Looking for a 1928 Altar Service Book?

These can be really hard to find these days. What I recommend is contacting your local FiFNa parish, or other more traditional ECUSA parish and seeing if they have one they want to give away or sell. In my church restoration business travels I find mountains of those things on the shelves of church libraries. Just today I was in a parish that had about six of them in varying states that were just sitting on a shelf.

Guests at Synod

At the APA/REC synod there were several guests, such as Bp. Hewitt (Diocese of the Holy Cross). He heads up this group called the Anglican Fellowship of the Delaware Valley, which is a cooperative group of orthodox Anglican parishes from various jurisdictions up in Pennsylvannia. Apparently they work together on various initiatoves and ministries. There was Abp. Venebles (Primate of the Southern Cone), and also Bp. Lyons (Bishop of Bolivia) too. Canon Bill Atwood (head of Ekklesia) was there as well.

Seminary Revisited

(This is in response to a comment I made before. I said I was going to e-mail Mr. Cameron about seminary, but thought I would just write it out for all to see as others might find it helpful.)

At synod I met APA and REC clergy who went to every sort of seminary one could imagine. There were people who went to RTS, Nashotah House, General Seminary, Trinity Seminary, Dallas Seminary, Duke Divinity School, Cranmer House, St. Joseph of Arimathea, Philadelphia Seminary, St. Mary's, Dominican House of Studies, and more. It was staggering. Obviously they all did additional reading and liturgical studies to get where they are today.

I think that no matter where you go today, though, you still have to do supplemental reading and train under a competant priest if you want to go into the traditional Anglican ministry. There is no seminary, for example, that can teach the manual acts that are to be done by the priest during the consecration. And very few - even moderate Roman Catholic seminaries - talk about the traditional Theological and Cardinal Virtues in their moral theology classes. Albeit, one might have to do more supplemental reading and study if he went to Bob Jones University seminary rather than Theological College (Washington), but this where having a good priest mentor comes in handy. He will be able to tell the postulant what additional books to read (e.g. Moss, Hall, Thornton, Moorman, etc.), as well as explain traditional Anglican theology as it relates to the liturgy and pastoral care (and more). Seminaries that do excel in one area (say, liturgics as they relate to us) may be lacking in other areas (say philosophy). So any way you slice it, there will need to be supplemental reading done if you want to be a traditional Anglican priest. This is not so big a deal, though, since the priestly life is a scholarly life. It is a life of constant study and learning, so seminary - even if you could go back in time and study at St. Stephen's House, Oxford during the 20's - is always just the beginning. Most places give the same basic foundation in Church History, Biblical Studies (e.g. higher critical method), and practical theology.

I will say that I think it is better to go to seminary - any seminary (maybe especially an accredited one) - and do supplemental reading and study rather than simply reading for orders. Seminary provides a unique environment to test and challenge your beliefs. Oftentimes we gain a clearer understanding of what we believe when we contrast it with something different. This is not to insult those who have read for orders, but simply to say that if you have the choice go to seminary and work with a good local priest. And if I had a choice (like if I lived in San Francisco, where there are is a cluster of schools) I would choose to go to a place that is incarnational and patristic in its emphasis, such as an Anglican, Roman, or Orthodox seminary. I'd probably go to one of these and make sure I hhad a good solid parish and rector before going to conservative evangelical seminary. But again, sometimes there is little choice... and either way, the golden rule is that there will have to be private study done on the side. Oh, and have a spiritual director too... the spiritual warfare that goes on in seminary is tremendous and potentially deadly.

Unity Synod in Florida

Well, I am back from the synod. Over the next few days I will write several reflections on it since there was so much that happened. First the name: the REC and APA did not sit in any business meetings together. Rather, we had our meetings in the same location. The "unity" part happened at the various liturgies, at the evangelism seminar, at the meals, and during recreational time. It was an opportunity to mix and mingle. The bishops all know each other already, so this was more of an opportunity for the other clergy and laity to interact. And this is how true unity will develop. Only so much can be done from the "top down". There has to be a sense of fellowship and brotherhood coming from the grassroots, and it is simple things like this that make it happen.

The unity mass was concelebrated by Bp. Riches and Bp. Grundorf at St. Alban's Cathedral in Oviedo. The liturgy was very solemn and beautiful. It was a "straight '28" for all of you liturgy buffs out there (the cathedral normally uses the American Missal). The readers were Bp. Brewer (APA) and Bp. Sutton (REC). The preacher was Abp. Venebles, who is a very exciting speaker. He spoke on unity and orthodoxy. There was a massive processsion that 90% of the clergy took part in. There were APA priests in stoles, hoods, and berettas; and there were REC priests in (in some cases) Genevan gowns with stoles on over them! Overall, there was a great deal of diversity in unity. But it was a true, Christian diversity. It was a diversity that was centered on the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and the ancient apostolic faith "once delivered to the saints", and to be found in the Creeds and liturgy.

