Updated Friday afternoon
The Church Times reports a New twist in saga of ‘Mitregate’.
Pictures taken both at Southwark and at Gloucester cathedrals are printed side by side in the paper edition.
Some information new to TA readers is included:
Concerning Dr Jefferts Schori, the Dean of Southwark, the Very Revd Colin Slee, was told that “canon law does not recognise women bishops, and women bishops cannot officiate in this country in any episcopal act”. Many believe that presiding at the eucharist is a priestly, not an episcopal act; but mindful of sensitivities over the forthcoming Synod debate, he chose to be “hugely diplomatic and careful”.
A Lambeth Palace spoke[s]woman said on Wednesday: “This is not a ban. It was simply a recommendation that has been given in the past on legal advice in similar situations.”
A Church Times reader, the Revd Elizabeth Baxter, recalls a service in Ripon Cathedral in 1994 at which the then Bishop of Dunedin, the Rt Revd Penny Jamieson, was invited to preach. She was asked not to wear her mitre by the Bishop, the Rt Revd David Young. Ms Baxter writes: “In solidarity with Bishop Penny, the many bishops who took part in that service processed without their mitres.”
The Church Times went to press on Wednesday, before the publication at Episcopal Café of the letter from Canon Anthony Ball to a member of the public. That letter itself is however dated Monday.
Update
That letter is itself the subject of comment in today’s Guardian diary column with the strapline: Mitre-gate: it’s all very problematic. What’s worse, we’re to blame.
“Many believe that presiding at the eucharist is a priestly, not an episcopal act…”
In the BCP of the Episcopal Church it states that it is the “Bishop’s prerogative” to preside at the Eucharist. Presbyters preside at the Eucharist not because they are priests, but because they are acting as the bishop’s surrogates.
Bishops preside at the Eucharist because they are bishops.
Re: Deacon Charlie Perrin “In the BCP of the Episcopal Church it states that it is the “Bishop’s prerogative” to preside at the Eucharist. Presbyters preside …as the bishop’s surrogates.Bishops preside at the Eucharist because they are bishops.” I’m no Dom Gregory Dix, but I suggest this analysis is really an hierarchical oversimplification. (The Canadian “Book of Alternative Services” notes that the bishop has the above noted prerogative when present as the chief liturgical officer). Bishops are bishops in part because they are numbered, as the BCP/BAS ordinal states, among “fellow presbyters”. The preface to the Eucharist articulates a prerogative… Read more »
Now here’s a little problem. I was confirmed by Bp Penny when she was Bishop of Dunedin ten years ago. Does the Church of England officially recognise the validity of this sacrament, or – in the interests of ecclesiastical diplomacy – should I try to get a conditional anointing – just in case the first one doesn’t apply in this jurisdiction?
Deacon Charlie is correct, it is the bishop’s prerogative to celebrate Eucharist. However, it is not explicitly an episcopal act because it is not restricted to the episcopate like ordination or confirmation are. Looking at the addresses during the Examinations for Ordination–the job description of sorts for the different orders, esp. given lex orandi, lex credendi–the Eucharist is not mentioned for a bishop’s ordination, but it is for a priest’s. The only way ++Katharine would have been acting in an episcopal act would be in ordaining or in confirming, neither of which she did, neither of which would have been… Read more »
I wonder exactly which vigorous adherent of FiF or another no-women group would have brought legal charges against Lambeth and/or York for not scrupulously demeaning PB KJS during her visit?
Clearly, the subtext of the chaplain’s reply hints that it was best to avoid those possibilities of legal charges, all round? Bizarre, indeed.
Now here’s a little problem. I was confirmed by Bp Penny when she was Bishop of Dunedin ten years ago. Does the Church of England officially recognise the validity of this sacrament, or – in the interests of ecclesiastical diplomacy – should I try to get a conditional anointing – just in case the first one doesn’t apply in this jurisdiction?
Posted by: rjb on Friday, 25 June 2010 at 3:13pm
No need to worry. Confirmation is not a sacrament in the Church of England, which has but two.
The South African Prayer Book puts it rather neatly. The rubric (quoted from memory, I’m afraid) says something like “in the absence of the bishop a priest may celebrate.”
Nome De Plume noted “The South African Prayer Book puts it rather neatly. The rubric (quoted from memory, I’m afraid) says something like ‘in the absence of the bishop a priest may celebrate.’ “
Not to mention rather eccentrically, and ambiguously, if accurate.
Regarding rgb’s concern about the validity of her or his Confirmation at the Hands of Bishop Penny Jamieson in the Anglican Church of Aotearoa/New Zealand in Dunedin 10 years ago; she/he need have no worries about the validity of her/his rite of Confirmation, which was based on the validity of the canonical Sacrament of Baptism, presumably undertaken earlier. In the NZ Anglican Church (and presumably in most other Provinces of the Anglican Communion) the Sacrament of Baptism bestows full membership of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church upon the recipient – requiring no further validation prior to the reception… Read more »
But rgb might have to be conditionally reconfirmed if s/he wished to be ordained in the Church of England. Perhaps someone in Ministry Division might like to comment. I remember someone at my theological college (Lincoln) telling me that in the run up to ordination one of the most “spiky” ordinands (who has subsequently poped) was discovered not to have been validly baptised… which came as something of a shock to him!
As a young priest, I had a retired archbishop as my honorary assistant. In the congregation where he worshiped, we took turns presiding. Before each service, we would quickly review who was doing what that day. Inevitably it ended like this.
Malcolm+ – . . . And you’ll do the blessing at the end.
+Fred – But you’re the rector.
Malcolm+ – But you’re a bishop.
+Fred – But you’re the rector.
Malcolm+ – That’s right, Fred. I’m the rector. You’re a bishop, and you’ll do the blessing at the end.
+Fred – [bow]
Another slight to a woman which is totally unconnected to this thread ? Or is it ?
‘The Rev Rose Hudson-Wilkin, a Jamaican-born vicar in one of the poorest parts of East London.’
Think of all the unreported snubs to women which hurt and alienate just as much.