|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Bishops of Chichester, Fulham and now Beverley
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Oh good grief...
If you don't like it why did you copy it all only a few lines below the original? It doesn't make the thread easier to read!
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
Although it is a fundamental principle of the Church of England that a parish church exists to serve the whole of the parish in which it is situated and the whole of its people, it would perhaps be possible for a parish priest, with the concurrence of, say, two thirds of those who are on the electoral roll for the parish, to remain the incumbent until his death or retirement, while continuing to be treated in the same way as other priests of the Church of England for purposes of pensions etc. Finance might, as so often, be a problem; but as a corollary the parish, or the ordinariate to which he belongs if it embraces two or more parishes, should make the normal contributions to the Church of England Pension Scheme and provide the stipend for the incumbent. In other words, the parish would be taken outside the normal diocesan set up so long as the priest remained the incumbent and the people continued to agree . Two thirds seems a reasonable proportion, taking into account the possibility that a number of parishioners may have left or stayed away from their parish church because they preferred a less Anglo-Catholic style of worship. Financial support might be available from the Anglican funds of the CBS which in plain breach of trust were paid to the Roman Catholic Ordinariate, and which it is to be hoped the Charity Commission, or failing them the Court, will order to be replaced - such support would be much more in line with the objects of the CBS and its donors for the past 150 years than support of Roman Catholics.
First up, the electoral roll of the parish does not include all the parishioners. Given the property of the parish is held in trust for the whole parish, this surely requires consent of that whole, since you are effectively removing it from the diocese.
On the same vain, surely the bishop must have a veto on this too - as the induction service says, "receive the cure of souls, which is your care and mine"
The distinction between what you are proposing and an "ordinariate" is that the ordinariate adds congregations without a parish. The only way to do that in the Church of England would be to create new congregations, or to redraw some parish boundaries - which I suspect is a much more permanent can of worms!
T
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Perhaps they could all become Royal Peculiars. With the added advantage that the clergy would be able to dress as cardinals. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
But, more seriously, to legalise dissident parishes opting out of the diocese/parish system seems to imply that such parishes have already in effect done so. This may sometimes (often?) be the case, but I am thinking of one particular FinF parish, which has signed all three resolutions, where the priest is a dedicated pastor and has a concern for the whole - very needy and deprived - neighbourhood. That parish is surely part and parcel of the mission of the C of E to all people.
[ 03. January 2012, 17:38: 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
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
Egg, since you seem not to have taken the hint about tangents and dead horses, I would refer you - whether you like the tone or not - to my signature line.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by thomasm:
First up, the electoral roll of the parish does not include all the parishioners. Given the property of the parish is held in trust for the whole parish, this surely requires consent of that whole, since you are effectively removing it from the diocese.
On the same vain, surely the bishop must have a veto on this too - as the induction service says, "receive the cure of souls, which is your care and mine"
The distinction between what you are proposing and an "ordinariate" is that the ordinariate adds congregations without a parish. The only way to do that in the Church of England would be to create new congregations, or to redraw some parish boundaries - which I suspect is a much more permanent can of worms!
T
Parish property logically exists to provide assets for the worship of God. The pre-Reformation parishes of England were raised up for Roman Catholic worship. After the Reformation they became CofE. Now either you argue that this is the same religion - in which case the question is on what basis was the change made - and whoever decided it was OK to can choose how they should be allocated now. Or you can argue that a change was made then - from which as a Protestant in continuing rebellion against the Pope you are benefiting by having control of those historic assets. But again someone made the decision to make the change, so they have a right to do so again. If that includes making some available to a group in schism from the CofE, it's as logical to do so by allowing an entire parish to continue to worship in their otherwise redundant building as it is to allow other Christian groups to use our redundant building (usually they've got more sense than to take over our barns, but it does happen). Add in a bit of openness to building sharing, and the problem can be resolved with some good will.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Now either you argue that this is the same religion - in which case the question is on what basis was the change made - and whoever decided it was OK to can choose how they should be allocated now.Or you can argue that a change was made then - from which as a Protestant in continuing rebellion against the Pope you are benefiting by having control of those historic assets. But again someone made the decision to make the change, so they have a right to do so again.
