Ship of Fools: Eccles: Holy Women Holy Men 2009

Thread: Eccles: Holy Women Holy Men 2009 Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000753

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

I've been reading about the new Holy Women Holy Men which is supposed to replace replace Lesser Feasts and Fasts.

I've read a number of comments pro and con about this calendar, but i cannot find the whole calendar list anywhere on the web, only snippets. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

Also, the "con" arguments seem to outnumber the "pro" comments, on the web anyway. What thoughts do shipmates have?

[ 07. June 2010, 13:31: Message edited by: Belisarius ]

Posted by the Ænglican (# 12496) on :

I don't like it. There's an admittedly wide spectrum of belief towards the holy dead in Anglican circles. I see it heading in the completely opposite direction of where I am and where I'd like to see things move.

In particular, I take issue with what I see as a very low ecclesiology and resulting Christology directing the process.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
I've read a number of comments pro and con about this calendar, but i cannot find the whole calendar list anywhere on the web, only snippets. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

The whole thing can be found here -- scroll down to page 82.

Posted by Swick (# 8773) on :

If you go to the URL below, on pages 87-99 you will find the complete new calender:

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/BlueBook-SCLM.pdf

There are a huge number of new commemorations, and I believe that on some days there is more than one possible commemoration. Some saints that had their own day are now doubled up with others. One welcome change is that Archbishop Cranmer, who formerly shared October 16 with bishops Latimer and Ridley, now has his own date.
I've ordered the new book and will reserve judgement until I've read through and used it.

Posted by Choirboy (# 9659) on :

Hmm. They seem to have abolished the concept of 'feria'.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the Ænglican:
I don't like it. There's an admittedly wide spectrum of belief towards the holy dead in Anglican circles. I see it heading in the completely opposite direction of where I am and where I'd like to see things move.

In particular, I take issue with what I see as a very low ecclesiology and resulting Christology directing the process.

Could you expand on that?

Posted by scribbler (# 12268) on :

Setting aside for the moment the choices of additions, there are just too damn many commemorations. The approach seems to be to have so many that it becomes a matter of pick and choose based on one's theological proclivities. I think Cranmer was generally on the right track in pruning the Kalendar to a select number of holy days that everyone can actually observe.

That said, I do like the first edition of "Lesser Feasts and Fasts," which was sensible in providing options for additional commemorations of major figures where they are desired.

[ 01. December 2009, 13:41: Message edited by: scribbler ]

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:

Also, the "con" arguments seem to outnumber the "pro" comments, on the web anyway. What thoughts do shipmates have?

The Internet seems to have more con comments than pro comments on any subject, including if the sky is blue.

You want to know my first gut reaction from learning of it on this thread? Why do we have to go from a fine gender-neutral title to a cisgendered one? Holy Women, Holy Men, and if you don't identify as either you don't get to be holy. Pfui.

Now, on to my other soapbox-- I see a lot more non-whites on the list, which makes me happy. There are also a lot more of the saints dear to Hispanic hearts, even those Hispanic hearts who weren't raised Catholic, it's a deep part of our culture we can't get rid of. I also note a giant gap on December 12th, though...

Posted by scribbler (# 12268) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
I also note a giant gap on December 12th, though...

I'm embarrassed that I had to look that up. [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by the Ænglican (# 12496) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:

quote:
Originally posted by the Ænglican:
I don't like it. There's an admittedly wide spectrum of belief towards the holy dead in Anglican circles. I see it heading in the completely opposite direction of where I am and where I'd like to see things move.

In particular, I take issue with what I see as a very low ecclesiology and resulting Christology directing the process.
Could you expand on that?

Sure.

The central issue for me is why we commemorate people at all. I hold to catholic practice of venerating the Church Triumphant and asking that they pray for us who remain in the Churches Militant and Expectant. Therefore we praise them and thank them because they stand before the throne of God interceding on our behalf. (Just as we thank those in the Church Militant who also intercede God on our behalf...)

HWHM does not--it appears to me--make any theological distinction between the Churches Expectant and Triumphant. Instead, the selections and, more importantly, the collects themselves show a different pattern. Most run along these lines: "Lord, today we remember your servant X who was a great Y. Pour out your grace upon us so that we may be good Ys and good Christians too. Amen."

As a generic prayer form, there's nothing wrong with this.

In fact, it's more in keeping with Article 22 of the 39 and with Article 21 of the Augsburg Confession than my view. (Article 21 is one of the reasons I'm no longer Lutheran...)

I think that it's an insufficient prayer form if we're talking about the saints, though. There seems to be no sense that these people are seriously "in Christ" and are present, participating members of the Church based on what the church is by virtue of who Christ is.

Further, there's the question of what is an acceptable Y and who gets to pick which Xs are the best Ys. Some of the additions seem to make the list because they're the first "something". I see that as an historical criterion rather than a theological one. I'm not saying these particular people *shouldn't* be honored, I just question the criteria.

The question I'd prefer to begin with is, did these people in their mortal life and beyond exhibit the eschatological power of God to the praise and glory of Christ?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Do you know, I shouldn't admit it, but when I saw the title of this thread I genuinely thought it was about another kind of calendar (and wondered where I could order one from)

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by scribbler:

quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
I also note a giant gap on December 12th, though...
I'm embarrassed that I had to look that up.

Don't be embarrassed, it's not like I can recite the date of St. Joseph or St. David off the top of my head. Bad me, I should have clarified what's so important for Mexicans on Dec. 12th.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by scribbler:
Setting aside for the moment the choices of additions, there are just too damn many commemorations. The approach seems to be to have so many that it becomes a matter of pick and choose based on one's theological proclivities.

Well, but in practice it has always been this way. Maybe I'd replace "theological proclivities" with "locale", though. The Roman calendar groans under the weight of a number of saints for each day of the year, yet many of these are local commemorations which aren't enjoined on the larger church.

In theory, Cranmer's pruning of the calendar could have worked the same way, with the entire church being obliged to keep the basic BCP calendar and local communities being permitted latitude as to which other feasts they would keep. In practice, it seems to have become more a denial that any sainthood worthy of celebration occurred after the New Testament was written.

Our Lady of Guadalupe isn't marked on our Ordo Kalendar. I think that's just a function of the ethnic makeup of our particular jurisdiction--i.e., not very many Latinos. I would have much less objection to celebrating that feast than I might to celebrating St Charles Borromeo or St Francis Xavier, both of whom appear there.

But no matter how silly or inconsistent our calendar might be, at least there's no danger of Bucky Fuller, Malcolm X, or Gandhi appearing on it...

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

the Aenglican:

quote:
HWHM does not--it appears to me--make any theological distinction between the Churches Expectant and Triumphant. Instead, the selections and, more importantly, the collects themselves show a different pattern. Most run along these lines: "Lord, today we remember your servant X who was a great Y. Pour out your grace upon us so that we may be good Ys and good Christians too. Amen."

As a generic prayer form, there's nothing wrong with this.

In fact, it's more in keeping with Article 22 of the 39 and with Article 21 of the Augsburg Confession than my view. (Article 21 is one of the reasons I'm no longer Lutheran...)

I think that it's an insufficient prayer form if we're talking about the saints, though. There seems to be no sense that these people are seriously "in Christ" and are present, participating members of the Church based on what the church is by virtue of who Christ is.

Thanks for replying.

I think that I rather agree with you on this. As I've gotten older I've become more catholic, and take comfort in belief in the host of saints who are still actively in our corner. I don't think we should just be memorializing them; I think we should be engaging with them.

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
Hmm. They seem to have abolished the concept of 'feria'.

I'm wondering if they are going to include the Daily Eucharistic Lectionary and the supplemental daily collects for Lent and Easter, as they did with Lesser Feasts and Fasts.

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

HWHM seems to me to be a VERY mixed bag. Some of the changes are good, some are nit-picky, and some of the additions boggle the mind (at least MY mind). I mean, really, Fanny Crosby?? and Lottie Moon?? If we're trying to even up the gender scale there are heaps more worthy women than those two. (Besides, the music of Aunt Fanny was one of the many things that drove me away from my protestant upbringing. Being blind and paralysed and afflicted with drippy sentimentality does not, IMO, seem to qualify one for kalendric commemoration. And Lottie Moon, IIRC, was a Southern Baptist, which seems a bit far afield, for a wanna-be Anglican list.
Your views, of course, may vary.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Do you know, I shouldn't admit it, but when I saw the title of this thread I genuinely thought it was about another kind of calendar (and wondered where I could order one from)

Maybe a way to raise money for the Floating Fund? A calendar of Shippies?
[Big Grin]

Posted by Quam Dilecta (# 12541) on :

Outside of religious houses and the relatively few parishes which can offer a daily mass, there has long been a practical need to choose which commemorations to observe on those weekdays when sevices are held. A much-expanded list of worthies will only complicate the choice.

I agree that the recent "canonizations" seem to be based more on identity politics than any loftier principles. I also agree with Aenglican that there are many people (most of whom ought to know better) who persist of glossing over the distinction among Christians on Earth, in Pugatory (or whatever other term one wants to use), and in Heaven.

Lesser Feasts and Fasts is already overloaded with namby-pamby collects that ever-so-carefully avoid asking for a saint to pray for us. I can't speak for God, but I am certainly not looking forward to hearing more such prayers, and I pity those who were charged with drafting them.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
I mean, really, Fanny Crosby?? and Lottie Moon??

I've never heard of Lottie Moon. But if its right to remember Christian hymnwriters, then Fanny Crosby surely has to be there. (Here in England we even sneaked an allusion to her into a Eucharistic Prayer [Smile]

)

Why do you object to putting Baptists in the list?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Why, oh WHY does spelling "Calendar" with a "K" make it holier?

Zach

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I like that we're adding Bishop George Berkeley, Jan Hus, John Wycliff, and John Bunyan. A commemoration of "The Righteous Gentiles" is interesting. Does it mean Old Testament ones or the modern Holocaust ones?

I am thrilled that we're commemorating Soren Kierkegaard-- I consider myself something of a Kierkegaard scholar. Though certainly he would have thought the very idea completely absurd on more levels than I can imagine.

Zach

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

Why do you object to putting Baptists in the list?

A couple of reasons come to mind.

1) Who are we to tell the Baptists who their saints are?

2) By Anglican lights, Baptists are heterodox. Isn't it problematic to insist that paedobaptism is normative on the one hand and then to elevate to sainthood a person who denied it and (if she was in agreement with her church) thought that baptizing infants was at best silly and at worst sinful?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

Who are we to tell the Baptists who their saints are?

Who are we to say who is a saint at all?
We're all Christians.

quote:

Isn't it problematic to insist that paedobaptism is normative on the one hand and then to elevate to sainthood a person who denied it and (if she was in agreement with her church) thought that baptizing infants was at best silly and at worst sinful?

No. It isn't. Its hard to see why you think it would be.

Posted by the Ænglican (# 12496) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Why, oh WHY does spelling "Calendar" with a "K" make it holier?

Zach

It doesn't make it holier, it makes it more precise. A "kalendar" is a technical term for the liturgical item; it identifies the item and context for the discussion in a way that "calendar" does not.

In other words, the same reason why we refer to a paten rather than "the little platey looking thing".

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I like that we're adding Bishop George Berkeley, Jan Hus, John Wycliff, and John Bunyan.

We beat you to that one - we've had three out of four of them in our list for years! [Big Grin]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Quam Dilecta:
Outside of religious houses and the relatively few parishes which can offer a daily mass, there has long been a practical need to choose which commemorations to observe on those weekdays when sevices are held. A much-expanded list of worthies will only complicate the choice.

