Dame Sarah Mullally becomes first woman Archbishop of Canterbury in Church of England

[thenry]

Dame Sarah Mullally has been named as the new Archbishop of Canterbury.

She is the first woman appointed to the Church of England's most senior clerical role in its nearly 500-year history.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c0r0...a613fbc3e#post

Breaking barriers well done

[nffc]

She was the Bishop of London, which is probably the most senior of the Bishops (perhaps maybe Durham, but that see is vacant I think).


It's not too surprising, personally a more out-field appointment would have been better, but this is an institution which promotes from within in a relatively defined way...

[Sephiroth]

For what my opinion is worth, it matters not a jot who the next Archkent of Can’t is. Even more so because that adulterer Charlie Farley sits above her.

The Church does not come across as a philanthropic institution and it tries to meddle in political affairs. Its wokery is beyond the pale (assuming the new Archkent follow her predecessor’s line).

By all means practise your belief in the Christian faith, but pay no regard to the C of E’s hierarchy.


---------- Post added at 12:07 ---------- Previous post was at 12:05 ----------

Originally Posted by nffc

She was the Bishop of London, which is probably the most senior of the Bishops (perhaps maybe Durham, but that see is vacant I think).


It's not too surprising, personally a more out-field appointment would have been better, but this is an institution which promotes from within in a relatively defined way...

The Archbishop of York outranks the Bishop of London.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

For what my opinion is worth, it matters not a jot who the next Archkent of Can’t is. Even more so because that adulterer Charlie Farley sits above her.

The Church does not come across as a philanthropic institution and it tries to meddle in political affairs. Its wokery is beyond the pale (assuming the new Archkent follow her predecessor’s line).

By all means practise your belief in the Christian faith, but pay no regard to the C of E’s hierarchy.


---------- Post added at 12:07 ---------- Previous post was at 12:05 ----------



The Archbishop of York outranks the Bishop of London.

Whether you like it or not, it matters a great deal. You may wish she did not have influence, you may campaign against it, but these positions don’t change the fact that as of right now, it matters.

Also, the monarch is only the titular head of the C of E. In every way that counts, the AB of C is in charge of affairs in England and his (now her) voice and opinion carries immense weight amongst Anglican/Episcopalian churches throughout the world, all of whom have varying levels of moral authority in their home territories.

The fact that this AB of C is female will complicate that a lot, because not all of them accept the concept of women in ordained leadership. Heck not every C of E church does, and until now there has been a fudge whereby such churches could appeal to a designated male bishop rather than the female one in their own diocese. But now their boss’s boss is a woman whether they like it or not.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

The Archbishop of York outranks the Bishop of London.

As much as his position is tenable, I was talking about bishops not archbishops.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Chris

Whether you like it or not, it matters a great deal. You may wish she did not have influence, you may campaign against it, but these positions don’t change the fact that as of right now, it matters.

Also, the monarch is only the titular head of the C of E. In every way that counts, the AB of C is in charge of affairs in England and his (now her) voice and opinion carries immense weight amongst Anglican/Episcopalian churches throughout the world, all of whom have varying levels of moral authority in their home territories.

The fact that this AB of C is female will complicate that a lot, because not all of them accept the concept of women in ordained leadership. Heck not every C of E church does, and until now there has been a fudge whereby such churches could appeal to a designated male bishop rather than the female one in their own diocese. But now their boss’s boss is a woman whether they like it or not.

In a sense, that rather proves my point. Particularly as the Archkent's influence on overseas matters hardly registers with the bulk of England. Hence - somewhat irrelevant and, if she starts doing what her predecessor did with his mouth, just as irritating.


---------- Post added at 14:29 ---------- Previous post was at 14:28 ----------

Originally Posted by nffc

As much as his position is tenable, I was talking about bishops not archbishops.

True.