Posted on 11/23/2012 3:21:47 PM PST by ReformationFan
"When the Church of England narrowly defeated a measure to allow women to be appointed bishops this week after a dozen years of legislative effort, many observers were surprised. After all, the group has ordained women as priests since 1994-what's the big deal with letting female priests become bishops?
The answer helps explain why the measure failed. The Church of England is known for the graciousness with which it accommodates minority theological opinions. Since the 1990s, parties that disagreed about female ordination merely had to tolerate each other's presence. Female bishops, on the other hand, would hold significant ecclesial and sacramental authority over everyone in the church, even over the minority who believe that female ordination is a theological impossibility. Mere toleration would no longer be possible.
Legislation in support of women bishops was debated by the church this summer, with a focus on whether to protect that group that views female ordination as invalid. Bishops asked members to trust that the Church would respect opponents of the change, even while some proponents of the legislation opposed protections. Traditionalists and their sympathizers doubted these pledges, remembering that promises made to opponents of female ordination in the 1990s were subsequently broken: They were told that there would be no damage to the careers of clergy who viewed female ordination as invalid, for instance. A simple look at the vote in the House of Bishops this week (44 for, 3 opposed) tells a different story."
(Excerpt) Read more at virtueonline.org ...
A most disturbing quote if ever there was one. Ever heard of this thing known as religious liberty?
The church and church leaders were all for it.
The laity nixed it.
The church is dying in England. Very few even bother to attend anymore. They have adopted all kinds of liberal/anti-biblical views. I am glad that the few who attend have put their foot down.
Religious liberty is a nonexistent concept in a state run church with a secular monarch serving as the CEO.
Truth. That’s why the original meaning of the term “Separation of Church and State” was and is a good thing.
It’s a state religion. You take the good with the bad. If you’re going to get government funding for your religion, you can’t really bitch when they want to regulate it.
The First Archbishop of the Church of England was my ancestor. At that time, priests couldn’t marry. He had married in Germany, so he carted her around in a trunk/wardrobe. Eventually, the church accepted priestly marriage. I think it is time they moved into the 20th century and recognized the equality of women by supporting them as bishops. Otherwise, they are only a couple of steps above the Taliban in institutionalizing an inferior status to women.
equality of women
***
Men and women are not equal.
I thought I read an article saying they would.
Is it correct to make an assumption that laity are inferior to clergy in holiness or worth in the eyes of God? I wouldn’t think so.
An argument frequently offered by obtuse emoters.
My response would be what the apostle Paul said in Galations about in Christ that there is “no male or female”.
“I think it is time they moved into the 20th century and recognized the equality of women by supporting them as bishops. Otherwise, they are only a couple of steps above the Taliban in institutionalizing an inferior status to women.”
That statement carries an implication that Jesus was imperfect in his understanding of the priesthood, or the implications of only selecting men in His time on Earth. 2,000 years ago Christ already knew that someday women would be 59% of the college classes in this new country called the United States, that they would be permitted to/praised for murdering their babies with vacuums and saline injections that burn them to death, and they would more or less have social parity with men; He still chose to do as He did, and He is the Son of God. Today all kinds of media specials seek to dilute His teaching; those with faith see through them, and those seeking vindication for heretical views select those “interpretations” that fit their needs to do so. Years after the author of “The DaVinci Code” admitted it was fiction, I still have ignorant/evil people using it to justify the most outlandish attacks against Christianity.
The Church of England will be commanded by politicians to ordain bishopettes, and they will do it.
Finally revealing, in a definitive way, that their “branch of the church catholic” claim is a bald faced lie.
“The church and church leaders were all for it. The laity nixed it.”
Interesting; I see the Catholic laiety as the future of our Church as well.
It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with roles or functions. Gender (male or female) makes a difference in marriage, because marriage needs one of each. Gender difference also makes a difference in the priesthod, because marriage is "a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church." (Ephesians 5:32). So the priest, who represents Christ, is symbolically male; the Church is symbolically female.
Not entirely explicable in human terms: hence the word "mystery."
Which in the end leads to the dignity that is given to both men and women, be it marriage, the priesthood/religious life, and for those who are neither, but are call in a special way, single in the world.
Yes, that’s very true. I love St. Paul’s doctrine of the “Mystical Body of Christ” for that reason: we’re all like cells, tissues, organs, limbs and systems of His Body, and we are all part of His great work, all quite different, and all in ways known only to Him.
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.