A press release issued by the revision comittee of the General Synod today further highlights why Rome’s offer is so welcome to Catholic Anglicans. One might have assumed the revision committee would counteract the Pope’s gesture by offering something equally substantive and generous, a sign to Anglo-Catholics of a clear desire to hold onto us and provide us with what we need. Instead the little they had considered is now being withdrawn (ie the retention of our bishops etc) and we are back to the flimsy and totally unworkable ‘code of practice’, meaning women bishops would govern us but promise to ignore us whilst we languish in the margins of the church.
One commentator on this site has suggested, in sympathy with comments viewed elsewhere, that it is somehow our ‘fault’ for having praised the Pope’s offer. But why would we not be thankful when a Christian leader seeks to provide for us at a time when our own church has systematically failed us…and why has an equal sign of allegiance not be shown to us by Synod in our treatment thus far?
Once again we Anglo-Catholics are battered and shown no mercy if we seek provision in-house and equally battered and assualted if we seek it elsewhere! What are we meant to do??? (roll over and accept liberal teaching is probably the answer)
I do hope the suggestion that this response was precipitated by Rome is false. Otherwise it suggests an attitude of petty games and a tendency to petulant knee jerk reaction. That really would leave a nasty taste in the mouth. Do any of us, regardless of our views, want a governing body making legislation whilst throwing toys out of prams? I would hope for a more measured, gracious and loving response. For now we must, of course, reserve judgement and await the final decision. But as an early indication of the Anglican response I have spoken of- it is pretty shameful. Indeed it could hardly be more depressing.
That said, if the Revision Committee are now seeking to use this development as an opportunity to cleanse the wider body of our presence, which I suspect, then at least they might consider doing so with love and generosity. Indeed ask nicely, offering parsonages and church buildings, and I am certain a great many of us will go quietly and with joy. Synod can then get on with celebrating the dawn of women bishops, gay marriage et al.. as we rejoice in a new home where orthodox Catholic truth is the benchmark and not just opinion.
Better the prospect of a clean break – which is what this feels like – than a long, drawn out tug-of-war. The decision now for all is much clearer.
Dear Father
Thank you for the response to the latest news from the revision comittee.
I hope that all who read your blog will understand the sincerity of thought splendidly articulated in your final paragraph.
My prayer and hope is that our dear people, our lay folk will fully engage with the situation that we now find ourselves wrestling with… may we use OUR energies together,clergy and lay, to FIGHT FOR WHAT IS OURS. Let’s ensure that we ALL UNDERSTAND what’s on the table, and pray, we embrace the invitation from Rome with humility and deep joy. May we depart in peace with OUR people AND OUR Patrimony…which is for me, the cure of souls…
Fr Ed, you are indeed blessed. Thank you for your stimulating and thought provoking blog. Now stop blogging and change some nappies!
much love
in Dno
Fr Jeff Woolnough SSC
Well, really, what did you expect? I’m sure some members of the Revision Committee didn’t appreciate being blackmailed with the Holy See’s offer. What impression did you think that gave:
“We’re really Roman Catholics, and we accept the full authority of the Pope and the Magisterium, but if you give us what we want, then we’d like to be Roman Catholics within the Church of England. The pay and conditions are much better.”
Face it, the decades-old bluff of the Anglo-Papalists has been well and truly called.
As an Anglo Catholic who is not against the ordination of women (yes we exist too!!) I am saddened by the fact that Rome’s intervention seems to make unavoidable the schism so many have tried to avoid.
And what of Papal infallibility? I know of few Anglo – Catholics who truly accept this doctrine, and fewer still who believe Bishops must be celibate. Think of the wonderful ministry and leadership of married Bishops we have all experienced and benefited from.
I accept the need for a legislative solution to preserve the needs of those who cannot accept Women Bishops. But can you really believe the Ordinary will have true authority? Will they be treated better than the Archbishop of Westminster whom we are told was not consulted prior to this untimely announcement?
I am a member of the Church of God, not an “Ecclesiastical Community” as we are now to be referred to. I believe I was baptised by a Priest, and Confirmed by a Bishop neither of their ordination’s will ever in my eyes be “absolutely null and utterly void”. I have experienced the ministry of wonderful Priests throughout my life, many have now died. I cannot sully their memory or undermine their ministry by accepting they were in some sense not Priests.
