Wednesday, July 09, 2008

Vatican ‘regret’ over women bishops

As the Church of England has taken the historic decision to consecrate women to the episcopacy, Cardinal Kasper has expressed ‘regret’ on behalf of the Pope

Very kind.

But cardinals and popes have been expressing their regret since 1532, if not before, and doom merchants have prophesied the imminent demise of the Church of England ever since. Bishop John Jewel was the first to navigate safe passage for the Anglican Settlement after its fragile birth under the young Elizabeth I. A generation later, Richard Hooker feared for the future of the Church of England at the hands of radical reformers within, and helped to secure its future. And in the 19th century, Samuel Coleridge made trial of his age (as Newman put it) and set the Church on a fresh course of intellectual and imaginative renewal at a time when the likes of Thomas Arnold were proclaiming that it was finished.

Theological leadership is raised up in due season. We have no comparable tomes such as Jewel’s Defensio Apologia Ecclesiae Anglicanae or Hooker’s Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, but the Reformed English Church persists because there is no better expression of English identity: it is the Ecclesia Anglorum. If it is ‘crucified between two thieves’ – the Puritans and the papists - it is because it has tasted the unmerited grace of God in Jesus Christ and maintains continuity with the Church of the Middle Ages and the early Fathers. It is catholic and reformed; moderate and reasonable; rigorous yet pastoral. And these are held in tension, in the brokenness of the cross, and there are undoubted frequent imbalances, in the imperfection of our fallenness. The Ecclesia Angliae has endured through numerous threats – the Roman Catholic Church, the Puritans, the Enlightenment and science, and ecumenism. So Cranmer is sure that it can survive feminism and pluralism.

The decision does, of course, create problems for Christian unity, for the work of ARCIC, and for the Anglican traditionalists. But Cranmer would like to reassure all his readers and communicants that we are not about to witness the end of any. Christian unity is a work of the Holy Spirit. Ut Unum Sint is a much longed-for hope, but that objective is a work of God, not man. Christ calls all his disciples to unity. But this unity must be based on rock, and so doctrinal differences must be resolved, and believers must address the burden of long-standing misgivings, mutual misunderstandings and prejudices. Complacency, indifference and mistrust are multiplied as each side sees the other in a mirror dimly, so the light of truth must illumine the way.

The work of ARCIC has been in suspended animation for over a decade in any case. Ever since the Second Vatican Council in Lumen Gentium used the subtle phrase ‘subsists in’ for the relationship between the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Christ, there has been hope of a degree of recognition to the Church of England. But recent declarations by Cardinal Ratzinger (and since he became Pope Benedict XVI) have clarified this elusive and nuanced expression. The Church of England is not only partial and incomplete, it is not even a church. Some might even say it is a ‘contagion’.

But Cranmer ne regrette rien.

On women bishops, Cardinal Kasper states: ‘The Catholic position on the issue was clearly expressed by Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II. Such a decision signifies a breaking away from the apostolic tradition maintained by all of the Churches since the first millennium, and therefore is a further obstacle for the reconciliation between the Catholic Church and the Church of England.’

One wonders why there are no eloquent Protestants in the Church of England who are prepared to tell the Cardinal about Rome’s ‘breaking away’ from the pattern set by the Early Church and the ‘obstacles’ that it presents to the process of reconciliation. And he further wonders why the Archbishop of Canterbury has chosen the Cardinal to close the Lambeth Conference and express the ‘Catholic position’ on the conference’s deliberations, and why such a 'summing up' should be necessary at all. It is placing the Church of Rome in judgement upon the Church of England, and one wonders why Dr Williams himself does not issue the concluding comments on behalf of the catholic Church. And if not he, is there no theologian in all the Anglican parishes in all the world who can articulate the catholic position?

As 1,333 clergy prepare to cross the Tiber over this issue, it might be observed that since so many of them are retired, it will hardly matter a jot. Cranmer genuinely wishes them well in their spiritual journey. But there are a few bishops who intend to jump ship, and Cranmer would like to counsel them to wait. All is not lost.

Firstly, it is worth waiting for the ‘code of practice’ that proposes to bridge the gulf between the traditionalists and the liberals, without the 'structural humiliation' (as the Archbishop of Canterbury put it) of those women who are nominated for consecration. If this is a workable ecclesiology it will be an impressive work of religio-political diplomacy, if it can be achieved at all.

Then it must be realised that no women will be consecrated bishop until about 2014, and only then if there emerges a ‘suitable’ candidate.

Defecting today over an issue which is at least six years away is unnecessary and unwise.

And to those bishops who have already taken the first steps to Rome, Cranmer asks them to pause and consider the supreme irony that their decision to find another church in order to sustain a ‘righteous discrimination’ against women will necessitate the resignation of their episcopal orders, for, unlike married priests, married bishops are not permitted in the Roman Catholic Church.

And so those who resign in order to maintain such a ‘righteous discrimination’ against women will find themselves discriminated against for being that most natural of Christian institutions - married.

One wonders which discrimination is the lesser evil.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cranmer, you write well but you are just too complacent. The 16th century didn't raise fundamental arguments about the Trinity. And Coleridge charted a dsastrous course that is now bearing fruit.
The C of E is set to become more like the American Episcopal Church - liberal, gay, spiritually and demographically empty.
The time for action is now. See the blog 'The Ugley Vicar' for why the time for action is now.
The large evangelical churches will make their move soon. Gafcon has charted the way.

9 July 2008 at 07:59  
Blogger Hiraeth said...

The trouble is that a long time ago the Church of England decided that it is the culture that determines how the curch is to act, rather than the Word of God. When the C of E decided that St. Paul's strictures on the role of women within the leadership of the Church, this has been on the cards, as has the ordination of homosexuals. The question is whether the Word of God is our manual on such things (and it is not unclear, nor is it silent), or whether our own fancies. The spirit of the age, or the Spirit of the living God. St. Paul is clear that it is inappropriate that a woman should hold a teaching office, and he is equally clear that he has the right to take a wife, as Peter did.

In Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, he makes it equally clear that no-one who remains in a homosexual relationship will enter heaven, just as no-one who remains an unrepentant extortioner or fornicator will do, but that all who are washed clean and brought to repentance shall enter heaven, even those who were such sinners.

In the Acts of the Apostles, we find no women fulfilling a public teaching office, although we find important woman, and women taking a part in the life of the church.

The word of God is clear on these things, and to ignore these things or seek to explain them away is flagrant disobedience of God and will only bring disaster.

Anonymous, I think you will find that the sixteenth century raised fundamental questions about the Trinity. There was a gentleman by the name of Faustus Socinus, whose views on the person of Christ, as well as the role of human reason, are followed by most Liberals today, even if they have not heard of him.

9 July 2008 at 08:28  
Blogger BrianSJ said...

Your comments on the Anglican appeasement of Rome (along with Sharia) are well made. Re-visiting the Synod of Whitby would be as welcome as re-visiting the Treaty of Rome.

9 July 2008 at 08:59  
Blogger botogol said...

As an outside, I'm curious about the plurality of positions available for the god-fearing Anglica.

I understand GAFCON offers a refuge for Anglicans who are opposed to women bishop, and homosexual clergy.

I understand from the Telegraph that a further split within GAFCON (GAFCON-lite perhaps) will cater for those who are actually comfortable with female bishops, but can't stomach gay priests.

But where is the ministry for those who welcome gay bishops, but on th other hand can't tolerate being led by a woman?

Or is that combination of opinions thin on the ground... and if so, now why would that be?

9 July 2008 at 09:19  
Anonymous thepresby said...

I fear that your good friend's Candle will indeed have to burn in England elsewhere after this your Grace. Anglicanism is Reformed and protestant, but the Church who enthrones woman bishops, ordains Homosexuals and woman into its priesthood is certainly not refomed or Protestant in the historic sence, the Church of England no longer exists. I fail to agree with your optimistic view your Grace.

It is a sad day. But the candle still burns with or without the Church of England Praise God!

9 July 2008 at 09:38  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hiraeth - yes, I know about Socinus and his spiritual heirs. My point was simply that the Reformers didn't agree with him, tho' you are right that he has many children today.
Coleridge also has many children today, within Liberal Anglicanism, notwithstanding (or because of) the incoherence of his heretical views.
Many within the CofE, including former evangelicals from the 'Church Pastoral Aid Society' (the more boring kind of churchy evangelical) have moved into a homosexualist position - like Roy Williamson, former bishop of Southwark. People like Williamson (not marked by any great theological profundity) miscast the whole question of WO as a 'justice issue', as if the call to be a minister of the Gospel came from 'man; rather than God.
The whole move to WO, which George Carey steered through in 1992, has been another instance of the Law of Unintended Consequences. Why so? For these reasons:
1. The majority of clergy now in training in the CofE are women. See how few men are now being ordained!
2. Most of these women are training in part-time evening courses, led overwhelmingly by liberal catholics. They are VERY thin on biblical and historical theology content. Most are middle aged, quite a few divorced.
3. Most of these women are liberal in outlook and 'priestly' about sacraments. They will never lead large evangelical churches that want 'Alpha male' preachers but they will end up running the plethora of little, dying churches in the CofE. but they wil influence dicoesan synods, thru 'benefit of clergy'.

I think the big evangelical churches are busy emailing the Gafcon primates ...

9 July 2008 at 10:02  
Anonymous The Recusant said...

Your Grace where are the Jewels, Hookers and Coleridges today? Too busy navel gazing to raise their head or already away to form yet another sect. As for comparable tomes try the best on offer: A Wing and a Prayer by Katharine Jefferts Schori or In the Eye of the Storm by Gene Robinson, uplifting stuff eh, I recommend another author, one possibly a bit more grounded in soterology and Christology, his theology is not bad either, try Deus Caritas Est or Spe Salvi or coming Soon "Caritas in Veritate", you may have heard of him, Pope Benedict XVI.

A better expression of the English identity you look for is the ancient faith of this land, the faith that was sent by Pope Gregory the Great to these shores by Augustine and before him Patrick, the faith which prospered and flourished in this land for 900 years before the disaster of the 16 century when your name sake Archbishop Cranmer paid for a army of Germans and Dutch mercenaries to slaughter the native English who professed their ancient Roman Catholic religion up and down this land. An army which forced Englishmen and women on pain of death into apostasy, who plundered, murdered and left nothing but desolation and pauperism in this the Dowry of Mary. It resulted in parish poor boxes being used to support the newly married Vicars and their families. It resulted in 15 sets of poor laws during Elizabeth’s reign alone, there had never been any poor law in this land before the deformation, the Catholic Church provided all the social services from the much maligned abbeys, religious houses and monasteries. It led to enclosure and sequestration of common land increasing poverty (no Catholic religious to practice good works which were not needed anyway as ‘faith alone’ would do), disease (hospitals plundered and destroyed along with the abbeys etc which rn and provided for them) and crime (destitute needed to live but had all the means taken away and instead of alms were given branding irons and slavery).

Your Grace complained about being called acerbic a while ago and then out pops a gem such as being ‘crucified between two thieves’ – the Puritans and the papists. This mess is entirely of your own doing, can’t speak for the Puritans but the Catholic Church had nothing to do with it apart from being there to pick up the pieces and you call us thieves. You may think that there is still room for the more traditional Anglicans in the AC, if you haven’t got the message yet you never will, the so called ‘code of practice’ is a joke. The AC may be reformed but I see little moderation and scant reasonableness in the treatment of the traditionalists and it is not Catholic it is Protestant to its core. The Church of Rome has not and does not sit in judgement upon the Church of England, it does that itself.

As for Rome’s ‘breaking away’ from the pattern set by the Early Church. I recommend St. Ireneaus, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Ambrose of Milan, St. Cyprian of Carthage. Of special interest read Justin Martyr, Clement of Rome, Hippolytus , and Novatian, you will find the RCC still holds to the belifs of these Church father including the Real Presence, the Assumption of the BVM, Priestly Confession and praying for the dead etc etc

An alien religion was forced on this nation by a foreign army; it was imposed by ‘Law Established’ because the English population could not be persuaded to adopt it any other way (all attempts to protest lawfully were put down by the army). The beneficiaries were not the ordinary English folk but the new ascendant class of merchants, aristocracy and protestant clergy and the sword and rope kept it that way. Finally which Catholic Church do you think Augustine is referring to here?

“In the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep (Jn 21:15-19), down to the present episcopate.
“And so, lastly, does the very name of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.
“Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should...With you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me... No one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion...For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
- St. Augustine (AD 354-430 )

9 July 2008 at 12:26  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Would you like a cup of tea?

9 July 2008 at 12:34  
Anonymous Stonemason said...

Biscuit too ......

9 July 2008 at 12:48  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"but the Reformed English Church persists because there is no better expression of English identity"

How sad that you believe the reformed church exists to give you an English identity.

Nothing to do with loving the Lord or being saved through faith alone and grace.

Its simply to have an "English" church.

Is that what you burned for?

9 July 2008 at 12:57  
Anonymous WannabeAnglican said...

[The CofE} maintains continuity with the Church of the Middle Ages and the early Fathers. It is catholic and reformed; moderate and reasonable; rigorous yet pastoral.

