You are here . on the pale blue dot

If you wish to comment on an entry please restrict your observations to the issue if you want to see them published. Anonymous comments are rejected.

Monday, February 7, 2011

An Englishman's word is his bond?



An Englishman's word  is  was (?) his bond.

Promises are in the news again, this time the promises that were made in the winning of the 2012 Olympic Games for London - as if we need them with huge cuts in essential services plus the security implications but broken promises are my concern here. 

Political pledges such as those given on tuition fees are often looked at with scepticism in the shifting ground of politics but what excuse can there be for the Church of England breaking its promise to traditionalist Anglicans as it ponders the question of women bishops? - A 'Broken Promises' summary was published in Forward in Faith's "New Directions" last month (page 10). 

For some MPs it is not faith but political correctness that counts as they attempt a fix regardless of the wishes of the new Synod.  If honour means nothing at the highest levels of government in Church and State with promises continually broken, as the question goes to dioceses for discussion it will be interesting to see if, for the grass roots, still "An Englishman's word IS his bond".

3 comments:

  1. Out of curiosity, what actually is the religious objection to women bishops? It's been a while since I read it but I don't recall anything in the bible forbidding women priests.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Not your memory George but fact. There was no Biblical concept of women priests or the church as it exists today. Traditionalists in the Anglican church follow Christ's example in common with most of Christendom. Pope Benedict summed up the position far better than I can:

    "The formulation of John Paul II is very important: "The Church does not have in any way the faculty to confer priestly ordination on women." It is not a matter of not wanting, but of not being able. The Lord has given a form to the Church with the Twelve and then with their succession, with the bishops and the presbyters (the priests). We were not the ones who created this form of the Church, but rather its essentiality comes from him. Following it is an act of obedience, and in the contemporary situation perhaps one of the most burdensome acts of obedience. But precisely this is important, that the Church show that it is not an arbitrary regime. We cannot do what we want. There is instead the Lord's will for us, to which we adhere, even if this is wearisome and difficult in the culture and civilization of today. Besides, the functions entrusted to women in the Church are so great and significant that one cannot speak of discrimination. This would be the case if the priesthood were a sort of dominion, while on the contrary it must be complete service. If one looks at the history of the Church, one realizes that the significance of women – from Mary to Monica all the way to Mother Teresa – is so eminent that in many ways women define the face of the Church more than men do."
    'Light of the World' Pope Benedict XVI

    For a woman's view click on the link in this post:
    http://ancientbritonpetros.blogspot.com/2010/12/women-discrimination-and-church.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. 1 Timothy 2:12 states, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."

    Which I guess rules out women being bishops.

    ReplyDelete