The previous item offers a quote from an Anglican bishop at the opening of a Church of England synod that has the potential to rip the CofE apart, according to the Times of London:
The Church of England is in danger of “shattering” into thousands of stained-glass pieces if women are ordained as bishops, its governing body was warned this morning.
Members of the General Synod urged church leaders to postpone a decision on women bishops until more detailed proposals could be drawn up on how to care for opponents.
More than 1,300 clergy are threatening to leave the Church if women are consecrated to the episcopate without legislation enacted to protect them.
The Anglo-Catholic wing wants a special, extra-geographical diocese or province created as a woman-bishop and woman-priest free zone, to preserve the Church’s apostolic tradition of a male-only priesthood.
On Monday the synod, meeting in York, will vote on a proposal to consecrate women bishops with a voluntary code of practice to protect the place of traditionalists in the Church.
The issue threatens to divide the Church even more deeply than the vote to ordain women priests in 1992.
About 450 clergy left then, of which many joined the Roman Catholic church and a few subsequently returned to the Anglican fold.
But many more remained in the Church because of the legal safeguards where parishes were allowed to opt for the care of “flying bishops”. Under the new proposals, flying bishops would be abolished or “grounded” for good. Traditionalists are angry that reassurances given when women were ordained priests could be about to be withdrawn.
The traditionalists were foolish back then, of course; apparently they were unaware of Neuhaus’ Law (“Wherever orthodoxy is optional, it sooner or later will be proscribed.”). But what really baffles me is this: most if not all of the traditionalists who are up in arms about women bishops stayed in the church (or have entered since) after women were ordained priests in 1992. So, the question is this: why are women bishops a church-shattering issue, while women priests weren’t for those who stayed or have been ordained since? I mean, how can you live in the same ecclesiastical structure that ordains women at all, if you think it anti-biblical and anti-traditional? Why exactly are women bishops a bigger deal than women priests–because some of these guys are worried that they’ll have to submit to them? So is the standard for orthodoxy now whether one is personally affected by it?
I really don’t get this. Are there any Anglicans out there who would please explain it to me?
Posted by David Fischler 
Posted by David Fischler 
