Comments on: Proposed legislation on women bishops falls short http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/10/13/proposed-legislation-on-women-bishops-falls-short/ Wed, 16 Nov 2016 01:37:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: Adrian http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/10/13/proposed-legislation-on-women-bishops-falls-short/comment-page-1/#comment-7815 Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:14:30 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=3652#comment-7815 Throughout my adult life I’ve wholeheartedly supported the ordination of women and feel it to be intrinsically right. Cpnsecaration of women as bishops when it happens will surely be a natural development of their existing ministry as deacons and priests. That said, I have a number of friends in Forward in Faith and similar organisations who have a deeply rooted conviction that women cannot validly receive holy orders and that the church lacks the right to confer such orders upon them. I think a way forward must be found which allows women to become bishops in accordance with the common consent of most Church of England people whilst respectfully making sensitive provision for those who in conscience cannot accept the development.

]]>
By: Pete Cann http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/10/13/proposed-legislation-on-women-bishops-falls-short/comment-page-1/#comment-7506 Sat, 17 Oct 2009 21:23:46 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=3652#comment-7506 I’m an atheist in the USA, but hear me out. Women are different! The question is, are they worse? Question everything (evil laughter)! Question yourself. Question others. With any luck, you’ll get a lot of data before anything really bad happens, whatever “really bad” may be.

]]>
By: Chappers http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/10/13/proposed-legislation-on-women-bishops-falls-short/comment-page-1/#comment-7486 Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:37:30 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=3652#comment-7486 “The fact that some members of our church believe wholeheartedly that women cannot be ordained does not make them right in that belief.” But Miranda, neither do those who wholeheartdly believe in the ordination and consecration of women have a monopoly on truth. That’s the point.

]]>
By: toby forward http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/10/13/proposed-legislation-on-women-bishops-falls-short/comment-page-1/#comment-7454 Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:41:13 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=3652#comment-7454 Thank you for making my contribution ‘best comment’, but, oh, the shame. A typo in the word ‘ignorant’ – ‘igonrant’. I’ll never live it down, and hoisted up there for all to see and daws to peck at.

]]>
By: Peter Elliott http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/10/13/proposed-legislation-on-women-bishops-falls-short/comment-page-1/#comment-7445 Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:54:35 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=3652#comment-7445 I totally agree with Miranda’s comments. And I can assure Brother Stevenson that nowhere in the faith that I received from my parents and grand parents was there any mention that a women should not or could not be a priest or bishop.

]]>
By: toby forward http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/10/13/proposed-legislation-on-women-bishops-falls-short/comment-page-1/#comment-7443 Thu, 15 Oct 2009 07:47:30 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=3652#comment-7443 Br John Stevenson manages to be offensive, igonrant and illiterate all in the space of a single sentence. No small achievement. ‘Bishopess’ is offensive. The idea that traditional anglicans must be bound by the conventions of the past is ignorant, given that traditional anlgicanism has been characterised by its ability to embrace the development of doctrine and its willingness to understand the gospel in the present day. To give an apostrophe to the plural form of anglican is illiterate.

]]>
By: Jon Goode http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/10/13/proposed-legislation-on-women-bishops-falls-short/comment-page-1/#comment-7433 Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:16:02 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=3652#comment-7433 A bishop is a bishop there is no (ess) about it!

To limit the order of bishop, on the basis of gender (or anything else), is far more damaging to the tradition of the church.

]]>
By: Br John Stevenson http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/10/13/proposed-legislation-on-women-bishops-falls-short/comment-page-1/#comment-7424 Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:00:18 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=3652#comment-7424 I fail to see why those Liberals pushing for the office of Bishopess are so determined to discriminate and impose their own fanciful will against Traditional Anglican’s who remain faithful to the faith recieved from their parents and grandparents.

]]>
By: Charles Walmsley http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/10/13/proposed-legislation-on-women-bishops-falls-short/comment-page-1/#comment-7406 Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:04:28 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=3652#comment-7406 It is not only women who oppose the decision of the commitee. I, and I am sure many men like me, are against it. We have beem blessed with great ministry of priests over the last few years both men and women. I want to start a campaign. You don’t need a ***** to be a bishop!

]]>