10 November 2010

Diary

I am asked to publicise the fact that the Bishop John is celebrating his last Mass qua Bishop of Fulham on Saturday 20 November at noon (Gordon Square) and that the Sevenoaks Ordinariate event (full briefings by top speakers) has been shifted to 3.30 on the same day.

Rumour has it that the last Mass by an orthodox Bishop of Ebbsfleet will be on the 27th, noon, at New Hinksey.

7 comments:

Fr William said...

Are we to take it from your second paragraph, Father, that your sole criterion of orthodoxy is whether an individual is intending imminently to join the RC Church via the Ordinariate? Since there is nothing doctrinally distinctive about the Ordinariate, the implication is that those, such as +Andrew, +Keith, and indeed your good self, who were not on the verge of becoming RC a little over a year ago, were therefore heterodox.

Jacob Hicks said...

Fr H, I think it would have been rather better, if I may say so, simply to remind people that Bishop Andrew's last Mass as Bishop of Ebbsfleet will be on the 27th.

benedictambrose said...

Quod scripsit scripsit, innit.

shold31019 said...

For a more appropriate perspective, read this:

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2010/11/on-conversion-anglican-bishops-to-rome.html

William Tighe said...

I followed the link to "Archbishop Cranmer's" website, and found it to be a load of pompous codswallop, followed by a comment thread to be characterized by the outstanding ignorance and buffoonery of most of the commenters.

There are, however, some intelligent and sensible ones towards the end of the comment thread, starting off by one by "Little Black Sambo."

Dcn. Andrew Bartus said...

Fr William - I think Fr Hunwicke is probably referring to the fact that Bishop Andrew is likely the last non-collarborationist with the women's "ordination" agenda.

It does little good to simply not "do it" yourself as a bishop, if one is in full communion with bishops who "do".

Fr William said...

Dcn Andrew: Your second para is of course entirely correct. But we know at this time only two things about the man who will succeed +Andrew: (1) He will be charged with operating within the terms of the existing Act of Synod, and will therefore not be bound to any higher degree of intercommunion than the present PEVs have been; (2) He will not be intending to be in the first wave (at least) of Ordinariate-seekers. Anything beyond that is guesswork, and damaging guesswork at that. How about giving the man a chance to prove himself a worthy successor - unless, of course, one has determined in advance that anyone who is not raring to traverse the Tiber is eo ipso unworthy? (In which case, the problems noted in my first comment come into play.)