Okay, this is not actually the reaction from Forward in Faith, just a link to the decision, and a bare statement that FiF will provide its response within two days. It will be interesting to see their recommendation.

It’ll take that long to figure out what the press release says….

News Flash: The Church of England is Protestant…

News Flash: The Church of England is catholic AND reformed, unlike AO.

As for FiF, looks like they don’t have a clue what it says either.

For example, when another bishop ordains someone to the priesthood he needs permission to do from the bishop of the diocese (“delegation”), but the power to ordain derives from his consecration as a bishop.

He needs permission to do. I am afraid to ask what that means?

And, the power to ordain derives from the Holy Spirit. If someone is ordained, they are ordained by God, not by the Bishop or Bishopess.

What does “necessary but not sufficient” mean?

Tom,

See my response to this question on the other thread. I THINK it means congregations who want a bishop who is (a) male and (b) holds orthodox belief.

The sub-text to this is that many churches do not trust the CofE hierarchy to abide by the spirit of any agreement.  The evangelicals and anglo-catholics have asked for specific protections in the draft measure (i.e. what will become the legislation IF the draft measure gains a 2/3 majority in each house of Synod in July). The HOB have refused to give them that.  Instead, the bishops propose to include SOME protections in the Code of Practice.  Since the Code isn’t drafted yet, a lot of people are suspicious about what this will mean - liberals, evangelicals and anglo-catholics. 

The evangelical group Reform has written:

“While we recognise that these small amendments could be helpful, we are dismayed that the assurance for our future ministry within the Church of England will rest on what a Code of Practice says. Not only have the provisions of this Code yet to be agreed, but also, as we all know, Codes of Practice are frequently changed over time. This means that we are being asked to base our futures on a shifting foundation. In particular we are concerned that those considering ordination in the future could be discriminated against because of their views on the difference between men’s and women’s ministries.”

The CofE is going merrily down the path of alienating the evangelicals.  This is extremely shortsighted as, without them, CofE cannot pay its bills.

Although FiF is yet to comment, more reactions are emerging around the blogosphere:

The womens ordination pressure-group WATCH are not happy.  Not happy at all. See the comments on this page at Thinking Anglicans for an extract from their facebook site and a link to it: http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/005509.html#comments. 

A member of the HOB, +Peter Broadbent, defends the decision on his own blog at http://bishopofwillesden.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/women-bishops-what-house-of-bishops.html

+Broadbent also provides further defence on this page of Thinking Anglicans: http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/005508.html#comments

Finally, a comment on another page on Thinking Anglicans is priceless.  Martin Reynolds referring to Reform’s rejection of the amendments:

“I suspect Forward in Faith will reject it too.
That will make the bishops think that they must have the right formula - as everyone dislikes it - it seems to be Rowan’s rule of thumb lately.
Of course the Fulcrum leadership team will agree and say it’s wonderful and perfect etc etc etc”

4. Pageantmaster, I understand the reformed part, but how can a body call itself catholic when it rejects two millennia of catholic tradition?

off2, since the Anglican Church fulfills two millenia of catholic tradition, it has every right to call itself catholic.

10. MichaelA, Are you saying ordaining women and blessing homosexual activity, to name but two innovations, are consistent with Holy Tradition as received by most Christians for two thousand years? Are we using words in the same way?

off2, of course not. Why would you think I was saying that?