It was in the past. It isn't now.

As 1,333 clergy prepare to cross the Tiber over this issue, it might be observed that since so many of them are retired, it will hardly matter a jot.

Most of them are not retired. In any case, I'm aghast that you say it doesn't matter. The heart of orthodox Anglo-Catholicism may be about to leave the CofE and perhaps Anglicanism as well. It damn well does matter.

9 July 2008 at 13:03  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

... make mine milk with no sugar, thank you.

9 July 2008 at 13:12  
Anonymous The recusant said...

As it happens I have one but thanks for asking.

It's good to set the record straight every now and then, give vent to the spleen so to speak.

Question, when the displaced Anglicans come home to Rome do you think we can have our churches back as well?

9 July 2008 at 13:39  
Blogger Cranmer said...


Squatters have rights.

9 July 2008 at 14:47  
Anonymous Stonemason said...

Bravo your Grace, Bravo .........

9 July 2008 at 15:19  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Well said, O Recusant!

I usually am on message with His Grace, but this morning he was naturally a little grumpy.

With all this turmoil, I am surprised that his Grace hasn't called on Her Majesty to mediate. As Head of the Church of England she must (naturally) be an accomplished theologian and canon lawyer............ mustn't she?

9 July 2008 at 15:45  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Her Majesty is not the Head.

How many times does His Grace have to say this?

She is the Supreme Governor.

Jesus is the Head.

And he is an accomplished theologian and canon lawyer. Much better than any others, however infallible they may be.

9 July 2008 at 16:00  
Blogger Arden Forester said...

I for one will be waiting to see what this "code of practice" is going to be. I think that if it is mainly composed by the hissing liberals (as witnessed in the Synod) who made such a vehement attack on those of us who want to retain the historic faith, then I don't hold out much hope.

It is as if a trojan horse has entered the Church of England. I am waiting for the court battles, as I put in my blog. They will have a go at Walsingham, for sure.

Christian charity is low on the ground this week!

9 July 2008 at 16:27  
Anonymous John Fisher said...


Could you clarify what your position on Lady Bishops is?

It seems the only time you have been unequivocal during this sad episode is after a Prince of the Church expressed some regret at the Synod's decision ...

9 July 2008 at 16:36  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

You are quite right. The Queen is the supreme governor, not the Head, who is OLJC. Pardon, pax, mea culpa.
But returning to Her Majesty, has your Guv'nor got some wise words to say?

As you know, your Grace, the word governor comes from the latin for steersman (gubernator). So therefore why isn't she at the tiller?

9 July 2008 at 16:38  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cranmer let me pull out my violin and chesse to with your wine.

9 July 2008 at 19:25  
Blogger Sir Walter Scott said...

They can kill a church but not God.

9 July 2008 at 19:43  
Blogger prziloczek said...

I was an Anglican clergyman until 1989 when, on the consecration of a divorcee, I became a Catholic.
It was the best decision I ever made. I can now go to Mass anywhere in the world and actually enjoy it!
I tried for the Catholic priesthood, but Anglicans just don't fit into that entirely bachelor outfit.
All these thousands and thousands of "Catholic" clergy who are threatening to leave:Erm.....
People want a Vicar on the dole, I can assure you, about as much as they want a NuLabour politician on the dole.
Everyone knows that.
The theological problem of modern Anglicanism is, in fact this:
"When the Jesus of the new Testament and the Holy Spirit of today disagree - who wins?"

9 July 2008 at 21:00  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Time to dis-establish the C of E and make bishops redundant. Maybe we need to go back to The Commonwealth and have a presbyterian church.

The whole morass whereby the C of E in Northern England lives on subsidy from rich areas like Oxfordshire, and where so much time is spent kow-towing to Islam instead of evangelising makes the C of E simply another quango.

It is time for Evangelical Protestants to seize their parishes abnd withhold diocesan levies from apostate bishops and to propound the Gospel.

There is far too much drift in this coalition of the comfortable and the laxity of so-called Christian congregations beggars belief. Few even know of the XXXIX Articles or the basic theology of the Christian let alone the Protestant Church.

Protestantism should emerge from the ruins of the Church of England and levae the liberal rump to pay the bills of failure and become stipendiaries of local council social services departments

9 July 2008 at 21:17  
Anonymous billy said...

You wrote, Your Grace:"As 1,333 clergy prepare to cross the Tiber over this issue...."

If only one of those changes his mind it will be double 666 going to Rome.
Now that's a comforting thought, isn't it?

10 July 2008 at 00:20  
Anonymous Waltaire said...

This may seem a bit homespun and unsophisticated, but in trying to understand the issues I put forward this scenario:

I am about to join a church and take part fully in its life. There are two alternatives for me. Church A, where the Bishop is a woman, and who expresses a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, as the resurrected Son of God - or, Church B where the Bishop is a man who has cast doubt on the divinity of Jesus and who publicly professes liberal theological views? (I have discounted Church C, where the Bishop is an alcoholic and a homosexual).

10 July 2008 at 01:06  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


666 is in control of the Anglican Church we dont have to worry about him going to Rome.

10 July 2008 at 02:57  
Anonymous Michael Canaris said...

Contrary to Voyager's remedy, disestablishment of your church would only exacerbate its quangofication. Prelates would in practice treat disestablishment as license to stack parishes with eager accolytes of their particular hair-brained schemes, resulting in the entrenchment of various devices at pernicious Marxist Priestcraft (of which the Petticoat Brigade is merely one instance.)

Rather, what we need is statesmen who take the supremacy of Queen in Parliament seriously enough to oppose Gramscian measures.

10 July 2008 at 03:54  
Anonymous Michael Canaris said...

In my previous comment, I wrote:

----Rather, what we need is statesmen who take the supremacy of Queen in Parliament seriously enough to oppose Gramscian measures.--

Oh, also to repeal them where possible.

10 July 2008 at 03:57  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

waltaire ... me thinks Church A, where the Bishop is a woman, is saying all the rights things just to entice and lure you into her bosom. It's the same kind of spin that accompanied the arrival of the highly "feminized" New Labour: all image and no substance.

Women are destroyers, not creators. Ask the Chinese ... they've known this for millennia. Don't allow yourself to be confused by the female's role in birth. She does not create life, she simply carries and delivers life. That is her primary role in nature. Without that, we would of course cease to exist. She creates only in the PASSIVE sense.

None of the world's greatest artists (painters, sculptures, etc.) and comparatively few renowned writers have been women. No, sorry, Harry Potter simply doesn't qualify. Money and follow-on films is the wrong measurement.

The man who gets 'her' pregnant plays the creative role because he wooed her. The males of every mammalian species do the same, or have you forgotten? This is why men compete for the favours of the better women because they are creators, and nature abhors competing creations. The male creates only in the ACTIVE.

The 'JUnited' States of America, where the dominant female ethic is strongest (it has long been a nation characterised by strong or arrogant women and weak men) is the ultimate sponsor of women clergy in the Anglican Church. That is a bold assertion but it will have to do for now, as the effort to demonstrate why this is so would take me at least 5,000 words.

In Buddhism, images of Buddha are often depicted as having transgender form. What this shows is that Buddhism acknowledges the need to respect and combine both the masculine and the feminine ... whilst also insisting that this can and must be done through only male priests. This is why images of the Lord Buddha as a female simply do not exist and never have. The question does not even arise. Women know that Buddhism is not, and never has been, hostile to their gender.

The Gay-ification and Feminizing of important posts within the Anglican Church is part of a long term strategy to destroy England. Not physically ... but morally, spiritually, economically, politically, and reputationally. This is why our past failure to mount an adequate resistance now forces our hand into doing what Voyager [09 July 2008 21:17] has just correctly suggested. It would appear there is no other long-term option open to us. The Anglican Church cannot be 'restored' until and unless its current manifestation is first destroyed. The poison now within its fabric must be starved of oxygen and ultimately DESTROYED, and without mercy. It must be wiped out and every last trace eradicated.

The destruction of the Anglican Church (from within) is part of the same assault on our identity as a nation and people, as mass immigration has been. It is simply forms another flank in the same pincer movement.

Your first response must be to stop reading (or at least taking notice of) the British National Press (predominantly Jewish owned) and stop wasting your life watching so much TV, in particular current affairs and news bulletins (predominantly Jewish managed or controlled). You must do what you can to encourage their failure through bankruptcy. There are also legals ways to cease paying your BBC TV Licence (the BBC's director of programming and several other dominant managerial positions have been held by Anglo-Jews for a very long time. Their agenda is fundamentally hostile to our well-being).

