacrament.
A substantial majority of the Anglican churches ordain women priests. As far as I know, none of these expressly limit women clergy to subordinate roles; most have women actually serving as rectors, archdeacons, deans, and similar supervisory officers. Again, this isn’t a Western feminist phenomenon but a practice that extends to many of the most strongly reasserting Global South churches.
Five Anglican churches (US, Canada, New Zealand, Cuba, and Australia) have named women bishops. Fifteen expressly allow them and several others have no express prohibition. The first woman diocesan bishop was elected in 1989… in New Zealand, not North America. Eleven women bishops attended Lambeth 1998 with almost no visible opposition. To repeat, tolerance of women in the episcopate is not a fringe position in world Anglicanism.
Again, I think it is a good thing for those who conscientiously differ on this issue to be protected in ways that preserve the integrity of their positions. The authors of the English letter do not disagree, although they wish to accomplish this by an agreed code of conduct, rather than by legislation that formally discriminates against women bishops. The “code rather than legislation” approach has been followed in the Anglican provinces that have already allowed women bishops, so England would not be unusual if it did the same.
We might differ with the authors (as I actually do) on whether a legislative approach is necessarily so heinous as to be worse than not allowing women bishops at all, but that involves a dispute about practicality, not about theology. Even Forward in Faith is willing to allow the consecration of women bishops within a Church of England including themselves, so long as their integrity is adequately protected. What I seem to be hearing in some of the comments above is a very different position, that women’s ordination (and specifically their consecration to the episcopate) is a matter over which Anglicans should break communion. That boat left the dock thirty years ago, I’m afraid. The current debate is over what degree of protection to offer those who differ from the position that their province has taken. In practice, that means those who oppose women’s ordination in the jurisdictions that allow it, since there has never been much accommodation for those who favor women’s ordination in those that do not allow it.
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither … nor effeminate…
#34 Dale Rye
[1] My understanding was that there was an almighty rumpus when Hong Kong ordained women.
[2] Reading the letter [as opposed to the references in the press release] I see no acceptance of the principle of protection of dissenting priests and laity. The best that can be inferred is that they might talk to anyone unhappy in order to provide, um, repentance and RECONCILIATION!!!
Even assuming that this letter were amended to provide some informal protection for dissenter, looking at the history of leaving pastoral protection to individual bishops is not good – once enthroned bishops can become dictatorial, unaccountable and capricious princes of the church viz +Howard and +Ingham.
No – I don’t think that we want these hard-boiled letter writers as bishops.
This English writer has now chimed in on the subject:
http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.com/
#34: “Five Anglican churches (US, Canada, New Zealand, Cuba, and Australia) have named women bishops.”
And all five are declining, and some are seriously divided. Gamaliel, anyone?
I don’t know how widespread women presbyters are in Uganda or Kenya, but I doubt any are vicars. Readers who know about these countries could maybe inform us?
I agree with Pageantmaster; it’s strange for Dale Rye to laud the principle of protection of Catholic Anglicans around the Communion, when the authors of the letter under discussion explicitly denounce such protection.
[blockquote]Reading the letter [as opposed to the references in the press release] I see no acceptance of the principle of protection of dissenting priests and laity.[/blockquote]
How about the following?
[blockquote]After 21 years of ordained ministry and 14 years of priesthood, many of us have much experience of building trustful relationships with those unable to accept the priestly ministry of women. In the Anglican Communion overseas, women take this experience into the episcopate, which leads them to invite other bishops into their Dioceses or Episcopal areas to ordain, confirm and take other services when required. Bishops should be trusted to act wisely and behave with dignity, and all bishops should work within clear expectations and codes of practice. The language of “protection†and “safeguard†is offensive to women, and we believe the existing disciplinary procedures are enough for women or men to be brought to account if they behave inappropriately. We would commend the good practice over the past 20 years of the 15 Anglican Provinces which have already opened the episcopate to women: none of these has passed discriminatory legislation.
Discussion of a single clause measure without including the possible arrangements for those opposed, characterises those who argue for it as somehow “not caring†about those who oppose the ordination/consecration of women. This is far from the truth. Strong relationships have been forged on the anvil of profound disagreement and there is ample testimony to the richness of these encounters, to set alongside those situations which have proved painful. As the broken body of Christ on earth, the Church’s internal relationships should rest on trust, forgiveness, repentance and reconciliation, rather than on protection and an over-anxious reliance on the letter of the law. Work has already been done on a draft proposal of robust and clear arrangements that make the passing of a single clause measure realistic in today’s Church, as well as theologically and ecclesiologically cohesive.[/blockquote]
It seems to me that “robust and clear arrangements” backed up by “existing disciplinary procedures [which] are enough for women or men to be brought to account if they behave inappropriately” reflect “acceptance of the principle of protection of dissenting priests and laity.” Elsewhere on this site today is the Australian protocol that corresponds pretty closely to the code of practice proposed for the Church of England.
