Prebendary [Rod] Thomas said on Monday that Reform would like the talks to be chaired by the Archbishop-designate, the Bishop of Durham, the Rt Revd Justin Welby. “We feel very much that Justin Welby has been put by God in this place with a unique set of gifts to help us resolve this problem; he has our complete trust in seeking to move forward.”
Campaigners for women bishops who are angry at the outcome of last week’s vote have, however, indicated that they will press for a single-clause Measure, without provision for traditionalists enshrined in it.
The Rt Revd John Gladwin, a former Bishop of Chelmsford and the honorary vice-president of WATCH, said that opponents of the Measure had “blown up the bridge to any compromise solution”. The “only . . . route” that could now be taken, he said, “is the route which removes all discriminatory provisions from the life and ministry of the Church”.
[blockquote]Christina Rees […] said that conservative Evangelicals were “using finding the perfect arrangements [for opponents] as a smokescreen. I think basically what they want is never to allow the Church of England to have women bishops.”[/blockquote]Except that the original wording of 5(1)c looked set to pass, if it hadn’t been for WATCH et al threatening to vote it down. And Christina Rees knows it well.
This is a blatant lie in the service of political posturing, and very far removed indeed from the moral landscape of the Sermon on the Mount. I speak here as someone in favour of WB in principle.
God have mercy on the Church.
And, of course, never wanting women bishops is unconscionable and should never be a goal of any group. 🙂
That said, I think the “catholic” side here is hopelessly confounded in its viewpoint. If you have two streams of bishops (those consecreted entirely by a succession of males and those with females somewhere in their line of succession) and the congregations of these two groups are separate — that is Congregation A has only priests ordained by one group and Congregation B has only priests ordained by the other group, and at least one of two congregations does not consider the priesthood of the other congregation to be valid (and thus, presumably, their sacraments are also not valid) then you have a “church” that is not even in communion with itself! It’s really not a church at all – it’s a “federation” that shares a few administrative or other functions. How is that “catholic”?
Yes, I think it’s terrible that the traditionalists are being driven out of the Church of England, because that’s what this does, but I think it’s even more absurd for a catholic to set up a “church within a church.” It will not be surprising to anyone that I agree with Cardinal Newman that the seeds for this inherent contradiction were there all along — how can a group consider itself “catholic” while joined to a group whose theology and polity is Protestant? — it’s just playing out to the obvious end point. I don’t know what the evangelicals should do, but the “catholics” need to either separate or find some “catholic” group with whom they can be in full communion. I have my own idea about how best to do that, but that’s up to them. As far as ordination of women bishops, they should fight it all-out for what it is, not seek “shelter” from it. That, however, was obvious when women were first ordained. The handwriting was on the wall when they lost that one — they just choose not to believe it.
What we are seeing, and we have seen it before, is a total lack of Christian charity towards the minority who cannot accept the modern innovation of ordained women. The whole process of “reception” has degenerated into a determination to run them out or utterly subdue them, a pro-WO jihad which is unseemly and, it seems to me, un-Christian. Peter dH, if only there were more like you, a charitable provision would be made.
Hmm..my previous comment seems to have disappeared without a trace. Possibly because it was perceived as violating the “giving advice to stay with or depart from a Church” rule.
[As has this one been deleted by Elf]
Catholic Mom: I would add how strange I found it that, in the early discussions on the Anglican Covenant, Abp Rowan Williams clearly ruled out Petrine ministry in the sense of the one holding the whole together by setting limits where each might go. Of course, whether he could have done so in the first place is a moot point; perhaps he hath not the power. Yet I was taken aback that he so clearly rejected the idea. Or at least, so I remember. BTW I greatly respect him, notwithstanding occasional bashings that he gets on this site. And incidentally again, it is a sign of the times that he will be honoured guest in Westminster (RC) Cathedral in London on 7th December at Sung Vespers for the Vigil of the Immaculate Conception. The Catholic Archbishop, Vincent Nichols, will give thanks at the service for + RW’s ministry and for the good ecumenical relations they have enjoyed.
Well, I understand (although I don’t necessarily agree with) wanting authority to be spread among a larger group (at least among a large group of bishops — having the laity *vote* on essential matters of the Chuch is mind-boggling, but that’s another story). But the problem is that the Anglicans don’t seem to want to exercise (or accept) any authority at all. And this case of the evangelicals and the Anglo-Catholics wanting to have an exception to women bishops carved out for them is just as example of the same thing, albeit from the traditionalist side for a change. That leads pretty much exactly where you’d expect it to lead.
The intolerance of tolerance.
Can you explain why?
So now I’m on “review” though there was no comment or warning about either of my previous posts and I’m left to guess as to what the offense was? Interestingly, over at Standfirm a number of other commenters were saying that a “church within a church” (their words) was a non-starter. Not sure why that’s not OK for me to say, but I’ll happily say it no more if someone can explain why all my posts are now being “reviewed”?? Wouldn’t it be a lot more direct and effective just to tell me what it is I’m not supposed to say?? Given that I’ve bee posting here for well over 5 years and I’ve never had a comment deleted before, have I suddenly become a loose canon??