Thread: Walsingham 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=030358

Posted by simwel (# 12214) on :
 
With the news that Bishop Lindsey is leaving;May we speculate as to who is likely to succeed him and the changes that may occur?
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simwel:
With the news that Bishop Lindsey is leaving;May we speculate as to who is likely to succeed him and the changes that may occur?

I speculate that there will be no changes whatsoever. People raised the same questions about Pusey House when the now Bishop of Fulham left, and the answer then was private foundations will do what they want.

I would put money on business as usual.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
He did a lot of good there - is he retiring?
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
This would seem to be more suited to Eccles. Take your staves and cockleshells and off you go.


Firenze
All Saints Host

 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
He did a lot of good there - is he retiring?

He's going to Melbourbe. He'll be based in the parish of Christ Church, Brunswick and will be bishop with responsibility for encouraging the life and ethos of Anglican schools in the diocese.
 
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :
 
I am a Walsingham enthusiast, but I had not heard. I know that +Lindsay comes from Australia and so he is returning to his roots - as it were. When does his resignation take effect?
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
He posted on Facebook that he's moving in September.

(What's any of this got to do with worship practice?)

[ 12. April 2015, 15:25: Message edited by: Spike ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
He did a lot of good there - is he retiring?

He's going to Melbourbe. He'll be based in the parish of Christ Church, Brunswick and will be bishop with responsibility for encouraging the life and ethos of Anglican schools in the diocese.
I see that one of his sisters, Kate, is ordained priest.
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
I imagine that the next administrator will be a member of Reform and that all services in the Shrine will be strictly according to the BCP. [Two face]
 
Posted by Cameron PM (# 18142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
He posted on Facebook that he's moving in September.

(What's any of this got to do with worship practice?)

Walsingham has a flare for Anglo-Catholic practise, especially at the Shrine which, last time I checked, had daily Mass and Evening Prayer at the Anglican half of it. The Catholic/Anglican sides cooperate also for some ecumenical services.

He's firmly against allowing women to preside over any service a the shrine, and is more of a Roman than Rochester. If the new bishop is more of a reformed flavour, it might mean a drastic shift in the liturgical sphere at Walsingham.

[ 12. April 2015, 20:22: Message edited by: Cameron PM ]
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cameron PM:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
He posted on Facebook that he's moving in September.

(What's any of this got to do with worship practice?)

Walsingham has a flare for Anglo-Catholic practise, especially at the Shrine which, last time I checked, had daily Mass and Evening Prayer at the Anglican half of it. The Catholic/Anglican sides cooperate also for some ecumenical services.

He's firmly against allowing women to preside over any service a the shrine, and is more of a Roman than Rochester. If the new bishop is more of a reformed flavour, it might mean a drastic shift in the liturgical sphere at Walsingham.

Except as I posted in the second post it's a private organisation. The administrator doesn't need to be a bishop, just in this case happens to be one,is appointed by the guardians (in the same way as a school chaplain) http://www.walsinghamanglican.org.uk/the_shrine/
and one look at that list ought to indicate business as usual.

As I said, I'd put money on "meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
It will be about worship practices if anyone has any evidence that worship in Walsingham will change. I don't think Bp Lindsey changed it very much from Fr North's practices and I'm not sure his successor is likely to really to alter things much either.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
I imagine that the next administrator will be a member of Reform and that all services in the Shrine will be strictly according to the BCP. [Two face]

Cassock, surplice and black scarf for everything, with all that time spent on processions etc replaced by two hour expositions of the Word.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
It will be about worship practices if anyone has any evidence that worship in Walsingham will change. I don't think Bp Lindsey changed it very much from Fr North's practices and I'm not sure his successor is likely to really to alter things much either.

There were a few changes in his time. The most noticeable was moving the healing service from before sprinkling on a Sunday afternoon to after the Saturday evening procession. Also, that laying on of hands at the healing service would sometimes be administered by lay people and (wait for it!) female priests.

He also introduced a wider selection of hymns for the procession of the Blessed Sacrament instead of the same one that was always sung in the past.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
That Saturday healing and silence session after the procession is something very moving.

Two years ago to the day is was in Walsingham for significant birthday, just days before a major operation which proved to have nasty complications.

I was very, very grateful to be there at such a worrying time.

I'm better now!