But all Anglican churches, surely, observe the Daily Office. Even at mass, there is no need to use the proper readings; the weekday lectionary is fine. It's good to be reminded of the 'whole company of heaven' when we pray and to have the chance of hearing their story as well as asking for their prayers. As for which, let's be bold about that and get shut of namby-pamby collects.

Posted by Extol (# 11865) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Isn't it problematic to insist that paedobaptism is normative on the one hand and then to elevate to sainthood a person who denied it and (if she was in agreement with her church) thought that baptizing infants was at best silly and at worst sinful?
No. It isn't. Its hard to see why you think it would be.

I'd be rather interested in hearing why you think it wouldn't be, Ken. It seems fairly plain to me: ECUSA is commemorating a woman who considers paedobaptism to be heterodox, which would seem to make her heterodox in ECUSA's own eyes.

[ 02. December 2009, 13:51: Message edited by: Extol ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

So? I honestly don't see the problem.

Do you really need complete doctrinal agreement before you would recognise someone as Christian? Maybe there are some atavistic Russian Orthodox who look for that, but I'd doubt if its a popular view in ECUSA.

Posted by the Ænglican (# 12496) on :

I'd agree with Ken, here.

The issue is whether the people were true servants of God who are to be emulated and who are asked to pray for us. In fact...I'd say including these people would want to make you move towards a "pray for us" notion rather than solely emulation lest we emulate, say, John Henry Cardinal Newman too closely!

(I'm still wrapping my head around that one...)

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Quam Dilecta:
Outside of religious houses and the relatively few parishes which can offer a daily mass, there has long been a practical need to choose which commemorations to observe on those weekdays when sevices are held. A much-expanded list of worthies will only complicate the choice.

But all Anglican churches, surely, observe the Daily Office.

Dude, my parish is lucky if we get a service on Sunday. The rest of the week, the doors to the sanctuary are locked tight. I think the only place in the entire diocese where you can get a daily Daily Office is the Cathedral, and even then it's just Evening Prayer.

(Now, I've been arguing for a couple years that my poor, cranky, losing-members-like-wild parish should institute a DO, and I've even offered to show my happy hippy behind up and do it 6 days a week, but I've been basically told to sit down and shut up so many times on this and other matters that I'm seriously contemplating shaking the dust from my feeties and bailing.)

[ 02. December 2009, 14:43: Message edited by: Spiffy ]

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Extol:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Isn't it problematic to insist that paedobaptism is normative on the one hand and then to elevate to sainthood a person who denied it and (if she was in agreement with her church) thought that baptizing infants was at best silly and at worst sinful?
No. It isn't. Its hard to see why you think it would be.
I'd be rather interested in hearing why you think it wouldn't be, Ken. It seems fairly plain to me: ECUSA is commemorating a woman who considers paedobaptism to be heterodox, which would seem to make her heterodox in ECUSA's own eyes.

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
So? I honestly don't see the problem.

Do you really need complete doctrinal agreement before you would recognise someone as Christian? Maybe there are some atavistic Russian Orthodox who look for that, but I'd doubt if its a popular view in ECUSA.

Doctrinal agreement is hardly a requirement for entry into the ECUSA calendar of saints (and no, "kalendar" isn't meaningful the way "paten" is -- it's the same damn word just spelled funny). If it were, we wouldn't have kept all those pre-Reformation Catholics who believed in the primacy of Peter's see. georgiaboy is perhaps unaware that Martin Luther King, Jr., a Southern Baptist, is already in the calendar. So is Dietrich Bonhoeffer, just a few days later in April, though maybe that's okay with those who are squeamish about non-Episcopal saints now that we've got the concordat with the ELCA.

The Liturgical Commission clearly doesn't think doctrinal agreement is at all an issue, or they wouldn't have put in the Dorchester chaplains; none of them were Episcopalians, and one was Jewish.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Do you really need complete doctrinal agreement before you would recognise someone as Christian?

Recognizing someone as Christian and canonizing them are not exactly the same thing, at least as I see it! Of course there are issues of veneration & intercession of saints where you & I would disagree, and obviously that's informing our respective reactions to this--canonizing Fanny Crosby suggests to me that we can ask her to intercede for us, which seems ironic to me considering that her religious tradition sees that as idolatrous.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

I thought we Episcopalians didn't canonise, which is how we get away with having, you know, Innocent of Alaska sitting on our calendar rubbing elbows with John Muir.

I mean, if you look at the calendar, the only ones with Saint in front of their name are the Usual Suspects, like St. Paul and St. Peter.

And all the prayers in Lesser Feasts and Fasts that I've ever read don't directly ask the commemorated folks to pray for us, they're more along the lines of, "Dude, they were awesome, help us to be awesome, too*".

*Please note that this is the Revised Mary Sue Translation. And for those of you who missed the whole thing in Hell re: names, hi, I'm Mary Sue. Nice to meetcha.

[ 02. December 2009, 16:26: Message edited by: Spiffy ]

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Doctrinal agreement is hardly a requirement for entry into the ECUSA calendar of saints (and no, "kalendar" isn't meaningful the way "paten" is -- it's the same damn word just spelled funny). If it were, we wouldn't have kept all those pre-Reformation Catholics who believed in the primacy of Peter's see.

There's a difference between what "the primacy of Peter's see" might have meant to St Ignatius of Antioch, what it might have meant to St Thomas Aquinas, and what it might have meant to St Charles Borromeo.

I have no problem with pre-Reformation saints at all. I find it very curious that many Anglo-Catholic calendars include saints like the aforementioned St Charles, St Robert Bellarmine, St Ignatius Loyola et al. I find it strange that TEC canonizes people who would have thought it a nest of heresy, but I'm not sure that it matters, since I'm not a member of TEC.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
I thought we Episcopalians didn't canonise, which is how we get away with having, you know, Innocent of Alaska sitting on our calendar rubbing elbows with John Muir.

I mean, if you look at the calendar, the only ones with Saint in front of their name are the Usual Suspects, like St. Paul and St. Peter.

And all the prayers in Lesser Feasts and Fasts that I've ever read don't directly ask the commemorated folks to pray for us, they're more along the lines of, "Dude, they were awesome, help us to be awesome, too*".

Good point. But to canonize someone simply means that you enter them into the canon. Putting them on a calendar and commemorating them on a specific day is declaring sainthood, even if the church is fudging it in order to have it both ways.

Posted by uffda (# 14310) on :

I've been following the discussion and noted the AEnglican's comment on Article 21 of the Augsburg Confession.

Could someone pin down for me the range of viewpoint on the intercession of the saints in the Episcopal Church? Do their views on this issue coincide with the general views of Anglicans globally?

Like the AEnglican, as I read through HWHM I thought most Lutherans would be comfortable praying them, and I wondered, in light of our ecumenical agreements, if the prayers may have been crafted with that in mind.

FWIW Lutherans see the value in keeping the Feast days of the Saints, and we have our own kalendar of commemorations, but Article 21 of the Augsburg Confession teaches that we should imitate the saints in their example, but not to pray to them, for that is scripturally unsound.

[ 02. December 2009, 17:10: Message edited by: uffda ]

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by Extol:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Isn't it problematic to insist that paedobaptism is normative on the one hand and then to elevate to sainthood a person who denied it and (if she was in agreement with her church) thought that baptizing infants was at best silly and at worst sinful?
No. It isn't. Its hard to see why you think it would be.
I'd be rather interested in hearing why you think it wouldn't be, Ken. It seems fairly plain to me: ECUSA is commemorating a woman who considers paedobaptism to be heterodox, which would seem to make her heterodox in ECUSA's own eyes.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
So? I honestly don't see the problem.

Do you really need complete doctrinal agreement before you would recognise someone as Christian? Maybe there are some atavistic Russian Orthodox who look for that, but I'd doubt if its a popular view in ECUSA.
Doctrinal agreement is hardly a requirement for entry into the ECUSA calendar of saints (and no, "kalendar" isn't meaningful the way "paten" is -- it's the same damn word just spelled funny). If it were, we wouldn't have kept all those pre-Reformation Catholics who believed in the primacy of Peter's see. georgiaboy is perhaps unaware that Martin Luther King, Jr., a Southern Baptist, is already in the calendar. So is Dietrich Bonhoeffer, just a few days later in April, though maybe that's okay with those who are squeamish about non-Episcopal saints now that we've got the concordat with the ELCA.

The Liturgical Commission clearly doesn't think doctrinal agreement is at all an issue, or they wouldn't have put in the Dorchester chaplains; none of them were Episcopalians, and one was Jewish.

Chiming back in to say that I certainly AM aware a) that Martin Luther King, Jr. is already in LF&F and that b) he was a Baptist. It is, however, just my own opinion that his contributions to the 'whole body of the church' are perhaps more significant than the 2 ladies I cited. Others may perhaps differ.

Posted by the Ænglican (# 12496) on :

quote:
Originally posted by uffda:
FWIW Lutherans see the value in keeping the Feast days of the Saints, and we have our own kalendar of commemorations, but Article 21 of the Augsburg Confession teaches that we should imitate the saints in their example, but not to pray to them, for that is scripturally unsound.

The church catholic has never taught that we pray to the saints. This is an example of Luther's disagreement not with catholic teaching or practice but the abuses thereof. The phrase "seek their help" from CA 21, however, does contradict catholic teaching and, I'd suggest, also contradicts St Paul's directions that we pray for one another. That Christ is our sole intercessor and mediator is precisely the point--the saints (and all Christians) intercede by virtue of their inclusion within the Body of Christ.

quote:
Originally posted by uffda:
Could someone pin down for me the range of viewpoint on the intercession of the saints in the Episcopal Church? Do their views on this issue coincide with the general views of Anglicans globally?

I'd say it literally runs the whole gamut from the Anglo-Catholics who go so far as to join in the above mentioned abuses and who do "pray to the saints" down to the Calvinists who think such things an abomination unto the Lord. I think your average Episcopalian would probably fall in the "imitate, not intercede" area. Anglicans worldwide tend to be more Evangelical and thus a bit less tolerant. A lot depends, though, on the churchmanship of the dominant missionary organization in the area.

quote:
Originally posted by uffda:

... I wondered, in light of our ecumenical agreements, if the prayers may have been crafted with that in mind.

Maybe, but I doubt it. Cynically, I'd respond that it's more likely because the drafters were predominantly Liberal Protestants.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
I've read a number of comments pro and con about this calendar, but i cannot find the whole calendar list anywhere on the web, only snippets. Can anyone point me in the right direction?
The whole thing can be found here -- scroll down to page 82.

Thanks for the link. Without wishing to start a tangent, I was very pleased to find liturgies for people after they've had an abortion. There is a big need for these.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
[QUOTE] But all Anglican churches, surely, observe the Daily Office.

Dude, my parish is lucky if we get a service on Sunday. The rest of the week, the doors to the sanctuary are locked tight. I think the only place in the entire diocese where you can get a daily Daily Office is the Cathedral, and even then it's just Evening Prayer.

Pond difference I suppose. Not that all English churches have public M & E prayer, by any means, but it is more common.

That's not what I was getting at, though: even when the office is not said publicly it is usually said somehow; and if not the formal office, most people have some regular pattern of prayer. Just because a saint's day isn't celebrated in church shouldn't mean they are forgotten.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
canonizing Fanny Crosby suggests to me that we can ask her to intercede for us, which seems ironic to me considering that her religious tradition sees that as idolatrous.

