Ho ho ho ho ho. Oh dear, is that a christian sentiment to laugh at the misfortune of others? probably not, but when that misfortune is based upon someone pulling theology out of a hat then expecting everyone to take it seriously, floppy ears an all, then I think there is legitimate grounds for mirth.
Unfortunately, as always, I shouldn’t be so smug. This could have dire ramification for Catholics, because the liberals, sore losers as always, cannot bear thinking of being without women bishops for a whole five years so are threatening to make the Anglican Church suffer the unbridled wrath of equal opportunities legislation!
If they do that to the Anglican Church surely they would be ‘honour bound’ to do the same to the Catholic Church. Of course the people who are mentioning this have no honour, they want to destroy the Church completely for their atheistic dystopian dream but to do it under the cover of ‘inclusivity’ rather than expose their rabid intolerance of faith.
This is a perfectly Anglican mess of their own devising though, how is it rational to allow women to the priesthood but not the episcopate? (Its also takes a particularly brazen disregard for Church tradition and sacramental theology to have women priests at all but hey ho that horse bolted.)
The nuances of this are also amusing, for example those in favour of women bishops have been saying the laity is universally in favour of women bishops, then after near unanimous votes in favour by the bishops and clergy the final sticking point is the laity. Over a third, I’ll say that again OVER A THIRD of the laity representatives were firmly against the notion. So somebody is either lying about the amount of support it gets or the system of lay representatives in synod is oddly skewed. (I’m guessing more the former than the latter)
So I guess it also shows the amount of pressure the Anglican Hierarchy has been putting on Anglo-Catholic priests and bishops and Evangelical priests and bishops to get them to kowtow to the feminist movement. The Anglican church has spent years ensuring the bishops and clergy voted for it by making sure Anglo-Catholic priests never get promoted and generally treating them like dirt till they leave their ministry and swim the Tiber, I know this from several different sources, and the same probably holds true for evangelicals too.
Perhaps it also shows the Anglican Church becoming ever so slightly more conservative? would those 74 representatives have also voted against women priests many moons ago? who knows? but I think its an interesting possibility.
My Catholic perspective is that the Anglo-Catholics holding out against this because they are hoping for reunification with Rome are totally deluded. Rome has made a unique and generous offer the likes of which will never be seen again, for high Anglicans to cross the Tiber en mass. Now is the moment, you don’t need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
Also another thing that is a general thought I’ve been ruminating on recently is that isn’t it interesting that it is the laity that is conservative to the last? The same goes for the reformation, protestantism was an intellectual dissent (by the intellectual elite) from certain tenants of the Catholic faith that in some places (not many) infused with anti-clericalism in the grass roots. But in places like England, protestantism was very much enforced from above. Interestingly in France it was certain elements of the nobility that were in favour of it, and same in Germany.
Generally, the average Joe in the pew is Catholic because Catholicism has a lot of things that are very comforting and simple aides to faith. A lot of thought has gone into making sure you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to be a Catholic, and making sure that we can have statues in Church, and can pray for the intercession of a saint, or pray for the dead, which is a perfectly simple and natural response to death. Even protestants say may they rest in peace.
Anyway I’ll leave this there. God bless you all, yes even if you are Anglican.