³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Once the Anglicans ordained female deacons this was inevitable. It simply confirms the impossibility of the Anglican attempt at being half catholic, half protestant.

The Anglo-Catholic side should now simply admit they were wrong and turn to Rome. I recommend "Come on in - it's awful" edited by Joanna Bogle.

smasher your suggestion makes sense for the anglo-catholics opposed to women bishops, but there are also evangelicals who are opposed too. They are like John Stott, the retired evangelical leader, who supports womens ordination to the priesthood but not to the episcopate. He argues that the biblical headship principle means that women must always serve under the headship of men in the church. This means that bishops should be male only.

It's probably odd that conservative evangelicals are uniting with anglo-catholics to oppose female bishops, but thats the CoE for you!

Well both the evangelicals and the anglos believe in some sort of authority within the church other than the whim of synod. But I agree the hardest position to be in is the conservative evangelical who can't go to Rome but who want to retain bishops. the compromise of super bishops is a nonsense on a stick.

Super bishops? Would they be Kal-El or Kal-Ella?

*Laughs at comment #5*
Of course, if the comments from Rome show anything they'd change what the Dalek in the picture is saying to "EX-COMM-UNI-CATE!"

Bishop to Bishop Eight. Check Mate.

What a sad spectacle .. various pompous, over-dressed representatives of several different factions within an equally pompous organisation, earnestly arguing the toss as to which one of their little "mini-clubs" knows the best way to worship a mythical sky-fairy!!!
An awful waste of time and energy.

I know a pawn can advance to become a bishop but can a queen become a bishop too? What about Catherine the Great, Eva Peron, or Emalda Marcos? What about QEII?

Now that's what I call social progress, the god racket becoming an equal opportunity deceiver. Aren't there employment laws in the EU which insure that women have equal opportunity to get jobs as bishops? Doesn't sexual discrimination violate them? Why haven't these Church's been brought before the EU tribunal for an inquisition?

MA2

Your post # 8

I am reminded of the 'Yes Prime Minister' episode on the appointment of bishops where the metaphor of picking a card is used of the prime-ministerial appointment process - Bernard quips "The choice is usually between a knave and a queen."

Which does rather make me wonder - why all the fuss? - the Church of England has had a woman as its head and chief authority figure for over 50 years - QE2 is Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

She is not Governor of the CofI I am pleased to say, but then we have permitted the consecration of women bishops for years unless my memory is failing me.

portwyne #11
QxB! Check!

What an amusing topic. We've gone from discussing homophobia in the church to misogyny in the church. I don't think there are any people with more hangups about sex than the faithful. What comes around next, pedophilia, abortion, pornography, indecent exposure in public? By the time we get done with all of the topics, it will be time to come back full circle to homophobia again. And every one of them claiming to "know" god's truth.

I think this debate needs a quote from the King James Version of the Bible! Where are you Puritan?

GV

I suppose my adversaries are away around the bonfires. If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the "husband" of one wife,

Big butch dyke bishops in civil partnerships would be all right then...

portwyne #15
You left out the part about them driving her's and her's Harleys in heavy metal/leather garb. Watch out little man, you could easily become God's roadkill. Queen's Bishop takes pawn.

What does a Bishop do all day anyway?

G Veale

G Veale
"What does a Bishop do all day anyway?"

How could it possibly miter?

Graham

I know the roles are not exactly analogous but, reflecting on your question, I am reminded of my old college chaplain who used to say that his role was "To be and not to do: to blossom as a rose on a dunghill.". I must be fair to him and say that you should not therefore interpret the position as a sinecure - he did a lot of blossoming...

Yes portwyne but who would want to climb up the dunghill to see it. And who could get by the stench of the dung to smell it? Besides, even if one tried, once there you suddenly remember that there are no roses without thorns. "To be and not to do" reminds me of an old saying, "Those who can....DO. Those who can't....teach."

I am tempted to go ever so slightly camp and say: "Darling, it wafted..."

Also, purely as a matter of interest, many roses have no thorns - I have an excellent if somewhat mildew prone specimen of Zephirine Drouhin myself should you require empirical corroboration.

To be or not to be...is that really a question? Gramatically no. "To be and not to do." We have a word in English for which that is the perfect definition; parasite. I've always thought of clerics as leeches.

There is a word for thinking one's English is better than that of Shakespeare - hubris!

If I married an Anglican Bishopess, would I get a better shot at getting into heaven? Are they all going to be butch dykes as you say portwyne or will some be heterosexual?

Mark
You ever tried teaching?

GV

No gveale. Why would you ask such a queston? I've never had any desire to be a teacher. I've met lots of teachers in my life and frankly, except for some of those who were college professors and did consulting work or had other jobs on the outside, by and large I didn't particularly like them. I put them one rung below New York City cab drivers and about on a par with bankers. On the other hand, there was this one babe who was my geometry teacher in high school and....