Comments: General Synod - February 2011 - outline agenda

We're not exactly going to be rushed off our feet, are we?

Posted by Justin Brett at Friday, 17 December 2010 at 8:56pm GMT

I can only imagine your frustration, Justin. In the meantime: the mills of God grind slowly!

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Friday, 17 December 2010 at 11:45pm GMT

I thought that it was once decided to abolish the session of the General Synod which met in February except in exceptional circumstances. Surely two sessions of this Anglican white elephant (November and July)is more than enough? An annual meeting would be even better! Just think of the savings that could be made in the cash stapeed CofE if the meeting time of the General Synod was greatly reduced.

Posted by Father David at Saturday, 18 December 2010 at 3:12pm GMT

Father David

One of the two London sessions each year has only ever been held "as required", but since 2003 this has been the November session.

In the 2005/2010 Synod the only November session was in 2005. This was held to avoid an unnecessarily long gap between the Synod elections in early autumn and the first meeting of the new Synod.

Similarly there was a short November session this year.

The number of days that Synod meets is chosen to match the business before it. Whether all this business is necessary is a matter for debate.

How many sessions the days are divided into is another matter.

Posted by Peter Owen at Saturday, 18 December 2010 at 4:05pm GMT

The agenda may not look very exciting but behind it lurks some important business... there has been criticism on the floor of the synod for not considering Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ earlier; John Ward's following motion should have been heard in November but time ran out and I for one am interested to see how the Liverpool motion goes. More than enough meat to meet for I think!
Mark

Posted by Mark Beach at Sunday, 19 December 2010 at 5:15pm GMT

I have to say I hope something comes of the Liverpool baptismal liturgy motion. There was some enrichment certainly but I didn't find it as user friendly as the ASB; it was terribly wordy and the return to patristic style promises at the decision were a mistake i think as shown by the bishops allowing the ASB promises "for pastoral reasons". im pleased to say my bishop agreed with me that pastoral reasons included every baptism i did!! A shorter more pastoral rite seems to me to be very necessary esp in those places where barbed wire doesn't ring the font and those seeking baptism for their children are not necessarily very regular churchgoers ..esp true in a working class parish.

Posted by Perry Butler at Tuesday, 4 January 2011 at 12:49pm 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.