Ship of Fools: Why, Justin, why?

Thread: Why, Justin, why? 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=030126

Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :

How come we're refused faculties for a picture of the Blessed Mother of God when our Archbishop preached recently (in Ephesus, of all places, I believe : "Close to this place we continue to seek the mercy of Christ and the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Lord, on Syria and the Middle East."

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

I'm gonna guess that you know more about this topic, along with the answer to your question, than most of the people reading this.

So, would you care to fill in some of the details?

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

If you are in New Malden, then I would suggest your question needs to be addressed to whichever diocese grants your faculties. Not Justin, being head honcho of a diocese in Kent.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Interesting question though, is the Archbish responsible for faculties?

I think the person with overall responsibility is the Dean of the Arches, but presumably the powers are delegated from the Archbishops.

Maybe it is a silly Church Law exam question: could an Archbish overrule the Court of Arches decision?

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Interesting question though, is the Archbish responsible for faculties?

I think the person with overall responsibility is the Dean of the Arches, but presumably the powers are delegated from the Archbishops.

Maybe it is a silly Church Law exam question: could an Archbish overrule the Court of Arches decision?

The usual post responsible is the Chancellor of the Diocese I think. Or whichever post takes their place.

But given the volume of requests, there's usually some support mechanism for them, probably involving a committee to advise.

I'm not sure it is possible to say more at this stage. Was the proposal supported by the PCC? Is there some minority opposed? Does the Diocese have a policy on iconography that this "picture" (what sort?) violates.

And no doubt etc. etc.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Way back then, when I used read the All England Law Reports, I was always amused to read of cases concerning the grant of faculties and subsequent appeals. My dim recollection is that it was a matter for the Diocesan in the first instance, a power usually delegated to the Chancellor. A dissatisfied party could then appeal, but it was only in the province of Canterbury that the appeal was to the Court of the Arches; some different body in York. I have no idea what changes, if any, have been made since then.

Certainly this is not a matter for Abp Justin.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I mean he's a warmonger in the Catholic tradition, so why indeed?

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Was it tacky?

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Everyone knows Justin's diary looks like this:

8:00 Morning prayer
9:00 Finish sermon. NB check Wikipedia - do telegrams count as social media?
10:00 Chat with Akinola - must remind him that excommunicating the C of E on Lillibet's 90th birthday would be rather poor taste. (NB is he one of the corrupt ones? Must ask David.)
11:00 Talk to chap on the Today programme about our wholehearted commitment to positive sounding abstract nouns and utter rejection of negative sounding abstract nouns.
12:00 Lunch with Lillibet. Mustn't forget chew toy for corgis. Bishop of Dover will do.
14:00 Send chaser email to Church Commissioners. Check if they are still investing in Afghan warlords.
15:00 Some chappie from the BBC wants to know if Anglican priests really do have diplomatic immunity from the Vatican.
16:00 Launch reign of terror against High Anglicans in New Malden. Don't forget matches!!! NB don't ask Waitrose for 'bloody stakes' this time - open to misinterpretation.
17:00 Pop into House of Lords to see if there's anything good on.
18:00 Pontius Pilates class (handwashing exercises)
18:30 Choral Evensong. Must remember to vet sermon for Theopaschitist heresy.
20:00 Pub. (Check that ghastly Mr Farage isn't present.)

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

What does "faculty" mean, in this context? Permission? Funding? I looked it up, but couldn't find anything that made sense.

Thx.

Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
If you are in New Malden, then I would suggest your question needs to be addressed to whichever diocese grants your faculties. Not Justin, being head honcho of a diocese in Kent.

I live there now, but this was years ago in another parish. It's a more global 'problem' though. Officially and on ecumenical occasions, our prelates use language and forms of worship that they disallow on their own turf.

Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Was it tacky?

No it was not, an etching in glass of the vision from the book of Revelation. On a more general note, try to introduce the intercession of saints in any (official, public) part of the liturgy and see how far you'll go if anyone complains.

Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Interesting question though, is the Archbish responsible for faculties?

I think the person with overall responsibility is the Dean of the Arches, but presumably the powers are delegated from the Archbishops.

Maybe it is a silly Church Law exam question: could an Archbish overrule the Court of Arches decision?
The usual post responsible is the Chancellor of the Diocese I think. Or whichever post takes their place.

But given the volume of requests, there's usually some support mechanism for them, probably involving a committee to advise.

I'm not sure it is possible to say more at this stage. Was the proposal supported by the PCC? Is there some minority opposed? Does the Diocese have a policy on iconography that this "picture" (what sort?) violates.

And no doubt etc. etc.

There's always, always a minority opposed to something in the CofE. Some have turned it into a sport, but if the Abp's happy to ask for the intercession of the BVM in Ephesus, the question is: should they be listened to?

Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
If you are in New Malden, then I would suggest your question needs to be addressed to whichever diocese grants your faculties. Not Justin, being head honcho of a diocese in Kent.

It would not be a problem here, our archdeacon's quite lovely. Long may he survive. [Votive]

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Was it tacky?
No it was not, an etching in glass of the vision from the book of Revelation. On a more general note, try to introduce the intercession of saints in any (official, public) part of the liturgy and see how far you'll go if anyone complains.

You mean like this? (in subject matter). From a church near here. Clearly the diocese of Winchester didn't object to that one!

Thanks for filling in the subject matter a bit. Not sure I've got any more insights, though. Our requests for faculties have always gone through without any objections so I have no insight into what happens if there is a split in opinions in the parish.

(A faculty, BTW, Golden Key, is simply a permission to do something that requires prior approval. Most commonly to do with the fabric of the church. As churches actually belong to the CofE, then it acts as the ecclesiastical equivalent of civil planning permission, though its subject matter goes beyond that.)

Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Was it tacky?
No it was not, an etching in glass of the vision from the book of Revelation. On a more general note, try to introduce the intercession of saints in any (official, public) part of the liturgy and see how far you'll go if anyone complains.
You mean like this? (in subject matter). From a church near here. Clearly the diocese of Winchester didn't object to that one!

Thanks for filling in the subject matter a bit. Not sure I've got any more insights, though. Our requests for faculties have always gone through without any objections so I have no insight into what happens if there is a split in opinions in the parish.

(A faculty, BTW, Golden Key, is simply a permission to do something that requires prior approval. Most commonly to do with the fabric of the church. As churches actually belong to the CofE, then it acts as the ecclesiastical equivalent of civil planning permission, though its subject matter goes beyond that.)

yes, like this but etched on transparent glass on the door leading to the vestry

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

Thop0se who want a bit more context can find the sermon here.

Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Thop0se who want a bit more context can find the sermon here.

Thanks, Brother James, I wonder who wrote it for him. I'm a voracious reader of the Fathers but I cannot imagine Amphilochios of Iconium is on Abp's Justin's bedside table, heck, he does not even have an entry in Drobner. I'm not even sure he's translated. [Disappointed]

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

If someone donates it, you get the faculty in reverse - right?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Not sure it counts for an awful lot, but it would be a bit strange for an Archbishop to encourage asking for the invocation of the saints when at one of the 39 articles that all CofE priests are supposed to affirm their loyalty to with expressly calls the practice repugnant (article 12).

It doesn't bother me really, I think the 39 articles are a load of cobblers and I'm never likely to have to affirm, promise or do anything else to them. It does seem to be rather hypocritical of the hierarchy, however.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
If someone donates it, you get the faculty in reverse - right?

I don't think there is any kind of pass on donations. I'm sure there are many things in churches which have been donated, but if anyone notices (presumably the archdeacon at very least) a faculty decision can be made that it is taken down and sold/donated/given away.

Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
If someone donates it, you get the faculty in reverse - right?
I don't think there is any kind of pass on donations. I'm sure there are many things in churches which have been donated, but if anyone notices (presumably the archdeacon at very least) a faculty decision can be made that it is taken down and sold/donated/given away.

Gosh no, there isn't, you had better pray that your tombstone's tasteful enough for many a cemetery, or any memorial or donations to the parish in memory of your dear departed one, even benches.

Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Not sure it counts for an awful lot, but it would be a bit strange for an Archbishop to encourage asking for the invocation of the saints when at one of the 39 articles that all CofE priests are supposed to affirm their loyalty to with expressly calls the practice repugnant (article 12).

It doesn't bother me really, I think the 39 articles are a load of cobblers and I'm never likely to have to affirm, promise or do anything else to them. It does seem to be rather hypocritical of the hierarchy, however.

It is hypocritical when he does it himself, very publicly, in the presence of an orthodox patriarch. It may of course be allowable under the new cleverly crafted declaration of assent: 'which faith the church is called to proclaim afresh in each generation... and to which it has born witness in its historic formularies, the 39 articles et caetera.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Not sure it counts for an awful lot, but it would be a bit strange for an Archbishop to encourage asking for the invocation of the saints when at one of the 39 articles that all CofE priests are supposed to affirm their loyalty to with expressly calls the practice repugnant (article 12).

Possibly, but given that even the most snakebelly low Evangelical church probably has images of saints in its stained glass windows, it doesn't seem that an image of a saint is in itself regarded as a filthy rag of popery offered to the scarlet lady of the seven hills. Though if the image also says something like 'Hail immaculate co-redemptrix' you might have something of a problem.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Possibly, but given that even the most snakebelly low Evangelical church probably has images of saints in its stained glass windows, it doesn't seem that an image of a saint is in itself regarded as a filthy rag of popery offered to the scarlet lady of the seven hills. Though if the image also says something like 'Hail immaculate co-redemptrix' you might have something of a problem.

I agree, but I was specifically discussing Joesaphat's general comments:

quote:
On a more general note, try to introduce the intercession of saints in any (official, public) part of the liturgy and see how far you'll go if anyone complains.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
I live there now, but this was years ago in another parish. It's a more global 'problem' though. Officially and on ecumenical occasions, our prelates use language and forms of worship that they disallow on their own turf.

If this was years ago (before Welby was ABC?), then is a sermon preached recently really an appropriate target for saying they preach one thing and disallow another?

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I'm another person who doesn't know what a faculty is.

Moo

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I'm another person who doesn't know what a faculty is.

Moo

It is just the permission an Anglican church needs to get to make majorish changes to the fabric of the building.

As the Established church, the CofE was allowed to opt out of the ordinary system of regulation for old buildings via a quango - but the flip side was that it had to do have a system of checking plans for changes itself. Hence the legal system for "faculties".

Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I'm another person who doesn't know what a faculty is.

Moo

A f...in nightmare, in most cases, and an excuse for your ecclesiastical betters to poke their nose into the organisation of your parish.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
A f...in nightmare, in most cases, and an excuse for your ecclesiastical betters to poke their nose into the organisation of your parish.

The problem here is that the Anglican church is a hierarchical system, so even if one is the incumbent of a parish, there is no sense that it is "your parish" nor that the system is unable to "poke its nose" into the local organising of it.

Indeed, uniquely amongst all the churches in the UK, the law explicitly states that a system of ecclesiastical courts can oversee changes to the fabric of Anglican buildings.

Of course, nobody is forced to work within the strictures of the Anglican church if you don't like it.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I'm another person who doesn't know what a faculty is.

Moo
A f...in nightmare, in most cases, and an excuse for your ecclesiastical betters to poke their nose into the organisation of your parish.

That's one side of the coin - the other might be when your PCC want to "re-order" (ie move) a medieval font which has been quite happily minding its own business since the 14th century. *Then* it's quite good that they can't just go ahead and do it...*

*lest there is any wailing about the incumbent and PCC knowing what's best for their parish it should be noted that the re-ordering I'm thinking of did indeed eventually go ahead - just not in the way originally proposed.

Having to get a faculty and meet stringent requirements meant that the original meeting of the parish "good ideas club" couldn't get away with doing the first thing that had come into their head.

[ 09. June 2016, 08:43: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Two things.

1. A faculty isn't just an alternative to the planning system. It's much, much older. Part of what it's there for is to protect the local church building and its members past, present and future in their journey through the centuries from the whims of the incumbent, the wardens, the PCC for the time being, and from the demands of rich people who want to install memorials and other goodies that are tasteless or too adulatory of their families. The jurisdiction is as much concerned about with doctrinal and liturgical propriety as architectural antiquarianism.

2. Joesaphat, I recognise that you are annoyed, that this rankles with you. However, it's impossible for any of us to answer your question or offer any useful comments unless you tell us a bit about the history of the picture you are talking about, what it was of, how it was to be used, where it was to go etc. I am sure that your diocese would have given reasons at the time when they turned down the application.

For example, a picture of the Annunciation or a Nativity or a Madonna and child or anything in scripture are more likely to be approved than one that seemed to be celebrating and endorsing a specifically RC understanding of the Assumption, which is not recognised as CofE doctrine.

I'm quite surprised that the one Honest Ron linked to got through. It would strike me as a bit near the edge. It isn't CofE doctrine that Rev 12 describes the Assumption, and I suspect either that was concealed from the application back in 1933, or it only got its title since.

Alternatively, the Chancellor in your diocese may just not have liked your picture artistically. That happens.

[ 09. June 2016, 09:22: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Talking of icons, this one blew me away.

Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Everyone knows Justin's diary looks like this:

8:00 Morning prayer
9:00 Finish sermon. NB check Wikipedia - do telegrams count as social media?
10:00 Chat with Akinola - must remind him that excommunicating the C of E on Lillibet's 90th birthday would be rather poor taste. (NB is he one of the corrupt ones? Must ask David.)
11:00 Talk to chap on the Today programme about our wholehearted commitment to positive sounding abstract nouns and utter rejection of negative sounding abstract nouns.
12:00 Lunch with Lillibet. Mustn't forget chew toy for corgis. Bishop of Dover will do.
14:00 Send chaser email to Church Commissioners. Check if they are still investing in Afghan warlords.
15:00 Some chappie from the BBC wants to know if Anglican priests really do have diplomatic immunity from the Vatican.
16:00 Launch reign of terror against High Anglicans in New Malden. Don't forget matches!!! NB don't ask Waitrose for 'bloody stakes' this time - open to misinterpretation.
17:00 Pop into House of Lords to see if there's anything good on.
18:00 Pontius Pilates class (handwashing exercises)
18:30 Choral Evensong. Must remember to vet sermon for Theopaschitist heresy.
20:00 Pub. (Check that ghastly Mr Farage isn't present.)

I know it's way back in the thread but I only just found this and it's the funniest thing I've read all morning.
[Yipee]

Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I'm another person who doesn't know what a faculty is.

Moo
A f...in nightmare, in most cases, and an excuse for your ecclesiastical betters to poke their nose into the organisation of your parish.
That's one side of the coin - the other might be when your PCC want to "re-order" (ie move) a medieval font which has been quite happily minding its own business since the 14th century. *Then* it's quite good that they can't just go ahead and do it...*

*lest there is any wailing about the incumbent and PCC knowing what's best for their parish it should be noted that the re-ordering I'm thinking of did indeed eventually go ahead - just not in the way originally proposed.

Having to get a faculty and meet stringent requirements meant that the original meeting of the parish "good ideas club" couldn't get away with doing the first thing that had come into their head.

Why is it good? Its position served the needs of the 14th century and English Heritage. I'm quite happy to acknowledge that at its best, faculties are a protection against a vicar's whim or fishy, bad taste... but more often than not it boils down to churchmanship or the whim of other people than the vicar and pcc, who, clearly, cannot be trusted.

Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
A f...in nightmare, in most cases, and an excuse for your ecclesiastical betters to poke their nose into the organisation of your parish.
The problem here is that the Anglican church is a hierarchical system, so even if one is the incumbent of a parish, there is no sense that it is "your parish" nor that the system is unable to "poke its nose" into the local organising of it.

Indeed, uniquely amongst all the churches in the UK, the law explicitly states that a system of ecclesiastical courts can oversee changes to the fabric of Anglican buildings.

Of course, nobody is forced to work within the strictures of the Anglican church if you don't like it.

then how come quite a few evangelical churches around me, if not all, can strip their churches bare of absolutely everything. I mean everything. Carpet the sanctuary, have cinema seating installed, a drum kit where the altar used to be and banners a-go-go, whereas it takes me months to simply be allowed to reserve the blessed sacrament of the Coptic community who worships with us, or to be allowed to encase a MU banner, admittedly rather 'assumptionish' looking?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I don't know, but I suspect that those aspects might be deemed to have a liturgical significance, and if there's one thing I've learned from hanging round my Catholic brethren, it's that you can't just move that stuff around any old how as iconoclastic evos are wont to do.

Posted by Thyme (# 12360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Everyone knows Justin's diary looks like this: 'snip'

11:00 Talk to chap on the Today programme about our wholehearted commitment to positive sounding abstract nouns and utter rejection of negative sounding abstract nouns.

'snip

Love this. Thank you.

Martin P60 Love that picture. What is the website you got it from? Thank you.

If the picture in question is clearly about the 'Assumption of the Virgin Mary' then I guess therein lies your problem if your Diocesan structures are heavily low church in their views.

Posted by Thyme (# 12360) on :

Sorry, afterthought, should have added 'and Mary as the Queen of Heaven'.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
then how come quite a few evangelical churches around me, if not all, can strip their churches bare of absolutely everything. I mean everything. Carpet the sanctuary, have cinema seating installed, a drum kit where the altar used to be and banners a-go-go, whereas it takes me months to simply be allowed to reserve the blessed sacrament of the Coptic community who worships with us, or to be allowed to encase a MU banner, admittedly rather 'assumptionish' looking?

I'm not playing whataboutery tennis. If you have a problem with other parishes and whether the changes they've made are or should be under the faculty regulations, you should take it up with an appropriate person in your diocese. I'm guessing that's the archdeacon in the first instance or possibly the Chancellor.

If you don't like the way the faculty system does things having been through the whole process of appeals, then you have one option left open to you. Don't let the door hit you as you leave.

Posted by Doone (# 18470) on :

Martin60 - absolutely stunning piece of art, icon, devotional or whatever, it doesn't matter, it's such a powerful image.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Glad you like it Thyme, Doone. One can follow links in it back to Lindsey Attwood I saw the original, about 7 years ago, at St. Mary's, Leamington, I was transfixed. I believe it's still there.

Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
then how come quite a few evangelical churches around me, if not all, can strip their churches bare of absolutely everything. I mean everything. Carpet the sanctuary, have cinema seating installed, a drum kit where the altar used to be and banners a-go-go, whereas it takes me months to simply be allowed to reserve the blessed sacrament of the Coptic community who worships with us, or to be allowed to encase a MU banner, admittedly rather 'assumptionish' looking?
I'm not playing whataboutery tennis. If you have a problem with other parishes and whether the changes they've made are or should be under the faculty regulations, you should take it up with an appropriate person in your diocese. I'm guessing that's the archdeacon in the first instance or possibly the Chancellor.

If you don't like the way the faculty system does things having been through the whole process of appeals, then you have one option left open to you. Don't let the door hit you as you leave.

Nope, I'm staying. I want the same liberty for everyone though

Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
then how come quite a few evangelical churches around me, if not all, can strip their churches bare of absolutely everything. I mean everything. Carpet the sanctuary, have cinema seating installed, a drum kit where the altar used to be and banners a-go-go, whereas it takes me months to simply be allowed to reserve the blessed sacrament of the Coptic community who worships with us, or to be allowed to encase a MU banner, admittedly rather 'assumptionish' looking?
I'm not playing whataboutery tennis. If you have a problem with other parishes and whether the changes they've made are or should be under the faculty regulations, you should take it up with an appropriate person in your diocese. I'm guessing that's the archdeacon in the first instance or possibly the Chancellor.

If you don't like the way the faculty system does things having been through the whole process of appeals, then you have one option left open to you. Don't let the door hit you as you leave.

Oh, and it's not whataboutery. They're in the same church, last I looked, cheesy, the same rules apply, or should

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Do you know that they did not obtain the necessary faculties to remove those items?

BTW, I'd doubt very much that a faculty is needed any more to bring in drum kits than to take up the hemline of a cassock to suit a new chorister.

Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :

The church where I sang for 23 years was given a beautiful, traditionally styled candelabra - the multi votive candle type - in memory of the wife of one of the congregation. You wouldn't believe the fuss, just within the PCC, about accepting it, and where it was to stand (it's a large church) - and then we needed a faculty. It was eventually installed. I can see the value of the system, but when complicated by members of the PCC who simply want to go against the majority, the whole process becomes cumbersome, to put it mildly.

Rereading this post, it's clear that given the choice of abolishing a body, I would probably vote to abolish the PCC!

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
... BTW, I'd doubt very much that a faculty is needed any more to bring in drum kits than to take up the hemline of a cassock to suit a new chorister.

It isn't. A collection of drums are not a fixture.

Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
... BTW, I'd doubt very much that a faculty is needed any more to bring in drum kits than to take up the hemline of a cassock to suit a new chorister.
It isn't. A collection of drums are not a fixture.

No, but removing a stone victorian altar, sorry, communion table, certainly does, and all the statuary, and organs, and pews, and reredos... need I go on?

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
... BTW, I'd doubt very much that a faculty is needed any more to bring in drum kits than to take up the hemline of a cassock to suit a new chorister.
It isn't. A collection of drums are not a fixture.
No, but removing a stone victorian altar, sorry, communion table, certainly does, and all the statuary, and organs, and pews, and reredos... need I go on?

Yes, but it's clearly an evangelical shack from your description, and they don't do that sort of stuff. There have been waves of this iconoclasm in the past and no doubt there will be more to come.

It's not as if the CofE hasn't always had many people from the reformed tradition (which is I think where the previous waves of this originated), though whether that would be a fair assessment of the local position you relate I can't say. But my point is that there will be some places that go that way, and if they are in the ascendant there will be more of it.

Those things are there as part of the expression and signification of our faith, not as exhibits in an ecclesiatical museum.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Joesaphat, what about the first sentence of my post. Do you know that they did not have a faculty to remove those items?

BTW Enoch, I knew that no faculty was needed to bring in (or remove) a drum kit. Joesaphat seemed to be proceeding on the basis that one was.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Joespaphat as with GeeD, you likewise haven't responded to my query.

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
... Joesaphat, I recognise that you are annoyed, that this rankles with you. However, it's impossible for any of us to answer your question or offer any useful comments unless you tell us a bit about the history of the picture you are talking about, what it was of, how it was to be used, where it was to go etc. I am sure that your diocese would have given reasons at the time when they turned down the application. ...

We really can't engage in this discussion with you, either fairly or sensibly, without you telling us this.

I really don't believe that your diocese didn't give you the reasons why it was turning down your application.

Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Joesaphat, what about the first sentence of my post. Do you know that they did not have a faculty to remove those items?

BTW Enoch, I knew that no faculty was needed to bring in (or remove) a drum kit. Joesaphat seemed to be proceeding on the basis that one was.

I don't know if they had faculties to remove everything or not. I have no means of knowing it either. I merely wanted to highlight the double-standards. It seems remarkably easy to strip churches bare whereas obtaining a faculty for anything that might be interpreted as too catholic is hard work. I'm loathe to name places or people and have no desire to incriminate or blame anyone. I began the thread by marvelling at the fact that our archbishop can publicly invoke the intercession of the Mother of God whereas if I did something similar (in printed form) people like the good witch-hunters at St Luke's Wimbledon would kick up a fuss. There, you have at least a name, they've p/ssed me off too many times.

[ 12. June 2016, 17:28: Message edited by: Joesaphat ]

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

I'd consider pissing off the good denizens of St Luke' Wimbledon a badge of honour, and I'm an evangelical!

Seriously, I wouldn't have thought, without further reason, that Catholic practices in themselves would have caused murch of a stir sarf of the river.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I don't know anything about St Luke's, Wimbledon. Still without any of the facts, I'm assuming from the way this thread has gone that they're lower church than you are, Joesaphat. But do they really go round objecting to faculty applications in other peoples' churches? I'd have thought that sort of thing died out in the 1890s. And are they so 'in' with the diocese that the Chancellor does what they tell him/her?

Or is it just that they were the people who were allowed to remove a Victorian (and possibly rather poor quality) altar so as to make room for their church band?

Even now, there's plenty of C19 ecclesiastical furniture in churches up and down the country which lacks any liturgical, architectural, historic or artistic merit.

Trouble these days is much more likely to come from parishioners who don't like things being changed or those who get their fixes from cultural artefacts as in this well known case..

Either way, though, you still have not told us what was the reason given who your application was turned down.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Joesaphat, I am not sure why you think faculties aren't granted for icons. The local church here has had recent faculties to add a Vicars' Board, an icon, a votive stand and prayer board (those two last are free standing), mostly from donations by parishioners.

In addition there was fundraising to install a chapel in a space that looked as if it was originally intended for a chapel, but wasn't finished when the Victorian building was being built in stages and was being used as a glory hole for storage. It is tucked behind the organ at the east end of the north aisle, next to the chancel, there already being a chapel at the east end of the south aisle. The design details that showed it was intended to be used. The Diocesan architect was amused by that application, as it wasn't something he saw very often, and very supportive.

There is an application (for both funding and a faculty) to create a better shelf to support an already existing relief of the Virgin Mary and Child in a niche in the Lady Chapel.

Other faculties have been requested to replace the lead (after it was taken for the second time) with something less tempting and to add church offices, toilets, kitchen and meeting rooms through the West door to improve the use of the church building.

Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Joesaphat, I am not sure why you think faculties aren't granted for icons. The local church here has had recent faculties to add a Vicars' Board, an icon, a votive stand and prayer board (those two last are free standing), mostly from donations by parishioners.

In addition there was fundraising to install a chapel in a space that looked as if it was originally intended for a chapel, but wasn't finished when the Victorian building was being built in stages and was being used as a glory hole for storage. It is tucked behind the organ at the east end of the north aisle, next to the chancel, there already being a chapel at the east end of the south aisle. The design details that showed it was intended to be used. The Diocesan architect was amused by that application, as it wasn't something he saw very often, and very supportive.

There is an application (for both funding and a faculty) to create a better shelf to support an already existing relief of the Virgin Mary and Child in a niche in the Lady Chapel.

Other faculties have been requested to replace the lead (after it was taken for the second time) with something less tempting and to add church offices, toilets, kitchen and meeting rooms through the West door to improve the use of the church building.

I never said anything remotely like this. I opened a thread about the fact that Abp Justin openly asks for the intercession of the Mother of God and yet should you, say, have a statue, icon, stained glass or any other (non moveable, unlike drum kits, as I am well aware) that would say: 'Blessed Mary, pray for us' or 'for the people of such and such place' or for dead soldiers... I guarantee that your faculty will be refused. If anyone can prove me wrong, go ahead.

Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :

even wordless, if your image of Mary merely looks too catholic, it'll very likely be turned down... one rule at home, another for ecumenical occasions. I think I'll leave it at that now. I was not looking for any explanation as to why one of my faculties was turned down a few years ago, but thanks for the offers of help.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

That's funny. We recently installed a brand new statue of Our Lady. Not only did we get a faculty, it was blessed by the bishop.

[ 13. June 2016, 09:09: Message edited by: Spike ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

I'd be very surprised if the relevant people in London were extreme evangelicals. Even in Sydney in the really bad days, approval would be given - probably not an episcopal blessing, though. The same people would have looked at the request from your neighbouring parish, seen that the proposal had all proper consents, called for objections, considered any and then given the necessary faculty. If you don't like the refusal, why don't you appeal? I don't know the current rules, but when I'd see the reports there were quite a few by wardens seeking approval.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Even now, there's plenty of C19 ecclesiastical furniture in churches up and down the country which lacks any liturgical, architectural, historic or artistic merit.

There is a wonderful letter by John Betjeman, dated 20th Feb. 1939, in which he writes to the Secretary of the Council for the Care of Churches, asking (hopefully) if a Faculty was needed for the installation of a kneeler which he wants to stop happening.

These were to incorporate "some perfectly hideous 1860 oak communion rails which were turned out of (a neighbouring) church many years ago" and were being provided by "two excellent spinsters of the squiress order" who were "very touchy, very autocratic, and very kind and (would) brook no interference". He says, "They seem to be under the impression that if you are a squiress and intend to pay for a church fitting" no-one can stop you.

Betjeman was told that a Faculty was needed, but I don't know what happened in the end. Perhaps the War put a stop to everything.

quote:
Trouble these days is much more likely to come from parishioners who don't like things being changed or those who get their fixes from cultural artefacts as in this well known case..

Am I the only person who, having read through this judgement, finds its language quite unintentionally humorous?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Let me put in another word in defence of the faculty jurisdiction and in particular of the court hearings that go with them if they are opposed. In the Church of My Yoof c 1983 the Vicar wanted to reorder (pews out, chairs in, high altar left in place but moveable nave altar introduced) and a minority, but a sizable minority, of the congregation opposed it. In the end the Commissary General (Canterbury diocesan term for the Chancellor- the ecclesiastical judge) came down to the church one Saturday in his wig and gown and heard the case. The church was full and anyone who wanted to give evidence or express an opinion was allowed to do so, there and then. He awarded the faculty for the re-ordering, subject to one or two amendments (primarily, move back to using the high altar in Lent and Advent).
One or two people did leave but most of the opponents didn't because pretty much everybody felt that they'd been able to have their say and be listened to, and that the because the decision was made by the Commissary General it wasn't a case of the Vicar railroading his plans through.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Yes, having an external and disinterested adjudicator removes the personal element, which is all to the good.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Am I the only person who, having read through this judgement, finds its language quite unintentionally humorous?

I'm not sure it is entirely unintentional. Particularly poignant is the way one can imagine the chappie from the Church Buildings Council sitting there smugly while the vicar and church wardens get roasted, until to his surprise, it's his turn to be chewed up and spat out too from para 21 onwards. Particularly telling is what the Chancellor says about his and the CBC's having no real thought, yet alone policy on the mission of the church, as though that is none of their concern.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Am I the only person who, having read through this judgement, finds its language quite unintentionally humorous?
I'm not sure it is entirely unintentional. Particularly poignant is the way one can imagine the chappie from the Church Buildings Council sitting there smugly while the vicar and church wardens get roasted, until to his surprise, it's his turn to be chewed up and spat out too from para 21 onwards. Particularly telling is what the Chancellor says about his and the CBC's having no real thought, yet alone policy on the mission of the church, as though that is none of their concern.

Yes - I read that all the way through and got the distinct impression the chancellor was less than entirely impressed by the whole thing. In fact the only people who come out unscathed are the archdeacon and the buyer of the picture. Everybody else's ears are probably still ringing from the dressing-down. She certainly didn't mince her words.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

The Chancellor has been a busy lady ...

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
The Chancellor has been a busy lady ...

I can't help reflecting that churches who have congregational (etc) forms of governance may well look in envy at the idea of a judge making the final judgement on the arrangement of the pews.

That said, in both of these examples, the Chancellor appears to be barely holding together her anger and almost everyone else involved seems like a total imbecile.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I can't help reflecting that churches who have congregational (etc) forms of governance may well look in envy at the idea of a judge making the final judgement on the arrangement of the pews.

I had much the same thought. One has to balance out the "freedom to make one's own decisions without external interference" with the "benefits of an impartial adjudicator". Not easy, but all we have to appeal to are our Regional Ministers (who can only advise and offer mediation) and our Trustees (who also advise but, in most cases cannot overrule the decision of a properly constituted Church Meeting). Of course there may be issues of Conservation Areas and Listed Building Consent as well.

Of course Nonconformist church buildings "belong" to their congregations while CofE ones "belong" to their parishes. One of the problems with Anglican churches wanting to reorder etc. for mission is that Anglican churches are ipso facto becoming "gathered" congregations, this means that there can be a conflict between the worshippers and the community - aptly highlighted in these judgments.

[ 13. June 2016, 18:09: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

Of course Nonconformist church buildings "belong" to their congregations while CofE ones "belong" to their parishes. One of the problems with Anglican churches wanting to reorder etc. for mission is that Anglican churches are ipso facto becoming "gathered" congregations, this means that there can be a conflict between the worshippers and the community - aptly highlighted in these judgments.

I'm pretty sure the buildings belong to the diocese, hence there needs to be a faculty if the building is to be demolished or if the congregation leaves - say to the Ordinariate - and wants to take the building. Most of the time the answer to both is no.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

mr cheesy wrote:

quote:
That said, in both of these examples, the Chancellor appears to be barely holding together her anger and almost everyone else involved seems like a total imbecile.

Indeed so. And having read both cases my sympathy tends to be with the chancellor. I suppose you are unlikely to finish up in a case at this level without some sort of pig-headed incompetence having taken place. There is plenty of evidence in the latter example that they were told a way out of the mess by the archdeacon, yet persisted till it was too late.

Also - a timely reminder that the petitioners/PCC were held jointly liable for the fees involved. They can thank their lucky stars that no damages were assessed.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Indeed so. And having read both cases my sympathy tends to be with the chancellor. I suppose you are unlikely to finish up in a case at this level without some sort of pig-headed incompetence having taken place. There is plenty of evidence in the latter example that they were told a way out of the mess by the archdeacon, yet persisted till it was too late.

Also - a timely reminder that the petitioners/PCC were held jointly liable for the fees involved. They can thank their lucky stars that no damages were assessed.

In a non-Anglican church we were briefly members of a long time ago, the minister had a habit of introducing business meetings with words that went a long the lines of "everyone just agree with x so we can get it in the minutes and go home".

It strikes me that there are a lot of people (members of churches, PCCs etc) out there who don't know their legal responsibilities and liabilities - and a considerable number who don't seem to know the basic arrangement of the Anglican system. And possibly also a fair number who are being bullied into decisions by others in the PCC who might be thinking that things like faculties are just legal gobbledegook.

[ 13. June 2016, 19:28: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

I'm sure that's right mr. cheesy. It is of course no excuse - you can find similar examples in business, the voluntary sector, parish councils etc. etc. Just look at the sorry story of Camila Batmanghelidjh and the Kid's Company, which has the elements of strong will over-riding prudence and legality.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

This started off being something I was not very much interested in, but I am so glad to have had the opportunity of reading those judgments and the Chancellor's style of writing. Hard to say that such cases are enjoyable, but the recording of them is.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Slightly tangential, but something I also find interesting about the Leckhampton judgement is that it includes a copy of the painting. I'm not surprised nobody thought it might be worth anything. It looks like a rather poor pastiche of Raphael. From the meagre information anyone had ever managed to discover about its provenance, one suspects that in 1949 the Bolland family were clearing out furniture and thought, 'well, rather than throw it away, perhaps the church could have this'. That sort of painting would have been very out of fashion before, or just after the war. It could well have been bought in some Old Curiosity Shop for a pound or two.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It strikes me that there are a lot of people (members of churches, PCCs etc) out there who don't know their legal responsibilities and liabilities - and a considerable number who don't seem to know the basic arrangement of the Anglican system. And possibly also a fair number who are being bullied into decisions by others in the PCC who might be thinking that things like faculties are just legal gobbledegook.

