Part of the article is as follows…Ruth Gledhill of the Tablet, a Catholic weekly newspaper, described the result as “absolutely huge”, saying it was a “positive decision”
Well, this is one of the saddest things I’ve ever read. I must be missing the comments Ruth Gledhill made. Went through it three times and didn’t see the quote. Are you saying that the Catholic weekly newspaper is in agreement with this decision? Not that it really matters.
This decision only puts more space between Anglican and Catholic communions. This will never, ever, be accepted by the CC.
Maybe, at some distant time in the future science will find a way that men can become pregnant. I mean is it fair that men should be denied this privilege? :rolleyes:
Positive, she probably meant the vote went “affirmatively”, not “negative”… anyway, it’s positive for us, more orthodox Traditional Anglicans joining the Ordinariate of the Latin Church!
Could be. Or it could mean more moving to continuing Anglican communions.
Sorry, I’m a little slow. Are you saying you agree with this decision or are you saying that this decision validates your leaving?
Just read the article again & it appears to have changed somewhat since I first read it & posted the link.
The Continuing analogue movement in England is miniscule and inclined to the evangelical side.
Just found her quote on this page m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28298250
Ruth Gledhill of the Tablet, a Catholic weekly newspaper, described today’s events as “absolutely huge”, adding that the “positive decision” has come after nearly a century of debate.
Went through it again and still don’t see it. The only comment I found concerning the impact on Anglican/Catholic relations was this:
“But Prebendary David Houlding, a member of the Catholic Group on the General Synod, who voted against the legislation, expressed concerns at the potential impact the result could have on relations with the Catholic Church.”
Maybe you could just copy the quote from the Catholic newspaper.
I’m only wondering what will be the next big thing the liberals in the church of England push for. Do Anglicans still have a closed Eucharist? If so that bigoted practice has to change.
Let’s at least be fair to what’s being argued. It’s that women can be bishops, not that women and men are interchangeable. It’s an argument that, with regard to holy orders, the unity of human substance is more relevant than the diversity of its actualisation in two sexes. A theological anthropology you disagree with oughtn’t to be reduced to “Women want to be men.”
Point taken. And is this theological argument based in Scripture or Tradition, or is it based upon appeasing secular society?
The Tablet is a Catholic weekly newspaper like the Nazi SS were a peace-loving German synagogue.
Good to know.
Strike that, then.
Closed Eucharist? The majority of Anglicans I’ve met in my lifetime, allowed any baptized to receive Communion, a minority, becoming more common allowed any person wishing to receive to receive, whether Christian or not :shrug:
There are multiple publications with the same name. This “The Tablet” is very orthodox, based in Brooklyn, NY: thetablet.org/
Let’s look at the theology of the priesthood. Ordination configures a man to Christ as alter Christus. The priest offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in persona Christi. A pastor of souls exercises spiritual fatherhood over his flock in his giving masculinity, and the Church, as Bride of Christ, receives this love in her femininity.
So yes, when you think about it, someone who says “women can be priests” is really trying to say “Christ’s masculinity, and God the Father’s, is of no consequence, and anyone who really wants to can fill into that role.”
It’s one more peg in the Population Control agenda, in particular the homosexualist division thereof, that seeks to emasculate men and defeminize women, therefore destroying God’s vision of sexual complementarity and the family along with it.