|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Bishops of Chichester, Fulham and now Beverley
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Episcopacy can be exercised in various non-geographically based forms, but is none the less 'catholic' in its fullness.
I'm sure we've been here before, and it's probably a Dead Horse, but there is a difference between (e.g.) a bishop to the Forces, whom even those outside his jurisdiction will recognise as a bishop and vice versa, and the asymmetrical system of 'flying bishops' which was set up specifically so that those under their jurisdiction didn't have to recognise the diocesan.
They do have to recognise their diocesan. They remain in their diocese. They merely receive alternative oversight.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Just for information: in the RC Church is is true there are authorities other than that of the diocesan bishop. However, in order to function anywhere the diocesan bishop's prior permission is necessary. Thus, for example, Cardinal Hume was able to circumscribe the activities of Opus Dei in the Diocese of Westminster in the 1980s. More recently Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor eased some of that and there is now (an excellent) OD priest running one of the diocesan parishes.
Bottom line: if a bishop doesn't want you in his diocese, you can't come in.
This is reflected in the Eucharistic Prayer where the local bishop is always mentioned after the Pope, whether you are a Jesuit, a Benedictine or a member of Opus Dei.
I would just add, that there were a numnber of instances in the medieval English church where the authority of the Diocesan was disputed by Benedictine foundations - within their own jurisdiction. The Ordinary is the abbot. Indeed a bishop (hypothetically of course) may not wish for a benedictine monastery to be present in his diocese, but if it is - tough. As we know from pre-Reformation documents, some Abbots were members of the House of Lords and far more powerful than the local diocesans. But this was often due to land and financial considerations.
The interesting notion of the Ordinariate has been discussed in other posts I am sure, but a little bird in the Curia once whispered to me that the present pope wished for a more 'direct' involvement, and was aware of the unhelpfulness of the local RC hierarchy whom, this source related, with a few notable exceptions the pope had no great affection for. Indeed, there had been a number of meetings in Rome where - although 'bypass' wasn't quite the word used, it was most certainly implied.
That is different from 'not being in communion with' of course. It would be inconceivable for a prelature or ordinariate to be thus with their local bishop.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Just popping in to say that, although our place is F-in-F and Resolutions A, B and C (at least for now...... ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif) ), we believe that we are very much an integral part of our local Deanery and Diocese. We pray every day for our Diocesan and his Suffragan, as well as for our current Episcopal Visitor (+Edmonton) and for +Fulham-elect.
Not an ideal situation, maybe, but for the moment.......
Dunno how 'tis elsewhere, but in this Diocese it seems to be becoming the custom for ABC parishes to have their new priest instituted by the Diocesan, whilst the Mass is presided over by the PEV. A good ol' Anglican fudge which seems to work, as it reminds the parish that they are part of a wider enterprise!
Ian J.
Ian J.
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
They do have to recognise their diocesan. They remain in their diocese. They merely receive alternative oversight.
![[Confused]](confused.gif) But if this 'recognising' doesn't extent to accepting their sacramental ministry, what does it mean? [But enough said or a host will tell me off or drag me to the horses' graveyard.]
--------------------
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
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
They do have to recognise their diocesan. They remain in their diocese. They merely receive alternative oversight.
But if this 'recognising' doesn't extent to accepting their sacramental ministry, what does it mean? [But enough said or a host will tell me off or drag me to the horses' graveyard.]
It might mean accepting the reality of their role in implementing the Clergy Discipline Measure, and all legal practicalites and membership (in some cases) of the House of Lords.
This might be true in cases where Anglicans might not be able to accept that a woman bishop can ordain male or female priests and would break the apostolic succession. In other words, such a bishop would be a little like some Hanoverian monarchs being 'Bishop of Osnabruck' - but they clearly had no sacramental function.
Incidentally I don't have a problem with OOW but accept the validity of my opponents' arguments.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Do you mean that you genuinely think a Code of Practice will be appropriate provision and will provide that which Catholics within the CofE feel that they need to continue with integrity
OR that they'll cope with it, in the sense that they've coped with the sub-Catholic ecclesiology of past generations
OR that they'll have to like it because that's all they'll possibly get?
Thurible
I meant it in a "its behind you" sort of way as that was the level of discussion going on. But if forced to choose I would go for somewhere between 2 and 3.
Fly Safe, Pyx_e
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Just for information: in the RC Church is is true there are authorities other than that of the diocesan bishop. However, in order to function anywhere the diocesan bishop's prior permission is necessary. Thus, for example, Cardinal Hume was able to circumscribe the activities of Opus Dei in the Diocese of Westminster in the 1980s. More recently Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor eased some of that and there is now (an excellent) OD priest running one of the diocesan parishes.
Bottom line: if a bishop doesn't want you in his diocese, you can't come in.
This is reflected in the Eucharistic Prayer where the local bishop is always mentioned after the Pope, whether you are a Jesuit, a Benedictine or a member of Opus Dei.
Thus a local parish served by members of the Order of The Holy Cross operates almost entirely outside the jurisdiction of the local Archbishop, because all its priests are members of the order. No doubt his excellency authorised them to function locally, but he cannot be happy with what they are actually doing, and if he could control them, he would.
Similarly, a downtown parish served by Oblates of Mary Immaculate, who owe canonical obedience to a prelate a long way away, must indeed by licenced by the local archbishop, but certainly act as if he had no authority in the parish.
In both places, I am quite certain that the local Archbishop is remembered in the prayers according to the rules. But he certainly doesn't seem able (or interested) in bringing them into conformity with the rules others are expected to follow.
A couple of decades ago, a friend of mine -- an Anglican priest -- who was also an Associate of an (RC) order in the US (Trappists, I think), was allowed to celebrate mass according to the rites of the ACC at the conventual mass at the place's high altar. The Prior pointed out that the local bishop, who would certainly (and correctly) have had a whole bunch of issues, was irrelevent to the matter, since the eventual authority was a bishop thousands of miles away who wouldn't know.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
I don't think the bishop is powerless - it's just that it would take a lot of effort and process to actually bring them to heal. And then imagine the outcry! Oh wicked bishop! Meddling with our lovely priests! So far too many bishops, imho, just let things slide.
Where the bishop has no authority would be in the internal affairs of those communities. And if they own property in his diocese, that becomes even more acute.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
They do have to recognise their diocesan. They remain in their diocese. They merely receive alternative oversight.
But if this 'recognising' doesn't extent to accepting their sacramental ministry, what does it mean? [But enough said or a host will tell me off or drag me to the horses' graveyard.]
The clergy in this parish have said that they won't be able, in conscience, to swear the oath of allegiance, or whatever it is called, any more, because it involves acknowledging the authority of the bishop AND his successors. So that causes a problem even before the first woman is consecrated. There is a getout clause: 'in all things honest and lawful.' It won't work,. however, as the code of practice won't be enshrined in law.
[ 04. November 2012, 12:22: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
There's an easy way of coping with that. It's the way I, as a republican, cope with the oath to the Queen. Just depersonalise it. Oath of allegiance to legitimate government in that case; oath of allegiance to legitimate oversight in the Church in the other. If we'd just stop obsessing about the person of the bishop, and started thinking about the office and authority "in all things lawful and honest", we'd be able to relax a bit. I have no doubt that there are some of my clergy who don't really like swearing canonical obedience to me as a person, but what they're actually promising is to be subject to lawful and honest exercise of authority given by law. It's the counterpoint to the Article that states that the unworthiness of the minister doesn't invalidate the sacrament.
Get the person out of your mind, and think about structures of authority.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Higgs Bosun
Shipmate
# 16582
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The clergy in this parish have said that they won't be able, in conscience, to swear the oath of allegiance, or whatever it is called, any more, because it involves acknowledging the authority of the bishop AND his successors. So that causes a problem even before the first woman is consecrated. There is a getout clause: 'in all things honest and lawful.' It won't work,. however, as the code of practice won't be enshrined in law.
Perhaps you can help me. I have not understood why the oath of canonical obedience to a Bishop (who might become a woman, if you see what you mean) is a problem, but the oath of allegiance to the Monarch, as Supreme Governor on Earth of the Church of England, is not a problem. For roughly one third of its existence the CofE has had a woman at the top, as it does at the moment.
(Although I suspect that this question is more relevant to the Reform type objectors to women in positions of authority.)
Posts: 313 | From: Near the Tidal Thames | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
They swear allegience to the Queen as QUEEN, not as a bishop.
The so-called 'traditionalists' are not opposed to women in non-ordained roles.
Not the anglo-catholic ones, of course. But according to their theories 'Reform' evangelicals should refuse women in any sort of leadership, as Higgs Bosun implies.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The clergy in this parish have said that they won't be able, in conscience, to swear the oath of allegiance, or whatever it is called, any more, because it involves acknowledging the authority of the bishop AND his successors. So that causes a problem even before the first woman is consecrated. There is a getout clause: 'in all things honest and lawful.' It won't work,. however, as the code of practice won't be enshrined in law.
Doesn't that only apply to future appointments? Aren't existing clergy bound by the oath they will have already given?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
FrNJSSC
Apprentice
# 17314
|
Posted
I am pleased with the appointment of +Jonathan Ebbsfleet as the New Bishop of Fulham and I look forward to working with him once he takes up his role.
I am a bit concerned about the amount of candidates that might have over-looked, I won't indulge publicly in the complications that the +Fulham process endured but it was neither an easy appointment for +Richard Londin to make.
I know many clergy that were suitable for +Fulham and I know one clergy in the Edmonton Area who was hoping to be Fulham but was not considered.
The role of Bishop's is calling, I think it's wrong that one should aspire to be a Bishop if they can not fulfill the role. Then those that say they don't want to be Bishop's and get offered it accept - why not turn it down.
As clergy we never publicly say we have episcopal ambition - I can say I don't myself but some of my brother clergy who within reason do, should be given the opportunity
Posts: 4 | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Episcopal or ecclesiastical authority has not always been geographical. Traditionally the Regular clergy were/are under the authority of their Abbots or Superiors and, most certainly within the RC Benedictine tradition and some others, this has excluded the authority of the local diocesan.
That may be true elsewhere, but I'm under the impression this has been something the CofE has largely, and usually consistently, repudiated since the Reformation. With the exception of Royal Peculiars, is anyone allowed to be totally outside the compass of the bishop of the diocese in which they happen to be?
*snip*
Clergy of military ordinariates (such as the Anglicans have in Canada), I suppose, are part of a non-geographical diocese but would normally not have anything to do with the local geographical bishop. As well, Anglican priests who are under the supervision of one of the Lutheran entities with which we have an arrangement are in another anomolous position.
I am not familiar with the arrangements for Anglican clerics within the Order of Ethiopia in South Africa, or if that situation still exists-- my memory of the details is confused and perhaps a South African shipmate might be able to help.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The clergy in this parish have said that they won't be able, in conscience, to swear the oath of allegiance, or whatever it is called, any more, because it involves acknowledging the authority of the bishop AND his successors. So that causes a problem even before the first woman is consecrated. There is a getout clause: 'in all things honest and lawful.' It won't work,. however, as the code of practice won't be enshrined in law.
Doesn't that only apply to future appointments? Aren't existing clergy bound by the oath they will have already given?
I expect they'll find a way to wriggle out of it, at least to their own satisfaction. I can't remember who it was who said on these boards- might it even have been you, Enoch?- that a lot of the FiF crowd were basically congregationalists in tat, but I find myself increasingly reminded of it.
--------------------
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
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I am not familiar with the arrangements for Anglican clerics within the Order of Ethiopia in South Africa, or if that situation still exists-- my memory of the details is confused and perhaps a South African shipmate might be able to help.
Not as of 1999, when the CPSA Canon creating the Order of Ethiopia was rescinded. It then became an independent Church called the Ethiopian Episcopal Church, with Sigqibo Dwane, its Bishop, becoming instantly an Archbishop ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) . A significant rump also joined the TAC or Anglican Catholic Church or some such. I need to find out from some of my SA Anglican friends exactly what happened. The Gazett of the Anglican Diocese of Port Elizabeth from the time says:
quote:
Setting the record straight
A statement issued by Bishop Sigqibo Dwane, Presiding Bishop of the Ethiopian Episcopal Church The statement about the Order of Ethiopia which appeared in ‘Iindaba’ of September 1999 incorrectly reported the decision of the Provincial Synod of July 1999.
