Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Church of England Will Ordain Women Bishops. Get Over it or Leave
The Daily Telegraph (UK) ^ | 2/10/10 | Damian Thompson

Posted on 02/10/2010 9:08:47 AM PST by marshmallow

I don’t belong to a Church which makes decisions about something as fundamental as the ordination of women priests by voting in a quasi-parliamentary General Synod. But, if I did, and if that Church then prepared to take the logical step of ordaining women bishops, I’d ask myself a simple question. Will these ordinations be valid? Then I stay. Invalid? Then I go.

I am not saying that if you are an Anglo-Catholic who opposes women’s ordination then you must now seek to join the Ordinariate that Pope Benedict has set up for ex-Anglicans. Lots of conservative “Catholic Anglicans” don’t accept aspects of the Magisterium and regard “going over to Rome” as a last resort. In that case, please join the Orthodox or some continuing Anglican body. On the other hand, plenty of Anglo-Catholics will conclude that the Synod’s actions, coinciding with the publication of Anglicanorum coetibus, are a sign that God is telling them to enter into full communion with the Holy See. They should be welcomed – and a damn sight more enthusiastically than the Catholic bishops have done until now, as I think the Pope made plain last week.

But if you are an Anglo-Catholic who wants to stay in the Church of England, then surely it’s time to drop these fantastical demands for oversight from a bishop “untainted” by women’s ordination. You can’t simultaneously believe that the C of E is the English branch of the Catholic Church and hold that it has been led astray on a matter as basic as the ordination of women bishops, presbyters and deacons. You don’t have to go rushing into the arms of Affirming Catholicism, but you do have to face reality – for the first time since 1992.

(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Catholic; Ecumenism; Mainline Protestant; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; coa; coe; femalebishops; moapb; religiousleft; schism

1 posted on 02/10/2010 9:08:47 AM PST by marshmallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

I left (4 years ago) ... bye.


2 posted on 02/10/2010 9:32:10 AM PST by ThePatriotsFlag (http://www.thepatriotsflag.com - The Patriot's Flag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

If you can’t get over it, come join the Catholic Church.

Pace e Bene.


3 posted on 02/10/2010 9:38:07 AM PST by HighlyOpinionated (He has refused his Assent to Laws. He has erected a multitude of New Offices. Who? Obama!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

When men mess around with God’s work it always comes to this type of silliness. I left the Anglican communion long ago because of it.

Fortunately my relationship with god does not depend on any priesthood


4 posted on 02/10/2010 9:45:48 AM PST by the long march
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

For all those Anglicans who want to hold true to their REAL beliefs, the doors of the Catholic Church have been opened by Pope Benedict XVI.

We welcome you.

(Did you know that there are several former Anglicans here on FR that regularly post to Catholic posts?)


5 posted on 02/10/2010 9:55:25 AM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the long march

I just finished watching season three of the Tudors. It’s hard to imagine staying in a church founded under those circumstances. Come back to Roman Catholicism...you Anglicans do Roman Catholicism better than we do...you could help us get back to our original traditions. The Roman Catholic Church would be a better and stronger place all around if the English Church would come home. Please just come home.


6 posted on 02/10/2010 10:00:36 AM PST by johnnycap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: johnnycap

Nope. Keep your pope and all of your sactimony. I do not need it.


7 posted on 02/10/2010 10:11:39 AM PST by the long march
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: the long march

And we dont need you.

Thats the point of this thread.

You stay or you leave, your choice.


8 posted on 02/10/2010 10:15:47 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: the long march
May I slip in a solid A M E N
9 posted on 02/10/2010 10:17:39 AM PST by MHGinTN (Obots, believing they cannot be deceived, it is impossible to convince them when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: the long march

well, except for the Only Priest forever, in the order of Melchizadek ... Jesus is our High Priest.


10 posted on 02/10/2010 10:18:58 AM PST by MHGinTN (Obots, believing they cannot be deceived, it is impossible to convince them when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

I’m a former anglican and I approve of this message.

Swim the Tiber just like I did!


11 posted on 02/10/2010 10:23:12 AM PST by BenKenobi (;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

I have no argument with that. my resposne was to somone who thinks that the Anglican church is bad because of the way the Tudors (actually just Henry VIII) brought it into existence. I could have been rude and made some vary unfriendly comments about the roman church and how it came into existence. I chose not to, just as I chose to leave the formalized box of man’s religion some years ago


12 posted on 02/10/2010 10:49:31 AM PST by the long march
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
The issue is not realy the ordination of women. It is rather the complete breakdown of both religious tradition and then dogma.Women and gays are the spearhead lodged in theheart of the Anglican faith.

Note to HRM Elizabeth: Madam, please send your knights to Canterbury and have them bring you back the head of Rowan Williams. It will make a nice decoration for the Tower.

13 posted on 02/10/2010 11:16:55 AM PST by Jimmy Valentine (DemocRATS - when they speak, they lie; when they are silent, they are stealing the American Dream)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HighlyOpinionated

or the Orthodox (you must remember that our Anglican brethern have been brought up on medieval tales about the Church and it may be too much of a stretch for them to become Catholic. If instead they join another Apostolic Church, that is good enough for me!)


14 posted on 02/11/2010 4:59:29 AM PST by Cronos (Philipp2:12, 2Cor5:10, Rom2:6, Matt7:21, Matt22:14, Lu12:42-46,John15:1-10,Rev2:4-5,Rev22:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow; informavoracious; larose; RJR_fan; Prospero; Conservative Vermont Vet; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

15 posted on 02/11/2010 5:01:37 AM PST by narses ("lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

“I’m a former anglican and I approve of this message.

Swim the Tiber just like I did!”

I’m a cradle Low Church Episcopalian. “Swimming the Tiber” was not an option for me. So, I went the other direction and “swam the Rhine”. I’m now happily ensconsed in the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod which is a great fit for former Conservative Low Church Evangelical Episcopalians. The Theology fits perfectly.


16 posted on 02/11/2010 5:22:10 AM PST by BnBlFlag (Deo Vindice/Semper Fidelis "Ya gotta saddle up your boys; Ya gotta draw a hard line")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
Fortunately, God doesn't require you to be a member of a "name brand" church. He does like it when you get together with other like minded people though, so if you can't seem to find a "name brand" church you like, see if you can seek out others and form your own.

Whatever you do, don't just drop out and no longer do anything on Sunday mornings.

17 posted on 02/11/2010 6:55:13 AM PST by McGavin999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BnBlFlag

I swam the Rhine myself, but from Dordrecht with the Mennonites. I can see the appeal in the theology, but I think the Catholics have gotten it right.

All the rationales for the ‘reform’ movement no longer exist, therefore, I’d argue the division serves no purpose.


18 posted on 02/11/2010 10:39:52 AM PST by BenKenobi (;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: the long march

“I could have been rude and made some vary unfriendly comments about the roman church and how it came into existence.”

How did it come into existence? I’m not aware how saying that Peter was the first pope is at all an unfriendly comment.


19 posted on 02/11/2010 10:41:32 AM PST by BenKenobi (;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

No where in the New Testament will you see anything about a pope or Peter being the ‘first’. To juxtapose The Nazarene’s comment that Peter had spoken well and that on this I will build mMy church is nuts. The grammar alone does not allow this notion. But that aside. Take a close look at the rituals and practises of the roman church and note how many of them come from the ancient babylonian traditions. Moreover, Peter was not in Rome Paul was.

I could go on but I have no real desire get into an all out slug fest


20 posted on 02/11/2010 10:55:52 AM PST by the long march
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: the long march

“No where in the New Testament will you see anything about a pope or Peter being the ‘first’.”

Uh, Peter was the first among the disciples, which is why Jesus was speaking with him. Why does Peter mean rock in every language? It’s because of the verse that Christ would build his church on him.

“To juxtapose The Nazarene’s comment that Peter had spoken well and that on this I will build My church is nuts. The grammar alone does not allow this notion.”

Uh, perhaps because that’s what the name Peter means? Go look it up. Why is ‘Peter’ Rock?

“But that aside. Take a close look at the rituals and practises of the roman church and note how many of them come from the ancient babylonian traditions. Moreover, Peter was not in Rome Paul was.”

Peter was in Rome. Funny how you say we must rely on scripture when Paul says, the “traditions” you have learned.

