Sixty Joyless De-Britished Uncrowned Commonpoor Years (1949-2009)

Elizabeth II Vice-Regal Saint: Remembering Paul Comtois (1895–1966), Lt.-Governor of Québec
Britannic Inheritance: Britain's proud legacy. What legacy will America leave?
English Debate: Daniel Hannan revels in making mince meat of Gordon Brown
Crazy Canucks: British MP banned from Canada on national security grounds
Happy St. Patrick's: Will Ireland ever return to the Commonwealth?
Voyage Through the Commonwealth: World cruise around the faded bits of pink.
No Queen for the Green: The Green Party of Canada votes to dispense with monarchy.
"Sir Edward Kennedy": The Queen has awarded the senator an honorary Knighthood.
President Obama: Hates Britain, but is keen to meet the Queen?
The Princess Royal: Princess Anne "outstanding" in Australia.
H.M.S. Victory: In 1744, 1000 sailors went down with a cargo of gold.
Queen's Commonwealth: Britain is letting the Commonwealth die.
Justice Kirby: His support for monarchy almost lost him appointment to High Court
Royal Military Academy: Sandhurst abolishes the Apostles' Creed.
Air Marshal Alec Maisner, R.I.P. Half Polish, half German and 100% British.
Cherie Blair: Not a vain, self regarding, shallow thinking viper after all.
Harry Potter: Celebrated rich kid thinks the Royals should not be celebrated
The Royal Jelly: A new king has been coronated, and his subjects are in a merry mood
Victoria Cross: Australian TROOPER MARK DONALDSON awarded the VC
Godless Buses: Royal Navy veteran, Ron Heather, refuses to drive his bus
Labour's Class War: To expunge those with the slightest pretensions to gentility
100 Top English Novels of All Time: The Essential Fictional Library
BIG BEN: Celebrating 150 Years of the Clock Tower

Wednesday, 27 August 2008

Five Easy Steps to
Save the Church of England

Her Majesty could do worse than make Theodore Harvey the next Archbishop of Canterbury and new Primate for all of England. Here is what he would have pushed at the Lambeth Conference to reform the Anglican Church:

1. A return to the majestic language of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer;

2. An end to the "ordination" of women;

3. A revival of the tradition of choirs of men and boys and with it an emphasis on choral (rather than congregational) singing;

4. Acceptance of the Oxford Movement's emphasis on ancient ceremonial; and

5. An affirmation of an "un-American" hierarchical worldview.

As another fellow scribe here at The Monarchist commented, "we are utterly of the same mind". In other words, if Mr. Harvey is so inclined, he might consider joining our ever expanding gentlemen's club.


Anonymous said...

sounds like a great idea though i do have some queries.

1. can you please explain the need for women priests? im niether here nor there on the issue though i know people who are very passionate for both sides, i would just like this qualm explained to me.

2. choirs a great and for very formal services i do enjoy hearing them though even you must admit that it is sometimes fun and joyus to sing as a congregation to contempery christian music.

3. can you please explain point 5. i dont know whether it is a reference to the gay bishop or the doctrine some American churches are taking that christ is not the only way to haven or even whether it is just an equality thing about classes and the like.

Sir Walter Scott said...

1. There is no need. They are forbidden by scripture and tradition. Women are not interchangeable with men; they have other, more important, truly valuable roles to play in the life of the church, than dressing up as men.

2. I completely agree (though it depends which contemporary Christian music you mean). Choirs do not negate this at all, but sing along with it.

3. Sort of none of those, I think. It's not about eliminating the truth that all men are equal; but about eliminating the falsehood that all men are interchangeable, and remembering that authorities and hierarchies are there for our security rather than oppression, and impose a serious duty upon those within them (at present shirked).

I should add that I think all these steps are useless without the first step: faith. But I think and hope that probably went without saying.

Anonymous said...

sir walter

thank you for explaining the feamale priest things.

as for music i meant stuff like hillsong (the music not the church, they are still christian but not in a traditional CoE/Catholic way) or chris tomlin, i dont know much about him but his music is quite good and very full of praise and meaning.

i am anglican though i have seen both types of anglicanism. my current church is low anglican though my old one was high and i ocassionaly drop into the melbourne anglican cathederal (st pauls, for those who are interested) for prayer


Aeneas the Younger said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aeneas the Younger said...

I agree with all of this - save the comment about Female Ordination. And regarding Paul's letter to Timothy ... Paul's words are not the word of God. It is the word of Paul.

To use this as a permanent ecxclusion clause to the Priesthood is not only ridiculous, but irrational as well.

Especially on a site that venerates and honours the reign of our Sovereign LADY, Queen Elizabeth II.

Anonymous said...

1. Good.

2. Good luck. Also, why? And why the inverted commas round "ordination"?

3. Good.

4. The internal contradictions of the Oxford Movement led to half of 'em converting to Catholicism, right?

5. A bit vague.


Theodore said...

