CofE: Consultation Document Issued by Working Group on Women Bishops Legislation
General Synod GS MISC 1042
Women in the episcopate: a new way forward
Developments since November
...To help the Working Group in its challenging task and to encourage a continuing process of discernment and reflection across the Church of England the House agreed at its meeting yesterday that it would be helpful for Synod members to have this note, which reports on the various discussions of recent weeks and provides an early opportunity for comments and suggestions on the ideas and issues that are beginning to emerge....
Read it all [pdf]
and there is a web version here
and a press release from the Church of England here
Filed under: * Anglican - Episcopal
Church of England (CoE)
Posted February 8, 2013 at 4:53 pm [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]
Registered members must log in to comment.
1. A Senior Priest wrote:
It’s a very simple thing to do. Give dioceses, parishes, and clergy who do not accept the legitimacy of this revision of ancient Christian faith and practice a situation where it will not be rammed down their throats, they will not be second-class members and clergy, and that they will be protected from any negative repercussions of their holding to the faith and practice once delivered to the saints.
February 8, 8:57 pm | [comment link]
2. dwstroudmd+ wrote:
Look, we’re pretending to be democratic here, so, Synod, this is what will be rammed down your throats despite votes. Un du vill LIKE it, ja!
February 8, 10:20 pm | [comment link]
3. driver8 wrote:
21. The General Synod consistently set its face during the last legislative process against any proposals to create new formal structures within the Church of England which would be separate from existing dioceses. And after much debate it also came down against any transfer or qualification of the diocesan bishop’s position as the ordinary, even though at different moments the Revision Committee, the Archbishops and around half of the Synod were prepared in principle to contemplate such possibilities.
I note that at this point the votes of Synod is mentioned as an authority to be respected. However the entire premise of the piece is that the repeated failure of the proposal to gain the required majority in Synod, is an obstacle to be overcome, rather than an authority to be repsected.
February 9, 12:37 am | [comment link]
4. A Senior Priest wrote:
I only respect authority with in all things lawful and godly. Both, not just one.
February 9, 1:24 am | [comment link]
5. TomRightmyer wrote:
The document does not continue the present arrangement for parish opposed in conscience to women priests, and does not provide an alternative for those who are unable in good conscience to accept the ministry of a woman as bishop. We are at the 1662 disruption deja vu.
February 9, 7:36 am | [comment link]
6. tjmcmahon wrote:
It does appear, that consistent with the other thousands of pages written about women bishops by senior officials of the CoE, this one ignores the obvious-
February 9, 11:11 am | [comment link]
1) When women bishops are voted in, a substantial number of people will leave the CoE. Why? Because their faith does not permit them to stay in a church that has violated Apostolic succession, or because they have a strict reading of the Biblical references to male headship (depending on whether they take the Catholic or Evangelical view). Nothing you do will keep those people- this is evident in the TEC divisions that occurred in the late 70’s (WO) and early 90s (WB) and the CoE’s own losses with WO in the 90s.
2) The Catholics and Evangelicals are not idiots. Promises were made in the 1990s, and at the time, those promises were presented as perpetual. They are now being withdrawn, and those dependent upon those promises have been betrayed. Having seen that no commitment or promise is good for more than 20 years, they are certainly not going to accept “trust” in heretic bishops as a guarantee that the faith as delivered will be preserved (the very fact that the legislation is being pushed down everyone’s throat as it is proves that there can be no trust).
3) Take a look at the “short list” of women anticipated to be consecrated. Now doubt, they will make some effort to install a “conservative” woman bishop in some wildly heretical diocese (so she looks the more conservative), but all that will be accomplished in the short run is to add a half dozen more extreme revisionist voices to the HoB. (Like it needs anymore- its already in real life as bad as the TEC HoB, just that in England they are more polite, and wait until traditionalist bishops retire to replace them with revisionists, as opposed to TEC, where all the traditionalist bishops have been deposed).
4) (This one to their credit, but not acknowledged in the document) The CoE has gone out of its way to establish escape routes for the people who will leave. Hence the acceptance of the Ordinariate, and the recent recognition of orders of the Free Church (which gives Reformed minded Anglicans a place to go when the CoE jumps off the cliff later this year, or next). While there was a lot of pretense and bluster over the Ordinariate, the cordial relations between the ABoC and the Roman See immediately after would indicate that the upper levels of the CoE were indeed quite pleased, as it reduced the number of actual bishops in the HoB, and allowed for a smoother transition to the TEC type HoB they want to become.
5) And the existence of this document, and the rush to overturn the constitutional process of Synod for the sake of expediency, demonstrate that the CoE is, indeed, moving toward a TEC model, where the loudest shouters are catered to, and the promises of 20 years ago (much less those 2000 years old), are just impediments to be cast aside in the rush to lead the modern culture to a socially engineered utopia.