Ship of Fools: National Pilgrimage to Walsingham

Thread: National Pilgrimage to Walsingham Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=022700

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

I once heard that the Anglican National Pilgrimage to Walsingham was really screamy with gin and lace, bits of devotion, over the top costumes and reminiscent of Chaucer in its mixture of hilarity, debauchery and religion.

Is this still the case or has it become (like someone remarked the other day) a 'little preachy and serious'?

For someone who might well enjoy the former, is it still worth going? Do any shipmates have any recent experience of this event?

[fixed title typo]

[ 12. May 2012, 20:39: Message edited by: seasick ]

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

I have no experience of it and have never even been to the place so can't help directly, I'm afraid.

However, what grates on me is when people who are Walsingham groupies and are accustomed to hanging around other Walsingham groupies ask people outside of those circles, apropos of nothing, whether they're going to "the National", and then reacting with incredulousness when people have no idea what on earth they're going on about.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

That. Was not my experience of it in 2007. But I only know what my own group were doing.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I haven't been to the National for over 30 years. It was my first visit, and I much prefer to be there singly or with a small group.

The current Saturday evening vigil with exposition, laying on of hands, anointing, confessions and lots of silence is very lovely.

I don't see anything the matter in people going to the National if they like it. A street procession with hundreds taking part can be very inspiring.

And Walsingham is a stunningly beautiful village.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

I've been to Walsingham a few times but never to the National Pilgrimage (and it's not really high up my to-do list). There's a lot I like about the place but there are also those things which make me a bit more ambivalent.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I agree with venbede re it being a good place to go in small groups and it being a berautiful village.

There has been a distinct change in 'The National' over the years. I first went in 1972 - the then custom was for priests associate to say a private mass upon arrival and then to attend the high mass. Our curate asked me to serve because i could 'answer' his Latin mass. The shrine church was a hive of activity with all those private masses. The very instant a priest put chasuble and alb on the altar, the next priest barged in to put them on. (And i could overhear someone making their confession nearer to where i was kneeling.)

I stopped going to 'The National', despite my then vicar being Master of the Guardians, once it became clear that women were unlikely to 'get an altar'. The last time I went, it was, as described above, more preachy, with less tat. There was still a posse of camp priests in exotic vestments who seemed to spend all their time in the pub but nowhere near as many as before.

There was an increase in extreme protestants shouting stuff at the procession. I tried to engage with one of them on the role of Mary but the didn't seem to know their bibles beyond a selection of proof texts.

Posted by Try (# 4951) on :

Is the Anglican shrine's attitude twords women likely to improve now that the Ordinariate is syphoning off big chunks of FiF UK? I would love to make Walsingham a part of a visit to the UK.

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Try:
Is the Anglican shrine's attitude twords women likely to improve now that the Ordinariate is syphoning off big chunks of FiF UK? I would love to make Walsingham a part of a visit to the UK.

If you mean will female clergy be allowed use of altars at the shrine, very unlikely. That will not change for the foreseeable future,

a.) as long as the present administrator and guardians are in position. No attempt will be made to force their hands either as the CofE doesn't own the shrine, rather it is vested in the guardians, who could skip off to Rome taking the shrine with them.

b.) as long as there is an Orthodox chapel in the shrine. No one will want to cause an ecumenical incident.

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CL:
b.) as long as there is an Orthodox chapel in the shrine. No one will want to cause an ecumenical incident.

May I ask what sort of ecumenical incident might arise?

My experience is that Orthodox groups worshipping in borrowed space are generally grateful for the hospitality that is shown them within the doctrinal and ecclesiological parameters of the host church, (especially when our own doctrinal and ecclesiological beliefs permit only limited reciprocation), and certainly wouldn't wish to dictate to said hosts what they may and may not do in their own church. To do so in any case - but especially when the actual chapel used by the Orthodox would be unaffected by any activity elsewhere - would be most ungracious of a guest and indeed seems quite out of keeping with the personalities of the clergy who serve the chapel of the Life-Giving Spring.

If the Guardians of the Anglican Shrine at Walsingham wish to organise the affairs of the shrine in a particular way out of doctrinal conviction, well and good. If there are those within their own church who wish to voice agreement or disagreement with that position, similarly well and good. But please let them stand by their conviction as justification for their positions and not insinuate that hands are being held behind backs by a long-term guest.

[subjunctive]

[ 12. May 2012, 17:55: Message edited by: Michael Astley ]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I don't think anyone is expecting that the shrine authorities will invite women to preside at the public masses. But it seems ungracious of them to refuse them permission to say mass for their own groups. After all, I'm sure if the good fathers visited a similar Roman Catholic shrine on the continent, they would be invited to celebrate with their own groups, and the official view of their priesthood is much the same as that of Fin F towards women priests.