It said that the “Order of Ethiopia severed its ties with the CPSA although it has asked that a commission be set up to look at its continuing relationship with CPSA.” There is indeed, in terms of the decision of Provincial Synod 1999, a “continuing relationship with the CPSA”. This means that the Order of Ethiopia did not “sever its ties with the CPSA”. Provincial Synod 1999 rescinded Canon 48, as a result of which, the Order of Ethiopia ceased to be an “integral part” of the CPSA, and became an autonomous church which is in “full communion with the CPSA”. The Ethiopian Church which entered into a compact with CPSA in August 1900 was then renamed by the Bishops of the CPSA ‘Order of Ethiopia’. In August 1999 the Order of Ethiopia reverted to its pre 1900 status of autonomy, when it dropped the name Order of Ethiopia in favour of Ethiopian Episcopal Church.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Thanks TT. My human sources had left SA in the early 1990s and were not up to date-- my own reading was of material under the episcopates of William West Jones and Geoffrey Clayton, and that was some time ago. The Order of Ethiopia is an interesting anomaly and I don't have much on it.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
It certainly was a fascinating phenomenon. I was intrigued by the great founder figure, James Mata Dwane, whose grandson it was became the Bishop of the Order and then Archbishop - he and his wife were killed in a car crash about 5 years ago.
When I was in SA I happened to have a cleaning lady who had once worked for Bishop Dwane. She used to gossip about him! (and much else besides, I hasten to add)
Anyway, end of tangent.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
... I can't remember who it was who said on these boards- might it even have been you, Enoch?- that a lot of the FiF crowd were basically congregationalists in tat, but I find myself increasingly reminded of it.
I don't think it was me, but I wouldn't totally dissent from it. There is one big difference, though. Old time congos believed that the church was the congregation, which called/hired a minister. FiF believe that Father is the church and the church is the forum in which he can be Father, without let or hindrance. The congregation are there to enable him to deliver that vision.
--------------------
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
Why is it a 'sad development'? Nobody denies the right of conscientious objectors to OoW to have episcopal ministry which they accept. For the vast majority of them, this is provided by the 'flying bishops.' It is not unreasonable that a certain number of other diocesan and suffragan bishops will also be of that integrity, but there is no logic or tradition, and should be no expectation, that a particular see should be reserved for a particular point of view... whether that is F in F, Aff Cath, Modern Church, Reform or whatever.
I don't know Fr North but his reputation is high and he is clearly thought to be a suitable candidate for the episcopate. Appointing him to Whitby though would have entrenched that area as a stronghold for a minority viewpoint. Better to make him the Bishop of somewhere else and have a change of perspective at Whitby.
Though it raises the question, if the women bishops proposal failed because they would be seen as 'second-class', unacceptable to a minority, perhaps male bishops who are unable to accept a much larger proportion of their priests are also second class?
--------------------
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
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
It is desperately sad because this is a man who would make a fine bishop, who is regarded as such by many on both sides of the divide, who appears to have been bullied by people who couldn't be bothered to look further than labels.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
Thurible, unless you know more than is in Philip North's own statement, there is no reason to assume that he has been bullied. What he said was that after meeting with the people of Cleveland he felt that he would not be able to be a focus of unity. This does not translate as 'he was bullied.' It may translate as his realization that the area was substantially more supportive of the ordination of women to the threefold order of deacons, priests, and bishops than he had been led to believe, for instance.
Everything that I have heard about Philip North leads me to think that he would be a good bishop: this withdrawal underlines my opinion. Maybe he could go to Lewes.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
Oh, I don't know more. And perhaps it doesn't translate as bullying. The CT article read that way with its description of the petitioning letter, I thought, as does +Sentamu's reaction.
I think you're right, Amos, that he'd be fab. Lewes, I suppose, is an option but that depends on whether +Martin's going to appoint someone who'll ordain women or not. My money's on Edmonton, though.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Everything that I have heard about Philip North leads me to think that he would be a good bishop: this withdrawal underlines my opinion. Maybe he could go to Lewes.
I concur with your first sentence. He should (and hopefully will) be a bishop. But not Lewes: apart from anything else, +Chichester has already promised that he will have at least one suffragan prepared to ordain women.
