Thread: MW 2685 - St Margaret's Westminster 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=027888

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
The MW report on St Margaret's Westminster

MW report

raise a couple of questions. The first, very minor, is that Bishop Kay Goldsworthy is not Bishop of Perth, but rather that she is an Assistant Bishop in the Perth Diocese. ++Roger Herft is the Archbishop of Perth.

Given that St Margaret's is a Royal Peculiar, whose permission was given, or would be needed for + Kay to preside and preach? I recall that there was some controversy a couple of years ago when ++ Katherine was not given permission to preach in a UK church.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
Correction made.
 
Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on :
 
I think the controversy re the PB was tht she was told not to wear her mitre! Since the CofE ordains women as priests, there is no reason why a female bishop from another province cannot preside or preach, but as we do not yet consecrate women as bishops, a female bishop may not do bishopy things - including apparently putting your ecclesiastical hat on! Mitregate made us look silly.

However, any visiting priest/ preacher needs the incumbent's permission to operate. +Kay was invited by the Dean of Westminster (I guess....)
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Maggie's delightful (as usual) Report remains, alas, silent on the subject of the vestments of the ministers! I'm guessing that +Kay probably sported alb, stole, and chasuble, leaving off the mitre.......

/smelly dead animal tangent alert/

It's interesting that, nowhere in the Report, is +Kay's gender mentioned......for the Reporter, the importance of reception of the Sacrament and the message of the Gospel is clearly paramount......

Ian J.
 
Posted by Swick (# 8773) on :
 
I had to laugh at the mystery worshipper's surprise at the asperges/water sprinkling. In the USA this is done in more catholic oriented Episcopal churches, but probably not in the average church. I attended Easter Day at a friend's church where the priest did this, and most of the parishioners were *very* surprised, and the choir was quite miffed that their service music got wet.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Funny that the mitre's so damn important. The more universal symbols of episcopacy in the Anglican Communion are the episcopal ring and pectoral cross. I wonder if rochet and chimere would have been deemed as offensive as a mitre?

[ 29. April 2014, 13:48: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
 
Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :
 
I don't know what +Kay wore during her time at the Abbey, but on Maundy Thursday she did join the Canons of Westminster in the procession at St. Paul's Cathedral at the Chrism Mass.

She was with them, not with the bishops - though the groups of bishops were those licensed as such in the Diocese of London. She wore a cope and stole matching those of the canons and her pectoral cross. I don't recall whether she was wearing cassock-alb, surplice or rochet under the cope. I couldn't see if she was wearing her episcopal ring. Definitely no mitre.

[ 29. April 2014, 15:21: Message edited by: TomM ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I wonder if rochet and chimere would have been deemed as offensive as a mitre?

Yes because

a) they're protestant

b) they have everything to do with establishment and the house of Lords and nothing to do with the office of bishop apart from unelected political functions
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I wonder if rochet and chimere would have been deemed as offensive as a mitre?

Yes because

a) they're protestant


In what way?
quote:
Originally posted by leo:

b) they have everything to do with establishment and the house of Lords and nothing to do with the office of bishop apart from unelected political functions

Are you sure?
 
Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:

b) they have everything to do with establishment and the house of Lords and nothing to do with the office of bishop apart from unelected political functions

Anglican bishops throughout the world wear rochet and chimere as symbols of office.

Here's a picture of some bishops at Lambeth 2008. Surely not a single one of them is an English bishop who sits in the house of Lords -- not even the rather homely female bishops on the far right and far left sides of the photo-group.... [Big Grin]
 
Posted by CL (# 16145) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I wonder if rochet and chimere would have been deemed as offensive as a mitre?

Yes because

a) they're protestant

b) they have everything to do with establishment and the house of Lords and nothing to do with the office of bishop apart from unelected political functions

http://ordinariateexpats.wordpress.com/2014/04/23/some-anglican-patrimony-vestments-at-olw-houston/
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Correction made.

Thank you Miss Amanda. The only woman diocesan here (so far) is + Sarah Grafton. It's interesting to note that + Kay was a strong candidate to be elected diocesan of Newcastle last year - where her present ++ had been diocesan until around 2005.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
New Zealand of course now has an English bishop as a diocesan - but that is not a game changer as, were she to go home, she would be visiting in her capacity as a kiwi diocesan
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Has the sky fallen in there Zappa? It has not here. Said in the context of obtaining some advice as to the authority needed for + Kay to preside and preach in a Royal Peculiar.

To talk about the tangent: Bishops have long worn rochets, and rochet and chimere have been standard vesting for bishops in Sydney since + William Broughton (a strong high churchman) was appointed as Bishop of Australia in 1836 and then of Sydney in 1845. But the tradition is much older. Holinshed records an altercation in between the ++ Canterbury and ++ York of the day over who sat on the legate’s right and who the left at convocation. After the melée, ++ York “with his rent rochet got up, and awaie he went to the King” – who proceeded to laugh York out of court.
 
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I wonder if rochet and chimere would have been deemed as offensive as a mitre?

Yes because

a) they're protestant

b) they have everything to do with establishment and the house of Lords and nothing to do with the office of bishop apart from unelected political functions

http://ordinariateexpats.wordpress.com/2014/04/23/some-anglican-patrimony-vestments-at-olw-houston/
Anglo-catholics in particular are reminded that nowhere in the BCP is the word "Protestant" to be found, but the word "Catholic", yes and more than once, because in Anglican eyes, the Church of England did not cease to be catholic at the Reformation.
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
Anglo-catholics in particular are reminded that nowhere in the BCP is the word "Protestant" to be found, but the word "Catholic", yes and more than once, because in Anglican eyes, the Church of England did not cease to be catholic at the Reformation.

Hear! Hear!

[Overused]
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
If you want to debate whether Anglicans are or are not protestant, then you know where Purgatory is.

seasick, Eccles host
 
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I wonder if rochet and chimere would have been deemed as offensive as a mitre?

Yes because

a) they're protestant

b) they have everything to do with establishment and the house of Lords and nothing to do with the office of bishop apart from unelected political functions

The "old" Catholic Encyclopedia does not appear to agree with you:

quote:
The rochet is not a vestment pertaining to all clerics, like the surplice; it is distinctive of prelates, and may be worn by other ecclesiastics only when (as, e.g., in the case of cathedral chapters) the usus rochetti has been granted them by a special papal indult.


and

quote:
The origin of the rochet may be traced from the clerical (non- liturgical) alba or camisia, that is, the clerical linen tunic of everyday life. It was thus not originally distinctive of the higher ecclesiastics alone.


The "new" Catholic Encyclopedia only mentions the rochet as a variation of the surplice proper to bishops.

Neither, oddly, mentions protestants, establishment or the House of Lords once.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Has the sky fallen in there Zappa? It has not here.

Not noticeably ... but we're watching.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
I am most surprised that it hasn't...... And it hasn't here.either. Most strange.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0