|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Pope announces plans for Anglicans to convert in groups
|
Merchant Trader
Shipmate
# 9007
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
.
When asked about church property, buildings etc, he said that he had taken legal advice, and that all buildings must remain the property of the national church. He countenanced the possibility of local sharing arrangements, which the C of E already has with other denominations, but not of the ceding of any property rights.
This is the final kiss off from the Church of England to Forward in Faith.
Nonsense. Whether he wants to or not the Bishop has no power to change the rather peculiar legal status of parish churches as property held in trust by the incumbent for the whole parish. That would take at the very least an Act of Parliament, more likely a substantial measure of disestablishment, that would likely be impossible to get even discussed, never mind passed, for some years. Whether the CofE wanted to or not there is no realistic possibility of simply handing parish churches over to priests who leave for some other church. And no sane member of FiF every thought they would do that.
Its hard to imagine any other large organised body of churches in the world doing as much as the CofE is likely to do for the dissidents within it - and certainly not as much as it probably would have done has this spanner not been thrown in the works, or as much as was done back in 1992.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) cannot be summed up more insightfully than in Ken's post
--------------------
... formerly of Muscovy, Lombardy & the Low Countries; travelling through diverse trading stations in the New and Olde Worlds
Posts: 1328 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
The freehold is actually a corporation sole of all incumbents past current and future, of which the only current visible trustee is the current incumbent. (During a vacancy, the churchwardens and area dean act as sequestrators.)
So a Vicar is not acting on behalf of his parish but on behalf of his successor, lawfully appointed as a priest in the CofE. Patronage rights cannot be exercised by Roman Catholics either.
Nothing to stop individual dioceses, vicars and PCCs coming to agreement with the Roman Catholic Church on a temporary rental basis. In some cases the Diocese and Church Commissioners might eventually sell on a former parish church at the market price, but this would not be quick or easy.
Anything else would require very complicated legislation which would be even more time consuming than the women bishops vote is going to be. And I just can't see the next Parliament or Government wanting to waste the time on it.
Any departing anglo-catholic priest thinking otherwise has been inhaling something stronger than incense.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
The freehold is actually a corporation sole of all incumbents past current and future, of which the only current visible trustee is the current incumbent. (During a vacancy, the churchwardens and area dean act as sequestrators.)
So a Vicar is not acting on behalf of his parish but on behalf of his successor, lawfully appointed as a priest in the CofE. Patronage rights cannot be exercised by Roman Catholics either.
Nothing to stop individual dioceses, vicars and PCCs coming to agreement with the Roman Catholic Church on a temporary rental basis. In some cases the Diocese and Church Commissioners might eventually sell on a former parish church at the market price, but this would not be quick or easy.
Anything else would require very complicated legislation which would be even more time consuming than the women bishops vote is going to be. And I just can't see the next Parliament or Government wanting to waste the time on it.
Any departing anglo-catholic priest thinking otherwise has been inhaling something stronger than incense.
Otherwise that the fact that the Bishop acts (in his role as Incumbent Paramount) as freeholder in a vacancy, this is pretty much spot on.
The position might however be a little different for other buildings (church halls etc) which are held in trust for a PCC.
There's also nothing stopping the Church Commissioners looking at redundancy schemes for excess buildings. Many churches have a market value of pretty much nil (the land is not valuable for development purposes if Listed Building law forbids you from demolishing a building).
I don't see the CofE allowing any Parsonages to go however.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Its hard to imagine any other large organised body of churches in the world doing as much as the CofE is likely to do for the dissidents within it - and certainly not as much as it probably would have done has this spanner not been thrown in the works, or as much as was done back in 1992.
Why has the CofE done so much? A lot of 'liberal' catholics are not besandled rainbow stole wearers who don't believe in God. Many, both men and women felt a real concern for those who could not accept the ordination of Women. Some voted against it on ecumenical grounds, but then accepted the decision of the Church of England. They had to to reconcile their own understanding of the CofE's catholicity.
I would not want to tar all 'Traditionalist' Catholics with the same brush, or birds of a feather them together either. But since '92 the tone of the 'dissenters' has become increasingly adversarial. Or perhaps it has happened on both sides. Suffice to say less good will exists now than it did in '92.
