On Justin Welby, HTB and theology... Graham Tomlin, formerly Bishop of Kensington (HTB's patch, and appointed while Richard Chartres was Bishop of London), before which he was principal of St Paul's Theological Centre at HTB, and then St Mellitus College (of which SPTC is a member), is now heading up the Centre for Cultural Witness, currently located in Lambeth Palace Library.
Although the Palace Library has a separate management and more or less permanent management structure does it not? So I'm not sure to what extent the current Archbishop sets direction and so on.
Good point. The person under whose directorship it currently sits was appointed by the Church Commissioners (which I suspect is normal for National Church Institutions staff). But, as far as I can tell, it's still the Library of the Archbishop of Canterbury, so I would expect ++[outgoing] to have had some say on significant decisions. I gave up trying to find something definitive about its governance. Anyway, as one of the outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury's priorities, I can't think of another plausible reason why the CCW would have ended up there. (It appears to have also received funding from the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Charitable Fund.)
The list of Distinguished Lecturers is somewhat hard to understand because they seem to be listing associations of quite different depth with no distinctions.
It seems to be the category of "other". Being a foundation, my guess is that the categories relate to the amount and/or duration of funding as well as the significance of the person and/or their institutional position / reputation.
...
Ian Paul's fingerprints all over the resignation petition certainly give reason to suspect ulterior motives. The histrionics from Paul and his fellow travellers over LLF have been quite absurd.
Here's Ian Paul pointing out to Channel 4 News that although Justin Welby needed to take responsibility for failing to take action, John Smyth's abuse itself did not happen *within* the Church of England, so in his capacity as a member of the Archbishops' Council which signs off on the CofE's £150m Redress Scheme, he's unable to say whether any of Smyth's victims will benefit from it.
Am I right in thinking that Ian is a traditional conevo rather than an HTB-type?
Distinction without a difference as far as I'm concerned. If they treat gay people as less than fully human I don't care if they babble and throw themselves on the floor or don't.
Was ABC Welby a personal adherent of “muscular Christianity”? I’m not sure I’ve read anything from him to suggest that he was.
He was certainly raised in that sort of tradition but appears to have become rather broader and more nuanced.
It's also possible he became more circumspect about his views in public. Given his association with the Centre for Cultural Witness, we could look at its public-facing project, Seen & Unseen: "Christian perspectives on just about everything." Here are two shortpieces addressing masculinity.
And what about homosexuality (given HTB's position on same-sex blessings)? It appears to be among the unseen perspectives.
Was ABC Welby a personal adherent of “muscular Christianity”? I’m not sure I’ve read anything from him to suggest that he was.
He was certainly raised in that sort of tradition but appears to have become rather broader and more nuanced.
It's also possible he became more circumspect about his views in public. Given his association with the Centre for Cultural Witness, we could look at its public-facing project, Seen & Unseen: "Christian perspectives on just about everything." Here are two shortpieces addressing masculinity.
And what about homosexuality (given HTB's position on same-sex blessings)? It appears to be among the unseen perspectives.
++Justin made some cautiously affirming remarks recently on a podcast interview with Alistair Campbell and Rory Stewart which caused another hissy fit from the usual suspects.
It's also possible he became more circumspect about his views in public.
...
And what about homosexuality (given HTB's position on same-sex blessings)? It appears to be among the unseen perspectives.
++Justin made some cautiously affirming remarks recently on a podcast interview with Alistair Campbell and Rory Stewart which caused another hissy fit from the usual suspects.
I suspect that, for the majority of his time in the post, his position in public has been to attempt to triangulate between the multiple views held by those in the CofE and the wider Anglican Communion.
Their intervention represents a shift in HTB leaders’ approach to long-running debates in the Church of England. For many years, HTB has sought to avoid public comment, seeking common ground, emphasising the importance of unity and evangelism, and steering clear of divisive questions. This stance also reflected awareness of differing views among leaders and members. HTB’s 10,000-strong congregations include people in gay relationships, it says.