Either way, it was the Crown in Parliament which made the de jure decision, allbeit ratified de facto by the people. If the self-understanding of the concept of the CofE as the Church of the English Nation (a self-understanding which I think was largely a fiction by the Restoration and completely so by 1830) has any mileage it must be within that setting such a decision is made. Any other arrangement would seem, within the English context, to reduce the CofE to the status of a voluntary sect like Roman Catholicism or Methodism.
[ 04. January 2012, 06:50: Message edited by: Trisagion ]
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Parish property logically exists to provide assets for the worship of God.
But it's not just about buildings and worship. The C of E has a pastoral concern which goes beyond its own professed adherents. The parish priest - and the worshipping congregation - is there for the whole community. I see every reason for encouraging the sharing of buildings between Christian communities, but if a parish opts out of the C of E someone else is going to have to plug the gap in pastoral care.
And before you say it, it's not just about 'establishment'. I think we ought to be disestablished, but that doesn't mean retreating into our own little holy ghetto.
--------------------
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
I replied to ES above before properly reading Trisagion's post, which deals with the same theme. I think there are tendencies within both the Anglo-catholic and evangelical ends of the church towards sectarianism, but most Anglicans recognise (and have to deal with) the reality that the C of E is seen as the 'default church' by most of the population. Despite the falling off in church attendance, and in requests for baptism, most people expect a Christian funeral and those requests usually end up at the vicarage, unless there is a strong folk/ family link with another tradition, as in these parts with Catholicism.
That's not to deny the strong social commitment, and work - which often puts Anglicans to shame - with marginalised people and others, that is characteristic of Catholics, Methodists and Salvation Army in particular. But whereas other churches might look at where their congregations are coming from and concentrate their resources in such areas, the C of E has always maintained a commitment to a presence throughout the country, in deprived (and often predominantly non-Christian) areas as well as prosperous ones. And some of the churches most committed to these areas are the ones now wondering about their position in the C of E, though I suspect some of the most faithful and 'Catholic' priests have resisted the call of the Ordinariate just because of this commitment.
--------------------
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
I agree with Angloid's phrase 'default church' and I don't think that's bad theology.
If you are CofE, you take it for granted that your church is the one that is organically descended from the first people who evangelised these islands, whether from the south or the west. It just doesn't unfortunately happen to be in communion with Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria or Rome at the moment, but three of those aren't in communion with the fourth either. There are rights and wrongs on both sides, but you will see the Papacy's understanding of the nature of its own authority as one of the main reasons why Christianity remains disunited.
If you are RC, you define the church by reference to being in communion with Rome, and so you see yourself as being the true descendants from the first people who evangelised these islands, and the rest of us as schismatics. To you, the Papacy, and its self-understanding, is so fundamental to the nature of the church that this prevails both over the complete organic break between the church in Britain before the C16 and the RC church here now, and the inconvenient fact that the majority of the faithful accepted the Reformation. The rest of Christendom is obtuse and in spiritual rebellion for not recognising and accepting Papal authority on its own terms.
Crucial to both ecclesial communities' understanding of themselves is a different view as to what is of the 'esse' rather than 'bene esse' of how they see 'the church'.
But it does also appear to a CofE person that there is difference between the way the two communions view the semi-apostate multitudes that are largely outside both their flocks.
Obviously both tend to direct their pastoral care particularly at their enrolled faithful. However, to an outsider, the Roman church in Britain, while keen to welcome others that choose to convert to it, does appear to see its role as mainly for its own RC faithful. The concept of everywhere being in a parish and 'cure of souls' does IMHO give the CofE a stronger sense of having some sort of a pastoral mission towards the semi-apostate multitude.
I'd wonder whether the RC church's approach might be different in places like Poland, Italy, France, or Spain where it is the default church - and likewise the Orthodox church in Greece. And is the situation the exact reverse in Eire?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
the inconvenient fact that the majority of the faithful accepted the Reformation
Inconvenient to whom? I mean, what real choice were they given? Who was putting the case for continued communion with Rome to them? How many could afford to pay the fines and take the punishment meted out to those who dissented? How many of them had the learning to answer the reformers or the power to carry on doing their own thing? Most people were just doing what they always had done: what they were told to do.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
the inconvenient fact that the majority of the faithful accepted the Reformation
Inconvenient to whom? I mean, what real choice were they given? Who was putting the case for continued communion with Rome to them? How many could afford to pay the fines and take the punishment meted out to those who dissented? How many of them had the learning to answer the reformers or the power to carry on doing their own thing? Most people were just doing what they always had done: what they were told to do.
To both of these, I would ask "The Reformation in what place?" The Reformation in England was very much a top to bottom affair. The people themselves were very happy being Roman Catholics. In Germany, on the other hand, it was very much a populist movement.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Fair point, Zach. Enoch's context was the C of E, and I responded with that as the reference. I know far less about the Reformation as it panned out in Germany.
[ 04. January 2012, 13:07: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
otyetsfoma
Shipmate
# 12898
|
Posted
Until the mid nineteenth century the Roman pontiff was not just a spiritual, but very much a political power. E.g. at the time of King Billy at the battle of the Boyne, the pope was on the orangemen's side, because he was at war with catholic France, who were supporting King James. So it was quite common for catholic countries to pass anti-papal laws- praemunire in England- long before the Reformation. If Henry VIII's troubles had not coincided with the european Reformation all would have passed off easily.
Posts: 842 | From: Edgware UK | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The Reformation in England was very much a top to bottom affair. The people themselves were very happy being Roman Catholics.
Depends where you look. In many parts of the east of England, including London itself, Reformation had considerable popular support, almost certainkly the majority in most towns. The most Protestant areas may have been East Sussex and Kent. But much of both the North-West and South_West remained almost entirely Roman, and in most of the Midlands and the rest of the North of England sentiment for reform was largely limited to urban artisans and the commercial middle-classes.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
badman
Shipmate
# 9634
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Egg, since you seem not to have taken the hint about tangents and dead horses, I would refer you - whether you like the tone or not - to my signature line.
I love egg's posts. They're very good, full of information, thoughtful, and original. While abusive one liners have their place on the internet, on the whole I find the egg style more pleasing and satisfying.
Posts: 429 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by badman:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Egg, since you seem not to have taken the hint about tangents and dead horses, I would refer you - whether you like the tone or not - to my signature line.
I love egg's posts. They're very good, full of information, thoughtful, and original. While abusive one liners have their place on the internet, on the whole I find the egg style more pleasing and satisfying.
Pseudo-history is neither informative, thoughtful or original.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by badman:
]I love egg's posts. They're very good, full of information, thoughtful, and original. While abusive one liners have their place on the internet, on the whole I find the egg style more pleasing and satisfying.
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Pseudo-history is neither informative, thoughtful or original.
I don't think its pseudo-history. The facts are probably right. Its just not very relevant to the questions here.
When I wrote:
quote:
I don't recognise our domestic squabbles in egg's posts. Trisagion's are better accounts of what goes on in the Church of England than egg's are.
I didn't mean that what egg was writing about history was false, just that it has very little to do with why Anglicans want to ordain women or not. And even less to do with the other arguments we love to have.
And it also hasn't got much to do with why people choose to get up in the morning and go to a CofE church, rather than say, a Baptist or a Catholic church. I doubt if many ordinary members of the Church of England know or care in the slightest about the Oath of Supremacy, or the Act of Settlement, or the Act in Restraint of Appeals. And if they've heard of Apostolicae Curae they either regard it as a rather unremarkable rule internal to the Roman Catholics or else just another one of those detestable enormities of the Bishop of Rome. And I doubt if even most church historians have heard of the Association for the Promotion of the Unity of Christendom. Nobody - no, not nobody, but almost nobody - chooses to be a member of the Church of England (or not) because the Pope doesn't recognise its orders, and I think even fewer choose to be a member of it because the Queen says so. (There are certainly many Christians who will not join the CofE because it is the established church, but they are much more likely to be found in Methodist or Baptist or Independent churches than in Catholic ones.)