Aye, but she kens better the noo. Presumably.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Do you really need complete doctrinal agreement before you would recognise someone as Christian?
Recognizing someone as Christian and canonizing them are not exactly the same thing, at least as I see it! Of course there are issues of veneration & intercession of saints where you & I would disagree, and obviously that's informing our respective reactions to this--canonizing Fanny Crosby suggests to me that we can ask her to intercede for us, which seems ironic to me considering that her religious tradition sees that as idolatrous.

But surely you would be happy to ask her to pray for you were she still alive?

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
...to canonize someone simply means that you enter them into the canon. Putting them on a calendar and commemorating them on a specific day is declaring sainthood, even if the church is fudging it in order to have it both ways.

Not sure about that. The CofE specifically calls the days marked for these people "commemorations". There is no neccessary assumption that one lot can pray for us and another lot need our prayers. (Just as with live people of course - prayer goes both ways) Also we include both Wesleys - and though biother Charles remained clearly Anglican till he dies, and was buried in his parish churhcyard, brother John ordained presbyters for America (and was more or less excluded from the CofE for it), a much more un-Anglican thing than not liking infant Baptism. We have both Luther and Calvin - though not Zwingli (which is good...) We have Thomas More, a notorious persecutor of Protestants; and also Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley, martyrs whose sympathies lay with those More persecuted. And we've got Isaac Watts in there - not only a non-conformist but heretical in all sorts of ways. We have Elizabth Fry and George Fox, Quakers (it seems the new US list doesn't have a day for Fox) And we include both John Bunyan and Charles Stuart, who fought on different sides in the Civil Wars and so tried to kill each other in the name of God.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

Why is it that I do not see John Henry Newman on the kalendar? G.K. Chesterton can be there, but not Newman?

Posted by the Ænglican (# 12496) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Why is it that I do not see John Henry Newman on the kalendar? G.K. Chesterton can be there, but not Newman?

He's there--February 21st.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the Ænglican:

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Why is it that I do not see John Henry Newman on the kalendar? G.K. Chesterton can be there, but not Newman?
He's there--February 21st.

Ah, thanks. I was looking on 11 August, the date of his death. Another one that annoyed me was the fact that the puritan Richard Baxter was on 8 December, rather than the Conception of Our Lady, which had been in the 1662 BCP.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
... the puritan Richard Baxter was on 8 December...

Odd, we have him on the 14th June. Well worth remembering, one of the good guys.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

14th June is the date of Baxter's wife Margaret's death.

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

One thing that worries me is the language of some of the collects. Don't know how to select and copy on that pdf over there, but the collect for Ini Kopuria is just horrible. The added his previous occupation, "police officer" to the prayer when he left the force because he didn't want to be one. Isn't a collect one, single, complex sentence, instead of chopped of phrases?

If you have the time, check it out. This collect still uses the horrible "whose" and other use phrases like "O God whose servant", O God who gave" blah and yada, in the contemporary. Why use a precious Latinism when "your" and "you" would be much more natural.

No, please. There have been complaints for decades about the wording of the collects for LF&F. Many if not most of the new prayers for saints days (don't call them "collects") are far below the literary standard of the Common Worship texts and even the very banal English translation Paul VI's missal.

Isn't there a committee that checks those things before publication?

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The CofE specifically calls the days marked for these people "commemorations". There is no neccessary assumption that one lot can pray for us and another lot need our prayers.

Even among Roman Catholics, there is obviously room for difference of opinion, since a prerequisite to canonization is that people have already "prayed to" the candidate and received a miraculous reply.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
If you have the time, check it out. This collect still uses the horrible "whose" and other use phrases like "O God whose servant", O God who gave" blah and yada, in the contemporary. Why use a precious Latinism when "your" and "you" would be much more natural.

No, please. There have been complaints for decades about the wording of the collects for LF&F. Many if not most of the new prayers for saints days (don't call them "collects") are far below the literary standard of the Common Worship texts and even the very banal English translation Paul VI's missal.

Isn't there a committee that checks those things before publication?

There is a committee that checks them, Mama Thomas, but I don't think there's a committee that prays them.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

I think we started having too many minor commemoratons in the Church of England c.1980, and the ECUSA (as it was then) probably went over the top in 1973. I actually prefer the idea of keeping only major and a few locally significant saints, and otherwise using a daily Eucharistic lectionary.

PD

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

I finally got around to skimming through the SCLM Blue Book in its entirety (and skimming real fast through Rachel's Tears portion as it's hitting a wee bit too close to home lately) and I noticed in the appendix on pg 563 (p. 379 of the PDF) that they are recommending for future consideration one Thomas A. Dorsey, composer/musician, which tickles me pink.

[ETA to add the color I am tickled and the fact it's not really a double post.]

[ 04. December 2009, 16:55: Message edited by: Spiffy ]

Posted by Swick (# 8773) on :

The collects in HWHM are clearly collects, since they do follow the recognizable pattern of a collect. That said, I confess that I do find the collect for Ini Kopuria pretty awful:

"Loving God, we bless your Name for the witness of Ini Kopuria, police officer and founder of the Melanesian Brotherhood, whose members saved many American pilots in a time of war, and who continue to minister courageously to the islanders of Melanesia. Open our eyes that we, with these Anglican brothers, may establish peace and hope in service to others, for the sake of Jesus Christ; who with you and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns, one God, for ever and ever. Amen."

The seniments expressed are okay, but is sounds a bit like a history lesson and the English style seems pretty tortured. I don't know why, but "police officer" just sounds. A composition that cries for revision.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

That sounds like a modern equivalent of the English Missal spoof (by Cyril Tomkinson, vicar of All Saints, Margaret Street, 'in honour of a well-known and spiritually haughty director of souls') quoted by Harry Williams in his autobiography:

quote:
O God who hast given unto thy servant John Briscoe a proud look and a high stomach, mercifully grant that as we have been chastened by the rod of his correction, so we may be aided by his condescending intercessions.

