Ship of Fools: 103rd Bishop of Chichester

Thread: 103rd Bishop of Chichester 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=023027

Posted by +Chrism (# 17032) on :

Wonderful farwell service for Rt Revd John Hind as he prepares to retire as Bishop of Chichester as of tomorrow - Monday 30th April 2012.

Now in 3 weeks time the next Bishop of Chichester will be announced. From a source close to the whole process it is set to be a decent appointment which I'm quite excited about even though I'm not part of that Diocese.

Have any of your heard any other names going round?

Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on :

Decent for whom?

And have you ever met any indecent bishops?

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:

And have you ever met any indecent bishops?

Now that would make for an interesting thread....

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:

And have you ever met any indecent bishops?

Only on reflection...

Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on :

Or perhaps in reflection? [Devil]

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :

quote:
Originally posted by kingsfold:
Or perhaps in reflection?

Precisely.

That Narcissus
Should take a missus
Was a notion he rejected
After he'd reflected.

Posted by +Chrism (# 17032) on :

Congratulations to Bishop Martin Warner who has just been announced as the next Bishop of Chichester

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Collectors of really obscure trivia will be pleased to know that Queen Elizabeth II has now appointed as many bishops of Chichester as did her predecessors Victoria & Elizabeth I. One more, and she'll hold the record.

Posted by +Chrism (# 17032) on :

Although this is still to be announced by Number 10 Downing Street but a clergy within Chichester who was close to the process announced this to me earlier today

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

quote:
Originally posted by +Chrism:
Congratulations to Bishop Martin Warner who has just been announced as the next Bishop of Chichester

Another FiF? [Disappointed]

Posted by +Chrism (# 17032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:

quote:
Originally posted by +Chrism:
Congratulations to Bishop Martin Warner who has just been announced as the next Bishop of Chichester
Another FiF?

I knew this was gonna happen as it even said in the Statements of Needs that there is sufficient reason why the next Bishop of Chichester should be someone who does not ordain women but they should have a suffragan who does.

I'm glad they've kept to the long tradition of Traditional Catholics such a Eric Kemp, John Hind now Martin Warner [Smile]

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

quote:
Originally posted by +Chrism:
Congratulations to Bishop Martin Warner who has just been announced as the next Bishop of Chichester

More of a leak than an announcement...

Posted by Berwickshire (# 15761) on :

Spare a thought for the disappointed Diocese of Europe who were all hoping (albeit for their different reasons) that Dr Rowell might get it: he is resident there after all and might, but for his age, have been the man to take over from his own predecessor here.

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

quote:
I knew this was gonna happen as it even said in the Statements of Needs that there is sufficient reason why the next Bishop of Chichester should be someone who does not ordain women but they should have a suffragan

And do they have a suffragen who does? Horsham doesn't.

+Martin Warner used to write in the Church Times, as far as I can recall I usually found what he had to say interesting and helpful. Unfortunately, he looks very much like someone I loathe and it's hard not to project that person's unpleasant attributes onto him.

[ 01. May 2012, 18:30: Message edited by: justlooking ]

Posted by +Chrism (# 17032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:

quote:
I knew this was gonna happen as it even said in the Statements of Needs that there is sufficient reason why the next Bishop of Chichester should be someone who does not ordain women but they should have a suffragan
And do they have a suffragen who does? Horsham doesn't.

+Martin Warner used to write in the Church Times, as far as I can recall I usually found what he had to say interesting and helpful. Unfortunately, he looks very much like someone I loathe and it's hard not to project that person's unpleasant attributes onto him.

No Wallace Benn doesn't ordain women but hopefully they'll appoint a new Bishop of Lewes who does

Posted by StarlightUK (# 4592) on :

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:

quote:
Originally posted by +Chrism:
Congratulations to Bishop Martin Warner who has just been announced as the next Bishop of Chichester
Another FiF?

As one who is in the Diocese of Chichester I think it appropriate to wait until it is formally announced rather than rely on leaks from clergy who don't seem able to maintain such basic confidentiality. It isn't even on the diocesan website yet!

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

Bit late now.

Posted by +Chrism (# 17032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by just looking:
Bit late now.

The announcement is due within the next few days so I hear most probably Thursday. Now the search for Whitby starts it's all too much

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

We've gone and spoilt if for them haven't we? [Snigger]

So when's Wally Benn going? I thought he'd already gone. Any whispers about possible non-FiF replacements?

I went to a Midnight Mass in Brighton some years ago and the presiding priest was a woman - Mother Judith. I get the impression that many in Chichester are tired of FiF dominance.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
I went to a Midnight Mass in Brighton some years ago and the presiding priest was a woman - Mother Judith. I get the impression that many in Chichester are tired of FiF dominance.

Anywhere with a priest of that name is by definition going to be out of sympathy with FiF, justlooking.

But wherever you go, the boss is always a bastard. It's the British way. The number of bishops from the liberal catholic and modern church parties is disproportionately higher than numbers of such parishes and there is a parallel resentment to that, often focused on those bishops personally.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
The number of bishops from the liberal catholic and modern church parties is disproportionately higher than numbers of such parishes and there is a parallel resentment to that, often focused on those bishops personally.

I query that. Of course for a long time there were few evangelical bishops, because the evangelical revival took a long time to filter through to the ranks of those eligible. But there seems to be a good balance now. And outside Brighton, parts of London and a few other places there are not many (compared to the noise they make) 'traditional' anglo-catholic parishes: I can't do the maths but I'd be surprised if they were more than 10% of the total. Apart from the 'flying bishops' there are several more who would represent these.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

I think 10% sounds about right, Angloid, though for that I think they only have one diocesan, don't they? Con Evo's don't have any, and only 2 suffragans (if memory serves).

I am going by memory, so am open to correction with more recent statistics, but the number of pew-squatters self identifying as liberal catholics in the last wide-ranging survey I saw - around 4 years ago - was actually less than trad catholics, whereas the number of diocesans (don't know about suffragans) was more than any of the above.

Just for the record I personally disapprove of the whole partisan thing, of every flavour, and that extends to attitudes towards bishops based on partisan considerations. But I am hardly the first to remark on the numbers imbalance.

Your point about a time-lag in numbers of evangelicals is well-made.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

Chances of a non-fif bishop in Chichester pre women bishops vote=slim. Anorexic even. Simple politics.

Don't want to scare the waverers.

AtB, Pyx_e

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I think 10% sounds about right, Angloid, though for that I think they only have one diocesan, don't they? Con Evo's don't have any, and only 2 suffragans (if memory serves).

I think part of the argument why there aren't more ConEvo bishops is that they're seen, rightly or wrongly, as not being good at team games. If evangelicals get appointed, they're more more likely to hail from the Open/Charismatic streams.

I understand that things are kicking off in Southwark because the bishop is making appointments that are all liberal/catholic, and none from the sizeable evangelical community.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I think the con-evos in Southwark shot themselves in the foot many years ago by refusing to co-operate with diocesan structures and keeping themselves isolated. Much as anglo-catholics did in many places in the past. Certainly the deanery I used to belong to operated perfectly happily despite (or perhaps because of) the absence of a couple of the evangelical clergy from most meetings. Whether that was our fault or theirs I don't know.

I suspect the vast majority of ordinary laity would not identify with any 'party' in the church. Partly because they have not undergone the particular theological formation that all priests from any part of the spectrum will have had. This has often led to narrowness of course, but more often simply clarifies views about where one stands on the sacramental/scriptural axis. The clerical equivalent of a MOTR layperson is more likely to be open evangelical or liberal catholic. Now that a majority of theological colleges are of the former flavour that will probably eventually be expressed in the relative proportions of bishops.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by +Chrism:
Congratulations to Bishop Martin Warner who has just been announced as the next Bishop of Chichester

Brilliant - he is a lovely man, by all accounts. Though he opposes the OOW, he doesn't seem so vociferous about it and keeps to the mainstream.

Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by +Chrism:
Congratulations to Bishop Martin Warner who has just been announced as the next Bishop of Chichester
Brilliant - he is a lovely man, by all accounts. Though he opposes the OOW, he doesn't seem so vociferous about it and keeps to the mainstream.

He is indeed a lovely man and has a fine intellect.

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

quote:
I went to a Midnight Mass in Brighton some years ago and the presiding priest was a woman - Mother Judith. I get the impression that many in Chichester are tired of FiF dominance.
Anywhere with a priest of that name is by definition going to be out of sympathy with FiF, justlooking.......

I don't think she was the parish priest there - I think she'd been invited to preach and preside. I'd been there before and it's high AC. I had the impression a point was being made by the parish clergy.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Though he opposes the OOW, he doesn't seem so vociferous about it and keeps to the mainstream.

Presumably part of the reason for a St Paul's canonry, a mitre, and a diocesan bishopric? They think he's tame.

Thurible

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
I don't think she was the parish priest there - I think she'd been invited to preach and preside. I'd been there before and it's high AC. I had the impression a point was being made by the parish clergy.

OK justlooking, understood - but I guess the point stands even at one remove.

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

Most of Chichester diocese seems to be out of sympathy with FiF. In 2008 the Telegraph reported:Bishop faces rebellion over women clergy.

quote:
Out of its 393 parishes, only 65 have stated that they would not accept a woman as their incumbent ......

Many priests and worshippers believed that the resignation of one of the two junior bishops - the Rt Rev Lindsay Urwin, the Bishop of Horsham - presents an opportunity for a shift in policy.

Yet despite promising to conduct a consultation on who should succeed Bishop Urwin, Bishop Hind told a recent meeting of key officials that he would maintain the status quo by appointing someone who will not ordain women.

If most of the laity and most of the clergy in Chichester are in favour of women priests why is it a FiF stronghold?

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
If most of the laity and most of the clergy in Chichester are in favour of women priests why is it a FiF stronghold?

Well, as I said earlier I don't believe there should be any reasons for any such thing. But my original interjection related to the rise and rise of partisanship and bishops who identify with such parties. That's the way it's getting played, and if lib. cath. types have played it more successfully than the other parties, then you can expect the others to start squeaking. I deplore it personally, but this is the sort of thing you should have expected when the game kicked off. It's not my game at all.

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

So +John Hind is running the diocese to suit his personal agenda.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

If you replace "personal" with "party", then I suppose yes - and presumably that's what is happening in Southwark also. My point being that Chichester is part of a bigger problem. If you want to turn a blind eye to that, it's your choice. Anyway, not to gild the lily, I've made my point I'm sure.

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

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
Most of Chichester diocese seems to be out of sympathy with FiF. In 2008 the Telegraph reported:Bishop faces rebellion over women clergy.
quote:
Out of its 393 parishes, only 65 have stated that they would not accept a woman as their incumbent ......

Many priests and worshippers believed that the resignation of one of the two junior bishops - the Rt Rev Lindsay Urwin, the Bishop of Horsham - presents an opportunity for a shift in policy.

Yet despite promising to conduct a consultation on who should succeed Bishop Urwin, Bishop Hind told a recent meeting of key officials that he would maintain the status quo by appointing someone who will not ordain women.

If most of the laity and most of the clergy in Chichester are in favour of women priests why is it a FiF stronghold?

When I was in the Diocese (some time ago now), there was a feeling that you "didn't need" to pass the Resolutions, as the Bishop would not put a woman incumbent in, in any case. If that still holds (and it's really stupid reasoning, incidentally) those figures might be misleading.

If a liberal diocese has appointed a Trad-Cath bishop recently, then I might view things differently - but it's no surprise that the constituency is doing all it can to hold onto what it's got.

Posted by Fifi (# 8151) on :

And the 104th is announced here

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Fascinating bit around 7.30 when the Archbishop of York tries to remember the prayer of St Richard of Chichester.

Good news that the new bishop is a 'people person' and has a passion for the arts.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Fascinating bit around 7.30 when the Archbishop of York tries to remember the prayer of St Richard of Chichester.

Good news that the new bishop is a 'people person' and has a passion for the arts.

I'm a Methodist and we're still bishop free, but why is it good for a bishop to have a passion for the arts?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Because it suggests he's at ease with nuance and subtlety?

[ 03. May 2012, 10:46: Message edited by: Angloid ]

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Because it suggests he's at ease with nuance and subtlety?

Absolutely!
And because of the legacy of George Bell.
I'm sure there are other reasons too.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
[
And because of the legacy of George Bell.

and Dean Hussey of course.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Though he opposes the OOW, he doesn't seem so vociferous about it and keeps to the mainstream.
Presumably part of the reason for a St Paul's canonry, a mitre, and a diocesan bishopric? They think he's tame.

Thurible

I think he is humble - and holy.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

I think his ideas about gender are completely dotty. But I know a fairly large number of young, male, CofE clergy who think he's a sweetie.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Hmm. Is that necessarily a good thing?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
I think his ideas about gender are completely dotty. But I know a fairly large number of young, male, CofE clergy who think he's a sweetie.

I am old, male and not clergy. What are these views about gender that he is supposed to hold?

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

I thought you were acquainted with him, leo. Don't you know?

