Updated Saturday evening
There are several reports in today’s Church Times:
Churchwardens to ask Dr Williams to discuss Ordinariate
…The Priest-in-Charge of St Peter’s, the Revd Stephen Bould, said: “It is not a vote to join the Ordinariate; the PCC can’t make that decision.”
He said that “lots” of people in St Peter’s were interested in joining the Ordinariate, but “lots are not interested.” Conversations needed to take place about how to “deliver the minimum pain and maximum gain when going along two parallel tracks comes about”.
And scroll down that same link for Reform’s new plan.
…Mr [Rod] Thomas said from the conference on Tuesday that a new society would have its own bishops to oversee those who could not accept the ministry of women bishops. “If we can work out the details of such a society, and how it fits in with the rest of the Church of England, there would be a mechanism readily available for the bishops to get through this dilemma.”
Synod fight to go on, though FiF wooed by Rome (scroll down for main story).
THE chairman of the council of Forward in Faith (FiF) UK, the Bishop of Fulham, the Rt Revd John Broadhurst, told its National Assembly that he intended to offer the Queen his resignation before the end of the year. He was resigning, not retiring.
At the meeting last weekend in Westminster, Bishop Broadhurst said: “That is to facilitate my replacement. There will be complications after January for any suffragan bishop. I have spoken to the Bishop of London. He intends to replace me.”
He said that he expected to enter the Ordinariate when it was established, but had not resigned as chairman of FiF. “This is not a Church of England organisation.” But later, if it was thought appropriate that he should stand down, there could be a postal ballot after “measured discussion”.
And this:
…It was quite possible, Prebendary David Houlding said, that a “blocking third” could be obtained in the House of Laity.
“If we must defeat it, defeat it we will,” he said. “We have no choice. We may not be successful, but in conscience we have no other choice.” It was likely that following motions would be suggested.
He did not want to claim too much for the new Society of St Wilfrid and St Hilda (News, 1 October). “It will be no use at all if it doesn’t have jurisdiction at its heart. That undoubtedly will be where the battle is. The House of Bishops is changing. The question, therefore, remains: will they recognise such a grouping of clergy in the life of the Church?”
Sacramental assurance would not be the icing on the cake, but the cake itself. The society idea might be able to guarantee it for a while if the legislation was passed. “Will the bishops who seek to lead in this society be prepared to break the rules when needed, to consecrate further bishops? If not, this society will come to its natural conclusion.”
Update
Another article which appears in the Church Times this week is not available to non-subscribers til next Friday, but it is available from another source:
Paul Vallely They have to swim the Channel before they swim the Tiber.
Many Roman Catholics like me look slightly askance at the prospect of disenchanted Anglican traditionalists flooding across the Tiber, and not because they will be swimming with one hand and holding their ornate thuribles aloft in the other to keep them dry.
No, it is what they say they want to leave behind which makes us wonder about what they are bringing with them. Not to mention what it is they hope to find when they get to their promised land.
Take the Bishop of Fulham’s valedictory description of the church he seems determined to quit. The keynote address of the Rt Rev John Broadhurst to the Forward in Faith assembly – despite the ‘more in sorrow than in anger’ tone in which it was delivered – contained some extraordinarily violent language. He characterised the Anglican Communion as a place of ‘lies’, deceit’ and described it at one point as ‘an evil institution’. He called it ‘myopic’ and bemoaned its ‘lack of consultation’. Later he was quoted as calling it ‘vindictive’, ‘vicious’ and ‘fascist in its behaviour’…
“Will the bishops who seek to lead in this society be prepared to break the rules when needed, to consecrate further bishops?” Well, yes, of course they will. And so will the bishops of Reform’s new society. Why else go to the trouble of setting up such a thing? And then in the Church of England you will have three separate churches and hierarchies, all claiming legal ownership of “their” property. Which one will hook up with GAFCON, do you think? Which one will be expelled from the Anglican Communion when the other two unite against it? I can see… Read more »
Ruth Gledhill believes the St Augustine is St Augustine of Canterbury. How sad, as he would abominate the gospel preached by Reform. They clearly are using him to give an illusion of
continuity.
As for “lots of people” in Folkestone…there are only 40 who attend the Church.
Above the really friendly insider club house for strict Anglican conservatives will be a door sign nailed high: No gurrllls. I personally cannot avoid recalling my vivid childhood impressions of just how deeply disenfrachised and depressed most Bible Belt USA women seemed to be, all without putting those troubles into direct words. The thriving woman was rare to find in those days. Rowan Williams may get his muti-tiered global communion yet; as the world turns. Turning back the clocks is a deep, one might say, bottomless, endeavor; so who can guess how far excluding certain folks needs to go? Fie,… Read more »
There is a lot of bluster at the moment. It is quite possible in principle for voluntary societies to work alongside a Code of Practice.
I still have on my shelf Richard Foster’s book “Money, Sex and Power” – those who claim the society model, which has roots in the monastic foundations, could do worse than cultivate the monastic virtues of poverty, chastity and obedience to which Foster draws attention – as, of course, could the rest of us.
“Although Bishop Edwin Barnes and others were on hand to say that “the game is up,” and to urge the claims of the “see of Peter”, members of the Catholic Group said that the legislative process was not yet over, and Synod members were “not all bad”. It was quite possible, Prebendary David Houlding said, that a “blocking third” could be obtained in the House of Laity.” – Glyn Paflin, Church Times art. – This, obviously, is the most concerning fact of the recent G.S. elections: that though the numbers of ‘inclusive’ clergy have increased, the House of Laity has… Read more »
“I can see that I won’t have to worry about TEC and the Covenant any longer. The Church of England will be pretty busy with its own schisms for quite a while, and have much less energy left for the never-ending struggle to kick us out of the Communion.” – Charlotte, on Friday – Now this would worry me – that the venerable TEC constituency of the Anglican Communion should feel even further cut-off from the historic Church of England – because of the splitting off into various sodalities, each of which claim to represent the historical Church of England… Read more »
Re Paul Vallely: he and (x)Broadhurst have very different vision of just what the Roman Catholic Church (where Paul is already a member of the Latin Rite) is.
I desperately WANT Mr Vallely to be the one w/ the more accurate vision.
But surely Vallely would have to concede that the existence of the Ordinariate in itself gives rise to doubt—that perhaps (x)Broadhurst is a vanguard of a soon-coming “Ordinariate-ization” (substantively, though not dejure of course) of the whole of the Latin Rite? [Switching “And also with you.” to “And with your spirit.” is a start in that direction? O_o]
I get depressed by the hijacking of the word traditionalist by people who are not traditionalists at all.
If they really were genuine traditionalists then they would be proudly honouring the Apostle to the Apostles, Mary Magdelene, but of course they are not…