I never expected the rather hastily written comments of an outsider to form the basis for a separate post and am rather flattered. I must say that I do not realistically expect Anglicans to take any of the steps I've recommended (with the possible exception of #4, since many once-controversial practices of the Oxford Movement are already widely accepted; I suppose I tossed that in to make it clear that I have no sympathy with Sydney's Peter Jensen and other "conservatives" of his ilk), which is partly why I am not one.

At the risk of being called an "elitist" (hopefully not such a horrible thing at this blog), I do not share the tolerance of many "conservatives" for the abomination known as "contemporary Christian music." That insipid garbage is the antithesis of the historical European Christian culture that attracts me--that of Palestrina, Bach, and countless other luminaries--and if guitars and drums are what Christian worship is about today, then count me out. God, if He exists, ought to be praised with the most magnificent music, art, and architecture humans have created, a principle which both the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches used to understand but have been in the process of abandoning for the past half-century or so. That is not to say that there is not quality sacred music being written today...but somehow advocates of "contemporary Christian music" never seem to be referring to the works of James Macmillan, Nico Muhly, or John Tavener.

I stress "choral singing" mainly because the deplorable trend towards valuing "participation of the assembly" above high standards has effectively rendered Christendom's countless magnificent settings of the Ordinary of the Mass virtually obsolete, and I consider that a terrible tragedy. I enjoy singing hymns, especially with a great pipe organ, but 3 or 4 hymns are enough congregational singing for one service; for the Gloria, Sanctus, Agnus Dei, etc. the congregation is better off attentively and prayerfully listening to a trained choir offer the masterpieces of the classical repertoire, and that applies to both Anglicanism and Catholicism.

As for the gender issue (I'll get to the priesthood in a subsequent comment), I should make it clear that I would much rather have traditional music sung by well-trained choirs of men and women than poorly or not at all. Indeed, the orchestral Latin mass settings of the 18th and 19th centuries require female singers. It would be absurd to demand that every church everywhere maintain an all-male choir. However, there is something special about the unchanged boy's voice, for which the bulk of the sacred repertoire was originally written, and where that noble tradition has existed it ought to continue unmolested by egalitarian feminist sensibilities.

Theodore said...

I should have indicated that when it comes to abandoning the principle that only the best in the arts is good enough for God, the Catholics have been far worse than the Anglicans, who in many places still maintain admirably high musical standards even in 2008.

However, to move on to the area where Canterbury has drifted much farther from tradition than Rome, every instinct I have rebels against ever accepting female priests as legitimate. This is not because I reject ANY female authority; after all, as has been pointed out, we all support HM Queen Elizabeth II. And it is not, for me as a non-believer, primarily about what the Bible says or doesn't say, though I certainly sympathize with those who make Biblical arguments against women's "ordination."

But as my previous comment suggested, I believe that one of the most important things about a worship service is that it evoke a powerful feeling of continuity with the experience of the faithful of previous generations. The "ordination" of women, precisely because the Church DID maintain an all-male priesthood for nearly 2000 years (as Rome and Constantinople still do), is so radical a break with the past that it utterly destroys that sense of continuity, and for me that is sufficient reason to reject it. The "ordination" of women, which I put in quotation marks because I do not accept that the Church had the authority to make this radical change, implicitly insults the Church of our ancestors, Protestant and Catholic, the Church that nurtured the greatest culture and civilisation the world has ever known, by implying that it was "sexist" and somehow incomplete. It improperly subjects religion, which ought to be timeless and somewhat aloof from partisan politics, to the fashionable social trends of the day. And I have no doubt that the two greatest Anglican women in history--Queens Elizabeth I and Victoria--would agree with me.

Theodore said...

In case any genuinely Christian readers are tempted to wonder why this is any of my business, or why if I care so much I don't join a church, well, that's hard to answer satisfactorily, but I'll try. If I had been brought up Anglican I would stay and fight for the 1662 (1928) BCP; if I had been brought up Roman Catholic I would stay and fight for the Latin mass, even if deep down I wasn't entirely convinced of the literal truth of what those beautiful liturgical texts say. But I wasn't; unlike most monarchists, I was brought up Unitarian Universalist, and if one is not already baptized it's rather difficult to convert to a Church and accept its authority when it no longer seems to stand for any of what one longs for it to stand for.

However, were Beaverbrook in a position to make good on his appointment offer, I'm sure I could reconsider... ;)

Sir Walter Scott said...

"Paul's words are not the word of God. It is the word of Paul."

Nonsense. With the greatest of respect, you are flying in the face of 2008 years of Christian orthodoxy and the very words of St Peter and Paul themselves (which frequently avow to be explicitly born of the Holy Ghost).

