Over the course of the day, Synod voted to note the report of the Revision Committee which we have written about previously. The Committe, remember, were unable to agree on legislation to provide statutory protection for dissenters and ended up recommending a Code of Practice - a solution which both Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals had pointed out (on numerous occassions) were simply insufficient and reneged on previous guarantees and promises made by General Synod.

Next, debate and voting moved to 3 amendments put forward by various parties. In some senses these provided a range of choices for Synod.

The first (512a), advocating for seperate dioceses, was defeated; 134 in favour, 285 against and 8 abstentions. The vote for was, perhaps, higher than had been expected and caused renewed interest.

The second amendment (513a), called for an equivalent of TEA (Transfer of Episcopal Authority) - ie a woman diocesan bishop would, at request of a parish, transfer her authority to a male bishop suitable to the parish. This was defeated in houses Bishops 10-28-2 (aye-no-abst), Clergy 52-124-3, Lay 73-118-4.

Finally, amendment 514a was put forward by Canterbury and York. This was seen as a middle ground, essentially providing for a "sharing" of authority between diocesan and alternate bishop. The mood in the chamber was, some have reported, conciliatory - on both sides, it might be noted. However the amendment was defeated in houses with Bishops (25-15-0) and Lay (106-86-4) voting in favour, but clergy voting against 85-90-5.

Further amendments lapsed through lack of the 40 members needed to call a discussion and vote.

One major sentiment in the Synod was shock that the Archbishops' amendment had been defeated. Certainly the coming days will be interesting.

As expected, various parties have already released statements.

Women and the Church (WATCH):

Full Steam Ahead for Women Bishops

Church can Move Forward at Last

WATCH is delighted that the Church has today affirmed its wish to appoint women as bishops on the same basis as men.

The General Synod, meeting in York, re-iterated its decision of July 2008 that when women are appointed bishops they will be in charge of their entire Diocese. Amendments suggesting that there should be separate dioceses for those opposed, or permanent flying bishops, or that parishes should automatically be transferred to another bishop, were all rejected by the Synod.

Hilary Cotton, Vice-Chair of WATCH, said, ‘We are absolutely delighted that Synod has stuck with its decision of two years ago and wants women to be bishops with full authority. This is good news for all women, not just women in the Church.’

Rachel Weir Chair of WATCH said, ”This has been an agonisingly slow journey and the Church has rightly wanted to do all it could for those who find this difficult, but we are delighted that Synod has made the right decision in the end”. Now at last the Church can move forward and accept the wonderful gifts of leadership that our women bring.”

On Monday the Synod will decide what minor amendments to make. It will also be given the opportunity to vote for the simplest possible legislation, in other words that ‘the Church will appoint male and female bishops’. Arrangements for those opposed would then be entrusted to individual bishops under a Code of Practice that will be drawn up in the near future.

This is not the end of the journey. The wider Church will now be invited to debate the proposals and if approved General Synod will have a final vote on them in about eighteen months time.

(This via Thinking Anglicans - original not yet on WATCH website.)

Anglican Mainstream, claiming to represent both evangelicals and catholics, have this:

ANGLO- CATHOLIC AND EVANGELICAL GENERAL SYNOD MEMBERS SEEK ‘URGENT’ MEETING WITH ARCHBISHOPS FOLLOWING THIS AFTERNOON’S DEBATE ON WOMEN BISHOPS

ANGLO-CATHOLIC and Evangelical members of the Church of England’s General Synod, meeting in York this weekend, have asked for an “urgent” meeting following Synod’s defeat of the Archbishops’ amendment on the Measure which would allow Women to be Bishops in the Church of England.

The Archbishops’ put forward an unprecedented amendment to the Women Bishops Revision Committee’s recommendations , which they felt would help maintain unity within the church and be pastorally sensitive to those who, from theological and conscience issues, cannot accept the Episcopal ministry of women.

Despite a majority of synod voting FOR the Archbishops’’ amendment, it failed on a “procedural device” of requiring a two-thirds majority in all three houses: Bishops, clergy and laity. In the House of Clergy, the vote was split 50/50.

The subsequent crisis in the CofE, and its Synodical and Episcopal leadership has led senior Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical leaders this evening to request and urgent meeting with both Archbishops to discuss the matter before Synod resumes its Women Bishop debates on the issue on Monday morning.

In the meantime, leaders of the two groups within the CofE are asking parishes to pray earnestly this weekend for grace and wisdom for the General Synod as they seek God’s will for His church.

and this:

The debate in synod is not about gender equality. It is about the liberty to hold within the Church of England two views about leadership in the church which are compatible with scripture and tradition. Most have accepted that there will be women bishops in the Church of England.

The problem the Archbishops were trying to address was trying to address was the problem of monoepiscopacy, the belief that only one bishop can have jurisdiction in one geographical area. Synod was trying to find a way in which

i) all bishops would be of equal status and

ii) would provide a way in which those who, on grounds of scripture and theology, cannot accept women as bishops, can continue to flourish within the Church of England without diminishing the status of women bishops.

So far we have yet to find a solution. Further meetings to address this will take place.

Philip Giddings

Chris Sugden

Forward in Faith have this:

Forward in Faith notes that the amendment to the draft Measure to permit the ordination of women as bishops standing in the names of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York failed to gain approval today by just five votes in the House of Clergy, despite the fact that a significant majority of the members of Synod voted in its favour.

We naturally share the Archbishops' disappointment at this turn of events and will now take counsel together, as we await the resumption of the debate on Monday.

And the Catholic Group on Synod this:

We deeply regret that the General Synod has decided to ignore the leadership of the chief pastors of the Church of England Archbishops of Canterbury and York.

The voting was by the three Houses of Synod separately, with support from the Bishops and Laity but not from the Clergy. In total, 216 people voted in favour and 191 against with 9 abstentions - so there was support for the Archbishops' amendments.

By rejecting the opportunity for unity that the Amendments they proposed would have achieved, it has made it very difficult for those who in conscience cannot accept the ministry for women priests and bishops.

The process in General Synod is not over and we would wish to be involved in the ongoing discussions as to a way forward that includes all loyal members of the Church of England.

So where are we at? Debate continues on Monday, although it goes without saying that there will be pretty involved conversation today (Sunday). Stay tuned. And pray.

We'll do our best to keep you updated from across the oceans. For a breadth of coverage you might also want to peruse Anglican Mainstream and Thinking Anglicans.

48 Comments • Print-friendly • Print-friendly w/comments

Comments:

Speaking with and reading from other Catholic Anglicans today has left me with a couple observations from an Anglo-Catholic view. The Church of England leadership increasingly appears to desire to be MERELY Protestant, with no effective desire to retain Catholicity. While Apostolic Succession is retained for now, it will dissipate as women in mitres participate more and more in “consecrations”. Anglican claims to catholicity will dim more and more in the eyes of the major Catholic branches of Christendom(Rome, Orthodoxy, Oriental Churches, Continuum, ACNA, and a good chunk of the WWAC). I can recognize the orders, without reservation, of someone like +Bishop Mark Lawrence of South Carolina, as he did not have Dr. Schori as a “consecrator”. However, when +Andy Doyle of Texas had Dr. Schori as “chief consecrator”, that cast a murky haze over his succession. Anglican Orders in the CofE hang by threads…and when women in mitres start participating, those threads will snap…one by one…as continues in TEC, New Zealand, Australia, Scotland(not yet), Ireland(not yet), Canada, and the Lutheran Churches of Sweden and Finland. People scoffed at the talk of a “slippery slope”...‘tis here. I am not sure I could take Communion inside a CofE parish now.

[1] Posted by TXThurifer on 07-11-2010 at 03:08 AM • top

I wonder how many letters of “ICHABOD” ahve already been painted on Lambeth Palace’s gates. And I am not really confident that Monday will bring an announcement of a brilliant plan by Synod to give the traditionalists any crumbs. If they got any crumbs, it would only buy them time before the inevitable.

[2] Posted by TXThurifer on 07-11-2010 at 03:12 AM • top

As usual, “shock and awe” and “scorched earth” policy…

[3] Posted by TXThurifer on 07-11-2010 at 03:20 AM • top

Oh boy…another Protestant sect is born. You must feel very self satisfied today C of E but you will reap what you have sown.
Intercessor

[4] Posted by Intercessor on 07-11-2010 at 07:41 AM • top

This world has truly turned into a self-centered “me first” world despite what God wants and what He has ordered.

RE:“Forward in Faith notes that the amendment to the draft Measure to permit the ordination of women as bishops standing in the names of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York failed to gain approval today by just five votes in the House of Clergy…”

Someone please explain what this means….Does Canterbury and York and FIF want women bishops? Because the way this reads it sounds like they do ....

