Case of Conscience Concerning Advowsons

I have heard and read these for several years, that in the Church of England there are these things called Advowsons. I happen to know that an advowson (also called Patronage) is, according to the Webster 1828 Dictionary: Websters Dictionary 1828 - Webster's Dictionary 1828 - Advowson: "a right of presentation to a vacant benefice; or in other words, a right of nominating a person to officiate in a vacant church. The name is derived from advocatio, because the right was first obtained by such as were founders, benefactors or strenuous defenders, advocates, or the church. those who have this right are styled patrons."

Now, advowsons are of three kinds:

"presentative, collative, and donative; presentative, when the patron presents his clerk to the bishop of the diocese to be instituted; collative, when the bishop is the patron, and institutes, or collates his clerk, by a single act; donative, when a church is founded by the king, and assigned to the patron, without being subject to the ordinary, so that the patron confers the benefice on his clerk, without presentation, institution, or induction." Finally, "Advowsons are also appendant, that is, annexed to a manor; or, in gross, that is annexed to the person of the patron."

I also happen to know that English law allowed women as well as men, to hold advowsons. If a woman of legal age of majority or over was unmarried, she had the legal right to exercise the advowson herself: if she got married, her husband alone could exercise the advowson jure uxoris. If a man died and had no male heirs, it could descend to the female heirs. If there had been more than one surviving daughter of a patron without male heirs, all the daughters would inherit, but exercise the right of presentation according to the order of seniority. The elder would have the right to present before the younger. The eldest daughter would present first. Advowsons could also be part of a widow's dower: but she would have only the third presentation.

Remembering everything the New Testament teaches about the proper sphere of women in the ecclesiastical estate, and assuming that these verses are binding today exactly as written word-for-word (especially 1 Timothy 2:12 which says, But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man), would it have been contrary to this teaching of Scripture for women to exercise the right of patronage and/or advowsons in the Church of England?

 

What books do you read to find all this fascinating information?
I'ld be interested in any of your comments on this thread https://forums.anglican.net/threads/curates-and-vicars-and-rectors-oh-my.4174/

Well as you say "I also happen to know that English law allowed women as well as men, to hold advowsons." So perhaps these women are only obeying Romans 13:1-5

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

I always think of 1 Tim 2:12 and 1 Cor 14, when my wife thanks me for doing something like giving her the answer to a crossword puzzle, and I say it's my job as a husband, to guide you, teach you, patronise you.

 

What’s an advowson

 

Ah, the obsession that just won't die. Somebody alert @Tiffy.

 

I am glad that you asked this question. An advowson is "a right of presentation to a vacant benefice; or in other words, a right of nominating a person to officiate in a vacant church. The name is derived from advocatio, because the right was first obtained by such as were founders, benefactors or strenuous defenders, advocates, or the church. Those who have this right are styled Patrons." I also found that in days of yore, women could hold and even practice and exercise advowsons. According to https://books.google.com/books?id=r...hUKEwiY3re6-qzyAhXOQs0KHS4RD8sQ6AEwAXoECAMQAg, "if a Church becomes void during the Coverture, the Wife shall present to her Advowson, if she survives her Husband", even though women were not even allowed to VOTE or hold public office in England!

 

It's my understanding this advowson is because some private person agreed to build the church in the first place and gained the right to appoint the minister. I also understand ( maybe wrongly) that this is why that person is called either a Parson or a Rector ( not sure which) and not a vicar.

 

A parson or vicar did the job himself. A Rector could appoint someone else to do the vocation on his behalf. Some never even went near the place or so I was told.

Apparently all this is past history since the practice of patronage was stopped in the 20th century.

The thread starter has a bee in the bonnet but it's difficult to know which side of the window of biblical inerrancy and infallible literal interpretation fanaticism the bee is buzzing and head butting against, isn't it, - as usual. Will it ever reach the light and freedom/incarceration it seems so obsessed by, I wonder?
.

 

First of all a little background information is necessary. Every Church of England parish belongs to a benefice. Very often there is one parish in a benefice but sometimes there are more. Every benefice has a patron. The patron may be a real person or a legal person such as a body corporate. The Crown, many peers, Oxbridge colleges, etc. are patrons. The patron of my parish is jointly the chapter of the diocesan cathedral and the rector of a neighbouring parish. The patron of a benefice has a right to present a priest to the bishop of the diocese as the incumbent of the parish if it is vacant. Of course nowadays, the patron alone does not choose the new priest for a vacant parish, others are involved.

Advowson is a legal term theat refers to the patron's right to choose a priest for the parish.

 

While Tiffy's first two sentences may be morally and historically true, I cannot give his/her sentence the benefit of the doubt. But on the contrary:

"VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church." - Article VI of the 39 Articles of Religion.

