"When in Rome" . . .
As a non-Anglican, I'm curious as to how episcopal oversight and liturgical participation play out when a bishop is serving a diverse diocese --- especially in England, where parishes run the spectrum from nosebleed Anglo-Catholic to so-law-it-crawls, ignore the Prayer Book evangelical. Given that any bishop, no less than a priest, espouses a particular theological and liturgical viewpoint, would an Anglo-Catholic bishop be welcome to preach or do Confirmation in an evangelical parish church, and vice-versa? How do theologically liberal bishops relate to their clergy and parishes whose views don't coincide with theirs? Despite their differences, they are still under his/her oversight. I can't imagine how all this works in such a way as to be copacetic.
Comments
The coffee, on the other hand, is a source of great horror
That said, I have had some misadventures with bishops, usually those of the Anglo-Catholic variety.
There were some horror stories in the last century of evangelical bishops disapproving of high church parishes to the extent of putting them under a ban, or at least refusing to visit them. One diocese which shall be nameless, but always had a diocesan bishop of the evangelical tradition, usually ensured that the suffragan bishop was more MOTR or catholic-leaning, and it was he (always he until very recently) who was sent to the anglo-catholic parishes. Fortunately this sort of apartheid no longer exists; indeed the present diocesan can be seen decked out in lace celebrating Pontifical High Mass one week, and the next leading Family Worship and wearing a suit.
The only situation I have come across where the theology of the bishop might be considered a barrier is where Dead Horse issues are involved. In some places that might concern a sizeable minority, but not here.
And I'm glad to say that IME they have not discriminated against gays in the congregation or indeed the sanctuary party. That battle by and large was won way back in the 1930's, at Christ Church St Laurence. The Abp had wandered down George St to do some bishoply act, and commented delicately to Fr John Hope that a lot in the congregation looked to be a certain type. Fr John replied robustly along the lines that yes, there were and wasn't it good that they could come there, be welcomed and comfortable, and worship God. Surrender of Abp.
Sydney started out traditional C18 CoE. In the late 1840s, 3 Oxford Movement priests came out and it looked as if it would become High. Unfortunately, 2 of them went almost immediately to Rome and there was a very strong reaction downwards. It remained predominantly low to medium after that. Then the Moore College group emerged 35-40 years ago and took many of the low parishes and a lot of the medium ones as well. ++Peter Jensen used his position to place his nominees in as many parishes as he could.
Out here tea stewed in urns is the devil's brew.
Weak coffee is the cross we have to carry around here. I always make the coffee in my church, and it is usually strong enough to levitate a Lutheran. Complaints about it being too strong are greeted with the words "you can water it down."
Sydney was middle-to-low until the 1970s then headed lower. Archbishop Moule back in the 40s and 50s, though an old China missionary himself, was content for the place to be moderate provided the theology was Biblically orthodox. Sydneygelicalism is a post-1975 thing if you ask me.
But presumably even then they had that thing about chasubles.
I think that goes back to the 1920s.
No. He retired a half dozen years ago to be succeeded by ++Glenn Davies. He is just as evangelical, but is more tolerant of others. That has not stopped his making one very unfortunate appointment.
The ban on chasubles goes back to 1911 when the then Abp sad they were illegal based on the Lincoln decision. In the late 1940s that was confirmed by a diocesan ordinance.
And PDR - it was Mowll, not Moule.
Except that, as far as I can discover, the Lincoln Judgement did not pronounce on the legality of the chasuble. The two points decided against the Bishop of Lincoln were
1. The use of the sign of the Cross in absolution and blessing; which is why newsreels of C of E bishops giving the blessing from the 1930s and 40s show crozier in the left hand, and right hand raised, but no sign of the cross.
2. The mixing of the chalice during the service, though it did not actually rule against the mixed chalice provided it was mixed at some point before the service began. Dearmer has some suggestions on this as well.
The Eastward position, lights on the altar, the ablutions, and the singing of the Agnus Dei were all pronounced legal, or rather, not contrary to the rubrics.
I suspect that what the then Archbishop of Sydney did was simply decide that, as the Lincoln Judgement said nowt about it, the previous decisions of the Judicial Committee ("Wills, Wrecks, and Wives" Division) still applied.
Zappa, yes, Sydney has bought Bathurst. Very sad, but most certainly not the fault of Bp Ian Palmer who took extraordinary steps - some at his personal cost - to cope with the effects of the judgment. The newly elected bishop is Rev Mark Calder, from Noosa of all places. Do you know him?
Bp Ian retired at the beginning of this year. Last year, Bathurst asked Sydney for financial help and Synod agreed to give $250,000 pa but on the basis that ++Glenn vetted the candidates for election as the new bishop. That's what Zappa means by Sydney buying Bathurst.
OTOH, it does also appear to give Sydney some control, though how far this might go is anybody's guess.
Well, not just some control, but quite a bit. It has given Bathurst Rev Mark Calder as its new bishop. No reply yet from Zappa, but the new bishop's cv includes a stint at Roseville, a standard Moore College parish not all that far from here. Bathurst has traditionally been a high to catholic diocese and this election is a real change in direction. I don't know what other candidates were excluded by ++Glenn in his vetting process. Certainly much of the publicity about the election has come from Sydney rather than from Bathurst.
You can actually argue it both ways, but having pronounced the Eastward position legal, which basically rests on the Ornaments Rubric/1549 BCP Rubrics, to then turn around and say the chasuble is illegal is inconsistent. Sounds like a case of the archbishop flying a logical kite and getting away with it. In my own diocese we have some folks who are quite passionate about maintaining choir habit and north end for Communion, and some of their reasoning can also be a - erm - bit interesting. They have the same sort of persistence as when the dog finds a toy that he has forgotten he has, and then won't play with any of the others for a while!
If, as it seems, the 1549 Ornaments Rubric is kosher, why make a fuss about one item? Has the church nothing more important to do?
Around here the result of vestarian controversies becoming thankfully unimportant has been to bring everyone more towards the middle which I think has been a healthy development. The bishop tends to wear either cassock, rochet and stole for HC, and choir dress for everything else. The cope comes out for ordinations, Christmas, Easter, etc.; the bishop getting his mitre out is a rarity. He has been seen in chasuble and mitre, but that was truly unusual enough to be worthy of remark.
Yes, and we're trying to get on with things that really do matter. I'd be surprised if those such as Kolbe wore chasubles when saying Mass in prison.
Ooops - sorry for the silence ... somehow missed this altogether. But no ... I know very few clergy from beyond checkpoint chasuble, and both that I do are all would-be chasuble-ites.
+Ian performed a fantastic rearguard action, against all odds. His predecessor, who as it happened presided at our nuptial Mass, is a friend of mine, was probably the main custodian of the financial losses; it was a sad and torrid time, a case I fear of diocesan personnel including if not exclusively him falling for the trap of believing they were important. I served under an earlier bishop still, + Bruce, who was one of the finest bishops I've served under, but who ended up embroiled in massive financial and legal battles, not least with the registrar of the time (coincidentally a Sydney evo).
In a strange way I think a lot of the troubles go back to the Madness of King John - er, Bishop Howell Witt, who lost a plot that I suspect he never gained - or even further back to Bishop Wylde and the Red Book case.
Certainly elements of the Red Book case hanging around. The financial woes have given Sydney the opportunity to ensure there won't be a second edition. In any event, I'd place proper money on the courts now refusing to decide a similar case.
I knew Howell Witt! Apart from having the loudest snore I have ever heard - audible through closed doors, brickwork, etc - he was also just ... odd. A cousin was despatched to collect him from a railway station, having never met him, with the masterly description he's shorter than short and very ugly and had no trouble picking him out of a throng of commuters.
He used to entertain (if that is the word) with his own drag creation of Deborah, the Duchess of Dingo Creek and when put on television against an anti-church type and (I think) Germaine Greer caused chaos by first taking off his cassock to reveal short, black socks and shoes and purple stock (no shirt) but then, when asked to comment on something Ms Greer said responded by looping his pectoral cross over his ears and smiling without comment.
But Howell was a nice man underneath the lunacy, and a good priest and pastor to his own clergy as well as laity.
*TEC and Canterbury.
** In terms of geographical area, my current diocese is about the same size as the Church in Wales. But we have only about 7% as many parishes.
Most bishops likewise seem to fall into the adaptable camp, though I did run into one who was wasn't and did the full on Anglo-Catholic thing (minus incense) in a MOTR-Low parish and then abandoned the Rector to field the resulting shite storm as best he could. I made sure he never visited my parish by arranging to have our confirmation in July...
Rev Mark Calder’s background does not bode well for Bathurst. It is analogous to the appointment of Bishop Clive Kerle to Armidale in the late 1960’s. Armidale has never been the same since. The difference is that Bathurst has historically been uniformly high church in varying degrees. He may be like a stranger at his own party initially but there put his own stamp on the diocese as time goes on.
Ah the English Missal Mass. Those were the great days. My formative church going years was with the English Missal services and I have ever been able to get the experience out of my system. I was in London mid year and went to High Mass at St Magnus the Martyr on the feast of Corpus Christi with the English Missal rite. Wonderful! Also I attended (for the second year in a row) High Mass in the traditional Tridentine rite in Latin at St Silas Kentish Town for the feast of the Sacred Heart. An experience like no other.
Indeed - Armidale was until then a good traditional Anglican diocese, a range of churchmanship but predominantly MOTR to high. At the moment, there's a church in each of Armidale and Tamworth that you'd want to go to, but that's all. These days +John Moyes, Kerle's predecessor, was a real thorn in the side of Menzies. Much to Menzie's surprise +John opposed banning the Communist Party, Oz involvement in Vietnam and a host of social issues. His brother Johnny was perhaps the greatest radio cricket commentator of all. His descriptions of the seagulls at the Randwick end of the SCG have never been bettered.
I recall John Moyse and his opposition to the Vietnam war and conscription. He was made Bishop of Armidale at a comparatively young age and was there for many years and from what I was told was disappointed at being overlooked for more senior posts. He was a classic broad churchman and sympathetic to all branches of Anglicanism. He made the regrettable decision of sending a disproportionate number of his ordinands to Moore College who on his retirement had the numbers to replace him with a hardliner like Kerle.
Sorry about the missing words in my post above, which I have now corrected in the quoted version. I am in the aftermath of a migraine so my head is doing all sorts of weird stuff - including, apparently, not noticing when I leave random words out of sentences!
When I was in my teens we had one parish locally which was English Missal, and I would go there from time-to-time for a change of pace/weekday solemnities. On the whole, it came across as a blend of raging Tridentine and BCP as what you heard was largely BCP, though the order was a bit different even from the Series One (BCP "High Churched") order we used at home. In a strange way I got rather fond of it. I ended up learning the thing in a hurry when I was first priested as one of the parishes I covered still used it. Even in the mid-1990s the incumbent could not get them on to the new rite.
The American Missal was something I got the hang of in my previous gig as they did it on weekdays for old time's sake, and were rather delighted when they discovered I would have a go. It was one of those parishes that had been banged about in churchmanship. The original incumbent had been Low, and successive Rectors had gradually crept it up the candle to MOTR leaning High, but then the resident lay pope decided that the parish was perfect for a priest buddy of his who was a raging Anglo-Catholic. The result was chaos as the A-C rector created an exodus, but also won a small but devoted following to his way of doing things. I was left with trying to get the various groups working together again, and I had a head start on that project as the interim rector that preceded me had done a pretty good job of getting the various parties talking to one another again. In the end I stayed too long, and was glad, when I finally found somewhere suitable, to move on, but my longevity had at least resolved a lot of the old parish angst over churchmanship.
That delightfully attired fellow is not Charles Bennison, but rather the then Bishop of Quincy, the Right Reverend Keith Ackerman... someone who definitely is comfortable in the world of traditional Anglo Catholicism, and very large mitres.
Was he contemporary with Burgmann?