With 60 newly ordained clergy ready to start their Catholic ministry, morale is high in the Personal Ordinariate of our Lady of Walsingham. The launch of the Pope’s new ecclesial structure for ex-Anglicans has been less traumatic than anticipated ”“ though there is an urgent need for money: visit the website of the Friends of the Ordinariate to find out how to support this prophetic venture.
I say “prophetic”, but we can’t take it for granted that the prophecy will be fulfilled. Every day brings fresh inquiries from Anglicans wanting to join the second wave of Ordinariate converts ”“ but some of them are worried that the independent structure envisaged by Benedict XVI is coming together rather slowly.
Oh, how I do so cringe when I hear church people go all “prophetic.”
I still don’t get what most English Anglo-Catholics-turned-Ordinariate RCs think they’re introducing into the Roman Church in the way of Anglican patrimony. After all, they’ve been using the Roman Rite for years. So apart from clergy wives and eastward-facing at the altar, what’s different?
No. 2,
I have to admit I am curious to that myself. I certainly sympathize with them, being a good Anglo-catholic myself, but I have grave concerns about the long term sustainability of the Ordinariate. In fact, there have been statements from the Vatican to the effect that basically the Ordinariate is not a long term, permanent thing to stay. Future generations of catholic clergy will be expected to remain celibate.
The impression I get is that after 20 years or so, the move will be to fold the Ordinariate churches back into the regular Diocesan system, seeing as the Pope did not grant a Uniate status on the Anglo-catholics coming over like the Byzantine or Ukrainian Catholics have. With a stroke of a pen, as I understand it from a Catholic bishop, the Pope can rescind the Ordinariate constitution.
The counsel I have given people asking my advice on the Ordinariate is “All that glitters isn’t gold.” How quickly we forget the theological excesses of Vatican II not more than a generation or so ago. If a liberal Pope were to reascend the Vatican, I have no doubt abolishing things like the liturgically conservative Ordinariate would be one of the first things he’ll do.
I hope I’m wrong, but I remain cynical.
[blockquote]there is an urgent need for money[/blockquote]
Really? In spite of the million smackers they liberated from an Anglican charity, just before jumping ship? Who is next for the attentions of the Kleptariate?
Perhaps that is what was meant by bringing the Anglican Patrimony with them.
#2 – this article regarding Anglican Patrimony has been the best I’ve seen regarding what contributions Anglican Patrimony will provide to the greater RC church.
http://www.theanglocatholic.com/2011/06/paper-on-the-anglican-patrimony-2/
I think it could be very interesting.
My wife’s mother is from a large Liverpool/Irish Roman Catholic family, and I have attended a number her family’ Roman Catholic nupital and requiem masses over the years.
I have also attended a number of Anglo Catholic services, including a baptism service recently which was way “higher” in cermonial etc than any of the Roman Catholic masses I have attended.
Almost without exception the Roman Catholic masses have been far more understated and I have to say, meaningful, inspiring and enjoyable than the Anglo Catholic masses I have attended, where the participants tend to appear far less relaxed and almost trying extremely hard to “be” something that they are not, and canl never fully be.
The Roman Catholic participants in their worship by comparison appear to me to be much more freer, relaxed and comfortable in their own skin so to speak.
I feel for the Roman Catholic church in a way. Pope Bendict has done the Anglican church a huge favour in creating the OrdinariAte and the wealthier Anglo-Catholic Anglcian benefactors are right to support it so generously financially.
I only hope the Anglo Catholic converts have the good grace not to persuade or pressurise over time authentic Roman Catholics to change their generally low-key, understated approach into a more cermonial and ritualistic form of Catholic worship. It may well be that their new “home”, may not be as homely and as comfortable as has been envisaged.
It will be interesting to observe to see how it all unfolds.
#7 Northener
[blockquote]Pope Bendict has done the Anglican church a huge favour in creating the OrdinariAte[/blockquote]
Solved a problem for the Anglican church? Is that the Fulcrum view?
[blockquote]the wealthier Anglo-Catholic Anglcian benefactors are right to support it so generously financially.[/blockquote]
Benefactors can of course support whatever they like. Trustees of an Anglican charity which provides plate and vestments etc to Anglican churches should not be using their position to give half the charity’s assets to the Ordinariate, the trustees who voted on the decision have already indicated they intend to join when they have done the deed.
No one would have imagined that the Ordinariate would be financed from the assets of charities set up by and for Anglicans.
[blockquote] “Are Ordinariate priests being used to plug gaps in dioceses rather than being helped to establish permanent communities of their own?” [/blockquote]
I find it curious that Damian Thompson would ask this question – what else would one expect?
In fairness to the RCC, Damian should acknowledge that what he calls “plugging gaps”, simply means having these men carry out normal priestly or diaconal functions in Latin Rite parishes.
The Pastoral Provision of John Paul II was established in 1983. Through it, large numbers of Anglican priests have entered the Roman Catholic Church, but very few congregations have ever been established. I have heard that over 80 priests have crossed over, and only seven parishes/missions established, although I haven’t been able to verify that. But whatever the figure, the disparity is marked.
“The Anglo-Catholic” web-site states: “Only a small number of priests coming through Pastoral Provision minister in Anglican Use parishes; the vast majority are engaged in ministry outside the Anglican Use.”
In view of this, why would Damian Thompson expect the Ordinariate to be different? It may, we just don’t know yet. But it should hardly surprise us if it is not.
Having struggled with whether to go that route, I have just about concluded that the best move our Romeward bound brethren could make would be to go RC whole-hog. After all, the corrected Roman Rite will debut this Advent Sunday, and it’s just a beautiful piece of work, comparable in many ways to our classic BCP tradition. I can’t see how Rome would place too much value on our Anglican rites given the fact that they see the BCP tradition as the product of rebellion against them. But there’s also the matter of significant cultural differences between them and us. Much more will be expected of ex-Anglicans than simply assenting to the doctrine of the Assumption et al, and then using a revised Anglican rite– much, much more. If I were a layman, I might well go for it. But many, I’m afraid, who do go for it will be in for some unpleasant surprises if they haven’t fully researched the boat they’re jumping onto.
Ian+ entering the Ordinariate IS about going RC whole-hog. I have done so and am no less a part of the body than anyone else.
Yes it is, about going whole hog, #11. But a lot of laity and some clergy I know are convinced that they won’t really be “RC” but will nonetheless be aligned with the Pope. How they can think that, I can’t fathom, but I’ve argued with a friend/colleague till I’m blue. That’s what I mean by embracing it fully.
Ian+, it is an interesting question of what “being RC means” in the context of both the Eastern RC churches as well as the new Ordinariate. I’d imagine for some, not “really” being RC might mean rejecting some of the local pietistic practices that aren’t a fundamental part of the faith, but are seen as being RC. I would imagine that the new Ordinariate parishes will have their own ecclesiastical “feel” to them that might be different than the “normal” Latin parish. That is certainly true with Eastern Catholic Churches, but they of course are in union with Rome. If the “not really RC” means rejection of fundamental doctrine, well, that’s different. However, even that will all sort itself out after a generation or two. That’s the problem and the challenge in creating something new, that is not expected to be exactly like the greater Latin Church. Some of these differences and variations will be accepted, but if they stray too far I’m certain that Rome will act to rein them in. It will be interesting to see how it develops, and what over time will the whole-hog-but-different look like!
#8
PM
Of course Anglo Catholics Trusts in favour of priests moving to the Ordinariate can support the Ordinariate financially should they wish to, and in many other ways too. Do you contribute financially or prayerfully to any of the societies that do so?
If so, you can stop doing so immediately if you feel so strongly….that is an option that is open to you.
If not, you are certainly entitled to your opinion by all means, but it is up to those Trusts and their Trustees to ultimately decide how, when and where their money is spent, is it not?
These charities were indeed initially set up by Anglicans but they are now funded by people who, by and large, no longer wish to be Anglicans, and see the good sense there is in moving to the Ordinariate, both on theological and pragmatic grounds.
Also for many years they have been, and will undoubtedly continue to be, after they transfer their allegiances, far more Roman Catholic, both in their doctrine and practice, than many “born” Roman Catholic now are, or indeed have ever been.
I say that with some conviction, as one who has grown up in a city with the highest population of Roman Catholics proportionate to it’s size in the whole of England.
Is not one of the main problems that many conservative evangelicals and “traditionalists” no longer feel “at home” in the Church of England?
And has that hugely significant problem not been confounded by the fact that, unlike their former Anglo Catholic/FiF counterparts, there is no one around who is either able or indeed willing to stump up the requisite cash to finance and assist them should they wish to find a home “elsewhere” than in the C of E?
I am more than sympathetically minded towards the Church Commissioners providing a substantial grant towards helping those who are so disaffected in the conservative evanglical/traditionalist fratenity to set up their own more reform-minded denomination outside of the existing structures of the C of E.
The sum would need to be very substantial, but it must also be assisted and backed financially from the not insignificant resources of other wealthier churches such as All Souls Langham Place, St Helens Bishopsgate and some of the wealthier Co-Mission churches in Southwark Diocese, as well as by other wealthier Reform supporting churches, and the numerous other sympathetic organisations.
The Church Commissioners can definitely afford it, of that there is no doubt whatsoever, if their last set of annual accounts are anything to go by.
And I, as a member of a member of an inner city church which struggles to make ends meet, would certainly agree to a small proportion of our Parish Share, along with that of many other Parishes, being used in this way – even if it does reverse certain biblical exhotations regarding those who are financially strong supporting those who are less so.
If it is an expedient, pragmatic solution, although far from ideal, I am willing to support it as an appropriate and workable way – forward in helping with resourcing issues =ie purchase/renting of new buildings and accomodation for it’s Bishops, Archdeacons, Priests, Evangelists, Youth Workers etc, as well as financing start up salaries and pensions etc.
The financial assistance on offer would definitely need to be strictly time- bound, with the expectation that all disaffected parishes in time follow the extremely admirable Co- Mission model and become totally self supporting, with all their future funding coming from their own congregational giving, within their own newly created financial structures.
There would also be no restrictions whatsoever with regard to church planting within existing parish boundaries of any churchmanship, including the evangelical buildings they will vacate.
Moreover, members of these conservative evangelical parishes would then be given a free choice, without being pressurised by anyone involved, to either move with their existing Priests, Senior Pastors and leadership teams , but only when negotiations re premises/accomodation/salary and pensions have been agreed and legally signed by all relevant parties.
Or they can be free to stay in the existing C of E parish church or building, under newly appointed evangelical, NOT liberal, leadership, under the authority of the Diocesan Bishop. The new leadership will be appointed by the Diocesan Bishop (s) in collaboration with, and with the full agreement of those members who choose to remain.
The new denomination can then choose whatever name it wants for itself, can appoint and subsequently ordain its own male Bishops, priests, pastors and deacons as well as licence it’s own Readers, worship leaders and other appropriate lay ministers.
It can then progress with the biblical imperative of continuing to enable people to become Christians through effective evangelism and witness, provide appropriate pastoral care, and worshipand witness both in traditonal ways, and by means of innovatibve church planting.
[blockquote] “I am more than sympathetically minded towards the Church Commissioners providing a substantial grant towards helping those who are so disaffected in the conservative evanglical/traditionalist fratenity to set up their own more reform-minded denomination outside of the existing structures of the C of E.”
