Bishops consecrated at Canterbury Cathedral

Hello, all! I've been browsing these pages for some 15 years or more, but only now have I got round to creating myself an account. For my first thread I wanted to ask a rather mundane question that has nonetheless puzzled me for some time.

As some of you may already have guessed from my user name, I'm no longer active in Anglican circles, although I used to be very much so and have attended quite a few consecrations of bishops in my time. The first time in many years that I took any notice of the consecrations of bishops was when the first female bishops were consecrated for the Church of England. The thing that struck me as a bit odd was that it took place at Canterbury Cathedral. I assumed that it was just to mark the fact that it was something of a historic occasion. But then I got Googling more recently and discovered that recently quite a few bishops, of both sexes, have been consecrated at Canterbury Cathedral.

The reason that this struck me as peculiar was that it had always been my understanding in my Anglican days that bishops consecrated for the Province of Canterbury were by custom (if not by any formal requirement) consecrated in London, typically at Southwark Cathedral, St Paul's Cathedral, or Westminster Abbey, Southwark, I was once told, being by some margin the most popular, as the bishops designate have tended to feel that that is where the liturgy is in the best hands! I even remember reading somewhere that there was a tradition that the bishop designate dined with the archbishop of Canterbury at Lambeth Palace the night before his consecration, slept at the palace overnight, and then was taken by river the following day to the place of his consecration (I guess there are suitable places to alight from presumably a fairly small vessel at Westminster, Southwark, and in the City).

If anybody is able to explain what has happened in recent years to change this tradition I'd be very interested to know, as I have fond memories of the consecrations I went to in London many years ago, and had understood that this was a fixed tradition.

Thanks.

Comments

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Surely if a bishop is being consecrated and to be enthroned as a diocesan in the one service, that should be carried out in the cathedral of the diocese. The point is not as relevant if the consecration is for a person to be an assistant but perhaps the service for a suffragan ought be in the cathedral also.
  • BroJamesBroJames Shipmate
    I don't know. The only consecration I've ever been to (of a female bishop) was at York Minster. (Entertainingly the same and who had voted an objection to the ordaining of women priests in London in 1994 was there to do the same again!)
  • Interesting! I thought that in the Church of England the consecration and enthronement were always separate occasions. For one thing, in the Province of Canterbury the consecration is performed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, whereas the enthronement of diocesan bishops is performed by the Archdeacon of Canterbury. It would seem odd for the archdeacon to do the enthroning while the archbishop looks on.

    To the best of my knowledge consecrations for the Province of York are always at York Minster. I think it was always a peculiarity of the Province of Canterbury that consecrations took place in the capital city rather than in the metropolitical cathedral, perhaps because the archbishop has tended to spend more time at Lambeth than at Canterbury.
  • London is also a bit easier to get to than Canterbury, which is down in the bottom right-hand corner of Ukland.

    Getting a boiling of bishops together in one place is, I am informed, on a par with herding cats, or knitting fog.

    IJ
  • In my experience, being admitted to a consecration in London; if the service is taking place at St. Paul's or at Southwark Cathedral, admission to the service is NOT by ticket only and any bona fide worshipper will be admitted without a ticket. However, at Westminster Abbey, conditions seemed to be more formal and stricter; tickets were insisted upom, otherwise the attendee is refused admission at the door. I seldom have a ticket when I attend a consecration and the one occasion I was that way caught out, the service was taking place at the Abbey.

    About consecrations at York Minster and the new bishop was female, a priest of my acquaintance who shall be nameless, who is Vicar of a parish in the Diocese of London, twice made the journey to York, to give his vocal protest at the start of the service saying, "It's not in the Bible" - a woman being consecrated, I mean. This same priest has been protesting againsts women's ordained ministry since women were first ordained priests in the mid-nineties. The prospect of his own Diocesan being female, he has his own agenda about inviting her to preach, keeping her at arm's length. He refers to her in public in an uncomplimentary way.
  • Assuming that I am correct about Province of Canterbury bishops being consecrated in London, the last time a diocesan bishop was consecrated in his own cathedral would be Mervyn Stockwood, consecrated at Southwark Cathedral on 1 May 1959. William Chadwick was consecrated bishop of Barking (Diocese if Chelmsford) at the end same service. I'm not sure when Stockwood was enthroned, but I'm sure it wasn't at the same service.
  • Sorry, not sure where "end" came from. Is there no edit feature?
  • Consecrated at Canterbury Cathedral:

    Bishops of Gloucester and Crediton: 22 July 2015

    Bishops of Maidstone, Edmonton, and Kensington: 23 September 2015

    Bishops of Repton and Dorking: 29 June 2016

    Bishop of Loughborough: 30 November 2017

    However, I note this on the Westminster Abbey website: "The Archbishop of Canterbury presides at the Consecration of Bishops for the Province of Canterbury normally in either St Paul's Cathedral or Southwark Cathedral or Westminster Abbey." (In connection with consecrations on 24 February 2016.)

    Is the Canterbury thing a Justin Welby innovation?
  • Does any of this matter ?
    :grimace:

    Sorry, it's been a long day....

    IJ
  • AlbertusAlbertus Shipmate
    Probably not, but it's quite interesting. The thing about staying at Lambeth the night before: don't know about travelling down by river, but there's a lovely story about John Eastaugh (Bishop of Hereford, with a sense of humour), Hewlett Thompson (Bishop of Willesden and then Exeter, who could be a rather explosive man), and ++Michael Ramsey. Thompson had been invited to Lambeth by Ramsey, whom he didn't know personally, and asked Eastaugh, who'd recently stayed there before being consecrated, what it would be like. 'You'll be expected to sing for your supper' said Eastaugh, 'so bring your party piece'.
    Ramsey's subsequent account of the evening went something like this: 'Thompson came, and we had sherry, very nice, and then we had dinner, very nice, and then we went into the drawing room for coffee, very nice- and then he got out his music and sang "Come into the garden, Maud", and we were very surprised, very surprised indeed!'
  • Quite possibly it doesn't really matter, but I found the question interesting nonetheless, and the anecdote in the last comment is certainly the sort of thing some of us rather enjoy!

    On the other hand, it could be quite an important, if subtle, move. One must suspect that when an institution as old as the Church of England changes tradition there must be a reason for it. My feeling would be that perhaps the archbishop is trying to assert that his primary role is that of diocesan bishop of the Diocese of Canterbury. This would serve to illustrate that he intends his episcopate to be marked by a more pastoral and collegial approach. London perhaps represents his roles as leader of the national Church of England and worldwide Anglican Communion and his position as the most senior member of the House of Lords. This would be very much like Pope Francis, who has made some effort to present himself from the outset as first and foremost the bishop of the Roman diocese.

    On the other hand, the archbishop could be trying to emphasise the significance of Canterbury as a kind of spiritual anchor for the Church of England and Anglican Communion. "London-centric" is a term now used almost always with pejorative connotations. I can imagine that for Anglicans in, say, the USA, but also around the world, Westminster Abbey represents royal pomp and pageantry, St Paul's represents the indomitable British spirit, and Southwark Cathedral they either haven't heard of or know to be a kind of temple of liberalism, which will have very different connotations whether one is in San Francisco or Lagos. Canterbury, on the other hand, is perhaps a kind of steadfast rock to which everybody can relate in much the same way.
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    Well, it is the seat of the head of the Communion. London is just the secular capital city.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Does any of this matter ?
    :grimace:

    Sorry, it's been a long day....
    My thoughts entirely.

