Monday, 9 February 2009

General Synod - Weekend advance press reports

General Synod opened at 3 pm today. The following reports appeared over the weekend and earlier today.

Jonathan Wynne-Jones in the Telegraph Historic plans to introduce women bishops rejected by key traditionalist leaders
BBC Synod to discuss women bishops
Trevor Timpson at the BBC Waiting for the women bishops

Ruth Gledhill and Sean O’Neill in The Times Bishops resist moves to outlaw BNP membership
Ekklesia has Bishop backs ban on Church racism

Also at Ekklesia Church of England Synod to tackle key economic and social issues

George Pitcher in his Telegraph blog writes Will the General Synod ban golliwogs?
and Anglicans at their best when they’re boring

The Times also has Four decades of rule: How the General Synod works

Posted by Peter Owen on Monday, 9 February 2009 at 4:30pm GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Church of England | General Synod

My teaching Union banned BNP mebership...but are Christians next , if we do not support the political correctness of the liberal establishment?

Posted by: Robert Ian williams on Monday, 9 February 2009 at 6:22pm GMT

The PEVs seem to be under the misapprehension that they would be invited to become the 'complementary bishops' under the proposed plan, but that does not follow at all. If the proposal is accepted their role may be discontinued; and new people interviewed for the new role.

Rather a good idea as the PEVs seem implacable in their opposition to the mind of the Church as expressed in Synod. They seem to imagine that these temporary 'pastoral' provisions are meant to give future generations the option of opposing the ministry of ordained women.

I find the flying bishops' use of the term 'coherent' incoherent. Those who oppose ministry by women will find their position more and more anomalous, as time goes by...

Posted by: Rev Roberts on Monday, 9 February 2009 at 6:35pm GMT

Rt Rev Keith Newton, the Bishop of Richborough: "Under these plans, there is no future for our constituency because they are based on a woman bishop giving us permission."

Rt Rev Martyn Jarrett, the Bishop of Beverley: "It doesn't make sense to be a bishop who acts at the delegation of episcopal authority I do not accept."

Or in other words, "YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME!"

Skip the cover-blather re Scripture and Tradition. The reality is, these are childish little boys. So sad.

Lord have mercy!

Posted by: JCF on Monday, 9 February 2009 at 7:54pm GMT

"According to the report to be debated by the Synod, the 'flying' bishops would no longer be autonomous, but would have to accept the authority of the women bishop."
Oh, the shame, the horror, the humiliation of it all! I mean how could any right-thinking male accept the authority of a woman! I wonder how many of these traditionalists thought Margaret Thatcher did a bang up job as PM?

Posted by: peterpi on Monday, 9 February 2009 at 8:20pm GMT

That's an interesting question. How many of these bishops owe their appointments to Mrs. Thatcher?

Posted by: Pat O'Neill on Monday, 9 February 2009 at 10:12pm GMT

"The Rt Rev Martyn Jarrett, the Bishop of Beverley, said that he could see no way that he could act as a complementary bishop.
"It doesn't make sense to be a bishop who acts at the delegation of episcopal authority I do not accept. It lacks theological coherence," he said.
"The present position [with flying bishops] is bearable, but the new proposals are not." - Jonathan Wynne-Jones - Telegraph

What makes the Bishop of Beverley think that he would be asked to be a complementary Bishop? Anyway, as an Anglican Bishop, within the Church of England, it seems silly that he would not accept the authority of another duly-ordained Bishop - male or female. Perhaps, then, the members of General Synod will see that the provision of 'complementary Bishops would not work. This should warn G.S. that trying to apply any solution of appeasement - short of parallel juriisdictions - would not be acceptable to the 'conservative' element of the C.of E., therefore, why bother trying to include them in the equation?

This recalcitrance of the supposed Anglo-Catholic school, does not take into account those of us who are both Anglo-Cathiolic and reformed - in the very best sense of that word - who believe that God is calling women into the episcopal ministry of the Churches of the Anglican Communion. This has been a reality for many of us for many years now.

For the Church of England to pull back now from this Spirit-led initiative would imply to the rest of us that our Mother Church is reluctant to hear 'what the Spirit has already been saying' to many other constitutent Churches in the Anglican Communion.

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Monday, 9 February 2009 at 11:58pm GMT

Synod is going to be bloody. I wish it weren't so. Obviously, I hope the proposals go through. I think many FiF people have played a bad game (not our friend Bloomenblue [apologies if name wrong]). I don't think the position of Jarrett and co. is 'incoherent'. Perhaps if and when the proposals go through, people will have time to take stock and there can be some sort of healing. I don't think it helps now or will help then if reference is made to 'temporary pastoral provisions'. Supporters of WO have to be generous, have also to 'support' whose who reject WO.

Posted by: john on Tuesday, 10 February 2009 at 12:44am GMT

Oh, oh... the Culture Wars are coming to England ;=)

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Tuesday, 10 February 2009 at 5:38am GMT

By coincidence, yesterday (9th February) was the 450th anniversary of the Bill being laid before Parliament for annexing the supremacy of the Church to the Crown. After 3 months of debate, the Acts of Supremacy and of Uniformity received the Royal Assent on 8th May 1559.

While the Act of Supremacy did not transfer to the Sovereign the power to minister religious rites, the Sovereign is the supreme head of the Church of England in all matters spiritual and ecclesiastical as well as temporal.

It is ironic that when people stand up in General Synod this week to argue against women bishops, it is a woman who appoints the bishops and a woman’s writ that summoned General Synod and empowers it in the first place.

Posted by: Terence Dear on Tuesday, 10 February 2009 at 11:43am GMT

The Coronation of an English monarch is more properly a service of sanctifying or hallowing of the Sovereign. The form of service is the same as the consecration of a bishop except that whereas a bishop is consecrated by the laying on of hands, the Sovereign is “anointed, blessed and consecrated” with holy oil.

After an introduction, both services begin with the Office of Holy Communion, down to the Creed. There then follows the consecration, after which both bishop and Sovereign are invested. First comes the amice, then the colobium sindonis (the rochet or alb). Then the girdle is fastened round the waist, to be followed by the supertunica (dalmatic). Over this comes the stole and lastly the pallium regale (the cope). The Sovereign is then invested with the Regalia (orb, sceptre and crown) after which the Holy Communion service is resumed and both bishop and Sovereign receives Communion. The service ends with the Blessing.

The Sovereign does not of course preside at the alter and minister the sacraments. It must nevertheless be difficult for people who cannot recognise the ministry of women priests and bishops to belong to a Church that has a consecrated woman as its head.

Posted by: Terence Dear on Tuesday, 10 February 2009 at 11:49am GMT

"It must nevertheless be difficult for people who cannot recognise the ministry of women priests and bishops to belong to a Church that has a consecrated woman as its head." - Terence Dear -

I think, Terence Dear, that you would find that most Anglicans, like most other Christians, see that Jesus Christ is Supreme Head of the Church, Her Britanic Majesty being only titular Head, and a very good one too. I think that even Roman Catholics would acknowledge Christ as Supreme Head of the Church - a title which even caps that of Supreme Pontiff. Incidentally, Terence Dear, I wonder what you would think of Mitred Abbesses?

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Tuesday, 10 February 2009 at 11:11pm GMT
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.