Church will ordain women bishops

The Church of England’s ruling body, the General Synod, has voted to confirm the ordination of women as bishops.

But a national code to accommodate traditionalists was approved by the Synod, which was meeting in York.

...more

Here is the approved motion:

This is the final motion approved by Synod:

      ‘That this Synod:

(a)        affirm that the wish of its majority is for women to be admitted to the episcopate;

(b)        affirm its view that special arrangements be available, within the existing structures of the Church of England, for those who as a matter of theological conviction will not be able to receive the ministry of women as bishops or priests;

(c)        affirm that these should be contained in a statutory national code of practice to which all concerned would be required to have regard; and

(d)        instruct the legislative drafting group, in consultation with the House of Bishops, to complete its work accordingly, including preparing the first draft of a code of practice, so that the Business Committee can include first consideration of the draft legislation in the agenda for the February 2009 group of sessions.’

Img00057The voting was:

Bishops: 28 for 12 against 1 abs

Clergy: 124 for 44 against 4 abs

Laity: 111 for 68 against 2 abs

The Church of England has now become heretical and apostate Holy Scripture forbids women Bishops.  Christ never ordained a woman to be an apostle.

Compromise of Faith and delay of process again equal the Anglican Way. Sad for all concerned

Now what will +Rowan have to say? Personally I think he really wanted all of this which is why he has done nothing and has allowed all that has happened to happen. I’m with Milton on another thread praying to the Lord to use us Tradionalist, Orthodox Anglo-Catholics to rebuild His Church. Rome is not an option for this Anglo-Catholic but there are serious issues with GAFCON and those 39 articles and then the WO thing here with CCP as well. What to do Lord, what to do?

How soon will the first defections to Rome come?  What does this mean for the Anglican Communion?  If the leader of our branch of the Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is complicit with what Rome and Constantinople see as a show-stopper, where does this leave us?  How can any Anglo-Catholics remain under the Anglican Communion?

Lemmings.

The bell tolls for the Church of England.  It is such a shame that so much history, so much money, so much wealth, so much property, so many monuments to God, so many wonderful cathedrals, so many top notch schools, and so many skilled and ancient choral foundations are tied up in organization determined to destroy itself.  Give it back to Rome.

#4- The “defections” as you called them have already started, unless my incoming email deceives me. All I can say is “wait for it.”  News will come soon enough from the man formerly known as Joseph Ratzinger.  I think he will wait until after Lambeth, but in light of today’s travesty, it may come sooner.  The CoE is now where TEC was a dozen or so years ago.  While I dearly love my friends over there who are convinced that their church is different than ours, I fear that they are only a few years away from their own VGR and KJS.  And, like us, they have brought this upon themselves.

I hope the pope doesn’t wait until after Lambeth. It is easy to see why the ABC would have asked him to. :-(

AndrewA,
Maybe it is those things that brought it thus far to here! The  

so much history, so much money, so much wealth, so much property, so many monuments to God, so many wonderful cathedrals, so many top notch schools, and so many skilled and ancient choral foundations

doesn’t sound much like anything God would be interested in anyway. Maybe He is allowing her destruction to humble her from the weight of prideful wealth and tose who do not truthfully hold to His teachings but have gotten a hold of her (the Church)! Rome went through a destruction at one time…maybe it is time for the CofE!

Like playing Russian Roulette with a loaded gun.  Guaranteed results.

It’s going to be a HOT Lambeth.  Like TEC, the agendites in the CoE have stepped up the pace trying to gain every inch they can.

May the GAFCON leaders not blink now - nor give an inch of ground.

From Anglican Mainstream:

According to Ruth Gledhill’s blog, the Bishop of Dover, chairing the General Synod, sat weeping after saying these words just before the final vote which approved the introduction of women bishops with nothing more than a ‘Code of Practice’ to provide for those who cannot receive their ministry:

“I have to say that for the first time in my life I feel ashamed. We have talked for hours about wanting to give an honourable place for those who disagreed. We have turned down almost every opportunity for those opposed to flourish. And we still talk the talk of being inclusive and generous. The Rochester report said in many many pages that there were a variety of ways in which scripture and reason could be read with integrity. It argued over and over again that it is possible to be a loyal member of the CofE and [accept] some legal safeguards for those who oppose the ordination of women. It is not just those who are opposed to the ordination of women who find the motion we have at the moment difficult. I do. Where is the CofE about which we have spoken today? Is this CofE to which we have come to in this vote the CofE at its best? I have to say I doubt it. Is this the CofE to which I thought I belonged? I have to say with huge sadness, I doubt it.”

The fact that Tom Wright, the Bishop of Durham then moved (unsuccessfully) for an adjournment may make Open Evangelicals at least pause for thought about what has been done.

I am a neophyte in this area.  What sort of things do we think the Pope would offer?

COE - take a look at the TRAVESTY that has become TEC.  This is your future.

THERE are those, my brethren, who may think it strange, and even shocking, that, at this moment, when the liberalism of the age, after many previous attempts, is apparently at length about to get possession of the Church and Universities of the nation…
I have said, we must not indulge our imagination in the view we take of the National Establishment.. We see in the English Church, I will not merely say no descent from the first ages, and no relationship to the Church in other lands, but we see no body politic of any kind; we see nothing more or less than an Establishment, a department of Government, or a function or operation of the State,—without a substance,—a mere collection of officials, depending on and living in the supreme civil power…. It is but one aspect of the State, or mode of civil governance; it is responsible for nothing; it can appropriate neither praise nor blame; but, whatever feeling it raises is to be referred on, by the nature of the case, to the Supreme Power whom it represents, and whose will is its breath. And hence it has no real identity of existence in distinct periods, unless the present Legislature or the present Court can affect to be the offspring and disciple of its predecessor. Nor can it in consequence be said to have any antecedents, or any future; or to live, except in the passing moment. As a thing without a soul, it does not contemplate itself, define its intrinsic constitution, or ascertain its position. It has no traditions; it cannot be said to think; it does not know what it holds, and what it does not; it is not even conscious of its own existence. It has no love for its members, or what are sometimes called its children, nor any instinct whatever, unless attachment to its master, or love of its place, may be so called. Its fruits, as far as they are good, are to be made much of, as long as they last, for they are transient, and without succession; its former champions of orthodoxy are no earnest of orthodoxy now; they died, and there was no reason why they should be reproduced. Bishop is not like bishop, more than king is like king, or ministry like ministry; its Prayer-Book is an Act of Parliament of two centuries ago, and its cathedrals and its chapter-houses are the spoils of Catholicism.

Personally I’m more inclined to New Rome than Old Rome, but Anglo-Catholics across England right now should start looking past the Tracts and to the works of Cardinal Newman

#13, GoodMissMurphy Sound Catholic theology. Also a hierarchy that will enforce conformity to the same from time to time. There are differences between Anglo-Catholics and Roman Catholics, but they are nothing like the differences between Anglo-Catholics and progressives. The major ones concern clerical marriage, papal authority and Mariology.

I used to think they were unbridgeable. But these days, the Roman Catholic Church may very well be what New Rochelle was to the Huguenots.

I serve the God of Truth. Who do you serve?

I used to think they were unbridgeable. But these days, the Roman Catholic Church may very well be what New Rochelle was to the Huguenots.

Each day that passes seems to make the gap a little narrower.

If your July/August Touchstone arrived by today, please turn to page sever (7), see “Hymns for a New World”, especially “WE ONLY WISE.

See Verse 3, partial quote:
“Put women in orders, keep circling the drain”..

My thoughts exactly..

Grannie Gloria

Is it impossible that some of the British Anglo-Catholics could move in the direction of Gafcon instead of Rome?  I realize the problems we have mentioned about adjusting the 39 Articles.  But do these people really understand that the U. S. dioceses that backed Gafcon are almost exclusively Anglo-Catholic?  Do these CofE refugees not consider it at all in the light of an option?  It seems as though these groups should consolidate.  Of course, the media has generally obscured the strong Anglo-Catholic character of the Gafcon dioceses in America in order to give another impression.

Before WO in TEC, could women be deacons?  It seems to me with women now on vestries, wardens, administrators, etc., there is plenty of “power.”  If women are looking to priests as an instrument of power, I think they are delusional.

#13 GoodMissMurphy, I fervently hope that the Pope would/will establish a permanent Anglican Usage within the Roman Rite, so that the riches of the Anglican liturgical tradition can be embraced within the Catholic Church.

I don’t think RW is particularly happy with this outcome.  NT Wright wanted to adjourn for a reason - to give delegates time to reflect on what they were about to do, and to allow pressure to be applied on swing voters.  I suspect RW would have preferred everything to be defeated rather than see this result.

In effect, the CoE has declared war on the stable financially-sound churches within it.  This is the beginning of the revolution for activists, and ideologues.  But someone has to pay for all that bureaucracy.  To see the opposition “bitter and isolated” and for all intents and purposes expelled just as GAFCON emerges on the horizon is a catastrophe.  Where do they suspect the defeated will turn?

A torch has been cast onto the tinder around the House of Canterbury.  Who knows what the resulting conflagration will consume, or when it will finally burn out.

carl

(#15) Yes, the good Cardinal is vindicated—has been for a long time. I, too, am ashamed!

If GAFCON ready to treat the Church of England as a false teacher whose authority is to be ignored, over an issue that is quite adiaphora to Jensen, Duncan, etc?  If I understand correctly, all of Africa ordains women.

http://www.forwardinfaith.com/artman/publish/article_419.shtml

General Synod Vote - Initial Reaction
Jul 7, 2008

Email this article
  Printer friendly page

York, Monday 7th July 2008

General Synod Vote - Initial Reaction

Forward in Faith and the Catholic Group in General Synod note with regret that, despite the clear advice of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of Durham, the Bishop of Winchester and other Bishops, the Prolocutor of the Province of Canterbury and the Chairman of the House of Laity and the obvious lack of consensus, today resolved to make no meaningful provision for those in conscience unable to receive the ministry of women bishops.

There must now be a period of prayerful reflection.  However, members of both the General Synod and of the Church of England will understand that actions always have consequences.

Simon Killwick
Chairman, Catholic Group in General Synod
Geoffrey Kirk
Secretary, Forward in Faith
Stephen Parkinson
Director, Forward in Faith

#7 ... Tjmcmahon,  CoE already has their KJS.  His name is Rowan Williams.  IMHO - TEC, CoE, and CoC have been playing ‘rope-a-dope’ for at least the last 5 years.

#22 carl,
I am so sorry to say that I persoanlly do not hold to the same opinion as yourself where +Rowan is concerned. I truly think he is privately happy over all of this and in some way very sad that he cannot invite VGR to the Tea Party.

Subscribing, praying and weeping for those who fought so hard for God’s Kingdom today.
Intercessor

Set and match.  Game over.

The General Convention of TEC in 1970 declared that deaconesses were “within the diaconate.”  The canons were changed (I don’t remember when) to make it possible for dioceses to admit women as deacons.

About women as apostles:  In Romans 16:7 Paul greets Andronicus and Junia, “who are well known among the apostles.”  Almost certainly the Iounian (accusative case) refers to the nominative case of the proper name Iounia (Roman name: Junia).  It is a well attested proper name.  The masculine name Iounias (Junias) has never been attested.  So it does appear that Junia, most likely the husband of Andronicus, is an “apostolos” as well as her husband.

In Romans 16:1-2 Phoebe is commended as the “diakonos” of the church at Cenchraea.  Paul also describes himself and Apollos (both assuredly apostles!) as “diakonoi” in 1 Corinthians.  So it is quite likely that it should be translated by the more general term “minister” (which is the way it is used in the authentic Pauline letters), rather than the later technical term “deacon” (which is the way it is used in the Pastoral Letters).

With every good wish,
Rudy+

Next, we shall seen who they make bishops. I assume they will be progressive.

Forward In Faith: “There must now be a period of prayerful reflection.  However, members of both the General Synod and of the Church of England will understand that ***actions always have consequences***.”

AndrewA (#15),

I have long felt that Newman’s scathing indictment of the C of E was right on target.  But there is another option than turning to Rome as he did. And that is to mount a real Reformation, and to overthrow the Erastian type Anglicanism that we have always known and replace it with an avowedly sectarian, post-Constantinian, Christ-against-culture sort of Anglicanism. 

But let there be no mistake.  That is not the course of mere realignment, or renewal.  It is nothing less than a radical New Reformation, with all the pros and cons that such a highly divisive and traumatic event implies.

Let goods and kindred go.

David Handy+
Passionate advocate of a new Global, Post-Colonial Settlement that is also fervently Post-Constantinian and downright anti-Erastian.  In a very unEnglish way.

Does anyone else feel like this is a very major, big-deal type event?  As much as I was saddened by the collapse of the Episcopal Church into heresy—and in some cases apostasy—I always held out hope for Anglicanism because the Church of England had kept its act mostly together.

Today feels like a very sad day for Anglicanism. 

With many here, I have begun to pray that God would lead Pope Benedict to establish at least an “extraordinary form” based upon the Anglican Use—or, even better, an Anglican Rite, like the Ambrosian Rite, that may be used in Anglican Rite Churches of the Catholic Church.

I guess this is one way for “ut unum sint” to be established: paint us into a corner until there’s no where else to go.

Face it. GAFCON played a huge part in this, and turned those who might have once been sympathetic to more structured protection for traditionalists away from the idea. The thought of structures perhaps providing a possible ‘way in’ for FoCA and the Primates Council probably swayed many of those who might otherwise have voted for them. GAFCON created a lot of bad feeling in the CoE, and not just among ‘liberals’. One speaker who implied that there were plenty of ‘other’ Archbishops who would look out for them was roundly hissed. This could be a case of Reform & FiF shooting themselves in the foot by becoming equated with FoCA.

#24, I know we keep reading only about African policy, but nevertheless, San Joaquin is already in the Southern Cone (thus Gafcon) and Fort Worth and Quincy probably following in their footsteps soon—all against WO. Since these are the dioceses involved in the big shift in the US (aside from Pittsburgh), it seems to me that the Evangelical character of the movement can surely be exaggerated.  With this constituency, I’m sure there will be accommodations regarding the 39 Articles.  And I feel certain that these dioceses would not take up WO.

I find it interesting that more than 50% of the laity voted AGAINST.  This gives me some hope.

What is saddening here is not what many are concerned about - WO. It is realization of the English church’s submission to secular humanism, which is using the WO issue to move forward.

The vote today reaffirms the need for GAFCON in the battle against secular humanism. Jesus certainly couldn’t get his flock to agree on much, but he still led them with the same purpose that brought the participants to GAFCON.

Instead of looking at what divides the GAFCON attendees, look to the merit of bringing the 1300 priests and 11 bishops into the fold. There is much more that unites us than divides us.

#35 - you keep playing that tune - but you are mistaken as you will soon see - “actions always have consequences.”

At last! We can test the hypothesis that W.O. sinks churches. Every experiment needs corroberation by an independant investigator. All we needed for the experiment was the Church of England to try to reproduce the successful first test as performed in TEC. Too bad that the experiment takes 25 years of follow up to determine the results. The ethical problem with trying to duplicate a negative result and using humans as subjects should be apparant to most scientists, but of course, theology is not a science. What I am saying is the people of England should protest to their human rights commission as the Declaration of Helsinki is about to be tossed out the window. Perhaps we would be better off if the “wise and prudent” (Matthew 11:25) quit experimenting on us simple pew people.

Paula,
Being a Anglican in the Anglican Dio. Of San Joaquin under the temporary shelter of AB Venables in the So. Cone, I can atest that we would not be ordaining women to the Priesthood and beyond in our diocese.

AndrewA (#24) from the Women’s ordination article at wikipedia…

No women’s ordination: Central Africa, Jerusalem and the Middle East, Melanesia, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, South East Asia, Tanzania
Ordination of female deacons: Southern Cone, Congo, Pakistan
Female priests: Burundi, Hong Kong, Indian Ocean, Kenya, Korea, Rwanda, South India, Uganda, Wales, West Indies, West Africa
Female Bishops (none yet consecrated): Bangladesh, Brazil, Central America, England, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, North India, Philippines, Scotland, Southern Africa, Sudan
Female Bishops (consecrated): Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia; Australia; Canada; United States, Cuba

Micky, the English Established Church will more readily pardon an attack on 38 of its 39 articles than on 1/39 of its income.  They are afraid of someone else competition from the Global South.

[#35] Micky wrote:

One speaker who implied that there were plenty of ‘other’ Archbishops who would look out for them was roundly hissed.

Of course they hissed.  They are scared to death of the American solution being imported in the UK.  But this action makes it more likely to happen.  The disaffected will have to go somewhere.  They have been offered the choice of leaving or violating their conscience.  They will leave.  If they don’t go to Rome, where do you think they will go?

It is therefore a case of the revolutionaries shooting themselves in the foot.  Had they been wise, they would have waited.  But they were blinded by ideology.  Now they will live with the consequences.

carl

“actions always have consequences.”

As does “inaction!”

#39 “actions always have consequences.”

Yes, they do. As FiF have just found out. And they realised it too. Why do you think the English FiF has not issued one single utterance in support of GAFCON and it’s declaration, even though they had members there?

Next step, declaring the illegal gay marriage in the Diocese of Lond to be retroactivly valid.  The evangelicals that votes for women’s ordination will be missing the Anglo-Catholics when the GLBT issues start to hit them hard and heavy.

As you can gather from my #30 above, I support the ordination of women.  I got in my car and drove to seminary 2 days after the vote of General Convention in 1976.

Of course, as any and every priest who has been ordained for any length of time knows, you frequently get in trouble in ministry not for what you do but how you do it.

And what really bugs me now is how I thought we were making an accomodation to allow women to minister in TEC as it was in 1976.  I never dreamed that we’d be faced with feminist theology, and I never dreamed that Integrity would become so strong.  I never dreamed that what was liberal in 1976 is now conservative (forget being moderate—it’s gone!).  I never dreamed that the majority of bishops of TEC would vote in the most liberal candidate to become the XXVI Presiding Bishop.  (The most liberal candidate for PB was elected neither in 1985 nor in 1997.)  So I think we should definitely look at the question of what those who support women’s ordination want to bring in with it if and when that door is opened.  In other words, not just what we have seen through the portholes so far, but in which direction the ship is pointed.

Rudy+

If FiF leave en masse, it will mean having to make due with house churches and borrowed property for some time to come.  I think it is safe to say that there is no doubt in English law that the parish property belongs to the National govt.

49- Andrew- I think you will find that the rescue of the Anglo Catholics will come from the south, but not so far south as Africa.  There may be no need for house churches, as there are church buildings in England owned by a Church other than CoE, one that has more sympathy for a “catholic” point of view on matters such as WO, and may indeed offer refuge, and perhaps the use of the buildings for an hour or 2 on a Sunday morning.

A word of caution, friends.

bb

Unfortunately the CofE will find itself in the same place as TEc within just a very few years. Here in the US many Anglo-Catholics left the church in the 70’s following the approval of WO. Then when the gay activists came to power the Evangelicals were unable to withstand the onslaught. The same tragic results will befall the CofE if the ANglo-Catholics leave enmasse.

I think from what I have read that it is extremely possible that Pope Benedict XVI will ultimately approve some form of Anglican Use in the very near future, either just before or just after Lambeth. From my reading he is personally in favor of such a move. I don’t know if it will be a full blown “Anglican Rite” or a personal prelature but I believe that he will do something. ANd it will be set up to be independent of the local Latin rite bishops.

And I’m afraid that it will end any sort of dialogue with the AC. Today is truly a dark day in ANglican history.

bb-
I do agree with you in principal.  But that word needed to go out yesterday to the Evangelical clergy and laity and bishops who voted in favor of the motion that effectively throws Anglo Catholics out of the Church of England.  People must stop confusing Anglo Catholicism with lace vestments and male priests.  It is about being a catholic Christian within an Anglican church.  But the catholic part comes first.  Not Roman Catholic, but catholic.  To argue for Anglo Catholics staying in the CoE at this point is the functional equivalent of arguing that the Anglican District of Virginia should reunite with Peter Lee’s diocese and submit to him.

I hear Lord Carey (former Archbishop of Canterbury) speak a couple of years ago.  He said that in his opinion, Africa needed to empower the women in order to solve the problems in that continent. 

Women mattered a great deal to Jesus too.  He surrounded himself with women in a culture that held women as second (or maybe third) class citizens.  Jesus sent a strong message that women matter.  It was the women that stayed with Jesus until the end. 

Finally, women bishops! 

I have a sense that this is how it may have been when Jesus walked the earth.  He came to tell people that the Holy law that they had followed was changing.

Micky, you’ve got it backwards - the CofE has just made the same mistake TEC did, which led to GAFCON. And who knows what this debacle will lead to. What both churches did was to fail in charity and to also fail their great god Inclusiveness - by not making room for orthodox believers.

To #29
Junias, Jewish convert to Christianity | NA27 Int.
noun, accusative, singular, feminine

ἀπόστολος: a messenger, one sent on a mission, an apostle | NA27 Int.

noun, dative, plural, masculine

This has been tried but it is a lie Junia in a woman and the word apostle in Rom. 16:7 is refering to a male her husband, Andronicus.  Case closed no woman apostle.

#48, you don’t have to look out your porthole very far:
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2006/07/03/christina-rees-speaks-for-women-and-actively-gay-bishops/

I realize that I don’t have many friends here, but I must say this:

Many of you are missing the simple point that many, many Anglicans have a huge problem with the ordination of women but have no problem at all with homosexual partnerships.  Or at least much less of a problem.  Most just aren’t willing to state it plainly. 

Many bishops, many priests, many lay people.  Especially in England.

Theologically, the validity of the sacraments is of vital importance.  Those of which I speak of course believe in the priesthood of all believers.  But they believe that a sacrament must have valid matter, valid form and valid intention.  This is the Catholic position.

This is why you are seeing the reaction you are seeing today.  People who say that the ordination of women and homosexual partnerships are two sides of the same coin do not understand the Anglican Catholic position at all.

#35 Mickey may have a point but it is pretty clear that there is a bit of a liberal putsch going on - vid the involvement of a great many characters from St Albans and Southwark.  Ironically that reaction may well be splitting the CofE.

#51 BB is astute as ever.

First they came for the Anglo-Catholics….

I have a sense that this is how it may have been when Jesus walked the earth. He came to tell people that the Holy law that they had followed was changing.

I strongly disagree. In Jesus’ own word from
Matthew 5:17
  “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

He came to fulfill not to change!

#55 ...the CofE has just made the same mistake TEC did, which led to GAFCON. And who knows what this debacle will lead to. What both churches did was to fail in charity and to also fail their great god Inclusiveness - by not making room for orthodox believers.

Unlike the Churches of Sudan, North India and Bangladesh, right? Oh, wait a minute, they made even less provision! I must have missed the outcry over that. Or do they not matter…?

Micky (61), is this what you are talking about:
http://geoconger.wordpress.com/category/ecumenical/old-catholic-union-of-utrecht/
If it is, this is the first I have heard about it. Can you point me to more information?

#60
Fulfill is not an accurate translation from the Greek word πληρόω.  It is more like, ‘filled by the spirit’; to provide fully; until all is accomplished.

This would indicate a change.

BabyBlue- What you seem not to understand is that Anglo-Catholics have effectively been expelled from the Church of England by this vote. Evangelicals could have stopped it, but didn’t. They threw their Anglo-Catholic brethren under the bus.

I don’t suppose Williams is happy about today’s work but I’m tired of hearing from men of good heart (Williams and Wright) who are amazed and perplexed at what their actions have wrought.  Why are we amazed?  We don’t fit into the historical church any more. We will not have it. There are options but we will not have them.  Bishop Kallistos Ware is in England but apparently that is too hard.  We would rather be heretics *and* schismatics than simply Orthodox.

Charles- The “high church” may allow for gay relationships.  Anglo Catholicism does not.  Until such time as the Church Catholic decides otherwise.  Until the day comes that Rome and Constantinople declare gay relationships ok, there is no such approval possible for Anglo Catholics.  As I say frequently, people have to stop confusing lace and incense with Anglo Catholicism.

Before we start issuing ultimatums, we must remember who our friends are and who our adversaries are, lest we shoot each other in the back. 

Remember, the timing of this vote is strategic, okay?

bb

#63,
You and I are going to have to agree to disagree.
Blessings to you

The argument against Iounian being the accusative of Iounia is strictly based on the idea that women can’t be apostles.  There is no evidence, however, that Iounian was the accusative of any proper noun other than Iounia.  The more recent printings of the the Nestle-Aland 27th edition have changed the accent from the circumflex over the -a- of Iounian to the acute accent over the -i-.  There is no epigraphic evidence that Iounias (Latin: Junias?) as a proper name ever existed.  More than 9 times out of 10 nouns with the alpha-stem (first declension) are feminine.  Iounias is not attested at all; Iounia (Latin: Junia) is well attested.  See Robert Jewett, Romans, p. 961, including notes 101ff.  Joseph Fitzmyer, S.J., in his Anchor Bible commentary, pointed out that commentators through the 12th century referred to Junia as a woman.  Jewett also says that the traditional feast of SS. Andronikos and Junia celebrated “admirabilem feminam Juniam” (Jewett, p. 961 n. 107, refers to Fitzmyer, p. 738).

The adjective in 16:7, episemoi, is plural, making it clear that the phrase “well known among the apostles” refers both to Andronicus and Junia.

The case is closed because all the exegetical evidence favors “Junia” rather than the fictive name “Junias.”

Rudy+

[#63] precious1 wrote:

Fulfill is not an accurate translation from the Greek word πληρόω.  It is more like, ‘filled by the spirit’; to provide fully; until all is accomplished.

A brief perusal of the major English translations now in use - NIV, NASB, KJV, NKJV, ESV, ASV - all render Matt 5:17 with ‘fulfil.’  Please check for yourself at this link.

Upon what authority then does precious1 make the assertion that the word is improperly translated?

carl

Baby Blue @ #67 writes: “Before we start issuing ultimatums, we must remember who our friends are and who our adversaries are, lest we shoot each other in the back.”

Unfortunately, Anglo-Catholics have already been shot in the back.

Precious1 writes:

I hear Lord Carey (former Archbishop of Canterbury) speak a couple of years ago.  He said that in his opinion, Africa needed to empower the women in order to solve the problems in that continent.

Absolutely Africa needs to empower their women to help solve the problems in that continent.  this doesn’t mean ordination.

I think scripture is clear on the role of women in the church, and the priesthood is no part of that role.  In many ways, the role of women in the church is even more significant and “empowering” than that of ordained persons.

I would say that Jesus is pictured in the Sermon on the Mount as giving the proper interpretation of the Mosaic Law.  The Law itself doesn’t change, but the interpretation did change with each interpreter.  Matthew 5:17 is a favorite verse, but I’d look carefully at the Antitheses which include the formula “you have heard that it was said to those of old . . . but I say to you” (Matthew 5:21, cf. vv. 27, 31, 33, 38, 43).  This indicates to me a considerable difference between the conventional interpretation of Torah, in contradistinction to what Jesus advises.

(Technical question: Is there a tag that one can use to put Greek in these posts?  I’m unaware of it but use Linguist’s Software for my Greek in other applications.  Also have the NT Graece from the German Bible Society which has its own font.)

bb- we know the timing is strategic.  Canterbury and York knew it was strategic timing when they let it be put on the ballot.  They made the mistake of assuming that they controlled enough votes to delay the decision- kick the ball downfield one more time. 70% of his own church just voted against him.  The timing was to throw things into the fire just before Lambeth.  But Lambeth is designed not to deal with hot things.  The only good to come out of this is that the HoB from TEC is going to be so hung over from the party currently going on to celebrate this (check the listserve) that they will be too hung over to make their planes for Lambeth.

What EXACTLY is a heretic?  This word is so overly used. 

In the early church the Nazarenes (Jewish Christians) were called heretics.  Arians, Nestorians, Monophysits were called heretics.  Jews called Christians heretics (Jesus was a Jew, if you recall).  Francis of Assisi, Inigo Loyola, Gregory Palama, Sergi of Radonezh, Seraphim of Sarova, Meister Eckhardt were all called heretics.

Perhaps to be human is heretical.

precious 1,
Just out of curiousity and no other reason than that what diocese are you in? I notice that your time zone is the same as mine here in California.

The Arians, the Nestorians, and the monophysites were heretics!
Rudy+

As for the Jewish view of Christians, well, maybe if Schori manages to get herself resurrected after a few days in the grave, I’d be willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. 

But wait, I forget:  Believing in the Resurrection is SO last century.

I’m unaware that any chuch council ever declared Saraphim of Sarov a heretic. A rather eccentric list.  Reminds me of one Schori would come up with.

The RCC defines a heretic as:

a baptized Roman Catholic who willfully and persistently rejects any article of faith.

Note it says ANY article.  That covers a lot of ground.  A more general definition says the heretic is

“a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church.”  (dictionary.com)

So I guess heresy essentially is a point of view issue, depending on what the opinions and doctrines of your church are.

That leads me to suspect, in TEC, that I am the heretic, not the reappraisers, as TEC’s current standards, opinions, and doctrines are moving so far and away from the religious opinions that I hold, that I certainly do not fit into what TEC has become any more.

Then again, does anyone actually know what opinions and doctrines TEC actually holds?  If any?  Or shall we just call them the positions du jour?

Oh, and in my ESV, Mathew 5:17 says clearly “fulfill them.”  If it’s good enough for J.I. Packer, then who are we to argue?

KTF!....mrb

Ah yes, the KJV.  It is a bit of parody that King James was a bisexual, don’t you think?

Re: [74]

What exactly IS a heretic?

This is a really important question!
Some call WO a heresy, others may disagree with it but not call it a heresy, others still welcome it (and that’s just among traditionalists).

WO gets lumped together with SSB, although the divide is not clean—Not everybody is for or against both of these items, although there seems to be a nontrivial correlation.

The more fundamental issue facing our communion, which I believe is manifesting itself in these issues.  On one hand, traditionalists of all stripes confess that our faith is Objective Reality.  The events in the Nicene Creed Really Happened or Will Happen.  On the other hand, the main thrust of the progressives is that our faith is a subjective reality—not inherently true, but a culturally conditioned way to relate the Great Other.  This is postmodernism.

There are heresies “within” the camp of Objective Reality—for example Arianism.  These kinds of heresies are relatively benign—you argue from Scripture in accordance with what consensus you can find in tradition. 
The heresies of postmodernism do not use the same tools or speak the same language.  Because of this, appeals to Scripture or the creeds do not help in this arena.  The amount of talking past each other on WO and many other issues is a symptom of this divide.

precious1 -  come on that name HAS to be from the Lord of the Rings…  come on, fess up now…

Thanks be to God he can even work through King James - what a miracle!  Thanks for sharing how awesome our Lord truly is!

#82, thank you for your post.  That is most interesting!

#80, why?  I guess I don’t see your posts as on topic.

</blockquote>That leads me to suspect, in TEC, that I am the heretic, not the
reappraisers</blockquote>
I believe the Nicean Creed and the resurrected Christ. I therefore am a heretic in TEC’s eyes and need to be exterminated.
However they would gladly offer me communion after they take their tithe.
Shalom,
Intercessor

#1: “Holy Scripture forbids women Bishops.  Christ never ordained a woman to be an apostle.”
So… where do you find Jesus ordaining a male?!? And… unless you’re referring to St. Paul’s reference that women should not oversee men, I think you’d be hard put to find a verse “forbidding women bishops.”
#34: “Today feels like a very sad day for Anglicanism. “
It is a joyous day in many parts of the Communion.
#37: “I find it interesting that more than 50% of the laity voted AGAINST.” Um… check your math.
#56: “Case closed no woman apostle.” Using your translation (which I hold as correct—male case not having anything to do with the gender of the referrant), what would you call the women sent by the Risen Christ to “tell the others”?!?
#58: “...many Anglicans have a huge problem with the ordination of women but have no problem at all with homosexual partnerships.”
Is that because many of the so-called “Anglo-Catholics” who oppose the ordination of women are closeted gay males? As has been so for a number of years? Hmmm? I find that very, very odd indeed—and really quite outrageous. Shame on them!

How could one a) Support Scriptural interpretation allowing WO yet oppose Scriptural interpretation against gay people, or b) Support a literalism disallowing WO yet oppose literalism re: homosexual physical expression? The inconsistency simply baffles me!

I can read no more rants this evening… Have at it, all! (I’m thoroughly enjoying reading the “orthodox” cause disintegrate!)

Gloating is a demonic emotion, PadreWayne - you should take care where you emotions lead you.

Not gloating, TV 88, just enjoying. Sort of like watching McCain distance himself from W.

This is a mockery to God, His Word and His Church.

PadreWayne:

The orthodox may disagree about women’s ordination, but we’re in general agreement about homosexual activity.  These disagreements stem from the same source, though: agreement on the authority of Scripture.

The reason Anglo-Catholics do not agree with women’s ordination is because they also apply Tradition, which precludes a Scriptural interpretation that allows for women’s ordination. 

The vast majority of Christians, whether Roman, Eastern, evangelical, or pentecostal, also agree with these positions and the authority of Scripture. 

The reason that all reasserting Anglicans—and most of Christendom—agree on homosexual conduct is because Scripture and Tradition are both clear that such conduct is sinful.

Ultimately, as so many reasserters have stated so many times, this is not about civil rights or equality or justice.  It is about submission to God’s created order as he has revealed it to us in Scripture (and, for some of us, Tradition, as it shaped that Scripture).

You may gloat —or “enjoy,” as you say—today, but whether the reasserters fly to Rome, create a PCA for your PCUSA, statistics are clear: the Episcopal Church will continue to decline; if the Church of England continues on this path, so will it.  God does not bless sin, and he does not bless those who bless sin and call it good.

#89 Gloat
To feel or express great, often malicious, pleasure or self-satisfaction

That seems to about cover your response, don’t you think.

PadreWayne,

The most significant result from this vote will be the shift in the balance of power in the CoE.  A large number of conservatives are going to leave.  Their absence will make it that much easier for liberals to enact their agenda, which will in turn cause the CoE to shed a steady stream of people from (whatever remains of) the right.  You will eventually expunge every opponent, and arrive at the modern liberal Church of the Authentic Self. 

Unfortunately, the modern liberal Church of the Authentic Self is irrelevant to modern liberal secular society.  Secular liberals don’t care what your new church thinks, and have no interest in giving it money.  It’s just the church that secular liberals want religionists to attend - assuming people still need that sort of thing.  So the new and improved CoE will find itself overflowing with activists and clergy just as its financial base collapses.  It’s kind of hard to maintain a church with no money, and even harder to get money with no laity. 

The word you should be focusing on then is ‘implosion’ - because that is what the CoE has predestined for itself.  That’s why the CoE hierarchy was so nervous about the outcome of this vote.  Do enjoy the moment.  It won’t last long.

carl

This is a bigger blow to the gut than GafCon.  I also agree with Micky on this one, whose insightful words should be noted again:

GAFCON played a huge part in this, and turned those who might have once been sympathetic to more structured protection for traditionalists away from the idea. The thought of structures perhaps providing a possible ‘way in’ for FoCA and the Primates Council probably swayed many of those who might otherwise have voted for them.

Nevertheless, I don’t doubt that some of the more vociferous voices of GafCon still see this as a prime opportunity to extend their movement.  They are mistaken, of course.  English Anglo-Catholics are not like their American counterparts, who are much more at home with evangelicals.  (This is in part true because American evangelicals are not quite like English evangelicals!)

Yes that is true. Conservative evangelicals and conservative catholic Anglicans in England have not really managed ever to make common cause on the major issues of the day. Perhaps it is personalities, perhaps it is history, perhaps it is theology. Perhaps for a long time, and even now, they saw each other as rivals? Nevertheless it means that the GAFCON folks are starting from nowhere in terms of Anglo Catholics in England. I looked at FiF-UK website the other day and though they were, apparently, represented at GAFCON, as far as I could see it was nowhere mentioned.

PadreWayne :

You know you might take up a hobby - like watching paint dry , for example, if this is as small as your world has become.

The difference between the orthodox and the non-orthodox is chiefly that we can have differences over things that are not salvation issues and be free to disagree with one another.  The non-orthodox are sadly invested in the us/them mentality and can suffer no differences whatsoever… you agree or you are Evil Incarnate.  How sad for you.

I don’t agree with WO but I can hang out with those who do - though I could not be under a woman bishop myself - Shori would cure any sane person of that tendency.

All this does is strengthen GAFCON’s hand - so I can appreciate why you are so joyful - what a great thing!

Wayne #87 wrote:

I can read no more rants this evening… Have at it, all! (I’m thoroughly enjoying reading the “orthodox” cause disintegrate!)

Nice pastoral response, Wayne. Regardless of your (or my) personal feelings about this issue, it is obvious that there are real people here who are hurting badly over this decision. For someone who professes to be “compassionate” and eager to extend God’s grace, your post here, as well as your denial of gloating in #89, is unseemly and singularly devoid of compassion, charity, and/or grace. At best it does not speak very well about how consistently you apply your professed theology.

Moreover, if this is any indication of how you treat those with whom you disagree, God help any parishioner of yours who does not hold your values/theology and who comes to you for pastoral support.

I can only have compassion for the person (on either side of the issues) who would find it helpful to go to Padre Wayne for support.

Not gloating, TV 88, just enjoying. Sort of like watching McCain distance himself from W.

I suppose then that the difference between gloating and perverse joy, is the degree of revelry.  Then again, Wayne’s track record doesn’t suggest that he could distinguish between orthodoxy and heresy, so I’m not sure it’s fair to Wayne to judge him on his ability to make any sort of distinction. 

No, not enjoying… just rolling my eyes.  Sort of like watching Obama distancing himself from his “pastor.”

Ah, PW. The issues themselves are important, but the way in which they are being rammed down the throats of those who in all sincere moral conscience cannot accept them seems to be a larger concern. The feelings of others are being neglected. These aren’t issues to be brought to a vote - there should be consensus.

The result is the continued McDonaldization of Anglicanism.

One asks what does Rome have to offer? Perhaps a lot for some, and there will be defections. Yet, remember that the Reformation was necessary, and that the Counter-reformation only addressed the most egregious defects of Rome. Since then, we have papal infallibility and a top-down hierarchy. Attributes, perhaps, but maybe not.

Yes, Rome is opposed to WO, and it has taken a stand on homosexual practice. Yet, one is not sure to what extent its Temple has been cleansed. Furthermore, Roman Christianity is colored by centuries of scholastic theology, which is one person’s cup of tea, and another’s special Kool-Aid. Then, one confronts Fortescue and “The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described”. Ahhhhhhh…again, one person’s delight and another’s tedium. And mandatory priestly celibacy? Accchhhh. To early in the AM to go there.

Rome will indeed be a quick answer for some, but ole Ralphie would wonder whether it will end up being a temporary refuge. Personally, I think that (traditional) Anglicanism is necessary. (Of course, what “I” think doesn’t matter…)

PadreWayne,

Your comments have been merely those of a troll.

Goodbye.

#100, Ralph. Unfortunately for all of us, there is no perfect church. The earthly component of the Body of Christ being composed of humans, it is deeply flawed in the short term. In the long term, all will be purified and made whole and healthy.

But we have to live in the here and now, so that means dealing with human frailty at every level of a church hierarchy and in every aspect of church history and practice.

That doesn’t mean we should tolerate false teaching. But it does mean we should accept that “all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God.” That applies not only to men, but to any organization comprised of men.