  • CruntCrunt Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    Does any of this matter ?
    :grimace:
    Sorry, it's been a long day....
    My thoughts entirely.
    I'm surprised that you question the supposed lack of relevance of consecrations at Canterbury rather than say, when to celebrate the annunciation, or how long should a preacher preach, or how should communion be celebrated on Good Friday (if at all!), or who still does choral matins, or denominational origin of popular hymns, or reservation in the CofI. What does any of it matter? Why pick on consecration of bishops at Canterbury (in particular) when there are so many other bizarre topics (if you are not a liturgy geek) to choose from?
  • I apologise if my first posting on here was not well chosen. I perhaps need to take a bit more time to get a feel of what is really appropriate. I really didn't think it was the most fascinating question that has ever been asked, but I did think that it would satisfy a curiosity at the very least. Personally, I often find the obscure and inconsequential quite interesting, probably precisely because it is obscure and inconsequential. Did you know, for example, that there is a learned society devoted to the study of academic dress? Endlessly fascinating, according to Dr Paul Greatrix, Registrar of the University of Nottingham! I thought, wrongly perhaps, that these boards were somewhere that attracted people with similarly recondite interests. There was a thread on the old boards about making the sign of the cross at evensong, which doesn't seem all that more important, to be quite honest, but nobody questioned the validity of the question there. As I say, I'm a newcomer here, and it seems that I may have misjudged the intellectual pitch. If anybody does know the answer to my question, I'd be interested, but I'll refrain from any further comment.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Sorry, not sure where "end" came from. Is there no edit feature?
    Only for 6 minutes after you post. Click on the gear in the upper right corner of your post. If the gear is gone, your 6-minute edit window has closed and your error is saved for posterity. Which is why the “Preview” button can be your friend.

    And don't worry about your first foray into the Ship. Your question was just fine—not that I’m able to meaningfully comment on it—and quite in keeping with many other Ecclesiantic threads.

    Welcome to the Ship!

  • AlbertusAlbertus Shipmate
    Out of interest, Tiber Swimmer (or anyone else) where are English & Welsh RC Bishops usually consecrated?
  • Metropolitan archbishops and diocesan bishops in the Catholic Church in England and Wales are almost without exception consecrated and enthroned (the Church for some reason prefers the terms 'ordained' and 'installed') in a single ceremony held at their own cathedral. Auxiliary bishops and bishops coadjutor are almost without exception consecrated at the cathedral of their diocese or archdiocese. I'm not certain why, but both the present Bishop of Shrewsbury and his predecessor were consecrated at a parish church in Wythenshawe, the current bishop as coadjutor, his predecessor as diocesan bishop. A number of Shrewsbury bishops have been consecrated at parish churches, though some have been consecrated at the cathedral. My guess would be that this is simply because Shrewsbury Cathedral, though rather impressive, is exceptionally small.

    The Bishop of the Forces is not technically a bishop of England and Wales, as his see is 'exempt', i.e. a direct subject of the Holy See. Whereas Bishops of the Forces have sometimes been consecrated at the Cathedral of St Michael and St George, unsurprisingly located at Aldershot, the present bishop was consecrated at Westminster Cathedral.

    Consecrations have also been known to take place at rather interesting locations. Despite being located within British territory, the Diocese of Gibraltar is also an exempt see, so not technically British in any ecclesiastical sense. The present bishop's two immediate predecessors were consecrated not at the Cathedral of St Mary the Crowned, but in an aircraft hangar at RAF Gibraltar. Apparently episcopal consecrations are something of a big draw in Gibraltar, and the aircraft hangar is the only building large enough to hold the crowd. The new bishop is Maltese and was consecrated by the Archbishop of Westminster at Mdina Cathedral.

    Not to be outdone by the Gibraltarians, the Syro-Malabar Eparchy of Great Britain recently had its first bishop consecrated at Deepdale football stadium, home of Preston North End F.C., which accommodated a congregation of 12,000. The eparchy's cathedral is a rather small former parish church.

    The Ukrainian Greek Catholics have never consecrated a bishop here.

    Once upon a time it was not uncommon for bishops to be consecrated at the chapel of one of the Catholic seminaries, but I believe that custom died out in the early part of the last century.

    It occurs to me that one crucial difference between a Catholic consecration and an Anglican consecration is that an Anglican consecration is a state occasion: the ceremony includes the reading of the Queen's mandate and is preceded by the bishop designate swearing the oath of allegiance to the sovereign.
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    A Catholic episcopal ordination would include the reading of the papal mandate authorising the ceremony. Since Vatican 2 times the Church has preferred the use of the word 'ordination' instead of 'consecration' since the ceremony is a part of the Sacrament of Orders - the major orders being ,of course, diaconate, priesthood and episcopate.
    'Installation' is also an attempt to remove monarchical trappings from the ceremony of the bishop taking possession of the 'cathedra'.(Certainly in Scotland few Catholics would now address the bishop as 'My Lord'.)
    Two further points come to mind. RCs never talk about a candidate being 'priested' as seems often to be the case with Anglicans. Catholic priests are 'ordained' My second point would be a sort of question. In the (Roman) Catholic Church the bishop is the ruler of the diocese and the cathedral church is his church. If I understand correctly (and perhaps I don't !) Anglican bishops are not in control of their cathedrals. Power,as such, is vested in the Dean and Chapter, who can invite the bishop to the cathedral or not, as the case may be. That is what I have understood from these boards and would be happy to be corrected or to have the responsibilities and rights of the bishop in an Anglican cathedral explained.
  • Others will doubtless come along shortly to elaborate, but yes, Anglican cathedrals are, generally speaking, run by the Dean and Chapter.

    IJ
  • angloidangloid Shipmate
    Which I presume is a hangover from mediaeval times, another example of the Cof E being less reformed than the RCC.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Forthview wrote: »
    'Installation' is also an attempt to remove monarchical trappings from the ceremony of the bishop taking possession of the 'cathedra'.(Certainly in Scotland few Catholics would now address the bishop as 'My Lord'.)
    Two further points come to mind. RCs never talk about a candidate being 'priested' as seems often to be the case with Anglicans. Catholic priests are 'ordained' My second point would be a sort of question. In the (Roman) Catholic Church the bishop is the ruler of the diocese and the cathedral church is his church. If I understand correctly (and perhaps I don't !) Anglican bishops are not in control of their cathedrals. Power,as such, is vested in the Dean and Chapter, who can invite the bishop to the cathedral or not, as the case may be. That is what I have understood from these boards and would be happy to be corrected or to have the responsibilities and rights of the bishop in an Anglican cathedral explained.

    No-one but no-one here would call an Anglican bishop "My Lord" - RM's father died a dozen years ago now, and he would have been the last. On the most formal of occasions an Abp may get "Your Grace", but less and less likely every day.

    We would talk both of ordination and then of deaconing or priesting. It would depend on the circumstances, but no uniform practice. And the relationships of bishops and deans varies very much from diocese to diocese and of course is often dependent upon those concerned. That's Aust Anglicanism and I think NZ is similar. I can't see any TEC bishop being lordly and probably the same in Canada. Others can speak of them and the other Anglican churches.
  • When I was working for the National Church Institutions, which was some 15 or 16 years ago now, I had to deal with bishops and even occasionally archbishops (or primates of equivalent rank). It was made clear to me that the expected form of address was simply "bishop" or "archbishop". I've never once spoken to a self-important bishop (though that is not to say that they do not exist). The clergy who expected to be treated with deference tended to be the ones who had obtained rather dubious distinctions such as an honorary archdeaconry in Africa or honorary membership of the senior common room of an Oxford college. I would find myself having to address an ordinary parish priest as "Mr Archdeacon", having just taken a telephone call from a diocesan bishop who introduced himself with his first name. Among Catholic prelates, I once met Cardinal Hume. Introducing himself, he said, "I'm Basil". I don't know whether he wasn't sure whether I'd know who he was or whether he wanted to avert the risk of being addressed as "Your Eminence".
  • I once met Cardinal Hume. Introducing himself, he said, "I'm Basil". I don't know whether he wasn't sure whether I'd know who he was or whether he wanted to avert the risk of being addressed as "Your Eminence".

    ISTM that just reflects the unassuming humility of a saintly man.

    IJ

  • AlbertusAlbertus Shipmate
    When I was working for the National Church Institutions, which was some 15 or 16 years ago now, I had to deal with bishops and even occasionally archbishops (or primates of equivalent rank). It was made clear to me that the expected form of address was simply "bishop" or "archbishop".
    When I was a clerk in the Bishoprics Dept at the Church Commissioners (ghastly job, btw) getting on for 30 years ago, letters to diocesans were addressed to The Lord Bishop of...but suffragans got The Rt Revd The Bishop of... But I think even then, orally they were addressed as 'Bishop'.

  • Albertus wrote: »
    letters to diocesans were addressed to The Lord Bishop of...but suffragans got The Rt Revd The Bishop of...

