Updated Saturday evening
There are several reports in today’s Church Times:
…The Priest-in-Charge of St Peter’s, the Revd Stephen Bould, said: “It is not a vote to join the Ordinariate; the PCC can’t make that decision.”
He said that “lots” of people in St Peter’s were interested in joining the Ordinariate, but “lots are not interested.” Conversations needed to take place about how to “deliver the minimum pain and maximum gain when going along two parallel tracks comes about”.
And scroll down that same link for Reform’s new plan.
…Mr [Rod] Thomas said from the conference on Tuesday that a new society would have its own bishops to oversee those who could not accept the ministry of women bishops. “If we can work out the details of such a society, and how it fits in with the rest of the Church of England, there would be a mechanism readily available for the bishops to get through this dilemma.”
Synod fight to go on, though FiF wooed by Rome (scroll down for main story).
THE chairman of the council of Forward in Faith (FiF) UK, the Bishop of Fulham, the Rt Revd John Broadhurst, told its National Assembly that he intended to offer the Queen his resignation before the end of the year. He was resigning, not retiring.
At the meeting last weekend in Westminster, Bishop Broadhurst said: “That is to facilitate my replacement. There will be complications after January for any suffragan bishop. I have spoken to the Bishop of London. He intends to replace me.”
He said that he expected to enter the Ordinariate when it was established, but had not resigned as chairman of FiF. “This is not a Church of England organisation.” But later, if it was thought appropriate that he should stand down, there could be a postal ballot after “measured discussion”.
…It was quite possible, Prebendary David Houlding said, that a “blocking third” could be obtained in the House of Laity.
“If we must defeat it, defeat it we will,” he said. “We have no choice. We may not be successful, but in conscience we have no other choice.” It was likely that following motions would be suggested.
He did not want to claim too much for the new Society of St Wilfrid and St Hilda (News, 1 October). “It will be no use at all if it doesn’t have jurisdiction at its heart. That undoubtedly will be where the battle is. The House of Bishops is changing. The question, therefore, remains: will they recognise such a grouping of clergy in the life of the Church?”
Sacramental assurance would not be the icing on the cake, but the cake itself. The society idea might be able to guarantee it for a while if the legislation was passed. “Will the bishops who seek to lead in this society be prepared to break the rules when needed, to consecrate further bishops? If not, this society will come to its natural conclusion.”
Another article which appears in the Church Times this week is not available to non-subscribers til next Friday, but it is available from another source:
Paul Vallely They have to swim the Channel before they swim the Tiber.
Many Roman Catholics like me look slightly askance at the prospect of disenchanted Anglican traditionalists flooding across the Tiber, and not because they will be swimming with one hand and holding their ornate thuribles aloft in the other to keep them dry.
No, it is what they say they want to leave behind which makes us wonder about what they are bringing with them. Not to mention what it is they hope to find when they get to their promised land.
Take the Bishop of Fulham’s valedictory description of the church he seems determined to quit. The keynote address of the Rt Rev John Broadhurst to the Forward in Faith assembly – despite the ‘more in sorrow than in anger’ tone in which it was delivered – contained some extraordinarily violent language. He characterised the Anglican Communion as a place of ‘lies’, deceit’ and described it at one point as ‘an evil institution’. He called it ‘myopic’ and bemoaned its ‘lack of consultation’. Later he was quoted as calling it ‘vindictive’, ‘vicious’ and ‘fascist in its behaviour’…