[/blockquote]
That’s good to know, but is there anyone who really wants to do that?
#13 There are no “Eastern RC Churches.” There is the Latin, or Roman rite Catholic Church, the Ruthenian Catholic Church, the Ukrainian Catholic Church, the Melkite Catholic Church, the Maronite Catholic Church…and a number of others. They are all Catholic Churches, in communion with the Bishop of Rome, but with their own hierarchies an canon law. Only the Latin Rite ever uses the term “Roman” Catholic, and that only because it was imposed on them.
On the other hand, the Anglicans of the Ordinariate will be Latin rite Catholics, using a liturgy which will be considered a “use” of the Roman rite, as the Tridentine or Extraordinary Form mass and the Novus Ordo mass are two uses of the Roman rite.
I have attended one of the Anglican Use parishes in the United States, a number of times. Unlike #7, I was much more relaxed there than at the average parish using the Novus Ordo, as it felt like a proper church to me, with solemnity, dignity, reverence, elevated language, and decent music. There is a very different “feel” overall to such a parish. People really sing, for one thing. They take a coffee hour after mass for granted and people actually go to it. Of course it is smaller, so there is much more of what we usually call “community.” There are many reasons for Anglicans to desire such parishes.
I do feel that there is a danger of the English hierarchy not really understanding what this is all about, and not particularly liking it, and seeing it as much more to their advantage to make use of all these new priests and stall on finding churches for Ordinariate congregations. I certainly do worry about this. The last thing I would want is for these new Catholics to feel that the promises made to them were not kept. Of course, if they believe the Catholic Church is the Church, they can’t leave because things aren’t arranged as they like, but the promises made to them should be kept.
Susan Peterson
# 16
I do understand where you are coming from Eulugos but the term “proper church” does need to be challenged slightly and possibly rephrased to read as “church in a more traditional, dignified style which I personally prefer”.
To do so insults many churches of Anglican and other persuasions, including Roman Catholic ones. I am sure the Day of Pentecost and the worship of some of the early churches in houses etc may not have felt like “proper church” but they undoubtedly were.
Yes, the early church was soon “formalised” and “dignified” to a degree as it evolved, but to say that an exuberant Pentecostal or Anglican church for example is not. or cannot be or feel like “proper church” is somewhat stretching it a bit I feel.
Some Roman Catholic churches, and Anglo Catholic churches in poorer areas for that matter often do not have the giftings or resources to have “decent music” – isn’t that just a touch elitist – and what is meant by “elevated language” exactly. They have to make do on a regular basis with that have and try and make the best of it.
How any church, of any rite, can hold and celebrate a “Solemn Mass” on Easter Sunday, Christmas Day or Pentecost Sunday for example, of all days, is totally beyond me! Isn’t that a contradiction in terms?
Good Friday by all means, and every other Sunday, (and weekdays too in some cases), if you must, but on Sundays which are designed for exuberant celebration…that does not feel like “proper church” to many people, including me.
There are certain days which are designed for controlled but contagious celebration, and contain emotions which almost defy the ability of language to even begin to describe their meaning and significance describe them…whether that language be elevated or otherwise.
Again…pray tell me…what is “elevated language”?. Is this not a touch elitist also? Should not worship be in a language that even the most common “uneducated” of folk can understand, as well as those of a more refined persuasion?
Don’t get me wrong, I am a fairly literary bloke who enjoys etymology and refined liturgy along with the best of them…but they are not the standards by which I would define “proper church” or more accurately “proper worship”.
I think there are some on here who would argue that “proper church” is as much, if not more to do with right doctrine than it is with a certain style of worship. There may be others who, along with yourself may prefer to argue that “proper worship” if there is such a thing, flows out of and from correct doctrine.
I have worshipped on an occasional basis in many churches during my time, and the only ones where I can say that I feel most ill at ease are those which are staunchly Anglo Catholic and have every intention of letting you know it, very Catholic Roman Catholic masses (of which I have experience one or two but not many, most habe been understated yet very reverent), and those where the emphasis is so much on the “choral”and “fine music” to the exclusion of everything else, that the congreational input and involvement is so infinitessimal that there is hardly any reason for them to be there at all – except, perhaps to applaud and admire and be understandably astonished and awestruck in the choir’s very presence and to be dumbstruck by their undoubted talent and excellence.
Also, I have been none too comfortable at some, though by no means all, forms of strongly conservative evangelcial churches of a a more Calvinist persuasion, where any exuberant or overly joyful expression of praise and worship is met with a disapproving frown at best, and a terrifying, almost fear-inducing glare at worst, and also at any way over the top charismatic “bless me, heal me” experience which has very little to do with the worship of Almighty God as far as I can see.
Other than that, I have, and often do feel very relaxed and at home in a variety of settings and contexts and will gladly continue to do so I hope.
# re 17
sorry Susan if that felt a bit strong.
I have just re-read your previous post and I do quite like the sound of what you describe in paragraph 3. I am in favour of anything that makes people truly want to, and indeed look forward to attending, especially with regard to sung worship.
I recently attended a service at my local Anglican Cathedral, where the first and last hymn were ones which everyone really appreciated, but the other two hymns in the service were ones that clearly most people in the fairly substantial congregation had ever heard of, and spent the duration of both obviously struggling to get their heads and vocal chords around. This was made even worse by the fact that both these hymns were sung to a virtually unsingable tune, which made it very difficult to appreciate.
Dignified and reverent it undoubtedly was, but it had the feel of being just a bit disjointed and a touch unsatisfactory, and certainly not as inspiring as it could and should have been.
To many sense and purposes it appeared to be, and presented itself as, “proper church” but was it really?
I’m not so sure it was in it’s entirety.
Michael.
We may for once be on the same side here believe it or not.
I genuinely believe this is the way supporters of the ordination of women to the Episcopate should be going.
I am probably going to make myself extremely unpopular with my fellow supporters of the measure but something has to be done to stop this impasse and this unholy infighting.
These are the kinds of things I want to say to my Area Dean who is on General Synod, and also to those I know who are on Diocesan Synod in my Diocese. I know I can only speak for myself but we have to start somewhere.
Has an amendment or a resolution ever been tabled to this effect at Diocesan or more importantly General Synod level? Has it ever been seriously considered?
I may be in the minority here admittedly, but I am not in any way threatened or made insecure by the presence of another evangelical Anglican -type church within our Parish but of a different denomination, who can baptise, marry, bury, celebrate Holy Communion, worship and confirm should they wish to do so. The people of the area can be free to choose which church they frequenton a regular basis, become members of or attend for occasions such as weddings, funerals and Festival celebrations throughout the church year..
I will also have no truck with any liberal/central churchmanship churches who object. It is up to the rest of us to step up to the plate in my view, and stop being in denial with regard to the extent of the problem re ageing, dying and declining congregations.
One more evangelical church will be no problem. Within a half a mile of our church we have a thriving charismatic/open bretheren/FIEC assembly, a growing Elim Pentecostal Church,and a good, strong conservative evangelical Baptist church. Also exciting growth is beginning to be seen in our neighbouring parish church. We have good working relationships with all these churches. One more won’t make much of a difference, and could well be an enhancement to the existing Christian life and ministry in the area. We all need to be mature and adult and grow up about all of this kind of stuff and stop being so territorial and unduly competitive I feel.
Having two Anglican churches…one officially Anglican and the other very similar in structure but by another different denominational name, will undoubtedly be messy and confusing at first, but it will soon settle down. And it will not happen everywhere. Probably only in parishes where the Parish church is vacated and alternative premises within the parish boundary have to be found. Across the Chuch of England life will go on as usual, it is just that there will be more churches like the Co-Mission group and Christ Church Kidderminster around other Dioceses across the country too.
I stress that this need only happen where financial provision is given to help with premisesand family accomodation, salaries are needed to replace stipends and pension payments. Also ministers and other employees of churches who are self supporting would remain self supporting under the new structure and would not be assisted in any way financially They would just carry on ministering and support themselves as they have already been doing.
You may be right. I may be a lone voice in the desert at present. But it is an area of discussion and debate that is worth having and it has to start at the grassroots..initially at parish/PCC and Deanery level, and then at Diocesan and General Synod level.
If there is no willingness on the part of supporters of the measure to discuss it or entertain it seriously then yes, we will be back at square one again undoubtedly, ang the squabbling and the infighting will undoubtedly continue.
This may well be the case but I would be very disappointed if it did, and would see it very much as a creative solution/opportunity sorely missed.
But hey…this is the Church of England we are talking about here! It wouldn’t exactly be the first time that this has happened now would it?
But surely it is at least an option, in addition to the appointment of conservative evangelical PEVs and the possible creation of a Third Province in England which should at least be discussed seriously before it is chucked out altogether.
Conservative, reformed evangelical church planters have a very valid point here, and Co-Mission are doing some great work with their church plants in Southwark. What I would say is I am sure that there are other none Co- Mission evangelical churches in Southwark also carrying out good equally good and effective work and ministry.
Northener at #19,
I note your points and I wish you well.
All I was saying is that I don’t think that groups like Co-Mission intend to leave CofE. That seems to be what AMiE is all about – they really do intend to stay.
Even Charles Raven and his congregation in 2002 only left CofE under great pressure: public demands by the bishop that they leave, harassment, calls to the police etc. That was an extreme case, and for various reasons I don’t think we will see a repetition. I think that was the message Rowan Williams (to give him due) sent out to the bishops in 2005.
So, in my view, no guarantee that any orthodox evangelicals are going to set up an alternative Anglican polity (and yes, I could be entirely wrong about that)
Bringing it back to the thread, I don’t think its certain that any more anglo-catholics are going to leave either. Society of Hilda & Wilfred has a list of twelve bishops within CofE who are prepared to give alternative oversight to anglo-catholics who remain. The Ordinariate may not get much more than the 60 priests it has already got (I know it claims 900 laity, but there is no guarantee that all of these will actually make the move – I will withhold judgment until they set up some congregations and we see how many are there).
So, you may be right, but I think CofE has to be prepared to deal with a whole lot of churches who aren’t leaving, and who will simply ignore a local bishop who tries to force on them things that they fundamentally disagree with.
Interesting times.
A few piunrs of clarification: The 900 laity have already been received into the Catholic church as part of the Ordinariate. Many thousands have simply converted by the usual route. I hope that SSWSH does offer something but so far there has been no clear road map. This is terminal care and even one of those 12 is about to retire and is rumoured to be packing swimming trunks and I know of several others who are either seeing it out to retirement or else very likely to follow. My own belief is that WO has effectively killed the Catholic wing if the C of E and the same sex debate is now the prime one. If the liberals win that too then evangelicalism will go the same way- if not then the C of E will become fully
Reformed. The battle is now raging with the strong financial muscle of evangelicalism pitted against the power of the synod and episcopate wielded by the liberals.
Re #4 and 5
CBS: Q&A regarding Ordinariate grant
27 07 2011
The Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament has published this Q&A regarding the recent grant of £1m to the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham. It is available the CBS website here:
A. THE STATUS OF CBS
1. Is the CBS a Church of England charity?
No. The trustees wanted to be quite clear on this point and so took advice from a leading charity lawyer. They advised that the CBS is subject to neither Rome nor Canterbury. It is not part of a Church of England structure and it has its own independent hierarchy. Its membership includes individuals outside the Church of England.