    Yes, I have come across this myself, although I'm not sure that it is actually correct. As I understand it, the form "dominus episcopus" is an ancient one and all bishops are technically entitled to be known as "the Lord Bishop" (or, indeed, "Lady Bishop"). I think there is a widespread misunderstanding that it has something to do with diocesan bishops being eligible to acquire a seat in the House of Lords either on appointment (the top five) or when their turns comes round (the rest of them, excluding Gibraltar and Sodor and Man, although the latter does get a seat in the Manx parliament). I certainly have seen "Lord Bishop of Croydon", for example. Personally, while I wouldn't ever call a bishop "Lord", if addressing an envelope I think I'd write "Lord/Lady Bishop" for all of them out of courtesy and respect for tradition.

    Catholic bishops don't seem keen on being Lord Bishops these days, although I believe the usage is strictly not incorrect and is seen very occasionally. On the most formal of occasions one hears the phrase "The Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lord", although, again, the Church is increasingly keen to distance itself from the idea that cardinals are princes. Amusingly, I was once told that the reason why Catholic chaplains to Oxford University were traditionally made monsignors on appointment was because a monsignor is technically a member of the papal household, i.e. the household of a sovereign prince. In the early days of the Catholic chaplaincy Catholicism was still not quite the done thing for the classes whose sons were educated at Oxford, so making the chaplain a member of a foreign royal household was a way of conferring social respectability.
  • AlbertusAlbertus Shipmate
    Yes, Gibraltar and Sodor & Man got 'Lord Bishop' too. I think the distinction was purely a matter of practice within the office: there may have been some reason for it in the past, or it may just have been a status thing, but it was the kind of place where odd old practices hung on (and not, on the whole, in a charmingly picturesque way- just a mouldy one) .
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    Forthview wrote: »
    RCs never talk about a candidate being 'priested' as seems often to be the case with Anglicans. Catholic priests are 'ordained'
    That seems to be a purely Anglican thing, in my experience. We Lutherans also use 'ordain.' I have never heard any Lutheran priest talk about when he was 'priested' but many talk about when they were ordained.
  • Is the "priesting" thing to some extent because the deacon has more of a visible role in the Church of England, meaning that ordination is more widely understood to refer to both the diaconate and the priesthood? I don't know about the Lutheran Church, but in the Catholic Church most people don't really have anything to do with a deacon, unless their parish happens to have a permanent deacon, which most don't.

    In the Church of England the typical clerical career path is well known: two or three years at theological college (almost always in England) or training on a local course, ordination as deacon, a curacy, and a year later ordination to the priesthood, hence the need to distinguish "ordination" from "priesting".

    Catholic transitional deacons are typically ordained to the diaconate while they are still undertaking their seminary studies, meaning that for most Catholics the only full-time ordained clergyman they are familiar with is a priest. And do not forget that Catholic seminarians often study for 6 or 7 years, often in Rome (and sometimes also Valladolid), and their diaconal ordination also often takes place in Rome, meaning that the whole process is very far removed from the ordinary parishioner. The diaconal ordination is therefore something that we know takes place, and we know that transitional deacons exist, but it is not a routinely visible part of Church life, hence "ordained" would normally be taken to mean "ordained to the priesthood".
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited May 15
    kmann wrote: »
    Forthview wrote: »
    RCs never talk about a candidate being 'priested' as seems often to be the case with Anglicans. Catholic priests are 'ordained'
    That seems to be a purely Anglican thing, in my experience. We Lutherans also use 'ordain.' I have never heard any Lutheran priest talk about when he was 'priested' but many talk about when they were ordained.
    I guess in the States, that would be Lutheran clergy talking about when they were “pastored,” since in my experience at least, it’s the very rare American Lutheran cleric who’ll call him- or herself a “priest.” “Pastor” is the normal term among Lutherans here.

    But yes, I agree—in my experience, the use of “priested” seems to be a uniquely Anglican, and mainly British, thing. Everyone else, including most American Episcopalians, says “ordained.” (American Episcopalians do say “consecrated” for bishops.)

