| Friday 9th May, 2008 You are here: Home - 9th May 2008 Index Page - 9th May 2008 Letters |
Copes and mitres
I agree with Mrs Simpson on the subject of copes and mitres (Gazette, 11th April, Letters).
I think that "the customary ecclesiastical apparel of his orders" (Canon 4) is all that is necessary for archbishops, bishops and deacons. There’s no need for any other form of dress. The former Archbishop of Armagh never found it necessary to wear a cope and mitre and he always looked dignified, no matter what other bishops and archbishops were wearing.
I do not have any theological objection to this form of dress, but it smacks of egotism. I find it distracting, and it must cost a fortune.
However, ours is a broad Church, with room for all opinions, so it is very much an individual choice, but I do hope it doesn’t become the norm. As for making the sign of the cross, this appears to be forbidden in Canon 5, as are candles on the Communion table (Canon 35), crosses on or behind the Communion Table (Canon 36) or the carrying of a cross in procession (Canon 39).
I know that the last three have been altered by the General Synod, so Canon 5 may have been changed since the 1960 Prayer Book was published. I notice that the Canons have been omitted from the new Prayer Book, though the Articles of Religion are still there. Perhaps someone could enlighten me as to what has happened.
R.A. Lambert (Mrs)
1 Wandsworth Road
Belfast
BT4 3LS
Continuing from the comments in recent Gazettes of some of your readers concerning the Archbishop of Armagh wearing a cope and mitre in the presence of Her Majesty the Queen in St Patrick’s Cathedral Armagh on Maundy Thursday, the tradition of the Monarch handing out Maundy Money to pensioners seems to have its roots dating back to around 1698, during the time when King William III was on the throne of England.
This replaced an earlier tradition of the Monarch washing the feet of the poor and is symbolic of Jesus washing the feet of his disciples before the Last Supper. It does seem rather strange, therefore, that we are continuing to show more interest in the archbishop’s garb than in celebrating a symbolic re-enactment of religious significance.
I am sure that, if Her Majesty reverted to the old ways, we would find it far more interesting to be talking about it here and why not, I might add.
Christopher Kirk
Ballaghanea
Virginia
Co. Cavan
In reply to the many letters on the cope and mitre, the views I expressed in my letter (Gazette, 11th April, Letters) were my own personal views. I am perfectly aware that others may not share these views. To those who were offended by my letter, and I include Canon Michael Kennedy (who wrote to me personally), please accept my apology.
In the great scheme of things, when we are called home, I don’t think our Lord will really be concerned about our apparel (Matthew 6: 28-30) or whether we adhere to Canon laws.
Margaret Simpson (Mrs)
9 St Elizabeth’s Court
Ballyregan Road
Dundonald
Belfast
BT16 1HX
Canon McKegney tells us that the cope and mitre was "the generous gift of an individual member of the Church" (Gazette, 25th April, Letters).
Did this individual member take a unilateral decision to make this gift or was it after consultation (and, if so, who was consulted)? If not, then perhaps it was unwise to accept the gift on behalf of, presumably, the Church of Ireland. Also, will future primates be ‘expected’ to wear the cope and mitre? Will a bishop who only wears convocation robes be deemed ‘unsuitable’ for Armagh? Will the unilateral actions of this unnamed individual influence the appointments of future bishops? If so, then it is wholly unacceptable that someone should hold the whole Church to ransom in this fashion.
Mrs Woods suggests (Gazette, 25th April, Letters, page 6) that a cope and mitre are permissible because the archbishops and bishops wear "the customary ecclesiastical apparel of his order" (Canon 12.1). This is simply not true. I suggest it is because the archbishops and bishops wear "the customary ecclesiastical apparel of his order" that they are not desirable; remember that Newman and Faber never wore vestments in the Church of England. This canon was drawn up at the time when a rochet and chimère were ‘customary’. Appealing to the Anglican Communion, as Mrs Woods does, as the final authority and arbiter shows scant regard for the history of the Church of Ireland or its Canons and Constitution.
The Canons to which Mrs Woods refers and Canon McKegney alludes make it clear that, beyond choir habit, the choice of stole in place of a scarf is permissible and "no member of the clergy shall wear any other ecclesiastical vestment or ornament" (12.2c). Note that the ordinal (2004) deems this choice of scarf or stole to be an absolute right which is left to the individual; not the parish tradition, not the rector and not the ordinary (p.552.7). For anyone to be forced to wear a stole, as some are at ordination and in the parish where they serve their title, is, I assume, for the bishop and the incumbent to act ultra vires in relation to the Canons and Constitution.