Some have fallen shorter than others of course, and some having fallen are now wallowing in the mud.

The Episcopal Church: Cheap Grace, Cheap Faith, Cheap Good Works. My church has been taken over by Big Lots.

[20] On target, GMM.  Ordination is not about gaining power, but rather devotion: devoting oneself to God’s call in one’s life, perhaps even in the face of painful opposition.  Baby Blue’s seen to the heart of this situation, as usual: the timing of this decision was calculated to hurt the orthodox cause.  We must be wise enough not to let it do so.

I guess I’ve not been very careful in the past on some theological matters.  To be honest, my heart has thrilled in past years at the ordination of women.  And I apologize for that feeling knowing now what it means to others and what it means for the unity of the church.  As an Episcopalian, I did examine the matter from time to time and concluded for myself that there was next to no theology of ordained orders ... in practice.  Sure, the ordination rites express a variety of good things ... but the Church has not taken care that their ministers of word and sacrament are faithful to these vows and the denomination’s woes are an expression of the violation of those vows.I hang out with the some of the RC intelligensia in the conservative diocese that is local to me.  They are my friends.  Do I want to take on their problems as my own?  No.  I suppose if Eastern Orthodoxy was not available to me (like Brigadoon descending out of nowhere given American society’s oblivious non-perception of its very existence), and I believed there was no other choice ... perhaps God would have smoothed a path for me there.  Or maybe I would have despaired of any kind of truly catholic, apostolic church.I must say that given the current logic of full inclusion, the Episcopal Church will not be inclusive, honest or even decently Christian until all the laity are bishops.  Or to say it another way, until there are no more deacons, priests or bishops.  Given what I guess is the Anglo-Catholic theology of ordination, it looks like the CofE just voted to get rid of clergy.

Oooops, sorry Mike #80.  I mean’t #81, concerning bisexual King James comments being off topic.  I was biting my tongue so hard that I didn’t get the number right.

Okay.  Moaning and groaning taken as read.  What to do?

—Anglo-catholics and evangelicals in England need to, for once, join forces and work feverishly to see that the 2/3 majority required for final passage at the next Synod is NOT met.  Politics, people.  Start the phone calls, the visits, and get yourself some breathing room to make a better deal when you get this one rejected.

—Jerusalem fellowship people outside of England need to begin right now considering whether they will be wiling to make a permanent structurally safe place for the traditional ministry in their fellowship.  We thought this could be considered farther down the road.  It can’t.  The time is now.

Katherine, a good rallying call.

Amen! Katherine #106!
It’s time to get some good solid work started and done. For the love of Jesus and Scripture and souls!

One thing to consider - and I don’t know if it was raised at all in the above comments (a quick scan says no). This was not the final vote. Looking at the figures, it seems unlikely that they will get the 2/3 necessary in all houses if they don’t compromise a bit.

No. 102, Mousestalker:

Your comments about “no perfect church” remind me of the pastoral advice that an associate rector at my former parish (I moved about a month ago to a new city) gave me me, with regard to swimming the Tiber.  The logic goes something like this: perhaps it makes sense to trade Anglicanism’s weaknesses on fundamentals (like Trinitarianism with TEC and catholicity (including both succession and orders) with Gafcon) for Rome’s weaknesses on non-fundamentals (Mariology, purgatory, and papal authority).  In other words, I’ll never agree with everything at any Church, so it makes sense to find a Church that is rock-solid on what matters (like the creed).  More and more, that’s looking like Rome or Constantinople.

No. 109, Marcus, et al.:

If there is more voting to be done, why was FiF UK talking about consequences?  Now please don’t take this in an accusatory way, I’m legitimately asking: if there is still time to “stop” what’s happening, wouldn’t the Church of England Anglo-Catholics try to do what Katherine suggested (i.e., rally the Evangelicals to their aid and continue to fight) instead of fleeing to Rome?

—Anglo-catholics and evangelicals in England need to, for once, join forces and work feverishly to see that the 2/3 majority required for final passage at the next Synod is NOT met.  Politics, people.  Start the phone calls, the visits, and get yourself some breathing room to make a better deal when you get this one rejected.

Not to throw a wet towel on your suggestion, but the last time these two parties “worked together” was in defeating the 1927/28 Deposited Book of Common Prayer, and they didn’t really see each other as allies of anything but convenience, nor did they work in tandem.  The A-C’s viewed the Deposited Book as too restrictive of their catholic practices; the evangelicals viewed the DP as too “catholic.”  The combination of the two opposing concerns was enough to defeat the proposal.  This was a unique combination of conflicting interests that I don’t see being repeated here.  For one thing, I don’t see that there are all that many evangelicals in England who oppose WO or are terribly concerned about providing space for traditionalists.

—Jerusalem fellowship people outside of England need to begin right now considering whether they will be wiling to make a permanent structurally safe place for the traditional ministry in their fellowship.  We thought this could be considered farther down the road.  It can’t.  The time is now.

This would effectively undermine the JD without significant alterations being made to it.  But that’s just my opinion.

It does seem strange to me that Fulcrum has not yet officially responded to this vote on consecrating women as bishops.  They had an article up by NT Wright about GAFCON on the Monday after GAFCON finished.  So it must have been prepared in advance.  Considering the critical role that open evangelicals played in this historic event, and considering NT Wright’s abortive effort to halt the train just before it left the station, I wonder if perhaps they were caught off guard.  Perhaps their prepared offering was overcome by events.

carl

Yes, Third Mill, I understand CofE catholics and evangelicals are even farther apart than TEC’s.  That shouldn’t stop them from at least thinking about it, although I suppose this is a faint hope.

WO is something the Jerusalem people were implicitly talking about working on.  This should be moved farther up on the agenda.  People need to know what’s possible and what isn’t.

Personally, I doubt the JD had much effect on this debate in the CofE.  Surely the Anglo-Catholics for whom the provisions were voted down were unlikely candidates to bolt off to the Jerusalem folks, given the unsettled nature of the WO and other issues there.  I’m suggesting it could become an option if the Primates play it right.  Not that anyone is going to listen to me!

Third Mill Catholic:

This isn’t 1928.

Some Evangelicals and some Anglo-Catholics (at least) are willing to make common cause because they realise they share a belief in a revealed faith, however differently perceived and articulated. They are having to look at each other in a new light now. And when they do, they find rather to their surprise that they have more in common with each other than with the secular liberalism which is moving fast through all our churches.

An additional thought to my previous post.

In his (unjustly neglected) Blessing Unbounded (1955), Harry Blamires includes this conversation between the central character and his angelic guide as they are about to reach heaven:

“I feel like a member of the Modern Churchman’s Union”, I said, “which is vastly uncomfortable”.
“So it ought to be,” said Lamiel. “Modernism is not a thing to speak of here, even in jest. We know what a man means when he claims to be a Catholic or an Evangelical. These terms have meaning in reference to the very foundations of the Faith. But to claim to be a modernist is meaningless here. There is no time to be modern in.”

The significance of those words seems greater now than when Blamires wrote them (presciently) over 50 years ago.

This isn’t 1928.

We’re talking about England, not the States.  1928 is like yesterday.

Some Evangelicals and some Anglo-Catholics (at least) are willing to make common cause because they realise they share a belief in a revealed faith, however differently perceived and articulated. They are having to look at each other in a new light now. And when they do, they find rather to their surprise that they have more in common with each other than with the secular liberalism which is moving fast through all our churches.

“Some” Evangelicals and “some” Anglo-Catholics (moderates of both parties) actually came together to support the 1927/28 Deposited Book because they realized that it was the closest the Church of England had ever come to achieving liturgical comprehension.  It didn’t work.  (Defeated twice in the House of Commons.)  But I digress.  My point is, unlike the States, there is no track record of fruitful cooperation between evangelicals and catholics and little by way of mutual regard.

