Thread: Bishops of Chichester, Fulham and now Beverley Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024515

Posted by AngloCatholicDude (# 16476) on :
 
It's a interesting and trying time, I believe for us Catholic Anglicans as we are losing 2 Bishops due to retirement and one suffragan see still in vacancy.

It is fantastic to hear that the process for the new Bishop of Chichester is now in the hands of the Crown Nominations Commission and the announcement is due from Downing Street in May (God-Willing).

Hopefully for us Catholic Anglicans, a traditionalist Catholic Bishop is appointed, so we don't loose that Diocesan See as it's be with us for ages.

When reading the announcement of the +Martyn Jarrett's retirement, it didn't mention anywhere about appointing a possibly successor for Bishop Martyn.

So could this mean that +John Sentamu has decided that he doesn't want to appoint a successor.

It is to my understanding speaking to a member of the Fulham Clergy that the announcement about the New Bishop of Fulham will be made in February/March but again this may just be hear say.

Although I do pray and hope that the Bishop of London and his team "Bishop of Willesden" and so forth move fast with appointing a successor to Monsignor John Broadhurst especially as we all approach a year of uncertainty for all of us.

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.

I believe especially during this time of Advent/Christmas we should pray that worthy successors shall be appointing to the various see's that they will be men who will lead us through the uncertain times within the year ahead
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
You don't elect your bishops?
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AngloCatholicDude:


Hopefully for us Catholic Anglicans, a traditionalist Catholic Bishop is appointed, so we don't loose that Diocesan See as it's be with us for ages.

In my innocence, I thought that a Diocesan Bishop was just that: the Bishop of the whole diocese, and not just a faction within it.
 
Posted by anon four (# 15938) on :
 
And as an Aff Cath type - just to say there are plenty of "Catholic" C of E Bishops - they're just not all against the ordination of women etc. Maybe a more specific terminology would be clearer.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
You don't elect your bishops?

No.


Mind you, it meant we, and particularly Anglo-Catholics, didn't bother taking much notice of them.
 
Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
You don't elect your bishops?

No.


Mind you, it meant we, and particularly Anglo-Catholics, didn't bother taking much notice of them.

There you are quite wrong. The bishops of the CoE are elected. The electorate is the Dean and Chapter of the cathedral of the diocese; they are given permission by the Crown to hold an election (congé d'elire). At the same time they are given the name of the successful candidate. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by otyetsfoma (# 12898) on :
 
Until the election of David Jenkins, whenever a particularly unsuitable candidate (heretic) has been nominated by the crown there have always been one or two canons who dared to vote against the conge d'elire nominee.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
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.


[Mad] You have got a Bishop, chum- Richard Chartres. In fact you've got two- him and your area Bishop. Only thing is, you have to share them with all those you choose not to define as 'Catholic'. That's part of being in the CofE. So play nicely now, because the Baby Jesus likes us to share.

[ 13. December 2011, 21:35: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
I know I'm going to regret asking this but [Big Grin] what's a 'Catholic Anglican'. I know what an Anglo-catholic is. But I understood - mainly from Catholic acquaintances - that 'Catholic' (big 'C') generally refers to the Roman Catholic Church.

And, again, I can understand any Anglican bishop wishing to claim catholicity of ministry, or being described as 'catholic' - but why would a Catholic bishop be interested in applying for posts within the Anglican Church?

This Anglican anglican is a bit confused?!
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
You don't elect your bishops?

No.


Mind you, it meant we, and particularly Anglo-Catholics, didn't bother taking much notice of them.

There you are quite wrong. The bishops of the CoE are elected. The electorate is the Dean and Chapter of the cathedral of the diocese; they are given permission by the Crown to hold an election (congé d'elire). At the same time they are given the name of the successful candidate. [Roll Eyes]
Yes, the Queen is indeed gracious. She gives them leave to elect a bishop and then saves them the trouble of thinking by telling them the name of teh only person for whom they may vote. Gets them to the sherry faster.
 
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
As there is nothing here about liturgical practice, this isn't a topic for Ecclesiantics. May I suggest, AngloCatholic Dude, that Opening Posts should include a question or proposition for discussion, beyond the assertion of a point of view. Purgatory seems to be the better fit for the discussion as it stands now.

Mamacita, Eccles Host
 
Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Yes, the Queen is indeed gracious. She gives them leave to elect a bishop and then saves them the trouble of thinking by telling them the name of teh only person for whom they may vote. Gets them to the sherry faster.

To be fair, the Queen only takes the name the PM gives her. And the PM almost always takes the name the Crown Nominations Commission gives him...

And addressing the OP - isn't the whole flying bishops system being dismantled pending the introduction of different provision when the Women Bishops Measure comes into force?
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
This all reminds me of the episode of Yes Prime Minister where the PM had to appoint a bishop from a list of names he'd been given. He was uncomfortable about this as he had no experience of Church matters, but Sir Humphrey assured him that when the church submitted names, it was like a conjuring trick where the conjuror "forces" you to take a card knowing in advance which one it will be. When the PM asked "How will I know if I've picked the correct card?" Sir Humphrey replied "It will either be a knave or a queen!"
 
Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
And addressing the OP - isn't the whole flying bishops system being dismantled pending the introduction of different provision when the Women Bishops Measure comes into force? [/QB]

No. The status quo remains until the new Measure (if it passes its remaining hurdles) comes into force.

By the time +Beverley retires, the Measure will not have Royal Assent and the Act of Synod will not have been repealed. So if +York moves quickly, he will have an opportunity to appoint a new PEV.

And from my dealings with +York, if he is minded so to do, just try and stop him!
 
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Sir Humphrey replied "It will either be a knave or a queen!"

[Pedant mode]

Actually, that's Bernard.

[\Pedant mode\]
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
By the time +Beverley retires, the Measure will not have Royal Assent and the Act of Synod will not have been repealed. So if +York moves quickly, he will have an opportunity to appoint a new PEV.

And from my dealings with +York, if he is minded so to do, just try and stop him!

I was standing about two feet away from Archbishop Sentamu at a 'party' when he told someone with some force that he (i.e., the person he was addressing) that he would be the next Bishop of Beverley. That person is now already a bishop so I am hoping that he is similarly determined to appoint someone else.

Thurible
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Sir Humphrey replied "It will either be a knave or a queen!"

[Pedant mode]

Actually, that's Bernard.

[\Pedant mode\]

The OP put me in mind of a different passage of that episode, when Sir Humphrey explains that when considering the vacant bishopric, the Church will want a candidate to maintain the balance on the bench of bishops.

"What balance?"
"Between those that believe in God and those that don't."
 
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
And my sig is, of course, another passage from the same episode and the justification for the Congé d’élire.
 
Posted by Earwig (# 12057) on :
 
Who appoints PEVs? Surely it's not +Ebor and +Cantaur, but rather HMQ via Downing Street and the Crown Nominations Committee?
 
Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :
 
Re: Definition of "Catholic Anglican" etc

It's a difficult one and I see people criticised on the Ship and elsewhere for any number of different 'labels' for this particular constituency.

"Traditional Catholic" is what I tend to use (when talking internal CofE matters - it's clearly inappropriate in an ecumenical context), but appears to offend some.

"Catholic Anglican" or "Catholic-minded Anglican" clearly offends Aff-Cath (and others)

"FiF" is inaccurate, as that is a political organisation which a person or parish may or may not be a member of.

"SSWSH" - ditto

"Anti-OoW" and related variants is, at best, an incomplete description, and feels somewhat uncharitable. I prefer to define people as to what they are and what they are for, rather than what they are against.

So, what to use?
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Earwig:
Who appoints PEVs? Surely it's not +Ebor and +Cantaur, but rather HMQ via Downing Street and the Crown Nominations Committee?

They's suffragans of the Archbishops and so are appointed by the Archbishops, as I understand the process. +Rowan consults with "the constituency" and I can only assume that +Sentamu does so too.

Thurible
 
Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Earwig:
Who appoints PEVs? Surely it's not +Ebor and +Cantaur, but rather HMQ via Downing Street and the Crown Nominations Committee?

Nope, their Diocesan Bishop appoints. Beverley is a Suffragan See of York, Ebbsfleet and Richborough, of Canterbury. CNC is Diocesans only.

[ 14. December 2011, 12:54: Message edited by: The Man with a Stick ]
 
Posted by Earwig (# 12057) on :
 
Thanks, Thurible and TMWAS.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
Re: Definition of "Catholic Anglican" etc

It's a difficult one and I see people criticised on the Ship and elsewhere for any number of different 'labels' for this particular constituency.

"Traditional Catholic" is what I tend to use (when talking internal CofE matters - it's clearly inappropriate in an ecumenical context), but appears to offend some.

"Catholic Anglican" or "Catholic-minded Anglican" clearly offends Aff-Cath (and others)

"FiF" is inaccurate, as that is a political organisation which a person or parish may or may not be a member of.

"SSWSH" - ditto

"Anti-OoW" and related variants is, at best, an incomplete description, and feels somewhat uncharitable. I prefer to define people as to what they are and what they are for, rather than what they are against.

So, what to use?

Isn't there a difference between 'Catholic Anglicans' and 'Anglican Catholics'? In that the former see themselves as Anglicans first, (and therefore Catholics), but wish to highlight the Catholic nature of the Church; the latter see themselves as Catholics first (often in the sense that is defined by Rome) and Anglicans second. I don't see how Affirming Catholics could be offended by the former label.

There could be an implication in either description that other Anglicans are not in fact catholic. There is a suggestion of this in some of the partisan clamouring for a bishop who is 'one of us'. Taken to its logical conclusion this undermines the whole anglo-catholic position.

However we seem happy enough to describe some people as Evangelicals without denying that the rest of us also believe in the Gospel; or as Orthodox without admitting we are unorthodox. Why can't we happily use the label Catholic (prefaced by Roman or Anglican if necessary to avoid ambiguity) without denying that other Christians are part of the Catholic Church?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Yes, the Queen is indeed gracious. She gives them leave to elect a bishop and then saves them the trouble of thinking by telling them the name of teh only person for whom they may vote. Gets them to the sherry faster.

Yes, but only after the government has told her the name of the only person for whom she may vote!

And these days that is only after the CofE has told the government the only name that they can vote for. They used to provide two as a sort of legal fiction but both Thatcher and Blair now and again chose the other one for reasons that are not at all clear to anyone. So Gordon Brown asked to be sent only one name in future as that would save him the temptation of deliberately choosing the wrong one.

That's the nature of the Established church.

Its turtles all the way down [Razz]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Calling the anti-OOW party "Traditional Catholic" is a sort of land-grab for pretended orthodoxy. It is deliberatly designed to exclude and marginalise who hold orthodox Christian theology but happen to disagree with FiF and their friends on ordaining women. Many of them are a lot more traditional and orthodox than many of the anti-women party.

Its also self-defeating as those it pushes away include many evangelicals and women. And most Anglicans are probably either evangelicals or women. In fact most Anglicans are probably evangelical women.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
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.

Did you actually write that with a straight face?
Take some Geritoly. You have an irony deficiency.

It reminds me of an occasion in a large congregation (denomination withheld, but assuredly not Anglican) when several babies were
to be baptized. All the clergy were to be present, so that each couple could choose their favorite minister to perform the baptism.

This was probably the uninstructive, sentimental, divisive, and generally ludicrous brainchild of some little old lady who thought it would be cool. How Protestant in the worst way. And I am at a loss to understand how what you wrote is any improvement on it.

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.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Isn't there a difference between 'Catholic Anglicans' and 'Anglican Catholics'? In that the former see themselves as Anglicans first, (and therefore Catholics), but wish to highlight the Catholic nature of the Church; the latter see themselves as Catholics first (often in the sense that is defined by Rome) and Anglicans second. I don't see how Affirming Catholics could be offended by the former label.


You could well be right.

I can only give a personal response to the Catholic Anglican thing, and that is, to me, it doesn't make much sense. A Catholic is usually someone who is a member of the Roman Catholic Church. An Anglican is usually someone who is a member of the Anglican Church. Anglo-catholic suggests someone who is an Anglican with potentially Capital 'C' Catholic tendencies; a sub-set of Anglicanism along with other sub-sets.

But the poster obviously doesn't wish to be associated with Anglo-catholicism as he doesn't call himself an Anglo-Catholic.

So I honestly can't imagine what it is 'Catholic Anglican' is supposed to suggest to the listener. I suppose my point is that 'Catholic' (rather than catholic) is already a label which is widely used and understood to define a particular Church, and it almost looks like an attempt at appropriation for it to be used as a pre-fix to one's actual Church.

It just looks like a new denomination, to me. Bit like a Seventh Day Adventist Methodist, or an Anglican Greek Orthodox.

It's not the same, either, to use a comparison of 'evangelical'. There isn't a denomination 'Evangelical', as there is Catholic. It's a description of a churchmanship that can cross denominations.

Still, it's just my view, and it's always interesting to see something new and innovative in Anglicanism that I've never spotted before! We live and learn!
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
'Catholic' (rather than catholic) is already a label which is widely used and understood to define a particular Church,

That would be the Church in which we profess our faith whenever we say the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds. Maybe it's different in some parts of the world, but last time I looked in the TEC BCP (either current or 1928), the adjective was capitalized. What is the authority for considering a low-c catholic with a different meaning?
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
So I honestly can't imagine what it is 'Catholic Anglican' is supposed to suggest to the listener.

I occasionally use the term, mostly about myself, when I want to refer to somebody who generally rejects the term Anglo-Catholic (see below) but belongs at the spikier end of Anglican belief whilst not rejecting those following a lower trajectory as having something wrong with them.

Why reject the Anglo-Catholic label? Because in popular usage it's come to mean lace, pop-pom hats, Roman* rites, rejection of OoW, stratospherically high worship and Anglo-Papalism. None of which I'd particularly criticise but it's not what I'm about.

It's also a Pavlovian response to the use of the phrase "Henrician Church" but I accept that's nothing more than a character defect.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I thought PEVs were to he abolished unless a new amendment goers through synod. They cooked their own geese when they started pretending to have dioceses like 'The See of Ebbsfleet' and were prayed for as 'Andrew our Bishop' (Our bishop is Mike of Bristol, not Jonathan of Ebbsfleet)

Why does the OP put inverted commas around +Pete Willesden.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
I agree with almost everything in this thread except for the opening post. I particularly agree with what Albertus has said, and what Alogon said about ex opere operator which is endorsed by Article 26. As for the notion that people should be able to pick and choose to have their babies baptised by their favorite vicar, haven't they read this.

However, I want to take issue with something else about the term that appears later in the thread, "Traditional Catholic". I suspect many shipmates will be upset by this, but words matter. Traditional Catholic" does not mean the same thing as "Catholic Tradition".

As far as the Cs of E or W are concerned, however strongly you may support the Catholic Tradition, there is no such thing as a 'Traditional Catholic'. You must choose a different phrase. The whole of Anglo-Catholicism in its modern form is an innovation that did not exist before 1833. You can claim with pride to be Anglo-Catholic. You can claim to be in the Catholic Tradition. But if you are Anglican and are desperate to claim to be "traditionally' anything, I regret to say, even if you are 'high and dry' after the best C18 model, you have to be traditionally Protestant. As a member of the CofE rather than the CofR you can no more claim to be a Traditional Catholic than a Thatcherite can claim to be a 'Traditional Conservative'.
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:


Why does the OP put inverted commas around +Pete Willesden. [/QB]

Perhaps he is such a traditionalist that he cannot accept a man can be both a bishop and a berk.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I am also concerned that the OP envisages anglo-catholicism as a sect within a denomination - I have heard people talk of 'The Anglo Catholic Church.' Bishops do not be;long to one party - even PEVs have evangelical parishes who seek their oversight.

Also, I don't like the idea that a diocese has been 'in our hands' for a long time. There is a lot to be said for alternating evangelical/catholic/liberal appointments to dioceses
 
Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
They cooked their own geese when they started pretending to have dioceses like 'The See of Ebbsfleet'...

Ebbsfleet is a See. See is not a synonym for Diocese.

See (no pun intended) for example:
http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/suffragan-see-of-lynn/

or more appropriately...
http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/suffragan-see-of-ebbsfleet/

You may have many reasons to criticise the former Incumbent of that particular See, but this isn't one of them.
 
Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I agree with almost everything in this thread except for the opening post. I particularly agree with what Albertus has said, and what Alogon said about ex opere operator which is endorsed by Article 26. As for the notion that people should be able to pick and choose to have their babies baptised by their favorite vicar, haven't they read this.

However, I want to take issue with something else about the term that appears later in the thread, "Traditional Catholic". I suspect many shipmates will be upset by this, but words matter. Traditional Catholic" does not mean the same thing as "Catholic Tradition".

As far as the Cs of E or W are concerned, however strongly you may support the Catholic Tradition, there is no such thing as a 'Traditional Catholic'. You must choose a different phrase. The whole of Anglo-Catholicism in its modern form is an innovation that did not exist before 1833. You can claim with pride to be Anglo-Catholic. You can claim to be in the Catholic Tradition. But if you are Anglican and are desperate to claim to be "traditionally' anything, I regret to say, even if you are 'high and dry' after the best C18 model, you have to be traditionally Protestant. As a member of the CofE rather than the CofR you can no more claim to be a Traditional Catholic than a Thatcherite can claim to be a 'Traditional Conservative'.

This was kind of my point in posting. People are happy to knock down any labels that this constituency adopt (or labels that are adopted on their behalf), but what ARE we meant to call them?

Incidentally, I use Traditional Catholic because that's the label that the General Synod Revision Committee adopted in their work on Women in the Episcopate.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Does anyone remember those old TV adverts for some bank or other (no doubt now defunct and taken over by a government-funded Spanish plumbing chain) where the bank manager was kept in a broom cupboard and emerged suddenly every now and again to help the family with their financial affairs and then went back inside again till next needed?

It seems we now want bishops like that.

"You have your bishop, we have our bishop. We keep him in the vestment press and bring him out for ordinations, confirmations, barbecues, and major theological disputations."

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

The whole of Anglo-Catholicism in its modern form is an innovation that did not exist before 1833.

Most of it didn't exist before about 1880, and quite a lot of it not till the 1920s.

quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:

Incidentally, I use Traditional Catholic because that's the label that the General Synod Revision Committee adopted in their work on Women in the Episcopate.

God forbid that anyone should reject the hallowed terminology of the General Synod Revision Committee. [Razz] [Big Grin]
 
Posted by AngloCatholicDude (# 16476) on :
 
I have faith that +Ebor will appoint a new Bishop of Beverley and I hope the General Synod allow this new man to flourish (who ever he may be)

I believe that with Chichester having been part of the Forward in Faith Catholic Bishops Family for quite a long time starting from Eric Kemp and John Hind

I put "+Pete Willesden" in comma's because he was involved in chairing a Working Party that looked into the Area Scheme, which went to the Diocesan Synod in October and the House of Bishops in November.

I heard from a member of Fulham clergy all went well with that and he believes the process has now started.

He did indeed leave me with 2 possible names.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:

"You have your bishop, we have our bishop. We keep him in the vestment press and bring him out for ordinations, confirmations, barbecues, and major theological disputations."

[Snigger]
Seems like they are getting their revenge for the days when 'protestant' bishops put 'catholic' parishes 'under the ban.'

quote:
The Bishop will not visit me, nor take my confirmations;
Colonial prelates I employ from far-off mission stations.

Acknowledgements to the late Dr Eric Mascall ("The Ultra-Catholic")
 
Posted by otyetsfoma (# 12898) on :
 
You did not have to be an ultra prot bishop to discipline mad anglo-catholics. Winnington-Ingram would to my Orthodox view seem a reasonably catholic bishop, but there was a church in Fulham he would not go to because they isisted they had to have Benediction in Latin.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:


Why does the OP put inverted commas around +Pete Willesden.

Perhaps he is such a traditionalist that he cannot accept a man can be both a bishop and a berk. [/QB]
Is this gratuitously offensive or am I missing something?
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
Aumbry is always gratuitously offensive. Ignore.
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
Now that the Area Scheme review has been agreed by London Diocesan Synod, the aim is to promulge an updated version of the London Plan. That can then make it possible for an appointment of a new Bishop of Fulham, if the Bishop of London thinks that such an appointment should be made.
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
They cooked their own geese when they started pretending to have dioceses like 'The See of Ebbsfleet'...

Ebbsfleet is a See. See is not a synonym for Diocese.

This man's See is the Indian Ocean. [Big Grin]

Sorry, just being frivolous. As you were.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Aumbry is always gratuitously offensive. Ignore.

I'm glad I wasn't being more than usually 'twp'.

BTW, +Pete, I don't think 'promulge' is right, unless it's some kind of Anglican technical neologism. I think the word is 'promulgate'.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
I'd like to say that making new words is an expression of episcopal creativity, but it appears promulge is an archaic form of promulgate. Oh well.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I'd like to say that making new words is an expression of episcopal creativity, but it appears promulge is an archaic form of promulgate. Oh well.

Really? How ghastly. OED is your friend and my nemesis.
 
Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Aumbry is always gratuitously offensive. Ignore.

I'm glad I wasn't being more than usually 'twp'.

BTW, +Pete, I don't think 'promulge' is right, unless it's some kind of Anglican technical neologism. I think the word is 'promulgate'.

Nice to see the good old Welsh word twp again. How long before you are asked to gloss it?

No - 'promulge' is clearly derived from the astonishingly rare low Latin verb promulgeo meaning 'to milk in advance'. As in nursing mothers 'expressing'.

If those posting immediately above can be frivolous ..... [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Divulge is a word so it makes sense.
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
A Catholic is usually someone who is a member of the Roman Catholic Church.

Indeed - usually. But we Anglo-Catholics/Catholic Anglicans/Anglican Catholics* have been doing our best since we got started to curb that body's claims to a monopoly on the moniker.

I've never been sold, incidentally, on the interpretation that "Catholic Anglican" (or "Evangelical Anglican" for that matter) suggests "Catholic first." Grammatically at least it seems equally plausible to suggest that having "Catholic" as the modifier implies that Anglicanism is the baseline.

*In North America there is some potential for confusion as the name "Anglican Catholic" is also used in a proprietary way by certain continuing Anglican groups, but they are relatively small and context usually anchors references to them.
 
Posted by AngloCatholicDude (# 16476) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Now that the Area Scheme review has been agreed by London Diocesan Synod, the aim is to promulge an updated version of the London Plan. That can then make it possible for an appointment of a new Bishop of Fulham, if the Bishop of London thinks that such an appointment should be made.

When you say if +Richard Londin thinks that such an appointment should be made, he said exactly a year and a bit ago that
quote:
"After consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury, I intend with the assistance of representative figures in the Diocese, to appoint a successor to the Suffragan See of Fulham. I envisage that any new Bishop of Fulham will be more closely related to me as the Bishop of London in serving the Two Cities Area.
So surely he can't now go back on his word and say that he doesn't want to appoint anybody. Wouldn't it be easier in a sense of rather him appointing a new Bishop of Fulham, he moves Bishop Peter Wheatley over to Fulham and appoints a new bishop to the London Suffragan See of Edmonton

I know advertising isn't really a common practice within Fulham but would Bishop Richard possibly accept suggestion of possible names or criteria.

In a sense I don't believe there is a rush to appoint a new Bishop of Fulham but I do feel that maybe a year's vacancy is overly long so now is there really a point of a new bishop for fulham?

The only importance I feel is the necessity for a new Bishop of Fulham is that we have uncertain times coming up for all of us, not only those who don't believe in the Ordination of Women but those who are also in support of it.

I believe that it's essential that those Parishes that have seeked extended episcopal oversight from Motion A,B,C have their own Bishop to lead them through this time.

In a sense although +Peter Edmonton could do both for unity sake I don't believe it's wise for a Bishop who in his area has quite a few female clergy to take up a Flying Bishop type role, which clearly doesn't support female ministry
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
Well, that may be your view. But that's not how we operate in the Diocese of London. We don't do "purity" or woman free zones.

Bishop Peter's position on the ordination of women is quite clear. The fact that he has women priests within his episcopal area doesn't disqualify him from giving appropriate episcopal care to the clergy and parishes who have asked for extended oversight.

If you want sanitised zones where there are no women priests, you're in the wrong church. There's another place for that. What we do in London is live together in mutual respect, recognising the boundaries. But the more I hear people moaning that they haven't got a Bishop of Fulham, the more I want to ask them "Have you recognised the quality of pastoral care and oversight that you now have with the Bishop of Edmonton? Have you not noticed the sea change (see change??) from what was going on before?"

You'll get a Bishop of Fulham - but it won't be someone who will hermetically seal you in a little box, away from the rest of the CofE in London.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
I wish more bishops would speak as honestly as that. I am very reluctant to worship in one nearby church because they insist on praying for the Flying Bishop as 'our Bishop' and virtually ignore the diocesan.
 
Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
But the more I hear people moaning that they haven't got a Bishop of Fulham, the more I want to ask them "Have you recognised the quality of pastoral care and oversight that you now have with the Bishop of Edmonton? Have you not noticed the sea change (see change??) from what was going on before?"

I worry most about the added strain on the poor man, actually. Though +Pete is probably the wrong person to say this to, having pretty much run 2 episcopal areas for several months recently (with a few weeks off in the middle... [Devil] )
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I wish more bishops would speak as honestly as that. I am very reluctant to worship in one nearby church because they insist on praying for the Flying Bishop as 'our Bishop' and virtually ignore the diocesan.

As a matter of interest, do you think that PEVs should celebrate chrism Masses?

Thurible
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I wish more bishops would speak as honestly as that. I am very reluctant to worship in one nearby church because they insist on praying for the Flying Bishop as 'our Bishop' and virtually ignore the diocesan.

As a matter of interest, do you think that PEVs should celebrate chrism Masses?

Thurible

It's more complicated than that of course. My understanding is that they do this because they believe that they are in 'impaired communion' with the diocese (is that the correct term?) If that were the case it is a perfectly logical thing to have a separate Chrism mass. But as +Pete suggests, you are either in or out. Now that the Ordinariate is a possibility I don't think there is any justification for a separate semi-papalist sect within the C of E. But maybe we're getting near the horses' graveyard.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
'Catholic' (rather than catholic) is already a label which is widely used and understood to define a particular Church,

That would be the Church in which we profess our faith whenever we say the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds. Maybe it's different in some parts of the world, but last time I looked in the TEC BCP (either current or 1928), the adjective was capitalized. What is the authority for considering a low-c catholic with a different meaning?
The word 'catholic' - in the creeds or outside it - is not capitalized in The Book of Common Prayer for the Church of Ireland; nor in the Church of England's Common Worship liturgy. Catholic and apostolic are both lower-case and spelt without the 'k'.

True, in the 1928 rem-mix of the 1662 BCP (CofE) you get both the old spelling and the capitalization - along with the capitalizing of a number of other words, including 'Scriptures, 'Prophets', 'Apostolick', 'Baptism', 'Resurrection' and a handful of 'Ands' at the beginning of sentences [Big Grin] .

But I don't feel compelled, as a result of this, to either capitalize those words every time I come across them, or revert to obsolete spelling of them. This liturgy represents the Protestant movement of the age towards a reformed Church - Catholic or catholic, I grant you. But nevertheless the Catholic Church as it was known, remained in its original Roman form. And I'm pretty sure few users of the original prayer books would have labelled themselves 'Catholics' at the time, unless they actually were Roman Catholics!

I'm pointing out that, generally, if someone describes themselves as 'Catholic' followed by whatever word they choose to put after that, most people would assume they are a Catholic - a member of the Roman Catholic Community, under the authority of the Pope.

I really do appreciate that some people have very definite and personal ideas in mind when they use phrases with that word (big or little c!). And I wouldn't for the world want them to compromise whatever sensibility it is they have for making whatever that point is. I shall happily refer to someone as a 'Catholic Anglican' if that is how they wish to be known. Though I still don't understand what is wrong with the phrase 'Anglo-catholic' or even 'Anglo-Catholic'. Or even Anglo-Catholick, if we're going to be strict about BCP usage!

But then I consider myself an Anglican (Christian first, of course), a protestant affirming the faith of the catholic Church. This, to me, seems to be the reason why the reformations were taking place - to enable a true catholicity of faith to continue but not necessarily within the Roman Catholic jurisdiction, nor dependant on the authority of a Pope.

A bit like acknowledging that the ocean covers the planet but the Atlantic Ocean only occupies a particular territory. I wouldn't go to the stake for it, Alogon, though. It just seemed a needlessly awkward and obscure phrase to use. But that's just what I think, which is certainly not gospel!
 
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :
 
PEVs and Chrism Masses will continue to be an issue as long as (a) they are allowed to happen; (b) there is an insistence that all clergy be able to concelebrate.

IM not at all HO the Chrism Mass should aim to display what unity we still have.

This issue arose when my Curate (a female FiF permanent deacon) asked which Chrism Mass she should attend. I asked her whose Deacon she was - if the diocesan Bishop's, then his Chrism Mass, if the PEV's, then she should consider how honestly she held the diocesan's licence. The situation is not helped in that the PEV is in a different Province (Canterbury) from ours (Wales).

She comes to the Chrism Mass as a member of the team, and we all sit together in the congregation. It isn't very easy for her, and it isn't very easy for the rest of the team, but it's where we are, and it's honest. I like to think it might be godly as well...
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
PEVs and Chrism Masses will continue to be an issue as long as (a) they are allowed to happen; (b) there is an insistence that all clergy be able to concelebrate.

IM not at all HO the Chrism Mass should aim to display what unity we still have.

This issue arose when my Curate (a female FiF permanent deacon) asked which Chrism Mass she should attend. I asked her whose Deacon she was - if the diocesan Bishop's, then his Chrism Mass, if the PEV's, then she should consider how honestly she held the diocesan's licence. The situation is not helped in that the PEV is in a different Province (Canterbury) from ours (Wales).

She comes to the Chrism Mass as a member of the team, and we all sit together in the congregation. It isn't very easy for her, and it isn't very easy for the rest of the team, but it's where we are, and it's honest. I like to think it might be godly as well...

How does that work- a CofE PEV having some sort of responsibility for/ oversight of/ mission to people in the CinW? I thought I was reasonably clued up on the CinW but I hadn't heard of this happening.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
If you want sanitised zones where there are no women priests, you're in the wrong church.

Yet the Episcopal Act of Synod, the creation of the PEV's and Resolutions A,B and C did indeed provide such sanitised zones. With + Londin's recent pastoral letter, and his comments on a new + Fulham, we see the C of E preparing to sweep away all the "benefits" if that is one's view, of the provisions for dissenter to the OoW made in the 90's. Those parishes which still live under the resolutions, are indeed going to see that they are in the wrong church, notwithstanding the promises made, that both integrities have a time honoured place, and can call themselves faithful Anglicans. The London bishops are leading the way in showing us the Church of England of the future.
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
This shouldn't really focus on the ministry within one diocese, but I am quite clear that the way in which we operate in London is entirely consonant with all that legislation. Nobody is forced into compromising their sacramental principles about what they call impaired communion. The Bishop of Edmonton does not ordain women, and his pastoral care to Fulham clergy is entirely uncompromised in your terms. But it's not an option for anyone in the CofE to ignore, be rude to, or ridicule the woman incumbent in the next door parish, even if you don't believe them to be a priest. That's been true from the beginning. You can have separate Maundy Thursday communions, separate ordinations, and all the stuff for your comfort zones. But you can't opt out of the parochial system, the deanery, or the Archdeaconry. If you want to do so, then off to the Ordinariate. End of.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
They cooked their own geese when they started pretending to have dioceses like 'The See of Ebbsfleet'...

Ebbsfleet is a See. See is not a synonym for Diocese.

See (no pun intended) for example:
http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/suffragan-see-of-lynn/

or more appropriately...
http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/suffragan-see-of-ebbsfleet/

You may have many reasons to criticise the former Incumbent of that particular See, but this isn't one of them.

I am glad to stand corrected - though my point about praying for a PEV as 'X our bishop' still stands.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The London bishops are leading the way in showing us the Church of England of the future.

If so, it's not before time.
 
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
How does that work- a CofE PEV having some sort of responsibility for/ oversight of/ mission to people in the CinW? I thought I was reasonably clued up on the CinW but I hadn't heard of this happening.

You're asking the wrong person - I don't know how it works either. The C in W did have a Provincial Assistant Bishop who functioned as an assistant to each bishop in his respective diocese. Since he wasn't replaced when he retired, many of the FiF contingent have taken to attending Chrism Masses in England.
 
Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
This shouldn't really focus on the ministry within one diocese, but I am quite clear that the way in which we operate in London is entirely consonant with all that legislation. Nobody is forced into compromising their sacramental principles about what they call impaired communion. The Bishop of Edmonton does not ordain women, and his pastoral care to Fulham clergy is entirely uncompromised in your terms. But it's not an option for anyone in the CofE to ignore, be rude to, or ridicule the woman incumbent in the next door parish, even if you don't believe them to be a priest. That's been true from the beginning. You can have separate Maundy Thursday communions, separate ordinations, and all the stuff for your comfort zones. But you can't opt out of the parochial system, the deanery, or the Archdeaconry. If you want to do so, then off to the Ordinariate. End of.

I'd just like to say that my experience of working under the "ABC" system in London has been entirely positive, including in the post +Broadhurst era. There certainly have been dioceses in the Church of England where life has been made as difficult as possible for trad-caths, but London is not one of them.

It's always been "Richard and John/Peter our bishops" in my parish. I consider both the diocesan and the bishop who exercises our regular pastoral care as "our bishop".

+Pete is correct, as ever, in saying that one cannot opt out of the Deanery & Archdeaconry. I do, however, see a difference between those structures (which are primarily legal/administrative) and the particularly sacramental notion of a college of priests gathered around the bishop to whom they look for sacramental oversight - which is why I'm firmly in favour of a +Fulham Chrism Mass
 
Posted by otyetsfoma (# 12898) on :
 
Why do we suppose that if the CofE makes a mistake the papal church must be right? I found that when I could no longer accept the new doctrines of the CofE I could be quite comfortable in Orthodoxy without having to swallow what I believe to be the errors of the Roman See.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
How does that work- a CofE PEV having some sort of responsibility for/ oversight of/ mission to people in the CinW? I thought I was reasonably clued up on the CinW but I hadn't heard of this happening.

You're asking the wrong person - I don't know how it works either. The C in W did have a Provincial Assistant Bishop who functioned as an assistant to each bishop in his respective diocese. Since he wasn't replaced when he retired, many of the FiF contingent have taken to attending Chrism Masses in England.
Could they be persuaded to stay there, do we think?
Seriously and all peevishness aside, this business of alternative Chrism Masses, which I hadn't twigged went on until now, just underlines the extent to which the whole alternative oversight thing is institutionalising schism within the church. A clean break I could understand, and those who break cleanly I can respect: I also have some sympathy for those who were in the church- as clergy or laity- before OoW and have found it changing around them. But it's worth remembering that OoW in the CofE was nearly 20 years ago. This means that, if we are talking about clergy, no cleric under the age of about 42 now should have had any illusions about what sort of church they were being ordained into- I know there was all that guff about two integrities, but anyone (on either side of the debate) who thought that was a basis for anything more than a temporary period of adjustment was guilty of at best naivety and more likely wilful self-deception. Time now, surely, to draw a line and say no more ordinations- certainly no more consecrations- af anyone who is unwilling to recognise the validity of the orders of all the church's clergy- whatever is inside their underpants.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
But it's not an option for anyone in the CofE to ignore, be rude to, or ridicule the woman incumbent in the next door parish, even if you don't believe them to be a priest.

I think this is the key point here. I see no good reason why we shouldn't still be ordaining good candidates from the second of the integrities, and lots of reasons why we should. What we should try to avoid though, is the ordination of pillocks.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by oyetsfoma:
Why do we suppose that if the CofE makes a mistake the papal church must be right? I found that when I could no longer accept the new doctrines of the CofE I could be quite comfortable in Orthodoxy without having to swallow what I believe to be the errors of the Roman See.

Or course you are within your rights to see things that way. I love the Orthodox Church, and its wonderful liturgy. I have quite seriously considered joining it. But I am a West European. Old Slavonic, a different calendar, and Orthodoxy's total lack of ecumenism, are what would defeat me. I am much more comfortable with Latin and the Roman See.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
.
If so, it's not before time

The C of E Synod has lied to Parliament and it has lied to the Church. It promised in 1993, that both integrities would be respected. Bearing in mind that women's ordination was an innovation at that time, it was to be a period of reception. Raising women to the episcopate was a logical outcome of that discernment. So why does the C of E now refuse to honour its promises. The legislation to allow women priests would never have got through parliament, but for the Episcopal Act of Synod. The mood in synod and in parliament is now much different.

Does this allow the C of E to traduce its promises? I hope that enough voters, with a sense of justice, will cause the legislation to ordain women bishops to fail. Not because I want to stop or delay women becoming bishops, bacuse it will happen anyway. But because I want the Church of England to honour the promises it made about both integrities having a time honoured place within the C of E, and provide the structural solution , advocated by the Archbishop of Canterbury, which alone can allow many, who really want to, to remain within the Church of England.
 
Posted by Fifi (# 8151) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

. . . But it's worth remembering that OoW in the CofE was nearly 20 years ago. This means that, if we are talking about clergy, no cleric under the age of about 42 now should have had any illusions about what sort of church they were being ordained into . . .

The 'sort of church' into which they were ordained was one which had promised those unable in conscience to receive the ordination of women 'an honoured place' for as long as was necessary and had underpinned that honoured place by means of Schedule 1 of the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 1993 and the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod 1993. Section 1 of the latter makes the position admirably clear:

'Except as provided by the Measure and this Act no person or body shall discriminate against candidates either for ordination or for appointment to senior office in the Church of England on the grounds of their views about the ordination of women to the priesthood.'

Sorry, but that is the way it is (until the General Synod welches on the deal).
 
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fifi:
Sorry, but that is the way it is (until the General Synod welches on the deal).

You are quite correct, Fifi, and this applies to the C in W as well, although the theological position of the PAB's office was a touch more strongly based than that of the PEVs.

You also highlight the principal problem, in that both arrangements are predicated on a deal. Deals are a poor way to establish any lasting or equitable solution within a community of faith. The atmosphere on both sides of the deal has been fouled with suspicion and vituperation, and those few of us on either side who have made concerted efforts to find a modus vivendi are also often viewed with suspicion.

To echo my earlier post, I don't think it's a very godly way to behave. If what +Pete is describing reflects what is actually happening at parish level, then at least there is someone out there who is modelling real Anglican comprehensiveness.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Look, I'm not suggesting that that wasn't done in good faith. The problem is that it can't be sustained, even though lots of good people (and I mean that) on all sides intended that it should and hoped that it would and tried to make it work. So it's not a matter of welching on the deal: it's more a case of having to look again at an arrangement that was made, in all honesty and with the best of intentions, nearly a generation ago, and seeing what needs to be done now to deal with the way that things have turned out. We cannot sustain a mini-church within a church when that mini-church does not fully recognise the rest of the church within which it sits. That goes for FiF, and for evangelicals who get foreign bishops to ordain clergy because they see their diocesan as soft on gays, and for any other group of a similar kind.
 
Posted by Fifi (# 8151) on :
 
Of course I agree that deals are a poor way to establish any lasting or equitable solution. Had the settlement of 1992/3 been constructed as a covenant, we might not be in the mess we are in now. Or there again . . .
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The C of E Synod<snip> promised in 1993, that both integrities would be respected.

I have seen this quoted often, together with the "honoured place" that was promised. I'd really like to look at these statements in their original context. Where can I find them?
 
Posted by Fifi (# 8151) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
The problem is that it can't be sustained, even though lots of good people (and I mean that) on all sides intended that it should and hoped that it would and tried to make it work.

Lots of good people, yes - but nowhere near enough! The Pilling Report [GS1650] of 2007 hit the nail on the head and it's worth re-visiting paragraphs 4.5.4 & 4.5.5 here.

And, in concluding that section, the Report said:

'4.5.9 It has been suggested to us that the small number of appointments of traditional catholics results from an unwillingness on the part of the majority of those (ordained and lay) who are consulted in most dioceses to accept the appointment of someone of traditional catholic opinion. But as long as those opinions may legitimately be held by Church of England clergy, such an unwillingness will need to be challenged. The Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod represented a solemn undertaking on the part of the Church of England as a whole to the minority who do not agree with the ordination of women to the priesthood. It is not for us to express a view as to whether that undertaking should continue, or what effect the ordination of women to the episcopate might have on it. We are clear, however, that as long as that undertaking does continue to be enshrined in an Act of Synod, those who make senior appointments (principally, though not exclusively, diocesan bishops) have an obligation positively to confront resistance to the appointment of members of the minority and ensure that such candidates receive fair and equal consideration. We recommend that efforts be made to persuade both those responsible for making appointments and those whom they consult that while the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod remains in force its prohibition of discrimination should be adhered to.'
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I want the Church of England to honour the promises it made about both integrities having a time honoured place within the C of E

As a supporter of women's ordination, so do I. I think the CofE is honour-bound to keep a place for those who cannot accept women as priests, and is at fault to the extent that it fails to do so.

But really, all that means is we don't treat people of this view as second-class Anglicans, or hinder the ministries they are called to, or put them in situations where they have no option but to rely on the priestly ministry of a woman (possibly extending to, now that we are going to have female bishops, those ordained by women). It means treating them as faithful Anglicans.

It doesn't mean guaranteeing them their own bishops and male-only clerical enclaves. That is treating them as faithful Anglicans, but as an isolated sect associated only in name with the rest of us.

The nonsense of the OP, with it's misappropriation of the label "Catholic" and the absurd demand for "our own" bishop, when at the moment every bishop in London is decidedly male, and does not need to trace his spiritual descent through the female line, demonstrates that the fault here is not all on one side. What the CofE should do is absolutely guarantee - irrevocably and in perpetuity - the availability of male priests and bishops to those who cannot in conscience accept female ones, and what the minority to whom that promise is made should do in return is to act as if they were in the same church as we are. Respect goes both ways. When the anti-OoW side complain that they need their own separate bishops, and that even male bishops ordained by men are unacceptable unless they also separate themselves from the discipline and practice of the majority in the church, they are showing as little respect to our integrity as we are (sadly) often tempted to show to theirs.
 
Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

But really, all that means is we don't treat people of this view as second-class Anglicans, or hinder the ministries they are called to, or put them in situations where they have no option but to rely on the priestly ministry of a woman (possibly extending to, now that we are going to have female bishops, those ordained by women) . It means treating them as faithful Anglicans.

[/qb]

The current legislation on the table does not do this, incidentally.

[ 16. December 2011, 10:29: Message edited by: The Man with a Stick ]
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
....yawns and goes out to help families with food parcels .......
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
The current legislation on the table does not do this, incidentally.

I know. It should.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
This means that, if we are talking about clergy, no cleric under the age of about 42 now should have had any illusions about what sort of church they were being ordained into- I know there was all that guff about two integrities, but anyone (on either side of the debate) who thought that was a basis for anything more than a temporary period of adjustment was guilty of at best naivety and more likely wilful self-deception.

You know - I had this strange idea that when a clergy person made a promise, I should be able to trust them. It appears that I need to start operating a policy of counting my tea spoons after a visit by them instead, as they are apparently not to be trusted. Which to those of us with a sense of history won't come as a great surprise, but don't expect us to cough up for anything in the future with the label 'Church of England' on it. And does your wife realise that you have such a relaxed attitude to promises? After all men are men, can't be trusted can they? So you can't be expected to resist a little something on the side - oh - she's been naive to expect better? After all we KNOW that you aren't honourable... [Projectile]

That's what starts to happen when we relax our attitude to promises - bad stuff. One of the stranger concepts in traditional warfare is 'legitimacy by conquest'. Basically the deal was that if an invader clearly beat you, then you could surrender in the expectation that you would not be killed, in exchange for accepting that you wouldn't take up arms against that invader again. This allowed the invader not to have to commit genocide in order to ensure that his enemy wouldn't take the opportunity to stab him in the back when he had the chance; in honour he was bound to accept that he had been defeated. The proponents of the deal want to unwind it - very well - you need to undertake to return all the charitable donations to the CofE since then since those who made them were misled as to the nature of the church they were contributing to, as well as guaranteeing the priests who've been ordained since their stipend and housing for the rest of their working career. That's the proper price for you to pay. To do otherwise merely shows you to be the sort of dishonourable priest whose existence confirms atheists in their belief that God doesn't exist.
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The C of E Synod<snip> promised in 1993, that both integrities would be respected.

I have seen this quoted often, together with the "honoured place" that was promised. I'd really like to look at these statements in their original context. Where can I find them?
As would I. Not because I doubt them but because they point to what for me is the most curious fact about the issue - namely, that those who do not accept the ordination of women genuinely seem to believe that what the Act of Synod said was 'You can make any demand of us or our successors and we are duty bound to give it to you, no questions asked, and nothing will ever be required of you'. It is pretty clear that this is not the case and nor was it ever meant to be.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Look, there's a difference here.

Ordination is not an entitlement. Equalities, fairness etc have no bearing on it. The church should not select who it ordains on the basis, 'we've got to be fair to such and such a group'. It should select a person only because it thinks they'd make a good priest.

When the ordination of women came in, existing clergy had an entirely sound point in saying, 'this is a step too far', 'I can't stomach this', 'this isn't the church I was ordained into', 'who knows where this will lead?'.

Besides, where people are advocating change, the burden always lies upon them to persuade the rest, rather than upon the rest to be obliged to follow.


It's a bit different now. There've been female clergy now for several years. It is inevitable that there will soon be female bishops. It's a bit odd that a young man should now seek ordination in the CofE, who really believes,
- that women cannot be ordained,
- that therefore a lot of his fellow clergy will not be clergy at all,
- that even most of his fellow male clergy are seriously wrong, except for him and few chums,
- that he only wishes to be ordained to a side show in his church of like minded people,
- that he is only willing to be available to serve laity in such an enclave.

If I were to be asked to counsel future ordinands, something which is very unlikely to happen, I'd want to ask some very probing questions of such a young man as to what he really thought priesthood was about. I'd feel that they had a question mark over them unless they'd managed to persuade me. Nobody has the right to say 'I am entitled to be ordained'.
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
This means that, if we are talking about clergy, no cleric under the age of about 42 now should have had any illusions about what sort of church they were being ordained into- I know there was all that guff about two integrities, but anyone (on either side of the debate) who thought that was a basis for anything more than a temporary period of adjustment was guilty of at best naivety and more likely wilful self-deception.

You know - I had this strange idea that when a clergy person made a promise, I should be able to trust them.
Yeah - the next thing you know, clergy will be taking vows to only use authorised forms of liturgy and then
complaining when required to actually DO so. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by egg (# 3982) on :
 
The Church of England is the Reformed Branch of the Catholic Church established in England. From 597 until 1534 it recognised the authority of the Pope. Since then, with a brief interval from 1553 to 1558, it has not done so; but the continuity from 597 until to-day has not been broken. Thus Rowan Williams is the 104th Archbishop of Canterbury, not the 34th. The Church of England is properly termed both Catholic and Reformed. It can also be said to be Protestant, since it protested, and protests, against the assumed jurisdiction of the Pope.

A lot of importance has been placed by some people on the fact that the Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. But this means no more than is stated in Article 37 of the 39 Articles, that the Bishop of Rome has no jurisdiction in this realm of England superior to that of the Sovereign. This is made clear in the Oath of Supremacy set out in the Act of Supremacy 1559:

“I, A. B., do utterly testify and declare in my conscience that the Queen's Highness is the only supreme governor of this realm, and of all other her Highness's dominions and countries, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes, as temporal, and that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority ecclesiastical or spiritual within this realm; and therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign jurisdictions, powers, superiorities and authorities, and do promise that from henceforth I shall bear faith and true allegiance to the Queen's Highness, her heirs and lawful successors, and to my power shall assist and defend all jurisdictions, pre-eminences, privileges and authorities granted or belonging to the Queen's Highness, her heirs or successors, or united or annexed to the imperial crown of this realm. So help me God, and by the contents of this Book.”

Thus in the bidding prayer used in places like the Temple Church, we pray for “Our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth II, over all persons and in all causes, ecclesiastical as well as civil, within her dominions supreme”.

If one asks who is the Supreme Governor of the Roman Catholic Church in this country, the answer is the Queen; for it is only under legislation passed by the Queen in Parliament that the Roman Catholic Church was enabled to establish its hierarchy in England in 1850.
 
Posted by Fifi (# 8151) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The C of E Synod<snip> promised in 1993, that both integrities would be respected.

I have seen this quoted often, together with the "honoured place" that was promised. I'd really like to look at these statements in their original context. Where can I find them?
For starters, take a look at this:

Hansard, House of Commons, Friday 29 October 1993, Column 1089

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners)
…

'Recognising the divided views in the Church on the issue, the remainder of the Measure provides an elaborate and comprehensive set of safeguards designed to ensure that those who, in conscience, cannot accept the ordination of women as priests are not asked to act against their conscience. Under canon law, a parish priest can already decide who may share in the administration of sacrament in his church and, if he wishes, he can exclude a woman from doing so. Clause 3 enables a parochial church council to pass either or both of the resolutions set out in schedule 1. These are, first, under resolution A, that the parochial church council would not accept a woman to preside at or celebrate Holy Communion or pronounce the absolution in the parish--those acts that are specifically reserved to the ministry--and, secondly, under resolution B, that the council "would not accept a woman as the incumbent or priest-in-charge of the benefice or as a team vicar for the benefice."

Both this and clause 4, which relates to cathedrals, are continuing provisions without limit of time--built-in, permanent parochial safeguards.'

(My emphasis)
 
Posted by egg (# 3982) on :
 
The Church of England is the Reformed Branch of the Catholic Church established in England. From 597 until 1534 it recognised the authority of the Pope. Since then, with a brief interval from 1553 to 1558, it has not done so; but the continuity from 597 until to-day has not been broken. Thus Rowan Williams is the 104th Archbishop of Canterbury, not the 34th. The Church of England is properly termed both Catholic and Reformed. It can also be said to be Protestant, since it protested, and protests, against the assumed jurisdiction of the Pope.

A lot of importance has been placed by some people on the fact that the Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. But this means no more than is stated in Article 37 of the 39 Articles, that the Bishop of Rome has no jurisdiction in this realm of England superior to that of the Sovereign. This is made clear in the Oath of Supremacy set out in the Act of Supremacy 1559:

“I, A. B., do utterly testify and declare in my conscience that the Queen's Highness is the only supreme governor of this realm, and of all other her Highness's dominions and countries, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes, as temporal, and that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority ecclesiastical or spiritual within this realm; and therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign jurisdictions, powers, superiorities and authorities, and do promise that from henceforth I shall bear faith and true allegiance to the Queen's Highness, her heirs and lawful successors, and to my power shall assist and defend all jurisdictions, pre-eminences, privileges and authorities granted or belonging to the Queen's Highness, her heirs or successors, or united or annexed to the imperial crown of this realm. So help me God, and by the contents of this Book.”

Thus in the bidding prayer used in places like the Temple Church, we pray for “Our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth II, over all persons and in all causes, ecclesiastical as well as civil, within her dominions supreme”.

If one asks who is the Supreme Governor of the Roman Catholic Church in this country, the answer is the Queen; for it is only under legislation passed by the Queen in Parliament that the Roman Catholic Church was enabled to establish its hierarchy in England in 1850.
 
Posted by Fifi (# 8151) on :
 
And then there is this:

Lambeth Conference, 1998, Resolution III.2

'This Conference . . . in particular calls upon the provinces of the Communion to affirm that those who dissent from, as well as those who assent to, the ordination of women to the priesthood and eiscopate are both loyal Anglicans . . .'

Which was followed here by:

10 July 2006

‘That this Synod, endorsing Resolution III.2 of the Lambeth Conference 1998 “that
those who dissent from, as well as those who assent to the ordination of women to the
priesthood and episcopate are both loyal Anglicans” . . . '
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fifi:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The C of E Synod<snip> promised in 1993, that both integrities would be respected.

I have seen this quoted often, together with the "honoured place" that was promised. I'd really like to look at these statements in their original context. Where can I find them?
For starters, take a look at this:

Hansard, House of Commons, Friday 29 October 1993, Column 1089

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners)
…

'Recognising the divided views in the Church on the issue, the remainder of the Measure provides an elaborate and comprehensive set of safeguards designed to ensure that those who, in conscience, cannot accept the ordination of women as priests are not asked to act against their conscience. Under canon law, a parish priest can already decide who may share in the administration of sacrament in his church and, if he wishes, he can exclude a woman from doing so. Clause 3 enables a parochial church council to pass either or both of the resolutions set out in schedule 1. These are, first, under resolution A, that the parochial church council would not accept a woman to preside at or celebrate Holy Communion or pronounce the absolution in the parish--those acts that are specifically reserved to the ministry--and, secondly, under resolution B, that the council "would not accept a woman as the incumbent or priest-in-charge of the benefice or as a team vicar for the benefice."

Both this and clause 4, which relates to cathedrals, are continuing provisions without limit of time--built-in, permanent parochial safeguards.'

But, in context, what he is saying is that this is a measure which is not time limited rather than a temporary measure for a term of years, and that (at the time of speaking) there is no specific intention to repeal the measure after some given interval.

Earlier in the debate he expressly declares (column 1088)
quote:
the Church of England is subject to synodical government, which includes a representational and--dare one use the word without theological undertones--democratic factor. No fixed or final undertaking--my right hon. Friend will, I think, understand this--can be given by archbishops or bishops in ecumenical or other discussions with other churches that must stand firmly, fixedly and eternally in the face of the movement of the seas of opinion and, above all, of voting changes in their own church that are likely to shift the sands a little on the basic discussion of ecumenical matters.
It is quite clear here that he (and presumably parliament) understood that neither he, nor the present bishops or archbishops had the power to bind future General Synods, nor did they claim to, not in respect of ecumenical discussions, nor, therefore, in respect of future synodical legislation.

quote:
Originally posted by Fifi:
And then there is this:

Lambeth Conference, 1998, Resolution III.2
<snip>
Which was followed here <snip>

This lies at the heart of the argument in the sense that the current discussion is not (apparently about whether or not their can be women bishops (the voting in diocesan synods indicates that overwhelmingly the Church of England believes that the reception process is at an end, and that they can). Rather it is about what level of abrogation from that decision is appropriate to protect (for want of a better word) other loyal Anglicans from that decision and to give due respect to the integrity of their position. Some believe that a code of practice will do this, others say that it could never be adequate.

I'd still be interested in the source of the "honoured place" phrase.
 
Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fifi:
... Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners)

'Recognising the divided views in the Church on the issue, the remainder of the Measure provides an elaborate and comprehensive set of safeguards designed to ensure that those who, in conscience, cannot accept the ordination of women as priests are not asked to act against their conscience...'

So apart from the provision dealing with the administration of sacraments, the safeguards in Resolutions A, B, and 'C' are primarily for the benefit of the laity in the parish, rather than for the benefit of the vicar. So surely the issue is about ensuring that a lay parishioner has sacramental access, if so desired, to a male priest (and/or bishop), with (possibly) a guaranteed male 'up-line', and not about ensuring that a male priest has a guarantee of all-male colleagues and superiors.

This really seems to be getting lost in all the debate, which seems to be all about the wishes of the priesthood, rather than those of the laity.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
The Church of England is the Reformed Branch of the Catholic Church established in England.

That's what you'd like to think but it isn't true. The break under Henry VIII was such that the only continuity that exists is in the mind of an anglo catholic remnant. It has no basis in fact as the 39 articles show.

The fact that the Anglican Church doesn't recognise the pope's authority coinfirms the break. Why? For a Roman Catholic the Pope becomes God's Vicar on earth and to reject him you reject the roman church.

If you'd like you can have continuity by joining the roman church. It would be better to make all our minds up quickly and then get on to the real task of the church in loving the world around us instead of simply hating ourselves.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The break under Henry VIII was such that the only continuity that exists is in the mind of an anglo catholic remnant.

What bollocks! The same people went to the same churches with the same priests the day after the Reformation as the day before it. There was complete continuity. The ritual was reformed, the churches continued.

If you want to find a break with the past the Reformation is the wrong time to look, the 17th century was much more disruptive. Though even then you'd be on a hiding to nothing.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The break under Henry VIII was such that the only continuity that exists is in the mind of an anglo catholic remnant.

What bollocks! The same people went to the same churches with the same priests the day after the Reformation as the day before it. There was complete continuity. The ritual was reformed, the churches continued.

If you want to find a break with the past the Reformation is the wrong time to look, the 17th century was much more disruptive. Though even then you'd be on a hiding to nothing.

Now, now language Timothy! You've been playing with those boys from the public school again haven't you
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
[Confused]
 
Posted by Manipled Mutineer (# 11514) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
If one asks who is the Supreme Governor of the Roman Catholic Church in this country, the answer is the Queen; for it is only under legislation passed by the Queen in Parliament that the Roman Catholic Church was enabled to establish its hierarchy in England in 1850.

What Act is that, please?
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
The Church of England is the Reformed Branch of the Catholic Church established in England.

That's what you'd like to think but it isn't true. The break under Henry VIII was such that the only continuity that exists is in the mind of an anglo catholic remnant. It has no basis in fact as the 39 articles show.

The fact that the Anglican Church doesn't recognise the pope's authority coinfirms the break. Why? For a Roman Catholic the Pope becomes God's Vicar on earth and to reject him you reject the roman church.

If you'd like you can have continuity by joining the roman church. It would be better to make all our minds up quickly and then get on to the real task of the church in loving the world around us instead of simply hating ourselves.

To be fair, Henry would've considered himself an absolutely true blue Catholic till the day he died; the one thing he didn't want the Pope mucking around with was his right to marry and divorce who he wanted; and he even rescinded the English Bible in every church idea, simply because he felt that ordinary people shouldn't be allowed to make their own conclusions about scripture.

He really didn't have much time for the German protestant reformers, at all.

And his death released the real protestants under his son Edward to go to town on the BCP. The 39 articles took quite some afterwards before they were thrashed out finally.

However, the CofE as we know and love her ( [Big Grin] ) undoubtedly harvested the protestant fruit of the European reformations; but uniquely kept a definite catholic/Catholic thread that was not eliminated because of the rather piecemeal reforming that went on. I would say, in addition, that one of the very English things about the British reformation was its attachment to the idea of being a Catholic Church, but not caring that much for Rome or its Bishop! But that's just my personal observation!
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Manipled Mutineer:
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
If one asks who is the Supreme Governor of the Roman Catholic Church in this country, the answer is the Queen; for it is only under legislation passed by the Queen in Parliament that the Roman Catholic Church was enabled to establish its hierarchy in England in 1850.

What Act is that, please?
Egg can, of course, speak for eggself but I suspect he is referring to the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829, 10 Geo 4 c.7. Like almost everything Egg has posted on this thread, if this is what he meant, then his post is a tendentious oversimplification.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
[QUOTE]He really didn't have much time for the German protestant reformers, at all.

Agreed - that's why he was known as the defender of the faith.

But more importantly, from the POV of the discussions about Anglicanism and Catholicism, he didn't rate the pope either. Since Pope = Rome = Church then anglicans can't logically be catholic if they recognise any of the tenets of the reformation.

Time this was all sorted. Englsih compromise has been proven not to work. Let the catholics in the anglican communion go to rome, the charismatics/congregationationists/traditionalists go to NFI or BUGB or become independant and all who want to be anglican stay in it. Then we can all get on with the real work of the gospel that doesn't involve arguments and schism. Man up and go to Rome if you like it so much.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
It's more complicated than that of course. My understanding is that they do this [celebrate Chrism Masses] because they believe that they are in 'impaired communion' with the diocese (is that the correct term?) If that were the case it is a perfectly logical thing to have a separate Chrism mass. But as +Pete suggests, you are either in or out. Now that the Ordinariate is a possibility I don't think there is any justification for a separate semi-papalist sect within the C of E. But maybe we're getting near the horses' graveyard.

Sorry for taking a little while to respond. I asked because I think that the Chrism Mass goes to the heart of the difficulty.

As we all know, the bishop is the principal celebrant of the Eucharist and the priests celebrate it on his behalf. Priests gather around their bishop at the Chrism Mass to renew their vows and to affirm their membership of the presbyterium of that bishop.

In being a part of his presbyterium, they represent that presbyterium as an whole, who, in turn, represent the bishop. By their membership of that presbyterium, they are saying that everyone in it is equally a priest.

It is not because the Bishop of, say, Manchester ordains women that TWCATAOWTTPs* cannot be part of his sacramental presbyterium, it is because he has, in his presbyterium, those whom they cannot recognise as being priests. Fellow workers in the vineyard, yes; beloved sistren in the Lord, yes; those for whom Christ died, yes; those worthy or respect and collaboration in deanery and archidiaconal life, yes. But as members of the presybyterium? Unfortunately not. (Or, in the minds of many, possibly not.)

As for the Ordinariate, it is a vehicle for mass conversion. It is not the reunion of the Western Church for which Anglo-Papalists (and, of course, others) have worked and prayed. And thus it is entirely irrelevant.

Thurible

*Those who cannot accept the admission of women to the presbyterate
 
Posted by Manipled Mutineer (# 11514) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Manipled Mutineer:
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
If one asks who is the Supreme Governor of the Roman Catholic Church in this country, the answer is the Queen; for it is only under legislation passed by the Queen in Parliament that the Roman Catholic Church was enabled to establish its hierarchy in England in 1850.

What Act is that, please?
Egg can, of course, speak for eggself but I suspect he is referring to the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829, 10 Geo 4 c.7. Like almost everything Egg has posted on this thread, if this is what he meant, then his post is a tendentious oversimplification.
How disappointing. I had hoped for something like the "Conferment of Ecclesiastical Titles and Jurisdiction on Roman Prelates Act 1865".
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
[QUOTE]As for the Ordinariate, it is a vehicle for mass conversion. It is not the reunion of the Western Church for which Anglo-Papalists (and, of course, others) have worked and prayed. And thus it is entirely irrelevant.

It is also the vehicle and the fruit of division and schism.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Manipled Mutineer:
How disappointing. I had hoped for something like the "Conferment of Ecclesiastical Titles and Jurisdiction on Roman Prelates Act 1865".

There is, of course, the Ecclesiastical Titles Act of 1851, 14 & 15 Vict. C 60, but that was post the reestablishment of the Hierarchy. This act was repealed by the Ecclesiastical Titles Act 1871 34 and 35 Vict. c. 53. The 1829 Act forbade the Catholic Church from adopting the episcopal (and decanal) titles of the established Church.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
I just wrote a fairly long refutation of Mark's claim, but I decided not to inflict it on the Purg hosts. I'll settle for adding my assent to Ken's assessment, and for the same reasons. It is indeed bollocks.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

Since Pope = Rome = Church then anglicans can't logically be catholic if they recognise any of the tenets of the reformation.

This is papalism of a sort that I have rarely heard from Anglo-catholics of any stripe, let alone an evangelical. Since the Pope himself has appeared to suggest that Luther was right about justification, it appears he isn't Catholic either. And bears have been toilet-trained.

And even if that issue is still contentious, there are surely many things that the Reformation fought for which have been accepted by Rome. Liturgy in the vernacular for a start.

If the Anglican church was abolished tomorrow, I would probably, albeit reluctantly, swim the Tiber. Ken would probably join any one of a number of Protestant denominations. But we agree that the C of E is both Catholic and Reformed. As do the vast majority of Anglicans who look at the evidence, and the reality.

To Thurible: would the concern about who is or is not within the 'presbyterium' if the Chrism Mass had not come to hold the high profile it does now? Such celebrations were unknown in the C of E much before the 1980s, and I don't think the Roman Rite combined the aspects of blessing the oil and renewal of priestly vows until Vatican 2.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It is also the vehicle and the fruit of division and schism.

Whereas the CofE is neither? Do you realise just how sanctimonious that sounds to most of Christendom?
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It is also the vehicle and the fruit of division and schism.

Whereas the CofE is neither? Do you realise just how sanctimonious that sounds to most of Christendom?
Yeah, but it's our 'division and schism'. [Biased] Everybody likes to go to the Devil in their own way, you know!
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
To Thurible: would the concern about who is or is not within the 'presbyterium' if the Chrism Mass had not come to hold the high profile it does now? Such celebrations were unknown in the C of E much before the 1980s, and I don't think the Roman Rite combined the aspects of blessing the oil and renewal of priestly vows until Vatican 2.

This, I think, is on the mark. I know some now-RC formerly Anglican priests from the North East who bear testimony to this. By their account, their then bishop, David Jenkins, used to be very coy about the Chrism Mass and eventually celebrated it very reluctantly in Durham Cathedral. But not without first tinkering with it and having a child "challenge" the bishop to be faithful to his minsitry, a deacon "challenge" the priests, a priest "challenge" the laity and the bishop "challenge" the priests. So everyone had a say and there was no "clericalism".

But in 1993 when they (those opposed to women priests) all withdrew from the Chrism Mass, David Jenkins apparently wept in the pulpit (something he did often, and on this occasion) because they had absented themselves. They were very perplexed at his sudden devotion to the Chrism Mass.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
. By their account, their then bishop, David Jenkins, used to be very coy about the Chrism Mass and eventually celebrated it very reluctantly in Durham Cathedral. But not without first tinkering with it and having a child "challenge" the bishop to be faithful to his minsitry, a deacon "challenge" the priests, a priest "challenge" the laity and the bishop "challenge" the priests. So everyone had a say and there was no "clericalism".

This is a tangent I suppose, but do I understand from your tone that you think there is something wrong with this? And if so, what?
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
The laity renew their baptismal promises at the Easter Vigil. Pope Paul VI specifically introduced the renewal of priestly commitment at the Chrism Mass as an opportunity in the year for priests - so closely associated with celebrating the mysteries of the Altar - to renew their priestly promises. For everyone to be renewing promises at the Chrism Mass renders the Easter renewal of baptismal promises rather redundant.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
The laity renew their baptismal promises at the Easter Vigil. Pope Paul VI specifically introduced the renewal of priestly commitment at the Chrism Mass as an opportunity in the year for priests - so closely associated with celebrating the mysteries of the Altar - to renew their priestly promises. For everyone to be renewing promises at the Chrism Mass renders the Easter renewal of baptismal promises rather redundant.

Interesting perspective. From where I'm coming from that reflects a failure to realise

a) The laity have a ministry - which is being renewed at the Chrism mass - not just the clergy. IMHO that RCs fail to recognise this, and only focus on the altar 'ministry' is one of their blind spots. And surely since this is the Chrism mass, so could be interpreted more broadly than just the ministry of the mass, it's inappropriate to limit it to that?

b) The clergy were baptised, so should be renewing their baptismal vows at the Easter Vigil.
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
Well, if you think that you can separate the baptismal vocation from the ministry of the baptised, that is indeed an interesting perspective.

The Chrism Mass wasn't designed to be a celebration of "ministry" but very specifically of the priesthood. You do not need to be the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Well, if you think that you can separate the baptismal vocation from the ministry of the baptised, that is indeed an interesting perspective.

The Chrism Mass wasn't designed to be a celebration of "ministry" but very specifically of the priesthood. You do not need to be the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral.

Thanks that's helpful and does makes sense.
 
Posted by Dogwalker (# 14135) on :
 
Triple Tiara wrote:
quote:
You do not need to be the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral.
I'd like to use this as my signature line, with your permission.

I can think of all too many people, including a few relatives, who have never understood this.
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
Heheh go ahead - it's not original to me.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
. By their account, their then bishop, David Jenkins, used to be very coy about the Chrism Mass and eventually celebrated it very reluctantly in Durham Cathedral. But not without first tinkering with it and having a child "challenge" the bishop to be faithful to his minsitry, a deacon "challenge" the priests, a priest "challenge" the laity and the bishop "challenge" the priests. So everyone had a say and there was no "clericalism".

This is a tangent I suppose, but do I understand from your tone that you think there is something wrong with this? And if so, what?
That is roughly how we do it at Bristol.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
[qb]

b) The clergy were baptised, so should be renewing their baptismal vows at the Easter Vigil.

Of course they do. The most important vocation, baptism, is renewed at the most important service of the year, the Vigil.

The secondary ministry is renewed at the secondary service.
 
Posted by shameless (# 9918) on :
 
I believe that the definition of "Catholic" denotes one that believes in the UNIVERSAL church.

Wikipedia evidences that at least 10 different forms of Catholic churches in existence and that these are under the Roman See.
What it appears that this thread is proposing or what mates are intimating is the proper use of the words Catholic and Anglican in the venacular sense.
 
Posted by poileplume (# 16438) on :
 
shameless posted “What it appears that this thread is proposing or what mates are intimating is the proper use of the words Catholic and Anglican in the venacular sense.”

This may be cultural. In Quebec, French speaking Anglicans always and unhesitatingly refer to themselves as Catholic. Plus the service is always 'the mass', Amongst the English speakers there is the split vote, as reflected in this thread.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It is also the vehicle and the fruit of division and schism.

Whereas the CofE is neither? Do you realise just how sanctimonious that sounds to most of Christendom?
I've never claimed anything to the contrary - I'm just making the point that instead of making a real example and bringing light and grace, the ordinariate has brought darkness and division and heat (on both sides).
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
I'm really not sure what your beef with the the Ordinariate (or Ang. Cœt. in general?) is. It had and has one purpose: to offer those Anglicans who wish to come into full communion with the Holy See a means of achieving this without losing much of what is good and distinctive in their Anglican heritage and whilst remaining in groups (lay and clerical) during and after this process (where possible).

As far as I can see, it is doing what it says on the tin. When some people break with others there is always the risk of bad feeling, but.

[ 20. December 2011, 09:27: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
 
Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It is also the vehicle and the fruit of division and schism.

Whereas the CofE is neither? Do you realise just how sanctimonious that sounds to most of Christendom?
I've never claimed anything to the contrary - I'm just making the point that instead of making a real example and bringing light and grace, the ordinariate has brought darkness and division and heat (on both sides).
I'm slightly puzzled at what you would like those of a 'traditional catholic persuasion' to do, as, in various threads, you seem equally hostile to those who have left as you do to those who remain. Short of a Damascine conversion of the remnant to the, admittedly majority, opinion of the CofE, what would you advise?
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
But in 1993 when they (those opposed to women priests) all withdrew from the Chrism Mass, David Jenkins apparently wept in the pulpit (something he did often, and on this occasion) because they had absented themselves. They were very perplexed at his sudden devotion to the Chrism Mass.

I doubt that very much. I have no reason to think that converts to the RCC are so singularly lacking in sense or empathy.

Without knowing +David at all, I can think of one immediately plausible reason for his distress, which I cannot believe would not have occurred to any of your acquaintances of even moderate perplexity: he was, perhaps, somewhat hurt by a deliberate and public statement of disunity and contempt.


By analogy - I may be very unenthusiatic about Christmas dinner. I may attend my family's annual dinner reluctantly, and constantly advocate changes to our traditions that would reduce it's importance and change it's meaning. I may secretly wish the whole business abolished. I will still be hurt if my brother boycotts the celebration because he cannot stand to be in the same room as my sister or acknowledge her to be part of his family. No one (except the most graceless cretin) would be remotely "perplexed" to see me upset by that.


I believe strongly that the Anglican church ought to be one in which any Christian with any pretensions to orthodoxy can belong in good conscience, and so (contra ExclamationMark's suggestion that anyone identifying with a minority tradition in the CofE should just fuck off) would very much wish those opposed to the ordination of women to stay. And that ought to mean making all reasonable (and some unreasonable) concessions to enable them to do so in good conscience.

That said, a priest who is prepared to demonstrate and say, in public, "I have so little respect for your ministry that I cannot stand to be in the same liturgical room as you, in case, despite my well known and oft-expressed views on the subject, that might be taken to imply that I could possibly recognise you as a fellow priest", is utterly at odds with any spirit of compromise, concession or mutual respect. Such a priest should make up his mind to stay (and at least pretend to respect the church he is part of even if he cannot accept the validity of every vocation) or go. I am sorry that we (the CofE) didn't make it easier for him to stay. We ought to have done. But I'm not at all convinced that it would have made any difference if we had.
 
Posted by Birdseye (# 5280) on :
 
There have been some very reasonable comments from those concerned with preserving the integrity of people's personal faith, and the unity of the Anglican church... but there is also an edge that keeps cropping up, particularly in the most thoughtful responses which jarrs...

I've met every kind of objector to women's ordination, from the gut-led traditionalist who lives by instinct, through the sincere sacramental questioner who reads theology; the near-pagan to whom the idea of momentarily questioning one's own understanding appears tantamount to suicide; to the homosexual misogynist for whom all women are anathema... I've met those who love the Church but care little for the Gospel or God; those who love the trimmings and the status but care little for the Church; and those who are not sure if they believe in love at all but know Fear very well... I've also met those who wrestle with God sincerely and seek always to come to a greater understanding of his Grace... but these last are the rarest...

But it is almost impossible to convey, to any but the last of these groups of people, just what it means to be at odds with other people you love... but even the kindest disapprover does not seem to realise that to deny the priesthood (not to avoid the ministry... but to DENY the priesthood) of a woman priest cannot be done gently or politely or in half-measure... one CANNOT say:
'I respect you as a person and admire the work you do and love you as a fellow Christian but to me you are not a priest' WITHOUT IT MEANING:
'You are to me, first and foremost a liar, and if a liar to me, then certainly a liar before God... for in my eyes you do not stand with God as he has ordained you, but you stand in your own foolish pretence, in your delusion, in your madness... and you stand at that place where you believe God has called you to, and in that place where I am certain God has not called you to... you stand like Eve at the apple tree, grasping repeatedly at that first sin, the only thing which you may not have... vainglory, pride, madness... you are in my eyes, the most pitiable creature, a sinner unrepentant and unredeemed a child of lies'...

So by all means disagree with women's ordination, mark well the sort of individuals who share your opinion, their character, intellect and above all their love... but please don't try to say that you 'respect your fellow 'sisters in Christ'' in the same breath as you condemn them as charlatans, lunatics and deceivers... it just won't wash.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Birdseye:
to deny the priesthood (not to avoid the ministry... but to DENY the priesthood) of a woman priest cannot be done gently or politely or in half-measure... one CANNOT say:
'I respect you as a person and admire the work you do and love you as a fellow Christian but to me you are not a priest' WITHOUT IT MEANING:
'You are to me, first and foremost a liar, and if a liar to me, then certainly a liar before God... for in my eyes you do not stand with God as he has ordained you, but you stand in your own foolish pretence, in your delusion, in your madness... and you stand at that place where you believe God has called you to, and in that place where I am certain God has not called you to... you stand like Eve at the apple tree, grasping repeatedly at that first sin, the only thing which you may not have... vainglory, pride, madness... you are in my eyes, the most pitiable creature, a sinner unrepentant and unredeemed a child of lies'...

Golly. You clearly feel strongly about this, birdseye. But is it really charitable of you to force such a frothy, denunciatory meaning on the religious convictions of your fellow Christians? Can they really not think that women who believe they are called to ministerial priesthood are merely sincerely mistaken?
quote:
Originally posted by Birdseye:
please don't try to say that you 'respect your fellow 'sisters in Christ'' in the same breath as you condemn them as charlatans, lunatics and deceivers... it just won't wash.

Why not? Because their belief that you are sincerely and honestly mistaken makes you feel as if they've called you a charlatan, liar, deceiver, lunatic, etc.? That, frankly, is your problem, not theirs. Why not take them at their word as they do you at yours?
 
Posted by Birdseye (# 5280) on :
 
quote:
Golly. You clearly feel strongly about this, birdseye.
Yes, it is my life I'm talking about here, my whole life... and if it had to be, it would be my death too... sometimes when I see the blood rise in an angry man's face I have to admit to myself that it might cost that much -but priests are killed for all sorts of reasons all the time, so that's not as extreme or unusual as it sounds.

quote:

But is it really charitable of you to force

It is never loving or charitable to 'force'... and I do not do so here,

quote:
such a frothy,
hardly that...

quote:


denunciatory meaning on the religious convictions of your fellow Christians? Can they really not think that women who believe they are called to ministerial priesthood are merely sincerely mistaken?


Are you suggesting that I am wrong in placing as much significance on their convictions as I do? Are you trying to tell my that their 'convictions' are in fact no more than mild, affable opinions... 'My dear, I think you'll find you are in error'...that is certainly not how they are expressed in speech or writing, publicly or privately, or how they are catered for by law.

quote:

quote:Originally posted by Birdseye:
please don't try to say that you 'respect your fellow 'sisters in Christ'' in the same breath as you condemn them as charlatans, lunatics and deceivers... it just won't wash.

Why not? Because their belief that you are sincerely and honestly mistaken makes you feel as if they've called you a charlatan, liar, deceiver, lunatic, etc.? That, frankly, is your problem, not theirs. Why not take them at their word as they do you at yours?


In a choice between the hostile charlatan and the mere simple-minded idiot, you are suggesting that I discount my prayers and heart, the affirmation of the Church, of fellow Christians from this and other denominations (including Roman Catholics), the authority and opinion of my sending Bishop, the countless theologians across the catholic Church and any belief in the guidance of the Holy Spirit... and instead entertain the possibility that I, and all of them, may have just 'made a sincere mistake'...

... don't you think that is an offering I have made to God again and again... when confronted by the suggestion? I have. I am neither charlatan nor simple-minded... nor even stubborn.

So will YOU take ME at my word, as you suggest I should take them... when I tell you that God is calling me to become a priest?

I think perhaps you will not. Why should you, your world will not change if you do not accept me, or if you never question your own convictions... But my world does change at your opinion... because I cannot change my gender or God's call, as easily as you can change your mind.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
The good old Anglican spirit of compromise seems quite absent from some of this debate (not the debate on this thread, particularly, but the wider debate in the church generally). I don't get how groups of 'Catholic' Anglicans can compromise with catholicity to the extent of opting out of their own bishop's jurisdiction, yet not be prepared to compromise with the existence (not even the co-existence) of female priests. But I'm sure we've had this discussion before and it should probably continue with the Spirits of Horses Past.

Presumably the gift of compromise is not one of the distinctive features of Anglicanism that are being brought into the Ordinariate.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Presumably the gift of compromise is not one of the distinctive features of Anglicanism that are being brought into the Ordinariate.

Sadly, the Christian Church has largely bought into the awful myth (propagated especially by politicians like Margaret Thatcher) that "compromise" is a dirty world.

True compromise is not about "selling out" your principles. It is about respecting the differing views of others as being as deeply and sincerely held as our own. Compromise is about saying "I may not agree with you, but I honour and defend your right to have your opinion."

Opposition to compromise comes not from a "brave commitment to the truth", but from plain old pride and arrogance.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Sadly, the Christian Church has largely bought into the awful myth (propagated especially by politicians like Margaret Thatcher) that "compromise" is a dirty world.

The last sentence should end "compromise" is a dirty word.

Sorry for that error. Missed the edit window!
 
Posted by egg (# 3982) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:

Egg can, of course, speak for eggself but I suspect he is referring to the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829, 10 Geo 4 c.7. Like almost everything Egg has posted on this thread, if this is what he meant, then his post is a tendentious oversimplification. [/QB]

As to the statute, agreed. The Roman Catholic hierarchy could not have been established in England had the Act not been passed.

"Tendentious" (New Oxford Dictionary of English, 1998): "Expressing or intending to promote a particular cause or point of view, especially a controversial one."

If that is the charge, I plead guilty, though I try to stick to established facts; unlike some Roman Catholics who I have heard say that "the Church of England stole our churches". Go into almost any medieval church and you will find a list of vicars and rectors, and sometimes patrons, stretching back in an unbroken line to the 13th or 14th century, including in many cases parish priests who served continuously through two or more of the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary I and Elizabeth I.

While one factor in the Reformation of the Church of England was the King's resentment at the refusal of Pope Clement VII to accept the views of the majority of the European universities which Cranmer had consulted, that Pope Julius II had no power to grant the dispensation for Henry VIII to marry his brother's widow so that the marriage was a nullity, that was only part of the story. The first Reformation Statute, the Act in Restraint of the Payment of Annates 1531, was passed to abolish the right of the Pope to the first-fruits of every bishopric and archbishopric in the Church of England, under which, so the Act states, £160,000 had been paid to the Pope from England since the second year of Henry VII's reign (1486); and also to make provision for the consecration of bishops by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York where the Pope had delayed or refused his approval of the persons nominated by the King; and for ignoring unreasonable excommunications pronounced by the Pope.

The second Reformation Statute, the Act in Restraint of Appeals 1532, is the one that starts "This realm of England is an Empire, governed by one supreme head and king", and goes on to declare that "The English church hath been always thought sufficient and meet of itself, without the intermeddling of any exterior person or persons." It continues "All causes testamentary, causes of matrimony and divorces ... within the King's dominions ... shall be determined within the King's jurisdiction ... by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York," Henry VIII was not going to have any foreign sovereign exercising powers within his kingdom superior to his own. I think most Englishmen would share this view - vide the recent troubles with the eurozone.

The third Reformation Statute, the Act concerning Peter-pence, 1533, besides abolishing the Pope's right to Peter-pence, declared (section XIX) that "The King and the realm do not mean to vary from the articles of the Catholick faith of Christendom, but only to enact policies for the conservation of the realm in peace, not minding to seek for any relief but within this realm at the hands of the King, which have imperial power and authority and are not obliged in any worldly causes to any other superior."

There were, of course, other statutes in the next 30 years before the Elizabethan Settlement was arrived at; but neither Henry VIII nor Elizabeth I would have accepted that the Church of England had departed from the essentials of the Catholic faith, and this was the opinion of Richard Hooker, who provided the thoroughly worked out philosophy of Anglicanism later in the century. Of course, if you define "the Catholic Faith" as including submission to the Bishop of Rome, the Church of England does not accept this; but neither did any of the churches of the first four or five centuries AD, and yet Roman Catholics would not, I think, deny that they held the Catholic Faith.

None of which is to say that Roman Catholics are not welcome in England, and there have been shining examples of saintliness among them, such as Cardinal Basil Hume; but there is some truth in the description of them, expressed by my vicar who subsequently became a bishop, as "foreign missionaries".

[ 20. December 2011, 15:44: Message edited by: egg ]
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
I want to be a Catholic first and an Anglican second. I certainly don't want to be a protestant. I take very seriously much of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council. Before Common Worship, I wanted to worship with the Roman propers, three year lectionary and calendar.

Birdseye has put into words the primary reason why I came to accept the ordination of women:it seemed impossible for anyone to argue against it without being rude.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Birdseye:
In a choice between the hostile charlatan and the mere simple-minded idiot, you are suggesting that I discount my prayers and heart, the affirmation of the Church, of fellow Christians from this and other denominations (including Roman Catholics), the authority and opinion of my sending Bishop, the countless theologians across the catholic Church and any belief in the guidance of the Holy Spirit... and instead entertain the possibility that I, and all of them, may have just 'made a sincere mistake'...

How do your atheist friends respond to your vocation?

I would hope that they are able to respect you personally, and acknowledge such qualities as you have which make you a good priest, but must they not also inevitably think that you are fundamentally mistaken about the whole thing. For them, your sincerity and intellect are not in doubt, but nonetheless as far as they are concerned it is absolutely impossible that God has called you to be a priest, there being (in their view) no God to call you. You don't have to see (and almost certainly do not see) their non-belief in your vocation as an expression of hostility or depreciation towards you or your abilities. It is simply the result of them holding views contrary to your own.

Would it not be possible to see the opponents of women's ordination in a similar way? There is a conceptual barrier which makes it impossible for them to see that God has called you, but it is not based on any disrespect for you.
 
Posted by Cardinal Pole Vault (# 4193) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
It's more complicated than that of course. My understanding is that they do this [celebrate Chrism Masses] because they believe that they are in 'impaired communion' with the diocese (is that the correct term?) If that were the case it is a perfectly logical thing to have a separate Chrism mass. But as +Pete suggests, you are either in or out. Now that the Ordinariate is a possibility I don't think there is any justification for a separate semi-papalist sect within the C of E. But maybe we're getting near the horses' graveyard.

Sorry for taking a little while to respond. I asked because I think that the Chrism Mass goes to the heart of the difficulty.

As we all know, the bishop is the principal celebrant of the Eucharist and the priests celebrate it on his behalf. Priests gather around their bishop at the Chrism Mass to renew their vows and to affirm their membership of the presbyterium of that bishop.

In being a part of his presbyterium, they represent that presbyterium as an whole, who, in turn, represent the bishop. By their membership of that presbyterium, they are saying that everyone in it is equally a priest.

It is not because the Bishop of, say, Manchester ordains women that TWCATAOWTTPs* cannot be part of his sacramental presbyterium, it is because he has, in his presbyterium, those whom they cannot recognise as being priests. Fellow workers in the vineyard, yes; beloved sistren in the Lord, yes; those for whom Christ died, yes; those worthy or respect and collaboration in deanery and archidiaconal life, yes. But as members of the presybyterium? Unfortunately not. (Or, in the minds of many, possibly not.)

As for the Ordinariate, it is a vehicle for mass conversion. It is not the reunion of the Western Church for which Anglo-Papalists (and, of course, others) have worked and prayed. And thus it is entirely irrelevant.

Thurible

*Those who cannot accept the admission of women to the presbyterate

Thurible is spot on, but I'll have to admit to not fully appreciating the position until I was myself ordained (in Manchester, as it happens, and not by a PEV). I'd always worried PEVs were about 'taint' and had had the somewhat individualistic/functional idea that all that really that mattered was ordination by a male bishop.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Can they really not think that women who believe they are called to ministerial priesthood are merely sincerely mistaken?

Nothing patronising there, then. [Big Grin]

Sincerely mistaken along with everyone else, presumably, who supported MOW, and the Synods which agreed to ordain. That's a lot of mistakeness. How self-sacrificing that so many who are enabled to recognize the mistake hidden from so many of us poor deluded schmucks, remain within the Anglican Church to remind us of it!

More seriously, if, after nearly ten years of submitting myself obediently to the discernment process of the Church of England, in order to ensure I was not mistaken in applying for ordained ministry, followed by nearly a dozen years of parish work, I would consider myself to be the biggest fool in Christendom and a danger to myself and to others should I come to the conclusion that it was just a 'sincere mistake'.

And all on the single premise that I am a woman. And for each and every woman to be that dangerously 'mistaken'? My goodness - what a feeble-minded sex we are in doing right; and yet how powerful in doing wrong, in compelling right-minded men to agree with us!

Because undoubtedly there are men who are 'mistakenly' ordained when they ought not to have been, but it must be presumed God may still work through their ministries because they are men. Yet, women apparently making the same 'mistake' - an irremediable hindrance to the catholic Body of Christ.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
That's about the best post on this thread so far, Anselmina- thank you for it.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
Darn, Eliab. You put your point so well! [Smile]

I guess it's just got to be recognized that on both sides of the question respect for the other is not as normative as it should be. And maybe that gives rise all too naturally to defensiveness and cynicism. It's hard to attribute, as a matter of course, good motives when one is so regularly reminded that one's ministry would be better off not existing.
 
Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
That's about the best post on this thread so far, Anselmina- thank you for it.

I agree.
 
Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Sincerely mistaken along with everyone else, presumably, who supported MOW, and the Synods which agreed to ordain. That's a lot of mistakeness. How self-sacrificing that so many who are enabled to recognize the mistake hidden from so many of us poor deluded schmucks, remain within the Anglican Church to remind us of it!

Whichever way you cut it, and whoever is right, an awful lot of people are sincerely mistaken (or have been throughout the last 2000 years).
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:

Egg can, of course, speak for eggself but I suspect he is referring to the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829, 10 Geo 4 c.7. Like almost everything Egg has posted on this thread, if this is what he meant, then his post is a tendentious oversimplification.

As to the statute, agreed. The Roman Catholic hierarchy could not have been established in England had the Act not been passed.

"Tendentious" (New Oxford Dictionary of English, 1998): "Expressing or intending to promote a particular cause or point of view, especially a controversial one."

If that is the charge, I plead guilty, though I try to stick to established facts; unlike some Roman Catholics who I have heard say that "the Church of England stole our churches". Go into almost any medieval church and you will find a list of vicars and rectors, and sometimes patrons, stretching back in an unbroken line to the 13th or 14th century, including in many cases parish priests who served continuously through two or more of the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary I and Elizabeth I.

While one factor in the Reformation of the Church of England was the King's resentment at the refusal of Pope Clement VII to accept the views of the majority of the European universities which Cranmer had consulted, that Pope Julius II had no power to grant the dispensation for Henry VIII to marry his brother's widow so that the marriage was a nullity, that was only part of the story. The first Reformation Statute, the Act in Restraint of the Payment of Annates 1531, was passed to abolish the right of the Pope to the first-fruits of every bishopric and archbishopric in the Church of England, under which, so the Act states, £160,000 had been paid to the Pope from England since the second year of Henry VII's reign (1486); and also to make provision for the consecration of bishops by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York where the Pope had delayed or refused his approval of the persons nominated by the King; and for ignoring unreasonable excommunications pronounced by the Pope.

The second Reformation Statute, the Act in Restraint of Appeals 1532, is the one that starts "This realm of England is an Empire, governed by one supreme head and king", and goes on to declare that "The English church hath been always thought sufficient and meet of itself, without the intermeddling of any exterior person or persons." It continues "All causes testamentary, causes of matrimony and divorces ... within the King's dominions ... shall be determined within the King's jurisdiction ... by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York," Henry VIII was not going to have any foreign sovereign exercising powers within his kingdom superior to his own. I think most Englishmen would share this view - vide the recent troubles with the eurozone.

The third Reformation Statute, the Act concerning Peter-pence, 1533, besides abolishing the Pope's right to Peter-pence, declared (section XIX) that "The King and the realm do not mean to vary from the articles of the Catholick faith of Christendom, but only to enact policies for the conservation of the realm in peace, not minding to seek for any relief but within this realm at the hands of the King, which have imperial power and authority and are not obliged in any worldly causes to any other superior."

There were, of course, other statutes in the next 30 years before the Elizabethan Settlement was arrived at; but neither Henry VIII nor Elizabeth I would have accepted that the Church of England had departed from the essentials of the Catholic faith, and this was the opinion of Richard Hooker, who provided the thoroughly worked out philosophy of Anglicanism later in the century. Of course, if you define "the Catholic Faith" as including submission to the Bishop of Rome, the Church of England does not accept this; but neither did any of the churches of the first four or five centuries AD, and yet Roman Catholics would not, I think, deny that they held the Catholic Faith.

None of which is to say that Roman Catholics are not welcome in England, and there have been shining examples of saintliness among them, such as Cardinal Basil Hume; but there is some truth in the description of them, expressed by my vicar who subsequently became a bishop, as "foreign missionaries". [/QB]

Oh. Thanks. We'll try to behave ourselves then.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Can they really not think that women who believe they are called to ministerial priesthood are merely sincerely mistaken?

Nothing patronising there, then. [Big Grin]

Sincerely mistaken along with everyone else, presumably, who supported MOW, and the Synods which agreed to ordain. That's a lot of mistakeness. How self-sacrificing that so many who are enabled to recognize the mistake hidden from so many of us poor deluded schmucks, remain within the Anglican Church to remind us of it!

More seriously, if, after nearly ten years of submitting myself obediently to the discernment process of the Church of England, in order to ensure I was not mistaken in applying for ordained ministry, followed by nearly a dozen years of parish work, I would consider myself to be the biggest fool in Christendom and a danger to myself and to others should I come to the conclusion that it was just a 'sincere mistake'.

And all on the single premise that I am a woman. And for each and every woman to be that dangerously 'mistaken'? My goodness - what a feeble-minded sex we are in doing right; and yet how powerful in doing wrong, in compelling right-minded men to agree with us!

Because undoubtedly there are men who are 'mistakenly' ordained when they ought not to have been, but it must be presumed God may still work through their ministries because they are men. Yet, women apparently making the same 'mistake' - an irremediable hindrance to the catholic Body of Christ.

good on you for all that - applauds!
 
Posted by poileplume (# 16438) on :
 
Dear Anselmina and birdseed,

You are not alone. In Quebec, we get real prejudice in Anglican circles against of all things...speaking French. ‘The Anglican church is an English church'. (I hasten to add that it is confined to the Neanderthals not the leadership, they are very positive about the French ministry).

If you live outside Québec, what language you speak must sound like complete and utter nuts to you. So quite frankly does the debate of over the gender of priests to me.

So can we tag any further debate over women priests as ‘women priests and speaking French ’? as it is the same issue.

In the face of the immense problems facing us, can we please focus on what unites us and not what divides us?
 
Posted by otyetsfoma (# 12898) on :
 
As someone who lived in Quebec for a long time, but over fifty years ago , I found on a recent visit there that Quebec has managed the most complete, bloodless and legal act of ethnic cleansing yet known. No wonder the few anglophones left don't like it.
 
Posted by poileplume (# 16438) on :
 
Thank you, otyetsfoma I think you made my point absolutely perfectly.

It all boils down to narrow, uneducated, prejudice. Defined as: if it did not exist in the 1950’s, it must be wrong.

You see my dear Anselmina and birdseed, we get exactly the same mindless idiocy.

Plus ca change plus c’est pareil (The more things change the more they stay the same)
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
[QUOTE] We'll try to behave ourselves then.

Ah, but trying isn't enough ....
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Birdseye:
So by all means disagree with women's ordination, mark well the sort of individuals who share your opinion, their character, intellect and above all their love... but please don't try to say that you 'respect your fellow 'sisters in Christ'' in the same breath as you condemn them as charlatans, lunatics and deceivers... it just won't wash.

I don't think Eliab's point about what your atheist friends might think can be bettered. But there's another aspect. I joined the RC Church this year because I believe in the sacrifice of the Mass, the Real Presence, the intercessions of the BVM and the saints, and praying for the dead. I also infinitely prefer the Roman liturgy because it better expresses these concepts than does Anglican liturgy. My choice had little to do with women and the priesthood. I also love ritual in worship, including bowing and genuflecting, and things such as holy water, candles, incense and bells, all of which I see as incarnational .

Although many Anglicans share these beliefs and practices, as I did a year ago, they are not part of Anglican heritage. Also, from the Bishop of London's recent pastoral letter, it seems that the C of E is in the mood to crack down on the use of illegal rites. I don't accept Protestant theology or soteriology. So I belong to a church which doesn't ordain women. Should the Magisterium come to the conclusion that the time for it is right, I would have no problem with it. As Pope Leo XII's Apostolicae Curae has never been rescinded, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, Anglican male priests are no more validly ordained than their women, wheras the ordination of Orthodox clergy is accepted as apostolic, and therefore sacramentally valid.

I have friends who are Anglican clergy, and I don't disrespect their vocation or sense of calling just because I have changed churches. I have learnt a great deal from some of them. So I, in no way would detract from the ministry to which you feel yourself called. We are all called to be servants of God in whatever way in which our contribution can best be realised. If yours, after a long period of discernment, as you describe, is to Holy Orders within a church which recognises it, no one has any right or reason to doubt or disrespect your decision. However this doesn't make me want to belong to a church whose theology and practice I can no longer support.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
Having just about got over the self-referential diatribe of Little Englander theology, political theory and Reformation historiography, and mindful, as ever, that Catholics on these boards (and clearly for Egg in English society at large) are tolerated by some only so long as we 'know our place', I am nervous of picking up the thread regarding the relationship between Ecclesiology and the Chrism Mass. Nonetheless, reckless to a fault, here goes.

The example of the attitude of atheist friends is a good one, and PaulTH's remarks about his non-Catholic friends is very much to the point, but they both miss the much larger point that the 1992 Act of Synod and all the blather about 'two integrities' tries to fudge. It is this: either it is possible for the Church to ordain women - in which case in justice it must so do - or it is not. If it is, when a women so ordained purports to celebrate the Eucharist, no matter how sincerely or conscientiously an objector holds to his or her position, then it is the Eucharist: if it is not then, no matter how sincerely or how conscientiously she believes herself to be so doing, it is not the Eucharist. These are such fundamentally incompatible and irreconcilable positions that they constitute a de facto schism between those who hold those positions. If the ancient definition of schism as setting up altar against altar is correct then what is this but that. There can be no full Eucharistic Communion (which is, by definition, a fundamentally reciprocal relationship) between the two and the 'two integrities' idea has about it the ring of wanting the penny and the bun.

My oldest and closest friend is a Vicar. Do I believe that he is a priest, endowed with the power to celebrate the Eucharist and to forgive sins? No. Not for one minute and he knows it. Do I believe that he is a charlatan, a deluded fool? No, of course not. I believe him to sincerely and conscientiously mistaken. Do I believe his ministry is of no value. No, I certainly don't. The pastoral care and the preaching, the leadership and ritual he offers to his community are very clearly vehicles of God's grace. In those circumstances, could we stand around the same altar and celebrate the same Eucharist? No, of course not because that would betoken not respect for one another's integrity but to hold sincerely held beliefs in contempt, of little or no account. Do I respect him and what he believes and does? Of course I do: as he thinks I am wrong, so I think him to be so. I love and respect and value everything about him so much that I owe him who I am and what I believe: I owe him the respect and honour and duty of a love that does not lie to him. He is due the respect of my integrity.

In 1992 the CofE took a decision to ordain women to its presbyterate. From that moment on, any denial of recognition within that communion to women priests (and bishops, since the only possible reason for not ordaining women to the episcopate once you've ordained them to the presbyterate is a prudential judgement about the effect on eccelsial unity within the communion that this would have - a judgement which must be time limited) became both ecclesially and sacramentally unreasonable and unjust. Talk about resolutions A,B and C, PEVs and two integrities could never be anything other than a doomed de jure attempt to hold together what was de facto already separated for the sake of tempering the wind to the shorn lamb. Where those who cannot live with the ministry of women within the Anglican Communion are supposed to go, I have no idea. For those who believe the claims the Catholic Church makes for herself, the choices are obvious - but then the 'I'm staying where I am in order to work for unity from this side' argument has long lost whatever plausibility it once had. For others I can understand that it might be difficult but that is no reason to go around undermining and insulting women in ministry, still less for separate episcopal structures within the same communion, let alone the schism of separate Chrism Masses.
 
Posted by egg (# 3982) on :
 
Perhaps I should say that I am NOT David Starkey, whose article in to-day's Times makes very much the same points about Henry VIII's policy as I did yesterday, including a longer quotation from the Act in Restraint of Appeals 1532 ("This realm of England is an Empire, governed by one supreme head and king ... without restraint or provocation [appeal] to any foreign prince or potentate").
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
As I often do, I appreciate and value Trisagion's clear take and statement on the position of his Church and those who agree with it. And I think it's important that those on the side of priesting for women understand this particular argument too, before simply assuming that every opposition is coming from the same overtly misogynistic place.

I think if I wrote more on this I'd be getting into Dead Horse territory, so I'll just conclude with saying that as far as I was concerned the consentual authority of my Church for women to be priested was the key to everything. I know it sounds airy-fairy to say it, but I fully believe that God recognizes a eucharist where a Church may not; and similarly God acknowledges a priestly ministry where a Church authority may rule it 'invalid' (whether male or female).

However, in my own case, that was no reason for going outside the rule of the CofE, which I took on board as the arbiter and qualifier of my vocation.

I also understand that for those for whom the integrity of their Church (whichever one it is) is only validly to be found within the traditional doctrine and useage of Holy Orders, it must seem impossible to imagine any real good can come from stepping beyond that tradition as many Anglican Churches have done across the Communion. As well as other denominations.

That is not to say that these traditional Churches would claim a restriction in the use and efficacy of God's working in these 'invalid' offices and ministers; but that these things are perceived to occur outside of the integrity of the true c/Catholic Church, where the very validity of the orders ensures the efficacy of the work.

I hope I have done some little justice to this position. Though needless to say, I don't agree with it.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The break under Henry VIII was such that the only continuity that exists is in the mind of an anglo catholic remnant.

What bollocks! The same people went to the same churches with the same priests the day after the Reformation as the day before it. There was complete continuity. The ritual was reformed, the churches continued.

If you want to find a break with the past the Reformation is the wrong time to look, the 17th century was much more disruptive. Though even then you'd be on a hiding to nothing.

The Vicar of Bray springs to mind as a tongue in cheek potted history.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The Vicar of Bray springs to mind as a tongue in cheek potted history.

Or, less cynically, the Vicar of Morebath.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
This debate about Anglican orders breaks out again and again, and I used to get in to it again and again. I have, you see, a great habit of finding things to get heated up about. But then I had this revelation that if I really didn't think the pope was the head of the Church, then I was actually obligated to behave as if his opinions, whether about our orders or about the ordination of women, were irrelevant. So not getting into these debates anymore, past expressing some indifference to the issue, is a matter of maintaining my principles as a member of the One True Church, the Church founded by Christ, which is of course the Anglican Communion.

It is beyond doubt that Jesus Christ will confirm all Anglican prerogatives on the Last Day anyways, so let's not worry about it I say. Lord knows the pope isn’t losing any sleep over what we think.

Zach
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Oh. Thanks. We'll try to behave ourselves then.

Please don't. You're more fun just as you are.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Oh. Thanks. We'll try to behave ourselves then.

Please don't. You're more fun just as you are.
Anything for you, Leo.

My remark was just a reaction to the patronising and supercilious tone directed at Catholics on this board from those who seem to believe that the Ship is an Anglican show and the rest of us had better bloody remember it. Egg seems to believe that the same applies to England too. [Mad]
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
This debate about Anglican orders breaks out again and again, and I used to get in to it again and again.

Zach, there isn't a debate about Anglican Ordes going on here at all. What my post was about was (1) to take the analogy of a Catholic view of Anglican Orders and how that doesn't imply any necessary lack of respect and apply it to the OoW issue; and (2) point up the nonsense on stilts that 'two integrities' is.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:

My remark was just a reaction to the patronising and supercilious tone directed at Catholics on this board from those who seem to believe that the Ship is an Anglican show and the rest of us had better bloody remember it.

It's not just on the Ship. A certain type of Anglican (usually those who claim to be 'Catholic', but a better class of Catholic, and certainly with better taste in liturgy, and who think that (Roman) Catholics are generally oiks ) adopt this extremely patronising tone. Which pisses me off, and I'm a laid-back lefty-liberal-sort-of -catholic Anglican. Many of this sort of Anglicans don't actually know any real Catholics.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Zach, there isn't a debate about Anglican Ordes going on here at all. What my post was about was (1) to take the analogy of a Catholic view of Anglican Orders and how that doesn't imply any necessary lack of respect and apply it to the OoW issue; and (2) point up the nonsense on stilts that 'two integrities' is.
Oh, I know what you were trying to say. My admittedly tangential comments were inspired by some other comments, especially talk about the catholicity of the Anglican Communion.
 
Posted by egg (# 3982) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
[QUOTE]

My remark was just a reaction to the patronising and supercilious tone directed at Catholics on this board from those who seem to believe that the Ship is an Anglican show and the rest of us had better bloody remember it. Egg seems to believe that the same applies to England too.

I am truly sorry if I have butted in half way through this thread and caused offence. My great great uncle was a leading light in the Association for the Promotion of the Unity of Christendom in the second half of the 19th century. This was a society, encouraged by Cardinal Wiseman, which included Roman Catholics, Anglicans and Orthodox, and genuinely hoped for a formal reunion of these three branches of the Christian faith, on a footing of equality. Cardinal Manning obtained a direction from Rome forbidding RCs to join it; but he expressed himself sorry, later, that he had been so unsupportive. My gg uncle was the last Anglican priest to give communion to Manning before he became a Roman Catholic, and knew him well. I am sure that, although he may have been sorry to see him change allegiance, he would have had nothing but respect for him. In pursuit of the aim of reunification, my gg uncle had an audience with the Patriarch of Moscow; and a personal audience with Pope Pius IX, who blessed his work -his sermon on the occasion of the Pope's death included the following passage:

"During a private conversation I had with His Holiness ten years ago, he expressed his hearty concurrence with the efforts then being made towards the reunion of the two Churches, more especially by prayer. Taking my left hand over my shoulder, and joining it to his right hand on his breast, he said, with characteristic energy, 'I give you my free and hearty concurrence.'”

This was, of course, before Pope Leo XIII's Encyclical Apostolicae Curae declared all Anglican orders to be "absolutely null and utterly void". Fortunately my gg uncle died a few years before Apostolicae Curae, which I believe would have wounded him deeply.

I have no intention of directing a "patronising or supercilious tone" to Roman Catholics; but I shall protest at the patronising tone of Roman Catholics who do not recognise that the Church of England has been the national church of this country, Rngland, since St Augustine of Canterbury landed in Kent in 597. Some would go further and hold that the original British church, which sent bishops to the Council of Arles in 314, can also be regarded as a direct forebear of the Church of England, since the Celtic and Roman churches came together to form a single Church of England at the Synods of Whitby and Hertford. The extracts which I quoted from the Reformation statutes were intended to demonstrate that the Church of England did not, as some Roman Catholics allege, come into existence as a newly formed church in the reign of Henry VIII solely because the Pope would not acknowledge that his marriage to Catherine of Aragon was a nullity, but was much more concerned with Henry VIII's desire to be the supreme authority in the country of which he was the king.

If that is accepted, then I hope my respect for the Roman Catholic Church, and indeed for some of the recent Papal encyclicals, will not be regarded as patronising. As to "catholic", I like the definition given by St Vincent of Lerins, "id quod semper, ubique, ab omnibus creditum est." I leave it to others to judge which of the two churches comes nearer to that definition.
 
Posted by poileplume (# 16438) on :
 
Why do I get the impression I am in the middle of a battle between the Pharisees and the Sadducees?
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by poileplume:
Why do I get the impression I am in the middle of a battle between the Pharisees and the Sadducees?

I sympathise. Our domestic squabbles must look quite different from across the Pond (especially the francophone part of it).
 
Posted by poileplume (# 16438) on :
 
My apologies for that reflection. You are completely right of course, it is a cultural difference and I should have realised that.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
No need to apologise, p de p. It's good to have an outsider's view putting things in perspective.
 
Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on :
 
I set out to follow Christ, but then I found people had spent a long time digging an enormous pit in the way, and filled it with tar. The sign says the pit is called 'Christianity'. I wonder if there's a way round it?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by poileplume:
Why do I get the impression I am in the middle of a battle between the Pharisees and the Sadducees?

I sympathise. Our domestic squabbles must look quite different from across the Pond (especially the francophone part of it).
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.
 
Posted by egg (# 3982) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
[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 think a little history is sometimes relevant, particularly where relations between the Church of England and the Church of Rome are concerned; but I apologise if that is thought not to have enough to do with what goes on in the Church of England to-day.

I have always drawn comfort from the great Pope Gregory I’s reply to St Augustine, as set out in Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, in which the distinctiveness of the Church of England is made clear:

“Augustine’s Second Question—Whereas the faith is one and the same, are there different customs in different Churches? and is one custom of Masses observed in the holy Roman Church, and another in the Church of Gaul?

Pope Gregory answers.—You know, my brother, the custom of the Roman Church in which you remember that you were bred up. But my will is, that if you have found anything, either in the Roman, or the Gallican, or any other Church, which may be more acceptable to Almighty God, you should carefully make choice of the same, and sedulously teach the Church of the English, which as yet is new in the faith, whatsoever you can gather from the several Churches. For things are not to be loved for the sake of places, but places for the sake of good things. Choose, therefore, from every Church those things that are pious, religious, and right, and when you have, as it were, made them up into one bundle, let the minds of the English be accustomed thereto.”

I believe that we have found in other churches that the ministry of women is just as acceptable to Almighty God as the ministry of men, and that we have papal authority from one of the greatest of the Popes, if it is considered to be needed, for authorising such ministry in the Church if England, even if can hardly now be called new in the faith.

Personally I was initially opposed to the ordinarion of women, on grounds of tradition and also on the kind of grounds on which CS Lewis relied - the Eucharist or Mass brings the people into a close relationship with Christ: the priest can represent the people whether male or female, but can the priest represent Christ if female? It always seemed to me primarily a theological point. Those who are wiser than I am, the majority of General Synod, thought otherwise; and having experienced the ministry of three women curates in my parish church I now accept that it was right, or at the least acceptable to almighty God.

Is it perhaps time for Forward in Faith to revisit its Agreed statement on Communion, published in September 1994, which was prepared "with a view to helping loyal members of the Church of England to remain within the fellowship of that Church and make a lively contribution to its life and witness"?

Many members of Forward in Faith continue to make such a lively contribution. Could some of them, after seventeen years' experience of the ministry of women, come to accept that, at any rate for the Church of England, this is perhaps in accord with the will of God?
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
I believe that we have found in other churches that the ministry of women is just as acceptable to Almighty God as the ministry of men, and that we have papal authority from one of the greatest of the Popes, if it is considered to be needed, for authorising such ministry in the Church if England, even if can hardly now be called new in the faith.

[Confused] So Pope Gregory would have been just fine with women priests because he encouraged St Augustine to allow a measure of decent liturgical diversity? I mean, eh?

You're invoking the pastoral advice of a pope who died over a millenium-and-a-half ago (on a completely different order of issue) as implicit authority for a decision made fewer than twenty years ago to do something which neither Gregory not Augustine could ever even have imagined possible?

Seriously, what kind of argument is that?
 
Posted by egg (# 3982) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
[QUOTE]

You're invoking the pastoral advice of a pope who died over a millenium-and-a-half ago (on a completely different order of issue) as implicit authority for a decision made fewer than twenty years ago to do something which neither Gregory not Augustine could ever even have imagined possible?

Seriously, what kind of argument is that?

I don't think this is a very profitable line to pursue. Many things have changed in the last millennium and a half which neither Gregory nor Augustine could ever have imagined possible. A famous one is the demonstration of the Pope's and the Inquisition's error in finding Galileo mistaken in believing that the earth moved round the sun. I doubt whether Gregory or Augustine regarded as a matter of Faith the dogma of the Bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, required to be believed by all Roman Catholics since 1950. Neither would have imagined it possible that the Mass could validly be celebrated in the vernacular. Nearer home, I doubt whether either Gregory or Augustine would have believed it possible that a woman, St Hilda of Whitby, should train no fewer than five bishops of the Church of England, including St Wilfrid.

The Assumption is, of course, a matter of faith. The belief that the sun moved round the earth was regarded as a matter of faith too, since Galileo was tried for heresy. The question whether the Mass can be validly celebrated in the vernacular, or a woman can become a priest, is not a matter of faith but a second-degree matter of order, which is not affected by the definition of the Catholic Faith given by St Vincent of Lerins. Pope Gregory was a man of vision; but no one can reasonably credit him with such farsighted vision as to foresee the outcome of the Second Vatican Council, or for that matter of the General Synod of the Church of England which he sent St Augustine to found.

Things change. The Catholic Church, whether Roman or Anglican, changes too, if rather more slowly. This is so in relation to matters of faith - 160 years ago neither the Immaculate Conception nor the Infallibility of the Pope nor the Bodily Assumption of the Virgin were an essential part of the Catholic Faith; nor was the Mass in the vernacular; nor the reception of married men with families as priests (though this was not uncommon before the 11th century); nor many lesser matters which are now accepted. As I have said, I used to believe that there was a theological reason against the ordination of women as priests, but experience teaches me that this has proved acceptable to God. 40 years ago my bishop told me he thought the Roman Catholic Church would ordain women before the Church of England did. He has proved to be wrong; but perhaps, in matters of order rather than faith, the current thinking of the Roman Catholic Church may also, in forty years time, prove to be wrong. After all, both man and woman were equally made in God's image, as Scripture says, God having no gender. The arguments against the ordination of women are, frankly, not all that strong.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
Many things have changed in the last millennium and a half which neither Gregory nor Augustine could ever have imagined possible.

One of which was that Augustine's successor would break Comminuion with Gregory's in order to accommodate the dynastic ambitions of a secular ruler.

quote:
A famous one is the demonstration of the Pope's and the Inquisition's error in finding Galileo mistaken in believing that the earth moved round the sun.
Do you actually know anything about this matter?

quote:
I doubt whether Gregory or Augustine regarded as a matter of Faith the dogma of the Bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, required to be believed by all Roman Catholics since 1950.
Since the feast was being celebrated in Rome before the end of 5th century, it seems likely that neither of them would have believed anything else.

quote:
Neither would have imagined it possible that the Mass could validly be celebrated in the vernacular.
Except that they were Romans who celebrated the Mass in the vernacular of the City of Rome.

quote:
[qbNearer home, I doubt whether either Gregory or Augustine would have believed it possible that a woman, St Hilda of Whitby, should train no fewer than five bishops of the Church of England, including St [/qb]
Oh puhleese. Do you have neither a sense of anachronism or the ridiculous.

quote:
The Assumption is, of course, a matter of faith. The belief that the sun moved round the earth was regarded as a matter of faith too, since Galileo was tried for heresy. The question whether the Mass can be validly celebrated in the vernacular, or a woman can become a priest, is not a matter of faith but a second-degree matter of order, which is not affected by the definition of the Catholic Faith given by St Vincent of Lerins. Pope Gregory was a man of vision; but no one can reasonably credit him with such farsighted vision as to foresee the outcome of the Second Vatican Council, or for that matter of the General Synod of the Church of England which he sent St Augustine to found.

Things change. The Catholic Church, whether Roman or Anglican, changes too, if rather more slowly. This is so in relation to matters of faith - 160 years ago neither the Immaculate Conception nor the Infallibility of the Pope nor the Bodily Assumption of the Virgin were an essential part of the Catholic Faith; nor was the Mass in the vernacular; nor the reception of married men with families as priests (though this was not uncommon before the 11th century); nor many lesser matters which are now accepted. As I have said, I used to believe that there was a theological reason against the ordination of women as priests, but experience teaches me that this has proved acceptable to God. 40 years ago my bishop told me he thought the Roman Catholic Church would ordain women before the Church of England did. He has proved to be wrong; but perhaps, in matters of order rather than faith, the current thinking of the Roman Catholic Church may also, in forty years time, prove to be wrong. After all, both man and woman were equally made in God's image, as Scripture says, God having no gender. The arguments against the ordination of women are, frankly, not all that strong.

So you say. The Catholic Church says otherwise and securus judicat orbis terrarum, as we say around here. In any event, this is getting into Dead Horse territory but, Egg, you may not have noticed in your headlong determination to download your curious Anglo-Catholic take on everything, that the Catholics daring to post on what is increasingly feeling like a domestic Anglican board were doing so to point out that Anglicans seeking to have their position as opposed to OoW honoured within the CofE is ecclesiologically wanting your cake and eating it.
 
Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on :
 
There is a good deal being expressed in this thread that is a disgrace and reason enough for people to dismiss 'the church' as nothing but a self-regarding brood of vipers, but no doubt if the entire institution of the church were to collapse tomorrow the life and way of Jesus 'Christ' would remain; something for which we can all be grateful, whatever ecclesiological 'position' we may hold---though no doubt few of us would be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for our precious 'position'.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
There is a good deal being expressed in this thread that is a disgrace and reason enough for people to dismiss 'the church' as nothing but a self-regarding brood of vipers, but no doubt if the entire institution of the church were to collapse tomorrow the life and way of Jesus 'Christ' would remain; something for which we can all be grateful, whatever ecclesiological 'position' we may hold---though no doubt few of us would be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for our precious 'position'.

This is the second time you have sought to curtail debate by adopting this tone. If you don't want to engage in the debate, you are free so not to do. What I don't think you have the right to do is to adopt such a sanctimonious tone.
 
Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on :
 
It may well be sanctimonious, but I include myself in the disgrace. As for curtailing the debate: not at all, but like the proverbial rearrangement of deckchairs on the Titanic, there is no harm in trying to stand back and ask what exactly is the point of the exercise in question?

Ultimately what is being discussed is pretty well irrelevant to the well being of humanity, and to the 'gospel' and calling of Christ; but like PCC discussions over what colour to paint the interior of the church hall, people feel able to get very exercised about it, but struggle to have anything much to say/do about what the church is actually there to be.

I'm sorry if you feel I am pouring cold water.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
It may well be sanctimonious, but I include myself in the disgrace. As for curtailing the debate: not at all, but like the proverbial rearrangement of deckchairs on the Titanic, there is no harm in trying to stand back and ask what exactly is the point of the exercise in question?

Ultimately what is being discussed is pretty well irrelevant to the well being of humanity, and to the 'gospel' and calling of Christ; but like PCC discussions over what colour to paint the interior of the church hall, people feel able to get very exercised about it, but struggle to have anything much to say/do about what the church is actually there to be.

I'm sorry if you feel I am pouring cold water.

You are pouring cold water and no amount of including yourself in those being drenched will alter that. As for what is, or is not, relevant to the 'gospel': what makes you think that your call on that trumps others? The words you used suggest that you weren't trying to stand back and consider the issues under scrutiny at all and it is disingenuous to suggest that such a construction could be put upon them. The issues exposed in this thread are certainly important to those who are debating them and it ill behoves any one of us to seek to seek to shame others into silence by sanctimonious guilt-mongering.

In case you find it within yourself to come down from what you clearly believe to be the moral high-ground and review this thread, you might find it useful to read the posts remembering the following words:
quote:
And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
Then, perhaps, you will understand why those of us who you seek to scold and shame think that the issues in debate are so very important.
 
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :
 
Egg has offered a pretty convincing case against the securus iudicat orbis terrarum on which Trisagion bases his dismissal of Egg's other arguments. (Translated for thos who don't read Latin: it exercises safe judgement over the lands of the earth.

Perhaps Alisdair would like to tell us what he would say to those who believe (for better or worse) that doctrinal shifts in the Church mean there is no longer any Titanic on which to arrange the deckchairs. I don't share that view, but it's seriously held by some and needs to be addressed - unless of course we're going to start refusing to take some people seriously, which seems to me to be a common option both historically and currently, and which is a far greater scandal than anything Alisdair is complaining about.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
Egg has offered a pretty convincing case against the securus iudicat orbis terrarum on which Trisagion bases his dismissal of Egg's other arguments. (Translated for thos who don't read Latin: it exercises safe judgement over the lands of the earth.

I don't think he does anything more than assert, as Anglicans have been asserting for four hundred years, that one part can separate itself from the whole and retain the right to judge authoritatively. You might find that "pretty convincing": your own situation IRL is rather dependent on it being so. To me it smacks of "Oh look, Mother, our Johnny's the only one in step.". I guess that's why you're an Anglican and I'm not.
 
Posted by Fuzzipeg (# 10107) on :
 
Originally posted by AberVicar:
Egg has offered a pretty convincing case against the securus iudicat orbis terrarum on which Trisagion bases his dismissal of Egg's other arguments. (Translated for thos who don't read Latin: it exercises safe judgement over the lands of the earth.

And using that standard Anglican circumlocution of quoting St Gregory the Great out of context and jumping to an illogical conclusion where as insisting that this is a completely wrong approach to scriptural interpretation whilst muttering sitz im leben under your breath.

I sympathise with Trisagion's attempt draw some threads of argument together whilst swimming through pink blancmange.
 
Posted by trouty (# 13497) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
Egg has offered a pretty convincing case against the securus iudicat orbis terrarum on which Trisagion bases his dismissal of Egg's other arguments. (Translated for thos who don't read Latin: it exercises safe judgement over the lands of the earth.

I don't think he does anything more than assert, as Anglicans have been asserting for four hundred years, that one part can separate itself from the whole and retain the right to judge authoritatively. You might find that "pretty convincing": your own situation IRL is rather dependent on it being so. To me it smacks of "Oh look, Mother, our Johnny's the only one in step.". I guess that's why you're an Anglican and I'm not.
To me, your attitude smacks of "everybody should play by my rules or they can't join in". I guess that's why you're a RC and I'm not.
 
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
Egg has offered a pretty convincing case against the securus iudicat orbis terrarum on which Trisagion bases his dismissal of Egg's other arguments. (Translated for thos who don't read Latin: it exercises safe judgement over the lands of the earth.

I don't think he does anything more than assert, as Anglicans have been asserting for four hundred years, that one part can separate itself from the whole and retain the right to judge authoritatively. You might find that "pretty convincing": your own situation IRL is rather dependent on it being so. To me it smacks of "Oh look, Mother, our Johnny's the only one in step.". I guess that's why you're an Anglican and I'm not.
I was referring to Egg's second paragraph actually, which, while not saying anything that hasn't already been said many times, offers a strong case for suggesting that the Church is perfectly capable of being in error.

The interesting thing about the history of the Church of England is that there has been pretty strong resistance to the idea that it can 'judge authoritatively' and at its best a willingness to admit it could be wrong.

Since you seem to want to be personal, my situation IRL depends precisely on the belief that the Church should attempt in principle to teach in humility, and to be prepared to learn and admit its mistakes. No church has been particularly good at this (not surprisingly) but the securus iudicat line I think is pretty discredited.
 
Posted by otyetsfoma (# 12898) on :
 
I am puzzled by Abervic's translation : surely Orbis terrarum is the subject and it is the Round world that cheerfully judges; Rome was in those days the centre of the civilized world in a way it is not now!Romes centrality in the fourth century gave it the probability of being right.
 
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by otyetsfoma:
I am puzzled by Abervic's translation : surely Orbis terrarum is the subject and it is the Round world that cheerfully judges; Rome was in those days the centre of the civilized world in a way it is not now!Romes centrality in the fourth century gave it the probability of being right.

You are quite right in correcting my translation [Hot and Hormonal] yet the way in which Augustine's phrase is commonly used (by Newman and in this argument by Trisagion) still implies a similar meaning to my flawed construction, and your point (and Egg's) still drives a coach and horses through the securus aspect.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
your point (and Egg's) still drives a coach and horses through the securus aspect.

You think? Did you read Trisagion's reply to egg here?
 
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
your point (and Egg's) still drives a coach and horses through the securus aspect.

You think? Did you read Trisagion's reply to egg here?
I did read everything that Trisagion wrote - and carefully - but am not sure which response you actually mean as your link just sends me into a reply box!

The issue is: either the Church has made errors or it has not. Trisagion (and many others) have confidence in the inerrancy of the Catholic Church (defined by communion with the Bishop of Rome) in matters of faith and moral teaching (something which in doctrinal terms goes rather beyond 'morals' and is probably best expressed as 'way of life'). I think that this view is discredited by arguments such as those offered by Egg, and, as Trisagion points out, IRL I have acted consequentially.

AFAICS, Trisagion has rubbished Egg's contributions to this thread, but has not offered an effective argument against them. Again IRL, if someone like Trisagion can come up with a truly convincing argument for the securus that is not clearly contradicted by both present and historical facts regarding the RC church, he might gain a reconversion.

I know this is like a version of the 'no true Scotsman' argument, but Trisagion does not convince me personally, and more important to this thread he does not meet Egg's argument.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
it is possible for the Church to ordain women - in which case in justice it must so do - or it is not. If it is, when a women so ordained purports to celebrate the Eucharist, no matter how sincerely or conscientiously an objector holds to his or her position, then it is the Eucharist: if it is not then, no matter how sincerely or how conscientiously she believes herself to be so doing, it is not the Eucharist. These are such fundamentally incompatible and irreconcilable positions that they constitute a de facto schism between those who hold those positions. If the ancient definition of schism as setting up altar against altar is correct then what is this but that. There can be no full Eucharistic Communion (which is, by definition, a fundamentally reciprocal relationship) between the two and the 'two integrities' idea has about it the ring of wanting the penny and the bun.

I entirely agree with your statement of the issues, but to me, "two integrities" is a straightforward factual description of what we have in Christendom. It is possible to be an orthodox Christian and think that women can (and therefore should - both in justice and in obedience to individual vocations) be priests, and possible to be an orthodox Christian and to doubt or deny that.

The question is whether the two integrities can exist in the same church. The CofE's (imperfectly followed) approach has been to try to achieve this. It is too early to say whether it will succeed, but in my view it is an entirely worthy enterprise. It demonstrates a commitment to unity in principle between Christians who disagree, even when they disagree on an issue that concerns what the church essentially is.

Yes, of course, it is wanting the penny and the bun. But why shouldn't we want both? Both are worth having. We are, as Christians, under an obligation to act with personal integrity and in unity with one another. There may be times when we cannot do both and have to choose, but it should never be an easy choice, and if there is a way in which we can preserve unity while respecting the consciences of all, don't we have a duty to look for it?


quote:
My oldest and closest friend is a Vicar. Do I believe that he is a priest, endowed with the power to celebrate the Eucharist and to forgive sins? No. Not for one minute and he knows it. Do I believe that he is a charlatan, a deluded fool? No, of course not. I believe him to sincerely and conscientiously mistaken. Do I believe his ministry is of no value. No, I certainly don't. The pastoral care and the preaching, the leadership and ritual he offers to his community are very clearly vehicles of God's grace. In those circumstances, could we stand around the same altar and celebrate the same Eucharist? No, of course not because that would betoken not respect for one another's integrity but to hold sincerely held beliefs in contempt, of little or no account. Do I respect him and what he believes and does? Of course I do: as he thinks I am wrong, so I think him to be so. I love and respect and value everything about him so much that I owe him who I am and what I believe: I owe him the respect and honour and duty of a love that does not lie to him. He is due the respect of my integrity.
A thought experiment (which I accept contains conjectures that, while possible, are both irregular and unlikely - please bear with me):

Suppose that your friend converts to Catholicism. Your bishop, who is somewhat erratic as far as proper procedure is concerned, and also short on priests, immediately appoints him to be the priest of a Catholic parish, without bothering to ordain//re-ordain/conditionally ordain him, on the assumption that his Anglican orders are good enough.

You may not accept that they are. You may find yourself unable in good conscience to take communion or receive absolution from him, and you probably would not make his church your regular place of worship, but you wouldn't, surely, feel obliged to leave the Catholic Church?

If, some years later, your friend was appointed to a vacancy in the episcopate, again, without any proper procedure that might cure the defect in his orders, your dilemma would be greater, and (if you considered bishops to be absolutely indispensible) might even require you to worship outside his diocese or (as a member of the clergy) place yourself under the authority of another bishop, but would you consider yourself to be in schism with the Church as a whole? Would you consider that the error of a Catholic who couldn't see what the problem with your friend's status was to have placed themselves outside the Church, as far as you were concerned?

I may be wrong, but I would be very surprised if you did. I would expect that you would still want the bun of Christian unity, and would see no reason to pay the penny of personal integrity to get it, since there would be a manageable (if unsatisfactory) way to have both.

Clearly the Anglican position differs in that the disputed orders of women priests are (as far as the CofE as a whole is concerned) regular and valid, rather than being a breach of the rules, but the principle of having a legitimate doubt about the ordination of a person popularly recognsed as a priest is similar. It does not automatically put the parties in schism - not to the extent that we can know that any attempt at peaceable co-existence is doomed before we even attempt it.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
I did read everything that Trisagion wrote - and carefully - but am not sure which response you actually mean as your link just sends me into a reply box!
Oops. I meant this post here. My apolzers.

To sum, my objections to egg's argument was that it was quite simply absurd. I tried to spell out in my reply why it was absurd to call upon the specifically papal authority of St Gregory for a much, much later, post-break-with-Rome, major-order theological issue (ordination of women) on the grounds that Gregory thought Augustine should be pragmatic about particular liturgical differences in detail between the Roman rite and local rites he encountered. This is like arguing that because a certain inculturation of local customs into the liturgies of certain Catholic peoples in Hypotheticoland were permitted by the Church upon their adoption of Catholicism a couple of ceturies ago, this constututes implicit papal permission for them to practice polygamy today.

In response, egg merely trotted out the typical canard about Galileo (a different order issue altogether), and objections of the "well, Gregory couldn't have foreseen or approved of liturgies in the vernacular or the definition of the Assumption either - both of which Trisagion completely squished.

Er, that's it.

[ 28. December 2011, 11:05: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
It may well be sanctimonious, but I include myself in the disgrace. As for curtailing the debate: not at all, but like the proverbial rearrangement of deckchairs on the Titanic, there is no harm in trying to stand back and ask what exactly is the point of the exercise in question?

Ultimately what is being discussed is pretty well irrelevant to the well being of humanity, and to the 'gospel' and calling of Christ; but like PCC discussions over what colour to paint the interior of the church hall, people feel able to get very exercised about it, but struggle to have anything much to say/do about what the church is actually there to be.

The problem with this approach is that saying "this is irrelevant to the gospel" doesn't get us one step nearer to answering the question itself - and it needs to be answered. Even if you think that it doesn't matter one way or another whether women are ordained or not (with the implications, which most Christians would not accept, that fair treatment of men and women, respect for tradition, the role of ordained ministers, church unity, and the personal importance of a priestly vocation are all trivial matters) we still need to decide whether or not to do it, and then (the issue on this thread) work through and live with the consequences. By saying "it doesn't matter" your only contribution to the debate is to ask that the decision is made on an unthinking and ill-considered basis and the consequences of it ignored. That is not a helpful contribution.

Your observation might be appropriate to someone who is obsessed by the issue out of all proportion to its importance. That is not true, as far as I can tell, of anyone who has posted on this thread, nor of debate on the Ship generally. All of us recognise the there are other things that matter more than this, but are mature enough to recognise that just because an issue is not of absolutely supreme importance, that does not make it trivial.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
The interesting thing about the history of the Church of England is that there has been pretty strong resistance to the idea that it can 'judge authoritatively' and at its best a willingness to admit it could be wrong.

No - that's emerged in the past 150 years as a pragmatic solution to the chaos that modern theology has made of any serious doctrinal coherence. It started as a solution to the arrival of the Oxford movement, particularly in the light of the failure of the hierarchy to accept the work of God in Wesley's preaching, with the result Methodism split off from the CofE. For a long time in the 20th century toleration worked well. However in recent years the gay issue has forced the bishops - on the receiving end of threats from wealthy parishes to stop supporting their dioceses - to actually say something meaningful on the topic. And when you turn the logic round and argue, as I do, that this means that the wider Anglican church has no greater claim on my giving than any other Christian organisation, bishops get very twitchy, despite it being the logical consequence. Sadly the reality is that 'being an Anglican' actually has no doctrinal content any more...

Not that Rome is a lot better these days; it's inability to resolve the status of Taize as an ecumenical religious community in clear violation of Catholic canon law demonstrates a degree of flexibility - but one that renders its position totally inconsistent. [Biased]
 
Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on :
 
I largely accept the criticism levelled against the accusation I have made; but such criticism does not remove the fact that much of what is in discussion is, ultimately 'a point of view', an opinion, however passionately held. In other words: there is no end to the discussion as long as there are at least two points of view, and in fact there are more.

Surely part of the 'genius' of Anglicinism, born out of the strife and bloodshed of passionately held beliefs and opinions, is the willingness to allow a diversity of opinion/belief. That strength is also an achilles heal as with the decline of empire and a clearly understood social structure (for better and for worse), that breadth has been stretched beyond credibility, and many have seen cause to get out from under it altogether.

I go back to my original point which is simply that while the issue of this thread may not be fundamental, neither is it seen to be of any great relevance or interest by many, who simply see a bunch of people effectively fiddling while their Rome burns. If the whole tottering edifice collapsed tomorrow, in practice faithful and loving people would continue to follow Christ; and arguably be a good deal freer to do so. Not that I imagine any kind of utopia in such a circumstance.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
It started as a solution to the arrival of the Oxford movement, particularly in the light of the failure of the hierarchy to accept the work of God in Wesley's preaching, with the result Methodism split off from the CofE.

What on earth has the Oxford Movement (1833) got to do with the Methodist split (late 18th Century)??
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
It started as a solution to the arrival of the Oxford movement, particularly in the light of the failure of the hierarchy to accept the work of God in Wesley's preaching, with the result Methodism split off from the CofE.

What on earth has the Oxford Movement (1833) got to do with the Methodist split (late 18th Century)??
Given that the perception had grown by the time of the Oxford movement that the failure of the CofE to show sufficient flexibility towards the Wesleys to let them stay in her was a BAD THING, the CofE, when faced with a further theologically challenging movement within her ranks, sought to react liberally this time around.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Oh right. I understand your point.
 
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
The interesting thing about the history of the Church of England is that there has been pretty strong resistance to the idea that it can 'judge authoritatively' and at its best a willingness to admit it could be wrong.

No - that's emerged in the past 150 years as a pragmatic solution to the chaos that modern theology has made of any serious doctrinal coherence. It started as a solution to the arrival of the Oxford movement, particularly in the light of the failure of the hierarchy to accept the work of God in Wesley's preaching, with the result Methodism split off from the CofE. For a long time in the 20th century toleration worked well. However in recent years the gay issue has forced the bishops - on the receiving end of threats from wealthy parishes to stop supporting their dioceses - to actually say something meaningful on the topic. And when you turn the logic round and argue, as I do, that this means that the wider Anglican church has no greater claim on my giving than any other Christian organisation, bishops get very twitchy, despite it being the logical consequence. Sadly the reality is that 'being an Anglican' actually has no doctrinal content any more...

Not that Rome is a lot better these days; it's inability to resolve the status of Taize as an ecumenical religious community in clear violation of Catholic canon law demonstrates a degree of flexibility - but one that renders its position totally inconsistent. [Biased]

I suppose that Hooker's latitudinarian approach, and the willingness on all sides to accept that there exist within doctrine adiaphora ('indifferent' things - of secondary importance) don't cross your radar, then? Not to mention the laxness - or was that tolerance - of much of 18th century church polity...
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
[QUOTE]I guess that's why you're an Anglican and I'm not.

It could just be why you're a RC and we're not ....
 
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
[QUOTE] as Anglicans have been asserting for four hundred years, that one part can separate itself from the whole and retain the right to judge authoritatively.

Or, more accurately, 'judge authoritatively for us.'

Why it should astonish you, and continue to so astonish you, that the Church of England should feel competent and able to order and regulate its own affairs, is puzzling.

It would be very strange if I did not believe that my bishops, in synod, could not regulate their own church. Presumably it does not astonish you that your bishops do so for yours.

And if your answer has something to do with what your bishops think of my bishops, then I would posit that Dr Hooker resolved that issue some time ago.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Trisagion:
[qb] [QUOTE] as Anglicans have been asserting for four hundred years, that one part can separate itself from the whole and retain the right to judge authoritatively.

This is hardly the kind of attitude that helps ecumenical relationships - one wonders how symptomatic this is of the RC's attitude as a whole. Is the welcome just window dressing?
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
I suppose that Hooker's latitudinarian approach, and the willingness on all sides to accept that there exist within doctrine adiaphora ('indifferent' things - of secondary importance) don't cross your radar, then? Not to mention the laxness - or was that tolerance - of much of 18th century church polity...

However given that the practice of the 17th century CofE included the persecution of both Charles Fox and John Bunyan, the limits were actually very tight, and Wesley WAS forced out - or rather the churches which his preaching generated were excluded from the CofE, with the result that they chose / were forced to go into schism.

Of course the debate is all about what is adiaphora; everyone agrees that some things are - the problem is that noone can agree what those things are. Of such disagreements are denominations formed... It can be argued that the CofE fudge of 1992 was an attempt to run a church with the belief that OoW could be dealt with as an adiaphora; in practice this seems to have failed. Where to lay the blame - whether it was actually inevitable or whether it is as a result of one or both sides failing to act in good faith, as evidenced by my earlier rant in this thread. - is another issue.
 
Posted by Manipled Mutineer (# 11514) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Trisagion:
[qb] [QUOTE] as Anglicans have been asserting for four hundred years, that one part can separate itself from the whole and retain the right to judge authoritatively.

This is hardly the kind of attitude that helps ecumenical relationships - one wonders how symptomatic this is of the RC's attitude as a whole. Is the welcome just window dressing?
The welcome offered to members of the Ordinariate (which I assume is what you mean) is perfectly real on its own terms and separate from the genuine, long standing and openly declared problems which subsist between the Anglican and Catholic churches.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Manipled Mutineer:
[QUOTE]The welcome offered to members of the Ordinariate (which I assume is what you mean) is perfectly real on its own terms and separate from the genuine, long standing and openly declared problems which subsist between the Anglican and Catholic churches.

Repeat it long and often enough and someone might, just, believe it: a lot of us don't.

How can you actually seperate a welcome from a problem and yet still retain your integrity?

[ 30. December 2011, 07:36: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
 
Posted by Manipled Mutineer (# 11514) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Manipled Mutineer:
[QUOTE]The welcome offered to members of the Ordinariate (which I assume is what you mean) is perfectly real on its own terms and separate from the genuine, long standing and openly declared problems which subsist between the Anglican and Catholic churches.

Repeat it long and often enough and someone might, just, believe it: a lot of us don't.

How can you actually seperate a welcome from a problem and yet still retain your integrity?

I genuinely don't understand the point you are making here. Why should the fact that the Catholic Church has some fairly well-publicised disagreements with Anglicanism mean that those who join the Catholic Church from Anglicanism are somehow not really welcome? Or is that not your point?
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Manipled Mutineer:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Manipled Mutineer:
[QUOTE]The welcome offered to members of the Ordinariate (which I assume is what you mean) is perfectly real on its own terms and separate from the genuine, long standing and openly declared problems which subsist between the Anglican and Catholic churches.

Repeat it long and often enough and someone might, just, believe it: a lot of us don't.

How can you actually seperate a welcome from a problem and yet still retain your integrity?

I genuinely don't understand the point you are making here. Why should the fact that the Catholic Church has some fairly well-publicised disagreements with Anglicanism mean that those who join the Catholic Church from Anglicanism are somehow not really welcome? Or is that not your point?
That's exactly my point. There may be a welcome now but it does not totally hide the seemingly anti CofE views that are presented here (and which may or may not be a common feature of wider RC polity).

The point I'm trying to make is whether the welcome is authentic or just a window dressing exercise. In a few years down the line will those "priests" who have "moved" be subjected to the removal of their clerical ordination that the RCC doesn't recognise anyway? Can anyoen be sure that promises amde will be promises kept and are you as RCC's to be assisting in the fragmentation of another church?
 
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The point I'm trying to make is whether the welcome is authentic or just a window dressing exercise. In a few years down the line will those "priests" who have "moved" be subjected to the removal of their clerical ordination that the RCC doesn't recognise anyway? Can anyoen be sure that promises amde will be promises kept and are you as RCC's to be assisting in the fragmentation of another church?

Eh???? They have been 'reordained'! I share your suspicion as to possible mixed motivation in setting up the Ordinariate - but let's make sure we know the facts, shall we?
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
That's exactly my point. There may be a welcome now but it does not totally hide the seemingly anti CofE views that are presented here (and which may or may not be a common feature of wider RC polity).

The point I'm trying to make is whether the welcome is authentic or just a window dressing exercise. In a few years down the line will those "priests" who have "moved" be subjected to the removal of their clerical ordination that the RCC doesn't recognise anyway? Can anyoen be sure that promises amde will be promises kept and are you as RCC's to be assisting in the fragmentation of another church?

If you mean Trisagion, whom your post was a response to, then he isn't anti-CofE. He is reacting to unwarranted and groundless accusations of bad faith like that one.


That said, I don't understand the point about Anglicans thinking that they can judge authoritatively. Our current mess exists precisely because we recognise that our decision to ordain women isn't even authoritative on those who can't in conscience accept it within our own ranks, never mind the wider church. If (which God forbid!) we had an Anglican pope who could rule authoritatively as a matter of faith and morals that women could be priests, we wouldn't be here. It is because we are trying to keep two inconsistent viewpoints in the same communion without saying to the minority that they are simply wrong, that these problems arise. I suspect that Trisagion is casting CofE stroppiness in RC terms, and it doesn't fit. We are being stroppy on a quite different paradigm to that of the RCC.
 
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
We are being stroppy on a quite different paradigm to that of the RCC.

[Overused] [Overused]
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:

Eh???? They have been 'reordained'! I share your suspicion as to possible mixed motivation in setting up the Ordinariate - but let's make sure we know the facts, shall we? [/QB]
Reordained - so much for an open door then.

Come on in boys -- oh but you can only come in if you
a) affirm that all you've stood for, all the people you've offered mass to, for so many years, is invalid
b) you're happy to do exactly what you're told and put aside your conscience on matters of faith and belief.

Some welcome!
 
Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Manipled Mutineer:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Manipled Mutineer:
[QUOTE]The welcome offered to members of the Ordinariate (which I assume is what you mean) is perfectly real on its own terms and separate from the genuine, long standing and openly declared problems which subsist between the Anglican and Catholic churches.

Repeat it long and often enough and someone might, just, believe it: a lot of us don't.

How can you actually seperate a welcome from a problem and yet still retain your integrity?

I genuinely don't understand the point you are making here. Why should the fact that the Catholic Church has some fairly well-publicised disagreements with Anglicanism mean that those who join the Catholic Church from Anglicanism are somehow not really welcome? Or is that not your point?
That's exactly my point. There may be a welcome now but it does not totally hide the seemingly anti CofE views that are presented here (and which may or may not be a common feature of wider RC polity).

The point I'm trying to make is whether the welcome is authentic or just a window dressing exercise. In a few years down the line will those "priests" who have "moved" be subjected to the removal of their clerical ordination that the RCC doesn't recognise anyway? Can anyoen be sure that promises amde will be promises kept and are you as RCC's to be assisting in the fragmentation of another church?

The Ordinariate priests and deacons have been ("re")-ordained in the ("Roman") Catholic Church. Any interference with that priestly state would have to be in accordance with the Code of Canon Law - just as it would with any other Catholic Priest within the Roman Rite. The Ordinariate priests have the same legal protections against this than any other Catholic priest.

They remain as ordained Anglican priests, albeit without any licence or permission to function as such. They have the option to formally renounce their Anglican orders by deed, though this is an option that few have ever taken up, not least because it is both expensive and completely pointless. Given the official Roman position that these Orders are without efficacy, it would be a bit of a nonsense if Rome were to require their formal relinquishment. If something is null & void, it hardly needs relinquishing.

So yes, like the others, I'm entirely confused as to the point Mark is trying to make.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
[QUOTE]1. That said, I don't understand the point about Anglicans thinking that they can judge authoritatively.

2. Our current mess exists precisely because we recognise that our decision to ordain women isn't even authoritative on those who can't in conscience accept it within our own ranks, never mind the wider church.

1. Anglicans have the potential to judge in this way but choose not to. The compromise position (aka "The Fudge") is the standard response, hoping tat time will heal or the issue will go away. This one won't be dealt with in such easy terms either a decision is made and some will leave or nothing is done and the church will remain a laughing stock. Gospel witness? Don' crack me up!

2. This is the consequence of "The Fudge." In 1992 some of us knew we'd coem to this, it was just a question of how long it would take. For some, the relief is that this issue isn't on their watch and they've done all they can to keep it off theirs for a good few years. The only solution is to make a binding decision in Synod that is a !take it or leave it" choice: if you don't like it, then find a church grouping where you will be comfortable. I'm happy with that even if the decision isn't the one I'd prefer ....
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
The speed with which you move from castigating the Catholic Church for (possibly, at some undisclosed date in the future) breaking its promises to Anglicans opposed to women's ordination, to advocating that the Church of England do exactly that, is truly astonishing.

Doing so right after blaming the Catholics for expecting Anglican converts to adopt a Catholic view of priestly orders as a condition of welcome, while maintaining that Anglicans who don't accept your view of Anglican orders should fuck off to Rome, is, ... well ... words fail me.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The speed with which you move from castigating the Catholic Church for (possibly, at some undisclosed date in the future) breaking its promises to Anglicans opposed to women's ordination, to advocating that the Church of England do exactly that, is truly astonishing.

Doing so right after blaming the Catholics for expecting Anglican converts to adopt a Catholic view of priestly orders as a condition of welcome, while maintaining that Anglicans who don't accept your view of Anglican orders should fuck off to Rome, is, ... well ... words fail me.

Who's to say that the decision would/will coem down to those who oppose Oow leaving?

What some see as "promises" in the CofE agreements, in retrospect are being shown up to be nothing of the sort. It was simply a matter of expediency at the tiem to get the issue through.

I don't have any issue with those who disagree with me about Anglican "orders" (whatever they may be - I believe we are all "ordained" into Godly service in any event). The issue I have is with matters where a decision must be made but no one seems willing to do it.

As a matter of fact, I have a lot of sympathy from a theological POV over the anti Oow issue but little with the "solution" of the ordinariate.

[Btw - and I know this sounds awfully old fashioned - but I don't like swear words either].

[ 30. December 2011, 11:17: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
 
Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The speed with which you move from castigating the Catholic Church for (possibly, at some undisclosed date in the future) breaking its promises to Anglicans opposed to women's ordination, to advocating that the Church of England do exactly that, is truly astonishing.

Doing so right after blaming the Catholics for expecting Anglican converts to adopt a Catholic view of priestly orders as a condition of welcome, while maintaining that Anglicans who don't accept your view of Anglican orders should fuck off to Rome, is, ... well ... words fail me.

Who's to say that the decision would/will coem down to those who oppose Oow leaving?

What some see as "promises" in the CofE agreements, in retrospect are being shown up to be nothing of the sort. It was simply a matter of expediency at the tiem to get the issue through.

I don't have any issue with those who disagree with me about Anglican "orders" (whatever they may be - I believe we are all "ordained" into Godly service in any event). The issue I have is with matters where a decision must be made but no one seems willing to do it.

As a matter of fact, I have a lot of sympathy from a theological POV over the anti Oow issue but little with the "solution" of the ordinariate.

[Btw - and I know this sounds awfully old fashioned - but I don't like swear words either].

I asked this of you at some other point (either in this thread or another, sorry can't remember). I don't think I got a reply, apologies if I'm wrong on that.

Short of Pauline conversion to the majority view in the CofE (or them setting their consciences aside and obeying the authority - which you don't seem a fan of a few posts up from here), what exactly would you have Anglo-Catholics opposed to OoW do?
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
[QUOTE]Short of Pauline conversion to the majority view in the CofE (or them setting their consciences aside and obeying the authority - which you don't seem a fan of a few posts up from here), what exactly would you have Anglo-Catholics opposed to OoW do?

Until a final decision is made, fight from within. If/when it is - and it is one that lays down a markr about Oow - the only way is out but not to the ordinariate. Set up a "Church of Continuing..." if you must.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
What some see as "promises" in the CofE agreements, in retrospect are being shown up to be nothing of the sort. It was simply a matter of expediency at the tiem to get the issue through.

So if you assure someone of their status as a valued and loyal member of your community because, as a matter of expediencce, you need their political support, you have no obligation to treat them as such once you no longer have a use for them? Seriously?

quote:
[Btw - and I know this sounds awfully old fashioned - but I don't like swear words either].
OK, you want people to leave the church community in which they have grown up, made friends, found faith, to which they have given love, time and money, and which forms an essential part of their Christian identity, because their traditions differ from yours? And because I use the shorthand expression that you are telling people to fuck off, you get offended?

EM, your views are offensive. They are not offensive because they can be expressed with the use of the word ‘fuck', they are offensive because what you are in fact doing is telling people to fuck off, whether you use that word or not.

If you were to reflect for a moment that what you are saying really is morally indistinguishable from "We told these people a load of crap about wanting them in the church when we needed their support, but now that we don't need them, we don't give a shit about them, and wish they would fuck off", there is a tiny possibility of you grasping why it is that some people here disagree with you.
 
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :
 
If we waited for facts, we'd have to be silent for a very long time.

<Pauses for as long as he can bear, waiting for the facts to become clear>

Sorry no, that didn't work, and the urge to utter has become insurmountable. As you were....
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
[QUOTE]EM, your views are offensive. They are not offensive because they can be expressed with the use of the word ‘fuck', they are offensive because what you are in fact doing is telling people to fuck off, whether you use that word or not.

If you were to reflect for a moment that what you are saying really is morally indistinguishable from "We told these people a load of crap about wanting them in the church when we needed their support, but now that we don't need them, we don't give a shit about them, and wish they would fuck off", there is a tiny possibility of you grasping why it is that some people here disagree with you.

I don't doubt that people disagree with me: that's a fact of life. It is also my opinion/view supported by a few known facts and my moral right to hold such an opinion however unpleasant, just as you exercise your right to swear.

I do believe that people were misled and I don't doubt that some of it was deliberate. I am not telling people to leave because I want them to - I don't actually - it's just an inevitable consequence of things put in chain 20 years ago. Whether it was deliberate (in part or in whole) or simply unforeseen (unlikely IMHO) it will happen and we will be the worse for it. The bottom line is that things can't go on as they are, with integrity.

(Pedant hat on). As to your use of the expletive, a precise disctionary definition will tell you that the word pertains as a verb and a noun to the act of sexual intercourse. I don't see any of that, nice as it is, happening in this case , unless you know better! (pedant hat off)

[ 30. December 2011, 14:48: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
I don't think promises are being broken. I thibnk the majority in the CofE have done, and are doing, nore than could reasonably have been expected or imagined to keep the anti-women crowd in. We gave way to them on point after point again and again. And most of us are still willing to. I resent being told that we have somehow betrayed them when we have often bend over backwards to accomodate them.

For nearly twenty years the parish church of the parish I live in has operated almost entirely independently of the local Anglican structures. They have played little or no part in Deanery or Diocesean affairs, they have chosen to relate to a different bishop, they (as far as I know) don't contribute to the diocesan finances. All this isin marked contrast to the local Evangelical parishes, despite the paranoid canards of some of the other persuasion. Worst of all they utterly reject the priestly status and the ordination of the clergy at the parish church I actually attend half a mile up the road.

I actually don't mind that much. Its a pity, and I would prefer it if they did join in with the Church of England, but I'm quite happy for them to continue like that indefinitely if they want to. Who am I to try to force my opinions on them? I'll carry on going to the next-door parish up the road.

So the Church of England not only tolerates but large welcomes within it a minority who do not recognise Anglican orders, do not co-operate with other Anglican churches, do not contribute to shared finance, and do not recognise the authority of their diocesan bishops! What other episcopal denomination has done such a thing?

And those same people talk about this state of affairs as lies and betrayal and broken promises? That gets up my nose a bit.
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
Bit more heat than light now emerging. Can we take it as read that:

1. Promises were made in 1992 (and have been reaffirmed since) that those opposed continue to be loyal Anglicans and would be provided for. There are those who'd like to rewrite that history, but the documentation (and the Synodical and Parliamentary record) is against them.

2.The question we now have to face is "in what form should those promises now be honoured?"

So, when women become bishops, what will be needed to hold the CofE together?

In relation to the promises made and how they might be honoured, there have been various models proposed.

One was the Third Province. That now seems to me to be (as it always has been) dead in the water, as the Ordinariate provides precisely what the protagonists of the Third Province were looking for, albeit in a different denomination. It always was a separatist solution, and even those of us who wanted to provide continuing space for those opposed never thought that it was supportable.

Another was the 1992/3 Resolutions A & B +- extended oversight. This provision clearly can't continue in its present shape or form when we have women bishops, as it depends for its operation on those opposed recognising all bishops as bishops (even if bishops with whom they are in "impaired communion") [note - this phrase now needs redefining with more precision, as it never really has meant the same thing to all trad caths, let alone to con evos...] Once women are ordained as bishops, those opposed won't be able to operate in this way. (And Resolutions A & B have tended in any case to be Dibley provision for country parishes who didn't want a woman priest because they'd never had one, rather than for those with real conscience on these matters, who've mostly gone the whole caboodle and voted for extended oversight from bishops with "the right kind of pedigree")

So what will we end up with?

I suspect that we need a huge dose of pragmatism on all sides. Those of us who want women bishops have to screw our eyes tight and recognise that the two doctrines of "sacramental assurance" and "male headship", which to me are both complete gobbledegook, matter deeply to trad caths and con evos. So we'll try to make room for those beliefs.

Those opposed will have to make some adjustments to their theology of episcopacy. Women will be bishops, as they are priests. We'll make it as easy as possible for them not to have to deal with women and men bishops with whom they'll be in "impaired communion" (hence the need for a definition) - and there will be a society, or a badging, of "kosher" bishops for them to relate to. [Again, this has always gone on. People tend to invite their sort of bishop to tat fests, bible conventions, patronal festivals and the like - and they usually, but not always, remember to ask the permission of the local bishop to do so...]

So, not very much will change in practice. Purists will moan about not everyone being gathered around their diocesan bishop - but they never really have been anyway. The Code of Practice won't provide as much certainty as opponents want - but it's clear that nothing stronger will get through Synod. In Dioceses where people treat each other with respect, we'll find a way to rub along. If Diocesan Bishops start playing heavy with opponents, it'll get messy and end up in the courts. If those opposed get fractious and start inviting foreign bishops in, it'll get messy and end up in the courts. But if we can devise a Code that allows opponents proper oversight that they can recognise (ie real bishoping), we can make this work. If we aren't prepared to do this, then we should be honest and tell that time's up. But that would be bad faith.

[ 30. December 2011, 15:52: Message edited by: pete173 ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
If those opposed get fractious and start inviting foreign bishops in

This has been going on for years in my neck of the woods. The diocese has shown either considerable restraint, or are playing a long game...
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
I had thought this thread was started to deal with, what seems to this outsider, to be very serious issues: the de facto breaking of communion with one's own bishop by setting up Chrism Mass against Chrism Mass (close enough, I would argue, to the definition of schism) and the appropriate attitude to women in ministry. The point I was trying to make originally on this thread was that it seems abundantly clear that the CofE has spoken pretty decisively (authoritative for the CofE)on the OoW and that staying within the CofE if you don't believe that women can be ordained seems pretty strange. To suggest that one is 'in communion' with another when you don't recognise the validity of their orders and so do not recognise in their ministry the operation of sacramental grace is to stretch the definition of 'communion' well past breaking point.

I'll admit that it is possible to believe that women can be ordained but that it is not licit so to do. But here the ecclesiological ground gets even more of a quagmire since you are denying the authority of the communion to which you belong in favour of the authority of other communions which you reject.

Either way, remaining in thee CofE and bleating about two integrities seems extremely odd and in no way justifies either rejecting the 0rdinary authority and communion of your bishop or being rude to women in ministry.

My remarks about the validity of Anglican Orders were merely an illustration of how one might deny the validity of the orders of another whilst not needing to believe the other to be bad. I'm sorry if that touched a couple of raw nerves and am particular sorry to AberVicar if I appeared to be personal. That was not my intention. Since you have mentioned your own circumstances here before, it seemed perfectly in order to suggest that your position required taking a different view from mine. I was clearly wrong.

I am perfectly acquainted, dear egg, with the arguments around the development of doctrine and its authentication. I disagree with your line of reasoning but the issues you raise are a clear tangent to this thread and best developed, it seems to me, elsewhere.

EM, I'm sorry if you find the views I have expressed to be unecumenical. Any ecumenism worthy of the name requires candour and integrity. Too much of the dialogue between Catholics and Anglicans has been neither candid nor straightforward. Neither of those things implies a lack of respect, whereas pretence not only implies but is a manifestation of disrespect. As for the hypothetical: it contained too many details that simply can't happen because of the canonical processes - which are designed in part to exclude the mare's nest of the hypothetical. Accordingly, I think it best left.

As for why I am not an Anglican: I can't say that it has ever occurred to me.
 
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :
 
Trisagion is right to draw the discussion back to the issue of who is in communion with whom.

FWIW, my view is that the confusion begins when you start talking about 'impaired communion' - a phrase which was used by the Eames Commission in an attempt to underline the unity that exists within the Anglican Communion as opposed to the issues that divide us.

In an essay written to mark the centenary of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral in 1988, the much lamented RC ecumenist Jean Tillard emphasised the fact that for humans communion is always impaired to some extent, and he laid considerable emphasis on the communion of charity and good works which unites active Christians.

Possibly inevitably, the 'impaired communion' idea has come to be used as a reference to relationships with bishops and other Christians with whom there is a disagreement of a more or less serious doctrinal kind. While the concept works perfectly well in a discourse directed toward pointing up existing/remaining unity, it does not work so well in discourse that highlights division.

I'd suggest that once you get beyond the stage where you accept that you're in communion with your bishop despite disagreements or differences, that is the time to look for a different communion, because the term - and the relationship - have ceased to mean anything. A useful acid test could be whether you will receive Holy Communion from the bishop of your diocese.

Thus far, I'd agree with +Pete, but I would say that we need to get shot of the 'impaired communion' idea under present circumstances, and encourage people to work out honestly who they really are in communion with.
 
Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :
 
What happens in 40 years or so time?

When all those involved prior to 1992 have moved on? When it is very difficult to work out who has kosher orders or not? When the proportion of pure parishes has declined? When a majority of the PCC no longer agrees with Father?

Are we intending to create a long-term permanent structural solution, or an interim solution for those around now who are in their 50s who want to finish their ministry in peace? Are we going to ordain intentionally a new generation of 20-something impossibilist priests? Or the slow death of a thousand cuts?
 
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
What happens in 40 years or so time?

When all those involved prior to 1992 have moved on? When it is very difficult to work out who has kosher orders or not? When the proportion of pure parishes has declined? When a majority of the PCC no longer agrees with Father?

Are we intending to create a long-term permanent structural solution, or an interim solution for those around now who are in their 50s who want to finish their ministry in peace? Are we going to ordain intentionally a new generation of 20-something impossibilist priests? Or the slow death of a thousand cuts?

Strangely enough, these questions have occurred to many of us who are contributing to this debate. I fail to see how you can further the argument by just rehearsing the issues using the most extreme and ecclesiological tendentious language.

What do you think should be done?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
Are we intending to create a long-term permanent structural solution, or an interim solution for those around now who are in their 50s who want to finish their ministry in peace? Are we going to ordain intentionally a new generation of 20-something impossibilist priests? Or the slow death of a thousand cuts?

Ordinands in the CofE must surely accept, whatever their theological stripe, that they are being ordained into a church which ordains women as priests, and has always been likely since that Measure passed to have women bishops.

Believing anything else is wilful.
 
Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Those of us who want women bishops have to screw our eyes tight and recognise that the two doctrines of "sacramental assurance" and "male headship", which to me are both complete gobbledegook, matter deeply to trad caths and con evos. So we'll try to make room for those beliefs.

I do hope this is shorthand for "make room for those who hold those beliefs". To make room for those who feel besieged is one thing, but to agree now that for all time it will be permissible in the CofE to teach nasty pernicious nonsense seems to me silly. (You'll see that in at least one of the cases I think "gobbledegook" is too neutral a term.)


quote:
Originally posted by pete173:

But if we can devise a Code that allows opponents proper oversight that they can recognise (ie real bishoping), we can make this work. If we aren't prepared to do this, then we should be honest and tell that time's up. But that would be bad faith.

I can't see where the bad faith comes in. As ken and others have said the majority has tried very hard in the CofE to respect those of "the other integrity". But that cannot mean letting two minorities extract compromises which fundamentally undermine what the majority has decided it wants to achieve.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
American Piskie posts:
quote:
I can't see where the bad faith comes in. As ken and others have said the majority has tried very hard in the CofE to respect those of "the other integrity". But that cannot mean letting two minorities extract compromises which fundamentally undermine what the majority has decided it wants to achieve.
The bad faith comes in when promises are made to obtain a measure's passage and establish a reality on the ground; and when this is achieved, the promises are withdrawn (of course, in a procedurally valid manner).

One can argue that the promises should not have been made as they were unsustainable in the long run, or that they should have been made with a time limit, but they were not.

I recall at the time that there were concerns that the minority would distance itself further from diocesan life, that a church-within-a-church would develop, and that the provisions as designed would fossilize local situations--not to mention being flawed ecclesiologically, as others have point out. These concerns were taken into account, the undertakings were made, and the majority secured passage of the measure. There was no best-by date stamp.

If the majority didn't want to make the compromises which Piskie says "fundamentally undermine what the majority has decided it wants to achieve," then they shouldn't have. But the majority would have had to wait to achieve its goals, and was not willing to do so. Unilateral withdrawal of the provisions is perhaps like the unilateral withdrawal of other commitments-- try it with friends and partners, or perhaps with your mortgage-holder.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
Apologies for a sedond post, but I neglected to refer to Pete173's very useful comment that:
quote:
But if we can devise a Code that allows opponents proper oversight that they can recognise (ie real bishoping), we can make this work. *snip*.
If the minority can have a Code which they recognize as providing them with the episcopé they seek and could likely use, then the bumblebee can continue to fly. But their willing acceptance is the key-- derogation from the Action of Synod needs to be mutually agreed upon, and not imposed.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I don't think promises are being broken. I thibnk the majority in the CofE have done, and are doing, nore than could reasonably have been expected or imagined to keep the anti-women crowd in. We gave way to them on point after point again and again. And most of us are still willing to. I resent being told that we have somehow betrayed them when we have often bend over backwards to accomodate them.

For nearly twenty years the parish church of the parish I live in has operated almost entirely independently of the local Anglican structures. They have played little or no part in Deanery or Diocesean affairs, they have chosen to relate to a different bishop, they (as far as I know) don't contribute to the diocesan finances. All this isin marked contrast to the local Evangelical parishes, despite the paranoid canards of some of the other persuasion. Worst of all they utterly reject the priestly status and the ordination of the clergy at the parish church I actually attend half a mile up the road.

I actually don't mind that much. Its a pity, and I would prefer it if they did join in with the Church of England, but I'm quite happy for them to continue like that indefinitely if they want to. Who am I to try to force my opinions on them? I'll carry on going to the next-door parish up the road.

So the Church of England not only tolerates but large welcomes within it a minority who do not recognise Anglican orders, do not co-operate with other Anglican churches, do not contribute to shared finance, and do not recognise the authority of their diocesan bishops! What other episcopal denomination has done such a thing?

And those same people talk about this state of affairs as lies and betrayal and broken promises? That gets up my nose a bit.

A distasteful comparison perhaps, but the situation is rather comparable to that which existed in America during the decades preceding the Civil War, in which a minority - the Southern states - pleaded that they merely wished to be left in peace, whilst actually trying to impose their own norms upon the majority of the country (the North). This imposition of the morally compromised burden of a minority position upon the majority took place by virtue of the lengthy capitulation of the majority, manifest in such legislation as the Fugitive Slave Act and through judicial precedent like the Dred Scot decision. The majority compromised at every turn and allowed itself to be pushed into a gross compromising of its principles. Nonetheless, "the War came" (Lincoln, Second Inaugural Address). Nothing good was achieved in the long run by compromise in that historical context. In the context in question in this thread, things have been coming to a head for a long time now. Defections to the Ordinariate are the most recent manifestation of that. Ultimately, the CofE will look in its ordained ministry much like the Church of Sweden or TEC. The outcome of the processes underway is already known. Finish the "realignment" and get on with the Church's future.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
A distasteful comparison perhaps,

Perhaps? It would be difficult to think of a more distasteful comparison. When faced with such analogies being used against them, I can almost understand why opponents of OoW behave as they do.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
Lietuvos forgets in his unfortunate reference to slavery that the US Constitution (and likely the US) could not have existed without its inclusion.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I recall at the time that there were concerns that the minority would distance itself further from diocesan life, that a church-within-a-church would develop, and that the provisions as designed would fossilize local situations--not to mention being flawed ecclesiologically, as others have point out. These concerns were taken into account, the undertakings were made, and the majority secured passage of the measure. There was no best-by date stamp.

The problem with this analysis is that it ignores the experience of the Evangelical wing of the CofE from perhaps 1920 to 1970, if not later, when we were totally isolated from 'from diocesan life' and were a 'church-within-a-church'. It works perfectly well, as is demonstrated by the way in which its progeny are now a major component of the CofE. The problem is that Bishops have got too much time on their hands these days, so get involved in things like appointments which in the past were entirely the responsibility of the Patrons; a 70% cut in the number of bishops and archdeacons to reflect the number in the pews would probably be a good start.* [Razz]

I repeat: the CofE has not, since the middle of the 19th century, had a coherent doctrine. The fact that it is now getting its knickers in a twist over women priests is truly a case of straining gnats and ignoring elephants.

* I recently heard of a parish where the interviewing board for the new incumbent included bishop and area dean as well as a representative of the patron and the parish reps. The outcome appears to have been the parish receiving a 'dead cat' - someone whom the diocese was desperate to move on (and who's now off work long term sick - you can see why they wanted to move him). However for me the issue is what the bishop and area dean were doing there: the appointment is in the hands of the PATRON, with a right of veto by the parish reps. The fact that the wider church has started to stick its nose in where it never used to is a clear symptom of the growing centralisation of the church, in practice a denial of the repeated claims that the CofE 'is a broad church'. So - lose a lot of bishops and archdeacons, then they won't have time to involve themselves in things which are not their responsibility, and the church will have all those gifted people back at the coalface doing the real work of the kingdom.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
[QUOTE] ..... the church will have all those gifted people back at the coalface doing the real work of the kingdom.

Hallelujah! I'm with you too on this: quit the fiddling, cut the managers and get on with whatever we understand the Kingdom to be.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
Ender's Shadow posts:
quote:
The problem is that Bishops have got too much time on their hands these days, so get involved in things like appointments which in the past were entirely the responsibility of the Patrons; a 70% cut in the number of bishops and archdeacons to reflect the number in the pews would probably be a good start
I am in half-agreement with him-- the problem is that bishops and archdeacons are spending much of their time-- likely working very hard at it-- on administrative nonsense. Far better that we have more of them, and have them doing apostolic stuff and, if they're no use at that, then doing patristic research. Administrative burdens are often superfluous, exhausting and with no good result. Perhaps if we required them to go about their diocesan and arcidiaconal rounds on foot, preaching at intersections and singing psalms on the way like Dionysius of Zakynthos; or just asked them to sit in the forest, like Saint Martin of Vertou, and let people come to them. I think that they would be happier even if this approach be a tad impractical at first.

I'm not sure how ES' comments related to my post, but there you are now, as my former neighbours in Ringsend would say.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I'm not sure how ES' comments related to my post, but there you are now, as my former neighbours in Ringsend would say.

I'm arguing that there has always been 'a church within a church', so that the situation after OoW is no different from that before it. You seemed to regard the situation as something new...
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I'm not sure how ES' comments related to my post, but there you are now, as my former neighbours in Ringsend would say.

I'm arguing that there has always been 'a church within a church', so that the situation after OoW is no different from that before it. You seemed to regard the situation as something new...
The novelty is in that there was formal provision this time round. The factional (I do not use the term negatively) aspect of English Anglicanism is fascinating and longstanding. That it worked so effectively for such a long time is a useful lesson to other Anglican churches, which seem to have more trouble with difference.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
What happens in 40 years or so time?

When all those involved prior to 1992 have moved on? When it is very difficult to work out who has kosher orders or not?

The Society of Ss Wilfred and Hilda has been set up precisely to monitor who is 'kosher'.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras wrote:
quote:
...Ultimately, the CofE will look in its ordained ministry much like the Church of Sweden or TEC. The outcome of the processes underway is already known. Finish the "realignment" and get on with the Church's future.
I think, L.Sv.K., that counts as one of the most concisely expressed exemplars of the whiggish mindset at work. Although the example chosen seems a bit random. Let's try another one...

The situation in the CofE reminds me more of the recent development of security matters in the USA. For years and years you have lived with the notion that torture was immoral and illegal, but just look where it got you in 9/11. Ultimately the wisdom of what was originally a minority led you to give it up, and look how peaceable you are now. Nobody is doubting that the USA is a representative democracy, and the change was done by the duly elected government. Sure, a few had reservations, but they'll come round in the end. Taken as a whole, the country has benefited. It's the way forward - by definition. Suck it up and deal with it.

Crap? Certainly - but it's your crap. The OoWP&B may well be right. In fact I hope it is. But not because of some nebulous concept of "progress" that simply anoints whatever we do today as better than yesterday's grand idea, a project that guarantees one's self the very highest level of moral rectitude, always.
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The problem is that Bishops have got too much time on their hands these days, so get involved in things like appointments which in the past were entirely the responsibility of the Patrons; a 70% cut in the number of bishops and archdeacons to reflect the number in the pews would probably be a good start.*

Ender, you can come and Shadow me for a week to find out what it's really like, rather than spouting uninformed piffle. As for Patrons, they have power but no responsibility, and can dump any old unsuitable priest on a parish , but have no remit to pick up the pieces. If the Bishop has been lobbing dead cats into a parish, it's his own stupid fault, as he has deal with the consequences. A Patron (with the laudable exception of folk like CPAS and SMF) takes little interest in the parish between one appointment and the next. But if you really think we have time on our hands, come and see for yourself.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
But if you really think we have time on our hands, come and see for yourself.

You misunderstand my point: I'm not claiming you are underemployed - I have no doubt that you are doing plenty of things. My issue is that a larger church had a far smaller hierarchy only 40 years ago: the question is what tasks have taken on by the archdeacons and bishops that in the past weren't addressed, and is this a 'good thing'? My instinct is that it isn't, and that many of those things should not be done by dioceses.

And note that this power grab by dioceses is not ideologically neutral. It reflects a Catholic understanding of the nature of the church as focused on the bishops. It also makes assumptions about the equal validity of all CofE ministry, thereby justifying ever increasing quotas at the expense of non-denominational structures. Of course it's tidier this way - in the best Soviet tradition - but it's also far less flexible and generally more anodyne, discouraging the unconventional.
 
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :
 
I don't think +Pete has misunderstood your post, ES, though he has spectacularly risen to the bait. He believes, as you do not, that the huge commitment of time and energy he has to put in as a bishop is actually making a difference for the better in the Church.

Interestingly, you seem to want to go back 40 years yet you don't seem to take into account the vast difference in both Church and society that has occurred in those 40 years. Let's for the sake of argument sum up that difference by reference to the disappearance of a common Christian narrative, and let's recall your points regarding the resurgence of evangelicalism. Would it be fair to argue that the narrative peculiar to evangelicals is not actually doing much of a job of making a connection with UK society?

It may well be that in the changed circumstances, where in many places the church is becoming - or has become - an exclusive club (which only pays its dues on its own terms...) much of the real intersection of Church and society has to take place at bishop and archdeacon level.
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
ES I read the stuff you write about churches, priests and bishops and all I can think of is it sounds like someone asking a plumber for financial advice.

AtB Pyx_e
 
Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by pete173:
If the Bishop has been lobbing dead cats into a parish, it's his own stupid fault, as he has deal with the consequences

Nowadays bishops tend to move on or retire within a few years of being appointed. So the parishes are left to deal with the smelly dead cats he's lobbed in.
 
Posted by egg (# 3982) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
As for Patrons, they have power but no responsibility, and can dump any old unsuitable priest on a parish , but have no remit to pick up the pieces. If the Bishop has been lobbing dead cats into a parish, it's his own stupid fault, as he has deal with the consequences. A Patron (with the laudable exception of folk like CPAS and SMF) takes little interest in the parish between one appointment and the next. [/QB]

As a patron I rather resent that. With recent appointments I have found the advice and assistance of the Archdeacon and Bishop invaluable, and I have no doubt that both were sincerely seeking the best man or woman for the appointment, as I and, in one of the two recent cases, my co-patron, together with the churchwardens, were. I know both parishes well, I stayed in the Vicarage of one of them last month (in which my grandfather was born 156 years ago), the small charity which I have founded (to which I have transferred the patronage) devotes some of its money to promoting music in primary schools, especially primary schools in the parishes of which we are patrons, whether church schools or not, but we always act through the Vicar or Rector, hoping thereby to strengthen the links between school and parish church.

The patron's power is strictly limited and is subject to restraints by the churchwardens and the bishop; but I regard the responsibility as real, and if only by prayer I try to carry it out. It seems to me that the choice of incumbent of a parish in his diocese is one of the matters in which the bishop has every reason to take an interest; and I am pleased to say that the several bishops I have worked with (not all in the same diocese) have done just that. One, indeed, convened a meeting of all the patrons in his diocese, at which a number of valuable and significant points were made on all sides. I value the connection with a totally different kind of parish from the one in which I usually worship, and I like to think the parishes regard my part in their lives, which is not all that great, also as of some value.

There are, of course, no doubt patrons who do not take their duties seriously or properly, just as there are some clergy who neglect some of their duties; but I should very much regret it if +Pete or any of his colleagues should seek to do away with private patronage, and I believe that the parishes would too. Dispersal of powers and functions among many different people or organisations is one of the strengths of the Anglican Communion, and few, I think, would envy the centralising features of their sister Church of Rome.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
Dispersal of powers and functions among many different people or organisations is one of the strengths of the Anglican Communion, and few, I think, would envy the centralising features of their sister Church of Rome.

I agree with this, but something tells me private patronage wouldn't, no matter how diligently and benignly it's carried out, ever pass the Benn test. And while I appreciate that the CofE isn't a democracy, democratic accountability of those in power is de facto exercised by the pew-dwellers, often by simply walking out.
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
Egg is clearly one of the good guys - and I enjoy working with good patrons. But actually these days with Common Tenure and with almost universal advertising, the Patron adds very little value to the process of discernment of the next incumbent. And there is the problem that the cure of souls is not the patron's responsibility. But we're lurching off topic here - this perhaps requires another thread in order to tease it out properly. Suffice it to say that the best way of working is in partnership (though actually the Bishop's office ends up doing most of the paperwork, including drafting the offer letter for the patron to send, since Common Tenure requires drawing up the SOP and the conditions of office, which patrons are not all that well versed in). Patrons are, I guess, helpful for safeguarding the tradition of the parish and giving their own input and slant on things, but the parish veto tends to mean that the old style of "patronage" is really a bit passe. It's all advertise, interview and appoint these days.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
What's the Benn Test please?

Is it something technical from the world of patronage and advowsons, or is it from some completely different sphere of activity? And if it is 'Benn' in the sense of Lord Stansgate, I can't see what it's got to do with appointment of clergy.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
What's the Benn Test please?

I suspect a reference to the well-known quote from Tony Benn:

quote:

If one meets a powerful person - Adolf Hitler, Joe Stalin or Bill Gates - ask them five questions: "What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?" If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system.


 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
I thought it might have something to do with the Bishop of Lewes. I'm relieved that it hasn't.
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
Dispersal of powers and functions among many different people or organisations is one of the strengths of the Anglican Communion, and few, I think, would envy the centralising features of their sister Church of Rome.

I hardly think the existence of Patrons has anything at all to do with avoiding "the centralizing features of...Rome".

Patrons do not exist outside the Church of England (and its sisters of the British Isles?) And yet the CofE is far more centralized, and its finances infinitely less dispersed, than those of, for example, the Anglican CHurch of Canada (no central pay system for example, except in one or two dioceses), and no equivalent of the revenue provided through the CHurch Commissioners.

Patrons in the CofE are the result of specific historical developments in England. Despite a few attempts in the 18th and 19th centuries, neither church nor state succeeded in exporting the system to the colonies. No one today would advocate establishing such a system...while it may work well for you and the parishes to which you appoint (and I'm glad you're such a conscientious Patron), the fact that no one would dream of starting such a system suggests that the best one can say of the system in general is that getting rid of it in the CofE would be more trouble than it's worth. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

John
 
Posted by otyetsfoma (# 12898) on :
 
An attempt was made in the eighteenth century to revive the rights of patrons in Scotland - the result of which was the setting up of the Secession Church I think it was not until the late nineteenth century that the Kirk got rid of the patronage system imposed by the state and returned to the Kirk. Patronage is contrary to presbyterian polity.
In my Anglican days I had a happy relationship with our patrons (better than with most of the bishops I served under),
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
[QUOTE] .....and few, I think, would envy the centralising features of their sister Church of Rome.

IMHO you're right on the button there. Centralisation in the church (in the institutional sense) stinks. Centralisation always involves additional costs.

I'm interested in why/how you became/remain a patron. Inherited or purchased?

For me, the test of the issue of patronage (as for other things) is this: if it didn't exist we would need to invent it? If we don't need to invent it, why do we need it?

Why don't we find many believers who are members of social classes C,D and E as patrons - with the "gift" of a living today being invariably stuck with a very restricted group of individuals?

You may appreciate that others hold different views from you on the issue. However far the choice has moved towards Parish choice, there's an uncomfortable feeling, on occasion, that the field itself has been limited by dint of the patron's involvement.

From a more extreme perspective, for some confirmed Anglicans the issue of Patronage is a running sore perpetuating the kind of "top down" control and approach that should have been removed years ago. Equally some see Rome as less than a "sister" church and rather more as a querulous distant relaive who causes problems at family parties.

[ 02. January 2012, 06:46: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I'm interested in why/how you became/remain a patron. Inherited or purchased?

Historically the patronage of a church reflected who had given the land and paid for its building. In a feudal society in rural areas that meant the local landowner, large or small, often including Oxbridge colleges that held their endowments as land. In the 19th century many came up for sale, and a significant market existed. This was because the parties within the church were looking to cement their position, whilst individuals wanted to appoint themselves to the post as often there was often a significant income; the rules prevented doing so immediately, but an elderly priest could easily be prevailed upon to accept a well paid post till he died in harness... Some parishes were created by dioceses, so the bishop is the patron.
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
For me, the test of the issue of patronage (as for other things) is this: if it didn't exist we would need to invent it? If we don't need to invent it, why do we need it?

The effect of patronage from the Evangelical perspective in the 20th century was to ensure that at least some parishes remained Evangelical at a time when we were largely marginalised; the assumption is that, given the chance, bishops will always appoint the less partisan candidate, excluding those whose views are less fashionable. That the exalted realms of cathedral chapters and the episcopacy remain largely free of conservative evangelicals suggests that this is a good bet.
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
From a more extreme perspective, for some confirmed Anglicans the issue of Patronage is a running sore perpetuating the kind of "top down" control and approach that should have been removed years ago. Equally some see Rome as less than a "sister" church and rather more as a querulous distant relaive who causes problems at family parties.

The problem here is that the CofE LOOKS like a centralised church in terms of its structures, but in practice has operated as a very loose federation. The destruction of individual endowments as a result of inflation since WWII and the abuse by the bishops of the power to appoint a 'priest in charge' who can they move fairly easily has altered the balance of power in practice, so that we are now vastly more centralised.

However the central question as to whether the CofE SHOULD be 'top down' or not is far more complex, going to the heart of your beliefs about God's choice for church government. The historic model was always 'top down', based on the argument that God gives the gift of leadership to only a few. The congregationalist strand of the Reformation rejected that, seeing power properly coming from the whole 'assembly', which led to the tradition of church meetings in such churches. From a historical perspective, there can be no doubt that the CofE does not endorse congregationalism ideologically. In practice however, partly as a result of the zeitgeist where democracy is the only way, it's become normal in the CofE... Is this a good thing? The topic for another thread!
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I am not telling people to leave because I want them to - I don't actually - it's just an inevitable consequence of things put in chain 20 years ago.

Considering that earlier on in this thread, you were also telling the charismatics in the Church of England to go and join NFI or the baptists, a departure which is certainly not inevitable and which for many would be uncongenial, I have to say that you are doing an excellent impersonation of someone who wants those who disagree with you to leave.


I want them to stay. I want there to be a denominational church which, as far as is humanly possible, is for 'Christians', without any further qualifier - one that as many sorts of Christian as possible could join in good conscience. Obviously a disagreement about who can be accepted as a priest is a pretty big, and possibly insurmountable, one, but we haven't yet reached the stage where a split is so inevitable it lets us off trying.
 
Posted by egg (# 3982) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
(1) I am perfectly acquainted, dear egg, with the arguments around the development of doctrine and its authentication. I disagree with your line of reasoning but the issues you raise are a clear tangent to this thread and best developed, it seems to me, elsewhere.

(2) Any ecumenism worthy of the name requires candour and integrity. Too much of the dialogue between Catholics and Anglicans has been neither candid nor straightforward.

(1) Thank you, Trisagion, for your kind words, or perhaps I should say kinder tone of voice. I think it was you who called the issue of women’s ordination a major theological issue. I do not agree: it is only a second order issue, though not an unimportant one. If a third Vatican Council were to decide that, men and women having equally been created in the image of God, it was in accord with God’s will that both should be eligible for ordination without discrimination, this would not be contrary to anything in the creeds, or in the decisions of the ecumenical councils of the 4th and 5th centuries; while the evidence of the New Testament is at best equivocal. The one priestly act carried out on Jesus, the anointing of his body for burial as he described it, was performed by a woman; and I need not rehearse the arguments, on both sides, that can be based on references in St Paul’s epistles, written at a time when this particular issue was far from his mind..

But I appreciate that the question here is not so much whether women can properly be ordained, as How can one accommodate within the Church of England ordained (male) priests who refuse to accept that they can. Flying bishops have not worked too badly since 1992. I can see that there will be problems for parochial clergy if their diocesan bishop is a woman and they remain within her ordinary jurisdiction. The only answer seems to me to allow the creation of personal ordinariates (rather as those who have joined the Roman Catholic Ordinariate have an Ordinary who is separate from the bishop of the diocese in which they happen to be carrying out their vocation), while maintaining full communion between those who have opted for a personal ordinariate and the rest of the Church of England, of which they will remain part (thereby continuing to carry out the intention of Forward in Faith’s Agreed Statement on Communion, which was “prepared with a view to helping loyal members of the Church of England to remain within the fellowship of that Church and make a lively contribution to its life and witness”).

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.

(2) On ecumenism I agree with you. There has been a good deal of fudge, and what is required is candour. There are two papal bulls which make a corporate reunion of the Church of England and the Church of Rome impossible as matters now stand. One is Regnans in Excelsis, issued (without due legal process) by Pope Pius V in 1570, which declared that all Englishmen who obeyed the orders of their sovereign Queen Elizabeth I were excommunicated (this is the real origin of the fact that the natural religion of the English is, or for more than three centuries was, anti-Popery); the other is Apostolicae Curae, issued by Pope Leo XIII in 1896, which declared that all Anglican orders were “absolutely null and utterly void.” The first has never been withdrawn, and although it refers specifically to Elizabeth I is in terms which are almost equally applicable to her successors. The second has never been withdrawn, and so long as it remains in force clearly no question of reunion, in the sense of the two churches formally uniting as the Presbyterians and most of the Congregationalists did to form the URC, can be put on the agenda; and I agree with you that candour requires that it be accepted that no discussion of such reunion can lead to any useful conclusion. The best one can hope for is the rather grudging recognition in para.870 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "The sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic,... subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines." That perhaps gives room for the development of co-operation and even mutual respect, which seems to me the most that can be realistically hoped for in the way of ecumenism.

Oh, and the vernacular, i.e. the language spoken by the newly baptised subjects of King Ethelbert, King Raedwald and King Edwin, was a form of Anglo-Saxon, not Latin. I doubt whether, initially, one in 100 who heard the Latin Mass understood a word of what was said.

And as to Galileo, there is a reasonably full and impartial account of his relations with Popes Paul V and Urban VIII and of his trial at http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileoaccount.html. It is fair to say that only seven of the ten cardinals who, as members of the Congregation of the Holy Office, took part in the trial were prepared to sign the sentence of imprisonment. I hope you would agree, however, that the whole episode marks a low point in the Roman Catholic Church's relations with the world of learning, and in particular the growing world of scientific scholarship.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
I had thought this thread was started to deal with, what seems to this outsider, to be very serious issues: the de facto breaking of communion with one's own bishop by setting up Chrism Mass against Chrism Mass (close enough, I would argue, to the definition of schism) and the appropriate attitude to women in ministry. The point I was trying to make originally on this thread was that it seems abundantly clear that the CofE has spoken pretty decisively (authoritative for the CofE)on the OoW and that staying within the CofE if you don't believe that women can be ordained seems pretty strange. To suggest that one is 'in communion' with another when you don't recognise the validity of their orders and so do not recognise in their ministry the operation of sacramental grace is to stretch the definition of 'communion' well past breaking point.

I'll admit that it is possible to believe that women can be ordained but that it is not licit so to do. But here the ecclesiological ground gets even more of a quagmire since you are denying the authority of the communion to which you belong in favour of the authority of other communions which you reject.

Either way, remaining in thee CofE and bleating about two integrities seems extremely odd and in no way justifies either rejecting the 0rdinary authority and communion of your bishop or being rude to women in ministry.

Spot on.

quote:
As for why I am not an Anglican: I can't say that it has ever occurred to me.
I wish it had. We could do with a few more people who think, and express themselves, as clearly as you do.

[ 03. January 2012, 16:01: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by CL (# 16145) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
(1) I am perfectly acquainted, dear egg, with the arguments around the development of doctrine and its authentication. I disagree with your line of reasoning but the issues you raise are a clear tangent to this thread and best developed, it seems to me, elsewhere.

(2) Any ecumenism worthy of the name requires candour and integrity. Too much of the dialogue between Catholics and Anglicans has been neither candid nor straightforward.

(1) Thank you, Trisagion, for your kind words, or perhaps I should say kinder tone of voice. I think it was you who called the issue of women’s ordination a major theological issue. I do not agree: it is only a second order issue, though not an unimportant one. If a third Vatican Council were to decide that, men and women having equally been created in the image of God, it was in accord with God’s will that both should be eligible for ordination without discrimination, this would not be contrary to anything in the creeds, or in the decisions of the ecumenical councils of the 4th and 5th centuries; while the evidence of the New Testament is at best equivocal. The one priestly act carried out on Jesus, the anointing of his body for burial as he described it, was performed by a woman; and I need not rehearse the arguments, on both sides, that can be based on references in St Paul’s epistles, written at a time when this particular issue was far from his mind..

But I appreciate that the question here is not so much whether women can properly be ordained, as How can one accommodate within the Church of England ordained (male) priests who refuse to accept that they can. Flying bishops have not worked too badly since 1992. I can see that there will be problems for parochial clergy if their diocesan bishop is a woman and they remain within her ordinary jurisdiction. The only answer seems to me to allow the creation of personal ordinariates (rather as those who have joined the Roman Catholic Ordinariate have an Ordinary who is separate from the bishop of the diocese in which they happen to be carrying out their vocation), while maintaining full communion between those who have opted for a personal ordinariate and the rest of the Church of England, of which they will remain part (thereby continuing to carry out the intention of Forward in Faith’s Agreed Statement on Communion, which was “prepared with a view to helping loyal members of the Church of England to remain within the fellowship of that Church and make a lively contribution to its life and witness”).

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.

(2) On ecumenism I agree with you. There has been a good deal of fudge, and what is required is candour. There are two papal bulls which make a corporate reunion of the Church of England and the Church of Rome impossible as matters now stand. One is Regnans in Excelsis, issued (without due legal process) by Pope Pius V in 1570, which declared that all Englishmen who obeyed the orders of their sovereign Queen Elizabeth I were excommunicated (this is the real origin of the fact that the natural religion of the English is, or for more than three centuries was, anti-Popery); the other is Apostolicae Curae, issued by Pope Leo XIII in 1896, which declared that all Anglican orders were “absolutely null and utterly void.” The first has never been withdrawn, and although it refers specifically to Elizabeth I is in terms which are almost equally applicable to her successors. The second has never been withdrawn, and so long as it remains in force clearly no question of reunion, in the sense of the two churches formally uniting as the Presbyterians and most of the Congregationalists did to form the URC, can be put on the agenda; and I agree with you that candour requires that it be accepted that no discussion of such reunion can lead to any useful conclusion. The best one can hope for is the rather grudging recognition in para.870 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "The sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic,... subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines." That perhaps gives room for the development of co-operation and even mutual respect, which seems to me the most that can be realistically hoped for in the way of ecumenism.

Oh, and the vernacular, i.e. the language spoken by the newly baptised subjects of King Ethelbert, King Raedwald and King Edwin, was a form of Anglo-Saxon, not Latin. I doubt whether, initially, one in 100 who heard the Latin Mass understood a word of what was said.

And as to Galileo, there is a reasonably full and impartial account of his relations with Popes Paul V and Urban VIII and of his trial at http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileoaccount.html. It is fair to say that only seven of the ten cardinals who, as members of the Congregation of the Holy Office, took part in the trial were prepared to sign the sentence of imprisonment. I hope you would agree, however, that the whole episode marks a low point in the Roman Catholic Church's relations with the world of learning, and in particular the growing world of scientific scholarship.

Oh good grief...
 
Posted by egg (# 3982) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
[QUOTE]I'm interested in why/how you became/remain a patron. Inherited or purchased?

As a matter of interest, one patronage was purchased by my great great grandfather in or before 1846 with a view to presenting one or both of his ordained sons to what was, by the standards of the day, quite a good living. One was, I believe, purchased by another great great grandfather, then the Rector of the Parish, with a view to presenting his ordained son to the living (not quite so well endowed); one I believe, though the records here are more sketchy, was purchased by a third great great grandfather, also then the Rector of the parish, with a view to presenting his son to the living (which is now one of four in a united benefice - the patrons, one of whom is the Bishop, get on well together). From there they have come down to me by inheritance, and are now vested in the small charity which I mentioned of which I and my sons are the current trustees.

No patronage can be purchased today after three presentations since 1923; though, being a piece of real property, it can be given inter vivos or devised by will.

In more than 40 years I have not had to exercise such authority as a patron has (the bishop does not, of course, have the last word); but at least I have had no dead cats offered for consideration by the bishop or the archdeacon! I believe that checks and balances, including the part played by the churchwardens, work for the good of the Church and of the people in the parishes for which I have a very modest degree of responsibility.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by thomasm (# 4618) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Perhaps they could all become Royal Peculiars. With the added advantage that the clergy would be able to dress as cardinals. [Biased]

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 ]
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by otyetsfoma (# 12898) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by badman (# 9634) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by CL (# 16145) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
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?]
 
Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :
 
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. [Biased]
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by kiwimacahau (# 12142) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Stranger in a strange land (# 11922) on :
 
and now Blackburn.
 
Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :
 
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...
 
Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :
 
Retiring at 66 - to the Diocese of Chichester!

BBC

[ 01. March 2012, 20:14: Message edited by: FreeJack ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
He's a good bloke and i wish him a happy retirement.

But he isn't a so-called 'traditionalist' on the women issue, is he?
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
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!)
 
Posted by AngloCatholicDude (# 16476) on :
 
It is a great shame that we will be losing +Nicholas Reade but God-Willing we shall be gaining another Bishop of Chichester soon [Biased] 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
 
Posted by AngloCatholicDude (# 16476) on :
 
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
 
Posted by AngloCatholicDude (# 16476) on :
 
http://www.stmaryskenton.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Pew-4-march-12.pdf

You can see a little note from Fr Edward Lewis about his corresponce with the Bishop of London
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
Well, it says he wrote to the bishop. It doesn't really tell us anything of the correspondence apart from that.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
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?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?
 
Posted by AngloCatholicDude (# 16476) on :
 
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
 
Posted by AngloCatholicDude (# 16476) on :
 
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
 
Posted by AngloCatholicDude (# 16476) on :
 
I think Bishop of Chichester has gone, they'd never appoint a traditionalist as Bishop of Chichester, maybe a Affirming Catholic but not traditionalist
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by AngloCatholicDude (# 16476) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
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)
 
Posted by AngloCatholicDude (# 16476) on :
 
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
 
Posted by +Chrism (# 17032) on :
 
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
 
Posted by +Chrism (# 17032) on :
 
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)
 
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :
 
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...?!
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :
 
Not to worry. But there aren't many.
 
Posted by AngloCatholicDude (# 16476) on :
 
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)
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
[Snore]
 
Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Maureen Lash (# 17192) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by AngloCatholicDude (# 16476) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Earwig (# 12057) on :
 
The Revd Canon Glyn Webster is the new Bishop of Beverley: Downing Street Announcement.
 
Posted by FrNJSSC (# 17314) on :
 
I have a very sneak suspicion that Fr David Houlding SSC will be announced as the New Bishop of Fulham in the coming weeks.

You know with all appointments there are certain processes that need to be carried out before the announcement can be made but the Bishop of London has it in hand.

The Suffragan See of Fulham is very blessed indeed and we welcome David Houlding or whoever it might be with open arms.

CONGRATULATIONS to Canon Glyn Webster as well
 
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :
 
"Now then, Butch Harry, tell us about Fulham."

(Camp Freddie, Chairing Mr Bridger's weekly planning group)

But who's going to Whitby?
 
Posted by Laurence (# 9135) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
"Now then, Butch Harry, tell us about Fulham."

(Camp Freddie, Chairing Mr Bridger's weekly planning group)

But who's going to Whitby?

I love the idea that standard liturgical dress for members of the SSC is this:

Camp Freddie
 
Posted by FrNJSSC (# 17314) on :
 
Well there is nothing much too say about Fulham except that the announcement is due soon and that the New London Plan should be published soon after probably before the Consecration at least by then the situation on the Ordination of Women Bishops will be clearer.

I think it's about time Fr Houlding became a Bishop but we will just have to wait and see
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FrNJSSC:

I think it's about time Fr Houlding became a Bishop but we will just have to wait and see

If, though, one follows the idea that those who want to be bishops shouldn't be...

Thurible
 
Posted by Ondergard (# 9324) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
[QUOTE]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.

I've been watching this thread with disinterest (in the right sense of the word) because what different interest groups within a church I have nothing to do with at the moment are arguing about affects me not one jot (thankfully) but I do object to the kind of C of E arrogance which relegates a whole church (or should I say "ecclesial community"?) - whether it be Roman Catholicism or Methodism - to the status of a "sect".

Reading it though makes me profoundly grateful that, whatever else my denomination might be, and whatever traumas we might be going through, at least we don't have to cope with, as you would put it, arrogant "twattery" like that.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
I don't think many people in the CofE would use the word 'sect' to describe the Methodist Church, or the RCC, URC, BUGB, etc for that matter. Trisagion ( who is of course an RC) has his own way of using language, but he does IME have a very good understanding of how other churches see themselves in their own terms even if he doesn't agree with those terms.
I think that the appropriate comparison would not be with what 'sect' implies, but with churches which are legally voluntary associations such the Scottish Episcopal Church and indeed I suppose the CinW and CofI.

[ 05. September 2012, 10:08: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
It seems to me that sect is sometimes used as a put-down of other people and their churches, but it shouldn't be really. All churches are sects in one sense (and in another, any church which ever split from another can be said to be a sect of the first).

It does strike me that if the CoE completely disintegrates, there will be several 'daughter' churches fighting for the kind of attention and regard that the original once had. But then that isn't particularly new to some denominations, I guess they'll all get over it in time.
 
Posted by Stranger in a strange land (# 11922) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
...

But who's going to Whitby?

Philip North
 
Posted by FrNJSSC (# 17314) on :
 
It could well be Philip North, I know John Sentamu is quite keen on it being a traditionalist appointment.

Anyways whoever do succeed those appointments will be great and we should feel very blessed.

New Bishop of Fulham is being consecrated on the 30th November 2012 - St Paul's Cathedral. Come and show your support for him
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Trisagion ( who is of course an RC) has his own way of using language

I hadn't realise my attempts to be precise would be seen as idiosyncratic. Heigh Ho!

In any event, Ondergard, you shouldn't mistake my juxtaposition of the two terms "Church of the Nation" and "voluntary sect" used in a technical sense with the popular and generally negative common use of the word "sect", still less with any approval of the CofE's self-conception. In fact, even a cursory reading of my posts on this thread reveals that I think it ridiculous. That, however, is both a tangent and, probably, a dead horse.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
I'm afraid that I posted in a hurry. A concern for precision may be idiosyncratic but if it is, it is an idiosyncrasy worth having.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I'm afraid that I posted in a hurry. A concern for precision may be idiosyncratic but if it is, it is an idiosyncrasy worth having.

Too kind.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Trisagion ( who is of course an RC) has his own way of using language

I hadn't realise my attempts to be precise would be seen as idiosyncratic. Heigh Ho!

In any event, Ondergard, you shouldn't mistake my juxtaposition of the two terms "Church of the Nation" and "voluntary sect" used in a technical sense with the popular and generally negative common use of the word "sect", still less with any approval of the CofE's self-conception. In fact, even a cursory reading of my posts on this thread reveals that I think it ridiculous. That, however, is both a tangent and, probably, a dead horse.

Ondergard isn't the only one who made that assumption.

In any conversation we have to bear in mind that what you (ie all of us) think you have said, are saying or might say, isn't always how it is received by the hearer(s).

In church terms "sect" carries a range of strengths of expression from simple statement of position in relation to a perceived "core" grouping to perjorative dismissal.

Thus it's best avoided as a descriptor as it's hard to extract the exact meaning intended in that context. Some passive:aggressive types would use it, claiming one understanding when they are actually seeing it as quite another.

Best avoided methinks to prevent misunderstandings.

So, to clarify things for everyone's understanding, in your use of "sect:"

- you don't believe that Methodists are a "sect" in the perjorative sense? And, that there is therefore no "core" expression of faith by which others are measured?
- Methodists et al are therefore simply another expression of valid Christian faith in your view?
- you don't see or treat them, or any other Christian grouping, as a sect in the perjorative sense?
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
!, thank you for correcting me on the use of English. Would you, henceforth, like me to submit my posts to you for pre-posting vocabulary moderation, in order that, should I choose to use a word which might have a number of meanings, you can advise me on how to ensure such misunderstandings are to be avoided? In the alternative, Shipmates could just read the thread, take note of the context and where the poster is coming from and read for comprehension.

Since I am a Catholic and that is fairly well known on these boards and since I paired both the Catholic Church and the Methodist Church, in the post in question, with one another as "voluntary sects", it should be clear that I simply didn't mean it in a pejorative way.

For the avoidance of doubt, and taking up the first limb of your first alternative (the second limb of that choice is simply a non sequitur), I don't consider the Methodist Church, or any other mainstream denomination for that matter, to be a sect in the pejorative sense.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
!, thank you for correcting me on the use of English. Would you, henceforth, like me to submit my posts to you for pre-posting vocabulary moderation, in order that, should I choose to use a word which might have a number of meanings, you can advise me on how to ensure such misunderstandings are to be avoided?

I don't think that's necessary at all. Just making a point about how language might be understood or misunderstood: I could take your remark as sarcastic of course, unless that's what you really meant.

[ 06. September 2012, 12:40: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
 
Posted by AngloCatholicDude (# 16476) on :
 
Apparently the Fulham announcement is due next week
 
Posted by Maureen Lash (# 17192) on :
 
It is going to be more interesting to see what happens in Blackburn. Will the Chichester precedent be followed?
 
Posted by AngloCatholicDude (# 16476) on :
 
I believe that Whitby will be a traditionalist and so will Blackburn - I think if John Sentamu could be faithful to appoint a new Bishop of Beverley he will appoint a traditionalist to +Blackburn.

+Blackburn has been a traditionalist see for so long, it would be a shame for it to stop
 
Posted by Maureen Lash (# 17192) on :
 
But the See of Blackburn is not in Archbishop Sentamu's gift.
 
Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on :
 
And what about all the people in Blackburn who support the ordination of women and so are not "traditionalists" in the sense you are using that word here?
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Is it a new development in the C of E, that certain dioceses are associated with particular traditions and hence the bishop thereof will 'always' be of the same ilk? AFAIK Bishops of Blackburn were as likely to be MOTR or Evangelical until about two or maybe three bishops ago. Southwark has tended to appoint 'liberal catholics', but one of the best-loved ones in recent times was an Evangelical from Ulster. I don't know about Chichester but I don't think Bishop Bell (I know that's a long time ago) was particularly anglo-catholic. London has tended to establishment types as much as a-cs.

The only exception I can think of is Liverpool, where no PM/monarch has ever dared to appoint anyone not from an evangelical background. That is not to say they have all been partisan. There is a reason why this might be the case, and in any case the diocese is very far from being as monochrome or as extreme as Sydney.

It would be a tragedy if whole swathes of the CofE became monochrome party fiefdoms in the Sydney mould.
 
Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
And what about all the people in Blackburn who support the ordination of women and so are not "traditionalists" in the sense you are using that word here?

When another See in the Northern Province breaks from the seemingly universal practice and appoints a "traditionalist", then you might have a point. It works both ways.
 
Posted by Maureen Lash (# 17192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Is it a new development in the C of E, that certain dioceses are associated with particular traditions and hence the bishop thereof will 'always' be of the same ilk?
It would be a tragedy if whole swathes of the CofE became monochrome party fiefdoms in the Sydney mould.

If it were quietly established that the sees of Chichester, Exeter and Blackburn would henceforth be filled with bishops who held the traditional position on ordained ministry, it could remove the need for the messy arrangement with PEVs and create 'de facto' 3rd province, whereby orthodox parishes could, in the event of women purporting to be diocesan 'bishops', opt out and place themselves in the pastoral care of sound sees. A thought.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
At the risk of getting into DH territory: If it were quietly established that the CofE ordains women to the priesthood and will soon do so to the episcopate, and that really it was about time that everyone, and certainly anyone aspiring to orders at any level, accepted this or found another boat to fish from, then the CofE could get on with the business of ministering to the nation and not have to spend so much time dealing with the tantrums of the, as it were, ADHD kids in the back row of the class. A thought.

[ 15. September 2012, 11:35: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Maureen Lash (# 17192) on :
 
Yes Abertus, how right you are. Maybe God should have quietly accepted that the sons of Korah had a right to be priests and levites instead of throwing an ADHD tantrum.
 
Posted by +Chrism (# 17032) on :
 
What days do they normally make episcopal announcements? Is it Wednesday?

Archbishop of Canterbury is due to be announced next month, +Londin in front runner for the position
 
Posted by Maureen Lash (# 17192) on :
 
Paddy Power still has Bishops Cocksworth and James as frontrunners.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Maureen Lash:
Yes Abertus, how right you are. Maybe God should have quietly accepted that the sons of Korah had a right to be priests and levites instead of throwing an ADHD tantrum.

Oh yes, of course, I was forgetting about FiF's personal hotline to the Almighty. :brickwall

[ 15. September 2012, 11:59: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Maureen Lash:
If it were quietly established that the sees of Chichester, Exeter and Blackburn would henceforth be filled with bishops who held the traditional position on ordained ministry, it could remove the need for the messy arrangement with PEVs and create 'de facto' 3rd province, whereby orthodox parishes could, in the event of women purporting to be diocesan 'bishops', opt out and place themselves in the pastoral care of sound sees. A thought.

But these bishops, like all other diocesans, are ordained to be the bishop for the whole diocese, not just to the self-styled 'orthodox'. If it were indeed decided that the majority of the C of E were 'unorthodox' it would be different. But we are not, except by the definitions of another Church.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Which does not recognise the orders of even the most Papalist and/or anti-OOW of our clergy!
 
Posted by +Chrism (# 17032) on :
 
This may seem like I'm going off topic but interesting question.

If a Roman Catholic Bishop or Cardinal magically decided they wanted to the Catholic Church and join the Church of England because we recognise their orders would they be instantly ordained/consecrated a Bishop
 
Posted by Maureen Lash (# 17192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by +Chrism:
This may seem like I'm going off topic but interesting question.

If a Roman Catholic Bishop or Cardinal magically decided they wanted to the Catholic Church and join the Church of England because we recognise their orders would they be instantly ordained/consecrated a Bishop

Not a particularly interesting question at all. First of all the decision, even if misguided, would not be 'magical', and there is precedent for this event. Then, since the Anglican Communion recognises the orders of the Catholic Church, they would not need to be ordained or consecrated, but would be received as bishops, which does not, of course, mean that they would instantly be awarded a see - if that's what you were trying to ask.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by +Chrism:
What days do they normally make episcopal announcements? Is it Wednesday?

Archbishop of Canterbury is due to be announced next month, +Londin in front runner for the position

Tuesdays at 11.

And i hope you are wrong about London.
 
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :
 
[Confused] I thought the Ordinariate had been created as the sandpit of choice for the terminally more-orthodox-than-thou-thank-you-very-much-especially-if-thou-art-female [Confused] and likewise also [brick wall]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Maureen Lash:
If it were quietly established that the sees of Chichester, Exeter and Blackburn would henceforth be filled with bishops who held the traditional position on ordained ministry...

...it would deny the people of those dioceses the chance to benefit from the ministry of ordained women. Something the majority of Anglicans are quite happy with. And it would also run slap into the other reasons a "third province" is a non-runner, which there is no point in going over yet again.
 
Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by +Chrism:
What days do they normally make episcopal announcements? Is it Wednesday?

Archbishop of Canterbury is due to be announced next month, +Londin in front runner for the position

Tuesdays at 11.

And i hope you are wrong about London.

Place your bets.

Christopher Cocksworth, bishop of Coventry, currently leads the pack, odds 6/4.

*
 
Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Maureen Lash:
quote:
Originally posted by +Chrism:
This may seem like I'm going off topic but interesting question.

If a Roman Catholic Bishop or Cardinal magically decided they wanted to the Catholic Church and join the Church of England because we recognise their orders would they be instantly ordained/consecrated a Bishop

Not a particularly interesting question at all. First of all the decision, even if misguided, would not be 'magical', and there is precedent for this event. Then, since the Anglican Communion recognises the orders of the Catholic Church, they would not need to be ordained or consecrated, but would be received as bishops, which does not, of course, mean that they would instantly be awarded a see - if that's what you were trying to ask.
Actually, the question is quite interesting. And as was mentioned, there actually is historical precedent.

In the year 1616, Marco Antonio de Dominis (1566-1624) Roman Catholic archbishop of Split (now Spoletto) arrived in England and was received by King James I. deDominis lived with Archbishop Abbot of Canterbury at Lanbeth, until James made him dean of Windsor. On Dec 14, 1617, deDominis participated as assistant at the London consecration of George Montaigne as bishop of Lincoln, and Nicholas Felton as bishop of Bristol.

Google Marco and find out more about his amazing career as an Anglican.
*
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by +Chrism:
What days do they normally make episcopal announcements? Is it Wednesday?

Archbishop of Canterbury is due to be announced next month, +Londin in front runner for the position

Tuesdays at 11.

And i hope you are wrong about London.

Place your bets.

Christopher Cocksworth, bishop of Coventry, currently leads the pack, odds 6/4.

*

Hooray - that is the man i voted for in a Circus thread months ago. I hope he gets it - not because it will prove me to have been right but because he will do a good job.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
And of course, when Marc Antonio* went back to Italy, he was not welcomed with the open arms he expected. While he was not dealt with as harshly as others, he was kept under a form of house arrest until his death.

*Like so many names of the time, it was spelt in various ways. Trevor-Roper spells it as Marcantonio, for example.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by +Chrism:
What days do they normally make episcopal announcements?

Tuesdays at 11.


Well, if that's the case, another week bites the dust.

Thurible
 
Posted by +Chrism (# 17032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by +Chrism:
What days do they normally make episcopal announcements?

Tuesdays at 11.


Well, if that's the case, another week bites the dust.

Thurible

It does seem like another week bites the dust, which is a shame. I think everyone is quite eager now to find out who +Fulham is.

Normally +London gets appointments announced within 6 months of the appointment process starting, so September is the 6Th Month. This has been the case with the last 2 episcopal appointments in +London (Stepney and Kensington)

With the consecration in 11 weeks, surely the announcement should be out end of next week.
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
It's more complicated than that. Do remember that the PM and the Queen are involved in the process. We may wish to announce, but there are a lot of hoops to jump through. Even the CRB process can take time.

So we'll announce when we're allowed to do so. Sorry it's taking so long.
 
Posted by Maureen Lash (# 17192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
It's more complicated than that. Do remember that the PM and the Queen are involved in the process. We may wish to announce, but there are a lot of hoops to jump through. Even the CRB process can take time.


Does that mean that one of your highly dubious candidates from the Diocese of Chichester is under consideration?
 
Posted by +Chrism (# 17032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
It's more complicated than that. Do remember that the PM and the Queen are involved in the process. We may wish to announce, but there are a lot of hoops to jump through. Even the CRB process can take time.

So we'll announce when we're allowed to do so. Sorry it's taking so long.

I'm sure you will let us know when you are allowed too. We wait with baited breath and I am sure a wonderful person has been appointed who will support us and be a great asset to the Diocese of London.

The horrible CRB process [Mad]
 
Posted by +Chrism (# 17032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Maureen Lash:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
It's more complicated than that. Do remember that the PM and the Queen are involved in the process. We may wish to announce, but there are a lot of hoops to jump through. Even the CRB process can take time.


Does that mean that one of your highly dubious candidates from the Diocese of Chichester is under consideration?
Maureen this is a discussion about +Fulham and has nothing to do with the issues going on within the Diocese of Chichester.

+Pete Willesden is a man of free speech, some times we don't agree with what he says and some times we do but I don't think your sarcastic comment is needed.
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
I'd call her to Hell, but the experience would be tedious...
 
Posted by +Chrism (# 17032) on :
 
http://www.churchofengland.org/media/35883/sbnom1.doc

Above is a detailed explanation of the appointment process for Suffragan's if anyone's interested.

Archbishop of Canterbury's Process - http://www.churchofengland.org/media-centre/news/2012/03/outline-of-procedures-for-appointment-of-an-archbishop-of-canterbury .aspx
 
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :
 
Is there also a detailed explanation of the appointment process for apostrophes ... ?!
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Getting an apostrophe wrong bars one forever from high office in the church. It is worse than wearing a black scarf with a cassock-alb, or a fiddleback chasuble at an altar without a baroque baldacchino. It is likely to see the promising young cleric reduced to being perpetual curate of Hogglestock on a house for duty basis.
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by +Chrism:
http://www.churchofengland.org/media/35883/sbnom1.doc

Above is a detailed explanation of the appointment process for Suffragans if anyone's interested.

Of course, the process set out there is only advisory, and not followed to the letter in all cases. But you can assume that we are beyond the equivalent of Stage 9 in relation to the Bishop of Fulham appointment.
 
Posted by +Chrism (# 17032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
quote:
Originally posted by +Chrism:
http://www.churchofengland.org/media/35883/sbnom1.doc

Above is a detailed explanation of the appointment process for Suffragans if anyone's interested.

Of course, the process set out there is only advisory, and not followed to the letter in all cases. But you can assume that we are beyond the equivalent of Stage 9 in relation to the Bishop of Fulham appointment.
Not too far left to go. Does the Bishop of Fulham's house still exist? or Was it sold when Monsignor John Broadhurst left?

It may just be the case that we hear about +Fulham before the ++Cantuar appointment which hopefully +Richard Londin gets.

Hopefully then +Pete Willesden might get +Londin
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by +Chrism:
Not too far left to go.

That rules +Pete out then! Would a LibDem be ok? [Biased]
 
Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :
 
Left-wing is ok but Left-wing republican might not go down so well with Mrs E. Windsor.
 
Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by +Chrism:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
quote:
Originally posted by +Chrism:
http://www.churchofengland.org/media/35883/sbnom1.doc

Above is a detailed explanation of the appointment process for Suffragans if anyone's interested.

Of course, the process set out there is only advisory, and not followed to the letter in all cases. But you can assume that we are beyond the equivalent of Stage 9 in relation to the Bishop of Fulham appointment.
Not too far left to go. Does the Bishop of Fulham's house still exist? or Was it sold when Monsignor John Broadhurst left?

It may just be the case that we hear about +Fulham before the ++Cantuar appointment which hopefully +Richard Londin gets.

Hopefully then +Pete Willesden might get +Londin

I believe it is no secret that the new Bishop will not be living in the former episcopal residence.

Given under the revised London Plan the new +Fulham will take on an enhanced role in the Two Cities area, I very much imagine that he will be housed conveniently for that.
 
Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :
 
I'm not sure i understand how +Fulham can be both acting Area Bishop for Westminster + the City and the Flying Bishop for FiF parishes. What about the non-FiF parishes in Westminster, or those with women priests?
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
He won't have an enhanced role in the Two Cities Area. He'll still be giving episcopal care in Southwark and Rochester. Plus carrying a Diocesan portfolio or two, I suspect (as all the senior staff do).
 
Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
He won't have an enhanced role in the Two Cities Area. He'll still be giving episcopal care in Southwark and Rochester. Plus carrying a Diocesan portfolio or two, I suspect (as all the senior staff do).

Oh, sorry. Did I completely make that up, or was that the plan at some point?
 
Posted by +Chrism (# 17032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
He won't have an enhanced role in the Two Cities Area. He'll still be giving episcopal care in Southwark and Rochester. Plus carrying a Diocesan portfolio or two, I suspect (as all the senior staff do).

Oh, sorry. Did I completely make that up, or was that the plan at some point?
The Bishop of London said "The Bishop of Fulham has signed his resignation deed and is set to retire on December 31st after well over 40 years service in various roles within the Diocese of London.

"After consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury, I intend with the assistance of representative figures in the Diocese, to appoint a successor to the Suffragan See of Fulham. I envisage that any new Bishop of Fulham will be more closely related to me as the Bishop of London in serving the Two Cities Area.


He did not actually mean that +Fulham will have responsibility over the Two Cities Area but everything will be made clear when the London Plan is published
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
That was then. This is now.
 
Posted by AngloCatholicDude (# 16476) on :
 
Now this is beyond the joke, my impression of +Richard Londin was never that good, I had a bit of respect for him until he published that Pastoral Letter against the use of the New Roman Rite.

As much a people like to make excuses there are none possible now for the delay with announcing the New Bishop of Fulham. I know CRB and Medicals don't take this long and even with the process of the Queen and PM it still doesn't take this long.

Richard Chartres started this process in April 2012 but yet he has not been able to organise himself to get the appointment done in the appropriate time.

+Michael Exeter started the +Crediton process in June 2012 but still managed to get his suffragan announced in October for the Consecration in November.

+Crediton will be consecrated on the same day as +Fulham's do (not necessarily +Fulham's consecration). It is time that +Londin put his foot down and said that he wants to announce it as soon as possible. It's 6 weeks till the event at the Cathedral and preparation will need to be done for Pontifical Benediction for +Fulham and so forth.

I'll keep my eye open throughout this week and if I don't see anything +Richard Londin will be getting a very strong worded email
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
I think we all know who's going to Fulham* - that's certainly not helping the impatience.

Thurible

* well, know in the sense of there's a strongly credible rumour doing the rounds
 
Posted by +Chrism (# 17032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
I think we all know who's going to Fulham* - that's certainly not helping the impatience.

Thurible

* well, know in the sense of there's a strongly credible rumour doing the rounds

Yes, I think we do know who is going to Fulham but yet it is still rumours, I think it's just +Richard Londin stalling things as per usual

I certainly hope that I've heard the same as you but it's shame as Pusey House will not be the same
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
What's Pusey House got to do with it? Ah, you've heard that rumour. I'm thinking of another.

The joy of rumours.

Thurible
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AngloCatholicDude:


I'll keep my eye open throughout this week and if I don't see anything +Richard Londin will be getting a very strong worded email

You'd better email me. He's on holiday. A well-deserved break in lieu of summer holiday. Which may give you a clue as to why there is no announcement!
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by +Chrism:

Hopefully then +Pete Willesden might get +Londin [/QB]

The Fat Lady will be singing when that happens
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
First time I've ever agreed with anything posted by Aumbry.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AngloCatholicDude:
Richard Chartres started this process in April 2012 but yet he has not been able to organise himself to get the appointment done in the appropriate time.

+Michael Exeter started the +Crediton process in June 2012 but still managed to get his suffragan announced in October for the Consecration in November.

You can't compare them.

Crediton is merely a suffragan and the diocesan is likely to have chosen a person that he liked and wanted as a colleague.

Although Fulham is also a suffragan, he will be almost in the PEV role, owing to the oddities of the London Diocese - so he has to be someone acceptable to the so-called 'traditionalists' as well as in communion with the mainstream. That is a harder job to fill.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
First time I've ever agreed with anything posted by Aumbry.

Who among us will now deny that we live in an age of miracles and wonder?
 
Posted by AngloCatholicDude (# 16476) on :
 
Calm down, +Chrism. Not long now, we all know by now it's +..... (Won't say who publicly) but he will be a wonderful addition to the London Team and I am sure he'll fit in just fine.

Now the bets start on who will replace him and whether ++Cantuar will try to get the process started before he retires
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Do we? I don't (though i don't much care).
Is there some sort of anglo-catholic grapevine from which I have been excluded because I sold out to affcath?
 
Posted by AngloCatholicDude (# 16476) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Do we? I don't (though i don't much care).
Is there some sort of anglo-catholic grapevine from which I have been excluded because I sold out to affcath?

Of course not, us Forward in Faith members are lovely people. It's not my place to publicly announce it but be assured it will be done very soon. HINT:- If you put 2&2 together you could simply work it out but it's for Downing Street to publicly announce it
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
2 2 = 5?

I am obviously out of the loop.

I used to care.

Sorry that I do not much care any more. Because they unchurch me.

I have given up my anglo-catholic toys.

Am playing somewhere else - it is called the Church of England.

[ 13. October 2012, 20:05: Message edited by: leo ]
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
I sympathise, leo.

But though I have never been keen on the label 'anglo-catholic', I would rather hang onto it than allow a minority of conservatives to claim it for themselves alone. Anglo-catholicism is alive and well in many places that will have no truck with F in F.

I respect them, and acknowledge them as fellow-anglicans, but deny their claim to be the only true catholics in the C of E.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Hi! My name is leo. I'm a recovering anglo-catholic.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Sympathy! But I suspect you were more 'into' it at one time than I have ever been. I'm a sort of on-the-edge catholic, as I'm an on-the-edge most things.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Yes I was. Not just the twirling of birettas but all the dogma(tism).

It's actually difficult to escape it - my liturgical hackles are quite acute.
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
Fulham announcement by the end of the month.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
Well, Fr Philip North, now Bishop-designate of Whitby, is formally out of the running.

Thurible
 
Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Well, Fr Philip North, now Bishop-designate of Whitby, is formally out of the running.

Thurible

Still, very good news!
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Please don't take this as a criticism of Fr North, of whom I know little, but that little is good. I'm sure he will be an excellent bishop. It's just that it seems to be taken for granted that successive Bishops of Whitby will all be from the same tradition. Does this mean that the next Bishop of Lewes will have to belong to Reform?
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
I imagine the conservative evangelicals in the diocese hope so.

Was Whitby a 'catholic' see pre-Robert Ladds?

I think it quite, hmm, amusing (at a push) that +Sentamu has managed to appoint a PEV and a 'normal' suffragan in the past few months whereas things clearly run a little slower in London!

Thurible
 
Posted by +Chrism (# 17032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
I imagine the conservative evangelicals in the diocese hope so.

Was Whitby a 'catholic' see pre-Robert Ladds?

I think it quite, hmm, amusing (at a push) that +Sentamu has managed to appoint a PEV and a 'normal' suffragan in the past few months whereas things clearly run a little slower in London!

Thurible

+Gordon Bates was not "Catholics" although a few before him were. I understand where many might come from but it keeps the level in a Diocese.

2 Evangelical Suffragan's and 2 Catholic Suffragans. Things have always been slow in London, the next appointment will probably be +Edmonton within the next year or 2. Bishop Peter Wheatley wants to go before he's 70
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
From what I gather from Dame Rumour and her Grapevine, I think Bp Peter might announce his retirement sooner rather than later once the new Bishop of Fulham is in post. (And then we'll all be able to start guessing which early 90s, Staggers-bag will be next to wear a mitre.)

Thurible

[ 19. October 2012, 17:48: Message edited by: Thurible ]
 
Posted by +Chrism (# 17032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
From what I gather from Dame Rumour and her Grapevine, I think Bp Peter might announce his retirement sooner rather than later once the new Bishop of Fulham is in post. (And then we'll all be able to start guessing which early 90s, Staggers-bag will be next to wear a mitre.)

Thurible

It will be a Millfield/Cuddesdon guy for +Edmonton and I know it will definetly be a traditionalist appointment for the Edmonton Area. Late +Brian Masters and +Peter Wheatley have looked after Edmonton very well over the last 27 years.

It's only because it's +Richard that I'm hopeful for a traditionalist appointment. Hopefully +Peter Edmonton doesn't announce it till late next year or 2014/15
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by +Chrism:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
From what I gather from Dame Rumour and her Grapevine, I think Bp Peter might announce his retirement sooner rather than later once the new Bishop of Fulham is in post. (And then we'll all be able to start guessing which early 90s, Staggers-bag will be next to wear a mitre.)

Thurible

It will be a Millfield/Cuddesdon guy for +Edmonton
Great news - we haven't had a bishop from one of the great sporting public schools for a long time!
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
[Biased] Don't be mean.

Thurible
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by +Chrism:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:

Was Whitby a 'catholic' see pre-Robert Ladds?

+Gordon Bates was not "Catholics" although a few before him were.
[Confused] That does seem a very tightly-drawn definition of 'catholic'. +Gordon Bates was Kelham-trained and AFAIK refused to ordain women. What more do you want? (If I'm wrong about the latter I can see where you are coming from, but otherwise...?)
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
I remember Fr. North from pilgrimage times, and wish him all the best. Especially as I seem to recall him buying me a pint over an issue relating to some NT Greek.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Just think if he'd been appointed to the diocese of Chichester. He'd have to change his name to Fr South.
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Please don't take this as a criticism of Fr North, of whom I know little, but that little is good. I'm sure he will be an excellent bishop. It's just that it seems to be taken for granted that successive Bishops of Whitby will all be from the same tradition. Does this mean that the next Bishop of Lewes will have to belong to Reform?

Good point. I wonder how many parishes in his new episcopal area oppose women priests. Very few I would,imagine.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
Local knowledge might be useful here.

There is a sort of tradition in the Diocese of York that the Suffragan Bishop of Hull leans Low because Hull tends towards Open Evangelicalism. +Whitby, which covers Middlesbrough, leans High because the major town in the area has a lot of Anglo-Catholic parishes. It just makes sense to have someone who can use a thurible correctly at Whitby.

The third suffragan to York, +Selby, has tended to be MOTR but I have not got a clue as to which way the present incumbant leans. I think he is still a MOTR-High guy appointed by ++Hope, ++Sentamu not yet having had the chance to appoint to Selby. Unless I missed something, which is pretty easy to do from 6000 miles away.

PD
 
Posted by Earwig (# 12057) on :
 
AFAIK, our current +Hull is pretty middle-MOTR, and +Selby is low-MOTR.
 
Posted by +Chrism (# 17032) on :
 
+Whitby has been within the Catholic wing for a good few years now and I am glad that the tradition has been stuck too.

Fr North will be like +Martin Chichester, he will be eager to build a good working relationship with his female colleagues. I am extremely happy by the news and think +John Sentamu is a legend.

I hope that +Blackburn gets a traditionalist Bishop, it has been a trad cath diocese for the last 23 years. I know whoever is appointed will be gracious enough to work with women priests.

NOT LONG TILL THE OFFICIAL +Fulham ANNOUNCEMENT - Hold onto your seats
 
Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Just think if he'd been appointed to the diocese of Chichester. He'd have to change his name to Fr South.

But if he went father south from Chichester, he'd be in the oggin, or worse, France.

[ 23. October 2012, 00:18: Message edited by: 3rdFooter ]
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by +Chrism:

I hope that +Blackburn gets a traditionalist Bishop, it has been a trad cath diocese for the last 23 years. I know whoever is appointed will be gracious enough to work with women priests.


You know, I don't get this. If I were a 'traditionalist' [sic] in a diocese with a long succession of liberal MOTR bishops, I'd be hoping that we would get a conservative next time round. So similarly, if I were liberal/MOTR in a diocese like Blackburn or Chichester, I'd probably wish for a like-minded bishop. In theory.

In practice, the churchpersonship of a bishop has very little to do with the style of the diocese, makes little difference practically unless he refuses to ordain women, and impinges hardly at all on the day to day life of parishes. As long as the C of E is a broad church, all of us, whatever our predilections, should be glad to have the whole breadth reflected in the bench of bishops. But labelling whole dioceses as 'catholic' or 'liberal' or 'evangelical' is not true to the facts nor helpful as a policy. So as long as the 'traditionalists' have fair representation across the church as a whole, why should they want to cling on to particular dioceses?

I'm writing from a diocese which is often labelled 'evangelical', and indeed has always had a bishop more or less from that constituency. But although it probably has a more than average share of evangelical parishes, it is far from monochrome. An anglo-catholic bishop would learn a lot, and teach us a lot. I used to work in Southwark diocese which has a 'liberal catholic' reputation, yet one of its best diocesan bishops was Roy Williamson, a Belfast protestant.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by +Chrism:
I know whoever is appointed will be gracious enough to work with women priests.

Gosh, that's very nice of him. How self-sacrifical and humble he must be to be so gracious.

Readin what you wrote there makes me, for the first time ever, half want General Synod to just pass a one-line motion saying women can be bishops.

And that the next bishop of Blackburn is the first one. I'm sure that whoever she is she will be gracious enough to work with the extremist anti-women Anglo-Catholics in the diocese.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Ken: [Overused] [Angel]
 
Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 3rdFooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Just think if he'd been appointed to the diocese of Chichester. He'd have to change his name to Fr South.

But if he went father south from Chichester, he'd be in the oggin, or worse, France.
Bishop of the see of the sea?
 
Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on :
 
Since when was Blackburn a 'trad catholic' diocese? It is pretty mixed - I have a former colleague who is there and he is con evo! Plus there is an open evangelical suffragen. Blackburn is, if anything, Lancashire Low - I had a bishop once who said all parishes in Manchester diocese were Lancashire Low - even the Anglo-Catholic ones!
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
So as long as the 'traditionalists' have fair representation across the church as a whole, why should they want to cling on to particular dioceses?

Because, contrary to the promises of the Act of Synod that "there will be no discrimination against candidates either for ordination or for appointment to senior office in the Church of England on the grounds of their views about the ordination of women to the priesthood" , it has repeatedly been the case only in a small handful of dioceses.

How many of those appointed to episcopal or cathedral posts (if we're taking those as "senior office") since 1994 have been unable to accept the admission of women to the canonical priesthood, outside of the dioceses of London, Blackburn, York, Chichester, Europe, and Exeter?

Thurible
 
Posted by Fifi (# 8151) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:

How many of those appointed to episcopal or cathedral posts (if we're taking those as "senior office") since 1994 have been unable to accept the admission of women to the canonical priesthood, outside of the dioceses of London, Blackburn, York, Chichester, Europe, and Exeter?

Thurible

Well, are we going to need more than the fingers of one hand? How about one bishop, one archdeacon and three cathedral canons?
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
Since when was Blackburn a 'trad catholic' diocese? It is pretty mixed - I have a former colleague who is there and he is con evo! Plus there is an open evangelical suffragen. Blackburn is, if anything, Lancashire Low - I had a bishop once who said all parishes in Manchester diocese were Lancashire Low - even the Anglo-Catholic ones!

Don't they still church women there?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
So as long as the 'traditionalists' have fair representation across the church as a whole, why should they want to cling on to particular dioceses?

Because, contrary to the promises of the Act of Synod that "there will be no discrimination against candidates either for ordination or for appointment to senior office in the Church of England on the grounds of their views about the ordination of women to the priesthood" , it has repeatedly been the case only in a small handful of dioceses.

How many of those appointed to episcopal or cathedral posts (if we're taking those as "senior office") since 1994 have been unable to accept the admission of women to the canonical priesthood, outside of the dioceses of London, Blackburn, York, Chichester, Europe, and Exeter?

Thurible

Bristol had an FiF precentor until 3 years ago.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
]Bristol had an FiF precentor until 3 years ago.

As did 'liberal' Southwark not all that long ago. IIRC.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
I'd imagine Fr Clover was one of those of whom Fifi was thinking, leo. There's also Fr Haselock at Norwich. I can't think of the third off the top of my head.

Angloid, who was that? And when?

There was the chancellor at Leicester a few years back (who was in situ when Viv Faull went to be Dean) but I don't know when he was appointed.

Thurible
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
A little googling reveals that Michael Banks was appointed to Leicester in 1987 and, at that time, was an advocate of the ordination of women but changed his mind in the mid-90s.

Thurible
 
Posted by Fifi (# 8151) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
I'd imagine Fr Clover was one of those of whom Fifi was thinking, leo. There's also Fr Haselock at Norwich. I can't think of the third off the top of my head.

I'd forgotten Brendan Clover (mea culpa!); my three were Jeremy Haselock, Martin Warner & John Lees. And now I recall a fifth: Paul Greenwell.

I don't recall one at Southwark, but that diocese did have an Archdeacon until, I think, last year.
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
I'd suggest that even this relatively small number is still far, far out of proportion to the number of members of the C. of E. who disagree that women can be ordained. Is there a serious suggestion that the representation amongst diocesans, suffragans, deans and the rest ought to be 50/50? This seems quite ridiculous, I'm afraid.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
No, but, rather, that views on the OoW oughtn't to be a factor whereas they very much have been.

Thurible
 
Posted by Bwnni (# 17342) on :
 
It seems to have gone very quiet on the Fulham front.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
I think it will have noised up by, say, the end of the week.

Thurible
 
Posted by AngloCatholicDude (# 16476) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bwnni:
It seems to have gone very quiet on the Fulham front.

+Pete said that the Fulham Announcement will be by the end of this month - which is tomorrow. Keep praying and hoping - I am sure Downing Street will announce it tomorrow.

The person who has been appointed is a wonderful addition to the London Team but we must continue to pray for him and the Fulham Jurisdiction as they move forward in their ministry.

I am sure +Pete will comment in due course about this issue.
 
Posted by rugbyplayingpriest (# 9809) on :
 
Ebbsfleet to Fulham and Robin Ward to Ebbsfleet is my guess.
 
Posted by Hezekiah (# 17157) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
Ebbsfleet to Fulham and Robin Ward to Ebbsfleet is my guess.

Luke Miller gets my vote. I heard that Robin Ward was possibly up for Dean of Chichester.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fifi:
I don't recall one at Southwark, but that diocese did have an Archdeacon until, I think, last year.

That's right, Tony Davies who was Archdeacon of Croydon and retired last year. It was a deliberate appointment by +Roy Williamson who felt it was important to have an opponent to OOW in the hierarchy of the diocese so that their voices would still be heard.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Yet another reason for regarding +Roy as my favourite bishop.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Yes, he was a good one. Although when I got the letter in his name saying I'd been turned down by ABM back in '92, the chaplain I was working for at the time- also an Irishman, but very much a TCD MA- looked him up in Crockford and, on seeing his educational background, very memorably expressed the view that +Roy had been 'dragged up by the short hairs'!
 
Posted by Fifi (# 8151) on :
 
Baker it is. Laus Deo!
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
And now we hope and pray for a worthy successor, one who is caring, loved, committed to the Church of England, humble, a good preacher, and a faithful pastor.

Damian Feeney please, God.

Thurible
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
Bishop Jonathan has posted a farewell notice on his website.

Despite knowning it was coming, I'm really, really sad. Fulham are very lucky to be getting him.

quote:
It was announced this morning from 10 Downing Street that I am to be the next Suffragan Bishop of Fulham in the Diocese of London.

I am very sorry indeed to be leaving the priests, people and parishes of Ebbsfleet after this short time as your bishop, and I will miss my ministry among you enormously. However, I believe that this move is the right one for me at this time in my own Christian pilgrimage, and I hope you will continue to pray for me as I prepare to move on.

I will fulfil my diary as Bishop of Ebbsfleet until Ash Wednesday, 13th February 2013: indeed it will be 'business as usual' until then. After that, I will have a period of leave in order to move house and office and to prepare to take up my new duties some time in Eastertide.

I have been given every assurance that a new Bishop of Ebbsfleet will be appointed to succeed me, and that matter is in the hands of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his successor. Please pray for all involved in the selection and appointment of the next Bishop.

Looking beyond Ash Wednesday, I hope that, in the short term, other bishops will be able to step in to cover Ebbsfleet events and engagements, as happened last time the See was vacant, until a new bishop is in post. I hope and pray that any time of vacancy will be brief.

Please be assured of my continuing prayers for our common life and mission,

Yours in Christ
+Jonathan

Thurible
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
Ebbsfleet to Fulham and Robin Ward to Ebbsfleet is my guess.

Will there be an Ebbsfleet left to go to? I thought resolution C was being revoked when/if the woman bishops vote gets through General Synod next month.
 
Posted by Fifi (# 8151) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
Ebbsfleet to Fulham and Robin Ward to Ebbsfleet is my guess.

Will there be an Ebbsfleet left to go to? I thought resolution C was being revoked when/if the woman bishops vote gets through General Synod next month.
Wishful thinking on your part, perhaps. Have a look here.
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
A very important aspect of the appointment was making sure that we are clear (although the Archbishop cannot commit his successor) that Ebbsfleet is going to continue.
 
Posted by AngloCatholicDude (# 16476) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
A very important aspect of the appointment was making sure that we are clear (although the Archbishop cannot commit his successor) that Ebbsfleet is going to continue.

Indeed, I am sure a worthy successor will be appointed to +Ebbsfleet in due course.

I am also very pleased to see that +Jonathan Fulham will be based at St Dunstan in the West Church, Fleet Street. The place is dedicated to a former Bishop of London and Archbishop of Canterbury.

+Fulham will be based in Parochial Ministry at St Dunstan in the West Church, Fleet Street and it brings forth +Richard Londin's point of any new Bishop of Fulham will be more closely related to me as the Bishop of London in serving the Two Cities Area
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
Sorry, I've read that final paragraph several times and it makes no sense. In what way are you related to the bishops of London and Fulham?
 
Posted by CL (# 16145) on :
 
Is Bishop Baker still a Freemason?
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Is Bishop Baker still a Freemason?

No.


erm maybe shhh.
 
Posted by Fifi (# 8151) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Is Bishop Baker still a Freemason?

No.

Non.

Nein.

Nej.

Nie.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Sorry, I've read that final paragraph several times and it makes no sense. In what way are you related to the bishops of London and Fulham?

I think the last sentence was quoting Bishop Richard's previous press release, without inverted commas.

Thurible
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Can you cease to be a Freemason? Isn't there a bloodcurdling fate prescribed for people who do?
 
Posted by Aggie (# 4385) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Can you cease to be a Freemason? Isn't there a bloodcurdling fate prescribed for people who do?

[Smile]
No, absolutely not!
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
As Bishop Jonathan made very clear, he resigned from the Masons because he didn't want anything to detract from his episcopal ministry.

He resigned. He is no longer a Mason.

Now all his funny dressing up is as a builder-up of the Kingdom rather than as a builder of mediaeval cathedrals or whatever it is they're pretending to do with their pseudo-spiritual, rolled-up trouser legs.

Thurible

[ 01. November 2012, 11:01: Message edited by: Thurible ]
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
quote:
As Bishop Jonathan made very clear, he resigned from the Masons because he didn't want anything to detract from his episcopal ministry.

You mean rather than they were a bunch of heretical, patriachal fools who any Christian should have issues with (never mind an Ordained one)?

Fly Safe, Pyx_e
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
quote:
As Bishop Jonathan made very clear, he resigned from the Masons because he didn't want anything to detract from his episcopal ministry.

You mean rather than they were a bunch of heretical, patriachal fools who any Christian should have issues with (never mind an Ordained one)?

If you would like to understand my sentence as finishing "...episcopal ministry, not least his membership of a bunch of...", that would be reasonable.

Thurible
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fifi:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
Ebbsfleet to Fulham and Robin Ward to Ebbsfleet is my guess.

Will there be an Ebbsfleet left to go to? I thought resolution C was being revoked when/if the woman bishops vote gets through General Synod next month.
Wishful thinking on your part, perhaps. Have a look here.
Not at all wishful - I am a supporter of the rights of Resolution ABC parishes despite being strongly in favour of the OOW. i despair of the intolerance of others of my 'integrity'.

The previous Bp. of Ebbsfleet said
quote:
There will be no more 'flying bishops', no more Beverley, Ebbsfleet, and Richborough.
here.

As I understand it, every attempt to keep flying bishops has been voted out by synod.

There could be a new bp. of Ebbsfleet but he won't have the same role under a code of practice - which why FiF's mantra remains that such a code 'won't do'.
 
Posted by +Chrism (# 17032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Fifi:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
Ebbsfleet to Fulham and Robin Ward to Ebbsfleet is my guess.

Will there be an Ebbsfleet left to go to? I thought resolution C was being revoked when/if the woman bishops vote gets through General Synod next month.
Wishful thinking on your part, perhaps. Have a look here.
Not at all wishful - I am a supporter of the rights of Resolution ABC parishes despite being strongly in favour of the OOW. i despair of the intolerance of others of my 'integrity'.

The previous Bp. of Ebbsfleet said
quote:
There will be no more 'flying bishops', no more Beverley, Ebbsfleet, and Richborough.
here.

As I understand it, every attempt to keep flying bishops has been voted out by synod.

There could be a new bp. of Ebbsfleet but he won't have the same role under a code of practice - which why FiF's mantra remains that such a code 'won't do'.

I am so glad by this appointment, it's exactly the person who I was informed was going to +Fulham.

+Jonathan Fulham(designate) renounced all involvement in Freemasonry upon appointment to +Ebbsfleet.

+Ebbsfleet will continue to fulfill his present role until the Archbishop says otherwise.

Although certain people may be upset about him leaving or question his loyalty to +Ebbsfleet but +Jonathan weighed up his options both personal and spiritual which bought him to the conclusion that that it will be wise to move on from +Ebbsfleet.

+Ebbsfleet consultation will start shortly, so let's send very good names in and it will be completed once the New Archbishop takes office but I am sure +Sentamu will have a hand in the appointment process

I hope that +David Houlding is made a Bishop one day, although I doubt he'd accept such an offer. The logic that those who want to be Bishops shouldn't is always necessarily true
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
quote:
The previous Bp. of Ebbsfleet said
quote: There will be no more 'flying bishops', no more Beverley, Ebbsfleet, and Richborough.

Propaganda, it's such a strong word. Yet I struggle to find a better one.

Fly Safe, Flying Bishops, Pyx_e

p.s. good trump Leo, I LOLed.
 
Posted by Fifi (# 8151) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:

The previous Bp. of Ebbsfleet said
quote:
There will be no more 'flying bishops', no more Beverley, Ebbsfleet, and Richborough.
here.

Well, he would have said that, wouldn't he? [Smile]

And, no, a Code of Practice still will not do. [Mad]
 
Posted by +Chrism (# 17032) on :
 
quote:
And, no, a Code of Practice still will not do. [Mad]
Amen, A code of practice will not do
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
Oh yes it will.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:

OR that they'll cope with it, in the sense that they've coped with the sub-Catholic ecclesiology of past generations

You mean, like Flying Bishops?
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
Yes, that would be one of the not-ideal things I was thinking of.

Thurible
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
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?

Those two sound liekly tome.

They could possibky have got more if they had made it clearer wehat they actually wanted rather than harping on about the e third province fantasy - which is obviously a complete non-starter and must have been meant as a negotiating position rather than a concrete demand.
 
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:

OR that they'll cope with it, in the sense that they've coped with the sub-Catholic ecclesiology of past generations

You mean, like Flying Bishops?
Although this is not what Angloid meant, it did remind me that it is fallacious when it is claimed that bishops with jurisdiction other than that provided by the topology of old English counties is 'less catholic'.

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.

There is also the notion of the personal prelature. Opus Dei priests (those ordained to Opus rather than parish clergy who happen to be members) are under the episcope of the leadership in Rome. The Ordinariate has a slightly similar set up. Jesuits, as Regular clergy, have their own regional hierarchy, the Master General in Rome and, of course, the pope. It rarely includes the local diocesan.

Episcopacy can be exercised in various non-geographically based forms, but is none the less 'catholic' in its fullness.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
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?

Even those who are currently allowed alternative oversight are not totally let off being part of the diocese they really belong to.
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
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] ), 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.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
They do have to recognise their diocesan. They remain in their diocese. They merely receive alternative oversight.

[Confused] 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.]
 
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
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.

[Confused] 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.
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
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
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
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.

[Confused] 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 ]
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :
 
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.)
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by FrNJSSC (# 17314) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
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] . 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.


 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
In a desperately sad development in the life of the Church, Philip North has withdrawn as Bishop of Whitby.
Also here.

And from Jezebel's Trumpet here.

Thurible

[ 17. December 2012, 09:26: Message edited by: Thurible ]
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Clarification of above: I meant to say 'opposed to OoW' priests and bishops.
 
Posted by AngloCatholicDude (# 16476) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Stranger in a strange land (# 11922) on :
 
But surely +Sentamu/Ebor has very limited influence in the matter of who is appointed to the See of Blackburn?
 
Posted by AngloCatholicDude (# 16476) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by +Chrism (# 17032) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
+Chrism, have you read this ?

Doublethink
Purgatory H o s t
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
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
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
And what if it were to be an evangelical?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
And what if it were to be an evangelical?

That would be wonderful.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
It would be interesting, certainly.

Would he don a mitre and chasuble, recite the Angelus at the end of the Parish Mass, and bless as the people knelt on his departure?

Then, for most parishioners, that'd be fine.

Thurible

[ 18. February 2013, 11:52: Message edited by: Thurible ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I know of two current evangelical bishops who already do so.

Provincial episcopal visitors don't/shouldn't belong to any one 'party', any more than diocesans.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
Indeed. I've known evangelical bishops who happily do 1 and 3 but not 1, 2, and 3. The trio would be be the winner.

Thurible
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I am told that Nicky Gumble joins in the Angelus at S. Augustine's Queensgate (its having become an Alpha plant but maintaining the pre-existing congregation with a Solemn Mass (renamed Sung Eucharist).

So if he can do it.....

After all, the Angelus is almost entirely from scripture.
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
..brief tangent, if I may...

What is an Alpha plant? - referred to in last post by Leo
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
It's a fierce man-eating plant which traps unwary anglo-catholics, covers them in a sticky substance and drags them down to a place deep inside the plant from which there is no escape. See 'Sundew', 'Venus Flytrap', etc.

Alternatively, it's opening a new church in a redundant building, supported by Holy Trinity Brompton, the home of Alpha courses and suppers. Take your pick.
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
Technically a Church Plant in the Diocese of London. In this case, an HTB church plant. But under the authority of the Bishop.
 
Posted by Maureen Lash (# 17192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
And what if it were to be an evangelical?

A possible escape from your current dead-end?
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
I would like to trust that that is not intended to be a personal attack Maureen.

Doublethink
Purgatory Host
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
An evangelical in Lewes didn't do Chichester any good, by the looks of the child protection scandals.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
That is because he was incompetent not because he was evangelical.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Exactly.
 
Posted by Huts (# 13017) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
That is because he was incompetent not because he was evangelical.

From the press release you could say there was neither ineptitude nor cover up

http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/005924.html
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
If someone reports sexual activity with a minor, you contac the police. In other words, the diocesan child proteciton policy was crap.

But, I don't know what the government guidance was in 1997 - or the likely police response in 1997. Here is the current government guidance.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Probably - but it it still nothing to do with Benn being an evangelical.

Re- the supposed preference for PEVs being catholics, the diocesan was/is a catholic. So maybe they should be neither evangelical nor catholic. Not logical.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
In 1997? Most cerertainly the official line was report the matter. Probably in 1987 as well.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0