Ship of Fools: Renegade St. Louis RC parish considering joining TEC

Thread: Renegade St. Louis RC parish considering joining TEC Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026059

Posted by Try (# 4951) on :

Here's the story in the National Catholic Reporter

quote:
A breakaway Catholic church that stood up to three Catholic bishops, weathered a decade-long legal fight and embraced doctrine far afield from its Roman roots is now on the verge of becoming a parish in the Episcopal church.

For years the archdiocese had asserted control over the buildings and staff of St. Stanislaus, but the parish’s unusual charter gave power to an elected lay board of directors. Ultimately, a court said that “the Archbishop may own the souls of wayward St. Stanislaus parishioners, but the St. Stanislaus Parish Corporation owns its own property.”

Essentially the schism and legal dispute happened because the parish owned its own buildings, and Cardinal Burke demanded that they hand them over to his archdiocese. The parish said “no” and he in turn tried to close the parish.

quote:
Former Catholic priest Marek Bozeksaid the church has been “struggling to survive without a bishop for over nine years.”

"One cannot be a Catholic without having a bishop," he continued. "It is my hope that by the time this process is completed, we, St. Stanislaus Parish, will have a caring and wise bishop and that we will be a part of a diocese."

Bozek said in the letter that clergy representing other faith groups — the Ecumenical Diocese of America, the Ecumenical Catholic Communion and the Polish National Catholic Church — would be visiting the church throughout the rest of the year to discuss its future.

This is very interesting, of course, and I think heartening to all friends of TEC. That said, I wonder if the parish realizes that there’s a catch to joining TEC. As Episcopalians they would continue to own their property and control it- it could not be sold out from under them to pay for a sexual abuse settlement in the way that they were afraid would happen if they gave up control of their property to the Archdiocese of St. Louis. But they won’t be able to take the property with them if they leave TEC the way they’ve taken it away from the RCC. The Dennis canon states that:

quote:
All real and personal property held by or for the benefit of any Parish, Mission, or Congregation is held in trust for this Church [i.e., the Episcopal Church in the United States] and the Diocese thereof in which such Parish, Mission or Congregation is located. The existence of this trust, however, shall in no way limit the power and authority of the Parish, Mission or Congregation otherwise existing over such property so long as the particular Parish, Mission or Congregation remains a part of, and subject to, this Church and its Constitution and Canons.

Making any exceptions to the Dennis Canon at this time strikes me as a VERY BAD IDEA.

However, it’s pretty clear that of their four choices, TEC is still probably the best choice. The Ecumenical Diocese of America and the Ecumenical Catholic Communion are Episcopae Vagrentes pure and simple. They are not known for church growth, stability, or even sanity. But if St. Stanislaus values its independence over everything else, they could always affiliate with a vagrente for a few years, get episcopal ordination for their priest, then go independent again, this time with the ability to do their own confirmations and to ordain bishops, priests and deacons. That has worked for the Maritime Sailor’s Cathedral in Detroit for quite some time. Also, I don’t think that either of these self-proclaimed communions offers health insurance, a pension, or a summer camp for the kids!

The Polish National Catholic Church is a much more respectable option. They are a small but not insignificant denomination with (according to Wikipedia) about 25,000 members. They’ve been around since 1897, so they do have staying power. The fact that they were founded because of Polish differences with the American RC hierarchy is probably something that resonates with St. Stanislaus Parish. In fact, I was under the mistaken impression that they had already joined the PNCC.

On the other hand, the Polish National Catholic Church is, despite the name, purely a US operation. They broke communion with what was then PECUSA over the ordination of women in the 1970s, and they did the same with the Union of Utricht in the 1990s. They are currently in serious talks about reunion with the RCC, would put St. Stanislaus in a pickle if it actually happens. Whether or not the fact that the PNCC doesn’t ordain women or active gay men is a plus or a minus for St. Stanislaus Parish I don’t know. The PNCC has their own liturgy, while St. Stanislaus uses the old translation of Novus Ordo and wants to continue doing so. St. Stanislaus gives the Body into the communicant’s hand and drinks from the chalice, while the PNCC has the priest intinct the host and place it on the communicant’s tongue. They also deny the reality of original sin, and require auricular confession of children but not adults.

Looking at the St. Stanislaus Parish website, one sees a lot of information about the Old Catholic Union of Utrecht. If an American church wants to be in full communion with Utrecht- and it seems that they do- then TEC is your only option. We’re apparently open to them continuing to use the Mass that they’ve been using- we can always say that they’re using the CoE’s Common Worship. We’re of course OK with communion in the hand and drinking from the chalice, in fact they are normative. In addition, we are a worldwide Communion of 77 million members, roughly 2 million of them in the United States. That’s much smaller than the RCC, but much bigger than anyone else they’re looking at. We have monasteries affiliated with us, and I don’t think that the PNCC does. We have undergraduate colleges and universities affiliated with us, the PNCC definitely does not. We have a bishop right in Missouri. So there are lots of advantages to affiliating with The Episcopal Church. I am ready to welcome St. Stanislaus in.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Try - isn't the general applicability of the Dennis Canon running into some trouble itself right now? I read an article last week which seemed to indicate that. I'm outside the US so that's all I've had to go on but others no doubt know more.

I suppose the other thing I would pick up from your OP would be the phrase -

quote:
...embraced doctrine far afield from its Roman roots...

Any idea on what that may refer to?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Try - isn't the general applicability of the Dennis Canon running into some trouble itself right now? I read an article last week which seemed to indicate that. I'm outside the US so that's all I've had to go on but others no doubt know more.

Not really- the issues recently have been from Episcopal diocese trying to cut to the chase, and being forced by the wrangling of schismatics to draw legal battles out for years and years.

Personally, I don't think this parish should be accepted into TEC without returning their building and endowment to the Roman Catholic Church.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

I'd need to go and find it again, Zach82, but the article writer seemed to think that some case or other may form a precedent against the Canon's universal applicability. It may be hot air for all I know. Can't say more without checking.

I agree with you BTW that people leaving should leave properties behind. Dioceses leaving are a lot more tricky in Catholic ecclesiology.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I'd need to go and find it again, Zach82, but the article writer seemed to think that some case or other may form a precedent against the Canon's universal applicability. It may be hot air for all I know. Can't say more without checking.

I agree with you BTW that people leaving should leave properties behind. Dioceses leaving are a lot more tricky in Catholic ecclesiology.

The article was bunk. The number of parishes that got to keep their property has been vanishingly small, but schismatic writers have a great deal of motivation to play up the few times they have.

[ 09. September 2013, 22:46: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

Other than restocking the oils, I am at a loss to think of why a bishop was really needed there, but I sincerely hope that the archdiocese still offered what it ought to the parish during the struggle. It is never right for a bishop to turn his back on people over a property dispute.

There must have been many issues of property control between church and state in Europe over many centuries of power-mad leaders, and yet the church still seemed to get along. If there were some sort of charter that does grant control of the property to the parish, then the bishop should have just let it drop. Being hungry for property is unbefitting of the bishop. If the issue were compliance, replace the priest. It happens all the time in the Chicago archdiocese.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Try:
This is very interesting, of course, and I think heartening to all friends of TEC.

Wellllllll, maybe. I'd want to know a lot more about the history of the parish and how they arrived at this juncture before I'd say that. If this is all about wishing to join their spiritual path with ours, sure. But if the parish has a long-established habit of saying "You're not the boss of me!" it could be as much a headache for its new bishop as for its former one.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

Personally, I don't think this parish should be accepted into TEC without returning their building and endowment to the Roman Catholic Church.

But isn't the point of the long legal case that, because of the unusual setup, the building and endowment has never actually belonged to the Roman Catholic Church at all?

I wonder what the generations of past parishioners that funded the endowment thought they were doing - supporting St. Stanislaus' or supporting the Roman Catholic Church? It looks as though the present lot have a rather stronger attachment to St. Stanislaus' than to the RCC, and it's plausible that previous generations were just as independent.

And in that case, I don't think the RCC has a moral claim to the building and funds, alongside the legal claim that it has already established it doesn't have.

But I share RuthW's apprehension about their joining the Episcopal Church. Somehow, this smells less like "we share your beliefs and want to join with you in unity" and more like "we want to do our own thing, but use your Bishop every now and then."

To be fair, though, there are more than a few TEC parishes like that [Devil]

Knowing only what I know from the article, I'd answer a cautious "maybe."

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Try:
Looking at the St. Stanislaus Parish website, one sees a lot of information about the Old Catholic Union of Utrecht. If an American church wants to be in full communion with Utrecht- and it seems that they do- then TEC is your only option.

Quite.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Personally, I don't think this parish should be accepted into TEC without returning their building and endowment to the Roman Catholic Church.

Any particular reason for this symbolic gesture? Since their canonical situation is evidently different, what would be the point of having them pretend to be retroactively subject to TEC's property canons?

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by Try:
This is very interesting, of course, and I think heartening to all friends of TEC.
Wellllllll, maybe. I'd want to know a lot more about the history of the parish and how they arrived at this juncture before I'd say that.

There are plenty of Episcopal churches originating in the PNCC and related movements. (It's worth noting that the PNCC explicitly vests ownership in congregations, a legacy of the its emergence from turf battles with hostile Irish-American diocesan curiæ). Sure, some, like St Anthony of Padua in Hackensack NJ may be thorns in their bishops' flesh when it comes to accepting the discipline of TEC. But for others, like Holy Trinity in South Bend IN, or the Church of the Precious Blood in Wisconsin (which began, of all things, when Vilatte and Chiniquy tried to bring their Presbyterian mission to disaffected Belgian French-Canadians in communion with Utrecht via PECUSA), their ethnic roots and canonically irregular origins are now mostly just an interesting historical sidebar.

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

There's an awful lot of disinformation being spread here. Firstly, the parish is not and has not been part of the Catholic Church since December 29th 2005 when it was canonically suppressed. Secondly, the accusation that the archdiocese wished to close the church and sell it off the fund sex abuse settlements is a bare-faced lie.

The archdiocese never disputed ownership of the parish property - this is vested in a corporation under the 1891 deeds. What was disputed was the membership of the corporation and how the members were chosen. Under the 1891 deed it is the pastor and a lay board both appointed by the Archbishop. This was an unusual arrangement and the drafting left much to be desired (this in was the seed for the subsequent disputes) In the 1980s the board changed the corporation by-laws without the permission of the then Archbishop, putting themselves in charge and revoking the position of the pastor on the corporation. The dispute rumbled on until Archbishop Burke decreed that the parish structure should be returned to conformity with Canon Law (i.e. adherence to terms of the 1891 deed)

The lay board appealed to Rome which was denied. In August 2004 both priests were removed from the parish. In February 2005 the board was placed under interdict by Archbishop Burke after refusing to comply with the Archbishop's instructions, and the Polish chaplaincy was transferred to another church.

In December 2005 the board announced they were hiring Marek Bozek, a priest of the Diocese of Springfield-Cape Girardeau, whose bishop immediately suspended him. The board was formally excommunicated on December 16th by Archbishop Burke and the parish suppressed. It subsequently emerged that Bozek had earlier been thrown out of seminary in Poland for indecent behaviour.

In May 2008 Rome ratified the excommunication of Bozek and the board. By July 2008, four board members had reconciled with the Catholic Church. In 2009 Bozek was formally dismissed from the clerical state (defrocked in common parlance) by Benedict XVI. Since 2005 over 200 parishioners, constituting the majority of the original congregation, have reconciled with the Catholic Church.

A final settlement between the Archdiocese and St. Stanislaus Corporation was reached on undisclosed terms in early 2013 whereby the Archdiocese ended it's legal proceedings and the parish corporation agreed not represent itself as in any way affiliated to the Archdiocese of St Louis or the Catholic Church in general.

[ 10. September 2013, 10:33: Message edited by: CL ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Any particular reason for this symbolic gesture? Since their canonical situation is evidently different, what would be the point of having them pretend to be retroactively subject to TEC's property canons?