I will write more on this joyous event over the next few days and weeks. Thank you all for your prayers: they were felt.

APA and REC Synod Next Week

Next week the APA and the REC are having their first unity synod down in Orlando. It should be very exciting. If the merger between the APA and REC can be pulled off smoothly that will be a great sign for the rest of traditional Anglicanism. The union is not without difficulty, however, since the two denominations have historically had very different takes on Anglicanism. But great strides have been made, and agreement has been reached on very important, formerly divisive, issues. It would be truly ironic if this merger were to work and last, and produce great fruit, when other mergers, and attempts at discussion, between continuing denominations having very similar theological beliefs, have failed.

We have wasted too much time bickering and being divided. We need to work towards organic unity, not as an end in itself, but that we may more effectively reach people for Jesus Christ. We have spent so much time infighting that we have by and large neglected the work God has given us to do. One thing I have noticed about many continuing Anglicans (clergy and laypeople) is that there does not seem to be any great urgency about evangelism. The best catholics (and the best evangelicals too) were all evangelists at heart, though. They were concerned for peoples' souls, and they went out to reach lost for Jesus Christ. They took the Great Commission seriously. That concern, quite frankly, doesn't seem to be too prevelant among many conservative (or even liberal) Anglicans today. We'd much rather fight, or prance around in fancy costumes, and give each other grand titles. We used to be great evangelists and preachers, but somewhere along the line we let that fade, and we became concerned with things that were quite silly. Can we revive it that evangelical-catholic spirit? With God's help, yes. Can we pool our resources and unite to do this more effectively? With God's help, yes.

Spiritual OCD

There was an interesting series on Focus on the Family this week dealing with addictions and obsessive compulsive disorders. Today, the guest, Dr. Archibald something-or-other, was talking about how OCD can manifest itself in an unrelenting quest for new spiritual highs. OCD, he said, differs from addictions in that the former are rooted in some sort of insecurity or fear, whereas the latter are often rooted in biology and/or sinful desires. He spoke about how he has known some people who feel that if they do not have an ecstatic religious experience each week, they feel as though God has left them. These people, therefore, tend to bounce around from church to church, always looking for a greater high. Eventually, many of them leave the Church altogether.

I see elements of this religious OCDism more in Protestant lay people, though, than in catholic (small "c") lay people. Many of these huge mega churches have to constantly morph and adopt new tactics (such as use of special effects in worship) to keep people "interested" and "satiated". But to me, an older liturgy, like the Anglican liturgy, is more conducive to helping people grow spiritually in a measured, sober way. Sure, it is not always "exciting", but that is not what worship is supposed to be about. I think the repetative nature of it, done over years and years, helps people develop more of a deep, sober, "interior" life and spirituality. And the simplicity of it, especially the 1928 BCP, helps this happen without the people becoming obsessive compulsive or too weird in other ways.

Building Continuing Community

One of the things we do in my area of the country to build community between the APA and REC parishes (as well as other continuing groups) is have joint Choral Evensongs once a quarter. We alternate parishes and preachers, and always have a reception afterwards so there is plenty of time to meet and greet, and have fellowship. It has been very successful thus far. We've been doing it for about a year.

And one of the neat things is that there is always some "new" priest or bishop coming from a weird jurisdiction you've never heard of.... some bishop with no flock, no building, no nothing. One time they'll be there, and then they just never show up again! It's sort of like sighting the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot....

The only thing I would complain about is that sometimes lay participation is a bit lower than what it should be. But I guess that's because people do not always feel like driving very far for a special service. Usually, however, it is pretty good. There's always more people to talk to than time available.

Anyway, I highly recommend this as a way to build unity and grassroots cooperation among continuing churches in your own area. It is a simple way to work towards a more organic unity.

Liturgical Reform

I have been rereading for fun "What is Anglicanism" by Urban T. Holmes III, which is one of the books I read years ago when first exploring Anglicanism. It is actually a very good little book in many ways, but this morning I came across a passage in the section on "Liturgy" (pp. 45-46) that disturbed me.

He was talking about an Anglican historian named Ladd who was influential in developing the 1979 BCP. Ladd had a strong distaste for the American Missal, and did not want 17th century Roman liturgical forms to become normative for the Church during the Anglican liturgical reforms of the 20th century. Ladd (and Holmes) believed that the Church should have one authoritative liturgy. In other words, we should just use the BCP and not anything else, like the missal.

Well, I would say that the 1928 BCP and the American and Anglican Missals really do form one conhesive authoritative liturgy. Besides the simple fact that the BCP mass is contained in the missals, they are unified in their strict adhearance to catholic orthodoxy.

