One does not even need all that comes with the “smells and bells” tradition.
There is (or was) a great deal of beauty in the language of the Book of Common Prayer, the evolving tradition of the hymnal, and a simple yet dignified service, done “decently and in good order.”
That is also passing away, as parishes experiment with “Enriching our Worship,” other “relevant” orders of worship, and somehow start thinking that “Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer,” is the same as “Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”
I am in a parish which is rapidly careening toward a mix of 1982 prayer book, whatever the Canadians are currently using, and post Vatican II Roman rite.
It may actually may make it easier to enter into communion with Rome, as at least the move will no longer require me to give up exposure to decent liturgy.
I had the privilege of attending an early morning mass at St. Clement’s about 8 years ago while I was in Philly for a work-related conference. I was struck not only by the beauty of the church building itself, but also by the friendliness of the parishioners, a couple of whom gave me an impromptu tour of the premises after the service.
[i]It may actually may make it easier to enter into communion with Rome, as at least the move will no longer require me to give up exposure to decent liturgy.[/i]
I ask this question repeatedly of those who say such things and never get a satisfactory answer: If you have no objections to Roman doctrine (papal infallibility, ecclesial exclusivity, Marian doctrine, transubtantiation), then how can you conscionably not be a Roman Catholic? If you object to these things, how can you go against your conscience and flirt with the idea of joining a church with such objectionable dogma?
I’m sure that you will just as easily find a conservative Anglican/Anglo-catholic Church as find a pre-Vatican II service. What exactly keeps you as an Anglican? The ability to gripe about so much goodness?
My wife is Roman Catholic and I Protestant(Anglican), there is nothing more Protestant than 1662 BCP and the 39 Articles of Religion according to my wife(she is Irish), I took her to a Anglo Catholic mass, she just laugh about, she said, that she had just seen some thing like that at the St Peters(at the square) during the Pope Benedict’s Instalation Mass and at Westminster Cathidral once. I have being in various Catholic masses in England and Brazil,even during Corpus Christis, Christmas and Easter, and they were just very very low masses, all in no more then 1 hour. My wife thinks that they do all that stuff just to prove that they are Catholic.
Curious for such a ‘traditionalist’ Anglocatholic church that they seem quite content within TEC and the Diocese of Pennsylvania. They are not a member of Forward in Faith, as far as I know, and they even had +Frank Griswold to preside and preach last Sunday.
I couldn’t resist the media links on the church’s website. Very lovely indeed! It is very much my cup of tea.
That said, it raises a moral question for me. Given the extraordinary financial resources necessary to “put on” such a Mass, at what point does it become self-indulgent to do so in a world as needy as this one. (Now if all of those musicians are volunteers, I take this back and will soon look for work in Philly!) Given that it is the worship of Almighty God, one could always argue that no expense is too great, etc. But still I wonder. I don’t mean this as a cheap shot; it is a genuine question for me.
re 8
We worship in that style and serve the poorest parish in the town. In fact virtually all British Ango Catholic parishes ARE in places of need- the slum priests are a great tradition.
All you need is good volunteers and the nergy and desire to offer something beautiful to God.
[blockquote]Curious for such a ‘traditionalist’ Anglocatholic church that they seem quite content within TEC and the Diocese of Pennsylvania. They are not a member of Forward in Faith, as far as I know, and they even had +Frank Griswold to preside and preach last Sunday.[/blockquote]
Remember, “Anglo-Catholic” isn’t necessarily synonymous with “Orthodox”. In fact, some are quite liberal on contemporary issues, while liturgically conservative.
St. Clements was one of the “seven sisters” or “eight sisters” (I forget which), ECUSA parishes in the ECUSA PA Diocese that banded together to oppose “liberal theology” and WO from the early 1990s onwards (two of them were Evangelical, the others Anglo-Catholic), even before Charles Bennison became bishop. A couple of years after the “group” organized, it adopted a statement expressing opposition to homosexual practice as incompatible with Scriptural teaching and Catholic Tradition alike. Within a very short time after the adoption of this statement St. Clements withdrew from the “group.” At the time a friend told me that the statement offended on of the most powerful “interest groups” at St. Clements, and the then rector dissociated the church from the “sisters” to assuage those who the statement had offended.