OK, those legalistic matters are a live issue for a tiny number - probably hundreds rather than thousands - of often rather orange-tinged old-style Prayerbook Anglicans (and perhaps rather more Presbyterians in Scotland, though still hardly any). And the opinion of the Pope on the validity of orders are or were a problem for a rather larger number of members of the CofE - but its still a small number, maybe more ordained than lay, and those that didn't go over to Rome in the 1990s are probably mostly either reconciled to the CofE as it is now, or else joining the Ordinariate.
[One day I ought to visit Rome to see all those detestable enormities. I wonder if they are shiny? Or maybe icky and tentacular in a sort of Cthuloid style?]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chamois
Shipmate
# 16204
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
[One day I ought to visit Rome to see all those detestable enormities. I wonder if they are shiny? Or maybe icky and tentacular in a sort of Cthuloid style?]
C'mon, ken, everyone knows they're scarlet and female.
--------------------
The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases
Posts: 978 | From: Hill of roses | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
]I don't think its pseudo-history. The facts are probably right. Its just not very relevant to the questions here....]I didn't mean that what egg was writing about history was false, just that it has very little to do with why Anglicans want to ordain women or not. And even less to do with the other arguments we love to have.
Thank you, ken, for expressing so much more clearly, succinctly and charitably than I was managing.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
kiwimacahau
Apprentice
# 12142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by AngloCatholicDude:
I don't believe that it would be at all right for us Catholic Anglicans in London to remain any longer without our own Bishop.
. . . Since when, in the eyes of a Catholic, does the effectiveness of a sacrament depend on how well one happens to like, or agree with the opinions of, the clergyman celebrating it? Unless his (or, more to the point, her-- but you don't have lady bishops in the C of E yet, do you?) actual orders are dubious, we are known for upholding the doctrine of ex opere operato-- which is why, when the chips are down, bishops sometimes discover that the Anglo-Catholics in the diocese are their best friends. +Charles here in Pennsylvania is a case in point.
Indeed! Being liked or even likeable is not a job requirement for a clergyperson. It may be something to be desired but that is a different kettle of metaphors.
--------------------
It is necessary for some people to advertise they are christians, as no one would believe it from their behaviour. H. Haydon.
Posts: 33 | From: Deepest Darkest NZ | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stranger in a strange land:
and now Blackburn.
I'm becoming increasingly convinced that either SWiSH is up to something, or it really is "abandon ship" from the traditional catholics.
I'm just not sure which...
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
Retiring at 66 - to the Diocese of Chichester!
BBC
[ 01. March 2012, 20:14: Message edited by: FreeJack ]
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
Yup. A random report on his views. +Nicholas is opposed, but more eirenical than some. I worked with him on the Guildford Report (which seems an age away now!)
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
AngloCatholicDude
Shipmate
# 16476
|
Posted
It is a great shame that we will be losing +Nicholas Reade but God-Willing we shall be gaining another Bishop of Chichester soon in May and I have recently been in correspondence with the Bishop of London last month about what's going on with Fulham?
He has assured me that he will be appointing a New Bishop of Fulham and the reason it has taking long is due to the fact that neccessary procedures had to be taken first.
He is consulting widely (I do hope he'd hurry up - considering that's what he said to me September 2011) and hopes that he will be able to share news with us in due course.
Although whoever is due to be the New Bishop of Fulham must have been approached by +Richard Londin by now, I'm still sticking to David Houlding, Philip North or John Brownsell
--------------------
Trusting and Believing in the Catholic Tradition within the Church of England
Posts: 85 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
AngloCatholicDude
Shipmate
# 16476
|
Posted
Even Graeme Rowlands could get it but I think +Richard would most likely appoint some who could serve for a long period time.
Most likely Philip North then or Fr Edward Lewis (Kenton) or Fr Robin Ward, it definetly will be an interesting appointment
--------------------
Trusting and Believing in the Catholic Tradition within the Church of England
Posts: 85 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
Well, it says he wrote to the bishop. It doesn't really tell us anything of the correspondence apart from that.