Over here in America, we have some historical experience with what happened when state legislatures codified the right of individuals to discriminate against others on the basis of race. That just established the right of the government to regulate private conduct, which the government eventually used to prohibit most private discrimination. A declaration by the Church of England that it can legislate non-discrimination against anti-WO folks could easily be turned into the right of the national church to legislate non-discrimination against women. The states of the former Confederacy would have been better off in the long run letting private conduct be regulated by private agreement.
none of these has passed discriminatory legislation.
What dissembling; GC2000, in a fit of rage, passed a resolution (A045) demanding that enough was enough, and the period of reception should have been long over, and dioceses refusing to get with the program would get with it now, or else. Though nothing has really been done, that’s the official position of the GCC: the laser dot has been on the heads of Catholic Anglican dioceses for some time, with the only question being when the trigger gets pulled.
Of course the signatories “believe the existing disciplinary procedures are enough for women or men to be brought to account if they behave inappropriately,” but the inappropriate behavior they have in mind is not bending the knee to their innovation. That will become clear in due time, just as it did in the GCC.
Oops, the [url=http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/003077.html] Australian Protocol[/url] is on another site, not this one yet.
#38 Thanks for your response Dale Rye
As far as I can see all that is being offered is the matter being left to the goodwill of the particular bishop and the requirement of dissenters to enter into some sort of conversation or negotiation with her. Is this not exactly the sort of proposal for an alternative to APO which the Episcopal Church has periodically put up and been found wanting by the dissenters? Further even when backed up with the merit of a panel of reference recommendation and a nice letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury, it has not saved it from being given, what I shall call a disdainful expression of dismissal from the bishop called on to provide such care? Bishop Howard springs to mind.
Do you really think this is good enough for the protection of these good folks?
I also have to say that:
[1] this phrase “We believe that it should be possible for women to be consecrated as bishops, but not at any price. The price of legal “safeguards†for those opposed is simply too high, diminishing not just the women concerned, but the catholicity, integrity and mission of the episcopate and of the Church as a whole” gives absolutely no indication of tolerance of those who cannot accept the oversight of women bishops or any agreement to make mandatory provision for them; and
[2] In much the same way that the SS provisions were driven through the Canadian Synod by procedural subterfuge around the St Michaels Report in Australia, what I have read indicates that the womens episcopate was achieved by de facto action rather than Synodical decision which rather makes the so called ‘code of conduct’ of dubious validity for precedent for the CofE.
[3] I don’t think that the analogy with US race civil rights history is helpful. No one has a right to the episcopate, whether Canon Winkett, +Gene Robinson or Pageantmaster.
I’m afraid that I am unconvinced that this letter is anything but an expression of petulant intolerance.
Gosh, maybe the best solution would be to get rid of “church” as
we have set it up over the last couple thousand years…Could we then all be about carrying out our true work of being Christ to a dying world?
So I guess Dale, the “protection” you see them offering is their profession of good will to disenters.
But of course. Why should dissenters have concrete protection? Don’t they trust their enlightened overlords and overladies?
Chris – Re nos. 22 & 23 – Hope this is clearer – The headship principle simply has no place, pro or con, in substantive discussion of priesthood as a Catholic issue. It has never been an issue in the discussion, pro or con, of the subject between the Anglican and RC churches. In this I am simply stating a fact. I admit that it is my opinion that it should have no place in intra-Anglican discussions. I have always understood that our ecclesiologies differ. I believe that the Anglican Church is ontologically Catholic (capital C), that took on some insights ( and some distortions) in the Reformation. It would indeed have been simpler, historically speaking, if in the Reformation the CofE should have abandoned Apostolic Succession and the three-fold ministry and thus true and effective sacraments. Then the Caroline Divines, Non-Jurors, and the Oxford Movement should never have developed, nor had a need to, to remind and to call back Anglicanism to its existence and mission as a Catholic body. As to WO istesl, I go back and forth, although I think that a lot of the impetus behind its adoption was not based on Church history and doctrinel, or Scripture. And it was decided upon by the whole church. As an aside, what impresses me sometimes is that most of my many RC friends are either for it, or see nothing wrong with it, and that some RC priests that I know are for it. I shouldn’t be surprised that someday down the line, the RC Church will adopt it, but in so doing will do it logically and as a true “development” of doctrine. I’ve been shouted down before on this and other sites for stating this “gut” opinion.
All the references to the Orthodox and Catholics miss the point somehow. If one talks about Anglican clergy, one talks precisely about *Protestant ministers*. There is no, zero, connection whatever with a 2000 year Tradition. As long as that is understood, there is no problem at all with ordaining women. The Anglicans have no priesthood, so no problem. It’s when they, men and women alike, make the leap that they somehow are connected to that 2000 Tradition (and it’s interesting to hear how it’s invented anew each week) that things get really silly. Anglican theology has a pull-date of about 2 weeks.
nwlayman – What is your basis for your no. 46?