|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Appointment of Catholic/Anglican Bishop's and ++Cantuar
|
+Chrism
Apprentice
# 17032
|
Posted
I've been reading many new reports which state that the new ++Cantuar is due to be announced next week but I am puzzled as to how that can be possible.
It they follow the usual process of appointment for all senior appointments, wouldn't they need to conduct a CRB and Medical Check first before any public announcement can be made.
The CRB process is done is the wrong order - surely it would be wiser to CRB all the shortlisted candidates before the attend the Advisory Panel/CNC interview and you use the prospective job title - Bishop of .... Aspirant. It is unlikely that the priest would go and commit a criminal offence immediately afterwards, this would mean that one the preferred candidate has been selected - all that is needed is for a letter to be written by the Crown and the date of announcement to be set then it's easier to announce.
I don't understand what the purpose of interviewing candidates, it should go through the usual process and all names received are considered and shortlisted with the help of the Advisory Group/CNC then it should fall on the Diocesan to appoint by his own will who he prefers without having to interview candidates. The Catholic Church do everything privately then just when they've decided they contact the candidate and offer them the role and announce it soon after.
--------------------
+In Nomine Patris Et Filio Sancti
Posts: 38 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
They aren't trying to pluck a random individual off the street to do it are they? Surely the minimum qualification is to already be a bishop. If the ABC needs a CRB then surely plain bishops do as well and all the candidates will already have them.
Leaving aside the stupidity regarding the non-transferability of CRB checks, surely the whole question is just irrelevant?
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Solly
Shipmate
# 11919
|
Posted
quote:
It they follow the usual process of appointment for all senior appointments, wouldn't they need to conduct a CRB and Medical Check first before any public announcement can be made.
I expect the offer will be made subject to the usual checks - unless such an ethereal appointment requires only a nod and a wink from Him upstairs.
Posts: 70 | From: Sussex UK | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
No idea whether a potential Archbishop has to have a medical. Unless he is appointed from Wales or somewhere else, he'll already be part of the same pension scheme as covers archbishops. So what would be the argument for insisting on one. It could even be age or disability discrimination. Since clergy all have to have CRB checks these days, I'd assume that applies to bishops, and the chosen one will already be covered.
Anyway, for those who've followed the other thread on this, the key part of the selection process has already been filmed.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
It would be appreciated if you would define obscure and 'in the know terms'. Should a shipmate have to internet search to understand a post?
quote:
Originally posted by +Chrism:
++Cantuar is due to be announced next week but I am puzzled as to how that can be possible.
"Cantuar" Is this like a Centuar but mispelt? Or some weirdo England term for your Archbishop of Cranberry? Internet searching suggested both Centaur and Cranberry
quote:
Originally posted by +Chrism:
...wouldn't they need to conduct a CRB and Medical Check first before any public announcement can be made.
Please define CRB. What is this? Internet search suggests Commodity Research Bureau or something to do with criminals.
quote:
Originally posted by +Chrism:
...shortlisted with the help of the Advisory Group/CNC
What is CNC? Spell it out. I don't think you mean computer numerical control.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
I don't know what those terms mean either, but if I Google Cantuar the very first hit I find is this.
May I quote: "Cantuar (from the Latin for "Canterbury") is a title that the Archbishop of Canterbury is legally permitted, in England, to use to sign his name as a substitute for the surname."
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Criminal Records Bureau
CNC is Crown Nominations Commission
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
1. All Bishops have to have a medical before being appointed to a new post
2. Because the Government haven't sorted it (despite saying they would) CRB checks are not portable (I have 5 separate checks for my day jobs and my charity work). And you can't check them beforehand because you're only eligible to ask for a check once you've offered a person a post
3. All appointments have to go to Cameron and the Queen. If the Queen is in Scotland, she can't do it, because she's being presbyterian at the time. If Cameron is off on a foreign jaunt, it has to wait till he gets to his red box. That's the joy of being an established church and having a monarchy.
So it's never going to be announced straight away. The Twittersphere is agog with "they can't agree" rumours. If they can't, so be it. Personally, I'd prefer to wait and pray, and get the right person for the post. All this media conspiracy stuff is pathetic. It's not an ordinary job. Or a doable one!
