Habemus episcopum? Who will replace the departing bishops?

The departure from the Church of England of the current bishop for the London Scheme and two out of the three serving Provincial Episcopal visitors does more than resolve a tension that has been around for some months. Importantly, it creates some significant vacancies which ought to be filled.

Some may argue this is unnecessary. The advent of women bishops will also see the abolition of the present arrangements for those who have petitioned for episcopal provision under the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod 1993. Why bother appointing people to posts which are about to disappear?

But no one can be absolutely sure — especially not since the change in the makeup of General Synod — exactly when that will take place. It is certainly not for two years, given that the matter will be debated by diocesan synods throughout 2011 before returning to the General Synod, after which Parliament will also have to approve any Measure that is finally presented. Meanwhile ‘Resolution C’ parishes are still in need of episcopal ministry.

Step forward ... well, who, exactly?

When the Act of Synod was introduced, it envisaged a ‘three tier’ level of provision. The first tier was local, diocesan, arrangements (which in those days could have included the diocesan bishop himself). The second was regional arrangements by neighbouring dioceses. The PEVs were only a third option. But as time went on, the other forms of provision largely (though not entirely) fell into desuetude, and ‘flying bishops’ became the preferred option for most ‘C’ parishes.

Moreover, the system worked quite well, and thus commended itself even further, not least by creating a sense of solidarity amongst parishes which otherwise were in danger of isolation.

If the PEVs are not to be replaced, then in the Province of Canterbury at least, it will be necessary to create numerous local ‘schemes’ of an untried nature and unknown duration. Moreover, the non-replacement of the PEVs would itself be a presumption of the outcome of the ongoing debates — something which one would doubt the present Archbishop of Canterbury would be willing to undertake.

So we are back to the question as to who could be appointed.

To begin with, they must be people committed to the Church of England. One of the effects of the Ordinariate is that it will no longer be possible to live as an Anglo-Catholic within the Church of England and, simultaneously, ‘flirt’ with Rome. The wholeheartedly Roman must, henceforth, choose one of the two options available in that direction. Those who remain, no matter how doctrinally Catholic they may be, must also be clearly ‘Anglo’, not Roman, in their expression of this.

And this could raise at least some questions about the liturgical options available to the constituency, and therefore open to (or perhaps required of!) the new bishops.

At the same time, they should be people who would have the confidence of the remaining constituency and, if the appointing bishops are wise (and I have no doubt in this regard that they are - update, see here), they will be people who can simultaneously address the hurts of that constituency and help it develop its own understanding of its future place within Anglicanism.

Naturally, they will also need all the gifts proper to their episcopal office, added to which, given the opprobrium likely to come their way in the wake of what has just happened with their predecessors (see the blogosphere passim), they will also need to be emotionally as tough as nails.

Such men may well exist, and it may be that names are already under consideration.

There is, however, a thought I’d would like to put forward, just on the off-chance it might be taken seriously, which is that at least one of those finally appointed ought to be an Evangelical. It is quite clear that Evangelicals now have an identical interest in the episcopal outcomes of the present debates as have had the Anglo-Catholics. And it is also arguable that the movement of some Anglo-Catholics into the Ordinariate will create a greater opportunity for dialogue, and perhaps even rapprochement, between Evangelicals and those — shall we call them Catholic Anglicans?* — who remain.

It would, moreover, provide a clear signal from the ‘powers that be’ that a constituency which has seen just a single episcopal appointment from its ranks in seventeen years is still recognized as having an abiding place within the wider denomination.

We continue to live in interesting times.

John Richardson
8 November 2010

* Probably not.

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Rome's offer — any takers?

The Vatican has now published the details of the ‘Personal Ordinariate’, Anglicanorum Coetibus (does that mean‘Towards a Congregation of Anglicans?’), and at first glance I must say I can’t see how this is really going to work.

The difficult features seem to be these:

I §5 The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the authoritative expression of the Catholic faith professed by members of the Ordinariate.

In other words, members of the Ordinariate will have to accept every detail of the Catechism, just as do ordinary Roman Catholics. But that being the case, why not just become a Roman Catholic?

