Monday, October 18, 2010

Bishop John Broadhurst on the ‘vicious’ and ‘fascist’ Church of England

When Pope Benedict XVI dreamed up his Anglicanorum Coetibus as a means of irrevocably changing the ecumenical landscape of Christendom by absorbing the Church of England, there was much triumphalist talk of the death of Anglicanism with apocalyptic prophesies of theological earthquakes and ecclesiastical tsunamis, all heralding the end of the Reformation.

God must have had other plans.

More tea, Vicar?

The Rt Rev John Broadhurst, Bishop of Fulham, was always one of those who were likely to accept the Pope’s gracious invitation. He has opposed women’s ordination from the outset: it has become, for him, the touchstone of the Church of England’s catholicity. Finding no space within the Anglican via media for his orthodoxy and conscience, he has announced his resignation as a bishop and intends to join the Ordinariate when it is established. And he does so prophesying that a deluge of Anglican ‘traditionalists’ will be following him across the Tiber.

His Grace has a lot of sympathy for the Bishop's position, and sincerely wishes him well on his journey to the Ordinariate. It’s just a pity he couldn’t have gone with more grace.

In his ‘Keynote Address’ to the Forward in Faith group, he refers to the 'deceit', ‘evil’ and ‘lies' of the Church of England; he talks of ‘honourable men turned into liars and deceivers’. He says the Church is ‘myopic’ and ‘suffering from Alzheimer’s’. He decries the fact that the ‘poorly-trained’ House of Clergy is now ‘dominated by liberals and feminists’, and bemoans that the Synod now rules and not Parliament.

He appears to believe that there are fewer liberals and feminists in Parliament.

But he says he is ‘a disestablishment man’.

Which explains one or two things. So why does he want the will of Parliament to overrule the Synod?

He says: “Our enemies could not care if our churches closed. They would rather have them converted into nightclubs or mosques than that they would be inhabited by orthodox Anglicans’.

And by ‘our enemies’, he appears to mean those who support the ordination of women, or, rather, who have so hijacked the agenda that no via media amendment, as proposed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, is now popssible.

And so, he concludes, the Church of England is ‘an evil institution’.

My, how these Christians love one another.

By branding the General Synod of the Church of England ‘vicious’ and ‘fascist’, the Bishop shows himself to be surprisingly immature and ungracious.

If one were to apply such abusive adjectives to the Roman Catholic Church, the epithet ‘bigot’ would doubtless swiftly follow, whatever incontrovertible evidence may be adduced to corroborate the historical relationship between fascism and the Vatican throughout the ages.

If the Ordinariate is to be composed of such embittered former Anglicans, the Church of England is better off without them and Rome is welcome to them.

And St Peter's Church in Folkestone (in the Diocese of Canterbury) appears to be no better. Its congregation of 40 appears reluctant to wait and see if last July’s Synod vote can be overturned and legislation passed to form a legal structure to protect their rejection of female priests and bishops.

They are clearly geared up for a bloody fight and are quite overtly using the language of war.

There is no need at all for this.

It shames their witness, hinders the gospel and drags the name of Jesus through the mud.

Leave, by all means, if you wish. But you exchange women in the episcopate for the prohibition of clerical marriage; debate for diktat; via media for tablets of stone; organic evolution for semper eadem; and accountability for infallibility.

Anglicanism is a fundamentally different kind of Christianity from Romanism.

There really is nothing ‘fascist’ about a synodical mechanism whereby a two-thirds majority permits a development in doctrine: quite the reverse.

But Bishop John Broadhurst prefers to talk of the evil, lies and deceit of his brothers in Christ.

This is not about Roman Catholics and Anglicans.

The Bishop has made it a question of sheep and goats.

Rome is welcome to him.

His Grace sincerely wishes Bishop John well. But the leader of the noble pursuit Forward in Faith appears to be heading Backward in Bigotry. Perhaps he may soon discover the real meaning of authoritarianism, for if he believes the Church of England to be fascist, he is unlikely to discover liberty, democracy, accountability and transparency across the Tiber.


Blogger john in cheshire said...