In a sense the same thing has happened in Evangelical circles.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chiltern_hundred
Shipmate
# 13659
|
Posted
quote:
or as much as was done back in 1992
... which was done at the behest of Parliament. Had General Synod had anything to do with it, there would have been no PEVs.
Posts: 691 | From: Duck City, UK | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
Suffice to say less good will exists now than it did in '92.
There's the rub! Lack of good will. Attitudes have hardened over the years. The majority proponents of women bishops have now come to see Forward in Faith as an irksome group who are blocking progress towards the desired goal. FiF sees the current situation as one of betrayal of the promises to respect both integrities in the long term.
But good will can solve most problems. A congregation doesn'thave to own a church building to worship there. It happens all the time. In secular Britain, there are more than a few churches standing idle. I repeat: good will can solve most problems!
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
I just read the following on a blog by Fr Tomlinson, SSC
quote:
A press release issued by the revision comittee of the General Synod today further highlights why Rome’s offer is so welcome to Catholic Anglicans. One might have assumed the revision committee would counteract the Pope’s gesture by offering something equally substantive and generous, a sign to Anglo-Catholics of a clear desire to hold onto us and provide us with what we need. Instead the little they had considered is now being withdrawn (ie the retention of our bishops etc) and we are back to the flimsy and totally unworkable ‘code of practice’, meaning women bishops would govern us but promise to ignore us whilst we languish in the margins of the church.
Unless the Church of England can come up with something more than a code of practice, which FiF members have always said they can't accept, it is driving out Catholic Anglicans who can't accept the ministry of women. This is, of course, what groups like WATCH want.
+ Pete has said that he would regret losing such a tradition which brings balance to the "broad church" from people who are genuinely faithful Christians. The Holy Father's offer has certainly muddied the waters, but the message I read from the revision committee suggests that nothing more can be done, irrespective of the changes circumstances.
This process still has some distance to go with Synod, but there can be few Catholic Anglicans, and I mean of the FiF type, not just those who like a bit of tat, who can see any future in the church of their baptism, confirmation and, in some cases, ordination. All that is being opened by the revision committee is the exit door. They know that this will unchurch those who feel strongly against the ordination of women, but they will only come up with a limp and unworkable proposal. This is a sad loss for everybody involved.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804
|
Posted
i do see diocese allowing Some parsonages to go.
in our area alone, i can think of three standing empty, two with( very) short term tenants, one that's been boarded up for years and years, a couple more standing looking dusty with various adhoc stuff going on in them and three have recently been levelled.
However. the C/E dictates that optimum market rental must be obtained for them- or they must be sold.
If your Available Vicarage is in the middle of a rough housing estate/ the wrong side of a busy road with no garden/ the edge of an industrial estate/ with no other houses around because they've all been pulled down/ in an area with no rental market/ comes with a garden that would cost a second mortgage to fence........i do believe that these Vicarages might very well be offered to the new iniciative.
And I can think of a few that come with an already closed but weatherproof church and no ( as yet) suitable usage...........
For goodness sakes. We're surrounded with surplus church buildings. GIVE them to this new iniciative. Win Win
Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
The fact of the matter is that the parish churches of England are the heritage of the nation and not to be decided upon the whim of one denomination - whether that be the established church of not. The time may well be near when these churches are vested in the state and leased to whichever denomination can make the best argument for occupying them and make the necessary undertakings for preserving and providing public access to them.
[ 16. November 2009, 12:51: Message edited by: aumbry ]
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clavus
Shipmate
# 9427
|
Posted
Interesting use of the phrase 'The fact of the matter is...' to mean 'In my dreams...'
Posts: 389 | From: The Indian Summer of the C of E | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
Lietuvos, put this extra time to good use! Friends of mine, on a trip to Egypt decades ago, spent a profitable hour praying for the souls of all the mummies in glass cases in the Cairo Museum. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) They deserve it, if only for their magnificent contribution to civilisation!
[ 16. November 2009, 13:25: Message edited by: Leetle Masha ]
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
For goodness sakes. We're surrounded with surplus church buildings. GIVE them to this new iniciative. Win Win
A bit premature. Can't we wait to see hoe many, if any, people move over as churches rather than individuals? So far this "new initiative' is about four or five thousand people, mostly in North America. We have no idea how many might go in Britain, or what proportion of them will be grouped into existing congregations.
