On Sunday, Dr Hind put out a rebuttal of a report in The Sunday Telegraph, which thought that he had announced during a question-and-answer session at the Assembly that he was about to become a Roman Catholic. "This is not the case," his statement said.

Answering a question about Anglican orders, the Bishop had said that he would be willing to be reordained in the cause of Catholic unity, provided that he was not required to deny the orthodoxy of what had been already. As his clari­fication put it: "I would not be willing to deny the priesthood I have exercised hitherto."

In his speech, Dr Hind said: "To Rome, we would be grateful for ongoing discussions about the proposed Ordinariates to be able to be assured that they will provide a real opportunity for an ecclesial existence as distinct from a mu­seum of nostalgic items. Until we see the Apostolic Constitution, it will not be possible to ask more precise questions."

Extract from his speech

NOT everyone was bewildered. The Revd Geoffrey Kirk, secretary of Forward in Faith - who will be standing down next year, after an "annus horribilis" of ill-health - told the Assembly on Friday: "You will have wondered why the original agenda of this Assembly was so sketchy. Well, now you know."

The statement from Rome was "not a bolt out of the blue". It was an event long expected, for which many people had worked over the years. In 1992, Fr John Broadhurst, as he was then, had sent out a card to every priest on the mailing list asking him to affirm acceptance of the magis­terium of the Roman Catholic Church.

The response had been overwhelmingly positive; and Cardinal Ratzinger had gone on record as saying that, if they accepted the magis­terium, Rome had no alternative but to find means of admitting them into full communion with the Holy See.

The Traditional Anglican Communion had also unanimously signed up to The Catechism of the Catholic Church and had tirelessly pursued corporate reunion. The Bishops of Richborough and Ebbsfleet had been in "frequent and genial contact" with the Roman authorities for some time. The Bishops of Chichester and other bishops had made similar contacts, and FiF representatives had spent two days in January as guests of Cardinal Christoph Schön­born in Vienna. As they had departed for London, he had flown off to Rome.

"This is Plan B, emerging mercifully on cue as Plan A seems to have an increasingly uncertain future in the leglisative revision committee of the General Synod."

He urged the Assembly not to neglect the bread-and-butter issues in "a fit of childish ex­citement. . . If Ordinariates for former Anglicans are to be more than a pipe dream, they need a laity formed in the faith, and ordinands and future priests whose contribution to the life of the wider Catholic Church wins respect and ad­miration."

They also needed to continue to engage in the synodical processes of the C of E, "for the sake at least of those who cannot presently see them­selves adopting a Roman option". There must be a traditional Catholic candidate for every place on the next Synod, "a Synod that will effectively decide our future".

The Hebrews had not left Egypt empty-handed. "We must now apply ourselves to the task of securing our buildings and our assets. We must ensure for its own good and self-respect that the Church of England is as generous in its dealings with us as the Holy See has been in its provisions for us. If whole congregations are to enter a new Ordinariate that renders intelligent and coherent an Anglican Catholic presence in the Roman and universal Church, issues of finance and bricks and mortar will have willy-nilly to be tackled."

THE Assembly heard from the three Provincial Episcopal Visitors.

The Bishop of Ebbsfleet, the Rt Revd Andrew Burnham, wanted to "praise and glorify God for what is undoubtedly for many of us an answer to our prayers". But they had yet to see the text of the Apostolic Constitution, and the norms for its implementation. Estimates varied from a day or two to a month or two.

They had been looking for a lifeboat to take them to the mother ship. "We are being offered our own galleon to sail proudly as part of the admiral's fleet with some of our fixtures and our customs and our traditions." A Personal Ordin­ariate was better than a Personal Prelature: it was more like a diocese. "If we flourish, we may need several."

The PEVs very much regretted and were not the cause of Archbishop Williams's discomfort, he said. "The weakening of the Catholic position in the Church of England is not his fault. He is a significant theologian and a kind and holy man." (Applause.)