YG, do you not think there is evil within the Church of England? If there isn't why then are they reluctant to promote Christianity; why are they so in thrall to islam?

18 October 2010 at 10:18  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr John in Cheshire,

The Church is the priesthood of believers. When a minister of religion - a bishop, no less - refers to the Church of England as being evil, he defames the Bride of Christ and blasphemes against the Holy Spirit.

No, evil may indeed reside within. But the Church cannot be evil.

18 October 2010 at 10:26  
Blogger Willie said...

Your Grace.
I do agree with what you say. I live in the Balkans and have observed what the Vatican did in supporting particular factions here. It may be that its role will come up in trials in the Hague.
Irrespective of any other reason put forward for leaving the C of E, I could never be part of a church that has in its recent past ignored the excesses of fascism and indeed supported them. It does take some leap of faith (!) to leave a very broad church for a narrow doctrinaire one that excuses its own transgressions by pardoning itself.
I only wish there was more leadership in the Cof E. I went to Uganda not long ago and met some very vibrant and positive Anglicans. It quite restored my faith. Maybe that is where Bishop Broadhurst ought to go.

18 October 2010 at 10:46  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

YG - I think you somewhat overstate the case. To call the CofE evil does not equate to committing the unpardonable sin.

18 October 2010 at 11:16  
Anonymous LDS said...

Graceless (in so many senses). I fear the Bishop is destined to remain unhappy as there is no perfection this side of the grave. He will lose a lot of things he takes for granted now. Like being able to speak out like this. He joins Rome at a time when I know many Roman Catholics tell me in private they see much to learn from Anglicanism in democracy, openness and the input of the laity: features that they believe might have avoided or mitigated the abuse scandal that is still eating away at authority and faith.

18 October 2010 at 11:52  
Blogger starcourse said...

I'm afraid Broadhurst has always been rather OTT. Yes there are unfortunate tendencies in the CofE internal politics, but his intemperate language should be discounted. He wants more flock.

18 October 2010 at 12:01  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace, I hate to nit-pick but:

'Anglicanism is a fundamentally different kind of Christianity to Romanism.'

Should be 'different...from'.

Moreover, why is everybody talking about +Fulham's resignation? He styled it that way himself, but he is in fact retiring because he is taking his pension (which he has earned). If he were 'resigning' to take up another post he would not be eligible for it. The 'resignation' was merely to add shock value.

18 October 2010 at 12:17  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...


His Grace is most appreciative.

18 October 2010 at 12:35  
Blogger Caedmon's Cat said...

It appears to me that the bishop seriously overstepped the mark by referring to the C Of E as evil - and by so doing has betrayed the kind of sectarian bigotry that sits so easily with the Church Of Rome's complacent and exclusive 'Unam Sanctam' claims. I wrote about this yesterday: it sounds so familiar to me.
Nevertheless, I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that the bishop has blasphemed against the Holy Spirit by making such a stupid remark; it should be borne in mind that churches can err just as readily as their individual members. And when I weigh up the compounded errors of Rome with the prevailing issues in the Anglican church, I see no comparison. I only hope that these Tiber-crossers know the full implication of what they're doing.

18 October 2010 at 12:46  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

‘The theological argument has been that God chose to become human in a male form at the Incarnation. He also chose twelve male apostles to represent him. This choice of male ministers was not arbitrary but reflects the fact that when God created men and women he created men to lead and to exercise authority and women to submit to men and to exercise a supportive and nurturing role, primarily, though not exclusively, within the domestic context. Respecting God’s creation of human beings as male and female means accepting these different roles assigned by God and reflecting them in the way that the Church and its ministry is organized and structured.’

Women Bishops in the Church of England?

A report of the House of Bishops’ Working Party on Women in the Episcopate (2004)

18 October 2010 at 13:01  
Anonymous Flossie said...

Your Grace, while I normally agree with you, I am puzzled by this. You valiantly (and rightly) champion Katharine Birbalsingh for being effectively dismissed for telling it like it is, yet you castigate John Broadhurst for doing the same.

By 'our enemies' he plainly does not mean supporters of women bishops, but those who want to make it impossible for Anglo Catholics to remain in the Church of England by insisting on the single clause measure, with no provision for them.

No longer can the C of E claim to be a 'broad church' when she drives out faithful people who continue to believe what the Church has always believed, and the majority of the world's Christians still believe - that the role of bishop is for males.

You may or may not agree with this - I do, and I am a female - and not even my worst enemy could call me submissive. I do not believe women can be bishops any more than they can be fathers. This does not mean they don't fulfil a vital role (mothers) it just means they are not fathers.

Priesthood and ministry are two different things. Women have an enormous role to play. As Mother Teresa once said when questioned on this issue - 'women have other things to do'.

Please do listen to Fr Sam Philpott's address to the conference on the Forward in Faith website. Solemn and binding undertakings are thrown out of the window with astonishing ease, it seems. So what else will be thrown out in the future, once the orthodox have departed, in the new liberal C of E?

Bishop Broadhurst is right. It's a disgrace. I would be willing to bet he wouldn't be leaving unless he was forced out. The people who have done this should hang their heads in shame. Instead, I see on various blogs that they are putting the boot in, not content with ridding themselves of him and others but having the nerve to call HIM unChristian.

18 October 2010 at 13:44  
Blogger Si Hollett said...

Your Grace says that: "Finding no space within the Anglican via media for his orthodoxy and conscience, he has announced his resignation as a bishop".

Given no space has been given for those that oppose female bishops this is unsurprising. The compromise found for those who opposed the ordination of women (floating bishops like +Broadhurst) has been undone by the synod.

Of course, given the via media is a way between Catholicism and the radical Anabaptists, etc - not a mix, but neither one nor the other, I find it hard to understand how +Broadhurst managed to find space in there in the first place. I guess the revisionist Oxford Movement did well in persuading people that Anglicanism isn't a blend of Lutheranism (from the first prayer book - worded so as to not offend Catholics massively) and your Grace's special blend of Swiss Reformed (from the second prayer book), but a blend of Catholic and Protestant.

Now sure, there's room for high church Protestantism in Anglicanism, but anyone who can seriously countenance Rome's offer isn't an Anglican holding to the 39 articles or the Book of Common Prayer. Rome must know this - their Councils anathematise anyone who agrees with Article 11 of the 39.

18 October 2010 at 14:02  
Anonymous Justin Hinchcliffe said...

YG, I find your post rather nasty. As I understand it, a compromise was sought and, even, supported by + Canterbury and York. This would have allowed women bishops but given tradionalists the option of, well, opting out. This was rejected. The liberals (most of whom are pro-abortion, too) don't want a 'broad church' - they want a church in their, not Christ's, image. Those staying with the CoE (as it now stands) who claim to be catholic do so because they are wedded to their period homes. And some will simply rot in them whilst candles are lit for Marie Stopes.

18 October 2010 at 14:46  
Blogger English Pensioner said...

I certainly think that he went a bit OTT!
I didn't like the idea of female clergy in the C of E, but I have now come to realise that it wasn't female clergy to which I objected, but the feminist attitude of a small minority whom I find it hard to believe actually have the audacity to call themselves Christians. Those female clergy whom I have met as Curates (ours is a training parish for recently ordained clergy and they generally move on after about a year) seem to be very good at their job and I wish them well. I take the same view on Bishops; any decision should be by ability and suitability for the job, not based on the need to have a proportion of females.
There are many things that I could complain about in the C of E, female clergy is not one of them.

18 October 2010 at 14:47  
Blogger I am Stan said...

Yo your Grace,

Well what a pickle,I guess its tata then to the Right Rev Johnny B,personally I care not whom leads the prayer and singsongs slong as they`re sincere.

18 October 2010 at 15:12  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

I cannot understand the view that you are not an 'orthodox anglican' if you are in favour of women clergy, but it apparently OK to say the clergy should be celibate, even though the Bible does actually allow clergy to marry and that this (women's ordination) is the ultimate arbiter of what makes one 'orthodox' or not?

I wish all the Anglo-catholics who desire to go to Rome,well. For the Church of England it will be an opportunity for renewal and mission in those areas abandoned by the Anglo-Catholics.

