The July Synod has the potential to be one of the most demanding meetings of the Synod for many years. It will, in the view of the House, be an occasion when all concerned will need to listen with particular care to those with views that differ from their own and to acknowledge the passion and sincerity with which those views are held.
The House is aware that there are those who believe that the present legislative process does not have the potential to lead to a satisfactory conclusion and that a better outcome is more likely to be achieved in some years’ time. Most members of the House consider, however, that it is crucial to keep faith with the present process. They see no grounds for believing that the issues with which the Church is grappling will become significantly easier to resolve with the passage of time.
The July debates will provide the chance for the full Synod to decide whether it wishes to make significant changes to the draft legislation, including whether to retain an approach based on a statutory code of practice or to support amendments giving effect to some other approach. What happens thereafter will depend on what Synod decides. On any basis it will be at least another two years before the mind of the Church of England can be determined at the final approval stage.
Good grief. It’s bad enough that they’re screwing the traditionalists and reneging on the 1992 commitment to preserve a safe haven for opponents of WO in the CoE. But it seems worse that they refuse to admit that this is what they’re doing, when it’s blatantly obvious that it’s precisely what’s happening.
I find it utterly preposterous for the HoB to claim:
[i]there remains a strong commitment on the part of the House to preserve an honoured place within the CoE for those unable to receive this development.”[/i]
That comes dangerously close to a bald-faced lie. It’s totally unbelievable. Shame on them!
David Handy+
My exact thoughts David Handy+
If they really are committed to honouring my place in the church then WHAT are they DOING to safeguard it?
This boils down to admittence that they are divided and passing the buck to synod where they know we will be killed.
Why does the first station of the cross spring to mind? Pilate washes his hands of Jesus….
Wow, I sure hope that the Fulcrum “open” evangelicals actually support the AngloCatholics and the Reform evangelicals’ need for alternative oversight, unlike their votes at the last go-around.
Otherwise, it will be FCA/GAFCON/ACNA for the good old COE.
Take it from an Episcopalian in the US — it won’t be pretty.
Yeah, Sarah. And thanks, RPP (#2).
As for Fulcrum, maybe +Graham Kings will perhaps deign to chime in here, as he used to do from time to time. I’d love to hear what he has to say about this travesty.
David Handy+
As I Understand it, the Archbishop of York tried to persuade the Revision Committee that there should be some kind of “flying bishops” solution. In the end the Revision Committee was not persuaded.
It’ll be interesting to see if the ABC and ABY jointly attempt to persuade Synod to reject the Revision Committee’s preferred proposal.
~5 yes they will make noises towards us- mostly AFTER the vote and they will be ignored on the floor. That is what always happens- either it is part of a cleverly orchestrated script to make it seem they care or else they have zero ability to lead.
The final decision is already reached. This shinola is merely about implementation. I thought English bishops were educated unlike their American counterparts and able to use logic. I confess my fault, my own fault, my own most grevious fault in so thinking.
rugbyplayingpriest-
Thank you for your recent efforts on behalf of AngloCatholics everywhere on your blog. (Get thee hence and read it, if you haven’t already) Your exchange of letters with the so-called Affirming Catholics was very informative. I suppose, in the end, we shall all have to go, but I see no reason to go quietly. And you seem to be making quite a bit of noise.
This is really just a replay of what happened in the US, it just happened here 20 years earlier. So, in Britain, one can assume that the last Anglo Catholic bishop (if any stay at all) will be gone inside 20 years, and then the parishes will have women priests whether they want them or not. In the meantime, of course, parishes will be destroyed, one by one, in the dioceses with women or revisionist bishops. Of the thousands of Anglo Catholic parishes in the US in the early 70s, how many are left? 100? 50? Truth is, I really don’t know. But I do know that there are zero in the local diocese, although the churches were built with confessionals in the back, and a high altar, and a Marian chapel. Or, as I was told when I moved here “We have one real Anglo Catholic priest, she uses incense and everything…” (No, really, that is what one of the other TEC “priests” said)
“[…] The House accepted the recommendation of the Revision Committee that, if the proposal for a statutory code of practice is retained in July, work to develop a fresh draft of the code should start soon thereafter. The House will, in those circumstances, establish a group, constituted consistently with the Committee’s recommendation”.
