Sunday, 17 October 2010
Ordinariate saga continues
Updated Monday afternoon
There was a lengthy discussion of the stories about St Peter’s Folkestone and Bishop Broadhurst on this morning’s BBC radio programme, Sunday.
The item runs for about 5 minutes, starting about 5 minutes in.
Listen to it via this link.
Earlier press reports gathered in this article.
Those who are interested in understanding how the ordinariate is supposed to work may find this link useful Complementary Norms for the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus
Church Mouse asks Is Bishop John Broadhurst ineligible to join the ordinariate? And he adds:
For what it’s worth, Mouse’s view of Bishop John Broadhurst’s speech at the FiF annual gathering, in which he announced his intention to join the ordinariate, is that it is in breach of the Clergy Discipline Measure. Bishop John said, “I don’t feel I have any choice but to leave the Church and take up the Pope’s offer. The General Synod has become vindictive and vicious. It has been fascist in its behaviour, marginalising those who have been opposed to women’s ordination.”
Does a bishop in the Church of England to describe the governing body of that church as vicious, vindictive and fascist qualify as “engaging in conduct that is unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of the clergy”?
Bishop Edwin Barnes has written When ’Tis Done, Then ’Twere Well It Were Done Quickly.
And even Bishop Jack Iker had something to say about it.
Once again, the links to audio recordings of the entire FiF Assembly are over here.
George Pitcher has written Why the Bishop of Fulham’s departure for Rome isn’t just about women bishops
The Mail Online has joined in though it has a problem with spelling, see Defecting bishop brands Church of England vicious and fascist in bitter row over plans to ordane women
Andrew Brown drew attention in a recent Church Times press column to a much earlier use of the F word by Bishop Broadhurst, in the New York Times. See Tensions Linger Between Pope and Anglicans.
Posted by Simon Sarmiento on
Sunday, 17 October 2010 at 11:49am BST
Some traditionalists are drawn to the Roman Catholic Church’s top-down model. “The trouble with the Anglican Church is that it has adopted a parliamentary model and one that presumes change and presumes everyone can have a say,” said the Rev. John Broadhurst, a traditionalist Anglican. “I think it’s become a kind of fascist democracy.”
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Church of England
Time for Bishop Broadhurst to learn to quit saying the "Roman" Catholic Church, as he is quoted as saying in the Telegraph's "fascist & vindictive" piece?
What's all this stuff about a 'whole congregation' or a 'whole parish' going over to Rome? Nonsense. The PCC has passed a resolution, that's all. I'll be interested to see how many people actually make the move, but even a PCC cannot take a decision for a 'whole' parish or even congregation to break communion with the Church of England.
Simon, thank you for the links. Bishop Edwin Barnes commentary on SWWSH was quite enlightening. Where were the leaders of the Society at the FiF gathering? Mostly missing. Apparently, a good many of the FiFers do not see the Society as a viable alternative to the RC ordinariates.
Grandmere Mimi asks about the whereabouts of those mentioned by Bishop Barnes as leaders of Swish. I know that a number of those would-be leaders of such a society do not feel comfortable in FiF gatherings. There is a real split in the constituency, but I'm afraid that without those who signed up to Swish, the constituency is all the poorer.
Iker addressed the recent FIF Assembly. He stated that his diocese has spent a million dollars on legal fees so far and he estimates the total cost after appeals at nearly five million. He does not mention that as a TEC bishop he sued a departing parish,and gave evidence that the property belonged to the national Church. Bishop Broadhurst called him a martyr!
And when, in the fullness of time, the Bishop of Rome yields to the inevitable and ordains women, what accommodation will the Holy Father make for those loyal Roman Catholics who in good conscience cannot accept this difficult teaching?
I wonder if we should look more carefully at history itself. The move to Rome by JH Newman was regarded by its enemies as a disater for the Catholic movement within the Church of England. But in fact the movement went on to have a profound effect upon that Church which continues to this day. Isn't it significant that none of the leaders of Forward in Faith or the other Romanising groups within the Church of England can hold a candle to the influence that Newman exercised in his time and none, surely, will continue to have a lasting influence in either ther adopted or their former homes. It must be continuoulsy re-emphasised that FiF and others do not hold an exclusive catholic truth. There are plenty of Catholics, Roman as well as Anglican who find that a high view of the church or, more importantly, of the incarnation, does not and cannot exclude anyone from full participation in life in Christ.