[deleted duplicate post]

[ 12. May 2012, 20:39: Message edited by: seasick ]

Posted by Adrian1 (# 3994) on :

It must be two or three years since I last went to Walsingham and well over twenty since I last attended the National Pilgrimage. My advice to anyone wanting to see Walsingham at its best, would be to avoid the National. The logistics and organisation of the day, combined with the sheer numbers present, militate against a calm, reflective appreciation of the special place that Walsingham is.

Posted by Sooze (# 16621) on :

I used to take my parish to Walsingham,including the youth pilgrimage and also once attended the National as an ordinand. Although things improved over the years it was a nasty experience in prejudice and misogyny - some of my youth group were shocked by the open rudeness towards female clergy. It's a pity because there is no other place of pilgrimage like it, and the youth pilgrimage was a very creative and inspiring weekend of lovely Anglo-Catholic worship and fun. Now that I have left parish ministry I am relieved that I will never have to go there again.

Posted by Bax (# 16572) on :

If you've never been to the "Grand National" then it is defiantly worth giving it a try; it is a delightfully eccentric day and if you enjoy the "over-the-top" side of catholic worship you should certainly try it at least once. Take an "I-spy book of tatt & clergy" book with you and see how many boxes you can tick off. Be warned however that if you're not wearing a cassock you may have a longer wait when trying to order a drink at the bull at lunchtime or afterwards (at least, it always seems that way...)

It is certainly true, however, that it is a very different experience to a quieter pilgrimage with parish group or individually. There is room for both of course.

Posted by Try (# 4951) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adrian1:
It must be two or three years since I last went to Walsingham and well over twenty since I last attended the National Pilgrimage. My advice to anyone wanting to see Walsingham at its best, would be to avoid the National. The logistics and organisation of the day, combined with the sheer numbers present, militate against a calm, reflective appreciation of the special place that Walsingham is.

But I am sure that I would enjoy all of the camp Anglo-catholic hilarity a great deal. Tatting and tarting is not the sort of Anglican worship which appeals to me as part of my daily spiritual diet, but it makes for a nice snack, so to speak.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

I've only been to the National once, back in 1989. My most lasting memory is of the sandwich board clad protesters shouting and waving their big black bibles at us as we processed through the village.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I love Walsingham. I never fail to be deeply moved at some point in my visit on a visit to the Holy House. I find Shrine Prayers very moving as we remember all these people in need.

As I left for the parish pilgrimage last autumn, a woman priest newly attached to our church said how much it meant to her and asked me to pray for her. I duly lit a candle and sent her a card.

For the processions, the thurifer was a woman server, and one of the acolytes a woman as well, (in fact a Polish RC as I knew, of I suspect fairly ultramontane sympathies.)

There was one group there with a woman curate. Her vicar sat in the congregation on Sunday, rather than sit vested in the sanctuary.

At the Saturday night vigil, she was laying on hands, rather than asked to administer the sacraments of anointing or reconciliation.

I made a point of going up to her rather than anyone else. She laid hands on me while we prayed in silence, and at the end I whispered "I'm so glad to see you here".

The thin end of the wedge, I hope.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

The opening description in the OP of the National Pilgrimage is an interesting one; the wording is not mine, but I would say is a fair description. I suppose the Chaucerian feature is the blue cloaks worn by the Shrine Guardians.

'A little preachy and serious' would seem to merit the sermon slot at the afternoon service, though not too serious, as there is room for the inevitable sense of humour.

As one who has been most years since 1975, my loyalty demonstrates that to me, it is worth going to, but that is for each individual to decide for himself or herself.

Only male priests may officiate - my point of view is not an issue and I am prepared to respect that restriction.

As for the protestant demonstrators, they are saying the right things based on scripture for the wrong reasons and are living in the 15th century.

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

As a matter of interest, do PTSers and their ilk also picket the Catholic and Orthodox pilgrimages to Walsingham?

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I can fully understand a male priest who accepts the validity of the ordination of women to the priesthood being very uncomfortable or embarrassed at Walsingham being treated as part of an in-group (ie clergy) which there is now almost defined as being male only.

Perhaps the best answer would be not to treat clergy as a clique in the first place.

As a layperson, I am well aware that priests will have all sorts of views and manners I'd criticize.

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I don't think anyone is expecting that the shrine authorities will invite women to preside at the public masses. But it seems ungracious of them to refuse them permission to say mass for their own groups. After all, I'm sure if the good fathers visited a similar Roman Catholic shrine on the continent, they would be invited to celebrate with their own groups, and the official view of their priesthood is much the same as that of Fin F towards women priests.

In my Anglican past, I took some Methodist friends to a solemn mass for the Assumption of the Mother of God. Embarrassed by the relatively low turn-out, during the notices the priest joked that he was sure it was a protestant plot to put the main feast of the Mother of God in the middle of the holiday season.

One of my Methodist friends, mildly affronted, said to me afterwards that that sort of joke would never be made in a Catholic church.

At roughly the same period in my life, the chaplain at my Catholic 6th form college and I were discussing matters liturgical, and he was surprised to hear a 17-year-old talking competently about the epiklesis, saying that this would be unusual for most Catholic teenagers.

What both my Methodist and Catholic interlocutors had in common was lack of experience of what it is to be Anglican. For a Catholic, Protestants are a curiosity of another church body, with whose teachings they may disagree but which teachings don't really affect them in any substantial way. Therefore, they can respect Protestant people as people of faith who are seeking to follow Christ as they believe proper. That is why my Methodist friend was probably correct in her observation, and it is probably why many Catholic teenagers would be unfamiliar with the term epiklesis.

Anglo-Catholics, by contrast, find people with explicitly Protestant beliefs and practices not only in other church bodies but also in their own church and dioceses, and they are directly affected by being in communion with them in terms of the way they worship, the official documents of their church, and so forth. This makes for a wholly different culture.

I knew what the epiklesis was because the eucharistic prayers of what was to become Common Worship were being debated at the time, and there was a party arguing against the inclusion of an explicit epiklesis over the gifts because of a Protestant eucharistic understanding that Anglo-Catholics found unacceptable. It was a hot topic of the day in the Church of England in a way that it simply wasn't for Catholics. It is this culture of having to argue against Protestantism within one's own church that leads to the sort of culture that allows for the sort of throwaway joke about a protestant plot.

All of that is to say that I don't think you're comparing like for like. For Catholics, Anglican clergy, though not considered validly-ordained priests, belong to another church body and can be respected as such. From their perspective, nobody has introduced invalidly-ordained clergy into the Catholic church and told Catholics they must accept them. It is easy to be graciousin such circumstances. It is just a case of showing hospitality. From the perspective of traditional Anglo-Catholics, by contrast, they have had imposed on them within their own church clergy whose ordinations they consider at least improper. I'm sure you can see how this is not really comparable to their asking Catholics to use their altars.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I can fully understand a male priest who accepts the validity of the ordination of women to the priesthood being very uncomfortable or embarrassed at Walsingham being treated as part of an in-group (ie clergy) which there is now almost defined as being male only.

I felt that long before OoW was a reality (or even seriously discussed). It wasn't so much the gin-and-lace, which laypeople can and do share in, so much as the overall tone of clericalism and the pretence that we priests had a superior vocation and were a separate caste. It's really unfortunate because Walsingham is a very special and holy place which offers so much, and could offer a good deal more without these barriers.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:

All of that is to say that I don't think you're comparing like for like. For Catholics, Anglican clergy, though not considered validly-ordained priests, belong to another church body and can be respected as such. From their perspective, nobody has introduced invalidly-ordained clergy into the Catholic church and told Catholics they must accept them. It is easy to be graciousin such circumstances. It is just a case of showing hospitality. From the perspective of traditional Anglo-Catholics, by contrast, they have had imposed on them within their own church clergy whose ordinations they consider at least improper. I'm sure you can see how this is not really comparable to their asking Catholics to use their altars.

I see your point, Michael, and understand why some people take this attitude. It explains the comment of the Anglican priest you mention at the beginning of your post, but doesn't excuse his rudeness. Similarly it doesn't excuse the policy of a Shrine which, however much it may legally be independent of the C of E, makes great play with its claim to be a 'national Shrine of Our Lady' and implies it is open to all Anglicans.

As a matter of practical policy, it would be sensible (and I'm sure agreed by most visitors to the Shrine whatever their views on OoW) to restrict the presidency of the public masses to male priests. But this should not conflict with allowing visiting groups of pilgrims with their own priests to have their own celebrations, whatever the gender of the priest or indeed his/her denomination. My analogy of Anglicans visiting a RC shrine would be paralleled by the case of a Methodist minister (let's say male, for the sake of equivalence) bringing his own group to Walsingham. Is there a precedent for this? And if not, is it because no-one has asked or their policy forbids it?

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:

All of that is to say that I don't think you're comparing like for like. For Catholics, Anglican clergy, though not considered validly-ordained priests, belong to another church body and can be respected as such. From their perspective, nobody has introduced invalidly-ordained clergy into the Catholic church and told Catholics they must accept them. It is easy to be graciousin such circumstances. It is just a case of showing hospitality. From the perspective of traditional Anglo-Catholics, by contrast, they have had imposed on them within their own church clergy whose ordinations they consider at least improper. I'm sure you can see how this is not really comparable to their asking Catholics to use their altars.
I see your point, Michael, and understand why some people take this attitude. It explains the comment of the Anglican priest you mention at the beginning of your post, but doesn't excuse his rudeness. Similarly it doesn't excuse the policy of a Shrine which, however much it may legally be independent of the C of E, makes great play with its claim to be a 'national Shrine of Our Lady' and implies it is open to all Anglicans.

As a matter of practical policy, it would be sensible (and I'm sure agreed by most visitors to the Shrine whatever their views on OoW) to restrict the presidency of the public masses to male priests. But this should not conflict with allowing visiting groups of pilgrims with their own priests to have their own celebrations, whatever the gender of the priest or indeed his/her denomination.

Perhaps you're right, Angloid, and it isn't really my place to opine on what ought to be. I was really just making an observation about how it understandable that our reactions to things we disapprove of differ according to whether or not those things are on our doorstep.

I visited a Uniate parish two years ago. It was the first time I had seen the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom so heavily abbreviated, served without incense, and with so many latinisations. Had I seen those things in an Orthodox church, I would have been twitching with anxiety, as indeed I do with some of the other oddities of that Liturgy that I have seen in some Orthodox places. Yet, seeing them in a Catholic church, while I thought they were interesting I was surprised that I wasn't particularly bothered by them.

I suppose there is a strong sense that other churches are free to act according to their own precepts, even if we disagree with them, and it doesn't really bother us, but that our backs would arch if someone were to try that on our patch.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Which is the preferred Marian shrine for pilgrimages from parishes with female incumbents?

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CL:
As a matter of interest, do PTSers and their ilk also picket the Catholic and Orthodox pilgrimages to Walsingham?

I have taken an interest in their point of view, even though I don't agree with it and I went to a Walsingham Witness meeting some years ago.

The reason why they pick on the National as the occasion to demonstrate, is to get at the bishops participating whom they consider are being disloyal to their protestant and reformed heritage and to the 39 Articles of Religion in the Book of Common Prayer.

Not all demonstraters are members of the Church of England and they take a fundamentalist view of the 39 Articles. For one thing, believing in capital punishment would seem to be a problem, if in 1662, it was not enforced just for murder.

They do demonstrate in other places, such as RCs celebrating Mass in Anglican cathedrals.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Which is the preferred Marian shrine for pilgrimages from parishes with female incumbents?

Although not Marian, Pennant Melangall in Wales has a woman priest and is much admired and loved by those sympathetic to the OoW.

Although I know at least two women priests who care a lot about Walsingham.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Which is the preferred Marian shrine for pilgrimages from parishes with female incumbents?

I believe St. Albans has been mentioned in the past? It didn't seem to receive much attention in Norwich, probably because Walsingham rather monopolises that particular scene...

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

I didn't realize that St Alban's was a Marian shrine. St Melangell's is a lovely place and I intend to visit it (the Guardian is an old friend) but, again, not Marian.

Perhaps the new Vicar of St Mary's Willesden (which is a Marian shrine with a Black Madonna and a healing well will have the nous to encourage pilgrimages.

(eta: even if Walsingham allowed me an altar, I'd be hesitant to go: the place is so redolent of the worst kind of ecclesiastical theme-park)

[ 15. May 2012, 16:36: Message edited by: Amos ]

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I knew Willesden under Father Ian Brooks and went to their annual pilgrimage. Utterly unique style: altar in the centre of the nave, no robed servers and a rite produced by the Community of the Servants of the Will of God. I was seriously ill and visited there a number of times and found it healing.

I don't know what's going on there now.

St Alban's had a shrine of Our Lady of the Four Candles in the middle ages in the Lady Chapel, and I'm sure Dean Jeffrey John would be delighted if anyone wanted to revive the devotion.

I know Walsingham sounds silly if not downright ghastly on paper, but somehow it never fails with me...

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
[QB] Perhaps the new Vicar of St Mary's Willesden (which is a Marian shrine with a Black Madonna and a healing well will have the nous to encourage pilgrimages.
/QB]

Just read this again. Ten years ago, Father Ian Brooks was vicar and did encourage pilgrimages. His national was very different from Norfolk. We made a point of taking in a scruffy street nearby on the procession (with blue balloons) because there had been a number of murders there.

I took a bunch of flowers to Our Lady of Willesden following a successful operation.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

St Alban's had a shrine of Our Lady of the Four Candles in the middle ages in the Lady Chapel,

Seriously?

Posted by Try (# 4951) on :

I'm not sure why I have such an interest in Walsingham, which is after all an ocean away from me when the shrine to Our Lady of Guadalupe is much closer. Perhaps it is because I am in communion with part of the community at Walsingham, while at Guadalupe, while I am sure I would be welcome I would be an Anglo and Episcopalian guest in a Mexican RC space. I note that there is a Methodist chapel in Walsingham. Perhaps they would be willing to allow Anglican pilgrims with women priests to use their church to celebrate the Eucharist?

Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :

It may be an urban myth, but I've heard tell of a woman priest who celebrated Mass with her parish in the car park.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Good on her.

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

St Alban's had a shrine of Our Lady of the Four Candles in the middle ages in the Lady Chapel,
Seriously?

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

It's true about Our Lady of the Four Candles, honest. I don't know about Our Lady of the Dead Parrot.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
It may be an urban myth, but I've heard tell of a woman priest who celebrated Mass with her parish in the car park.

It may be an urban myth but there's no reason at all why it shouldn't become a true story. I assume she brought a folding table.

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

Reading this thread, I have finally come to understand what I disliked so intensely about the national pilgrimage when I went on it about 15 years ago. Not being ordained, I was definitely expected to go into Chaucerian mode and act as a foil to the priests who were doing the serious bit. As a lay person who had a genuine wish to be part of the "serious bit" and to participate in something which felt like a pilgrimage within my understanding of the term, I felt utterly rejected by the whole spirit of the occasion. That part was reserved for priests, and priests of a very particular kind, whom I was presumed to be supporting simply by my presence. Anything else was superfluous and indeed highly undesirable and to be eradicated.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Try:
I'm not sure why I have such an interest in Walsingham, which is after all an ocean away from me when the shrine to Our Lady of Guadalupe is much closer. Perhaps it is because I am in communion with part of the community at Walsingham, while at Guadalupe, while I am sure I would be welcome I would be an Anglo and Episcopalian guest in a Mexican RC space. I note that there is a Methodist chapel in Walsingham. Perhaps they would be willing to allow Anglican pilgrims with women priests to use their church to celebrate the Eucharist?

Never forget that aside from having the shrine in it, which is a modern re-creation, Walsingham is a large village in Norfolk where ordinary people go about their ordinary lives. Most of them won't be "screamy with gin and lace, bits of devotion, over the top costumes". They probably aren't interested in that sort of thing. Some of them may well be Methodists. Such interest as they have, is probably more in whether the visitors pay for their gin and lace.

Posted by Fifi (# 8151) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I knew Willesden under Father Ian Brooks and went to their annual pilgrimage.

I rather think you mean Fr Ian Booth. (Fr Ian Brooks is the Vicar of S.Paul, Croxteth in Liverpool - and has been for over thirty years.)

Posted by Stranger in a strange land (# 11922) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
It may be an urban myth, but I've heard tell of a woman priest who celebrated Mass with her parish in the car park.

Which considering that the parish (nothing to do with the shrine) had passed Resolutions A & B was illegal in addition to being arrogant and rude.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fifi:

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I knew Willesden under Father Ian Brooks and went to their annual pilgrimage.
I rather think you mean Fr Ian Booth. (Fr Ian Brooks is the Vicar of S.Paul, Croxteth in Liverpool - and has been for over thirty years.)

I do indeed. Last heard of in Hove. A good man.

Posted by Fifi (# 8151) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Last heard of in Hove.

Now the Vicar of S.Margaret, Leigh-on-Sea.

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

quote:
Which considering that the parish (nothing to do with the shrine) had passed Resolutions A & B was illegal in addition to being arrogant and rude.

I'll let others opine on the arrogant and rude bit, but illegal?! Surely not. The Act of Synod is not a piece of legislation as far as I understand, so I fail to see how an "illegal" activity can have taken place. You may consider the action in contravention with an Act of Synod but that is not illegal per se.

Which car park was used is also not specified. This could have been the car park of Sainsbury's for goodness sake!

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
Reading this thread, I have finally come to understand what I disliked so intensely about the national pilgrimage when I went on it about 15 years ago. Not being ordained, I was definitely expected to go into Chaucerian mode and act as a foil to the priests who were doing the serious bit. As a lay person who had a genuine wish to be part of the "serious bit" and to participate in something which felt like a pilgrimage within my understanding of the term, I felt utterly rejected by the whole spirit of the occasion. That part was reserved for priests, and priests of a very particular kind, whom I was presumed to be supporting simply by my presence. Anything else was superfluous and indeed highly undesirable and to be eradicated.

I sympathise. It's an extreme example of a tendency within (this strand of) anglo-catholicism generally.
I'm sure it must be worse for a committed lay person like yourself, but as a priest not wholly at ease with that tendency I've had similar feelings at Walsingham. Though I've never been to the 'National'.

Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :

quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:

quote:
Which considering that the parish (nothing to do with the shrine) had passed Resolutions A & B was illegal in addition to being arrogant and rude.
I'll let others opine on the arrogant and rude bit, but illegal?! Surely not. The Act of Synod is not a piece of legislation as far as I understand, so I fail to see how an "illegal" activity can have taken place. You may consider the action in contravention with an Act of Synod but that is not illegal per se.

Which car park was used is also not specified. This could have been the car park of Sainsbury's for goodness sake!

Resolution C = Act of Synod.
Resolutions A & B = Legislation

Resolutions A & B apply to the whole parish. So whether it was the Car Park of the Church or of Sainsbury makes no difference.

Posted by Fifi (# 8151) on :

quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:

quote:
Which considering that the parish (nothing to do with the shrine) had passed Resolutions A & B was illegal in addition to being arrogant and rude.
I'll let others opine on the arrogant and rude bit, but illegal?! Surely not. The Act of Synod is not a piece of legislation as far as I understand, so I fail to see how an "illegal" activity can have taken place. You may consider the action in contravention with an Act of Synod but that is not illegal per se.

Which car park was used is also not specified. This could have been the car park of Sainsbury's for goodness sake!

It has nothing at all to do with the Act of Synod. Rather, it would be a contravention of the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure, 1993, which, unlike the Act of Synod, has the force of statute law, having been approved by both Houses of Parliament, and having received the Royal Assent.

Given that the PCC has passed Resolution A ('That this parochial church council would not accept a woman as the minister who presides at or celebrates the Holy Communion or pronounces the Absolution in the Parish'), it seems clear that a woman priest celebrating anywhere within the geographical parish would be committing an offence.

(As, indeed, would Sainsbury's if they dared to pollute Walsingham with a supermarket - with or without a car park.)

Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :

This raises an interesting question - what is the legal status of the modern Shrine? Is it an Extra-Parochial Place?

If not and it is, legally, part of the Parish (even if a private chapel) then my understanding is that the Resolutions would bind the shrine. The 'policy' of the guardians would be irrelevant.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

St Alban's had a shrine of Our Lady of the Four Candles in the middle ages in the Lady Chapel,
Seriously?

Our Lady of the Four Tapers, these days...

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

I stand corrected on the legislation point. However...

quote:
it seems clear that a woman priest celebrating anywhere within the geographical parish would be committing an offence

Reading the Measure that doesn't appear to be the case. Section 5(b) of the Measure:

"It shall be an offence against the laws Ecclesiastical, for which proceedings may be taken under the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963—

(...)

(b)for any bishop, priest or deacon to act in contravention of a resolution under section 3(1) above or to permit any act in contravention of such a resolution to be committed in any church or any building licensed for public worship according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England;

(...)"

It seems like offences may only be committed in a church or other building licensed for CofE worship. Whilst you might disagree with the carpark mass, it would not appear to be illegal.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stranger in a strange land:

quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
It may be an urban myth, but I've heard tell of a woman priest who celebrated Mass with her parish in the car park.
Which considering that the parish (nothing to do with the shrine) had passed Resolutions A & B was illegal in addition to being arrogant and rude.

Why?

Are you suggesting that if a parish hires a room in a Youth Hostel for an Away-Day, and their vicar is a woman, it would be illegal to end the day with a Communion Service if the Youth Hostel happened to be physically in a parish that had passed the Resolutions?

Posted by Fifi (# 8151) on :

quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
I stand corrected on the legislation point. However...

quote:
it seems clear that a woman priest celebrating anywhere within the geographical parish would be committing an offence
Reading the Measure that doesn't appear to be the case. Section 5(b) of the Measure:

"It shall be an offence against the laws Ecclesiastical, for which proceedings may be taken under the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963—

(...)

