Unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum

Here's the reasons against ordination of women by "Forward in Faith"

"Mission Statement

We Affirm the Faith of the Church as revealed in Scripture and Tradition;

We Proclaim our Faith through the Creeds, the Sacraments and the apostolic ministry of bishops and priests of the Universal Church;

We seek a Guaranteed Ecclesial Structure in which we can pass the Faith on to our children and grandchildren;

We have a vision for Unity and Truth and we are going Forward in Faith.

Why We Exist

Forward in Faith is a worldwide association of Anglicans who are unable in conscience to accept the ordination of women as priests or as bishops.

Forward in Faith is opposed to the ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopate for three simple reasons.

First, it is a practice contrary to the scriptures as they have been consistently interpreted by the two thousand year tradition of the churches of both East and West.

Second, we hold that the ordination of women by individual provinces of the Anglican Communion, without inter-provincial agreement or consensus, is a schismatic act, impairing communion between provinces by subverting the interchangeability and mutual recognition of orders between them.

Third, mindful of the unity for which Our Lord prayed on the night before he died, we are bound to repudiate an action which has willfully placed a new and serious obstacle in the way of reconciliation and full visible unity between Anglicans and the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches. "

Here is an explanation which I think puts it better (Bishop David Thomas)

The longer I reflect on the proposed Bill, the more convinced I become that it is driven above all by that post-1960s feminism which has done so much to secure for women all the fundamental human rights enjoyed by men. It has rightly sought to correct stereotypes which portrayed women as inferior, which largely confined them to domestic roles and tended to keep them out of public life. Its goal has been the inclusion of women and girls in every occupation and institution open to men and boys. In general terms, I for one regard this as entirely laudable.

Ignoring the large part which the Church has played in Western culture in advancing the status and dignity of women, some women have seen the sacred ministry as just such an occupation or institution from which their exclusion is a matter of fundamental injustice. The major weakness in this view of the ordained ministry is that it assumes that the Church is organized like a modern, secular, democratic society. But the Church is not a voluntary association of the like-minded, whose task is to create and maintain structures to serve its own purposes. It is a divine institution, whose sacraments are given by Christ. Holy Orders are conferred within it not for the honour or advancement of the recipient, but for the service of God and the building up of the whole. To consider the ministerial priesthood and episcopate as a human right is to misunderstand their nature completely.

The fundamental confusion at the root of this argument is neatly expressed in the Christian feminist slogan, 'If you won't ordain us, don't baptize us.' The Church has always baptized women; it has never (until recent innovations) ordained them to the priesthood or episcopate. This is not due to any devaluation of women. It arises from the fact that there is no necessary progression from baptism to priestly/episcopal ordination. If such a progression did of necessity exist, the Christian life would presumably be a sort of religious 'career path'. Such a concept can hardly be said to sit comfortably beside the Lord's warning that those who follow him must deny themselves and take up their cross daily.

Thank you for this, Robin!

I admit, I had to read the two explanations through several times. Then I looked up the Times Leader, and the opinion in the Catholic Herald.

If married Anglican FIFfers can be converted, and reordained on a "case-by-case" basis, it struck me that it will take a very, very long time, and maybe rather unfair to the celibate RC priesthood?

I shall carry on reading all about it.

That's a good point you make about married priests converting. I don't know whether any Anglo-Catholic priests are married. In my church both the former priests and the one who just took over were / are unmarried. I struggle to understand my feelings about this subject. On one hand I can see the argument that it is unreasonable for any institution to bar people on account of their sex these days, but it does seem not quite right somehow to break with an ancient tradition just to fit in with the very recent politically correct atmosphere we are suffering from right now. The church and religion of any kind should not bow to recent fads and fashions - it is too deep and ancient and mysterious for that. To my mind all the big changes which have been forced onto the church are always destructive and only serve to split and therefore further weaken the institution.

I have a "Problem"---- no jokes please !
For most of my life, as a "Good Anglican" I was against the ordination of Women, as Priests or Bishops, hence they would not Preach or conduct Services.
THEN I married a Missionary (The Blessed Anne) who pointed out that, under those circumstances, we should bring all the Female Missionaries home ! --- point taken !

Further -- We have a Female Rector, Pamela, with whom I can really find no fault, ALSO my Cousin, was the first woman to be ordained in the Church of Ireland --- and is now a Canon !!

I still retain some doubts about Female Bishops -- but I would be unable to defend my predjudice in Debate !

All successful marriages survive because the man agrees with his wife....whatever he really thinks!

huntertitus wrote:That's a good point you make about married priests converting. I don't know whether any Anglo-Catholic priests are married.

In my VERY limited experience, this might be rare thing. One of my friends from university used to attend an Anglo-Catholic church in Edinburgh. The clergy were all rather camp, and very fond of the theatricality of the services, according to my friend.

The same friend went on to study for the priesthood (the full RC version), and spent some years at Venerable English College in Rome. This, apparently, was full of men who insisted on using women's names, so Patrick would become Patricia, Stephen Stephanie, and so forth.

I suppose they had all had mothers, so they must have had some vague notion that women existed......

These days they probably all watch Strictly Come Dancing, so perhaps their awareness is improving.

