More Stupid Religion Bollocks!

[MOBIUS]

Archbishop of Canterbury accepts resignation of Anglican bishops

Rowan Williams expresses regret as five against ordination of women bishops leave church for Vatican-sponsored network.

The archbishop of Canterbury today accepted "with regret" the resignation of Church of England bishops who are converting to Roman Catholicism in protest over the ordination of women and joining a network that will allow them to retain some Anglican traditions.

The move involves three serving bishops, who minister to parishes opposed to female clergy, and two retired bishops. The serving bishops are the bishop of Ebbsfleet, Andrew Burnham, the bishop of Richborough, Keith Newton and the bishop of Fulham, John Broadhurst. They will be joined by the former bishop of Richborough, Edwin Barnes, and a former Australian bishop, David Silk.

All wanted more accommodation from the Anglican church for opponents of women clergy.

In a statement the five men said they were "dismayed" to see the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches "move further apart on some of the issues of the day" and "distressed" by developments in the Anglican communion which they believed to be "incompatible" with 2,000 years of Christian tradition.

The serving bishops will immediately cease public duties and resign from their pastoral responsibilities on New Year's Eve, joining the Vatican-proposed network as soon as one is established.

They said: "As bishops, we have even-handedly cared for those who have shared our understanding and those who have taken a different view. We have now reached the point, however, where we must formally declare our position and invite others who share it to join us on our journey.

"We are deeply appreciative of the support we have received at this difficult time from a whole variety of people: archbishops and bishops, clergy and laity, Anglican and Catholics, those who agree with our views and those who passionately disagree, those who have encouraged us in this step and those who have urged us not to take this step."

Broadhurst announced his intention to leave last month at a national meeting of an Anglo-Catholic organisation. Yesterday he told the BBC he was "excited but nervous" about his exit.

He said: "I'm moving against the backdrop of a deteriorating situation within the Church of England.

"I've always prayed for unity with Rome and it has become clear recently that there is little hope of this within the Anglican church. It is important that we all remain friends and do not do anything to undermine or criticise each other.

"I don't know what the future holds and it will either be a huge success or a huge flop, but I have decided now is the time to do it."

He added: "It has been my great joy to work in three different dioceses and in each of them I have felt welcomed and affirmed. I will miss many colleagues and the priests and parishioners of the parishes it has been my privilege to serve for more than 14 years."

Recent Church of England statistics show that only 2.8% of parishes – 363 out of 12,894 – have requested the ministry of a "flying bishop", providing leadership and pastoral care for opponents of women clergy. Of these, the flying bishop of Ebbsfleet works with 79 parishes while the flying bishop of Richborough has 81.

The archbishop of Canterbury will set about finding their replacements. In a statement he thanked the two churchmen for their efforts.

"I have with regret accepted the resignations of bishops Andrew Burnham and Keith Newton, who have decided that their future in Christian ministry lies in the new structures proposed by the Vatican. We wish them well in this next stage of their service to the church and I am grateful to them for their faithful and devoted pastoral labours in the Church of England over many years."

Lambeth Palace said arrangements were in place for pastoral care to be provided by bishops John Ford, Mark Sowerby and Lindsay Urwin for parishioners who had previously looked to Burnham and Newton for support.

The departures follow a stormy decade over what provision, if any, there should be for those who do not believe women should be ordained as bishops.

Groups within the Church of England have been campaigning for female clerics to become bishops without any concessions that would undermine their authority. But traditionalists and conservative evangelicals oppose the historic change, claiming the concept of women bishops runs contrary to doctrine.

Earlier this year, at a meeting of the General Synod, the archbishops of Canterbury and York argued for a new class of male bishop who would look after such parishes. Their proposal was narrowly defeated and traditionalists and Anglo-Catholics saw little or no accommodation in the draft law permitting the ordination of women to the episcopate.

A bunch of douchey bishops have defected to the 'enemy'...

This isn't about belief in God - it's about a bunch of misogynistic old farts finding refuge in an even more backwards religion so they can continue being sexist c*nts...

Talking of backwards sexist c*nts, where's Ben these days? I should have liked to have seen him make a tit of himself trying to justify why his church is so misogynistic.

[Asher]

Canterbury Tales

[SlowwHand]

MOBIUS, getting his panties in a wad over something he doesn't even believe in.

[Barnabas]

I don't know why I am answering, but for Christians who believe in Apostolic succession and that the bread and wine really become the flesh and blood of Jesus, male priesthood is an important issue, because it is not clear that women could be consacrated as priests, or that women could consacrate the bread and wine.

After all Jesus was a male, and all the apostles he chose were male too. They are no relativists, they think truth exists and does not change, and are trying to be consistent with their beliefs. Props to them.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why can't women be consecrated as priests? After all there is Biblical support for women teaching the word of God (what else do priests do?) in Prisca, Junia, Julia, Phebe as mentioned by Paul in his letter to the Romans.

[SlowwHand]

First let me say that Methodists have female ministers.

Imran, this won't answer your question, but I try. From a Catholic site.

"Why can't women be consecrated as priests?" Google search.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0201sbs.asp

3. Didn’t Paul say that there is neither Jew nor Greek, servant nor free, male nor female, since we are all in Christ? So why should our gender matter to God? We should all have equal rights.

Whenever a verse is paraphrased to defend a particular position, take the time to find that passage and read it in context. When Paul wrote about there being neither male nor female in Christ (Gal. 3:28), he is discussing our justification through faith, not our roles in the Church. Even in 1 Corinthians 12, when Paul speaks about there being Jews, Greeks, slaves, and free being baptized into the one body of Christ, he mentions that within this one body, there are different parts:

"There are varieties of service, but the same Lord . . . All these are inspired by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills. For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. . . . If the foot should say, ‘Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,’ that would not make it any less a part of the body. . . . If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the organs in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single organ, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. . . . Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles . . . Are all apostles?" (1 Cor. 12:5–29).

So, while Paul acknowledges the universality of God’s plan for salvation, he’s clear that there are different roles within the body of Christ. Men and woman are equal in the eyes of God, but this equality is not synonymous with sameness. They play different roles within the Church, as there are different instruments within an orchestra. Just as the instruments are arranged for a symphony, God has "arranged the organs of the body" (1 Cor. 12:18), and we are not to reconstruct the design that he has established.

Since God is the one who has appointed the different roles within the Church, no one can claim a right to any position within the body of Christ. This is especially the case with sacraments. No one—male or female—has a "right" to be a priest. It is not like a governmental office that anyone can run for. It is a sacrament, and no one has a title to grace. It is an unmerited gift from Christ.

This may strike some as unfair, but realize that God has given women other gifts that he has not given to men. For example, women bring the body of Christ (souls) into the world one birth at a time. Men do not have this privilege. Priests bring the body of Christ (Eucharist) into the world one Mass at a time—a gift reserved to them, acting in the person of Christ.

[Guynemer]

I don't know why I am answering, but for Christians who believe in Apostolic succession and that the bread and wine really become the flesh and blood of Jesus, male priesthood is an important issue, because it is not clear that women could be consacrated as priests, or that women could consacrate the bread and wine.

After all Jesus was a male, and all the apostles he chose were male too. They are no relativists, they think truth exists and does not change, and are trying to be consistent with their beliefs. Props to them.

So how far does that extend? Jesus and all of his apostles were Middle Eastern; can white or black or Asian men be priests, or only Arabs?

[Barnabas]

Yes, they can, they spend much of their time converting greeks in the new testament.

It is a fact that there were no female priests in the early church, and that is not because of the culture of the time, since many other religions, many, more popular than christianity, had female priests, it was christianity specific.

Paul also wrote that women should not talk at church, that doesn't work well with women actually being priests.

The bible is a book compiled by the organized religion that eventually separated itself into Catholicism/Eastern Orthodoxy for its use by the Church which saw itself as the only one true Church.
Jesus founded a Church, he did not hand out books, the Church existed for a long time without the bible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Fathers

The Apostolic Fathers are a small number of Early Christian authors who lived and wrote in the second half of the 1st century and the first half of the 2nd century.[1][2] They are acknowledged as leaders in the early church, although their writings were not included in the New Testament. They include St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, and St. Polycarp of Smyrna.

The label "Apostolic Fathers" has been applied to them since the 17th century to indicate that they were thought of as being of the generation that had personal contact with the Twelve Apostles. Thus they provide a link between the Apostles who knew Jesus of Nazareth and the later generation of Church Fathers: Christian apologists, defenders of orthodoxy, and developers of doctrine.

Female priesthood can't be seen in the early church fathers

[rah]

This type of sexist crap was one of the reasons I stopped supporting the religion of my youth. But if it wasn't that, protectinge diddling priests would have done it

[Elok]

The ancient church did have deaconesses, supposedly--largely because, in those days, even adult baptisms were done in the nude. There are some people within my church who think we should revive the institution, but it's pretty well on the back burner until unification is accomplished.

[MOBIUS]

Yes, they can, they spend much of their time converting greeks in the new testament.

It is a fact that there were no female priests in the early church, and that is not because of the culture of the time, since many other religions, many, more popular than christianity, had female priests, it was christianity specific.

Paul also wrote that women should not talk at church, that doesn't work well with women actually being priests.

The bible is a book compiled by the organized religion that eventually separated itself into Catholicism/Eastern Orthodoxy for its use by the Church which saw itself as the only one true Church.
Jesus founded a Church, he did not hand out books, the Church existed for a long time without the bible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Fathers

The Apostolic Fathers are a small number of Early Christian authors who lived and wrote in the second half of the 1st century and the first half of the 2nd century.[1][2] They are acknowledged as leaders in the early church, although their writings were not included in the New Testament. They include St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, and St. Polycarp of Smyrna.

The label "Apostolic Fathers" has been applied to them since the 17th century to indicate that they were thought of as being of the generation that had personal contact with the Twelve Apostles. Thus they provide a link between the Apostles who knew Jesus of Nazareth and the later generation of Church Fathers: Christian apologists, defenders of orthodoxy, and developers of doctrine.

Female priesthood can't be seen in the early church fathers

All you're proving is that the church was sexist in the past, so it's OK to be sexist now...

What about slavery? The church thought that was OK in the past - what about now? Same difference if you ask me.






BTW, I visited the place where St Barnabas was killed by the Jews in Cyprus. I could have visited the church where he was supposed to have been buried - but I couldn't bothered.

[dannubis]

So how far does that extend? Jesus and all of his apostles were Middle Eastern; can white or black or Asian men be priests, or only Arabs?

Jews to be correct.

But then again, Paulus, the one that gave the RCC its structure, was Roman, so I guess caucasian priests are fine.

[C0ckney]

rowan williams should tell this backwards lot to shove it. the same with those opposing gay bishops. he should tell the pope where he can stick his ministry as well. then make an appeal to disaffected catholics who would prefer more worship of God and less abusing of children to come over to the church of england.

of course, this is probably one of the reasons why i'm not a religious leader.

[Cort Haus]

Sloww has a point in questioning why atheists should give a damn about how the church organises itself, but regardless of that, the "St Paul said..." stuff, and Barnabus's comments are all just sophistry.

It's a thoroughly sexist institution, and saying that St Paul (very dodgy character wrt women imo) said it's ok, or that it's always been like that is no excuse. All it boils down to is that women can't be priests because they don't have a trouser-snake.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It is a fact that there were no female priests in the early church, and that is not because of the culture of the time, since many other religions, many, more popular than christianity, had female priests, it was christianity specific.

I'll quote myself:

"Prisca, Junia, Julia, Phebe as mentioned by Paul in his letter to the Romans."

4 woman religious leaders (one being a Deacon!) in one letter.

Paul also wrote that women should not talk at church, that doesn't work well with women actually being priests.

In the Letter to the Romans, where he names 4 female priests! Paul was discussing the social situation at the time, where you had Roman woman standing up and speaking in church without being fully informed of the gospel. He mentions they were uninformed. A more thorough treatment of this is handled in Scot McKnight's (a New Testament scholar) book "The Blue Parakeet".