Also th Roman Catholics in England are making some of their own churches redundant as their numbers fall (outside London and a few areas with large numbers of central Europeans). The last thing they need is to be lumbered with a few dozen listed buildings to maintain.
Maybe they can use St Walburge's in Preston as the central church of one of their new Ordinaries?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
<Leetle M. tries to estimate cost of steeplejack's maintenance, fails.>
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Ken - I believe (just like yourself,I think) that people should come into full communion with the Roman pontiff and the wider Catholic church,only if they actually think that this is a positive step to take.
I have absolutely no idea how many might want to do that, but I do really hope that there might be a good number in and around Preston.St Walburghe's is a magnificent church and to read that it is under threat makes me very sad.I think it is the sort of building which would be a 'dream' for any anglo- Catholics.
It is also one of those buildings which helps to remind us that there are 'indigenous'Catholics in England,united in communion with Rome, who built of their own scarce resources this splendid temple of English Roman Catholicism.
If there were 'new'(Anglican ordinariate) Catholics prepared to look after it,I,for one would rejoice - and I hope that the bishop of Lancaster would also.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
Over here in the U.S., Forthview, dioceses are finding out that unused churches lose their tax-exempt status and the dioceses have to pay real-estate tax on the property. This is Not A Good Thing, I hear.
Somehow, it reminds me of the old Irish question that people asked one another during the penal times: "Have you been to the rock?" [Have you been to Mass? (clandestinely celebrated out of doors on a convenient rock used as an altar)] I suspect many will be inspired by this tradition and be glad to leave their buildings empty. A small cost if they're really sincere!
Mary
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
LM, do you know of a supply of mummies closer to home? I do recall praying silently for the mummies at the British Museum -- the human ones anyway; they also have a mummified crocodile and several very nice cat mummies.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
There's the rub! Lack of good will. Attitudes have hardened over the years. The majority proponents of women bishops have now come to see Forward in Faith as an irksome group who are blocking progress towards the desired goal. FiF sees the current situation as one of betrayal of the promises to respect both integrities in the long term.
Which is then followed in another post by,
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
This process still has some distance to go with Synod, but there can be few Catholic Anglicans, and I mean of the FiF type, not just those who like a bit of tat, who can see any future in the church of their baptism, confirmation and, in some cases, ordination.
Yet to return to the first post.
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I repeat: good will can solve most problems!
Then show some.
I am not the most Catholic of Anglicans. My roots are in a more Reformed Catholicism and Prayer Book Catholicism. But good will is not created by this 'tat-loving' rhetoric. My understanding of what happens at the altar, my understanding of the church, my understanding of the creeds and the faith is not dependent on a spade ended stole.
I doubt that the faith and practice of many others who support the OOW is either.
If FiF and SSC wanted support and understanding then perhaps a joint statement with AC and SCP over what they hold in common, despite different understandings of the CofE's authority to ordain women outside a Catholic ecumenical council, might be a good place to start. It would certainly be an affirmation of the Catholic witness in the Church of England.
But I fear it is too late. The Ship has sailed. Which saddens me because my own vocation was fostered by so many who are on it.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Clavus:
Interesting use of the phrase 'The fact of the matter is...' to mean 'In my dreams...'
Do you not think that the churches are the Nation's heritage? And the Church of England is not in a position to flog them off (well certainly not the architecturally important ones).
As the church dwindles further I really cannot imagine the state would be willing to let the rump that is left of the Church of England decide the fate of this important part of the heritage. Under current conditions there are already far too many Church of England churches: within walking distance of my house there are about ten Anglican churches all of them with sadly diminished congregations. To stop those congregations who leave to join the RC from taking their churches would really be an act of vindictiveness by the rump.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
If FiF and SSC wanted support and understanding then perhaps a joint statement with AC and SCP over what they hold in common, despite different understandings of the CofE's authority to ordain women outside a Catholic ecumenical council, might be a good place to start. It would certainly be an affirmation of the Catholic witness in the Church of England.
But I fear it is too late. The Ship has sailed. Which saddens me because my own vocation was fostered by so many who are on it.
Yes, yes, yes. I am sickened by my brethren of both sexes who cannot possibly listen to the opposing points of view without picking up stones to hurl at one another, each "victimised" by the other side whilst forgetting we are meant to be working toward unity based on following Jesus of Nazareth.
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chive
Ship's nude
# 208
|
Posted
I don't know what to do. I'm a member of a FiF congregation and the general position seems to be one of great sadness rather than huge joy at the position we're in. We would love to be reunited with the Roman Catholic church but we have an identity with the Church of England which in some cases has gone back generations. Choosing whether to swim the Tiber is a horribly difficult thing.
I don't care about woman priests. I genuinely don't have an opinion either way. I care about church unity and I care about the church I'm a member of. The overwhelming feeling we seem to have is that the Church of England don't want us and we will have no choice but to swim to continue to be the parish we are.
We're not tat queens - as a congregation we're too poor to have tonnes of tat exploding everywhere. What we have is a historic theological position that has been a part of the church since it was first opened. The first priest of the congregation was prosecuted under the Public Worship Regulation Act. This is our witness, this is who we are. Do the Church of England want us?
--------------------
'Edward was the kind of man who thought there was no such thing as a lesbian, just a woman who hadn't done one-to-one Bible study with him.' Catherine Fox, Love to the Lost
Posts: 3542 | From: the cupboard under the stairs | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clavus
Shipmate
# 9427
|
Posted
The Church Commissioners have been flogging off redundant churches for years under the terms of Measures with the force of law in England. There is some information on this page from the Church of England website. See also The Churches Conservation Trust.
The Church Commissioners are not able in law to 'give away' churches (except to the Churches Conservation Trust). But they can and do sell them.
'Daughter' churches can be sold by Parochial Church Councils - we have just sold one ourselves! (Admittedly it is not an architecturally important one.)
Posts: 389 | From: The Indian Summer of the C of E | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
The fact of the matter is that the parish churches of England are the heritage of the nation and not to be decided upon the whim of one denomination - whether that be the established church of not. The time may well be near when these churches are vested in the state and leased to whichever denomination can make the best argument for occupying them and make the necessary undertakings for preserving and providing public access to them.
Even assuming in the best(?) of all possible worlds that your conjecture came to pass, would Rome really be interested in allowing the parish to take on the expenses of maintaining a building which they will not own when they have listed buildings of their own which are closed or underutilized?
Ten years from now, some of these congregations will have left--or partially left. A few of them may well be meeting in the same buildings where they are now. I don't see any way to avoid the conclusion, however, that a lot of them will not be in their current buildings.
It would be my suspicion that those congregations which remain in their buildings will manage to take a much larger percentage of their laity to Rome. Those which have to move--even to a building as grand as that to which Ken linked--will probably hemorrhage congregants.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chive:
...The first priest of the congregation was prosecuted under the Public Worship Regulation Act. This is our witness, this is who we are. Do the Church of England want us?
I'm just an outsider, but I would suspect the C of E wants you more now than it did at the time of the prosecution.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
LM, do you know of a supply of mummies closer to home? I do recall praying silently for the mummies at the British Museum -- the human ones anyway; they also have a mummified crocodile and several very nice cat mummies.
Toronto-based or -visiting shipmates can always call by at the Royal Ontario Museum's Egyptian galleries, discreetly pocketing your rosaries as you tell the beads for their souls.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Oh good to know that! I've stalked past the Royal Ontario so many times without ever going in (they do charge an admission fee IIRC).
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
quote:
Originally posted by Clavus:
Interesting use of the phrase 'The fact of the matter is...' to mean 'In my dreams...'
Do you not think that the churches are the Nation's heritage? And the Church of England is not in a position to flog them off (well certainly not the architecturally important ones).
As the church dwindles further I really cannot imagine the state would be willing to let the rump that is left of the Church of England decide the fate of this important part of the heritage. Under current conditions there are already far too many Church of England churches: within walking distance of my house there are about ten Anglican churches all of them with sadly diminished congregations. To stop those congregations who leave to join the RC from taking their churches would really be an act of vindictiveness by the rump.
We have explained the State's position over the past 50 if not 450 years to you several times and you seem to be uninterested.
