The Church of England looked set for a damaging split last night after its ruling body agreed to press ahead with the introduction of women bishops without any compromise measures for opponents of the controversial move.
After six hour of emotional debate, one bishop broke down in tears saying he was ashamed of the church for ignoring the deeply felt wishes of traditionalists.
The Rt Rev Stephen Venner, the Suffragan Bishop of Dover, was comforted by other church leaders on the floor of the General Synod in York as its 468 members took a major step towards women becoming bishops, with just an unwritten statutory code of practice to cater for those who firmly believe the Bible teaches that bishops must be male, as Jesus and his apostles were.
Bishop Venner, said: “I have to say that for the first time in my life I am ashamed.”
From CNN:
[blockquote]
Retired Canon Alan Duke, a longtime supporter of women in church leadership posts, said those arguments “simply do not stack up.â€
Duke said that while Jesus named no female disciples, he used and valued woman in radical and different ways for his time.
“He was hardly going to choose women and send them into a situation where they might have been in grave risk,†Duke said.
[/blockquote]
That’s why after His resurrection, Jesus told the apostles to be very, very afraid and not to go outside or say anything controversial. This is because the true message of Jesus is friendship with the world:
[blockquote]
You awkward people, don’t you know that friendship with the world is friendship toward God? Anyone who chooses to be an enemy of the world becomes an enemy of God. (James 4:4)
[/blockquote]
So those who defy the norms of the secular world have made themselves our enemies, and we must treat them with contempt and disdain. Praise be to the wise bishops of the CofE.
I hope you’re just joking, #1.
#2 – The joke is on those whose spiteful judgementalism and hate-filled bigotry lead them to oppose an inclusive church. The sooner we get rid of the evil weirdos the better.
Shalom.
Bishop Venner, I know how you feel. I was a student in a university library in 1982, reading William Stringfellow’s “The Bishop Pike Affair” when that sensation swept over me. I suggest that book to anyone who thinks the current difficulties began recently.
While I think that a biblical argument can be made in support of WO, and I know that there are many here who disagree with WO on any basis, I must confess that the tactics being used are forcing me to reconsider. And that is both in TEC and in the UK. The Holy Spirit does not use such heavy handed and mean spirited tactics.
What is going on is absolutely shameful. This isn’t thology, it’s power politics at the base level and my Anglo-Catholic brothers and sisters are being told to like it or leave. This is shameful and just wrong.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/damian_thompson/blog/2008/07/08/c_of_e_bishop_will_lead_anglicans_to_rome
The Bishops of Ebbsfleet and Richborough, Canterbury province’s two ‘flying bishops’ are going to cross the Tiber. It was they who met with the CDF in Rome last week.
Mean spirited tactics? Like voting?
It becomes harder and harder for the C of E to maintain its historic “branch theory” of the Church. If you are truly part of the Church catholic, you simply cannot continue to act in a way that the rest of the Church catholic does not accept or recognize. It’s NOT about us and our wants or our ever-changing ideas about what’s right and what’s wrong. Despite the protests of those who support WO, there is indeed a DIRECT connection between that innovation and others that have followed. Once you begin to fiddle with catholic order, especially if you do it on your own, all sorts of strange things begin to happen. We’re seeing that clearly now.
Ok, I’ve got a couple of questions:
1. What exactly do people here mean by the “Church catholic”? Do you specifically mean Rome? Is that where we should take our lead? If so, I think we’ve got a problem; wouldn’t it just make more sense to submit yourself to Rome if it contains the fullness of catholic Christianity instead of continuing to complain about every little bit of Anglicanism that you doesn’t suit your fancy?
2. Does ANYONE here support the decision of the Synod to allow for the ordination of women to the episcopate? (This question is directed to those who support it. For those opposed, you’ve made you’re feelings quite clear; let others have a chance to express theirs.)
LP, if you’re out there and haven’t been banned from T19, please explain “Church catholic” to Mr. Montgomery. You certainly had the best grasp of it I’ve read on the blogsphere.
Yes John, it’s mean spirited. Accomodation could have been made.