And Enoch - I've heard more detailed exposition of the Word at Walsingham than I usually expect at typical parish churches.
 
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
I imagine that the next administrator will be a member of Reform and that all services in the Shrine will be strictly according to the BCP. [Two face]

Cassock, surplice and black scarf for everything, with all that time spent on processions etc replaced by two hour expositions of the Word.
I very much doubt that. The Anglican spirituality there is almost identical to that of the local RC shrine and parish church. I am sure that such a drastic change won't occur lightly and would take time if it were to hapeen.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
I imagine that the next administrator will be a member of Reform and that all services in the Shrine will be strictly according to the BCP. [Two face]

Cassock, surplice and black scarf for everything, with all that time spent on processions etc replaced by two hour expositions of the Word.
I very much doubt that. The Anglican spirituality there is almost identical to that of the local RC shrine and parish church. I am sure that such a drastic change won't occur lightly and would take time if it were to hapeen.
I think Enoch may have been joking
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I'm sure Enoch and seasick are being ironic, no?
[Paranoid]

A more flexible approach to the ministry at the Shrine of Anglo-Catholically-inclined female priests (and yes, I know this is unlikely to occur overnight) would be more than welcome....... [Two face]

Ian J.
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
I'm sure Enoch and seasick are being ironic, no?
[Paranoid]



Ian J.

OTOH.......I could easily see Seasick there. He's a High Church Methodist don't forget and they can sometimes be more High Church than several Anglicans of my acquaintance.......

OK - I'm being flippant
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
A High Church Methodist advocating Reform?
[Killing me]

Is Outrage!

I'll get me coat as well.....

Ian J.
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
I led worship in the Shrine Church (not according to the BCP...) only the other week, as it happens...
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
How does the saying go

'Many a true word spoken in jest....'? [Biased]
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
Year before last I looked into the Methodist Church in Walsingham on Saturday afternoon and chatted to the man opening it up.

It is a Georgian gem.

There's only nine in the congregation now but a minister comes over on Sunday afternoon to lead a service.

Since that clashed with the procession of the Blessed Sacrament at the shrine I didn't join them. But I'm all for supporting anyone continuing an honourable tradition. Good on them.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
Are altar girls/female acolytes allowed at the Shrine? Female choristers?

Wondering how far the 'no women' thing goes is all - I know some RC churches won't allow altar girls.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
I've seen a woman deacon in dalmatic at mass with Rowan in mitre and chase lie presiding. And certainly woman servers.

[ 13. April 2015, 20:48: Message edited by: venbede ]
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Are altar girls/female acolytes allowed at the Shrine? Female choristers?

Wondering how far the 'no women' thing goes is all - I know some RC churches won't allow altar girls.

They don't have choristers at all. Servers, yes, and as I said earlier, female clergy administer laying on of hands at the healing service.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I've seen a woman deacon in dalmatic at mass with Rowan in mitre and chase lie presiding. And certainly woman servers.

We must have been there the same weekend!
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
Bloody predictive text. "Chase" should have read "chasuble ".
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I've seen a woman deacon in dalmatic at mass with Rowan in mitre and chase lie presiding. And certainly woman servers.

That sounds *wonderful*.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
I don't want to trespass into Dead Horses territory, but if a woman priest's orders are thought invalid, how can she lay on hands in a healing service? When Bishop Lindsay returns her, he will find that only Sydney, and it's dependencies of Armidale and NW Australia, do not priest women. F in F has very few adherents either. Even Ballarat now accepts that women can validly be priested.
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
Their basic approach now is that any Christian can lay on hands in prayer and that it's not a specifically ordained function. So they include lay people, female Anglican clergy and clergy of other denominations (I've done it and I'm a Methodist minister).

[ 14. April 2015, 10:01: Message edited by: seasick ]
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Thank you Seasick, but I'm afraid I can see a real inconsistency in their approach.

[And I see that the dreaded apostrophe has crept into my post; it should of course be its dependencies. The fault of the apple.]
 
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Are altar girls/female acolytes allowed at the Shrine? Female choristers?

Wondering how far the 'no women' thing goes is all - I know some RC churches won't allow altar girls.

A small minority of Anglican churches (very likely of anglo-catholic f-i-f churchmanship) won't allow altar girls/female servers either.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
(Male) priests confer the oil of healing. Women, (not only priests, but sisters from the convent and theoretically laymen) lay on hands in prayer.