What you propose would require primary legislation from the government and an extremely awkward bit of legislation which would raise all sorts of other issues about the monarchy and bishops in the Lords and faculty jurisdiction and goodness knows what. The chance of this appearing in the Queen's Speech on Wednesday is nil.
Failing that the State's unchanged and absolutely clear legal position is what you regard as vindictiveness by a rump. But this is not a plot by AffCath or whoever.
And if the State or Church somehow decided to break the law and not be vindictive, the Courts would intervene and ensure vindictiveness prevailed.
Some of these issues do need sorting out but we are talking 10-20 years down the line, after and along with resolution of all the other issues.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fuzzipeg
Shipmate
# 10107
|
Posted
Posted by Chive: I don't know what to do. I'm a member of a FiF congregation and the general position seems to be one of great sadness rather than huge joy at the position we're in. We would love to be reunited with the Roman Catholic church but we have an identity with the Church of England which in some cases has gone back generations. Choosing whether to swim the Tiber is a horribly difficult thing.
I'm sure Chive speaks for many people who feel marginalised and are loyal to the Anglican Church.
I found this such a sad post despite being on the other side of the Tiber. In many ways I know how you feel as I am constantly worried by what I see here in SA where the strong intellectual tradition of Anglicanism seems to have vanished along with the music and the spirituality. 20 years ago the Archbishop of Cape Town was a member of the Oratory of the Good Shepherd and there was a spiritual strength in Anglicanism here but it seems to have seeped away. There are odd parishes who try to maintain a tradition but they appear to be increasingly isolated.
--------------------
http://foodybooze.blogspot.co.za
Posts: 929 | From: Johannesburg, South Africa | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
<"discreetly pocketing your rosaries"> Thank the good Lord for your fingers, dear Augustine!
All that is by way of just letting you all know that I feel sure you all are very dear to Our Lord, whether you are mummies or daddies yet still alive, or earnest loners, or the Egyptian mummies for whom we all really did pray....I mean, how would you feel if you had to lie dead in a glass case with thousands of tourists filing by and staring all day at your poor dead body, when you couldn't stare back?
In other words, I feel sure God is there with you, and your decision, if you offer it to Him, will be the right one. I am confident of that!
My friends and I made various decisions of this sort many years ago, but always reminding each other that we were praying, with St. Thomas More, "That we may merrily meet in heaven". Prayers like that I highly recommend.
Mary
Looking forward to meeting lots of different people in heaven!
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
20 years ago the Archbishop of Cape Town was a member of the Oratory of the Good Shepherd and there was a spiritual strength in Anglicanism here but it seems to have seeped away. There are odd parishes who try to maintain a tradition but they appear to be increasingly isolated.
20 years ago South Africa was alot different. Do you attribute a weakening of spiritual strength due to the current Archbishop, ++Tutu, or to the change in the political structure, or due to some other causes?
This is a sincere question as (1) I am no expert on South Africa at all, and (2) however (from what i've read about him AND by him) Archbishop Tutu strikes me as being a person of great strength, spiritual and otherwise, and -- to me -- is a saintly person.
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chive:
Do the Church of England want us?
Yes, overwhelmingly, we do.
But we also want women bishops.
So we - and you - are going to have to find a way to live with that.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
As the church dwindles further I really cannot imagine the state would be willing to let the rump that is left of the Church of England decide the fate of this important part of the heritage.
Even if every single one of the parishes linked to Forward in Faith were to leave the C of E (which is indeed a big 'if'), what they would leave behind can't be any stretch of the imagination be described as a 'rump'. To my mind that means a minority, probably a small minority. No diocese I am sure has anything like 50% of parishes in FinF (this diocese has about 1%); even if you included all the Reform and similar evangelical churches which might conceivably leave, the C of E would appear hardly unchanged.
Which isn't to say that we wouldn't miss them. We would. But let's keep a sense of proportion.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
As the church dwindles further I really cannot imagine the state would be willing to let the rump that is left of the Church of England decide the fate of this important part of the heritage.
Even if every single one of the parishes linked to Forward in Faith were to leave the C of E (which is indeed a big 'if'), what they would leave behind can't be any stretch of the imagination be described as a 'rump'. To my mind that means a minority, probably a small minority. No diocese I am sure has anything like 50% of parishes in FinF (this diocese has about 1%); even if you included all the Reform and similar evangelical churches which might conceivably leave, the C of E would appear hardly unchanged.