Kevin, the way they have gone about it? No, I do not support it. This is just plain wrong.
Kevin (#6): I support the concept of women’s ordination, and see no Biblical bar to women as bishops. My problem is that too many on the liberal side have turned this into a civil rights political issue. “Women bishops permitted? No, it must be women bishops MANDATED whether you like it or not, because we must mandate equality in the Church.” This is not Christian change, this is political activism.
A male only priesthood is the position which has been held throughout most of Anglican and Church history and which remains steadfastly held to by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. WO is not the default position of Anglicanism.
There needs to be a generous place for those opposed to WO and especially to those opposed to women bishops. To oppose such a generous place is mean spirited and reeks of an “ethnic cleansing” mentality. I think this decision is politically motivated, pure and simple, and I think that the warning given by BabyBlue over on her blog should be heeded by all on the conservative side of things.
I found this interesting at [url=http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/7453 ]Ekklesia news[/url]:
[blockquote]The rejection came after a strong statement from Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams, who said that while serious efforts should be made not to alienate dissenters, [b]”I am deeply unhappy with any scheme or any solution to this which ends up, as it were, structurally humiliating women who might be nominated to the episcopate.”[/b]
Because the Church of England is formally Established under the Crown, its decision, slightly bizarrely many will feel, has to be ratified by parliament. But this may have a beneficial side effect for women, since current standards of equality are higher in the secular institution than the sacred one. [/blockquote]
Orthodox betrayed by Rowan Williams…yet again.
John Wilkins woud make a better ABC, at least he is clear where he stands.
Orthodox is a sliding scale term if there ever was one, unless you are talking about the Eastern Church. Catholic is a little more solid, but I would reject the idea that Catholicism must be on Roman terms.
I find myself supporting the decision but being very concerned as to how it was made and the (secular) arguments employed by -some- in the debate. I note that Fulcrum’s thread on this expresses similar concerns.
TO MY THINKING, all innovation and all Catholic tradition must be able to stand the Scriptural test when challenged. That doesn’t mean rejecting tradition, and I’d like to see plenty of accomodation given to those who disagree. Although I think a male-only episcopate probably doesn’t pass the Scripture test, I can understand why others would disagree.
Randall
Orthodox betrayed by Rowan Williams…yet again.
robroy is right-women should be humiliated if nominated to the episcopate. He sums up the orthodox position quite well.
Brother Michael said
“While I think that a biblical argument can be made in support of WO, and I know that there are many here who disagree with WO on any basis, I must confess that the tactics being used are forcing me to reconsider.”
=============================================================
I totally agree with Brother Michael’s statement.
The highly political manner in which WO was forced upon first ECUSA by the Philadelphia insurrection and now upon the CoE in its general synod ‘poisons the tree’ of the episcopal/ecclessiological process and spoils the fruit of that tree.
It does matter how change is brought about, especially radical change. A change brought about in a politicized and non-theological, non-contemplative and un-reasoned manner has no place in an episcopal assembly.
It may be acceptable in a political convention but should not be accepted within ECUSA or the CoE.
When major matters of religious faith are reduced to politics, they become matters of personal human ambition and are no longer worthy being respected as matters of faith.
Those who applaud the ‘imposition’ of WO by politicians should be ashamed of themselves.
This will only lead to the first split in the CoE. The next one will come some time after Lambeth.
If a church can split once, it can split dozens of times.
Your descent into trolldom is nearly complete, Brian. Keep up the good work.
A sad witness in the refusal to accommodate fellow believers (and not just anglo-catholics.) Compassion? Respect? Naah.
This is chillingly reminiscent of TEC’s refusal to make any meaningful jurisdictional accommodation for reasserters. I find the comparison striking. What is it about non-catholic innovations that require consistent universal enforcement, always, everywhere? Revision in most Anglican bodies seems to brook no tolerance of protected continuity – nay, even a ghetto of protected observance is too much.
Coming to you soon – a Faith [strike]once[/strike] delivered [u]newly crafted, fresh each day.[/u]
🙄
To oppose such a generous place is mean spirited and reeks of an “ethnic cleansing†mentality.
