Bishops consecrated at Canterbury Cathedral
Tiber Swimmer
Shipmate
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As some of you may already have guessed from my user name, I'm no longer active in Anglican circles, although I used to be very much so and have attended quite a few consecrations of bishops in my time.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.
As some of you may already have guessed from my user name, I'm no longer active in Anglican circles, although I used to be very much so and have attended quite a few consecrations of bishops in my time.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
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.
Getting a boiling of bishops together in one place is, I am informed, on a par with herding cats, or knitting fog.
IJ
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.
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?
Sorry, it's been a long day....
IJ
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!'
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.
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!
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.
'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.
IJ
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.
ISTM that just reflects the unassuming humility of a saintly man.
IJ
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".
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.)
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.
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).
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.
Collate archdeacons and install deans as well
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?
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.
BCP is supposed to be normative.
'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!