"There's a vital step that those of us who do take up this invitation will have to make. We shall have to be formally received into the Ordin­ariate, a little bit like registering for a new GP practice when we move to a different part of the country, and they ask us all the questions that we've given answers to long ago. It means a period of formation for us all briefly to catch breath. And, without in any sense denying past or present priestly ministry or sacramental grace, clergy will be anointed and authorised for diaconal and priestly ministry in the wonderful new context of the Universal Church in com­munion with the Holy See.

"We shall need to do all that individually if we are going to do it, but, one by one, like boarding a coach one at a time for Walsingham, that can none the less be a means of travelling together. May the prayers of Our Lady of Walsingham, and the prayers of St Thérèse, whose shower of roses this is, and the prayers of Blessed John Henry Newman, as he will very soon be known, beseech the Lord to bring to a glorious flowering the miracle that seems to be springing up in our midst."

The Bishop of Richborough, the Rt Revd Keith Newton, said: "The Holy Father has in this Apostolic Constitution offered us one way for groups to achieve the goal of the ARCIC pro­cess." It would be futile, he said, to complain that some things that they had prayed for, such as married bishops, were missing. They had ap­proached as suppliants, and the Pope had re-sponded. There would not be opportunity to negotiate the contents, or the complementary norms.

They should not view it as a "last resort" if everything went wrong - "I think this probably is Plan A" - and such an attitude would not endear them to the RC bishops of England and Wales or the wider Roman RC community. It was clear that they must accept The Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the ministry of the Bishop of Rome as willed by Christ for his Church. "These are important things to consider and should not be taken lightly."

The Bishop of Beverley, the Rt Revd Martyn Jarrett, said that it was "over-simplistic", of course, but there were three main groupings for whom he had to care: those who felt no choice but to enter into communion with the Holy Father; those for whom such a move would create theological difficulties perhaps as large as those they had with the prospect of women bishops; and those who still believed that there could be some theological integrity in remaining members of the C of E, accepting "bearable anomalies", but not an "inadequate mishmash".

His task was to help all three groups. "My ministry must be one that resists any kind of civil war breaking out within our ranks. Those who feel most vulnerable are often those who would then seek to cover that trait by criticising anyone else that might threaten their security by not immediately setting off along the same path as they have."

IF THE General Synod revision committee's an­nouncement of the previous week had been upstaged, it had not been forgotten. Canon Simon Killwick, chairman of the Catholic Group in the Synod, spoke of remaining the "Catholic ecumenical conscience of the Church of England".

"This has always been the Catholic vocation, and this was reaffirmed after 1993, when we decided we would stay within the Church of England. Nothing about that has been changed by the announcement that has been made by the Vatican this week. That vocation still remains."

They did not, he reminded the Assembly, yet know the detail of the legislation, or of the pro­vision, or whether it would actually pass. "In a real sense, nothing will really be decided until final approval, perhaps in the year 2012. The question for us is how do we fulfil our vocation as Catholic Anglicans between now and 2012, and indeed after 2012?"

What the Pope's announcement had done, he said, was "to put the ball actually in the court of the Church of England and the General Synod. It puts the question to them: do they want to have this kind of Catholic witness in the Church of England . . . this group of people who witness to this wider Catholic unity?"

Rome's offer had been generous, creative, and flexible - "all three qualities that the Church of England usually prides itself on". Would that the Church of England could be so towards them, he said. It was vital to take the elections to the General Synod in 2010 "very seriously".

Prebendary David Houlding, another mem­ber of the Catholic Group, urged FiF members to do this for the sake of the C of E. "I think it's absolutely crucial that we don't allow any greater vision that we might have, any dream that we might be having, about where we want to go, where we want to end up, and however that dream might be realised - that we don't allow any of that to derail our determination to secure this provision, the very best provision that we can get," he said.

"We are not just fighting for ourselves, to satisfy our own consciences: we are actually fighting for the soul of the Church of England, because what we've always said - and this is surely where our integrity lies - is that there is something inherent about the Church of England that is Catholic.

"It is the Catholic Church, part of the one holy Catholic and apostolic Church, or it is nothing; and that is why the Church of England desperately needs its Catholic identity. And this fight for provision is therefore a fight for the soul of the Church of England, whatever might happen to us in the future, and wherever we might, as it were, end up."