I am not sure how our Anglo-Catholic friends are going to cope without a Priest for each Church as is the Anglican way or how they are going to cope without a building in which to worship?

I guess they will simply 'merge' into existing RC congregations? If not, I guess building new churches will do wonders for the building and allied trades....

18 October 2010 at 16:02  
Anonymous Oswin said...

He should stay, and fight his corner!

18 October 2010 at 16:05  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Mr Paul Twigg tells us that:
'...the Bible does actually allow clergy to marry...'

Actually, Mr Twigg, I'd be very grateful if you can tell me where the Bible even mentions clergy.

There are lots of other assertions in various comments here, not least by Cranny himself, that are open to question, but this modest query will have to suffice for now.

18 October 2010 at 16:21  
Anonymous martin sewell said...

I shall be interested to hear what the Folkestone Priest might do if one of his former parishioners does not formally follow him to Rome but pitches up at the altar rail at Midnight Mass.

Is he to refuse that which he was previously so willing to give?

18 October 2010 at 16:36  
Anonymous Bede said...

"A two thirds majority [in Synod] permits a development in doctrine]"

Indeed? I agree it should not be termed 'fascist', but to say that a Synod, largely under the thrall of whatever is the current zeitgeist can legitimately 'develop doctrine' would signal the end of Christianity.

If this had been done by every generation during the past 2000 years, what weird religion would we have now? What if, in a few years time, Synod voted, very democratically, by a two thirds majority, that there is but one God and Mohammed is his prophet?

18 October 2010 at 17:32  
Anonymous Francis said...

From my reading of your piece, YG, it appears that you do not deny any of the substantive points made by the bishop, but merely object to his tone. Well, tone cannot be established by just picking out occasional words and sticking them, in isolation, in inverted commas.

If anything, I think Bp Broadhurst was somewhat understating the case, and would have been entirely justified in being far more bitter in his remarks to the Forward in Faith conference and subsequently to the press. Nobody who has observed this process over the past few years can be in doubt that General Synod has become "vindictive and vicious", determined that there will be no via media in this matter, and that consciences must simply be forced to comply with the new doctrine.

"It shames their witness, hinders the gospel and drags the name of Jesus through the mud." Is your Grace seriously saying this of such people as Bp Broadhurst and the congregation of St Peter's, Folkestone, and not of those who are making it impossible for them to remain in good conscience in the Church in which they have faithfully lived and served all their lives?

I think YG has got his perspectives very badly back to front on this. Oh, and the "Backward in Bigotry" jibe does YG no credit at all, as it associates him with some very unpleasant bullies in our national church who have been deploying the phrase for years to express their hatred for faithful orthodox Anglicans.

18 October 2010 at 17:36  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Francis,

Your observations are largely right.

In all honesty, His Grace had no idea that 'Backward in Bigotry' had been used by anyone anywhere.

But 'fascist' associates the Church that His Grace loves with some very unpleasant bullies throughout history.

And its meaning is the same within Bishop John's context as it is without.

18 October 2010 at 17:42  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

I am not well versed in the finer points of theology; I am a simple Christian who believes in the Christian God and The Good News, so I can't join in with the algebraical debate with regards to interpretation and who has the smelliest armpits. I have read the Bible, all be it within the limited confines of my own intellect and narrow understanding, and I have, in my own mind, reached a conclusion of what a Christian church should be about. I have in the past attended many churches of various flavours, and I have to say that they all have an equal share of very gracious and loving people, mixed in with a few stuckup and self righteous twats - this mixture you will find almost anywhere you go.

Without stepping too far into the gardens of ungracious remarks and derogatory comments (which seem to fall quite naturally from the keyboards of some), I have found the Church of England to be a place that is basically not for me thank you. Some would say that it is probably better off without me, and I would say that maybe they are right, but I feel better off where I am. So, live and let live.

By the way, we are all supposed to be Christians.

And Cranmer, noone could doubt that you love your church, but does this love have to include such levels of bitterness?