(b)for any bishop, priest or deacon to act in contravention of a resolution under section 3(1) above or to permit any act in contravention of such a resolution to be committed in any church or any building licensed for public worship according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England;

(...)"

It seems like offences may only be committed in a church or other building licensed for CofE worship. Whilst you might disagree with the carpark mass, it would not appear to be illegal.

We had better not overlook paragraph 4 of Canon C8:

'4. No minister who has such authority to exercise his ministry in any diocese shall do so therein in any place in which he has not the cure of souls without the permission of the minister having such cure, except at the homes of persons whose names are entered on the electoral roll of the parish which he serves and to the extent authorized by the Extra-Parochial Ministry Measure 1967, or in a university, college, school, hospital, or public or charitable institution in which he is licensed to officiate as provided by the said Measure and Canon B 41 or, in relation to funeral services, as provided by section 2 of the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure 1992 or in the case of a bishop's mission order to the extent authorized by section 47(11) of the Dioceses, Pastoral and Mission Measure 2007, read with section 47(14) of that Measure.'

Unless the mass in the car park had the consent of the incumbent, it would seem to fall foul of the Canons and thus an offence would be committed . . .

Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :

quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
I stand corrected on the legislation point. However...

quote:
it seems clear that a woman priest celebrating anywhere within the geographical parish would be committing an offence
Reading the Measure that doesn't appear to be the case. Section 5(b) of the Measure:

"It shall be an offence against the laws Ecclesiastical, for which proceedings may be taken under the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963—

(...)

(b)for any bishop, priest or deacon to act in contravention of a resolution under section 3(1) above or to permit any act in contravention of such a resolution to be committed in any church or any building licensed for public worship according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England;

(...)"

It seems like offences may only be committed in a church or other building licensed for CofE worship. Whilst you might disagree with the carpark mass, it would not appear to be illegal.

If I may be so bold, I think you are misreading the section. There are two offences:

1) To to act in contravention of a resolution under section 3(1) (yourself, anywhere within the parish)

2) to permit (somebody else to commit) any act in contravention of such a resolution to be committed in any church or any building licensed for public worship according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England.

Thus, if I were a male retired priest living in a resolution A parish, if I permitted a female priest to say mass in my living room, I would not be committing an offence, but she would be. If my living room were licensed for public worship, we would both be committing an offence.

And Enoch, yes, that is what we are suggesting. It goes with the territorial division of the Church of England and the cure of souls. There are some exceptions - such as Section 1 of the Extra-Parochial Ministry Measure 1967 (you can take services in the houses of people on your electoral roll, even if outside the parish, so long as no others attend).

There is admittedly a contrary legal opinion in the Code of Practice for Bishops' Mission Orders - but also a widespead opinion among Diocesan Registrars that the said legal opinion is incorrect.

Edited to Add - Furthermore it being illegal and it constituting a separate disciplinary offence under the EJM are two separate things.

[ 17. May 2012, 10:41: Message edited by: The Man with a Stick ]

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

I think my reading of 5 (b) is that the "in any church or any building licensed for public worship" applies both to the acting in contravention and to the permission. Reasons for believing so are the absence of a comma between "above" and "or", and the fact these are lumped in a single sub-section and not two sub-sub-sections (b)(i) and (b)(ii). I am no canon lawyer, but lawyer is the day job.

However, it does seem I am hoisted by C8 para 4...

Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :

quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
I think my reading of 5 (b) is that the "in any church or any building licensed for public worship" applies both to the acting in contravention and to the permission. Reasons for believing so are the absence of a comma between "above" and "or", and the fact these are lumped in a single sub-section and not two sub-sub-sections (b)(i) and (b)(ii). I am no canon lawyer, but lawyer is the day job.

However, it does seem I am hoisted by C8 para 4...

Canon Lawyer is the day job over here [Smile]

Posted by Fifi (# 8151) on :

quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
However, it does seem I am hoisted by C8 para 4...

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

quote:
Canon Lawyer is the day job over here [Smile]

Gosh, didn't realise there were professionals! [Smile]

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I don't think the Bishop of Norwich thought Father Hope Pattern was being legal in setting up the shrine in the parish church in the first place. He probably thought he was being rude and arrogant as well.

On another point - this layman is used to clergy being silly in sort of situations and can tolerate and ignore it. Rather that sort of clericalism (which doesn't effect me) than the sort that is telling me what to think and feel all the time.

Posted by Fifi (# 8151) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I don't think the Bishop of Norwich thought Father Hope Pattern was being legal in setting up the shrine in the parish church in the first place. He probably thought he was being rude and arrogant as well.