[ 04. December 2009, 21:48: Message edited by: Angloid ]

Posted by Choirboy (# 9659) on :

Priceless.

We've really lost it with this one, not because I will necessarily disagree about the worthiness of candidates, but because we have just made a list of really cool people. I doubt there are any local parishes, never mind dioceses, that had any celebration of these worthies before petitioning for their inclusion in the c/k-alender (honestly people: whatEVah!).

And that is where we are losing the concept of saint. Deciding who is commemorated has always contained some degree of 'making a statement'. However, it feels like here we're limiting the commemorations to some sort of political statement (albeit one I might agree with) rather than connecting it to the life of the church through prayer.

I am relieved to read at the end of the book that you have to wait so many years after someone's death before they make it into the calendar (although I think they bent that rule for MLK Jr.). But I would really like to see so many years of commemoration at a local or diocesan level in addition, rather than just coming up with lists to make everyone feel included.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
Priceless.

We've really lost it with this one, not because I will necessarily disagree about the worthiness of candidates, but because we have just made a list of really cool people.

ExACTly.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but it reminds me of the "dancing saints" mural at St Gregory of Nyssa in San Francisco. It's beautifully executed, but it stretches the definition of "saint" so far as to make it meaningless.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Angloid shares with us:

quote:
O God who hast given unto thy servant John Briscoe a proud look and a high stomach, mercifully grant that as we have been chastened by the rod of his correction, so we may be aided by his condescending intercessions.

Can the ignorant ask what is meant by a high stomach? With all the ulcers, tubes, acid, cancer, cramps, aneurysms, back pain, Pilates, et al., Google fails to give me what I'm looking for.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Can the ignorant ask what is meant by a high stomach?

Don't ask me what it means, but cf Psalm 101 v 7 (Coverdale version): 'Whoso hath also a proud look and high stomach, I will not suffer him.'

I tend to think of generously-proportioned and well-dined bankers. Not so many stomachs like that amongst the church hierarchy these days, probably because they're always rushing off to meetings and confirmations instead of sitting down to lavish dinners.

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

A search on the etymology of "high stomach" suggests that "stomach," in Middle English use, could also mean "desire" or pride.

The 1928 BCP Psalter renders this verse as "Whose hath also a haughty look and a proud heart * I will not suffer him."
The NRSV has "A haughty look and an arrogant heart * I will not tolerate."

That would make "proud look" and "high stomach" essentially the same thing and thus consistent with the pattern of repetition and echoing that we find in the psalms.

[ 05. December 2009, 16:25: Message edited by: Mamacita ]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I'm sure you're right, Mamacita. But letting the imagination roam a bit is much more fun than accurate scholarship.

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

quote:
whose members saved many American pilots in a time of war, and who continue to minister courageously to the islanders of Melanesia

Can they please name one they saved please. Unsupported statement. The only story I heard was that they saved the lives of several Japanese pilots. (And not just the Brothers, the villagers did this as well.) This prompted an American officer to complain to Bishop Baddeley to explain about the missionaries teaching the people to "love their enemies" and all that. Of course, the natives were dying to get out of the control of the British, who considered them "theirs", but the Masing Rul is never mentioned.

Why not rather mention the seven young Melanesian Brothers who were murdered on Guadalcanal in 2003? They stood up against the tyranny of the warlords who were distroying the country at the time. Much like the victims of Cd. Juarez in the past few years.

I love Ini Kopuria very much, and Dr. Charles Fox whose names escapes the c/kalendar, but his younger followers also deserve mention. Fanny with her Blessed Assurance deserves a place, what what about CF Alexander? whose poetry has touched more people than Franny Crosby. At least as much as her great nephew Bing. At least Tommy Dorsey is coming (actually, an old lady in my parish called and told me Tommy Dorsey would be on channel 12 at six pm today, but I don't get that channel for some reason. Too bad. Mrs. Alexander was inspired in many ways. But not Dag Hammerskjold? What about the guy in town who has been serving ribs to the homeless for decades. (AMEZ Church). Or the Episcopal couple who get destroyed--ripped open--bags of dog food from a kindly Wal-Mart manager to feed to strays in an abandoned area of town. There's a lot of good.

An Anglo lady and her Mexican maid came in volutarily to clean up the church of their own free will the other day.
There is a lot, a lot, a very lot of under-reported good going on in the Episcopal Church. Always had it, always will.

But if Lambeth 58 is to be followed, other than ordinary grace is needed before being canonised "made part of the list, by applying a rule to measure the visible holiness in a person". Is it heroic, like Joan of Arc or the three Portuguese shepherds in 1917? Or ordinary like Father Talbot, who heroically found colic medicine in a small town for a nest of sick trailer babies in the early 80s? In the rain. And all the pharmacies/chemists closed?

What about Dorothy Day? They've got the anti- Semite Saint Jerome in their anyway. But what about the great Sufi's? Great Lama's? New Age heroes? I cannot get the criteria for saintliness in this volume.

One has expected America to take a lead in such things. But since the 80s, the crown has passed back to other provinces, bless 'em!

Canada's "For All the Saints" beats LF&F hands down as does the CofE's.

Rome's, produces in these things as always, is mediocre at best, being high-falutin' and therefore incomprehensible at best, and chicken fat at the other, more popular end. (I've seen things down there, about Brown Scapulars and things that made my hair curl. (Thank you, Infant of Atocha!)

Please before they publish an embarrassment, with lessons repeated ad nauseam, and particularly vile collects for worthies unknown to the world, cannot voices be raised so that the standard can be raised? Can anyone link a petition or a form for these ivory tower liturgical committee people who look after Harvard classes and upper middle class parishes when not working on national church issues?

