I am feeling very down. The church of my baptism has just voted to demote me to the rank of the unwanted for no greater crime than upholding the faith of my fathers. Why are the innovators so ungracious? What would it have cost them to allow us our bishops? To allow us a diocese….instead I am left with the likely cost of having to uproot my family, find a new job and leave the church which I have poured my soul into since ordination/
You have my sincere sympathy, but isn’t this somewhat premature? It doesn’t look like there’s anything close to two-thirds support in General Synod and by the time the Lambeth Conference has concluded one wonders if this issue is going to have much traction with other issues coming to a head.
Interesting that even the Archbishop of Canterbury told members that he had personally come to the conclusion that structures were needed; he said he feared equally the “structural humiliation” of ordained women and the [i]”systematic marginalization”[/i] of Anglo Catholics. It wasn’t, he said, a matter of tolerating an unpopular minority but of recognizing that their understanding of Scripture and Tradition form part of the defining agenda of the Church.
Synod members appear to believe that [i]codes of practice[/i] cannot be abused (or that it does not matter in this case if they are). Ruth quotes the Bishop of Portsmouth as saying [b]”The advantage of a code of practice without legislation means that you can revise it and that is very important.”[/b] How very true!
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
#1 – “Why are the innovators so ungracious?” Because they hate you and the faith of our fathers and want to stamp it out entirely, and replace it with something made in their image.
It seems catholic Anglicans will be expected to take oaths of canonical obedience to female diocesan bishops whose orders they do not recognise. How is that tenable?
One imagines that the validity of consecrations of male bishops will become a pressing issue for catholic Anglicans, which , of course, leads to a concern about the validity of priestly ordinations and thus of the eucharist itself. In other words for catholics the apostolic succession of bishops within the Church of England, and all that it means, seems to be profoundly threatened by the likely decision.
I can’t see the code of practice having much to offer to any of these theological concerns.
Not entirely fair. Some of the proponents of female bishops did raise “catholic” concerns about a divided college of bishops, with one house, composed entiely of male bishops, not being able to accept Communion from members of another house, composed of both male and female members. Since we lack a window into the soul of every delegate we should not tar all with the same brush.
The real flaw is in believing that a non-statutory code of practice would stand the test of time. The proposition that what is optional will ultimately become compulsory (first propounded, I believe, by Father Neuhaus) also seems relevant here. Alas, the Bishop of Rhode Island would seem to be the exception that proves the rule.
Of course, having broken the promises made both to Synod and to Parliament in 1993 who can doubt that the Code would be revised relatively promptly once it had been introduced.
I never imagined it would happen in the COE but it’s almost precisely the same route that TEC followed. What was orthodox yesterday and tolerated today will be forbidden tomorrow.
Even though I favor the ordination of women in principle, including the ordination of women to the episcopate, this is NOT the way to do it. I’m deeply disappointed, but hardly shocked. It is extremely hard for a state church to resist the powerful currents of the cultural mainstream. That is why the whole Erastian, Constantinian nature of the C of E is now clearly obsolete.
As an American, I’m sure I don’t understand all the implications of this fateful decision by the General Synod. They will only become clear with the passage of time. But already it seems obvious that the unraveling and disintegration of the mother church of the AC will speed up. The momentous breakup of the CofE was inevitable anyway.
In the end, however, this may well be a blessing in disguise. As I have been claiming for months, the old wineskins of the Anglicanism that we have known and loved have outlived their usefulness. It is time for new wineskins. The Old Anglicanism must die, in order that a New Anglicanism can be resurrected in its place. Realignment is coming to England, just as it has already started in North America.
The New Reformation has begun. What +Bob Duncan the Lion-Hearted called “the Reformation (or Elizabethan) Settlement” has failed, and is broken beyond repair. A new “Global, Post-Colonial Settlement” (as he called it in Jordan) will arise in its place. Only I would add that this new Settlement must also be a “Post-Christendom” style one that is anti-Erastian and post-Constantinian.