18 October 2010 at 18:06  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

I was looking up 1 Tim chapter 3 (Bishops/Overseers/Deacons)in which it does say that Bishops and Deacons should have only one wife and then lists a load of criteria for these posts or Titus Chapter 1, verses 5-9. Both of these passages, to my mind, seem to reflect the basis of
ministry/clergy as it later became (e.g. Bishop, Priest, Deacon).

To my personal view this is the same as there are many passages in the Bible which refer to the the Holy Trinity, even though the words Holy Trinity are not mentioned or laid out to us in a particular passage in the Bible, but were later developed by various Church councils and theologians.

Also, I have to say Jared Gates does say some very important things in his post, about the spirit, in not the letter of how we communicate to each other.

Anyhow, I have said my peace.

18 October 2010 at 18:51  
Anonymous The Dream of Rome said...

To put this in simple terms, and avoiding any insults, then if you can imagine that being on a pilgrimage involves waiting at a railway station for the next train to carry you onwards, then for me, the Church of England is a train that has a trajectory which is heading in the extreme opposite direction to where I personally wish to travel myself.

Which one of us is heading in the correct, or at least the best direction is open for massive debate (that's if you feel it is debatable). I can't quite be sure, but it does seem to be getting towed down the line by another train which goes by the name of popular opinion, which is kitted out with a mechanism that greases the tracks ahead of it. It's a very queer thing, I only hope the train driver knows what she's doing and it doesn't get derailed and crashed like some kind of mangled abortion.


18 October 2010 at 19:35  
Blogger Mike A said...

I have long wondered how literally 1 Timothy 3 was to be taken:

v2 - A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, ...
v 12 - Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Can a theologically informed communicant please explain?

18 October 2010 at 20:13  
Blogger Gnostic said...

If the bishop had described the Anglican church as bloody useless he would have been closer to the mark. And he should know having made a nice living out of it for a number of years.

18 October 2010 at 20:36  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...


This is quite an interesting page on the subject. I am no theologian, and it is quite an eye opener for me to read it also:

1 Timothy 3 - Qualifications for Leaders

18 October 2010 at 20:48  
Anonymous Stefan said...

He is clearly a Roman Catholic through and through.

18 October 2010 at 21:45  
Blogger Caedmon's Cat said...

As a conservative evangelical I find no place in Scripture to justify the appointment of women bishops - but nevertheless I know that there's a need for divinely gifted and called women to serve in a pastoral and didactic capacity. In the absence of sufficient godly leaders in the times of the Judges of Israel, the Lord appointed the prophetess Deborah. In the NT, Phoebe was a servant (diakonos) of the church at Cenchrea.
We musn't jettison the baby with the bathwater..

18 October 2010 at 21:46  
Anonymous Alchemist said...

Your Grace
I was reminded when reading this post of a short piece by C G Jung entitled 'Why I am not a Catholic'.
It contains this rather elegant line: "As a Christian I have to share the burden of my brother's wrongness, and that is most heavy when I do not know whether he is not more right than I."
I know less of theology than I do of psychology, which is virtually nothing; but this line always moves me. And when I hear of such spats within a 'broad church' I wonder if the two opposing 'camps' are not altogether similar. It seems we bat the word fascist from one side of the net to the other.

18 October 2010 at 21:59  
Anonymous not a machine said...

It perhaps easier to be simple christian , the scripture is far more illuminated .
I too love my Catholic church , and its keeping of its journey story . This is where I agree with Bishop Broadhurst in that an apostollic church is focused differently to what the CofE has become .
The popularity of the new churches and the state chruch post the civil war is for many a deeply held belief , it was society ordered in an illiterate world where power was the word.
One can travell around and still see the splits which in some ways have evloved into the even newer charismatic type churches which use all the modern marketing tools.

Great theologians are useually not charismatic and the CofE is a great theological work , that values the word and communion as much as the church of rome does, and long may it be so .
As for fascist I prefer to think of it as non charismatic , and always challenging the individual carrying of the faith .
The ordination of women bishops has placed socilaist values of sexism above , apostollic teachings.Wether this was deliberate by the athiests in goverment or not , is of little consequnce as speaking out about the christian faith is considered preducial.
The CofE would have been better off if it had thought about its origins and how to minister in a long cycle of media and agressive athiesm . This period has been very wearysome even on its own clergy due to ignorant polticians , our society has suffered impoverishment as a result.

I am concerned that when churches dissapear in communties , where will people go to say prayers for those who live in them or even for burial.

As for the enthrall of Islam , I cannot believe that dialogue isnt usefull , humanitarian perhaps ,however the chaism of saviour and prophet , whilst succor for the athiests and secualrists , is a meal I find of no value as the definition of god is changed and the church undermines itself and minsters a lesser message .
It isnt so much that Islam doesnt try and define god , it is that its heretical to think anything else and it cannot do Liberal adjustment .To become a christian after being born a muslim is not the same as swapping churches .

18 October 2010 at 22:27  
Anonymous Anguished Soul said...

Your Grace, Christ Himself criticized the Church.

He warned us about wolves in sheep's clothing not sparing the flock. And also, He warned us to expect the tares to sprout up in His wheat field.

So then, it is apparent that not all which calls itself Christ's Church is actually that. Some of it is from the devil.

He also criticizes His Church in the Book of Revelation, what the Spirit says to the Churches....

And also, in the Song of Solomon, there is two endings for the Bride. One full of joy but the other full of sorrow, rejection and being cut off.

Oh if only the Church would read the Bible. If only the Church would preach the word. It would save itself a lot of heartache and actually feed the flock.

18 October 2010 at 22:38  
Anonymous Michal said...

A very interesting article, one I wouldn't expect from Cranmer. I'm not sure which adjective would fit it the best, but I found it to be quite informative (still no less than the other articles, of course.)

18 October 2010 at 22:54  
Anonymous Gerard Tibercross said...

Your Grace

As I recall, the position you took some hundred years ago was that a small coterie of bishops with red hats could not legitimately change the teachings of the Church on fundamental and essential matters. Do you now suggest that a small coterie of bishops, without red hats, but with the support of a handful of clergy and laity, can do what the bishops with red hats couldn't do 500 years ago?

The Bishop of Fulham has used combative language. Monday was the feast of St Luke, so the first reading at Mass was St Paul's letter to Timothy. What did Alexander the coppersmith do which was so hurtful that we hear about it today? Did he maybe argue the toss?

Yours in Christ

Gerard Tibercross

19 October 2010 at 02:36  
Anonymous non mouse said...

"Perhaps he may soon discover the real meaning of authoritarianism, for if he believes the Church of England to be fascist, he is unlikely to discover liberty, democracy, accountability and transparency across the Tiber." I'm sure Your Grace is right; as you are also in that Mother Church is not herself at fault. However, in view of events over the last few days, it seems clear that subversives within wield undue influence in at least one Diocese! Thus does the enemy presume to "shatter us to bits";
and then... ?

Speaking as a woman, I seem to be on the same hymn sheet as Flossie, above. Can't abide the idea of women as bishops etc - but also recognise that Mother loves and needs both daughters and sons. Each shepherd/shepherdess to his or her own, as it were.

19 October 2010 at 04:28  
Anonymous Flossie said...

We should rid ourselves of the notion that the Church of Christ is a democracy. It is not. Doctrine cannot be decided by synod majorities. One of the appeals of the Roman Catholic Church is its conviction that it has no authority to overturn God’s created order and its representation in the Mass. The C of E can declare that women can be priests, ‘ordain’ them as much as it likes, and pass as many resolutions as it wants, but this will not make them priests if it is against the Will of God, as many believe it is. Neither should the priesthood be regarded as a career ladder, with ‘promotion’ to bishop as a goal. (Just as well, as many Forward in Faith clergy have for years been passed over for preferment in favour of some less able.)

Men and women were created ‘equal but different’. My own perspective is that women who chase after men’s roles are letting the side down, with the implication that women’s roles are somehow inferior. They are not. I believe Jesus chose twelve men for a very good reason, but he also valued the role of women.

Please do not insult us by calling us bigoted or backward. We are not – and Bishop John certainly is not. He has a delightful wife, whom he plainly adores, and is very relaxed in the company of women.

All this has inflicted a severe wound in the body of Christ. There are many like me, for whom Rome does not appeal and who want to remain Anglicans, who will not be able to, once we have women bishops, and who mourn the loss of Bishop John and the other bishops who will doubtless follow him. We have nowhere to go. I for one cannot change my convictions for the sake of expediency.

19 October 2010 at 08:35  
Anonymous martin sewell said...

Can I direct Bede and others unclear about early Church History to the very readable "Jesus Wars"by Philip Jenkins who describes from the extant accounts how we got to many of our doctrinal positions ( including the "non biblical" Trinity).

The author makes the simple point that schism and factional fighting is actually the norm in Church affairs - and ever thus was!!!

He describes the Councils of the Church as not the dry polite debates which we see at Synod but as barely distinguishable from street riots with intrigue, bribery, intimidation, politics, geopolitical and academic rivalry and even murder ( of Flavian Patriarch of Constantinople) at the Second Council of Ephesus in 449, which was later rejected and termed "The Gangster Synod" . Aaah - happy days, as our more traditionalist friends might dream.

19 October 2010 at 08:44  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace

Jesus’s mother, Mary, was intimately united for nine months with the eternal Word.

Why wasn’t she present at the Last Supper?

Why wasn’t she there at the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost?

Where is this all going? ‘Our Mother who art in heaven’? Did the Incarnation take a female form? Is the Second person of the Trinity to be called the Daughter? Will the Church now become the Bridegroom? And Christ the Bride? Will we pray to a goddess?

What now shall we make of the erotic Song of Solomon?

Are the feminazis saying that sex itself is superficial?

This issue is not about whether women can do the same job as men. If I am an ear in the body of Christ where is the eye?

In our church is there nothing mystical left? Nothing?


19 October 2010 at 08:54  
Blogger Roger Pearse said...

I notice that the response to the phrase "vicious and fascist" is not to demonstrate that it is untrue -- it is palpably true -- but weakly to claim it is rude.

That's rather awful.

The CofE establishment is vicious and fascist to those who dissent from the (unelected) secular establishment. Why else would it be trying to force women bishops on people who violently object?

19 October 2010 at 09:14  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

The Bishop is right on one point. The Anglican Church is full of Liberals, including the top man who is only too happy to accept Sharia Law here in a so called Christian country. There are times when the Christian Church has to stand up and be counted, to fight for its core values and against the threat that the old enemy Islam poses. I can't see any of that spirit in the Anglican Church. A much more Conservative leadership would do a better job. I guess I must have some sympathy for Bishop John.

19 October 2010 at 10:53  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

All who object to the Bishop's words ought to listen to the whole speech - easily available on the Forward in Faith website. Every word is justified.

19 October 2010 at 16:01  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your grace,

Perhaps, before the Bishop Broadhurst jumps from the frying pan into the fire, he should take a sabbatical, at least a year of solitude, contemplation and prayer to clarify, calm and refresh his soul and spirit.

Perhaps also, the Bishop should prayerfully consider that his use of the word 'fascist' may be a rupture of the unconscious bubbling up in the form of a classical Freudian slip and also as a slightly prophetic utterance divinely inspired, sent as a warning to himself.

The hierarchical structure of the Roman Church is said to have been inspired by ancient Rome's authoritarian power system. Mussolini is said to have fashioned his fascist government after both the Roman Church and ancient Rome.Link.

While Constantine established and protected the Church, he also made it into an institution, influenced and modeled after his own Empire, for the purpose of centralisation of power and control for the Church and also to secure his own power and control over the Church.

19 October 2010 at 18:16  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Maturecheese - bravo!

19 October 2010 at 18:29  
Blogger Preacher said...

What I find difficult to understand is why clergy have to move from one set of man made rules to another. The CofE has its problems of that there's no doubt, but if the church of Rome hadn't wandered from the truth, there would have been no division in the first place.
The Lord never instituted any form of denomination, the sheep stealing, plots, inquisitions, & other nefarious activities by ambitious greed orientated men operating under the cloak of the 'christian' church was & is an affront to the Almighty & has caused many poor souls to be lost because of the hypocrisy that they witnessed.
If these men really wish to spread the gospel, they should take a lead from former Bishop Nazir Ali & leave with peace & dignity to pursue their goal with no fuss, harsh words or criticism, & not worry who their next paymaster will be. One can understand that some men like to dress up in strange garb & parade around & some will feel that it is neccesary to be so clothed to represent the Lord, but if one compares His garb to the pharisees & His effectiveness to theirs then the truth is plain for all to see.

