Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
Now that the Area Scheme review has been agreed by London Diocesan Synod, the aim is to promulge an updated version of the London Plan. That can then make it possible for an appointment of a new Bishop of Fulham, if the Bishop of London thinks that such an appointment should be made.

---

quote:

---

"After consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury, I intend with the assistance of representative figures in the Diocese, to appoint a successor to the Suffragan See of Fulham. I envisage that any new Bishop of Fulham will be more closely related to me as the Bishop of London in serving the Two Cities Area.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
But the more I hear people moaning that they haven't got a Bishop of Fulham, the more I want to ask them "Have you recognised the quality of pastoral care and oversight that you now have with the Bishop of Edmonton? Have you not noticed the sea change (see change??) from what was going on before?"

---

I worry most about the added strain on the poor man, actually. Though +Pete is probably the wrong person to say this to, having pretty much run 2 episcopal areas for several months recently (with a few weeks off in the middle... )

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
I wish more bishops would speak as honestly as that. I am very reluctant to worship in one nearby church because they insist on praying for the Flying Bishop as 'our Bishop' and virtually ignore the diocesan.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
I wish more bishops would speak as honestly as that. I am very reluctant to worship in one nearby church because they insist on praying for the Flying Bishop as 'our Bishop' and virtually ignore the diocesan.

---

As a matter of interest, do you think that PEVs should celebrate chrism Masses?

Thurible

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
'Catholic' (rather than catholic) is already a label which is widely used and understood to define a particular Church,

---

That would be the Church in which we profess our faith whenever we say the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds. Maybe it's different in some parts of the world, but last time I looked in the TEC BCP (either current or 1928), the adjective was capitalized. What is the authority for considering a low-c catholic with a different meaning?

---

The word 'catholic' - in the creeds or outside it - is not capitalized in The Book of Common Prayer for the Church of Ireland; nor in the Church of England's Common Worship liturgy. Catholic and apostolic are both lower-case and spelt without the 'k'.

True, in the 1928 rem-mix of the 1662 BCP (CofE) you get both the old spelling and the capitalization - along with the capitalizing of a number of other words, including 'Scriptures, 'Prophets', 'Apostolick', 'Baptism', 'Resurrection' and a handful of 'Ands' at the beginning of sentences .

But I don't feel compelled, as a result of this, to either capitalize those words every time I come across them, or revert to obsolete spelling of them. This liturgy represents the Protestant movement of the age towards a reformed Church - Catholic or catholic, I grant you. But nevertheless the Catholic Church as it was known, remained in its original Roman form. And I'm pretty sure few users of the original prayer books would have labelled themselves 'Catholics' at the time, unless they actually were Roman Catholics!

I'm pointing out that, generally, if someone describes themselves as 'Catholic' followed by whatever word they choose to put after that, most people would assume they are a Catholic - a member of the Roman Catholic Community, under the authority of the Pope.

I really do appreciate that some people have very definite and personal ideas in mind when they use phrases with that word (big or little c!). And I wouldn't for the world want them to compromise whatever sensibility it is they have for making whatever that point is. I shall happily refer to someone as a 'Catholic Anglican' if that is how they wish to be known. Though I still don't understand what is wrong with the phrase 'Anglo-catholic' or even 'Anglo-Catholic'. Or even Anglo-Catholick, if we're going to be strict about BCP usage!

But then I consider myself an Anglican (Christian first, of course), a protestant affirming the faith of the catholic Church. This, to me, seems to be the reason why the reformations were taking place - to enable a true catholicity of faith to continue but not necessarily within the Roman Catholic jurisdiction, nor dependant on the authority of a Pope.

A bit like acknowledging that the ocean covers the planet but the Atlantic Ocean only occupies a particular territory. I wouldn't go to the stake for it, Alogon, though. It just seemed a needlessly awkward and obscure phrase to use. But that's just what I think, which is certainly not gospel!

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by AberVicar:
PEVs and Chrism Masses will continue to be an issue as long as (a) they are allowed to happen; (b) there is an insistence that all clergy be able to concelebrate.