Rugbyplayingpriest (#1), my heart goes out to you. Promises have been broken. You have been betrayed. I’m sorry.
David Handy+
Passionate advocate of an ardently sectarian, unashamedly confrontational, Christ-against-culture Anglicanism. I fully realize how unEnglish that is, but that is part of the great shift of power from the North Atlantic countries to the Global South.
The code of practice may offer some scope for those who want to see out their careers at least in the relatively short term. Over the longer term – the validity of episcopal consecrations, priestly ordinations, and eucharists will be put in such doubt as to question whether the COE can confidently be called a church at all, in the sense that catholic Anglicans have traditionally understood it.
rugbyplayingpriest,
This is a time to be sad. And you are right. It is basically over. One good thing that can be said is there will be time to think over the options before it all descends on you. Even the bad stuff doesn’t really move very fast, it just feels like it does. I’m sure you have already thought long about options and maybe you know what you will have to do. Move with God, in His time and with charity. Weeping may endure for the night, but Joy comes in the morning! My prayers are very much with you and all who are compelled to leave. My leaving was a while ago now and with considerably less invested than you have, but I still had mountainous sorrow!
and reflect, this is what the Church of England has knowingly, wittingly, and with open eyes voted to become, it does not matter whether in 5, 10 or 15 years (I’d bet on 5 to 10): it has jumped knowingly into the abyss. This is its beau ideal: a lame Erastian institution grotesquely styling itself “a church.” Well, I hope Rome and the Orthodox will lend whatever assistance they can (i.e., actively proselytize the dispossessed) now that the Church ogf England had abandoned itself to the fate of the Swedes, the Episcopalians and the Unitarians.
I am feeling very down. The church of my baptism has just voted to demote me to the rank of the unwanted for no greater crime than upholding the faith of my fathers. Why are the innovators so ungracious? What would it have cost them to allow us our bishops? To allow us a diocese….instead I am left with the likely cost of having to uproot my family, find a new job and leave the church which I have poured my soul into since ordination/
A very dark day….and I feel quite tearful
“Consummatum est.”
#1,
You have my sincere sympathy, but isn’t this somewhat premature? It doesn’t look like there’s anything close to two-thirds support in General Synod and by the time the Lambeth Conference has concluded one wonders if this issue is going to have much traction with other issues coming to a head.
Interesting that even the Archbishop of Canterbury told members that he had personally come to the conclusion that structures were needed; he said he feared equally the “structural humiliation” of ordained women and the [i]”systematic marginalization”[/i] of Anglo Catholics. It wasn’t, he said, a matter of tolerating an unpopular minority but of recognizing that their understanding of Scripture and Tradition form part of the defining agenda of the Church.
Synod members appear to believe that [i]codes of practice[/i] cannot be abused (or that it does not matter in this case if they are). Ruth quotes the Bishop of Portsmouth as saying [b]”The advantage of a code of practice without legislation means that you can revise it and that is very important.”[/b] How very true!
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
#1 – “Why are the innovators so ungracious?” Because they hate you and the faith of our fathers and want to stamp it out entirely, and replace it with something made in their image.
It seems catholic Anglicans will be expected to take oaths of canonical obedience to female diocesan bishops whose orders they do not recognise. How is that tenable?
One imagines that the validity of consecrations of male bishops will become a pressing issue for catholic Anglicans, which , of course, leads to a concern about the validity of priestly ordinations and thus of the eucharist itself. In other words for catholics the apostolic succession of bishops within the Church of England, and all that it means, seems to be profoundly threatened by the likely decision.
I can’t see the code of practice having much to offer to any of these theological concerns.
Mega-dittos to TridentineVirginian. Rugbyplayingpriest, your American cousins welcome you to the world we have inhabited for a long time.
well if my bishops are not in existence aftger today – the welcome will be short lived. I shall go and take my people with me
TridentineVirginian,
Not entirely fair. Some of the proponents of female bishops did raise “catholic” concerns about a divided college of bishops, with one house, composed entiely of male bishops, not being able to accept Communion from members of another house, composed of both male and female members. Since we lack a window into the soul of every delegate we should not tar all with the same brush.
