Bishop Libby Lane was one of two women flanking Archbishop Dr John Sentamu at the consecration of Philip North as Bishop of Burnley yesterday.
Neither Lane nor Sentamu laid hands on North, a “traditionalist” ordained in an all-male succession. The Bishop of Chichester was invited by Archbishop Sentamu to lead the laying on of hands and to preside at the Eucharist. Bishops who had previously participated in ordaining women as priests or bishop were asked to exercise “gracious restraint” in refraining from joining in the laying on of hands at North’s consecration.
However, a picture shared on Flickr told a whole other story.
Picture copyright Blackburn Diocese. Photographer Clive
Lawrence.cl…@me.com
(Click on the links for more images.)
Posted by Rosalind Hughes
All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café
It isn’t about personal animosity. It is about the fact that institutional misogyny is exceedingly hurtful. Every little girl who encounters this situation will internalize the idea that they are somehow defective. Female clergy will have to work under supervisors who don’t affirm their call. It’s dreadful in many ways. Nuts and abusers can take heart that the women they abuse are lesser creatures, and rationalize the abuse.
Also, the CoE is reviving and affirming an ancient heresy, Donatism, in order to lift up this institutional misogyny.
@Nick, Donatism is an ancient heresy that says that the character or qualities of the clergy doesn’t “taint” or invalidate the sacraments. So that is where the “taint” is coming in. We aren’t inventing it. They are not merely keeping a male line, which would be fine, they are claiming that women bishops and male bishops who’ve ordained women are tainted. It’s superstitious nonsense that is absolutely unnecessary.
Cynthia, you have that backwards, Donatists believed that character did taint the minister and so invalidated their offices and sacraments.
Yet the earth didn’t fall off its axis…… So now that Bishops Lane and North are consecrated, can the church go about the business of the Kingdom, which is to preach the Gospel and make disciples from all nations???
A cynical, on the part of the men involved, PR gambit to paper over the cracks of schism and hope to fool the press and those in the church pews, that all ‘ s right with the world. So we know that the new bishop of Burnley ‘ s response to being touched by a woman is less extreme than the response of a member of the Taleban, but the fact remains, same continuum, different ends. Top marks to her, though.
Let’s not make too much of Bishop North’s invitation.
Did he have any right to exclude Bishop Lane from York Minster?
Or was he gilding the lily?
How terribly American, to think that bona fide theological differences (remember the “Two Integrities” of the Eames Report, anyone?) must translate into personal animosity. Obviously Bps Lane and North can get along as baptized persons without all the politicizing that is on the other side of the Atlantic. The Lund Principle of the catholic party in the General Synod is, “What we can do together we will. What we cannot, we will agree to disagree, until all things become clear in Christ.” Sounds good to me.
Not everyone here is a US citizen, which I take as your meaning for American. No one here has promoted any animosity. Please refrain from fantasy of your own device.
David Streever, thin-skinned and oversensitive would apply to that individual who tried to make my views akin to someone who agrees with domestic violence and people who tend to be suicidal. Agree to disagree,Mr.Streever. I can do that, can you??
Bro David:
On the other thread, many of us called Bishop North’s belief (that women are inferior to men spiritually) a form of discrimination or bigotry, because it denigrates all women regardless of their individual talents as being inferior to men.
Nick saw that as ‘animosity’. What can you do, right? I think it’s a very thin-skinned/oversensitive response to people describing the textbook definition of discrimination.
Sure.
Nick, when you post in a thread we have to believe that you are referring to the conversation taking place in the thread until you specifically state otherwise. Placing a comment here, about something that is occurring in another conversation, is out of place, if you don’t alert us to the fact.
Then the blind would be reading fact not in evidence. My point was what I stated; +Libby accepts +Philip a bishop.
Actually, you should take another look and read even slower, he didn’t specify that it was this thread in particular, even though a blind person could see the snark in your first post here. You have a nice day there,Bro.David. 🙂
Read slower and comprehend more, Mr Knopf stated that in this thread we were promoting that “personal” animosity should exist between +Philip & +Libby. Not true, and not disingenuous to state so. Nothing in this thread has anything to do with anything posted elsewhere.
I’ve seen plenty here:
https://www.episcopalcafe.com/a-request-for-gracious-restraint-cofes-first-woman-bishop-and-a-traditionalist/
As well as the Episcopalians on Facebook group, twitter, and much more…oh there is much animosity and to say otherwise is disingenuous to say the least.
Amen!!
I’m sharing my opinions like you are,Geoff. Don’t get off topic by turning the topic to me. Ok? Have a wonderful evening! 🙂
Nick, of course those who hold the balance of power ever enjoy the luxury of “agreeing to disagree”. Is that your point?
Is there a purpose to your contributions apart from playing “devil’s advocate” for biological determinism?
He has by theory believed that since the day they both became Christians, that has never been the question.