Monday, 8 July 2013


Today has seen a highly significant defeat for traditionalists at the York Synod of the Church of England: the promise of 'provision' becomes ever more vague.
Let us hope that the defeat is not followed by a similar * capitulation.

"....But history and contemporary experience shows that detailed arrangements not only embed division, they are also unworkable and lead to frequent and prolonged litigation...."
Archbishop Justin Welby: Monday 8th July 2013 [here]

Far from ensuring that "all parts of the Church of England may flourish" this will most likely lead to the crushing of opposition and the expulsion of opponents: it has become very clear over the last few years that the majority simply lacks the necessary "commitment to mutual flourishing" for which the Archbishop calls. All the bold words about the need for an 'inclusive approach,' ''consensus building' and for provisions (if I read Lambeth Palace's clarified version of the speech correctly)  to be 'robust' and constitute "an electrified ring fence" are expressly designed to be simply words and no more. 
In any case, electric fences are of little use if the fox is already in the hen coop.
However, the Church of England can rest easy. The likely proposals which will come before the Synod in November will, of course, produce peace - in the sense that the so-called dissident elements will fade away.  But it will be the peace of the ecclesial graveyard, the ultimate 'inclusive' consensus of all... unanimity itself.

'O put not your trust in princes, nor in any child of man: for there is no help in them'


  1. Church of Sweden, here we come ...

  2. The one thing that is very clear is that despite all the fine words, Catholics and other traditionalists are not wanted and we will be forced out eventually. I am reminded of the snake in the Disney version of the Jungle Book who says "trust in me" when doing so would be fatal. If we "trust" that any provision of any consequence will be made we live in cloud cuckoo land

  3. Joseph Golightly9 July 2013 at 07:36

    The consecration of the bishops has many hands being laid upon heads. The object of this is to remove the backbone. No good wearing a chasuble (as ++Wilby does it would seem) if you haven't got the notion of priesthood in the church catholic. I cannot believe that trads. would trust the bishops to deliver and as it has been said 'How do you know when a bishop is lying?' - i guess you all know the answer⁄

  4. I joined the Ordinariate when it was first set up because I felt that the Church I had been brought up in had changed beyond all recognition and the present Synodical system was far from satisfactory and offered no future for Catholics. I listened off and on to yesterday's debate with a growing sense of sadness for traditionalists who are bravely trying to stay in the Church of England and asking for some provision. Like you Father I fear their future is very bleak. We can only pray that "The Lord will provide".

  5. A couple of weeks ago, I attended the Mass celebrating the 40th anniversary of ordination of a priest friend. After a first curacy in a parish which was regarded as very Catholic by the standards of its rural diocese, he moved to a very large parish in a neighbouring diocese. The general tone was "central with vestments", but Father was allowed some latitude as last curate-in-charge and first team vicar of a daughter church. He built a Catholic tradition and increased the congregation fourfold. The rest of his stipendiary ministry he spent as parish priest in an Anglo-Catholic parish. He now looks after a church in interregnum, where the last four PPs have swum the Tiber.

    His ministry would be impossible in the C of E as it now is, with Anglo-Catholic parishes ghettoized. The decision of the bizarre, faux-parliamentary General Synod is unsurprising - indeed, entirely predictable - but it leaves us in a still more dire position. I hope that we get an immediate and robust response from the flying bishops and FiF.


Anonymous comments will not be published