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Given the politics of the problem - not to mention Rowan's recent comments on it being a job that no human could do - maybe it is the time to consider a coalition. This will also break any logjams in selecting an "appropriate" candidate.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
So it's never going to be announced straight away. The Twittersphere is agog with "they can't agree" rumours. If they can't, so be it. Personally, I'd prefer to wait and pray, and get the right person for the post. All this media conspiracy stuff is pathetic. It's not an ordinary job. Or a doable one!
It would seem from the reports that that is exactly what has happened - see this post on Thinking Anglicans for press reports. So reading between the lines, I would guess that a simple majority of the commission are backing Sentamu, but that he is currently being blocked by a determined minority. Not least because I can't imagine any of the other candidates would be able to polarise the commission in that manner.
Perhaps one of the problems is that the man actually thinks he can do the job. ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
[ 29. September 2012, 17:37: Message edited by: Holy Smoke ]
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on Hill
Shipmate
# 12183
|
Posted
I think that the Bishops of London, Norwich, Chelmsford or Liverpool could, for various obvious reasons, divide the CNC as currently constituted. The Bishop of Durham could be divisive on the issue of adequate experience.
Are they able to revisit their shortlist and conduct additional interviews if they are deadlocked?
--------------------
God appointed a worm that attacked the bush so that it withered.
Posts: 171 | From: Berkshire | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Perhaps this will be the CofE's Hadrian VII moment. Any newly-ordained late-entrant shipmates fancy having a go?
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Panda
Shipmate
# 2951
|
Posted
Indeed, a cleric doesn't actually have to be a bishop before becoming AbC. Technically any (male...!) priest could be a candidate, however unlikely that would be, given the need for some pointy-hatted experience.
Thomas Becket was a deacon when he was given the job, and therefore had to be ordained priest before he could be consecrated bishop but his is not exactly a career path to follow...
[ 29. September 2012, 21:47: Message edited by: Panda ]
Posts: 1637 | From: North Wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
The supposed "deadlock" would not be that surprising, given the way that the C of E as a whole is so utterly divided. No-one who is seriously in favour of women priests (and bishops) will be able to vote for Chartres. No-one who has an iota of sympathy for gays will vote for Sentamu. No-one of Evangelical persuasion will vote for Graham James. Getting a 2/3 majority is only going to be possible by different factions coming together on a compromise candidate that everyone can pinch their noses at but no-one really wants.
It will probably take a few more unsuccessful meetings before that happens.
I'm with Giles Fraser on this - let's elect our bishops and archbishops. Other parts of the Anglican Communion do that. Why not trust the ordinary pew fillers to have a good insight into what kind of archbishop they want?
In relation to this, I noticed this astonishing quote from yet another anonymous "Church spokesman":
quote:
He responded to Dr Fraser’s call for an open election by saying that this was already an electoral process, both in the way the two names were chosen and in the make-up of the commission. “The CNC is a committee of the General Synod, whose members are elected.”
Either this man is mad, or he is being deliberately disingenuous. By no serious sense of the imagination can this process be called "electoral" in the sense that a sane person would use the phrase. The CNC is in no way representative of the C of E at large. It is an Establishment stitch up. Let's at least be honest about this.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
Indeed, a cleric doesn't actually have to be a bishop before becoming AbC. Technically any (male...!) priest could be a candidate, however unlikely that would be, given the need for some pointy-hatted experience.
Thomas Becket was a deacon when he was given the job, and therefore had to be ordained priest before he could be consecrated bishop but his is not exactly a career path to follow...
Oh, I don't know. I can think of a few ABCs (and indeed other Bishops) who could usefully have followed Becket's career path in every respect.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Oscar the Grouch, in writing: quote:
Why not trust the ordinary pew fillers to have a good insight into what kind of archbishop they want?
should not assume that it is the pew dwellers who elect bishops in other parts of the Anglican communion. Aside from the churches which use electoral colleges (Wales and Ireland, I think), it is usually diocesan synods / conventions which do so and they indulge in deals, compromises (and sometimes delays and postponed sessions). Lay electors are normally elected by those who turn up at annual parish vestries, so are a subset of a subset of active parishioners.
I have never heard of contemporary general elections (although in the past one brought S Ambrose to the cathedra of Milan, even though he was not even baptized, but was a Roman official sent to keep order at the election-- perhaps a a member of the Kent County Constabulary, sent to set up crowd barriers in the cathedral parking lot, might find himself manhandled by the crowd to the throne of S Augustine??).
The Canterbury nominators are just another form of delegated elections. That they are finding agreement a headache is both proof of their diligence and seriousness, as well as of a growing realization from ++Rowan's term that expectations are perhaps unrealizably high.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
He responded to Dr Fraser’s call for an open election by saying that this was already an electoral process, both in the way the two names were chosen and in the make-up of the commission. “The CNC is a committee of the General Synod, whose members are elected.”
General Synod has no credibility as a representative body at all, because is has a tiny, arcane and meaningless electorate. That is one of the reasons why, apart from its own members, nobody takes much notice of what it says.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Lay electors are normally elected by those who turn up at annual parish vestries, so are a subset of a subset of active parishioners
Which is a damn sight better than happens in the C of E at the moment.
I would be happy with each parish electing "lay electors" to help in the decisions about bishops and archbishops, although personally, I see nothing wrong with giving every one on the Electoral Roll of parishes a vote.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:General Synod has no credibility as a representative body at all, because is has a tiny, arcane and meaningless electorate.
Couldn't agree more.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
"The way forward is unclear". Surely, the way forward is Dr Katherine Jefferts-Schori. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Lord, in thy mercy, spare thou those who confess their faults. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963
|
Posted
I've stayed out of these discussions as Graham James is my bishop (and my boss as I am a diocesan officer) but in response to a comment above I'd just like to say that if I had a vote I would, as an evangelical, have no trouble voting for him. The evangelicals in this diocese seem to get on with him fine. I'm only commenting now because this kind of tribalism isn't really how the CofE is any more.
--------------------
"I am a sinful human being - why do you expect me to be consistent?" George Bebawi
"This is just unfocussed wittering." Ian McIntosh
Posts: 701 | From: Norwich | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
Indeed, a cleric doesn't actually have to be a bishop before becoming AbC. Technically any (male...!) priest could be a candidate, however unlikely that would be, given the need for some pointy-hatted experience.
Thomas Becket was a deacon when he was given the job, and therefore had to be ordained priest before he could be consecrated bishop but his is not exactly a career path to follow...
If I'm not mistaken, Thomas Cranmer was a priest immediately before he was appointed/created/consecrated/whatever Archbishop of Canterbury.
[ 01. October 2012, 14:46: Message edited by: Mockingale ]
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
(sorry - a bit late with this one - )
Oscar the Grouch wrote: quote:
No-one who is seriously in favour of women priests (and bishops) will be able to vote for Chartres.
I've seen this said in a couple of places elsewhere too and wondered why - can you explain your thinking on this one, Oscar?
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Panda
Shipmate
# 2951
|
Posted
It's not certain that +Chartres has ever ordained a women priest, which is a bit odd for a diocesan bishop of such a major diocese. He lets his suffragens do it instead, and there is a theory that this is to retain his credibility with F-in-F types.
I read today that of the 16 members on the CNC, 6 of them are from Canterbury diocese, since they're effectively after their own new diocesan. And it may be the case that these 6 are the ones getting in the way of agreement.
Is this not a bit mad? It means that a small-interest group can sway the whole vote. In practical terms, it tends to be the Bishop of Dover who does the actual work in Canterbury, so it's not as if they're uncared for. Why do they have such a big say? It doesn't seem consistent with other diocesan appointments either.
Posts: 1637 | From: North Wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
From completely outside, it sounds as if you really need to decide what [sic] it is you're trying to appoint...
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
From completely outside, it sounds as if you really need to decide what [sic] it is you're trying to appoint...
If we ask 'what is the primary purpose of the Archbishop of Canterbury?' there are three obvious possible answers. However, they aren't all that compatible with each other. So one needs to ask which is the primary one and which two are subsidiary. The one other thing we can say is that holiness and wisdom are essential qualities for all three.
1. To be the bishop of the diocese of Canterbury;
2. To be the metropolitan for England, and particularly the southern half of it; and
3. To be a figurehead for the Anglican communion world wide.
As has just been said, there's a Bishop of Dover to do 1. So 1 is subsidiary.
2 has historically been the primary function of the Archbishop, and still is the real core of his role. As an English member of the CofE, it is what I see as the essential part of his role. That, for example, is why he is a member of the House of Lords and crowns, marries and buries monarchs.