[5] Posted by TLDillon on 07-11-2010 at 07:54 AM • top

[5] TLDillon

Does Canterbury and York and FIF want women bishops? Because the way this reads it sounds like they do

One way or another, there will be women bishops in the CoE in the near future. FiF has simply accepted that reality. The question then becomes “What to do with those who do not recognize and therefore cannot accept the authority of a woman bishop?” The Majority says “Compel them. Acknowledgment is a pre-condition for staying in the CoE. Anything less undermines the authority of a woman bishop.” The Majority states that it will extend the hand of grace for a time if that acknowledgment is received. But it must proceed from grace and not obligation. In the thinking of the Majority, no woman bishop must ever be placed under obligation to compromise her authority in the face of dissent.

Of course, the dissidents have viable options besides tossing their consciences and bowing the knee. If they are sufficiently backed into a corner on this issue, they will exercise those options. They will either go to Rome, or carve themselves out into a shadow Anglican entity within the UK. The AoC knows this. He understands the disastrous (and mortal) self-inflicted wound that will result if large numbers of traditionalists decide they have no option within the scope of their conscience but to leave the CoE. I am sure the AoC is working the back channels as I type trying to salvage the situation. But the revisionists know it as well. It’s going to be harder this time.

The hard-core revisionists have two basic attitudes towards the dissenters and their ultimate threat to depart:

1. “Good riddance to them and their reactionary ideas.”
2. “They are bluffing. The leadership won’t give up its economic security.”

Both show a profound level of disrespect for their opponents. It reflects the two acceptable outcomes for revisionists. Either that traditionalists must be made to submit, or they must be dispossessed. It is within this context that the AoC will try to pull off some last-minute miracle. I wouldn’t put any money on his success.

carl

[6] Posted by carl on 07-11-2010 at 08:26 AM • top

Thank you Carl….This is disturbing very disturbing. Is not FIF a major player in ACNA? And if this happens as most seem to think it will what will ACNA do next? I know that ACNA is not recognized by the Se of Canterbury but by their leading it seems to m that ACNA would make the next step.

[7] Posted by TLDillon on 07-11-2010 at 08:37 AM • top

I don’t believe that the position of anyone in ACNA will be affected by what the C of E does in this matter. It’s quite clear they are moving away from orthodoxy generally, and ACNA has no desire to follow them.

[8] Posted by Toral1 on 07-11-2010 at 09:17 AM • top

Well I am not so sure about that Toral1, the Archbishop of ACNA ordains women to the priesthood….it is just one more tine step to the episcopate.

[9] Posted by TLDillon on 07-11-2010 at 09:20 AM • top

Oops “tiny step”

[10] Posted by TLDillon on 07-11-2010 at 09:21 AM • top

I guess what is really nagging at me regarding this is that if the See of the WWAC goes this route, which many know it will sooner rather than later, then what is stopping it from becoming worldwide accepted in the Anglican faith. I do not think that Rome would ever go this route. So only the WWAC would open the flood gates of heresy on this and soon the Traditionalist would be pushed out and I do not think that ACNA is much different in the future

[11] Posted by TLDillon on 07-11-2010 at 09:30 AM • top

TLDillon,
Bingo! There you have it, Traditionalist ACs have to either resign themselves to the inevitable and somehow reason that it is God’s Will or join the ranks of the Continuum as Continuing Episcopalians or go to Rome. Traditionalist Evangelicals have nowhere else to go, so they face extinction.

[12] Posted by RMBruton on 07-11-2010 at 10:28 AM • top

And the new job for KJS has just about come open.. Not as Bishop of course, but head of the “NEW” WWAC..
How nice for her..

Grannie Gloria

[13] Posted by Grandmother on 07-11-2010 at 10:36 AM • top

#11 “I do not think that Rome would ever go this route….” In “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” the Holy Father Pope John Paul II declared that the Catholic Church has no authority from Christ to ordain women to the priesthood. For the Church to somehow alter this at some future date would be for her to admit she is not who she claims to be. That is apostolic faith.

[14] Posted by Father Bob on 07-11-2010 at 11:09 AM • top

Father Bob….I know that that is what I was essentially saying if you read what I wrote a bit more carefully ....I already know what Rome would and would not do…..and I agree with her. Women in Holy Orders is very much against God order.

