Saturday, September 29, 2012

Perhaps this, we should have predicted

As reported here, here and here, the CNC has failed to agree on a name to propose for the ABC. Perhaps this (initial) outcome of deliberations should have been predicted by those of us drawn to bookies and their speculations. After all, when the frontrunner keeps changing, and the latest frontrunner is a man of relatively little episcopal experience, it is more obvious in hindsight, that the actual deliberating body might struggle to anoint one person out of a (so it seems) less than very impressive pack.

However, ADU is nothing if not constructive, and I remind the CNC that I remain available, especially for attendance at major sporting events, seated in the Royal Box.

Otherwise, I suggest a look at this bloke. He must be one of the best educated archbishops around, and being born in Armagh, he is likely a British citizen.

Failing that, I suggest a rethink and a deeper think about +Durham.

If all else fails, the previous +Durham.


Father Ron Smith said...

"If all else fails, the previous +Durham."

Peter, how could you be so cruel. I knew you had problems with the Church of England, but why wish them such aggravation?

Whereas, the current +Dunelm has a very balanced theological under-standing of the needs of the Church.

Anyway, we've left it to the Holy Spirit - not the bookies. Sometimes this is a lengthy process.

liturgy said...

With the failure of the CNC to agree to a name for the next Archbishop of Canterbury, I've re-opened the petition for Geraldine Granger



Anonymous said...

mmm.....It struck me that the 6 diocesan reps could well act as an effective block to a candidate if they acted together..and they would be well marshalled by the Bishop of Dover who +Rowan has allowed to run the diocese ( though a successor could easily wish to play it differently!)We will never know,I suppose, but this may well be what has happened. Bishop Peter Broadbent surmised that the 4 bishops on the Commission might attempt to give a lead and steer the Commissionbut perhaps they are not of one mind. It is said that the 2 non voting lay advisors were of the view a generational change was needed and the candidate should be under 60( I heard this from a well placed source though Lord knows how he knew!).Perhaps the others feel this may be taking too much of a took George Carey quite a while to grow into the job and how far he ever did so is a matter of dispute in many places..It is a pity +Rowan didnt decide to stay on another 2 years...things might have been a little easier...Lets hope the Holy Spirit sorts it out, we can only pray.
Perry Canterbury UK

Anonymous said...

Looking at the press release again, one is struck by its opacity.It may simply be that the second name has proved difficult..or it may mean ( as most have taken it ) that they cant agree on the first name..not the Communications Office at its best, it seems to me as it will cloud the standing of whoever is appointed now..the danger is they will be seen as a compromise or second best candidate without the authority of the whole Commission behind them.


Father Ron Smith said...

I seem to remember quite a few puffs of black smoke before Good Pope John XXIII's election. Human being are still fallible - even though they be officers of The Church. Man proposes, God disposes!

"Come, Holy spirit, fill the hearts of your faithful with the fire of your Love!"