No, there is no perfect church in this era. If the Anglican Communion were to vanish overnight, and if there were an Anglican Rite Roman church, with the nice stone walls, a big organ, Anglican cathedral music, pretty stained glass, good incense and the like - perhaps I might well be able to pretend that the weight of centuries of non-Scriptural Roman doctrine and thought weren’t bearing down on my shoulders. Perhaps. I still think that Anglicanism is here for a reason, and that if it were gone we would have to reinvent it.

Perhaps Lambeth and GC 2009 will have reflections on Ezekiel 34. In a better world, perhaps the clergy of the world’s branches of Christianity might sit down and reflect on Ezekiel 34.

Re [117]

be able to pretend that the weight of centuries of non-Scriptural Roman doctrine and thought weren’t bearing down on my shoulders. Perhaps. I still think that Anglicanism is here for a reason, and that if it were gone we would have to reinvent it.

Just as our divergence from Rome and the East on WO driving us farther apart saddens me, Rome has “walked apart” from us and the East these past centuries.  Putting forth dogmas on which there wasn’t agreement before 1054 or the Reformation as binding for the whole church as a condition of reunion puts those of us on the other side of those divides in a sad spot.  If papal infallibility and the immaculate conception were merely theories and not dogmas, I might have become RC several years ago (I went so far as to be in RCIA for some time, but couldn’t make the final commitment). 

Regarding our “reason to be here”, we are (at our best) in a position to help protestants and catholics find common ground of their different expressions of faith. We have the full spectrum of orthodox Christian faith in our communion (reformed, charismatic, evangelical, catholic)—we must find ways of embracing each other in our common commitment to Christ.  Unfortunately, we also have too much that’s just not orthodox Christian faith dragging us down.  If we can truly harmonize “evangelical faith & catholic order,” we will have done the broader Church a great service.

Well said, Rob Kirby.  Well said.

#1112 carl,
It also is strange that the GS GAFCON organizers have not said something yet either. Especially since the declaration that was just done stateing they were not going to leave. This has got to be a blow to them I would think!

Well it didn’t take long for Ms. Kaeton and her EWC goup to send out an immediate press release of praise:

EWC Board: Press Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
EWC Board applauds CofE vote

The Episcopal Women’s Caucus (EWC) Board applauds the Church of England Synod’s vote on July 7 to “affirm that the wish of its majority is for women to be admitted to the episcopate” and to prepare by February 2009 a first draft of a “national code of practice” outlining how this will be accomplished.

“The Caucus is celebrating this great news,” said EWC President Elizabeth Kaeton. “The Church of England ‘allows’ women to be ordained to the diaconate, and for the past 15 years the C of E has ‘allowed’ us
be ordained to the priesthood. But women have not been ‘allowed’ to be appointed bishops, keeping the stained glass ceiling firmly in place.”

Bishops are appointed in the Church of England, not elected in a diocese by clergy and laity as they are in The Episcopal Church.

Kaeton and EWC board members are cautiously optimistic as the Church of England moves forward, including discerning how to “accommodate” those who will not support the episcopacy of women. “While it is important to make room for the multitude of voices in the Church, it is vital to
maintain the authority of the office without regard to the person holding the office,” Kaeton said. “Any accommodation must not be used to legislate sexism.”

The EWC will continue to work for the Gospel values of equality and liberation and committed to the incarnation of God’s unconditional love including and especially in the Church, said Kaeton.

“Women and men who have heard the liberation promised in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and who understand ourselves worthy, through Christ, to stand before God as children of God, will work together to continue to crumble the ideology of patriarchy and the system of sexism,” she said.

Blessings,
(the Rev’d Dr) Elizabeth Kaeton
St. Paul’s Episcopal Church
200 Main Street
Chatham, NJ 07928
973 635 8085 (office)
973 464 8018 (cell)
http://www.stpaulschatham.org

Good for Lizzie…great for her career.I do not share her cautious optimism as to parlay. We will leave-your parishes will empty.
Intercessor

Keaton and her supporters, all two of them, were highly gratified.

I think precious1 might be a member Eclipse…so it could be a membership of three! Look out they’re on a roll!

Kaeton and EWC board members are cautiously optimistic as the Church of England moves forward, including discerning how to “accommodate” those who will not support the episcopacy of women.

This statement and similar statements from liberal groups in the UK amount to nothing more than pro-active spin.  They had no illusions.  They knew what they were doing yesterday, they knew the consequences, and they did it anyway.  These supposedly conciliatory statements simply prepare the ground so they can say with a straight face: “We were magnanimous in victory.  We tried to accomodate you, but you were not willing and instead walked out.  You are the cause of the break.”

carl

They are strategic in their planning and orgainizing. Which is one way I know it can’t be of God. So He weeps indeed. Human arrogant, prideful agendas in motion…..

I didn’t even think the Kaeton statement was so conciliatory, carl. Somehow it seemed offensive to me in its evident spin on Gospel values: “The EWC will continue to work for the Gospel values of equality and liberation . . .”  I don’t think the Gospel meant the same thing.

Patriarchy is not Satan. I have a Father in Heaven, and I am thankful for Him, so thankful for Him.

Paula,
I didn’t think it was conciliatory, either.  I thought it was duplicity masquarading as conciliation - all for the purpose of public relations.  The can’t very will say what they are feeling today: “We drove the b___ds out, and good riddance to them!”  At least they can’t say it in public.  Gloating over someone else’s misery is still considered bad form.  But you better believe they are saying it in private.

carl

Oh, let them try ODC - they’d better be worried about messin’ with a RadicalFelinePoet like myself… LOL!

Anglican Cats of the Internet:  Press Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Anglican Cats believe CofE vote the result of illiteracy. 

The Anglican Cats of the Internet (ACI) Board is appalled the Church of England Synod’s vote on July 7 to “affirm that the wish of its majority is for women to be admitted to the episcopate” and to prepare by February 2009 a first draft of a “national code of practice” outlining how this will be accomplished.

“After canvasing the ENTIRE population of Anglican Cats who presently blog on the Internet,” said ACI President Eclipse RadicalFelinePoet, “We believe the falling educational standards of English Education have finally resulted in the inability of the Church of England to read Titus and I Timothy. We as a member of Mammalia, find it extremely amazing that even Felines such as myself can read that men should have leadership in the church but the CoE somehow missed this continuing theme throughout the New Testament.  This inability to realize that the stained glass ceiling put there by GOD and they MUST destroy it is astounding.”

Bishops are appointed in the Church of England, not elected in a diocese by clergy and laity as they are in The Episcopal Church However, smart Anglican Cats realize that only God can appoint anyone to the ministry in the first place and the CoE should only confirm that call in someone’s life.

Anglican Cat board members are cautiously optimistic as the Church of England will be loosing massive membership and become a declining force in Anglicanism with this newest act of non-compliance with 2000 years of Christianity and Biblical teaching.  “While it is important to make room for the multitude of voices in the Church, it is also important to stay consistent with the Faith one professes to believe,” RadicalFelinePoet remarked,“Now not only is the CoE out of step with the majority of the Anglican Communion, but with Roman Catholics and Orthodox members of the Faith.  It’s really amazing how one can totally destroy so many associations with one small act such as this.  I do have to give them credit for creating such a gaping hole in the fabric of our community.”

“The ACI will continue to work for the Gospel values of equality realizing how much we need Christ and liberation from our sin and be committed to the incarnation of God’s unconditional love including his justice when we do not follow His Commands and Conform to His purpose - especially in the Church,” said RadicalFelinePoet, “seems to me if Cats can figure out what’s right, who couldn’t?”

“Women and men who have heard the liberation FROM OUR SIN promised in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and who understand ourselves UNworthy - EXCEPT through Christ, to stand before God as children of God, will work together to continue to crumble the ideology of using one’s gender as a political tool to destroy the message of Christianity,” she said, “For Christ did not come into the world to condemn the world - but SAVE IT.  Seems to our contingent of Anglican Cats, that the Church of England forgot about that one awhile back.”

The Seriously Cool Eclipse RadicalFelinePoet
CATSRUS Anglican Church

#130 Eclipse,
Now that’s a Press Release! Bravo! I wanna be a member!

Sounds good - you have to pick your breed, however, I’ve cornered the market on Oriental Shorthairs.

LOL!