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AngloCatholicDude:
David Houlding, Philip North or John Brownsell or Edward Lewis or Robin Ward
Hmm. Robin Ward can't drive and hasn't been in a parish for a fair while; John Brownsell is surely pushing 70; David Houlding surely wouldn't pass the health check; Edward Lewis wanders round dressed like a cardinal.
Of those, then, I suppose Philip North is the most likely but I'm not sure I can believe he'd accept the invitation (he's certainly highly thought of in both the north east and East Anglia, as well as London). Stranger things have happened, though.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AngloCatholicDude:
Even Graeme Rowlands could get it but I think +Richard would most likely appoint some who could serve for a long period time.
Fr Rowlands made a bishop in the Church of England?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
AngloCatholicDude
Shipmate
# 16476
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by AngloCatholicDude:
Even Graeme Rowlands could get it but I think +Richard would most likely appoint some who could serve for a long period time.
Fr Rowlands made a bishop in the Church of England?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?
As you said stranger things have happened
--------------------
Trusting and Believing in the Catholic Tradition within the Church of England
Posts: 85 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
AngloCatholicDude
Shipmate
# 16476
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by AngloCatholicDude:
Even Graeme Rowlands could get it but I think +Richard would most likely appoint some who could serve for a long period time.
Fr Rowlands made a bishop in the Church of England?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?
Can't believe he slipped my mind - Luke Miller (Archdeacon of Hampstead)or even Peter Wheatley but he's only got a year and a bit left until he wants to retire
--------------------
Trusting and Believing in the Catholic Tradition within the Church of England
Posts: 85 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
AngloCatholicDude
Shipmate
# 16476
|
Posted
I think Bishop of Chichester has gone, they'd never appoint a traditionalist as Bishop of Chichester, maybe a Affirming Catholic but not traditionalist
--------------------
Trusting and Believing in the Catholic Tradition within the Church of England
Posts: 85 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by AngloCatholicDude:
David Houlding, Philip North or John Brownsell or Edward Lewis or Robin Ward
Hmm. Robin Ward can't drive
Thurible
I don't think that inability to drive has anything to do with being a bishop [said he, who's never learnt and uses a bicycle] And it never stopped Bishop Brian...
But whatever the speculation, you can be assured that the person to be appointed will be a good appointment, who will be a bishop to the whole Church. And I'm looking forward to working with him.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Of those, then, I suppose Philip North is the most likely but I'm not sure I can believe he'd accept the invitation (he's certainly highly thought of in both the north east and East Anglia, as well as London). Stranger things have happened, though.
Thurible
I think I agree that he may not accept any offer. I used to tease him that he'll be made a bishop when he was first considering ordination and he said he'd never want to be anything other than a priest. The most depressing thing about his name being in the ring for a bishopric is that he's a year younger than me. It makes me feel far too old.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
AngloCatholicDude
Shipmate
# 16476
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by AngloCatholicDude:
David Houlding, Philip North or John Brownsell or Edward Lewis or Robin Ward
Hmm. Robin Ward can't drive
Thurible
I don't think that inability to drive has anything to do with being a bishop [said he, who's never learnt and uses a bicycle] And it never stopped Bishop Brian...
But whatever the speculation, you can be assured that the person to be appointed will be a good appointment, who will be a bishop to the whole Church. And I'm looking forward to working with him.
We look forward to it aswell, it's quite strange as while we speculate and make our list, we can easily cross people off it and eventually we will come to the most likely person.
I'd find it hard being a Bishop, assuming that the London Bishops are told by +Richard the new suffragan bishop shortly before it's announced. I had to carry that burden, then again I feel sorry for the Mystery Man having to carry such a burden not being allowed to tell his parishoners and so forth.
But that's the sacrifice one has to pay when they become Ordained, secrecy
--------------------
Trusting and Believing in the Catholic Tradition within the Church of England
Posts: 85 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
I don't think that inability to drive has anything to do with being a bishop [said he, who's never learnt and uses a bicycle] And it never stopped Bishop Brian...
Yes, I suppose it must be different in the metropolis where public transport is so much better. I'm thinking of it from an In the Sticks perspective.
