The website of York Minster carries this notice.
The Service of Consecration for the Reverend Philip North
Tuesday 27 JanuaryThe Reverend Philip North, will be consecrated as the Bishop of Burnley on Monday 2nd February 2015.
The Reverend Philip North, currently Team Rector of the Parish of Old St Pancras in the Diocese of London, will be consecrated as the Bishop of Burnley in the Diocese of Blackburn on Monday 2nd February 2015. The service will be conducted by the Most Reverend and Right Honourable, Dr John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, assisted by the Right Reverend Dr Martin Warner, Bishop of Chichester and the Bishops of Beverley and Pontefract.
Everyone is welcome to attend Philip’s consecration service. The service will begin at 11am with doors open from 9.30am. If you are a Reader or a member of the clergy wishing to attend and would like to robe and process, we do need to know in advance so we can plan seating for you and maximise seating for others. Please contact Hilary Reynolds email: hilaryr@yorkminster.org for more information.
Although the notice does not explicitly say so, it seems reasonable to deduce that the Bishops of Chichester, Beverley and Pontefract are the three bishops who will lay hands on Philip North, and that the Bishop of Chichester will preside at the Eucharist.
Those three bishops weren’t consecrated by bishops who had ordained women?
The manner in which this whole process has been conducted is highly manipulative. Good faith has been conspicuously absent. I have to say that I think that contempt is sometimes an appropriate moral response.
The question now will be as to the identity of Fr. Philip’s two presenting bishops, my best prediction would be the Bishop of London and the Bishop of Blackburn.
Just so readers know – some people have attempted to ask questions about this at the February GS but the questions have been ruled out of order since they are to the Archbishops in their role as archbishops and we may only ask questions to them in other roles (eg chair of House of Bishops)
Yes indeed, Bro Daid, the chief consecrator himself, +Chichester, was consecrated by ++Sentamu, who had by that time laid hands on many women priests. Ironically, this fact was made clear in ++Sentamu’s own statement attempting to justify his decision to step aside. So it is all exposed as arrant nonsense. I’m not sure that I’d call it contemptible, but it’s certainly pathetic, demeaning and unnecessary.
Regarding the presenting bishops, if last Monday’s precedent is followed, it would be Fr North’s predecessor, John Goddard, and his diocesan, + Blackburn. But, given the extraordinary arrangements for the consecrators, who knows?
Speaking as someone who favoured the simplest possible legislation and voted for it regularly at Synod, and as someone who doesn’t buy the catholic understanding of sacramental assurance, it seems to me that all the anxiety about Fr. Philip’s ordination is quite misplaced. The reality is that the whole point of the legislative package was to have women bishops canonically ordained AND to give an honoured place to those who could not accept women bishops and the way that works out is by others (including other bishops) exercising a gracious restraint so that those who cannot support women bishops can… Read more »
Charles Read:
That rather begs the question ‘is there a mechanism for holding archbishops to account in their role of archbishops and if not, should there be one’
I’d be interested to know whether archbishops have ever accidentally answered less inconvenient questions in their role as archbishops.
I think many of you have simply missed the point. The Society of Wilfrid and Hilda has a Council of Bishops – of the nine of them the Bishop of Chichester is the only diocesan Bishop, the Bishop of Pontefract is the Chair, and the Bishop of Beverly is the one who was the northern Province’s PEV. The objective point to recognise (whether you like it or not is not relevant) is that this is the consecration of what the next Bishop of what is intended to continue to be a self perpetuating Society (with many of the features of… Read more »
“The manner in which this whole process has been conducted is highly manipulative. Good faith has been conspicuously absent. I have to say that I think that contempt is sometimes an appropriate moral response.” I disagree. I do believe the ABY (and I presume in consultation with the ABC) is attempting to establish future working practices that are in accordance with the agreed principals that will allow a dissenting minority space and space to flourish within the lawful new framework now established. I commend the ABY for his moral courage, and I feel very sorry that some are using words… Read more »
Thanks, Labarum.
I have consistently shown ‘generosity of spirit’ on this site and on others (as you well know). I emphasised ‘the manner’ – and I still do. I am in favour of ‘special arrangements’ for those who do not accept women priests or bishops, and have consistently said so. But there can be legitimate questions about the degree to which ‘traditionalists’ reciprocate (often meanly and ungenerously), about boundaries, about process and about unseemly secrecy. This is a stitch-up by a discredited and unrepresentative elite.
But, contra Simon Butler, this precisely what we did not vote for at GS. Arrangement such as these were suggested to the working party and rejected. It was made clear that many on ‘our’ side of the debate would find such arrangements served to undermine the ordination of women bishops. Philip is not being ordained as a PEV or a ‘Society’ bishop (what a marvellous image!) – he is an ordinary / regular suffragen in Blackburn diocese.
I think the most relevant question here is whether those who voted for the relevant Measure in the General Synod knew (or had it explained to them) that this sort of arrangement was an inevitable consequence of the Measure, and if *not* whether that would have changed how they voted. By “this sort of arrangement” I mean a bifurcation of the Bishops along the lines of not only (1) the gender of the bishop and also the gender of the bishop who ordained and consecrated them (i.e. a man ordained and consecrated by a man ordained and consecrated by a… Read more »
Peter Mullins:
The point is that no-one seems willing to admit that.
No, Peter Mullins, I think that it is you who have missed the point. Although SSWSH describes itself as an ecclesial body, it has no status within the C of E and is not mentioned in any of the legislation. Similar ideas were explored at an early stage in the discussion over women bishops, but were rejected then. It is precisely because of its similarities to a third province that so many are opposed to it, and to the provisions for Fr North’s consecration. What is proposed will not contribute to mutual flourishing, but will lead to an ever increasing… Read more »
¨pathetic¨ sums it up just fine, again (and where, oh where has The Very Reverend Jeffrey John/Gone gone).