It remains unclear to what extent the churches in the HTB network share the concerns expressed by the signatories to the Alliance letter. Responses to the Church Times email this week indicate that some undoubtedly do
There was an upsetting report on Radio 4's "The World at One" this lunchtime (I've been trying to find who was being interviewed and failing; sorry) basically saying that the Church of England has dealt and is dealing with this very badly, compared to Harrods and the allegations about Al-Fayed which are being dealt with very promptly and well. I'm finding it all very disturbing on a number of levels.
Thank you to @BroJames for the link to the full report which I have read and which is informing my real life conversations about it.
Let get things straight, the invite to come over to Rome from the Pope was before the Consecration of Women Bishops in 2014, the permission to use the modern Roman Rite was around the introduction of Common Worship so around 2000. With the age the priest are that I heard this off, I would say they were were teenagers in strong Anglo-Catholic parishes at the time and listening to the views of clergy. These are the views that formed their identity as Anglo-Catholics at the time. Outside that cohort you will find differing practices within Society parishes.
... I suspect that, for the majority of his time in the post, his position in public has been to attempt to triangulate between the multiple views held by those in the CofE and the wider Anglican Communion. ...
I think @pease that you are correct there, and for that I respect him, even if others on this thread don't. It may not be what the ideal and imaginary Archbishop would have done that various factions would have liked. They all want an Archbishop who thumps the tub for their particular opinions, but that is incompatible with the ideal and imaginary Archbishop of the other factions.
Besides, I suspect that in Archbishop Justin's eyes, there were other issues which he regarded as more important. If that is the case, on that I also agree with him.
Changing the subject
@Jengie Jon wrote:- "Let get things straight, the invite to come over to Rome from the Pope was before the Consecration of Women Bishops in 2014, the permission to use the modern Roman Rite was around the introduction of Common Worship so around 2000. With the age the priest are that I heard this off, I would say they were were teenagers in strong Anglo-Catholic parishes at the time and listening to the views of clergy. These are the views that formed their identity as Anglo-Catholics at the time. Outside that cohort you will find differing practices within Society parishes."
I'd still like to see proof of that, and don't propose to take it seriously unless I do. It may be the fond urban legend dear to some Anglo-Catholics, but that is not authority for anything other than their credulity. The Pope in 2000 was John Paul II. The suggestion that he gave a collection of non-Roman-Catholic clergy explicit or even implicit permission to use the Roman mass does not strike me as consistent with the John Paul II that the world then knew and remembers.
@Jengie Jon wrote:- "Let get things straight, the invite to come over to Rome from the Pope was before the Consecration of Women Bishops in 2014, the permission to use the modern Roman Rite was around the introduction of Common Worship so around 2000. With the age the priest are that I heard this off, I would say they were were teenagers in strong Anglo-Catholic parishes at the time and listening to the views of clergy. These are the views that formed their identity as Anglo-Catholics at the time. Outside that cohort you will find differing practices within Society parishes."
I'd still like to see proof of that, and don't propose to take it seriously unless I do. It may be the fond urban legend dear to some Anglo-Catholics, but that is not authority for anything other than their credulity. The Pope in 2000 was John Paul II. The suggestion that he gave a collection of non-Roman-Catholic clergy explicit or even implicit permission to use the Roman mass does not strike me as consistent with the John Paul II that the world then knew and remembers.
I'm inclined to agree. Whatever conciliatory moves recent popes have made towards Anglicans, I find it highly unlikely that they would take any steps that might lead (in their eyes) the faithful to mistake Holy Communion celebrated by an Anglican minister with the Mass offered by a properly ordained priest of the Catholic church.
There was an upsetting report on Radio 4's "The World at One" this lunchtime (I've been trying to find who was being interviewed and failing; sorry) basically saying that the Church of England has dealt and is dealing with this very badly, compared to Harrods and the allegations about Al-Fayed which are being dealt with very promptly and well. I'm finding it all very disturbing on a number of levels.
Rest assured that you're not alone. I'm close to several people who are finding it unsettling and upsetting.
Let get things straight, the invite to come over to Rome from the Pope was before the Consecration of Women Bishops in 2014, the permission to use the modern Roman Rite was around the introduction of Common Worship so around 2000. With the age the priest are that I heard this off, I would say they were were teenagers in strong Anglo-Catholic parishes at the time and listening to the views of clergy. These are the views that formed their identity as Anglo-Catholics at the time. Outside that cohort you will find differing practices within Society parishes.
