Who Shall We Put on the Kalendar?: The Episcopal Church and Her Saints

Derek has been thinking about saints lately. His research, no doubt, takes him through some bizarre parts of the hagiography, and so he has been wondering why we canonize particular people and what meaning sainthood has in the ascendant theology of the TEC today. Most compellingly, Derek has a good summary of the Scriptural landscape.

The modern Episcopal view is really a form of pristinism, and I say that in the least pejorative sense possible. In most cases when saints or hagioi in Greek, literally "the holy people" are discussed in the New Testament, it is Paul's general use of the term to refer to the Church Militant in good standing in the various communities to which he provided counsel. Paul's letters occasionally contain things like, "Give my best regards to all the saints of the Church of X, you rock, dudes." It is not an idle term. It asserts Paul's belief that the Church is a new Israel, called to be holy as the Lord God is holy just as Israel was in the wilderness. And whereas the first Israelites sinned and died in the wilderness, the relationship of the Church to Jesus gives a holy standing to her members without them being fully righteous, for they are righteous through Him. The Church thus is Holy because Christ is Holy, righteous as both man and God. And thus by imputation (or Paul's presumably consonant soteriological teaching), the Church's members indeed are holy people. Thus, the Church's members indeed are saints in the earliest sense.

Derek, however, directs us to Revelation where we see a group of the saints before the Last Judgment already in the presence of God. This is odd, considering most evidence in Scripture until that time suggests that no one is in God's presence until the Last Judgment except Enoch and Elijah. At most, there are some people like the poor Lazarus in some sort of holding state called "Abraham's bosom." Otherwise, it's "the trumpet shall sound and the dead be raised" and summoned into the Valley of Josaphat or some other proper place for judgment.

Revelation is an odd duck in the Canon, so it took some time for Christianity to process the implications of its view of heaven. In Bede, we hear the story of a monk who gets into a cold spring every morning to recite the psalms. This practice is explained by a vision he had of various things, including a place of happy people in white who frolicked hither and yon and a place where people were cruelly tortured in fire. The man supposed these were heaven and hell but was told that the gates of Heaven were closed to all but the most holy until the Judgment, and he had seen two versions of the holding area: one in which people were purified and another where people rested happily but without the fullness of the Divine Presence. The man asked what Hell was like and was told that he had seen the entrance to Hell, which was some sort of dank, vaguely living hole. In other words, Heaven is too wonderful to see and Hell too horrible. This story is an early account of Purgatory, whose architecture became considerably more complicated and impact on soteriology increasingly problematic as time went on. But the point remains, Purgatory was a modification of Abraham's Bosom, and Dante seems to have made that happy place into the Terrestrial Paradise. But it should be remembered that reception takes time, and so you can read poetry in Middle English from Ireland concerning the Land of Cockyange, which is said to be better than Heaven, because (a) there is only fruit to eat in heaven, whereas Cockyange has both meat and fruit (b) Enoch and Elijah are the only people in Heaven, whereas the people in Cockyange are much more fun.

But whatever the reason, people relatively early in Tradition kept having visions of the holy martyrs crowned with glory as described in Revelation, and thus experience confirmed what the Scripture taught: some of the saints were admitted to the Divine Presence immediately. First, it was just the martyrs, but when the era of persecutions ended, there was a recognition that some people (traditionally called confessors and the Catholic Encyclopedia claims these were often called "bloodless martyrs" or somesuch) had "especial sanctity" even if they just died quietly after vespers without fuss or bother (in fact, this was often proof of sanctity, especially if you predicted it first, e.g. St Columba). [Random Etymological Note: Saints in Irish are called Naomh, and I've always wondered whether there was any etymological link between this and the Greek word for a temple's inner sanctuary, naos , which is still used in Greek to refer to a church.] Derek has a good entry in Open Thou Our Lips about saints being patrones in the Roman sense, which is worth looking up.

But the saint business seems to have become complicated for a variety of reasons. First of all, there are some cases in which saints have been conflated with pagan deities. St. Brigid is one example, but it's likely that the explanation given in the hagiography, that Brigid's father meant her as an oblate to the service of the goddess explains some of the coincidences between her and the Irish goddess. Irish saints also have strong associations with springs, which if you know anything about Celtic religion, connects them with pagan beliefs about places of strong spiritual energy. But after all, the Lord Jesus, too, was very skillful with springs and water generally. Perhaps the best example of a pagan saint are the rituals associated with St. Gennaro, the patron of Naples. Every year, a vial containing his blood is observed to liquefy. But the miracle of San Gennaro takes time, so while the congregants play the waiting game, women sing a variety of indecent and insulting songs to get the blood to liquefy. There is some incentive in this, because if the blood should take a long time to liquefy or fail to liquefy at all, great misfortune is supposed to befall the city in the next year. St. Augustine of Hippo describes similar rites in his works, involving songs being sung to divinities that never would be sung in polite company, but these involve Cybele etc. and not a Christian martyr. I suspect the liquefaction refers to some old ritual of Neapolitan haruspicy, which has been transformed in some odd way as with all Italian religion. After all, if the Romans replaced a festival of human sacrifice with a fishing tournament (as Ovid claims in the Fasti ), anything is possible.

Second, saints, especially in the High Middle Ages, had economic potential. So it was in the best interest of a parish to preserve the remains of any local hermit of any repute and look for evidence of miraculous doings. While it's fairly easy to snipe at such activities, I've read enough descriptions of these episodes in medieval parish records (I used to read a lot of history of the pre-Reformation Church of England) to think these efforts mostly were in good faith. Occasionally, saints were made up. Eventually, some sort of canonical order was established in the West about who could be venerated or not. Initially (and again I'm following the Catholic Encyclopedia and my memory of medieval English practice), it was possible for veneration to be authorized in a diocese by decree. The usual custom then was for the feast of this saint to become universal by Roman reception. The idea of a Roman martyrology dates to the 3rd century, when the deacons were ordered to record the martyrdoms in their district but it became an increasingly "universal" martyrology later. But canonization was centralized at Rome by the late 12th century. The bureaucratic process presently used in the Roman Catholic Church has evolved since then, and the business of cleaning up what happened before then has been left to the bureaucratic organs and the research activities of the most supercool of the Jesuits, the Bollandists.

But what about Anglicans? Do we canonize? How and why? Well, the place to look first is a kalendar for an edition of the 1662 Prayer Book. I found an online version of the 1771 edition that has a most fascinating calendar, in that it maintains the Feasts of the Apostles, notable early martyrs, and various figures connected the Order of Saint Benedict or the evangelization of the British Isles. It even includes the Invention of the Holy Cross and tells you when to start the O Antiphons in Advent. The only post-Reformation observances are the Feast of King Charles Martyr (one of the patronal feasts of the Monastery, not presently on the American kalendar) and "Papist Conspiracy" or Guy Fawkes Day. No Ridley or Latimer or Cranmer. It was a stripped-down pre-Reformation kalendar only modified by politics. The new feasts famously were opportunities for the High Anglican Ascendancy to glory in its victory over the Puritans (now Nonconformists) and the Roman Catholics. Sick, frankly.

The new American church would have none of the politics in the kalendar, so they removed everyone who could not be found in the Holy Scriptures, maintaining only All Saints (this feast is Gallican in origin and was received at Rome in the 9th century). And so it apparently was until 1979, since the 1928 BCP has the same kalendar as 1789. The story of how we suddenly restored most of the saints of the Scottish kalendar (Laud's Book) and added so many new ones should be told someone who remembers, since some are likely still alive.

So does TEC canonize people? Well, I think we do. All the Roman Pontiff does to canonize is to declare someone a Saint, inscribe their name in a catalog, and appoint a feast day. General Convention does little less. But still we are uncomfortable with our form of canonization, and I just realized why: this practice hasn't been around very long. I once suggested that my campus ministry celebrate the feast day of the patron of the house we used as our base of operations. But despite our willingness to celebrate the feasts of other saints, it seemed odd to celebrate the feast of a man of whom we had two photographs in the house: one of him in clericals and one from his student days in which he was dressed as a woman for a dramatic production. No one normally talks about St. William White or St. Phillips Brooks.

But in the last thirty years, we have put an entire slew of new people on the kalendar with little discussion of why. Most recently, this issue arose with the proposal that Thurgood Marshall be included in the kalendar. Frankly, the proposal was worth it just for the distraction of the newspapers from other matters at General Convention, but it brought up an important question: Thurgood Marshall certainly did a lot of important things for American civil liberties but did he have "especial sanctity" or was a sufficient witness to Christ in his actions? Does it really matter? The Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music will consider this question during the next three years.

Fortunately, this Triennium they proposed guidelines in their Report about who to include in the kalendar prefaced with this gem from the Passion of Polycarp:

“There the Lord will permit us, so far as possible, to gather together in joy and gladness to celebrate the day of his martyrdom as a birthday, in memory of those athletes who have gone before, and to train and make ready those who are to come hereafter.”

1. Historicity

Christianity is a radically historical religion, so in almost every instance it is not theological realities or spiritual movements but exemplary witness to the Gospel of Christ in lives actually lived that is commemorated in the Calendar.

I really don't understand what this means, unless it's some convoluted explanation of why we generally don't commemorate Corpus Christi. We commemorate people and not doctrines or the Holy Club or something.

2. Christian Discipleship

The death of the saints, precious in God’s sight, is the ultimate witness to the power of the Resurrection. What is being commemorated, therefore, is the completion in death of a particular Christian’s living out of the promises of baptism. Baptism is, therefore, a necessary prerequisite for inclusion in the Calendar.

Baptism in blood hopefully is legitimate here. If you die for Christ, you die with Christ. This recommendation is good in that it instructs us not to commemorate non-Christians but says in a way that make people feel better about it because it is linked with the popular baptismal theology.

3. Significance

Those commemorated should have been in their lifetime extraordinary, even heroic servants of God and God’s people for the sake, and after the example, of Jesus Christ. In this way they have testified to the Lordship of Christ over all of history, and continue to inspire us as we carry forward God’s mission in the world.

There is attempt here to use the Roman Catholic language of "heroic virtue" without actually using it. But the point is solid. Those commemorated are exemplars and must be exemplary.

4. Memorability

The Calendar should include those who, through their devotion to Christ and their joyful and loving participation in the community of the faithful, deserve to be remembered by The Episcopal Church today. However, in order to celebrate the whole history of salvation, it is important also to include those “whose memory may have faded in the shifting fashions of public concern, but whose witness is deemed important to the life and mission of the Church” (Thomas Talley).

