|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: National Pilgrimage to Walsingham
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stranger in a strange land:
quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
It may be an urban myth, but I've heard tell of a woman priest who celebrated Mass with her parish in the car park.
Which considering that the parish (nothing to do with the shrine) had passed Resolutions A & B was illegal in addition to being arrogant and rude.
Why?
Are you suggesting that if a parish hires a room in a Youth Hostel for an Away-Day, and their vicar is a woman, it would be illegal to end the day with a Communion Service if the Youth Hostel happened to be physically in a parish that had passed the Resolutions?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fifi
Shipmate
# 8151
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
I stand corrected on the legislation point. However...
quote:
it seems clear that a woman priest celebrating anywhere within the geographical parish would be committing an offence
Reading the Measure that doesn't appear to be the case. Section 5(b) of the Measure:
"It shall be an offence against the laws Ecclesiastical, for which proceedings may be taken under the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963—
(...)
(b)for any bishop, priest or deacon to act in contravention of a resolution under section 3(1) above or to permit any act in contravention of such a resolution to be committed in any church or any building licensed for public worship according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England;
(...)"
It seems like offences may only be committed in a church or other building licensed for CofE worship. Whilst you might disagree with the carpark mass, it would not appear to be illegal.
We had better not overlook paragraph 4 of Canon C8:
'4. No minister who has such authority to exercise his ministry in any diocese shall do so therein in any place in which he has not the cure of souls without the permission of the minister having such cure, except at the homes of persons whose names are entered on the electoral roll of the parish which he serves and to the extent authorized by the Extra-Parochial Ministry Measure 1967, or in a university, college, school, hospital, or public or charitable institution in which he is licensed to officiate as provided by the said Measure and Canon B 41 or, in relation to funeral services, as provided by section 2 of the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure 1992 or in the case of a bishop's mission order to the extent authorized by section 47(11) of the Dioceses, Pastoral and Mission Measure 2007, read with section 47(14) of that Measure.'
Unless the mass in the car park had the consent of the incumbent, it would seem to fall foul of the Canons and thus an offence would be committed . . .
Posts: 591 | From: Here | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
I stand corrected on the legislation point. However...
quote:
it seems clear that a woman priest celebrating anywhere within the geographical parish would be committing an offence
Reading the Measure that doesn't appear to be the case. Section 5(b) of the Measure:
"It shall be an offence against the laws Ecclesiastical, for which proceedings may be taken under the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963—
(...)
(b)for any bishop, priest or deacon to act in contravention of a resolution under section 3(1) above or to permit any act in contravention of such a resolution to be committed in any church or any building licensed for public worship according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England;
(...)"
It seems like offences may only be committed in a church or other building licensed for CofE worship. Whilst you might disagree with the carpark mass, it would not appear to be illegal.
If I may be so bold, I think you are misreading the section. There are two offences:
1) To to act in contravention of a resolution under section 3(1) (yourself, anywhere within the parish)
2) to permit (somebody else to commit) any act in contravention of such a resolution to be committed in any church or any building licensed for public worship according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England.
Thus, if I were a male retired priest living in a resolution A parish, if I permitted a female priest to say mass in my living room, I would not be committing an offence, but she would be. If my living room were licensed for public worship, we would both be committing an offence.
And Enoch, yes, that is what we are suggesting. It goes with the territorial division of the Church of England and the cure of souls. There are some exceptions - such as Section 1 of the Extra-Parochial Ministry Measure 1967 (you can take services in the houses of people on your electoral roll, even if outside the parish, so long as no others attend).
There is admittedly a contrary legal opinion in the Code of Practice for Bishops' Mission Orders - but also a widespead opinion among Diocesan Registrars that the said legal opinion is incorrect.
Edited to Add - Furthermore it being illegal and it constituting a separate disciplinary offence under the EJM are two separate things.
[ 17. May 2012, 10:41: Message edited by: The Man with a Stick ]
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
I think my reading of 5 (b) is that the "in any church or any building licensed for public worship" applies both to the acting in contravention and to the permission. Reasons for believing so are the absence of a comma between "above" and "or", and the fact these are lumped in a single sub-section and not two sub-sub-sections (b)(i) and (b)(ii). I am no canon lawyer, but lawyer is the day job.
However, it does seem I am hoisted by C8 para 4...
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
I think my reading of 5 (b) is that the "in any church or any building licensed for public worship" applies both to the acting in contravention and to the permission. Reasons for believing so are the absence of a comma between "above" and "or", and the fact these are lumped in a single sub-section and not two sub-sub-sections (b)(i) and (b)(ii). I am no canon lawyer, but lawyer is the day job.
However, it does seem I am hoisted by C8 para 4...
Canon Lawyer is the day job over here ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fifi
Shipmate
# 8151
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
However, it does seem I am hoisted by C8 para 4...
Posts: 591 | From: Here | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
I don't think the Bishop of Norwich thought Father Hope Pattern was being legal in setting up the shrine in the parish church in the first place. He probably thought he was being rude and arrogant as well.
