Parliament has the right to decide on ‘women bishops’: Anglo-Catholics please note

“Equality”.
You actually believe in gender ideology? You believe that the average woman is just as capable and willing as the average man to be a combat soldier, while the average man is just as capable as the average woman to take care of small children?

If you ask the average girl what she wants to do when she grows up, would she reply “I want to be a soldier!”?

Men and woman are equal in dignity, but not in vocations.

To force woman-bishops in the CoE would be evil. That is against Tradition. Therefore, the woman-bishops will be, by exclusion, people who care not about Tradition. What I mean is, not only do women in general lack God’s mandate to be bishops, but the ones that insist on it are precisely the ones who are not pious.

In other words, the CoE may go in the direction of the Episcopal Church of the USA.

They need our prayers.

“remove any exemptions pertaining to gender under existing equality legislation”

Is it just me who sees these words and feels a sense of alarm that the removal of such exemptions would not be read as applying only to the CofE?

Clearly, no government can force the Catholic Church to ordain women – but it might not stop them trying, and persecuting us when we refuse.

Yes, I WAS kidding, of course I was: that’s why I put “equality” in quotes.

What part of “calls upon Her Majesty’s government to remove any exemptions pertaining to gender under existing equality legislation” do you think exempts the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales from this threat?

Brendan Behan put it a little more crudly: “I couldn’t see myself in a Church founded on the syphalitic bollocks of a serial killer.”

Well, let them try it. What a good opportunity for our bishops to witness to their faith: maybe they will sen a few to jail.

Even if for the wrong reasons, Frank Field is right. The General Synod does not have the final say on women bishops in the Church of England. Parliament has. No one who does not accept in full the claims of Rome can submit to Her; no one who does can fail to do so. In its own terms, if a new network of Conservative Evangelical congregations would better serve the proclamation of the Gospel, then it must be created anyway. In neither case does any other consideration arise. Certainly, the prospect of either need not concern Parliament as a body.

Classical Christianity is the basis of this state and the foundation of all three of its political traditions. But independent research has found very large proportions of the women among the Church of England’s clergy to be doubters of or disbelievers in key points of doctrine. Two thirds deny “that Jesus Christ was born of a Virgin”. One quarter denies the existence “of God the Father Who created the world”. Assuming a woman on the episcopal “team” in each diocese, of those with privileged access to the media and other organs of national life as the voice of the Christianity professed by seventy-two per cent of Britons, at least one eighth would be agnostics or atheists.

A positive decision to retain declared “Fathers in God” within our parliamentary system and wider national life would emphasise the importance of fatherhood. That would set the tone for the introduction of a legal presumption of equal parenting. For the restoration of the tax allowance for fathers for so long as Child Benefit is being paid to mothers. For the restoration of the requirement that providers of fertility treatment take account of the child’s need for a father, and the repeal of the ludicrous provision for two women to be listed as a child’s parents on a birth certificate, although even that is excelled by the provision for two men to be so listed. And for paternity leave to be made available at any time until the child was 18 or left school.

That last, in particular, would reassert paternal authority, and thus require paternal responsibility, at key points in childhood and adolescence. That authority and responsibility require an economic basis such as only the State can ever guarantee, and such as only the State can very often deliver. And that basis is high-wage, high-skilled, high-status employment. All aspects of public policy must take account of this urgent social and cultural need. Not least, that includes energy policy: the energy sources to be preferred by the State are those providing the high-wage, high-skilled, high-status jobs that secure the economic basis of paternal authority in the family and in the wider community. So, nuclear power. And coal, not dole.

To argue for this by word and by sheer presence is a role for living icons of God the Father, addressed as “Fathers in God”. Parliament must do its duty and reassert the importance of fatherhood by rejecting any proposal for women bishops. No matter what.

If parliament removed the exemption, it would not do it just for the C/E, that would be discrimination. It would then apply to RC priests and Muslim Imans. It obviously won’t happen. Frank Field was just expressing an opinion, nothing more.

More worrying, and more likely, is a level of financial penalisation which would lead to the sale of church property to pay fines.

And can we really see ourt bishops going to jail for the faith? They’d crumble happily in the face of the threat. “Oh Holy Father, but we HAD to…”

No Frank Field. Parliament has no right to decide on these matters. God speaks through His true Church (the Catholic Church) and those who disobey her by voting for the invalid consecration of ‘bishopesses’ will be cast into Hell on the Last Day..

That’s what Summerskill thinks. It was the ‘New World Order’ who said homosexual sins would be legalized six months before this rebellion.

Frank Field should get it through his thick head – the antiChrist government does not own the Catholic Church. The head of the Catholic Church is the Pope..As for Muslims – they wouldn’t dare – have you ever heard of cases concerning this Satanic ‘equality’ tripe being brought against Muslims?

Let’s get history right and not the lies of false historians shall we? Henry VIII executed Protestants as heretics because they rejected ‘The Six Articles’ (1539). He martyred Catholics for rejecting the Royal Supremacy. When he died Parliament, without authority, repealed ‘The Six Articles’ (1539) and martyred many Catholics because of their Faith. It had nothing to do with Edward VI as these acts were made in his name by Protestants who wanted Church land and money for themselves. It is not right to call Queen Mary ‘Bloody Mary’ because of her Catholic Faith as there are few historians who acknowledge that under Mary the original articles of King Hinry VIII (‘The Six Articles’ (1539)) was restored by Parliament and there was even a day of repentance for England’s sliding into Protestantism.

render unto ceaser..poor c of e  i do hope some good comes out of all this .