There has been further reaction this week to the debate on women bishops at the General Synod in York, which left opponents to women bishops disÂsatisfied
The former Bishop of RichÂborough, the Rt Revd Edwin Barnes, speaking on BBC Radio 4, said that there was “nothing left” for traditionÂalists in the Church of England, but he hinted that the Pope’s proposal of an Ordinariate could offer a solution.
“All we have is empty promises, and some of the leaders in the women’s movement have said promises don’t have to be kept, promises are there to be broken; so there’s no trust left at all.
“Coming along with this, of course, has come the Pope’s offer of an Ordinariate, which has been an absolute lifeline, and has given us new hope in a way that nothing else has.”
Why the scare quotes around ‘broken promises?’ History is history, and people should own their broken promises, including all the implications for the character of the institution and individuals.
(i) an ‘honoured place’ is not the same thing as structural, legal protection, and (ii) this assertion is merely a diversion intended to mute reaction. There currently is no substance to such arguments. The CoE is excommunicating traditionalists.
And don’t forget, the CoE is powerless against reappraisers.
🙄
Running to the Ordinariate under these circumstances is PRECISELY what I meant by moral cowardice. Rome won’t fix anything except allow the weak a chance to hide from the real world. They’re NOT going there out of a belief in Roman Catholicism, or they would have gone before.
Many probably stayed when Anglican tenets were adhered to, and Christianity wasn’t yet optional within the Anglican communion. Leaving nothing behind for something, even if that something isn’t everything that once but no longer exists elsewhere, doesn’t strike me as cowardice.
I fully agree with Larry Morse on this one. These people are cowards or worse. As I see it this can cut only one of two ways, and each is objectionable as the other:
1. For good theological reasons these Anglicans disagreed with Roman doctrines. The remained resoluted separate. But now that they are losing their plush spot in the C of E, they choose to forget important theological differences as if they are minor, changeable issues. (“Oh, no, we will not compromise on woman bishops, but Papal Infallibility, Transubstantiation, Marian Doctrine and other issues — those are not biggies.”)
OR
2. These Anglicans had no theological differences with Rome and were for years disobedient to God by not submitting to the Pope. They enjoyed their position of independence in the C of E when they knew that the only true Church was Rome. The chose to ignore doctrine until they lost power.
Let’s call a spade a spade, people.
Larry (#2) and justinmartyr (#4),
I think you guys have greatly oversimplified a complex situation. The boundary between Anglo-Catholicism and Roman Catholicism is much fuzzier than you seem to think, and I don’t question the integrity of many who have thus far stayed, nor the integrity of those priests (and laity) who will take up the pope’s offer now and leave.
Personally, I thought the quotes from former Bp. Edwin Barnes and current Bp. John Broadhurst are completely justified. As far as I’m concerned, those who swim the Tiber deserve our sympathy and gratitude for staying so long in a very hostile church environment.
But switching topics, what about that poll at the bottom of the article? I don’t know how reliable that poll may be, but it’s very disturbing to me (though not surprsing), and I think it only shows what a HUGE challenge the CoE is up against in terms of resisting the seemingly invincible cultural currents pushing for the normalization of same sex behavior. It’s really hard for a state church to go against the state, and the general culture.
Which is precisely why a drastic New Reformation is needed.
David Handy+
David,
Sometimes the most die-hard believers in things are those who have never had to live with such things. Faith, when misguided or misplaced, can be quite dangerous. Lenin referred to such as being “useful idiots”.
#6, Touche. You’ve got the scars to prove it, Richard. And so do a lot of Protestant converts from Catholicism or eastern Orthodoxy. I’m not idealizing Rome, brother, or I’d be swimming the Tiber myself. But I still think the anti-WO Anglo-Catholics have been treated shamefully. The CoE is indeed breaking a promise that was supposedly made “in perpetuity.”
Rather like US treaties with the native American Indians, I guess, that supposedly were to last as long as the sun continues to shine or the rivers flow…
David Handy+
David,
I quite agree that many people have been treated shamefully. Having sought a safe-harbor for myself and my family, with no success, for the past seven years; we are preparing to move-on.
The plea of ‘broken promises’ seems almost laughable to me. These are ministers who have sworn, in their ordination, that they believe that Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation, that they would abide by the ministration of the sacraments as the CofE received them (among other things, obviously). And over the past 100 years or so, the movement away from authorized liturgies and towards Missals, the Novus Ordo mass, tridentine latin masses, etc, all seem to me to be a violation of those promises. Exactly why should the CofE have a ‘treasured place’ for people who intend to violate their own promises? Discipline is discipline, whether it needs to be applied to the left (which it does), the right (which it does), and the middle (which it does).
