No surprises here.
Who were the two bishops who voted No?
In the House of Laity, the total votes including abstentions appears incorrect. 49+12+3=64 (not 69).
Well spotted! But the error is in the SEC statement, and not in my transcription of it.
Yup, suspected it'd go this way.
Now comes a year's onslaught from England and the wider Communion. It'll be brutal. The SEC will be vilified, ridiculed, and unchurched. Various African and Australian bishops will spit bile; Welby will adopt his prefect's glower, and tick SEC off like naughty schoolboys; and the Communion will impose sanctions that dare not speak their name. In 12 months' time, SEC will be marginalized, "consequenced," and loathed the world over. It'll be a pariah.
And yet, at the end of it all, I expect the Scots will go ahead, and vote through the change. The bullying will fail.
I don't think the General Synod of the SEC makes voting lists public as the General Synod of the CofE now does. One of the two bishops voting against would have been the Bishop of Aberdeen and Orkney, who would have moved a shorter traditional motion had the first reading been lost. It's surmise on my part, but I think the other bishop might have been the Bishop of Argyll and the Isles. If I have got that wrong I am sure there will be an immediate correction from someone who was there.
Synod voted to take this vote by secret ballot. Speculation about who voted what is futile.
Not long before English Anglicans will be able to head to Gretna Green!
I am very surprised.
I notice from the list of articles etc., that some do not understand that it is about marriage equality, and not something they insist on calling 'same-sex marriage'.
This language is either lazy or misguided, or worse -- and is patent of a homophobic interpretation.
Time's are a-changing, take heart; perhaps the Spirit is moving - see Alistair Dinnie's presentation at the SEC GS vis-à-vis the recent ACC in Zambia: http://www.scotland.anglican.org/alistair-dinnie-meeting-anglican-consultative-council/.
The CofE has entered into agreement with the CofS. The CofE is in full communion with the Lutheran Churches of Sweden, Norway and Denmark and the Old Catholic Church of Utrecht. Even if ABC gets the SEC Primus removed as co-chair of the International Reformed-Anglican Dialogue, I note Prof Iain Torrance sits on the Dialogue body.
Seeking humility, Cantuar could and would learn from Canute. Gamaliel may have something to say too. In any case, the command to Love holds.
Looks like the Episcopalian parish church at Gretna Green will be a popular venue come next year. Have the Wee Frees been consulted on this "historic" development?
Thanks. I was curious abiut +Gillies' vote.
I wonder what the sizable bloc of evangelical parishes will do. Their history is tied up at various junctures with the CofE. St Thomas and Ps and Gs in Edinburgh, St Silas Glasgow et al.
I have to say I'd be surprised and disappointed if Bishop Kevin was the other dissenter. My understanding is that he has been one of the chief advocates of not spelling out doctrine in the canons but in the liturgy, which was part of the inspiration for the form of this change.
+Gillies indicated he voted No in the ACNS report. It's in the public record.
Once again - it was a secret ballot - no-one knows how anyone voted.
To the best of my knowledge, the Bishop of Argyll and The Isles has said nothing publicly about it at all. Though I know very well what he thinks, I'd be interested to hear of any public statement.
[NB that the Bishop of Argyll and The Isles is an Episcopalian whilst the Bishop of Argyll and the Isles is a Roman Catholic]
Father David, I wonder how appropriate you feel it is to mock a fellow church of Jesus Christ?
Granted they have quite different theological leanings from many on here. However is that justification to use a name that many in that church find quite offensive and patronising?
Simon Butler. Gretna Green! I think St Mary's Cathedral in Glasgow alongside Old St Paul's/St Johns/St Michaels or the Cathedral in Edinburgh will be ready to welcome folk from England. It will be fascinating (and laughable) to see CofE clergy being disciplined for being married according to the Canons of a neighbouring Anglican province!
The Queen has never received communion in a Scottish Episcopalian Church. Since King George the fourth's time whilst visiting Scotland British monarchs attend and communicate in the Church of Scotland.