Theodore: I feel your pain, and it is something an international disgrace that the Church remains in a state so inhospitable to traditional would-be believers. Yet you will find good congregations plenteously enough if you look hard enough, I assure you.

Shaftesbury said...


Nonsense yourself.

"The Gospel ACCORDING to St. Paul."

"Paul's Epistle to Timothy."

Being a Monarchist and a conservative are one thing - being a reactionary is quite another.

If you want to become a Roman Catholic and indulge in superstition, then Good Luck.

I'll stay a Protestant thank-you very much.

Shaftesbury said...


You appear to me to be the kind of "conservative" who would have supported Chamberlain in 1938.

Thankfully, there were a coterie of real Tories around Churchill who didn't check their brains at the door.

Reaction is NOT conservatism. Not by a long-shot.

Theodore said...

How on earth is opposing the ordination of women equivalent to supporting Chamberlain in 1938? That's got to be one of the most bizarre historical analogies I've seen.

Sir Walter Scott said...


I am struggling to see what is Protestant about devaluing Holy Scripture... and what is Roman about recommending adherence to it.

You're going to have join those dots rather athletically!

Sir Walter Scott said...

The Chamberlain thing is beneath infamy, not to say sanity.

BaronVonServers said...


None of the Reformers, and none of the Fundamentalists, neither Rome, nor Constantinople, nor Alexandria, (A rather wide base of the one holy, catholic, apostolic Church unable to agree on much of anything touching practice) nor any other Scripturally sound Church believes it possible to Ordain Women (beyond possibly as Deaconess).

You're not remaining 'Protestant' by supporting such a break with Scripture AND Tradition, you're courting heresy.

Lord Best said...

There was recently a rather interesting documentary on female Catholics in Australia on television. Due to a shortage of priests one of these women was effectively a priest, she did everything the regular priest would do bar one or two specific things, which I am afraid I do not recall. It raised an interesting issue, for me at least. I have no doubt women could perform the role of priest just as well as the average male, but for the reasons of continuity and tradition, i object to it. But, if by necessity they are being put in the position of de-facto priest by the Church in the interest of its very survival, should it not be made official? I do know enough about the situation to say, but it is an interesting question, wouldn't you agree?

Theodore said...

"I have no doubt women could perform the role of priest just as well as the average male"

No, they couldn't. Continuity and tradition may be MY main reasons, but for believing Roman Catholics and traditional high church Anglicans, it's far more important that since a woman has no ability to consecrate the bread and wine, a "mass" celebrated by a female "priest" would not BE a mass at all. Such a charade would not in any sense aid the Church's "survival."

Shaftesbury said...

A total load of rot. Blindly cleaving to tradition is not the same thing as Christianity.

Conservatives do not cleave to tradition blindly. Reactionaries do.

Many Conservatives supported Chamberlain and Appeasement because it was what the Government's policy was - never mind that it was a lunacy and quite wrong. The analogy is apt.

Blind obedience to ideology is not toryism. It is fanaticism.

For the record, I am a High Anglican on almost everything except the exclusion of Women from the Priesthood. And while I enjoy listening to Boy Tenors, the fact remains that a mixed Choir singing in the High Style is a very good thing too. (I cannot stand Guitars in Church ...)

I firmly believe that Christ would have wanted women treated as we ourselves would want our Daughters to be treated - with dignity and equity as whole human beings, all while recognising the manifest differences between the genders. Recongnising the differences does not mean we should devalue one in the interests of the other.

It is this kind of thinking that constantly sows the seeds of defeat for real conservatives. Fanatics and racists always derail the message that is continuity and tradition - which should always be about preserving what works and has shown to be good - and discarding that which does not work and is shown to be bad.

It appears that the last real conservative who danced across the Anglo-Saxon stage was Lord Stockton.

Lord Best said...

"No, they couldn't. Continuity and tradition may be MY main reasons, but for believing Roman Catholics and traditional high church Anglicans, it's far more important that since a woman has no ability to consecrate the bread and wine, a "mass" celebrated by a female "priest" would not BE a mass at all. Such a charade would not in any sense aid the Church's "survival."

See, this is where you have lost me, its nonsensical. The simple fact is in some areas of Australia women are performing the role of a priest and are accepted as being just as good at it by the congregation and even some in the hierarchy. Whether they should be made official priests or not, they have shown themselves capable and pretending otherwise is just plain silly.

Sir Walter Scott said...

Shaftesbury, you're disgracing yourself.

Comparing us with "Fanatics and racists" is just flat-out revolting.

We are not talking about politics here. We are talking about religion and about God: whose nature is to be never-changing, and emphatically NOT to adapt to the world, but to adapt the world to Himself.

I do not at all believe it is treating women poorly to deny them the priesthood, in line with the last 2000 years of Christian practice, scripture, and catholicity.