3 has got attached for historical reasons, but, with all due respect to Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish, Commonwealth and foreign Anglican shipmates - you've all got primates of your own - is definitely subsidiary to 2. If he can do 3 all right, all well and good, but 2 is the one that matters. That's the role, I hope, the selectors are selecting for. I'd be worried if they allowed 1 or 3 to sway them in this.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
3 has got attached for historical reasons, but, with all due respect to Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish, Commonwealth and foreign Anglican shipmates - you've all got primates of your own - is definitely subsidiary to 2. If he can do 3 all right, all well and good, but 2 is the one that matters. That's the role, I hope, the selectors are selecting for. I'd be worried if they allowed 1 or 3 to sway them in this.
Which gets to the question of "How important is the Anglican Communion, and why?" There was all this fuss over ratifying The Covenant, but I never saw the point - we're not a hierarchical organization across various provinces and never have been. Beyond general mutual recognition of priests and the historical connection, it seems like the Communion was nothing more than a club for (some of) the churches in the Anglican tradition.
The Lutherans get along fine without some grand consultative body whereby some countries browbeat other countries about differences in minor points of doctrine and throw a temper tantrum about colonialism every time the colonies don't get to tell the empires what to do. The Anglican Communion could fall apart tomorrow and most of the "Global North" wouldn't even miss it. Africa and other poorer regions, the ones who play hardball over "orthodoxy," are the ones who would suffer by losing charitable partnerships.
And it creates a distinction without a real difference in terms of mission. What's the difference between the Anglican Church of North America and the Episcopal Church? It's far less than between Episcopalians and Presbyterians, or Episcopalians and Baptists, and yet the EC will work in partnership with the latter but treats the former as a sworn enemy. All over what? Some quaint, tenuous connection with Canterbury?
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
The Lutherans get along fine without some grand consultative body whereby some countries browbeat other countries about differences in minor points of doctrine and throw a temper tantrum about colonialism every time the colonies don't get to tell the empires what to do.
I think it takes a lot of "looking the other way." Both Lutherans and Anglicans did it as their churches [provinces, whatever] began ordaining women, apart from the approval of others. That this most recent issue has been the proverbial straw on the camel's back says more about the rise of extreme fundamentalism in the Third World than anything else.
The whole organization of the Anglican Communion needs a rehab, and it would have been good to have that all in place before the selection of an ABC. That office's connection to the wider Communion really needs to come to an end.
[ 01. October 2012, 22:10: Message edited by: Olaf ]
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Panda wrote: quote:
It's not certain that +Chartres has ever ordained a women priest, which is a bit odd for a diocesan bishop of such a major diocese. He lets his suffragens do it instead, and there is a theory that this is to retain his credibility with F-in-F types.
Thanks - if that's what is meant - I thought the position was that he doesn't ordain any priests, M or F - he does the ordaining of deacons. Not sure why that should disbar him from consideration (not that he would be my preferred candidate, but that's irrelevant).
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Rob
Shipmate
# 5823
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
It would be appreciated if you would define obscure and 'in the know terms'. [QB]Should a shipmate have to internet search to understand a post?
Originally posted by +Chrism:
++Cantuar is due to be announced next week but I am puzzled as to how that can be possible. "Cantuar" Is this like a Centuar but mispelt? Or some weirdo England term for your Archbishop of Cranberry? Internet searching suggested both Centaur and Cranberry
Yes, shame on them for all that CofESpeak.
* CANTUAR: is the abbreviation of CANTUARENSIS. Canterbury in Latin. The colon at the end of a word in Latin signifies an abbreviation.
*EBOR: is the Latin abbreviation for York. EBORACUM
* WINTON: Latin abbreviation for Winchester. WINTONIENSIS
CofE diocesan bishops signatures are their first names followed by that of their diocese (called a 'see') Hence, you will see or hear of Rowan Cantuar: (ensis) or John Ebor: (acum)
etc, etc.
*
Posts: 862 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
And hence the old joke about the Bishop of Winchester and wife signing into Italian hotel as '+John Winton & Mrs Smith'. Shocked manager: 'Of course we have seen this sort of thing before, Monsignore- but please, a litle discretion!'
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
I've stayed out of these discussions as Graham James is my bishop (and my boss as I am a diocesan officer) but in response to a comment above I'd just like to say that if I had a vote I would, as an evangelical, have no trouble voting for him. The evangelicals in this diocese seem to get on with him fine. I'm only commenting now because this kind of tribalism isn't really how the CofE is any more.
I disagree, Charles.
