(ENS) When Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori preached and presided at a Eucharist June 13 at Southwark Cathedral in London, she carried her mitre, or bishop’s hat, rather than wear it.
She did so in order to comply with a “statement” from Lambeth Palace, the London home of Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, that said “that I was not to wear a mitre at Southwark Cathedral,” Jefferts Schori told the Executive Council June 16 on the first day of its three-day meeting here.
Jefferts Schori made her remarks to council during a “private conversation” session attended by council members and church center staff, and later told ENS it could report her remarks.
The Church of England ordains women to the diaconate and the priesthood, but does not allow women to be bishops. Its General Synod is due to consider legislation to change that policy.
I think +Rowen just doesn’t like the one she wears that looks just like a multi-colored oven mitt.
I feel badly for the BP on this one. It also makes little sense as she functions as a bishop/primate in every other regard (until recently) in the AC.
Re: #2, until and unless the Church of England’s General Synod passes (probably around 2014) the “Women’s Ordination (Bishops)” measure, that church does not legally recognize the existence of women in “bishop’s Orders,” only woman deacons and woman presbyters — and therefore it makes prefect sense for any “woman bishop” invited to preach and/or celebrate in any Church of England to do so only in a “presbyteral” manner. From such a perspective, it was an offense and a provocation for Dr. Schori even to carry a mitre with her.
A similar situation prevailed from 1987 to 1994 with regard to woman presbyters ordained in Anglican bodies other than the Church of England. When in England during those years they could function liturgically only as deacons, down until the “Women’s Ordination (Priesthood)” measure was formally “promulged” (i.e., promulgated) in February 1994.
So it matters that the bishop is a woman, but if she were apostate — or at least deeply heretical, then she could keep her hat on?
You can’t make this stuff up!
Female bishops have preached and presided as visiting bishops before in the UK. I think this is, rather, about TEC’s and Jefferts Shori’s ignoring the “moratorium” in going ahead with the Glasspool consecration. In doing so, she has placed herself as no longer a bishop for the entire Communion. The request that she present her ordination credentials is a similar issue. She has, after all, “deposed” a CofE bishop. Apparently the insults are no longer tolerated, enough rope having been given TEC to hang itself.
There really is no story here. This policy was in place before it was restated in the particular circumstances of Schori’s visit. Women may not function as bishops in the Church of England, nor can a priest from elsewhere in the Communion be licensed in England if he or she was ordained by a woman bishop. In no way is any of this “nonsense,” “bizarre,” or indeed “beyond bizarre” (!). Rules are rules.
I have no words for the appropriate sarcasm.
I give the liberals credit on this one: if you’re a Protestant church and thus ordain women, why stop at the order of priest?
Pretty pathetic. I will carry it because I cannot wear it! Pique hath no bounds. It appears to me that this is another form of “in your face” rather than any kind of graceful response to our Anglican “diversity.” As to the question of credentials – I have had to present mine whenever I have worked in another Province of the AC.
This is all propaganda and spin anyway as TEC tries to bolster its support worldwide. I do not believe that most of the AC is convinced.
There mere fact that Mrs Schori would complain so histrionically is a clear sign of her arrogant sense of entitlement, ethnocentrism, and cluelessness. Of course, it is also a clear sign of Canterbury’s annoyance and the increasingly poor relationship between the CoE and TEC.
#6 I suspect that is not true. Given that women bishops are presently illegal in the COE, no minister, not even the ABC, has the power to permit a woman to preside as a bishop. I suspect in this case Lambeth Palace felt it prudent to make clear that the PB could not function as a bishop within the COE. Quite why they wanted to make it so clear in her case one can only guess…
Seems like rochet and chimere would have been more appropriate anyway for a preaching occasion, in a place where she has no jurisdiction. But those vestments are so historic and dull. I remember photocopying my ordination certificates to send to an English bishop as well.
Search the archives…back when the ABC first allowed Griswold to bring KJS to Lambeth to introduce her to him, he told her plainly that she could not wear her robes of office or function as a bishop in any church in England. This has been public information for lo, these many years. The assumption that the ABC has as short a memory as KJS has is simply absurd! So, he knows how short her memory is and was gracious enough to remind her.
Frances Scott
“[i]Open mouth. Insert foot.[/i]” The PB has outdone herself this time. Her rant is simply unbelievable in its breathtaking arrogance, rudeness, and sheer stupidity.
David Handy+
I stand corrected, then, but surely KJS has been in England before, with her mitre on her head? Lambeth? But that’s not the same as officiating in an English cathedral, perhaps.
I still hold the faint hope that the CofE will make an adequate provision for the traditional male-only ministry. The pettiness of this sniping from the Presiding Bishop is not a good advertisement.
The shoe hurts when it’s on the other foot. I guess the PB just doesn’t understand “the polity” of the C of E! Heh. Oh, how I wish +++Rowan would point that out publicly and then suggest that TEC must engage in a “listening process” to overcome that. 🙂
There is a lot of guff being talked.
Info about the procedure for licensing of Communion clergy to officiate in England may be found here
You can download a copy of the application form for Canterbury through a link in the third question. It clearly provides in bold that letters of orders must be attached. And note that the application is processed by the “provincial registrar” for Canterbury, now Stephen Slack (but formerly John Rees, now legal advisor to the ACC) so this was not only vetted but done by the lawyers.
Licence was given to the PB to officiate in the capacity of a priest, not a bishop. It would not have been possible for the PB to be licensed as a bishop because that would have been to breach our canons which do not permit women to function as bishops.
The PB remains a bishop when visiting the UK, just not permitted to function in that capacity in the Church of England. It was a privilege extended to her that she was invited and licensed to officiate here in the capacity of a priest.
Mitres are not worn save for the bishop with jurisdiction in the relevant cathedral without permission – our other bishops observe the same when visiting other dioceses. It is just a matter of good manners not to seek to exercise jurisdiction in anothers’ diocese when visiting and that includes wearing a mitre of office without the bishop’s permission.
The PB has applied the same rigor to this matter as that she applies to biblical study.
btw my thanks to Keith Töpfer for the link above.
Thinking about it it is the same rigor the PB also applies to reading TEC canons.
“The PB has applied the same rigor to this matter as that she applies to biblical study. ”
The funny thing is, you can say that to a revisionist cleric, and they will nod sagely and say, with a straight faced, “Yes, +++Katharine (revisionists always pronounce ‘Katharine’ as though it has three +++s- as when a Catholic says “+++Benedict”) is very thorough in these matters.
Oh, and when she returns home, we won’t be renouncing her orders either.
I think that the only thing more pitiful than this petty “dig” against ++Katherine is the obvious glee that it has been greeted with here and elsewhere. The “tittering” in the bathroom stalls over this is repugnant and pitiable. It is sad that we have fallen so low that we can be “happy” over a public snub to our own presiding Bishop, whatever our religious convictions may be. As the representative of our church, whether you LIKE her or not, a snub for her is a thumb up our own noses.
I have a hard time seeing her brief comment as an “hystrionic” response as “A Senior Priest” has written. That said, I think that we need to just drop this issue. When someone engages in petty rudeness, I think that the best response, after a steely and silent look, is to ignore it. The one who is intentionally rude knows exactly what he is doing, and to “notice” it merely increases his pleasure. I hope that I live to see the day return to TEC when we can disagree politely and compassionately and remember that Charity is the chief of virtues. We must remember that the Body of Christ is not our personal property to abuse, dismember or torment.
Dr. Shy,
Did you not read the post above from Pagaentmaster explaining the procedures followed by the C of E in this matter? How colonial to expect them to make an exception for the PB?!
Mr. Trooper, I did indeed read the post above, and I quite well understand the “usual procedure” for these matters. I would be more happy about this if all others of our presiding bishops in the past had been asked to do this. I would suspect, if we investigate, that they were not required to do this, but if they were, then I stand firmly and humbly corrected and I thank you for that correction. It still begs the question of the “snub” of the miter. Clearly, other PBs of TEC have worn miters when presiding in English churches. I would sincerely doubt that non-Episcopal clergy attending ecumenical gatherings in the UK would be asked not to wear their appropriate vestments, however. I do not think that simply wearing a miter is exercising the office of a bishop. She did not participate in the consecration of another bishop. She did not perform any confirmations. She does not cease to “be” a bishop, even if she is not “licensed” to act as one in an “official” capacity in a particular location.
As for “how colonial” of me, I think that, like other pejorative digs, I will in good charity ignore what I perceive as a not-so-polite intention behind it. (I am, quite frankly, a descendant of the colonists of these United States and have been since my ancestors left England over 400 years ago. I will choose to accept my branding as “colonial” as a complement, I think, in this case) I will thank you as well for at least your kindness to address me by my name and title. (Would that we would extend the Most Reverend Katherine the same courtesy.)
Can you remind us, #24, which female Presiding Bishop (or Bishop) has presided at Holy Communion in the UK in the capacity of a Bishop? No, apparently you did not read the previous post, which made the matter very clear.
Really “#25” I am not so dense. I HAVE read the prior posts. I will quote posting #17 that persons seem to think that I have not read:
“The PB REMAINS A BISHOP WHEN VISITING THE UK, just not permitted to function in that capacity in the Church of England. It was a privilege extended to her that she was invited and licensed to officiate here in the capacity of a priest.” (emphasis added)
[i] Comment edited by elf. [/i]
Dr Shy, I am willing to address Katherine Jefferts Schori as “Doctor Schori,” since she does have a doctorate in oceanography, but I will not address her as “Bishop Schori,” since I do not believe she was validly ordained a bishop because of her limited theological education and experience on the parochial level; never having been a rector.
Goodness Cennydd. I am aware of no scriptural qualification, no canon law or precedent in tradition that would invalidate a consecration of a bishop based on a subjective opinion that the person is inadequately educated or experienced.
[i] Comment edited by elf. [/i]
I think that it is time that I took my leave here. I had hoped to have some discussion about an issue that I think has been blown out of proportion and should be a cause of embarrassment for all sides. As you can see above, my posting at #25 has been edited by “elf.” There was no profanity or inappropriate language or abuse. It simply had an argument that wearing a miter and acting in an episcopal capacity are two different things and the canon/custom on wearing a miter would seem irrelevant as to the way one dresses. If that’s offensive, then I sincerely apologize. In spite of the rancor, I pray for all of you here, including “elf” that we may find a way to debate without silencing and without insulting one another. God forgive us!
Dr Shy
I believe the point about wearing a mitre [miter] is that I believe they are worn by a bishop with jurisdiction when in that jurisdiction. Other visiting bishops not of that jurisdiction do not wear them without permission.
Certainly in those services I have seen in the CofE, it is only the ABC and the Bishop of London who have worn a mitre during the service, among the many bishops present.
This may not be the custom in America – I really do not know. In any event the PB was only authorised to officiate in the capacity of a priest and would be expected to dress accordingly. I think many are missing the point that although the PB preached at Salisbury Cathedral when she visited for the Lambeth Conference, and other Episcopalian Bishops and clergy have done so, this is the first time that the PB has officiated here, as though a member of our priesthood. A great honor has been paid by inviting her to do so, and in some sense will be seen by some as recognising ongoing communion with her and TEC.
And I say all of that as someone who considers it completely inappropriate at this time for this permission to have been given at all given the recent conduct of TEC.
“Pageantmaster,”
I had not intended to reply further, but since you have been courteous enough to reply to me, then it seems that I should not leave the field, as it were, without a courteous response. I would direct you to a photo posted on the liberal Episcopal Church blog “Episcopal Cafe” showing our former presiding bishop, Frank Griswold, wearing a miter in Southwark Cathedral in 2006. The link is http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/archbishop_of_canterbury/griswold_wore_mitre_at_southwa.html
It would seem, therefore, that it is not uniformly the case that Primates of other churches of the Anglican communion do not wear miters when presiding in the Church of England. If it is not always the case that Episcopal PBs are forbidden in the UK to wear a miter, then it must be admitted that the decision to enforce this was “selective.” I do appreciate the difficult status of women bishops in a church where such do not exist. If it is indeed a “great honor” for her to have been allowed to preside in the UK, then I am most grateful that this privilege was accorded her. I had no idea that it was such an extraordinary thing for priests outside the C of E from other parts of the Anglican Communion to be allowed the unusual honor of presiding at the Eucharist. Indeed, it is not viewed as such an “honor” here in the US. Currently at the Episcopal Cathedral here in Arizona we have more than one priest of the C of E who preside and exercise their priestly ministries without much ado.
My point all along has not been to debate the interpretation of a law that says nothing about mitered or un-mitered clergy. As much as some persons, conservative and liberal, here in the US may think poorly of ++Rowan, I cannot think that he was ever treated discourteously nor asked to seek permission to wear any such symbols of his office as he desired on his visits here. At this difficult time when tempers are flaring and we all have our “backs up,” it simply seems to me that making a great stink over what Dilbertnomore above has called a “multicolored oven mitt” was a poor decision. As servants of a Lord who had but one garment to call his own, it seems petty to quibble over a piece of millinery frippery when so many of our brothers and sisters shiver naked in the cold with no food to eat. To a world that finds the church, conservative and liberal, to be increasingly an irrelevant joke, it hurts me to think how our rancor harms the cause of the gospel in a world that so desperately needs it.
I can honestly respect, although not agree with, someone who holds a firm conviction that one must be male to be a bishop. If that is the case, then say so and have done with it. Backhanded swipes over “multi-colored oven mitts” just seem petty to me.
Thank you, “Pagentmaster” for your response. Should you ever find yourself in the US and the diocese of Arizona, please be sure to introduce yourself. I would be most honored to give you a warm welcome.
Dr Shy, I too am a “colonial†priest. On the two occasions I have officially conducted services in England, I too had to get official Lambeth permission to do so – twice. Being a mere clerk in holy orders, I had/have no mitre/miter, either to hold or place upon my pate. But following the sheer symbolism, duly pointed out by Pageantmaster @ #29, even should I have had one, it would have been inappropriate to have worn it. These symbols are not empty signs; they do actually – to many of us – still convey matters of import, matters even of serious theology. So what might seem “bizzareâ€, and even really rather cute to outsiders, encapsulates an ecclesiology [see now ACI] of which clearly the current PB of TEC and perhaps your self are not sufficiently cognizant. Finally, media beat up it may be to some extent; but even here, given the sheer conventions of the Established CoE, I would have thought some appreciation of some degree of “contextualization†was in order, being the missionary buff she claims to be …
#31 Thanks Dr Shy
I also had seen that photo of Bp Griswold, but don’t know the circumstances and whether he was officiating as a priest or bishop here rather than just attending or speaking. If the former, I expect he had gone through the same procedure.
As for wearing the mitre, I commented elsewhere that perhaps people were too polite to mention it to him. Alternatively he may have been invited to wear it with the relevant bishop’s permission, or he was on the way outside where of course he could wear whatever he liked on his head.
I note that RC bishops have 3 mitres, the most formal of which is only used in their own jurisdiction.
We have many bishops and clergy visit us to preach, but it is unusual for them to be invited to officiate. The particular clergy measure is peculiar to us and you may not have a parallel.
As for the CofE clergy visiting your cathedral, I expect they will have had the relevant bishop’s permission to celebrate communion, or if they are there for a while there may have been an exchange of letters dimissory or some such procedure.
Thank you for your kind offer.
#32 Art,
As a mere physician and a simple layman, perhaps I presume too much to speak about vestments and miters. You write, seemingly passionately, that wearing of the miter “encapsulates an ecclesiology [see now ACI] of which clearly the current PB of TEC and perhaps your self are not sufficiently cognizant.” Can you be more clear as to what you mean by that?
If, however, you mean that the bishop in the apostolic succession functions as a successor to the Apostles in an unbroken link through the grace of God from our Lord himself who breathed upon them the Holy Spirit and committed to them the care of the church until his return in glory, then I think that I get it. It would probably surprise most here that I am “high church” in most ways. Fond as I am, however, of the symbols of the church, my work from day to day has “softened” my heart about many things. Every day, as a neurologist, I diagnose persons with progressive, disabling and frequently fatal diseases. I walk the path with them from illness to death, doing what I can to ease their suffering. I see frequently and firsthand the misery of day to day existence in the presence of disease, decline and death. I do truly love the church, but I try to love God’s poor suffering children more. If such a pitiful sinner such as I can feel this compassion, what not would our Lord do and have us to try to imitate? I don’t think we have an “all or nothing” here. Surely we all agree that Charity and Humility are more important than legalistic “correctness?” Would it not have been better to just be charitable in the case of doubt than to be “correct?” or is the “reverse” symbolism of being certain that ++KJS NOT wear a miter so important that it had to be done? If so, then the gesture seems to have misfired, as the message is too occult for it to come through with any clarity to its intended recipients. If there is a worthy spiritual lesson to be learned here, then I am far too dense to see it. Perhaps I am alone in this.
RE: “It is sad that we have fallen so low that we can be “happy†over a public snub to our own presiding Bishop, whatever our religious convictions may be.”
No, it’s not sad, and nor is it low.
It is wonderful that the Presiding Bishop has been denied her miter and the ability to officiate in the COE as a bishop. It would have been even better had she been denied ability to officiate as a priest. But hope springs eternal — maybe that will happen some glorious day. The fact that various revisionists think it sad or low is perfectly understandable as they value the particular and interesting gospel she preaches. Obviously the traditionalists don’t, and would prefer to have a PB who preaches and believes the Gospel.
RE: “As the representative of our church, whether you LIKE her or not, a snub for her is a thumb up our own noses.”
Who cares? I don’t, and I’m a TEC member.
RE: “That said, I think that we need to just drop this issue. When someone engages in petty rudeness, I think that the best response, after a steely and silent look, is to ignore it.”
Hmmm . . . then we all wait with bated breath for Jeffrey L. Shy, M.D. to take his own advice. We’ll go merrily on, however.
RE: “I hope that I live to see the day return to TEC when we can disagree politely and compassionately and remember that Charity is the chief of virtues.”
Depends on how soon the revisionists can cleanse TEC of the traditional Episcopalians such that they can all eliminate the disagreements that they hate so much.
In the meantime, the division and conflict will — rightly — continue, as the foundational worldviews represented by the two groups are antithetical and mutually opposing. There are two gospels in one organization, and that’s never a peaceful thing.
RE: “I had hoped to have some discussion about an issue that I think has been blown out of proportion and should be a cause of embarrassment for all sides.”
Lol — no, it shouldn’t be.
RE: “As for “how colonial†of me, I think that, like other pejorative digs, I will in good charity ignore what I perceive as a not-so-polite intention behind it.”
But Jeffrey L. Shy, M.D. did not ignore it. Commenting that he will now ignore it and explaining why he will now ignore it is not ignoring it. ; > )
RE: “If so, then the gesture seems to have misfired, as the message is too occult for it to come through with any clarity to its intended recipients.”
Oh I think it was well understood — which is why there is so much shrieking and cawing by the revisionists. They perfectly understand the message that was sent.
Sarah,
Thanks for your honesty. You are entirely correct that I have spent too much time on this. I had intended to stop earlier but assumed that it was rude to dive in, comment and then run away when persons had had the courtesy to reply or address a comment to me. I had started to write a sarcastic reply, but what would be the point? Only more rancor. Perhaps “Elf” will do me the courtesy of deleting all my comments here, and we’ ll just forget the whole thing?
I have to say, as a TEC member, that I think the PB overreacted in a way that is a bit embarrassing. Calling the normal requirements of COE ecclesiastical law for visiting overseas clergy who wish to preside, “nonsense” and “beyond bizarre” seems to me an error of judgment. Publicizing her views compounds the error. If it is the law in England (and it is), and it applies equally to all visiting clergy who wish to preside (and it does), and it is not particularly onerous (a simple 2 page form and a bit of documentation), there seems nothing either nonsensical or bizarre about it.
I can see how she may have been surprised to be required not to wear her miter. Yet given that she cannot function as a bishop in the COE and the COE is in the midst of a hugely sensitive debate on women bishops, I can see how the ABC (or his staff) may have wanted to avoid a potential cause of unhelpful controversy within the COE. I would have hoped that the PB would not want to be a cause of potential controversy in a sister church but apparently not.
Just one more proof that the PB has no concept of canons, their literal meaning, their appropriate use, and the need for jot-and-tittle being applied across the board. She rather thought all the world took her view of them: imaginary constructs for vendetta purposes which involves perverting the literal meaning and sending the consequent demonstrations of the same to the living and the dead. Now, there’s bizzare beyond belief for ya, but not, obviously, for her.
Dr Shy, May our Good Lord bless you richly in your vocation. Having myself been on the end of good care from the likes of yourself – and remaining alive to tell the tale! – I appreciate your calling. Having also been a member of a hospice team as well in the past. Nice irony there! So; may it go well with your own work.
I, too, originally thought this was a snub aimed at Dr. Schori, but I have been corrected and now understand that this was English canon law requiring visiting clergy intending to preside at the Eucharist to be licensed, which means providing their paperwork. And since she was presiding, not merely visiting, she could be licensed as a priest only at the present time in England. A president priest wearing a mitre is inappropriate. I agree that what is causing the uproar is her overreaction to all this. And yet, she has repeatedly insisted that where canons in the U.S. have been followed others have no room to complain. There’s the irony. If she had merely politely complied and not made a fuss there would be no headlines.
Katherine
“If she had merely politely complied and not made a fuss there would be no headlines.”
But then we on all sides would have had nothing to talk about – and where’s the fun in that?
Ah, Pageantmaster, much as I enjoy the digital debate, I yet think it would have been wiser for Dr. Schori to accept English canon law. But many of us have been unwise from time to time.
The one thing that has come from this is the knowledge she has provided the world about her – her total lack of humility and the apparent need for her costume for her own identity. Because you couldn’t wear your mitre, you let the world know you were wronged and call it bizarre? What a “bizarre” thing to do, if you are a servant of Christ. How insecure she must be that she apparently believes that she needed to wear her mitre to let the people of Southwark Cathedral know she was a bishop or to feel like a bishop, herself. While I agree with Dr. Shy that this is a mountain out of a mole hill, I think he needs to examine who made the mole hill a mountain – she did, not the AbofC. And how self-righteous and, frankly, beyond hypocritical, that she can want to flout the canons of CofE, but contend vociferously her entire term of office that all the lives she has destroyed by her depositions (talk about “bizarre”) were done only in conformance with ECUSA canons.
Billy and Katherine (# 40) nail it for me, reinforcing something Ephraim Radner emphasizes again and again: [i]mutual submission[/i] in the Body of Christ, following the likes of Phil 2:1-13. This incident has been especially revealing; and frankly, I thank God for it …