As for the rituals and practices, I’m aware of them. But they come from Judaism, and model the practices in the temple. Of course I could believe people who hate Catholicism, or I could actually read the liturgists who really know what’s going on.

You’re grasping at straws here. Peter was the first pope, the first bishop of Rome. All the historical evidence defends this interpretation.

I could go on but I have no real desire get into an all out slug fest


21 posted on 02/11/2010 11:25:26 AM PST by BenKenobi (;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

“I swam the Rhine myself, but from Dordrecht with the Mennonites. I can see the appeal in the theology, but I think the Catholics have gotten it right.

All the rationales for the ‘reform’ movement no longer exist, therefore, I’d argue the division serves no purpose.”

I was never an “Anglo-Catholic” although we had a few in our “Low Church”. For example, We had no Crucifixes, etc. in our Building. Only a plain Gold plated Cross behind the Altar. We were really more like Lutherans than we were our fellow Episcopalian “Anglo-Catholics”. So we certainly had little in common with real Catholics.
Since our Church does not recognize the Papacy, Mariology, Purgatory and many other Catholic Doctrines, we don’t really have much to talk about as far as any formal reunification goes. Although we are always ready to join forces in things such as the battle for Pro-Life issues as well as other Moral issues of concern.


22 posted on 02/11/2010 11:47:29 AM PST by BnBlFlag (Deo Vindice/Semper Fidelis "Ya gotta saddle up your boys; Ya gotta draw a hard line")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: BnBlFlag

I see those divisions as ones of preferences. Some prefer more ornate, others more spare.

What’s your issue with the other three though? Don’t Lutherans teach about Mary?


23 posted on 02/11/2010 12:13:59 PM PST by BenKenobi (;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

No they do not come from Judaism. Most of the ritualistic aspect comes from the various religions around Rome at the time. Indeed, Easter is a celebration of Ishtar. The pope’s miter us taken straight from Babylonian mystery religions.

The text in the ancient languages ( not your current English translation) points exactly to the idea that was spoken by Peter no the man himself. “Thous art the Christ, the Son of the living God”. That is the rock.

It is generally recognized that the New Testament is silent on Peter’s general whereabouts following his arrest and intended execution by King Agrippa in the early 40s C.E. (Acts 12). Peter briefly reappears in Jerusalem several years later (approximately 49 C.E.) for a conference of the apostles and other church leaders, as Luke records in Acts 15. Thereafter the New Testament record says nothing about Peter’s location except for one comment in his own epistles: in 1 Peter 5:13, he passes on salutations from church members in Babylon.

Look I am not going to argue with you anymore. Believe what you will. I am not one to try and brow beat another into agreeing with me. You can torture and twist the words all you wish. That does not make you correct


24 posted on 02/11/2010 1:31:26 PM PST by the long march
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: the long march

“No they do not come from Judaism. Most of the ritualistic aspect comes from the various religions around Rome at the time.”

Why then do they have an altar, and Christ is offered as the passover lamb?

“Indeed, Easter is a celebration of Ishtar.”

Wow, where are you getting this from? Easter has always been the celebration of the resurrection of Christ.

“The pope’s miter us taken straight from Babylonian mystery religions.”

According to whom? Yourself? I just want to see where you are getting this from.

“The text in the ancient languages ( not your current English translation) points exactly to the idea that was spoken by Peter no the man himself. “Thous art the Christ, the Son of the living God”. That is the rock.”

Which ancient languages?

“It is generally recognized that the New Testament is silent on Peter’s general whereabouts following his arrest and intended execution by King Agrippa in the early 40s C.E. (Acts 12).”

It’s generally acknowledged that Peter was executed in Rome.

“Peter briefly reappears in Jerusalem several years later (approximately 49 C.E.) for a conference of the apostles and other church leaders, as Luke records in Acts 15.”

Where they came from all over the Empire.

“Look I am not going to argue with you anymore. Believe what you will. I am not one to try and brow beat another into agreeing with me. You can torture and twist the words all you wish. That does not make you correct.”

Where have I tortured and twisted anything? Look, you are incorrect in your statements here. I’ve not caught a single one that is true.


25 posted on 02/11/2010 2:32:05 PM PST by BenKenobi (;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson