Skip to comments.Women Bishops 'in My Lifetime', Insists Archbishop John Sentamu
Posted on 11/24/2012 6:53:04 AM PST by marshmallow
The Church of England will definitely have women bishops in my lifetime, claims Dr John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York.
The second most powerful man in the church said that it was very disappointing it had not happened during this General Synod but he was sure the principle had been accepted.
His comments came the day after the church tore up plans to ordain women as bishops despite overwhelming support in the parishes.
After a tortuous 12-year legal process, which secured strong backing in all but two of the 44 dioceses, the move was denied final approval by just six votes.
It could be many years before it is discussed again.
Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Dr Sentamu said: "It is very disappointing because we have been working at this for a very long time.
Everybody accepts women bishops. The timing is not an easy one but I am one of those that strongly believes there will be in my lifetime.
The principle has already been accepted by the general synod and in all the dioceses so what we need to do is find the legislation.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
/checks for lightning.
C of E is in a bit of a crazy position: Women priests, but not women bishops. It’s an accident of history, not reason.
If the election had gone the other way, he’d be saying, “The results are in, so let’s accept it and come together. blah blah . . .”
He’s 63 as well. Why tempt God? Seriously.
It’s going to be difficult for them to make the case to forbid women to have that position in their hierarchy, once allowing women to be ‘priests’. Farewell, CoE. Why let Paul’s instructions on a bishop being a man married to one wife, in such a thing as The Bible, get in the way of making yourselves feel better about reality, at least for a little while?
Does he really go along with the radical ecclesiology that implies, "Everybody before us, including Jesus Christ, were sexists, and therefore apostates"?
? And here's the other thing. Bp Sentamu testified against gay marriage because he said "I dont want to redefine very clear social structures that have been in existence for a long time." He has also spoken out against IVF in the past, warning against the dangers of practices which involve doing away with the father. So he seems to be one who is at least open to the idea that being a man or a woman is significant and consequential (as opposed to the people with the radical gender agenda, who want to make male-or-female insignificant and inconsequential.)
Anglicans generally don't, as far as I know, share the Catholic and Orthodox sense that a "hermeneutic of continuity" is important. They don't have unbroken Apostolic succession, and it doesn't seem to bother them. But I still am disappointed that Bp Sentamu would want to say that the the gender-benders are right, and 2,000 years of historic Christianity are wrong.
“They don’t have unbroken Apostolic succession, and it doesn’t seem to bother them.”
I’ve had a few high-type Anglicans on FR tell me that they consider that they do, whether Catholics or Orthodox buy it or not. So as far as I know it probably matters to some conservative-type Anglicans. I would hazard that’s why at least some don’t wan’t the bishopess thing even over the priestess thing, it would end the line(as they understand it) if a few generations of male bishops happen to only priestessfy/bishopfy women.
That's a concept from the Costanza school of reasoning: It's not a lie if you believe it.