Ship of Fools: Appointment of Catholic/Anglican Bishop's and ++Cantuar

Thread: Appointment of Catholic/Anglican Bishop's and ++Cantuar 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=023910

Posted by +Chrism (# 17032) on :

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.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

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?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

The group doing the choosing only finished yesterday. Bishops are announced on Tuesdays.

That gives the chosen person only four days to hear from the Queen and then to decide whether to accept the job.

Surely it must take longer than that.

Posted by Solly (# 11919) on :

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.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

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.

Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on :

Well, whatever the reason, the Crown Nominations Commission is deadlocked.

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

"The way forward is unclear". Surely, the way forward is Dr Katherine Jefferts-Schori. [Devil]

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

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.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

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."

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Criminal Records Bureau
CNC is Crown Nominations Commission

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :

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!

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

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.

Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :

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]

[ 29. September 2012, 17:37: Message edited by: Holy Smoke ]

Posted by Fool on Hill (# 12183) on :

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?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
Well, whatever the reason, the Crown Nominations Commission is deadlocked.

I find it hard to believe that it is true.

If there is a deadlock, it is very unfair to people to leak this because they willnowe that they have been 'passed over' when the 'successful' candidate is announced.

I'm with Pete 173 on the need for prayer.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Perhaps this will be the CofE's Hadrian VII moment. Any newly-ordained late-entrant shipmates fancy having a go?

Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :

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 ]

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

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.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

The BBC news last night was saying the newspapers report deadlock over the appointment of Sentamu - both the Sunday Times and the Daily Mail.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

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.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

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.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

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.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

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.

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
"The way forward is unclear". Surely, the way forward is Dr Katherine Jefferts-Schori.

Lord, in thy mercy, spare thou those who confess their faults. [Paranoid]

Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on :

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.

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

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 ]

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

(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?

Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :

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.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

From completely outside, it sounds as if you really need to decide what [sic] it is you're trying to appoint...

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

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.

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

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?

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

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 ]

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

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).

Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :

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.
*

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

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!'

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

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.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

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.

Posted by Earwig (# 12057) on :

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)

Posted by +Chrism (# 17032) on :

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

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

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 ]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

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.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

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.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

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.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

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.

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

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.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Your veiled attempts at hiding your sectarianism really are pathetic....and its getting tired.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

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.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Yes, you're quite right, they aren't even mildly veiled most of the time

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

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.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

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!

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

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.

I think you're both correct.

In my church, I see some people who have no interest whatsoever in anything outside the parish boundaries. And no matter what I say or do, that will continue. I regularly get people from the diocese to come and preach and talk about what they do and what the diocese is trying to do - it just hits a brick wall.

And yet there are others who DO see themselves as part of a wider Church of England. And - as Angloid says - these people are mostly puzzled and embarrassed by the attempts to create segregation and division.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Anyone read the report in Private Eye this week about +Graham's alleged connection with supporters of the Moonies and other cults? What do you make of it?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

No - for those of us who no longer subscribe, enlighten us, please.

If he is supportive of new religious movements and pastorally engaged with their fallout then he might get my vote (if i had a vote).

Posted by Margaret (# 283) on :

I've just seen it and fond as I am of the Eye I can't say it's one of their more accurate reports. Going no further than the second paragraph, Inform isn't exactly controversial, just an organisation that gives impartial advice on NRMs to anyone who inquires, Eileen Barker's Making of a Moonie was published, as far as I'm aware, in the normal way - if the Moonies had funded it they would have been rather disappointed by some of its conclusions - and they didn't "send" her to any conferences; they had a phase when they invited academics and clergy to their conferences (my husband went to several).

I think whoever wrote that item has probably been fed some misinformation.

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

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...

In 1998, Ernst Oddvar Baasland was elected the Bishop of Stavanger, Norway, and had to be ordained as a priest before he was ordained as a bishop.

And just one more point, because I’m somewhat anal when it comes to language. +Chrism, you should change your signature. In Nomine Patris Et Filio Sancti means “in the Name of the Father and the Holy Son.” (And Filio is not in the genetive, as it should.) Since you define yourself as a traditional Catholic (within the CofE), I’m pretty sure you would want it to say in Nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritūs Sancti, “In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

That's bugged me for some time as well, as it happens, especially since it reads something like "In the name of the Father, and to the Son, the Holy Ones" - or something like that.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
No - for those of us who no longer subscribe, enlighten us, please.

If he is supportive of new religious movements and pastorally engaged with their fallout then he might get my vote (if i had a vote).

Rather crappy link here - reference second from bottom.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Seems OK to me.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

The link or the content? My 'crappy' reference was to the fact that, unless you're a subscriber, you can't really access the content.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Neither - merely the fact that he is pastorally involved in those effected by new religious movements.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Neither - merely the fact that he is pastorally involved in those effected by new religious movements.

'affected,' please.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Thanks - I always confuse those two words.

Posted by shameless (# 9918) on :

What does the RCC have to do with the election of Bishops if anything?

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

Has anyone else seen this? It made me laugh a lot - but not as much as when the same footage was used in a Ship context some years ago. Does anyone have a link to that wonderful spoof?

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Brilliant, particularly the jibe at Tom Wright.

Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :

That's a scream... 'don't worry, Vivienne...'

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

Glad you enjoyed it, Matt Black and Panda, but do either of you remember the SoF spoof that used the same clip? That's what I really want to see again!

Posted by AngloCatholicDude (# 16476) on :

What would happen if they offered it to +Justin Welby and he turn's it down then they offer it to +Graham James or +John Sentamu but he turns it down as well. Would they have to restart the process?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Isn't it assumed that if they have got as far as being considered, they will have made clear that they would be willing to accept?

Posted by AngloCatholicDude (# 16476) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Isn't it assumed that if they have got as far as being considered, they will have made clear that they would be willing to accept?

+Justin Welby and +Graham James have both said they do not want they job and if offered they'd have to pray and consider it very carefully

Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :

Surely no-one actually wants it. But if they haven't formally said so in order to withdraw their name from the list, they'll still be in the running.

RA, that SoF version must be around somewhere - try asking in the Styx!

[ 17. October 2012, 21:07: Message edited by: Panda ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

OMG - the clip should be compulsory viewing for ALL bishops and anyone who tries to defend the current situation vis-a-vis numbers of dioceses/bishops etc.

While the bits about Wright, James et al may be lost on non-regulars, the bit about Sentamu is already what many unchurched think...

Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :

It wouldn't be so funny if it weren't so patently true.

Perhaps now they need to start looking further afield - Cape Town, for example?

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Has anyone else seen this?

I've seen a number of good spoofs using that clip. (There was a brilliant one about the dog Fenton chasing deer in Richmond Park.) But does anyone know what the original is?

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

'Downfall'http://www.downfallthefilm.com/

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

Thanks. Looks as if it may be worth getting.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0