estuaire wrote:I am reliably informed that the Dean of Salford Deanery is not one and the same as the Dean of Salford Cathedral. If he were he would require two seats at Deanery Conference which I am told takes place in the Cathedral House.
LOL! So should our Dean who is also Dean pay for one lunch or two?
Oh dear! Forgive me for keeping this whole thing off topic for a bit longer, but there do seem to be some things that need clearing up. I'm going to try, at least...
1. Primates: England and Wales doesn't have one. There was at the re-establishment of the Hierarchy only one Metropolitan, whose incumbent was a Cardinal, and whose see Westminster. The current CIC does not ascribe any particular authority to primates - as far as I can remember, it rather deprives them of some previously held privileges.
2. The document (I forget its title, status and type, forgive me) which re-established the Hierarchy did, I think, ascribe seniority to the Archbishop of Westminster over the rest of the Bishops. Whether this was in perpetuity or not I cannot say. If it was a kind of 'primacy' without using that term, then the seniority persists. If it was a primacy as envisaged in (1) above, then the norms in force are applicable.
3. It seems clear from the last 157 years that Rome ascribes seniority in practice to Westminster, by the invariable red hat bestowed upon its incumbent.
4. The Archbishop of Westminster, by virtue of his own office, indeed exercises no juridical power of governance over other bishops, except over those suffragans of Westminster and his own Auxiliaries, as provided by law.
5. It is entirely correct to say that Westminster need not hold the presidency of the Conference: Archbishop Bowen held it during the last interregnum at Westminster, and Archbishop Dwyer was asked by Cardinal Hume to accept the presidency of the Conference for several years after his own appointment to Westminster. It remains true, however, that the Cardinal-Archbishop is usually elected to this office in due course.
6. When one adds up the various offices which the Archbishop of Westminster has to fulfil, it is surely forgivable that so many people ascribe a primacy of sorts to the person occupying the See. Even then, I don't see why this has all raised so many hackles.
There do seem to be some contributors who like to bash Westminster, as though doing so is a cry for freedom and for the Council, over and against authority, over-layered hierarchy and interference. I cannot second-guess their motives, and nor would I want to. I would say that the tone of much of what has been said about Westminster, and about what a small number of people outside it consider to be the attitude of people within the Diocese, is quite unfair. It is also deeply unkind to the men who have fulfilled the office over the years.
I would invite those with feathers caught in their teeth to respond to that accusation in a considered manner, or at least leave poor old Westminster in peace.
It would seem time to take some chips off shoulders, or at least add some ketchup - the chips are getting old and withered now.
As for the Boy Bishop: a bit of Medieval fun, surely?
I have no intention of "knocking" Westminster. It was the phrase "mother church" that really raised my eyebrows. What does it mean?
If it is based historically and means the mother church of the national is the first RC cathedral to be up and running following Catholic emancipation, then Westminster cannot claim this title. As viewers of Channel 4's recent Time Team special on A W Pugin will know, that title belongs to Birmingham. St Chad's opened in 1841.
I think my own implicit acceptance of the title 'Mother Church' of Westminster Cathedral probably flows from my identification of the holder of the office of Archbishop of Westminster with his Cathedral Church. If certain 'privileges' (although we can continue to argue about what those are) can be acknowledged as at least reasonably perceived as part of that office, it would seem to be a strong endorsement of them to accept a certain primacy of his Cathedral.
This primacy would take the same form as the implied 'primacy' that I tried to discuss in the earlier thread. It doesn't need to imply a particular preference for anything in particular about the life of the Cathedral (although it is of course lovely that for a great many people this is precisely something that it does imply), but a simple acknowledgment that this is the Cathedral Church of the holder of this office, which exists within our own unique history.
Much as I love St Peter's, it would be good if there were a stronger popular understanding of the Pope in his own Cathedral. I think the English have a strong sense of their own local Churches, and each diocese identified very clearly with its own bishop. This is a wonderful thing, but to permit that one Cathedral Church be a focus for major events, and for pilgrimage to a place which attests to our unity seems to me a very beautiful thing.
ChrisC wrote:...it would seem to be a strong endorsement of them to accept a certain primacy of his Cathedral.
Not sure what the word 'certain' means here - primacy seems like one of those all-or-nothing terms, like uniqueness. Anyway, there's nothing wrong with you or anyone according the Archbishop, or the Cathedral, at Westminster a certain seniority of status, out of respect due to the respective institutions; but something different altogether for either to claim it for themselves, which is perhaps what made people express their surprise here. (I didn't sense any chips on shoulders, though.)
estuaire wrote:When a Diocese is in need of an Apostolic Administrator the Chapter of Canons provides a recommendation to the Archbishop and/or the nuncio. The AA is then appointed by Rome.
That's different, isn't it? During a normal vacancy the chapter elect a Vicar Capitular, without needing to refer it to the Metropolitan, or to Rome. An Apostolic Administrator, ahem, "ad nutum Sanctae Sedis" is what you get when there's some exceptional situation, such as conditions of repression or a bishop who's disgraced himself.
Yes, all we like sheep have gone astray. I have been following this 'primacy' discussion with interest, but if people are beginning to feel uncomfortable with it, then it's time to draw a line. (I thought it was all quite civilised, actually.)
So, unless you have something specifically on-topic to add, please desist (you can always PM each other).
The custom of electing a boy-bishop on the feast of St. Nicholas dates from very early times, and was in vogue in most Catholic countries, but chiefly in England, where it prevailed certainly in all the larger monastic and scholastic establishments, and also in many country parishes besides, with the full approbation of authority, ecclesiastical and civil. The boy-bishop was chosen from among the children of the monastery school, the cathedral choir, or pupils of the grammar-school. Elected on St. Nicholas's day (6 December), he was dressed in pontifical vestments and, followed by his companions in priest's robes, went in procession round the parish, blessing the people. He then took possession of the church, where he presided at all the ceremonies and offices until Holy Innocents' day (28 December). At Salisbury he is said to have had the power of disposing of any benefices that fell vacant during his reign, and if he died in office the funeral honours of a bishop were granted to him. A monument to such a boy-prelate still exists there, though its genuineness has been questioned, and at Lulworth Castle another is preserved, which came from Bindon Abbey. The custom was abolished by Henry VIII in 1512, restored by Queen Mary and again abolished by Elizabeth, though here and there it lingered on for some time longer. On the Continent it was suppressed by the Council of Basle in 1431, but was revived in some places from time to time, even as late as the eighteenth century.
