|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: CofE calendar & George Bell
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
According to my copy of Common Worship, 3rd October may be kept as a Commemoration of George Bell, sometime bishop of Chichester.
I don't wish to discuss the nature of Dr Bell's private life, which would not be appropriate here. But I think the recent questions/revelations raise more general questions about the Calender.
When it was compiled there was clearly a desire to be 'inclusive'. Thus we have Anglican luminaries, which makes sense, some canonised by the RC or Orthodox churches, which seems permissable, but also some such as the Quaker George Fox and a non-canonised RC priest, Paul Courturier.
When the RC or Orthodox churches add someone to their calendars, it is a declaration that the person is in heaven and able to intercede for the living. It is the authorisation of a liturgical cult. Quite what is the CofE claiming to do? Clearly it is authorising a liturgical cult. But should it really do that if it is not pronouncing on the person's sanctity (ie, their being in heaven)?
And if it is not pronouncing on the person's sanctity, then presumably it is just holding them up as an object for emulation, in which case should it not investigate their private lives with the same rigour as the RC church does?
I am not trying to grind an axe here. I just wonder if this is a case in which the, often admirable, ambiguity of Anglicanism has sprung a leak.
--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I do think remembering George Fox (if that's what the point of having him in the calendar) is more than slightly ironic. Fox didn't have many positive things to say about the Established church.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
Neither did John Bunyan. It is fairly obvious from Pilgrim's Progress that he thought all members of the C of E were going to hell.
The commemorations are just that. Days on which you can remember the individual.
--------------------
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
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
The point is surely not what they thought of the C of E, but what the C of E thinks of their sanctity, their closeness to God, and their ability to be role models. Which of course makes the OP's comments about George Bell so much more relevant.
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
The commemorations are just that. Days on which you can remember the individual.
That word means something very different in the current Roman Rite; it's a saint/blessed's day that falls during a privileged season. While that's a technical meaning, I think the ordinary English sense of 'commemorate' implies something a little more than just 'remembering.'
I once saw on some Anglican site somewhere (great footnote, I know!) a list entitled "Those who excite us to holiness." I thought that that was a wonderful list to compose, and to have some kind of ecclesial stamp. It wasn't making the same claims as a Catholic canonization claims, and I don't see that as a critique; it's a different process with a more limited end, and a very noble end at that. Might that be the best way to view these lists of "commemorations"?
PS. I know nothing about this George Bell.
[ 13. February 2016, 12:43: Message edited by: Adam. ]
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
The commemorations are just that. Days on which you can remember the individual.
I once saw on some Anglican site somewhere (great footnote, I know!) a list entitled "Those who excite us to holiness."
And there's a book called 'Exciting Holiness' which gives readings and prayers for those on the list on the day of their commemoration. Wonderful book.
--------------------
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
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Many of the questions raised above, including that of the late Bishop of Chichester, are dealt with in a series of interesting blog postings by a TEC lay theologian, Derek Olsen. I have found recent calendars to be really interesting and some of the choices creative and helpful, but there's still too much of an absence of thought on some selections (dates and events, such as the first Anglican Eucharist in Canada or the consecration of the first Canadian-funded indigenous bishops in Japan and China, or the moon landing communion), as well as a curious choice for some individual commemorations (your list may vary from mine).
There is also a still-useful study done after Lambeth 57 on the Commemoration of Saints
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
Certain TEC resources, like "Holy Women, Holy Men," seem less informed by the idea that those contained in them are in heaven than the idea that their lives are worthy of imitation. Of course, the latter idea is implied, at least to some degree, by the former.
This tendency topples into absurdity in the Dancing "Saints" mural of St Gregory of Nyssa in San Francisco, which depicts Malcolm X and Paul Erdos doing a holy two-step with the likes of St Seraphim of Sarov and Moses the Black. Jesus, naturally is Lord of the Dance, which is a hint about the mindset this comes from...
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
The C of E has a number of categories of saint's days. There are festivals (the red letter saints) with readings for both office and HC. These are compulsory.
Then there are Lesser Festivals(eg St Swithin, John Bunyan, St Agnes) which are totally optional and only have a collect. At HC special readings are optional, at the office they are not. A refrain to the gospel canticle can be used from the common of saints.
Then there are commemorations, including so far George Bell, with no collect. They can be treated as lesser festivals with a collect from the common.
--------------------
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
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
I don't really think the class of feast is what matters here. The question is what does inclusion in the Calendar mean - be is as a Semidouble of the First Class, Optional Commemoration, whatever. The fact that someone is included in the Calendar, regardless of the ranking of the feast, seems to me to indicate that the Church has decided that (a) they are in heaven and (b) they are worthy of emulation. Is this what the CofE was saying when it approved the CW Calendar, or was it saying something else?
--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
I don't really think the class of feast is what matters here. The question is what does inclusion in the Calendar mean - be is as a Semidouble of the First Class, Optional Commemoration, whatever. The fact that someone is included in the Calendar, regardless of the ranking of the feast, seems to me to indicate that the Church has decided that (a) they are in heaven and (b) they are worthy of emulation. Is this what the CofE was saying when it approved the CW Calendar, or was it saying something else?
My own guess is that the CoE was saying that, or quite possibly something else but preferably both; but perhaps someone has at hand the preface introducing the material???
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
I don't really think the class of feast is what matters here. The question is what does inclusion in the Calendar mean - be is as a Semidouble of the First Class, Optional Commemoration, whatever. The fact that someone is included in the Calendar, regardless of the ranking of the feast, seems to me to indicate that the Church has decided that (a) they are in heaven and (b) they are worthy of emulation. Is this what the CofE was saying when it approved the CW Calendar, or was it saying something else?
My recollection is that it's emphatically not (a), as the CofE has not taken it upon itself to presume to comment on such matters. (b) is closer to the mark, but I would qualify it by saying that some aspect of their life is worthy of emulation. So we still include Martin Luther even though he was a raging anti-semite; King Charles I even though he was an arrogant, unscrupulous pillock who caused multiple wars. A great many of the Saints and Heroes of the church are far from perfect. The question is what degree of imperfection is so appalling that it erases any benefit to be gained from emulation of the good.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
I don't really think the class of feast is what matters here. The question is what does inclusion in the Calendar mean - be is as a Semidouble of the First Class, Optional Commemoration, whatever. The fact that someone is included in the Calendar, regardless of the ranking of the feast, seems to me to indicate that the Church has decided that (a) they are in heaven and (b) they are worthy of emulation. Is this what the CofE was saying when it approved the CW Calendar, or was it saying something else?
My recollection is that it's emphatically not (a), as the CofE has not taken it upon itself to presume to comment on such matters. (b) is closer to the mark, but I would qualify it by saying that some aspect of their life is worthy of emulation. So we still include Martin Luther even though he was a raging anti-semite; King Charles I even though he was an arrogant, unscrupulous pillock who caused multiple wars. A great many of the Saints and Heroes of the church are far from perfect. The question is what degree of imperfection is so appalling that it erases any benefit to be gained from emulation of the good.
I think, actually (a) makes more sense than (b). One can be far from perfect, and not the sort of person one should emulate (Jerome, for example) but in heaven, and therefore able to intercede for those still on earth.
--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