[15] Posted by TLDillon on 07-11-2010 at 12:12 PM • top

[14] Father Bob

For the Church to somehow alter this at some future date would be for her to admit she is not who she claims to be.

I don’t know. The RCC didn’t seem to have any trouble re-wiring its historical understanding of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus without admitting that she is not who she claims to be. It’s amazing what can be accomplished with an air-brush these days.

carl

[16] Posted by carl on 07-11-2010 at 12:19 PM • top

David, thank you for rounding up this information. Prayers may be found here, here, and here.

[17] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 07-11-2010 at 01:10 PM • top

They will either go to Rome, or carve themselves out into a shadow Anglican entity within the UK.

Carl #6, do you think they will consider the Orthodox? It is very Eastern but doesn’t have the same baggage as Rome.

-Kathryn

[18] Posted by Kate Stirk on 07-11-2010 at 03:03 PM • top

TL Dillon #5, I think you have misunderstood the FiF position. The Archbishops of York & Canterbury offered an amendment which, if adopted, would have provided at least some statutory protection for traditionalists. It was not, in my opinion and probably theirs, enough, but it was the best they were going to get, and its defeat by a mere five clergy members is what they regret.

Really the oddest aspect of this mess is that the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) has offered English traditionalists a place in the Roman Church which will, basically, establish overlapping non-geographic episcopal oversight for them, and the Church of England has just refused to do this in a twisted appeal to “church order.”

Also we should note who has been genuinely tolerant. Traditionalists have been required to tolerate what they think is a serious violation of catholicity, but the side which favors women in orders has been rigid and hardline and intolerant. I hope that the ACNA will not follow the CofE’s example. Christian charity has been entirely lacking on the “liberal” side.

[19] Posted by Katherine on 07-11-2010 at 03:58 PM • top

Actually Katherine I do not think I misunderstand all that much. IMHO, the Archbishops Canterbury & York should be standing up AGAINST this. I do not prefer this amendment/offer…I prefer that that stand for the catholicity of our faith.

[20] Posted by TLDillon on 07-11-2010 at 04:03 PM • top

Of course they should be standing against this. And so does FiF.

[21] Posted by Katherine on 07-11-2010 at 04:04 PM • top

I am not so sure about FIF…the seem to be okay with tolerance and accommodation from my point of view.
This sentence here gives me pause for concern in that regard:
“We naturally share the Archbishops’ disappointment at this turn of events and will now take counsel together”

[22] Posted by TLDillon on 07-11-2010 at 04:35 PM • top

The proposal was their absolute last gasp, not what they wanted. Even that has now failed, and “take counsel” may mean a fair number of them going to the Roman ordinariate.

[23] Posted by Katherine on 07-11-2010 at 04:46 PM • top

You know the reason these revisionist and heretics have been able to take over and get the upper hand is that they do not waiver. The do not compromise, they do not tolerate as the conservative traditionalists have. I cannot help but wonder if we have not compromised, tolerated and waivered all these past decades to allow them room and to allow them feel welcome if we might not be in this mess?

[24] Posted by TLDillon on 07-11-2010 at 04:54 PM • top

TL Dillion #24, I agree with that entirely. We have tolerated what we should not have.

I suppose it was foolish to ever think that an English clergy order now stuffed with active “gays” and leftist women would ever vote to be charitable to traditionalists.

[25] Posted by Katherine on 07-11-2010 at 05:01 PM • top

Katherine….Foolish is an understatement…all one needs do is look at Katherine Jefferts Schori, Susan Russell, Barbara Harris, Bonnie Anderson, etc….etc….etc…
The American branch of the Anglican Communion is the example that the English should have paid closer attention to as an example of which does not work. But then with the society that England has grown over the decades with the likes of Tony Blair I guess seeing that which should be avoided is not foreseeable at all. We are not a good example to follow yet the CofE is following lock in step