My perception is that the dividing lines within the C of E are as strong as ever, especially in the places where it matters most - General Synod and other corridors of supposed powers. It would be nice to see a greater desire to be less tribal but I have sadly given up on that as a pipe dream.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Panda wrote: quote:
It's not certain that +Chartres has ever ordained a women priest, which is a bit odd for a diocesan bishop of such a major diocese. He lets his suffragens do it instead, and there is a theory that this is to retain his credibility with F-in-F types.
Thanks - if that's what is meant - I thought the position was that he doesn't ordain any priests, M or F - he does the ordaining of deacons. Not sure why that should disbar him from consideration (not that he would be my preferred candidate, but that's irrelevant).
I confirm that this is what I meant.
And I do think that it is a serious bar to his appointment as ABC. Whoever is the next ABC will (God willing) have to ordain the first women bishops in the C of E. I cannot see the women who would be in line for this being that happy with the idea that the person leading the service has never shown any great enthusiasm for their ministry. When the time comes I truly believe that the Archbishop doing the ordaining should be leading from the front and doing something that he has clearly wanted to do.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Earwig
Pincered Beastie
# 12057
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
CofE diocesan bishops signatures are their first names followed by that of their diocese (called a 'see') Hence, you will see or hear of Rowan Cantuar: (ensis) or John Ebor: (acum)
(Puts tiresome pedant's hat on) You won't see John Ebor, he prefers Sentamu Ebor. (TP'sH off)
Posts: 3120 | From: Yorkshire | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
+Chrism
Apprentice
# 17032
|
Posted
I think it's wrong that they are deadlocked. If they are certain on that newcomer +Justin Welby they might as well go and send his name to the PM.
We all know that +Justin Welby is after preferment and he'd definetly take up the role. I as a cleric don't believe it's wrong for clergy to have ambition and have aspirations to be Area Deans, Archdeacons and Bishops but within means. It is a bit like myself who has always worked inside a parish and have little experience of what it would take to be a Bishop let alone Archbishop openly coming out and saying I want to replace Rowan.
I hope CNC re-consider if it is +Justin Welby, I don't believe +John Sentamu would enjoy it and he'd be treated very badly - I as a black clergy know that it wouldn't be a easy ride for him. How many Black Bishop's do we have inside the CofE? I doubt it's because of race but I think it's time we started appointing more ethnic people to senior appointments only then I feel would someone like +Ebor be acceptable.
+Graham James, possibly and +Richard Londin who has been ruled out would have been a wonderful Archbishop regardless of him not ordaining women. +Graham and +Richard are the only qualified people around
--------------------
+In Nomine Patris Et Filio Sancti
Posts: 38 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by +Chrism:
[...] that newcomer +Justin Welby [...] We all know that +Justin Welby is after preferment [...]
What's so bad about Welby? Genuine question. AIf he can do bishoping I don't see that it makes much difference that he was ordaiend quite late after a successful career elsewhere. Some people might think that an advantage. ll I know about him is what it says in Wikipedia. Which basically boils down to him being a bit posh to start with, working in big business, showing great wisdom in his choice of theological college. What else is wrong with him?
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
My perception is that the dividing lines within the C of E are as strong as ever, especially in the places where it matters most - General Synod and other corridors of supposed powers.
Those aren't the places where it matters most. The churches are where it matters most. And in general they are getting on better with each other than they used to, with the one exception of the FiF-type churches who won't recognise ordained women, who have more or less removed themselves from dealing with other Church of England parishes at all. But there is more contact between the other Anglo-Catholic churches and evangelical churches than there used to be. Probably mainly because evangelicals in general in the CofE have moved a long way "up the candle" in the last few decades.
[ 02. October 2012, 11:42: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
My perception is that the dividing lines within the C of E are as strong as ever, especially in the places where it matters most - General Synod and other corridors of supposed powers.
Those aren't the places where it matters most. The churches are where it matters most. And in general they are getting on better with each other than they used to, with the one exception of the FiF-type churches who won't recognise ordained women, who have more or less removed themselves from dealing with other Church of England parishes at all. But there is more contact between the other Anglo-Catholic churches and evangelical churches than there used to be. Probably mainly because evangelicals in general in the CofE have moved a long way "up the candle" in the last few decades.
I agree with ken. There are of course 'hot-button' issues (not just our own Dead Horses) that divide catholics, liberals and evangelicals. But by and large we get on well with each other. One of the deaneries in this, largely evangelical, diocese has an annual clergy gathering at Walsingham. We all worship in each others churches, get used to each other's liturgical styles, and respect each other as human beings. And in the context of this thread, I know of few bishops who don't see themselves, or who are not generally perceived, as pastors for their whole dioceses and not only those of their own tradition.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
I think there is a danger of panglossianism creeping in here. Whilst I agree that's the way things are supposed to work (and it does largely seem to be that way here too), I think there's a danger of ignoring the evidence of failure elsewhere.
There have been plenty of threads passim that discuss the semi-detached nature of some parts of the con-evo constituency. And there is criticism of the MOTR (or possibly liberal - the report isn't clear on this) constituency refusing to participate with others in the recent interim report on the administrative shambles that is Chichester. Heck, I used to know a vicar from this background (though another diocese) well myself who candidly admitted to me that's how they worked.
I'm sure if you looked for it, you could find similar evidence from pretty well any constituency in the CofE. No doubt the circumstances causing it vary around the country.
FiF is of course the one particular constituency that has more or less decided to operate quasi-independently. Even that isn't homogeneous though. Some parishes seem to have re-integrated themselves with their neighbours whilst staying distinctive.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I don't think it's panglossian (or putting one's head in the sand) to say that internal Anglican divisions don't impinge on most people. Those involved in ecclesiastical politics, or those clergy and others with a particular axe to grind, might be complicit in highlighting them, or at least aware that they exist. 90% of the people in the pews (i.e.. the real C of E) couldn't care less. Some of them might have their own liturgical preferences or doctrinal views, but they don't necessarily coincide with the practice or teaching of the actual church they attend. To most people, the church is the church.
That's not to underestimate the division that does exist in some real and painful ways. Just to put it in perspective.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
You are probably right about it not affecting most people in the pews, Angloid, whatever figure one may put upon it. My point was really only to draw attention to the fact that it's far from just being an FiF thing at parishioner level. I was motivated to post this one because it's beginning to impinge upon me, and I am not at all involved in such ecclesiatical politics.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I don't think it's panglossian (or putting one's head in the sand) to say that internal Anglican divisions don't impinge on most people. Those involved in ecclesiastical politics, or those clergy and others with a particular axe to grind, might be complicit in highlighting them, or at least aware that they exist. 90% of the people in the pews (i.e.. the real C of E) couldn't care less. Some of them might have their own liturgical preferences or doctrinal views, but they don't necessarily coincide with the practice or teaching of the actual church they attend. To most people, the church is the church.
That's not to underestimate the division that does exist in some real and painful ways. Just to put it in perspective.
Is that not just a result of the de facto congregationalism of most Anglicans? They don't really care what happens outside their own parish as long as it doesn't affect them.
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Your veiled attempts at hiding your sectarianism really are pathetic....and its getting tired.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
You can accuse CL of a lot of things, but never of making attempts, veiled or otherwise, to hide his real views! Don't care for those views myself, but you do always know exactly where you stand with him.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Yes, you're quite right, they aren't even mildly veiled most of the time
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Is that not just a result of the de facto congregationalism of most Anglicans? They don't really care what happens outside their own parish as long as it doesn't affect them.
Almost the opposite. They get on perfectly well with their fellow-Anglicans and don't see the point of the sectarian mentality that tells them they should only relate to a self-selecting group.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
My perception is that the dividing lines within the C of E are as strong as ever, especially in the places where it matters most - General Synod and other corridors of supposed powers.
Those aren't the places where it matters most. The churches are where it matters most. And in general they are getting on better with each other than they used to, with the one exception of the FiF-type churches who won't recognise ordained women, who have more or less removed themselves from dealing with other Church of England parishes at all. But there is more contact between the other Anglo-Catholic churches and evangelical churches than there used to be. Probably mainly because evangelicals in general in the CofE have moved a long way "up the candle" in the last few decades.
I agree - in a way.
There IS an awful lot of good things happening on the ground, which is ultimately where things REALLY matter. Perhaps my language was not accurate enough. What I meant is "where it matters" in terms of influence and decision making - and that is where party allegiances still have far too strong a pull.
Having said that, even at grass roots level, I sense that it is rather patchy in terms of co-operation and collaboration across different traditions. In my particular area, the evangelical parishes are very friendly, as long as they are setting the agenda and as long as we all carefully avoid any reference to controversial subjects. Which makes it all rather bland at times!
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
