Today two more groups in the Church of England have issued statements in reaction to yesterday's resignations.
The Catholic Group in General Synod has released the following statement:
The Catholic Group in General Synod is sorry to hear of the five bishops' intention to join the Anglican Ordinariate; we would like to thank them all for their ministry in the Church of England, and to assure them of our prayers and good wishes for their future. Bishops John Broadhurst, Andrew Burnham and David Silk have all been prominent members of the Catholic Group, and we thank them for their leadership of the Group in the past.
The Catholic Group remains determined to do all it can to ensure that the promises made by the Church of England to traditionalists at the time of the passing of legislation to permit the ordination of women to the priesthood are honoured by the General Synod as it now considers draft legislation to permit the consecration of women as bishops; significant amendment of the current draft will be required to enable this to happen.
We are heartened by the news that new appointments will be made for the Bishops of Ebbsfleet, Fulham and Richborough, and assure the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London of our prayers and good wishes at this time.
The Group for Rescinding the Act of Synod released this statement:
The announcement that the PEVs (Provincial Episcopal Visitors – known as flying bishops, since they have no dioceses and minister only to parishes which oppose ordination of women) are leaving to join the Ordinariate has not been a surprise.
Only 2.8% of parishes in the Church of England have opposed the ordination of women and requested the ministry of a flying bishop. These bishops are considered acceptable because they will not ordain women. This has been described as a “theology of Taint” which undermines the dignity of every woman and should hold no place within the Church.
The question arises as to whether there is any need to replace these bishops by new appointments. The General Synod of the Church of England, after lengthy consideration and debate has prepared legislation for the admission of women to the episcopate. The legislation does not envisage the use of PEVs. As their future is uncertain GRAS questions the wisdom of replacing these bishops for what could be a short duration.
Provision has been made within the legislation that will enable those opposed to have the ministry of a male priest or bishop. It is those in favour who have made concessions out of a spirit of generosity. As an interim measure the small number of parishes opposed to women’s ordination and episcopacy could be covered by existing bishops.
It is hoped, therefore that any future Episcopal appointment will be in keeping with the spirit of the legislation.
Be sure to follow our Moderator at Eccentric Bliss, his personal blog!
The early Church fathers subscribed to this same theology. I would not describe it as undermining the dignity of every woman. It is like describing Mary's role as the mother of Jesus as undermining the dignity of men. Human dignity recognizes a difference between the sexes.
This 'only 2.8%' figure is a gross misrepresentation. First, it refers only to "C" parishes; yet those who have voted for "A" or "B" have also declared at the very least severe misgivings over women's ordination. Then, the bar is set very high for parishes to pass the resolutions. If they are in teams or groups, individual parishes are denied the right to vote. When they announce they are to vote, they will be descended on by the big guns, Archdeacons, Suffragan Bishops, even the Diocesan himself, to persuade them of the folly of their ways. Every trick in the book (and many not in any book) will be used to dissuade them; and if the parish falls vacant they will again be leant on, illegally but very heavily, to rescind their decision – a decision which needs a 2/3 majority of the Church Council.
In one diocese I used to have only sixteen parishes in my pastoral care as Bishop of Richborough (there are more now – the constituency has been growing.) Yet with only sixteen "C" parishes, there would be around 7o priests at the Chrism Mass which I celebrated in the cathedral each year. Where did the rest come from? They were priests in parishes which were more or less evenly divided; priests in churches where another in the Group would not allow them to vote; priests in Chaplaincies (schools, hospitals prisons) which the Act of Synod simply ignored. The laity packed the Cathedral. That figure of 2.8% is the tip of a very large iceberg, with anything up to 1 in 4 of the priests and parishes of the Church of England unpersuaded of the rightness of ordaning women – and even less of consecrating them. Yet Synod is hell-bent on going ahead, with no proper mandate from the people and priests of the Church of England, driven solely by the rights of women and political correctness.
I'd never heard of that second group before today.
Wow, the prose of the GRAS is as dull as their worldview. If they must write drivel, they might as well write it colorfully.
I love the bit on "lengthy consideration and debate". Not "thoughtful" or "meaningful" or "deliberative" or "reasoned", just… "lengthy". All that means is the decision was made from the beginning and they tediously waited for the opposition to voice its concerns to deaf ears before they enacted the legislation.
It's more than dull; it's nasty.
Incidentally, in the November New Directions there are details of a trust supposed to promote the Christian religion, but actually devoted to the promotion of the teachings (and livelihood) of Christina Rees.
"It is those in favour who have made concessions out of a spirit of generosity. As an interim measure the small number of parishes opposed to women’s ordination and episcopacy could be covered by existing bishops. It is hoped, therefore that any future Episcopal appointment will be in keeping with the spirit of the legislation."
_______________
O Dear! This is a chilling piece of deja vu from 1994. Anyone with any sense jumped ship then, seeing what was on the horizon.
I remember, at the time, the then enduringly oleagenous Bishop of Oxford (one Richard Harries) receiving his traumatised FiF priests. When asked for some crumb of fatherly comfort for those priests and people of his diocese against the inovation, he predicted, as it turned out fairly accurately: We will be nice to you for the first 5 years; horrible to you for the next 5 – and after that, you will not matter.
Does anyone really think they have a future in the Church of England if they can't stomach the feminist heresy? You might as well sign your own spiritual death warrant!