Our Texan Anglo-Cat-olics, Wendy (the Shaded-Silver Duchess) and Arwen (the Mouse-grey Lady), have carefully pawed through the current release and have given it the “nose press to the screen” of approval.  Brava, Anglicat!!

rwightman+ :

Woo Hoo!  The ACI now has more members than E. Keaton

I want to be an Anglo-Cat-olic Anonymous member.

I understand the next innovation will be ceiling mirrors in churches so the progressives can see themselves as their god intended.

Okay Eclipse I pick the Turkish Angora! Beautiful cats….!

Dr. N. :

The board accepts your nomination, but a breed delineation is necessary - the closest I could think of is a Mexican Hairless Cat for anonymous - but with such reflections as Mirrored Ceilings, I’m thinking you must be more a more sophisticated breed. 

LOL! 

Cats are evil.  It’s no coincidence that no one ever made a movie called “All Cats Go to Heaven.”  Personally, I think the little beasties should all be shipped to Australia to have a no-good, very bad day.  Now, If only my wife and kidlets agreed…
:(
carl

Dear Carl:

With comments like these we are thinking that you must be an infiltrator sent by TEC to try and mess with our well-known and promising organization. 

In short, Anglican Cats of the Internet are not amused.

However, since your children and wife are obviously of a much better caliber, we will accept them as members of our prestigious club. 

The only way you can redeem yourself is singing by singing “All things Bright and Beautiful” to us on the Internet.

Either that, or sneak onto Keaton’s site and take it out - we’ll accept that as well.

I do love you guys, but I am NOT a cat-Catholic.  I’m more of a Dog-Evango-Catholic.  I do certainly agree with the Press Release, however.

KTF!....mrb

Hero Dogs of the World:
1.  Lassie
2.  Rin Tin Tin
3.  Super Dog
4.  Astro
5.  Old Yeller
6.  Dino
7.  The Bloodhound in all those cop shows
8.  Scooby Doo
9.  UnderDog
10. The St Bernard who rescues the trapped Skier

Hero Cats of the World:
1.  Ummm ...

carl (#141),

LOL.

I’m glad to find another area where we share common ground.  I infinitely prefer dogs to cats, though my wife is afflicted by some crazy affection for felines.  I will make one exception.  I am fond of Anglicat.

Alas, Br_er Rabbit’s computer died on him, and he hasn’t resumed blogging here yet.  In his absence, I’ll forward you a free trip to the Laffin’ Place for that last post.

David Handy+

carl -

My daughter would take exception to that - <a > Cat Warriors of the Universe </a>

From Now On:  I am deeming you “AntiCatClaw” in the high cat warrior tradition.  LOL!

(PS The set of books is high on the tween reading list at present)

Grr - just a moment let me try that again…

The Awesome Warrior Cats”

In the highest Cat Warrior tradition I name you “AntiCarlCatClaw” -   LOL!

Hey Eclipsse,
Weren’t cats quite revered in Ancient Egypt? The importance of cats is epitomized in the abundance of decorated statuettes found in excavated tombs. Statuettes were seen as religious symbols with great history and importance by the Egyptians. These statues were often adorned with golden jewelry and ear rings (Sandmeier, 1997). In fact:

Cats were treated as gods, and were protected by law, as well. The punishment for harming or killing a cat was harsh (Wolf, 1997). Diodorus Siculus said:

Whoever kills a cat in Egypt is condemned to death, whether he committed this crime deliberately or not. The people gather and kill him. An unfortunate Roman, who accidentally killed a cat, could not be saved, either by King Ptolemy of Egypt or by the fear which Rome inspired. (Qtd. in Preserved for Posterity, 1997)

But, back on topic now:
I am curious (as a cat ) how these women really feel about their new opened avenue knowing what it will cost the Anglican Church? Or maybe they just don’t care which not caring for a clergy person let alone a Christian seems very contradictory!

a Cat-a-tonic thread

Pageantmaster -

SPECIESIST!

Eclipse
Isn’t that a little dogmatic?

ODC -

I agree entirely. 

Re:  CoE Women Bishops

Well, this is a great question.  That was always my problem with Robinson - that a bishop candidate his priority (at least from my understanding of what bishops are supposed to do) his priority should be the health of the church and ‘laying his life down for it’.  The fact that he would NOT always was the conclusive evidence to me that he was disqualified for the position.

I guess I would have to say about women who care more for a miter and a staff than the health of Anglican Christians across the globe. 

Doesn’t fit the qualifications of an elder I’ve read in 1 Timothy and Titus.

Pageantmaster - 

All I’m sayin’ is you are making a big withdrawal on your stock of 9 lives - especially with disparaging comments upon the feline taxonomic order.

We are all for inclusively - as long as you totally agree with the ACI (see all those years in TEC have paid off). 

Eclipse - I’ll head off to the doghouse.

Catastrophe!

Cataclysmic?
(Dog-goned sorry, Eclipse.)

Eclipse - I’ll head off to the doghouse.

The one in Catalina??

domestic shorthair, black, named “Inky”.
I’m in.

This is too wild for me, I’ve been thoroughly domesti-cat-ed by my wife and daughters.
Remember this old saw (one of my favorites)

“Dog” Christian:  “Hey, look at this guy, he’s rubbing me, feeding me, taking care of me, lettting me out to the pretty sunshine to play, buying me nice toys, He must be God!

“Cat” Christian:  “Hey, look at this guy, he’s rubbing me, feeding me, taking care of me, letting me out to the pretty sunshine, buying me nice toys, heck, I must be God!”

KTF!...mrb

pageantmaster comes with little cat feet,
types with pun mastery,
and then moves on… (with apologizes to e.e. cummings)

Inky - you’re in!

Mike… so… what are you saying?  I’m NOT God?  Darn…

What is this about cats?  I have three adorable cats who are totally spoiled. Now, back to the topic of Anglican women bishops.  Do you think that that Rowan Willimas successor coould be a woman?

Eclipse come with Haiku neat
Pageantmaster to beat
Fur flies.

Eclipse, I think you mean Carl Sandburg, author of “The FOG comes on little cat feet” (bet your cat knew that)!  That’s a deft application of the poem to Pageantmaster, though.  Another good cat poem is T. S. Eliot’s “The Naming of Cats,” about the three names of every cat.  Some of the entries on this thread remind me of those names, with the ultimate one being the one that NOBODY knows but the cat—“His ineffable effable/ Effanineffable/ Deep and inscrutable singular name.”  But I’m afraid I’m not eligible for the ACI group—no cat!

I am holding in my hands a copy of Steven Goldberg’s Why Men Rule: A Theory of Male Dominance. Goldberg is a jewish professor of sociology at CUNY. He is fearless and intellectually rigorous. In his book, he demonstrates conclusively and exhaustively the universality of three institutions: “1. Patriarchy: males occupy the overwhelming numbers of upper hierarchical positions; 2. Male attainment, the association of high-status roles - whatever they happen to be in any given society - with males; and 3. Male dominance, the association of dominance in male-female encounters and relationships with the male, an association made in every society by the emotions of men and women and reflected in most societies in the formal authority system.”

Speaking sociologically (NOT theologically), the opening of the priesthood and the bishopric to women will necessarily result in a reduction in status to the roles of priest and bishop. The spiral/feedback loop will result in strong-leader/alpha males increasingly passing over and rejecting the priesthood as a place to achieve status - which will result in a further diminution of the status of priest and bishop, and a further erosion of the development of leaders within the pastorate.

The feminization of religion is NOT a benign development. Feminized religion is unattractive to men. They will abandon it, and allow it to become a province of women.

Perhaps God understood something about the way the two sexes were hard-wired when he established guidelines for their roles?

-RedHatRob

Four cats: Boo, Grace, Scout and Sam(antha). Our little herd of felines.

I have a theory!

Paula - With such savvy cat poetry at your paw, we’ll let you in anyway.    Mousestalker can get grand cat status for having multiple entries.

RetHatRob:

Hey, quit being on-topic up there!

Cats Move In Quickly
When Women Bishops Arrive
Pageantmaster Too?