 |
| Source: Twitter |
Please stay home. Surely it is not too much to ask.
Postscripts
[23.03.2020]
Two powerful messages to obey government advice and stay home:
Anyone ignoring requests to stay at home could be responsible for infecting 59,000 people.
Since public services have been banned in the diocese of St Davids, why is its bishopess suspending the PTOs of all clergy who are over 70? Is it seriously suggested that some of them will circumvent the authority of their incumbents and hold their own services? Why was this act considered necessary? If anyone can defend it reasonably, I should be interested to read the attempts.
ReplyDeleteRob
My own hunch is that the ban will have been motivated by a sort of officiousness: an instinct to seek to seem 'relevant' in the current crisis, quite unprecedented in Europe in the lifetime of any of us, by appearing to 'do something'.
DeleteEven if 'doing something' is in effect no more than 'saying something', and, moreover, saying something which looks likely to have no obvious substance in any conceivable reality.
In effect there's little that an eccesiastic can do in the face of Covid-19 except to 'encourage the faithful' in the time of trial. And jurisdictional posturing of this sort won't do anything to achieve that.
Officiousness, yes, it looks increasingly the case with her edicts, but it is also difficult to acquit her of spite and ageism towards God's priests, who have been truly called, but happen to be over 70. She cannot remove their divine vocation or valid ordination, however.
DeleteRob
Traditionally Anglican bishops couldn't exercise that much practical jurisdiction over beneficed clergy as a consequence of the ancient 'parson's freehold' which came to make every incumbent, once duly instituted to a benefice, pretty close to a pope on his own patch! There was a story which circulated in the '60s and '70s - when I was a lot younger! - that Archbishop Glyn Simon had sought an eccesiatical 'counsel's opinion' as to whether the freehold still survived after disestablishment, and was advised that it didn't.
DeleteBut since no bishop ever ventured to put the legal advice to the actual test, it'd be a rather bold bishop who tried to crack that sort of whip over beneficed clergy, and in practice I've not heard of one who's tried it with priests-in-charge either, other than in the context of a scandalous criminal conviction.
But assistant curates and retired priests have always been in a different position. They function solely at the bishop's pleasure, and bishops can be whimsical - and prelatical - in exercising their authority. As, from the look of it, in this instance.
Joanna becomes more and more ridiculous, enjoying issuing high handed directives (one a day) to St Davids clergy. Now she has banned them from entering their own churches, even doing so alone. What tantrums she would have if they all disobeyed her and laughed at the way she is playing at being a bishop.
ReplyDeleteJonesy
She will probably overreach herself. She is certainly showing her lack of experience and a proper sense of proportion.
ReplyDelete1552
I wonder what the position is with retired clergy who do not have PTO. On Easter Day, for example, can they do a private celebration of the eucharist in their own home for themselves and their household, as all churches will still be locked? Watching a stipendiary clergyman live on Facebook is the only alternative, I suppose. I did that last Sunday, it was ghastly.
ReplyDeleteCymraes yn Lloegr
Fenyw yn Lloegr (dw'i ddim yn credu bod ti'n haeddu' teitl Cymraes. Mae pobl Cymru yn bobl gyfeillgar a haul)...bydd dim byd yn ddigon da i chi...byth! LS.
DeleteBishop Jo seems to lack all judgment, but even that is too high an accord to give to what is just plain silliness. Clearly a recruitment error has been made in this case.
DeleteLW
Other denominations are available, as a less ghastly alternative
DeleteNot silliness alone, LW, but also spite.
DeleteJonesy
Thanks Evangelical Ed. I have followed your suggestion and found a nourishing spiritual alternative.
DeleteNo thanks to LS for his catty comment. In the past few days, my mother has died, the sale of my house has fallen through, the local church and local surgery are both in lockdown for four months, so I am having to buy my thyroxine medication online. The church locally is nowhere to be seen. I have lost a lot in the space of two weeks. That is the context behind my original comment. I know millions of people are losing their livelihoods and much else. Revoking PTOs seems an unthinking response.
Cymraes yn Lloegr (and proud to be a Cymraes even if 'ar wasgar'.
You mean you would ask this bishopess for permission to celebrate the Lord's Supper in your own home? She has no jurisdiction there.
ReplyDeleteRob
Unfortunately I don't think the history of the development of the ordained ministry supports your contention, Rob. Presbyters only began to preside at the Eucharist when local churches became too large and numerous for them to gather in one specific place under the presidency of the bishop. It was - and, theologically speaking, surely still is - essentially a function delegated by local bishops to their presbyters.
DeleteWhich was why - in the earliest days of presbyteral presidency, at least in the local practice of the Roman church - the bishop's Sunday liturgy was held at an earlier time than those of the 'suburban' churches, to enable a clutch of deacons to scamper out to those churches bearing a small quantity of the eucharistic species from the bishop's liturgy to be added to that which would be consecrated by the presbyteral celebrant.
All to emphasize that while the local church was now fragmented into a number of separate eucharistic assemblies, 'we, being many, are one bread, one Body, for we all partake of the one bread', and that each and all of the separate liturgies were nevertheless still 'the Bishop's liturgy' and therefore essentially one celebration.
Which suggests that, as the one true 'original' Eucharistic president in a diocese, the bishop is entitled to rule on when, how, and even if, the Eucharist should be celebrated by priests to whom the role of Eucharistic presidency has been delegated.
Whether it's wise in contemporary circumstances for a bishop to reassert this ancient principle, especially in this particular way, is of course another matter entirely.
John Ellis, my understanding is that the history is not as clear cut as you you argue. Even distinguishing bishops from presbters is controversial, at least, based on New Testament evidence.
DeleteRob
I certainly accept your argument that the early history is ambiguous; the problem is that in the earliest period there's so little hard evidence to go on.
DeleteIn the New Testament period the difficulty arises from the fact that the Church was still in the era of the apostolate, and while it appears that there seem to have been a variety of other recognized ministries, the role of the apostle seems to predominate.
And the evidence is such that we're neither really very sure as to the nature of that ministry, or why it was thought fit for it to lapse. For sure the apostolate seems initially to have comprised those (excluding Iscariot) who had accompanied Jesus from the beginning; but Paul appears to have been ultimately universally accepted as an authentic apostle even though he wasn't one of the Twelve. The process of how that happened is to the best of my knowledge still uncertain. It's quite a lot of years since I studied this issue minutely, but as far as I know the history remains opaque.
You're right, speaking historically, to affirm that 'distinguishing bishops from presbyters' presents some difficulties; I recall that there's some tentative and inconclusive evidence that in the early days of the diocese of Alexandria - in the future to be one of the prime patriarchal sees of the early church - 'oversight' (i.e. episcopacy) might have been exercised by a college of ecclesiatics rather than by a single 'charismatic' individual. You might argue that this was a sort of presbyterian polity, but I rather think that's an anachronistic way of viewing it; the doctrinal debates which absorbed Christians in the sixteenth century almost certainly didn't occur to their predecessors in the second century.
But if that was indeed the case, it didn't last - as study of the later history of the see of Alexandria will amply confirm. You might be interested to take a look at the Wikipedia page on 'the fermentum', which retails some of the history of what I've described. Perhaps unfortunately, there's an arguable precedent for a bishop to peremptorily limit the right of a presbyter to preside at a eucharistic celebration.
No one has answered your original challenge, Rob. Why did Joanna Pemberthy suspend the over 70s' PTOs? They could not use them currently with closed churches. It does look like yet another attack on them. Doesn't she like older people or is it older clergy who keep the Faith?
ReplyDeleteJonesy
I agree with you, Jonesy. What a way to treat our senior clergy to whom we owe much.
ReplyDeleteMolly
I am so disappointed with the high handed, hurtful actions of the Bishop of St Davids. I used to think she was a decent person.
ReplyDeleteJoram
What are we to make of this bishop? Her online addresses are sweetly sentimental but ineffectual; her edicts could have come from a Tudor monarch (she seems to have adopted Henry rather than Mother Julian as her model) since there is an element of stubbornness, even perversity, in her character spoiling the good. Sadly, this Thumbelina of a figure more resembles a girl playing with a hockey stick than a bishop carrying his pastoral staff. What a pity. It is spoiling the good in her, so that in being promoted beyond her ability, even the archbishop who was instrumental in raising her must now be doubting the wisdom of his act.
ReplyDeleteWhat has St Davids diocese done to deserve this? And why is she so unhelpfully antagonistic to its retired priests? What a pity.
Rob
Anweddus LS. Gwendid y Cymro yw I ladd ar ei gymydog a'i gefnogwyr. Mae gan y Gymraes mwy o hawl i'w hystyried felly na sydd gan John Davis neu Joanna y ffyg esgob. PAID.
ReplyDeleteI am a Bishop's Chaplain in the lands to the east of Offa's Dyke. I don't know much about the circumstances which have caused +St David's to suspend Permissions to Officiate, but by contrast we're carrying on issuing and renewing them. In the present situation it could be quite important for our retired clergy to feel that they're part of the Bishop's "College of Priests" and 'though isolated they're part of a greater whole. Area Deans are also committing, at the Archdeacons' request, to keep in contact with the retired clergy on their patch at least weekly.
ReplyDelete"Chaplain"
What a contrast! thank you, chaplain. You can see why we have written as we have. A Lilliputian bishop, appointed for reasons of political correctness, heads this diocese. She is inexperienced, appointed beyond her skills and, from the outset, she has had retired clergy in her sights, causing hurt after hurt. Nobody does anything to stop her, however, least of all her archbishop. In the past, a leading layman might have had a word in her ear, but not in Wales. I might add how disappointing it was to have a political candidate chosen as bishop, and one with no great theological knowledge or spiritual depth. Add to that a deep vein of stubbornness, and you have the present situation. Frankly, I see no solution for St Davids diocese until she does the honourable thing and resigns.
ReplyDeleteRob
Looking back at this post Rob perhaps we should not be surprised. https://ancientbritonpetros.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-hour-has-come.html
DeleteAB: I remember it well. That interview, to my certain knowledge, lost one active priest to the CinWs. Does she care?
DeleteRob
I have followed these posts with the deepest interest and concern. I am a retired priest with some experience of the Church of England, and much more of the Church in Wales. One thing I wish to proclaim with all my being: I did not receive my priestly vocation from a relatively obscure, passing figure, Joanna Penberthy. Nothing she can do or say can possibly nullify that. It comes from a higher source, which I fear she is betraying. Does she think that she is serving the Lord of the Church by sniping at retired priests, who preached the Faith long before she was thought of? It baffles me that any decent person could behave as she has done. That's what comes of selecting a failed politician as a bishop. Oh, John Davies, you cannot be considered guiltless in this, either.
ReplyDeleteDominic
Joanna - if you ever look at this blog (and if you don't you should); I find it encouraging that even some of those who work closest with you differ markedly from you on certain crucial matters. It is encouraging to discover that some support exists for us in close quarters. Your bias against elderly, but active, clergy is a fact they cannot miss. You should certainly read the valued contribution from the English bishop's chaplain.
ReplyDeleteJonesy
Whimsically it occurred to me that Rob's comments above could apply with almost equal force to the Diocese of Bangarai!
ReplyDeleteIt is greatly to be hoped that the Bishop of St Davids diocese will take this opportunity to reflect on her ill considered comments and unworthy actions, and pray for greater charity and wisdom. She certainly needs to before she offends more good Christian people.
ReplyDeleteDominic
Another bishop has expressed disgust to me in very strong terms at the way the Bishop of St Davids repeatedly causes needless hurt to faithful priests in her diocese who happen to have passed the 70 milestone. Her calculated actions have been abhorrent.
ReplyDeleteJonesy
Is she capable of changing - ever?
ReplyDeleteMolly
Yes, with grace, humility and repentance. She needs to free herself from unthinking Socialist dogma, however.
ReplyDeleteRob