Posted on 01/09/2007 3:09:11 PM PST by sionnsar
Traditionalists won a victory against the liberal American branch of Anglicanism yesterday when a panel set up by the Archbishop of Canterbury ruled that they could not be compelled to accept women priests.
The “panel of reference”, a body created by Dr Rowan Williams to adjudicate in international disputes, said that the “non-acceptance” of women’s ministry was a “recognised theological position”.
The panel’s findings followed complaints from an American diocese that does not ordain women that it had been undermined by the national Episcopal Church, which had effectively made female ordination mandatory.
Though the panel’s recommendations have no binding legal authority, its decision to uphold the rights of opponents of women priests will have implications for the whole Church.
The findings will also come as a blow to the new Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, Katherine Jefferts Schori, the first woman head of an individual Anglican province, and they were angrily condemned by fellow liberals.
But traditionalists said that the panel had recognised that they had a continuing place in the Church.
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. Rearranging the deck chairs on a doomed ship?
Just out of curiosity: For those who hold that women can't be priestesses let alone bishopesses, who do they consider to be the Presiding Bishop of TEC? And how can two mutually exclusive theological positions be legitimate?
That's just great. Bishop Williams rejects healthy, hetrosexual women as priests, but apparently is OK with an alcoholic, divorced, fornicating, homosexual male bishop.
Well, it's the Panel of Reference actually -- and they've not responded to other calls (yet).
I suspect they'd say she is not legitimate, though she holds the office. You've got both theological and organizational issues here.
No, Suzy... Bishop Williams neither rejects heterosexual women as priests, nor accepts alcoholic, divorced, homosexual bishops. Despite his previously held opinions (from before taking his current office), he has overseen the demand for repentance of the ECUSA for electing Bishop Vicky Gene Robinson; and he has merely affirmed the right of dioceses and parishes to dissent from his position that women should be ordained priests. He has not yet done anything about the ECUSA's defiance over Robinson, precisely because he is being consistent with his stance that each bishop has distinct apostolic authority. (Essentially, he has told ECUSA never to "do that again," but can't force them to rescind or annull Robinson's anointment.)
>> For those who hold that women can't be priestesses let alone bishopesses, who do they consider to be the Presiding Bishop of TEC? And how can two mutually exclusive theological positions be legitimate? <<
My understanding is that the Presiding Bishop is not analogous to an archbishop; it's merely a legal (administrative) position, and, therefore, the conservative bishops don't have to recognize any spiritual authority, merely a legal authority. The King of England, for instance, exercise authority over the Anglican Church, without being a bishop, of course.
What's your opinion regarding my supposition in post #9?b
There's a branch of Anglicanism that strongly believes itself to be part of the apostolic, universal Church (the other "branches" of which are Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy). Neither of those other two accept, have ever accepted, or will ever accept women priests, so for someone to say that theologically one *must* accept them now is in essence saying Anglicanism is no longer part of apostolic Christianity.
To not admit even the theological possibility that the "conservatives" are right on this, is to say that the Church was wrong for 2000 years, which of course is nonsense. For Anglicanism to at all claim it has apostolic ties, it *has* to recognize the legitimacy of the position against women priests. Otherwise it become just another make-your-own-rules denomination.
I wonder how much this decision stemmed from the archbishop's recent meeting with Benedict XVI.
If I recall correctly, Mary Magdalen was first to witness the resurrected Christ.
I believe you are correct...
Before becoming a Jew however, I'd spent some time in the (gasp)Episcopal Church and actually met a couple of (yikes) female priests who I think carried that word fairly well.
Yes, I'm Orthodox, but think I could (shhh) tolerate a female rabbi here and there. A lot of women tend to be good care carriers and givers.
Though I fear God, I argue with Him sometimes too, so....
Everything Good to You and Yours.
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.