You would be well advised to get back to basics and brush up on your knowledge of philosophy and of your own cultural roots. A good start would be to educate yourself about that which your education failed to teach you. By definition, you are obliged to begin your re-education from before the arrival of Christianity in the British Isles. Without which you will never gain a proper perspective of all that followed. The task is not as daunting as it sounds. Just pencil out a timeline, target the best of breed book titles, and start reading. The task is going to take you longer than one year, but the rewards shall be incalculable. Make full use of the Internet, as it may not be "as available" in future years.

And finally ... you do not need a priest, Vicar, or Bishop to mediate between you and God. Your relationship with God is personal, as it is for everyone else (except Catholics). You need to accept you have a responsibility, as a man, to develop your own spirituality without the guiding hand of some intermediary. You are not a schoolboy now, but a full grown male. There is no real necessity to make unholy choices between unattractive options (re. your initial question). All you need is to dedicate time to understanding the content of your Bible. As an Englishman, you are free to enter any CofE Church, anywhere in the land, and at any time. I usually just walk into my local church unannounced to soak up the atmosphere and say a single prayer, whenever I return to my birthplace. As a primary school infant, I attended the CofE school associated with that Church, and I also once sang in the School Choir. I have delivered a bible reading in that Church as a schoolboy, and my best friends father used to maintain the church tower clock. I have more rights than most to consider that place part of me ... so who or what its Vicar is has little or no relevance. The Church is the PEOPLE and not its politically appointed clergy ... and please don't you forget that.

I do hope my straightforward writing can help guide your own thinking. Keep it simple and you'll negotiate any obstacle. Good luck and take care.

10 July 2008 at 07:00  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, given what the Vatican has said about Anglican orders (absolutely null and utterly void) it's bugger-all to do with them what the C of E does.

10 July 2008 at 08:56  
Anonymous Zenobia said...

Mission Impossible - I have a conundrum for you. How can you decide who is more important, the male or the female? Well, if, for some perfectly acceptable reason, your god decided to remove from the face of the earth all females; how long would human life continue to exist for? Answer: The natural life of the youngest male in existance at the time of the loss of the female.

So; what if your God removed all the males; would that alter the equation? Answer: Certainly; for there would be enough pregnant females in existance for life to continue. Ergo: the female is more important than the male.

It's not my conundrum of course, I got it from the Greeks; from where you got your rather dodgy theology about passive creation. Aeschylus did it somewhat better in The Eumenides; but it is of course a very pagan idea.

Research has shown that women were originally very active in teaching roles in the early church; and mutilated effigies in the catacombs of Rome indicate that some women were referred to a 'bishops' (Dorothy Irvin "The Ministry of Women in the Early Church: The Archaeological Evidence 1980) So perhaps it could be said that that the Church of England is closer to the early church than is Rome.

The early church fathers, were like you, overly influenced by both the Greek and Roman pagan attitudes to the position of women in public life. And I do not consider a church where men sat together to censor historical writings that contained reference to women in position of power, an unbiased source of the authentic words of a God.

So go back to your pagan Greeks my friend; for to quote almost the very words of Aeschylus to support your supposedly christian teaching is a little hypocritical - If the pagans were right in this; they could be right in all things! Anyone fancy a furious Athene on their trail? Hmmm thought not.

10 July 2008 at 13:29  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

Look zenophobia, no need to come screaming hysterics at me just because matron was too tired to smack your bottom this morning.

Wooo-eee, what an emotional outburst. You are flapping all over the place in search of a viable intellectual anchor. Why is it that whenever someone points out the obvious about the female gender (at least 85% of them anyway) someone starts screaming heebee jeebies about "female importance" and misogyny, ad nauseam.

How many different races of women have you been exposed to in your little life? Ever loved a non-western woman? If not, then what the h*ll do you really know about the female gender?

I shall be gentle with you, as you have clearly failed to attain manhood and now scream at anyone who reminds you of this fact.

Women are of course important --- I consider them as important as men ... but no more, and no less. Although I would accept the argument fertile women are more important to a society than men because they carry the next generation inside them. That is one reason why man invented armies, so he could protect his own fertile womenfolk from raiding parties. All it would take is one alpha-male to turn 12 or more of them into motherhood, so men are somewhat expendable.

Your arguments about the early church and the Greeks are simply hot air. I have no time for semantic debates that offer nothing of lasting value. We are looking for solutions not empty gestures and point scoring.

As for your defence of women in public life ... ever since they began to enjoy their sexual and legal emancipation following the law changes of the 1960s and 1970s, our country has been going down the tube morally, spiritually, economically, and physically. You will find the exact same correlation in the USA, Canada, Australia, and anywhere else where the female dominatrix or "Amazon" model has been tried and implemented.