The Revd Jonathan Baker, Principal of Pusey House, Oxford, said that the announcement from Rome was "heartening". The division or distinction between a body of faithful Anglicans looking to the doctrine and practice of the Universal Church and "those who feel propelled into a more rapid visible unity with the Holy See" was, of course, nothing new.

"If we are at some sort of 1845 moment, then we need to remember our history - because, when Newman became a Roman Catholic, and the leaderhip of the Oxford Movement passed de facto to Edward Bouverie Pusey and to others who came after him, God did not abandon the Church of England or the witness to Catholic truth in the Church of England."

Delegates listen to the debate GRAHAM HOWARD Copyright not advert Delegates listen to the debate GRAHAM HOWARD

Meanwhile, Newman's secession had brought an "enormous theological contribution" to the life of the Roman Church. These developments on both sides had led to ARCIC.

Emma Forward, another Synod member, pleaded for "clearer leadership, please, and a clearer sense of giving the General Synod its due course, and seeing what that comes up with". When people said that the Synod was not going to come up with anything, "I find it personally very, very disappointing." The laity wanted the clergy to say: "This is where I'm going, and I'm taking you with me."

But Fr Kirk responded: "I respect what Emma said, but don't throw the laity at us. . . We are offered what is as close to everything we might ask as any reasonable person could suppose that they would get, and then we quibble. What we actually have to do is corporately to decide in what direction we are going."

They needed to ask the parishes where they were on this. "If there are a significant number of people who will take this journey, . . . then we ought to be letting our General Synod rep­resentatives know that this is the case." He pro­posed that all the PCCs that were affiliated with FiF or had passed Resolutions A, B, and C, should be asked to vote on a resolution to the effect that they welcomed the proposed Apostolic Constitution of Benedict XVI and proposed, in God's good time, to take advantage of it.

"When we find out where people stand - and, to be frank, they won't be truthful to us before the very last minute - when we find out where they stand, we will be able to take intelligent action. I think it is true that the PEVs, as the Bishop of Beverley has said, have a difficult task. How can they lead on this when their brief is to be last man standing on the bridge of the ship, saluting as it goes down?"

Sister Anne Williams CA, a FiF Council member and General Synod member, said that she was like a stick of rock with "Church of England" all the way through it. She emphasised the need to continue talking to people of other traditions, who might think that they under­stood the Catholic position, but did not neces­sarily do so.

Towards the end of the Assembly, she said that she had wanted to encourage members to get involved in the work of the Church Lads' and Girls' Brigade, but was now concerned that so many other speakers had seemed to be saying that they wanted nothing to do any more with the Church of England - "that unless I am prepared to make this move, I've lost worth".

Fr Kirk's resolution was carried, as was a resolution supporting the representatives on the General Synod in their efforts to secure the best possible provision in the C of E.

YOUNGER PRIESTS and ordinands talked about what was at stake for them.

James Bradley, an ordinand, said that his theological college, St Stephen's House, Oxford, was not an excitable place, but the announce­ment had "left a number of us buzzing with excitement" - but not everyone. "We're all in a different place." And yet he wanted to say: "Pope Benedict, thank you from all of us."

Another ordinand, Daniel Lloyd, who was "about to commit matrimony", said that the Pope's invitation would require a great deal of careful study, and was wondering about his future, having been through the Church of England's selection process. He feared being part of a ghetto. Where did this leave him?

The Revd Christopher Kinch, a young priest, said that he had recovered from the devastating result of the July 2008 General Synod vote by getting on with his work the next morning. The news from Rome was "liberating".

The Revd Philip Corbett asked: "Do we want really to leave the battlefield and get on to the mission field, or stay to be torn apart by the Church of England and left on our own?" He saw a "ray of light" in the invitation from the Pope, and suggested that they needed to say: "Thank you very much, Holy Father: we're coming home."