The CBS was founded for the advancement of the catholic faith in accordance with traditions which were, at the time, outside the scope of the Church of England. Subsequent changes in the Church of England have meant that rites that had previously caused CBS’s founders and supporters to get into trouble with the authorities had come to be accepted by the Church of England authorities.
B. CBS – ITS FUNDS
2. Isn’t the Confraternity’s money meant to be used for Church of England purposes?
The Confraternity’s funds must be used for the charitable purposes stated in its Constitution, namely “the advancement of the catholic faith in the Anglican Traditionâ€. There is no requirement for it to be limited to the Church of England and there is no constitutional link with the Church of England.
3. Where did the Confraternity’s money come from?
Much of the CBS’s funds were received in the form of subscriptions from large numbers of private individuals, received directly rather than through any Church of England channels. There have also been a number of bequests, typically around £100 or £200 each and sometimes up to £1,000. Much of the current balance is attributable to the successful investment of funds by successive trustees.
4. Can I get my subscriptions back if I don’t approve of the grant?
No, subscriptions are not refundable.
C. CBS – ITS MEMBERS
5. Is it true that the Trustees amended the Constitution so that they could remain as members, despite having joined the Ordinariate?
Amendments to the Constitution are made by the Council-General, not by the Trustees.
In May 2009 the whole Council-General approved amendments to the Constitution to allow the Council-General to add to the list of churches from which the Confraternity can draw its members.
In 2010, members of the Council-General voted by an overwhelming majority to add the Ordinariate and the Anglican Church in North America to this list.
6. Can the decision to admit members of the Ordinariate be rescinded?
No. The Council-General could make a fresh decision to remove the Ordinariate from the list of churches whose members can be admitted to the CBS, but this would not have retrospective effect.
7. Can the Constitution of CBS be amended to exclude members of the Ordinariate?
The trustees have been advised that in theory the Council-General could amend the Constitution to limit membership as it sees fit, however before doing so a number of legal issues would need to be considered including discrimination law.
We are told that there could also be issues to address if CBS wanted to terminate the membership of existing members.
D. GRANT TO THE ORDINARIATE
8. Who decided to make the grant to the Ordinariate? Shouldn’t the Trustees have consulted members before making the grant?
The Trustees took this decision, as with all past grant decisions.
The Trustees have power under the Constitution to exercise any powers of the Confraternity that are not formally reserved to the Council-General or the Superior-General.
9. Has the money already been paid to the Ordinariate?
Yes, the grant was paid over to the Ordinariate on 27 May 2011.
10. What were the terms on which the grant was made?
The grant was paid on condition that it would be used for the provision of theological teaching, learning and development for candidates for priesthood, for the support of those priests following their ordination and for other purposes connected with the advancement of the catholic faith.
11. Can the CBS get the money back?
Yes but only if the Ordinariate fails to comply with the terms on which the grant has been made.
12. What about donors who would have expected their funds to be kept within the Church of England?
Donors’ wishes are important but, unless the donors made their gifts subject to conditions (which the trustees would be obliged to honour), they are applicable for the Confraternity’s charitable purposes. Those purposes are not limited to the Church of England.
The research and advice commissioned by the Trustees confirms that the founders and historic supporters of the Confraternity can be assumed to have intended their gifts to be used to support the practice of religion in accordance with doctrines that now look more consistent with the Ordinariate than with the direction in which the Church of England seems to be travelling.
13. As some of the trustees are members of the Ordinariate, didn’t they have a conflict of interest in relation to the grant?
The Trustees were mindful of the potential conflict issue when considering the request from the Ordinariate.
When the grant was made, it was confirmed by the Ordinariate that it would not be used so as to confer any personal benefit on any of the Trustees and specifically that no part of the grant would be paid by way of stipend or salary to any of the Confraternity’s Trustees.
14. Is it true that members’ meetings were cancelled in order to avoid having to consult them about the grant?
No, this is not true. The Council-General meets annually, and met in June this year in the usual way.
15. Aren’t the Trustees running off with the family silver?
Emphatically not. The Trustees have identified the Ordinariate as a constructive and effective way of advancing the Confraternity’s charitable purposes. They are not intending to leave the Confraternity.
E. THE FUTURE OF CBS
16. Can the CBS continue to operate now that the grant has been made?
Absolutely – the CBS has sufficient funds to continue its grantmaking activities as before. It will continue to further its charitable purposes, which have remained unchanged since 1999 as follows:
“3.1 The Confraternity is established for the advancement of the catholic faith in the Anglican Tradition and in particular to promote:
3.1.1 the honour due to Jesus Christ our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament of his Body and Blood;
3.1.2 prayer for one another at the Eucharist;
3.1.3 careful preparation for and reception of Holy Communion, including the Eucharistic fast;
3.1.4 the reverent and dignified celebration of the Eucharist and the reservation and veneration of the Blessed Sacrament;
3.1.5 the continuance of the catholic priesthood; and
3.1.6 catholic theological teaching, learning and development.â€
17. What is the Confraternity going to do next?
The Council-General agreed at its meeting on 30 June that the Superior-General would convene an advisory group which will include a range of views to discern the way forward. This group’s job will be:
(a) to consider the future membership and role of the Confraternity;
(b) to consult members (including by convening District meetings); and
(c) to report back to the Council-General on or before 30 June 2012.
18. Isn’t the Confraternity irrevocably split by the grant decision?
It was clear from the Council-General meeting on 30 June that there were strongmfeelings both in favour of the grant and against it. However, the serving Superior-General, Father Christopher Pearson, was unanimously re-elected for a period of one year to lead the Confraternity through a process of consultation and discernment.
The Council-General has agreed a plan of action which includes the appointment of Father Sam Philpott, who has expressed in public his opposition to the grant, as a Trustee to work alongside the other Trustees.
Hey Susan, being an Eastern Catholic myself, I understand what you are trying to say, and technically you are correct. But on Anglican/Episcopal blogs I use RC as shorthand to mean “Churches in union with Rome” as opposed to those having catholic traditions that are in union with Canterbury, those who are Anglican-tradition but not in union with Canterbury, or those in union with the Patriarchs of the East. That way there is no confusion regarding who they belong to. While saying the “Maronite/Melkite/Ukranian/Ruthenian/Chaldean etc. Church in union with Rome” is correct, it is much easier and I have found that the meaning is clearer on non-RC sites to say Eastern RCs, meaning in union with Rome.
Michael
Thank you for your kind words. I did say that I was only seriously considering stopping contrinuting. I still am, but I must coinfess that I have found the discussions regarding the intriciacies of the WO vote really interesting. However, you will get rid of me for a few days next week when I disappear off to New Wine in Newark minus my trusty laptop… Time to crack open the champagne in prospect of such respite lol
And although Michael you may have felt you had to almost bash me over the head with a mallet to shatter the illusion that the result was a foregone conclusion, I have taken on board the possibility that the vote could go against the motion if opponents of the measure are joined in one or more of the Houses (likely to be either Clergy or Laity I anticipate) by supporters who are against an undiluted version of the legislation and will not vote in favour of the legislation as it currently stands. …As you so rightly say whatever happens these are interesting times.
I think we are both in agreement that there will be SWSSH and AMiE sprouting up in various places over the coming months and years, although I think the strategy may well, for AMiE at least be a somewhat slowish start followed by a gradual, slow but sure spread across the country..maybe westwards into Wiltshire to begin with.
I would have said across the South West too in Worcestershire for example, but there I find it the picture there more intriguing and puzzling. The spread across Southwark of Co-Mission churches has been impressive and is not going to slow down. I guess that this is the model that other churches in other Dioceses may try to emulate over time, though the may find they will have to contextualise things a lot more, especially in the more Northerly Dioceses.
I note that someone pointed out that Mayfair is actually in the London Diocese, and by all accounts the Co-Mission churches seemingly enjoy a far more healthier relationship with the Bishop of London than they do with the Bishops of Southwark. Maybe there are one or two more strategic plants in the pipeline North of the River Thames in the near future.
However what has been noticeable is that this clustering of growing AMiE supporting congregations that has happened in Southwark has not been replicated elsewhere, namely in Worcestershire.
Given that Christ Church Kidderminster broke away in 2002, almost a decade ago, it is interesting to see that a group of churches similar to Co-Mission has not taken place in Worcestershire, and what happened to Charles Raven has not happened elsewhere amongst the reformed evangelical clergy in the Worcester Diocese.
I am guessing that there may be people here who will say that that is hardly surprising as other more orthdox evangelical sympathisers were scared off from following suit becasue of the way Charles Raven was treated..and this undoubtedly was not at all pleasant for anyone to have to endure.
But it may also be that others were not particularly impressed/inspired or desirous enough to follow his lead and that it was not just down to lack of courage on their part.
It may be that Charles Raven has never had any desire to lead a group of churches into “exile”, or temporarily impaired communion” in the manner that Ricahrd Coekin has done in Southwark, or it may be that it needs someone different to lead things forward in that particualr part of the country.
Given that there are close geographical links between the Gloucester, Worcetser and Hereford Dioceses, and that the Bristol, and Bath & Wells Dioceses are not too far away I would have thought that some disaffected minsiters and churches would have come together to form a similar grouping to Co-Mission..
However, the Bishops of Bristol and Bath and Wells may be suitably evangelical/acceptably orthodox enough to make temporarily impaired communion unneccesary at present.
Maybe Christ Church Kidderminster may decide to possibly look a bit further eastwards in the direction of Wiltshire for instance, should any ministers and congregations choose to rebel against Nick Holtam’s ministry as it begins to unfold.
They are however not likely to find too much support in the neigbouring Hereford and Gloucester Dioceses, whose Diocesan Synods have been amongst the earliest to cast their votes and have both responded with an overwhelming “Yes” vote.
The vote of the lay representatives in Hereford made even me gasp with surprise. Only 1 lay memebr did not vote in favour.
As Michael has said before, this may not stand for much come 2012, but it is fascinating to see how the Diocesan Synods are voting in the early stages.
It is interesting to see no other churches taking as serious issue with Bishop Selby as Charles Raven and Christ Church Kidderminster did, especially given Bishop Selby’s liberal credentials.
I agree with rugby playing priest when he says there is not much in the way of a roadmap with SWSSH. The same appears to be the same with AMiE, but although I find this frustrating I think they are both here to stay. How successful they will be remains to be seen.
These are indeed fascinating times…whichever way the vote goes in 2012.
RPP,
The way I would put it is that *anglo-papalists* are finished as an effective force in the Church of England.
I don’t mean that as a jibe, and I trust that the term anglo-papalist does not of itself cause offence – which was not intended, I note that many of that persuasion seem to use it themselves on blogs, as being an accurate description.
But my impression is that there are many in CofE who call themselves anglo-catholic, who abhor “affirming catholicism”, yet also disagree with anglo-papalism. I think its those people who are going to find leadership within CofE.
And sure, one of the 12 H&W bishops might well be about to cross to Rome, for all I know. But the fact is that there are 12 at the moment, and they are there to provide alternative oversight and support for those of their persuasion who remain in CofE.
I think 2012 will undoubtedly be an immense year for both Anglo-Catholics and evangelicals but especially for the latter, depending on how the vote goes.
If the vote goes in favour of WO then I cannot see that many Anglo Catholics staying within the Church of England. Those Anglo Catholic Bishops still remaining who vote against the measure, (so far, there have only been two at Diocesan level, although there may be several more to come, but not many I am guessing), I think may even find it too uncomfortable to sit on the same “bench” as a female Bishop, especially if she was fairly liberal to boot.