Oddly enough, I was re-reading a few pages of Michael Rear's book over the weekend, and what came across very clearly indeed were the extraordinarily good manners employed by Fr Patten and Bishop Pollock throughout all their disagreements. The chances of the latter finding the former either 'rude' or 'arrogant' seem to this observer (allbeit at a distance!) to be somewhere in the region of nil. They were, after all, both gentlemen.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fifi:

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I don't think the Bishop of Norwich thought Father Hope Pattern was being legal in setting up the shrine in the parish church in the first place. He probably thought he was being rude and arrogant as well.
Oddly enough, I was re-reading a few pages of Michael Rear's book over the weekend, and what came across very clearly indeed were the extraordinarily good manners employed by Fr Patten and Bishop Pollock throughout all their disagreements. The chances of the latter finding the former either 'rude' or 'arrogant' seem to this observer (allbeit at a distance!) to be somewhere in the region of nil. They were, after all, both gentlemen.

To be strictly accurate, a bishop is never a gentleman, being a member of the peerage!

But I think this discussion of the Resolutions and OoW is getting us a bit off topic...

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Tangent alert

quote:
Originally posted by the Man with a Stick
And Enoch, yes, that is what we are suggesting. It goes with the territorial division of the Church of England and the cure of souls. There are some exceptions - such as Section 1 of the Extra-Parochial Ministry Measure 1967 (you can take services in the houses of people on your electoral roll, even if outside the parish, so long as no others attend).

I thought that was what might be being argued. That is why I posed the question in the way I did. So you would say that the Canons make this an illegal celebration irrespective of the gender of the celebrant or whether the parish where the Youth Hostel finds itself had or had not passed any resolutions?

You'll probably also be aware that in the sort of circumstance I've described, this Canon is as good as universally ignored. I suspect that very few clergy, yet alone laity, are even aware it exists.

If you are a professional canon lawyer, can you advise what the actual consequences are likely to be, even potentially, of this Away-Day ignoring it? Would the Bishop of Norwich (in this case) swoop in and interdict anyone, or would he just put the complaint in his perpetually pending tray? Are there parts of the country where it is taken seriously?

Posted by SFG (# 17081) on :

As I understand it the prohibition on women as celebrants relates only to the property over which the church council has jurisdiction, not to the whole geographical parish.

Does the setting up of a'shrine require episcopal approval in the Anglican church. I suspect not. Mainly because they are hardly heard of!

I know the are some small shrines in addition to Walsingham, for example at Egmanton. I wonder how they are started in the Church of England. I guess by energetic Anglo Catholics who are not too worried about what bishops think.

Posted by Stranger in a strange land (# 11922) on :

That has not been the understanding of Bishops and Registrars in parishes where I have worked. It was certainly held to apply to the chapel of an independent school in which the PCC had no interest.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

I had hoped to steer the conversation away from Dead Horses and debates over the wording of the Resolutions without invoking Hostly Implements, but oh well.

This tangent could be explored on a separate thread, either in DH or in Purgatory depending on the exact OP. But it really has no place on a thread for discussing the worship practices associated with Walsingham Pilgrimages. If posters could try to keep to topic, it would be appreciated.

Many thanks as ever.

dj_ordinaire, Eccles host

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CL:

quote:
Originally posted by Try:
Is the Anglican shrine's attitude twords women likely to improve now that the Ordinariate is syphoning off big chunks of FiF UK? I would love to make Walsingham a part of a visit to the UK.
If you mean will female clergy be allowed use of altars at the shrine, very unlikely. That will not change for the foreseeable future,

a.) as long as the present administrator and guardians are in position. No attempt will be made to force their hands either as the CofE doesn't own the shrine, rather it is vested in the guardians, who could skip off to Rome taking the shrine with them.

b.) as long as there is an Orthodox chapel in the shrine. No one will want to cause an ecumenical incident.

No way are they going off to Rome or anywhere else! I smile when I think!

The Shrine is independent but the clergy are licensed by the Bishop of Norwich.

You might not think that matters, but Anglican clergy (who aren't bishops!) can be subject to legal action unless they have active permission to operate from the local diocese.

Now it is possible for the Shrine to make a UDI and effectively become a continuing Church. To retain Anglican recognition of orders, they would need 3 bishops in order to make more. Last visit, I'm sure I counted as many kicking around. Clergy and laity from traditionalist societies in the mainstream C of E could dip in and out of it as they please.

Oops have I blown the gaffe on that one?!

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

Now I reflect further, it wouldn't hurt to have a diocese not too far away packed with Walsingham-friendly bishops. Know ye of such a place...?

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0