[26] Posted by TLDillon on 07-11-2010 at 05:22 PM • top

TL Dillon #24
I have observed this play out to its predictable end over the years since the CoE first voted to allow women’s ordination in 1992. As I remember it, at that time, FIF said they would stay until Synod voted to allow women bishops. They have had 18 years to work out a fall back plan and I always assumed they had one. However, to my surprise and dismay, it became apparent to me when the day finally arrived that there was no agreed upon plan. Judging from the various statements issued last year by various Anglo-Catholic leaders in the UK, I think FIF is made up of at least three factions that disagree on where to go from here: a Roman Rite faction who will most likely make use of the Ordinariate or just swim the Tiber individually; a “let’s go our own way and try to remain Anglican”, third province faction; and a “let’s hope for the best” faction (possibly the same as the “it’s not over until it’s over even though the fat lady is singing the finale” faction). From some reports there are hints there may also be a shadowy pro-homosexual faction who are willing to accept women priests rather than go to Rome with its current crackdown on homosexual behavior. My take on it is that FIF is unable to arrive at a consensus and will not be able to speak with one voice or act en bloc. I would love to be proved wrong. I think FIFNA and FIF together might be an alternative to ACNA as a way forward for Anglo-Catholics who do not accept women’s ordination.

monika (Kate Phelps)

[27] Posted by monika on 07-11-2010 at 05:35 PM • top

#15 Carl - I won’t respond to your misunderstanding (or is it sarcasm?) only because it weould go too far afield - off the topic.

[28] Posted by Father Bob on 07-11-2010 at 07:47 PM • top

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus means: “Outside the Church there is no salvation”. The most recent Catholic Catechism interpreted this to mean that “all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body.”

An Eastern Orthodox bishop has expressed this doctrine as follows:
“Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. All the categorical strength and point of this aphorism lies in its tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church” (G. Florovsky, “Sobornost: the Catholicity of the Church”, in The Church of God, p. 53). Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: “How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!” (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a “visible” and an “invisible Church”, yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say.
—Kallistos Ware

No need to expand…this pretty much sums it all up

[29] Posted by TLDillon on 07-11-2010 at 08:15 PM • top

Monika, the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin is affiliated with Forward in Faith North America, and therefore there is a connection between the ACNA and FiFNA. Our bishop and a good many of us, myself included, define ourselves as Anglo Catholic (I am of the evangelical-leaning persuasion), and therefore are anti-WO.

[30] Posted by Cennydd10 on 07-12-2010 at 12:01 AM • top

30…I hope it stays that way…some say SJ is now an increasingly mixed bag and wavering on WO…especially once a new bishop comes in.

[31] Posted by TXThurifer on 07-12-2010 at 12:05 AM • top

TxThurifer it is a mixed bag and we are not as Anglo Catholic as we might have been some 5-10 years ago. Case in point….one of the female deacons ordained in this diocese by our bishop was ordained as a “transitional” deacon. She has her M.Div and believes she should be a priest. We have more female ordained deacons in this diocese than we do male ordained deacons. We even have a female Lutheran priest that participates in much of our diocesan functions although she does not assist at the alter or preach in any of our churches as she has been an interim pastor at a Lutheran church in Merced Ca. But she does participate in vesting up and processing with our clergy for ordinations and in the Mass of Chrism. This diocese has become more evangelical and charismatic than it is Anglo Catholic.

[32] Posted by TLDillon on 07-12-2010 at 12:12 AM • top

I truly believe that the only real Anglo-Catholic diocese left that has left TEc is Ft. Worth

[33] Posted by TLDillon on 07-12-2010 at 12:16 AM • top

If this Lutheran lady pastor came from the ELCA(and let’s say for giggles, that WO was valid) she would be still be questionable because the ELCA has spotty Apostolic Succession from a few TEC bishops here and there. On the other…why on earth would +Bishop john-David ordain a trasitional woman deacon??? That’s very disappointing. The deacon issue is the same in Ft. Worth…many more women deacons than men…I know very few permanent male deacons in FW.

[34] Posted by TXThurifer on 07-12-2010 at 12:18 AM • top

33…Quincy is very Anglo-Catholic…just dying…they need a good shot of Historical Oxford Movement Evangelism…

[35] Posted by TXThurifer on 07-12-2010 at 12:21 AM • top

She is from the ELCA…and the question regarding the transitional female deacon is a great one and one I have asked and have not gotten a good nor straight forward answer to date.

[36] Posted by TLDillon on 07-12-2010 at 12:21 AM • top

That is true about Quincy…I had forgotten about them ...my bad ...sorry

[37] Posted by TLDillon on 07-12-2010 at 12:23 AM • top

36…if you ever see +Guernsey walking around Fresno, then he’s there to ordain her…he’s the flying WO bishop…just ask Christ Church Plano…

[38] Posted by TXThurifer on 07-12-2010 at 12:24 AM • top

Cennydd10….I am 100% Anglo Catholic through and through and struggle a lot here in our diocese.

[39] Posted by TLDillon on 07-12-2010 at 12:24 AM • top

Great…. that is just great…..Well it should be interesting within this next year since we will have a new bishop by May of next year and consecrate him next Fall. I have prayed hard in my life time but not as hard as I have been of late.

[40] Posted by TLDillon on 07-12-2010 at 12:26 AM • top

For those not aware, a majority of the Anglican communion reject both women bishops and women priests. It is mostly evangelicals in the AC that reject female ordination. (Here in Australia it is almost universally anglo-catholic dioceses that have turned liberal and embraced women’s ordination - I appreciate that is not the case in all countries).

One thing that comes out of this is that anglo-catholics and evangelicals need to stop their junvenile sniping at each other and start standing up together for what they SAY they believe in.

Instead of sniping at “the other mob”, I suggest everyone pray for General Synod. Women bishops are NOT a reality in England yet despite some of the rubbish being put about by the press and by liberals spokespersons (sorry that is discriminatory in favour of humans, therefore in the new spirit of the age I will say “spokesbeings”).

The Synod has rejected compromise measures. It has not yet accepted any version of the legislation. Pray that the Lord’s will have his way: EITHER for the legislation to be rejected OR for it to be accepted and for the faithful to be forced to separate themselves from CofE, as has happened in America.

Pray also for the orthodox groups in England. Forward-in-Faith appears very ready to compromise - as long as they get their own male bishops they seem very happy to co-exist in a church with female bishops. Pray that the Lord grant them a spine.

Reform on the other hand is still standing up for no women bishops at all. Pray that the Lord will continue to uphold and empower their witness.

Pray also for those moved to go to Rome - if that is the correct move, then they should leave now. They may as well stop dithering.

[41] Posted by MichaelA on 07-12-2010 at 01:43 AM • top

Cennydd and TL Dillon,
I am in the Diocese of Fort Worth (not rump) and understand the situation in San Joaquin very well, partly from reading your posts over several years. My point was that if FIF in the UK might actually throw their hand in with FIFNA we could duck the WO issues currently lurking under the surface of ACNA. However, I suspect FIF UK is too divided internally about the way forward to make a strong, unified stand.

Kate Phelps

[42] Posted by monika on 07-12-2010 at 07:08 AM • top

WATCH: “Church can Move Forward at Last”

Yes, indeed. A well known military maneuver (for the British commenters here, that would be manœuvre)—the well-known tactic of “advancing to the rear!”

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
LCDR, USN [ret]

[43] Posted by H. Potter (aka Martial Artist) on 07-12-2010 at 09:22 AM • top

So, is Britain now on the verge of events leading up to: (a) disestablishment of the CofE, (b) to the establishment of the CsofE (plural), or (c) to the debarkation of Anglo-catholics to the Catholic Anglican Ordinariate(s)? Time will tell.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
___________________

“One person’s adiaphora is another’s diaphora.”—[K. Töpfer]

“Where orthodoxy is optional, it will soon become proscribed.”—[Fr. Richard John Neuhaus (often termed “Neuhaus’ Law.”)]

[44] Posted by H. Potter (aka Martial Artist) on 07-12-2010 at 09:33 AM • top

H. Potter,
With the mixed bags of cultures in England, I think that your letter “B” might be the path. It was not too long ago that Sharia Law was being explored and discussed in England.

[45] Posted by TLDillon on 07-12-2010 at 09:37 AM • top

Keith, alias HP or MA (#44),

“One person’s adiaphora is another’s diaphora.”

Delightful and very clever, brother. We’ll soon see just how extensive that largely unwilling departure from the CoE into some kind of exile or Anglican diaphora will prove to be.

David Handy+

[46] Posted by New Reformation Advocate on 07-12-2010 at 01:52 PM • top

A friendly amendment to Keith’s witty comment, explicating what I meant above.

“One person’s adiaphora is another’s diaspora.”

David Handy+

[47] Posted by New Reformation Advocate on 07-13-2010 at 09:43 AM • top

[47] Fr. Handy,

Thank you both for the compliment and for the explication. I had assumed that was your intended meaning, and am happy to know I was correct.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

[48] Posted by H. Potter (aka Martial Artist) on 07-13-2010 at 12:42 PM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.