This will of course depend on the PEV support that is offered, or withdrawn as the case may be, depending on what happens, but like Michael I can’t see many of them sticking around for too long.
I think that, even if the measure is passed by all Three Houses, the conservative, more orthodox conservative evangelicals, although they will be deeply unhappy and probably pretty angry with the rest of us, will stick around in greater numbers I think.
This may be because, unlike the Anglo Catholics they haven’t got a “natural”alternative abode to move into. I’m not sure AMie has the resources or totally fits the bill for the more orthodox evangelicals as the Ordinariate does for the Anglo Catholic fraternity.
I
#26 Northener
You seem to be trying to make a prediction of what will happen in particular circumstances, or perhaps just engaging in wishful thinking.
I think the lesson I took from the Ordinariate announcement and a routed Archbishop being wheeled out to public gaze and humiliation along with that of our church, and then the geese flapping round looking as though their feathers had been pulled is that one can only go so far in crystal ball gazing.
The results of particular actions and the reactions to it are often unpredictable in relation to the events which precipitated them. Who could have predicted that:
1. the assassination of an obscure Austrian Archduke would plunge Europe into war and change that world beyond recognition, leading to the end of the established order and most of the monarchies of Europe?
2. the actions of an obscure and troubled journalist with addiction problems would puncture the empire which held politicians, senior policemen and celebrities in fear, disrupt what looked like the wholesale takeover of BSkyB and put the entire global empire in jeopardy?
3. a decision by an English HOB to send a resolution to Synod and which was passed virtually unamended, notwithstanding considerable efforts to change or call for reconsideration of it, would bring a church to worldwide notoriety and persuade the Pontiff of another to boundary cross to set up an alternative for those affected?
Well, if one remembers one’s history:
1. the murder of Julius Caesar led on to the empire’s descent into warfare among those who sought to take his place, Octavian, Pompey and Mark Anthony with battles being fought across the territory.
2. Perhaps the events in relation to Robert Maxwell and then Conrad Black may contain a warning about what may happen to media empires which lose their moral compass and how they are often brought down by one small honest or perhaps disillusioned man who decides to spill the beans.
That then leaves the question of what will happen in various scenarios in relation to the initiatives being pushed through by the HOB in relation to women bishops, reviews of policy on civil partnerships and so on. Perhaps the Ordinariate experience had a lesson that the response to decisions may not be proportionate to the actual vote taken. Sometimes countries, businesses and institutions reach a ‘tipping point’ and an apparently small event, with apparently predictable outcomes related to it, suddenly ends up in events out of control and predictability in relation to the proximate cause.
One can certainly predict that ‘it will all be over by Christmas’ but once events are set in motion, no one really knows how it will all end up.
So that is why I would not be so sure about the confident predictions you have been making. No one really knows what will happen.
Sorry, that is [Sextus] Pompeius, Pompey’s son.
PageantMaster
I think you are being fairly selective in criticising my “prediction” which was merely the possibility, and that is all it is, of a number of Anglo Catholics leaving if the measure was passed. It may not happen, but it is a possibility. Who knows? Only time will tell.
What I do object to is a firmly worded rebuttal of a fair possibility, yet you let go a comment such as ” Anglo-Catholics are finished as aen effective force in the Chuurch of England” which was not so much a prediction as a statement.
Presumably you agree with this as you did not appear to see the need to issue such a strong response complete with an historical analysis both ancient and modern.
You do appear to be somewhat selective at times in those you choose to challenge whilst letting very strong comments such as those referred to above pass by without a word.
Unless of course you agree with Michael’s definitive statement.
Any anyway they may be “finished within the Church of England” but who is to say that they might (and please note the use of the word “might” and not “will”) not flourish and be greatly blessed outside of it. I, for one, certainly hope they are, because the Bishops’ letter of resignation as they announced their Departure to the Ordinariate was as impressive as it was gracious.
I do not sense that there would be letter in a similar vein from conservative evangelical Bishops who may (or may not!) feel they have to leave in the future. My guess, and it is only a guess I hasten to add is that such a letter would be far more declamatory and much less gracious in its tone.
I suppose that the election of Gene Robinson was one such event, perhaps the consecration of Jeffrey John would have been another. While the election, approval and consecration of Gene Robinson might have seemed a small step to those pushing for it, it had to be seen against the background of what had happened to TEC. Certainly many seemed to have made predictions and judged that the reaction could be discounted and would soon blow over. Of course it didn’t but led TEC into a spiral of reduced membership, finances and then defections, and of course the setting up of parallel Anglican structures. Though its leaders did not realise it, or perhaps didn’t care, TEC was at a tipping point, and over the point it tipped.
Now I don’t know what will happen with women bishops, but one conclusion I would draw from the US experience is we should use our best endeavors to deal with one another with care and consideration, wating upon the slowest of us, and not placing obstacles in the path of members of our church. That is pretty much what I have been saying for ages, but no one pays a blind bit of notice. Ho hum.
#29 Northener
I am under no obligation to read or respond to every comment, nor does silence imply consent or agreement.
Northener,
No, you didn’t just state a mere possibility. One example of what you wrote:
“If the vote goes in favour of WO then I cannot see that many Anglo Catholics staying within the Church of England.”
Pageantmaster’s response to you was reasonable, and justified.
You seem to pump out a steady stream of predictions in your various posts, most of which seem to have little foundation in fact. I just don’t bother responding to most of them.
Also, a correction: in #26 you wrote about Anglo-Catholics: “but like Michael I can’t see many of them sticking around for too long”. You seem to have completely misunderstood my position.
Oh and regarding some of your quotes in #29 you may view them in a different light knowing that they are made by someone now in the Ordinariate who does not think well of the way he and others have been treated in the Church of England and perhaps that colours his view of the prospects of the majority of Anglo-Catholics who are still part of our church.
Actually I feel a real sense of relief and joy having joined the ordinariate so am very much at peace. My comments are not snarky ones but genuine belief. Why do I say I think Anglo Catholicism is now in terminal care? Because, quite honestly, the very existence of the ordinariate changes everything. How can one say no to unity with Rome and sacramental assurance by choosing to remain in a body that has/is manifestly no longer catholic in any sense but liberalising at a frightening pace and yet claim the title Catholic? It makes little sense, all that is on offer now is the choice for sacramental congregationalism given the the ecclesiology of the C of E is defining itself in a way that cannot support a catholic understanding.
And it is not as clear cut as Anglo papalism is over and prayer book Catholicism survives. Anyone claiming the title catholic has extraordinary intellectual gymnastics to perform and things to ignore and pretend are not there. A degree of dishonesty will be needed which cannot be good. Also the water is muddied because most of those Anglo Catholics currently raging against the ordinariate are claiming a great fidelity to Anglicanism but were in fact unable to join because they are partnered homosexuals and R
Sorry posted prematurely….
… Others divorcees etc. This must be tough but explains why they stay. Also many in the second wave will surprise some people. They are not the dripping in lace sort but quiet moderate Catholics who can see the writing on the wall.
Now of course none of us can really predict, and doubtless a rump will survive for a while, but with mirfield now served by a liberal principle and staggers having almost no orthodox catholic students it is hard to know where vocations would come from. And with the clear steer from in high it is hard to believe bishops in five years will tolerate anti WO candidates. Oddly one may disbelieve the virgin birth but women priests has become the one necessary thing to believe in….
#33
PM
Before I respond to the combined forces of Michael and yourself, please can I ask for some clarification.
#33
You appear to refer to”my quotes” in #29
Is it yourself or Michael who has left to join the Ordinariate and understandably feels so hurt and angry at the way they have been treated? I am guessing it might be Michael but I would like to know for sure before I comment too much further on what you have said in #33.
The only sentence I “quoted” referred to something that Michael had actually said, not myself.. The rest were merely my comments and in everything I have said here, including in #29, I have been very complementary about the Ordinariate and those who have chosen to join it. I personally feel they have done a very honourable thing.
Despite feeling badly treated, as you rightly point out, and they are hurting, and will continue to do for some time, they have left with exceptionally good grace in my view and have set a very good example for those who may also choose to follow in future.
It may well be that orthodox evangelicals will choose to stay, but if they do choose to leave in future, do you honestly see them leaving as gracefully and in as Christ-like a manner as the Anglo Catholic fraternity appear to have done so far?
Of course, in private many Anglo Catholics may be furious and apoplectic at having to leave, but in public at least they are setting a very good example in my view.
I particularly appreciated the very clear and factually comprehensive posting from Already Gone in #22, in response to your earlier comments in # 4 and #5, which I thought was an excellent response from the viewpoint of someone who has already left the Church of England to join it and appears to be happy there.
Before I continue with my response, can I please reiterate my request for clarification as to who it is that has joined the Ordinariate as it will inform how I respond.
I have every sympathy with those who have done so and wish them very well, as was inferred in the comments that I made in #29..I am genuine and sincere in my belief and desire that God will continue to bless them richly. Moving from within one historical institution to another, although deeply painful, in no way negates God’s present or future blessing.
In fact it would not surprise me if in ten years time some may say “I didn’t want to go at all, but it is the best thing I have ever done”. Similarly, there may be others win 10 years time who may think “I wish I hadn’t gone and done this” .
Again, who knows, only time will tell.
#34
Rugby playing pianist
Thank you. Your first sentence in#34 sums things up beautifully.
Please be assured that there are those of us who sincerely hope that that sense of peace and joy will continue to grow and that you will be blessed and become a catalyst for growth in both your present and future mission and ministry.
re #34
RPP
Your first sentence is great, but your last sentence is even better.
The hypocrisy of a fair few in FiF allying with Reform on the issue of WO yet being at total odds with them in the issue of same sex relationships says everything.
Also Reform/AMiE/GAFCON supporting priests and churches stay totally silent about this even though they know it is so true.
It is so dishonest in it’s approach for the sake of mere political expedience . Well said.
Northener – reread your #29 and then look back in this thread to see whose words you have quoted and you will find the answer you apparently seek.
I find your barely concealed glee at the prospect of people leaving your church rather distasteful.
Then of course, if blind eyes are being turned in other organisations to partnered gay priests, surely that is no more than English bishops must have been doing in the Church of England.
You don’t seem to mind people leaving the Church of England. I really don’t think that is very pastoral at all, and completely misses what it may tell you about what is going wrong here with our church and its leadership.
You read more like an agent provocateur.
As for #22 Thank you Already Gone, for the Q&A issued by the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament. However it is somewhat self-serving in that:
1. The Confraternity was founded by Anglicans for the purposes of bringing change into this church in a return to more catholic forms of worship.
2. The reference to the ‘Anglican Tradition’ predates the Ordinariate and indeed it looks as if the Ordinariate may have used this wording specifically with the objects of this charity in mind.
3. #2 would certainly suggest some premeditation, in much the same way as Edwin Barnes was part of the group who changed the objects of the Church Union in 2008 to allow for inclusion of other churches such as the Roman Catholic.
4. The claim that the widening of the membership of the Confraternity to include Roman Catholics, at the same time as it is claimed that removing the reference to them would potentially fall foul of anti-discrimination legislation is beside the point and rather bolting the door after the horse has bolted with the money. The problem lay with the abuse of their position by the trustees and general council in that trustees who had already made plans to leave, used their position before they did so to vote through the changes in membership and the vote of money to the Ordinariate.