I see the point of this complaint, however, I am troubled by the implications. Reasserters emphasize ‘choice’ when it suits them. They generally demand that bishops take a stand and stand firm in their views, but when they do this they are accused of “ethnic cleansing.”
I think that the Mother Church (if you will) has spoken clearly: No mandate of women bishops, but women bishops are approved as consistent with Scripture, Tradition and Reason. They may later mandate them, they may not. The reality is that they are now sanctioned. The time for a choice is now-not later. Stay or go, but don’t seek “protection” from the other members of your community. If you can’t feel a part of the community, then you need to go where you are ministered to and encouraged and can participate fully in the communion of the faithful. To my mind that’s not forcing people out – it is encouraging them to grows in soil that they find fertile.
Brian from T19 said
“To my mind that’s not forcing people out – it is encouraging them to grows in soil that they find fertile.”
========================================================
Brian, this sounds sort of like ‘exile to Siberia’ or the “Highland Clearances.”
Sort of like if “You don’t like leave.” and “Don’t let the door hit your posterior on the way out.”
Of course it is, #20, as we’ve seen in America. From the moment the Left seized the levers of power, the purge was on. Do you think the legacy of 1930s show trials, the Cultural Revolution, the emptying of Phnom Penh were all aberrations? It’s what they are, it’s what they do.
AnglicanFirst
I ask this seriously. Why do you want a faith where choices critical to you are optional? The Anglican Communion is beginning to look like e-Harmony. You can join with a checklist. Mark all that are acceptable. We’ll “protect” you from the other members. I stay in TEC because I believe in the “innovations” being advanced. If I did not, I would leave. Was I forced out? Maybe. But what does it matter? Either way I chose not to seek “protection” from my community.
Brian (#19)
“To my mind that’s not forcing people out…”
What would constitute forcing people out?
The issue is how can the people who claim the mantle of inclusive and open turn around an be so narrow and closed? If parishes were free to choose it would be different. But in the end this looks like a take over, and a not very Christ-like one at that.
To my mind that’s not forcing people out – it is encouraging them to grows in soil that they find fertile.
To make it impossible for someone to stay is to force them out. What is your definition of “inclusion,” by the way?
#20, Of course it is: that’s the new definition of Anglican tolerance:
If you do things our new way, we will tolerate you. If not, we will tolerate your leaving (as long as you don’t try to take any property with you). We also tolerate you to the point of inhibition later, though.
Jim Elliott <><
Alright-you’re forced out. If that is true, why remain in a “protected” state where critical matters are optional?
Why does there seem to be an assumption here that all Anglo-Catholics are, by definition, opposed to the ordination of women? Clarification on this matter would be most appreciated.
25, so now they are critical!? What hypocracy.
#26, because ordination of women is not part of the Catholic Tradition. The assumption is made by definition because it’s a definitional thing.
#28, except that there are clearly a significant number of Anglo-Catholics who have accepted women’s ordination as part of the ongoing revelation of divine teaching. One thinks of organizations such as Affirming Catholicism for example.
#29, sure – in other words, not Anglo-Catholics.
“the ongoing revelation of divine teaching”
If they accept such nonsense, they are neither Catholics (of any sort) nor Christians.
I’ve often thought Affirming Catholicism has its shortcomings, and clearly big-C Catholic tradition rejects WO as well as women’s episcopacy.
IF you use the modifier “Evangelical” in front of catholic, though, I have no problem with the use of the term catholic. To my thinking, it is an accurate description. (Yes, I recognize some conisder the use of both terms together inherently contradictory.)
Randall
“the ongoing revelation of divine teachingâ€
If they accept such nonsense, they are neither Catholics (of any sort) nor Christians.
Dr. Tighe
Are you saying that anyone supporting WO is not a Christian or a broader statement that anyone believing that the Holy Spirit speaks to the Church today is not a Christian?
Brian: For the record, I do not oppose women bishops. So I would not have a problem.
