Continuing Celibacy

Anglicanism is one of the only traditions outside of Roman Catholicism and maybe Orthodoxy (don't know enough about it) that, in my opinion, seriously values celibacy. I have never seen a big stink develop in Anglican circles when people find out that Fr. so-and-so is "single". And I have heard of married folk talk about Anglican religious communities with the deepest of reverence and respect. All of the celibate continuing clergy I have known have been very pious and godly men. I suppose we have mostly the Oxford Movement and Ritualism to thank for this.

Celibacy is a good thing. It is just as good an option for a person as the married life. It allows one to devote his or her life entirely to the Lord and to others. It is biblical: Christ was celibate, and the St. Paul was too. In the ancient Church it was very highly regarded. But celibacy can be bad too, of course. Remaining celibate for purely self-centered reasons is certainly not conducive to growing in holiness, just as getting married for selfish reasons is not good. It really annoys me when people cannot see the spiritual value in remaining celibate.

I think that a good appreciation for the celibate life is something that we continuing Anglicans can bring to the proverbial table. I know of several celibate continuing priests and lay people who are very holy and devout. Contrary to what others may think, they seem to lead very fulfilling lives and seem to be very happy, well-adjusted people. I think that we can help other Christians see that celibacy is a good option, and that married clergy can co-exist with celibate clergy, just as married and celibate lay people can co-exist. The various religious communities that we have - though they be small - can be a witness to this. We can help our evangelical brethren see that celibacy is not only for Roman Catholics - it is a real option for everyone.

Jazzing Up the Blog

Just a quick "FYI"... I am going to try to soup up this blog a bit over the next few weeks and months by adding some links and pictures. I was looking at some others and have to confess that I had "blog envy" since the others looked so nice and mine was so plain. I thought that it would be nice to add some links to various continuing parishes and institutions, and things of that nature.

Continuing Monasticism

In the latest "Bishop's Epistle" for my diocese (DEUS, APA) there was a notice about how a group of sisters joined us recently. You'll have to forgive me, though, because since I do not like trash to pile up up I read the letter and then threw it away. Only later did I realize that it might be nice to share. Anyway, these sisters are few in number - less than 10, I believe, and they operate some sort of homeless shelter in Florida. They had previously been affiliated with one of the ECUSA dioceses down there. This is the APA's first "religious order". At this time I have no information about what the name of the order is, or what liturgy they use.

Are there other continuing religious orders? I know that the ACC has a few small orders - there were some Dominicans out west, some Benedictines down south, and some Franciscans peppered about here and there.... but what about the other churches? Does APCK have any? I am quite sure that the REC does not. What about the ACA?

I think that the maintenance and establishment of religious orders is a good sign for the Church. It shows that there is a serious attitude of prayer and devotion alive in the Church, and that people want to spend their days on an organized spiritual regiman. And it shows that some people are being lead to an even more intense worship annd devotion to God, i.e., that the regular life and liturgy of the Church is bringing forth real fruit.

Let us pray for the establishment of more Anglican religious communities, and for strength and growth for the ones already out there.

Cassocks as Everyday Wear

Despite the fact that continuing Anglicanism is extremely old school in just about every way, one thing I have noticed that we are not too old school about is wearing cassocks out and about. I speak of clergy, obviously. In the old days, at least in the RC tradition, clergy wore cassocks out a lot of the time. I don't know if Anglicans in general ever did that very much, but it wouldn't surprise me if at least old time anglo-catholic priests did it. Now it seems to have fallen by the wayside in both traditions. And many RC clergy do not even wear collars a lot of the time! The only time I have ever seen Anglican clergy wear cassocks just like they were wearing a suit was at a Prayer Book Society conference a few years ago. These two priests from the ACA wore cassocks everywhere. They even drove around in them and went to the store in them. I suppose it may not be very practical to wear them all the time, or maybe they get too hot or something, but it would be nice to see it come back. The world shoves its values and styles in our faces all the time. Maybe it is time that we did the same. Maybe it is time for clergy to say, "I am a cleric, and proud of it. I am serving the Lord, and proud of it."

Variety in the 1928 BCP Offices

One of the major limitations of the 1928 BCP is that it does not offer much in the way of variation in the various liturgies it contains. This is one of the reasons why, I think, people began borrowing elements from the Roman Catholic liturgy, such as use of the missal and breviary. The 1979 American BCP was a big step in the right direction in terms of variety, but what are those of us who use the 1928 supposed to do? Clergy encourage us to read Morning and Evening Prayer, but it can become dry very easily. Is there some way to "soup up" the Offices, for instance, without using the 1979 BCP or the Anglican Breviary?

I am trying to teach myself to pray the Anglican Breviary, but in the meantime I add variety to the 1928 BCP Offices in the following ways:

1) Say the opening sentences on certain days only
2) Pray the Prayer of Confession on certain days only (omitting the absolution since I am not in Holy Orders)
3) Read the Antiphon before the "Venite" if one is appointed
4) Occassionally change the Psalm, or read the Psalter on the "One Month" plan
5) Alternate the canticles every day for each Office
6) Recite the Nicene Creed instead of the Apostles' Creed sometimes, which is permitted by the rubrics
7) Say the Collect and first two prayers, but then add one of the prayers rom the rest of liturgy for each day and Office. So for Morning Prayer yesterday I said the one for the Bishops and Clergy.
8) Add other Collects from the BCP depending on the circumstances. Like when JPII died I said some prayers for the dead for him from the Burial Office.
11) Add additional Scripture readings
10) Include various other elements at will from the BCP, such as the Litany or the Penitential Office
12) Chant or sing parts of the Office

It is worthwhile mentioning that I also have a full time job, so I am trying to get all of this done and still get to work on time. This may be the thing that prevents me from switching to the Breviary, but I digress. So anway, all that to say that in about 15 minutes one can get a good deal of variety out of the 1928 BCP. You just have to be creative and know the rubrics.

How do those of you who read the Offices read them?

Altar Girls

Do any of your parishes have altar girls?

I have never been to a continuing church parish that permits altar girls, though I understand that they do exist. I think that it is a bad thing. First, though, let me say that altar girls should not be forbidden simply to preserve a "classic look and feel". I have been to parishes where they were forbidden, but there was not spiritual justification for it. There is a spiritual reason for it. Secondly, let me say that it is not a question of whether or not females have the physical and mental ability to do things up at the altar. Women are just as intelligent and able-bodied as men.

The main reason I am opposed to altar girls is that serving at the altar is always on some level preparation for the priesthood, and the priesthood is reserved for males. The priest is the sacramental representation of Jesus Christ. This is a physical representation. The priest is "in persona christi" and "alter christus". The priest is male, because Jesus was male, and Jesus was male because the Messiah had to be a male. The "new Adam" had to be a male, because Adam was a male. Priests serve "in the person" of the new Adam, Jesus Christ.

Now, there are also physical differences between males and females which, while not preventing them from doing similar tasks, are nonetheless indicative of an essential difference, or "way of being", in the world. Males are typically more "outward" oriented - think of the "male symbol" (circle with an arrow coming out from it). Females are typically more "inward" oriented. The male symbol, then, is more suitable for use when referring to God, as God acts in a "male" fashion throughout Scripture (though who, as an immaterial, abstract entity is technically sexless).

I say all of that to say this: next time you are invited or go to a church with altar girls, compare how they move and function with the tasks as opposed to boys. There is a real difference that is hard to put into words. Everytime I have seen them, they appear confused, awkard in the large sanctuary space, and they do not handle the tapers, candles, insence, and other liturgical objects well. They actually appear, at least to me, more inwardwardly focused and uncomfortable doing the tasks of the altar boy. One church I went to once (an RC church) had a pair of altar girls that almost lit the plants on fire when they were trying to light the candles on the altar. So besides the spiritual and theological arguments against altar girls, there are also simple biological details to be taken into consideration.

I hope that the various continuing churches will be resolute in their opposition to altar girls. A good book for further study of this issue and the issue of priesthood is: "Women in the Priesthood?" by Manfred Hauke (Ignatius).