5. The dishonest intent of that action in #4 is shown by the uncertainty they felt this irregular and unusual action warranted a tame lawyer’s opinion to wave about when, as they knew would happen after they, left they and the Confraternity were criticised. They made sure that they had covered their backs with a legal opinion, not always but in such cases, the regular resort of the scoundrel to save himself from the consequences of his own unethical behaviour. I doubt if the Confraternity has had to obtain legal advice when donating plate and fittings to CofE parishes.
6. There was in the period being considered the opportunity to bring these matters and their intention to widen the membership and to make a donation to a foreign church to the attention of the membership of the Confraternity, but they chose not to do so, or to inform them of what the Ordinariate bound trustees were up to prior to the decisions being implimented.
I suppose that if the membership has now retrospectively been consulted, that is something, but it is a case of the door being bolted too late. The trojan horses have bolted with the money.
It just stinks, and I have lost any sympathy I had for those who raided this charity, although I suppose that they felt that needs must. I wonder if it will do them much good, although it may pay their salaries for a few months and perhaps they will get some parishioners willing to support them in their new ministry.
There is however a key matter which presumably the charity commissioners, and if any members of the confraternity are minded to take it up with the Courts, which is the issue of the clear conflict of interest the trustees had between their personal interests and intentions and advanced plans to join the Ordinariate and their duty to act in the best interests of the charity an in accordance with their legal obligations [leaving on one side the issue of their ethical and Christian obligations to the charity].
RPP,
I didn’t think you were being snarky, nor unreasonable.
Naturally, you see things according to your beliefs.
I think it is reasonable to say however that any anglo-catholic who does not join the Ordinariate probably does not share your beliefs. He or she therefore probably won’t see the inconsistencies that you see, in being an anglo-catholic in the Church of England.
[blockquote] “Anyone claiming the title catholic has extraordinary intellectual gymnastics to perform and things to ignore and pretend are not there.” [/blockquote]
Well, so you say. Whether others agree with you, we will have to see.
[blockquote] “Also many in the second wave will surprise some people. They are not the dripping in lace sort but quiet moderate Catholics who can see the writing on the wall.” [/blockquote]
Yes, this is what we were told when the pastoral provision was introduced. Perhaps this time will be different.
Northener wrote:
[blockquote] “Is it yourself or Michael who has left to join the Ordinariate and understandably feels so hurt and angry at the way they have been treated? I am guessing it might be Michael but I would like to know for sure before I comment too much further on what you have said in #33” [/blockquote]
Both Pageantmaster and myself have made a number of clear statements to you on different threads about our background. You know perfectly well that neither of us have joined the Ordinariate (and that in my case at least, that is currently impossible).
Why then do you ask a question that you know is completely false in its premise?
[blockquote] “The only sentence I “quoted†referred to something that Michael had actually said, not myself.” [/blockquote]
Except that you significantly misquoted it, as you often seem to do. Can you please try to keep your citations accurate?
[blockquote] “It may well be that orthodox evangelicals will choose to stay, but if they do choose to leave in future, do you honestly see them leaving as gracefully and in as Christ-like a manner as the Anglo Catholic fraternity appear to have done so far?” [/blockquote]
Do you honestly see them not doing so?
[blockquote] “I have every sympathy with those who have done so and wish them very well…” [/blockquote]
Has anyone doubted this? You are a liberal and you want to see any person of orthodox belief out of the CofE – we get it!
[blockquote] “The hypocrisy of a fair few in FiF allying with Reform on the issue of WO yet being at total odds with them in the issue of same sex relationships says everything. Also Reform/AMiE/GAFCON supporting priests and churches stay totally silent about this even though they know it is so true. It is so dishonest in it’s approach for the sake of mere political expedience . Well said.” [/blockquote]
This is a serious accusation. According to Northener, Reform has knowingly allied with people (allegedly members of Forward in Faith) who are “at total odds with them in the issue of same sex relationships”. He also claims that Reform has done so knowingly, and dishonestly.
Care to offer any evidence in support of this, Northener?
I await your response with great interest.
Michael, please may I quote verbatim what Pageantmaster stated in #33
“Oh and regarding some of your quotes in #29 you may view them in a different light knowing that they are made by someone now in the Ordinariate who does not think well of the way he and others have been treated in the Church of England and perhaps that colours his view of the prospects of the majority of Anglo-Catholics who are still part of our church. “
And may I quote part of your response.
“Both Pageantmaster and myself have made a number of clear statements to you on different threads about our background. You know perfectly well that neither of us have joined the Ordinariate (and that in my case at least, that is currently impossible).
Why then do you ask a question that you know is completely false in its premise? “
..and please may I also quote verbatim what I said in #29, to which PM refers in the above paragraph.
“PageantMaster
I think you are being fairly selective in criticising my “prediction†which was merely the possibility, and that is all it is, of a number of Anglo Catholics leaving if the measure was passed. It may not happen, but it is a possibility. Who knows? Only time will tell.
What I do object to is a firmly worded rebuttal of a fair possibility, yet you let go a comment such as †Anglo-Catholics are finished as aen effective force in the Church of England†which was not so much a prediction as a statement.
Presumably you agree with this as you did not appear to see the need to issue such a strong response complete with an historical analysis both ancient and modern.
You do appear to be somewhat selective at times in those you choose to challenge whilst letting very strong comments such as those referred to above pass by without a word.
Unless of course you agree with Michael’s definitive statement.
Any anyway they may be “finished within the Church of England†but who is to say that they might (and please note the use of the word “might†and not “willâ€) not flourish and be greatly blessed outside of it. I, for one, certainly hope they are, because the Bishops’ letter of resignation as they announced their Departure to the Ordinariate was as impressive as it was gracious.
I do not sense that there would be letter in a similar vein from conservative evangelical Bishops who may (or may not!) feel they have to leave in the future. My guess, and it is only a guess I hasten to add is that such a letter would be far more declamatory and much less gracious in its tone. “
And just for completeness sake here is the first two paragraphs of your contribution in# 25.
“RPP,
The way I would put it is that *anglo-papalists* are finished as an effective force in the Church of England.
I don’t mean that as a jibe, and I trust that the term anglo-papalist does not of itself cause offence – which was not intended, I note that many of that persuasion seem to use it themselves on blogs, as being an accurate descriptionâ€
To clear this misunderstanding up…..
I will offer an apology Michael for quoting you as saying anglo catholic when what you actually said was you believed that anglo papalists are effectively finished etc.
In#33 PM referring to my quotes in #29 and states that ,†knowing that they are made by someone now in the Ordinariate who does not think well of the way he and others have been treated in the Church of England and perhaps that colours his view of the prospects of the majority of Anglo-Catholics who are still part of our church. “â€
In # 29 the only comments referred to are those that were made made either by myself, or yourself. Now I am obviously not a member of the Ordinariate, and neither are you, as you have so kindly pointed out. So who exactly is PM referring to in #33 when he says.
“… knowing that they are made by someone now in the Ordinariate who does not think well of the way he and others have been treated in the Church of England and perhaps that colours his view of the prospects of the majority of Anglo-Catholics who are still part of our church. “??
Who exactly is this “someone in the Ordinariate†who is so upset at the way they have been treated? It’s not me, and as you have said, neither is it you or PM himself, so who is PM referring to then?
It looks very much I t sounds to me as though PM may have mistakenly thought that you had moved to the Ordinariate. If this is the case then that is an honest mistake to make. If he did not think this then who is this person who he is referring to?
Who else could he be referring to if he was talking about my comments in#29 as he clearly states? My question was absolutely NOT based on a false premise. Who is this person who has left to join the Ordiariate that PM refers to so clearly. If it is definitely not you, and certainly not himself and it goes without saying that it is not me wh is so unhappy then who is it?
No one else was eveb mentioned or quioed in my post on # 29.
I repeat, it was NOT based on a false premise as you so falsely accuse me of.
I have read through all 42 comments on this topic and I cannot work out who PM means. There are thse who have joined the Ordinariate who have contributed intelligently, cogently and thoughtfully to this discussion, but none of them are mentioned by me, quoted by me, or even alluded to me in #29 as PM falsely alleges
Please read PM’s response through very slowly and very carefully again, and then tell me what you think and who he believes this person is, and then show me exactly how and where where I referred to him or her, whoever they may be in #29.
If he had been referring to RPP or GA’s comments I would fully understand what you are fulminating about …but neither RPP’s nor AG’s comments had anything to do with what I said, or were even referred to at all in any part of what I said in #29.
I will gladly take responsibility and yet another verbal rocket from you when it is for something I have said, done or alluded to, but I am certainly not prepared to be wrongly accused, by you, PM or anyone else for that matter of something I have not done simply as a result of somebody else’s possible error/mistake.
[blockquote] “I will offer an apology Michael for quoting you as saying anglo catholic when what you actually said was you believed that anglo papalists are effectively finished etc.” [/blockquote]
Thank you. Why take several long paragraphs over this?
[blockquote] “Who exactly is this “someone in the Ordinariate†who is so upset at the way they have been treated?” [/blockquote]
I think it was obvious to everyone who read it that he meant Rugby Playing Priest. If you didn’t know who he meant, just ask a simple question.
“Has anyone doubted this? You are a liberal and you want to see any person of orthodox belief out of the CofE – we get it!”
And now to deal with false accusation number two
“you are a liberal”
and as cheap, disgusting assertions go, go they don’t come much bigger than this one..
I appreciate that there are time differences between Blighty and Down Under so you may not have had a chance to view an earlier rebuttal on another site re this lazy, dismissive claim you have made. If you have read it you will be expecting this response.
“Michael from Sydney”..just who do you think you are?
I will inform everyone else, as I have done to you on the earlier site. I am a former President of my College Christian Union and for a further two years sat as a Regional Representative of the Colleges National Executive of UCCF – An organisation which has very close links with Oak Hill Theological College, probably with AMiE and Co-mission, the Keswick Convention and a host of other organisatins that even you would deem reputable, such is their reputation for orthodoxy. My orthodox credentials are pretty sound thank you very much
…and I certainly don’t expect, require or need your nod of approval or assent to prove otherwise.
As I said earlier I attempt to preach and live out Christ incarnate, crucified, risen, ascended, lord and returning King.
Anybody who knows me well..which incidentally you certainly don’t
would not describe me as liberal theologically…politically perhaps but that is a totally different matter altogether.
So far you have heard similar to what was said earlier…but I will go much further..with regard to my “orthodoxy” in terms of my belief, I’m sorry to have to be the one to have to inform you, but the One to whom I must and will ultimately stand to account for those beliefs, is the only One who knows me fully, even as I am fully known.
You, on the other hand, most definitely, and I, most certainly, know only in part, and I can say for sure that I am only too glad that that decision about the validity and legitimacy of my orthdoxy, and the full and final judgement of it, lies solely in the hands of Jesus Christ, the Lord of heaven and earth and NOT, I repeat NOT, in the hands of “Michael from Sydney” whoever he may be, or thinks he may be.
You have no idea how grateful I am for that fact. It is indeed a terrifying thing to fall into hands of the Living God, but it would be a far worse prospect if the eternal fate of any believer wase to rest in the hands and the judgement of “Michael from Sydney”. For that we should all be eternally grateful.