What I see happening is a certain political faction in the western Anglican churches (i.e. the liberals) taking the reins of power, then: 1) overturning important aspects of Church tradition to fit a secular political agenda,
2) claiming to be tolerant and inclusive, and
3) disallowing the structural accomodation needed by those who would like to continue adherence to the traditional church teaching.
I see this as completely different from say Schofield, Iker or Ackerman in TEC (okay, Schofield in TEC as of pre-2008). They are maintaining a stand that has a long-standing tradition behind it. In response to them, I would advocate some permission for WO, but I would want to ensure that their consciences remain protected.
The fact remains that it would not take much to make the necessary allowances in the Church of England. There is a refusal to make these allowances because the liberals want to make a political point, a political point THEY KNOW is one which will cause the “undesirables” (i.e. the anti-WO group) to leave. And that is why it is ethnic cleansing, Brian.
Brian from T19 – I would say that anyone who claims “The Holy Spirit speaks to the Church today and He says things that contradicts Scripture” is not a Christian, for the Holy Spirit will never contradict Scripture.
“Dr. Tighe
Are you saying that anyone supporting WO is not a Christian or a broader statement that anyone believing that the Holy Spirit speaks to the Church today is not a Christian? ”
I agree with Harry Edmon, and would add (a) no, nobody who supports WO can be definition be “an orthodox Christian” (the only kind of Christian worth being), and (b) the Holy spirit does indeed speak to the Church today, as the has spoken for 2000 years; and any spirit that speaks “new things” is of the Devil.
Dr Tighe:
Am I correct in understanding you to say that since I support women’s ordination, I am not a Christian?
“no, nobody who supports WO can be definition be “an orthodox Christian”
So, just for clarity’s sake, is someone who supports WO ‘saved?’
#38 That would be a good question to ask Jesus when you meet him.
The so called code will soon go. If you want to see what the CofE will become look to TEC. I fear it can not be reformed so GAFCON must be prepared to preserve the Anglican ethos. Soon the UK will be another Islamic state.
The central issue – if we can leave scriptural matters for a minute – is whether there is any right that demands the church allow women bishops, or wo at all. Is this a matter of being endowed with inalienable rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of the bishop’s miter? Is this a case of “simple justice,” whatever that may mean? In short, is the church obligated to see wo as a demand for equality that must be met for reasons having nothing to do with scripture? If so, where does this obligation for equality come from?
Or is this, in fact, one more skirmish in the struggle for dominance? And are women winning this skirmishes more and more often? Is so, then the C ofE will be run by women shortly (as will TEC). I will continue to argue that this warfare is vastly more ancient than the present struggles and its effects much more profound. My point, again, is not that women desire the power for its own sake, but as a challenge to men, to see if there are any left with the dominance to oppose them successfully. Because men have failed this challenge, we have seen the interesting phenomenon of women becoming increasingly male because there is an evolutionary demand to fill this vacuum. This androgyny favors the growth of lesbianism and homosexualty as an adaptive device, , and the CofE presently favors this androgyny, as we have seen. Larry
#6 Kevin Montgomery,
I don’t oppose female bishops Heh, I was schooled to support WO in RC schools. Considering that women had places of prominence in Jesus’ life and in the early church, it is rather amazing to me that people can be claiming that you’re not “orthodox” if you don’t have a problem with WO. Sheesh, there are even female rabbis now!
I am dismayed, however, that the “progressives” have wrapped WO in the same tortilla with the GLBT issues. They are NOT part of the “civil rights” burrito.
[blockquote]My point, again, is not that women desire the power for its own sake, but as a challenge to men, to see if there are any left with the dominance to oppose them successfully.[/blockquote]
Ah, so that was Mary Magdalene’s issue then? Is that why the pope decided to cast her as a whore instead of the evangelist she was?