God bless James Kiefer for bringing the kalendar to life. Basically, this recommendation says that those commemorated must be relevant to us even if they are presently obscure. I really fear for the Cappadocian Fathers, since I don't hear too many priests preach the "good doctrine is important" sermon these days.

5. Range of Inclusion

Particular attention should be paid to Episcopalians and other members of the Anglican Communion. Attention should also be paid to gender and race, to the inclusion of laypeople (witnessing in this way to our baptismal understanding of the Church), and to ecumenical representation. In this way the Calendar will reflect the reality of our time: that instant communication and extensive travel are leading to an ever deeper international and ecumenical consciousness among Christian people.

Mission St. Clare puts a lot of fun Lutheran observances on the kalendar. I could go for those. Speaking of ecumenism, how about Brother Roger of Taize? Note that our kalendar is much fuller than the rest of the Communion these days. But again, the chief concern is the saint as exemplar. And I think the idea here is that the best exemplars are those with which we identify or will encourage us to learn about other cultures.

6. Local Observance

Similarly, it should normatively be the case that significant commemoration of a particular person already exists at the local and regional levels before that person is included in the Calendar of the Episcopal Church as a whole.

One question: who authorizes local commemoration?

7. Perspective

It should normatively be the case that a person be included in the Calendar only after two generations or fifty years have elapsed since that person’s death.

Very good. So I guess we'll have to wait on Brother Roger.

Levels of Commemoration

Principal Feasts, Sundays, and Holy Days have primacy of place in the Church’s liturgical observance. It does not seem appropriate to distinguish between the various other commemorations by regarding some as having either a greater or a lesser claim on our observance of them. Each commemoration should be given equal weight as far as the provision of liturgical propers is concerned (including the listing of three lessons).

Makes sense. If I do both Morning and Evening Prayer, I do the regular Lectionary in the morning and the Festal in the evening. But I've noticed that some commemorations have more readings than others.

9. Combined Commemorations

The present edition of Lesser Feasts and Fasts (2003) recognizes that not all those included in the Calendar need to be commemorated “in isolation”. Where there are close and natural links between persons to be remembered, a joint commemoration would make excellent sense (cf. The Cappadocians - Sts. Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa and Macrina— and the Reformation martyrs—Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley).

We need some sort of shorthand though. How about the Feast of the Three Anglican Hierarchs (Proto-Martyrs)?

10. Common of Saints

A greater range of “Commons of Saints” should be provided to allow for optional commemorations at the local and regional levels. Presently there are propers provided for martyrs, missionaries, pastors, theologians and teachers, monastics, and “saints.” Possible additional categories could include musicians and other artists, reformers of society, and “stewards of creation,” for example, scientists and environmentalists.

Steward of creation has a nice ring to it actually.

These recommendations have the imprimatur of General Convention as Resolution A057 of this past Convention.

Some Summary Comments

Commemorations really could go either way at this point. Either they could be treated as an opportunity to satisfy interest groups or score political points with the wider culture as in the Church of England in the 17th century or they could be carefully chosen as an encouragement to us, the Church Militant, looking throughout salvation history for lanterns to light the way to Christ's standard. But I think these recommendations are lacking in one thing: although they cite "heroic virtue," they focus on our own opinions of what that is. I am not one to suggest that we require miracles of those we commemorate, but I do think that there are gifts in the church by which especial sanctity can be detected or in which God reveals those he sets apart for his heavenly service. Perhaps, we should consider these as well.

O Almighty God, who hast knit together thine elect in one communion and fellowship in the mystical body of thy Son Christ our Lord: Grant us grace so to follow thy blessed saints in all virtuous and godly living, that we may come to those ineffable joys which thou hast prepared for those who unfeignedly love thee; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord, who with thee and the Holy Spirit liveth and reigneth, one God, in glory everlasting.

Another Response to Father Harding

Father Wilkins has taken a stab at this already, but he started going places that I reserved for my Latin exams in high school. I also was not at General Convention nor have much to do with the leadership of The Episcopal Church unless you start playing the Kevin Bacon game. Frankly, I was thinking seriously about doing some sort of Twilight Zone parody of Rev. Canon Minns' present situation, but I will leave him to the mercy of his ordinary, whoever that might be at this point.

Nevertheless I assure that is in your interest that I am leaving you. If I do not go, the Advocate will not come, whereas if I go, I will send Him to you. When He comes, He will prove the world wrong about sin, justice and judgment: about sin, because they refuse to believe in Me; about justice, because I go to the Father when I pass from your sight; about judgement, because the prince of this world stands condemned. There is much more that I could say to you, but the burden is too great for you now. However, when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but He will not speak on His own authority, but will speak only what he hears; and he will make known to you what is to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and make it known to you. John 16:7-14

Then Balak said to Balaam, 'You will not put a curse on them; then at least do not bless them.' He answered, 'Did I not warn you that I must do whatever the LORD tells me?" Numbers 23:25-26.

Father Harding's Epitomes of General Convention 2006

1. God is the author of same-sex attraction by an act of special providence that includes biological and social-psychological secondary causes. Because we know through reports of the spiritual experience of same-sex attracted people that God is the primary author of these experiences, inquiry into the relative contributions of nature and nurture to same-sex attraction is of no significance for the church’s moral teaching or pastoral care.

No, Father Harding. Homosexuality is not a matter of special providence, a particular and virtue-oriented interference in the life of a civilly righteous person or Christian believer, it is clearly common grace in that it rises like the Sun or falls like the rain on the good and evil alike (Matthew 5:45). I.e., by the operation of the natural law, which is still indistinct and unclear to man. But, of course, rain doesn't fall on everyone, especially if they live in the Atacama Desert, and you really can't see much of a sunrise on Quaoar. Common grace is not particular but no means universal. And it's that same common grace which makes you and me heterosexual. But, yes, the operation of the natural law "includes biological and social-psychological secondary causes," whose details still are provisional. As for the inquiry you propose, such an inquiry does matter, for we would not in wickedness suppress the truth (Romans 1:18) and is part of discernment with gay and lesbian persons that is taking place within the Eucharistic community of the Body of Christ as presently constituted in this church, but our present judgment is that nurture is a minimal factor.

2. This recognition of the source of same-sex attraction in the direct intention of God means that the categories of “Gay” and “Lesbian” are part of God’s order of creation in the same way as male and female.

I think that "Gay" and "Lesbian" are primary characteristics, which often have deep relations to other aspects of personhood in the same way "male" and "female" are primary characteristics that have a strong organizing imprint on personhood. But handedness also is a primary characteristic in this way. "Male" and "female" however stand at the pinnacle of primary characteristics, and thus have greater theological significance in that it is recognized explicitly in the Scriptures from the beginning, whereas homosexual orientation is more vaguely discussed.

3. Bisexuality is also created by God as an act of special providence through a combination of biological and social-psychological secondary causes.

See #1

4. It is likewise irrelevant to the church’s moral and pastoral response to this phenomenon to inquire into the relative contributions of nature and nurture in the development of this sexual orientation.

It's not irrelevant, and I will admit that there is a case to make that male bisexuality is extremely rare.

5. The recognition of the source of same-sex desire in the original intention of God for the creation and humanity is a revelation of the Holy Spirit in our time.

You make it sound like this is new,

"They stood outside and prayed as with one mouth, saying, "King of Kings and Lord of lords, who alone possess immortality and inhabit unapproachable light, shed light on the eyes of their minds, because they walk in the darkness of their unknowing; they have exchanged your glory, uncorruptible God, for the likeness of corruptible men and birds and beasts and snakes; and they worship the created rather than you, the creator. Turn them to knowledge of you, that they may know you, the one true God, and your only-begotten Son, our Lord ]esus Christ, who for us and for our salvation suffered and rose from the dead, that he might free us from the bonds of the law and rescue us from the folly of vain idols. Preserve us, God, pure and spotless in the path of your martyrs, walking in your commandments."-- The Passion of SS. Sergius and Bacchus (tr. John Boswell). .

This account makes absolutely no sense unless at least someone at least 1100 years ago (and probably more) had similar thoughts about same-sex desire as I do.

6. The General Conventions of 2003 and 2006 are witnesses to this new revelation of the Holy Spirit.

I believe this whole business began in 1976, before I was born.

7. The Holy Spirit has not yet revealed what amendments in the church’s received sexual ethic will be necessary to accommodate bisexual and transgendered people but we can expect further leading by the Holy Spirit in this regard. In the meantime such persons should be considered fit candidates for Holy Orders.

It's fairly easy how the church can "accomodate" bisexual persons. They are encouraged to remain chaste in celibacy (vowed or otherwise) or may enter into matrimony, fratrimony, or sororimony as they are called. I have not considered transgendered persons seriously, but you are right to point out that this is a less obvious case which will require consideration of Scripture and Tradition, which warn us that self-mutilation is a bar to holiness.

8. Certainty in moral or theological judgments which is based on an authoritative reading of a text whether that is the text of the Bible or any other part of the dogmatic tradition of the church is inherently an example of over-reaching.

The authoritative reading of the Messiah before the coming of the Lord Jesus was as a military leader who would liberate Israel as a civil entity. St. Augustine of Hippo certainly didn't have the authoritative readings on soteriology behind him for most of his life. Or when Cephalus in the Republic cites various authorities on justice, Socrates replies,

"Suppose that a friend when in his right mind has deposited arms with me and he asks for them when he is not in his right mind, ought I to give them back to him? No one would say that I ought or that I should be right in doing so, any more than they would say that I ought always to speak the truth to one who is in his condition. Book I: tr. Benjamin Jowett

The authorities of the Church in the communion of saints saw like we do "through a glass darkly" without knowledge of many things of God and nature. We must consider when we come into new knowledge of these matters or of the tradition generally whether the grounds and reasoning of the authorities are still valid. If they are not, we do them honor by correcting these details of the faith that have come down to us according to the best of our knowledge, for "God is the God of the living and not the dead", and they living in full knowledge may agree with us. But we must be careful to discern whether we actually know anything new or not.

I can assure you that I never intend that anyone's certainty be impugned by having to officiate at a same-sex blessing. And I hope that General Convention probably will conclude that, too. You might cite WO against that idea, but there are increasing worries that "the authoritative readings" on this question actually may be heretical at present knowledge but not according to the knowledge possessed by the authorities. This problem arose at the early Councils, too, so it should be handled under the same principle. The past is orthodox according to their lights until proven otherwise.


9. Contemporary reports of personal spiritual experience by same-sex attracted people and their supporters about the spiritual blessedness of same-sex relationships provide a basis for moral and theological certainty on this question which the scriptures and the traditional teaching of the church cannot by virtue of the nature of the documents provide.

You appear to suggest that experience is being treated as superior to Scripture and "traditional teaching." Let me rephrase, "Contemporary reports of personal spiritual experience by same-sex attracted people and their supporters about the spiritual blessedness of same-sex relationships provide a basis for moral and theological clarity on this question in conversation with scripture and the traditional teaching of the church regarding all matters of faith and morals, not just the isolated questions of homosexual activity.

10. Christians who feel bound by the scriptures should understand that the fact that there are different interpretations of the scriptures which touch on same-sex attraction means that no single interpretation can possibly be authoritative.

Not quite. There are various reasons why the traditionally authoritative reading might not be the veracious one. Thus, some Muslims read the Bible and say the Paraclete is the Prophet Muhammad. That is the authoritative reading for that community but our experience of the Spirit teaches us that He is the Paraclete.

11. Since the scriptures cannot possibly be authoritative on this issue and since self-reported spiritual experience provides the only reliable certainty on the subject, any objections to same-sex blessings on the basis of scripture are irrelevant a priori.

I hope not. That would mean that any Scriptural support of same-sex blessings is irrelevant a priori .

12. Exegetical discussion of specific texts which seem to forbid blessing same-sex erotic behavior can only be for the benefit of quieting the consciences of people who take the bible literally. At the end of the day the inherent uncertainty of the scriptures must give way before the certainty of the personal spiritual experience of the same-sex attracted and their supporters and the felt experience of the presence of the Holy Spirit in two succeeding General Conventions.

All I'm asking for is a complete assessment of Scripture, Tradition, and reason that does not just consider homosexuality as something discussed in a few verses of Scripture or Patristic writings etc. but as something whose existence in nature and lived experience must be considered in the light of the entire divine economy as revealed in the same sources. I don't exegete to soothe anyone's conscience except my own but only to learn the truth.

13. The most meaningful dialogue in which the church can engage is dialogue that allows same-sex attracted people and their supporters to share their perceptions of the ways in which God has blessed individuals and specific Christian communities through covenanted same-sex relationships. Actual argument about scripture or the teaching tradition of the church or the state of the scientific question could never produce any legitimate objections to the new thing the Holy Spirit is doing.

See 12. You also might read the Passion of SS. Sergius and Bacchus as a way of understanding how lived experience can be read in the light of the Holy Scriptures.

14. The experience of people who describe themselves as having been cured or freed from same-sex attraction is irrelevant and the church should not give such people a serious hearing. They either were never really same-sex attracted to begin with or are deluded about their claim to be freed or cured. The personal religious experiences of such people are not of the same quality and reliability as the experiences of the same-sex attracted in the church. These experiences are not to be seen as legitimate experiences of the power of the Holy Spirit in spite of all claims to the contrary. Likewise scientific reporting of the overcoming of same sex attraction is deeply suspect as ideologically tainted and can with confidence be dismissed without a serious reading.

I have given such persons a serious hearing before, though I would have preferred to do so Eucharistically. My provisional opinion is that such deliverance is a case of Special Providence. But I have heard other people on the subject who have repented of seeking such a thing. The last sentence of this epitome is my current reading of the scientific evidence.

15. Same-sex attraction and same-sex relationships should be recommended to our children as entirely equal to and as preferable as marriage between a man and woman. If any young person feels any same-sex attraction it is by God’s express intention and not to act upon it is to dishonor God. To discourage young people to act upon same-sex attraction is to dishonor God’s intention in the creation. The question is not whether young people should act on their same-sex attractions but when and under what circumstances. Young people who are experiencing same-sex attraction can be helped by being mentored by older same-sex attracted adults and the church should be proactive in facilitating these relationships.

As long as the key sentence is, " The question is not whether young people should act on their same-sex attractions but when and under what circumstances.," this is exactly correct.

16. It is wrong for the Episcopal Church to dictate to any other province of the Anglican Church what its policy on same-sex relationships should be.

Yes, it is wrong for TEC to compel another Province's reception of something that was never received entirely by the church catholic. However, TEC is free to encourage other Provinces to promote greater liberty for gay and lesbian persons.

17. It is wrong for any other province of the Anglican Communion to interfere with the leading of the Holy Spirit in this province. What the Holy Spirit demands at any particular time must be determined locally.

Why is all of this so pneumatological? Look at John above. Or "We worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity." Actually, forget that. ++Drexel Gomez is quite free to reprove us with works such as True Union in the Body provided that we can reprove him, too, if we find his arguments to disagree with our reasoning and conclusions. It is wrong for another province to stir up disorder in this province by offering to exercise episcopal authority without permission of the metropolitical authority or promise to foment schism within this province in order to enhance the feelings of sanctity of those in this province. Well, at least at this point in time. The ideal of catholic discernment is you wait a few generations to see if anything changes. If it's of the Holy Spirit, it will die down or reveal how infernal it is by expression of the lust for mastery.

18. What the Holy Spirit is demanding must be determined provincially. Those dioceses which are members of the Episcopal Church and which resist the new teaching cannot legitimately be thought to be led by the Holy Spirit and must be resisted with all the canonical and legal means available.

For the sake of souls of minority conscience and for the sake of God's Holy Name, I am quite willing to do good to those Dioceses and parishes who find this intolerable by an amicable transfer to another Province, such as the West Indies or the Southern Cone, within a canonical framework. See below. However, if there are further attempts to turn parts of TEC into the Twilight Zone and stir up disorder in this province, sterner measures may be necessary.

19. A variety of interpretations of scripture can be tolerated in the church. The canons of the church especially with regard to the territorial integrity of Episcopal jurisdiction allow for no variation in interpretation.

"And they shall see him, even they who pierced him." Let the reader understand. But I admit the Canons are rather vague. However in this case, I expect the orthodox to act according to the authoritative teachings on ecclesiastical polity and order.

20. The proposal of the Archbishop of Canterbury for a new Anglican covenant and for churches to choose constituent or associate status in the communion represents a dire threat to capacity of the church to respond to the leading of the Holy Spirit. It represents the prospect of a quenching of the Spirit.

Possibly. If the covenant establishes particular perikerygmal dogma, it may quench the Spirit. But if it establishes procedures for discernment and mutual accountability, it may be very good indeed.

21. The General Convention of the Episcopal Church has been uniquely privileged to hear from the Holy Spirit in a way that has been denied to the rest of world wide Anglicanism, The Roman Catholic Church, The Orthodox Churches and Protestant Evangelicalism. The Episcopal Church must at all costs maintain its witness to the unique agency of the Holy Spirit in its midst. Those who oppose the new teaching are enemies of the Holy Spirit who are making an idol of the past at the expense of the future to which God is calling us.

First of all, this revelation is not the unique privilege of TEC. If you look hard enough through the rest of the Christian Church, you will notice that the Holy Spirit seems to be opening the Scriptures and Tradition for others as well. Moreover, the Holy Spirit has been working not just at the present but in other times and places in this particular matter. But you are right to say that the majority of opinion is against our doctrinal direction. I will not call anyone an enemy of the Holy Spirit. But I do notice that there are some who falsify the world to strengthen their arguments in this or other matters or make arguments that have relevance to this question but contradict themselves in order to exclude the possibility of approving same-sex unions. It is hard to see how the Spirit of truth can do much for those in love with falsehood.

Until next time, the Holy Brothers pray that thy tents might be fair, thy encampments like long palm groves or aloe trees of the Lord's cultivation, and the Lord like the horns of an ox to direct thee in thy way.

Food for Thought

Oliver O'Donovan+ puts forth the first of a seven part series of "sermons" on contemporary issues. I use sneer quotes for sermon, because a sermon is a genre located in time and space within divine worship. O'Donovan's piece is an essay, not a sermon. I really can't imagine it preached (by O'Donovan at least). Issues of genre aside, Donovan attempts the critique that a few of the readers of this blog are struggling with because we identify ourselves with some of the liberal ends but do not share liberal values in ecclesiastical affairs (as presently manifested). We ask as Rousseau did concerning the origins of civil society, "How did this change come about? .... What can make it legitimate?"

O'Donovan is Regius Professor of Moral and Pastoral Theology at the University of Oxford and Canon of Christ Church, and thus at the heights of the Anglican intelligentsia (as is Marilyn McCord Adams). I thought about making some sauce for the essay, but I'll let it stand alone. I also went to the discussion page, where it was clear that one of the points of the essay had been missed completely. One of the liberalism's chief faults is that it assumes ethics as first principles without considering the foundation of its postulates. But one commenter interpreted O'Donovan in this way,

"I would suspect that what this might look like is an increasing acceptance of the fact (as opposed to the 'sin') of homosexual orientation and identity (and openess [sic] and love towards those so self-defined) combined with the ability, however, to say, 'No' to such sexual expression as defining the model of human sexuality (with consequent significance for those whose role it is to 'model' the ideal humanity (=Christ) as much as possible = Christian leaders)."

This, I think, is dictating the discourse beforehand, which I really hope wasn't O'Donovan's message.

The other solid critique, of course, concerns the theological drift toward the belief that the present is the eschaton, which grounds the Communion Without Baptism movement in a way that missiology never could.

Until next time, the Holy Brothers pray that the liberty of civil righteousness that is but a shadow of that blessed liberty we have in Jesus Christ be made available to all mankind.

The First Four Councils, ALPO, and Newark: References

All references from Schaff editions at Christian Classics Ethereal Library. May the Lord bless all who contributed to these works and their publication.

Note that the ancient Canons should be treated as guidelines, since some of them were clearly dispensed with as customs or conditions changed. For instance, have you ever answered questions about the Christian faith without being licensed to do so by the Bishop? Well, then, you are violating Canon XXVI of the Council of Laodicea, received by the First Council of Constantinople. Shame on you for obeying the Great Commission... Father Kniseley apparently might be in trouble for violating Canon XXXVI of the same Holy Synod for teaching about the existence of gravity and the tides.

Canon IX of the Synod of Antioch in Encaenis, which was received by the First Council of Constantinople

It behoves the bishops in every province to acknowledge the bishop who presides in the metropolis, and who has to take thought for the whole province; because all men of business come together from every quarter to the metropolis. Wherefore it is decreed that he have precedence in rank, and that the other bishops do nothing extraordinary without him, (according to the ancient canon which prevailed from [the times of] our Fathers) or such things only as pertain to their own particular parishes and the districts subject to them. For each bishop has authority over his own parish, both to manage it with the piety which is incumbent on every one, and to make provision for the whole district which is dependent on his city; to ordain presbyters and deacons; and to settle everything with judgment. But let him undertake nothing further without the bishop of the metropolis; neither the latter without the consent of the others.