Thurible (the non-driver)
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
AngloCatholicDude
Shipmate
# 16476
|
Posted
Sadly I was unable to attend but one of my clergy friends has just informed me that the Bishop of London announced at Fulham's Chrism Mass today that a New Bishop of Fulham will be consecrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury on the 30th November 2012 at St Paul's Cathedral but anticipates that the New Bishop will be announced in Good Time before then.
He also said apparently that he would be more than gracious if people wanted to email into him, possible names and suggestions for +Fulham
--------------------
Trusting and Believing in the Catholic Tradition within the Church of England
Posts: 85 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
+Chrism
Apprentice
# 17032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AngloCatholicDude:
Sadly I was unable to attend but one of my clergy friends has just informed me that the Bishop of London announced at Fulham's Chrism Mass today that a New Bishop of Fulham will be consecrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury on the 30th November 2012 at St Paul's Cathedral but anticipates that the New Bishop will be announced in Good Time before then.
He also said apparently that he would be more than gracious if people wanted to email into him, possible names and suggestions for +Fulham
That is fantastic news, I shall definetly be sending the Bishop of London my suggestions. I hope that the right man gets it, but I do trust the decision of the great council
--------------------
+In Nomine Patris Et Filio Sancti
Posts: 38 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
+Chrism
Apprentice
# 17032
|
Posted
For those of you that didn't know, Rt Revd Dr Martin Warner SSC has been appointed as the 103rd Bishop of Chichester.
The link: http://www.diochi.org.uk/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.story&newsid=321&view=current
The process has started for the next Bishop of Fulham and I believe an announcement is due around August-October 2012 in time for the consecration in November 2012.
Names are being considered, one of them being Luke Miller (Archdeacon of Hampstead)
Posts: 38 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
Suffragan and assistant bishops are appointed by the diocesan in question alone.
The PEV sees are independent of the Act of Synod.
And, on a related point, can anyone else see the (lay) strings behind almost all senior clergy movements in and out of Chichester over the last half dozen years or so...?!
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
And, on a related point, can anyone else see the (lay) strings behind almost all senior clergy movements in and out of Chichester over the last half dozen years or so...?!
No.
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
Not to worry. But there aren't many.
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
AngloCatholicDude
Shipmate
# 16476
|
Posted
Not long till the Fulham Announcement, most probably 3rd week in September once +Richard Londin gets back from his holidays.
David Houlding?, Luke Miller?, Philip North? or Edward Lewis? (All members of SSC)
--------------------
Trusting and Believing in the Catholic Tradition within the Church of England
Posts: 85 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AngloCatholicDude:
Not long till the Fulham Announcement, most probably 3rd week in September once +Richard Londin gets back from his holidays.
David Houlding?, Luke Miller?, Philip North? or Edward Lewis? (All members of SSC)
The Bishop of London will appoint somebody in due course. The Anglo-Catholic constituency would do well to get behind this person - something they are not always terribly brilliant at doing. Prior speculation will likely do more harm than good.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Higgs Bosun
Shipmate
# 16582
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AngloCatholicDude:
Not long till the Fulham Announcement, most probably 3rd week in September once +Richard Londin gets back from his holidays.
As a warden, I was on the inside of the appointment of my previous vicar as a suffragan at exactly this time of year. Then the blockage was not the Bishop, but the CRB (mostly), the Prime Minister (somewhat) and the Queen (not much). Although +Richard has a lot on his plate with the Olympics at the moment, of course.
Posts: 313 | From: Near the Tidal Thames | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Maureen Lash
Apprentice
# 17192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AngloCatholicDude:
David Houlding?, Luke Miller?, Philip North? or Edward Lewis? (All members of SSC)
Luke Miller has rather too much hair to be able to wear a mitre credibly, I should have thought.
Posts: 32 | From: Moseley | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
AngloCatholicDude
Shipmate
# 16476
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Maureen Lash:
quote:
Originally posted by AngloCatholicDude:
David Houlding?, Luke Miller?, Philip North? or Edward Lewis? (All members of SSC)
Luke Miller has rather too much hair to be able to wear a mitre credibly, I should have thought.
And far too much hair for a Zucchetto but it's never stopped anyone before
Posts: 85 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
