Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: ordination

Expand Messages
  • Scott Elliott
    My guess is that the reception, rather than confirmation, of your friend has more to do with TEC taking an agnostic stance regarding the charisms of
    Message 1 of 13 , Sep 1, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      My guess is that the reception, rather than confirmation, of your friend has more to do with TEC taking an agnostic stance regarding the charisms of confirmation, not about TEC taking a positive stand on the validity or status of bishops in communions other than our own.

      (You may recall that a few years ago, the Romans saw fit to make some disparaging remarks about the validity of our bishops, as well as our priests and deacons: http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_le13ac.htm . I think we learned something from that.)

      It seems to me that the question originally asked, "Do most denominations who have bishops ordain bishops as a separate rite/order to the ordination of priests?", amounts to the question of whether Ordination is regarded by each traditions a Sacrament or not. And the rough-and-ready answer is whether a bishop is still a bishop once s/he leaves office.



      --- In liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com, dlewisaao@... wrote:
      >
      > I recall that a number of years ago a woman who was confirmed in the Church
      > of Finland was received, rather than confirmed, when she formally entered
      > the Episcopal Church, thus verifying what you say re the COF having bishops
      > in apostolic succession.
      >
      > David
      >
      > ---------------------------
      > David Lewis
      > dlewisaao@...
      >
      >
    • Douglas Cowling
      On 9/1/12 1:14 PM, Scott Elliott wrote: And the rough-and-ready answer is whether a bishop is still a bishop once s/he leaves
      Message 2 of 13 , Sep 1, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        On 9/1/12 1:14 PM, "Scott Elliott" <deaconse@...> wrote:

        And the rough-and-ready answer is whether a bishop is still a bishop once
        s/he leaves office.


        Until Paul VI's imposed the mandatory 75-year retirement on Catholic
        bishops, there appears to have been no provision for retirement and
        "emeritus" status. In true monarchical style, they remained bishops of
        their diocese until they died. Question: in the new Pauline provisions, are
        retired bishops "emeriti" of their dioceses, or are they given titular sees
        to which they are translated in retirement?

        In Canada and the U.S., Anglican bishops retire as bishops emeriti.
        Astonishinghly, there is no such provision in England. When bishops retire,
        they are given life peerages whose secular titles they use instead of their
        ecclesiastical titles. It's very Erastian to contemplate that the present
        Archbishop of Canterbury will become Lord Williamson on his retirement.

        Doug Cowling
        Director of Music
        St. Philip's Church, Etobicoke
        Toronto
      • Douglas Cowling
        On 9/1/12 1:14 PM, Scott Elliott wrote: My guess is that the reception, rather than confirmation, of your friend has more to do with
        Message 3 of 13 , Sep 1, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          On 9/1/12 1:14 PM, "Scott Elliott" <deaconse@...> wrote:

          My guess is that the reception, rather than confirmation, of your friend has
          more to do with TEC taking an agnostic stance regarding the charisms of
          confirmation, not about TEC taking a positive stand on the validity or
          status of bishops in communions other than our own.


          It's more accurate to say that a body of scholarly opinion both in the
          Anglican and Catholic churches posits that chrismation with
          episcopally-blessed oil in baptism IS confirmation, just as baptism itself
          is historically a sacrament delegated from the bishop.

          Anglicans have changed their confirmation practice, and have pretty much
          abandoned the Protestant test-of-faith of adolescents which was introduced
          at the Reformation. A note that chrismation has never been a feature in
          Anglican confirmation except in nose-bleed parishes.

          Catholics retain both the baptismal and confirmation chrismations along with
          the vague theology of confirmation as the rite-of-passage arrival at the
          "age of reason."

          Before the Reformation, English bishops confirmed children from horseback as
          they rode through villages. People would hold up their kids for the
          'Buttering of the Babes.' The Reformers despised this practice and oil was
          banished from the Anglican liturgy for 500 years.

          Except or course for kings and queens who continued to be anointed and
          vested in sacerdotal vestments.

          Yes, Camilla may be anointed!

          Doug Cowling
          Director of Music
          St. Philip's Church, Etobicoke
          Toronto
        • dlewisaao@aol.com
          I believe it had to do with the Church of Finland and TEC being in communion with each other. David ... David Lewis dlewisaao@aol.com In a message dated
          Message 4 of 13 , Sep 1, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            I believe it had to do with the Church of Finland and TEC being in communion with each other.
             