I was always curious about the choice of the middle word in the title of that TV programme.

huntertitus wrote:I was always curious about the choice of the middle word in the title of that TV programme.

So we won't ask the age old joke question...........

"What's Come Dancing", then

huntertitus wrote: The church and religion of any kind should not bow to recent fads and fashions - it is too deep and ancient and mysterious for that.

You put this in a very splendid way, Robin!

It's funny how one thought leads to another. You reminded me of the dark splendour of one of my all-time favourite churches - The Brompton Oratory. Then I remembered John Henry Newman. Somewhere on my bookshelves, I thought, is a biography of JHN, which I haven't read for ages, but something from it had stuck in my mind. I was a little peckish by now, so raided the fridge for a French Vanilla yoghurt, and settled to hunt through this huge tome...

There it was. Newman, invited to preach before the University of Oxford in 1862, suffers from profound anxiety. "Sharing in public worship (communicatio in sacris) with those who hold (in good faith) distorted versions of Christianity is forbidden to Catholics. It is a sin for them - not for the other Christians concerned - because it is a conscious acquiescence in untruth and unreality".

I licked the lid of the vanilla yohurt, marked the page with it and went to bed.

This morning I flipped open the JHN biog, and suddenly realised - I was looking at the wrong side of the yoghurt label!
I was thinking back to front! It must be incorrect for a Catholic to worhip with a heretic, but perfectly acceptible for the heretic to worship with the Catholic!

So that's all right then!

The same friend went on to study for the priesthood (the full RC version), and spent some years at Venerable English College in Rome. This, apparently, was full of men who insisted on using women's names, so Patrick would become Patricia, Stephen Stephanie, and so forth.

I suppose they had all had mothers, so they must have had some vague notion that women existed......

These days they probably all watch Strictly Come Dancing, so perhaps their awareness is improving.

I don't think they would get any reciprocal interest from the dancers, a couple of the judges, but definitely not the dancers.

Apropos JR's remark ----- at least it is DANCING and not gyrating 1 metre from each other -----
In my time (Not again !) I could get a grip on a girl' s waist !!

Reading this thread from beginning to end reminds me what a good education we all got!!

Churches for me are forever candlelight Christmas Eve midnight sevice in the village where I gew up, along with the joint primary school and church Harvest Festivals, and a Friday night Mass Yusuf (HWMBI) and I attended a few years ago in the Duomo in Milan. The person handing out the service sheets glowered at us until he realised that we actually intended to stay through whilst other 'tourists' were shooed out. I told HWMBI, whose paternal family are all Imams and muslim politicians, that he'd heard nothing till he'd heard an Italian Catholic mass. He was not convinced particularly given we've sailed silently down the Nile listening to the muezzins starting off, as each village saw sunset behind us, running in a wave of mournful sound that almost made your heart stop. After the mass he said that he could barely keep from crying as the sound and the passion within the service affected him so deeply.

And both of those stories are the reason that I no longer attend church in the UK. If there is no sense of majesty, awe and glory I believe the sense of God is lost.

He Who Must Be Indulged?

After studying Theology and Philosophy at undergraduate level, I no longer believe in a personal God (especially not in one who is solely male) and I do not take the Bible at face value any more. Even though prior to and after confirmation at school, I was as devout as anyone.
I have been heavily influenced by Don Cupitt and his 'Sea of Faith' and by other 20th Century theologians such as John McQuarrie.
In maturity and after years of study, I have devised for myself a theological and a faith position which is based on belief in an overriding Creator and an historical Jesus, without the incredible aspects of e.g. a virgin birth or a physical resurrection.
But I still go to Church (though not much more now than once a month). Why? I belong to a fellowship, a family, where we are all different and have our own views. But we rub along together tolerably well, in the name of Christianity, in a parish which is definitely 'Church of England'. I am known and accepted as one of the family and I play my part in things like reading lessons, organising the readers' rota, was PCC Secretary and Electoral Roll Officer, etc. etc.
Though I should add that there is one small group of hardliners in our Church who are praying for me, because they believe that I am misusing my God-given intellect!
And if our Church was more inspiring musically (I used to be in the Choir, but no longer, thank you very much....) I would probably attend more often. I agree with the suggestion made elsewhere that music in Church has the power to inspire and promote spiritual uplift. Whenever I go to Church in my local parish I spend most of the time cringing whenever the Choir sallies forth. But maybe that's due more to my 'musical ear' than to my need for spiritual uplift, whenever they start yowling...
Last year I attended the annual Carol Service (with another Hertford Old Blue, local, who is a professionally trained singer) and we winced every time the Choir 'murdered' a favourite Carol!

Kerren --- sorry about your Choir, Good ones can be really inspiring !

On Thursday Night, I was having a conversation with one of the "Riding Lights" Performers and I remarked how I find it difficult to imagine a God, who restricts himself to one insignificant Planet, in an insignificant Solar System, midway, on the arm of an insignificant Spiral Galaxy, in a Universe, of which we have not yet found the limits.

Now THERE'S a Creator for you -------- Think BIG !!!

(Am I an Heretic ---- poor Galileo !)