You are not religious zenophobia. You are a stoolpigeon for a raft of Jew-inspired subjective sciences designed to destroy the Anglo-Saxon/Celtic civilization.

10 July 2008 at 13:58  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

missing improbable. heaven is going to be a very difficult place for anti -semites!

10 July 2008 at 19:08  
Blogger prziloczek said...

A lot of the problem seems to be between people who see both the sexes as pretty much the same and those who see the two sexes as totally different.
I suspect that, once female bishops have been accepted as they are in several other Provinces, we shall begin to see that the differences are pretty inconsiderable.
Meanwhile our village Church is pretty well closed.

10 July 2008 at 20:14  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cranmer says: "Firstly, it is worth waiting for the ‘code of practice’ that proposes to bridge the gulf between the traditionalists and the liberals, without the 'structural humiliation' (as the Archbishop of Canterbury put it) of those women who are nominated for consecration."

But the Synod just jettisoned the binding agreements from 1992/1994 with no qualms, in fact in a seeming spirit of intolerance and gloating from all accounts - how can anyone believe they will accept and follow a 'code of practice'? How can this be 'worth waiting for'?

11 July 2008 at 00:55  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

Presumably you have been 'there' already then Anonymouse [10 July 2008 19:08]. Hence your confidence.


SILLY Definition: anyone who DARES to question any of thousands of myths and self-serving assumptions that have been self-authored by the Ashkenazi/Khazarian imposters we mistakenly call Jews.

REAL Definition: the hysterical hatred of anyone who attempts the above.

Very soon, probably within the next 5 years maximum, the vast majority of us are going to at last wake up and see the mind games and irrational insanities that have sustained this post-Holocaust age, for what they truly are. Once that blessed time has arrived, people will not hesitate to identify who the real culprits behind the cultural and financial swindle the former facilitates, are.

Verbal intimidation (e.g., so-called 'anti-Hate Laws') and an incessant reliance on puerile ad-hominem attacks is not debate. Nor is it indicative of a pious people. Judaism = Paganism, and the rejection of Jesus.

11 July 2008 at 07:42  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A genuine question I ask purely because I want to know the answer. How, if at all, will the synod vote on women bishops affect Anglican/Methodist reunion?

11 July 2008 at 12:44  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"waltaire ... me thinks Church A, where the Bishop is a woman, is saying all the rights things just to entice and lure you into her bosom. It's the same kind of spin that accompanied the arrival of the highly "feminized" New Labour: all image and no substance.

Women are destroyers, not creators. Ask the Chinese ... they've known this for millennia. Don't allow yourself to be confused by the female's role in birth. She does not create life, she simply carries and delivers life. That is her primary role in nature. Without that, we would of course cease to exist. She creates only in the PASSIVE sense."

Erm, how does that work, then? Can you create an embryo with just a sperm? No. Can you do it with just an egg? Yes. So, hardly passive. More like 'essential'.

"Women are destroyers"? And what, exactly, are men doing around the world? They're not exactly creating in Iraq and on the West Bank, are they?

Your view of women is misinformed and more than a bit unsettling. To quote Full Metal Jacket, "What's the matter, Private? Mama didn't give you enough love?"

11 July 2008 at 17:05  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

mission impossible ,

11 July 2008 at 17:37  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

Anonymous [11 July 2008 17:05] ... you are brain dead from the waist up. You are taking the words 'create' and 'destroy' literally. You thought I was trying to paint a world where I believed women were rampaging around with axes didn't you! Study Taoism and learn something about Yin and Yang. It is your profound ignorance that creates your urge to post childish nonsense. Once you have done that, then look into a big mirror whilst reciting these words back to yourself: I'm as thick as a brick but Mission Impossible has taught me how to be a little wiser. Thank you M.I.

Anonymous [11 July 2008 17:37] ... Assuming he actually existed, and there is no archaeological evidence whatsoever that he ever did, then in the Torah's account, Abraham is clearly the father of many more people than just the Jewish nation. In fact, to believe in the authenticity of Abraham you must also believe that a man aged 140 years can make a 100 year old woman pregnant. You are mentally disturbed, as well as ignorant. Seek therapy.