I’m afraid I can’t buy the idea that the whole women’s movement is based on a power play to dominate men. But the movement is based on the assumption that men and women are the same. Not just equally valuable, but the same. Women who have normal wishes and interests which are identifiably feminine are exhorted to change, to give up being women and be just like men. In the same way, quite ordinary and normal masculine interests and traits become evil and patriarchal. In the churches, this has manifested itself in the drive to get women into all functions without regard to the theological and ecclesiological implications, and it has at the same time surfaced in the re-definition of marriage, since if there are no differences between men and women, why restrict who “marries” whom?
I applaud those of you who are, while thinking that Scripture may permit women in orders, nonetheless realizing that the re-writing of human nature and two millennia of church practice is not something to be taken lightly. Maybe the old fussbudgets who warned about these problems three and four decades ago were right?
Re: #37,
If you are a Christian, you certainly are not an orthodox Christian, anbd quite likely a heretic.
Re: #38,
I don’t believe in “assurance of salvation” so the only proper answer is only God knows, but since you’ve admitted to being a universalist repeatedly, the answer is likely “no.’
$44. Very well, katharine, but the years -centuries – of jokes about hen pecked husbands, or to suggest the vulgar phrase, which is much clearer, p—-whipped husbands, tells a different story about the struggle for dominance. Women have claimed powerlessness for years and years, but every man knows that a woman’s power to grant or to refuse gives her enormous leverage in the struggle for dominance. How many jokes are there about “sleeping on the couch”? And evolution has seen to it that men are the iron and women are the magnet. Women indeed did not have much power in A and B, but in C, no king ruled a land of slaves more certainly than she. The struggle is real and nearly eternal, and dominance is the reward.
But this is not the only tale, of course. Men and women, husbands and wives have made concordats, based on need or love, which have survived and been superior to the issue of dominance. The Bible stresses this, and survival of the race demands it, but here, we have ignored the war for dominance. And yet, you are I are in complete agreement about each having an essential nature that can be redirected but never supressed. You emphasis on the wholly mistaken (and agenda driven) notion that men and women are the SAME, is on target. Parity is possible in some matters; sameness is utterly impossible, but see again what I said about androgyny. And so, see again my argument on why wo falsifies essential natures.
Larry
teatime #43, maybe you need to get your Church history from somewhere other than The DaVinci Code. St Mary Magdalene has been glorified by both Rome (http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=83) and Orthodoxy (who call her “Equal to the Apostles,” not a “whore”). Parenthetically, the Roman reference above says this: “St. Luke records that she was a notorious sinner, and had seven devils removed from her.” St Luke! (does he count for you?) Not the Pope!
Just out of curiosity, as a relatively new poster here (but a long-time reader), would most people on this forum share Dr. Tighe’s belief that since I support women’s ordination I am “certainly not an Orthodox Christian, and quite likely a heretic?” Also, what is the difference between not being an Orthodox Christian and actually being a heretic. My understanding that one was pretty much the same as the other. Many thanks.
Dr. Tighe, I would also be curious to know if you would apply the same ‘probable heretic’ title to Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, my own diocese, since he also agrees with women’s ordination?
Larry, many radical feminists do indeed hate men, and they have convinced many young women that they are “oppressed” when this is not the case.
I just think you’re going a little too far in taking all those jokes entirely seriously. For every one we could easily find an equally demeaning dumb-woman or mother-in-law joke. Lighten up! I have occasionally told jokes of this genre about my husband (and he of me), and yet I know he would die for me if he had to, and I would follow him to the ends of the earth — in fact, I have done so, recently!
Luminous Darkness, Dr. Tighe is a Roman Catholic and his answer, if he comes back to give it here, will be consistent with the teaching of his church.
[blockquote]Dr. Tighe, I would also be curious to know if you would apply the same ‘probable heretic’ title to Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, my own diocese, since he also agrees with women’s ordination?[/blockquote]
As someone originally from the Pittsburgh Diocese, but now living in a diocese that is growing more liberal, I am curious to hear this response also.
I’ve been reading these pages for a while now and have been noticing many posts lately that seem as though folks are blessing Bishop Duncan out of one side of their mouth while damning him out the other because of his support of WO.
Luminous Darkness (Great name!)
I would say that the majority of people here who consider themselves orthodox (small ‘o’) Christians also support women’s ordination.
Don’t take Dr. Tighe’s comments personally (although they were certainly intended to be 😉 ). This is a particularly divisive issue among the reasserters here and can certainly raise passionate responses.
The issue with heresy is that, in its broadest definition, it requires variances from an issue critical to the beliefs of the movement. So, if someone believes that the male priesthood is a critical element of ‘true’ Christianity then they would see a supporter of women’s ordination as a heretic. For those who believe that the issue is adiaphora (matters not regarded as essential to faith, but nevertheless permissible for Christians or allowed in church) then to them supporters of women’s ordination would not be heretics.
I am a reappraiser (liberal, revisionist, heretic, whatever 😉 ) and love this blog. So I would encourage you to “suffer the slings and arrows” that you may get once in awhile, because you will learn a great deal about yourself and others in addition to theology, ecclesiology, etc. through your exchanges here.
Brian, thanks for your comments. I think that some of those who use the label of ‘heretic’ would probably disagree with you, since a heretic in Roman Catholic doctrine, for example, is anyone who does not hold to the full deposit of faith believed by that church to be the sum total of truth as revealed in scripture and tradition. So any deviation from that deposit would be, by definition, heresy. I agree with you that in the context of the Anglican tradition, adiaphora would be relevant in determining the degree of heresy.
For example, I would regard those in The Episcopal Church who wish to modify or do away with the Nicene Creed as the full and sufficient statement of Christian faith to be heretical, but on the other hand would not regard those opposed to the full inclusion of homosexual persons in the life of the church in the same way. The first to me is a matter of essential tradition whilst the other is not. The Episcopal Church, through the vehicle of the General Convention guided by the Holy Spirit, has agreed with me about the distinction between these two issues.
“Dr. Tighe, I would also be curious to know if you would apply the same ‘probable heretic’ title to Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, my own diocese, since he also agrees with women’s ordination?”
I think that his advocacy and practice of WO undoubtedly constitutes him a heretic, and I have, on that basis, ceaslessly urged Catholic Anglicans of my acquaintance to have nothing to do with him or with his schemes. I find it absolutely amazing, I might add, that “Catholic Anglican” bishops like +Ackerman and +Iker seem to be inclining to throw thier lot in with GAFCON, for as I wrote this morning in a private e-mail to my Anglican friends:
“If I were a Catholic Anglican, by conviction rather than circumstance — and of course I am neither — I would say to GAFCON, ‘repudiate WO, and we’re with you — but if not, not’.”
And #51 wrote:
“folks are blessing Bishop Duncan out of one side of their mouth while damning him out the other because of his support of WO”
I’ve noticed that, too, and I’ve even had Anglican friends from the dioceses of Fort Worth and Quincy express dismay to me that the Southern Cone seems willing to take in +Duncan and Pittsburgh if they leave ECUSA in October despite (a) the Southern Cone not allowing WO beyond the diaconate, and (b) every indication that +Duncan will continue to “ordain” women to the priesthood. One of them wrote to me, “why doesn’t he take his diocese to Uganda instead; I’m sure he’ll be happier there?”
But really, when you write about people “damning” Bishop Duncan, they are only following what he has, in effect, said about himself, when he wrote to the Presiding Flaminica back on March 14, in his letter to the Presiding Flaminica, which you may read here:
http://www.pghanglican.org/news/local/filesforposting/schoriresponse.pdf
“3. I have preached and taught nothing but what faithful Anglicans and mainstream Christians have always preached and taught, with the exception only that I have supported and encouraged the ministry of women in Holy Orders.”
Imagine, for a moment, that he had ended that clause instead, after “supported and encouraged” with “the blessing of exclusive and monogamous same-sex Holy Unions.” In either case, he would be admitting that, “with” one “exception only” he had preached and taught orthodoxy, which is as much as to say, “with the exception of one heresy only.” I no more consider the “exception only” of Holy Orders to e any less serious than that of “Holy Unions.” And neither orthodoxy nor the 10 Commandments is like an exam or quiz: you pass if you get 7 or even 9 right.
