Give trads their own diocese says Guildford bishop

If he was in a grave now, John Gladwin would be turning in it. At the least he must be spluttering into his coffee or tea or port or whatever it is bishops in Chelmsford prefer these days. His successor at Guildford, dear Christopher Hill, one of the goodest and truest of catholic men in England today, has posted a pastoral letter on his diocesan website making the case of structural provision for the opponents of women priests. In other words, an extra-geographical diocese as outlined in the Manchester report. He seems to think General Synod next month might even go for something like this, and warns a code of practice will not work, that it will in effect mean 'goodbye'. An interesting development I think, given what is happening in Jerusalem, where I am filing this from. Although it will be fiercely resisted by some, really it's not such a big deal. There are already two dioceses in Europe, one Episcopal, the other Anglican, overlapping each other completely. This perhaps could be a possible form for the church within a church model, for the ecclesial renewal that the Roffen has just spoken of here in Jerusalem, as recorded on my previous post.

Comments

[alonzoparker]

When I read the less than judicious comments by RI Williams, I feel he should remember that technically Rome was and is in heresy, having deviated from Orthodoxy and illegitimately arrogated primacy to the Bishop of Rome. Surely it is time for him to realize that he cannot in good conscience remain in a heretical sect? I await news of his conversion to Orthodoxy with interest.

[Robert Ian Williams]

I was taught my Anglican history by Anglicans, and not by Anglo-Catholics.....the "Paisleyites" were all at All Souls Langham Place plotting their FOCA today!

[Dr Alan Marsh]

CPKS, if only it were so! But the charism of infallibility, although so carefully ring-fenced in theory, is in practice applied to almost all classes of papal document, making it very difficult to re-examine issues which history has revealed to be less clear cut than they appeared to Pope A or Pope B at the time. Regnans in Excelsis comes to mind!

Such a central plank of the Council of Trent as the new Missal of 1570 ought, one might imagine, to be the definitive statement for all time. That is certainly the meaning of the words attached to it in the accompanying bull.

But the changes not only in language but doctrine which undergird the Novus Ordo are of such seriousness as to beg clear and direct comparison with the changes to the English Uses which appear in Cranmer's Prayer Books.

After all, the latter contain translations of much of the text of what was the Sarum rite, permitting his new missal to be used, even in its more bowdlerised later versions, in a manner which directly reflected the liturgy and doctrine of the Latin rite.

Is Rome still the same Church, with its new rites of ordination, its new missal, and so much more introduced by Vatican II? I think so, as an Anglican. I am aware that some RC's have their doubts.

Is the Church of England the same Church as it was at the beginning of the reign of Henry VIII? I think so, and precisely because it is a continuous community, with a continuous apostolic succession, and unlike many North European states it maintained its episcopate throughout the Reformation.

Who, in the Roman church, does have authority to "tinker with the liturgy"? Is it the pope? Do General Councils have the authority to do what Vatican II did? There is no clear answer either in the Catechism or in the Code of Canon Law.

[CPKS]

Pius V thought he was issuing a Missal in 1570 which was to be used for ever. In "Quo Primum" (the papal bull decreed by Pope St. Pius V on July 14, 1570) the pope gave this instruction: "It shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than that of this Missal published by Us."

If he was mistaken, what is the status of any such document issued by a pope?

Pius V was not "mistaken": he was legislating. In so doing he neither bound himself (and thus considered himself entitled to modify the Missal, albeit not the liturgical text) nor his successors, several of whom modified the 1570 Missal. In general, popes cannot bind their successors. Their liturgical directives do not participate in the charism of infallibility, which operates only in the field of faith and morals, and even then only when expressing the doctrine of the entire church. The good-humoured and light-hearted references to this charism above are thus accepted in the eirenic spirit that was no doubt intended, but are entirely irrelevant to the issue of who does and who does not have authority to tinker with the liturgy of the Church.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Mr Williams, it would take far too long to deal with your latest concatenation of strange assertions about Anglican history and theology.

Has it not occurred to you however, that there is a certain irony in a Roman Catholic attempting to immerse himself in ultra-protestant propaganda from the 19th century in order to misrepresent the Church of England in a public forum?

I did not imagine that Paisleyites existed in the RC Church.

[Robert Ian Williams]

I should have also said that the preface to the ordinal was added to and refined in 1662, and not that the phrase was added.