Canon XI of the same Holy Synod

If any bishop, or presbyter, or any one whatever of the canon shall presume to betake himself to the Emperor without the consent and letters of the bishop of the province, and particularly of the bishop of the metropolis, such a one shall be publicly deposed and cast out, not only from communion, but also from the rank which he happens to have; inasmuch as he dares to trouble the ears of our Emperor beloved of God, contrary to the law of the Church. But, if necessary business shall require any one to go to the Emperor, let him do it with the advice and consent of the metropolitan and other bishops in the province, and let him undertake his journey with letters from them.

Canon XIII of the same Holy Synod

No bishop shall presume to pass from one province to another, and ordain persons to the dignity of the ministry in the Church, not even should he have others with him, unless he should go at the written invitation of the metropolitan and bishops into whose country he goes. But if he should, without invitation, proceed irregularly to the ordination of any, or to the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs which do not concern him, the things done by him are null, and he himself shall suffer the due punishment of his irregularity and his unreasonable undertaking, by being forthwith deposed by the holy Synod.

Canon XIV of the same Holy Synod

If a bishop shall be tried on any accusations, and it should then happen that the bishops of the province disagree concerning him, some pronouncing the accused innocent, and others guilty; for the settlement of all disputes, the holy Synod decrees that the metropolitan call on some others belonging to the neighbouring province, who shall add their judgment and resolve the dispute, and thus, with those of the province, confirm what is determined.

Canon XVI of the same Holy Synod

If any bishop without a see shall throw himself upon a vacant church and seize its throne, without a full synod, he shall be cast out, even if all the people over whom he has usurped jurisdiction should choose him. And that shall be [accounted] a full synod, in which the metropolitan is present.

Canon XIX of the same Holy Synod

A bishop shall not be ordained without a synod and the presence of the metropolitan of the province. And when he is present, it is by all means better that all his brethren in the ministry of the Province should assemble together with him; and these the metropolitan ought to invite by letter. And it were better that all should meet; but if this be difficult, it is indispensable that a majority should either be present or take part by letter in the election, and that thus the appointment should be made in the presence, or with the consent, of the majority; but if it should be done contrary to these decrees, the ordination shall be of no force. And if the appointment shall be made according to the prescribed canon, and any should object through natural love of contradiction, the decision of the majority shall prevail.

Canon II of the First Council of Constantinople

The bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nice, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. And let not bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nice. But the Churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the times of the Fathers.

Canon VIII of the Council of Ephesus

Our brother bishop Rheginus, the beloved of God, and his fellow beloved of God bishops, Zeno and Evagrius, of the Province of Cyprus, have reported to us an innovation which has been introduced contrary to the ecclesiastical constitutions and the Canons of the Holy Apostles, and which touches the liberties of all. Wherefore, since injuries affecting all require the more attention, as they cause the greater damage, and particularly when they are transgressions of an ancient custom; and since those excellent men, who have petitioned the Synod, have told us in writing and by word of mouth that the Bishop of Antioch has in this way held ordinations in Cyprus; therefore the Rulers of the holy churches in Cyprus shall enjoy, without dispute or injury, according to the Canons of the blessed Fathers and ancient custom, the right of performing for themselves the ordination of their excellent Bishops. The same rule shall be observed in the other dioceses and provinces everywhere, so that none of the God beloved Bishops shall assume control of any province which has not heretofore, from the very beginning, been under his own hand or that of his predecessors. But if any one has violently taken and subjected [a Province], he shall give it up; lest the Canons of the Fathers be transgressed; or the vanities of worldly honour be brought in under pretext of sacred office; or we lose, without knowing it, little by little, the liberty which Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Deliverer of all men, hath given us by his own Blood.
Wherefore, this holy and ecumenical Synod has decreed that in every province the rights which heretofore, from the beginning, have belonged to it, shall be preserved to it, according to the old prevailing custom, unchanged and uninjured: every Metropolitan having permission to take, for his own security, a copy of these acts. And if any one shall bring forward a rule contrary to what is here determined, this holy and ecumenical Synod unanimously decrees that it shall be of no effect.

Canon IX of the Council of Chalcedon

If any Clergyman have a matter against another clergyman, he shall not forsake his bishop and run to secular courts; but let him first lay open the matter before his own Bishop, or let the matter be submitted to any person whom each of the parties may, with the Bishop’s consent, select. And if any one shall contravene these decrees, let him be subjected to canonical penalties. And if a clergyman have a complaint against his own or any other bishop, let it be decided by the synod of the province. And if a bishop or clergyman should have a difference with the metropolitan of the province, let him have recourse to the Exarch of the Diocese, or to the throne of the Imperial City of Constantinople, and there let it be tried.

Canon X of the same Holy Synod

It shall not be lawful for a clergyman to be at the same time enrolled in the churches of two cities, that is, in the church in which he was at first ordained, and in another to which, because it is greater, he has removed from lust of empty honour. And those who do so shall be returned to their own church in which they were originally ordained, and there only shall they minister. But if any one has heretofore been removed from one church to another, he shall not intermeddle with the affairs of his former church, nor with the martyries, almshouses, and hostels belonging to it. And if, after the decree of this great and ecumenical Synod, any shall dare to do any of these things now forbidden, the synod decrees that he shall be degraded from his rank.

Canon XII of the same Holy Synod

t has come to our knowledge that certain persons, contrary to the laws of the Church, having had recourse to secular powers, have by means of imperial rescripts divided one Province into two, so that there are consequently two metropolitans in one province; therefore the holy Synod has decreed that for the future no such thing shall be attempted by a bishop, since he who shall undertake it shall be degraded from his rank. But the cities which have already been honoured by means of imperial letters with the name of metropolis, and the bishops in charge of them, shall take the bare title, all metropolitan rights being preserved to the true Metropolis.

Canon XVIII of the same Holy Synod

The crime of conspiracy or banding together is utterly prohibited even by the secular law, and much more ought it to be forbidden in the Church of God. Therefore, if any, whether clergymen or monks, should be detected in conspiring or banding together, or hatching plots against their bishops or fellow-clergy, they shall by all means be deposed from their own rank.

Gracious Father, we pray for thy holy Catholic Church. Fill it with all truth, in all truth with all peace. Where it is corrupt, purify it; where it is in error, direct it; where in any thing it is amiss, reform it. Where it is right, strengthen it; where it is in want, provide for it; where it is divided, reunite it; for the sake of Jesus Christ thy Son our Savior. Amen.

The Spiritual Sword is Very Dull...

A Word for the Anglosphere

Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.
I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no,not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? I Corinthians, 6:1-5. (KJV)

More Musings on the Canons

Yes, it seems to be turning into canon law week here at the Monastery. For obvious reasons, no one was enthused by my last post, which was frankly rather depressing. For the record, I am not promoting schism, I am merely outlining more irenic schemes for responding to the requests for ALPO. These requests essentially are extraconstitutional and if treated in their present extraconstitutional framework, they make life very problematic for dissenters within non-dissenting dioceses, whatever your definition of dissent. And besides, the proposed process gives three years for God to work. Man proposes, God disposes.

However, what I want to reflect on today is the treatment of fratrimony and sororimony in a canon law framework. Emily of Hazelnut Reflections mentioned in comments somewhere (I can’t find it) that she would like some canonical guidance if the Episcopal Church authorized rites for fratrimony or sororimony in the future. I do not intend to propose revisions to the Canons in this piece, only outline the important issues that will have to be considered. Law, as the Institutes say, legislates only for the normative, so we can’t possibly consider everything. And that is why I urge you to consider also Grace in this discussion, for when God forgives us, He does not forgive those things, which we or an average human being normally do; He forgives us everything. And thus the law of the Church is meant to be relaxed in unusual situations. In civil law, this is the prerogative of mercy. In canon law, the same prerogative exists by the gift of Christ to the apostles to bind and to loosen, i.e., in this case: to legislate and to relax the laws.
I also do not wish to speak in great detail, because the end of canon law must be the better care of souls, and thus I seek advice from same sex couples and those who pastor them about how the Church can support spiritual fraternity and sorority as manners of life for the upbuilding of the Church and the good of the partners’ souls.
This discussion is greatly problematic in an Anglican framework. Because of the roots of our ecclesiastical tradition, our canon law often is written with the expectation of the need to conform to the civil law (and I mean secular law in general, not Roman-derived ius civile in particular) or the ability to control or at least have dialogue with it. This, of course, is an expectation by the Churches of Rome and Constantinople, too, but these Churches are more accustomed to long-term tension between church and state on certain matters or accommodation of their systems in terms of an “ethnic law.”
However, for Anglicans, especially in England, there is an expectation that the law of the Church and that of the state be in harmony in certain matters including family law. There is a particular division of Queen’s Bench dedicated to family, probate, and admiralty law, which is an odd grouping, until you realize that all three categories derive from the ius civile , but also realize that the first two were long matters of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Thus, the probate record of the Court of Arches at Canterbury (the supreme ecclesiastical tribunal of the Church of England…below the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the Law Lords, of course) remains an excellent source for genealogical records before a certain period. And we need not appeal to oddities and antiquities to see the tension. The recent kerfluffle over the Civil Partnerships Act in the English House of Bishops and the Church of England generally is illustrative that the Church still feels very bound to having some sort of parity between its own sort of family law and that of the United Kingdom generally. I will omit considering the effects of the Established Church on the marriage law of England, but they lead to such inanities as “inflatable churches,” which I am sure you can learn all about from Google.
Yet one cannot quarantine the infection of Erastianism from the most non-Erastian of Anglicans. The Salty Vicar said a year ago or so that if the laws of New York allowed him to marry same sex partners, he would feel authorized to marry them according to the Liturgy of the Church provided without requiring further authorization from General Convention, though Canon I.18.2(b) is a little more specific than the laws of New York. However, we must consider the possibility that fratrimony or sororimony will be celebrated in jurisdictions where the laws concerning same-sex couples differ significantly from those of marriage generally or indeed legal recognition of such unions might be forbidden by the state constitution. The variety of civil frameworks, however, does not obligate the church to stand idly by and gawk. Instead, the church is obligated to walk the dichotomy between obeying the laws of the God-ordained rulers and obeying those of God. Thus, in some states, fratrimony and sorimony will create civil incidents and the church will have to adapt to those situations. In other states, no civil incidents will be consequent and the church will have to uphold sororimony and fratrimony without state support as it still may do in scattered parts of Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Besides, upholding godly manners of life without state support may become necessary in the case of matrimony as well, if certain libertarians ever gain support. If the government gets out of the marriage business, the Church will have to dive more fully in.

