Forward in Faith has welcomed the amendments which the two Archbishops are proposing. I am less sanguine than FiF about this attempt to get round the Revision Committee’s proposals concerning women in the Episcopate in England.
The notion the Archbishops are pressing is “co-ordinate jurisdiction” ”“ by which they mean that the ”˜nominated bishop’, a sort of downgraded PEV, will exercise those functions which the Diocesan Bishop decides to hand over in his or her diocese.
Now I have had to deal with diocesan bishops. Some of them see no problem in letting Flying Bishops operate. Others have allowed only minimal functions to be undertaken; for instance, not allowing them to ordain candidates within their diocese, even when the candidate has requested it from the start of training. There has been a Code of Practice agreed by the House of Bishops, and this Code has been undermined and ignored in far too many instances. Each diocesan has decided for himself how much of the Code to implement, and how much to ignore. The Archbishops’ proposals make this situation potentially much worse.
An article that should be read by everyone interested in the issue of women bishops in CofE. Here is the money quote:
[blockquote] Until now, the Provincial Episcopal Visitors have had some legal status. They have had the protection of their own Archbishop; ++George Carey was always hugely helpful to me as one of his Provincial Bishops. That will no longer be the case under the proposals by York and Canterbury. Everything, in the end, will depend on the diocesan bishop — who “retains the freedom to amend the diocesan scheme from time to time after consultation with the diocesan synod.†So she can listen to what her own Synod says, and then do just what she thinks is right. [/blockquote]
+Barnes is concerned that the Archbishops’ proposed amendment would in fact leave the orthodox with no alternative oversight to a female bishop, in real terms.
This begs the question why Forward in Faith publicly approved the proposed amendment?