Will Canon McKegney and Mrs Woods agree that all, whether curate or archbishop, should have the liberty to make their choice? Or should tolerance, greater latitude in interpreting the Canons and the dictates of one’s conscience only be extended to those who appreciate the trappings of ritualism, to which, of course, the Church of Ireland attaches no doctrinal significance?
Paul Gilmore
7 Dunbrae
Cregagh Park
Belfast
BT6 9LF
(The correspondence on copes and mitres is now closed - Assistant Editor)
Christian Aid and HIV prevention
Tendai Madondo (Gazette, 18th April, Statement, page 7) says that the principles of ABC (Abstain, Be faithful, Condoms) are the "cornerstone" of Christian Aid’s SAVE (Safer sex, etc.) approach to HIV prevention, but it may be too late to retrieve the contrary message which has been heard round the world - that ABC is the stone which the builders rejected.
An article at www. churchestogether.com/ news/archivein.htm?id=133 - headlined ‘Christian Aid’s HIV Unit Replaces ABC with SAVE’ - is widely understood to express Christian Aid’s position. Its definition of SAVE makes no mention of A or B, just C.
The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Gulu, Uganda, says: "Christian Aid ... has discarded ABC in favour of SAVE" (www. archdioceseofgulu.org/JPC/ Newsletter0406.htm). In short, the world believes that Christian Aid has "discarded" and "replaced" ABC.
ABC’s rehabilitation as a cornerstone of SAVE will be challenging for Christian Aid, for two further reasons. First, much of its own material, for example www.pressureworks. org/focus/hiv/Story/080806 save.html, places the two in opposition - "ABC versus SAVE".
Second, there is a wall of politically-correct prejudice against ABC because it smacks of Christian moral values. At the International AIDS conference in Toronto in 2006, Bill Gates said of ABC: "This approach has saved many lives, and we should expand it". According to one report, this "provoked unanimous and energetic boos from the thousands of attendees."
I hope that, at this year’s conference, Christian Aid will have the courage of its convictions truly to champion ABC as the cornerstone of its strategy of HIV prevention. In doing so, it will have the full support of all right-thinking people - and of the best epidemiological evidence. And it will save countless lives.
Dermot O’Callaghan
27 Monument Road
Hillsborough
BT26 6HT
Church must keep control of ministry training candidates
Over recent weeks, I have followed with great interest the letters to the editor with regard to the new training programme for ministry. As a recently-recommended ordinand, I would like to put forward my hopes and thoughts on the new Ministry Formation Project.
I am eagerly anticipating starting the new curriculum for ministry, as I believe an approach that balances the academic with practical skills and spiritual development would be of great benefit to the Church as a whole and to clergy in particular.
Imagine my delight to discover I had passed the academic assessment conducted by Trinity College in January this year and then the confusion and anxiety of being told in February that it may not be enough to start the course next year (our Diocesan Director of Ordinands only discovered this two days before we did!). Clear communication is essential, but during a time of transition, it is absolutely vital.
I fully agree that intellectual rigour is an essential part of one’s training (Tom Gordon, Gazette 18th April, Letters, page 7), yet, as a Church, we have a responsibility to retain the final decision in discerning those among us whom God has called to leadership. I believe it would alter the face of the Church of Ireland forever if we allowed that control to slip out of Church hands and into that of the academic world.
The apostles comprised those who had varying levels of education, e.g. Luke was a doctor, Matthew a tax collector and Peter a fisherman, yet it was Peter who rose to prominence as God’s chosen leader for the Church. Would we have chosen differently based on their ‘qualifications’? I believe, in opting for a requirement of a primary degree for the ordained ministry, we will be losing out on many excellent future leaders.
I note with interest that it does not appear to matter in what subject one has a primary degree. Are we to believe that someone with a degree in, for example, microbiology or geology would be better qualified for ministry than someone who has years of life experience and practical work in their local church and community?
Martin O’Kelly
29 Grange Abbey Road
Baldoyle
Dublin 13
In a letter published in the Gazette (25th April), the Revd Ian Poulton mentioned my views as to why some people in the Church of Ireland are reluctant to express their opinions openly.
I gave Mr Poulton my reasons for my opinion in the light of my own experiences. I was a diocesan lay reader in Connor Diocese for 22 years, until I made a speech on sectarianism at the General Synod. I pointed out to the Synod that, after many, many discussions with clergy and lay people in the Roman Communion over a period of 35 years, I was still firmly opposed to the teachings of Roman Catholicism. I also said that, as a committed member of the Church of Ireland, the opinions I held were based on the official teaching of the Church of Ireland. So I told the General Synod that if I was sectarian, so were all the members of the Synod.
Sandy Woods
21 Henderson Drive
Bangor
BT19 1NR