And do the liturgical reformers have just "one authoritative liturgy" anyway? I would say that the 1979 BCP, with its many Eucharistic Anaphoras, and Prayers of the People Forms, as well as the introduction of the Alternative Service Book, shows that the liturgical revisionists of the Episcopal Church really did not (and do not) care about having multiple prayers, rites, and ceremonies available for use. They didn't care... it didn't really bother them! What bothered them was something else: orthodoxy. They simply wanted to rework those orthodox liturgies that were in use for their own questionable purposes. In other words, they wanted to undermine the catholic unity of the traditional BCP and missals, and replace it with something that was close, but not quite the same thing.

I believe that the missals and BCP (1928) form a complete whole and contain no substantial disagreements about anything of great importance (remember, the Articles of Religion are not part of the BCP). And I believe that their emphasis on penitence is something that is good for us to hear, and that it is a vital part of the true gospel.

Growing Anglican Parishes for Jesus' Glory

How do we as Anglicans evangelize? Is liturgy anti-evangelical? How do we grow our parishes and bring to people the reconciling love of Jesus in the Word and Sacraments? One of the best ways is to invite people to Church. Hopefully, our friends know that we are believers through our words and actions. And hopefully they see that we have something in our lives that they do not.... something that they want. I think that after we have reached a certain level of comfort with our friend and colleagues it is very natural to simply invite them to Church, and then let the Holy Ghost do the rest. We build relationships with people, and in doing so we share parts of our lives with them - particularly our faith.

I know of so many people who became Christians, or began the Christian journey, simply by being invited to Church. And this can happen even with continuing Anglican parishes. I went to graduate school with a friend who was raised as a non-observant Jew. He had no exposure to any religion and was basically a secularist. Well, one day he befriended a continuing Anglican friend of mine. They would talk about the faith and other things. They became close friends, and eventually the conversations about Jesus Christ and the Christian faith pierced his heart. Eventually, he converted and was baptized and confirmed. And he became a very active member in his parish. This was all in a small "continuing" parish with an overworked priest who had a secular job, and the parish had awful music. It is possible for us to reach peoples' lives, even though at times we may think that we are hopelessly out of touch with the way people live and think today. It starts by building relationships.

Coarse Talk

I was at a party last night, and met a friend's new girlfriend. He was raised Missouri-Synod Lutheran, but now worships in the ELCA; she is a cradle Roman Catholic. Both are somewhat liberal in their outlook. They asked me help with a theological question: should he receive communion at her RC parish? I said, "According to the Code of Canon Law, no... unless there are very specific circumstances (which I later explained)." She agreed with me, but he balked at that, and said that he had the right to do whatever he wanted since he's a Christian as much as a Catholic is. So we went on to talk about what communion implies about doctrinal agreement, unity, and so on. But underneath all of this I was thinking about something more interesting: the whole time during our conversation, this "Catholic" woman kept using coarse - perhaps even blasphemous phrases - to describe the Blessed Sacrament and things of the Church. She used phrases like, "Jesus Cookie", and other awful words. I thought later on, "No wonder her boyfriend doesn't take the sacrament seriously." Who would when it is joked about and referred to in such silly ways?

When I was younger I, regretfully, used such language at times. Now I see how spiritually damaging it is. It is very wrong to make light of the sacred things of the Church. The sacraments, clergy, doctrines, liturgy - all of it - should be taken and discussed with the utmost seriousness at all times. This is what the Church at Corinth did, and why so many were sick and weak among them. The Church is the living Body of Jesus Christ, and is the Sacrament of Salvation (to use Vatican II language), so everything about it should be taken very seriously. And seriousness does not imply "stiffness" or "somberness". We can be reverent in our speech and actions, but still experience warmth, openness, and joy.

The Emerging Gimmick

There is this new phenomenon that is sweeping through the evangelical world - it is called the "Emerging Church". It is some amorphous sort of movement headed by megachurch pastors and other gurus, such as Brian McLaren. It opposes grand meta-narratives in the name of postmodernism, and is characterized by taking snippets of this, and a dash of that, and rolling it all together into a customized "church" experience." It is very anti-dogmatic, and tolerates multiple, even contradictory, views of Scripture and Tradition. The worship at these churches may include the use of icons and rock bands, eucharist and dance. They are lead by "teams", and the head guru usually has no degree in theology.

It sounds like a bunch of bunk to me. Another marketing ploy by some writer, such as the guy listed above, who makes money selling his books on the subject to everyone gets caught up in it. It is the ultimate form of Protestantism, where each person is his own pope. I think these evangelical groups have to come up with stuff like this every couple of years because their religion is so vapid and anti-incarnational to begin with. So they need to find new ways to keep people interested and coming, as it were. They have no apostolic orders, and could care less about such things. But because of that there is no grace in their sacraments (except baptism, I guess - if they use the right form). So, again, they have to keep coming up with new slogans like this to keep peoples' attention. All of these "churches" are trying to be "relevant" to people today. They even use the phrase in their literature. But me, and many of my associates, find them hopelessly irrelevant. Their goofy music, and aping of everything that the world does is shallow and empty. If that is "relevant", then I am glad to be hopelessly "irrelevant" as an continuing anglo-catholic.

