ON THE eve of a critical vote on the creation of women bishops in the Church of England, a senior figure has warned he and hundreds of priests will quit if the move is approved.
Andrew Burnham, Bishop of Ebbsfleet, this weekend becomes the first leading churchman to state that he would be likely to defect to the Roman Catholic Church.
The General Synod will tomorrow be asked to vote on the first stage of the process for “removing the legal obstacles to the ordination of women to the episcopate”. A vote in favour will set in train church legislation that may take three years.
“A woman bishop wouldn’t be a bishop because a bishop is someone whose ministry is acceptable through the ages to all other bishops,” said Burnham. “A Church of England with women bishops would no longer have a united episcopate. Bishops would no longer be what they say they are. I would have to leave.”
He said he would be forced to quit if Anglicans did not make proper provision for opponents of women bishops, and indicated that he believed 800 priests would follow suit. [Source]
I just don’t understand the problem here. Once you have abandoned scripture and apostolic tradition enable to ordain women as priests – what is to prevent the view that women’s episcopal ordination would also be valid? It seems to me that originally the women as priests and not as bishops was a compromise solution and that its only goal was to prevent more people from leaving. Just what theological, scriptural or quote from the Church Fathers could you use to split those hairs in the first place? Surely those who stayed in the Anglican Church because they didn’t ordain women bishops at that time knew that eventually that day would come. Though I guess we all blind ourselves to consequence when they become uncomfortable for us.
Though in some ways an Anglican church that continues down this path does more for Anglican to Catholic conversions than just about anything we have done apologetically. A hundred years ago the branch theory could be bought without too much contradiction. Now the branch theory applies to Anglicanism itself since it keeps splitting off with new branches, such as provinces. As in this case some want a third province in addition to Canterbury and York that would only have male bishops.
In a related note. Welcome home Al Kimmel of Pontifications who was received into full communion with the Catholic Church a month ago.
9 comments
I think that ordaining of women as bishops in the Anglican church is just the straw that is breaking these mens’ backs. Perhaps deep down the stirrings of the Holy Spirit are tugging at them telling them that it is wrong, even if theologically, there is no reason they should not have left long ago?
All of these roads lead me to Rome–me back home!
It’s always thrilling to read about mainstream denominations and their problems. It helps one to comprehend the term, moribund, much better. Now, I feel like I was back in the last days of the Jurassic Era watching the last T-Rex eat the last veggiesaur. I look forward to the day when the Church of Enland and its North American clones having ordained every last female and homosexual says goodby to the last person left in the last congregation and closes the door on its history forever.
Does orthodox Anglicanism have a voice these days?
I saw an interview with former Anglican minister (and great friend of C.S. Lewis) Walter Hooper who indicated that the last straw for him for the Anglican Church was during the great debate over ordaining women as priests. The Archbiship of Canterbury said something to the effect: “Well if we don’t, what would the world think of us?” He rightly saw this is completely opposite to Christ’s teaching that we ought NOT care what the world thinks of us!
Does orthodox Anglicanism have a voice these days?
This Anglican site is pretty orthodox (for an Anglican):
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/index.php
Apparently most of the African Anglican bishops are not going along with this descent into paganism by the Anglican Church in England, Canada and the U.S.A. Anglican Bishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria is the head of this group. Perhaps the Vatican should be making strong overtures at reunification to these folks?
If they are, I haven’t heard about it. They should be.
I just don’t understand the problem here. Once you have abandoned scripture and apostolic tradition enable to ordain women as priests – what is to prevent the view that women’s episcopal ordination would also be valid? It seems to me that originally the women as priests and not as bishops was a compromise solution and that its only goal was to prevent more people from leaving.
The deal originally was that these priests would have their own line of authority, and the parishes would not be required to accept priestesses. In essence, they would be segregated from “mainstream” Anglicanism. Now, with the upcoming ordination of bishopettes, these priests and parishes would be subject to a woman, and there’s no way to segregate from that.
BillyHW, if the Vatican hasn’t made strong overtures, it’s probably because they don’t really want conversions that way. It’s like if you’re after a girl, but she’s already got a boyfriend, and you see them fighting over some flaw of the boyfriend’s. Do you just jump in and say “jump over to me, baby, I ain’t got that flaw”?
Conversions shouldn’t be won by “We don’t have women priests”. The Catholic Church should just keep on proclaiming its own truth and that’s the only right way to win converts.
But I probably miscontrued what you meant.
Hi L,
I think the real point is not that the Church “doesn’t have that flaw,” but that it’s kept the apostolic faith in its fullness, and this other church hasn’t. These events like ordaining women bishops simply make that more evident to people, so they convert to Catholicism for that reason.
I think this gives further evidence of the future necessity, and potential evangelistic potential for the creation of an Anglican Rite within the Catholic Church alongside the other rites.