On another point - this layman is used to clergy being silly in sort of situations and can tolerate and ignore it. Rather that sort of clericalism (which doesn't effect me) than the sort that is telling me what to think and feel all the time.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fifi
Shipmate
# 8151
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I don't think the Bishop of Norwich thought Father Hope Pattern was being legal in setting up the shrine in the parish church in the first place. He probably thought he was being rude and arrogant as well.
Oddly enough, I was re-reading a few pages of Michael Rear's book over the weekend, and what came across very clearly indeed were the extraordinarily good manners employed by Fr Patten and Bishop Pollock throughout all their disagreements. The chances of the latter finding the former either 'rude' or 'arrogant' seem to this observer (allbeit at a distance!) to be somewhere in the region of nil. They were, after all, both gentlemen.
Posts: 591 | From: Here | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fifi:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I don't think the Bishop of Norwich thought Father Hope Pattern was being legal in setting up the shrine in the parish church in the first place. He probably thought he was being rude and arrogant as well.
Oddly enough, I was re-reading a few pages of Michael Rear's book over the weekend, and what came across very clearly indeed were the extraordinarily good manners employed by Fr Patten and Bishop Pollock throughout all their disagreements. The chances of the latter finding the former either 'rude' or 'arrogant' seem to this observer (allbeit at a distance!) to be somewhere in the region of nil. They were, after all, both gentlemen.
To be strictly accurate, a bishop is never a gentleman, being a member of the peerage!
But I think this discussion of the Resolutions and OoW is getting us a bit off topic...
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Tangent alert
quote:
Originally posted by the Man with a Stick
And Enoch, yes, that is what we are suggesting. It goes with the territorial division of the Church of England and the cure of souls. There are some exceptions - such as Section 1 of the Extra-Parochial Ministry Measure 1967 (you can take services in the houses of people on your electoral roll, even if outside the parish, so long as no others attend).
I thought that was what might be being argued. That is why I posed the question in the way I did. So you would say that the Canons make this an illegal celebration irrespective of the gender of the celebrant or whether the parish where the Youth Hostel finds itself had or had not passed any resolutions?
You'll probably also be aware that in the sort of circumstance I've described, this Canon is as good as universally ignored. I suspect that very few clergy, yet alone laity, are even aware it exists.
If you are a professional canon lawyer, can you advise what the actual consequences are likely to be, even potentially, of this Away-Day ignoring it? Would the Bishop of Norwich (in this case) swoop in and interdict anyone, or would he just put the complaint in his perpetually pending tray? Are there parts of the country where it is taken seriously?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SFG
Apprentice
# 17081
|
Posted
As I understand it the prohibition on women as celebrants relates only to the property over which the church council has jurisdiction, not to the whole geographical parish.
Does the setting up of a'shrine require episcopal approval in the Anglican church. I suspect not. Mainly because they are hardly heard of!
I know the are some small shrines in addition to Walsingham, for example at Egmanton. I wonder how they are started in the Church of England. I guess by energetic Anglo Catholics who are not too worried about what bishops think.
--------------------
_ _ _____________________ _ _
A new member hoping to get it right!
Posts: 33 | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stranger in a strange land
Shipmate
# 11922
|
Posted
That has not been the understanding of Bishops and Registrars in parishes where I have worked. It was certainly held to apply to the chapel of an independent school in which the PCC had no interest.
Posts: 608 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
I had hoped to steer the conversation away from Dead Horses and debates over the wording of the Resolutions without invoking Hostly Implements, but oh well.
This tangent could be explored on a separate thread, either in DH or in Purgatory depending on the exact OP. But it really has no place on a thread for discussing the worship practices associated with Walsingham Pilgrimages. If posters could try to keep to topic, it would be appreciated.
Many thanks as ever.
dj_ordinaire, Eccles host
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
Is the Anglican shrine's attitude twords women likely to improve now that the Ordinariate is syphoning off big chunks of FiF UK? I would love to make Walsingham a part of a visit to the UK.
If you mean will female clergy be allowed use of altars at the shrine, very unlikely. That will not change for the foreseeable future,
a.) as long as the present administrator and guardians are in position. No attempt will be made to force their hands either as the CofE doesn't own the shrine, rather it is vested in the guardians, who could skip off to Rome taking the shrine with them.
b.) as long as there is an Orthodox chapel in the shrine. No one will want to cause an ecumenical incident.
No way are they going off to Rome or anywhere else! I smile when I think!
The Shrine is independent but the clergy are licensed by the Bishop of Norwich.
You might not think that matters, but Anglican clergy (who aren't bishops!) can be subject to legal action unless they have active permission to operate from the local diocese.
Now it is possible for the Shrine to make a UDI and effectively become a continuing Church. To retain Anglican recognition of orders, they would need 3 bishops in order to make more. Last visit, I'm sure I counted as many kicking around. Clergy and laity from traditionalist societies in the mainstream C of E could dip in and out of it as they please.
Oops have I blown the gaffe on that one?!
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
Now I reflect further, it wouldn't hurt to have a diocese not too far away packed with Walsingham-friendly bishops. Know ye of such a place...?
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