I oppose this movement. I oppose anti-dogma. I oppose hyper-protestantism. I oppose personality cults. What sort of spiritual wreckage will these people leave behind them in a few years? I know of folk whose lives were torn up by the megachurch culture, so what is this movement going to do to people?

Two things I love....

...about the Anglican Rite in the old BCPs that we continuing churchpeople use is the Decalogue and the Gloria "post communion". At my parish, we say the decalogue once a month to fulfill the rubric. I like saying them because they form the basis of western law and the Judeo-Christian ethic, so connecting with them, and forming those words with my lips, makes me feel like I am connecting with a very primitive tradition. Plus, so many people do not know the Ten Commandments - even devout Christians! Thus, inserting them in the liturgy once in a while is a good way to teach them and absrob them into our hearts.

The post-communion Gloria was an innovation by Cranmer. Traditionally, it is supposed to be at the beginning of the liturgy. I think it fits well in either place, as R. Mammanna observed once in a paper he wrote on the subject. Personally, I have never gotten used to the Gloria being in its original place. I like it, and am used to it, at the end of mass. I see it as that last great act of thanksgiving after communicating. It is a refreshing way to end the liturgy. I always thought that masses without the Gloria put on the end were so anti-climactic. But that's just my opinion.

Are we Angli-CANS, or are we Angli-CAN'TS?

Something hit me when I wrote the pervious post. I was eating with a friend the other day - a really liberal ELCA Lutheran - and he was telling me about his sister and her hubby up in Philadelphia. He said, "They are Presbyterian. They go to this really conservative church. Did you know that there are two Presbyterian Churches? There's like the main one, and then there's this really conservative one called the PCA?" Of course I knew since I love studying American Christianity.

I thought that was so great. The PCA has made such an impact for orthodox Christianity in the "Reformed" world that even this friend who does not study religion took notice of it and their message. I pray that we can do that too one day. I pray that one day our jurisdictions will unite with the orthodox portions of the Anglican Communion so that we can "Lift High the Cross" of Jesus Christ so people take notice. And I pray that we can establish new institutions that will glorify God by serving others. If we are faithful to the orthodox faith and living out our baptismal covenants, this will happen.

Again, are we Angli-CANS, or are we Angli-CAN'TS? May God help us be Angli-CANS!

Anglican/Episcopal

One of the more frustrating parts of being a continuing Anglican can be deciding how to describe our tradition to Christians of other traditions. First there is the problem of "Episcopal" vs. "Anglican". Why can't people understand that the terms are interchangeable, but do not mean the same thing? It is like saying "Kleenex" and "Tissue". They mean different things, but they refer to the same phenomenon. Our tradition is ""Episcopal" because we are governed by bishops, and we are "Anglican" because we derive from "England". For some reason this confuses people. Usually I tell people that we refer to ourselves as "Anglicans" to differentiate ourselves from the mainline Episcopal Church, and that we wish to do so because of strong differences in certain beliefs. I then explain that it is technically okay for a member of ECUSA to refer to himself as Anglican, as well as for a member of the ACA to refer to himself as an Episcopalian. Again, am I explaining this in a confusing way? Are we Anglicans just so used to understanding all of this that we cannot fathom an outsider not understanding?

That's usually the biggest hurdle. Once that is cleared, I just go on and talk about being an Anglican. If they make some comment because they think I am in ECUSA I say, "Oh, I am not in the mainline Episcopal Church. I'm in a smaller, more traditional Anglican denomination called the APA. We are a completely different Church with our own heirarchy and structures." And if they ask I will explain some of the differences of belief, such as in the areas of ordination, BCP, sexual ethics, and so on. If I am talking with a conservative Presbyterian I say, "APA is to ECUSA as PCA is to PCUSA". Or, "APA is to ECUSA as LCMS is to ELCA." That usually lets people know that I am in a different Church than ECUSA. And then, of course, I tell them that there are numerous small, conservative Anglican denominations... just like there are numerous small conservative Presbyterian denominations. I don't like to have to resort to all of the denominationalism - I do not even like the word - but it does help simplify things a bit.

I think that it is important to differentiate ourselves from ECUSA when necessary. It is also important to remember that we can use the term "Episcopalian" and not be afraid. ECUSA does not own the rights to that word anymore than Ford owns the rights to the term "sedan". Americans know what "Episcopalian" is, so we should reclaim that term if we want to. But we are also free to use the term "Anglican".

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).