If I have to chose between the feelings of any woman, even my daughter, and the sanctity of scripture, the centrality of tradition, and the inviolability of my church - then, alas, the daughter loses, because I would be no very good father if I did not have beliefs I held higher than the emotions of my children.

It is a terrible thing when people feel they are being excluded or mistreated by the church. I firmly believe in the equality of the sexes. I do not believe, however, in the interchangeability of the sexes; nor that we should change church doctrine and practice to appease those who are upset by a misinterpretation of it.

I'm sorry, but you have surrendered to the heresy of feminism and feelings. And look what it has cost you! You devalue the Bible, besmirch the saints and the church, tread squarely in the face of tradition, and have stooped like a drunkard to calling your opponents fascists and racists.

Tweedsmuir said...

Shaftesbury has a way of sounding more angry and more opinionated than he really is, I would guess. I don't for a minute believe he harbours any kind of resentment for the gents who frequent this club. I suspect he agrees and he knows that we are as close to being "real conservatives" as there is, which is why he bothers to show up.

Theodore said...

In addition to endorsing every word of SWS's eloquent response, I'd like to point out that in Anglicanism today it is traditionalists who are far more likely to "feel they are being excluded or mistreated by the church." The pain and division that W.O. has caused, with many sincere Christians (including women!) whose only desire is to worship in the same way their ancestors did unable in conscience to remain in the churches of their childhood, ought to constitute sufficient proof that it was not the right thing to do.

It is not traditionalists who are to blame for the failure of conservatism, but rather those willing to endlessly redefine "conservatism" so that it eventually ceases to conserve anything of value.

I wish that more of those who accept women's ordination could exhibit the genuinely tolerant attitude of Peter Hitchens, who wrote recently that while he personally does not object to female priests in principle, he accepts that many well-meaning and reasonable Anglican people do, and deplores the way they have been treated by those apparently anxious to drive them out of the Church they love. He also observed (and this is relevant to my other points above) that he has met only two female priests who favour the 1662 BCP, and none at all who are theologically conservative in general. I would bet that few, if any, Anglican priestesses would be at all sympathetic to the general aims and orientation of this blog, or even particularly grateful for the support of such as Shaftesbury and Lord Best. The Anglican Left have consistently shown that they see W.O. as merely the first step towards a wider revolution that I daresay even these two gentlemen would find unpalatable.

Sir Walter Scott said...

If Shaftesbury meant it less angrily, then I must add that I do not mean mine angrily at all: only sincerely.

The vim is but the vim of friends with flagons of beer, good tobacco and a fire close by their knees, I assure you!

But I do think he's mistaken, and gravely so.

Shaftesbury said...


I discuss this with no enmity for you fellows - however, I do think your misogyny is out of step with Christ's Golden Rule.

What you are adocating is the retention of a convention based soley on Paul's Epistle to Timothy and previous practice. There is really no hard and absolute preclusion to Women as Priests - and you know it.

Defending your preferences and prejudices is your right, but it does not make it right or reasonable.

Theodore said...

So the Church was "out of step with Christ's Golden Rule" for nineteen centuries and only discovered its true interpretation in the late 20th century? An era which, not coincidentally, also saw the dramatic decline of the influence of both Christian and monarchist values throughout the world? Do you have any idea how insulting and preposterous that proposition is? How can you believe in the Church of England at all if it was so dreadfully wrong on such a fundamental matter for so long? What on earth is so wonderful about the modern era to make its novel interpretations of Christianity superior? Why did it never occur to the vast majority of the millions of faithful Christians (Anglican, Catholic, and Orthodox) who lived before the 20th century that there was anything wrong with restricting the priesthood to men? How can you be so contemptuous of previous generations? That's what I don't understand.

"There is really no hard and absolute preclusion to Women as Priests - and you know it. "

No, actually, we don't. Republicans are every bit as certain that "everyone" knows that elections are a better method than heredity of selecting the head of state--and they're still wrong.

Sir Walter Scott said...

It is right and reasonable because there *is* an absolute preclusion to women as priests - the text of Holy Scripture and the catholic creeds and tradition.

Either the Bible is the Word of God, as all Anglicans and Protestants (not to say plain Christians) have believed for centuries, or it isn't. Either we can profess every word of every creed in our Prayer Books, and its acknowledgement of the catholic, apostolic tradition, or we cannot.

Now, it seems to me a desperately sad thing to throw in these two centre-pieces of Anglican and Christian faith merely to pacify some rebellious women, who have such a mean grasp of their faith that they mistake that faith's scripture and tradition as nothing more than nasty attacks upon them, and cannot conceive of a higher function for such ancient, Biblical positions than purposeless misogyny.

St Paul's epistles form part of the New Testament, and are Canon - always have been, always will be. They are acclaimed by history, tradition and church law as inerrant, Holy Ghost-inspired, God-authorised and binding. If you wish to get rid of him for his words against female priests, you must get rid of him on everything from the cross to the resurrection and every other subject he touches.