I will not believe that the Pope gave a permission to the clergy of the church of England to do anything until I see it in writing. He has no authority over clergy of another church. He can't either grant or deny permission. So here's my invitation to provide evidence for this Papal overreach.
The *invite to come over to Rome* could, I suppose, be construed as the formation of the Ordinariate(s). Offhand, I can't recall when this occurred, but it must have been around 2010.
The *invite to come over to Rome* could, I suppose, be construed as the formation of the Ordinariate(s). Offhand, I can't recall when this occurred, but it must have been around 2010.
The decree permitting them was issued in November 2009. The UK Ordinariate was established in January 2011.
The *invite to come over to Rome* could, I suppose, be construed as the formation of the Ordinariate(s). Offhand, I can't recall when this occurred, but it must have been around 2010.
The decree permitting them was issued in November 2009. The UK Ordinariate was established in January 2011.
The *invite to come over to Rome* could, I suppose, be construed as the formation of the Ordinariate(s). Offhand, I can't recall when this occurred, but it must have been around 2010.
I was referring to the claim that a Pope gave permission to clergy of a church over which he has no authority to use the Roman Missal while remaining members of their church. I find it impossible to believe. Hence my request for evidence.
The *invite to come over to Rome* could, I suppose, be construed as the formation of the Ordinariate(s). Offhand, I can't recall when this occurred, but it must have been around 2010.
I was referring to the claim that a Pope gave permission to clergy of a church over which he has no authority to use the Roman Missal while remaining members of their church. I find it impossible to believe. Hence my request for evidence.
That’s how I read your post. I suspect that what actually happened was something like an Anglican priest wrote to the Vatican asking for permission and the Pope shrugged his shoulders and said “whatever”.
Yes, the Roman Catholic churches always extended an invitation to those regards as heretic or schismatic to be, in its language, reconciled to it, viz. Newman, Manning etc.
Like @Alan29 and others what I will not take seriously without documentary evidence is anybody's claim that the Pope or the RCC authorised Anglo-Catholic clergy – which the RCC regards as at least schismatic, if not totally heretic – to use the RCC mass. That is so unlikely that it is either rubbish or must be clearly demonstrated with documentary evidence.
Inviting someone to become a full communicant member of a church is something completely different from giving explicit permission to an other group to use the liturgy of the first one.
'Inviting someone to become a full communicant member of whatever our church is is something that all Christians should do - it is often called 'evangelisation'
The CofE, for example, claims to have the mission to evangelise and to serve with the Christian sacraments all English Christians. For this it needs to seek out,talk with and convince the people in England that it has something positive to say.
Likewise the RC Church believes that it has something of value to say to people.
And of course so do all of the Free and Independent churches.
The *invite to come over to Rome* could, I suppose, be construed as the formation of the Ordinariate(s). Offhand, I can't recall when this occurred, but it must have been around 2010.
I was referring to the claim that a Pope gave permission to clergy of a church over which he has no authority to use the Roman Missal while remaining members of their church. I find it impossible to believe. Hence my request for evidence.
Yes, I understood your meaning. I was merely wondering if @Jengie Jon was referring (rather obliquely) to the Ordinariate.
When he was a Cardinal Pope Benedict XVI wrote the document that John Paul II assented to that listed the teaching on the invalidity of Anglican orders (declared a century earlier), among other thinks as something Catholics must believe and a teaching that is impossible to change (kind of a back-door infallibility). I think women’s ordination was in the same category.
So it wouldn’t make sense for JPII or BXVI to allow Anglican priests that they emphatically did not consider to be priests to celebrate eucharists that the they emphatically did not consider to be eucharists with the RCC’s own missal unless they converted and received RC orders first.
OTOH, the Pope does not have the authority to stop renegade (!) Anglican priests using whatever parts of the Roman Missal they choose, even up to adopting the whole thing for every service.
C of E bishops seem reluctant to call such priests to heel, but that's up to them, despite what Canon law may say. IIRC, +Richard Chartres, when he was Bishop of London, tried to enforce (encourage?) the use of the C of E authorised forms of Eucharist at all churches in his Diocese, but without much success.
When he was a Cardinal Pope Benedict XVI wrote the document that John Paul II assented to that listed the teaching on the invalidity of Anglican orders (declared a century earlier), among other thinks as something Catholics must believe and a teaching that is impossible to change (kind of a back-door infallibility). I think women’s ordination was in the same category.
So it wouldn’t make sense for JPII or BXVI to allow Anglican priests that they emphatically did not consider to be priests to celebrate eucharists that the they emphatically did not consider to be eucharists with the RCC’s own missal unless they converted and received RC orders first.
Although I love that he doubled down on it given that, as Saepius Officio made embarrassingly clear at the time, if Anglican orders were invalid then Roman orders fail the same test!
He’d have done better to keep quiet on that front IMO
When he was a Cardinal Pope Benedict XVI wrote the document that John Paul II assented to that listed the teaching on the invalidity of Anglican orders (declared a century earlier), among other thinks as something Catholics must believe and a teaching that is impossible to change (kind of a back-door infallibility). I think women’s ordination was in the same category.
So it wouldn’t make sense for JPII or BXVI to allow Anglican priests that they emphatically did not consider to be priests to celebrate eucharists that the they emphatically did not consider to be eucharists with the RCC’s own missal unless they converted and received RC orders first.
Although I love that he doubled down on it given that, as Saepius Officio made embarrassingly clear at the time, if Anglican orders were invalid then Roman orders fail the same test!
Although to be fair to Pope Leo, his concern was primarily the intent and only secondarily the form.
When he was a Cardinal Pope Benedict XVI wrote the document that John Paul II assented to that listed the teaching on the invalidity of Anglican orders (declared a century earlier), among other thinks as something Catholics must believe and a teaching that is impossible to change (kind of a back-door infallibility). I think women’s ordination was in the same category.
So it wouldn’t make sense for JPII or BXVI to allow Anglican priests that they emphatically did not consider to be priests to celebrate eucharists that the they emphatically did not consider to be eucharists with the RCC’s own missal unless they converted and received RC orders first.
Although I love that he doubled down on it given that, as Saepius Officio made embarrassingly clear at the time, if Anglican orders were invalid then Roman orders fail the same test!
Although to be fair to Pope Leo, his concern was primarily the intent and only secondarily the form.
There is an element of magical thinking involved with "valid" orders that I find unappealing. You have to have the right words and they have to be spoken by someone who can trace a direct line of succession back to the apostles. The unbroken line of succession thing seems to be as likely as Martians arriving, and who knows what the apostles were intending when they appointed presbyters or even if they were all intending the same thing
There is an element of magical thinking involved with "valid" orders that I find unappealing. You have to have the right words and they have to be spoken by someone who can trace a direct line of succession back to the apostles. The unbroken line of succession thing seems to be as likely as Martians arriving, and who knows what the apostles were intending when they appointed presbyters or even if they were all intending the same thing
Absolutely but, (from my pov as a Catholic Anglican) it was the Roman church that decided to make a pronouncement on the subject of CofE orders, and actually the dear old CofE that retorted ‘er, hang on’ (only much more stylishly) ‘that particular petard of yours also hoists you’
So we’re left with an infallible pronouncement that in a crowded field (and remember I say this in a friendly way from the sympathetic fringe of the CofE’s Catholic wing), is even less internally intellectually coherent than most. I’ll claim own voice on this as an Anglican from the wing that believes Apostolicae Curae affects (indeed is aimed at) them.
There is an element of magical thinking involved with "valid" orders that I find unappealing. You have to have the right words and they have to be spoken by someone who can trace a direct line of succession back to the apostles. The unbroken line of succession thing seems to be as likely as Martians arriving, and who knows what the apostles were intending when they appointed presbyters or even if they were all intending the same thing
Absolutely but, (from my pov as a Catholic Anglican) it was the Roman church that decided to make a pronouncement on the subject of CofE orders, and actually the dear old CofE that retorted ‘er, hang on’ (only much more stylishly) ‘that particular petard of yours also hoists you’
Wasn't the Vatican asked to make a judgement as a result of early CofE/RC dialogues? Lord Halifax is a name somewhere in the recesses at the back of my mind.