The evidence that PDL has presented is factually true and accurate. But I have written this new thread specifically to make the assumption that 1 Corinthians 14:34/35 and 1 Timothy 2:11/15 apply today exactly as written. "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man" - 1 Timothy 2:12. When a candidate, having been nominated or presented on account of the advowson held by the patron who thus nominated or presented this candidate, was put into the church office unto which the advowson appertains, absolutely no laic/parishioner, of any sex or age, over which the incumbent had cure of souls had any lawful vote or voice at all in the matter, but on the contrary, all such laics in the congregation were legally bound to yield canonical obedience to the incumbent thus placed in office. Neither did the congregation have any right to vote or veto on the matter at any time before, during, or after the process of exercising the advowson. The congregation was under legal obligation to yield subjection and due courteous and diligent attention to ministers thus placed in office and support his ministry, irrespective of his feelings or conduct. To abandon the minister was considered contrary to divine law, and even the very act of crossing the boundaries of the parish to a neighboring parish to hear another clergyman was contrary to the canon law of the Church of England. Either the act of the patron exercising the advowson is an act of rule and government and authority over the congregation over which the incumbent has the cure or souls, or else it isn't. If it IS, well then it is no less a violation of 1 Timothy 2:12 for a woman to exercise the advowson than if she had been preaching or teaching publicly in the Divine Liturgy. But if it ISN'T, well then I wonder what could possibly be a good, sound, just, and Scriptural and orthodoxical cause why it isn't.

 

I have no idea what point you are trying to make or why as a non-Anglican you are so concerned with our practices.

I have asked before, but you have ignored my question. If you are so concerned about women having any role in a church why does your denomination pay so much attention to the writings and teachings of Ellen Gould White?

You seem not to understand the process of appointing a parish priest. It does not involve only the patron of the living. Likewise, you seem not to understand the authority a priest has in his parish. He does not rule the parish. He must work closely with the parochial church council (PCC). The PCC will have a majority of lay people on it. Indeed, it's quite possible the incumbent is the only cleric on the PCC.

 

This is legalism run amok, and I find the extent of this obsession rather disturbing. I also cannot fathom what is so difficult to comprehend about the cultural context of the 21st century Anglophone world being sufficiently different from the 1st century Greco-Roman world that the categories applied to women in the latter era would not justifiably apply in the former, for such reasons as universal education and literacy, universal suffrage, an open economy and political system, etc. The job of a minister is primarily to read the words of the service aloud for the congregation, expound their meaning, offer support and counsel to individual parishioners, and financially manage a parish. Not only can women empirically do all of these things just as well as men can, they might even be better at doing some if not all of them than men in general are. To forbid particular offices to women simply because they are women is gender-based discrimination, the particular gender one possesses at birth is morally arbitrary, and for discrimination to be just it must be based on something that is morally significant (such as violation of the law).

 

Because they believe that 1 Corinthians 11:5 allowed women to pray and prophesy publicly in church provided that they had their head covered, but I decided not to give the benefit of the doubt to such an interpretation. I decided to give the traditional historical Anglican interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:5, 1 Corinthians 14:34/35, and 1 Timothy 2:11/12 the benefit of the doubt.

I was not talking about cases in which the patron of the living played NO part in the appointment of a parish priest. I was talking specifically about those cases in which there is a vacancy in the position of parish priests of a given local congregation, and the patron, by right of the advowson he has over that local congregation nominates and/or presents a candidate to fill that vacancy. You say the parish priest does not rule the parish, but I claim that his very act of officiating in the divine liturgy IS ipso facto an act de facto of ruling over the parish. The traditional interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:34/35 is that this verse applies to formal worship services only, and here is the rationale:

Harold R. Holmyard III: "Believers in church gatherings [especially those convened for the Divine Liturgy] represent the body of Christ, the society of God's people. Those who [publicly address such an assembly, especially for the purposes of conducting the service or the divine liturgy] are in de facto leadership roles, since all others must listen. In planned, formal meetings men ought to assume these authoritative responsibilities. [But the traditional interpretation does not apply this to singing or devotional responses. Many who subscribe to the "traditional" interpretation also allow women to sing in solos, choir, and "special music" and not just merely join in with the congregation in congregational singing.] But in the many small, fortuitous groupings of everyday life a woman's speech need not imply authority over males. Males might not be present, or they might be non-Christians, or they might, because of sickness or other difficulties, be the ones in need of a word to or from God. Many other circumstances could explain the propriety of a woman praying or prophesying with men present in a nonchurch setting." (Harold R. Holmyard, Does 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 Refer to Women Praying and Prophesying in Church?)

And it is not a question of the role of the parochial church council either, but of the patron's role in influencing WHO gets to occupy a church office when it is vacant.

 

But that is exactly what feminists and so-called liberals and progressives and skeptical higher critics are claiming! Those are not the kind of people who ought to be receiving the benefit of the doubt if we believe our Bible.

 

One doesn’t have to belong to any of those groups to recognize that the argument being attributed to them here is cogent. They’re right.

Yours is a textbook example of a statement of prejudice if ever I've seen it: dismiss a statement because of who said it, rather than the deal with the content of the statement on its merits. (This is why ad hominem arguments are considered informally fallacious.)

 

There is no "doubt" here. Empirically, women have all the same capabilities men do to perform these roles, e.g., literacy, education, financial management, empathy, good judgment. The assumption that they do not is misguided misogynistic nonsense that belongs in another era. I shouldn't have to point that out in the 21st century.

