Updated Sunday afternoon
Jonathan Wynne-Jones reports in the Telegraph about what the drafting group is now proposing.
The first version of this story published online on Saturday afternoon is Bishops to serve male clergy only in plans to avert exodus from Church of England.
The second version, which is presumably what is going into the Sunday paper edition, was published online this evening as Church of England clergy ‘flying bishops’ opt-out proposed to aid move to women bishops
And there is this “Analysis” piece, Church of England ‘flying bishops’ plan offers traditionalists new hope with a very out-of-date picture of the General Synod chamber as it used to be.
Update
Religious Intelligence has published Church of England still divided over women bishops vote.
This includes the following from the Bishop of Blackburn:
The Bishop of Blackburn, the Rt Rev Nicholas Reade, has agreed that the relationship between Synod and the episcopacy needs to be clarified. He said: “Synodical government served us well in the early days but it’s been a kind of juggernaut. I think it’s got totally out of control.”
Bishop Reade spoke against the Synod becoming parliamentary with two competing sides: “Ideally I think the House of Bishops should be there, and we should be listening to the debate, and we should go away and make the decisions.”
He said the clergy and laity should vote, but that it should simply be used as information for the bishops.
I suspect that the article misunderstands what Synod actually agreed to do. Whether it’s a Code of Practice or a separate Province, or anything in between, you still have to make provision for there to be bishops to look after those opposed. And given that we’ll be repealing the 1993 Measure, there will have to be a new Measure to replace it and to which the Code of Practice is to be attached. And if you’re not going to have up to 44 new suffragans created so that there can be a complementary bishop in every diocese, you’ll need some… Read more »
Cardinal Walter Kaspar, the head of the Council for Christian Unity, attended a Houseo f Bishops meeting last year to urge caution over proceeding with a move that would not be recognised by either the Orthodox or Catholic Churches. He added that if the ordination of women as priests had led to a “cooling off” of relations between the Anglican and Catholic Churches, making women bishops would cause a “serious and long-lasting chill” –
Telegraph article by Jonathan Wynne-Jones
How pathetic. It is like watching a film of troops marching forward according to a vote, only for the camera operator to then throw a lever and show the film backwards.
In fact backwards seems to be the predominant movement of everything that comes from the supposed centre.
The above article by Jonathan Wynne-Jones in the Telegraph warns of the possibility of a “serious and long-lasting chill” in relationships with Rome – should Anglicans proceed with the ordination of women as bishops. Since when has the Roman Catholic Church ever seriously considered the validity of Anglican Orders anyway – since they pronounced them to be ‘invalid’ during the reign of Pope Leo? This being so, why should the ordination of women ever disturb the fractious relationship with the Church of Rome, when they do not presently consider our male clergy to be validly ordained? This duplicity on the… Read more »
This is, of course, exactly the opposite of that Synod voted for, i.e. an end to separate provision. Pete Broadbent, as usual, chooses to support gender aparteit.
This is really just a revamping of the status quo, surely? Does it not seem to reek of clericalism that this making of non-cooties bishops is being done primarily for *traditionalist* clergy? I realise the original flying bishops arrangement was dependent on the PARISH adopting resolutions A, B and C (or any combination thereof), but how relevant is this, more than 15 years after this process was adopted? What is the total number of resolution A, B and C parishes in the CofE? Would these parishes vote the same way now? If not, why should they be stuck in an… Read more »
Fr Ron, this is the rub perhaps. Listening to the Cardinal made me aware of how untraditional the centralised post Vatican I Roman Church’s working methods are!
“”serious and long-lasting chill” in relationships with Rome”
Well, yes, I mean, it’s be a tragedy to lose the mutual love and respect that we have so enjoyed in the past, all too brief, five centuries! Oh for the good old days, when we loved each other so much we lit fires to save one another’s souls.
With the threats of “serious and long-lasting chill” coming from Rome, somehow the following story leaves me incredibly happy:
http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2008/10/the-tomb-was-em.html
John Henry and Ambrose, whose remains—as whose souls—are eternally indivisible, pray for the Church.
Is there any connection between this desire to make the House of Bishops all powerful with the fact it is the only house of Synod that is male-only? Oh, surely not!
I know Bishop Pete is talking about the comparative virtues of schemes to keep people in the Church of England, but the prior questions of principle are more important. a) the principle of theological apartheid is wrong, the Act of Synod was wrong. Even for Anglo-catholics, to break communion with your own diocesan is a greater travesty of catholic polity than to ordain women. b) The Church of England stated in the 70’s that there were no theological objections to the ordination of women. In the 80’s they were deaconed, 90’s priested and now the 00’s sometime will be consecrated… Read more »
Interesting!
Can I just say that this is just the process works. Synod did not vote a particular way in July, especially given the use of “voting by houses”. What it did was to start the work on legislating for women bishops by having asimple measure and code of practice. there is no guarantee that what is voted on in a couple of years time will bear any relation to what comes out for February.