Will Anglo-Catholics participate in the group that is going to be established after the approval of the code of practice?
Antonio,
I cannot answer for our English brethren, but I believe it has been made abundantly clear that any “code of practice” is entirely inadequate. Anglo Catholics require Anglo Catholic bishops with jurisdiction. That is what they were promised in the 1990’s. A code of practice cannot be devised that would equate. The one recommended by the Revision committee is a fig leaf to cover their own guilt and complicity. The Anglo Catholics on the committee were paid as much heed as ++Mouneer Anis on the Joint Standing Committee.
“It’s bad enough that they’re screwing the traditionalists and reneging on the 1992 commitment to preserve a safe haven for opponents of WO in the CoE. But it seems worse that they refuse to admit that this is what they’re doing, when it’s blatantly obvious that it’s precisely what’s happening”.
LOOKS LIKE THEY TOOK A MASSIVE CUE FROM THE TEC PLAYBOOK!!!
PS–Sorry, I hit enter before I was done. Not to mention if they have to lie, cheat, renege on their word and stomp others, one would think they would realize that what they are doing is wrong. That’s not the “Spirit”, it’s Satan…or, maybe he convinced them a long time ago that he does not exist, and thus not only his foot but both legs and torso are in the door…
PSS–And I guess it doesn’t matter to them one iota that they are peeing on ecumenical relations/church unity with the Catholics and Orthodox?
#6 We’ll see – it looks from the proceedings of the Revision Committee that the HOB is divided on how provision should be made for those unable to receive the episcopal ministry of women (as one might expect on such a contentious matter). I expect to see Bishops arguing in favor of all options. However I had always understood that at least within the HOB the ABC’s views were accorded great significance. He has seemed, in general, to understand his role as holding the whole church together whatever decisions are taken. What that will mean concretely in this case remains to be seen.
Very interesting indeed.
The article indicates that the liberal majority in the House of Bishops know they have several fights on their hands when the proposal goes to the House of Laity in July:
(1) They always knew that they would have to contend with some delegates who are opposed to women bishops on any basis.
(2) But they assumed that many conservatives would not oppose the measure if they were guaranteed alternative oversight by male bishops – now that the Committee has left that out of the draft legislation, these conservatives are left with no alternative except total acquiescence or active opposition. Old rat-catchers say that its never a good idea to corner the rat…
(3) Then there are those liberals who believed in female bishops, but only if the conservatives were bought off with the bribe of alternative arrangements. They are people who would prefer to avoid a bare-knuckles fight with the conservatives, even if it means putting off female bishops. ABC and ABY are probably in this category.
The article seems to anticipate that moves will be made to substantially amend the draft legislation in July – or perhaps that is what the authors are *hoping* for…? If there is no amendment, then there are only two alternatives: total rejection (a disaster from a liberal perspective) or acceptance.
Acceptance isn’t much better than rejection. America shows what can happen: some will leave to form an alternative Anglican polity (an English version of ACNA); some will go to Rome; and some will carry out various forms of “civil disobedience” a la the orthodox ‘stayers’ in TEC who manage to withhold funds from the hierarchy.
It must have all seemed so easy back in July 2008 when General Synod passed this motion:
Back then, the leaders of CofE thought this would make everyone happy. It now looks as though no-one will be happy.
Pray that those conservatives in CofE who have compromised with WO in the past (by being prepared to accept “special arrangements”) will now see that they can no longer sit on the fence, and will now add their voices for those agitating for NO more concessions to ordination of women within CofE (i.e. no female bishops, and eventual elimination of provisions for female priests).
promises broken……….
Well the plus side is that everyone here seems aware of the betrayal and cowardice- but is this a select group? And no I will not go quietly that is not in my nature…
“And no I will not go quietly that is not in my nature… ”
Amen to that Father. And may God bless you for it.
They can pile up a big mess of words – but it is still best described as an excommunication of faithful Anglicans.
🙄