--------------------
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
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Amos:
[qb] +Chichester has already promised that he will have at least one suffragan prepared to ordain women.
May I pursue this tangent for a mo? Has he promised or has he not ruled out the possibility? I can't remember where it was that I saw the line but I thought it was the latter but a number have felt it to be the former.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
Tongue was slightly in cheek there, Angloid.
Reading John Sentamu's statement, I note that he says that he was 'confident that he [Philip North] would not only live up to Bishop Martin's example, but also go beyond it in his valuing of the ministry of his female colleagues.' How do you translate that?
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
I think the development is indicative of the challenge the CofE faces where people holding differing views about particular issues (in this case women priests) put pressure on the structures for a bishop who shares their integrity. This is potentially an issue both for those who believe women ought to be ordained as priests (and bishops) and for those who do not. There have been similar issues for multi-parish benefices where some of the parishes would really like a woman priest, or are at least keen that their field of choice should include women, and others - even only a single parish - have passed a resolution against. Under current legislation those against can insist that a woman is not appointed.
Broadly speaking this is consistent with the institutional culture and structures of the Church of England which is designed to favour the status quo, but it is not, from first principles, clear to me why a parish or parishes holding a sincere conviction that women should/can not be ordained as priests (or bishops) - and therefore they want a man appointed - should have a greater say than a parish or parishes which sincerely believe that women should/can be ordained as priests (or bishops) - and therefore they want to be open to the possibility of a woman being appointed, or at the very least a man who shares their views on women's ministry.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
I regret Fr North's decision and along with others (on the basis of a passing acquaintance with him) think that he would make an excellent bishop.
But clearly not yet. The more I think about his sincere statement that he would not be a focus for unity, the more I am disappointed that he expects to find unity already, rather than create unity from disunity.
It does seem that there has been some pre-emptive opposition to his appointment, to which he has reacted. If this is the case, it would be his job as a bishop (together with the Archbishop) to create a unity of faith and understanding across the existing divide.
The same thing happened here when I was appointed nearly seven years ago. The parish had a very strong Credo Cymru (FiF Welsh-style) contingent, and some of them objected to my appointment as a priest who did not agree with them. We have found common ground in our commitment to the gospel and especially in the openness of our parishes to all. I am not perfect, and I dare say neither are the parishioners, but with God's help we have made a good go of it together.
A bishop's job is the same although writ large. The new bishop will have to make himself an instrument of unity, because without him there will be division. If Fr North does not feel ready or able to do this, he is not yet ready to be a bishop.
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
It'll be a loss if he doesn't become a bishop sooner or later. But there's plenty of time, and Whitby may well not be the right fit.
It's also a difficult time for those opposed at present, because the defeat of the WB Measure has not played well in the CofE at large. So you can't blame him for not taking up appointment just at this particular juncture. But he has the gifts and the calling. There is no need to hurry to slot him in somewhere else. He may just need some space for prayer and reflection!
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
It'll be a loss if he doesn't become a bishop sooner or later. But there's plenty of time, and Whitby may well not be the right fit.
It's also a difficult time for those opposed at present, because the defeat of the WB Measure has not played well in the CofE at large. So you can't blame him for not taking up appointment just at this particular juncture. But he has the gifts and the calling. There is no need to hurry to slot him in somewhere else. He may just need some space for prayer and reflection!
Very generous and very correct. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
It'll be a loss if he doesn't become a bishop sooner or later. But there's plenty of time, and Whitby may well not be the right fit.
It's also a difficult time for those opposed at present, because the defeat of the WB Measure has not played well in the CofE at large. So you can't blame him for not taking up appointment just at this particular juncture. But he has the gifts and the calling. There is no need to hurry to slot him in somewhere else. He may just need some space for prayer and reflection!
Agree. Brilliant.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
I think it's important to remember that a bishop like a priest is called to serve a specific community / place. It seems this appointment had problems locally, and not unreasonable objection was raised.
The appointment does not seem to have been handled very well, and local opinion has not been listened to carefully enough in the process. I am not attributing any blame to the candidate, who actually has recognised this point. Questions should be asked about a process that put him in this situation.
If York diocese feel the need for an ABC style bishop why assign it always to the same part of the diocese, or why not make the suffragan bishops less territorial.
A better fit may well be found, but at the end of the day in the modern Church of England bishops are becoming far less symbols of unity than they were. Their role as symbols of unity is actually rarely tenable nowadays.
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
I think it's important to remember that a bishop like a priest is called to serve a specific community / place. It seems this appointment had problems locally, and not unreasonable objection was raised.
The appointment does not seem to have been handled very well, and local opinion has not been listened to carefully enough in the process. I am not attributing any blame to the candidate, who actually has recognised this point. Questions should be asked about a process that put him in this situation.
If York diocese feel the need for an ABC style bishop why assign it always to the same part of the diocese, or why not make the suffragan bishops less territorial.
A better fit may well be found, but at the end of the day in the modern Church of England bishops are becoming far less symbols of unity than they were. Their role as symbols of unity is actually rarely tenable nowadays.
In Canada, generally (but not universally -- the Diocese of TOronto is currently an exception) suffragans do not have territorial jurisdiction -- they are simply assistants to the diocesan bishop. By and large they do not have territorial titles, and they do what they are told by their diocesan.
In the siutation in question, the Diocese of York needs, let us say, 3 suffragans. Without formal territorial responsibilities, one could easily deal with all (and only, perhaps) ABC parishes, whose primary relationship would still be with the diocesan. And no geographic section of the diocese would need to feel that it was being offered up as a sacrifice to the needs of other people, when its own needs were being ignored.
JOhn
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead
I am
# 21
|
Posted
I know nothing about Philip North, other than what I have read relating to this issue, but he seems to me to be a good egg.
It does seem as though the process and structures are at fault here. To appoint as Bishop someone who does not believe that female clergy in his care are actually clergy strikes me as unreasonable - or is that not what is happening here? As for Bishop Sentamu's comments, they sound as though he is saying, "People should have trusted Philip North to respect the views of those with whom he disagrees, and to act accordingly" - isn't that more-or-less what was voted down a few weeks ago?
--------------------
At times like this I find myself thinking, what would the Amish do?
Posts: 9123 | From: Near where I was before. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
A better fit may well be found, but at the end of the day in the modern Church of England bishops are becoming far less symbols of unity than they were. Their role as symbols of unity is actually rarely tenable nowadays.
This may seem a bit pedantic, but I don't think it is.
I don't think a bishop is a 'symbol' of unity. It's rather more than that. The word more usually used is 'focus'. A key part of the bishop's job is to work for unity, to hold people together, however much they may at times be more like squalling cats in a sack, to try and get everyone serving the kingdom.
Things can be symbols. I'm not sure its either healthy or wholesome for them or us to think of people as symbols.
Returning to this case, I don't get the impression anyone is objecting to Fr North personally. It looks more as though some of the parishes in North East Yorkshire are saying, 'why does it have to be assumed that it's always us who get the diocese's misogynist suffragan?' I suspect, like the inhabitants of the Chichester diocese, they may have a point.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
A better fit may well be found, but at the end of the day in the modern Church of England bishops are becoming far less symbols of unity than they were. Their role as symbols of unity is actually rarely tenable nowadays.
This may seem a bit pedantic, but I don't think it is.
I don't think a bishop is a 'symbol' of unity. It's rather more than that. The word more usually used is 'focus'. A key part of the bishop's job is to work for unity, to hold people together, however much they may at times be more like squalling cats in a sack, to try and get everyone serving the kingdom.
Things can be symbols. I'm not sure its either healthy or wholesome for them or us to think of people as symbols.
Returning to this case, I don't get the impression anyone is objecting to Fr North personally. It looks more as though some of the parishes in North East Yorkshire are saying, 'why does it have to be assumed that it's always us who get the diocese's misogynist suffragan?' I suspect, like the inhabitants of the Chichester diocese, they may have a point.
Well said, Enoch. I agree about the symbol / focus difference you helpfully draw out.
Nevertheless it must be very difficult to be a focus of unity in a situation where you as bishop do not hold with half your clergy being ordained as priests.
I wonder how many parishes there are in Cleveland Archdeaconry and how many ABC parishes there are.
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
3rdFooter
Shipmate
# 9751
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
I know nothing about Philip North, other than what I have read relating to this issue, but he seems to me to be a good egg.