Bishop Duncan has effectively branded himself a false teacher with that one “exception,” and I am inclined to take him at his own self-assessment.
I am one of those eho praises +Duncan out of one side of his mouth, and damns him out of the other. I applaud his stand against the current direction of TEC, but condemn his embrace of WO. WO will wreck any hope for unity for GAFCON or any new province for America. It is simply an innovation supported by neither Scripture or Tradition and its fruit has been bitter indeed.
“Also, what is the difference between not being an Orthodox Christian and actually being a heretic. My understanding that one was pretty much the same as the other.”
One can be mistaken, in point of fact or in understanding, what has been taught or practiced “quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus” (to cite the Vincentian Canon). For instance, one might insist that while “Holy Unions” (such as I postulated in #54 above) had “everywhere, always and by all” been repudiated by Christians, WO had been practiced in “the Early Church” (but that is true only if you consider the Gnostic sects or the Montanists to be included within “the Church”); or at least by “the apostles” (despite the total lack of evidence for any such supposition; one might just as well suppose with John Allegro that Christ was the totemic figure of a “magic mushroom” cult in First-Century Judaea), and while I would make the charitable assumption that a person supporting WO on such a delusionary basis while hardly “an orthodox Christian” was not a witting “heretic,” I would not hesitate to label someone who knew that WO (and more than SS) was not something “preached or taught” by “mainstream Christians” (I would have said “orthodox Christians”), and yet nevertheless himself “preached or taught” it as the very epitome of a heretic.
Should have been “who”, not “eho”.
Dr. Tighe, thank you for your helpful clarifications. When I was working at Durham University I participated in a Catholic theology seminar and very much enjoyed the conversations about aspects of ecumenism and ecclesiology, so I look forward to discussions with you in this forum about these same issues.
#47 Phil, Rather than make disparaging remarks about me, perhaps you should read beyond “catholic.org.” Point out to me the chapter and verse where St. Luke calls Mary Magdalene a “notorious sinner.” I can’t seem to find it.
Since you brought the Orthodox into it, just a few minutes of Googling also revealed that the Orthodox have separate feast days for the “Marys” that Pope Gregory combined into one composite to create Mary Magadalene, the prostitute. Furthermore, The Eastern Orthodox Church maintains that Mary Magdalene, distinguished from Mary of Bethany, and further distinguished from the “sinful woman”, had been a virtuous woman all her life. This view finds expression both in her written life (βίος or vita) and in the liturgical service in her honor that is included in the Menaion and performed on her annual feast-day. There is a tradition that Mary Magdalene led so chaste a life that the devil thought she might be the one who was to bear Christ into the world, and for that reason he sent the seven demons to trouble her.
Even the Catholics back away from Gregory’s view. Since you linked to catholic.org, I went there and found a very different article:
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=19680
[blockquote]Luminous Darkness, Dr. Tighe is a Roman Catholic and his answer, if he comes back to give it here, will be consistent with the teaching of his church. [/blockquote]
THANK YOU for pointing this out. I had no idea and you can’t imagine how dismayed I have been to read this person’s words and think that there was no place for me among conservative Anglicans anymore, either. Shoot, in this gentleman’s eyes, we’re all heretics anyway by virtue of being Anglican!
That puts it into perspective.
I think we should all heed BabyBlue’s advice over on her blog. While I am a supporter of WO (I have read the arguments and see no Biblical prohibition of such), I am appalled at how the liberals have taken this issue and used it as a political battering ram. They are clearly trying to use WO to be the Trojan Horse to bring the full liberal sexuality agenda into the CofE. I believe it was a fully conscious and political decision by the liberal leadership to oppose any meaningful accommodation for traditionalists, in a desire to sow discord in the conservative camp, and in an attempt to “shock and awe”.
Teatime,
I suggest the answers to your questions are all contained in the Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene.
