The proviso to Canon 113 of 1603 was not a substantive enactment of the seal of confession, but rather was intended to ensure that the canon did not conflict with a continuing canonical duty not to disclose sins revealed in confession. The 1947 Canon Law report proposed two draft canons, one regulating which priests could hear confessions, and one enacting the seal substantively. In response to criticism of these drafts, Archbishop Fisher proposed what became paragraphs 1–3 of Canon B 29. Attempts to restrict hearing of confessions to certain categories of priests were eventually abandoned in favour of what became paragraph 4. The draft canon embodying the seal was replaced by a draft Clause based on the proviso, but Government lawyers indicated that it would not receive royal assent. Instead, the proviso was left in place. An act of Convocation based on it was also passed to signal the Church’s continued espousal of the seal as a doctrinal principle. The Convocations eventually agreed to delete the proposed new Clause, while a canon explicitly retaining the proviso when the rest of the 1603 code was repealed received royal assent. That no priest would in practice break the seal, even if instructed to do so by a judge, was almost universally accepted.

This article considers the following three matters: first, how every Christian tradition globally has its own system of canon law or other regulatory instruments; second, how these laws contribute to ecumenism as an instrument for greater visible communion between the separated churches of Christianity; and third, how a comparative approach to juridical ecumenism informs our understandings of synodality.

This article proposes that while the four instruments of communion of the Anglican Communion (the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Primates’ Meeting, the Lambeth Conference, and the Anglican Consultative Council) are not synods, they nevertheless manifest synodality. The historical origins of member church autonomy are first explored; then, each of the instruments is briefly discussed in turn; finally some suggestions are made for further exploration in the mode of receptive ecumenism.

Until recently the faculty jurisdiction did not extend to trees in churchyards. This article explains how trees in churchyards became subject to that jurisdiction and explores the complicated law relating to churchyard trees.1

This article explores the canon law of the Old Catholic Churches, which have been in full communion with the Anglican Churches since 1931. It discusses the different traditions of canon law which form the basis of the present constitutions, their common features and their main characteristics. It also addresses two types of challenge for the near future: finding an appropriate balance between episcopal and synodal competences, and dealing with the parallel jurisdictions on the European continent.

The XVI Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops (4 October 2023 to 27 October 2024) considered what it means to be a ‘Synodal Church – Communion, Participation and Mission’. Its celebration was key to understanding the pontificate of Pope Francis: in October 2015, on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the establishment of the Synod of Bishops by St Paul VI, he said: ‘From the beginning of my ministry as Bishop of Rome, I sought to enhance the Synod, which is one of the most precious legacies of the Second Vatican Council […] it is precisely this path of synodality which God expects of the Church in the third millennium’.1 This article examines the extent to which the Roman Catholic church can be said to be synodally led and episcopally governed.

On 2 February 1932, Alan Don, chaplain to the Archbishop of Canterbury Cosmo Gordan Lang, recorded in his diary the simple entry: ‘Church Assembly – not very invigorating’.1 This has been the tenor of the relationship between the English and the governing bodies of the church for centuries. This article seeks to describe the role of synodality at the regional level2 by reference to the General Synod of the Church of England, with a brief comparative study of the tikanga system in New Zealand, and asks the question whether the procedures meet the expectation of synodality.

The International Theological Commission, in its document on synodality, observed that ‘the concept of synodality refers to the involvement and participation of the whole People of God in the life and mission of the Church’.1 More specifically, it refers to participation in the exercise of discernment and decision making that is intrinsic to that mission. This discernment and decision making requires structures to make it clear not merely when decisions have been made and who makes them, but how they are made and how the people who make them work together. Such structures are embodied in legal instruments that are appropriate to the context, which here is the area of Church life which is between the properly local – the diocese – and the properly universal – the Holy See. In history the usual word for the gatherings that embodied these attempts was ‘synod’. Although the synods are seen as gatherings of bishops it is clear throughout that history that many others have been present at them: a notable and famous example was the presence of the Alexandrian deacon Athanasius at the Council of Nicea. Discernment and decision making at the supra-diocesan level has always involved bishops – but not only bishops. This article lays out the provisions of the current law surrounding this task in the Roman Catholic Church.

This article examines issues that relate to synodality at the local (diocesan) level, with a particular focus on the constitutions and functions of diocesan synods in the Church of England.

One of the ten guiding principles from the 1967 Synod of Bishops on the revision of the 1917 Code of Canon Law was that a new Code should present the office of bishop in accord with the norms given in the conciliar decree, Christus Dominus. In the 1917 Code, canon 329 stated that bishops ‘govern with ordinary power under the authority of the Roman Pontiff’. The change in the revised Code would reflect that bishops do not act as vicars of the Pope but as vicars and legates of Christ. To support the bishop in his ministry, there are a number of structures outlined in the Code which provide him with opportunities for consultation and listening, and which allow participation by others, both clergy and lay faithful. After defining what is meant by the word ‘diocese’, this article considers the role of bishops, and then looks at the channels outlined in the 1983 Code for ‘consultation’ and ‘listening’. After briefly outlining the challenges arising in terms of processes, accountability, and consultation, this article examines the possible shared principles between the Roman Catholic and the Anglican tradition.

This article examines the role of the parish primarily within the Church of England’s processes of synodical government. After providing an overview of the historical foundations of the parish, the article moves on to compare parish arrangements in the Church of England, the Church in Wales, and the broader Anglican Communion.

The newly coined term ‘synodality’ has for some years been receiving widespread and close attention, and its potential is difficult to delimit. Synodality is a composite concept, with a range of applications, abstracted from the traditions of the Eastern and Western Churches expressed in varied synodal institutions and events. Synodality might be defined as the process by which Christians gather to dialogue, discern and at times decide. This article examines one of synodality’s levels – the parish – in the Roman Catholic Church.1