9th July 2017 – T is for Tearing up the Rules of Anglicanism

The Church of England Synod has just done a very bad thing. It has *nothing* to do with either the gay issue OR the trans issue.
P.S. – I recorded this with just a few notes and no script – apologies for the mistakes

4 Replies to “9th July 2017 – T is for Tearing up the Rules of Anglicanism”

  1. Thanks, Peter,

    Very sound. Lex orandi, lex credendi. As you say, even the church re-marriage of divorcees did not require a change of liturgy.

    No scripture, no tradition, no reason, no collegiality. No authority.

  2. Yes, indeed. We may rail against good order when it doesn’t suit us but sooner or later we heave a sigh of relief when it protects us. If those given the privilege of leadership fail to understand this they first condemn themselves, but then all of us with them to anarchy. Whither now for the Church of England?

  3. First, some technical questions arising from the Church of England website:

    The official notice says, “The votes in the House of Bishops were 30 for and two against, with two abstentions.” So, 34 voters.

    The Introduction to the House of Bishops says, it consists of 42 diocesan bishops, the Bishop of Dover, the Bishop to the Forces, 7 of the suffragan bishops, and “8 regional representatives elected by and from senior women clergy.” So, 59 members.

    Whence the 25-person discrepancy?

    To whom is “the House of Bishops” in the motion referring? The 34-voter one or the 59-member one? (Presumably not to “the College of Bishops”, of whom the Introduction says, “All serving bishops in the Church of England comprise a body known as the College of Bishops.” When the site elsewhere says, of the Structure, “The Church of England is episcopally led (there are 108 bishops)”, does that mean that the College of Bishops has 108 members? And does that mean the 59-member “House of Bishops” excludes 57 bishops – i.e., the majority of them?)

    Second how weak is the motion in calling on whichever “House of Bishops” to “consider whether” something “might be prepared”?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *