A.S. Haley of Anglican Curmudgeon brings it. An excerpt:

If a visiting clergy does not preside at the Eucharist, but only assists, or preaches, then the position of the Legal Office of the Province of Canterbury has been that no license is required by the statute, and the Archbishop of Canterbury does not have to concern himself with the details of the ceremony, or with who wears what. But a license to officiate under the Archbishop of Canterbury is a license to perform an ecclesiastical function at a service within the Church of England, and neither the Archbishop nor the Queen of England herself has any legal power to license a woman to preside as bishop over a Eucharist within the Church of England.

View the original post

The sacramental theology point is troubling.  In trying to pretend this is not a snub of the PB, they are making a distinction between the Eucharist as celebrated by a bishop and one celebrated by a presbyter.  The requirement in sacramental theology is one in right authority, which can be a person of either order.  Also, a person consecrated bishop bears an indelible charism.  If ++KJS is a validly-ordained bishop, which the ABC would not question, then she ALWAYS celebrates as a bishop, whether or not she is wearing a mitre.  Clothing has nothing to do with charism.  By this line of reasoning, a bishop in cassock and surplice cannot perform confirmations,  as they would do so as a priest.  If “celebrating the Eucharist as a bishop” by a woman would cause a breach of canon law, that has occurred whether she is was wearing the hat or not.  In that case, the ABC should have refused her license altogether.

The rules were not written with +Katharine in mind, or even with women bishops in mind!  They have not a thing to do with “sacramental theology”.  Within the Province of Canterbury any overseas cleric, in whatever Order, requires a license from the Archbishop to perform sacramental functions. The same rules apply inthe Northern Province. Normally one merely presents proof of ordination and this is forthcoming.  As yet, in the CofE the law, (of the church/land) has no such category as a woman bishop. Th same sort of problem arose years ago, before the CofE admitted women to the priesthood. Women priests from abroad could not be licensed in the CofE.

Now what seems passing strange to me is that the PB’s office didn’t know of these regulations and that the Dean of Southwark was similarly ignorant. Had the PB merely been invited to preach no license would have been necessary and she could have worn anything she pleased. But the fact that we are weeks before the debate on women bishops in the English General Synod makes me wonder whether all this had more to do with that than is being admitted. A woman bishop, and the PB at that, denied the right to dress up as a bishop makes a wonderful rallying cry for those in favor of women bishops.

This incident does tend to undermine the credibility of TEC’s faux indignation over border-crossing bishops.

This incident shows me how either tone deaf the Presiding Bishop is or how petulant she is.  Understanding the problem of women bishops in England, she should have simply said:  “Sure thing, Rowan.  I won’t take my mitre or crozier and I’ll wear my black clerical shirt out of respect for you and England.”  Instead, she decided to wear a purple shirt and carry her mitre. 

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

++KJS is a bishop.  Anglicans generally believe that ordination is an indelible sacramental act, not a “function.”  She cannot temporarily “relinquish” her episcopacy and act simply as a priest or deacon.  Whatever she does, she does it as a bishop.  She celebrated as the Eucharist as a bishop at Southwark, whether she was wearing a mitre or not.  To claim that since she was not wearing a mitre, she was celebrating as a presbyter is theologically bankrupt - it almost sounds Pythonesque.  Therefore, if it is violation of English law for a woman to “celebrate as a bishop,” (mind that all eucharists are Episcopal acts in that the bishop is the primary celebrant if present) then the ABC should have denied her permission to celebrate, as a violation of the law takes place whether she is wearing the hat or not.  A mitre does not make or unmake a bishop.  The only way to read this is a snub.

You raise an interesting set of questions, which I cannot help but ask a couple.

David Simmons - 20 June 2010 12:26 AM

++KJS is a bishop.  Anglicans generally believe that ordination is an indelible sacramental act, not a “function.”  She cannot temporarily “relinquish” her episcopacy and act simply as a priest or deacon.  Whatever she does, she does it as a bishop.  She celebrated as the Eucharist as a bishop at Southwark, whether she was wearing a mitre or not.  To claim that since she was not wearing a mitre, she was celebrating as a presbyter is theologically bankrupt - it almost sounds Pythonesque.  Therefore, if it is violation of English law for a woman to “celebrate as a bishop,” (mind that all eucharists are Episcopal acts in that the bishop is the primary celebrant if present) then the ABC should have denied her permission to celebrate, as a violation of the law takes place whether she is wearing the hat or not.  A mitre does not make or unmake a bishop.  The only way to read this is a snub.

In a period of “reception”  is a person a bishop when some in the Communion do not and cannot accept/understand a person as a bishop because of their doctrinal belief in male only “orders?”  Even when one says that orders are indelible, or for the whole Church.
What does it mean when KJS deposes such as Bob Duncan, Andrew Fairfield, Henry Scriven and several more who are none the less honored and accepted as bishops in the larger AC?  Then folk in TEC insist of referring to the above folk as “Mr.”

It seems to me that TEC has in fact taken a particularly denominational view of “orders”  as well as espousing a kind of denominational loyalty that effectually treats other portions/provinces of the AC as irrelevant if they dissent from TEC’s agenda.  This being the case KJS wants to have her cake and eat it.  On the one hand she says she wants to be fully Anglican and yet she rejects the interdependence and communal/collegial responsibilities of being “in communion” by acting as if the rest of the AC is irrelevant.  She describes as bizarre the standard operating process for overseas clergy to celebrate Holy Communion in England.  I find it bizarre that she acted with such pique and, as I understand it, arrogance.  In fact the ABC accepts her as a bishop for such she is canonically in the USA.  If she wants to function in the CofE then she must follow its rules and not her personal or even TEC rules.  Also - as the Archbishop of Cape Town has reminded us, TEC is winning no prizes for diplomacy in the AC.

