Bo Peeps in the catholic and apostolic church

How well I remember an hilarious conversation I had with a dear priest friend, Fr Thomas, during the early 1990s. Tom was quite a brilliant moral theologian and dedicated friar, and I must add that he had an aversion for things English which perhaps can be polished to perfection only by one who, like himself, was native to southern Ireland. Arch-conservative in many ways, and always feeling rather afflicted by his flock as well as the Establishment, he tended to have a tendency to think of himself as Thomas Becket - indeed, more than once, when he felt he was being opposed, he'd stare out at the congregation from the pulpit and sternly say, "Will no one rid me... of this meddling priest." (He was a tiny man, barely five feet tall, and stood on a step stool in the pulpit. When he uttered that line, in a Richard Burtonesque style, one had the impression of Goliath.)

On the morning I well recall, Tom was in quite an uproar. Being one to begin conversations without stating the topic he assumed the hearer had seen in a crystal ball, Tom told me, "There are limits! The pope can dispense himself from anything, but this is ridiculous!" Floundering through puzzlement, I asked, "Are you referring to the Pope's meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury?"

Little Becket bristled at his title's being usurped. "There is no Archbishop of Canterbury! There is only a Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster! That character in Canterbury is not a bishop! He is not a priest!" (Crescendo) "I suppose you think that Anthony Quinn was the pope!"

I'll spare the rest of this text for the moment, but must add that Becket continued with a comment on the then-ongoing discussions of women's ordination in the C of E. "There is but one holy, catholic, and apostolic church! And there are no Bo Peeps in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church!"

(When Tom was going through his last illness, I quietly took over most of the parish administration to ease the burden on him. I suppose that, in many ways, it was clear I already had a strong 'Bo Peep streak.' And, right now, he's undoubtedly looking down from the heavens, his rumpled wings poking out from an oversized and patched robe, calling down, "And the back of both o' me hands to ye...")

As Tom well knew, I have never seen a theological reason that women could not be priests (which is not to say that I thought individual bishops should consecrate them independently of authority of the larger Church, nor that women should miss the good they could do 'today' because they devoted all their energies to moaning over not yet having that privilege.) I loved John Paul, but his explanation that Jesus had not bestowed priesthood on his own mother (...I don't know... her already being a tabernacle would make that seem to be overkill), and that women were not present for the Last Supper (which John Paul knew full well was not an ordination ceremony per se), always seemed an evasion. The bit of a logician which resides within me made it all too clear that taking the latter example to its logical conclusion would mean that women could not attend the Eucharist (and John Paul had a hundred times the abilities in logic which I possess, and knew full well that the Last Supper was not, per se, the Eucharist either.)

Lest I shock anyone, my ideas about sacramental theology could not be more orthodox. I firmly believe both in the ministerial, ordained priesthood and in the Eucharist - but not that these were known before Jesus' resurrection and ascension, Pentecost, and a bit more of an interval to get the infant Church past the learning curve. Jesus did not leave his Church alone - it would take continuing, divine revelation, in light of the resurrection, and by the power of the Holy Spirit, for the fulness of the Eucharist and priesthood to be recognised.

The title of this post contains a link to the news about the vote for women bishops in the Church of England. I have neither the political savvy nor the realism to analyse the many implications that this action, particularly in view of the proposal for a two-tier communion, may have. Yet I am wondering if, two hundred years from now perhaps, this action (which, in my overly romantic mind, currently resounds as "it's about time, after 2,000 years") will be seen as prophetic, with the English Church being a vehicle of the Holy Spirit (and introducing an innovation which Rome later will follow), or whether ecumenism will be so badly hampered that Rome and the Orthodox will move yet further away.

I am not denying ecclesiology. I believe that Peter indeed had primacy (and this, in fact, predates his going to Rome.) Yet I see the beginnings of our Church as times of glorious diversity - Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, Jerusalem.... I'm getting a happy shiver to think of how quickly the gospel spread during a relatively short period. Conflict has always been a part of this (and I've treated this in previous posts.) Yet, for example, would Jesus have been so fully the 'light to lighten the Gentiles' (in our perception - divine power cannot be qualified) had non-Jews not had an equal status with Israel? And it took the far from diplomatic Paul to challenge the church at Jerusalem (and the very fallible Peter) for this to begin.

I have no crystal ball - my chances at being prophetic or discerning are slightly below those of my becoming a prima ballerina - and, were I to see visions or hear locutions, I would call for an ambulance. What I express here is only a hope - that the English Church is manifesting the Holy Spirit, and that this will have implications for the larger church catholic

(The side of me that is more mischievous than sublime is looking forward to the debates that shall follow... that part should be great fun.)