The Archbishops of Canterbury and York made a brave attempt to amend the legislation and while I did not think it would have been able to achieve what some hoped it would achieve it was defeated in the House of Clergy. It is not often, if ever, that two Archbishops have proposed an amendment to such a contentious piece of legislation concerning the future unity of the Church of England; to have done so and not succeeded says a great deal about the problems of our synodical structures. The Draft Measure will now go to the dioceses for further scrutiny though it is highly unlikely that it will not gain the necessary support. It will return to the Synod in 2012 when it will need to gain the necessary two thirds majorities in all three Houses of Laity, Clergy and Bishops.
If the Measure is passed -if it isn’t the issue will not go away-the landscape in the Church of England for traditional Catholics and Evangelicals will be bleak. There will be no resolutions to be passed, no Episcopal Visitors to petition for, the Act of Synod will be abolished and the episcopal ministry of the Bishops of Beverley, Ebbsfleet and Richborough will not exist. The process of reception so ably explained by Dame Mary Tanner in New Directions a few months ago has been forgotten. All the promises which were made to us in the early 1990’s about having a permanent honoured place in our Church have been ignored. No doubt many of the supporters of women’s ordination will say there has been compromise on both sides. They will point out they preferred a simple piece of legislation without a statutory Code of Practice. However, from our point of view, this legislation offers us little hope. It addresses none of the issues which are of concern to us and about which we have argued for so long. The only provision will be that a parish can request a male incumbent or the sacramental and pastoral care of a male bishop when needed. It is simply not sufficient for those for whom it is supposed to apply. Far from providing for those who have serious theological objections to the ordination of women the legislation allows parishes to discriminate against women.
I cannot overemphasise how serious this situation is for us….
This is Richborough, Kendall. One of the anti-women bishops.
Not a diocesan.
ty, brain dead in the middle of the day–ed.
“Anti-women” bishop is pejorative and untrue. But a useful slur.
Well, the contention and pressure continues rise above the breaking point in the COE as they have failed once again to protect those who merely want to continue practicing the Anglican religion as it was passed down to them through the ages.
It seems the only hope is failure to get 2/3 at the 2012 Synod. Given the fact that the ammendment by the ABC and ABY came so close to passing, it seems doubtful to me that the 2/3 mark will be hit- perhaps buying time to negotiate a decent way forward for Anglo-Catholics.
TEc, 2. Catholicism, 0.
This is the intended “reception” for all the Anglican Communion.
Next, Bonnie Anderson at GS on “compliance committees and enforcement” – watch and learn or watch and wait. Either way the same “inclusive” result.
#2: It makes no difference whether the mark is met or not.
The damage is done and it is irreversible, isn’t it. The cards are all on the table. We can see who holds the high cards. The losers are, iin a very real sense, out of the game and are left to play among themselves only. The big cards have spoken, if I may put it that way.
The problem is as it always has been: No one will admit to anything, and there will be another round of “talks.” Larry
There is, in reality, no chance at all that this will be turned down at diocesan level. I also think any synod will not delight in the thought of kicking this into the long grass again and that the pointless and toothless code will be enough to convince middle grounders to vote.
It really is over now. You would need to be moronic to believe anything else iMO