Sorry for being disparaging, but my point was that even by looking at a link such as the above, you would see that your seeming caricature of the evil Pope twisting Scripture for his own anti-woman ends falls flat (“Tradition as early as the third century (Hippolytus, in his Commentary on Song of Songs) identifies Mary Magdalene with Mary of Bethany and with the woman sinner who anointed Jesus’ feet.â€). And why do you suppose such an anti-woman church, willing even to subvert the memory of the virtuous Mary Magdalene, would then canonize her as a saint? What sense does that make?
FWIW, my sympathy is with the Orthodox view, but that doesn’t mean I can endorse what seemed to me, in your #43, to be a slur on Rome.
Phil,
I don’t recall calling the pope “evil.” You took one simple sentence I wrote and ran with it. The fact remains that Gregory I DID support the composite view of Mary Magdalene and emphasis was placed on her grievous sinful nature.
You can look upon this dispassionately but for girls raised in the RCC, it was made all too real for us. “Loose” girls were called “Magdalenes.” Hell’s bells, when I was 11 years old, some of the old nuns would tell us we had to pray and resist unceasingly so as not to become “whores” like the Magdalene.
I don’t believe this is the way it is anymore and thank God for that! But when a church casts the most ardent female evangelist as a prostitute and uses her name as a slur for troubled girls (and even against chaste girls!), it doesn’t play well on the psyche. And when I read some of the comments from male RCs above, casting women across-the-board as wanting to dominate and emasculate men simply because they feel called to ministry, one has to understand the connection between the images and views of women they have promoted and how women are seen and treated in that church today.
I’m not a “libber,” feminist, or ardent advocate of W.O., btw. I see no absolute and compelling reasons that women cannot be ordained but if the church decides they shouldn’t, OK. HOWEVER, I do expect very air-tight reasons to be provided and not just because “Jesus was a man and He gave us male images and iconography of God.” I don’t believe in the priest as being “in persona Christi” and it’s a darn good thing, too. Seeing that man as Christ when he abuses Jesus’ little ones is more than this mind and heart could take.
Teatime, I can see how your experience would affect your view of the matter. I apologize for my strong response.
FWIW, although I don’t agree with WO, I’m not in the “dominate and emasculate” stream. I understand your reaction against that, too. Please forgive me.
No problem, Phil. I think it’s difficult for men to fully understand how odd a place the church can be sometimes for women.
LOL, on one hand, we have Our Savior who defied norms by having single women travel in His company and who first revealed His Resurrection to them; on the other hand, we have a church of the men, by the men, and for the men (but peopled in the majority by women) casting us in ways that aren’t very flattering, let alone kind or respectful. I can’t imagine that aspect is what Jesus intended. So, while I’m not outspoken usually about W.O., a part of me can’t help but cheer, “You go, gals!” at times like this, LOL. I sure wish Schori wasn’t such a cold, ball-breaker, though, sigh. She’s not helping matters.
Teatime, I want to thank you for your insightful questions, and thank those of you who have responded, even if we disagree on issues.
I am in full support of +Duncan and the Diocese of Pittsburgh in which I grew up. My heart and prayers are with them even though I now live in a diocese that I see, with fear and trepidation, is becoming more liberal as the months go on.
I too have studied the Scriptures and find no basis to exclude women from ordination, and pray that I may join their ranks at some point in the not too distant future. I do not find it inconsistent with an orthodox (note the small “o”) viewpoint. So while I can respect where some of you are coming from, I have to respectfully disagree with many of your assertions. But I do so in love.
I find the most strident opponents of WO tend to be evangelical converts to Rome (or one of its close relatives). An unscientific opinion, but my two cents.
Here’s an anglo-Catholic/Charismatic convert FROM Rome (Received into ECUSA in 1986) who disagrees with WO.
And many of my friends in College were Anglo-Catholics or even some evangelical Episcopalians who were never Roman or even would have considered it at that time, but were also opposed to WO.
So, your argument falls flat.
Peace!
Jim Elliott <><
But Jim, you’re not strident. 😉 Nor are many others–of varying church backgrounds–I know who oppose WO.
I was referring to a minority within that group who do, in my experience, tend to be converts and not “cradle.” They stand out disproportionately in the blogosphere, perhaps.
Peace back!