Kelvin Holdsworth: "NB that the Bishop of Argyll and The Isles is an Episcopalian whilst the Bishop of Argyll and the Isles is a Roman Catholic"
Kelvin, let me get this right. Are you informing us that the capitalisation or not of "the" indicates whether you are talking of the Episcopalian or the RC bishop? What a lovely bit of ecclesiastical trivia. Someone should tell the website of the SEC diocese - they have not capitalised their definite article.
"It will be fascinating (and laughable) to see CofE clergy being disciplined for being married according to the Canons of a neighbouring Anglican province!"
And to be clear, a neighbouring province in full communion with the Church of England. What does full communion mean if it doesn't mean recognising the rites of a sister province? So if someone is legitimately married by another province, doesn't full communion mean that marriage is recognised?
Edward Prebble - that's exactly what I'm saying. It is delightful, isn't it?
And so far as I can see, the SEC Diocese has it correct. Where is the error?
Disturbing but not surprising to hear reports on the Sunday programme of a possible schism in the SEC over the recent vote on SSM. Also a worrying trend to hear of deep disagreement between the Primate of All England and the Primus of the SEC.
Encouraging though to hear such a positive report on the same programme concerning the working relationship between the Bishops of Burnley and Stockport in spite of profound theological differences. Better Together, that's what I say.
Kate: "What does full communion mean if it doesn't mean recognising the rites of a sister province?"
Kate, I suspect that if events get that far, the terminology the Church of England will adopt is *impaired* communion... with sanctions applicable for C of E priests if they breach the doctrine in the areas where the "impaired" part is operative.
Of course, events in the Communion as a whole may have moved on before the Scottish scenario takes effect.
"What does full communion mean if it doesn't mean recognising the rites of a sister province?"
Obviously the Church of England does not believe you can create a 'marriage rite' that does not speak of man and woman. That is the point at issue.
So when the SEC goes out on a trail that the CofE is not going out on, then the SEC finds itself progressively 'advanced' but also detached from previous understandings still in effect in the CofE.
That is always the case and was always known, or should have been.
While the Royal Family publicly worship in the Church of Scotland when on holiday in Scotland, I believe Queen Victoria was the first to receive Holy Communion in that church (where then - and even quite often now - the Sacrament was celebrated infrequently). Very strong Anglican and Episcopalian protests were made at the time. The Queen normally does not receive Communion in public services in either the Church of Scotland or the Church of England, and it is said that Matins is her favourite service (as it is mine), the closest we have to our Lord's own service - weekly in the Synagogue ! And the monarch when in Scotland remains a member of the Church of England. Despite what is sometimes said, she does not become a Presbyterian over the border, nor of course does she have any ecclesiastical role in the Church of Scotland (with its rather different, lesser form of establishment) in contrast to her position as Supreme Governor of the Church of England. I write this as we in Australia enjoy our annual public holiday (held in most of states today) for the birthday of the Queen of Australia. Vivat Regina.
Bravo, SEC. A much more certain 'Way Forward' than we are experiencing in ACANZP
Christopher, you have a politician's knack of addressing a different question than the one at hand. Obviously the official policy of the Church of England is in disagreement with TEC and the proposed SEC Canon. That though isn't the issue.
I was talking of communion between provinces. Communion can only mean acceptance of rites. Indeed the Wikipedia article on full communion says
"Churches such as those of the Anglican Communion see full communion as meaning that their members may licitly participate in each other's rites,..."
So baptism in the sister province is recognised, as is any ordination ... as is any marriage. That I think is essentially the constitutional position and I think it would probably take a vote in Synod to exclude marriage. There is no way such a vote would pass. Impaired communion is not something which a few bishops can just declare: it is a fundamental change in policy which requires a Synodical vote. The Windsor report of 2004 by implication confirms this view noting that a number of provinces have identified and declared impaired communion by synodical vote or primatial declaration.
I suspect canon lawyers are poring over things but I think disciplining a priest for marrying in a province in full communion with England might be unlawful under canon law. It is open to the Church of England under its procedures to declare such marriages void but, in the absence of a specific Synodical vote, I believe they are valid and that no priest can be blamed for entering into one.
