The Archbishops’ proposal failed to secure a majority in the House of Clergy although it passed the Bishops and the Laity. The important point is that valiant attempts are being made to open the way for women to be consecrated bishops without excluding from the church those who adhere to the present position and who share the faith which inspires our mission. We now have an opportunity to consider the draft legislation in the Diocese and I shall be setting out the process for doing this in due course. At the same time the House of Bishops is charged with working on the vital question of the Code of Practice. The Bishop of Willesden and I will be fully involved in these discussions. There will be a special meeting of the Diocesan Synod to ponder and vote on the advice which London will be sending back to the General Synod. I do hope that anyone questioning their place in the Church of England on the basis of media reports or premature judgements about the final shape of the legislation will get in touch with me or with their respective Area Bishop before making any personal decisions or public statements. I returned from York clear both that the majority will is to ordain women bishops while at the same time preserving, as far as possible, the unity of the church in her mission and service to our country.
A gift to those who wish to read between the lines:
“Most of us get information about what is happening in the rest of the church beyond our own patch from the mass media”
– Don’t believe what ALL the papers and commentaters are saying.
“Actually the weather at the 2010 General Synod in York was much more temperate than in July 2009”
– not referring to the weekend of glorious sunshine – and untrue about Synod – in fact the Synod was just as full of vicious and intermperate whining and intolerance as the previous ones, it is just the traditionalists weren’t expecting much more from it this time, and FCA and the Ordinariate beckon
“I was very proud of the way in which your representatives from the London Diocese, speaking from different viewpoints, made a constructive contribution to many of the debates. The Bishop of Willesden in particular with his characteristic candour shone a bright light on the complex business before us”
– much good that it did
“The outcome is that the measure to permit women to be consecrated to the episcopate has been remitted for consideration in the Dioceses”
– for a straight up or down vote only – if only 50% agree it goes back to Synod for final approval
“…It was also significant that only a very few of those opposed to this measure sought to delay the process”
– that is because the Archbishop of Canterbury chimed in to tell Synod to do this rather than send it back to the revision committee – his way presumably of providing for traditionalists?
“There is a general feeling that it is urgent to conclude a debate which can appear somewhat introverted when our real focus must be on our unity in mission”
– let’s change the subject
“In consequence much of the discussion was about how to secure an honoured place for those who cannot accept such a decision as one authorised by scripture and tradition and who believe that it will erect new obstacles in our relations with other parts of the “one, holy catholic and apostolic church†to which we claim to belong” – there was some talk, but it was ignored
“There will be a special meeting of the Diocesan Synod to ponder and vote on the advice which London will be sending back to the General Synod”
– Yes or no is the only question we are being asked, the measure now settled, without being remitted for further consideration, is in its final form. Women bishops can ignore the Code of Practice, and some would-be ones have given notice that this is exactly what they will do.
“I returned from York clear both that the majority will is to ordain women bishops while at the same time preserving, as far as possible, the unity of the church in her mission and service to our country”
– I am now back on Planet Zog
The Diocese of London has both one of the highest number of parishes listed on the Forward in Faith website (perhaps the highest – I haven’t looked at every diocese) and also, andecdotally (given there are no statistics), a significant number of same sex clergy. Bishop Richard, like his predecessors has, as I understand, declined to ordain women and men in order to function as Bishop for all of his diocese. He is a good and holy man trying to preserve the unity of his diocese in a potentially very difficult situation.
Nevertheless there is a reality to be faced, both for him and for members of his diocese, that consoling words alone won’t change.
Thanks for this Pageantmaster – a very helpful filling-in of the ‘gaps’. The fact that there have been such rapid reassurances that ‘all is well’ suggests quite the opposite, and that there is very serious concern at episcopal level about the potential (likely?) fallout from this. It seems to me that the erosion of trust is just getting stronger and stronger, and all attempts to give assurances that a Code of Conduct will provide effective and provide a safe place for those whose convictions are other than the GS determination on this matter are foundering on the setting aside of similar WO assurances not so long ago.
The significant challenge within the CoE, and the AC more broadly, is that of disillusionment and profound distrust – often with good cause. The best of structural solutions (if any such can be found) will not remedy the deeper malady of a culture of mistrust.
While I do not have a problem with women bishops (both on biblical and experiential grounds), I do have great concern for the political dynamics that are unleashed once an issue is identified as a ‘gospel issue’ and a matter of ‘justice’. The sweeping aside of any respect or concern for conscientious objection is truly troubling…
Pity that in this 15 year agony of forcing in women bishops that no one, to date, in the CoE has sponsored legislation that would require clergy to adhere to their vows to maintain the faith as they have received it. It seems that, like in the US, the most gross violators are the ones raised to episcopacy, or to be deans of cathedrals, or canons. The impact of ordaining thousands of power hungry revisionists is seen in the clergy vote on the Archbishops’ amendment. And then, we find, that the thousands upon thousands of traditional Anglicans in England had, at least according to one source, only 14 representatives in the whole Synod- those who voted “no” on the final bill.
TEcc-ites: playbook, plan, and same end results. Is Bonnie Anderson already giving compliance commission lessons to check for adherence?
#4..”It seems that, like in the US, the most gross violators are the ones raised to episcopacy, or to be deans of cathedrals, or canons. ”
Seems like every time you turn around, its dean this and canon that. Wonder if there have always been as many deans and canons as are now in TEC.