Which isn't to say that we wouldn't miss them. We would. But let's keep a sense of proportion.
I suspect that aumbry was suggesting that it is the entire CofE constitutes a rump.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fuzzipeg
Shipmate
# 10107
|
Posted
Malik3000: 20 years ago South Africa was alot different. Do you attribute a weakening of spiritual strength due to the current Archbishop, ++Tutu, or to the change in the political structure, or due to some other causes?
First of all, Malik, the Anglican Church of SA is on its second Provincial since Tutu who retired long ago. The current Archbishop of Cape Town is Archbishop Thabo Makgoba who was previously Bishop of Grahamstown and is an admirable person.
Secondly I was talking about spirituality, not politics but as that is something you want, here you are.
The Anglican Church here had always been in the forefront of the battle against apartheid and the leading church where this was concerned until the election of Bill Burnett as Archbishop of Cape Town in 1974. He was a member of the Charismatic Movement and the Anglican Church was split down the middle.
The moral leadership against apartheid was lost to the Anglicans and became centred in the SA Council of Churches under the General Secretaryship of Bishop Desmond Tutu from 1978 to 1984 for which he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Philip Russell was Archbishop from 1981 to 1986 and he picked up the pieces after the rocky Burnett period and Tutu succeeded him.
I don't think the Anglican Church ever recovered from the Burnett period either from the point of view of moral leadership when criticism of the Apartheid regime practically ceased except from individuals within the Church like Tutu though his platform was outside it; or from the divisions that appeared at that time. This is, of course, a personal view and that of an outsider.
--------------------
http://foodybooze.blogspot.co.za
Posts: 929 | From: Johannesburg, South Africa | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ken:
So we - and you - are going to have to find a way to live with that.
Nobody has any reason to doubt the sincerity of Ken or + Pete when they say that they want to keep as many AC's on board as possible. But if the C of E pursues a course of action which it knows will result in the expulsion of a section of its membership, then it can't wonder at the result. By course of action I don't mean ordaining women as bishops,because even the most hardline of dissenters knows that this is inevitable.
What I mean is refusing to allow an alternative episcopal oversight acceptable to that section of the church. The Bishop of Fulham and all the PEV's have said that they can't remain within the C of E without a structured alternative oversight. The revision committee and Syned know this. If they are only to offer a code of practice which they know is unacceptable, they know the result is to show those people the door. I don't see how it can be interpreted in any other way.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
...The Bishop of Fulham and all the PEV's have said that they can't remain within the C of E without a structured alternative oversight. The revision committee and Syned know this. If they are only to offer a code of practice which they know is unacceptable, they know the result is to show those people the door...
I think there is no doubt a number of C of E clergy will swim the Tiber, regardless of Synod's actions. The real question, of course, is what they will find on the other side--and especially, who will follow them. I think that's the 800 lb gorilla in the room--which no one is talking about because no one really knows the answer to the question.
Two or three laypeople for every cleric won't make a viable Ordinariate. Even twenty laypeople for every cleric means a lot of priests are going to be taking regular RC posts or giving up their vocation.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Black Labrador
Shipmate
# 3098
|
Posted
Am I the only person who thinks this will be a damp squib? IMO almost all the clergy who go will largely be retired, and there will be hardly any full scale congregational transfers.
As Freejack has pointed out, departing clergy wont be taking their churches, and more importantly vicarages with them, unless they can pay the market price. Where will the cash come from?
The RC church in the UK is in a poor financial state, and is closing church buildings on a larger scale than the C of E. They cannot possibly afford to take on more full time clergy, who are on much higher stipends than they would get in the C of E, and whose housing requirements if they are married/have children will be greater than for RC priests. Nor will they have any interest or capacity to take over what are by and large listed, high maintenance buildings.
Realistically the RC would only be able to take on those churches which are financially self supporting. As previous threads on a Third Province have demonstrated, there are very few FiF parishes where this is the case. In any event few of those will see 100% of their congregations wishing to go to Rome, thus reducing their income further.
The RC church model in the UK is very different from the C of E. In particular, congregations are much larger. By contrast, most FiF parishes have small congregations and are subsidised by their C of E diocese and/or other C of E parishes.