  • angloidangloid Shipmate
    I may be wrong but the usage seems to have grown (agreed, only in the C of E) in the last 20 or 30 years or so. I hate it, more from grammar-pedantic reasons than otherwise (priest is a noun not a verb, and even if it was a verb you'd expect it to mean what a priest does, not what is done to a priest). It probably arises because, as Tiber Swimmer says, ordained ministry is seen to begin when a person is ordained deacon for his or her first parish. And maybe from an evangelical-influenced sense that 'real' ministry consists in the preaching/pastoral role that a deacon can exercise, with the sacramental/priestly bits being more of an add-on.
  • BroJamesBroJames Shipmate
    If you are asking someone who is already ordained a deacon, when they are going to be ordained a priest, you can't just say "When are you going to be ordained?" (as you can for someone who is not yet ordained at all). 'Priested' and 'priesting' are just shorthand. For bishops, usage in the Church of England tends to refer to 'consecrating' or 'consecration' (following the language of the 1662 BCP, I guess).

    Speaking for myself only, I found being ordained a deacon a far more significant occasion than being ordained a priest - both because it took place in the cathedral, and because it marked a significant life change. Neither of these applied when I was ordained priest.
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    Is the "priesting" thing to some extent because the deacon has more of a visible role in the Church of England, meaning that ordination is more widely understood to refer to both the diaconate and the priesthood?

    We ordain deacons, too. We still don't say that people are priested. It seems to be a Anglican - or even mainly British - thing (as Nick Tamen points out).
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    I guess in the States, that would be Lutheran clergy talking about when they were “pastored,” since in my experience at least, it’s the very rare American Lutheran cleric who’ll call him- or herself a “priest.” “Pastor” is the normal term among Lutherans here.
    Unfortunately many American Lutherans tries to avoid anything that might resemble Catholic practice. Here in Scandinavia we use 'priest,' and when we use 'pastor' (which is quite uncommon) we use it for people who are actually lead pastors or vicars. We also have bishops.
  • LeoLeo Shipmate
    We (C of E) 'make' deacons, 'ordain' priests and 'consecrate' bishops.
  • angloidangloid Shipmate
    Yes they have special parson factories for the former.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Leo wrote: »
    We (C of E) 'make' deacons, 'ordain' priests and 'consecrate' bishops.

    Collate archdeacons and install deans as well
  • BroJamesBroJames Shipmate
    Although according to the BCP we make deacons, order priests and ordain and consecrate bishops; and according to Common Worship we ordain deacons and priests, and ordain and consecrate bishops.
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    edited May 19
    I might be wrong, but I wonder if (more) events are happening at Canterbury because Justin Welby wants to spend more time there than in London. Or perhaps more than other ABofCs have.

    Canterbury is a very busy Cathedral and Welby seems to spend a fair amount of time there, relatively often seen at services where he has no role other than walking in and out and sitting in the throne.

    I don't have any knowledge of his diary, but is it possible that these events are just arranged in convenient places depending on where participants happen to be at the time?
  • john holdingjohn holding Ecclesiantics Host, Mystery Worshipper Host
    I'm probably be uncharitable, but Canterbury affirms his supposed international anglical communion role as head (not quite, in fact) while London reminds him of his primary role as the head of one part of the same. He strikes me as someone who needs constant affirmation that he really is one of the grown-ups. His desperate seeking of the approval of Gafcon and co. is part of this, IMO.

    WHenever I see him in action or read what he writes, I have to say the English phrase "not fit for purpose" comes to mind. But that's just me.
  • LeoLeo Shipmate
    BroJames wrote: »
    Although according to the BCP we make deacons, order priests and ordain and consecrate bishops; and according to Common Worship we ordain deacons and priests, and ordain and consecrate bishops.

    BCP is supposed to be normative.
  • angloidangloid Shipmate
    Only officially. In fact it represents a snapshot – liturgically and theologically – of the C of E in a particular fraught and divisive period of church history.
  • AlbertusAlbertus Shipmate
    But one that has lasted, and at least it was a period when the CofE believed in itself as a national church.
  • OffeiriadOffeiriad Shipmate
    At very least, please could we bury the vile practice of referring to priests as 'fully ordained' (presumably in contrast to deacons being only 'partially ordained')? It belongs in a certain style of Anglicanism that is embarrassed to think of 'priests' (why become one, if even the term on your Letters of Orders embarrasses you??), but I have recently heard it crop up among people even in our MOTR context.

    'Differently ordained' maybe, but never 'fully ordained' (implying that bishops and deacons are anomalies)! The three-fold ministry is a pivotal part of what makes us Anglicans!
Sign In or Register to comment.