I am concerned that Priests who have administered communion to me will now accept the Roman view that they had no right to administer them, indeed then were the elements never truly consecrated? By accepting that previous ministry was not priestly you do not just accept that for yourself but for all you have exercised it to.
I urge Synod not to pass any Church or property over. Some of us will need to use them to keep a Catholic Heart in the Church of England
Could the threatened exodus to the Methodist and Lutheran churches have caused the Revision Committee to have a change of heart? Faith appears to have been replaced by feminism in the Anglican church.
Petros
I suspect the the revision committee’s move was mainly motivated by a need not to make women second class bishops and so contravene the Sex Discrimination Act. I see myself as an Anglo-Catholic in favour of the ordination ow women.
I hope you jest Peter but if you are being serious, a bishop may be irregular in the eyes of some but that does not make them second class. You use the language of the propagandist to discredit those with whom you disagree. I am happy for you as an Anglo-Catholic to be in favour of the ordination of women but is charity now so lacking in the Anglican Church that we no longer tolerate people with whom we disagree?
Petros
Section 19 of the Sex Discrimination Act provides an exemption where distinguishing on the grounds of gender is appropriate:
“Because of the nature of the employment and the context in which it is carried out, so as to avoid conflicting with the strongly-held religious convictions of a significant number of the religion’s followers.”
So let’s stop the talk of illegality because it plainly is not the case, whatever WATCH or Robert Key MP might tell you.
http://www.fuc.org.uk/
Make sure you take the quiz! And they accept PayPal!
I find it interesting that there are `Anglo-Catholics’ who claim to accept the ordination of women; I find that a huge contradiction in terms! If one is `catholic’ then one accepts the Church of the First Millenia, built upon the 12 foundation stones of the Apostles under the leadership of Peter, on whome Our Lord built his Church.
If one is `catholic’, then one accepts the orders of the One Holy Catholic and Apsostolic Church; orders that do not uniquely belong to the Anglican Church, but to the whole `catholic’ Church, for which the Church of England, if she claims to be `catholic’ cannot unilaterally change their nature, neither the nature of the Sacraments of the Church.
If one is Catholc, then one is `0rthodox’ rather than perhaps `traditional’.
The Pope’s offer is indeed generous for those who are beng pushed out of the Church of England because they happen to believe in what the Church of England claims to be. The news of the Revision Committee on Friday wa not only a further pushing away of true catholics, but yet another nail in the Church England. Women priests and Bishops? – but at what cost to the Church of England – what will be left?
On the subject of huge contradictions…
Under the proposed arrangements, Anglican priests who go to Rome will have to be ordained in the Roman Catholic Church. According to both logic and Rome’s teaching, up to this point they were not really priests at all. The main reason for them leaving the C of E in the first place is that they do not accept women are really priests at all.
I am baffled but grudgingly impressed by this supreme feat of doublethink. I should also add my name, with Steve’s and Peter’s, to the list of Anglo Catholics who accept women priests. I find this idea less of a struggle. Maybe we should form a support group?
The irony with the Apostolic Constitution remains that those who accept its provision are those who have ‘protested’ against authority as it has been expressed within Anglicanism for many years. They are unable to accept that authority and are ‘protestants’. Rome is to inherit a kingdom of turbulent priests.
As to Father John’s interpretation of the term Catholic, I refer him to article XIX of the Articles of Religion, which as a properly ordained Anglican he most surely have had to assent: ‘Rome hath erred…not only in living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.’
I, too, am an Anglo-Catholic in favour of the prophetic interpretation of tradition, which has concluded that woman should share in the presbyterate and episcopate. My only regret is that, in line with the development of the original episcopate as attested by the Fathers, they were not consecrated first.
I am hopeful that Anglo-Catholicism will be able to live out its radical creed, built on the headship of Christ alone and expressed through Bishops who are primus inter pares, now that those of conscience can immediately take on the yoke of papal obedience and its unscriptural doctrine of infallibility they have so desired.
Could someone enlighten me? This is a genuine enquiry.
How could any ‘Catholic’ give assent to the 39 Articles? Articles 6,13, 19, 21, 22, 25, 28 and 34 would seem to deny the possibilty that any person who assented to them is a ‘Catholic’. I am aware that the ‘consecrated bread’ is reserved in some CofE church buildings, the persons doing so have solemnly denied that it should be reserved.
I shall leave the further (and equally pertinent) question of how any ‘Catholic’ could countenance being in communion with people who clearly deny the contents of the Creeds.