Thursday, 5 July 2012

Vivienne Faull to be next Dean of York

Number 10 announced today that Vivienne Faull, who is currently Dean of Leicester, is to be the next Dean of York

Dean of York

Thursday 5 July 2012

The Queen approves Vivienne Frances Faull as Dean of York.

The Queen has approved the nomination of the Very Reverend Vivienne Frances Faull, MA, Dean of Leicester, in Leicester Diocese, to be appointed to the Deanery of the Cathedral Church of Saint Peter, York, on the resignation of the Very Reverend Keith Brynmor Jones, MA, on 30 April 2012.

Notes for Editors

The Very Reverend Vivienne Faull, (aged 57) studied at the Queen’s School, Chester and Saint Hilda’s College, Oxford.

After teaching with the Church Mission Society in North India and youth work at Shrewsbury House, Everton, she trained for ministry at Saint John’s College, Nottingham and Nottingham University.

She served as a Deaconess at Saint Matthew and Saint James, Mossley Hill in the Diocese of Liverpool from 1982 to 1985, moving to become Chaplain, later Fellow, at Clare College, Cambridge.

She was made Deacon in the Diocese of Ely in 1987.

She began cathedral ministry in 1990 as Chaplain at Gloucester Cathedral where she married Michael, a Physician, and where she was ordained priest in 1994. In 1994 she moved to become Canon Pastor, and later Vice Provost, at Coventry Cathedral.

In 2000 she was appointed Provost of Leicester (the first women to lead a Church of England cathedral), becoming Dean of Leicester in 2002.

She has been a member of the General Synod representing Deans of cathedrals since 2004 and is currently on the panel of Chairs of Synod.

In 2009 she was elected Chairman of the Association of English Cathedrals (the cathedrals’ representative body) and is serving her second term on the English Anglican Roman Catholic committee for ecumenical conversations.

She is currently a governor of Leicester College, one of the largest and most diverse Further Education Colleges in the country, and a Trustee of Curve, Leicester’s new theatre. She has recently been elected Honorary Fellow of Clare College Cambridge.

York Minster has an expanded version of the Number 10 announcement: New Dean of York announced.

Women and the Church (WATCH) has welcomed the appointment with this press release.

Appointment Announced of the Very Revd Vivienne Faull as Dean of York Minster

If a woman can lead York Minster without legal barriers, a woman can lead a Diocese in the same way.

As the Very Revd Vivienne Faull is announced as the next Dean of York Minster, WATCH looks forward to her ministry with excitement and joy. For a woman to hold such a senior position in the Church of England is a great encouragement to all who have worked over decades for such a moment.

York Diocese has a number of parishes and clergy who will not accept the priestly ministry of women, so there will be work involved in continuing to welcome and affirm their faithful ministry at the Minster. But Rev Faull is no stranger to this: when she was appointed as Dean of Leicester Cathedral one of her close colleagues there did not accept the priestly ministry of women. They worked hard to honour each other’s ministry and different views and there is no reason to suppose that this will not also be the case in York.

As General Synod meets this weekend the good news of Rev Faull’s appointment gives clear evidence that women are being called by God to positions of leadership in the Church of England. Such women must be enabled to flourish in those roles, and this involves meeting the needs of those who will not accept their ministry with grace and respect, not with legal structures and barriers. We continue to ask the House of Bishops to withdraw their amendment to Clause 5.1.©.

And what do ordinary people think? See the WATCH Petition, signed by over 4500 people, at
https://www.change.org/petitions/the-house-of-bishops-of-the-church-of-england-withdraw-clause-5-1-c and read some of the comments to find out.

Posted by Peter Owen on Thursday, 5 July 2012 at 3:54pm BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Church of England
Comments

Kudos, Congrats and God Bless!

Posted by: JCF on Thursday, 5 July 2012 at 10:40pm BST

>> But Rev Faull is no stranger to this: when she was appointed as Dean of Leicester Cathedral one of her close colleagues there did not accept the priestly ministry of women.

Is it just me, or does anyone else ever wonder how on earth these people reconcile themselves with the Governor of the Church having been a woman for the past 60 years?

Posted by: Randal Oulton on Friday, 6 July 2012 at 7:16am BST

No -- the role of the Supreme Governor of the Church is an entirely different thing. There is no sacramental authority or jurisdiction in that role. There is no canonical obedience to the Supreme Governor, and the Supreme Governor holds no teaching office in the Church, nor claims any apostolic succession.

Posted by: Simon Kershaw on Friday, 6 July 2012 at 7:58am BST

Surely the idea of Royal Supremacy suggests that the monarch does indeed have authority in ecclesiastical affairs? Does she not also possess ordinary jurisdiction, i.e. over Royal Peculiars?

This never seems to be mentioned in any of the debates...