IM not at all HO the Chrism Mass should aim to display what unity we still have.

This issue arose when my Curate (a female FiF permanent deacon) asked which Chrism Mass she should attend. I asked her whose Deacon she was - if the diocesan Bishop's, then his Chrism Mass, if the PEV's, then she should consider how honestly she held the diocesan's licence. The situation is not helped in that the PEV is in a different Province (Canterbury) from ours (Wales).

She comes to the Chrism Mass as a member of the team, and we all sit together in the congregation. It isn't very easy for her, and it isn't very easy for the rest of the team, but it's where we are, and it's honest. I like to think it might be godly as well...

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
If you want sanitised zones where there are no women priests, you're in the wrong church.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
They cooked their own geese when they started pretending to have dioceses like 'The See of Ebbsfleet'...

---

Ebbsfleet is a See. See is not a synonym for Diocese.

See (no pun intended) for example:
http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/suffragan-see-of-lynn/

or more appropriately...
http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/suffragan-see-of-ebbsfleet/

You may have many reasons to criticise the former Incumbent of that particular See, but this isn't one of them.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The London bishops are leading the way in showing us the Church of England of the future.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
How does that work- a CofE PEV having some sort of responsibility for/ oversight of/ mission to people in the CinW? I thought I was reasonably clued up on the CinW but I hadn't heard of this happening.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
This shouldn't really focus on the ministry within one diocese, but I am quite clear that the way in which we operate in London is entirely consonant with all that legislation. Nobody is forced into compromising their sacramental principles about what they call impaired communion. The Bishop of Edmonton does not ordain women, and his pastoral care to Fulham clergy is entirely uncompromised in your terms. But it's not an option for anyone in the CofE to ignore, be rude to, or ridicule the woman incumbent in the next door parish, even if you don't believe them to be a priest. That's been true from the beginning. You can have separate Maundy Thursday communions, separate ordinations, and all the stuff for your comfort zones. But you can't opt out of the parochial system, the deanery, or the Archdeaconry. If you want to do so, then off to the Ordinariate. End of.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by AberVicar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
How does that work- a CofE PEV having some sort of responsibility for/ oversight of/ mission to people in the CinW? I thought I was reasonably clued up on the CinW but I hadn't heard of this happening.

---

You're asking the wrong person - I don't know how it works either. The C in W did have a Provincial Assistant Bishop who functioned as an assistant to each bishop in his respective diocese. Since he wasn't replaced when he retired, many of the FiF contingent have taken to attending Chrism Masses in England.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
But it's not an option for anyone in the CofE to ignore, be rude to, or ridicule the woman incumbent in the next door parish, even if you don't believe them to be a priest.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by oyetsfoma:
Why do we suppose that if the CofE makes a mistake the papal church must be right? I found that when I could no longer accept the new doctrines of the CofE I could be quite comfortable in Orthodoxy without having to swallow what I believe to be the errors of the Roman See.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
.
If so, it's not before time

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:

. . . But it's worth remembering that OoW in the CofE was nearly 20 years ago. This means that, if we are talking about clergy, no cleric under the age of about 42 now should have had any illusions about what sort of church they were being ordained into . . .

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fifi:
Sorry, but that is the way it is (until the General Synod welches on the deal).

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The C of E Synod<snip> promised in 1993, that both integrities would be respected.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
The problem is that it can't be sustained, even though lots of good people (and I mean that) on all sides intended that it should and hoped that it would and tried to make it work.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I want the Church of England to honour the promises it made about both integrities having a time honoured place within the C of E

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

But really, all that means is we don't treat people of this view as second-class Anglicans, or hinder the ministries they are called to, or put them in situations where they have no option but to rely on the priestly ministry of a woman (possibly extending to, now that we are going to have female bishops, those ordained by women) . It means treating them as faithful Anglicans.

[/qb]

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
The current legislation on the table does not do this, incidentally.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
This means that, if we are talking about clergy, no cleric under the age of about 42 now should have had any illusions about what sort of church they were being ordained into- I know there was all that guff about two integrities, but anyone (on either side of the debate) who thought that was a basis for anything more than a temporary period of adjustment was guilty of at best naivety and more likely wilful self-deception.