The real flaw is in believing that a non-statutory code of practice would stand the test of time. The proposition that what is optional will ultimately become compulsory (first propounded, I believe, by Father Neuhaus) also seems relevant here. Alas, the Bishop of Rhode Island would seem to be the exception that proves the rule.
Of course, having broken the promises made both to Synod and to Parliament in 1993 who can doubt that the Code would be revised relatively promptly once it had been introduced.
I never imagined it would happen in the COE but it’s almost precisely the same route that TEC followed. What was orthodox yesterday and tolerated today will be forbidden tomorrow.
Even though I favor the ordination of women in principle, including the ordination of women to the episcopate, this is NOT the way to do it. I’m deeply disappointed, but hardly shocked. It is extremely hard for a state church to resist the powerful currents of the cultural mainstream. That is why the whole Erastian, Constantinian nature of the C of E is now clearly obsolete.
As an American, I’m sure I don’t understand all the implications of this fateful decision by the General Synod. They will only become clear with the passage of time. But already it seems obvious that the unraveling and disintegration of the mother church of the AC will speed up. The momentous breakup of the CofE was inevitable anyway.
In the end, however, this may well be a blessing in disguise. As I have been claiming for months, the old wineskins of the Anglicanism that we have known and loved have outlived their usefulness. It is time for new wineskins. The Old Anglicanism must die, in order that a New Anglicanism can be resurrected in its place. Realignment is coming to England, just as it has already started in North America.
The New Reformation has begun. What +Bob Duncan the Lion-Hearted called “the Reformation (or Elizabethan) Settlement” has failed, and is broken beyond repair. A new “Global, Post-Colonial Settlement” (as he called it in Jordan) will arise in its place. Only I would add that this new Settlement must also be a “Post-Christendom” style one that is anti-Erastian and post-Constantinian.
Rugbyplayingpriest (#1), my heart goes out to you. Promises have been broken. You have been betrayed. I’m sorry.
David Handy+
Passionate advocate of an ardently sectarian, unashamedly confrontational, Christ-against-culture Anglicanism. I fully realize how unEnglish that is, but that is part of the great shift of power from the North Atlantic countries to the Global South.
The code of practice may offer some scope for those who want to see out their careers at least in the relatively short term. Over the longer term – the validity of episcopal consecrations, priestly ordinations, and eucharists will be put in such doubt as to question whether the COE can confidently be called a church at all, in the sense that catholic Anglicans have traditionally understood it.
rugbyplayingpriest,
This is a time to be sad. And you are right. It is basically over. One good thing that can be said is there will be time to think over the options before it all descends on you. Even the bad stuff doesn’t really move very fast, it just feels like it does. I’m sure you have already thought long about options and maybe you know what you will have to do. Move with God, in His time and with charity. Weeping may endure for the night, but Joy comes in the morning! My prayers are very much with you and all who are compelled to leave. My leaving was a while ago now and with considerably less invested than you have, but I still had mountainous sorrow!
Ruth Gledhill reports Archbishop John Sentamu’s comment:
Sic transit gloria mundi.
The schism is closer than my relatives in the CofE thought……MUCH closer!
Read these:
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-02-036-f
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=17-09-032-f
and reflect, this is what the Church of England has knowingly, wittingly, and with open eyes voted to become, it does not matter whether in 5, 10 or 15 years (I’d bet on 5 to 10): it has jumped knowingly into the abyss. This is its beau ideal: a lame Erastian institution grotesquely styling itself “a church.” Well, I hope Rome and the Orthodox will lend whatever assistance they can (i.e., actively proselytize the dispossessed) now that the Church ogf England had abandoned itself to the fate of the Swedes, the Episcopalians and the Unitarians.
and re: #14,
say, rather, sic transit pompa diaboli.