And now for the hat trick – to counter false allegation number three.
“and you want to see any person of orthodox belief out of the CofE – we get it!”
As for wanting, to rid the Church of England of people of orthodox belief, please spend a moment to reflect on this if you will.
I have a colleague in work who I am working quite closely with at present. For about the last year he has been attending as an enquirer and worshipper, an avowed Reform/AMiE supporting parish church in Cheshire…one of the few areas in the North of England where there are some around.
He has been attending a Christianity Explored course and has come to faith and was recently confirmed.
I am delighted about this and will do everything I can, in as unobtrusive a way as possible, given the restrictions which often exist in a workplace setting to encourage, support and pray for him as he continues in his new found faith.
I have no desire whatsoever to see him leave the Church of England, and there is no way I would ever discuss secondary issues with him while he is still a relatively young Christian. If he were to raise them in conversation some time in the future I will share my thoughts, but in as sensitive a way as possible.
It is up to his vicar, church leaders and others to teach, inform and counsel him about such issues. I do not envisage seeing him leave the Church of England, and do not expect or want him to ever do so, but if he did because of the way things may pan out, which I think is unlikely, I will continue to seek to respect, support and encourage him, and be supported and encouraged by him in return.
The sentiments I expressed towards those on here who have stated that they have joined the Ordinariate were sincerely meant, even if you, Michael do not seem to have the good grace to choose to believe it.
It is early days admittedly, but they do appear be very much at peace and content in their new home, far more so than they had been for some time before they left, or so it would appear.
Your almost obsessive use of the term “liberal” to describe anyone who does not share the particular orthodox expression of your beliefs is becoming tiresome, lazy, dismissive and, in my case, just plain WRONG.
And I will be blunt here…there are many, many orthodox conservative evangelicals who I would dearly love to stay within the Church of England and there are many many Anglo Catholics likewise.
But there are some where, if they should leave, I would not shed that many tears about, because I do believe that the Church of England would be a far more Christlike, a much more charitable and a far more enjoyable place to serve and minister, if or indeed when they choose to do so.
It saddens me very deeply to have to say that, and I repeat there are not many in that category, but there are some. But I am realistic enough to know that they will be staying.
And PM…how you can join in the sad little jibes about me just wanting people to go is also particulaly disappointing,although hardly surprising.
I have posted several times in recent days about the need to try and find a way through the WO debate in order to try and find a solution and a system which all can live with, even though many may not agree with it or be happy about it.
But then again, where Michael wades in , PM usually tends to feel he has to follow, or so it often appears, regretfully.
Northener,
Much as I disagree with liberal theology, I wouldn’t have thought that accusing someone of being a liberal could be called “cheap, disgusting”!
You have been happy to hand out a plethora of assertions about the beliefs of others on numerous posts on T19, so there was no reason to go off the deep end like this over a single word.
This seems to be unnecessarily distracting attention from the question I asked you at the end of post #42 (which concerned your assertion about relations between Reform and Forward in Faith). Are we going to see a response to that?
I’d like to make an observation and ask a question of you, Northerner.
From where I sit, you seem to see no place in the Church of England for traditional evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics. You’d be happy if they left and found new accommodations, either with Rome or in a separate Anglican body.
You’ve spent quite a bit of cyber-ink railing at people you perceive to be “conservative,” but I haven’t seen you railing against theological liberals– or if you have, I’ve clearly missed it.
So to my question: Why are you so hot and bothered about Anglicans who disagree with you, say, about women’s ordination and homosexuality, while you seem more than content to walk alongside people who would happily identify themselves as theological liberals?
As you consider an answer, perhaps you can also understand why your stance and your posts might cause us to wonder…
Someone who has more trouble coexisting with a brother or sister who rejects woman bishops than he does coexisting with another who denies the resurrection of Christ presents something of a poser to me, at least.
#42
Michael
I did have every intention of answering this past of your question and I will do so now. I am sorry if you felt I had ignored it but I will attempt to answer it here, in response to your direct quotation.
“This is a serious accusation. According to Northener, Reform has knowingly allied with people (allegedly members of Forward in Faith) who are “at total odds with them in the issue of same sex relationshipsâ€. He also claims that Reform has done so knowingly, and dishonestly.
Care to offer any evidence in support of this, Northener? ”
What I would like to know Michael is this.
Co-Mission, Charles Raven and others have challnged Bishops Butler, Chessun, Selby, and will undoubtedly do so to Holtam also, to come clean on exactly where thy stand theologically in relation to same sex relationships. They are more than entitled to do that.
I would be much happier if they were to discuss a wider range of issues than this one with him, but this appears to be the only issue which caused them enough concern to claim temporarily impaired communion.
Am I right in saying that Forward in Faith and Reform have joined forces to try and defeat the measure proposing to allow the admission of women to the Episcopate in future.
To my knowledge, I do not ever recollect anyone form Reform/Gafcon or AMiE ever openly challenging publically, or even politely asking privately for that matter, as they have done with the above mentioned Bishops, where FiF, and its supporters stand in relation to same sex relationships.
I refer you to some words posted earlier by RPP in #34
“Also the water is muddied because most of those Anglo Catholics currently raging against the ordinariate are claiming a great fidelity to Anglicanism but were in fact unable to join because they are partnered homosexuals”
These are the words of an Anglo-Catholic who has now departed to the Ordinariate are they not? They are certainly not my words.
He claims that they were unable to join because they are “partnered homosexuals”. How many of these are there amongst the FiF fraternity I wonder?.
RPP said that they were Anglo Catholics, and not liberal Catholics, although I guess that there are partnered homosexuals amongst the more liberal Catholic fraternity too.
So why have we not heard voices in Reform asking the same sort of questions as loudly, clealrly, regularly and as publically about their theological beliefs regarding same sex relationships as they have of certain Bishops.
It very much appears Reform and others know this is going on in the Anglo Catholic fraternity, many of who, as RPP has said still, albeit reluctantly, still remain within the Church of England.
Yet they are more than happy it would appear to turn a blind eye to this if it menss they can join forces expediently with such traditionalists to overturn the measure regarding the ordination of women to the Episcopate. Why have Reform supporters not asked for temporarily impaired communion with Anglo Catholics who they know to be in same sex partnered relationships in the same manner in which Co-Mission have done with the previous and present Bishop of Southwark over this very same issue.
Why aren’t the same strong, direct questions on same sex relationships being asked of these Anglo Catholic Anglicans, who are in our Dioceses, as they are of some of the Bishops of those same Dioceses.
I think it is a fair question to ask, don’t you?
As for the “evidence” you asked for…well I think Rugbyplayingpriest kindly provided that for us in #34 didn’t he?
And if that evidence is incorrect, exaggerated or even inadmissible I take it you are going to challenge him about it at some point on here are you not?
You cannot ally with people over one issue and yet keep silent over another where you know they are equally as culpable as those who you are strongly challenging. Or can you?
Please… enlighten me further.
Northener at #48,
So, it turns out that you have NO evidence for an incorrect and offensive assertion against Reform and Forward-in-Faith UK. I note that you relied entirely on an assertion on this blog, by Rugby Playing Priest, about which you have no personal knowledge, and which in any case you misread and misapplied.
Firstly, let’s look at Rugby Playing Priest’s statement. He claimed that many “Anglo-Catholics raging against the ordinariate” were partnered homosexuals. Not Forward in Faith. RPP was careful about what he wrote; you were not.
And your error should have been immediately apparent to you, for two reasons:
(a) “Raging against the Ordinariate” hardly describes Forward in Faith, which has posted a number of articles inviting its members to consider the Ordinariate favourably. I am not actually aware of any member of Forward in Faith that could be described that way, but of course it is possible that some individuals might – that is possible in any organisation, but it is not what we are discussing.
(b) Whilst there are many council members of FiFUK who are single, there are also a significant number who are married. They cannot be “partnered homosexuals”.
Secondly, RPP offered not a skerrick of evidence in support of his assertion. It may or may not be accurate (once one works out exactly what he means by “anglo-catholics raging against the Ordinariate”), but the point is that you had no basis to rely on it.
Thirdly, RPP made no claims about what was publicly known about his assertion, nor about what Reform might know about it. And this is the problem: You went much further than RPP’s statement: You not only claimed that there are many in Forward in Faith who “are totally at odds with Reform on the issue of homosexual relationships” but you also claimed that Reform is aware of this (something RPP never claimed).
Even now, you offer not a shred of evidence for that last crucial point.
So here we go again. A totally unsupported assertion by Northener which just so happens to cast an aspersion on orthodox evangelicals and anglo-catholics. But don’t ever call him a liberal. ;o)
#43 The Northener says:
[blockquote]And I will be blunt here…there are many, many orthodox conservative evangelicals who I would dearly love to stay within the Church of England and there are many many Anglo Catholics likewise.
But there are some where, if they should leave, I would not shed that many tears about, because I do believe that the Church of England would be a far more Christlike, a much more charitable and a far more enjoyable place to serve and minister, if or indeed when they choose to do so.
It saddens me very deeply to have to say that, and I repeat there are not many in that category, but there are some. But I am realistic enough to know that they will be staying.
And PM…how you can join in the sad little jibes about me just wanting people to go is also particulaly disappointing,although hardly surprising.
I have posted several times in recent days about the need to try and find a way through the WO debate in order to try and find a solution and a system which all can live with, even though many may not agree with it or be happy about it.
But then again, where Michael wades in , PM usually tends to feel he has to follow, or so it often appears, regretfully.[/blockquote]
While you express your desire that some people stay, albeit on terms, yet I would say that your willingness to see other Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals depart I don’t really see as compatible with John 10:12-13:
[blockquote]12 The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. 13 The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. [/blockquote]
We have to decide whether we are shepherds or hired hands; the sheep do not belong to us but are placed in our charge and we will be held accountable for our stewardship. We are required to care.
I have also to say that there are people in the church at large and my church who I really do not like, but I would do everything I could to keep them in it. Once you get into encouraging people out in the vain hope that it will make the church more more Christlike, a much more charitable and a far more enjoyable place to serve and minister you are onto the slippery slope TEC has pioneered. The point is, it is not about them, it is about us.
PM
Thank you for your responses in #50 & #51.
Despite many repeated assertions on here, I have no wish to see orthodox/evangelicals/traditionalists/Anglo Catholics depart at all. I have never had a conversation with anyone where I have openly or even subtly encouraged them to depart…ever! But I do believe there is a need to be pragmatic and realsitic and to recognise that there willl be those who choose to do do, and to make any parting of the ways as easy and as loving as possible for both parties, although I acknowledge that this is likely to prove difficult. But at least I am willing to try.
Also, please don’t insult the intelligence of integrityof people who have made the decision to leave because you so desperately want or them to stay or insist that they should stay.
They have chosen, as is their right, to depart of their own free will and are entitled to do so should they wish. It is not written into any Anglican constitution anywhere that a person should stay within a denomination for life…indeed, it may not be healthy, or even God’s will, for them to do so.
But should they do so, I would want to wish them every blessing in their new and future ministry. That does not seem to be the case elsewhere it would appear.
The reason I say this is that, even a cursory glance through the history books of the church in general, and the wider evangelical church in particular has been, that when splits have taken place..they have a tendency to be nasty sometimes.