That would be horrendous!

You are, essentially, willing to commit the most prolific vandalism and blasphemies upon your historic faith, in order to placate a minority group of radical liberal feminists.

Even if they were all - all - dutiful, loving, Godly, sincere Christian women, it would be the most terrible and depraved act.

What are you doing?

We have had priestesses ordained for scarcely more than a decade. The CofE traces its roots to the 6th century; and the Christian faith of course has 20 centuries to its name. 14 years is less than a drop in this ocean; it is a molecule in an infinity. It will pass. Do not let it destroy you while it goes by.

Sir Walter Scott said...

Classy touch, by the way, in claiming you do this with "no enmity" - and then calmly indicting me of "misogyny" in the same sentence.

Lord Best said...

You misunderstand me, Theodore. I do not support the ordination female priests, I am against it on the grounds of tradition and continuity, and the argument that it is forbidden in scripture is compelling, though I do not know enough about that to give any kind of opinion.
What I object to is that the statement that women are some how incapable of performing priestly duties simply because they are women, when here in Australia we see women who have devoted their lives to exactly that due to the shortage of priests. These women are de-facto priests who are beloved by their parishioners, to say that they are less competent simply because they are women is highly offensive and just plain incorrect. This has nothing to do with feminism, it is just a simple fact that here women are doing priestly duties, and doing them as well as male priests.

Anonymous said...

Lord Best - surely you would then be in favour of female preists if there were no male to take the job.

I have seen alot of people here talking about how they are against female priests because of tradition and the like and as great as that is i think that surely we would be fine to break tradition if it meant we would still be able to have priests. i mean a church with no female priests and a shortage of male preists (a situation that would seriously damage people faith if they have nobdy to lead them) would be much worse than having both male and female priests.

the scripture that is being talked about i feel must be looked at in context. christianity was relativly young at the time, it was illegal, society was very religious. also for alwe know there may have been aproblem with the female teachers at that time (im not a theologian all i am saying is that it is a possibility).

remember everything that we have now was new and radical at one time or another, i mean look at how Anglican priests can be married and have childeren. so maybe in this very different secular society we should consider that maybe a time will arise where there is a need for female priests. so yes male priests should be given preference but i somehow see it as a stupid idea to dismiss half of the population just because of tradition and one part of scripture. there was a time in the early church where a decision had to be made whether to accept gentile christians yet that was allowed and one of the people against the acceptance of gentile christians was peter the head of the church at the time (this happenes in Acts. Also i do not believe that the bible says that female priests are sinning by being female priests, unlike the gay bishop who is is clearly doing this by his lifestyle.

one must also remember that it is not tradition or who is a priest that matters but Christ and our relationship with him. all else is secondary

Sir Walter Scott said...

"the scripture that is being talked about i feel must be looked at in context."

Which is all fine and good. People explain away Paul on this point, in this way. But do you then go on to subject the rest of his writings to such narrow context? Do you confine what he has to say on certain elements of the crucifixion simply to his audience in Hebrews? Do you confine his condemnation of homosexuality in Romans, solely to the Romans? Do you confine his views on church discipline to the Corinthians, solely to the Corinthians? I'm sure excellently theoretical contexts might be introduced to exculpate ourselves from the burden of all these words and more. But thank God most of us don't stoop so low, or we'd never stop stooping. We cannot give on one of his points because it is convenient in this moment in time, unless we are prepared to give on all of them, once and for all. Indeed, wherever the contest against orthodoxy and truth is at any time raging, it is there we are called to stand precisely for the unpopular, inconvenient side, if it is true, otherwise our witness is useless in practice.

I have no doubt that women can do a very good outward job of acting like priests. The Mormon Tabernacle Choir do, apparently, a marvellous job of singing many of our classic hymns. But outward performance, no matter how meticulous and professional, is not enough to please God. How can anything please Him which disbelieves or disobeys His Word - which, lest we forget, he incarnated bodily in Christ Jesus? It is, as you say, the relationship that counts!

As a church organisational matter... If there is a real male shortage, the answer is not a hastily (or accidentally, it seems) cobbled plaster, but genuine surgery upon the real problem. But anyway, curiously enough in most cases the male shortage did not come about till they began producing priestesses. See, for example: (Specifically the paragraphs beginning: "In the women priests debate of 1992..." It seems that female priests are actually taking male ordinands' space). Also, feel free to google any statistics you like about male:female ratios. It gets worse with every passing year of this blasphemy. The graphs are quite dismaying.

"one must also remember that it is not tradition or who is a priest that matters but Christ and our relationship with him. all else is secondary"

True up to a point. Our relationship with Christ places upon us several important duties: faith, fidelity to the truth, commitment to the Holy Scriptures among them. If one does not follow these honestly and fully, there is little merit in pretending still to follow Christ.