III. ... the Ordinariate has the faculty to celebrate the Holy Eucharist and the other Sacraments, the Liturgy of the Hours and other liturgical celebrations according to the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition, which have been approved by the Holy See ...

But this could hardly include the 1662 Book of Common Prayer (certainly not with its rubrics!). One is left wondering which books will be approved and if there will be enough left to give an Anglican identity to what remains.

The fundamental question which must be asked is why anyone who wanted to be adopted into the Ordinariate would not, on these conditions, simply go the whole way. Answers on a postcard, please ...

John Richardson

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select the 'Anonymous' profile, then type in a couple of letters, select 'preview', then close the preview box and delete these letters.

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

The Papal Bull in the Anglican China Shop

The headline Ruth Gledhill chose to describe yesterday’s breaking news was ‘Rome parks tanks on Rowan’s lawn’. The phrase is both eye-catching and apt. Nevertheless, I have adopted a headline of my own, first because Apostolic Constitutions are, apparently, issued in the form of a Papal Bull and, secondly, because the approach from Rome is to be made to Anglicans globally, not just —as some of the newspapers seem to be assuming —to those in England.

But what exactly is on offer, why is it being offered and what does it mean for the future?

The first question is difficult to answer, quite simply because what has been announced is the preparation of an Apostolic Constitution, not the Constitution itself. Furthermore, the structure of what will be on offer is something unfamiliar to most Anglicans, namely a ‘personal ordinariate’.

An ‘ordinariate’ is presided over by an ‘ordinary’ —someone who has ecclesial jurisdiction. The bishop of an Anglican diocese is thus the ‘ordinary’. However, in the newly-proposed body, the ordinary will not necessarily be a bishop. The proposed Ordinariates will be ‘personal’, in the sense that they will not be defined by persons, not geographical areas. The parallel suggested on the Vatican’s own website is with a Military Ordinariate which cares for members of the armed forces and their dependents. However, these particular Ordinariates will be formed in consultation with the local Conference of Bishops, so they will be set up wherever there is demand in a particular area.

It is clear that in some sense these Ordinariates will have an Anglican element —not least in their being made up of former Anglicans. Nevertheless, insofar as the Vatican website itself uses the word ‘former’, there is going to be some discontinuity with their present identity. However, what is envisaged is evidently not the same as Anglicans simply ‘becoming Roman Catholics’. Perhaps the most significant element is that married Anglican priests will be able to be ordained as priests in the Roman Catholic Church (though they will not be able to become bishops). Everyone in the Ordinariate will thus be in full communion with Rome, and the liturgies they use will be subject to approval by the presiding Conference of Bishops, but they will not be entirely subject to Roman discipline and will thus in some respects remain distinct.

That is as much as I have been able to glean, and given that we still await the Apostolic Constitution itself, that is perhaps as far as it is wise to go. What, however, might it all mean?

I was talking earlier on the phone to an Anglo-Catholic friend (who, incidentally, knew several days ago that this was coming) and his opinion was that in the immediate short-term this was of ‘atomic bomb’ proportions, but that the really important question in England was how Forward-in-Faith and others would react in the long term.

Significantly, he did not foresee immediate large-scale defections. Indeed, he observed that there are many Anglo-Catholics who, like himself, view Rome as simply wrong on some points, for example in insisting that certain beliefs (including papal infallibility) are salvation issues. In this and other ways they regard themselves as authentically Anglican members of the Catholic church, in no need of ‘reception’ into Rome’s branch of the same (although very happy to recognize Rome as special).

There is also the vexed question of money. It was quite one thing, as he put it, to ‘take the money and run’ back in the early nineties, when clergy who left the Church of England over the ordination of women received a reasonable compensation package. It would be quite another thing for them to leave now when the Roman Catholic church in this country is in no position to offer them either posts or funding. Of course there is nothing to stop a congregation funding its own minister, but that is, as the Australians say, ‘a big ask’.

Nevertheless, we both agreed that the nature and timing of this announcement is highly important. First, in his view, it is an indication that Rome’s patience with Canterbury has run out. The ecumenical discussions of recent decades have been conducted with the hope that something was achievable through official negotiating channels. One result of this was that ‘private’ approaches to Rome were politely rejected. The recent actions of Anglican bishops, and the decisions of the English General Synod, however, have suggested that Anglicans are saying one thing but doing another. Consequently, Rome has decided it is time to listen to and deal with individuals rather than the institution.

Secondly, we both feel this speaks volumes about Rome’s attitude towards Anglicanism, where it is no longer felt necessary to keep Anglican ‘officialdom’ onside. Despite references on both sides to ecumenical negotiations, the Apostolic Constitution is not the result of a ‘deal’ but rather is an offer which the Church of England literally cannot refuse. And as in the culture from which that phrase comes, the maker of the offer by that action indicates a sense of strength with relation to the one to whom it is made. In other words, Rome must feel it has nothing to lose and a lot to gain from this.

Personally, I likened it to the Argentinian landings on South Georgia which preceded the Falklands War. From a military point of view, the landings were an irrelevance, and in a similar way, I doubt that numerically the Apostolic Constitution will have much impact on global Anglicanism. But as an indication of the Argentinian view of the balance of power in the South Atlantic, the invasion of South Georgia was crucial. In the same way, Rome now clearly feels it can act unilaterally to invite existing Anglicans en masse back into the fold — and the fact that this can be done at a press conference alongside the Archbishop of Canterbury on English soil surely signals that in the eyes of Rome, Anglican fortunes are approaching their nadir.

In this respect, Ruth Gledhill’s comment is entirely right. This is, indeed, a tank on Rowan’s lawn. And the sheer fact that it is sitting there is enough. The big question now is not so much how many Anglicans will leave, as how Anglicanism will regard itself. It will be very difficult to continue with the notion that it is a ‘world player’ of which Rome must take note. Rome has taken note, and its verdict is clear: the door is open, you’re welcome any time.

Andrew Brown in the Guardian is probably over-stating things when he says this is the end of the Anglican Communion, but it is clearly the end of Anglicanism’s previous relationship with Rome —first as an enemy, then as a cautious, but mutual, friend. From now on, Anglicanism vis à vis Rome is a leaking balloon.

What, finally, of the Evangelical response? Reform has issued a press release which says, rightly in my view, that, “It is illusory to pretend that this development is an outcome of ecumenical dialogue.” Rather, it suggests that this “illustrates the difficulties the C of E faces.”

However, I suspect that the release is over-optimistic when it asserts that, “Anglicans concerned about protecting the basic Christian faith need not go to Rome, because we now have the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA (UK)) which holds together those who want to stop the orthodox faith being eroded.”

The reality is that FCA UK is neither as widespread nor as coherent as this might suggest, and in any case the Apostolic Constitution will prove a considerable distraction to at least some of those whom FCA UK has sought to embrace. At least a proportion of these will ask why one should look to doubtful support from overseas Anglican bishops when one can join a community within England backed by the not-inconsiderable might of Rome.

Whatever else happens, this has undoubtedly sown confusion in the ranks. Of course, I have been arguing for years that Reform-type Evangelical Anglicans should seek episcopal oversight under the provisions of the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod 1993, and thereby create the pressure for an Evangelical ‘flying bishop’ (or three), with the aim of getting for themselves what the Anglo-Catholics have enjoyed for a decade and a half. But that would be too obvious!

Perhaps I may close with another military analogy. It is a generally acknowledged fact that a successful internal insurgency in any country requires a powerful outside backer. The IRA had the Americans and the Libyans. The Vietcong had North Korea, China and Russia. The Iraqi insurgents had Syria and Iran, and so on. The Apostolic Constitution may therefore have precisely the opposite effect to what some people imagine —rather than encouraging defections, it may encourage Anglo-Catholic internal ‘insurgency’ in the Church of England. But if that is the case, the Conservative Evangelicals are left high and dry. They have no friend in Rome, and they have few friends amongst their own bishops. Of course, they may feel they have enough of a friend in Jesus, and in soteriological terms that is true. But in ecclesio-political terms it may only be enough to sustain them as an isolated and beleaguered minority.

John Richardson
21 October 2009

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select the 'Anonymous' profile, then type in a couple of letters, select 'preview', then close the preview box and delete these letters.

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.