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I don't know Martin Warner's views on gender. I think I saw him receive communion from a woman priest once, but I may have been mistaken.

It's really good news, to my mind.

Posted by Lord Pontivillian (# 14308) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I don't know Martin Warner's views on gender. I think I saw him receive communion from a woman priest once, but I may have been mistaken.

It's really good news, to my mind.

I wonder if it's such good news for the female clergy in my parish? It's good that he's willing to accept communion from Women but is it helpful that he won't ordain them?

[ 03. May 2012, 20:04: Message edited by: Lord Pontivillian ]

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I don't know Martin Warner's views on gender. I think I saw him receive communion from a woman priest once, but I may have been mistaken.

I'd've thought it unlikely that Bp Martin Warner, SSC, did so but I suppose one should never rule anything out.

Thurible

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
I thought you were acquainted with him, leo. Don't you know?

No, come on, don't drop these coy little hints. Are you suggesting that he is gay? (The bit about being thought a sweety, not the bit about dotty views on gender as such.)

[ 03. May 2012, 20:58: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

No.
I am suggesting that, from what I understand to be his theological position on the nature of the difference between men and women, his theological anthropology is seriously flawed.

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :

He's an excellent, orthodox, missional catholic.

Worked well with Lucy Winkett and the St Paul's Cathedral Chapter.

He happens not to believe that the CofE should ordain women priests and bishops. That is not, in the CofE, a bar to him being a diocesan bishop. (Even if, as I do, you think he's mistaken on this)

I look forward to working with him in the House & College of Bishops.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Martin Warner's views on the ordination of women to the priesthood are well known. His justification for them is less well-known and is not orthodox. Yes, he was always perfectly affable to Canon Winkett, though she was well aware that as far as he was concerned she might as well be an extra-terrestrial as far as the Imago Dei was concerned.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
His justification for them is less well-known and is not orthodox.

Would you be so good as to expand?

Thurible

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Sure, albeit briefly: The new Bishop of Chichester regards maleness and femaleness as essential properties. Such a view has major implications outside the Dead Horse Question.

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

Martin Warner and Lucy Winkett: Working Together

It doesn't explain much in detail but gives an idea. He does at least concede that when she presides at the Eucharist Lucy Winkett is "more than nothing".

I take it he's not married.

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

Correction: he says "what is happening when Lucy stands at the altar, I can say that it is most certainly not nothing,"

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Sure, albeit briefly: The new Bishop of Chichester regards maleness and femaleness as essential properties. Such a view has major implications outside the Dead Horse Question.

Male/femaleness = essential properties. Never really thought about it in such language but it seems OK to me. What does it mean?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Is neo-Platonist Gnostic heresy! Is outrage!

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

+Martyn was a server at our place in his youth, so we are right chuffed to hear of his appointment to Chichester.

He came to us last year to preside and preach at our monthly Mass of Our Lady of Walsingham, but a couple of baptism enquiries turned up that Saturday morning and I didn't get to hear him chiz chiz chiz....

He's a Good Egg, and although I don't share his views on OoW, I hope and pray he'll be a positive force in the C of E in the future.

Ian J.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Is neo-Platonist Gnostic heresy! Is outrage!

I knows what all those words mean individually but I am no more enlightened when you string them together.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

[Razz]

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

Is he willing to appoint a suffragan bishop to ordain women priests?

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

You may be confusing tautology with heresy here. To say something is the essence of itself is saying nothing at all.

Posted by Fifi (# 8151) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
Is he willing to appoint a suffragan bishop to ordain women priests?

The $64,000 question, to be sure. But his predecessor took the view that a suffragan acts solely on behalf of his diocesan and therefore - where the diocesan will not ordain women - the suffragan cannot do so either (whether he wants to or not). My hunch - and it's no more than that - is that +M will take the same position . . .

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

But both suffragans were themselves opposed, so the possibility of them acting (or not) against their better judgement didn't arise. Even if such a position is a sensible or tenable one, surely there is no other diocese in the country where it applies. Some diocesans only ordain deacons, and the suffragans the priests. Whether that is a good solution is also debatable, but at least it means the diocesan can maintain an equal relationship with all his clergy no matter what his views on the DH.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
The number of bishops from the liberal catholic and modern church parties is disproportionately higher than numbers of such parishes and there is a parallel resentment to that, often focused on those bishops personally.
I query that. Of course for a long time there were few evangelical bishops, because the evangelical revival took a long time to filter through to the ranks of those eligible. But there seems to be a good balance now. And outside Brighton, parts of London and a few other places there are not many (compared to the noise they make) 'traditional' anglo-catholic parishes: I can't do the maths but I'd be surprised if they were more than 10% of the total. Apart from the 'flying bishops' there are several more who would represent these.

I'm not entiely sure how it works, but is it possible for a liberal 'catholic' bishop to appeal to a greater constituency, and therefre there are more of them?

I have heard it said that a higher bishop can come down the candle and do all that, but lower ones find it harder to go up. Is this true?

Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
I have heard it said that a higher bishop can come down the candle and do all that, but lower ones find it harder to go up. Is this true?

In my experience, simply not true.

My sending church normally doesn't robe for the main services (i.e. moderately low). I was there for 17 years - we had bishops there most years during that time and I never saw one without robes.

One of the previous ministers of that church became a bishop, and he seems willing to wear chasubles and so on when that is the tradition of the church he is visiting.

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fifi:

quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
Is he willing to appoint a suffragan bishop to ordain women priests?
The $64,000 question, to be sure. But his predecessor took the view that a suffragan acts solely on behalf of his diocesan and therefore - where the diocesan will not ordain women - the suffragan cannot do so either (whether he wants to or not). My hunch - and it's no more than that - is that +M will take the same position . . .

I never understood how that argument did not also apply to an assistant bishop acting as a commissary too.

My guess would be that +M would allow a suffragan to ordain women priests - and indeed that would be exactly what the selectors were looking for. e.g. +Martin Chichester and +Lucy Lewes?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:

My guess would be that +M would allow a suffragan to ordain women priests - and indeed that would be exactly what the selectors were looking for. e.g. +Martin Chichester and +Lucy Lewes?

I'd love that just to see the look on +Wally Benn's face. [Smile]

(though by the time it's likely to happen he'll probably be revolving at high speed in his grave).

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Martin Warner's views on the ordination of women to the priesthood are well known. His justification for them is less well-known and is not orthodox. Yes, he was always perfectly affable to Canon Winkett, though she was well aware that as far as he was concerned she might as well be an extra-terrestrial as far as the Imago Dei was concerned.

Isn't God a major kind of extra-terrestrial - at least before he created the terrestrial bit? [Big Grin]

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

Most clergy of an Evangelical leaning I know struggle with a few things that I think are important for a bishop (priest). Ontological change would be one. The difference between leading a successful church and a en-cultured Diocese would be another. Lastly they tend to struggle to escape the idea that Evangelical worship is the only/best way. There are rarely stupid so intellectually they get these things but emotionally they struggle a bit and sometimes it shows. I also would want to add that I have never know one not grow into deeper understanding and liberal catholics have their own issues (a slight obsession with single issues springs to mind) at least Evangelicals but church growth first.

As for “reasons we don’t agree with women priests” there were only two. The Scriptural one and the “traditional” one, both of which have been debated to death here and elsewhere. Anyone got a link to +M’s thoughts on the matter? I’m intrigued, not least for the novelty but also for a sneaking suspicion that it may be a classic “balancing on the wooden boundary” trick much loved by those who want a foot in each camp.

AtB Pyx_e

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Is neo-Platonist Gnostic heresy! Is outrage!

Is fancy language for the Pork Pie or Potato (thank you John Broadhurst) theory of ordained ministry.

Though, at a guess, I think MW will allow a suffragan to ordain women: he has a strong pragmatic streak.

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

quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
I never understood how that argument did not also apply to an assistant bishop acting as a commissary too.

The commissary was acting on behalf of +Canterbury not +Chichester - a sort of flying bishop in reverse.

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:

quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
I never understood how that argument did not also apply to an assistant bishop acting as a commissary too.

The commissary was acting on behalf of +Canterbury not +Chichester - a sort of flying bishop in reverse.

That relies on the Archbishop having metropolitan jurisdiction over his province. But if he does have that jurisdiction and the archbishop ordains women priests then no diocese within that province can be 'free' of women priests anyway.

Flying bishops are consecrated by the Archbishop in the context of a communion service. They are in communion with the Archbishop - at least to start with.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Is neo-Platonist Gnostic heresy! Is outrage!
Is fancy language for the Pork Pie or Potato (thank you John Broadhurst) theory of ordained ministry.

Though, at a guess, I think MW will allow a suffragan to ordain women: he has a strong pragmatic streak.

Thank you - now i understand. Mention of John Broadhurst brings back uncomfortable memories about his views on women.

