The Church of my Baptism

An old priest friend sent me a very moving card today, in which he wishes me well but said that, for himself, he would "remain in the Church of my Baptism". That sentiment is echoed by many who at present feel unable to join the Ordinariate. We all owe so much to the Church of England; she taught us the catholic faith, she supported us when we sought Ordination, she has been, for many, a good Mother.

Yet things have changed. As I have confirmed Candidates in recent years, I have wondered where they would end. Would they always be able, as some of us have done, to find a good catholic church in their neighbourhood? Would it be a place where the Eucharist was regularly and faithfully celebrated, the daily Offices prayed for the whole parish, the people visited when they were sick or dying? Such churches seemed to be the rule forty years ago; now they are exceptional, and their priests reckoned oddities. Yet when Forward in Faith said "A Code of Practice Will Not Do" it was because we wanted a secure catholic future for our children and grandchildren.

When the parish where we live was last vacant, I wrote to the bishop and said that since it was likely that the new incumbent would see me out, I hoped he would be a priest who would have a care for the dying. We have, I think, done pretty well in that regard; our parish priest is a dear and loving man, who cares for the people in his cure. That the question had to be raised though, indicates how the Church of England has lost its catholic moorings.

Those who are committed to SSWSH are no doubt going to try to reverse this, and bring the C of E back to her roots - they believe that the newly elected Synod will make this possible. Those who are committed to the Ordinariate are sure that this is a lost cause, and that the only hope for a catholic future is within the Roman obedience - the best any Synod could achieve is a stay of execution. We all, though, have a duty to respect one another, pray for one another, and continue to work for the Unity which Our Lord wills.

Oh, and about my Baptism - it was at Holy Innocents, South Norwood, which at that time was in the detached part of Canterbury Diocese. GF Bodley was its architect, who also built St John's, Iffley Road in Oxford, the last church for which I had direct responsibility. Holy Innocents always seemed to me a good dedication for a church welcoming one into the Church of God. Now it is in Southwark Diocese, Nicola has been its incumbent for the past five years, and Anna is her curate. One day, it will be easier for me to relate to them ecumenically than, as at present, within the same ecclesial body.

SWISH of the Curtain

Ever since the Society Model was announced, there has been something nagging in the back of my mind about acting. Something on TV maybe? No, now I have it. There was a serialised radio play on the BBC called "The Swish of the Curtain". According to the Beeb, who revived it as recently as 2007, it was an 'astonishing story' ..'Pamela Brown's 1940s tale of stage-struck children who start their own theatre company'. It even gave rise to a Theatre School in Bournemouth - their logo appears above, I hope they are glad of the publicity.

So there we have it: Our Lord spoke about "children in the market place saying 'we piped for you and you would not dance'". Neither John the Baptist nor Our Lord himself could satisfy them. Now there's another little group, a 'society' which wants us all to play their game.

Fr Hunwicke has posted a devastating account of where this Society Model has come from - a product of the dream-world of Chichester. Perhaps, though, there is also about it something of 'The Swish of the Curtain'; stage-struck children, setting up their own company. Of course we wish them well; but I fear it is going to end in tears when the theatre management tells them their little show is not going to appear. It will be patronised for a while by those who would use it to undermine Anglicanorum Coetibus; but it will not be allowed to have any independence, any jurisdiction. Just patronised. Still, children grow up, and eventually they will be looking for a more authentic and enduring company. The longest-running show on earth has an opening for them - the Ordinariate will always be there to welcome them.

Many or Few Revisited

I have been properly rebuked for the harshness of what I said in the last paragraph of "By Many or By Few" , so I have amended it.

I've been too ready to criticise those who have not yet been able to decide in favour of the Ordinariate. Theoretically I have known it's been much easier for me, in retirement; but in practice I have still been horribly judgemental. I am very sorry for that.

I suppose after thirty-five years of being on, or following, General Synod, I have become a bit case-hardened. I have seen that body grow progressively more illiberal, and have come to the conclusion that we can expect NOTHING of any value from it for Traditionalists. The offer of the Ordinariate came as such a relief to me that I failed to appreciate the difficulties for many others. As a result, SSWSH appeared to me as a last straw, an attempt by the Establishment, under the guise of being 'catholic', to undermine what the Pope is doing for us.

Others have thought much the same (for instance William Oddie) - but it is not the whole truth. There are honourable men among those setting up SSWSH, and some doubtless genuinely believe that the Church of England will back down and give anglo-catholics their own bishops (as in the former Act of Synod) but this time with Jurisdiction. I think they are wrong, but it is clearly a hopeful shelter for those who cannot yet accept the Ordinariate. So, we go on praying, for those who are deciding (some at great cost to themselves) to seek to join the Ordinariate, and those who still trust in the generosity and good will of the Church of England.

For myself, once again, I ask pardon of those I have offended by harsh and judgemental words; I will try to do better in future.