Meanwhile the Cof E has not made up its mind if women can be bishops.  A minority, IMHO an important if small minority, do not believe it possible for a woman to be a priest, more still do not believe it possible for a woman to be a bishop while believing that a woman can in fact be a priest.  KJS was asked quietly to function as a priest when celebrating.  I believe that this was a pastoral request for the sake of not inflaming the issue and making it political when hopefully the decision would be a spiritual and doctrinal one.  She has in fact been provocative and inflamed things.  She has also won herself few new friends and little respect among those who differ from her opinions.  As I have discovered when working in other countries, we need to be gracious and respectful of what is asked of us.  Cultural differences are real and not necessarily right or wrong.  St. Paul tells the Romans of this when he writes of how important it is to measure our conduct so as not to cause offense.  KJS clearly, IMHO, excels in being offensive.

So there we are - the process of “reception” has its difficulties.  The niceties of functioning as a celebrant in another province still means following local protocol.  In a polarized Anglican world we must be even more careful to act with grace and respect.  IMHO KJS has shown none of the above.

I won’t stray into the area of whether the Archbishop’s action was a snub or not, I dont find that sort of self-indulgent comment helpful.  Ian states it well when he reminds us that the whole subject of WO is in “reception”, which obviously means that Provinces are in different “stages” of that process, and thus discretion is needed when visiting a Province if one is in an Order not fully received there yet.  These matters surely were well known by both 815 and Southwark.

No a bishop does not always celebrate if present. A diocesan bishop normally so does.

If the PB is always a bishop, and presided as a bishop in a CofE setting, then she broke CofE cannon law.

This is not surprising, in that she has broken TEC cannon law already, what would stop her?

Actually, a better spin for the PB would be that the laying aside of the symbol of bishop in the miter was also a laying aside temporarily her role as bishop, thus allowing her to officiate in the CofE. While actually still being a bishop, it allows all to hold to the spirit of the canon, if not the letter. This is a gracious action, and deserving of praise.

Given her and her supporter’s reactions, the first case seems more likely.

Ian, Episcopal consecration is indelible.  Deposition makes a person unable to function within a given province, but it by no means removes their ordination.  I have never heard anyone, even his most vociferous opponents, claim that +Duncan is no longer a bishop.  If anyone is referring to him as “Mr.,” my guess is they are making a somewhat petulant complaint about the tendency of some to refer to ++KJS as “Mrs. Schori.”.

I have to disagree about indelibility of orders.  I believe that this is a part of certain church teaching but it is not a belief held universally.  In some cases people may not be ever actually ordained - the view of some re women.  Then others view “defrocking” and laicisation as removal of orders.  For me the language of deposition in TEC is just such as opposed to releasing of vows.  Then there is yet another group, an I am probably one of these, who see the espousal of extreme heresy or apostasy as a de facto relinquishing of orders.
Meanwhile some of us who refer to “Mrs.” Schori on a regular basis are being petulant.  When I was a rector I would have forbidden her to “do” anything in our parish as IMHO she is a scandal to the Church and has de facto renounced her orders by espousing another religion.  The very charge she lays against those whom she so often deposes.
Sometime ask me about something on which I have strong views!

David,

Are you saying, then, that +KJS should not have been allowed to preach or celebrate or concelebrate in the C of E at all?  That’s one way to read your comments.  Since a Bishop does everthing as a Bishop (even teaching and preaching, and since the C of E does not allow for women bishops, then no woman bishop should be allowed to do anything on C of E grounds. 

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Folks, please walk back to the focus of this post. It is not to speculate about the motives of people on either side.

Fr. Tony Clavier - 19 June 2010 07:57 AM

Now what seems passing strange to me is that the PB’s office didn’t know of these regulations and that the Dean of Southwark was similarly ignorant. Had the PB merely been invited to preach no license would have been necessary and she could have worn anything she pleased. But the fact that we are weeks before the debate on women bishops in the English General Synod makes me wonder whether all this had more to do with that than is being admitted. A woman bishop, and the PB at that, denied the right to dress up as a bishop makes a wonderful rallying cry for those in favor of women bishops.

I saw an interesting speculation elsewhere to the effect that the incident may indeed have been a calculated outrage committed with malice aforethought and with the upcoming synod in mind. Of course it cannot be proven but the history of American church development (see for instance Philadelphia, 1974) is replete with this kind of tactic. I think it would be disastrous for the communion if this were to spread, and I’m afraid that ACNA and GAFCON give evidence of it spreading into the southern hemisphere churches.

David:  The ordination to priesthood is also indelible, and bishops are ordained priests before they are bishops, therefore they remain priests as well as bishops.  English canon law does not recognize female bishops, but it does recognize female priests; ergo from that legal perspective KJS can act as a priest but not as a bishop.  Obviously if she is a bishop then she is a bishop, but not in law, and that is where the matter lies.  With all your talk of indelibility (which I agree with you on) you neglect to mention that the episcopate is the fullness of the sacrament of order and therefore a bishop can function as both a deacon and a priest.

Of course, I don’t believe that she’s a deacon, a priest, or a bishop (or a Christian), but that’s beside the point, which is, again, concerning law.