Lord Best said...

I would rather see the Church combat the reasons for the priest shortage rather than a such an immense break with tradition.
In a way it is a shame the old monastic institutions have broken down, all these women who wanted to be priests could go and do all sorts of good works in the name of God without all this fuss.

Anonymous said...

you reccomended some reading. yet the only thing that i could find in it was material that supports female priests "nce women priests were permitted, what had been a fall-off in applications to the priesthood that gap was now filled with liberal women priests" now taking away the political bias (you did provide me with a blog that is called "conservative home") we can see that even this author says there was a shortage.

here we have another example of shortages. yes it is for the catholic church but it is still there, even closer to me the Brothers at my school, the De La Salle brothers are in huge shortage in Australia, these are not priests i know but it shows as an example what is happening. here is another view on the issue. it comes to a conclusion about female priests though i find it to be much better that the conservative home entry, and i especially like the quote "Seeing that this is the only passage of Scritpure in the New Testament forbidding women from teaching men I would be hard pressed to make this a core doctrine based on this one verse alone"

now i do agree that women priests are not optimal and in fact i am more against than i am for them (i just seem to always take on the role of devils advocate, its a fun challenge to me) but one must see that should the need be the churh should look towards women priests if it means the churches survival (though that shouldnt be for a while yet, even if society is becoming increasingly more secular)

for a view of this issue here is the femminist view.
i have only really looked at this briefly this as i have had alot of other things to do.

Theodore said...

I'm pretty sure that the "priest shortage" in both the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches is a direct result of liberalism and that the solution is less liberalism, not more. In the case of the RCC, Michael Rose wrote a whole book ("Goodbye, Good Men") about orthodox young men turned away from modernist-controlled seminaries because they were deemed too "rigid" and "old-fashioned."

If I may make an analogy relevant to the name of this blog, in Europe today there are plenty of elected commoners acting as heads of state in countries like France, Portugal, and Austria which traditionally were always headed by hereditary monarchs. They are accepted by the majority of the people, and are technically able to carry out the duties of head of state. That does not make it right. I for one will never regard them as legitimate, just as a true traditional Anglican will never accept female "priests," no matter what circumstances seem to "require" them, no matter how many other people find them acceptable.

Shaftesbury said...


God gave us Free-Will, and the expectation that we use it via reason.

I guess where you and I differ is that I am not a literalist. I absolutely adore tradition and continuity - but NOT where it compromises the fundamental ETHICS of Christ.

The Christian Ethic must trump mere form from time-to-time - especially if that form is antithetical to Christ's teachings.

The New Testament thus trumps the Old Testament.

We allow Priests to marry, and that was not always the case. Why the change here? Are we not out of the tradition on that one?

At some point traditions evolve. Even Burke conceded that reality.

As to misogyny, it would seem that this word offends you. For that I apologise, but I must ask why?

Cleaving to a tradition that most patently is our of accord with Chritian ethics must have aome justification beyond that of tradition. What so offends you about Women in the Pulpit?

Further Gentlemen, I refuse to be a trained seal. Sir Winston often went against the grain of social acceptance if he believed in something - and was not afraid of speaking his mind. I am no different.

At the times we was not welcome at Carlton, he convened the "Other" Club.

Winston was the Father of the Welfare State and he was a Tory (in the Liberal Party) at the same time. Many people on both sides of the aisle were oftern angry at him - and yet, he was indubitably right on such matters, even though the Orthodoxies cried for his blood.

So, I believe my Appeasement analogy could be fairly apt in the context of this thread.

The great thing about tradition is that it gives us something to cleave to in times of momentus and rapid change, however it must be revered along with reason.

At one time, slavery was part of our "tradition". Thankfully, men like William Wilberforce and others could see that if was truly an offence against Christ's teachings - and more thankfully - the rest of society agreed. Within years the abominable "tradition" of slavery was banished from the British Empire.

Sir Walter Scott said...

"Seeing that this is the only passage of Scritpure in the New Testament forbidding women from teaching men I would be hard pressed to make this a core doctrine based on this one verse alone".

- This is terrible. The doctrine of the Trinity has few verses explicitly describing it, and yet we do not throw it in on upon that basis. If the Bible says it, we are not then meant to start counting the number of times it says it, and come up with evaluations of a doctrine's merit upon that basis. This is mere childish idiocy. Christianity is not a matter of statistics and counting. If it says it, it says it. You cannot escape it by weakly pleading that it really ought to have said it a few more times, just to impress it upon you a little better.

Shaftesbury - you are not arguing like a gentleman. Comparing your opponents with fascist appeasers and now slave-holders is frankly pathetic.

"I guess where you and I differ is that I am not a literalist. I absolutely adore tradition and continuity - but NOT where it compromises the fundamental ETHICS of Christ."