---

You know - I had this strange idea that when a clergy person made a promise, I should be able to trust them. It appears that I need to start operating a policy of counting my tea spoons after a visit by them instead, as they are apparently not to be trusted. Which to those of us with a sense of history won't come as a great surprise, but don't expect us to cough up for anything in the future with the label 'Church of England' on it. And does your wife realise that you have such a relaxed attitude to promises? After all men are men, can't be trusted can they? So you can't be expected to resist a little something on the side - oh - she's been naive to expect better? After all we KNOW that you aren't honourable...

That's what starts to happen when we relax our attitude to promises - bad stuff. One of the stranger concepts in traditional warfare is 'legitimacy by conquest'. Basically the deal was that if an invader clearly beat you, then you could surrender in the expectation that you would not be killed, in exchange for accepting that you wouldn't take up arms against that invader again. This allowed the invader not to have to commit genocide in order to ensure that his enemy wouldn't take the opportunity to stab him in the back when he had the chance; in honour he was bound to accept that he had been defeated. The proponents of the deal want to unwind it - very well - you need to undertake to return all the charitable donations to the CofE since then since those who made them were misled as to the nature of the church they were contributing to, as well as guaranteeing the priests who've been ordained since their stipend and housing for the rest of their working career. That's the proper price for you to pay. To do otherwise merely shows you to be the sort of dishonourable priest whose existence confirms atheists in their belief that God doesn't exist.

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The C of E Synod<snip> promised in 1993, that both integrities would be respected.

---

I have seen this quoted often, together with the "honoured place" that was promised. I'd really like to look at these statements in their original context. Where can I find them?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
This means that, if we are talking about clergy, no cleric under the age of about 42 now should have had any illusions about what sort of church they were being ordained into- I know there was all that guff about two integrities, but anyone (on either side of the debate) who thought that was a basis for anything more than a temporary period of adjustment was guilty of at best naivety and more likely wilful self-deception.

---

You know - I had this strange idea that when a clergy person made a promise, I should be able to trust them.

---

Yeah - the next thing you know, clergy will be taking vows to only use authorised forms of liturgy and then
complaining when required to actually DO so.

--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The C of E Synod<snip> promised in 1993, that both integrities would be respected.

---

I have seen this quoted often, together with the "honoured place" that was promised. I'd really like to look at these statements in their original context. Where can I find them?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fifi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The C of E Synod<snip> promised in 1993, that both integrities would be respected.

---

I have seen this quoted often, together with the "honoured place" that was promised. I'd really like to look at these statements in their original context. Where can I find them?

---

For starters, take a look at this:

Hansard, House of Commons, Friday 29 October 1993, Column 1089

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners)
…

'Recognising the divided views in the Church on the issue, the remainder of the Measure provides an elaborate and comprehensive set of safeguards designed to ensure that those who, in conscience, cannot accept the ordination of women as priests are not asked to act against their conscience. Under canon law, a parish priest can already decide who may share in the administration of sacrament in his church and, if he wishes, he can exclude a woman from doing so. Clause 3 enables a parochial church council to pass either or both of the resolutions set out in schedule 1. These are, first, under resolution A, that the parochial church council would not accept a woman to preside at or celebrate Holy Communion or pronounce the absolution in the parish--those acts that are specifically reserved to the ministry--and, secondly, under resolution B, that the council "would not accept a woman as the incumbent or priest-in-charge of the benefice or as a team vicar for the benefice."

Both this and clause 4, which relates to cathedrals, are continuing provisions without limit of time--built-in, permanent parochial safeguards.'