The phrase, "It is evident unto all men diligently reading eholy scripture and ANCIENT AUTHORS, THAT FROM THE APOSTLES TIME there have been three orders of ministers in Christ church....."was in the 1550 preface.

My apology for any confusion, Doctor Marsh and to any reader.

However even here in the original preface there is no assertion of the absolute necessity of Episcopal ordination or that episcopacy is of divine origin..or that bishops are superior to priests....that was further tightened up in 1662, where additions to the preface were made

."To continue" can also mean to resume after a break...and the Anglican Reformers thought they were returning to what they perceived was the simple ministry of the Apostolic era, and not the ministry of "massing priests" of the Church of Rome.

By the way the word altar is in no BCP after 1549.

By the way it is defined dogma in the Roman Catholic church that personally instituted seven sacraments. One of which is Holy Orders.

Another point of interest...prior to 1662, the BCP injunction was that the left over consecrated elements were for the private use of the curate. Only in 1662 was the rubric changed for the left overs to be reverently consumed and not taken out of the Church.

Even to this day , evangelicals throw away the left over communion elements. Well do I remember the caretakers wife pouring the wine down the sink after communion...in a church with over 500 members.

Cardinal Newman could not believe that Our Blessed Lord would leave the custos of the eucharist in the hands of the clergy of the Church of England.

[Robert Ian Williams]

Dr Marsh,I must respectfully disagree....

Unction was not used in the Cof E for four hundred years...and never at the visitation of sick...where only communion was given. Indeed Vernon Staley admits so in his classic Anglo-catholic book, "The Catholic religion.".

I suggest you read Mason's the Church of England and Episcopacy...which counters the Anglo-Catholic claims very effectively.

A true Church according to the articles is where the pure word of Christ is preached and the sacraments are duly adminsiterd....no mebntion of the necessity of a Bishop.

The lambeth Quadrilateral refers to the historic episcopate , but so as not to upset the evangelicals, it used the neutral term, the "historic episcopate" and nowhere refers to its Apotolic origin.

Holy Orders is a "corrupt following of the Apostles"according to the Articles, and "not to be counted a sacrament of the Gospel..." not just that it isn't a Dominical sacrament.

Archbishop Laud and the later Caroline divines accepted the validity of continental Reformed ministers. From his writings and the other Seventeenth century divines John Wesley , presbyter justified ordaining Methodist ministers.

Anglican ministers in the Channel islands ( part of Winchester diocese ) were not given episcopal ordination until the seventeenth century.

Presbyterian ordained ministers were admitted into the Church of Ireland up to 1662.

You can find a good refutaion of your accusation about the Missal on the Catholic Answers website. its a flawed argument of some extreme "traditionalists" and even the Society of St pius X refute it.

Back to Episcopal ordination....

Indeed in the plan to turn the Church of Scotland into an Episcopal Church in 1610, the previous orders of the clergy were accepted and no re-ordination required of the clergy in the parishes. those consecrated bishops were not re-ordained presbyters before hand.

Indeed to this day there is a French Reformed Church in the very crypt of the Cathedral Church of Canterbury.

The Queen (supreme Governor of the Church of England ) is a member and communicant of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland...no Archbishop of Canterbury has ever refuted this position.

Just because some one cccupies the See and claims episcopal orders does not mean they are the successors. Cromwell was the successor of Charles the first, but he was not a King. The Danish Church used the term bishop but had no Apostolic succession.

The Mormon missionaries at my door claim Apostolic succession, but claims don't make it true.

The Anglican reformers did think they were returning to the Apostolic view of ministry which they thought was a pastoral evangelical role..... and that sacerdotalism was a corruption of the middle ages. They were sadly wrong and that is why the Church of Rome rejects the Anglican ordinal for its " native character and spirit."

As Hooker in his Ecclesiastical polity states..."Sacrifice is not part of the Christian ministry."

By the way the Church Association tracts are available on the Church Society web site...it is only your personal view that they were dealt with...tehy are solid eveidence as to the basic Protestantism of the Church of England.