Consanguinity and Conspirituality
I’m hoping that it should be fairly obvious that the Scriptures should be upheld in matters of consanguinity and the civil law thereafter. There might be talk about how the church should respond to spinster sisters entering into civil partnerships, if ever that should be legal or perhaps first cousins will wish to unite in a state in which that is not permitted. The Church should not allow celebration of fratrimony or sororimony in these cases, because fratrimony and sororimony are potentially physical as well as spiritual. Sisters according to the flesh cannot be brothers or sisters according to the Spirit to signify that the Church is meant to be a disturber of households. First cousins and other close relatives ordinarily forbidden by the Law or the civil law are barred from such unions by the signification of household disturbance, because the Moral Law is still operative, or in obedience to rulers.
Conspirituality is more difficult. We often do not consider this to be a bar. Although it probably is forbidden by ancient canon law, I do see spouses sponsor one another for Baptism. The ancient canons probably were concerned more with exploitation of young wards rather than “spiritual incest” in an ontological sense. In the cases in which we are interested, conspirituality affects matrimony. Brian McLaren in his famous reflection on homosexuality meets a couple whose fathers are partners. Should it be lawful to marry such a couple? I argue that as long as the couple was not raised together in the same household and the civil law does not forbid it, it’s probably all right, but that opinion depends on a hermeneutic of the Moral Law, in which the laws against incest exist for sake of natural justice, order in households, and the protection of children from abuse. If you don’t subscribe to this hermeneutic, your opinion might be different, but you almost certainly object to the whole idea in the first place.

Public Health

Many states require blood tests for various diseases. If the church has to have its own rules, it really should consider mandating that both partners get tested if they haven’t been tested recently. Although I intend to be a virgin when I marry, I also intend to be tested for the usual suite of STDs, since some can be transmitted without intimate contact. The point of this requirement shouldn’t be to set up a formal bar to union but to get both partners honest about what they’re living with and the precautions they need to take in future life. We know from the Law that God is concerned with disease, especially these sorts of diseases. If we gain some pastoral and theological insight from this requirement, we could do great good in Africa and Asia.

Counseling

One thing I disliked about the Book of Daniel was the complete emphasis in the marriage counseling sessions on the couple’s relationship. I think this is very important, of course, but I also think it is important that the priest also be careful to instruct the couple in the meaning of the union into which they seek to enter. We receive all kinds of poor cultural cues on marriage, and I fear this will complicate the expectations of same-sex couples. Counseling should be simultaneously catechetical and relational. The Canons presently emphasize catechesis. They also focus on the ability of the couple to contract from the standpoint of consent.

The Requirement of Baptism

At present, it is only required that one of the parties has received Holy Baptism. If the theology of Fratrimony and Sororimony generally propounded on this blog is honored by future legislation, I think that both parties should be baptized. It seems problematic for a union that signifies the unity of the Church through the power of the Holy Spirit to be between a Christian and a non-Christian. Frankly, I’m not sure if Christian Marriage should be celebrated between a Christian and a non-Christian for similar reasons, though I would be agreeable to any correction on the matter. But I’m still concerned with the Apostle’s command, “be ye not yoked unequally.”

Notice

We still seem to have some remnant of the requirement of Banns and hints of Special License in our canons, but most of this is gone. I think it would be preferable in cases of Matrimony, Fratrimony, or Sororimony that notice be given in some convenient way of upcoming unions rather than after the fact, so that the community have the opportunity to pray for the couple, but that’s just me.

Declaration of Intention

To signify the completion of the catechetical requirement, there should be a Declaration of Intention that has some relation to the relevant liturgical formulae.

Conscience Clause

Should be retained. There are many good reasons why a priest should be free not to solemnize any union which she or he does not want to solemnize.

Of Dissolution

The Canons require that at least one of the divorcing parties inform the Clergy before taking legal action so that attempts can be made to reconcile. In states where there are no civil incidents associated with fratrimony or sororimony, there is no way to pause for an attempt at reconciliation. I would recommend that the Canons ask that one of the parties not effect a permanent separation of bed and board (as the medieval canonists would put it) before attempting reconciliation. Tradition provides little insight into dissolution of spiritual brotherhood or sisterhood. The closest analogy would be separation from a religious order. The Rule of Saint Benedict is problematic in this regard in that it essentially provides the greater excommunication for the contumacious, making full identification of the monastery with the entire Church. One wonders whether Benedictines thrice estranged from their family could be reconciled with the Church. Serious reflection needs to be done here, and frankly our problems with the theology of matrimonial dissolution are partially to blame for my doubts here.

For the same reasons, I always have had reservations with same-sex unions involving divorced persons. But as I said before, law is normative, but grace is not. These questions are important, but their settlement is not definite. In all cases, I would advise that special concern be directed toward the children of all types of holy unions.

I am sure that I have missed many important issues or not treated others in sufficient detail. So please consider these thoughts to be the start of a conversation. *Christopher, I know, already has put down excellent thoughts on related issues in the build-up to the affirmation of his fratrimony with his spiritual brother, C.

Almighty God, our heavenly Father, who settest the solitary in families: We commend to thy continual care the homes in which thy people dwell. Put far from them, we beseech thee, every root of bitterness, the desire of vainglory, and the pride of life. Fill them with faith, virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness. Knit together in constant affection, those who, in holy wedlock, have been made one flesh. Keep in thy faith and fear those who have been made by thy Spirit brothers and sisters in the bond of peace. Turn the hearts of the parents to the children, and the hearts of the children to the parents, and so enkindle fervent charity among us all, that we may evermore be kindly affectioned to one another; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

"Province X" and Canon Law: References

Article VII of the Constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America :

Dioceses may be united into Provinces in such manner, under such conditions, and with such powers, as shall be provided by Canon of the General Convention; Provided, however, that no Diocese shall be included in a Province without its own consent.

CANON 9: Of Provinces :

constituted. Sec. 1. Subject to the proviso in Article VII of the Constitution, the Dioceses of this Church shall be and are hereby united into Provinces as follows:

The First Province shall consist of the Dioceses within the States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut.

The Second Province shall consist of the Dioceses within the States of New York and New Jersey, the Dioceses of Haiti and the Virgin Islands, and the Convocation of American Churches in Europe.

The Third Province shall consist of the Dioceses within the States of Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia.

The Fourth Province shall consist of the Dioceses within the States of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Louisiana, except for the portion thereof consisting of the Diocese of Western Louisiana.

The Fifth Province shall consist of the Diocese of Missouri, and of the Dioceses within the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

The Sixth Province shall consist of the Dioceses within the States of Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado.

The Seventh Province shall consist of the Dioceses of Western Louisiana and of West Missouri, and of the Dioceses within the States of Arkansas, Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico.

The Eighth Province shall consist of the Dioceses within the States of Idaho, Utah, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, California, Arizona, Alaska, and Hawaii, the Diocese of Taiwan and the Area Mission of Navajoland.

The Ninth Province shall consist of the Dioceses of this Church in Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Honduras, and Puerto Rico.

Section 2(b) of the same Canon :

Dioceses. (b) By mutual agreement between the Synods of two adjoining Provinces, a Diocese or Area Mission may transfer itself from one of such Provinces to the other, such transfer to be considered complete upon approval thereof by the General Convention. Following such approval, Canon I.9.1 shall be appropriately amended.

Section 3 of the same Canon

Sec. 3. For the purpose of the Province the Synodical rights and privileges of the several Dioceses within the Province shall be such as from time to time shall be determined by the Synod of the Province.

Certain Canons on Membership of the Provincial Synod Omitted...

Section 8 of the same Canon

Sec. 8. The Provincial Synod shall have power: (a) to enact Ordinances for its own regulation and government; (b) to elect judges of the Provincial Court of Review; (c) to perform such duties as many be committed to it by the General Convention; (d) to deal with all matters within the Province; Provided, however, that no Provincial Synod shall have power to regulate or control the internal policy or affairs of any constituent Diocese; and Provided, further, that all actions and proceedings of the Synod shall be subject to and in conformity with the provisions of the Constitution and the Canons for the government of this Church; (e) to adopt a budget for the maintenance of any Provincial work undertaken by the Synod, such budget to be raised in such manner as the Synod may determine; (f) to create by Ordinance a provincial Council with power to administer and carry on such work as may be committed to it by the General Convention, or by the Presiding Bishop and the Executive Council, or by the Synod of the Province. Powers of Provincial Synod.

Section 9 of the same Canon

Sec. 9. The Synod of a Province may take over from the Executive Council, with its consent, and during its pleasure, the administration of any given work within the Province. If the Province shall provide the funds for such work, the constituent Dioceses then members of, and supporting, such Province shall receive proportional credit therefor upon the quotas assigned to them for the support of the Program of the Church, provided that the total amount of such credits shall not exceed the sum appropriated in the budget of the Executive Council for the maintenance of the work so taken over.

Section 10 of the same Canon

Sec. 10. Within sixty days after each session of the General Convention, the Presidents of the two Houses thereof shall refer to the Provincial Synods, or any of them, such subjects as the General Convention may direct, or as they may deem advisable, for consideration thereof by the Synods, and it shall be the duty of such Synods to consider the subject or subjects so referred to them at the first meeting of the Synod held after the adjournment of the General Convention, and to report their action and judgment in the matter to the Secretary of the House of Bishops and to the Secretary of the House of Deputies at least six months before the date of the meeting of the next General Convention.

Article VI, Section 1-2 of the Constitution...

Sec. 1. The House of Bishops may establish a Mission in any area not included within the boundaries of any Diocese of this Church or of any Church in communion with this Church, and elect or appoint a Bishop therefor.

Sec. 2. The General Convention may accept a cession of the territorial jurisdiction of a part of a Diocese when such cession shall have been proposed by the Bishop and the Convention of such Diocese, and consent thereto shall have been given by three-fourths of the Parishes in the ceded territory, and also by the same ratio of the Parishes within the remaining territory. Any territorial jurisdiction or any part of the same, which may have been ceded by a Diocese under the foregoing provision, may be retroceded to the said Diocese by such joint action of all the several parties as is herein required for its cession, save that in the case of retrocession of territory the consent of Parishes within the territory retroceded shall not be necessary; Provided, that such action of the General Convention, whether of cessionor retrocession, shall be by a vote of two-thirds of all the Bishops present and voting and by a vote by orders in the House of Deputies in accordance with Article I, Section 5, except that concurrence by the orders shall require the affirmative vote in each order by two-thirds of the Dioceses.

