Thinking Anglicans

More difficult to read into these votes, since most of the clergy will be unknown to most of us.

In certain places the flavour of each diocese can be discerned: as expected the clergy of hardline liberal sees such as Bath and Wells, Southwark, or the Universities block allowed no room for the traditionalists.

Only in Anglo-Catholic bastions such as Oxford, London, and Chichester did the clergy vote in force against the motion and its lack of provision for the Catholics.

One woman against the substantive motion. Interesting.

More interesting is the number of Archdeacons against the final motion. Not sure why.

Many of us are quite happy with the idea of ordained females. In North America this may well be true, but in England the majority of Anglo-Catholics are traditionalists. And they do have a point. In what way can one possibly claim to be catholic if i) one doesn’t believe in the restoration of eucharistic unity with the churches of the first millenium, or ii) believes that the synod of the Church of England is unilaterally able to sweep away two millenia of church tradition, or iii) seeks to exclude those who are faithful to the patristic and conciliar heritage… Read more »

“there provision is also intended to be made.” There is a lack of adequate provision. The safeguards promised to the Anglo-Catholics in 1992 have been broken – the code of practice would result in the repeal of the 1992/3 provisions. As the Bishop of Ebbsfleet suggests, codes of practice are shifting sands subject to the fashions and whims of the moment, and do not provide the legal safeguards necessary to protect the historic sacramental basis of the faith. The fig-leaf of a code pretends to work on the basis of trust. But as +Ebbsfleet argues ‘How could we trust a… Read more »

So – Simon K. What provision would you suggest for those ‘whose convictions do not enable them to accept that the consecration of women as bishops is authorised by scripture or tradition’ (Bishop of London’s words) and who face the removal of guarantees given over women priests? First they cannot accept the sacramental ministry of women priests or bishops, and then it gets further complicated regarding any men a female bishop ordains as well (though the ‘softer’ Catholics I guess would regard the men as validly ordained if at least a male bishop in the apostolic line is present). Any… Read more »

“The Anglo-Catholics ought then to be allowed then to take their parishes and property with them”

I suspect that “the Anglo-Catholics” (Anti-Anglicans, more precisely) will be no more welcome to dismember and STEAL from the CofE, than are those attempting to do the same to TEC (probably, they’ll be a lot LESS welcome, to steal from the Established Church!)

Neil — there is not and never has been any ‘structural guarantee’ in the past. Nor has there been any ‘requirement’ from parliament for there to be one. In 1992, the General Synod, guided by John Habgood, the then Abp of York, agreed to pass the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod, which in essence allowed parishes to ask their diocesan bishop to exercise his episcopal ministry via another bishop, and provided upto three suffragan bishops to be available to provide such ministry where it is not otherwise easily available to the diocesan bishop. There is no concept here of separate… Read more »