I hope you find that helpful...but there is no need to become personal.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

"The Church of England has never taught the Apostolic succession". Don't be silly, Robert. The Preface to the 1550 Ordinal states it categorically that the Church of England intends to maintain the apostolic ministry. I don't know where you got your assertion about the 1662 BCP. Take a look here:

http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1549/Deacons_1549.htm

One of my treasured books is William Stubbs' Registrum Sacrum Anglicanum compiled 1858 from original documents including those held at Lambeth Palace, listing the names of new bishops and their consecrators from Saxon times to the 19th century. You might be able to find a copy in a public library. I recommend that you take a look some time, and take note of the continued succession of the Church of England's bishops from Saxon times onwards.

Pius V thought he was issuing a Missal in 1570 which was to be used for ever. In "Quo Primum" (the papal bull decreed by Pope St. Pius V on July 14, 1570) the pope gave this instruction: "It shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than that of this Missal published by Us."

If he was mistaken, what is the status of any such document issued by a pope? After all it is supposed to be Peter who has authority "to bind and to loose" (actually a statement about absolution, not doctrine) - not "the Church". It seems that popes are infallible only when it is convenient, according to your (infallible?) statement.

There is no special liturgy for Extreme Unction in the Prayer Book, but it is used at the Visitation of the Sick. It is not accounted a Dominical Sacrament (one instituted by Jesus directly) or regarded as necessary to salvation, but is one of the seven Sacraments defended by Henry VIII against Luther.

The controversy which you are rather tediously attempting to raise belongs firmly with the Church Association of the nineteenth century and their chief proponent, Mr Kensit. These matters were all raised then and dealt with.

Have you anything new to add? (Apart from your own errors of fact?)

[Robert Ian Williams]

The phrase about from the Apostles time was added in the 1662 edition.

The Church of England has never taught the Apostolic succession, and recognised the non-episcopal minsitry of Continental Protestantism. Look at the definition of a true Church in the articles.

The missal of Pius V was not forever as the Church has the power to bind and loose. The doctrine of the Vatican Two Mass is the same as that of Trent, and all time.

Can you show me where the sacrament of Holy unction was in the Church of England for three hundre years?

The Anglicanism you follow dates from the ritualistic movement of the nineteenth century.

Cranmer is crucial , as he authored the ordinal, which with its "native character and spirit" breathes Protestantism.

The Catholic church rejected no defined doctrine at Vatican Two.

Sorry for any typos.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Mr Williams, you do need to make clearer both your typing and your meaning. The Ministry of the Church of England is the threefold ministry of bishop, priest and deacon, which comes down to us "from the Apostles' time" in the words of the Edwardine Ordinal.

The other matters which you mention do not concern ministry so much as doctrine. Some extreme views were expressed during the reign of Edward VI, but the Church of England does not belong either to him or to Cranmer. Some of the theology of the Council of Trent was pretty extreme, but the Missal of Pius V of 1570, which was supposedly to be used for ever, was radically altered by the second Vatican Council. Some of the RC Church today is more protestant than the Church of England.

For your information, Edward VI died in 1553, and Cranmer was executed in 1556 by the regime including the church to which you now belong. Their religious views belonged to them and to their age, a very brief episode in the long history of the Church of England.

[Robert Ian Williams]

I am not a catechumen, I am a Roman Catholic and have never hidden the fact that I am a convert from Anglicanism.When I discovered the early Church was catholic I could not remain in a Protestant Church. As a former Evangelical, I was never taken in by Anglo-Catholic spurious claims, before or after my conversion.

As for the Anglian Church changing its concept of ministry at the Reformation....it is quite evident by examining the facts of history.

Altars destroyed
chalices melted down
No prayers for the dead
No eucharistic reservation or worship of the consecrated elements..condemened in 39 articles
Communion services not every week
No sacrament of Holy unction
No invocation of Saints
Left over Bread to be taken away for the use of the curate . this was only changed at the 1662 revision, to be reverently consumed in the Church.

As Cardinal Newman observed would our lord leave the custos of the eucharist in such hands.

Proof of the pudding is in the eating

However the best evidence for the changed nature of Anglican orders are the Evangelicals like Packer and ARchbishop Jensen, who represent the authentic Cranmerian position.

Thank goodness for Sydney, the Protestant conscience of Anglicanism.

Hope there are less typos in this one!

[A Renegade Priest]

A timely and wise letter from +Guildford. A separate diocese, a third province call it what you will, is the only decent way forward. We hear a lot of guff these days about 'fresh expressions' and 'emergent' 'new ways of being church', network churches etc.