For the benefit and edification of those other visitors to this thread, who are roundly amused at the number of psychologically disturbed anonymous commenters leaping to the defence of common criminals posing as Biblical 'Jews', here is a historical example of the evil duplicity that has been busily at work behind your backs:

In 1957, ISRAEL COHEN, England's leading communist writer in the early 20th century, wrote the following in his book, "A Racial Program For the 20th Century,"
[as reprinted in the U.S. Congressional Record for 1957, Page 8559]

"In America we will aim for a subtle victory. While inflaming the Negro minority against the Whites, we will endeavour to instil in the Whites a guilt complex for their exploitation of the Negroes. We will aid the Negroes to rise to prominence in every walk of life; In the professions and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige the Negroes will be able to intermarry with the Whites and thereby begin the process that will deliver America to our cause."

Communism is one of several violent and seditious branches of Judaism.

11 July 2008 at 18:08  
Blogger prziloczek said...

From outside, the Liberal Anglicans today are the Methodists in different clothes.

The Liberal Anglican Wing delights in its Anglo Catholic rituals - incense, brightly coloured vestments and the women seem to delight in these even more than the men. I suspect that the Methodists prefer their suits and Communion rituals with individual cups.

How many practising Methodists are there nowadays? Does the figure of 300,000 ring any bells?

I do not see, myself, that there is the remotest possibility therefore of the two Churches joining back up again.

PS Am I alone in feeling very uncomfortable with all this sexist and anti Semitic stuff flying about?

11 July 2008 at 21:40  
Anonymous zenobia said...

Mission Impossible - Classical allusions are wasted on you aren't they?

Your premise that women are "passive creators" pre-dated Christianity by centuries. I even gave you the reference to the first mention of this 'scientific' theory; the Greek play 'The Euminides'. Aeschylus is recognised as firing the first shot in the gender warfare by elevating Apollo to a pre-eminent position in the pantheon.

Nothing startling there then; but to use a playwright as the basic of your claim on 'passive creation' without giving due recognition shows ignorance. And you may want to research 'Zenobia' too.

11 July 2008 at 21:45  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Am I allowed to ask whether Mission Impossible and the proverbial Verity who posts elsewhere is the same person?

11 July 2008 at 23:57  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

prziloczek [11 July 2008 21:40] ... no, you are not alone, but you are part of a dying breed; and good riddance. The fact that you attach a Leninist label to a necessary occupation (NB: during the 1920s many people were executed for being labelled "anti-Semitic") is testament to your own inner confusions. You have been brainwashed with Holocaust propaganda, and therefore lack the mental health and intellectual autonomy to engage in informed debate on all related topics. You need to realize that when "Victims Rule" a very artificial yet nasty world results. This is why Britain and the USA are today drowning in a tub of different but inter-connected pathologies. Most ... not all ... but most of these pathologies had Jewish authors AND sponsors. It has gotten to the point where certain denominations of the Christian Church have replaced Christ's Crucifixion with the Ashkenazi/Khazarian Holocaust, and Christ's Resurrection with the Jewish "return" to Israel. It is in response to lunacies and abominations of this nature that this topic has been properly raised within these blog pages. The fact that you don't like the word 'Jew' appearing on screen in the negative, is because it rattles all your long held yet erroneous assumptions and now you want to reach for a fascist solution: ban these words and prohibit such discourse. Apart from being someone naturally opposed to democracy, you are also suffering from cognitive dissonance. Look it up and try and heal yourself whilst you still have time.


Zenobia [11 July 2008 21:45] ... I will admit you have raised some fascinating points, but they are rather too academic and thus lack (in my view) any practical application relevant to today. If you can prove a causal link between 'The Euminides' and the radical Feminist movement of the 1960s and 70s, I'd be more motivated to engage with you. One of the key differences between you and I is that I am not overly influenced by the contrary ancestries of western civilization. For example, I don't see the same pathologies plaguing China or South East Asia. The first time radical feminist agitation appeared in the Philippines followed a visit by a group of American (white) feminist activists to the archipelago, to deliberately fester discord. In order to avoid initiating an endless loop both parties have to be very sincere before engaging in male/female or Yin/Yang debates. I am not detecting this prerequisite in any of your haughty comments thus far. As for research, sorry but I never allow other people to set my agenda. If you want others to understand the significance of 'Zenobia' then I suppose you could abuse the hospitality of Cranmer's blog ... if you dare.


anonymouse [11 July 2008 23:57] ... it is very unhealthy to take those you meet on the Internet too seriously. It is OK to take their message seriously (if it adds up, which mine clearly does) but not their avatar. So, rest assured the "proverbial Verity" is not I. Of course, you are entirely free to continue with your pathological delusion if it suites you.

12 July 2008 at 06:46  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older