"There are plenty of Catholics, Roman as well as Anglican who find that a high view of the church or, more importantly, of the incarnation, does not and cannot exclude anyone from full participation in life in Christ.
- Posted by: Richard Ashby on Sunday -
Precisely, Richard. But when will the Romanisers, hoping to escape the inclusiveness of Anglicanism realise that Jesus Christ came to save everyone, including women and gays. God has only sinners to help in the task of redemption.
It's great to have the Forward in Faith conference speeches to hear. They are as terrific as ever !
“I think it’s become a kind of fascist democracy.”
Translation: "If I don't like the decisions democratically decided, I'll call them 'fascist'."
Seriously: why would Rome---or ANY church---want THIS guy?! O_o
One thing you have to give credit to.. is the organisation of FIF... it produces a quality monthly and other publications. you can laugh at them, but I feel we can learn a lot from them.
Gee this is geting curioser and curioser and curioser ... topsy turvy narratives, tumbling out in unwitting clarity:
1. Going to Rome (which proclaims all believers must line up lockstep on the No Women and other rigidly settled doctrines) ... is a reach to leeway?
2. Leaving Canterbury (which still nominally proclaims a big tent filled with diverse thinking global Anglican believers) ... is an exit from fascism?
Common sense easily suggests otherwise ...opposite ...
Loose prediction? Rome will, if ever, change to accept women, say, about five or six hundred years after it has ceased to matter to anybody ... except these sorts of ? Ordinariat-ers ?
I think that this point has been made before, perhaps even with respect to Bp. Broadhurst, but just in case it has not: The problem is that he is asserting a moral, if not a logical, impossibility: "I am at the present moment persuaded that at some given date in the future, I will believe that the Roman Pontiffs will have always been right about the various matters in dispute between us, and that my opinions will have always been wrong." And, more specifically, "I am at the present moment persuaded that at some given date in the future, I will give 'firm and definite assent' to the teaching that all of my pretended ordinations and consecrations will have always been 'absolutely null and utterly void.'" Surely, anyone attempting such moral contortions would be driven to the conclusion that he should immediately cease to act as if he were an ordained minister in Christ's church. Perhaps, indeed, Bp. Broadhurst has already done so...but if not, it is hard to see the principle in his position.
If Bishop Broadhurst wishes to go to Rome than please go. Anyone who wishes to find their home in another denomination should do so and be happy. But to call the CofE fascist is just sheer nonsense. Fascist regimes do not spend decades discussing issues and finding complicated ways of helping people who disagree stay within their folds. The measure just about to go to Dioceses contains a number of provisions for those who are against women bishops so that they do not have to go within miles of one. It is those who want women bishops who have made the compromise out of generosity and that should not be forgotten. It is like spoilt children saying "you wont do exactly what I want so we will take our bat and ball away".
'I feel we can learn a lot from them.'
I assume that you are referring to the Roman Catholic Church and not some other organisation; I'm just checking because you have hitherto not accepted that there is anything in the Roman Catholic Church which could possibly be improved upon...
Yes I think 4 May 1535+ puts it well.
I would say that anyone seeking for sacramental assurance should avoid the ministrations of Bp Broadhurst.
Oooh, Chenier 1, not true!!
My dear Robert would like to see the back of the entire English and Welsh RC hierarchy - what he says about them is simply not repeatable on such an elegant blog .....
There is always room for improvement.... not on the Church's teaching on faith and morals, but on other aspects. The deep evangelistic zeal of evangelicals, the beautiful liturgy of eastern Orthodox Christians the benevolence of the Salvation Army etc are all to be admired and sometimes put us to shame.
Actually there are some very nice English and Welsh Catholic Bishops..my own Bishop is a gracious and gentle pastor, who is always approachable.
So it would be wrong to stereotype...However i do find bishops like the Bishop Conry a bit too liberal.
Well said Robert, maybe the RCs, Orthordox and Salvationists could unite in a new body, with beautiful liturgy and benevolence and call it the RCOSA.
The bishop of Wrexham is very nice.