"I am concerned by the direction the Church of England seems to be going. That's one of my reasons for staying in the Church of England. I do believe in the C of E and I love it very much.
We don’t want it to appear as though we are criticising our friends…who have decided they have to move to the Catholic Church to seek communion with the See of Peter - that it is a very honourable catholic thing to do. So I think we have not been able to say anything.
But nor do we think we are betraying the cause by staying in the C of E. We’ve still got a job to do for the church, and we’ve still got to fight for the catholic understanding of the church. And therefore that’s where we are: it’s important that we carry on and don’t just give up.
R.G. I think people well be very relieved - people such as myself for example - that the church is not losing its entire catholic wing. But yet Fr Broadhurst intends to remain as chairman of FiF?
Yes. He is. Now whether that will last I think is very difficult because Forward in Faith, whatever he says, is an Anglican organistaion; it is a political body fighting for a catholic future within the C of E. If you actually feel that is no longer achievable for perfectly good, understandable reasons. then you do have to leave it behind; I think sometimes the things that you love… Bishop John has loved Forward in Faith. It’s been his life - he probably finds it very hard to leave it behind
R.G. And of course members of FiF love Bishop John; but are you really saying that he should resign?
Yes.. because he doesn’t have any integrity by staying. I don’t think it will help him to move things forward in the CofE if he does stay.
R.G. Father John?
This is not to criticise him, this is not personal. He’s been a friend of mine for many, many years. I think for him he is doing the right thing. It is not a criticism of any of the bishops. Rather it is an endorsement that they must leave things behind in order for us to move things forward
R.G. Are they all in FiF?
Yes they are.
R.G. Do you hold a position in FiF?
I’m a member of the Council. No more than that.
We have a lot of work to do. We have to move things forward. But we can’t do it if you like with a mixed agenda.
R.G. And is it the view of the Council that they should all resign?
I think it’s the view of the Council that we need to put a new leadership in place to move things forward. I think that’s generally the overall feeling that I pick up..
(Spy cartoon of Bishop of London: and of Fr Mackonchie)
That’s Fr Mackonochie and he started up SSC. And I’m now the Master of the SSC.
Of course I looked at the Roman option with interest; for the catholic position as it were comes from the Roman Catholic church and there is obviously going to be an obvious closeness; That means that we don’t just make the rules up as we go along, that we do look for authority from the wider catholic church in the decisions that we have to make in the C of E. There is something about that Church of England its identity and the reason for its existence that is catholic; it is the Catholic Church in this land.
R.G. I know you’ve been among those working hardest behind the scenes. to try and create some sort of provision which is acceptable to all sides in this. But at the moment it doesn’t look as though it will work. What will you do if it just goes though without provision?
Well that is of course the 1000 dollar Question. I don’t know the answer I cannot believe that things will….but I agree with you. It does look very difficult at the moment. Because we don’t want to create a separate church on the one hand which is in danger of doing that….
R.G. It’s a sort of 45th diocese rather than a free Province?
Yes that’d be would be a very nice way of putting it.
R.G. We’ve seen this beautiful vicarage. What period is it?
Oh it’s 1894 –designed by the same person as the church.
R.G. Now various World war analogies have been flying around.; Wallace Benn said he thought we were in January 1939, John Broadhurst said the Church of England is fascist …. Do you believe we are in a war situation?
I think we are in a situation where we have to struggle for survival. I think when you are cornered - human being are after all only human - when you are cornered you do feel very threatened and you’re angry. I get very angry about this issue sometimes. You do say things that are a little bit too forceful.
How many do you think will go to the Ordinariate?
I think at first it will be small; because we’re still not sure what the Ordinairate is or what they are offering. Some people are ready to go; if that’s where people are I have no problem with it, they should go. But there are other people who aren’t ready to go; people like me who still feel there is still something to do in the Church of England, it is business as usual…We need to carry on doing our work. I don’t see the need to go at this particular point. And especially if you are involved in the discussions and the arguments like I am, and in the Synodical Process …I don’t think its helpful just to back out now."
There was a little more about Fr Houlding's parishioners, but above is the gist of the interviews. I am tempted to comment; but I think that is best left to readers of the interview, especially those who know Fr Houlding and heard him trying to commend SSWSH at the 'Sacred Synod'. And now, let's just be happy because we have the details of the Ordinairate for England and Wales, and what we are being offered is more than generous. Laus Deo!
Thank you so much for taking the trouble to do this. Ruth
ReplyDelete"Forward in Faith, whatever he says, is an Anglican organisation; it is a political body fighting for a catholic future within the C of E. "
ReplyDeleteSorry, but this is utter rot. I was there at the genesis of Forward in Faith, and it was founded as a breathing space and a gathering point for those in the catholic tradition in the Church of England to gain mutual support and breathing space after the bruising of 1992 AND to persue reunion with the Catholic Church. It was there to support those who, realising that there was no long term catholic future in the established church to find their way into full communion, and many achieved this in groups. F in F was NOT established to ensure a catholic future in the C of E as we realised that this was no longer possible.
In fact Forward in Faith should now be supporting those seeking now to enter the Ordinariate over the next few years, and then should close.
Houlding may be being considered as the next Fulham... but being Chairman of F in F isn't necessarily part of the job.
I too was part of Forward in Faith at its inception. The talk was about making preparation for a journey, forging an ecclesial identity with a vision of unity and truth. Those ideas were crystallised in its mission statement "We seek a Guaranteed Ecclesial Structure in which we can pass the Faith on to our children and grandchildren. We have a vision for Unity and Truth and we are going Forward in Faith." When Parliament forced the unwelcome compromise that brought about the Act of Synod and 'Flying Bishops', those who decided it was not the time for them to make a personal reconciliation with the Holy See proceeded to make the most of the ecclesial opportunities (and were far more successful than the Church of England's liberal establishment expected). It is notable that the majority of those now spearheading SSWSH were highly sceptical, not to say suspicious, of FiF and conspicuously gave it a wide berth.
ReplyDeleteIt is no good Fr Houlding attempting to rewrite history.
As I wrote here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theanglocatholic.com/2010/11/fr-david-houlding-interview/#comment-19519
I wish somebody would ask Fr. Houlding (and those who share his views and hopes) whether they were all bluffing when they roared out so lustily and repeatedly "A Code of Practice WILL NOT DO!" at the October 2009 FIF Annual Assembly. If so, the fact that they crumbled so quickly when it looked as though (to use an Americanism) they would have to "put their money where their mouths are" does not augur well for those of "the heterodox integrity" (the proponents of mandatory WO, no genuine protection save dubious "good will" and a code of practice for those opposed to female flaminicas, and the advent of SS in the not-too-distant future) taking them for anything other than a "paper tiger."
After all, if they have altered the words of their respond to "a Code of Practice WILL HAVE TO DO" they clearly demonstrate that their "Catholicity" is clearly subordinate to a kind of broad-church "Anglicanicity," and thus is, at heart, fraudulent rather than real; and they are not as willing as (not to even mention Anglo-Catholics like Dolling, Makonochie and Tooth) 17th-Century Laudian-minded Anglicans like Cosin, Wrenn and (later) Ken and Hickes who were all willing to leave the Established Church over serious questions of Truth, rather than pathetically to strive for some sort of "aboriginal theme park" within it.