The Oxford American Prayer Book Commentary

This book, by Massey Hamilton Shepherd, is perhaps the ultimate book for the continuing Anglican churchman to own. It is a commentary on the 1928 BCP, and has insightful remarks about every part of the BCP. It is a fantastic historical and liturgical resource, and in that regard is useful for Anglicans and non-Anglicans alike. It has long been out of print, and, according to legend, Shepherd had the plates destroyed so it could not be reprinted. That was a dumb move. If it could be reprinted, whoever owned the rights would probably make lots of money off of it. I gave away my copy a few years ago, so recently I looked online for one. I found one for $100. Too much for a po' boy like myself. But thanks be to God, someone gave me a copy a few months back! If you do not have one of these, and you use the 1928 BCP, I highly recommend that you track one down. You will not be disappointed.

Anglican Popes?

A comment posted below brought up an interesting point. Are continuing Anglican churches ecclesiaistical dictatorships, with each province being headed up by a egomaniac (my words)? Not really, and here's why.

Every reputable continuing church that I know of has canons that state that the parish owns its property. So the bishop cannot lord it over a parish like, say, an episcopal or catholic bishop can. He can say what he wants to say, and pronounce anathemas out the yin-yang, but at the end of the day he can't do too much to a parish. This creates a different problem, though. The rector of a parish can then strong arm the bishop, which is contrary to our tradition and beliefs about who is in charge. The rector is the one who can become a pope. I have seen this happen - the rector becomes a feudal lord of sorts. When he is pissed off at his bishop, he can pull the parish out and switch jurisdictions. It is very sad, and many people get hurt along the way.

To counter this, bishops need to carefully investigate such "transfers" instead of blindly accepting them. And the clergy need to take seriously their vows of obedience and strive to work with their bishop, even when it hurts. Only when everyone plays by the rules will the "game" work. If a bishop, upon careful and prayerful investigation of the circumstances, accepts a parish and clergy, then they need to make somme kind of gentlemen's agreement that they are going to work together for the ministry, and for the well being of the Church for the glory of Jesus Christ. The bishop has to be there to pastor the flock and help the clergy as much as he can, and the parish and its priests and vestry need to agree to be involved in the life of the larger church. They need to have the diocesan newsletters out, a picture of the bishop up, and etc. They need to participate in summer camps, gatherings, retreats, and more.

Only when everyone plays by the rules will we be able to get on with spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ. Thank the Lord that many jurisdictions are coming together and doing just that... slowly but surely!

Holy Week and Easter - Continuing Style

Well, another Holy Week and Easter has passed. The Lord is risen; the Lord is risen indeed! We had the usual BCP and Missal services for Holy Week. Simple "said" masses for Monday - Wednesday. For Maundy Thursday we did a solemn high mass, along with the stripping of altar and the vigil at the altar of repose. On Good Friday we had the Solemn Collects and Veneration of the Cross. There was nothing for Saturday. The rector had such a low turnout last year that he didn't do anything this year. On Sunday morning, though, at the early service, he blessed the new fire and Pascal Candle and everything. The Exsultet was chanted, but no prophecies were read. Then we had two masses - one solemn high, and one sung. On Easter Day we had about 150 people. It was a good week.

We did a lot liturgically speaking, but not too much. We certainly didn't do everything that the missal appoints. Why? Because it is just too much. Like many continuing parishes, we are a small group, and our building, though elegant, is small and way out in the boonies. People simply cannot get out for all of that stuff with all of the work and family commitments of today. So why work the clergy to death?

I think we could do everything that the missal appoints if we were in a more urban location. The fact that many continuing church parishes are way out in the boonies usually works against having multiple, elborate liturgies (such as a candlemass).

What did your churches do for Holy Week and Easter?

Who Cares About the Anglican Communion?