The resolution C network is a powerful example of how new ecclesial expressions can flourish, given a bit of freedom from the deadening hand of centralised control. Now clearly the situation in Anglicanism cannot obtain for much longer; we no longer have mutual recognition of orders throughout the world, and the fighting is most unedifying, much more unedifying than an amicable separation.

Perhaps the other factions within the CofE can look forward to their own 'fresh expressions'

[Robert Leduc]

It is simple - He required us to be one, as he and the Father are one.

Your case of overlapping Orthodox jurisdictions is also present here in the States. However, once again, all of the bishops regard one another as true bishops. The situation of overlapping jurisdictions is one they deplore but have great difficulty working out. It is not a situation to be encouraged.

[The Revd Dr John Bunyan]

I deplore intolerance on both sides of the debates in the C.of E. and some other Anglican and Episcopal churches - the Church of Ireland one notable exception (knowing that intolerance only too well here in Sydney Diocese).

A over-lapping Diocese may be the answer. If European Anglicans and Episcopalians do not provide an example, the Eastern Orthodox Churches certainly do. Here in Australia there are almost innumerable overlapping Orthodox jurisdictions and sometimes two of the one kind with, at least in the past, and sometimes still today,
two Greek, two Russian, two Serbian, &c. What does the Lord require of us ? a Hebrew prophet once asked. The answer is simple.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

R I Wlliams, the concept of ministry remained very firmly as it was at the English Reformation. This is stated categorically in the Ordinal itself, which was published in the reign of Edward VI.

The question of recognition of Anglican orders is long and complex, but the basic issue is whether the Church of England itself wishes to remain in continuity with the faith of the Church as it is understood by Orthodox and RC, or does it prize its claim to its own jurisdiction so highly that it insists on diverging in doctrinal matters as well?

This is carefully addressed in the recent agreed statement of the International Commission for Anglican-Orthodox Theological Dialogue, "The Church of the Triune God".

Because the Church of England keeps on moving the goalposts, it is very hard to see how theological dialogue can result in mutual recognition and interchangeability of holy orders.

As things stand already, there is no longer unimpaired communion and recognition of orders within the Anglican Communion. The Church of England runs the risk of institutionalising similar division within itself if it presses on with women bishops, at a time when there is certainly no consensus on this matter. And yes, it will result in the ludicrous scenario of non-recognition of the ordination of anyone ordained or consecrated by a woman bishop.

I for one do not think that the Church of England needs this.

[David Cohen]

Fr Mark,

The statement in Galatians which you quote refers to the new covenant in Christ in which all nations are invited to participate, unlike the older covenant which was confined to the people of Israel.

As such it has nothing to do with the "gay issue" which is about whether the Church remains faithful to scripture, which teaches very clearly that homosexual practice is sinful.

The Galatians passage is not an invitation to come to Christ unrepentant, but to accept first the need for metanoia - complete conversion of life from the fallen world which we inhabit as sinners, so that we can live in holiness in the Body of Christ, in which our human origins as Jew or Gentile no longer matter.

[David Malloch]

Fr Mark: You have cited Newman "to live is to change...." You then argue that traditionalists are antichange for antichange's sake. However, you cannot use Newman out of context. Newman put forward a theory of doctrinal development; using Newman's criteria there is serious doubt as to whether the ordination of women is a legitimate doctrinal development. If it is not, Newman would not advocate change.

You may believe Newman was wrong in his essay on development but you can't call us to his challenge to change without allowing us to apply his criteria.

[Father Ron Smith]

Readers need to note that Robert Ian Williams, a former Anglican student at St. John's College in New Zealand, is presently, I believe, a catechumen in the Roman Catholic Church. His comments have to be read in the light of that.

It does put rather a different complexion on his contributions to this argument, which is really, I feel, one for Anglicans to sift.

[Fr Mark]

David Cohen: I'm not arguing for change for change's sake - you are the one who was arguing for anti-change for its own sake. There is nothing in accepting gay people as equals that is not in the Christian tradition (in Christ there is neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, after all!). In fact, it is more in the Christian tradition to imitate Jesus by going out of one's way to welcome and hold table-fellowship with the shocking outsider as one's equal than it is to judge them.
Newman is a difficult person to pigeonhole - he was regarded as very liberal and rather suspect by most of the RC hierarchy in England in his own lifetime, but also saw himself as a natural conservative - he was a wonderfully complex old queen.