Probably, it was a while ago! I think some naive CofE types were expecting a different answer. Having said that, it remains a shame that the answer they got was so logically defective that completely non-Anglo Catholic members of the CofE hierarchy were able to drive a coach and horses through it by return of post.
Actually, before anyone jumps on me Maclagan (then ABY, was certainly ‘high’). Temple (then ABC) much less so.
Either way, they wrote Saepius Officio in defence of Anglican Orders, having been prodded into it by the Pope declaring them ‘absolutely null and utterly void’ - while also essentially banning incense in CofE churches (not that the high ACs cared).
Apostolic Succession is one of those areas where my liking for systems and rules (and things done "decently and in good order") conflicts with my suspicion that Christ cares a great deal less about these things than he does how we treat one another. So I am glad that the systems and rules exist and so far as it depends on me (which isn't very far) I prefer that they're followed... but I try not to sweat it too much that the Kirk doesn't have bishops in AS (and take a deep breath and look the other way when I realise that, when the ministers and elders forgot the wine, we celebrated Holy Communion with cranberry juice drink).
Here's Graham Tomlin a few days ago, writing for Seen & Unseen on the issue of John Smyth, trying to draw attention away from "who knew what, and who did or didn't act":
Much has been written over these past days about Justin Welby’s resignation and the turmoil in the Church of England. Attention has focused on who knew what, and who did or didn’t act on their knowledge. Less attention has been focused on the dark heart of this story – John Smyth himself and the way he conducted his sinister campaign of manipulation and harm. A campaign that was – the more I think of it – not just abusive, but demonic.
Crossing his fingers and hoping that people take on board the subtext - that John Smyth's behaviour had nothing to do with evangelicals, or evangelical ideology. His argument looks rather like the "bad apple" approach to excusing abberant behaviour in institutional contexts.
When you survey the carnage Smyth’s warped theology and evil practice has wreaked – most tragically to the lives of those he mistreated so deviously, it is hard not to see something more than merely sinful – but something demonic going on. John Smyth chose to obey the dark instincts of his heart, and to take the Faustian pact that grasps power over others at the loss of one’s own soul. He chose to give in to his evil desires entirely, cloaking them in phony but eloquent religious terminology.
Acknowledging the deceitfulness of evil is not to excuse those who tried to cover it up. In fact, recognising this is to hear a call to greater vigilance, in that when faced with something of this order we are not facing something obvious, ordinary, easy to spot. “Our struggle is not against flesh and blood,” says the letter to the Ephesians, “but against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.” If we in the Church have not taken safeguarding seriously enough, it is because we have not taken the nature of evil seriously enough. Remaining alert for the evil that masks itself as goodness – whether in the church or anywhere else for that matter - is a spiritual and moral skill we need to learn more than ever.
It's this kind of excuse for failing vulnerable people, the avoidance of admitting any kind of personal culpability through wilful action or inaction, that are the kind of attitudes that undermine the effective practice of safeguarding.
The other thing this kind of literal demonisation does, is lead people to assume they'll be able to spot an abuser because they will be somehow inherently different from everyone else - a monster rather than a person.
Yes, it's too easy to paint a dualist picture, evil versus good, when presumably Smyth came out of a milieu that condoned suffering, punishment, and so on, as prerequisites for spiritual advancement. It reminds me of those who use sexual favours, to suggest spiritual progress.
Yes, it's too easy to paint a dualist picture, evil versus good, when presumably Smyth came out of a milieu that condoned suffering, punishment, and so on, as prerequisites for spiritual advancement.
Not to mention the distinct possibility its the failure mode of a particular type of Muscular Christianity.
Also, the power of analogy is quite frightening. I mean, if God suffers and God punishes, then we are enjoined to do likewise. I'm not sure how I could get out of that trap as a victim, except by punching the sadist in the throat. Theologically, he would be cleverer than me, and quite intimidating. But how much of this was shared beyond Smyth? I suppose in a more diluted form.
There was an evangelical chap on Radio 4's 'Sunday' programme this morning who readily acknowledged that Appendix 4 of the Makin Report was both insightful and helpful. He could understand how certain evangelical emphases could be exploited or lend themselves to abuse.
I was taken by his candour.
I'm wondering to what extent this exposes flaws within evangelical theology per se or a particular form of evangelical theology filtered through a kind of exclusive 'old boys' club style of establishment religiosity.
The bloke interviewed also said it was time to question and reform the role of bishops.
So let's all go presbyterian or congregational and this sort of thing wouldn't happen ...
So let's all go presbyterian or congregational and this sort of thing wouldn't happen ...
I think one thing to be said for Presbyterianism, at least as practised by the Kirk, is that it tends not to leave people in senior ecclesiastical positions very long which I think means that there is less of a clubish(?) nature to the senior decision making. The moderator of the General Assembly, and indeed each Presbytery, is switched out every year, so there is little sense of preferment involved, more a case of "well someone has to chair meetings and preside at ordinations". Everything is decided by committee, and the committees tend to be well-documented.
That said, I don't know to what extent the Kirk has been lucky and simply had fewer abuse cases to deal with or whether it has actually dealt with them better.
I agree with the above re the "evil" characterisation. It helps no-one. Maybe it helps those who have been harmed, but I'm not sure it does really.
More would be gained by reflecting that all humans are subject to the same temptations, given the right (wrong) circumstances, and we need to think about how our theologies, structures and attitudes to leadership / authority figures lead to such safeguarding failures, and look to reframe and restructure where dangers present themselves.
I did read something along those lines in the wake of the Mike Pilavachi revelations - reflecting that he was allowed too much free rein far too young (because everyone was terribly excited about the Soul Survivor phenomenon, attracting all the cool young people to the church), and this inevitably led to him growing an enormous ego and a sense - both within himself and among his congregation - of being untouchable. (I personally heard him confess to having a giant ego in a talk that I attended in the 1990s.) I suspect Smyth's successes in attracting the "right sort" to the church allowed all manner of warning signs to be overlooked in pursuit of The Greater Good. And we know (from far too many examples - both secular and religious) how, once it seems that "everyone else is OK with his behaviour" it becomes virtually impossible for anyone to be the lone voice that speaks out (or maybe even to realise that they should).
That said, I don't know to what extent the Kirk has been lucky and simply had fewer abuse cases to deal with or whether it has actually dealt with them better.
Although there’s always (and God forbid this is the case obviously)option C, it’s just for whatever reason still waiting to go off.
In the 1990s, it was true that BSE in cattle was the biggest problem in countries that were looking hardest for it and encouraging/enforcing a reporting regime….
The pitfall of all theology, ultimately, is idolatry - the differences are what one makes one's idol out of. Smyth's is constructed from a particular punitive theology derived from certain biblical texts, and a cultural background in which it was assumed that certain human beings were naturally superior to others. In other cases, mostly of a catholic persuasion (though far from exclusively) the church is the idol, the great go(o)d to which all forms of personal good and indeed all thoughts of individual worth and value are to be sacrificed. Both of these approaches are also abusive. Inherently so. The pitfall of liberal theology is that it makes an idol of the individual, and I'm sure I fall into it. It is, however, at least not abusive of others except insofar as it closes them off from the inquiring, healing love of God. But then, that's what all idolatry does.
I don't mind where Welby goes, personally, but if this does not drag the tendrils of HTB and its abusive nonsense out of the Church of England, it will be an opportunity (or divine imperative, if there is any difference between the two) missed.
In the church's case, as this scandal demonstrates and a fair amount of literature illustrates, it is also a very useful screen for personal ambition, in which cause all forms of theology, especially the most abusive, can be adopted to great effect. In particular, theology can be used to deflect criticism of the individual, by an apparently selfless ,but ultimately totally egotistical, identification of the individual with the institution which they are looking to protect. Again, the victim here is the outsider and, ultimately, the God of love.