I read Virtuosity, the website run by David Virtue. I encourage everyone interested in contemporary events and Anglicanism to read it and support it. Many of his articles lately have to do with the future of the Anglican Communion and whether or not it will hold together. One listed today reads something like, "AMiA Bishop Says Communion Can Survive." My feeling, though, is who cares if it survives? Do we value a corporate "brand" more than orthodoxy? Do conservatives anglo-catholics, such as in FiFNa or some of the continuing bodies, really want to be in communion with provinces that ordain women, and are otherwise pervaded with liberalism and apathy - such as the CofE? I don't really care, to be honest. It would be different if the ABC was a "pope" of sorts, but he is not. I don't see any value in being in communion with him, or with anyone else in communion with him. What I value is the Jesus Christ - and orthodoxy, mission, sacraments, and maintaining the apostolic tradition. These things just are not important to many people in the "official" Anglican Communion, so why try to be in communion with them, when it would just be a false "communio" anyway?

Authority in the Anglican Tradition

Related to my last post is the question of authority. Roman Catholics attack Protestantism and Orthodoxy because they do not have a central authority figure - namely, the pope. They are especially critical of Anglicanism because it is so close to Romanism in terms of its liturgy and theology. They want us all to convert, and "go the whole way", if you will. Of course, there is no need to convert. Anglicans are Catholics - the only diffference being we have not checked our brains at the door.

Romanists assume that their infallible pope, who has greater authority than an ecumenical council, is somehow a safeguard against heresy. They fail to realize, however, that even popes can err, and that sometimes greatly. Just look at the history of the church. The Roman Pontiffs have committed great sins in the past. Why? Because they are human beings, and have a sinful nature like the rest of us. The errors of the past make the recent sex abuse scandals look like nothing, in fact. On the eve of the Reformation the Roman Church and curia were hopelessly corrupt. They cleaned up their act, to be sure, and JPII has been a wonderful witness of the gospel. But who is supposed to have that much power? That much power in the hands of some who would abuse could destroy the church more than anything else before it. And why papists don't realize that... and why it doesn't scare their pants off... is utterly beyond me. Authority in the Church is vested in Scripture and Tradition, and it is up to the Bishops of the Church to interpret them in a way that is normative for the life of the Church. And this is done in a collegial manner.

It is worth noting that even though Rome has these strange and heretical doctrines such as papal infallibility and supreme authority that they decide on matters of faith in the same way as other churches, and the pope in most cases simply "rubber stamps" things. The pope, in other words, has mountains of advisors and theologians who look at Scripture and Tradition, in light of human reason and natural law, when deciding about matters of the faith that may arise later on (such as bioethical issues). The pope rubber stamps this. He doesn't just pull new doctrines out of thin air, in other words.

Well, that is what other churches do too. That is what the Orthodox do, and the we do, and other Protestants do. At the end of the day, we have to the honesty to confess that it is a collegial process, whereas the papists give the pope all of the credit. But the crucial difference is the authority of the pope. The fact that, at the end of the day, the pope can come down and say and do whatever he wants is exceedingly frightening and unchristian, and I want no part in it. Christ ordained 12 apostles, not 1 and 11 assistants.

A Living Tradition and the Catholic Wars

A friend recently left me a mocking voice mail asking if the services of benediction I attended recently were different from what the Articles of Religion forbid (i.e. carrying the host about, lifting it up, etc.). This friend is an ex-Anglican who became a triumphalist Roman Catholic. He is suggesting that I am somehow not being Anglican if I go to benediction, or that benediction is not congruent with the Anglican tradition.

I will admit that benediction is contrary to the Articles of Religion unless you take in some serious hermeneutical liberties while reading them. But what people need to understand is that Anglicanism is not a dead faith - it is, rather, a living tradition. Our bishops are living successors to the apostles. The Articles - especially ones like end of Article XXV - need to be looked at in their historical context, namely, the controversies of the Reformation. Those controversies are long over, so there is nothing wrong with the Church going back at its own discretion and reintroducing various devotions that were once banned in some parts of the world in order to serve a greater need today, such as a devotional need. The Articles are neither Creed nor Scripture. They are not infallible, and over time various parts of them need to be reevaluated. This is a tricky process that requires guidence by the Holy Ghost, and some teachings are not as open to discussion as others (e.g. the doctrine of the Holy Trinity). But they are not "carved in stone", as it were.