---

quote:

---

the Church of England is subject to synodical government, which includes a representational and--dare one use the word without theological undertones--democratic factor. No fixed or final undertaking--my right hon. Friend will, I think, understand this--can be given by archbishops or bishops in ecumenical or other discussions with other churches that must stand firmly, fixedly and eternally in the face of the movement of the seas of opinion and, above all, of voting changes in their own church that are likely to shift the sands a little on the basic discussion of ecumenical matters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fifi:
And then there is this:

Lambeth Conference, 1998, Resolution III.2
<snip>
Which was followed here <snip>

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fifi:
... Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners)

'Recognising the divided views in the Church on the issue, the remainder of the Measure provides an elaborate and comprehensive set of safeguards designed to ensure that those who, in conscience, cannot accept the ordination of women as priests are not asked to act against their conscience...'

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by egg:
The Church of England is the Reformed Branch of the Catholic Church established in England.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The break under Henry VIII was such that the only continuity that exists is in the mind of an anglo catholic remnant.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The break under Henry VIII was such that the only continuity that exists is in the mind of an anglo catholic remnant.

---

What bollocks! The same people went to the same churches with the same priests the day after the Reformation as the day before it. There was complete continuity. The ritual was reformed, the churches continued.

If you want to find a break with the past the Reformation is the wrong time to look, the 17th century was much more disruptive. Though even then you'd be on a hiding to nothing.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by egg:
If one asks who is the Supreme Governor of the Roman Catholic Church in this country, the answer is the Queen; for it is only under legislation passed by the Queen in Parliament that the Roman Catholic Church was enabled to establish its hierarchy in England in 1850.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by egg:
The Church of England is the Reformed Branch of the Catholic Church established in England.

---

That's what you'd like to think but it isn't true. The break under Henry VIII was such that the only continuity that exists is in the mind of an anglo catholic remnant. It has no basis in fact as the 39 articles show.

The fact that the Anglican Church doesn't recognise the pope's authority coinfirms the break. Why? For a Roman Catholic the Pope becomes God's Vicar on earth and to reject him you reject the roman church.

If you'd like you can have continuity by joining the roman church. It would be better to make all our minds up quickly and then get on to the real task of the church in loving the world around us instead of simply hating ourselves.

---

To be fair, Henry would've considered himself an absolutely true blue Catholic till the day he died; the one thing he didn't want the Pope mucking around with was his right to marry and divorce who he wanted; and he even rescinded the English Bible in every church idea, simply because he felt that ordinary people shouldn't be allowed to make their own conclusions about scripture.

He really didn't have much time for the German protestant reformers, at all.

And his death released the real protestants under his son Edward to go to town on the BCP. The 39 articles took quite some afterwards before they were thrashed out finally.

However, the CofE as we know and love her ( ) undoubtedly harvested the protestant fruit of the European reformations; but uniquely kept a definite catholic/Catholic thread that was not eliminated because of the rather piecemeal reforming that went on. I would say, in addition, that one of the very English things about the British reformation was its attachment to the idea of being a Catholic Church, but not caring that much for Rome or its Bishop! But that's just my personal observation!

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Manipled Mutineer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by egg:
If one asks who is the Supreme Governor of the Roman Catholic Church in this country, the answer is the Queen; for it is only under legislation passed by the Queen in Parliament that the Roman Catholic Church was enabled to establish its hierarchy in England in 1850.

---

What Act is that, please?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
[QUOTE]He really didn't have much time for the German protestant reformers, at all.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
It's more complicated than that of course. My understanding is that they do this [celebrate Chrism Masses] because they believe that they are in 'impaired communion' with the diocese (is that the correct term?) If that were the case it is a perfectly logical thing to have a separate Chrism mass. But as +Pete suggests, you are either in or out. Now that the Ordinariate is a possibility I don't think there is any justification for a separate semi-papalist sect within the C of E. But maybe we're getting near the horses' graveyard.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Manipled Mutineer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by egg:
If one asks who is the Supreme Governor of the Roman Catholic Church in this country, the answer is the Queen; for it is only under legislation passed by the Queen in Parliament that the Roman Catholic Church was enabled to establish its hierarchy in England in 1850.

---

What Act is that, please?

---

Egg can, of course, speak for eggself but I suspect he is referring to the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829, 10 Geo 4 c.7. Like almost everything Egg has posted on this thread, if this is what he meant, then his post is a tendentious oversimplification.

---