Posted by: Fr James on Friday, 6 July 2012 at 8:52am BST

Randal - "these people" - a tad patronising don't you fear? It is as Simon Kershaw points out quite easy to reconcile catholic and orthdox views on the three fold-ministry with support of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II as Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England for her gracious Majesty (Long may she reign) is not, neither claims to be bishop, priest nor deacon.
Similarly it is not difficult to regard the Blessed Virgin Mary as Queen of Heaven but in no way priestly or apostolic for Our Blessed Lord did not include even his virgin mother among the chosen Twelve but, as shewn in many great works of art, is depicted as crowning Her (as Archbishop Fisher did to the Queen on 2nd June 1953) as Queen of the heavenly realms (Long may she reign).

Posted by: Father David on Friday, 6 July 2012 at 9:48am BST

"... a tad patronising." Glass houses, David?

Posted by: Lapinbizarre/Roger Mortimer on Friday, 6 July 2012 at 7:11pm BST

Simon kershaw is wrong..the Church of England bishops derive their jurisdiction from the monarch and she is Ordinary to the two Archbishops. The Queen has no power over Holy orders, but has the power to appoint bishops and give them their authority.

Before the Reformation, jurisdiction was given by the Holy See...since the split it has been from the monarch.

Posted by: Robert ian Williams on Friday, 6 July 2012 at 7:20pm BST

Indeed Bunny - "should not throw stnes"
Similarly - "Let he who is without sin - cast the first stone."

Posted by: Father David on Friday, 6 July 2012 at 9:49pm BST

"for her gracious Majesty (Long may she reign) is not, neither claims to be bishop, priest nor deacon"

Not quite so tidy, though: as I recall the chapter in the old SPCK "Liturgy & Worship" on the Coronation Mass has quite an extensive summary of the quasi-ordinal character and origins of the service. It's not hard to see how Luther made the jump to the Prince as the font of ordaining authority in the absence of cooperative bishops.

What I can't get my head around is that most of "these people" presumably believe that Maundy Thursday was the institution of the Mass, when under the logic of 'Ordinatio sacerdotalis' Jesus was no more "valid" a celebrant than ++Katharine, having derived his human nature wholly from the Mother whom Fr David so rashly disclaims as "in no way priestly."

Posted by: Geoff on Saturday, 7 July 2012 at 12:38am BST

Perhaps before we assume that women priests is a thoroughly modern innovation, maybe we should take a look at this anonymous 15th century French painting showing Our Lady in a clearly priestly role distributing the Host at the Mass.

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/44AcGqxVDSuSxTJM8av7xg

Posted by: Counterlight on Saturday, 7 July 2012 at 7:15pm BST

"the Coronation Mass has quite an extensive summary of the quasi-ordinal character and origins of the service". The Coronation did, of course, take place within the context of a celebration of Holy Communion but I'd be interested to learn if Geoff can point me to any occasion during the past 60 years when our 'quasi-ordained' monarch has presided at a celebration of the Holy Eucharist?
The Second Person of the Most Holy and Blessed Trinity, God made flesh, is the source of all priestly authority and was and is, as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews inform us, throughout all eternity the Great High Priest. He needed no ordination. An ordained priest of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is empowered at and by his ordination to re-present His perfect Sacrifice when he stands at the altar as the effectual symbol of Him who was both God and man. The priest in his sacramental role is not the symbol of humanity, nor is he the symbol of Christian men and women. He is the symbol of the one particular man (not woman) who lived in Palestine and offered Himself a perfect Sacrifice to His Father in the power of the Spirit. This is the 'scandal' of particularity which so offends the modern mind. The masculinity of the priest is therefore not incidental but essential if the symbolism is to be authentic and the sacrament valid.

Posted by: Father David on Sunday, 8 July 2012 at 5:37am BST

"He is the symbol of the one particular man (not woman) who lived in Palestine...The masculinity of the priest is therefore not incidental but essential"

And is it essential that that token of masculinity be circumcised (on the eighth day, by a mohel) as that one particular man was? Must he speak Aramaic as his first language? Must he have a Jewish mother?

In short, Fr David, your type of argument is *absurd*. Jesus was God incarnate as a HUMAN being: the Image and Likeness of God [We can postulate that the male gender was necessary for God's *mission* in that time&place, but can say no more than that]. To translate that to an essential masculinity for Christ's priests in 2012---when we KNOW that women are not "defective men" (as was believed in the Middle Ages)---is as ridiculous as demanding proof of Jewish maternity for them.

And can we please stop talking in hypotheticals? Women, ordained as priests and bishops, aren't "what if": she's my own priest! They are seminary classmates of mine! They have real names, and faces, and ministries---and holy gifts, IN their holy orders. To suggest that women haven't already been ordained to Christ's priesthood and apostolic succession is as wrong as saying Anglican eucharistic species aren't really Christ's Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity---then again, Fr David, perhaps you agree w/ the Romans on THAT, too. :-(

Posted by: JCF on Monday, 9 July 2012 at 6:25am BST

The differentiation between male and female in God's good creation is absolutely fundamental to our nature as human beings.
Surely it is JCF who is being "absurd" in equating that which is fundamental to trivialities like being circumcised. speaking Aramaic and having a Jewish mother. Really!

Posted by: Father David on Monday, 9 July 2012 at 2:31pm BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.