What annoyed me about my "friend", however, was that he, and other RCs, seem to think that only the Roman Church can change various doctrines over time. And believe me, they have changed many doctrines over the years. Before Vatican II, if you were not Catholic you were going to Hell. Now, just 40 years later, we can go to Heaven. How is that for a change in belief? Why don't they see how ridiculous that is? How about instituting "four offices" in the Church - deacon, priest, bishop, and pope (yes, the pope is not "just another bishop" - they have four offices)? Of course, they don't call it "changing doctrines". They say that they have come to a deeper understanding of their earlier belief. Well, no one engages in linguistic gymnastics as much or as well as RC theologians. But my question is - why do thhey not grant that dispensation to any other church?

More on this later.

Knock, knock?

My job involves working with churches and selling them supplies that they need for their buildings. I have done this for about two and a half years. One of the things I have noticed about a lot of churches - more than half of the ones I visit each week - is that many times no one is there during the week. The buildings are locked, and the parking lot is always empty. The office windows are always dark. When I get a number to call the pastor, many of these places do not even have answering machines for their phones! This is especially the case with city churches in marginal neighborhoods. It got me to thinking, "How can a congregation minister to people if no is ever there except on 'money day'?"

I suspect that many of these places are spiritually dead in part because no one is there during the week. And I think that many of the neighborhoods around these churches are bad because no one is there working day in and day out for good. The first step in helping people and ministering to them is being "present" to them. It is "being there" (dasein - to borrow a term from Heidegger and use it in a different way).

Most clergy are very busy - I realize that. But someone has to be at the church daily, especially in a more populated, urban area. Even if some crotchety old hag is there, at least she is there. At least there is a human presence. Again, to help people we must be present to them.

Chanting with the English Gradual and Chanting in General

The English Gradual has Gregorian chant tones for the propers from the Anglican Missal. It can be imposing for clergy (and choirs) who do not know how to read music, but would still like to chant the propers from the missal for high mass. But fear not! It is not as hard as it may appear. Here's the trick:

The English Gradual, in just about every case, uses the same tones for the various parts of the mass. Tone VII is used for the introit; Tone V for the Gradual; Tone VIII for the Tract (if there is one); Tone VI for the Alleluia; Tone II for the Offertory; and Tone I for the Communion. So, the priest or cantor simply has to memorize the tune (get someone to pluck it out on the piano for him), and then make various adjustments for the words and phrasing for each liturgy. Albeit, the constant use of the same tones would get old, but at least it is a start.

Many continuing parishes cannot afford nice organs or full time, skilled organists. But it is still possible to have nice, sung liturgies under those circumstances. Chant can be used instead. And if the priest and a few other members of a parish get together and practice chanting (form a "gregorian schola"), some real aesthetic beauty and mystery in worship can occur.

A lot of priests can't chant well because it is not taught in seminaries much anymore. What they need to do if they want to learn is go buy chant cds (by groups like Chanticleer, or the Tallis Scholars) and carefully listen to way trained singers chant and try to imitate them. The key is: knowing the tune; proper pronunciation; proper phrasing (chanting is NOT like regular singing).

Old Order Anglicans

I thought up a new name for our movement/churches. Rather than saying "traditional", or "continuing" we could say "old order". The name came to mind when I saw a book about the Amish and Mennonites, and how they have "Old Order" Mennonites and then some more modern/liberal ones. The old order groups preserve all of the old traditions and beliefs, as well as dress and devotion. That is what continuing Anglicans do. The difference would be that we hope to reach out to the world and not be, or remain, an "exclusive" community.

Stations of the Cross and Benediction

Last night I went to the local FiFNa parish for stations and benediction - two of my favorite things to do during Lent. Their building is huge, so it makes "walking the stations" more dramatic. And benediction from their high altar is quite impressive. This Friday we have the same devotions at my home parish (continuing). Our building is elegant, but very small, so the walking effect won't quite be the same. And in fact, we do not even have a monstrance, so we will be doing benediction with the ciborium.

But it is the heart that counts. It will still be a profound experience walking the path of Christ and being blessed by His precious Body. Maybe one day we will be fortunate enough to have a larger building, but the key now is to be faithful with what God has already given us.

Confirmation

Confirmation day is fast approaching for the 8 or so students in my parish's confirmation class. Father wants the class to to be turned into a church school/youth class when he's done with them after confirmation. Unfortunately for a few of them confirmation will probably be "catholic graduation day". Their parents will no longer bring them to church and they will remain babes in the faith (at best) or be little better than pagans (at worse). For all of its good intentions, continuing Anglicanism has not been able to "fix" this problem. I think the parents are ultimately to blame. Teenage kids are usually lazy, and if the parents leave it up to them whether or not they will go to church, then of course the kids won't go. Parents have to drag them out of bed and go to church with the kids. So if the parents hate going to church, the kids won't go.

Moving

I have moved recently and have not been able to post much. My dsl service should be up in about a week and a half, so I will be posting more in a few weeks. This weekend I went to NYC with my girlfriend. We worshipped at Church of the Transfiguration, an historically anglo-catholic parish in lower Manhattan. The priests' ceremonial was way off. I was quite shocked. They chanted the litany, which was nice, but it was all downhill from there. It did not follow ritual notes at all. The deacon ad subdeacon didn't hold up the priest's chasuble while he censed the altar; the priest didn't wear a cope during the first part of the mmass; thhey didn't wear maniples; they didn't do the introit, gradual, etc. It was quite out of the ordinary. They were basically '79 BCP anglo-catholics. We in the various anglo-catholic continuing churches do it the old way - a full missal mass straight out of ritual notes. Are there any episcopal parishes that still do it that way? I think Ascension and St. Agnes in Washington DC does. Does anyone else know of any?

No Crazy Church Politics

Several times on this blog I have mentioned some of the difficult things about being a continuing Anglican. But, as we all know, there are many good things about being a continuer. One of these is in the area of church politics. I take great comfort in the fact that in my jurisdiction I do not have to worry about issues like women's ordination, pansexualist agendas, liberation theology, universalism, and more. They are non-issues and are not even up for discussion. We have our views on those subjects, and can defend our views, but we are all of one accord on subjects like that. We hold to catholic teaching as enshrined in scripture and tradition. We do not have to worry about one of our bishops ordaining women to serve as "priests".

We have issues to be sure, but they are not gargantuan in proportion, or related to redefining morality. Our issues are things like "when should we get a new organ", "what service should we have and when", and so on. But nothing like "should we recognize mormon baptisms?" We do not even go there. Now, it is true that there are politics in the continuing churches, and they can be annoying - especially for clergy. But they never really directly affect the day-by-day ministry in the parish church or the lives of the laity. This is in stark contrast to many dioceses and parishes in ECUSA.

All of this is very refreshing because it means we can be busy proclaiming the catholic faith and ministering to people. I feel sorry for those conservative parishes in ECUSA that have to spend their time and energy fighting their bishop and their denomination. If that energy could be used for spreading the gospel, and for healing, imagine what could be done on this earth! So whenever I read something on Virtuosity about Anglicanism that is disconcerting, I can be comforted sommewhat in that it usually is not happening in my denomination or in others, such as APCK, and more. I have more time, then, to pray for my brethern who not in such a good denominational situation. And may all continuers pray that God would give us grace to use our situation for his honor and glory... that we would be "strengthened for service"!

High Church REC

I visited a friend's REC parish in PA this past weekend, and it had a rack of votive candles at the rear of the nave, along with a statue of their patronal saint in the sanctuary near to the altar. And they have icons all over the parish, including in the nave! It just goes to show that you cannot put any particular continuing Anglican denomination into a box. I have been to some ACC parishes that are extremely low in their churchmanship and would never have anything like that in their church. It is a good sign for the APA-REC merger since the APA tends to be a lot more anglo-catholic.