Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.1017/s0956618x2200076x
J. Stuart
The General Synod of the Scottish Episcopal Church (SEC) met from 9 to 11 June 2022. The previous two meetings of the Synod had taken place in virtual form only. The 2022 meeting was in hybrid format, with most members attending in person and a small number joining online.
{"title":"General Synod of the Scottish Episcopal Church","authors":"J. Stuart","doi":"10.1017/s0956618x2200076x","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0956618x2200076x","url":null,"abstract":"The General Synod of the Scottish Episcopal Church (SEC) met from 9 to 11 June 2022. The previous two meetings of the Synod had taken place in virtual form only. The 2022 meeting was in hybrid format, with most members attending in person and a small number joining online.","PeriodicalId":53956,"journal":{"name":"Ecclesiastical Law Journal","volume":"25 1","pages":"86 - 89"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48468442","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.1017/s0956618x22000941
D. Willink
{"title":"Re St Michael and All Angels, Pelsall","authors":"D. Willink","doi":"10.1017/s0956618x22000941","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0956618x22000941","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":53956,"journal":{"name":"Ecclesiastical Law Journal","volume":"25 1","pages":"125 - 125"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49596633","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.1017/S0956618X22000709
Alexander Ross
{"title":"The Anglican Eucharist in Australia: The History, Theology and Liturgy of the Eucharist in the Anglican Church of Australia Brian Douglas Brill, Leiden, 2022, Anglican-Episcopal Theology and History 8, 360 pp (paperback €65), ISBN: 978-90-04-46928-0","authors":"Alexander Ross","doi":"10.1017/S0956618X22000709","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0956618X22000709","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":53956,"journal":{"name":"Ecclesiastical Law Journal","volume":"25 1","pages":"100 - 103"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43756203","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.1017/s0956618x22000862
D. Willink
The appellants had sought a faculty for the replacement of fixed pews with stackable pews. The Church had three forms of seating: Victorian and twentieth century fixed pews, and a set of rush-seated chairs. The pleaded petition related to the pews only. The DAC and Historic England both regarded the rush chairs as having historical significance as a reference point to mural paintings by Quentin and Vanessa Bell and Duncan Grant, which where themselves historically significant. At a hearing of the petition, the appellants’ counsel submitted that their case was ‘all or nothing’ (i.e. that all three sets of seating should be allowed to be replaced, or none at all). On this basis, the court refused the petition as not meeting the Duffield criterion for clear and convincing need. The Arches Court held that whilst the court correctly applied the Duffield framework in principle, it fell into error by applying that framework to an incorrectly presented case. This was because the submission by the appellants’ counsel was not in line with the appellants’ pleaded case, which only referred to the two sets of pews rather than including the rush-seated chairs. Accordingly, it found that the conduct of the original proceedings was fatally flawed. The appeal was allowed and the petition was remitted to the consistory court for re-determination of the original petition. In relation to costs, the Court of Arches noted that counsel for the appellants took responsibility for an error in his submissions which neither the parties nor the Deputy Chancellor spotted. It reached the provisional view that the appellants should bear the costs of the appeal, but granted liberty for written submissions to be put in if the appellants wished to seek to persuade the court otherwise. [Jack Stuart]
{"title":"Re St Michael and All Angels, Berwick","authors":"D. Willink","doi":"10.1017/s0956618x22000862","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0956618x22000862","url":null,"abstract":"The appellants had sought a faculty for the replacement of fixed pews with stackable pews. The Church had three forms of seating: Victorian and twentieth century fixed pews, and a set of rush-seated chairs. The pleaded petition related to the pews only. The DAC and Historic England both regarded the rush chairs as having historical significance as a reference point to mural paintings by Quentin and Vanessa Bell and Duncan Grant, which where themselves historically significant. At a hearing of the petition, the appellants’ counsel submitted that their case was ‘all or nothing’ (i.e. that all three sets of seating should be allowed to be replaced, or none at all). On this basis, the court refused the petition as not meeting the Duffield criterion for clear and convincing need. The Arches Court held that whilst the court correctly applied the Duffield framework in principle, it fell into error by applying that framework to an incorrectly presented case. This was because the submission by the appellants’ counsel was not in line with the appellants’ pleaded case, which only referred to the two sets of pews rather than including the rush-seated chairs. Accordingly, it found that the conduct of the original proceedings was fatally flawed. The appeal was allowed and the petition was remitted to the consistory court for re-determination of the original petition. In relation to costs, the Court of Arches noted that counsel for the appellants took responsibility for an error in his submissions which neither the parties nor the Deputy Chancellor spotted. It reached the provisional view that the appellants should bear the costs of the appeal, but granted liberty for written submissions to be put in if the appellants wished to seek to persuade the court otherwise. [Jack Stuart]","PeriodicalId":53956,"journal":{"name":"Ecclesiastical Law Journal","volume":"25 1","pages":"117 - 118"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47533305","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.1017/s0956618x22000758
Jason Lingiah
The General Assembly of the Church again met in a ‘blended’ form, based from the Assembly Hall. The Moderator of the General Assembly this year was the Rev'd Dr Iain Greenshields, BD PhD, Minister of Dunfermline St Margaret's, Presbytery of Fife. Last year's Moderator was an Elder, rather than a Minister: Lord Wallace of Tankerness, PC QC FRSE. Lord Hodge, Deputy President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, was Her Late Majesty The Queen's personal representative to the Assembly as Lord High Commissioner. A brief synopsis of Assembly Business follows.
{"title":"General Assembly of the Church of Scotland","authors":"Jason Lingiah","doi":"10.1017/s0956618x22000758","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0956618x22000758","url":null,"abstract":"The General Assembly of the Church again met in a ‘blended’ form, based from the Assembly Hall. The Moderator of the General Assembly this year was the Rev'd Dr Iain Greenshields, BD PhD, Minister of Dunfermline St Margaret's, Presbytery of Fife. Last year's Moderator was an Elder, rather than a Minister: Lord Wallace of Tankerness, PC QC FRSE. Lord Hodge, Deputy President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, was Her Late Majesty The Queen's personal representative to the Assembly as Lord High Commissioner. A brief synopsis of Assembly Business follows.","PeriodicalId":53956,"journal":{"name":"Ecclesiastical Law Journal","volume":"25 1","pages":"82 - 85"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49332434","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.1017/s0956618x2200062x
A. Milbank
There is much to address in responding to such a rich and thoughtful range of reflections as given by Bishop Pete in his article published in the previous pages of this Journal. I was asked to respond to that paper from a theological perspective as part of the Ecclesiastical Law Society's 2022 day conference, and this comment piece has been based substantially on that response. So many areas of theological relevance are raised by Bishop Pete: the nature of authority in the Church of England, the role of the bishop, the shortcomings of the synodical process and the legal framework for evangelism.
{"title":"Response to ‘Reflections on the Workings of General Synod’","authors":"A. Milbank","doi":"10.1017/s0956618x2200062x","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0956618x2200062x","url":null,"abstract":"There is much to address in responding to such a rich and thoughtful range of reflections as given by Bishop Pete in his article published in the previous pages of this Journal. I was asked to respond to that paper from a theological perspective as part of the Ecclesiastical Law Society's 2022 day conference, and this comment piece has been based substantially on that response. So many areas of theological relevance are raised by Bishop Pete: the nature of authority in the Church of England, the role of the bishop, the shortcomings of the synodical process and the legal framework for evangelism.","PeriodicalId":53956,"journal":{"name":"Ecclesiastical Law Journal","volume":"25 1","pages":"32 - 37"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42697612","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.1017/s0956618x22000850
D. Willink
The appellants had sought a faculty for the replacement of fixed pews with stackable pews. The Church had three forms of seating: Victorian and twentieth century fixed pews, and a set of rush-seated chairs. The pleaded petition related to the pews only. The DAC and Historic England both regarded the rush chairs as having historical significance as a reference point to mural paintings by Quentin and Vanessa Bell and Duncan Grant, which where themselves historically significant. At a hearing of the petition, the appellants’ counsel submitted that their case was ‘all or nothing’ (i.e. that all three sets of seating should be allowed to be replaced, or none at all). On this basis, the court refused the petition as not meeting the Duffield criterion for clear and convincing need. The Arches Court held that whilst the court correctly applied the Duffield framework in principle, it fell into error by applying that framework to an incorrectly presented case. This was because the submission by the appellants’ counsel was not in line with the appellants’ pleaded case, which only referred to the two sets of pews rather than including the rush-seated chairs. Accordingly, it found that the conduct of the original proceedings was fatally flawed. The appeal was allowed and the petition was remitted to the consistory court for re-determination of the original petition. In relation to costs, the Court of Arches noted that counsel for the appellants took responsibility for an error in his submissions which neither the parties nor the Deputy Chancellor spotted. It reached the provisional view that the appellants should bear the costs of the appeal, but granted liberty for written submissions to be put in if the appellants wished to seek to persuade the court otherwise. [Jack Stuart]
{"title":"Re St Michael and All Angels, Berwick","authors":"D. Willink","doi":"10.1017/s0956618x22000850","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0956618x22000850","url":null,"abstract":"The appellants had sought a faculty for the replacement of fixed pews with stackable pews. The Church had three forms of seating: Victorian and twentieth century fixed pews, and a set of rush-seated chairs. The pleaded petition related to the pews only. The DAC and Historic England both regarded the rush chairs as having historical significance as a reference point to mural paintings by Quentin and Vanessa Bell and Duncan Grant, which where themselves historically significant. At a hearing of the petition, the appellants’ counsel submitted that their case was ‘all or nothing’ (i.e. that all three sets of seating should be allowed to be replaced, or none at all). On this basis, the court refused the petition as not meeting the Duffield criterion for clear and convincing need. The Arches Court held that whilst the court correctly applied the Duffield framework in principle, it fell into error by applying that framework to an incorrectly presented case. This was because the submission by the appellants’ counsel was not in line with the appellants’ pleaded case, which only referred to the two sets of pews rather than including the rush-seated chairs. Accordingly, it found that the conduct of the original proceedings was fatally flawed. The appeal was allowed and the petition was remitted to the consistory court for re-determination of the original petition. In relation to costs, the Court of Arches noted that counsel for the appellants took responsibility for an error in his submissions which neither the parties nor the Deputy Chancellor spotted. It reached the provisional view that the appellants should bear the costs of the appeal, but granted liberty for written submissions to be put in if the appellants wished to seek to persuade the court otherwise. [Jack Stuart]","PeriodicalId":53956,"journal":{"name":"Ecclesiastical Law Journal","volume":"25 1","pages":"117 - 117"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42954232","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：