[Robert Ian Williams]

Response to dave Cohen

The Anglican concept of ministry did changeat the Reformation and tha is why both the Catholic and orthodox churches do not recognise Anglican orders.

The idea that you can have a Church where a diocese would not recognise the ministry of men ( ordained bty women) and women is ridiculous.
It would nbe suicide for the C of E.

[David Cohen]

frmark - change is not always progress, nor does it automatically embody the truth.

Newman was speaking about development which was faithful to the deposit of faith. He very firmly resisted what he regarded as the liberalism of his day.

[Malcolm+]

"There are also overlapping dioceses in Canada."

Are there now. That will come as a surprise to the Canadian House of Bishops.

[Stephen Marsden]

Crumbs! If the Chairman of the Ecclesiastical Law Society says it, it must be right! New, special dioceses, here we come!

[Robert Leduc]

Before comparing overlapping jurisdictions in some form within the C of E to the situation with Anglican churches in Europe, one should consider the article here:

http://tinyurl.com/3qcq3m

by Bishop Pierre Whalon who is Bishop-in-Charge of the Convocation of American Churches in Europe. One item of note, the bishops of the various jurisdictions are cross-licensed in each others dioceses. They all recognize one another as bishops.

I quote in part:

For those contemplating parallel jurisdictions in the Episcopal Church, let them not use European Anglicans as a prop for their schemes. We have enough problems without being misrepresented. Let them not hide the vileness of schism behind some new stretching of Anglican comprehensiveness. Let them call it what it is: yet another rending of the Body of Christ, further discredit upon his Church, more comfort for the enemies of the Gospel.

Let them call it a parallel jurisdiction.

[David Malloch]

Joe, one would not allocate resources in advance. It would be for parishes to decide whether or not they becaome part of a new diocese and buildings, resources etc would move accordingly. There could still be considerable cooperation in local mission etc - after all much of our best local work is done with our eccumenical partners.

[Fr Mark]

David Cohen: Cardinal Newman wrote "Here below, to live is to change, and to be perfect is to have changed often." Change is essential to any person, to any institution: if you come to church because you can't deal with change, then you should be challenged (gently) by the Church to deal with that psychological problem: it shouldn't be reinforced by churchmen.

[David Cohen]

I would ask R I Williams why it is that those who simply hold to the faith of the Church as we have always received it should be forced out in order to appease those who want unwarranted changes?

The onus is on those who want change to make their own arrangements, not dispossess those who remain constant in their faith.

For once I agree with MH.

[joe]

Maybe I'm thinking about this too logically, but how would one decide on the allocation of resources (such as buildings etc) if there were overlapping diocese under Canterbury?

[Ray Massart]

The church and faith in general face a dilemma: either search for ways of adapting to the changes in society or hold on to the rigid and dogmatic structures from the past. A number of Anglicans have promoted the former approach whereas the Catholic church adheres more to the latter. Both attempts however are signs that religious faith in the West is in a deep crisis. The church is desperately seeking an answer to its diminishing influence while facing yet another threat namely the growing influence of Islam.

[robroy]

There are also overlapping dioceses in Canada. There are overlapping provinces in the Philippines.

[Dr. Mike Homfray]

You could be right. I can see a time when there will be a number of different dioceses under the same roof, with not all of them accepting or recognising each other but all relating to the centre.

Perhaps this might make more sense - liberals in the CofE may be better off in their own non-geographical diocese, where they could have women bishops and acceptance of gay re3lationships, and relate predominantly to the liberals in other provinces.

What is clear is that there isn't going to be one united organisation.

[David Malloch]

The Bishop of Guildford's letter is excellent. As he points out, he has vast experience from ARCIC, Rochester Group, Guildford working party etc. If he is convinced that the "dioceses option" is the way forward, he should not be dismissed lightly. One might expect this to be the prefered option of the flying bishops et al but Christopher Hill is a firm advocate of women's ordination. Bishop Christopher deserves to be listened to and his approach may yet prove to be the only way to hold the CofE together.

[Patricia M Davis]

Yes, the year we were in Paris, I was amazed that there was both an Anglican and an Episcopal church.

[Robert Ian Williams]

The Dutch Reformed Church gave up apartheid and now the Church of Egland wants to institutionalise it.

The opponents of womens ordiantion should move to another denomination, and think of their integrity befiore God and not their endowments.