- I am exactly the same as you, but I know that the Bible - being the Word of God - cannot compromise the fundamental ethics of Christ, because it is the ethics of Christ, and no female priests or preachers IS a fundamental ethic of Christ too.

What you worship is but the ethic of the present Age. But it too shall pass away.

- The rest of your post is frankly drivel. Why do I object to being called a misogynist? Does that really need an answer? Could it be because it's a) and untrue and b) extremely rude? Shall I call you a racist, and then innocently wonder why it offends you?

- Priests marry now because the Reformers took the Bible very seriously, knowing it was inspired by the Holy Ghost and binding upon all men. And they saw that St Paul himself averred it was wrong to deny marriage as the Romans did: see 1 Timothy 4:1-3.

"1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

3Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth."

All I'm asking you is to be like those who abolished the prohibition on clergy marrying. Take St Paul seriously. And stand forthright against women being priests.

Give up this momentary heresy.

Shaftesbury said...


Labeling it "rude" is a matter of opinion - and that is your opinion, but not mine.

Ordaining men but not women creates two classes of baptism, thereby contradicting Saint Paul's statement that all are equal in Christ.

It is really quite as simple as that. Let me put this another way:

SHOW ME EXACTLY where in the Bible Women Priests are clearly, dramatically, and permanently forbidden to act as Priests ...

You can't. Further, you won't.

Shaftesbury said...

You are advocating an Anglo-Catholicism here, and while I am a traditional Anglican on 98% of Church issues - I remain a Protestant.

It is really quite simple: if you wish to adhere to dogma rather than ethics, the please become a Roman Catholic.

That is the philosophical difference between an Anglican and a Roman Catholic.

Shaftesbury said...

Dogma versus Ethics.

Sir Walter Scott said...

I'm a Protestant, actually, as much as an Anglican. I wouldn't call myself Anglo-Catholic at all.

And there is nothing Anglican about throwing in scripture and tradition. It is merely radical and ridiculous; pray do not attempt to crown it with the glory of our denomination.

And here's your quote: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." (1 Tim 2:12)

Finally: if you say reserving certain positions for men creates two classes of baptism, you might as well say the same for the front-line infantry. This is your weakest point yet.

P.S. "Labeling it "rude" is a matter of opinion - and that is your opinion, but not mine."

- Well done on completely devolving into mean relativism here. Rudeness is not a matter of personal opinion, it is a matter of social standards: and you have broken them repeatedly.

Anonymous said...

Firstly your arguement about tradition can clearly been seen as wrong for tradition is what was made before us yet at sometime was new. Just look at plainsong/ gregorian chanting back in the 1200s it would have been considered radical and new as woulg have alot of other things we call tradition, clearly some things like communion are not new or radical as Christ gave it to us and the same can be said about the lords prayer too.

As for this misogny talk by the way this debate is going it seems at dome degree misogny must be present. Now I have said that the letter should be looked at contextually and I still believe that, for the letters were not always part of the bible but infact letters helping the people they were addressed to. They were included in the bible ( a document compiled long after the letters were written) because almost all of the content remains universally relevant. Though seeing that this is only said in one verse of one letter it can be said that that is a part of the letter that was addressing a particular problem that timothy and his church had, this bloog is very much about history yet you seem to have overlooked the history of the letters.

Shaftesbury said...

More dogma.

One line from the Epistle that is no longer relevent as it is quite clearly at odds with the Golden Rule and the Universal sacrament of Christian Baptism.

Like Priestly celibacy, it is a relic from a distant past that has nothing to do with Christ's word. Perhaps you would like to bring back the ancient tradition of Stoning too ...

Your garment is showing.

Further, pointing out that you are wrong and wrong-headed is hardly rude. Pointing out the fact that you are an ideologist - and not in any way philosophical - is not rude.

You may not like it, but that does not make it rude.

"And here's your quote: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." (1 Tim 2:12)"

I am sure that Her current Majesty, Queen Elizabeth I, Queen Anne, and Queen Victoria would have loved to hear you defend a perpetual patriarchy with that one.

Shaftesbury said...

Anglicans are supposed to be the ones who join Scripture to Reason.

Fundamentalism is not the English tradition - at least not since the Restoration.

Your choice: Dogma or Ethics.

Sir Walter Scott said...

I am reminded why many clubs ban the topic of religion entirely!

"As for this misogny talk by the way this debate is going it seems at dome degree misogny must be present."

- That's a little unfair. I have been compared to Nazi sympathisers and slave-owners, so I believe you might forgive any passion on my part in putting my defense across. If, however, you merely deduct misogyny from my refusal to give in, you are making it rather hard for anyone to ever disagree with you, if it buys them automatic infamy. Rather childish, rather ludicrous.

- Shaftesbury: I am assuming you are basically sozzled when typing your posts. You are now blindly repeating your points, having ignored our patient exploding of them. That really won't do.