By Many or by Few

Simon Killwick addresses the Assembly

Great excitement in the Wifred & Hilda bunch (the soft-centre Anglo-Catholics), and Reform (the hardline Evangelicals). Between them these two strange bedfellows can derail the consecration of women bishops; that at least is according to a press release from the Christian News Release Service UK, reported and commented on by Damian Thompson in his Telegraph blog. Here is what is claimed:


"Subject: Women Bishops in the CofE now to be BLOCKED after latest General Synod Election
MEDIA INFORMATION ON GENERAL SYNOD ELECTION
Following the Election of the new General Synod of the Church of England, Evangelical and Catholic Groups on Synod have now swapped lists of candidates.
The results show that 66 Clergy (32.10%) and 77 laity (35.46%) will vote against the current Women Bishop legislation unless it is amended to give those who for conscious/scriptural reasons, cannot accept WBs.
Only 34% is needed to block this when it returns from the dioceses. For the first time, it can and will be blocked by both fully ELECTED houses. In the clergy only a further 1.81% is needed, and that’s just ONE person. There are 21 new evangelicals on this new synod, and one out of a possible 58 undecided is a given!
The Bishop of Fulham’s departure to Rome, announced on Friday, was therefore a little too early and the Catholic Group on General Synod have distanced themselves from his position and will be staying within the CofE."


Well, we have been here before, notoriously in the General Synod on 11.xi.92. On that day we were to be saved by our clear 1/3rd in the House of Laity. And if they did not prevent the Ordination of Women as Priests, then the House of Bishops would. In fact, a couple of women (who had been elected because they were opposed to women's ordination) abstained and the Bishops, who thought they would leave it to the laity, caved in; hence women's ordination went ahead. Incidentally, one of those women who changed her mind has since been 'ordained' as a priest - and her priest husband is now a Roman Catholic.


It would only require one or two of the laity or clergy to be indisposed when the vote happens - a funeral, a heavy cold, something compelling of that sort - and all the prognostications could once more prove wrong. But in any case, should the doctrine of the Church be determined in such a way? Far from being 'too early', the Bishop of Fulham's promise could not have come at a better time.


Some of us have spent half our lives seeing the Church of England descend into chaos. The question is not primarily one of women's ordination; it is about Authority. The Church of God is not ours to alter at will, its future depending on whether a third of the elected members of a Synod is ready to stand firm. We already have women as priests, and no doubt we shall have them as bishops before very long. Then, whatever 'safeguards' can be squeezed out of a reluctant Synod, it will not alter the fact that the Church of England can no longer claim continuity with the Church founded by Our Lord.


And what are those safeguards likely to be? Reform and SSWSH have very different requirements. For SSWSH (as the Bishop of Burnley reminded the FiF Assembly last week) "a Code of Practice Will Not Do". For Reform, it is all about Headship; and provided their parishes do not have to accept the ministry of women bishops, it will not matter greatly to them who joined in the laying on of hands when their Vicar was ordained. He is a man, that is enough. For them, a Code of Practice (even without Jurisdiction) probably will do. There may be concessions made next time round - perhaps in a Synod in 2012 - but those concessions cannot satisfy Catholics in the Church of England.


I originally ended this with some pretty harsh comments about those who remain undecided; and that resulted in a couple of helpful rebukes (see comments below); so I have deleted that, and would simply say that we must go on trying to find the right way ahead for us, for now - but don't be too easily deceived into thinking there will be a rescue package from the C of E similar to the Act of Synod. Sooner or later, women are going to be admitted to the Episcopate; and sooner or later we shall all have to decide if a church which determines doctrine by majorities in Synod can honestly claim to be part of the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" which we have always said it was. Meanwhile all of us should be praying for discernment, our own and others'.

Remember, "nothing restrains the LORD from saving by many or by few.” I Sam. xiv 6

[This post also appears on the Anglo-Catholic site]

Trying to be Helpful

Expensive business, getting to London for Synods and Committees. Just occasionally there is a bonus spin-off; the Royal Academy provided it yesterday, with its wonderful exhibition from Budapest. After a Church Union committee meeting, Jane and I met and spent a couple of hours in the RA. The Goya young girl used in their publicity poster (above) is wonderful. There is also some magnificent Church art, much of it collected by the Esterhazys.

There was, though, one later painting which particularly caught my eye. It is by Philip de Laszlo, a portrait of Pope Leo XIII. Now we have a new society, named after those two great Romanisers, SS Wilfrid and Hilda. Why not add this great Pope, progenitor of Apostolicae Curae, as a third patron? He would sit very well with the other two Saints. You can't say I don't try to be helpful.

And if you possibly can, get to the Royal Academy to see the Treasures from Budapest. Perhaps you could squeeze a visit in during the Forward in Faith Assembly?

It is a large exhibition: a smaller one at the V&A might appeal:

Raphael: Cartoons and Tapestries for the Sistine Chapel 8 September – 17 October 2010
Free ticketed admission - pre-booking is strongly advised as ticket numbers are limited

The tapestries are displayed alongside the full-size designs for them – the famous Raphael Cartoons. This is the first time that the designs and tapestries have been displayed together –something Raphael himself never witnessed. The tapestries have not been shown before in the UK. More details on the website of the Victoria & Albert Museum