Saturday, 14 January 2012

General Synod - February 2012 - online papers

Online copies of the papers for the February 2012 meeting of General Synod are starting to appear online; they are listed below, with links and a note of the day they are scheduled for debate. I will update the list as more papers become available.

Updated Friday 27 January All papers are now online and linked below. In addition they can all be downloaded in one zip file.
Updated Monday 30 January The first eight notice papers are also available and are linked below.
Updated Monday 6 February Links to an addendum for GS 1854C and to more notice papers have been added.

The Report of the Business Committee (GS 1849) includes a forecast of future business, and I have copied this below the fold.

The Church of England’s own list of papers is presented in agenda order.

GS 1848 Full Agenda
GS 1849 Report by the Business Committee [Monday]

Women Bishops legislation

GS Misc 1007 Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure: Draft Code of Practice2012 [Tuesday]
GS 1854A, GS 1854B, GS 1854C, GS 1854C Addendum Diocesan Synod Motion: Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure [Wednesday]
GS 1847 Report by the Business Committee on the Article 8 Reference [Wednesday]
GS 1708B Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure [Thursday]
GS 1709B Draft Amending Canon
GS 1708-9Z Report by the Steering Committee (GS 1708-9Z)
GS Misc 1012 Women in the Episcopate: Future Process

Other papers for debate

GS 1814A Draft Clergy Discipline (Amendment) Measure2012 [Tuesday]
GS 1814Y Report by the Revision Committee

GS 1822A Additional Eucharistic Prayers [Thursday]
GS 1822Y Report by the Revision Committee

GS 1846A and GS 1846B Diocesan Synod Motion: Appointment of Archdeacons [Wednesday]

GS 1850 Approval Of Appointments To The Archbishops’ Council [Monday]

GS 1851A and GS 1851B Private Member’s Motion: Independent Commission On Assisted Dying [Monday]

GS 1852 Draft Parochial Fees and Scheduled Matters Amending Order 2012 [Tuesday]
GS 1852X Explanatory Memorandum
GS Misc 1015 Draft Fees Order, An explanation of the proposed fee levels

GS 1853 Draft Diocese in Europe Measure 2012 [Tuesday]
GS 1853X Explanatory Memorandum (GS 1853X)

GS 1855 Chair of the Business Committee and Miscellaneous Amendments: Forty-Sixth Report of the Standing Orders Committee [Wednesday]

GS 1856A and GS 1856B Private Member’s Motion: Reform Of The House Of Lords [Thursday]

GS 1857 Health Care and the Church’s Mission: Report from the Mission and Public Affairs Council [Thursday]

GS 1858 The Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) (Consequential Provisions) Order 2012
GS 1858X Explanatory Memorandum

GS 1859A and GS 1859B Manifestation of Faith in Public Life [contingency business]

GS Misc 1008 Higher Education Funding Changes [Thursday]

Other papers

GS Misc 1003 Lords Spiritual: Parliamentary Spokespeople
GS Misc 1004 House of Lords Reform
GS Misc 1005 Civil Partnerships in Religious Premises
GS Misc 1006 The 39th Report of the Central Stipends Authority
GS Misc 1009 Council of Oriental Orthodox Churches
GS Misc 1010 Report on Pensions and Remuneration
GS Misc 1011 The Church of England and the Anglican Church in North America
GS Misc 1012 Women in the Episcopate: Future Process
GS Misc 1013 Archbishops’ Council Annual Report
GS Misc 1014 The August Riots, Responding to Austerity and the State of Society
GS Misc 1015 Draft Fees Order, An explanation of the proposed fee levels
GS Misc 1016 Archbishops’ Council Apportionment 2012 and table
GS Misc 1017 Resourcing Christian Community Action: Parishes and Partnerships
GS Misc 1018 Archbishops’ Council response to Richard Moy’s Private Member’s Motion on Visual and Video resources for worship

HBM2 House of Bishops: Summary of Decisions
A(12)1 Appointments Committee: Recent Appointments

Notice Papers

Notice Paper 1
Notice Paper 2
Notice Paper 3
Notice Paper 4
Notice Paper 5
Notice Paper 6
Notice Paper 7
Notice Paper 8
Notice Paper 9
Notice Paper 10
Notice Paper 11
Notice Paper 12
Notice Paper 13
Notice Paper 14
Notice Paper 15

Forecast of future Synod business

July 2012

Legislative Business
  • Women in the Episcopate legislation: Final Approval (subject to the outcome of the Article 7 references)
  • Clergy Discipline (Amendment) Measure – Final Drafting / Final Approval
  • Diocese in Europe Measure – Revision Stage (and possibly Final Approval)
  • Miscellaneous Provisions Measure – First Consideration
  • Anglican Covenant Act of Synod: report on reference to the dioceses
  • Funded Pension Scheme Rules: changes re s.75 debt
  • Fees Orders
Liturgical Business
  • Additional Eucharistic Prayers: [Further Revision Stage or] Final Approval
Reports
  • Fresh Expressions: A report on Fresh Expressions, supported by a report on the ecclesiology of Fresh Expressions commissioned by the Faith and Order Commission
  • MPA report on World Mission (relations between mission agencies and diocesan companion links)
DSMs and PMMs
  • One or more diocesan synod motions and private members’ motions are customarily included in the agenda for each group of sessions.

Financial Business

Posted by Peter Owen on Saturday, 14 January 2012 at 4:48pm GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Church of England | General Synod
Comments

GS 1858X doesn't exist; I think the explanation is already in GS 1858.


It's "ecclesiastical" ...

Posted by: american piskie on Saturday, 14 January 2012 at 6:16pm GMT

I've removed the link to GS 1858X, although I think that this paper does exist. An "Explanatory Note" is not the same as an "Explanatory Memorandum". Have a look at GS 1852 (last page) and GS 1852X to see what I mean.

I've also removed the link to GS 1822Y as that doesn't work either.

I've also corrected the spelling, which I copied from the CofE website.

Posted by: Peter Owen on Saturday, 14 January 2012 at 11:56pm GMT

Having read the conditions of the Draft Measure, discussing the delegation of authority by the diocesan bishop, that was overwhelmingly agreed to by most diocesan synods; it is sad that the Bishops Meeting seem to prefer the alternative arrangement: where 'Flying Bishops' would continue to minister is a diocese - without the express permission of a woman Bishop.

This bending backwards to accommodate the opponents of women in the ordained ministry of the Church would send the wrong sort of signal to the broad constituency of the Church, that has already experienced the charism of women's ministry - to the extent that the C.of E. could probably not continue to wo/man its parishes without them.

When will this particular brand of unjust discrimination - together with that against the LGBT community in the Church - be finally put to death? Perhaps when the Church is in its death throes, maybe?

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Sunday, 15 January 2012 at 10:07am GMT

"it is sad that the Bishops Meeting seem to prefer the alternative arrangement: where 'Flying Bishops' would continue to minister is a diocese - without the express permission of a woman Bishop."

Really? Truly sad.

I don't suppose the diocesan-who-happens-to-be-a-woman could send Ye Olde Bailiff to arrest any "flying" trespassers in her diocese? ;-/

Lord, REFORM your Church!

Posted by: JCF on Sunday, 15 January 2012 at 9:17pm GMT

Just read Draft Measure: it still allows a diocesan bishop (say one who refuses to ordain women) to be out-of-communion with one of his priests. This has been an ongoing problem with the previous situation, and it remains. How a church can allow a bishop, in effect, not to recognise the orders of a legally-ordained priest in his diocese is beyond me. Heck, the Draft even allows him to excuse himself from having to minister pastorally to a woman priest or to those men ordained by a woman -- this is theological bonkers (see paras 77-81). I don't think this is episcopacy, but the repudiation of it....

I know others have said this, but where is the provision for bishops not to ordain men or for parishes in dioceses where the diocesan won't ordain women to petition for episcopal ministry by one who does? After all, the Draft makes allowances for the theological convictions of parishes to be taken into account (not only can they insist on a male priest, but also a like-minded male priest).

I'm all for a huge tent, but this is a church of several tents stuck together by chewing gum.

I'm rather ashamed.

Joe

Posted by: Joe on Monday, 16 January 2012 at 3:35pm GMT

To the Bishops and above all the Archbishops I would say
-the great majority of the Dioceses voted against the following motion they support and in this way revealed that the Church of England as whole does not want it

- WOMEN and supporters have always made it clear that we HAVE compromised.We wanted a single clause measure but we accepted a Code of Practice but this is a step too far
The Archbishops have never listened to us preferring to give in to a vociferous minority

- theologically this is appalling. It sets up a separate strain of bishops who must be 'untainted' but are in fact heretical

- if those opposed cannot accept canonically consecrated male bishops because they have ordained women they are virtually rejecting the Church of England and its laws. If they really believe such men have ceased to be true bishops as they have ordained women priest according to the will of the Church then perhaps they are in the wrong church and should move to one where they are happy and an ordinariate awaits them.

Posted by: Jean Mary Mayland on Monday, 16 January 2012 at 6:05pm GMT

Jean Mayland, all too predictably I have to say, is once again demonstrating a level of intolerance that is bordering on the oppressive. How on earth she can argue that this so-called "separate strain of bishops" is "heretical" is beyond me. Those she is so vociferously criticising and seeking to undermine are doing nothing more than being faithful to that which has been the teaching and tradition of the Church as received from Christ himself and handed down through his apostles. She would be up in arms if anyone applied the word heretical to her, no doubt claiming subjugation and oppression herself. Disgraceful! Now we are really seeing, in a post like hers, the true colours of some of those who would prefer to see the Church of England without any last vestige of catholicity.

Posted by: Benedict on Tuesday, 17 January 2012 at 4:59pm GMT

"which has been the teaching and tradition of the Church as received from Christ himself and handed down through his apostles." - Benedict -

Have you chapter and verse on this, Benedict? I don't recall Jesus ever saying anything about Bishops in the Church - either men or women, so we can't go on that assumption, can we?

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Wednesday, 18 January 2012 at 8:28am GMT

Father Smith, you as well as I know that this has been the received wisdom of the Church from interpretation of the Scriptures in the various councils. Furthermore, what of the millions of Christian Catholics and Orthodox who still hold to the views that traditionalists do in the Anglican Communion, a Communion which, it has to be said, is numerically inferior. Are you really suggesting that the tail should wag the dog?

Posted by: Benedict on Wednesday, 18 January 2012 at 11:27am GMT

The Reverend Smith seems awfully sure of *his* assumptions :) It's just assumptions that don't match his that are in doubt, apparently.

Posted by: Clive on Wednesday, 18 January 2012 at 5:47pm GMT

Many theologians to day would reject the idea that Jesus intended to found a church. Many others would reject this ‘pipe line’ view of the apostolic succession.

Imust point out that the concept of ordained priesthood did not develop until after Apostolic times.In the New Testament we read of elders and overseers but not priests and bishops as such In the earliest period it is impossible to say with precision who conducted the Eucharist It is only in a document of the late first century, ‘the first Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians’ that the author draws a sharp distinction between clergy and laity – the bishop-presbyters are said to ‘offer the gifts’ but the phrase in the Clementine use of the term does not necessarily refer to the Eucharist.

The Tradition continued to develop.Many of us regard women priests and bishops as a legitimate development of Tradition.

As far as heresy is concerned has Benedict heard of Donatism?

As far 'last vestiges of the catholic faith': see the speech by Sister Rosemary at the General Synod in July 2010.

Posted by: Jean Mary Mayland on Wednesday, 18 January 2012 at 6:03pm GMT

My immediate response to Benedict and Clive here is to say that 'Tradition' is not immune to judicious reformation - in the light of modern understandings of the Scriptures; the respective moderation by successive Councils of the Church; The European Reformation; and accordning to the Anglican format: Scripture, Tradition AND REASON.

Reason, by virtue of being God-given, ought never be excluded from an assessment of how 'Tradition' might be reviewed. The Holy Spirit is not dead, but is alove and active in a 'Listening Church'.

Pope John XXIII - God rest his soul! - was keen to reform the Roman Catholic Church with his motif of 'Semper Reformanda', but unfortunately, his successors have turned back the clock on that. Let not our Anglican Churches do the same.

It is important to understand that Jesus was crucified for his 'reformation' of the Church in his day. "What I require is mercy, not sacrifice"

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Wednesday, 18 January 2012 at 10:17pm GMT

To Jean Mayland: Donatus taught that the effectiveness of the sacraments depended on the moral character of the minister. Why have you introduced this rather spurious line of reasoning into a discussion about women bishops? Those who oppose the ordination of women to the episcopate are not doing so because of doubt about their moral character. And which theologians,at least notable ones, reject the idea that Jesus intended to found a church? Who said "You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church?"