            David
             
            ---------------------------
            David Lewis
            dlewisaao@...
             
            In a message dated 9/1/2012 1:15:04 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, deaconse@... writes:



            My guess is that the reception, rather than confirmation, of your friend has more to do with TEC taking an agnostic stance regarding the charisms of confirmation, not about TEC taking a positive stand on the validity or status of bishops in communions other than our own.

            (You may recall that a few years ago, the Romans saw fit to make some disparaging remarks about the validity of our bishops, as well as our priests and deacons: http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_le13ac.htm . I think we learned something from that.)

            It seems to me that the question originally asked, "Do most denominations who have bishops ordain bishops as a separate rite/order to the ordination of priests?", amounts to the question of whether Ordination is regarded by each traditions a Sacrament or not. And the rough-and-ready answer is whether a bishop is still a bishop once s/he leaves office.



            --- In liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com, dlewisaao@... wrote:
            >
            > I recall that a number of years ago a woman who was confirmed in the Church
            >  of Finland was received, rather than confirmed, when she formally entered
            > the  Episcopal Church, thus verifying what you say re the COF having bishops
            > in  apostolic succession.

            > David

            > ---------------------------
            > David Lewis
            > dlewisaao@...
            >
            >



            ------------------------------------

            Visit the liturgy-l homepage at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/ To write to the moderators, please email: liturgy-l-owner@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links

            <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/

            <*> Your email settings:
                Individual Email | Traditional

            <*> To change settings online go to:
                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/join
                (Yahoo! ID required)

            <*> To change settings via email:
                liturgy-l-digest@yahoogroups.com
                liturgy-l-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

            <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                liturgy-l-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

            <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

          • Simon Kershaw
            I don t think this is right at all, Doug! In the general Anglican world, a bishop is a bishop is a bishop. Once ordained a bishop one remains a bishop,
            Message 5 of 13 , Sep 3, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              I don't think this is right at all, Doug!

              In the general Anglican world, a bishop is a bishop is a bishop. Once
              ordained a bishop one remains a bishop, sacramentally. The norm is that
              a bishop is ordained or consecrated to a specific See; in the Church of
              England that remains the case (just as it does in the Roman Catholic
              Church). No one is ordained as an 'assistant bishop' or anything other
              than the bishop of a particular See. Some of these happen to be titular
              Sees, and others are real Sees with jurisdiction. Someone consecrated to
              a titular See serves as a suffragan to a particular diocesan bishop.
              Suffragan bishops, like any other clergy, serve under licence from the
              diocesan bishop, in whose episkope they share (to the extent permitted
              by their diocesan in his licence).

              When they retire or otherwise resign their see, a bishop remains a
              bishop, but he [still 'he' in England for at least a little bit longer]
              no longer has a See, real or titular. Bishops in England are not given
              'emeritus' titles or any other honorary form or style -- one would be
              styled the Right Reverend John Smith, or Bishop John Smith. In
              particular, a retiring Archbishop does not remain an Archbishop,
              emeritus or otherwise: a retiring Archbishop is a retired bishop and
              would be styled as such (but read on).

              Since bishops began to retire in the 20th century, it has been the
              custom of the British Crown to retain retiring Archbishops in the House
              of Lords by creating them Barons (since the 1960s, life barons rather
              than hereditary). Very occasionally a bishop retiring from a
              non-archiepiscopal see is also given such a peerage. A present-day
              example is the former Bishop of Oxford, Richard Harries, who was created
              Lord Harries of Pentregarth on his retirement. But this is very
              definitely the exception.

              As for the present Archbishop of Canterbury, soon to be the Master of
              Magdalene College, Cambridge, it seems to me unlikely that he will
              become 'Lord Williamson'. 'Lord Williams' perhaps.

              simon

              On 01/09/2012 18.43, Douglas Cowling wrote:
              > Until Paul VI's imposed the mandatory 75-year retirement on Catholic
              > bishops, there appears to have been no provision for retirement and
              > "emeritus" status. In true monarchical style, they remained bishops of
              > their diocese until they died. Question: in the new Pauline provisions, are
              > retired bishops "emeriti" of their dioceses, or are they given titular sees
              > to which they are translated in retirement?
              >
              > In Canada and the U.S., Anglican bishops retire as bishops emeriti.
              > Astonishinghly, there is no such provision in England. When bishops retire,
              > they are given life peerages whose secular titles they use instead of their
              > ecclesiastical titles. It's very Erastian to contemplate that the present
              > Archbishop of Canterbury will become Lord Williamson on his retirement.



              --
              Simon Kershaw
              simon@...
              Saint Ives, Cambridgeshire
            • Scott Knitter
              I had wondered about that and realized I hadn t heard of a Lord Runcieson nor a Lord Careyson. Then I figured the -son must be a customary addition for
              Message 6 of 13 , Sep 3, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                I had wondered about that and realized I hadn't heard of a "Lord
                Runcieson" nor a "Lord Careyson." Then I figured the -son must be a
                customary addition for Welsh archbishops having left an office? ;^)

                On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Simon Kershaw <simon@...> wrote:

                > As for the present Archbishop of Canterbury, soon to be the Master of
                > Magdalene College, Cambridge, it seems to me unlikely that he will
                > become 'Lord Williamson'. 'Lord Williams' perhaps.
              • Douglas Cowling
                On 9/3/12 4:29 PM, Simon Kershaw wrote: Since bishops began to retire in the 20th century, it has been the custom of the British Crown
                Message 7 of 13 , Sep 3, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  On 9/3/12 4:29 PM, "Simon Kershaw" <simon@...> wrote:

                  Since bishops began to retire in the 20th century, it has been the
                  custom of the British Crown to retain retiring Archbishops in the House
                  of Lords by creating them Barons (since the 1960s, life barons rather
                  than hereditary). Very occasionally a bishop retiring from a
                  non-archiepiscopal see is also given such a peerage. A present-day
                  example is the former Bishop of Oxford, Richard Harries, who was created
                  Lord Harries of Pentregarth on his retirement. But this is very
                  definitely the exception.


                  Oooops. I didn't mean to suggest that English bishops and archbishops gave
                  up their sacramental orders, only that some senior bishops do not use their
                  ecclesiastical titles when they receive their peerages. Lord Carey is a
                  notable example. I think that sucks big time.

                  Am I mistaken, or do the bishops of the "great sees", Canterbury, York,
                  Durham, London and Winchester, who are always ex officio members of the
                  House of Lords, not all receive peerages on retirement?

                  If I recall, the proposed reform of the House of Lords would reduce the
                  number of sitting bishops from 26 to 12, the 5 great sees and 7 elected by
                  the church.

                  Doug Cowling
                  Director of Music
                  St. Philip's Church, Etobicoke
                  Toronto
                • Simon Kershaw
                  ... He is the Right Honourable and Right Revd Lord Carey. And his predecessors have similarly accepted peerages -- Lord Runcie, Lord Coggan, Lord Ramsey and
                  Message 8 of 13 , Sep 4, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Douglas Cowling wrote:
                    > Oooops. I didn't mean to suggest that English bishops and archbishops gave
                    > up their sacramental orders, only that some senior bishops do not use
                    > their
                    > ecclesiastical titles when they receive their peerages. Lord Carey is a
                    > notable example. I think that sucks big time.

                    He is the Right Honourable and Right Revd Lord Carey. And his predecessors
                    have similarly accepted peerages -- Lord Runcie, Lord Coggan, Lord Ramsey
                    and Lord Fisher. Retiring Archbishops of York have been similarly honored
                    -- Lord Hope and Lord Habgood come to mind.

                    Otherwise, no, retiring bishops have not in general been offered peerages,
                    not even those of the three senior Sees (London, Durham and Winchester),
                    who ex officio receive Writs of Summons to sit in the HoL. In my
                    experience they aren't referred to as 'great sees', but as senior sees --
                    Durham in the Northern Province, and London and Winchester in the
                    Southern.

                    The proposed reform of the House of Lords is no more, but it did include
                    halving the size of the House, and consequently reducing the number of
                    places for (diocesan) bishops from 26 to 12 -- the two archbishops and 10
                    others; the method of selection had not, I think, been specified.

                    simon

                    > Am I mistaken, or do the bishops of the "great sees", Canterbury, York,
                    > Durham, London and Winchester, who are always ex officio members of the
                    > House of Lords, not all receive peerages on retirement?
                    >
                    > If I recall, the proposed reform of the House of Lords would reduce the
                    > number of sitting bishops from 26 to 12, the 5 great sees and 7 elected by
                    > the church.


                    --
                    Simon Kershaw
                    simon@...
                    St Ives, Cambridgeshire
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.