Also, I am intrigued by the re-introduction of the eightfold office, but no equivalent to Matins, either after Compline. Middle night prayer is good. But will there be Psalm prayers? Antiphons for the Psalms and canticles? More than an handful of canticles?

Something needs to be done to spice up our daily office life. I love the RC intercessions, even better than the CofE's suggested topics. Good, but got boring around 1984 in Alternative Worship. Thought they'd have had more variety by 2005.

My meaningless advice would be to cull, check for evidence of real holiness (miracles through intercession perhaps?). Are we reducing saintliness with being poster boys or girls for causes and all these without out gays and lezzies except that Cistercian guy.

Odd choices. May God have mercy on their souls as they pray for us and rise in glory.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Quam Dilecta:
Outside of religious houses and the relatively few parishes which can offer a daily mass, there has long been a practical need to choose which commemorations to observe on those weekdays when sevices are held. A much-expanded list of worthies will only complicate the choice.

But all Anglican churches, surely, observe the Daily Office.

Dude, my parish is lucky if we get a service on Sunday. The rest of the week, the doors to the sanctuary are locked tight. I think the only place in the entire diocese where you can get a daily Daily Office is the Cathedral, and even then it's just Evening Prayer.

(Now, I've been arguing for a couple years that my poor, cranky, losing-members-like-wild parish should institute a DO, and I've even offered to show my happy hippy behind up and do it 6 days a week, but I've been basically told to sit down and shut up so many times on this and other matters that I'm seriously contemplating shaking the dust from my feeties and bailing.)

Pray the Daily Office in the parking lot. Sorta like a pray-in. [Big Grin]

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

BTW, here's another link:
HMHW / LFF Kalendar
It helpfully puts the new commemorations in brackets and indicates when a date has been moved.

I share the general sentiments on this thread - we seem to have now a list of people based on some criteria other than any recognizably theological criteria.

It should be noted that HWHM is "for trial use" - can we get any official eyes over here to this thread to see some of the feedback?

I suspect a lot of the mess does arise from our broad church ("big tent") spectrum. For some (like myself), more Catholic criteria would be desirable; for others, the Kalendar is apparently a tool for stretching our concept of sainthood/saintliness. I can see some good in that, but I don't think the Kalendar ought to be used for that. There is always Sunday School, after all.

I would be in favor of a tiered or regional system where various saints are on offer to be commemorated as seen fit by each diocese, but some other set (like the "Prayer Book Feasts", perhaps plus some others that are agreed on by the whole ECUSA) we should all observe. After all, if the whole thing is left to regional discretion, the Kalendar loses its formative aspect (i.e., we make the Communion of Saints over to look like us, rather than the other way around).

Some peculiarities I've noticed so far:

I'm very happy to see Teilhard de Chardin added to our kalendar; but he's on the same date as William Law (April 10). Are they meant to be celebrated together? There seem to be a lot of these lumping together of various folks. The commemoration in December of Ralph Adams Cramm and a couple other architects/church building artists is similarly strange. (I'm not convinced we should commemorate someone just because they made pretty buildings for us to worship in).

Dates being moved - sometimes it seems arbitrary; sometimes it even moves someone off the day they actually died.

Renaming: e.g., the Martyrs of Lyons to "Blandina and her companions" - I would bet this renaming is because Blandina was both female and a slave, but is there a reason to single her out more than "her companions"?

ETA: Oops! I forgot the reason I sought this thread out in the first place.

For those of you who are instituting the use of HWHM in your place (whether against your will or not), how are you handling it? My understanding is there are more readings being given than there had been in LFF (i.e., 2 lessons and the Gospel, v. one lesson and the Gospel) - and I haven't seen additional lessons supplied for the old LFFs. Are you picking one of the two proposed readings, or using both? And any other practical matters to do with implementation... Thanks!

[ 06. February 2010, 22:26: Message edited by: churchgeek ]

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

Wasn't part of the English reform to clear the kalendar of saintly detritus? We seem to be moving now in the opposite direction.

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

quote:
Who are we to tell the Baptists who their saints are?

Quite. But....

quote:

2) By Anglican lights, Baptists are heterodox. Isn't it problematic to insist that paedobaptism is normative on the one hand and then to elevate to sainthood a person who denied it and (if she was in agreement with her church) thought that baptizing infants was at best silly and at worst sinful?

Accusing Baptists of heterodoxy is a bit rich given some Anglicans' theological lassitude. People in glass houses and all that?

I admire lots of people on the list without really seeing the point of it. Things like this are always going to end up being 'political'. Have we got enough women? Is it multi-ethnic enough? Have we kept all different interest groups happy? Have we got a nice even balance of Catholics and evangelicals. Blah blah...

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

Noticed Phoebe was on the list. Isn't her only claim to fame the fact that Paul said "say hello to Phoebe for me"? Why not Lois and Eunice too?

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
A search on the etymology of "high stomach" suggests that "stomach," in Middle English use, could also mean "desire" or pride.

The 1928 BCP Psalter renders this verse as "Whose hath also a haughty look and a proud heart * I will not suffer him."
The NRSV has "A haughty look and an arrogant heart * I will not tolerate."

That would make "proud look" and "high stomach" essentially the same thing and thus consistent with the pattern of repetition and echoing that we find in the psalms.

I think this might relate back to the old ideas connecting various bits of ones innards to the emotions. 'Stomach' was the source of pride, 'Spleen' referred to misery (and was used in this sense in Pride and Prejudice), 'Arm' was 'strength', 'Heart' was connected to affection - a link which we will be making come Valentine's Day, even though we know perfectly damn well that hearts have nothing to do with this. [Smile]

Posted by the Ænglican (# 12496) on :

IIRC, Blandina makes it for something more interesting than the vague PC possibility above. The venerable professor of a great many things at General Theological Seminary, J. Bob Wright, has for several years been a great champion of Blandina because of the specific wording of the account of her martyrdom. I haven't read it myself so I'm not sure what exactly, but he claims that it uses fundamentally priestly language to describe her suffering and that this item should be part of the debate on the acceptability and Early Church views on the ordination of women.