The Bible was written thousands of years ago in an entirely different cultural context than what we have today. To outright ignore that rather obvious fact is to confuse the medium with the message. The message is, "the kingdom of God here, now, therefore repent." I don't have to accept the cultural assumptions of the times and places in which the Bible was written in order to take its message both literally and seriously.

 

Anyone else feel that there is a lot of splitting of hairs going on in order to make some 'outlier' texts control the praxis of the 21st century church, out of a slavish adherance to the letter of the word, while ignoring the spirit of The Word?
.

 

Your source for this position is ...?

You will have to explain how you see any difference here. I do not.

You very clearly do not understand advowson. It is not the patrons rights over a congregation. You are also using non-Anglican terminology. The advowson relates to the benefice. It is in effect a claim on the real property of the benefice. You also overrate the role of the patron. The patron cannot impose a priest on a benefice. The diocese in which the parish sits and representatives from the PCC all have a say in the appointment and the bishop must also find the candidate presented to be acceptable.

Pure and utter nonsense. Celebrating Divine Worship is leading the people is the worship of Almighty God. It is not ruling over a parish or the people who live in it. In the Church of England clergy serving in parishes must work with others in the governance of the parish.

I think our Lord would see your postings akin to what the Pharisees may have said. As Invictus points out to you you seem to be obsessed with legalism. I think if I did not know you were not an Anglican I could very easily tell. You lack any knowledge of how the Anglican Church works. If you were actively involved in an Anglican parish you would know the reality is a lot different from what you think it should be.

You refuse to answer questions that you obviously do not like or do not care for. You will not explain why you have this obsession with what goes in in an different denomination from your own. You do not explain your highly misogynistic attitude when you come from a denomination effectively founded by a woman!

I have better, more interesting and far more fruitful things to do. Consequently I have no wish to engage with you further. Plus, please send me no more private mesaages.

 

Another thing I have noticed is that in days of yore, advowsons used to be bought and sold in the Church of England like merchandise.

And another thing that we must notice is that nemo plus iuris ad alium transferre potest quam ipse habet - no man can lawfully grant or confer more powers and rights to others than he himself already possesses, for:

First of all, when you exercise a prerogative for which you are ineligible, that is just as much a THEFT as robbing a bank. Of necessity, SOMEBODY else of a DIFFERENT category than the one you belong to is eligible, but then when you exercise the prerogative, you are USURPING his prerogatives: you are seizing for yourself prerogatives which belong to HIS category and not yours. You have stolen from him just and lawful freedom from this kind of usurpation and rivalry. That is THEFT!

Secondly, the Bible clearly teaches THOU SHALT NOT STEAL. But those who receive stolen goods, whether by donation, investiture, inauguration, or inheritance, are just as guilty of breaking this precept of Divine Law. Therefore, those who receive grants of authority from those that cannot lawfully possess it are guilty of breaking this precept. This proves DEFINITIVELY, on the grounds of the Bible that Nemo plus iuris ad alium transferre potest quam ipse habet – no man can transfer to others more jurisdiction than he himself lawfully possess.

No woman can therefore lawfully or validly confer upon others in church matters any prerogative greater or nobler than that for which she is Scripturally eligible.

But no woman is scripturally eligible to hold or exercise offices of church preferment (1 Corinthians 14:34/35, 1 Timothy 2:11/12).

 

It is a basic legal principle that later laws trump earlier ones whenever they conflict over the same subject matter. This is called the principle of ‘implied repeal’. No matter what the canon law might have been in 1604, canon law in the Church of England and the U.S. Episcopal Church today allow men and women alike to be ordained. The 1604 canons are obsolete.

The authority of the canons derives from the church which issues them. If the Church of England had the authority to regulate church order as it did in 1604, then it does today as well. You cannot quote a document as an ‘authority’ and then deny that the body that issued it had the authority to do so.

There is no divine command in the NT prohibiting women from exercising the Christian ministry. What you have are a few isolated statements in a pseudo-Pauline epistle, expressing the author’s opinion, whoever he was, which may or may not have been reflective of what he thought was a higher theological standard or principle. About that we can only speculate. Ritual purity requirements prevented women from exercising the priesthood under the Mosaic law. Christianity has no such regulations. The only other impediments in the 1st century would have been social restrictions and impediments which do not apply to modern society. The Holy Spirit guides the church, and the church has the authority to make binding decisions and to regulate order as it sees fit. The Bible is the rule of faith, not the judge, in classical Anglican teaching. It is the church’s decision to make whether or not women are ordained. It is not a decision that just automatically falls out of the Bible. That’s not the way Anglican polity works, as I and others here keep repeating.

Aren’t you part of a denomination that was founded by a woman?

 

I believe property is the word you're looking for here, not merchandise, and that's because it is property. Nemo dat is about you not being able to sell things you don't own, it's unlawful for me to sell you my neighbours TV. If your argument comes from nemo dat then you're gonna have a really bad time, because then you need to prove women can't own property. Good luck.