C
ChurchSoldier
Guest
Thanks so much!
- Status
C
commenter
Guest
from the statement:
since those within the Church of England who, on grounds of theological conviction, are unable to receive the ministry of women bishops or priests continue to be within the spectrum of teaching and tradition of the Anglican Communion, the Church of England remains committed to enabling them to **flourish **within its life and structures.”
Those who hold such convictions are to give ‘due respect and canonical obedience’ to all those whom the Church of England has duly ordained and appointed to office and ‘must be prepared to* acknowledge *that the Church of England has reached a clear decision on the matter’ (end quote)
How can traditional Anglicans “flourish” under those conditions? It seems to say that one group of Anglicans can no longer publicly affirm, advocate for, or try to pass on part of their beliefs; (but supporters of women bishops of course can keep lobbying). It expresses the issue or problem as *their *being “unable to receive”, rather than the other side’s being “unable” to continue the Anglican heritage. Under these conditions, it appears Fr. North will be like a bishop, but restricted in advocacy and teaching on church matters, and his supporters restricted too.
If traditionalists will bend so far in surrendering on this issue, it makes surrendering more likely on other issues.
since those within the Church of England who, on grounds of theological conviction, are unable to receive the ministry of women bishops or priests continue to be within the spectrum of teaching and tradition of the Anglican Communion, the Church of England remains committed to enabling them to **flourish **within its life and structures.”
Those who hold such convictions are to give ‘due respect and canonical obedience’ to all those whom the Church of England has duly ordained and appointed to office and ‘must be prepared to* acknowledge *that the Church of England has reached a clear decision on the matter’ (end quote)
How can traditional Anglicans “flourish” under those conditions? It seems to say that one group of Anglicans can no longer publicly affirm, advocate for, or try to pass on part of their beliefs; (but supporters of women bishops of course can keep lobbying). It expresses the issue or problem as *their *being “unable to receive”, rather than the other side’s being “unable” to continue the Anglican heritage. Under these conditions, it appears Fr. North will be like a bishop, but restricted in advocacy and teaching on church matters, and his supporters restricted too.
If traditionalists will bend so far in surrendering on this issue, it makes surrendering more likely on other issues.
G
GKC
Guest
G
GKC
Guest
I would expect they do.
And, anent para 2 of" Arrangements for the Episcopal Ordination and Consecration of Revd Philip North on Monday 2 February 2015 in York Minster…", yes. It is certainly to be hoped.
GKC
T
Thorolfr
Guest
The article says that there are only about three bishops who will be able to lay hands on Bishop North. After a while, there will only be two bishops who will be able to lay hands on a new traditionalist bishop and then only one bishop.
G
GKC
Guest
Surely "the Church of England has committed to make ‘pastoral and sacramental provision for the minority’ "
Surely, "In paragraph 30 of the Declaration the House of Bishops affirmed ‘the importance of there continuing to be consecrations of bishops within the Church of England to enable such ministry [that is to the minority] to be provided’ and said that ‘ the Archbishops will ensure that a suitable supply of bishops continues.’ ".
And surely it shall be done. Who could doubt it?
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
I
Indifferently
Guest
One interesting thing that liberalism has brought to Anglicanism is much greater powers to the episcopate. The abolition of the “livings” of parish priests is an interesting and neglected phenomenon, but bishops are centralizing a great deal of authority they heretofore didn’t have. The fact that many lay patrons have also given over the patronage of parishes to the bishop is also interesting.
We are heading towards a monarchical episcopal model not too different from the modern Roman Catholic system. In polity, if not in doctrine.
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
How strange that I should be the optimist about here!
Actually the scenario you describe is to some extent prohibited by the existence of the provincial episcopal visitors (the so-called “flying bishops”) for whom two suffragan sees are set aside by Canterbury and one by York, to provide for the traditionalist minority. In fact an extra see is being set aside by Canterbury for a Headship Evangelical bishop (what some wag has called a “low flying bishop”). In addition many dioceses have at least one suffragan see set aside for one of the minority (Fulham in London, for example).
Of course the situation is difficult, Maintaining a broad church has always been difficult. The cynicism expressed in this thread about the outcome may well be justified. But we should at least give credit that most at least of the Church of England is committed to the flourishing of all parts of the church. As Archbishop Welby told General Synod before that principle was endorsed: “If you don’t believe it, don’t say it.”.
Wish them well, and ease up on the doom and gloom at least for the present. Who knows: Father North may turn out to be right.
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
Given your frequent good humour on these forums, commenter, I hope you will forgive me for suggesting that there is something a little amusing in hearing a Catholic advocate that the proper course is for a bishop to campaign against the understanding of his church.
G
GKC
Guest
You are closer to that than I, but I am more hesitant to predict the future, if only because of the erastian factor. But time will tell.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
Love the low flying Bishop.
Cynic I (for one, in this case) certainly may be. But prophet I am not. I have my ideas of how things are going to fall out. But I tend to wait and see, on everything, following the little tale in the opening of Chesterton’s NAPOLEON OF NOTTING HILL. From a distance, I have the ability to exercise some detachment. And may as well do so.
GKC
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
I certainly think indifferently is right in suggesting that a kind of quiet revolution is taking place in removing the parson’s freehold. That certainly seems to increase the power of the bishop, although not to a full monarchical system, I would suggest, because diocesan bishops are not appointed from above.
G
GKC
Guest
Thanks for the additional info. I read, learn, and assimilate. Then watch and wait.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
C
commenter
Guest
I deeply appreciate getting recognized for frequent good humor (no, humour).
I love the reference to low flying bishop in earlier post. I will enjoy this for a few days.
I hesitate to post on this particular forum since it’s designed mainly for non-Catholics who know their Faith (sometimes another country) far better than I do. But ignorance hasn’t slowed me down in posting in other areas I know little about, so I post here, too.
I’m your basic, 65 year old man, fearful about erosion of sound doctrine among all Christians, leading to a feeble response to growing brutality and ignorance in society at large. This forum taught me there’s a lot of important stuff I don’t know, especially heritage of Anglicanism, Lutheranism, and EO. I apologize that my rants are occasionally adversarial or off-topic - hopefully not boring.
I would be very hesitant to advocate a bishop, or any member, campaign against just ecclesiastic authority. Independent rebels are usually wrong, deeply at risk of spiritual pride.
I believe for a long time the “understanding” of the C of E mostly coincided with absolutes of Truth and Goodness (as also taught by the Magisterium). I believe the “understanding” coincides less now, so it’s less reliable. One might argue that the 2015 understanding of the CofE reflects the bandwagon of British religious and secular culture and opinion (not any Magisterium) so a new bishop may campaign to impact the 2020 understanding; or join an option that has a Magisterium, not just an understanding.
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
Well put. Thank you for laying that out for me, and for justifying my faith in your good humour (no, humor). I try, not always successfully, to avoid arguing either for or against ordination or consecration of women, it being not my place to do so. I am partisan as far as the CofE is concerned, however, because I think it (she) is one of the strongest forces against “brutality and ignorance” in Britain (whether brutality and ignorance have increased on a historical scale is mootable, of course). By the way, since Fr North is not exactly a shrinking violet, and since Anglican bishops are not renowned for toeing the line, I suspect the chances of muffling him are slight!
- Status