Canon I.11.4(f)

(f) At the request of the Convention of a Missionary Diocese, supported by the presentation of relevant facts and a reasonable plan, the General Convention may by joint Resolution (1) permit the Diocese seeking autonomy to unite with another Province, or Regional Council having metropolitical authority, of the Anglican Communion, or (2) permit the Diocese seeking autonomy but not planning to unite with another Province or Regional Council, to unite with no less than three (3) other viable Dioceses at the same time which are geographically contiguous, or so located geographically as to be considered of the same region, for the purpose of establishing a new Province, or new Regional Council having metropolitical authority, of the Anglican Communion.

In other words, suppose that Pittsburgh, San Joaquin, Quincy, Dallas, Fort Worth, and South Carolina wish to affiliate after the next General Convention with another Province but have some autonomy until then. Unfortunately, it is impossible for them to do so as Province X under the present Canons. Thus, this series of actions would need to happen.

1. By agreement between Province III and Province V, Pittsburgh becomes part of Province V.

2. By agreement between Province VII and Province V, Quincy and Pittsburgh become part of Province VII.

3. By agreement between Province VII and Province IV, South Carolina becomes part of Province VII.

4. By agreement between Province VII and Province VIII, San Joaquin becomes part of Province VII.

5. By cession of the Dioceses of Pittsburgh, Quincy, South Carolina, San Joaquin, Dallas, and Fort Worth, the Missionary Dioceses of the Allegheny, Hickory Grove, Charleston, Stockton, Plano, and Watauga are erected. The parishes who do not wish to join are allowed to remain part of the extant dioceses by clever boundary drawing.

6. General Convention approves the cession in 2009 and the Missionary Dioceses affiliate with their preferred metropolitical authority who now can draw boundaries as big as they want, govern their own ordination process, and be subject to canon law other than that of PECUSA.

7. Dioceses of Pittsburgh etc. elect new bishops once Missionary Dioceses erected with former Diocesans moving to Missionary Dioceses.

Until next time, the Holy Brothers pray that the good Lord deliver us from all false doctrine, heresy, schism; from hardness of heart, and contempt of thy Word and commandment.

Confessions of a Theophiliac Or Why I May Have An Unhealthy Affection for Doctrine

Disclaimer: This is a post of personal explanation. It is most definitely not meant to criticize or demean anyone else's relationship with God, just describe my own. Warning: It is entirely possible after reading this that you might need to poke out your eyes. This might be considered a response to Nate's post here . But many of the good points Nate raises are ones I encounter at least once every Sunday, sometimes more often. But, most of all, I really hope that this post serves as a transition from the GC2006 postmortem, which is being very admirably performed elsewhere, to further explorations of the Articles of Religion.

Hear what our Lord Jesus Christ saith:
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with
all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great
commandment. And the second is like unto it: Thou shalt
love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments
hang all the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 22:37-40

If you hear something enough as a child, you may believe it for the rest of your life. Or as Robertson Davies might say, "What's bred in the bone comes out in the flesh." And I heard the above any given Sunday for the first ten years of my life. Love God, love your neighbor. This is all we need to know. Simple, right?

Ah, no. It was with some strange pang of regret that I realized today that my most intimate relationship always has been with God. First, let us consider the degree of emotional intimacy. I can tell God anything. After all, it's impossible to keep anything from Him. It's very hard to me to talk about physical intimacy in this context, because there is a continual assumption in our culture that all physical intimacy is ultimately sexual. But it doesn't have to be. There is an odd subsumption of being when one is snuggling with another person, as if you are more than united but rather within one another. And that's about all I want to say on the Web. But I'll point out one more interesting tidbit. I have a great prejudice against penetration in general, but yet I earnestly am willing to eat the Body and Blood of Christ, earnestly believing in its nature without having any idea why like a good Anglican (of some sort). So far (perhaps fortunately), the elements have not spoken to me (there are stories in the hagiography about this), but I am willing to let Someone come within me, as long as it is the Christ. And because it is precisely not sexual, my intimacy with God does not participate in the primal shame and so never occasions regret.

But let not my intimacy confuse you. I am a very poor lover of God. I am frankly a poor lover of anyone. I'm emotionally needy, oblivious to the needs of the Other, have trouble separating public and private life, and can have serious issues with lust when that is an issue. I'm so glad that my parents love me, because I often have trouble figuring out why anyone else would. That's just the emotional neediness talking. And what's funny is that my weaknesses with God and my weaknesses romantically are pretty much the same list. Indeed, I once treated both God and a very good friend in exactly the same way with fairly disastrous results. Kyrie eleison , but the rest of us aren't so merciful.

The reason for this carload of Too Much Information is that the similarity of my relationship with God to my romantic relationships has made me have certain anxieties about my relationship with God. First, I am exceptionally bad at remembering people's names. If you know me in real life, please be aware that I probably have forgotten your name at some point while we've known one another. Thus, it is entirely possible that I may have an unhealthy obsession with what we call God. The most nightmarish scene of the modern cinema for me does not involve torture or giant chainsaws, but the scene where a man wakes up to company in bed and starts searching for clues to company's identity. Of course, it's fairly hard to go that wrong with God. But everyone has something which they like to be called, especially by intimates, so that they feel most safe, most true, and most beloved. In the feminist blogosphere, there have been debates recently about whether "the feminist credentials" of women who take their husband's surname should be revoked. My mother kept her surname. Tongues probably still wagged. But it was her choice. It plays havoc with telemarketers, but it fits her as a person. Its use in personal and professional settings makes her comfortable in her own skin. But if a woman feels more comfortable in her own skin to be Mrs. Schwyzer (for sake of example), that is good, too. And though it is odd to think of a being without body, parts, and passions having such preferences, I wonder if there are forms of address that make feel God most beloved. And I think the tradition of the Church might bear that out.

For I am not the only lover of God, and indeed I am one of a low order. There have been many before me, and most of higher order. And they have had a variety of names for God, including one to which +(+)Katharine recently alluded. After Karen's recent post at Kinesis , I have never felt so comfortable singing "Lead Us Heavenly Mother, Lead Us," knowing that the maternal character of God is so well attested by Scripture and Tradition. But likewise I must respect the works of other lovers such as the catholic creeds, which show an admiration for the personhood and acts of God more than the teachings of Jesus, as Nate and others point out to me. God (and I do not mean this in a universalist way) has many aspects. If I am obsessed with names, it is because I fear that we may be emphasizing some aspects of God over others to our peril. God is indeed a loving, reconciling, and far more inclusive God than we are. But God also can be a vengeful God, punishing the sins of the fathers to the third and fourth generation (well, not any more, perhaps). But I read in the Daily Office readings today about God's response to Israel's ingratitude and cowardice in the desert. It's fairly harsh. God is indeed loving and as reconciling as possible in these stories, not killing wantonly but instead pedagogically. Fortunately, I believe God through Jesus Christ takes a different approach to relationship with us now, always seeking to love us more dearly, but He remains a dangerous God. He is very much like C.S. Lewis describes Aslan, not a tame lion. And let's not forget the Gospel from the Daily Office in which the Lord Jesus bewails the slow progress of his mission and seems to be responding to various unwarranted forms of optimism about the coming of the Kingdom, "I did not come to bring peace but a sword."

Because my obligation to love of neighbor and therefore justice is equal and intimately mixed with my obligation to love God, I, in theory, would be willing to compromise my desires for progressive theology to be better grounded in orthodox teaching and progressives to maintain the highest degree of communion possible with moderates and more conservative brothers and sisters in Christ for justice. But I'm not sure such compromises really serve justice. In my opinion, Nate has a good sense of the coming judgment. But so much progressive theology seems to be driven by the idea that not many will come to judgment. Justice often ceases to be something we do in love and obedience to God but as something we struggle to wrest from the hands of an evil Other. Looking at the problems of the world, most of them seem to be my fault (in part). How am I supposed to deal with that unless I have some way of confronting sin? All I am asking for is that the church present a full picture of the Living God.

I was in a meeting today with a lot of angry people. One guess why. I really wouldn't want to be the bishop of Laodicea now, for instance. But it occurred to me that the chief problem here was doctrinal. My Rector has a saying that "faith is what you die for, but dogma is what you are willing to kill for." To which I add, "Doctrine will make you strike your colors." Now there is much doctrine concerning the necessity of mutual love in the Church and about the identity of the church catholic. But the understanding of the justice of GLBT inclusion is fairly novel, and only has been a force in the House of Bishops for a few triennia. So why not prefer the new leading to the old covenant? But if you believe GLBTs always have been essential to the organic unity of the Body and their covenant relationships are ikons of the mystical unity of the Body, you might behave differently.

And that's where we finally get to the meat of it, for to love is to seek the other's good even to the point of death. "There is no greater love than this than to lay down one's life for one's friends." If you talk to a Christian of a certain stripe, he might tell you quite frankly and honestly of his love for gays and lesbians and his belief that their good is deliverance from their "unnatural passions." And why am I not one of those Christians? Because it is beyond belief to me that He through whom all things were made (and made adam male and female) ordained the range of natural behavior among human beings to be so very different from that of the animals, and so I took a different perspective on Scripture and Tradition than is conventional. There is doctrine in there.

There is doctrine in refusing overtures to make out with someone, even if her boyfriend assures you he's cool with it, since God is not a monad and neither should we be. Matthew 25 is quite concrete. It makes no distinction between "God's poor and the devil's," since these are false categories. It makes no distinction between black and white etc., since every tribe, language, and nation shall contribute members to the royal priesthood around the throne. And for me, many of these doctrines that encourage me to support justice and show especial respect to the marginalized derive from the highfalutin philosophical notions and patriarchal prejudices of past lovers of Christ, whose communion with God I long to share.

I am a privileged straight white male, who has been provided with every advantage in civil life and shown every consideration. And yet so many of my companions in privilege find love to be exceptionally difficult. What keeps them going is the love of God, and yet they interpret Scripture and Tradition in far different ways than I and indeed contrary to my sense of justice. What keeps me charitable to them is not just that I may be the deluded one, now or in the future, but that they share with me the same weakness and the same Beloved. It was that same sense of communion that forever shaped my attitude toward gays and lesbians, why would I stop now?

