Skip to comments.Disunity ‘is the cost of women being bishops’
Posted on 02/07/2006 6:39:39 PM PST by sionnsar
THE Church of England is expected to commit itself today to the ordination of women bishops the cost being unity with the Roman Catholic Church.
Cardinal Cormac Murphy- OConnor, the leader of the four million Roman Catholics in England and Wales, expressed disappointment yesterday at the end of an ecumenical dream.
It was inevitable that there would be women bishops in the Anglican Church and so ecumenism was at a plateau. As co-chairman of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission for 16 years, the Cardinal spent much of his earlier ministry bringing about closer relations between the two churches.
Yesterday he said that he was saddened that many of its conclusions, such as in the area of authority, had not been received into the Anglican Church.
Read it all and there is more here and there.
Update: There are two BBC Radio segments on this here and there.
Giant sucking sound bump.
Women bishops. (Shudder)
In other words: "Hasta la vista beby!"
cherchez la femme.
It's strange -- truthfully speaking, I could never really argue with friends who would say: why not a woman priest? Aren't there nuns who are holy too. To which I really had no answer beyond that it was part of the Apostolic nature of the Church (which sounded hollow to my ears). But now, when we can actually SEE what such change has wrought, I can do nought but look in awe at the foresight of our ancestors. Yes, there are Holy Women -- in fact in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches we revere Mother Mary
-- but the results of women bishops in the Anglican communion seem dire: leading in a straight path to the rise of Gene Robinson.
What a shame...so close.
The Church's wisdom (and the reasoning that the priest, as alter Christus and the spouse of the Church, must be male) turns out to be practically correct. Kind of like the prohibition on eating pork . . .
I saw EVERY female ordinand in our former (ECUSA) diocese over a period of 28 years, because our parish was the "training parish" for the diocese and all new priests passed through. With a SINGLE exception they were totally incompetent to do the job . . . never mind whether they were faithful or orthodox (the single exception was one of those "chronolaters" that Peter Toon talks about). I don't know whether the sort of woman who wants to be ordained self-selects for incompetence, or whether women just aren't up to this job, but the fact remains that they couldn't handle it.
May I remind you that the bishops voting to confirm Gene Robinson were men? I'm not sure your argument holds up.
No Suzy you misunderstand me -- I'm NOT blaming women for electing Gene Robinson. I am blaming the overall idea that went forth: people said "oh, let's change this and that, let's allow women priests, let's allow gay priests. It led to precedence"
ECUSA has had female bishops for quite some time (I remember with horror the first, who was a completely unqualified two-fer affirmative action appointment). It's ENGLAND that is having the debate right now.
It's not just Mother Mary. I've been struck since I've been Catholic how many female saints are respected, reverenced, and revered. There is nothing wrong with being a Sister! There is nothing wrong with being a woman. I simply posit that the factions that see disunity with the whole of Christ's Church, and more importantly, within the Anglican Communion, as less important than their political need to insinuate women into every role in the church, are wrong. Just flat wrong. The monster V. Gene Robinson is simply the current position on the slippery slope. Unfortunately (sigh), I hear too many of my Catholic Brothers and Sisters predicting women priests in the RCC. Sometimes I fear there will be nowhere left for me to go.
They have the "if you can't beat them join them" mentality. The Catholic position seems to be "just because I can't stop you doesn't make it right, and doesn't mean I approve."
Which is the position of the loving parent?
However, this whole idea forgets the fact that Catholics are sacramental people. We don't use motor oil to baptize babies...We just don't get the picture mentally that an infant is being washed. We don't use broccoli and root beer to confect the Body of Christ. And we don't use woman to be "in the person of Christ" simply because Jesus was a man. This is not a dig on women's capabilities, but the idea that God works THROUGH the person. We are supposed to call to mind the visible sacramental action is happening in the Spiritual world. How can this be if we see a woman saying "take and eat, this is my Body"??
Dear jo kus,
"Women are quite 'capable' of being a priest."
Actually, that's not Catholic teaching.
"Certainly, they can present homilies and execute the sacraments, humanly speaking."
Actually, no, they can't execute most of the sacraments. A woman can certainly baptize, but according to the Magisterium, a woman cannot ontologically receive Holy Orders, and thus, cannot absolve in the confessional, celebrate Mass and consecrate the Eucharist, nor confirm, nor marry two Catholics together, nor ordain others, nor give last rites.
Well, if that was what jo kus was saying, then it was unclear to me. However, I could just be dense. ;-)
In that case, I offer my comment as explanation for the equally dense.
Ontologically, a woman is not capable of executing the sacraments save baptism.
I consider myself a traditional, old prayer book Episcopalian. I accept women as priests in the same way as I accept Queen Elizabeth as the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. However, I wish that more of the women priests would be predisposed toward the traditional rites and put aside political ideology when preaching.
I am not so pessimistic as to assume that women priests can't follow the true Anglican way. Assuming we are not going back to an all male priesthood in the Anglican faith, the solution as I see it is to foster traditionalism among the next generation of priests (both male and female).
Now, they've got a female candidate for Presiding Bishop...one who's relatively inexperienced. I'm betting that it's either her or your former Bp. "Gatecrasher" Alexander who ends up as "Primate".
There's nothing inherently "male" about being a monarch -- it's not in the job description, at least not since the battle of Dettingen.
But "being a priest" and standing in Christ's place at the altar requires a man. Otherwise the liturgy and the theology get mixed up.
And I will tell you frankly that there is NO WAY you are going to get many women priests "predisposed toward the traditional rites." That's mutually exclusive as a matter of philosophy AND what the liberals call "theology". The liberal thinking that puts women into an inappropriate role in the first place necessarily and completely rejects the traditional rites as patriarchal, oppressive, and sexist.
The same people who push women for the priesthood push prayerbook revision, "alternative" Eucharists, enneagrams, and all that other anti-traditional rot. As I told a Catholic friend who expressed admiration for a particular female ECUSA priest (he was toying with the idea of a female priesthood until I filled him in on the fact that she led the ECUSA contingent in the national March for Abortion), "it's a package deal."
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.