Thank you so much Pageantmaster….very, very helpful
The Bishop of London is also an anti Romanist and lover of society life whose refusal to stand up for his orthodoxy over the last few years has been part of the problem not the cure. He more than anyone would have been listened to but said nothing….he will retreat into his ivory tower- do his own thing- and await retirement at which point I am betting he becomes orthodox.
Is he significantly different in this matter than Bishop Hope was during his time as Bishop of London? Both traditionalists, both conservative by temperament, both theologically orthodox to the marrow, both preferring discretion and both profoundly loyal to the COE and concerned for its stability and mission.
Could he have taken a more public stance on the issues of the day? He could – at the risk of turmoil within his diocese and with little confidence his voice would be heard (think of the marginalization of Bishop Leonard). Doubtless it would have encouraged beleaguered Anglo-Catholics. Perhaps that alone would have made it worthwhile. Perhaps.
On WO he kept peace in his diocese by maintaining the compromise Bishop Hope had introduced. On sexuality in his diocese he has been discrete in just the way that his immediate predecessors were – including Bishop Leonard. Could he have done more on this – perhaps – but like his predecessors he has had to live with the realities of his diocese that were not of his own making.
Perhaps it’s not enough to say that he focused on evangelism and the growth of his diocese. Perhaps its not enough to want to be shepherd to the flock that Christ gave into his care. Perhaps a taste for dealing quietly and discretely with issues is not enough in our time. Perhaps.
I agree with most of what you say driver8. But he has been very silent nationally when a voice was needed. And now what does he do for the orthodox and for their children? This statement is so feeble as to make me want to weep – it is delusional in its optimism
What will happen to the notion of Catholic orders for Anglo-Catholics should Canterbury or York take part in ordaining women bishops? Imagine a flock with a substantial number of priests and lay people who are considered in some quarters to have invalid ordinations or confirmations. This is not the great valiant liberation moment being proclaimed.
Adam 12-
By all indications, by the time the Archbishops get to the point of ordaining women bishops in the CoE, there will no longer be any Anglo Catholics in the CoE. At best, as in TEC, the line of Anglo Catholic bishops will cease upon the retirement of the current ones- so within 10-15 years, there will be no Anglo Catholics in the CoE. More likely, some will leave soon (or have already), more will leave when the legislation gets final approval in 2012, a few more will hold out until the legislation passes Parliament, some will leave when the first woman bishop is consecrated, others when their own bishop ordains his first woman priest, and the last few when their own parish has a woman rector forced upon it, or the diocesan is a woman. Just like here. Perhaps one diocese will hold out 25 years, as Quincy and Fort Worth did here, if it has a young, committed Anglo Catholic diocesan, but I am not aware of who that might be, if he exists.
In any case, in 15 years, when a woman sits on the see of Canterbury, and 10 provinces leave the Communion, and ecumenical relations with Rome and Constantinople are permanently broken off, the vast majority of Anglo Catholics will be long gone, whether to Rome or elsewhere.
Re Adam 12–There should be nobody under the illusion that the Roman Catholic Church is ever likely to accept “the notion of Catholic orders for Anglo-Catholics.” Men in Holy Orders who convert are now, and under the recent papal initiative will continue to be, required to be ordained into the Roman Catholic priesthood or diaconate. Not “reordained” or “conditionally ordained,” but simply [i]ordained[/i] on the same basis as any other layman entering the Sacred Ministry. There has not been, nor is there likely to be, any change in the 1896 declaration of Pope Leo XIII:
[blockquote]Wherefore, strictly adhering in this matter to the decrees of the Pontiffs Our Predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by Our authority, of Our own motion and certain knowledge We pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been and are absolutely null and void.[/blockquote]
Thus, the action of General Synod is not likely to change the current status of “a flock with a substantial number of priests and lay people who are considered in some quarters to have invalid ordinations or confirmations.” Relaxation of the rules concerning clerical celibacy, liturgical use, and pastoral oversight do not reflect any notion on the part of Rome that Anglo-Catholics out of communion with the Pope have valid Catholic orders.
Ecumenical relations with Rome and Constantinople are not likely to be broken off, as those relations have always been based on the view in those quarters that Anglicanism is a Protestant ecclesial community, not a Catholic church. Any notion to the contrary on the Anglo-Catholic side of these ecumenical dialogues are, and always were, a pipe dream. Thus, women bishops are no more likely to change the Roman and Eastern Orthodox view of Anglicanism than the advent of women priests 30 years ago did.
#10 Yesterday was the 177th anniversary of Keeble’s Sermon on National Apostasy
I agree with your point that Bishop Chartres may have been more assiduous in his responsibility towards the former than the latter.
Thanks to the several Brits who’ve contributed to this thread, especially driver8 with his timely reminder of the anniversary of Keble’s speech (which probably would have led to exactly nothing, without Newman entering the fray and conducting his far more vigourous kind of “remonstrance”).
As an American with no personal experience of life in the CoE, I hesitate to pass judgment on individual leaders such as the Bishop of London. But from this distance, the dilemma such noble men are in, i.e., trapped in a seemingly no-win situation, strongly suggests to this outsider that the whole system stinks to high heaven and may be past salvage and needing to be totally replaced.
Personally, I hate the Erastian nature of the CoE. Can’t stand it. Newman was right in Tract #1. Anglicanism must be refounded on a different foundation that owes everything to its apostolic origins and nothing whatsoever to the secular powers that be.
David Handy+