Posted by: Benedict on Wednesday, 18 January 2012 at 11:24pm GMT

'Who said "You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church?" '

Well, that's the problem:

You don't know, anymore than we do. It may have been Jesus, but we know He didn't *write* the account of His having said that. In any case, He was unlikely to have said that, as such - His mastery of modern English would seem to be unlikely at that time, and the word translated as "church" is quite likely to have had different connotation, and, perhaps, denotations in the period the statement allegedly took place.

Is that your only proof, then?

Posted by: MarkBrunson on Thursday, 19 January 2012 at 4:39am GMT

"I don't recall Jesus ever saying anything about Bishops in the Church - either men or women, so we can't go on that assumption, can we?"

But those of us with misgivings are apparently expected to go along entirely with the assumptions of the proponents.

I think it's completely valid to say to oppononents of WO "you could be wrong," but then surely it must follow that proponents of WO could also be wrong? In my experience, those of us with misgivings are more than ready to admit we could be wrong, but those pushing for ever greater changes are never prepared to admit the same.

And the uncertainty is what underlies the quest for sacramental assurance - for some of us that leads to the Ordinariate or Rome directly, for others it is the reason for appeals for provision within the CofE.

I suspect it's also the reason why proponents refuse to even countenance the idea they could be in error - for if they did they would feel some obligation to provide for traditionalists. And they don't.

It's completely clear that Fr. Ron and his ilk have a total double standard. His assumptions are right and anyone else's are wrong. That's fine, if that's who you are, go for it. But don't pretend otherwise.

Posted by: Clive on Thursday, 19 January 2012 at 5:34pm GMT

Well, Clive, if it makes you happy, I don't play the liberal hypocrisy game. My positions *are* right, and the positions of those who oppose *are* wrong. I certainly don't think anyone who doesn't believe that, yet crusades tirelessly to curtail the beliefs of others is worthy of the right to speak.

Posted by: MarkBrunson on Friday, 20 January 2012 at 10:52am GMT

"And the uncertainty is what underlies the quest for sacramental assurance" - Clive, on Thursday -

Now where have I heard that phrase before?

And what, exactly, does it mean, for an Anglican?

Posted by: Father ron smith on Sunday, 22 January 2012 at 9:33am GMT

@Mark: I commend your integrity and I agree with you - not on WO itself but on the question of worthiness to speak, which is why I personally have never sought to curtail the beliefs of others - at least, not intentionally.

I crossed the Tiber not because I know one way or the other if ordained Anglican women are really priests in the wider catholic church, but precisely because I couldn't be sure.

I think there are many within Forward in Faith who share that perspective and they do not seek to curtail others' beliefs or their practice of those beliefs, but merely ask that the CofE live up to what is still its official position - that both accepting and rejecting women's ordination are valid and respected positions. Conversely, the majority of the 'pro' forces do believe that they are right and therefore they must annihilate the opposition. It is my contention that almost all the 'pro' force thinks as you do, Mark, but not all of them have the integrity to come out and say it as you do. I respect you for it.

As to asking what something (anything!) means to an Anglican, well, that's up there with "How long is a piece of string?" I suspect the answer depends on the individual Anglican, whether there is an "R" in the month and what's trending on Twitter that day :)

Posted by: Clive on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 at 4:53am GMT

Thank you, Clive, and I commend you on crossing the Tiber! You see, I am not committed to annihilating *the* opposition, but to annihilating opposition. In this, we are not in opposition because you are no longer in a place in which this is a question - you are not "of my flock," so to speak, and God's Grace is wide enough to provide many pastures.

In one slight point, though, I hope I have misunderstood you:

"It is my contention that almost all the 'pro' force thinks as you do . . . "

I trust you are *not* implying that the "con" force feels differently. If they do, what unworthy scoundrels to bring it up, rather than leave, as you did!

Posted by: MarkBrunson on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 at 11:41am GMT

Mark... what I'm trying to say is that (in my experience and among my friends who are still in the CofE) those who have not left have already accepted that women priests are a reality, and women bishops must also be. They're not seeking to stop those who want that from having it, merely asking that the CofE continue to find them a home within which they can live. To that extent it's a more nuanced and "live and let live" position than that of WATCH, et al.

Those who couldn't live with women bishops at all are probably already in an Ordinariate. I don't move in evangelical circles so I can't speak knowledgeably about those opposed on "headship" grounds. It's possible theirs might be a more hard-line "anti" position.

Posted by: Clive on Monday, 30 January 2012 at 4:57pm 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.