I learnt an awful lot from my previous Vicar, an Oak Hill trained open evangelcial, when, on the few occasions that key members/couples within our church decided that they were to move to another church…whether to another church within the C of E, as happened with one couple, or to a larger church of a different denomination, as with another two couples (this was over a period of twelve years that he was with us), he made sure that they went with our blessing and were prayed with openly on their final Sunday with us before they moved on.
One of these couples were key members of the leadership team, including leading a very successful midweek childrens club attended primarily by unchurched children who were never going to come on a Sunday owing to family circumstances, along with other competing priorities etc.
It was a devastating loss to lose them but we knew they had been thinking about it for some time and we ensured they left with our full blessing.
The upshot of this is that whenever we bump into them, whether at social gatherings or larger Christian gatherings locally, there is no feeling of tension or resentment…it was seen as by all as a natural development in their journey of faith. Isn’t that the way it should be?
And yes, I do believe we should do everything we can to keep people in, but with regard to WO why is the onus on those in favour to bend over backwards, to make concession after concession.
Always travelling at the the slowest of us (at snail/tortoise pace even) is admirable, but only in part because it is so often utilised by those who do not wish to see much change of any sort occur..whether it be introducing the ASB/Common Worship, reordering of a church that is no longer fit for purpose in the 21st century, or WO to the Episcopate.
It would appear to me, sadly, that the reason that a number of the amendments made by Diocesan Synods prior to their votes, as urged by Michael Lawson, have been overwelmingly defeated, because many in favour of the motion, feel that this demand for concessions is going to go on without end.
In fact the Following Motion text appears to deliberately encourage those wishing to make amendments not to be drawn on what specific amendments to the legislation they want to see.
I myself am broadly in favour of some necessary concessions, but I would most certainly vote down any amendment, and encourage others to do the same, which refuses to at least try and be much more specific about exactly what amendments/revisions to the proposed legislation opponents would want the House of Bishops to consider making.
If it was genuinely a sincere attempt by opponents to ensure that adequate episcopal provision was being made for opponents, I believe that many would be more than sympathetic. But I think many believe that there are other ulterior motives/forces at play here.
These motions and amendments are sometimes put forward in a manner that is designed to filibuster and thwart the whole process, and not to seek genuine progress regarding concessions.
Yes we should ensure as far as we can to keep everyone on board, but opponents do not have the right to hold the rest of the church to ransom with unreasonable demands for concessions.
Reasonable concessions yes, and I do consider PEVs and a Third Diocese or even an expanded Diocese of Europe given that both European Bishops are the only two Bishops who have voted against so far as being reasonable…not that anybody would give me credit for that on here…
And what about the unspoken issues on the other side of the tracks?
For example, what about the right to claim Alternative Episcopal Oversight for women priests who find themselves serving under an orthodox/ evangelical/conservative/traditionalist priest who is clearly opposed to the ordination of women, and is unlikely to favour their development or recommend them for future preferment. It is not just a matter of orthodox evangelicals/Anglo Catholic traditionalist not being preferred surely?
Are they not entitled to better than what they are likely to receive, or indeed have been receiving so far?
No Diocese should ever be a “no go” area for any priest, whether they be male or female…or whatever shade of evangelical, Anglo Catholic, traditionalist, progressive or liberal or anything in between.
If a priest, whether liberal, catholic or evangeliaal of whatever persuasion cannot guarantee that they will give fair and full attention to every single priest under their care, as their Shepherd, as you suggest in they should in the passage you quoted from John 10, and provide equal care for all, including the women priests, they should not be entrusted with pastoral care/oversight, whether at Area Dean, Archdeacon, Suffragan or Diocesan Bishop level.
You rightly say this may be a problem with the liberals, but are you seriously telling me that some of the traditionalist more Orthodox Area Deans do not, or are not seriously tempted or ujrged/persuaded by others to give preferential treatment to those of their own persuasion
If a woman priest had exceptional giftings and serious leadership potential and there was also a male priest who was less gifted but of the same theological persuasion as their Area Dean etc…who would be likely to gain preferment…whose ministry would be encouraged more I wonder…
I think the problem with the Church of England for too many years is that Bishops and Senior Staff ON ALL SIDES have probably not cared as much for the priests/sheep/parishes/congregations of a differing theological persuasion, as carefully as they do their own.
And how is “we don’t want you…you are not a “proper” Bishop”, as will be the case for Women Bishops once they are consecrated,, and already is is now for women priests, compatible with both the principles and the spirit of Jesus’ teaching in the passage quoted in John 10 :12 – 13 might I ask?
Sounds very much like a case of “YOU are NOT of THIS sheepfold” to me..”
It is not as much a one way street re AEO as is so often claimed by traditionalists, and this needs to be emphasised much more strongly than it is at present I feel.
[Northener – Please avoid personal remarks which may be read as ad hominem on T19 in accordance with our comment policy and try to engage issues rather than commenters – thanks – Elf]
#52 Northener
[blockquote]Also, please don’t insult the intelligence of integrity of people who have made the decision to leave because you so desperately want or them to stay or insist that they should stay.[/blockquote]
Of course I do no such thing as you luridly mischaracterise it yet again. If people really want to do something else, I won’t insult, want, or insist or do anything other than wish them the best and hope they find what they seek, hopefully in another part of the body of Christ, although in such situations that is not always what happens.
No the real issue which you don’t really address, is what are you prepared to do to make people feel wanted as part of our church? What effort are you prepared to put in to be a shepherd rather than a hired hand? And that is of course a generic ‘you’ to include all of us in the Church of England including Fulcrum. I have to say it seems not a lot.
I dealt with what the issues are for those who have felt unwanted in the CofE with the changes proposed with the women bishops legislation. Many of them were in tears in the CofE Synod two years ago when this was dealt with. Moreover I gave you my view of what should be done to consult with them and the provision which might be provided, but neither you nor I have authority to negotiate for them or decide what they would find acceptable.
The comment I wrote in reply to you dealing with what the theological issues are and pointing you to further reading if you wished to undertake it is here and the comments I wrote dealing with what you might propose to your Diocesan Synod, which was what you claimed you wanted my views upon, are here [where you will also find a link to your prior comment on an unrelated thread on Norway] and here.
Moreover the raising of issues of equality and justice in relation to women bishops [even assuming for the moment that proper alternative provision would impinge on this, when male bishops have quite happily lived with PEV’s for 20 years] just reiterates the Fulcrum failure to deal with the sacramental assurance in the Apostolic succession problems for the catholic Anglican and the headship issues of the evangelical Anglican. You are in effect ignoring the issue, if you had bothered to read what I wrote and are in effect, saying: because Fulcrum does not think that sacramental assurance and headship is an issue, therefore justice and equality issues trump them, and they should put up with what we with our theology think is good enough for them. It is in effect a circular argument.
Also since you and I agreed to discuss this on the thread I link above, why not show that you have read what I wrote and respond to it on that thread rather than raising the issues you do on this one from which there is no indication that you have bothered to read what I wrote. Surely you are not just ignoring the replies I went to some effort to make to you and are instead engaging in grandstanding?
[blockquote]These motions and amendments are sometimes put forward in a manner that is designed to filibuster and thwart the whole process, and not to seek genuine progress regarding concessions.
Yes we should ensure as far as we can to keep everyone on board, but opponents do not have the right to hold the rest of the church to ransom with unreasonable demands for concessions.[/blockquote]
Is that what you think of Michael Lawson and the CEEC following motion? I can see why Fulcrum is not on the CEEC as an organisation?
While your expressed willingness to consider something or other if it is more specific, is not really what this motion being put forward to diocesan synod is for if it becomes specific in terms or drafting. As I said on the other thread [if you had considered it], technically this is an up or down vote, although it is open to diocesan synod to put down a following motion to ask General Synod and the HOB to think again about providing legal provision rather than a wishy washy Code of Practice which leaves it up to the diocesan to take note of, or not. As you say unfortunately diocesans, and archbishops have in the past and perhaps now exercise partiality in their decisions and appointments in their dioceses.
Moreover, it is not for you and I to agree what needs to be done. If you are interested in following this up, perhaps with a working party from your diocese in the months before the vote, following the links I provide and talking to those affected will be the most fruitful approach to considering your approach to the following motion.
PM
Firstly, as you said yourself, no one is under any obligation to reply to anything here.
It is interesting to view what you choose to respond to. #43 of mine for instance has been met with a wall of silence. I was accused of basing something on a false premise and it was a wrong accusation. Neither yourself or Michael have had the courtesy or the decency to respond, which is disappointing.
Thank you again for the links you kindly provided. I have read the others and responded where I am able.
But please can I make a plea for you to be a touch more patient in your desire for me to respond. I am a married man, an employee |(therefore not my own boss), with a full time job and a young family. I am only able to post either early morning, in the late evening after my daughter has gone to bed, or in the case of today, during the day because I have had to take leave as my daughter is sick and my wife looked after her yesterday and I am doing so today while she is at work.
I also have other committments at present and, not that I wish to receive or seek your pity, I am also trying to make sure that my grieving mother is OK as she lives a mile away from me while my two brothers live down on the South Coast, so the bulk of the practical caring responsibilities fall upon my wife and myself.
I also have church leadership responibilites and am currently preparing a sermon for our Fifth Sunday Cafe style worship service on Sunday morning.
I have taken the time to read most, if not all that you have written, even if I have not had the time to respond to you personally. In responding I have also quickly become aware that I have to try my best to read things I send through as carefully as I can, as they are often forensically taken apart and anlalysed by someone with as sharp a legal mind as your own, as well as by Michael in Australia.
I am sorry if the speed of my responses do not come up to the standard you my expect, wish or desire. And I cannot promise miracles in the days that lie immediately ahead I am afraid.
I am travelling to and from Newark tomorrow as the group from our church going to New Wine need assistance in setting up camp and transporting the equipment. I am also going to be tied up on Sunday, and now have to go into work on Monday to do the work I was meant to do today before taking a week’s leave.
I may get some time to respond in depth on Tuesday, after which will then be travelling with my family on Wednesday to rejoin the group at New Wine for the remainder of next week.
I will read all that is contained in the links that you have sent me, and I do intend to read all of it, and familiarise myself with it prior to going to New Wine next week.
While I am there I will quietly try and seek out privately people such as Ian Parkinson, who leads the North & East network and is the leader of the Summer Conference 2011 at Newark, as well as other key leaders present, including Ian Paul and others to discuss in more depth some of the things you have kindly raised and given me further information on. I also hope to find out what the more general New Wine take is on AMiE etc, but I will do this subtly and discreetly, as to be honest, up here in the North, the creation of AMiE has hardly caused a ripple of excitement or a even a modicum of interest amongst most Anglican church folk, including the evangelicals
Your helpful contributions to assist me in trying to understand the issues in more depth, and the feelings and emotions involved, especially amongst those who are opposed to WO are genuinely appreciated.
I will try and respond to the comments yopu have made in this thread and in previos ones when I have the time available.
Thanking you for your forbearance in anticiaption.
#55 Northener
I am sure that you will have better things to do at New Wine than think about comments on T19. I hope so anyway.
#56
I hope so too.
I think I am nedd of a break from
Elf
Many thanks for your gentle and gracious reprimand.
I apologise for the concern and inconvenience, not to mention extra work this has undoubtedly caused you.
One of the things I really like about this site is that it seeks to allow for a free and frank exchange of views without seeking to censor/moderate too much. I am sorry for infringing and will try my best to comply in future.
I am in now way wishing to insist on this, but I would hope that in the interest of fairness, one or two others may also have had a gentle reprimand/reminder also, as at times it has felt that I have been on the receiving end of some comments which have also become a touch personal and not solely focussed on the issues as you have urged.
You may not wish to publish this comment fully, post-moderation, as I would not wish to inflame things any further.
Northener wrote,
[blockquote] “If it was genuinely a sincere attempt by opponents to ensure that adequate episcopal provision was being made for opponents, I believe that many would be more than sympathetic. But I think many believe that there are other ulterior motives/forces at play here.” [/blockquote]
No, I’m sorry, but that doesn’t wash. Let’s not start re-writing history.
The liberals in the Church of England have consistently voted to exclude any meaningful “adequate episcopal provision for opponents” of women priests. They will not permit any compromise with orthodox evangelicals and anglo-catholics. (Yet, Northener tells us that it is really the orthodox who fail to compromise – go figure!) Consider just the following example:
In July last year, the archbishops of Canterbury and York proposed a compromise whereby a female bishop would have full authority in her diocese but “in practice refrain from exercising” certain functions in a parish which objected to her. A “complementary bishop” would have independent powers, and the powers of the two bishops would be “co-ordinate”.
The opposition to this measure by liberals was intense, and it was defeated in the house of clergy.
It is only in this context that it can be clearly seen that Northener’s innuendo about opponents having ulterior motives bears no relationship to reality. The liberal line (which Northener openly supports, despite his vehement denials that he is a liberal) is that there will be no compromise with those unable to accept the ministry of women bishops.
Hence why some have felt the need to leave for the Ordinariate, and why the orthodox Primates justifiably interfere in the affairs of the Church of England.
[blockquote] “These motions and amendments are sometimes put forward in a manner that is designed to filibuster and thwart the whole process, and not to seek genuine progress regarding concessions.” [/blockquote]
This is laughable, given that the liberals in CofE have demonstrated that they have no interest in making concessions.
[blockquote] “Yes we should ensure as far as we can to keep everyone on board, but opponents do not have the right to hold the rest of the church to ransom with unreasonable demands for concessions.” [/blockquote]
That is the whole point – the rest of the church (both within and without the English provinces) is largely opposed to women bishops. That is hardly surprising since the church has had no women bishops for 2,000 years until this very recent innovation was brought in by a relatively small group of liberal activists.
[blockquote] “Reasonable concessions yes, and I do consider PEVs and a Third Diocese or even an expanded Diocese of Europe given that both European Bishops are the only two Bishops who have voted against so far as being reasonable…not that anybody would give me credit for that on here…” [/blockquote]
Of course not, because talk is cheap. You have had years in which to publicly call for such a proposal, and have never done so. Writing it on T19 is easy, particularly when you know full well that it would never get anywhere in a CofE that rejected the Archbishops’ compromise.
Northener wrote:
[blockquote] #43 of mine for instance has been met with a wall of silence. I was accused of basing something on a false premise and it was a wrong accusation. Neither yourself or Michael have had the courtesy or the decency to respond, which is disappointing. [/blockquote]
???? I responded in the very next post.
PM re #53 & 54
At long last you may cry…some thoughts from Northerner re your comments on the theological arguments for and against women bishops…
Here’s a starter for ten…
” The arguments about this are not about fitness or suitability of individual women but about theology. There are some who object to women in ministry for prejudicial or mysogenistic reasons, but this has not been what the discussion in the church has been about.”
I ‘m afraid I cannot let this sentence pass without some form of comment. Firstly thank you. You are the first opponent of WO, whether it be to the priesthood or the Episcopate who has had the decency and the honesty to come clean and admit that that there is some degree of prejudice and misogyny in the mix at times.
Even if they may be in the minority permit me to ask this if I may. When such attitudes are encountered by the majority of opponents who do not hold such prejudices, but prefer to base it on theological arguuments, is such behaviour openly challenged in any way, whatever form it may take? Or is there a tenednecy to go ignore it for fear of being seen to be too “soft” on the WO cause.
Let’s face it..muted, embarrased silence is not much short of tacit approval is it not?
These people are allowed to get away with some pretty offensive language and behaviour, both amongst their own supporters and towards women priests in general hence the experience of my female vicar friend at the crematorium referred to in an earlier post.
You have hit the nail right on the head in my view, when you say this has not what the discussions in the church have been about. The problem is that the church should have been having such discussions…and they should have been leading to some probing questions.
Such as, why do women priests generally not report such behaviour, especially such as that of the retired male priest at the crematorium, especially where it is not just a one off but a regular occurrence at Parish, Deanery or Diocesan level? And if they did, would any Bishop be prepared to take the appropriate disciplinary action against such “misogynistic, prejudicial” behaviour? I wonder?
Just because you don’t believe in women as priests and/or Bishops does NOT in any way, give anyone the right to verbally abuse, demean, or humiliate women ordinands. I do not see or hear the many decent opponents of WO taking on these elements within their own side, or indeed whether there are is any future intention to do so, especially if women are at some point admitted to the Episcopate in the C of E.
“Broadly the theological arguments in regard to women in the episcopacy have fallen into two groups:”
“Well it is because of the Catholic understanding of the Priesthood and the Eucharist, in which the role of the priest is leading the people under a bishop leading the diocese in the collective sacrifice of the Eucharist. The valid action of a bishop and priest in this understanding is absolutely key to the validity of the sacrament of the Eucharist.”
As you would probably expect, although I respect the right for many to hold this view, I am not much of a proponent of it myself.
Although I passionately feel that the Eucharist/communion is to be celebrated, I think too much is made of the role of the priest. As I mentioned in my last post, I would contend that the role of the priest in the Catholic tradition is way too focused purely on the sacramental aspects of the priestly ministry and far too much attention is paid to the role of the priest himself
I don’t quite know how this happened, but our Treasurer, in order to obtain funding for one of our Associate Ministers while he was with us, applied for funding from the Additional Curates Society, one of the most Anglo Catholic societies around!
She successfully got it too and frequently passed the latest issue of the ACS magazine around to members of the leadership team..The chief mantra each time of this august body was “Dear Lord, give us priests…give us priests..give us priests…to which could be added…and just in case you didn’t hear us first time…give us some more priests…â€
Clearly the notion of a fulfilled laity being released to fulfil their own calling using their numerous giftings and ministries in collaboration with,and under the leadership of, priests/ordained ministers, clearly wasn’t even remotely on their radar.
The focus of so much authority, influence and power being focussed in one man or maybe two at parish level at best is worrying, and at worst is extremely dangerous. Opposition on sacramental grounds, although understandable , is not convincing I feel.
And I have long been in favour, both on theological and practical grounds, of an episcopally authorised and licensed from of localised lay presidency at communion/eucharistic services.
It would help resolve many of the problems in rural areas in particular, where communion services are restricted due to lack of a priest to preside at them, and would be preferable to reserved sacrament as it would be presided over by someone who is known, loved and respected within the congregation/area/locality.
I am sure many on here will disagree somehow!
I will comment on the evangelical objections re male headship shortly, but unfortunately it will have to be early next week as it is now Wednesday morning and I am heading off to New Wine in about an hour.
#60 Hello Northener
May I suggest that since you are giving “some thoughts from Northerner re your comments on the theological arguments for and against women bishops”, that we discuss them on the thread where they are to be found here as we agreed earlier?
I am also busy so may take some time to respond, but there may be some merit in you taking the time when you are not rushed to get to New Wine, to go back in detail through the arguments linked in that post dealing with the issues of Apostolic Succession and Headship held not only by those in the CofE who have problems with women bishops, but also with the majority of the world’s Christians in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches.
Hopefully with a bit more time spent you will also be more able to engage fully with the theological issues and to avoid saying things like:
[blockquote]Firstly thank you. You are the first opponent of WO, whether it be to the priesthood or the Episcopate who has had the decency and the honesty….[/blockquote]
when I had earlier in the same thread said:
[blockquote]For myself, I am not particularly bothered about women priests, or women bishops but I do accept that my view should not be determinitive, but subject to 1. my acceptance of the right of my church to teach on this issue; and 2. My belief that we should indeed be ‘one’ with other Christians and I do not want to see further division between ourselves and the Catholics and Orthodox who we have been trying to build bridges with and restore mutual communion of doctrine, ministry and sacraments with.[/blockquote]
although I do accept that it is hard to keep up with the line of argument from different people when responses are posted to comments on umpteen different other threads.
May I also make a plea to you. I have been reading Fulcrum’s statements on unity in the Church of England and on women bishops. It seems to me that there is a disconnect on the one hand between Fulcrum’s determined opposition to any statutory provision such as we already have with PEV’s for those who have conscientious theological objections to women bishops, even to the extent of reacting angrily to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York’s proposals for such a compromise at the penultimate Synod, while on the other hand saying that it is essential that unity in the Church of England must be maintained at all costs.
My question to Bishop Kings, Stephen Kuhrt, Ian Paul and other members of the Fulcrum leadership team is this:
What are you prepared to do to maintain unity in the Church of England?
If you see any of them at New Wine, at the seminar on women bishops, please ask them, and encourage them to engage here with their answer. Alternatively if they do not wish to engage in such open and honest discussion on T19, perhaps you will report back on what they say?
Northener wrote:
[blockquote] “I ‘m afraid I cannot let this sentence pass without some form of comment. Firstly thank you. You are the first opponent of WO, whether it be to the priesthood or the Episcopate who has had the decency and the honesty to come clean and admit that that there is some degree of prejudice and misogyny in the mix at times.” [/blockquote]
This is obviously incorrect. There are always people on the fringe of every viewpoint, and conservatives are better at admitting it than most. It is rather liberal supporters who have difficulty in admitting that there are many on their fringe. In this case, Pageantmaster has demonstrated his fairness in argument – it will be interesting to see whether that is reciprocated.
[blockquote] “Even if they may be in the minority permit me to ask this if I may. When such attitudes are encountered by the majority of opponents who do not hold such prejudices, but prefer to base it on theological arguuments, is such behaviour openly challenged in any way, whatever form it may take? Or is there a tenednecy to go ignore it for fear of being seen to be too “soft†on the WO cause.
Let’s face it..muted, embarrased silence is not much short of tacit approval is it not?” [/blockquote]
What “muted, embarrassed silence”? We only have your unsupported assertion that it exists.
You have given us your particular spin on a single incident (which none of us can verify one way or another) and now you are suggesting that this provides some sort of proof of a *wider* practice by orthodox evangelicals and anglo-catholics. That is not a credible argument.
[blockquote] “These people are allowed to get away with some pretty offensive language and behaviour, both amongst their own supporters and towards women priests in general hence the experience of my female vicar friend at the crematorium referred to in an earlier post.” [/blockquote]
Again, we have to take your word for it about one incident, and now suddenly it has become behaviour “in general”. This is no more than your partisan assertion.
The rest of your post follows the same line – innuendo built on innuendo. At no time do you attempt to confront the real issue: the large numbers of evangelicals and anglo-catholics who are not rude to women priests (despite your baseless assertions) and who have genuine theological objections to them.
This follows a common thread through your posts: As Farstrider has aptly observed, you always refrain from attacking any liberal position, but are only too happy to attack orthodox evangelicals and anglo-catholics. Mind you, I don’t have a problem with that – I am more than happy to debate liberals like yourself, on any forum.