As a gesture of goodwill to the Roman Catholic Church on the one hand. We might accept the congregation into our fellowship, but we aren't trying to start anything. On the other hand, it would be consistent to our position towards our own schismatics.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
As a gesture of goodwill to the Roman Catholic Church on the one hand.

But if "the Roman Catholic Church" (i.e. presumably the archdiocesan corporation) doesn't own the freehold then what would that good will be? Or have I misunderstood?

Being "consistent" with our response to ACNA assumes that the two cases are consistent. I'm not clear that's the case here. Allowing them to remain in the building would be "consistent" with the arrangements dioceses have made with congregations departing for the ordinariate, ostensibly a closer parallel.

If anything, it's ACNA that's the "outlier." The reason it poses a unique pastoral problem is because, unlike the ordinariates or TAC or Christ the King Graceland Independent Anglican Church of the Elvis dispensation, ACNA's mandate is to be a fork of the canonical Anglican churches, and ultimately to displace them for the franchise. That's why our response has been different ("inconsistent") - one of these things really isn't like the others.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I just don't see the situations as that different. Indeed, the parish got away with it simply because the Roman Catholic Church gave up, and I think giving up is the last thing TEC should do when it comes to its own schismatics.

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I just don't see the situations as that different. Indeed, the parish got away with it simply because the Roman Catholic Church gave up, and I think giving up is the last thing TEC should do when it comes to its own schismatics.

The Archdiocese of St Louis gave up simply because there was little point in continuing. A good deal of the "fixtures and fittings" i.e. moveable property had been removed as early as 2004; and most of the original parishioners returned to the Church and attend St. Agatha's, while St Stanislaus' church building is in an area of urban decay, declining population and has drawn away many of the kooks from other Catholic parishes. There was little reason to continue throwing good money after bad.

Posted by Try (# 4951) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I just don't see the situations as that different. Indeed, the parish got away with it simply because the Roman Catholic Church gave up, and I think giving up is the last thing TEC should do when it comes to its own schismatics.

I would in addition say that St. Stanislauas is a good parallel to All Saints Pawley's Island. Both were able to leave their parent church with their property due to odd, very exceptional arraignments made a very long time ago. This is hardly going to start a mass exodus. And St. Stanislaus is hardly trying to replace the mainstream RCC!

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CL:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I just don't see the situations as that different. Indeed, the parish got away with it simply because the Roman Catholic Church gave up, and I think giving up is the last thing TEC should do when it comes to its own schismatics.
The Archdiocese of St Louis gave up simply because there was little point in continuing. A good deal of the "fixtures and fittings" i.e. moveable property had been removed as early as 2004; and most of the original parishioners returned to the Church and attend St. Agatha's, while St Stanislaus' church building is in an area of urban decay, declining population and has drawn away many of the kooks from other Catholic parishes. There was little reason to continue throwing good money after bad.

This rather obfuscates the success that St Stanislaus and its pastor have enjoyed since their separation from the local RC diocese -- albeit success as something different from a parish of the RCC and different to the original congregation of the parish. Per my reading, the parish lost about 200 souls, who left St Stanislaus in order to remain with or be reconciled to the RCC. However, St Stanislaus - under the leadership of her "liberal"/progressive pastor - has succeeded in bringing in many new members who have presumably been attracted to theological and disciplinary postions that are pretty much 100% congruent with the Episcopal Church and with the Affirming Catholicism wing of TEC. Despite the losses of former parishioners, my reading indicates that the church has something like 500 communicant members.

It will be interesting if the parish does opt to come into communion with the local TEC bishop. While the parish would maintain a certain element of internal continuity in such instance, it would at the same time be radically discontinuous with its prior history and identity as a Roman Catholic parish. Of course, that's already the case, and joing another ecclesial communion would simply complete the process.

It's interesting to see how this is the mirror image of Anglican parishes that have come into communion with the RCC -- they are in some sense continuous parochial communities, yet in leaving the Episcopal Church and joining up with Rome have truly changed into something undeniably different from what they had been. To the extent that such places survive on a long-term basis, they are almost sure to gradually take on the visible identity of their new parent body and to lose the liturgical, devotional, and traditional elements associated with the old ecclesiastical identity.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

The more I think about this congregation, the more ambivalent I feel. Are they coming to us because they believe TEC is a full heir to the promises Jesus made to His Church? Will they obey the authority of the bishop and the General Convention? Will they use the Book of Common Prayer? Do they look to the Bible as the sole authority of the Christian faith?

Can we say yes to any of these questions with much certainty?

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

It was my understanding they've already been told they can use their existing liturgy and presumably the various pastoral rites. So they would be a TEC Novus Ordo parish, I would think, including one N.O. Mass in Polish each Sunday. As to the scriptures being the sole or ultimate source of authority, that hasn't been Anglo-Catholic doctrine in actual practice ( and in some cases not even in theory) for over a century, has it? Scripture, Tradition, and Reason/ lived experience, with more emphasis on the two latter than on the first. Just sayin'.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

So what, exactly, fits this parish to the Episcopal Church besides a liberal take on certain social issues?

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Centrality of the Eucharist? Inclusiveness as a theological and sacramental principle? Broad catholic tradition. Pretty close agreement on the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral? I imagine the BCP would make gradual incursions, initially via the confirmation rite.

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

It looks as if the Novus Ordo pretty much fits "An Order for Celebrating the Holy Eucharist" on p400 of the BCP1979 anyway. And presumably the Roman Eucharistic Prayer 3 at least has a very close parallel somewhere in the PECUSA book.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

And look, they'd get benefit of such liturgical treasures from our BCP as Eucharistic Prayer C.

Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
And look, they'd get benefit of such liturgical treasures from our BCP as Eucharistic Prayer C.

Which is, of course, the only Eucharistic prayer in the American BCP that has its epiclesis in the place where Roman Catholics (or English Anglicans) would expect it.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

I've seen Mass celebrated in a completely dignified manner using Eucharistic Prayer C, and I do appreciate its placement of the epiclesis before the Verba. The prayer as a whole is a rather quaint artifact of its time, which probably isn't a good thing to say about a Eucharistic Prayer. The only thing I truly dislike about it is the bits said by the whole congegation -- I find them awkward intrusions into the flow of the prayer.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I just don't see the situations as that different.

But the point is that the Episcopal Church has, and has responded accordingly. Friendly arrangements have been made with those existing TEC that would not be possible with departing in hopes of rebooting a new, purer TEC elsewhere. St Stanislaus's situation in that respect more closely resembles the former than the latter. As Try says, no one is expecting the joint to host an alternative Vatican Council.

Imagine if we had responded so ungenerously to the papal revolts which gave us our Iberian provinces, the Spanish Reformed Episcopal and Lusitanian Catholic Apostolic Evangelical churches.

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
The only thing I truly dislike about it is the bits said by the whole congegation

If we're talking about Star Wars, it really isn't designed to be said. I just got back from a Mass using EP4 and you really need the chant to prompt the "Glory to you for ever and ever" especially if not everyone is following a book.

Posted by Try (# 4951) on :

If St. Stanislaus joins TEC I too would expect elements of the 1979 BCP to appear in their liturgy gradually. I know how I would go about slowly but surely transitioning from Novus Ordo to 1979 with Catholic additions, but I'm not them. And they very well might go with the PNCC rather than TEC. The PNCC lacks any sort of Denis Canon, which would probably be a draw, and there is the bond of common ethnicity there.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

The problem is that the congregation as it has evolved in the last few years now seems out of step with the PNCC, a rather conservative body. I also wonder if the Polish ethnic demographic of St Stanislaus hasn't been eroded over the past few years. In point of fact, the parish faces different problems in going with TEC on the one hand and the PNCC on the other. The other options involve affiliation with unstable groups led by episcopi vagantes or their heirs, or with the somewhat unstable continuing Anglican groups. I can't imagine they won't go with either TEC, with the property risks that would entail; or with the PNCC, which might well cause the more liberal element in the present congregation to depart for other options.

Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :

The ones who remained outside of the Catholic Faith were pretty much Episcopalians anyway
Good luck to them

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
The ones who remained outside of the Catholic Faith were pretty much Episcopalians anyway
Good luck to them

Given their lack of episcopal oversight, I think it's a bit off logically to say they were practically Episcopalians.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:

quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
The ones who remained outside of the Catholic Faith were pretty much Episcopalians anyway
Good luck to them
Given their lack of episcopal oversight, I think it's a bit off logically to say they were practically Episcopalians.

He was making a passive aggressive jab at the Episcopal Church.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

No, this is one of those rare instances in which I agree with SeraphimSerov. Those who stayed with - and perhaps more importantly, those who subsequently came to - St Stanislaus, would seem to be essentially of one mind with TEC, from all that I understand. The congregation and their pastor have been seeking episcopal oversight -- just not from the Archbp of St Louis in communion with the Holy See. Per my reading, their pastor favours the ordination of women and sexual minorities. The parish website makes it discreetly clear that they are an inclusive place that refuses the Holy Communion to no one. They would seem, in fact, to be to the left of a sizeable minority within TEC, but a good fit with the national church and with what is essentially the American iteration of Affirming Catholicism -- high church liturgy, Eucharistically centred, episcopally structured, and socially progressive/theologically inclusive.
BTW, I am not dissing any of that, as it is pretty much reflective of my own positions.

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
And look, they'd get benefit of such liturgical treasures from our BCP as Eucharistic Prayer C.

I actually really like that, apart from the way someone's been through it sticking irrelevant responses in that break up the flow, and the rather weak resumption from the Sanctus (if they wanted the Epiclesis there, they'd have done better to ape the Coptic Liturgy of St Mark and its "Truly heaven and earth are full of your holy glory. Through your only-begotten Son, our Lord, God, Saviour and King of us all, Jesus Christ, fill this sacrifice[...]", which would fit the Star-Wars-ness nicely).

quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
The ones who remained outside of the Catholic Faith were pretty much Episcopalians anyway
Good luck to them

I think you'll find that the Bishop of Rome and his followers broke away from the Catholic Faith back in the 1530s. Detestable enormities and all that. Nur nurny nur nur. [Biased]

Posted by Try (# 4951) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pererin:

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
And look, they'd get benefit of such liturgical treasures from our BCP as Eucharistic Prayer C.
I actually really like that, apart from the way someone's been through it sticking irrelevant responses in that break up the flow, and the rather weak resumption from the Sanctus (if they wanted the Epiclesis there, they'd have done better to ape the Coptic Liturgy of St Mark and its "Truly heaven and earth are full of your holy glory. Through your only-begotten Son, our Lord, God, Saviour and King of us all, Jesus Christ, fill this sacrifice[...]", which would fit the Star-Wars-ness nicely).

Prayer C was composed in a single night by Captain Howard Gallery, and has never been changed since then. Apparently his former students feel that he considered it the product of a unique inspiration that he dared not touch, change, or revise afterwards. At any rate, unlike any of the other Eucharistic prayers in the 1979 BCP, it does not incorperate older liturgical sources. It's good now, even the "star wars" part, which is still all true even if ignoring the universe outside low earth orbit is now fashionable. But it would be better if it had a stronger epiclisis, yes, and if Galley had done multiple drafts of his prayer it could have been fruitfully improved.

quote:
Originally posted by pererin:

quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
The ones who remained outside of the Catholic Faith were pretty much Episcopalians anyway
Good luck to them
I think you'll find that the Bishop of Rome and his followers broke away from the Catholic Faith back in the 1530s. Detestable enormities and all that. Nur nurny nur nur.

Not to mention that the RCC broke communion with us, not the other way around. That was in 1570, with the Papal Bull that excommunicated Elizabeth I.

Posted by Pommie Mick (# 12794) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
So what, exactly, fits this parish to the Episcopal Church besides a liberal take on certain social issues?

Obviously very little.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0