Isaac,
You make some good points. This is precisely what the Church Association, the National Protestant League and others like Bishop Ryle and Dean Burgon argued. At the same time, this is why I am so very disappointed in the Evangelicals who went along with so many changes, themselves, and have ceased using the 1662 BCP altogether. Affirming Catholicism has a willing accomplice and that is the New Evangelical, or Open Evangelical (whatever you want to label them). I simply call them modernists. That is why, as a classical Prayer Book Anglican I feel more like the Last of the Mohicans.
An excellent reply justinmartyr.
Ordinarily, I agree with you David, but not here. This is cowardice. Those that go are hiding. The Ordinariate they may see as a safety net; I say it is a spider’s web. It acts like a net until you discover you’re a fly.
Well, what should they do? First, stand up, denounce the action in hard words. Make clear what integrity requires and how the integrity of the CofE has been destroyed and exactly by whom. Here, for the umpteenth time, valor is the better part of wisdom. Aristotle tells us that courage is the father of all the virtues, and this is a fundamental truth. The should declare the CofE broken beyond repair and they should then go to ACNA (e.g.) provided that ACNA is willing to join the fray. They should demand the removal of the ABC for ineptitude as a leader. And they should declare the Moderns as outlaw. Finally, they should address the people directly, telling them that it is time to wake up from their dreams of self-indulgence and see where to narcissist’s world has brought them. Tell them that there is no escape from, no avoidance of, self discipline and self restraint, and remind the people that those who speak for continuity with the past are the voices which speak for these virtues. OFFER them the reinstitution of these virtues. England may collectively laugh (and sneer), but hard words spoken clearly leave dents in the most sophisticated veneer. In short, challenge the Moderns to their faces and let the mitres fall where they may. Larry
Larry,
Remember that if valor is the better part of wisdom, that discretion is the better part of valor. Separation from a corrupted C of E may, or may not, be the answer for the present; but ac/na is not the solution.
All the criticism would carry more weight in my book if it were based on an extensive list of the wonderful merits of staying in CoE on its current path.
Nobody demands absolute, unconditional adherence for traditionalist remaining within anglican bodies besot with worldly compromise, SSBs, random official heresies, mandated WO, etc – yet this standard seems to arise in any reference to consideration of the ordinariate? Why the double standard?
ISTM that the ‘spade’ that is uncalled is the revisionist slide within the CoE and the AC.
IMHO, these people are not cowards, but simply appear to be choosing the lesser of two flawed catholic bodies. If your ecclesiology permits you to comfortably swallow all sorts of revision within the CoE, but balks at RC innovations, then stay put. These people see fundamental problems in things for which you may have no appreciation – fine.
The ordinariate is not for me, but I respect those considering it.
[blockquote]”All the criticism would carry more weight in my book if it were based on an extensive list of the wonderful merits of staying in CoE on its current path.”[/blockquote]
The choice is not simply between Rome and heresy, surely? As has happened throughout history, a faithful remnant along with their bishops can stand contra mundum as we are seeing in the global south and now north america.
[blockquote]Nobody demands absolute, unconditional adherence for traditionalist remaining within anglican bodies besot with worldly compromise, SSBs, random official heresies, mandated WO, etc – yet this standard seems to arise in any reference to consideration of the ordinariate? Why the double standard? [/blockquote]
I don’t think there is a double standard. I remain in a confessing, orthodox episcopal diocese. The bishop is able to disagree with the Presiding bishop, forbid her from preaching in his diocese, and speak up against heterodoxy. On the other hand, I CANNOT join the ordinariate and conscionably disagree with Rome on key matters such as papal infallibility and marian doctrine. To do so would be deceitful to Rome who demands assent on these issues as a precondition for being a Roman Catholic.
To be part of Anglicanism (or even remain episcopalian) I can indeed remain orthodox and disagree with the heterodoxy. To become Roman I must submit my conscience to unconscionably unbiblical doctrines. No double standard. Just different requirements for being part of the two bodies.
So, no, they are not “simply appear[ing] to be choosing the lesser of two flawed catholic bodies,” but trading one heterodoxy for another.
With respect, this works in both directions. To put it another way, to remain Anglican, those here affected must submit their consciences to “unconscionably unbiblical doctrines” as the ecclesial structure in CoE vital to survival is eradicated, and they are forced into unbiblical innocations.
Which is sort of my point, but it then becomes a question of degrees and levels of tolerance. It is no surprise to me that a disintegrating Anglican Communion would lose members in a variety of directions.