Forward in Faith has launched a new website. As their own announcement says:
The new Resources section includes detailed advice to PCCs and Parish Priests about passing a Resolution under the House of Bishops’ Declaration, together with leaflets and other resources to facilitate consideration of the issues. There is also a full commentary on the House of Bishops’ Declaration.
Here are links to some of the new materials:
And there is more. Worth a look.
Some of those photos are (unintentionally?) hilarious. That Bishop has a useful right hook!
I have read the piece “Women as Priest, etc…the Problem” I have never heard such irrationality in my life. Jesus did not choose women as senior disciples as women did not have the same rights in his day and culture as men. Women were second last on a man’s list of his assets and female children last. Women’s being -including sexuality and intelligence in Jesus’ day, and only up to a few years ago, were considered secondary to men. These two main reasons above are why most of the Church Catholic and Apostolic will not ordain women. These reasons are… Read more »
So glad they include a picture of Bishop Lane at the ordination of Bishop North.
You can laugh at them , but as I keep saying they have achieved their objective…a de facto third province and a better settlement than 93.
@ exRevd. ” That Bishop has a useful right hook!” lol! You know the old saying, by hook or by crook!
“Women Bishops: The provisions”
Well, there aren’t scare-quotes (e.g., “Women Bishops”, or Women “Bishops”), so I suppose that’s a start…
The C of E corporate logo appears on the homepage twice. Is the reader to take from this that FiF is a formally constituted Church of England organisation, or is officially endorsed by the Church?
Maybe it’s the other way round…
Live and let live the two new bishops seem to be happy and ABY so why cant the rest of you just get on with it !!!! MISSION
Is there a resource there that explains the rationale behind the idea that there exists ‘impaired communion’ between someone and a bishop if that someone is unable to receive communion from everyone that bishop has ordained on grounds of theological conviction*. I looked in the “Women as Priests…the problem” leaflet but couldn’t see anything. I find this interesting as FiF periodically trots out this argument (e.g. their press release about Philip North) but tend to miss it out when explaining their position. This creates undue confusion about what their position actually is. If they’ve created a website with a new… Read more »
From the F in F website: “We note, too, that the canonical oath requires clergy to refer to the diocesan bishop as ‘the Lord Bishop’, regardless of his or her sex – a reminder that the role of bishop is inherently masculine (the canonical definition of a diocesan bishop as a ‘Father in God’ remains unamended).” From the Gospel of Thomas: “Simon Peter said to them: “Let Mary go away from us, for women are not worthy of life.” Jesus said: “Look, I will draw her in so as to make her male, so that she too may become a… Read more »
A minor quibble, but putting “Lord” before a title doesn’t necessarily connote the holder being male. Several female government ministers have held the title “Lord Privy Seal”, so far the only two holders of the office of “Lord Speaker” (presiding officer of the House of Lords) have been female, there are plenty of female “Lords Lieutenant.”
It has always seemed to me to be somewhat eccentric to suggest that the male disciples were capable of testifying to the death and subsequent Resurrection of Christ; after all, they ran away, leaving the women to stand by him to the end. The male disciples were, no doubt, deeply afraid, for good reason, but if we are to affirm that Christ surmounted death we do need compelling evidence that Christ actually died in the first place, and none of his male disciples could provide that evidence since they did not witness it. Equally, Christ chose to greet first his… Read more »
It’s also worth noting in the same vein the HM the Queen is Duke of Lancaster (not Duchess) among other titles.
“A minor quibble, but putting “Lord” before a title doesn’t necessarily connote the holder being male.” Unfortunately I think this odd nomenclature has persisted because people continue to think the holder *should* be male. The fact that the female lieutenants aren’t “Ladies Lieutenant” doesn’t mean that the term “lord” is now suddenly gender-neutral. It means that society is having trouble with the phrase “Lady Lieutenant.” And of course society is having this trouble for the usual reasons, especially muddled thinking about women and power. Libby Lane would strike a real blow for equality if she announced that she is not… Read more »
‘Libby Lane would strike a real blow for equality if she announced that she is not a Lord Bishop, but a Lady Bishop.’
She would strike an even bigger blow for equality if she announced that she is neither.
The solution is the phrase ‘Comrade Bishop’, obviously.
I hear you, Peter. I’m focusing on gender equality within the current House of Lords setup. But your point is very well taken.
Strictly, I suppose, she is neither a Lady Bishop nor a Lord Bishop as the title (whichever) relates to membership in the House of Lords, not to a level of ordination. When all bishops were Lords, the title naturally became used for them all. WHen the number of bishops in the Lords was reduced, custom meant that even those diocesans who were not (yet) Lords Bishop were frequently referred to in this way. For the longest time in Canada (and I dare say elsewhere) bishops continued to be addressed as Lord Bishop but I’m happy to say the custom has… Read more »
Secular life tells us plainly that women are not excluded from membership of the House of Lords.
We used to hear only of ‘Lord Mayor’ and ‘Lady Mayoress’. The times – they are a’changing!
Even that old misogynist Saint Paul has been known to say that “In Christ, there is neither male nor female”. True, or false?
“Strictly, I suppose, she is neither a Lady Bishop nor a Lord Bishop as the title (whichever) relates to membership in the House of Lords, not to a level of ordination.”
Maybe, maybe not!
http://www.debretts.com/forms-address/professions/religion/church-england/bishops-diocesan-and-suffragan-church-england-and
When I moved to this diocese, my licence as a Reader was issued by George Cassidy who, then being one of the Lords Spiritual, was styled in the superscription as “Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham”. Some years later, on moving to a different parish, Bishop George having retired, my new licence was issued by Paul Butler, not then a member of the House of Lords, and is superscribed “Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham”. I have always assumed that the diocesan legal office knew what they were doing when they prepared the licences.
I’m sorry, but I find the substance of these two paragraphs of the Bishops’ Report (quoted on FiF’s new web-site) to be incongruous – if not mutually inrreconcilable: (1)”Now that legislation has been passed to enable women to become bishops the Church of England is fully and unequivocally committed to all orders of ministry being open equally to all, without reference to gender, and holds that those whom it has duly ordained and appointed to office are the true and lawful holders of the office which they occupy and thus deserve due respect and canonical obedience;2 Anyone who ministers… Read more »
Just as Members of Parliament in the House of Commons are addressed in various degrees as “Honourable” so too all Members of the House of Lords, irrespective of gender, are addressed as “My Noble Lord”.
I thought a couple of hundred years ago or so, Irish suffragan bishops sat in the HofL ……….
‘… all Members of the House of Lords, irrespective of gender, are addressed as “My Noble Lord”.’
Are you sure, Father David?
Whenever I have watched the proceedings on BBC Parliament, male members have (almost always) been addressed as “the noble lord, Lord XXX” while female members have (almost always) been addressed as “the noble baroness, Lady XXX.”
So always “noble” I would agree with; always “lord”, I don’t think so.
The ‘(almost always)’ above refers to those peers whose titles are other than baron or baroness.
Ron Smith: My guess of the FiF position is that they are required to acknowledge that 98% of the church disagrees with them, but they aren’t required to accept that the majority might be right or participate in structures that force them to integrate with the majority. And that the spectrum of teaching and tradition needs to expand to encompass their view. I’m sure any lawyer would tell you this is a reasonable reading of the principles. There’s a certain fudge there surrounding canonical obedience, but resolution C parishes have been living with that particular fudge for the last 2… Read more »
I bow to your superior knowledge RPNewark and stand corrected. I try to catch PMQs each Wednesday but rarely see proceedings from the other place. So, how are the Lords Spiritual addressed then?
Q: “how are the Lords Spiritual addressed [in the HoL] then?”
A: “the noble prelate”
“Irish suffragan bishops” — have there ever been any Irish suffragan bishops, Martin? I thought the CofI’s episcopal problem was always that there were too many of them. The supression of some of them and the reduction of two of the four archbishoprics to bishoprics in 1833 was precisely what led to Keble’s Assize Sermon on national apostasy, regarded by Newman as the start of the Oxford Movement. But Irish (diocesan) bishops and archbishops sat in the Westminster HoL from the Union on 1 January 1801 until disestablishment in 1871. Before the Union, these noble prelates had sat in the… Read more »
Father David; Section 4.39 of the Companion to the Standing Orders and Guide to the Proceedings of the House of Lords (2000 edition, and one of my most treasured possessions….)gives the following:
Archbishop of the Church of England: “the most reverend Primate, the Archbishop of…”
Bishop of the Church of England: “the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of…”
Sorry, Simon, but they are not addressed as “the noble prelate”; only Lords Temporal are “noble”. (It should not be inferred thereby that the Lords Spiritual are ignoble.
The archbishops are addressed as “the Most Reverend Primate” and bishops as “the Right Reverend Prelate”, in both cases with the optional addition of “the (arch)bishop) of NNN”. So no change at all in the form of address will be required if the individual in question should happen to be female.
I believe there have been such animals, Simon.
Though the suffragans I am referring to are Meath etc and during the time of the four primates I think they were called his suffragans and sat in London two at a time on a rotation basis. I shall look to see if there’s anything online, I have long ago got rid of that part of my bookshelves!
Re “Irish suffragans”. From the Union with Ireland Act 1800: “That it be the fourth Article of Union, that four Lords Spiritual of Ireland by Rotation of Sessions, and twenty-eight Lords Temporal of Ireland, elected for Life by the Peers of Ireland, shall be the Number to sit and vote on the Part of Ireland in the House of Lords of the Parliament of the United Kingdom;” If they are called “suffragans” this is a different meaning of the word from the one commonly used in Anglicanism. In this sense, a diocesan bishop is a “suffragan” of the metropolitan or… Read more »
Re “noble prelate” — yes you are right Peter and RP. Though if you google “noble prelate” you will find plenty of parliamentary examples.
This is a bit like the Crockford’s page on how, or how not, to address the clergy. A Big No No is The Reverend Smith, which is a bit like addressing the late Sir Robin Day as Sir Day. It should always be The Reverend John Smith or The Reverend Mr. Smith.
Yes, I see they are of a different kind but they are there, sitting as suffragans, the Constitutional Documents of the United Kingdom 1782-1835 edited by H. T. Dickinson says its true, so I will have it …….. sort of ………..
Looking at the Lords petition to resolve the enjoyment.of privileges by those Irish bishops so newly united, I see that English bishops other than primates are called suffragans too.
I didn’t know that Meath and Kildare had the same preeminence in Ireland that London,Winchester and Durham enjoyed in England.
For what it’s worth I referred to the bishop who confirmed me in TEC as my lady bishop. She did not correct me, niether did my priest.
Martin, and alone amongst the *bishops* of the Anglican churches in these isles, the Bishop of Meath and Kildare is styled the *Most* Reverend. The current incumbent is the Most Reverend (Mrs) Pat Storey – the first female bishop in the four “home” Anglican churches.
How bishops are referred to in the House of Lords is a bit off point, because one of the tenets of parliamentary procedure is that Members should not address one another directly. The result is rather elaborate courtesies and circumlocutions. As a result, what Members say about each other, and how they refer to each other, in debate offers little guidance to the rest of us when we address or speak of bishops in more everyday circumstances. Further up the thread I thought it was established that bishops are sometimes addressed or spoken of using the word “lord.” If that… Read more »