Kate, while I am in agreement with you on principle, the details are a bit different. The Anglican and Episcopal tradition acknowledges only two "Sacraments of the Gospel," as the Articles put it. From Article XXV. Of the Sacraments: "There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord." The other rites we would call Sacramental are not so well honored in the Article. We continue to believe they can be sacramental; but since we don't have directions about them specifically from Jesus we don't treat them the same.
Not to say that this eliminates the problem we agree on. Eucharist *is* one of the "Sacraments of the Gospel," and is the one notoriously avoided, not to say challenged, when the Primates get together (and, as I recall, at the last Lambeth, for that matter). But, it is still distinct from the concept of "full recognition" of the other sacramental rites. We don't automatically have it with Ordination (as too many clerics who are women know too well); and we're not likely to get ecclesiastical recognition of marriages, even if we could get recognition by civil authorities.
So, I'm with you on principle. The history of the sacraments just doesn't go as far as we might like.
On the terms and conditions of being in Communion with other Christians and Churches:
Who makes up these rules?
If you are 'in Christ' then you are in communion with all other Christians, whether you like it or not.
Kate--recognition of Orders is not like Baptism.
Provinces of the Anglican Communion are at present in a season of impaired communion. At issue is what that means. Some may agree that in spite of this there is some kind of 'nevertheless walking together' as against full schism. This seemed to be the view at Canterbury 2016.
But the situation is both messy and likely to get worse.
Certainly one cannot simply contrive to be 'married' in a neighboring province with a rite not recognized as legitimate in the home province, and return as if this was a 'trick play.'
Even TEC has introduced a complicated reality -- except that it will probably time out shortly. That is, what of a diocese which has canons defining traditional marriage and a parishioner goes to a different diocese to be married and then returns to home diocese and seeks ordination?
We are simply in a state of affairs that canons and tradition do not regulate well internationally or locally. That is what happens when settled practice and liturgical pattern is changed in the name of a 'progressive' cause.
Perhaps I do not understand your question. Sorry if so.
"Certainly one cannot simply contrive to be 'married' in a neighboring province with a rite not recognized as legitimate in the home province, and return as if this was a 'trick play.'"
There would be no contrivance. Scotland is part of the UK. Assuming as seems probable that there will be marriage equality in the Scottish Episcopal Church rather sooner than there will be in the Church of England, it will be perfectly open to people, ordained and lay, to go to Scotland to be married in Church. There might be 'consequences' (a new word in the vocabulary) for clergy (and Readers?) but the marriage would be very far from being a 'trick play.'
Sorry--I thought my use of the phrase was clear.
Obviously one can be married civilly, even via an ecclesial rite (in the SEC).
That this would amount to an ecclesially approved marriage in the CofE for a cleric (or reader) would be a 'trick play' that would not succeed.
Hope this clarifies. I spent 10 years as Chair of Old Testament in St Andrews and was licensed in the SEC at that time.
The Queen has a seat reserved for her in the General Assembly and her own divorced daughter re-married in the Church of Scotland. Her ancestors regularly communicated in non episcopal Lutheran churches when they holidayed in Hanover.In the crypt of Canterbury Cathedral ( since 1563) is the chapel of the Huguenots ..staffed by the Reformed Church of France.
"Assuming as seems probable that there will be marriage equality in the Scottish Episcopal Church rather sooner than there will be in the Church of England, it will be perfectly open to people, ordained and lay, to go to Scotland to be married in Church."
That's exactly what happened in the US in TEC. People from non marrying dioceses and states would travel to marrying dioceses/states. Then things got legally complicated, because states are required to recognize other states marriages... So the legal dominoes fell. And TEC went our way, so that now couples generally don't need to travel to get married (except in those 6 or 7 dioceses where the bishops dissented and got an opt out, continuing to oppress the LGBTQI members of their flock).
It will be nice for English Anglican LGBTQI couples to have the opportunity to marry in Scotland. Not a bad place for a honeymoon. SEC may well help their country reap the economic rewards of the "Pink Pound."
Please don't forget the shortbread biscuits and whiskey if SEC ends up on the naughty step with us in TEC.
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.