Anyway, my thoughts on doctrine and justice are probably best summarized by J-Tron's song, "Good Doc Trine," whose lyrics are here, though "peace of mind" makes more sense to me than "piece of mind." Or read AKMA. He occasionally discusses this subject far more eloquently than I do.

On a related note, I heard a great story today. A woman came to the Claiming the Blessing booth in the Exhibit Hall at General Convention and asked in a quiet Arkansas voice, "If I have some popcorn, do I have to watch [ Voices of Witness ]?" Fortunately, Claiming the Blessing takes hospitality seriously. The woman at the booth said she was welcome to all the popcorn she wanted and even offered to turn off the film. But the woman demured at the suggestion and ended up watching the entire film while consuming four bags of popcorn. When she didn't have her mouth full and it was therefore polite to exclaim, she was saying, "Oh my Lord etc." Apparently, she hadn't realized the existence of faithful Christian gay and lesbian couples before, especially lay ones. Then after the film was over, she asked, "If I take a DVD of the film, do I have to give you my name?" She was assured that she was quite welcome to take the film, no questions asked. She looked carefully around to see if anyone she knew was about and then quickly secreted a copy in her purse and hurried off. O ruler of the universe, Lord God, great deeds are they that you have done, surpassing human understanding.

Until next time, the Holy Brothers pray that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and mind, so that you may do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with the same God who dearly loves you.

The Reformed Episcopal Church Just Isn't For Me

During General Convention I read a lot of blogs, including Father Thorpus' reports at Whitehall. At one point, he discussed his distaste for the Official Youth Presence's calls to revise the Book of Common Prayer to appease the young people. I commented that if there were to be a new youth-driven Prayer Book, I really would like to restore the Commination Against Sinners. Wannabe Anglican then suggested I could join the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC). I recall Bugs Bunny, "He don't know me very well, do he?"

But I did briefly turn over the idea in my head. First, I thought of past experience with the REC. Their principal seminary was not far from where I grew up. There was an REC church on the route between home and school. But I never really heard anything about them doing anything. I knew enough church history to know who they were and why they split, thanks to a c. 1985 issue of Anglican and Episcopal History on schisms, which I think might be helpful reading for these times. The local Episcopal church in that neighborhood recently was closed. I didn't see any signs that the REC parish was doing any better.

Second, I investigated nearby REC churches. There really aren't many in the whole of Ionia. The nearest is on the other side of Colossae, where the next General Convention will be held. As someone who doesn't possess a car, that is a tad impractical.

But I think it was this web site that pretty much settled my future affiliation with the REC in a much more serious and fundamental fashion. I am a High Churchman, after all, and contrary to popular belief, I neither adore Buddha, nor the Ever-blessed Virgin Mary. Hyperdoulia, on the other hand... And considering my discussion of the church catholic last post, I probably disagree with the REC on most matters if this web site is any indication of typical belief in the pews. ++PJA has signed an agreement with the REC. He probably should invest in more muted episcopal costume in the future, maybe something that ++William White would wear. He wouldn't want his purple to look too Papist.

(Hat tip to Google Ads at Questioning Christian)

Carnival on Christian Identity

The following is my contribution to Derek the Ænglican’s Carnival on Christian Identity in commemoration of the feast of St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Bishop and Doctor. Because I have been asked to be brief and am normally not, I will proceed by a series of observations on the subjects of the Carnival, some of them disconnected.

On the Canon

1. The question of canon is not “what is text?”, nor is it “how text should be read?” Semiotics answers the former and hermeneutics the latter. The question of text is “What texts should be read more than others?”
2. A friend of mine recently described the literary canon, “the Western canon”, as a “status symbol.” This is to be avoided for the Canon of the Christian Church. The Canon is our common inheritance, preferably even more egalitarian than the literary canon. Nevertheless, I believe the Anglican Reformation was not about increasing individual access to the Canon but instead about ensuring the communal access of all orders of ministry according to their needs. The benefit of such an open interpretive community is accountability that could not be readily sustained in the medieval order of the Western Church; accountability that is not present in the extremes of Protestantism either.
3. May the Lord bless us with Biblical literacy, not Biblical literalism.
4. The Canon is defined ontologically as the nearest emanations of the Divine Word ( logos ) that the Church has found and judged worthy. All truth more or less emanates from the Divine Word in a sort of pneumatological game of telephone, but we believe that the Holy Spirit “τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν.” (has spoken through the Prophets), and thus there are presumably some texts that are more truthful than others. Practically, the Canon is defined by its use in Divine Service. Now, of course, there are many texts used in Divine Service, some taken from the Canon or commensurate with it, but the texts of the Canon are unique. We generally speak to God in Divine Service, but in the Canon, we believe that God speaks in the words spoken to our foreparents in faith and thus reveals Himself to us. Therefore, we must be careful about introducing proclamatory texts into Divine Service that are not ordinarily part of the Canon, because by their use in this way, we receive them as the word of God to our peril.
5. Nature is ontologically and practically canonical, ontologically because both Nature and the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are very close to direct emanations of the Divine Word; practically because the life and death of Jesus the Christ is made present to us most palpably not in the proclamation of the Gospel but in the transformation of those visible creatures of God the Father by the Holy Spirit into the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist and the waters of His death, forgiveness, and regeneration in Holy Baptism.





On the Creeds
1. The question of the Creeds is “What shall we believe that would be most amenable to Christ’s prevention of us.”
2. I refuse to take off my Chalcedonian glasses or give up all Neoplatonic analytical techniques.
3. The Creeds are not the only possible settlement within the bounds of the Canon of the questions they answer. They, however, are the most elegant, parsimonious, and thus presumably veracious statements concerning the nature of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity.
4. The sense of pisteia (belief) in the Nicene Creed is of an assertion of ontological truth. The sense of credo in the Apostles’ Creed is simultaneously an assertion of ontological truth and of one’s trust in the extant God. The sense of belief in the Athanasian Creed is that you better believe it or else. Thus, the Nicene Creed should be said at the Eucharist, the Apostles’ Creed should be said in the Office, and the Athanasian Creed should be said at the Vigil of Trinity Sunday in some place where no one can hear you and be intimidated.
5. The Athanasian Creed is the ultimate proof that I am not sufficiently afraid of judgment or else lack the intensity of the Fathers.
6. The Creeds challenge the modern mind for all of the wrong reasons. We focus on physics and biology, when we should consider what they teach about incarnation, gender, humility, and our ultimate ends.

Apostolic Succession
1. The apostles were witnesses to the glorified Lord. The usage of apostle in the Scriptures allows for no other reasonable definition. However, the original idea of apostolic succession depended on the relationship of some of the apostles as disciples to the Lord as teacher before and after His glorification. “To the crowds He spoke in parables, but he spoke clearly to His disciples when they were alone.” “And then He unrolled the Scriptures to them.” After the Lord was glorified, there was no need for secret teaching, so his disciples proclaimed His teachings openly and argued against a series of “apostolic competitors” throughout the Levant and Asia Minor while revealing this previously secret knowledge. The apostolic succession is ultimately the transmission in fidelity of the plain truth that there are no secret messages of Jesus and no conspiracies. There also was much faith in the early Church in the purity of the apostolic teaching, and thus St. Polycarp was highly regarded at Rome, because he had been instructed by St. John the Evangelist. Thus, apostolic succession chiefly lies in the continuation of the apostolic teaching through the relationship of teacher to student.
2. But we cannot deny the traditional and more mystical connection through the laying on of hands for the purpose of installation into the various orders of ministry, for we hear of the seven sons of Sceva in Acts 19, who attempted to exorcize “in the name of Jesus, who Paul proclaims.” The demon recognizes the crusher of the adder and the least of the apostles, but he sees no relationship between them and those who adjure him. Apostolic succession is a means whereby we are subtly marked to bind and to loosen the world, but we recognize that some are marked differently and more powerfully than others: some to be deacons, some to be priests, and others bishops. And these last are said to bear the fullness of the apostolic office by being both chief teacher and the “magic hands” who bless the oil whereby we are “marked as Christ’s own forever,” who empower us with the Spirit for service, and who set some apart as servants of the servants of God.
3. Apostolic succession is not a matter of stud books or mandates but sound teaching, faithful learning, and the intimacy of the sacred rites whereby these things are signified and made manifest to the inimical powers.


On catholicity
1. I’ve been reading a very many things lately that assert that catholicity consists in greater universality, whether by inclusion of the marginalized in civil or ecclesiastical society or by respect for the opinions of distant pilgrims in the affairs of the local assembly. To some extent, catholicity comprehends both ideas, but the general invocation of greater universality of believers as a principle might not be recognized easily by the Fathers, unless I am much mistaken.
2. Eschatologically, catholicity is all about Revelation 6:9.
3. St. Irenaeus said, “Where there is a bishop, let there be the whole multitude; just as where Jesus Christ is, there too is the Catholic Church.” (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 8:2). And if you actually read the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, you realize that Irenaeus’s specific point concerns the necessity of the bishop’s presence at the Eucharist and other sacraments. But his point in general is as the context suggests: the principal mark of catholicity is the Real Presence of Christ Jesus in the Eucharist.
4. Marcion had bishops and dioceses throughout the Empire, but the faith he taught did not comprehend the revelation to the Israel nor the veracity of the Christ as fully human and divine creator and savior, and thus fully comprehensive of the entire created order and the salvation from sins, as St. Cyril of Jerusalem said in his Catechism (18:23), though in general and not specifically about Marcion. And likewise Arius etc. Thus, a mark of catholicity is the veracity, transparency, relevance, and completeness of teaching. St. Augustine emphasizes transparency greatly in City of God . Thus, we must agree with Luther and the Articulators in particular that “The visible Church of Christ [is where] the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance…” for if those things are true, such a Church is the church catholic.
5. If you’re worshipping the Lamb, it’s really hard to see how you could be any more catholic.
6. The catholic Creeds thus are chiefly catholic because of what they say, not because of the circumstances under which they were drafted or promulgated or on account of the merits of the bishops who first assented to them. This should make all students of ecclesiastical history feel better.
7. The Vincentian Canon is not a principle of catholicity, because it, after all, was first used to argue against St. Augustine of Hippo. It fails by irony. It’s vaguely like arguing against the Petrine Doctrine by using Galatians.



On reformation
1. The church always should be reformed. Hmm…I’ve seen that somewhere before.
2. No matter what, Christ is not fully incarnate among us, nor do we teach the fullness of those things that bring abundant life and salvation.
3. Thus, the church should direct its reform toward incarnation of Christ and veracity of teaching.
4. Reformation is not a matter solely of church councils or vestry meetings; it is not a matter of liturgy tweaks or mission trips; it is not achieved by reckless denunciation of the old or equally reckless denunciation of the new, nor by their embrace with total abandon. No, reformation begins with the conversion of the individual soul to the upbuilding of the Body. At its root, it is what we do when we bring the fruits of our labor to the altar and join in the Eucharistic Feast, where we ourselves are epicleted, “Sanctify us also that we may worthily receive…” It is when we seek to become living stones of a holy temple. If we ever think that we are reformed by votes or budgets or missives of praemunires from across the sea and not by the physician of our souls, we are in serious trouble. There is a discipline of holy living in which I greatly fall short, but I see how it could be and thus dimly envision the perpetual reformation of the Bride of Christ, Holy Mother Church.

Until next time, the Holy Brothers pray that you may venerate the sacred Mysteries of Christ’s Body and Blood and evermore perceive within yourselves the fruit of your redemption. Amen.

General Moratoria Resolution (Bumped for the Joint Session of General Convention)

Instinct tells me that this version might not pass muster with Constitution and Canons

GC Resolution DXXX

Resolved , the House of __________________ concurring,

that from the 27th of July 2006, the Feast of William Reed Huntington, Priest according to the Calendar of this Church, until the 27th of July 2009, it shall be an offense within the meaning of Title IV, Canon 1, Section 1 of the Canons of this Church for a Bishop in this Church to consecrate anyone a Bishop for this Church or for a Church in communion with this Church.

Resolved ,

that from the 27th of July 2006 until the 27th of July 2009, it shall be an offense within the meaning of Title IV, Canon 1, Section 1 of the Canons of this Church for any Deacon, Priest, or Bishop of this Church to officiate at the Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage, the Blessing of a Civil Marriage, An Order for Marriage, any rites heretofore irregular but within the bounds of our common life in which covenants are made between two persons of the same sex, or act as an officiant for anything considered a marriage, civil union, or domestic partnership at civil law.

Resolved ,

that from the 27th of July 2006 until the 27th of July 2009, the Presiding Bishop in consultation with the House of Bishops may authorize pastoral provisions for the unusual change in the life of the Church during this time, provided that such provisions do not violate the first two resolves of this Resolution.

Here's a more workable version

GC Resolution DXXX

Resolved , the House of __________________ concurring,

that from the 27th of July 2006, the Feast of William Reed Huntington, Priest according to the Calendar of this Church, until the 27th of July 2009, the General Convention strongly urges that no Bishop in this Church to consecrate anyone a Bishop for this Church or for a Church in communion with this Church.

Resolved ,

that from the 27th of July 2006 until the 27th of July 2009, the General Convention strongly urges that no Deacon, Priest, nor Bishop of this Church officiate at the Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage, the Blessing of a Civil Marriage, An Order for Marriage, any rites heretofore irregular but within the bounds of our common life in which covenants are made between two persons of the same sex, or act as an officiant for anything considered a marriage, civil union, or domestic partnership at civil law.

Resolved ,

that from the 27th of July 2006 until the 27th of July 2009, the Presiding Bishop in consultation with the House of Bishops may authorize pastoral provisions for the unusual change in the life of the Church during this time, provided that such provisions do not violate the first two resolves of this Resolution.

Explanation: The Anglican Communion through the Windsor Report has recommended that the Episcopal Church desist from consecrating bishops who are in covenants other than Holy Matrimony and also desist from authorizing liturgies for the celebration of such covenants. At the same time, many members of the Episcopal Church have frank and serious disagreement with the theological motivation for these recommendations. However, recognizing that the recent fractures in the Anglican Communion will not be healed by continuing with all due speed on the course of enshrining these theological views throughout the life and doctrine of the Episcopal Church, this Resolution proposes to recognize as far as possible that gay and lesbian Episcopalians and Anglicans throughout the world who disagree with recent actions of the Episcopal Church have a full and equal claim on the conscience of this Church. Thus, the Resolution proposes to comply with the recommendations of the Windsor Report regarding concrete actions by the Episcopal Church but also suspend episcopal consecrations and marriages in consideration for Dioceses who feel called to elect gays and lesbians to the episcopate and for faithful gay and lesbian couples, who presently do not receive the ecclesiastical sanction for their relationships that many of us believe they are entitled to by natural law, Scripture, and Tradition. The Resolution also permits the Presiding Bishop and the House of Bishops to authorize pastoral provisions to deal with this interruption in our common life, while we seek closer engagement with Provinces in the Communion from which we are presently estranged. Pastoral provisions could include authorization for an exchange of marriage vows within the context of the principal Sunday Eucharist after the Peace or accomodations for alternate episcopal oversight of Dioceses with episcopal vacancies.

Presiding Bishop News You'll See Nowhere Else

In a stunning move, the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church has elected a former fisheries scientist, Kathryn Jefferts-Schori, as the 26th Presiding Bishop. Jefferts-Schori is presently Bishop of Nevada and a second career priest, having been a priest for little more than a decade. Commentators are still nonplussed by the movement of the Holy Spirit in this case. One camp is convinced that there is something appropriate in someone who once studied fish at one of the nation's leading universities for marine biology, Oregon State University, becoming the Church's chief fisher for people. Others aren't so sure. They say there is apparently something fundamentally problematic about the author of papers such as "ACOUSTICAL ASSESSMENT OF SQUID (LOLIGO-OPALESCENS) OFF THE CENTRAL OREGON COAST" becoming the leader of the nation's most increasingly relevant irrelevant mainline denomination. After all, conservatives point out, squid are not lawful eating according to the Pentateuch. "What kind of treif is she going to let in the Episcopal boat, I wonder?," said Sumo Kendall, legendary alterego of the Canon Theologian of South Carolina.

(In homage to That Naughty Anglican Chap of Rich Anglican Fudge with Nuts)

Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music Report

Pisco (Dave) posted it, though you can obtain it from the Big Thick Greenish Book of Legislative Madness, which the vulgar call "The Blue Book" if you wish.

Included are such things as:

1. Principles for Lesser Feasts and Fasts revision, which are a good statement of our hagiology as a church.

2. Proposals for Trial Common for Space Exploration. This is personally meaningful, though it seems rather tuned to manned missions, and I work with people who design unmanned probes, but one can't have everything.

3. Both Oscar Romero and Patriarch Tikhon are to be added to the kalendar for trial use. There are others, but these are the most recognizable names.

4. Blandina to be commemorated as principal martyr of Lyons. There's no question that she was the most notable martyr, and her example was especially spectacular. The commemoration of Perpetua and Felicitas and their Companions really has entered raised consciousness about the martyrdoms under the Empire, so I do hope this change is helpful in this vein.

5. Committee on Multi-Sensory Worship Report. My first experience with multi-sensory worship was Easter Vigil at ILEOS. Apparently, this liturgy has been improved over a period of several years. I do believe there is potential for missiologically and glorificationally fruitful development here, especially in the hands of competent professionals like the priest in charge of liturgy at ILEOS. But I do have reservations about the potential for a loss of continuity between liiturgical tradition and the wonder of the "now." For instance, should liturgical dance be done to instrumental or vocal music? Do I misread the Scriptures to think that the latter was true in the Temple? I also fear that certain texts and their poetry will be lost in the corporatized paradigm of electronic presentation.

6. Rites of Passage Committee: Contains Robert Two Bulls, who is a priest in Laodicea now and a friend of a friend. I, of course, am far more wasicu than Lakota, but I do hope I run into him one of these days to talk about life in Pine Ridge now. The Rites of Passage Report is too dense and too important to be parsed now. I'm going to read and inwardly digest it for a while (oh, I can't just turn the chattering off.)

7. The comments on "Celebrating an Engagement" are quite good.

8. It occurs to me that some of these fuller liturgies (as presently envisioned) might be appropriate for household/small group use. I do not come from a community where it is practicable to celebrate such rites for everyone in the church without it having an assembly line feel. But I really could see Hugo Schwyzer (or one of the priests) doing the teenage one with the Youth Group, their parents, interested members of the community etc. And if I were to become engaged, I can see inviting a mix of work and church friends of both parties to this in anticipation of a shower, conspiratorial doings with bridesmaids, groomsmen, etc. In small communities, these have potential for the fuller community participation envisioned.

9. I envision a priest saying, "There's something in Rites of Passage for this very predicament." "Thank you, Superpriest!"

10. Interesting new liturgy for welcoming a new Rector.

11. I am happy to say that the proposed revision of the Burial Service is fairly close to the present BCP rite. It only seems to consider the need for rites of vigil at the body etc. and has an even greater emphasis on the Resurrection.

12. The chief part of the Kaddish has been translated for use. I still probably could recite the Aramaic in company. It's amazing how much it seems like a prayer Jesus or Paul would have prayed. It is, after all, probably of their era or so.

13. Apparently, something like Yahrzeit is performed in the East. This, too, is incorporated.

14. SCLM also admits the multiplicity of resources has become confusing. I think three books and the Internet should be sufficient, but the Church Pension Fund wouldn't like that.

15. I didn't even know there were catechumenal materials in the Book of Occasional Services

16. Report of the Custodian of the Standard Book of Common Prayer has interesting news about bilingual editions of the Book of Common Prayer.

17. That is all.

Baptismal Theology Discussions at General Convention

Some brilliant (or swift) priest in Arkansas took the optimal blogspot name . He has coverage ("Thursday morning thru 4:30") of discussion by heavyweights of sacramental and liturgical theology about the meaning and status of Confirmation. Any thoughts?

My two cents is that we need better formation and a forum for a mature profession of faith. I also wonder if we have lost some sense of discernment about the gifts of the Holy Spirit among us. I will say, however, that it is my experience (and this is confirmed by certain incidents in Acts) that the Spirit blows where it wills and that the gifts of the Spirit are conferred during Baptism, making the pneumatological significance of Confirmation somewhat less imperative from a practical standpoint. I still think it has symbolic value if the process leading up to Confirmation is about making a mature profession of faith and doing some discernment of those gifts and how they might build up the Body.

Late Breaking News

The Primate of England and Archbishop of York testifies at SCECAC hearings, then has conversation with blogger priest that explains what must be done for Windsor compliance. Puts +Tom Wright's comments in some light. Also indicates what kind of balance ++Rowan might be trying to strike. What a terrible thing it is to be in the hands of the Living God, eh?