Posted on 07/26/2005 4:59:13 PM PDT by sionnsar
The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth has appealed to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Panel of Reference for assistance in our dispute with the Episcopal Church in the United States over the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate. The Bishop and Standing Committee of the Diocese made the appeal on July 11, 2005, in objection to the actions of the 1997 General Convention that made the ordination of women priests mandatory in every diocese, while the Anglican Communion seeks to maintain an “open process of reception” on this issue.
The purpose of the Panel, as expressed in the Primates’ Communiqué of February 24, 2005, is “to protect the integrity and legitimate needs of groups in serious theological dispute with their diocesan bishop, or dioceses in dispute with their Provinces.” Under the present canons, the Diocese of Fort Worth would not be able to proceed with the consecration of my successor (when that time comes) unless he agreed to the ordination of women as priests.
Dear GOD, I love Jack Iker:
When the ECUSA’s General Convention in 1976, by the smallest simple majority, voted to change the wording in Canon III.8.1 in order to permit the ordination of women to the presbyterate and episcopate, there was a small but militant group who tried to claim that this newly revised canon was mandatory. But from the beginning, the majority view was that the new canon was merely permissive, and it is doubtful that anything other than a permissive canon could have passed in 1976. In the years following, by giving consent to the election of bishops who would not ordain or license women to the presbyterate and by several resolutions claiming that both those opposed to the ordination of women and those in favor were loyal members of ECUSA, the General Convention and the majority of bishops and dioceses upheld the permissive nature of the new canon. (See Exhibit A for a history of these decisions and resolutions, pg. 3.) During this time, the official position of ECUSA reflected the mind of the Eames Commission on Women in the Episcopate and the resolutions of the Lambeth Conferences of 1978, 1988 and 1998. (For the Lambeth 1998 resolution III.2, see Exhibit E, pg. 25.)
Then in 1995, under the influence of the then Presiding Bishop and the majority report of a committee appointed by him, the House of Bishops voted that it was the mind of the House that Canon III.8.1 was mandatory in all dioceses of the church. (See Exhibit B, pg. 13. For the minority report see Exhibit C, pg. 17.)
In 1997 the General Convention voted to make the ordination of women canon mandatory instead of permissive, forbidding anyone who opposed the ordination of women presbyters, be they clerical or lay, to hold a position of leadership in ECUSA. (See Exhibit D, pg. 24. For Resolution A053a see Exhibit C, pg. 16.) In doing so, ECUSA set it set itself apart from the rest of the Anglican Communion just as surely as it did in the election of Gene Robinson to the episcopate. And it also contradicted the clear teaching of the Thirty-Nine Articles which insist that nothing shall be required to be believed which is not contained in Holy Scripture.
Following the retirement in 1999 of the Bishop of Eau Claire, a bishop opposed to the ordination of women to the presbyterate, the retiring bishop and other diocesan leaders were told that if they again elected anyone opposed to such ordinations, that person would not receive the necessary consents of the other ECUSA bishops and dioceses. Ironically, following the election in 2003 of a practicing homosexual as bishop in the Diocese of New Hampshire, we heard the same people argue that a diocese should have whoever it wanted as its bishop. Since then the Diocese of Fort Worth has been told by the Presiding Bishop and others in authority that, should it again elect a bishop opposed to women in the presbyterate and episcopate, the bishop elect would not receive the necessary consents to be consecrated. By withholding such consents, ECUSA would make the survival of traditionalist clergy legally impossible.
Touch 'em all, Ikes. Ladies and gentlemen, your Episcopal Church. Decide you're a homosexual, leave your wife and kids and set up housekeeping with a man and we'll give you a pointy hat, a hooked stick and your very own diocese. But if you don't think women should be priests or bishops, then you're a disgusting piece of slime who ought to be shot or excommunicated or shot or something. Funny thing is that the stuff Robbie likes to do in his off-hours is explicitly condemned in the Bible whereas nothing anywhere in Scripture demands that women be priests.
Enjoy, Dr. Carnley. And thanks, Kendall.
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. Same problem we've had in Toronto. Miss Universe (a Thai woman from Toronto) was barred from the City Square for being "demeaning and gender-stereotyping" or some rot like that. But if a man wants to prance around the same territory DRESSED like Miss Universe, the mayor will send "her" a bouquet and probably invite "her" to dinner.
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.