Baptist (and other congregationalist) churches with a cash flow of over £X per year are no longer being covered by the Charity Commission's "Excepting Regulations" and are having to become charities in their own right. The Minister and Deacons therefore become the Trustees of the charity.

As it happens, nothing has really changed, as under the old rules they were already "Managing Trustees". But certainly in our case we found that having to make this change focused our Deacons much more on their legal responsibilities and duties. (One of our Deacons is a Solicitor and this, too, helps us think of legal implications).

[ 14. June 2016, 06:01: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Baptist (and other congregationalist) churches with a cash flow of over £X per year are no longer being covered by the Charity Commission's "Excepting Regulations" and are having to become charities in their own right. The Minister and Deacons therefore become the Trustees of the charity.

As it happens, nothing has really changed, as under the old rules they were already "Managing Trustees". But certainly in our case we found that having to make this change focused our Deacons much more on their legal responsibilities and duties. (One of our Deacons is a Solicitor and this, too, helps us think of legal implications).

I read something earlier which suggested that the Anglican church was not the only one which had a form of ecclesiastical exemption from the planning regulations. According to this thing I was reading, the Roman Catholic, Methodist and Baptist Union churches also had proper systems.

Which sounded rather unlikely to me, given that Baptist Union buildings are (I think still) owned by the individual congregations and I can't really see that any kind of independent arbiter has the kind of legal power to enforce a decision that the Anglican judges have. I find it a bit hard to believe that a baptist minister and elders who decided to sell a donated artwork could be told that they'd sold something they didn't have the authorisation to sell and that the purchaser has no right to the title of the object. Even a civil judge would be hard pressed to show that, I think.

But maybe there is some planning system in the Baptist Union churches that I'm totally unaware of.

On the point about charitable status, I heard a rumour a while ago that a baptist church had to rewrite their constitution because as it was written all the members would have become charitable trustees and therefore jointly liable. I didn't hear what happened, I guess they must have nominated some representatives to be the legal trustees.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Enoch wrote:

quote:
Slightly tangential, but something I also find interesting about the Leckhampton judgement is that it includes a copy of the painting. I'm not surprised nobody thought it might be worth anything.

I don't know about that, Enoch. The thing that puzzles me was the fact that it was known to be an Ittenbach, yet nobody in the church seemed to think about using Mr. Google's esteemed thought-engine to do some research. This was only a couple of years ago after all.

As a matter of fact, I wouldn't give houseroom to most Ittenbachs - many of them are in the sentimental, "soppy Jesus" style of 19th century religious works. This one isn't. It has far more classical iconographic overtones by comparison. I rather like it.

But taste is a personal thing, and differences in that are to be expected. In their case, there seems to have been such a head of steam built up about it that it blinded them to any merits it may have had - not least of which was its residual value.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

But taste is a personal thing, and differences in that are to be expected. In their case, there seems to have been such a head of steam built up about it that it blinded them to any merits it may have had - not least of which was its residual value.

Reflecting on that case, I suppose there is a modicum of sense in the actions of the church wardens and vicar. By all accounts it was dirty, stored out of sight, unloved by the congregation and not listed in the book of parish treasures (or whatever it is called).

I can see a PCC member arguing that someone who gave a crappy painting they didn't want to the church 5 years ago, which was never listed in the parish records, would hardly be considered something to bother the Chancellor with, so why should this dirty looking thing? I can also see, if they thought it was completely worthless, that it wouldn't be obvious that it was worth asking for a faculty (and the expense) about. In that scenario, quietly disposing of the painting via a local auctioneer - with the expectation of maybe getting £100 to £1000 might have looked sensible.

I've no idea what the cost of a court is, but I'm thinking it might well be more than this.

The whole thing looks quite different in retrospect when we learn that the painting was by a quite famous artist and had some considerable value.

I agree with the google point, but also see that people tend to see what they want to see - and having first decided it had very little value, there is obviously some resistance to wasting time on it.

[ 14. June 2016, 09:29: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

I suspect, mr. cheesy, we are largely in agreement now. All I would add is that one could extend the arguments backwards to the first assessment of it being a dirty old thing (though actually wasn't the complaint rather that it was "too Catholic"?). Which is probably where the whole set of (incorrect) assumptions started, and never got challenged.

(PS I think the cost of the second case was quoted as around £4000. The first one was a lot more complex so I would imagine £6-8k, possibly more)

[ 14. June 2016, 09:46: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

For information, this is the information I was looking at which lists the Baptist Union as an "Exempt Denomination".

I'm now going to be looking for any published reports about planning in the Baptist Union. Maybe there are BU courts..?

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

This webpage should give you links to the information you are seeking.

[ 14. June 2016, 12:41: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0