Soon after Bishop Libby’s ordination, I thought I saw what looked like the back of the Bishop of Chichester’s head in a photo taken inside York Minster. Two days ago, I saw a similar photo which was indeed of +Martin Warner, robed in red chimere among the attending bishops. At that stage, +Martin knew that he would be the principal celebrant at the Eucharist, and one of the co-consecrators at the Bishop of Burnley’s ordination. He clearly did not tangibly associate himself with +Libby’s laying on of hands; but he showed gracious restraint in being present at her ordination; and… Read more »
Simon Butler wrote: “It seems that many have forgotten November 2012 and the realpolitik that without this sort of arrangement for bishop Philip, we would not have a bishop Libby either. Of course it’s a difficult thing to accept for those on our side of the women bishops argument, but it is no more difficult for us to accept this than it has been for so-called traditionalists to accept bishop Libby.” This is my view too. Amid the furore about the theology behind the consecration arrangements, it has been overlooked that a set of regulations was agreed, just a few… Read more »
As a woman incumbent in the Diocese of Blackburn I have decided (after much thought) to go to Philip North’s consecration to support him and to support the diocese. Since the appointment was announced I have met Philip and he is clearly a person of integrity and ability. We do all need to respect the 5 guiding principles and ensure there can be mutual flourishing. This requires that there are bishops who have a degree of separation who are not interchangeable. Philip’s own position on the ordination of women leads to a degree of separation anyway. The traditionalist desire for… Read more »
The problem with the notion that tainted bishops are going to hold themselves back–and that it what is going on here–is that it sacramentalises heresy and schism.
Sacraments are outward signs of an inward and visible grace.
The outward sign here, however, will be that only some bishops are pure enough to lay their hands on those who wish to remain similarly pure.
The CofE should be very careful about going down this road any further. It should do nothing to encourage the development of a church within a church.
“have women bishops canonically ordained AND to give an honoured place to those who could not accept women bishops…so that those who cannot support women bishops can continue to flourish” From the POV of Ignorant Yank over here, that “AND” means a double-standard (for ordained women), and “continue to flourish” is time-indefinite. When TEC approved the ordination of women back in the 1970s, it did so also w/ a double-standard, but WITH time limits on that double-standard. No one wants to overwhelm traditionalists w/ “the Shock of the New”, but we either believe ordination equality is the WORK OF THE… Read more »
++Sentamu brought this upon himself by agreeing to the nomination of Fr North as Bishop of Burnley. He has of course faced a similar difficulty (resolved rather differently) with the vacant See of Whitby. That he wanted to offer a consolation prize is understandable. I repeat my comments elsewhere on TA. There is the world of difference in consecrating a non-ordainer to a suffragan see than as a PEV. Nothing I read in the Guiding Principles requires traditionalists to be consecrated bishops within diocesan structures. Mutual flourishing does not presuppose that traditionalists must be appointed either to diocesan bishoprics or… Read more »
Even the latest editorial in ‘The Tablet’ (R.C.) questions the advisability of the lack of an official Roman Catholic presence at Bishop Libby’s episcopal ordination. One wonders whether there might be one at Fr. North’s consecration? And what would that say about Rome’s understanding of F.i.F.’s catholicity?
‘”Continue to flourish” sounds, to me, like a house divided against itself. ‘ And yet, we see *continually* that the Archbishops are shocked and puzzled by the decline and instability in the CofE! Then the response is along the lines of “Maybe, if we have a ‘Daughters of Eve and perverts aren’t so horrible’ day! Or a raffle! Or . . . or . . . something . . .? I’ve GOT IT! We’ll make sure there’s a permanent place for people who want to oppose and undermine everything we *say* we believe in and want to accomplish! Yay! Problem… Read more »
I am all for gracious restraint, but for the five guiding principles to work it is of critically important that Fr Philip North is seen to be a Bishop of the Church of England, nothing more and nothing less. Gracious restraint means understanding he may not be able to ordain women to the priesthood and episcopate. But if there is anything to suggest that he is not as fully a Bishop of the Church of England as Libby Lane then the Church of England has failed in its mission to hold together unity in diversity, and we will fail to… Read more »
I don’t want to start crowing with “I told you so”; but I did, in fact, flag these arrangements up back in December. Two things follow. First, the Archbishop of York could have avoided this unseemly circus of speculation and made these arrangements public in December. Yes, of course, there would have been a furore from WATCH and co; but it would have meant that it was out of the way well before Libby Lane’s consecration last week. Second, Charles Read & co are shouting “foul play” and insisting that this is not what they voted for in agreeing the… Read more »
I denounced this cobbled-together compromise by GS as a half-measure. I told you so, several times; and people suggested that I was making the perfect the enemy of the good. Experience is beginning to suggest, however, that I was making the good the enemy of what is both novel and awful. Thinking Anglicans, take note: We still need to organise around electing better representatives to Synod. If enough people ask the Archbishops the right questions, then this sort of taint-inspired schism-sacramentalizing will cease. Not soon enough, of course. It’s beginning to look as though Justin Welby is not a political… Read more »
I may be one of those who have been accused of not showing sufficient generosity of spirit over this issue. I have heard or read in the last few days that: i) +Martin Warner was present last Monday at the consecration of +Libby Lane. ii) Libby Lane will be present today at the consecration of Fr Philip North, at his personal request iii) +Blackburn said on the Sunday programme on Radio 4 yesterday that there will be an installation service for +Philip North at Blackburn Cathedral, at which he will receive communion from +Blackburn. All these things seem to me… Read more »
I think the ABY (presumably in consultation with the ABC and other bishops) have got this about right.