 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
||||||
 |
|
||||||
 |
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
 |
|
||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
Questions and Answers…
about Richard Wood’s position
(click on the questions to see answers)2) Doesn’t the ordination service require candidates to receive Communion with the bishop?
According to the service contained in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, ordination is to be followed by Holy Communion at which all those ordained are to receive Communion. For this reason Richard earlier asked to be ordained at a service presided over by another bishop, authorized by the Bishop of Chelmsford.
This would have satisfied, to the greatest extent possible in the circumstances, both the legal requirements and the issue of conscience.
At the same time, however, the relevant service in the Book of Common Prayer requires bishops themselves to ‘banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God’s Word’. The Church of England’s own General Synod and House of Bishops, and the Lambeth Conference of bishops from the whole Anglican Communion have all at various times affirmed that the viewpoint advocated by ‘Changing Attitude’ is contrary to God’s Word.
It seems odd that Richard should be put in a situation where adherence to the letter of his service means he cannot be ordained, whereas the Bishop of Chelmsford can make an independent decision about the application of the words in the service for consecrating bishops.
Back to the Questions and Answers Homepage
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
