Saturday, 19 November 2011
Truro diocese rejects Anglican Covenant
The Diocese of Truro voted today on the Anglican Covenant, and rejected it.
According to our correspondent, the voting was over two-thirds against it in both houses. We will report the actual figures as soon as we can.
Update (very belatedly)
Bishops: For: 0 Against: 1 Abstentions: 0
Posted by Simon Sarmiento on
Saturday, 19 November 2011 at 5:24pm GMT
Clergy: For: 5 Against: 18 Abstentions: 3
Laity: For: 8 Against: 28 Abstentions: 3
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Church of England
Perhaps the dam has broken? And the Holy Spirit is flowing free? [OCICBW on the latter]
The Bishop of Truro is the first Bishop to have the courage to break ranks and vote against the Covenant.Many of us are deeply grateful to him.We hope and pray that more Bishops wil realise that they can still respect the Archbishop while voting against this misguided and punitive proposed Anglican Covenant
Well done the Bishop [and Laity and Clergy] of Truro. Voting for something because the ABC recommends it [which I have heard proposed as a reason to support the proposed Covenant] is a subversion of the principle of synodical government, which is based on the principle that each member has a responsibility for deciding for themselves in conscience, not deferring to hierarchy.
The diocesan results to date:
For the Covenant: Durham, Lichfield, Europe
Against the Covenant: Wakefield, St Edmundsbury & Ipswich, Birmingham, Truro.
23 dioceses in favour is necessary for it to return to General Synod.
3 For and 5 Against! Sounds pretty good, so far.
St Eds & Ips is one diocese.
Thanks for that correction, Simon Kershaw. I had quite forgotten that some English dioceses have double geographical names - like Bath & Wells, but with 2 cathedrals.
At the moment, I don't think any English diocese has two cathedrals (though the West Yorkshire scheme, if implemented, would change that). Of the double-barrelled sees, Bath and Wells only has Wells Cathedral (Bath having lost its cathedral status at the Reformation; St Eds & Ips has its cathedral at St Edmundsbury (aka Bury St Edmunds); Ripon & Leeds (formerly just Ripon) is at Ripon; Southwell & Nottingham (formerly just Southwell) is at Southwell (which is pronounced 'suthull' with voiced 'th'.)
re the double-barrelled diocese; I can see why overseas visitors are surprised to find that an Abbey (like Westminster or Bath) is not a cathedral.
This makes it somewhat surprising that Westminster Abbey is the traditional place for coronations, and not Saint Paul's. Does that tradition date back to a time when the Abbey was a 'cathedral' - when the kingly throne was once a cathedra (seat of a bishop)
Westminster Abbey was the cathedral of the short-lived diocese of Westminster from 1540 to 1550, and for a short period after that it was a cathedral of the diocese of London. But it has been the coronation church since Christmas Day 1066 when William the Conqueror was crowned king of England before the tomb of King Edward. All his successors (save only the uncrowned Edward V and Edward VIII) have been crowned in the same place, before the high altar of the Abbey. So, no, the Abbey was the coronation church long before its brief spell as a cathedral, and the inthronization at that service dates back even further, to Anglo-Saxon pagan kingship rituals, unrelated to the enthronement of a bishop.