Posted by the Ænglican (# 12496) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:

For those of you who are instituting the use of HWHM in your place (whether against your will or not), how are you handling it? My understanding is there are more readings being given than there had been in LFF (i.e., 2 lessons and the Gospel, v. one lesson and the Gospel) - and I haven't seen additional lessons supplied for the old LFFs. Are you picking one of the two proposed readings, or using both? And any other practical matters to do with implementation... Thanks!

My implementation is solely in terms of the Office. AFAIC, all of the readings listed in LFF/HWHM are for masses and not Offices. And, since *all* of the HWHM are to be used at the same level of commemoration, that's all I give 'em--a commemoration. Thus, I use the provided collect after the Collect of the Day in MP. That's it...

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
Accusing Baptists of heterodoxy is a bit rich given some Anglicans' theological lassitude. People in glass houses and all that?

I didn't mean it polemically. The official Anglican position allows--hell, it *encourages*--the baptism of infants. In light of that position, refusing to baptize infants is, technically, heterodox.

Point taken about the theological laxity of some Anglicans, and the fact that some evangelical Anglicans oppose paedobaptism also complicates the issue. The point was that the Anglicans wanting to canonize a Baptist seems weird to me, and a bit like talking out of both sides of one's mouth.

But then, St Gregory's in SF has iconized Malcolm X, Bucky Fuller, and Paul Ehrlich. *shrug*

Posted by LA Dave (# 1397) on :

Well, I don't have dog in this hunt anymore, but the commemoration of Ralph Adams Cram would seem to be as justified as the commemoration of Anglican musicians. Cram, along with Bertram Goodhue, was the most important architect of Episcopal Church architecture in the last part of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th, creating such important buildings as Calvary Church, Pittsburgh, St. Paul's Cathedral in Detroit, the chapel of the Society of St. John Evangelist in Cambridge, St. Thomas Fifth Avenue, the nave of St. John the Divine. He also designed some of the most important Presbyterian neo-Gothic structures, such as Fourth Presbyterian in Chicago and the Cathedral of Hope in Pittsburgh. He also designed much of the Princeton campus, including the chapel.

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
Accusing Baptists of heterodoxy is a bit rich given some Anglicans' theological lassitude. People in glass houses and all that?

I didn't mean it polemically. The official Anglican position allows--hell, it *encourages*--the baptism of infants. In light of that position, refusing to baptize infants is, technically, heterodox.

Point taken about the theological laxity of some Anglicans, and the fact that some evangelical Anglicans oppose paedobaptism also complicates the issue. The point was that the Anglicans wanting to canonize a Baptist seems weird to me, and a bit like talking out of both sides of one's mouth.

But then, St Gregory's in SF has iconized Malcolm X, Bucky Fuller, and Paul Ehrlich. *shrug*

Fair enough. It just raises the issue of where you draw the line. Who is or isn't heterodox from an Anglican POV? Is there an agreed Anglican POV (almost certainly not).

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the Ænglican:
IIRC, Blandina makes it for something more interesting than the vague PC possibility above. The venerable professor of a great many things at General Theological Seminary, J. Bob Wright, has for several years been a great champion of Blandina because of the specific wording of the account of her martyrdom. I haven't read it myself so I'm not sure what exactly, but he claims that it uses fundamentally priestly language to describe her suffering and that this item should be part of the debate on the acceptability and Early Church views on the ordination of women.

Thanks for that! It's good to know.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LA Dave:
Well, I don't have dog in this hunt anymore, but the commemoration of Ralph Adams Cram would seem to be as justified as the commemoration of Anglican musicians. Cram, along with Bertram Goodhue, was the most important architect of Episcopal Church architecture in the last part of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th, creating such important buildings as Calvary Church, Pittsburgh, St. Paul's Cathedral in Detroit, the chapel of the Society of St. John Evangelist in Cambridge, St. Thomas Fifth Avenue, the nave of St. John the Divine. He also designed some of the most important Presbyterian neo-Gothic structures, such as Fourth Presbyterian in Chicago and the Cathedral of Hope in Pittsburgh. He also designed much of the Princeton campus, including the chapel.

(The high altar of the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, Detroit can be seen in my avatar!
[Big Grin]

)

I think it's nice we want to hold up the arts - all of them - but I want to know more about these individuals' lives and what should make us call them saints. I assume they were paid for their architectural work; we don't normally saint people just for the paid work they did that we happen to like. That's not to say these folks may not be saints indeed - it's just there has to be more of a reason for it than that they did their jobs well.

Posted by Lou Poulain (# 1587) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Wasn't part of the English reform to clear the kalendar of saintly detritus? We seem to be moving now in the opposite direction.

No. Cranmer's issue was the mandatory commemorations and how that complicated the structure of daily prayer, and destroyed any flow or continuity. Hence his comments in the preface to the 1549 BCP regarding "the pie," essentially the Ordo in use at that time to regulate the praying of the Divine Office.

Commemorations on the calendar are voluntary and do not interfere with the continuity of the Office in any way.

In general I like the changes, although some of the additions seem a bit puzzling. But there is a nice blend of missioners, teachers, contemplatives, artists and folk who exhibited "heroic virtue" in the face of trial and danger. I am inspired often by the stories, and because my wife is deaf, I am always pleased when the commemoration of Thomas Gallaudet rolls around in August.

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :

[bumpity bump bump...]

Does anybody know if Holy Women, Holy Men contains the two-year daily eucharistic lectionary?

Posted by steady (# 15334) on :

What about Brother Roger of Taizé? I never saw a more saintly person in my life.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0