The universal sacrament of baptism is in no way violated by reserving certain Christian offices for certain Christian people. You will need to explain how it is, for it quite plainly isn't. Only the Queen can be the Queen, but we do not say this violates universal baptism! And I do not believe any man can be a priest; indeed I further narrow the scope of legitimacy, in line with the Bible, by saying it is only those called to be so. This is Anglicanism. These are the rules. The Word of God decrees them. The tradition of the church upholds them.

Only infants are to be blown from it by momentary gusts of the spirit of the age.

Use your reason, use your scripture. Put them together for once and you will see that you are being perfectly monstrous and irrational in deciding that one must delegitimise whatever texts displease us, merely because they displease us, or are out of sync with the times. That is a blank cheque that will, more swiftly than you appreciate, buy you nothing but darkness. There is no reason involved; all you mean by reason, here, is prejudice. That way lies bottomless evil.

I have SHOWN you how it is nothing like priestly celibacy: indeed it is precisely the opposite, going along with the abolition of compulsory celibacy in being FOUNDED UPON SCRIPTURE. Read my previous posts if you haven't. Read a basic history of your denomination!

"Further, pointing out that you are wrong and wrong-headed is hardly rude. Pointing out the fact that you are an ideologist - and not in any way philosophical - is not rude."

Listen here. You have compared me to fascists, slave-holders and stoners. If you said any of those things to me in real life, I would, in the words of G. K. Chesterton, have pulled your nose off. Don't start blushing and protesting innocence now. You have fought dirty and disgraced yourself. You owe me and Theodore an apology.

I think we might end this now, since our side has evidently argued you into a corner, and all you have to offer is nonsense.

Shaftesbury said...

"Listen here. You have compared me to fascists, slave-holders and stoners. If you said any of those things to me in real life, I would, in the words of G. K. Chesterton, have pulled your nose off. Don't start blushing and protesting innocence now. You have fought dirty and disgraced yourself. You owe me and Theodore an apology."

No, I haven't and No, I don't.

Do you understand the term "analogy"?

Do you have any sense of nuance or abstraction?

Your delusions regarding the "exploding" of my points do not impress me. Because it never happened. Your idle physical threats do not impress me. Their tragically pathetic. All they do is make me sad. Sad for you.

You have not addressed the distinction between Dogma and Ethics and then you call me a Heretic!

And then you have the nerve to act dishonoured. Pathetic, really.

You cloak your misogyny beneath a blind adherence to Paul's Epistle to Timothy, and then dare to command us to accept it as eternal.

Little of the olde dogma, practice, and policy has stood the test of time:

* The burning of Heretics;

* The Stoning of Sinners;

* The Witch Trials - to name a few.

It was called a Reformation for a reason.

Good day to you. My hat & cloak please.

Anonymous said...

"I am reminded why many clubs ban the topic of religion entirely!"

i agree on this though i feel that religious debate can be good, good at challenging ones faith and good at making ones faith grow because of the overcoming of the challenges put foward.

now i have come to the conclusion that maybe this issue is infact not black and white but in a grey area, something that does exist in christianity, one only need to look at pre-destination and whether salvation is by faith alone or by works and faith.

I did not mean to say that only one side is right because one can use the misoginy card but more that when ever a person uses that statement alone it is quite misogonistic, though not really when read in context with the rest of the letter. now it was either in romans or timothy that paul talks about wives being submissive, alone a misogonistic statement but when read in context a very good one when you see the role that it plays in a marrige and the role of the husband.

thank you for the debate it has been quite stimulating.

Sir Walter Scott said...

"Do you understand the term "analogy"?"

Yes, you blinkered fool, it would be a comparison!

Shaftesbury said...

Which is what it was, you obdurate fool ...

Sir Walter Scott said...

Which is what I complained of!

Arguments really are more edifying if both sides read each other's posts; and they are at least more sensible if you read your *own* posts. This marks the last contradiction I am willing to spend any time rebutting.

Good day!

And to our little audience, I trust your eyes quite readily see the true lines of these debate, and the true villains.

BaronVonServers said...

A member of the audience to Sir Walter Scott, Greetings!

Yes, we know who argued from reason and who from prejudice. Shaftesbury could not have made it more plain that he is uninterested in facts and reason.

You have carried yourself and the traditional position well. I thank you for doing so.

Sir Walter Scott said...

The Sabbath having arrived, and in the cause of comity and comradeship, I should just like to take the brief opportunity to apologise to Shaftesbury and others - no matter how wrong I maintain they are - for any intemperate language or ill-treatment on my part, genuine or perceived. Mea culpa. Whilst of course I stand by every argument, I regret any anger, and forgive it in all my opponents.

David Byers said...

Save the Church of England? Fuck it I say. Read what Sir Williams Crookes proved and see just how stupid religion is!