Comments
St Nicholas Nottingham was decidedly charevo when I was there.
But then I've known some very conservative charevos.
Fuller is within the charismatic orbit too.
It seems to be the category of "other". Being a foundation, my guess is that the categories relate to the amount and/or duration of funding as well as the significance of the person and/or their institutional position / reputation.
Meanwhile: Here's Ian Paul pointing out to Channel 4 News that although Justin Welby needed to take responsibility for failing to take action, John Smyth's abuse itself did not happen *within* the Church of England, so in his capacity as a member of the Archbishops' Council which signs off on the CofE's £150m Redress Scheme, he's unable to say whether any of Smyth's victims will benefit from it.
Distinction without a difference as far as I'm concerned. If they treat gay people as less than fully human I don't care if they babble and throw themselves on the floor or don't.
And what about homosexuality (given HTB's position on same-sex blessings)? It appears to be among the unseen perspectives.
++Justin made some cautiously affirming remarks recently on a podcast interview with Alistair Campbell and Rory Stewart which caused another hissy fit from the usual suspects.
And I note that over that last year or so, the greater HTB network does not appear to have been completely united on this issue:
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2023/28-july/news/uk/htb-vicar-upbraided-for-stance-on-blessings-for-same-sex-couples
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2024/12-january/news/uk/htb-s-allies-alarmed-by-bid-to-resist-same-sex-blessings
Thank you to @BroJames for the link to the full report which I have read and which is informing my real life conversations about it.
Besides, I suspect that in Archbishop Justin's eyes, there were other issues which he regarded as more important. If that is the case, on that I also agree with him.
Changing the subject I'd still like to see proof of that, and don't propose to take it seriously unless I do. It may be the fond urban legend dear to some Anglo-Catholics, but that is not authority for anything other than their credulity. The Pope in 2000 was John Paul II. The suggestion that he gave a collection of non-Roman-Catholic clergy explicit or even implicit permission to use the Roman mass does not strike me as consistent with the John Paul II that the world then knew and remembers.
I'm inclined to agree. Whatever conciliatory moves recent popes have made towards Anglicans, I find it highly unlikely that they would take any steps that might lead (in their eyes) the faithful to mistake Holy Communion celebrated by an Anglican minister with the Mass offered by a properly ordained priest of the Catholic church.
I will not believe that the Pope gave a permission to the clergy of the church of England to do anything until I see it in writing. He has no authority over clergy of another church. He can't either grant or deny permission. So here's my invitation to provide evidence for this Papal overreach.
The decree permitting them was issued in November 2009. The UK Ordinariate was established in January 2011.
Thanks!
I was referring to the claim that a Pope gave permission to clergy of a church over which he has no authority to use the Roman Missal while remaining members of their church. I find it impossible to believe. Hence my request for evidence.
That’s how I read your post. I suspect that what actually happened was something like an Anglican priest wrote to the Vatican asking for permission and the Pope shrugged his shoulders and said “whatever”.
Or maybe nothing at all. I await documentary evidence.
Like @Alan29 and others what I will not take seriously without documentary evidence is anybody's claim that the Pope or the RCC authorised Anglo-Catholic clergy – which the RCC regards as at least schismatic, if not totally heretic – to use the RCC mass. That is so unlikely that it is either rubbish or must be clearly demonstrated with documentary evidence.
'Inviting someone to become a full communicant member of whatever our church is is something that all Christians should do - it is often called 'evangelisation'
The CofE, for example, claims to have the mission to evangelise and to serve with the Christian sacraments all English Christians. For this it needs to seek out,talk with and convince the people in England that it has something positive to say.
Likewise the RC Church believes that it has something of value to say to people.
And of course so do all of the Free and Independent churches.
Yes, I understood your meaning. I was merely wondering if @Jengie Jon was referring (rather obliquely) to the Ordinariate.
So it wouldn’t make sense for JPII or BXVI to allow Anglican priests that they emphatically did not consider to be priests to celebrate eucharists that the they emphatically did not consider to be eucharists with the RCC’s own missal unless they converted and received RC orders first.
OTOH, the Pope does not have the authority to stop renegade (!) Anglican priests using whatever parts of the Roman Missal they choose, even up to adopting the whole thing for every service.
C of E bishops seem reluctant to call such priests to heel, but that's up to them, despite what Canon law may say. IIRC, +Richard Chartres, when he was Bishop of London, tried to enforce (encourage?) the use of the C of E authorised forms of Eucharist at all churches in his Diocese, but without much success.
Although I love that he doubled down on it given that, as Saepius Officio made embarrassingly clear at the time, if Anglican orders were invalid then Roman orders fail the same test!
He’d have done better to keep quiet on that front IMO
Although to be fair to Pope Leo, his concern was primarily the intent and only secondarily the form.
Well yes, but he still made a mess of it
Absolutely but, (from my pov as a Catholic Anglican) it was the Roman church that decided to make a pronouncement on the subject of CofE orders, and actually the dear old CofE that retorted ‘er, hang on’ (only much more stylishly) ‘that particular petard of yours also hoists you’
Wasn't the Vatican asked to make a judgement as a result of early CofE/RC dialogues? Lord Halifax is a name somewhere in the recesses at the back of my mind.
Either way, they wrote Saepius Officio in defence of Anglican Orders, having been prodded into it by the Pope declaring them ‘absolutely null and utterly void’ - while also essentially banning incense in CofE churches (not that the high ACs cared).
Not to mention the distinct possibility its the failure mode of a particular type of Muscular Christianity.
I was taken by his candour.
I'm wondering to what extent this exposes flaws within evangelical theology per se or a particular form of evangelical theology filtered through a kind of exclusive 'old boys' club style of establishment religiosity.
The bloke interviewed also said it was time to question and reform the role of bishops.
So let's all go presbyterian or congregational and this sort of thing wouldn't happen ...
I think one thing to be said for Presbyterianism, at least as practised by the Kirk, is that it tends not to leave people in senior ecclesiastical positions very long which I think means that there is less of a clubish(?) nature to the senior decision making. The moderator of the General Assembly, and indeed each Presbytery, is switched out every year, so there is little sense of preferment involved, more a case of "well someone has to chair meetings and preside at ordinations". Everything is decided by committee, and the committees tend to be well-documented.
That said, I don't know to what extent the Kirk has been lucky and simply had fewer abuse cases to deal with or whether it has actually dealt with them better.
More would be gained by reflecting that all humans are subject to the same temptations, given the right (wrong) circumstances, and we need to think about how our theologies, structures and attitudes to leadership / authority figures lead to such safeguarding failures, and look to reframe and restructure where dangers present themselves.
I did read something along those lines in the wake of the Mike Pilavachi revelations - reflecting that he was allowed too much free rein far too young (because everyone was terribly excited about the Soul Survivor phenomenon, attracting all the cool young people to the church), and this inevitably led to him growing an enormous ego and a sense - both within himself and among his congregation - of being untouchable. (I personally heard him confess to having a giant ego in a talk that I attended in the 1990s.) I suspect Smyth's successes in attracting the "right sort" to the church allowed all manner of warning signs to be overlooked in pursuit of The Greater Good. And we know (from far too many examples - both secular and religious) how, once it seems that "everyone else is OK with his behaviour" it becomes virtually impossible for anyone to be the lone voice that speaks out (or maybe even to realise that they should).
Although there’s always (and God forbid this is the case obviously)option C, it’s just for whatever reason still waiting to go off.
In the 1990s, it was true that BSE in cattle was the biggest problem in countries that were looking hardest for it and encouraging/enforcing a reporting regime….
I don't mind where Welby goes, personally, but if this does not drag the tendrils of HTB and its abusive nonsense out of the Church of England, it will be an opportunity (or divine imperative, if there is any difference between the two) missed.
In the church's case, as this scandal demonstrates and a fair amount of literature illustrates, it is also a very useful screen for personal ambition, in which cause all forms of theology, especially the most abusive, can be adopted to great effect. In particular, theology can be used to deflect criticism of the individual, by an apparently selfless ,but ultimately totally egotistical, identification of the individual with the institution which they are looking to protect. Again, the victim here is the outsider and, ultimately, the God of love.