Graeme Buttery
Er – well, yes, it was actually what Synod voted for: That this Synod: (a) affirm that the wish of its majority is for women to be admitted to the episcopate; (b) affirm its view that special arrangements be available, within the existing structures of the Church of England, for those who as a matter of theological conviction will not be able to receive the ministry of women as bishops or priests; (c) affirm that these should be contained in a statutory national code of practice to which all concerned would be required to have regard; And if you have… Read more »
I guess that the argument will be repeated that any compromise to traditionalists would mean that all diocesan bishops were not equal. And it is true that it would be invidious for women bishops if churches could opt in and out depending on whether the diocesan was a woman.
But if traditionalist churches have to opt for traditionalist episcopal provision ALL THE TIME – not just when the diocesan is female – then all diocesan bishops WILL be treated equally.
Since the abolition of the flying bishop in the Church in Wales there has not been one clerical defection.
Call my bluff should be the name of the game.
I welcome Pete’s invitation to repeat the fact that he is a supporter of gender aparteit in the church. I also welcome Andrew Spurr’s reminder that all clergy of Pete’s generation and later were ordained in the full knowledge that the Church of England saw no theological objections to the ordination of women, and the women priests were likely to be serving alongside them. White-only beaches in South Africa. White only lunch counters in the southern states of the USA were, obviously, considered to be a form of aparteit. Male-only altars are gender aparteit. The provision of alternative episcopal oversight… Read more »
The Manchester group is made up of people from both ends of the debate; if they can come to the consensus that the only way forward is with provision that is enshrined in law, shouldn’t we trust their judgement and allow the synod to consider this recommendation? I am a member of FIF, but I recognize that if a woman can be a Priest, then she can be a Bishop and I simply want the synod to get on with this; the last thing that traditionalists want is for the whole measure to fall at the final hurdle because its… Read more »
Vicars (and bishops) come and go, The people saddled with whatever the Vicar (or Bishop) determines is good for them are left ‘holding the baby’ Where is the consensus of the laity in all of this? Surely there needs to be a determined effort to debate the issue of women’s ministry in the actual parishes where it is (hopefully) to be exercised – not for the convenience of the clergy themselves, but rather for the laity with (not just to) whom they will be ministering. One cannot but feel that – as in the world outside the Church – the… Read more »
This does perplex me. But what would members of Forward in Faith have been suggesting in ‘love and charity’ for the supporters of women’s ordination in 1992 if the vote had just failed to get its 2/3rds majority in one house (which nearly happened). I would find the answer to that a most helpful guide for how we should go forward now.
Poppy writes: “I also welcome Andrew Spurr’s reminder that all clergy of Pete’s generation and later were ordained in the full knowledge that the Church of England saw no theological objections to the ordination of women, and the women priests were likely to be serving alongside them.” Well, you can be as selective as you like in your memory and retelling of history, BUT – whatever was said in the 1970s, things changed in the 1990s! In the 90s it was agreed that those opposed to the ordination of women were equally loyal members of the church and that provision… Read more »
I have read the legislation very carefully. There were no promises that provision would be made in perpetuity. There were unsupported statements by individuals, who had no authority to make promises, but there are no such promises in law. You really must get real, David Malloch. BTW, Pete Broadbent will now come along and say I am wrong, but all the evidence he cites will be extra-legislative and bear no authority. The Act of Synod was meant to bridge the gap during a period of reception.
“Bishop Reade spoke against the Synod becoming parliamentary with two competing sides: “Ideally I think the House of Bishops should be there, and we should be listening to the debate, and we should go away and make the decisions.” He said the clergy and laity should vote, but that it should simply be used as information for the bishops. “ Ah, the return of the Prince-Bishops – no need for the rest of the CofE to worry about such things, the Bishops know best. I presume that my Lord Bishop also prefers the Divine Right of Kings, well represented by… Read more »
Cardinal Walter Kaspar, the head of the Council for Christian Unity, attended a Houseo f Bishops meeting last year to urge caution over proceeding with a move that would not be recognised by either the Orthodox or Catholic Churches. He added that if the ordination of women as priests had led to a “cooling off” of relations between the Anglican and Catholic Churches, making women bishops would cause a “serious and long-lasting chill” – Telegraph article by Jonathan Wynne-Jones As usual, Rome seems to think that the only valid Anglicans on the planet are members of the Church of England!… Read more »
Excellent comment Tim…it is ARCIC not CERCIC!
The Primates should complain about this.
“the climate doesn’t seem to be noticeably chillier than it would otherwise have been.” See, they are now having problems with crowd control. The old model of “pay up, pray up, and shut up” really doesn’t work any more, especially given that recent scandals show that priests are NOT due the kind of unquestioning obedience they once received. “Father said so” is no longer enough. So, if we have female bishops, it gets harder for them to enforce an all male episcopate on a laity not nearly as compliant with authority as their parents were. That’s why the chill. Orthodoxy… Read more »
> And if you have any evidence whatsoever that
> I have ever supported “gender apartheid”, please
> produce it, or else withdraw the remark.
I have never had a reason to associate you with what I called theological apartheid. I said that the processes to keep clergy in the church, those who have been ordained since the Church of England concluded that there were no theological objections to women’s ordination, is wrong-headed.
‘Twas Polly Tupper who thus described me. Sorry you got caught in the cross-fire.
That’s Poppy, Pete. At least try to pretend we are real people.