Posted by Masha (# 10098) on :

quote:
Custard: My sending church normally doesn't robe for the main services (i.e. moderately low). I was there for 17 years - we had bishops there most years during that time and I never saw one without robes. One of the previous ministers of that church became a bishop, and he seems willing to wear chasubles and so on when that is the tradition of the church he is visiting.

I might be wrong (it happens a lot) but isn't it technically against Canon Law to preside without robes?

If so then I can understand why a bishop would not leave his pointy hat at home when in a robe-less church. And also why a previously non-robe bloke would robe up on becoming a bishop.

Besides, a mitre and staff would look pretty daft with a suit I reckon!

[ 07. May 2012, 19:48: Message edited by: Masha ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Yes it is against canon law but one of our bishops sometimes conducts confirmations in a lounge suit. One of my evangelical colleagues is outraged by it.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Good for him/her. Wanton disregard of the rules is a form of pride.

Honestly, how and why do people like that get appointed?

[ 08. May 2012, 18:45: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Honestly, how and why do people like that get appointed?

By the diocesan (Messrs. Jobsforthe Boyce)

Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Yes it is against canon law but one of our bishops sometimes conducts confirmations in a lounge suit. One of my evangelical colleagues is outraged by it.

YIKES!

Those crazy, extreme, English Evangelicals! And a bishop, too, not wearing robes to administer confirmations! By comparison, I'm pretty sure robes are, or tend to be, the standard confirmation gear even for those Evangelically notorious Anglican bishops of Sydney.

At home here in the USA, among the thousands of Episcopal parishes, I'd be bowled over to find even one of them where the bishop was not robed for public confirmations, unless perhaps it was some kind of emergency situation. I'm sure the same must be true for the Anglican Church of Canada and in La Iglesia Anglicana de Mexico 'The Anglican Church of Mexico'.

Of course the national and established Church of England, despite the Pilgrims and the Roundheads, was able to acommodate and nurture Evangelicals of such extreme anti-vestiarian views. Hence, tales of English low churchery that the present day American Anglican/Episcopalian finds so very extraordinary and hard to understand.

The North American history of Anglican extremism, of whatever sort, has been to form spin-off groups or churches that are disconnected to the parent national church. Hard nosed anti-vestiarian Evangelicals have not been seen much around The Episcopal/Anglican churches of North America since 1873, when Episcopal Bp. George D. Cummins took off his robes to found the splinter Reformed Episcopal Church. Cummins took many Evangelicals with him.

By the way, in North American the same type of splintering from the Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of Canada have given birth to black Methodist churches and the many extreme Anglo-Catholic independent churches. That has tended to create a leavening effect.

I guess it can be said that North American Anglican history has consolidated a somewhat less diverse, but certainly solid and centrist ceremonial observance where you can always count on robes, for instance, for confirmation ... Thank heavens!

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
One of our bishops sometimes conducts confirmations in a lounge suit. One of my evangelical colleagues is outraged by it.

Presumably your colleague feels that the suit is far too formal and ought to be replaced by an open-neck shirt and jeans. [Cool]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I know that was tongue in cheek but it seems that older evangelical Anglicans go for the casual look while younger ones are discovering vestments - not just robes, full vestments.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:

..., tales of English low churchery that the present day American Anglican/Episcopalian finds so very extraordinary and hard to understand.

Its easy. Imagine what the Episcopalians in the USA would be like if three-quarters of the Methodists and half the Presbyterians in the USA were still members of it.

Posted by Adrian1 (# 3994) on :

I read about the appointment of Dr Warner in yesterday's Church Times with horror. Although I have no personal reason to dislike the man, I feel Chichester diocese needs a break from self proclaimed 'traditionalists' whose concept of tradition is epitomised by opposition to the ordination of women and not a deal else. It is one thing for the Church of England to make space for those who disagree (on whatever grounds) with its synodically agreed policies. It is quite another to reward them with diocesan bishoprics.

Posted by Cedd (# 8436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adrian1:
...whose concept of tradition is epitomised by opposition to the ordination of women and not a deal else.

I don't know Dr Warner either but I suspect that his concept of tradition is a little wider than that.

Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cedd:

quote:
Originally posted by Adrian1:
...whose concept of tradition is epitomised by opposition to the ordination of women and not a deal else.
I don't know Dr Warner either but I suspect that his concept of tradition is a little wider than that.

Yes, give the guy a break! He is a bright, interesting, and interested man.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0