Christopher Smith, a teacher from south London, drew the attention of "those people who think they can stay in the Church of England with integrity" to the announcement (News, 23 October) from the College of the Resurrection, Mirfield - "that great Catholic theological college of past times" - that in future all ordinands would be required to attend the college eucharist when it was celebrated by a woman priest. (There were cries of "Shame.")

"The view of the liberal authoritarians is that you have to be converted to their way of thinking," Mr Smith warned. "This is the salami-slicing tactic that will be used throughout the Church."

There were other speakers who drew atten­tion to the remaining obstacle of Pope Leo XIII's condemnation of Anglican orders as "utterly null and void", and to the lack of discussion about relations with Eastern Orthodoxy. It was suggested that the question of married bishops had not been addressed by the Vatican because of concern not to jeopardise ongoing dialogue with the Orthodox.

DR MICHAEL NAZIR-ALI, lately Bishop of Rochester, said: "I . . . welcome the fact that for the first time, in relating to an ecclesial body of Western origin, the Roman Catholic Church is prepared to make the sorts of provisions that it is prepared to make. Of course, many of these provisions have been made for Uniate bodies in the East, but never before in this way in the West. So it may indeed be a harbinger of things to come."

He was unclear about some things. "I am not sure what is the basis of faith that is being asked for here in terms of Anglicans responding to the offer. I mean, will people have to respond to everything that has happened since the 16th century or perhaps even since the 11th? Pope Benedict, when he wasn't that, when he went under the other name, said about the Orthodox that they would not be required to believe anything that the Church had not believed in the first millennium. Now does that apply to Anglicans? If it does, that, of course, changes the picture to a very great extent."

Second, were the chief pastors and pastors to be received with their flock as chief pastors and pastors? "I'd rather not look like a bishop but be a bishop than look like a bishop and not be a bishop. You see what I'm saying? I think it would be quite astonishingly un-Catholic of the RC Church to offer an arrangement for oversight which doesn't have any bishops on the face of it. How could it possibly be of Catholic order in the sense that we have all received it?"

What, he asked, "are the provisions for continuing episcopal oversight within these Ordinariates? That is not clear to me at all. If the Ordinary need not be a bishop, where will this epis­copal oversight come from? Will it come from the Latin Rite bishops, in which case we may as well sort-of-give up now, and just say the Latin Rite is good enough, because without ade­quate episcopal oversight - I mean, you know this from the last 17 years - people will lose any identity with which they begin."

Third, "it is . . . a major concession that within the Ordinariates it appears that married men will continue to be ordained. But what will the objective criteria for deciding who can be and who cannot be, because it will be, it seems, from what is being said, on a one-by-one, individual basis, by way of dispen­sation, perhaps. And what I would say is that the objective criteria must include the Anglican experience itself of married clergy and of its spiritual fruitfulness."

Fourth, the integrity of theological education was at stake. "It is not enough to say, well, people can go to existing seminaries and then in the corner somewhere someone can tell them how Anglicans do things. That's not taking it seriously enough. Here are questions about theological method, about biblical and patristic studies, about moral theology, and the particular approaches and traditions that Anglicans have in doing moral theology."

As for provision in the Church of England, Dr Nazir-Ali said: "I think that what I'm praying for - and this is a prayer - is that there will be a single provision for orthodox An-glicans, Catholic or Evangelical, and whatever the issues may be on the spectrum. It may be that, within the single provision, there can be streams for Catholics and Evangelicals in terms of oversight, in terms of how people are looked after, and there can also be collaboration, of course.

"But one of the main objections to specific provision is, well, how many people do you provide for, and how many provisions do you make, and on how many issues? And I think this is a question that has some force. . .

  "So it would be good for orthodox Anglicans to grow together for the C of E if there were to be a single provision . . . and then for there to be arrangements within that single pro­vision for people to be looked after in the ways that they prefer."

In response to a question, Dr Nazir-Ali said: "I have to admit that ARCIC and its work has been shot to pieces by developments in the Anglican Com­munion in the past 20 years. . . My sense is that there will be an ARCIC in the future, perhaps an ARCIC III, but it is now only on the basis of friendly relationships rather than organic union as mandated by the Malta statement" (1968).

END