Shortly after eight o’clock one spring morning in 2007, an earthquake struck the parish church of St Peter in Folkestone, bringing down the gable-end of the south transept.
Three years later, the 19th-century church, which opened as a chapel for local fishermen, has caused tremors of its own, becoming the first parish in England to declare its intention to defect to Rome. Within hours of the news emerging last Friday, the Bishop of Fulham announced that he, too, will take up the Pope’s offer to join a new structure within the Roman Catholic Church for disaffected Anglicans.
Some are now talking openly of an “exodus” from the Anglican Communion next year, with thousands following Folkestone’s lead. The Archbishop of Canterbury, from whose back yard the revolt has sprung, can be in little doubt about the seriousness of the threat.
I hope some people from across the Pond chime in here. The subheading asserts that “many” more churches and clergy will follow the lead of this congregation in Kent and Bishop Broadhurst, but that remains a matter of speculation. Personally, I suspect the number of traditionalist Anglo-Catholics who swim the Tiber initially will be relatively small, but that they will grow substantially in the next few years.
However, what raelly interests me is the harshness of the language +Broadhurst now feels free to use. He accuses the CoE leadership of being “vindictive” and “vicious” and even “fascist” in how they have mistreated the anti-WO Catholic wing. Wow, now that he’s officially on his way out, the gloves come off and he lets us know how he really feels. Ouch.
As for the issue of whether such departing congregations can take the property with them, I can claim no inside knowledge as an American. But I would be astonished (and pleased) if some reasonable deal could be worked out (which alas, almost never happens here in the USA).
As the old joke goes, “[i]the CoE would rather give up 38 of its 39 Articles than 1/39th of its income[/i]” and assets. Double ouch. That jibe could well be all too true.
David Handy+
I’m not particularly surprised at Bp Broadhurst’s language. A portion of the CoE is seeking the excommunication of those opposed to WO. When it comes to reappraising the faith – nothing can be done. But if you seek to reassert the faith – the church will excommunicate you.
How dysfunctional is that? Mushy words are not equal to the seriousness…
🙄
David,
Since John Broadhurst is going to join the Roman Church and will be received as a layman, I’ll simply refer to him as Mr. Broadhurst. His decision likely came after a long period of consideration. He will still get a pension from the C of E, which they can’t take away, so it is like a spouse in a divorce that seems to have gone fairly smoothly suddenly turning nasty towards their former partner. This attitude may be off-putting to some of his old associates, but it may backfire on him as well. Unless they are also eligible for early pensions or have adequate savings, many who leave the ministry of the Established Church will face rough economic times ahead. They will be joining Rome as laymen, at first, and won’t have income from the Vatican and they’ll have to look for new digs and places to gather. Mr. Broadhurst has been a “Flying Bishop” for some time now and is abandoning his flock, although he may believe much of it will follow him. Only time will tell. I was more surprised by his statement that Forward in Faith is not an institution of the C of E. I wonder how that went over with the membership. That he has made his intentions public and that he is still Chairman makes the whole organization seem somewhat suspect, at least in terms of it’s loyalty. Listen to his remarks from the recent FiF Conference, on their website, they become somewhat rambling and incoherent.
[blockquote]…The Rev George Pitcher, public affairs adviser to Dr Williams….[/blockquote]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/8072332/The-cracks-are-now-showing-in-the-Church-of-England.html
Rowan Williams is truly sunk.
You indeed couldn’t make it up.
From the article:
[blockquote]And what of those parishioners left behind? Not everyone in the St Peter’s congregation is convinced by the proposal to join the Ordinariate. The Canterbury Diocese has promised that the Church of England will not abandon those in the parish who are dismayed at the plan. The authorities have also moved to reassure local parents that St Peter’s primary school “will remain a Church of England school”.
In his sermon on Sunday, Fr Bould advised his ageing congregation that the parish was now “in a battle”, inviting them to “fight it with flair, imagination and spirit”. [/blockquote]
So, the decision is not unanimous, the congregation is aged, and the school will remain C of E. My heart goes out to the elderly who have been put in a difficult position, asked to either give assent to different dogma and authority in their final years or to steadfastly remain in their church home with a parish that likely won’t survive. This is wrong.
If Mr. Bould wishes to join the RCC, he has been free to do so, as can any of his parishioners who feel similarly inclined. However, he should not pull the rug out from under those in his spiritual care who are not on board; nor should the bishop cling to his position at FiF, pretending that it’s not an Anglican group.Their own, personal decisions should not be thrust on others.
Asking elderly people to fight HIS battle with “flair, imagination, and spirit” is utterly ludicrous. I think of my own elderly mum who was heart-broken when the sexual abuse issues hit her RC parish. She told me that if she were younger she would be considering a change but, in her advanced age, it was unthinkable. She remained in her parish until she was taken there one last time for her Mass of the Resurrection and I ensured she had the beautiful liturgy she would have wanted even though I am no longer RC. Isn’t that the least and last bit of kindness and compassion we can offer? Or are our “issues” and our politics now more important?
#4.
Not sure I get your drift Pageantmaster?
First they came for the Anglo-catholics, then they came for the evangelicals…the fulcrumites will be surprised when they come for them even though they thought they were playing nicely with the liberals.
[blockquote]My heart goes out to the elderly who have been put in a difficult position, asked to either give assent to different dogma and authority in their final years or to steadfastly remain in their church home with a parish that likely won’t survive. This is wrong.[/blockquote]
I thought the whole point was that they already WERE being asked to give assent to different dogma (WO, etc) and authority (Zeitgeist) as it had been understood.
[7] – [8] I agree. You can’t stay within the CoE – on its current trajectory of revisionism – and be ‘Anglican.’ At least for very long.
🙄
8–That’s a matter of interpretation and dependent on one’s status in the church. And that’s precisely why these decisions must be made individually. The 80-year-old pensioners who have been faithful parishioners and servants of God, who were baptised, married, and expected to be buried in their parish home have no dog in this fight and should not be compelled to “fight” and convert because their priest is unhappy.
And that is precisely what’s wrong with the goings-on — all of the lawsuits and threats and divisions. They forget about the people who are not embroiled in the issues — the people who simply live their lives as best they can, attend their local parish to worship God and serve others as an extension of their faith and community. Somewhere along the way, the willingness to “fight” has become a litmus test for some on the fidelity and devotion of the Christian. And I don’t know whom God will judge more harshly — those who force others to make these painful decisions as part of the fight or those who simply want to worship and love God irregardless of the political and social issues. I guess that’s part of the essence of this unpleasantness, isn’t it?