I seem to always end up with a woman laying hands on me, and I have whisperred in her ear after she has prayed and laid hands on me "Thank you, I'm glad you're here".
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
There is a possible rationale, though it's a bit daft.

I think I'm right in saying that under CofE rules only priests are supposed to anoint.

That's a bit illogical, which makes me think this is probably a rule rather than a doctrine. The oil has already been consecrated - usually by the Bishop the previous Maundy Thursday. If there is a difference between anointing with holy oil and administering the chalice, it's the latter that one would have thought would have to be the more rigorously 'fenced'. Yet lay persons of both sexes are authorised to administer the chalice.

What's possibly even more illogical is that deacons are supposed to serve and care for the sick but they aren't allowed to administer oil as part of that service.

But it would follow that a place which did not recognise that women can be a priest, would therefore presumably regard itself as unable to allow them to anoint, because irrespective of whether it was a matter of doctrine, a woman could not achieve a status where the rules allowed her to anoint.


Remember, incidentally, that unlike in some other ecclesial communities, it is very normal in the CofE to anoint people who are not dying.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I think I'm right in saying that under CofE rules only priests are supposed to anoint.

Yes because it is a sacrament.

However, the shortage of clergy means that 'last rites' in emergency are done 'illegally' by lay people in some places - and in the US, TEC apparently allows deacons and lay ministers to anoint.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Yes because it is a sacrament. ...

Yes, but if that is the reasoning we shouldn't have cupbearers. I think all western ecclesiastical communities have them.

[ 20. April 2015, 12:28: Message edited by: Enoch ]
 
Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Yes because it is a sacrament. ...

Yes, but if that is the reasoning we shouldn't have cupbearers. I think all western ecclesiastical communities have them.
But the sacramental action in anointing is the anointing itself, not the consecration of the oil. In effect, the consecration of oil is 'just' about setting it aside for a particular use.

In contrast, at the Mass, the chalice is consecrated before the administrator takes it from the altar. And here, the sacramental action lies in the consecration, not the administration, hence why it is not necessary for anyone other than the priest to communicate.

[ 20. April 2015, 12:47: Message edited by: TomM ]
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Agreed. But I can't imagine faithful Christians being asked at the last judgement, 'did you anoint the sick when you had not been ordained to do so?' More likely the opposite, as I read the Gospel.
 
Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Yes because it is a sacrament. ...

Yes, but if that is the reasoning we shouldn't have cupbearers. I think all western ecclesiastical communities have them.
But the sacramental action in anointing is the anointing itself, not the consecration of the oil.
Curious. In my last diocese (not sure about here), we had trained Lay Anointers, but I would have thought that laying on of hands was specifically clerical (i.e. the Shrine solution would be backwards).
 
Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :
 
Angloid - I suspect you are right. Though that doesn't mean it is a sacrament.

Knopwood - The usual Anglican lack of consistency! I would lean towards anointing as the sacramental act, as sacraments usually involve 'stuff'. I don't see laying on of hands in general as priestly, though it clearly can be - or even can be specifically episcopal e.g. ordination.
 
Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :
 
C.B. Moss actually insists (in The Christian Faith) on the laying on of hands as the sacramental "matter" of confirmation for Anglicans (as opposed to the imposition of chrism so considered by Rome and the East, which Moss regards as a less "primitive" and apostolic understanding). Since the CoE recognizes presbyteral confirmation with episcopally-consecrated chrism, it may be fair to say it hasn't followed his lead on this one.

The Toronto programme has its origins in fairly particular circumstances (the bishop of the day wanted to rein in a "cult" group, based at the diocese's oldest Anglo-Catholic parish, which was influenced by the Charismatic Renewal and emphasised unction and exorcism). As I say, I don't know if it has an equivalent where I live now: it may in fact be an outlier in the Anglican Church of Canada. From what I recall, a lay member of the Bishop's Committee on Healing reads the first lesson at the Chrism Mass in Toronto.

[ 20. April 2015, 14:59: Message edited by: Knopwood ]
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
Heavens! I thought I knew everything (as in too much) about the Toronto Anglican underworld. I wonder if there was some kind of connexion with the tragic exorcisms of the 1960s....
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0