19 October 2010 at 19:16  
Anonymous Anna B. said...

Yes, bravo, Maturecheese.

In regard to sharia and Islam, there is an enthusiastic affirmation and a declaration of spiritual kinship with Mohammedism in the Roman Catechism, #841, that reveals the want of spiritual discernment and/or a political motivation.

19 October 2010 at 19:23  
Anonymous len said...

I would advise all disaffected Anglicans to plug their ears to avoid the siren voices coming from the Church Of Rome.

19 October 2010 at 19:51  
Blogger srizals said...

Anonymous Anna B. said...
"There is an enthusiastic affirmation and a declaration of spiritual kinship with Mohammedism in the Roman Catechism.."

Hmm. This is interesting. Have I mistakenly identified my true mortal enemy? Those who are in the service of the enemy of Jesus Christ?

19 October 2010 at 23:15  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well done Bishop John Broadhurst. The first of many I pray. I'm looking forward to the day my FiF church follows your lead.

21 October 2010 at 10:51  
Blogger Stephen Wigmore said...

Good riddance to Bishop Broadhurst. He has betrayed his people, his flock, his church and God.

Let me be clear. I am an Anglo-Catholic and am a dear friend of Roman Catholicism. I spoke it public in defence of the Pope's recent visit.

Bishop Broadhurst disgraces both Roman and Anglican churches with his rude language, his lack of love and compassion and his bitterness and bile.

He insults every God-fearing and loving Anglican that has worked with him and for him over his life.

He has always known the rules and constitution of the Church of England. He has always been fine with them as long as they produced a result he liked. Now they have produced a result he does not like he throws his toys out of the pram and resorts to childish insults.

If he considers himself a catholic may I suggest a few catholic principles to him. OBEDIENCE to the duly constituted decisions of God's Holy Church. Humility and Quiet, rather than ranting and raving. And UNITY, not setting up one's own factions and accepted groups. I'm looking at you 'Forward in Faith'.

22 October 2010 at 11:20  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cranmer said, "The Church is the priesthood of believers. When a minister of religion - a bishop, no less - refers to the Church of England as being evil, he defames the Bride of Christ and blasphemes against the Holy Spirit.

No, evil may indeed reside within. But the Church cannot be evil."

An interesting statement coming from you! Now if only you would realize that the "Anglican Church" is not the true Church of England planted in the 7th c., you'd like the great Sts. Augustine, Theodore, Thomas Beckett, etc. of Canterbury accept the Catholic faith and enter into Communion with the Catholic Church built by Christ on St. Peter.

25 October 2010 at 03:01  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anglicanism is a fundamentally different kind of Christianity...."

Is Anglicanism a kind of Christianity?
I thought is was an excuse for a king's debauchery gone seriously awry.

Ironically, Anglicanism is being swept away by Islam in England. If only Henry had lived today, he could just adopt Islam and have had all the wives he wanted no questions asked.

25 October 2010 at 16:03  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Anglican Church used to be renowned for its tolerance and inclusivity. 'We have no doctrine of our own' said Archbishop Fisher. 'We have only the Catholic Faith and the Catholic creeds'. Over the past 40 years this has been replaced by a narrow intolerant exclusive liberalism which actively persecutes those who challenge or disagree with it - you have to have been a member of an Anglican synod or held respnsibility in the Church to realise quite how nasty and intolerant it has become. Bishop John is totally justified in the comments he makes. You can deny the incarnation and the creeds, but question the new orthodoxy of political correctness and you are rapidly made to feel excluded and marginalised. I fear, Your Grace, you are looking at the C of E through rose-tinted spectacles and see what it used to be, or what it ought to be, rather than what it actually is.

4 November 2010 at 09:29  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older