Conversion to Rome is likely to be largely restricted to retired clergy and some non-stipendiaries.
Posts: 629 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Black Labrador:
The RC church in the UK [...] cannot possibly afford to take on more full time clergy, who are on much higher stipends than they would get in the C of E[.]
This is the complete opposite of the case. RC stipends are on average 1/3 of CofE ones. This may be one reason why there is explicit permission in the Apostolic Constitution for the ordinaries to allow their clergy to work full-time in suitable professions.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
I think, Black Labrador, that you have to remember that this whole exercise is in response to the approach by the TAC. Certainly some CofE people have been approaching Rome, but I don't think it has been that many. I have no idea what they have been told, but I would guess it was something like "hold on until the TAC decision is public- it may well answer your needs."
With that in mind, the discussion has certainly been bigged up, probably because of the forthcoming synod vote on women bishops. People seem to be bringing a guessed version of the future into the present. I think most people - from many different perspectives - seem to agree that initially not much will happen and what does happen will happen to those who have already identified themselves.
However, what is unknown is what will play out in the slightly longer term. It has been said many times before, but bears repeating again, the sort of people who we are talking about are for the great part loyal Anglicans. They have stuck with the church despite the recent trajectory of the church against them. But if things seem to continue against them, they will gradually lose confidence and drift away. For some of them, Rome will seem an increasingly attractive option.
If the next general synod seems to be triumphalist, then the rate of attrition could be rapid. If it seems genuinely conciliatory, then it won't. I guess the nightmare scenario is that if for whatever reason general synod does not approve the move to consecrate women bishops, we will have a stalemate that will cause maximum dissatisfaction everywhere. Goodness knows what happens then - gradual loss of everyone to all points of the compass probably.
The comments about finances are very relevant, but I think they omit a number of factors relating to overheads. It may be that a FiF parish that does not meet it's parish share could become an ordinariate congregation that could support itself if its overhead burden is different. One would need to see the figures to make that call though.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175
|
Posted
quote:
The comments about finances are very relevant, but I think they omit a number of factors relating to overheads. It may be that a FiF parish that does not meet it's parish share could become an ordinariate congregation that could support itself if its overhead burden is different. One would need to see the figures to make that call though.
Good point. My own RC parish recently had an October count of 300 for "average" Sunday attendance. That is significantly higher than the ASA of the average Episcopal parish, including most of the Anglo-Catholic parishes (whether, FIF, AffCath, or neutral) in my area. We are considered a marginal congregation partly because of numbers and partly because the parishioners are poor. Unless the Anglican Use parish was super-fab, there is no way that there would be a 300 ASA. Since the Apostolic Constitution allows for "tentmaker" priests and they operate outside (more or less) of the purview of the local bishop who operates under a "big box" model of parish life, these small parishes might be able to make ends meet.
I am less familiar with how the smaller eastern rite parishes operate, but I would suspect that a similar model of parish life exists - - or that allowances are made for the rather small numbers of - - lets say the "Grand Fenwick" Rite - - in a given town.
--------------------
"Had the Dean's daughter worn a bra that afternoon, Norman Shotover might never have found out about the Church of England; still less about how to fly"
A.N. Wilson
Posts: 3788 | From: Your Disquieted Conscience | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowhund:
lets say the "Grand Fenwick" Rite - -
Ah! My favorite rite. Where the versicle is "yes" and the response is "no!"
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
[QUOTE] By course of action I don't mean ordaining women as bishops,because even the most hardline of dissenters knows that this is inevitable.
What I mean is refusing to allow an alternative episcopal oversight acceptable to that section of the church. The Bishop of Fulham and all the PEV's have said that they can't remain within the C of E without a structured alternative oversight.
We're tottering on the edge of the equine cemetery here, but I wanted to say that, as long as FinF remain in the C of E, it is impossible to ordain women as bishops in the full sense. Some women might be ordained to the order of bishops, but they can't act as bishops because a bishop is the focus of unity in his/her diocese and so must be accepted by all.
I'm reluctantly coming to the conclusion that ordaining women as bishops must be put off indefinitely. To do so would either force an artificial two-tier church, or drive significant numbers of our best priests and people out of the C of E. I think there are far more of them than are likely to be tempted by the Pope's offer.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Some women might be ordained to the order of bishops, but they can't act as bishops because a bishop is the focus of unity in his/her diocese and so must be accepted by all.
There have been plenty of bishops rejected or ignored by at least some of the parishes in their care in the past. Us evangelicals are experts at it.
And many FiF types already are already de facto out of communion with dicoesan bishops who ordain women.
And the language about the Bishop being the "focus of unity" is an innovaton in an Anglican context anyway. For most of the history of the Church in this country, before and after the Reformation, bishops were basically adminstrators. At best, pastors of pastors.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
We're tottering on the edge of the equine cemetery here, but I wanted to say that, as long as FinF remain in the C of E, it is impossible to ordain women as bishops in the full sense. Some women might be ordained to the order of bishops, but they can't act as bishops because a bishop is the focus of unity in his/her diocese and so must be accepted by all
There are only two ways in which women bishops can exercise their ministry to the full, without barriers, glass ceilings or discrimination. One is to forcibly expel FiF from the C of E. The other is to create an episcopal structure which respects their ecclesiological integrity. FiF has argued this since the beginning of this process. It wouldn't need to be called a third or free province if that offends the equal rights lobby, but it would have to get the job done.
There are many FiF members, even in Resolution C parishes, who are loyal Anglicans, and would much rather be part of a structure within Anglicanism which respects that integrity, rather than part of a structure within the RC Church which recognises Anglican Patrimony. Further back in this thread, both + Pete and Ken said that the C of E can't agree to a separate episcopal structure to accommodate FiF, even though the Archbishop of Canterbury expressed his support for the idea. Many of these Anglicans loyal to the church of their birth feel they have a right to expect the C of E to honour its promises of the 90's that both integrities will be respected and regarded as heirs to the Anglican tradition.
Such people would only leave if they were forced out by by a failure on the part of the C of E to honour those promises. It is quite conceivable that a failure to provide adequate oversight for dissenters would result in a failure to achieve the necessary majority vote in Synod to take the process forward. If the revision committee fails, as I expect it will, to come up with a workable solution, it will be telling FiF members that thay are no longer welcome in the Church of England, that it has moved on and that the promises made in the past are no longer of any importance compared to the project in hand.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Which is why I think the best (if painful for some) compromise would be to hold fire on women bishops, rather than set up a parallel church, provided that FinF and other opponents of women priests would accept unreservedly their (male) bishop. They don't have to accept the ministry of women priests, but to refuse to accept a validly consecrated male bishop just because of his views or actions doesn't seem very Catholic to me.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And the language about the Bishop being the "focus of unity" is an innovaton in an Anglican context anyway.
Ken, you've brought this one up before. Instead of 'focus of unity' how about, the 'primary minister'? (not prime minister). As expressed in a licensing or institution service when he says to the priest, 'receive this cure of souls, which is both mine and yours.' (or words to that effect). A priest only exercises a ministry on behalf of the bishop; no-one (not even a Reader, as you know) can legitimately preach or celebrate the sacraments without his licence.
To me, that suggests 'focus of unity'. But however you express it, the concept is surely not an innovation.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
to refuse to accept a validly consecrated male bishop just because of his views or actions doesn't seem very Catholic to me.
And unfortunately, the mindset that you describe is exactly the one that the PEV scheme has endorsed and institutionalised.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And the language about the Bishop being the "focus of unity" is an innovaton in an Anglican context anyway. For most of the history of the Church in this country, before and after the Reformation, bishops were basically adminstrators. At best, pastors of pastors.
But this in not early church or NT ecclesiology. Not in the slightest.
Talking about Bishops with a charismatic colleague we agreed we both expected them to be Apostolic and more than an admin manager.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Further back in this thread, both + Pete and Ken said that the C of E can't agree to a separate episcopal structure to accommodate FiF, even though the Archbishop of Canterbury expressed his support for the idea.
Yes I've never understood this view that you can't have separate episcopal structures. We don't follow the principle of one bishop, one territory in any case; we already have parallel jurisdictions and let's face it many CoE parishes are already pretty detached from bishops (and have always quite liked it that way). Finally, the Roman Catholic Church has been happy to operate all sorts of parallel jurisdictions. Who are we then to think that we're the upholders of catholic principles?
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
