Michael Nazir-Ali The Catholic Herald My Journey to Full Communion with the See of Peter
Andrew Goddard Psephizo Running on empty in the PLF journey?
Gavin Drake Church Abuse Why are clergy discipline tribunals still exempt from the Freedom of Information Act?
With synodical government proving such a failure perhaps Parliament ought to abolish it’s delegated authority and reclaim the Church of England for it’s people, enforcing the democratic will of the people on such matters as gay rights, safeguarding and open enquiry. The Bishops and their attendant crew couldn’t discern the best way to brew or pour tea!
It might be better if the Church of England was more interested in encouraging people to seek God’s will rather than the will of the people?
We’re speaking about a church not about a secular social club.
AIUI Reform have indicated that – should they be in government post the next election – they’re bringing all appointments of bishops back to the Prime Minister. So be careful what you wish for when you call for a church that dances to the government’s (because it won’t be ‘parliament’s’) tune…
I read Michael Nazir-Ali’s piece and wasn’t at all sure of the point he was trying to make. I have heard him speak on a number of occasions and always came away thinking that communication wasn’t his real gift, though he doubtless has many others. But is he saying that he is somehow a better Christian because he is in full communion with the See of Peter? Is he saying that he’s more likely to get into the kingdom now that he has made that journey? I worked at Bush House for a number of years and journalists there were… Read more »
Tl;dr – but I’m with you here Andrew and especially so on your last sentence. As soon as we begin to exclude others because of the theology they ascribe to, whichever end of any spectrum we are, we are going against the teaching of Christ.
I think that’s a bit unfair. It seemed to me that what he was addressing (at least in part) were a whole number of different criticisms of the sort “but you used to believe X, how can you now believe not-X”. Such an account is bound to be a bit bitty. But I agree that this rather distracts from the more interesting problem which he merely describes and laments, but still needs addressed: Anglicanism and Ecumenism.
Anglicanism does not need to be something it is not because of Ecumenism. What then would be the point?
Perhaps because it needs to develop into something that it is not yet.
The same can be said for both Churches, Communions and individuals.
Ahh so the one sentence version of his piece is like this? ‘I used to belong to a Church where I could think about complex questions of human life but I found that too difficult so I have joined a Church where I am told what to think about those things’.
We have discussed Gavin Drake’s argument many times on TA. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 applies to defined ‘public authorities’. The Church of England is not a ‘public authority’. As two other similar examples, the Methodist Church in Great Britain and Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales are in exactly the same position. They are not excluded from the Act: they are not included, an important distinction. In all three cases there may be an entitlement to freedom of information in an ancillary public authority role, e.g. management of a school.
I tried to see something new or compelling in Nazir-Ali’s statements, but saw mostly the same things conservatives have been saying for sixty years. It was like a journey through the past. In summary, when you clear away the rhetoric, the worst things about Anglicanism are the ordination of women and acceptance of gay people. He mentioned the “breakdown of marriage discipline,” but did not actually say what this meant. Divorce? People cohabiting without benefit of clergy? In summary, he wants a church which claims to have authority over the interpretation of scripture, where variations of opinion are not tolerated,… Read more »
But he has not gone fully to Rome. He has gone to the ordinariate, which is a small private, protected club within the RC church. Had he gone to Rome he might find himself in an institution with a lively debate about such things as the ordination of women, and the attitude to homosexuality.
I wonder what Nazir-Ali makes of Francis’s and Leo’s push towards synodality, and the empowering of the RC laity, and both Pope’s critique of clericalism and hierarchy. All of which are active issues in the church he has moved into.
The Ordinariate are in full Communion with the Catholic Church and in the UK now they have a Bishop Ordinary, Bishop David Waller, since Monsignor Keith Newton their first ordinary retired reaching the canonical retirement age of 75. Like the Military Ordinariate, where you have a Bishop to the Armed forces with his Cathedral at Aldershot, they operate like a Diocese now with some of the Diocesan machinery like having a Vicar General (the Catholic counterpart of the Anglican Archdeacon), they use the Church of the Assumption in Warwick square like a Pro-Cathedral and I would not be at all… Read more »
“Bishop to the Forces” is CofE (more fully “The Archbishop of Canterbury’s Episcopal Representative to the Armed Forces”), while his/her RC opposite number is “Bishop of the Forces”. The similarity of these titles is very confusing & helps nobody, moreover neither of them are actually chaplains in any of the armed forces, so their relevance to those serving in the armed forces is precisely Zero.
‘In these he has found a home in Rome, although a Rome he imagines to have no homosexuals, no dissent, one opinion on any subject, and full authority over people’s lives, both lay and ordained. He is welcome to it.’
Of course he doesn’t think this. There have always been dissenting Catholics. But at least he knows where the Church stands. People are free to take it or leave it.
Why take it if you don’t agree with it though? What is the point of joining a church just to dissent from it unless you are looking to cause trouble, particularly if you are leaving a church far more tolerant of dissent in the first place.
What might it mean to ‘agree’ with the Church of England? That is surely more eccentric an idea.
Chris I think agreeing with the Church of England might mean agreeing with an approach to religion that is more experimental? Granted that the experiment has now included a larger Anglican grouping and has been going on several centuries in the case of the Church of England. But there is a provisionality about for all of that, and a fluidity, and a sense of breadth in both doctrine and liturgy that is arguably too broad to have enough meaning but also is distinct from the supposed uniformity of Roman Catholic teaching. And of course the practice in RC Churches is… Read more »