homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Ordinariate Blues (Page 8)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Ordinariate Blues
Uncle Pete

Loyaute me lie
# 10422

 - Posted      Profile for Uncle Pete     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Anglican Liverpool and Southwark were established after the Catholics had established theirs.

It appears that the Anglican church has no imagination in determining the names of new dioceses.

--------------------
Even more so than I was before

Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643

 - Posted      Profile for dj_ordinaire   Author's homepage   Email dj_ordinaire   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
To be more exact - the Roman Catholic Church is not allowed to establish a See with the same name as an Anglican one. But, this only applies one way round, so if the Church of England decides to create a diocese with the same name as a pre-existing RC one, then one can end up with two diocese called the same thing.

Hence, the CofE already had London and Manchester so the RC hierarchy created Westminster and Salford which basically function over the same areas. Liverpool and Birmingham were however available, and only afterwards became diocese in the CofE as well (although in both of these cases the Anglicans have a bishop rather than an archbishop so the titles are slightly different... in Newcastle they are identical however).

--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...

Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
The Anglican Liverpool and Southwark were established after the Catholics had established theirs.

It appears that the Anglican church has no imagination in determining the names of new dioceses.

And to think we could be the Diocese of Everton.

--------------------
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
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I think that the only country where the RCs claim continuity against a Reformation church rival is Ireland, causing the untold expenditure of ink and paper as newspapers must distinguish between the Church of Ireland Archbishop of Armagh and the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Armagh, often enough even when the context makes it painfully obvious. An Irish canonist friend told me that the chaos of the early Elizabethan period often left cathedral chapters divided between popish and protestant factions, and there were cases where arguments could be made that one or the other could legitimately claim to consider themselves the heirs of the founding saints of a particular see.

I'm under the impression that is correct. One would imagine the Treaty of Westphalia means it hasn't applied anywhere else.
quote:
Originally posted byPeteC
The Anglican Liverpool and Southwark were established after the Catholics had established theirs.

It appears that the Anglican church has no imagination in determining the names of new dioceses.

I can see that Southwark is only one of a number of different places on the south bank, but that is where the cathedral is.

What else would you call the Bishop of Liverpool? Bishop of Everton would hardly be a display of imagination.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Angloid, you got in while I was checking my spelling.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:


What else would you call the Bishop of Liverpool? Bishop of Everton would hardly be a display of imagination.

Well there are other possibilities. Knotty Ash might have had an interesting bishop. John Bishop could be Bishop of Woolton. Fazakerley would make for some tongue-twisting episcopal signatures especially if any of them were called Frederick or Francis. Or the Bishop of Aintree might be an appropriate person to host the Canterbury Sweepstake, aka the Grand C of E National.

And Enoch:
quote:
Angloid, you got in while I was checking my spelling.
No worries.

As for Southwark: John Betjeman would have liked Temple Moore's church of All Saints, Tooting, to be the cathedral. Imagine the Ship's favourite boozy bishop as +Tom Tooting.

[ 05. October 2012, 20:34: Message edited by: Angloid ]

--------------------
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      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Very good! But I think PeteC's observation would have been better addressed had we located our dioceses in places with more Trollopian names. For some reason, Great Snoring, Middle Wallop and Wyre Piddle spring to mind.

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Surely Nether Wallop as well. And Much Binding in the Marsh.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Maureen Lash
Apprentice
# 17192

 - Posted      Profile for Maureen Lash   Email Maureen Lash   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
in Newcastle they are identical however).

Not really. The title of the Catholic see is "Hexham and Newcastle".
Posts: 32 | From: Moseley | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643

 - Posted      Profile for dj_ordinaire   Author's homepage   Email dj_ordinaire   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Maureen Lash:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
in Newcastle they are identical however).

Not really. The title of the Catholic see is "Hexham and Newcastle".
Yes, you are quite right. Sorry!

--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...

Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Metapelagius
Shipmate
# 9453

 - Posted      Profile for Metapelagius   Email Metapelagius   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
To be more exact - the Roman Catholic Church is not allowed to establish a See with the same name as an Anglican one. But, this only applies one way round, so if the Church of England decides to create a diocese with the same name as a pre-existing RC one, then one can end up with two diocese called the same thing.

Hence, the CofE already had London and Manchester so the RC hierarchy created Westminster and Salford which basically function over the same areas. Liverpool and Birmingham were however available, and only afterwards became diocese in the CofE as well (although in both of these cases the Anglicans have a bishop rather than an archbishop so the titles are slightly different... in Newcastle they are identical however).

Westminster is an interesting case, as a diocese of Westminster was carved out of London as part of the reformation diocesan restructuring. When in 1550 the first incumbent of the see was translated to Norwich, no successor was appointed. So is the see in a state of suspended animation, or is it definitively defunct? Do different rules apply if the RCs want to have an archbishop rather than an ordinary one? At least there could be no confusion about which is which.

--------------------
Rec a archaw e nim naccer.
y rof a duv. dagnouet.
Am bo forth. y porth riet.
Crist ny buv e trist yth orsset.

Posts: 1032 | From: Hereabouts | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A bit of googling sugests that the Diocese of Wetminster was re-absorbed into the Diocese of London and that its cathedral returned to abbatial status in 1556 and, presumably, on Elizabeth's tenure, became a collegial church and royal peculiar. IIRC from my one reading of the text of the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, it refers to sees, and there is no mention of a distinction between a bishop or an archbishop in the see.

In any case, I prefer Westminster Cathedral to the Abbey, but that is likely on account of my predeliction for bright colours.

Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320

 - Posted      Profile for PaulTH*   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
I would also note the massive shift between 'a code of practice will not do' to a slogan that says 'we are better together'

I notice from the editorial of October's "New Directions" that the mantra is still the same:

"We have long said a Code of Practice will not do, and indeed it will not...The time has come to see that the legislation that is coming before the General Synod is bad legislation, it does not offer the answer that the Church of
England needs, and it will not resolve
divisions over this issue...We urge the General Synod to return to the drawing board and to speak and listen to those who need provision before deciding what provision to offer...It is time to think again."

So FiF has now come to the position that their only hope is to scupper the legislation and send it back to the drawing board, which would result in a delay of several years before women can become bishops. Whether or not any of this increases the size of the Ordinariate, I think the FiF position has lost all integrity. Leo, on another thread, described himself as a recovering Anglo-Catholic, and it seems that some former members of FiF are now distancing themselves from its position and are throwing in their lot with the inevitable changes that are coming in the C of E.

So if the legislation is carried, which I believe it will be and should be, after all the time it's taken, what will these hard line Fifers do then? The Church of England has decided to ordain women bishops. It has decided that it can only offer a code of practice to those who dissent, and that it will revoke the Priests(Ordination of Women) Measure 1993 and remove the protection in law given back then. The game is up for Forward in Faith.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul

Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Never having been able to understand the view that being pro-OoW makes one automatically not Catholic, I'm well outside this debate. But ISTM that the only logical position for FinF is to live with compromise or join the Ordinariate. A retired priest friend of mine is 'against' OoW to the extent that he thinks it goes against the tradition, that he would search out a church with a male priest, but he would not walk out or refuse to receive communion if a woman were presiding.

Most of us in the C of E have to grit our teeth and put up with views and practices that we find uncomfortable, without unchurching those with whom we disagree. For an organisation to insist that only an ideologically-pure segment of the church is tolerable, is effectively to create a church within a church. Those who have joined the Ordinariate recognise that is as much a compromise as any other Anglican position.

--------------------
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



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools