Archbishop Tells Christians to Leave His Church

The Anglican Archbishop of Sydney Glenn Davies said in a speech:

"My own view is that if people wish to change the doctrine of our church, they should start a new church or join a church more aligned to their views - but do not ruin the Anglican church by abandoning the plain teaching of scripture,"

"Please leave us. We have far too much work to do in evangelising Australia to be distracted by the constant pressure to change our doctrine in order to satisfy the lusts and pleasures of the world."

This is in the context of Christians who support same sex marriage within the church.

Reading this reminded me of my time in the Sydney Anglican church (Australia) years ago, and stirred up a lot of feelings. How long should Christians who disagree with a currently taught doctrine hang around and try and change it?

Or as Archbishop Glenn Davies says, should they just give up and find somewhere else? Should all the progressives go and find a congregation / denomination that matches their faith?

Is it ultimately unhealthy for the church with only a homogenous set of believers, and it is better for there to be tension within a congregation / denomination, where the members (respectfully) fight it out?

Okay that is a few questions and I am not sure what I think, but thanks for reading.
«1

Comments

  • I think a lot depends on ecclesiology:

    The Roman Catholic Church for example, is very hierarchical, and in its current formulation does not allow for any lay influence in terms of changing doctrine. It is very much, a "clergy tell you what to believe", "you listen and accept" ecclesiology. In that context, it is difficult to stay if one disagrees with their view on abortion or same sex marriage and wants to change the institution's position.

    On the other hand, Anglicanism, at least in North America and Australia, New Zealand, has changed to allowing subsequent lay involvement and participation through synodical governance. There is room for evolution, change, and reconsideration of issues because the church has a more democratic ecclesiology.
  • ...

    Or as Archbishop Glenn Davies says, should they just give up and find somewhere else? Should all the progressives go and find a congregation / denomination that matches their faith?

    ...
    Yes.

    I, for many years I attended a Presbyterian church. I do not hold the same views of infant baptism as that church does. However, accepted the difference. Certainly, I would not speak against the church doctrine.

    If that had become unworkable for me, I would have left, and found a different church, with whom I did not have such a disagreement, or where I was willing to worship respectfully with those with whom I disagreed.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    I suspect that Newcastle and Wangaratta will hang in there. There's nothing against them that ++Glenn can do on his own even though he's Metropolitan for NSW, where Newcastle is (in fact the southern boundary is about 30 km from Dee Towers). What he will probably end up doing is isolating Sydney even more from the rest of the Anglican Church here.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    I basically agree with Davis, and would leave, as soon as possible, any church that preaches that the desire to be married is an example of "the lusts and pleasures of the world".

    (And I know that sounds like a back-handed compliment, but I'm serious. I was raised Catholic, and respect and defend the Church's right to teach what it does, but personally try to avoid involvement with it out of disagreement on basic issues.)
  • Davies and his scaly mates are the ones who can fuck off. Inclusive Christianity in Australia is not going anywhere.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    I think James Jones, the former Bishop of Liverpool who changed his mind considerably over The Issue, said it best: if the church can tolerate multiple opinions on the morality of war, from army chaplains to outright pacifists, which involves actually killing people and is therefore somewhat more morally urgent, then why can it not cope with different opinions on gay marriage?
  • Question:

    In the misty past, some Shipmates have mentioned "the Sydney Anglicans" being a particular group of Anglicans in Sydney. The group was said to be difficult, nepotistic, and I don't remember what all else.

    Is the archbishop of that "Sydney Anglican" persuasion? Or both conservative and insensitive?

    Thx.
  • LothlorienLothlorien All Saints Host
    edited October 16
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Question:

    In the misty past, some Shipmates have mentioned "the Sydney Anglicans" being a particular group of Anglicans in Sydney. The group was said to be difficult, nepotistic, and I don't remember what all else.

    Is the archbishop of that "Sydney Anglican" persuasion? Or both conservative and insensitive?

    Thx.

    Yes is the short answer. I think there was some hope when he was elected that things may be different, even slightly. But no.

    He brought back from another state a bishop who wanted to return to Sydney. This man (always a man) was foisted on a church which is quite out of keeping with his ideas. Not a good fit.

    Sydney is expanding its influence into other areas of Australia. It is giving considerable financial assistance to another diocese in the west. That diocese is basically bankrupt. While it toes the Sydney line, assistance is given annually.

    Sydney gave a million dollars to the campaign to vote NO in the plebiscite on same sex marriage.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    And gave it at a time when it was clear to all and sundry that the Yes vote would comfortably win - in other words totally wasted money that should have gone to feeding childen.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Oh my word.

    Controlling dictators 😢😡
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    As for the parish Lothlorien referred to - we have friends who go there. Under the previous incumbent, it was probably one of the best parishes in Aust. Under the new rector, the numbers have dropped substantially. They describe the sermons as having little content and say that the new rector has little feel for liturgy. Shortly after his arrival, he talked of the practice in one of his previous parishes of moving to the parish hall after a Eucharist to have the "real meal"! Our friends, like others, are hanging in but finding it harder and harder.
  • How long should Christians who disagree with a currently taught doctrine hang around and try and change it?
    I think the answer has to be for as long as you can stand feeling like "a voice crying in the wilderness". The desire of the Archbishop to have only people who agree with him and his moore-trained bigots in Sydney churches is understandable, just as in 1930s Germany the Nazi party wanted everyone to profess a true belief in the doctrines of Adolf Hitler. But the Archbishop is wrong - wrong on this just as he is wrong about so much - because his attitude to anyone who differs from him in the slightest degree is un-Christian. It could - some would say should be argued that Sydney strays so far from the teachings of Christ that it should be labelled a cult and treated accordingly.

    ...should they just give up and find somewhere else? Should all the progressives go and find a congregation / denomination that matches their faith?
    NO! The whole point of Christianity is that it is inclusive: true Christianity is for everyone, bond or free, Jew or Gentile, etc, etc, etc. It is not up to the Archbishop of Sydney to pronounce on the who is welcome in any church, not even the centres of his own anti-women, misogynistic cult in Australia.

    Is it ultimately unhealthy for the church with only a homogenous set of believers, and it is better for there to be tension within a congregation / denomination, where the members (respectfully) fight it out?
    It is extremely unhealthy for a church to have an absolutely homogenous set of attendees and believers - but then the churches in the diocese of Sydney are fast coming to resemble - perhaps even form - a cult, and a dangerously unhealthy and intolerant one at that.

    While it is possible for people to attend these places without holding to all of the cult's beliefs they should do so but experience has shown that cults can be extremely dangerous once they reach the stage where the leaders can more-or-less do what they want without fear of being challenged. And you can only fight something out "respectfully" if there is respect on both sides - that is not the case with Sydney Anglicans: they have zero respect for anyone who differs from them in the smallest regard, starting with the Archbishop of Canterbury.

    A personal view. I'm not in Australia but I have friends who have been in the Diocese of Sydney and who have tried to fight the good fight against the rising tide of homophobia, misogyny and bigotry and who have given up. In most cases there has come a point where they have been either asked or "advised" to go elsewhere: that is not the action of a church, that is the action of a cult.
  • A church which has its doctrine based on past thinkers set in stone so that current thinkers are stifled out is a church without breath in its lungs. A church which excludes people who don't believe every jot and tittle of its creeds is a church with no heart. A church which becomes nothing more than a dictatorship is not the body of Christ.
  • On top of everything else that's been said about this chap, his remarks seem to me to be deeply unrealistic. There's plenty of evidence around the world that you can be an Anglican and accept same sex marriage etc.
  • On top of everything else that's been said about this chap, his remarks seem to me to be deeply unrealistic. There's plenty of evidence around the world that you can be an Anglican and accept same sex marriage etc.

    Ah, but he is saying you can't be a Sydney Anglican if you accept SSM, etc.

    Basically, what Glenn Davies is saying is that the only true Anglicanism is to be found in his churches, that the rest are in varying degrees of error.
  • My understanding from a distance is that the Anglican Communion is involved in a protracted dispute over sexuality and marriage and the Archbishop's comments are not reflective of the views of many Anglicans in Australia.

    As a Catholic, the views of the Church hierarchy, the curia, the magisterium, or whatever title they want to give themselves carry no moral force whatsoever. They are pissing in the wind as long as they continue to harbor pedophile priests in their ranks, and while they continue to force people to take them to court to get just compensation for the damage they have inflicted on people's lives. The hierarchy of my Church should strip to their loin cloths and crawl on their knees to a designated public place in every city in which there is a Cathedral to receive the opprobrium of the citizenry. Pell copped some of that when he went to and from his court cases, but he wasn't naked, and he wasn't on his knees.
  • My mental version of that includes ground glass covering the plaza in front of the Vatican.
  • EvangelineEvangeline Shipmate
    edited October 16
    Gee D wrote: »
    I suspect that Newcastle and Wangaratta will hang in there. There's nothing against them that ++Glenn can do on his own even though he's Metropolitan for NSW, where Newcastle is (in fact the southern boundary is about 30 km from Dee Towers). What he will probably end up doing is isolating Sydney even more from the rest of the Anglican Church here.

    I suspect that isolating Sydney is what this is all about- follow the $s. There is a motion before Synod proposing withholding any financial contributions towards any group that affirms SSM or recognises those who do, this would, of course include the General Synod should Newcastle and Wangaratta go ahead.

    Oh and PS, the Abp wouldn't think that he was telling "Christians" to leave his church, people who don't agree with the Sydney line, are, by definition not Christians. :(
  • Dark KnightDark Knight Shipmate
    edited October 17
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    My understanding from a distance is that the Anglican Communion is involved in a protracted dispute over sexuality and marriage and the Archbishop's comments are not reflective of the views of many Anglicans in Australia.

    As a Catholic, the views of the Church hierarchy, the curia, the magisterium, or whatever title they want to give themselves carry no moral force whatsoever. They are pissing in the wind as long as they continue to harbor pedophile priests in their ranks, and while they continue to force people to take them to court to get just compensation for the damage they have inflicted on people's lives. The hierarchy of my Church should strip to their loin cloths and crawl on their knees to a designated public place in every city in which there is a Cathedral to receive the opprobrium of the citizenry. Pell copped some of that when he went to and from his court cases, but he wasn't naked, and he wasn't on his knees.

    Very well said.

    And no, Davies' position is not reflective of Anglicans in Australia generally.

    Also, what Evangeline said. Since the Sydney Anglicans are basically Baptists who sometimes do dress ups, I suspect they would have left years ago if they genuinely had any courage of their convictions. Which would mean they would leave, literally - without the church buildings, any of the money in trusts, schools, and so on. Not with bag and baggage, nor with scrip and scrippage.
  • LothlorienLothlorien All Saints Host
    Evangeline, you are right about those who don’t hold to Sydney doctrine are not considered Christians.. I had similar feedback from some when Fr G asked me to preach at St Docs, questioning whether I was genuine. I am sure the mob down the road from where I now live in mountains would say the same. Their website alone is a complete turn off for me.

    Tumbled into website from your shack yesterday. Place will look amazing at end of things.
  • It is not Davies' church. He doesn't get to tell people to please leave. One person who gets that, and is not going anywhere, is Joel Hollier.
    If all the people who hold a different view leave, nothing will ever change. But it hurts to stay. Props and prayers to and for Joel for his courage.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Yes, I'd seen Hollier's article last night in our present time. He's right to say what he's said. A whole batch of emails from St Sanity against ++Glenn. Nothing much we can do of course, he has the numbers in Synod.

    Lothlorien, where do you go now? Granville would be the closest I can think of. Perhaps Leura, but the present rector there is petty anti-women and I'd imagine anti-gay as well.
  • LothlorienLothlorien All Saints Host
    Nowhere right now. I had a nasty injury boarding a train and walking is difficult. I was pushed down, almost between station and train and wrecked back. Add in few bus services on a Sunday. On a good day I use walking sticks, on a bad day a frame. Complicate with arthritis.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    I am sorry to hear that.
  • MorganMorgan Shipmate
    Davies and his scaly mates are the ones who can fuck off. Inclusive Christianity in Australia is not going anywhere.

    They won't leave because the Sydney diocese has considerable assets and property which they would be required to leave behind. I am a thorough Anglican in a different diocese. I am not going anywhere.

    If I lived in Sydney I would look for the lonely little petunia in the onion patch, There are a few OK churches in Sydney, despite the Archbishop. Or drive to Newcastle diocese or Canberra-Goulburn diocese. Or I would attend a non-Anglican church for the duration until they changed or left (not likely), or I moved elsewhere (more likely).
  • Does Archbishop Davies have any how the Anglican church came into being? A fair part of the 39 Articles are at best derived from scripture (I may be ovrcooking this: Maybe the Australian Anglicans don't adhere to the 39 Articles and maybe it can't trace its origin to Henry VIII's split from Rome).
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    sionisais wrote: »
    Does Archbishop Davies have any how the Anglican church came into being? A fair part of the 39 Articles are at best derived from scripture (I may be ovrcooking this: Maybe the Australian Anglicans don't adhere to the 39 Articles and maybe it can't trace its origin to Henry VIII's split from Rome).

    I think the Archbish would claim that keeping the queers in their place is derived from that same tradition.
  • Regarding ++Glenn's line about having too much to do, evangelising Australia - does anyone have any idea how receptive Australia is to Sydney's evangelism? Clearly other Anglican dioceses give it a mixed reception, but what about their success with non-Anglicans/non-Christians? (I'd be repelled, personally, but I'm conscious that I wouldn't be a receptive audience for any form of evangelism).

  • I, for many years I attended a Presbyterian church. I do not hold the same views of infant baptism as that church does. However, accepted the difference. Certainly, I would not speak against the church doctrine.

    If that had become unworkable for me, I would have left, and found a different church, with whom I did not have such a disagreement, or where I was willing to worship respectfully with those with whom I disagreed.

    If your Presbyterian church decided to go adult baptism only, I presume you wouldn't object to the doctrinal change because it suits your view. Perhaps, it doesn't really or directly affect you either way, whether or not your church baptises children? When the Church I attended decided to change their doctrine of NOT ordaining women as priests, I, too, didn't object; despite all my life accepting their former doctrine that women COULDN'T be priests. Sometimes being the Body of Christ is more about fellowship with those with whom we disagree, than whether or not some of the rules and regulations happen to suit us more or less.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Bless the insane hubris of the man.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    He's not - from his perspective - asking the Christians to leave. He's asking those who worship the Spirit of the Age to leave. Those whose sole aim is for the church to be more like, to take on the values of, the surrounding culture.



  • Russ wrote: »
    He's not - from his perspective - asking the Christians to leave. He's asking those who worship the Spirit of the Age to leave. Those whose sole aim is for the church to be more like, to take on the values of, the surrounding culture.



    Well, leaving aside whether we can assess anybody's sole aim and whether those who support SSM are worshipping the spirit of the age, should he be doing that and were does telling those with whom we disagree to leave take us?

    Sydney teaches that it is the clear meaning of scripture that wives should be submissive to their husbands and that women cannot have authority over men, so women cannot be ordained or preach to mixed congregations (although they do allow churches to make their own decision about whether women can preach, read the lesson etc). Should all those who disagree leave the church, if not why not?

    A survey undertaken some time before the SSM plebiscite in Australia revealed that 60% of those in the pews of Sydney Anglican churches were NOT opposed to SSM. Seems to me that there's not going to be many people left if the Abp. really adheres to this policy.
  • LothlorienLothlorien All Saints Host
    Yes, it would seem that his group should be the ones to leave, being in a considerable minority. However, that is most unlikely to happen given what he would have to leave behind.
  • Yes, indeed Loth, it is difficult to envisage the future being anything other than less and less inclusive. Sorry to hear about your injuries, our shack is finished and looks stunning, hopefully one day you will be able to come visit us.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    Did the Archbishop have anything to say about individual conscience?
    Russ wrote: »
    He's not - from his perspective - asking the Christians to leave. He's asking those who worship the Spirit of the Age to leave. Those whose sole aim is for the church to be more like, to take on the values of, the surrounding culture.
    That is a matter of interpretation of the consciences of many individuals. I see nothing in the quotations from the OP to suggest that the Archbishop leaves room for Christians who differ as a matter of conscience, rather than some uncritical embrace of fashionable opinions.

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    sionisais wrote: »
    Does Archbishop Davies have any how the Anglican church came into being? A fair part of the 39 Articles are at best derived from scripture (I may be ovrcooking this: Maybe the Australian Anglicans don't adhere to the 39 Articles and maybe it can't trace its origin to Henry VIII's split from Rome).

    Don't confuse Anglicans in Australia generally with Sydney Anglicans; the latter are largely confined to Sydney and the dependent dioceses of Armidale and NW Australia, to which Bathurst will soon be added.
  • Russ wrote: »
    He's not - from his perspective - asking the Christians to leave. He's asking those who worship the Spirit of the Age to leave. Those whose sole aim is for the church to be more like, to take on the values of, the surrounding culture.



    Which is something he has no right to do. None of us get to decide whose name is inscribed in God's book.

    @Simon Toad comments about Sydney Anglicans being "baptists who do dress up" strikes me as being rather unfair on baptists. In the UK,congregations decide much of this themselves and there are few central policies. They'd be welcomed by some sections of the union, but not all. But the other statement about them having left by now if they could take the buildings and the money with them strikes me as being totally accurate.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited October 18
    Not guilty Tubbs. Not to be a dibber dobber but I believe you mean Dark Knight. I'm hard core bells and smells, papist-style. When not taking refuge in one of their congregations from the awfulness of my own Church, I like to yell stuff like, 'Splitters!' at the Anglicans.

    I make no comment on those who swim other than to say that their Theological College in Melbourne is very nice indeed, and their library pretty good too. I remember seeing copies of New Internationalist magazine in their common room, which raised my eyebrows. There is a very hardworking Baptist Minister by the name of Tim Costello who is much admired in this city.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Not guilty Tubbs. Not to be a dibber dobber but I believe you mean Dark Knight. I'm hard core bells and smells, papist-style. When not taking refuge in one of their congregations from the awfulness of my own Church, I like to yell stuff like, 'Splitters!' at the Anglicans.

    I make no comment on those who swim other than to say that their Theological College in Melbourne is very nice indeed, and their library pretty good too. I remember seeing copies of New Internationalist magazine in their common room, which raised my eyebrows. There is a very hardworking Baptist Minister by the name of Tim Costello who is much admired in this city.

    My apologies you're right. It's been a long day ...
  • Russ wrote: »
    He's not - from his perspective - asking the Christians to leave. He's asking those who worship the Spirit of the Age to leave. Those whose sole aim is for the church to be more like, to take on the values of, the surrounding culture.



    Yes, from the Archbishop's perspective that's how he sees it. Which is why he's wrong to ask the 'non-Christian' element to leave. He identifies the 'Church' - Christ's Body on earth - as those who think as he does, because how he thinks is irreducibly right and is, of course, merely the accurate reflection how God thinks.

    As a worship leader myself, I have a sneaking sympathy with anyone who gets fed up with being told 'you're doing it wrong' or 'why can't we do this, or why can't we change that?' etc. And the temptation is always there to respond with: well, there are a dozen other churches in the area, if you'd like to give them a go! But for a senior leader of the Anglican Church Communion to gloss over the Anglican Communion's own rather spotted history over doctrine, and label as 'lusts and pleasures' the desire for two people of the same sex to be allowed to marry in church is ludicrous.

    But then it always comes down to the same old problem. If two people love each other, want each other, and wish to commit themselves monogamously till death to one another, that's just fine and dandy. Unless those two people happen to be of the same sex. Because 'plain teaching of scripture' has spoken, and you're not allowed to be in a loving, secure, life-long commitment with someone if they share the same reproductive equipment as you. Apparently. According to the 'plain teaching of scripture'. Because that's precisely what the 'plain teaching of scripture' teaches. Isn't it? No wonder people hate the Church.
  • Just following the tangent re Anglicans outside Sydney and Melbourne in particular, last night I understand the Melbourne Synod passed a motion last night formally supporting GAFCON. It's spreading!
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    How could they!
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    Lothlorien wrote: »
    Yes, it would seem that his group should be the ones to leave, being in a considerable minority. However, that is most unlikely to happen given what he would have to leave behind.
    The Sinny Anglicans have always struck me as a group of unapologetic Calvinists (which is fine in a Calvinist denomination, of course) who are more interested in holding onto the real estate than in bringing people to Christ. The insistence that all clergy must go to just one narrow-minded seminary, the refusal to allow chasubles (!) under most circs, and all the rest of it speaks to me of men worshiping the spirit of another age.

  • Well, perhaps I am being unfair on Baptists. As Ross says, the Sydney "Anglicans" are certainly Calvinists through and through.

    And I agree with Toad re Tim Costello, who I have nothing but admiration for.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited October 19
    I used to hang around with Anglicans in Melbourne at Trinity College, which is the home of bells and smells choral service Anglicanism in this city and a great rival to Ridley College up the road, den of the happy clappy 'church in the round' mob. I heard what they said about each other over sandwiches and tea, butting heads like young and not-so-young postulants testing out competing ideas do.

    Surely one of the greatest things about Anglicanism when compared with my Roman church is how it can hold together so many conflicting theological and liturgical viewpoints WITHOUT ejecting opposing views or labeling them as heretics. This is an extraordinary heritage, much to be treasured. Yes it means fights and fractures and bruises, but I argue that they are a necessary part of humans being able to hold together such a diverse international group. If only the Sydney mob could live out the passing of the peace.

  • CJSCJS Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    I suspect that Newcastle and Wangaratta will hang in there. There's nothing against them that ++Glenn can do on his own even though he's Metropolitan for NSW, where Newcastle is (in fact the southern boundary is about 30 km from Dee Towers). What he will probably end up doing is isolating Sydney even more from the rest of the Anglican Church here.

    This might have been true once, but no longer. The balance of general synod representation has been shifting evangelical over the years and there are more evangelical archbishops around the country now, than in the past, many of them with strong connections to Sydney (I counted four serving Australian Archbishops at Jay Behan's consecration in Christchurch today). Even Melbourne's synod has just passed motions supporting the Confessing Anglicans in NZ. I think it is much more likely that Newcastle and Wangaratta are making things easier for us by blatantly disregarding existing agreements and statements and expecting they can just push through without consequences.

    Nice to be back BTW.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Welcome back, but I deeply hope that you prediction is wrong.
  • CJS wrote -
    This might have been true once, but no longer. The balance of general synod representation has been shifting evangelical over the years and there are more evangelical archbishops around the country now, than in the past, many of them with strong connections to Sydney (I counted four serving Australian Archbishops at Jay Behan's consecration in Christchurch today).

    Given that there are only five serving Archbishops, and three of those are definitely at higher end of the candle, I am wondering how you get four. ACL continues to refer to Peter Jensen as an Archbishop despite his retirement which might confuse the issue. Were they serving diocesan bishops? I noticed Richard Condie in one photo.

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    And Peter Jensen is schismatic - look at his actions in attending a service in the Durham diocese and assisting the consecration of a bishop of a schismatic church.
  • CJSCJS Shipmate
    CJS wrote -
    This might have been true once, but no longer. The balance of general synod representation has been shifting evangelical over the years and there are more evangelical archbishops around the country now, than in the past, many of them with strong connections to Sydney (I counted four serving Australian Archbishops at Jay Behan's consecration in Christchurch today).

    Given that there are only five serving Archbishops, and three of those are definitely at higher end of the candle, I am wondering how you get four. ACL continues to refer to Peter Jensen as an Archbishop despite his retirement which might confuse the issue. Were they serving diocesan bishops? I noticed Richard Condie in one photo.
    CJS wrote -
    This might have been true once, but no longer. The balance of general synod representation has been shifting evangelical over the years and there are more evangelical archbishops around the country now, than in the past, many of them with strong connections to Sydney (I counted four serving Australian Archbishops at Jay Behan's consecration in Christchurch today).

    Given that there are only five serving Archbishops, and three of those are definitely at higher end of the candle, I am wondering how you get four. ACL continues to refer to Peter Jensen as an Archbishop despite his retirement which might confuse the issue. Were they serving diocesan bishops? I noticed Richard Condie in one photo.

    You are entirely correct, I wrote archbishops, but meant the AB of Sydney and the diocesan bishops of Tasmania, Armidale and NW Australia.
Sign In or Register to comment.