As an assistant curate, I can confirm that Fr Philip North is a thoroughly good egg. A holy and devout man with a very sharp mind between his ears that he applies to the theological aspects of real life e.g. riots in North London. A loss to the bench in my view.
I disagree with him on some bone paddock issues but I thoroughly respect the man.
3F
--------------------
3F - Shunter in the sidings of God's Kingdom
Posts: 602 | From: outskirts of Babylon | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Percy B writes: quote:
Nevertheless it must be very difficult to be a focus of unity in a situation where you as bishop do not hold with half your clergy being ordained as priests
Given that this division is a reality in the English church, surely every bishop will face this challenge? Either a bishop is not on board with a cohort of his clergy as actually being priests, or must work with the fact that a cohort of his clergy be not accepted by that first cohort. As was predicted many years ago, the situation is untenable, but each bishop must be able to address the tension until such time as one opinion or the other is deemed officially unacceptable.
I know nothing of Fr North, but everybody seems to think he would be a good bishop--- if so, then it would be a shame to lose him.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Percy B writes: quote:
Nevertheless it must be very difficult to be a focus of unity in a situation where you as bishop do not hold with half your clergy being ordained as priests
Given that this division is a reality in the English church, surely every bishop will face this challenge?
That's true. And surely those OoW priests and bishops who remain in the C of E have had to come to terms with it. Whatever their views of the theology or the precise status of ordained women, they mostly co-exist quite happily in the current mixed economy. A bishop needs to be the pastor for the whole church, for 'both integrities'; maybe the tensions for Fr North were that he felt pushed into being partisan.
From what I have read, it seems as if he is wise enough and pastoral enough not to see his ministry in sectarian terms. But only he can take the decision about whether he is confident of achieving that in this situation.
--------------------
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
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Clarification of above: I meant to say 'opposed to OoW' priests and bishops.
--------------------
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
|
|
AngloCatholicDude
Shipmate
# 16476
|
Posted
Congratulations to +Glyn Beverley for his consecration, wonderful to see God still calls traditionalist to be Bishops in his church.
Now we await the news of +Ebbsfleet in a couple of months and +Blackburn which is due in a month or so.
I've heard from sources that +Blackburn is likely to be a traditionalist and that +Sentamu Ebor is adamant so I doubt his mind will be changed
--------------------
Trusting and Believing in the Catholic Tradition within the Church of England
Posts: 85 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stranger in a strange land
Shipmate
# 11922
|
Posted
But surely +Sentamu/Ebor has very limited influence in the matter of who is appointed to the See of Blackburn?
Posts: 608 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
AngloCatholicDude
Shipmate
# 16476
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stranger in a strange land:
But surely +Sentamu/Ebor has very limited influence in the matter of who is appointed to the See of Blackburn?
Well in the event that a traditionalist is appointed, he will ignore the letter sent by members of the See of Blackburn and proceed with the appointment of a trad cath
--------------------
Trusting and Believing in the Catholic Tradition within the Church of England
Posts: 85 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Surely the letter you refer to, and the various lobbying of the 'traditionalist' camp, are only two factors among many that need to be borne in mind. It may be that the powers that be (and I don't think the Archbishop has a veto, does he?) decide for many other reasons that Fr Traditionalist or Archdeacon Liberal or whoever will be the best person for Blackburn. I don't think that 'churchmanship', let alone his position on OoW, should have anything to do with it.
--------------------
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
|
|
+Chrism
Apprentice
# 17032
|
Posted
Fr Philip North is likely to be announced as ****** of Ebbsfleet - Rumours have it
It isn't what they say about you, it's what they whisper. - Errol Flynn
[ 12. February 2013, 00:37: Message buggered about with by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
+In Nomine Patris Et Filio Sancti
Posts: 38 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
+Chrism, have you read this ?
Doublethink
Purgatory H o s t
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by +Chrism:
Fr Philip North is likely to be announced as ****** of Ebbsfleet - Rumours have it
</small>
Rumours, schmumours.
As with the appointment of the Bishop of Fulham, and of the Bishop of Ebbsfleet, it'll be someone that no-one had initially considered, I think.
I know who I want; I know who I don't want; I can think of a couple I wouldn't mind and think would be alright.
We'll see.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