Eheu, fugaces. I have in my possession a wonderful, fresh and pristine copy of *The Shape of the Liturgy* by Dom Gregory Dix that was autographed by Dix at St. Clements on All Saints Day 1950, when Dix was “touring” Anglo-Catholic venues in the then PECUSA to raise funds for then then newly-founded Anglican Benedictine Three Rivers Priory in Michigan (of which Dix was acting Prior). I have seen another copy of the book signed at the same event, and I gather Tom Rightmyer (who was there as a young boy with his father) has another. That was then, however, and this is now.
# 5 — This may not be a satisfactory answer, but it is true:
I am a cradle Episcopalian. I have a great affection for the BCP. It is what I grew up with. It is what I know. I really don’t know how to be a Christian other than as an Episcopalian.
However, some of the actions of the General Convention in recent years, the actions (an inactions) of the House of Bishops, the public pronouncements of some bishops (including Ms. Jefferts-Schorri) and other events in ECUSA have caused me to question why I remain. I’m not much of a theologian, but I recognize that what is really going on in this denomination is a conflict over theology, and that the consecration of the current Bishop of New Hampshire, same sex blessings, and a lot of other issues are symptoms of more fundamental conflicts.
So I’m learning what I can. And one of those things that I will have to figure out is this — “Whose teaching do I trust?” The issue may well not be “do I agree with the Church of Rome on Marian Doctrine,” but, “Am I willing to accept the teaching of the Church of Rome on something I actually don’t know much about (i.e. Marian Doctrine).”
But there’s something else going on as well. If I go, I will miss the old form of worship. That is something that has kept me coming back to Episcopal congregations in times of doubt, anger, and confusion. If Episcopalians substitute that for something divorced from our traditions, then that is one more link with ECUSA that has been severed.
One of the reasons I was not too hesitant to join the Episcopal Church in 1986 was because of the similarities in the liturgy between the BCP and the Roman missal. (before you ask, there are reasons I don’t go back to the RC church! But that’s my business!)
But it does bug me when even the Anglican Parishes start to just casually bring about changes in the liturgy.
This past Sunday, we had a member of the congregation do an ‘interpretive reading’ of the Gospel in place of the Gospel reading. In the past she’s done this with the OT and Epistle readings, and those were fine. But it bothered me that they replaced the PRIEST reading the Gospel with a lay person interpreting it. Only a priest or deacon is supposed to bring forth the Gospel message. So, that bothered me. But to whom does one speak about this? The priest? Evidentally he approved it since he was there, and it took practice for the memorized presentation. And how much of a ‘whiner’ do I want to appear? Ah, the problems!
Leaving out parts of the service, like the gloria or the Memorial Acclaimation is another thing that bothers me. Or using inappropriate hymn/praise-prayer songs in the liturgy.
So it’s not only the ‘liberal’ reappraisers who mess with the liturgy, it’s the orthodox reasserters as well.
We’ve lost the heart of liturgical theology, I think.
I may be confusing St. Clements with another church, my memory is less than perfect. But I vaguely recall reading the website of a decidedly High Church TEC parish in the Philly area that also made a point of describing themselves as “inclusive and welcoming.” This was at least a couple of years ago and I did not see such language after just checking their website now. Am I thinking of a different parish?
And Ralph is very correct in observing that High Church is not the same as orthodox (small ‘o’).
Having read a good bit of material on St Clement’s website, they are still theologically orthodox…at least as of about a year ago. I am quite certain they disapprove of WO, which as most of you know I support.
One thing that one must understand is that there is an element of pastoral ministry involved. W/o pigeonholing or assuming too much, it has been my observation that any number of parishes with orthodox clergy-often anglo-catholic but sometimes more traditional Anglican-struggle mightily with the question of how to best minister to gay parishoners. Downtown churches like St Clement’s, given their proximity to predominanty gay communities, are on the front lines of a genuine pastoral question that ties in with present controversies.
It was not meant to be unkind. Louie Crew is high church. As someone above has mentioned, high church does not automatically mean theological orthodoxy. Ceremony and ritual can be very beautiful and very meaningful, but these also can be empty, especially if disconnected from their roots in tradition.
I realize I’m about a year and half late to this thread, which I found looking for discussion on S. Clement’s whose website I admire, and am not sure if anyone will even see this comment. However, as a professional classical musician (cellist), I feel compelled to register my strong disagreement with the claim that it is wasteful or inappropriate for churches to “put on” elaborate masses like S. Clement’s does in a “needy” world. The suggestion that it would be OK if all the musicians were volunteers makes this person’s suggestion even more offensive. Musicians NEED to earn a living like everyone else, and the Church has always been a part of that, as it should be. The idea that highly skilled musicians, who depend for their livelihood on being paid to play their instruments, should be expected to routinely donate their services to the church makes me livid. No one expects an architect to design a church for free or construction workers to build it for free. Why should musicians be any different? I commend S. Clement’s for their commitment to excellence in sacred music–but excellence does indeed cost money, and there is nothing wrong with that!
One does not even need all that comes with the “smells and bells” tradition.
There is (or was) a great deal of beauty in the language of the Book of Common Prayer, the evolving tradition of the hymnal, and a simple yet dignified service, done “decently and in good order.”
That is also passing away, as parishes experiment with “Enriching our Worship,” other “relevant” orders of worship, and somehow start thinking that “Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer,” is the same as “Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”
I am in a parish which is rapidly careening toward a mix of 1982 prayer book, whatever the Canadians are currently using, and post Vatican II Roman rite.
It may actually may make it easier to enter into communion with Rome, as at least the move will no longer require me to give up exposure to decent liturgy.
I noticed that St. Clements lost a lot of members from 1999 to 2001. Does anyone know what happened to the church at that time?
The services that are online are gorgeous. They truly have a wonderful choir.
If I ever find myself in Philadelphia, I’ll definitely pay them a visit.
I had the privilege of attending an early morning mass at St. Clement’s about 8 years ago while I was in Philly for a work-related conference. I was struck not only by the beauty of the church building itself, but also by the friendliness of the parishioners, a couple of whom gave me an impromptu tour of the premises after the service.
[i]It may actually may make it easier to enter into communion with Rome, as at least the move will no longer require me to give up exposure to decent liturgy.[/i]
I ask this question repeatedly of those who say such things and never get a satisfactory answer: If you have no objections to Roman doctrine (papal infallibility, ecclesial exclusivity, Marian doctrine, transubtantiation), then how can you conscionably not be a Roman Catholic? If you object to these things, how can you go against your conscience and flirt with the idea of joining a church with such objectionable dogma?
I’m sure that you will just as easily find a conservative Anglican/Anglo-catholic Church as find a pre-Vatican II service. What exactly keeps you as an Anglican? The ability to gripe about so much goodness?
My wife is Roman Catholic and I Protestant(Anglican), there is nothing more Protestant than 1662 BCP and the 39 Articles of Religion according to my wife(she is Irish), I took her to a Anglo Catholic mass, she just laugh about, she said, that she had just seen some thing like that at the St Peters(at the square) during the Pope Benedict’s Instalation Mass and at Westminster Cathidral once. I have being in various Catholic masses in England and Brazil,even during Corpus Christis, Christmas and Easter, and they were just very very low masses, all in no more then 1 hour. My wife thinks that they do all that stuff just to prove that they are Catholic.
Curious for such a ‘traditionalist’ Anglocatholic church that they seem quite content within TEC and the Diocese of Pennsylvania. They are not a member of Forward in Faith, as far as I know, and they even had +Frank Griswold to preside and preach last Sunday.
I couldn’t resist the media links on the church’s website. Very lovely indeed! It is very much my cup of tea.
That said, it raises a moral question for me. Given the extraordinary financial resources necessary to “put on” such a Mass, at what point does it become self-indulgent to do so in a world as needy as this one. (Now if all of those musicians are volunteers, I take this back and will soon look for work in Philly!) Given that it is the worship of Almighty God, one could always argue that no expense is too great, etc. But still I wonder. I don’t mean this as a cheap shot; it is a genuine question for me.
re 8
We worship in that style and serve the poorest parish in the town. In fact virtually all British Ango Catholic parishes ARE in places of need- the slum priests are a great tradition.
All you need is good volunteers and the nergy and desire to offer something beautiful to God.
[blockquote]Curious for such a ‘traditionalist’ Anglocatholic church that they seem quite content within TEC and the Diocese of Pennsylvania. They are not a member of Forward in Faith, as far as I know, and they even had +Frank Griswold to preside and preach last Sunday.[/blockquote]
Remember, “Anglo-Catholic” isn’t necessarily synonymous with “Orthodox”. In fact, some are quite liberal on contemporary issues, while liturgically conservative.
St. Clements was one of the “seven sisters” or “eight sisters” (I forget which), ECUSA parishes in the ECUSA PA Diocese that banded together to oppose “liberal theology” and WO from the early 1990s onwards (two of them were Evangelical, the others Anglo-Catholic), even before Charles Bennison became bishop. A couple of years after the “group” organized, it adopted a statement expressing opposition to homosexual practice as incompatible with Scriptural teaching and Catholic Tradition alike. Within a very short time after the adoption of this statement St. Clements withdrew from the “group.” At the time a friend told me that the statement offended on of the most powerful “interest groups” at St. Clements, and the then rector dissociated the church from the “sisters” to assuage those who the statement had offended.
Eheu, fugaces. I have in my possession a wonderful, fresh and pristine copy of *The Shape of the Liturgy* by Dom Gregory Dix that was autographed by Dix at St. Clements on All Saints Day 1950, when Dix was “touring” Anglo-Catholic venues in the then PECUSA to raise funds for then then newly-founded Anglican Benedictine Three Rivers Priory in Michigan (of which Dix was acting Prior). I have seen another copy of the book signed at the same event, and I gather Tom Rightmyer (who was there as a young boy with his father) has another. That was then, however, and this is now.
# 5 — This may not be a satisfactory answer, but it is true:
I am a cradle Episcopalian. I have a great affection for the BCP. It is what I grew up with. It is what I know. I really don’t know how to be a Christian other than as an Episcopalian.
However, some of the actions of the General Convention in recent years, the actions (an inactions) of the House of Bishops, the public pronouncements of some bishops (including Ms. Jefferts-Schorri) and other events in ECUSA have caused me to question why I remain. I’m not much of a theologian, but I recognize that what is really going on in this denomination is a conflict over theology, and that the consecration of the current Bishop of New Hampshire, same sex blessings, and a lot of other issues are symptoms of more fundamental conflicts.
So I’m learning what I can. And one of those things that I will have to figure out is this — “Whose teaching do I trust?” The issue may well not be “do I agree with the Church of Rome on Marian Doctrine,” but, “Am I willing to accept the teaching of the Church of Rome on something I actually don’t know much about (i.e. Marian Doctrine).”
But there’s something else going on as well. If I go, I will miss the old form of worship. That is something that has kept me coming back to Episcopal congregations in times of doubt, anger, and confusion. If Episcopalians substitute that for something divorced from our traditions, then that is one more link with ECUSA that has been severed.
One of the reasons I was not too hesitant to join the Episcopal Church in 1986 was because of the similarities in the liturgy between the BCP and the Roman missal. (before you ask, there are reasons I don’t go back to the RC church! But that’s my business!)
But it does bug me when even the Anglican Parishes start to just casually bring about changes in the liturgy.
This past Sunday, we had a member of the congregation do an ‘interpretive reading’ of the Gospel in place of the Gospel reading. In the past she’s done this with the OT and Epistle readings, and those were fine. But it bothered me that they replaced the PRIEST reading the Gospel with a lay person interpreting it. Only a priest or deacon is supposed to bring forth the Gospel message. So, that bothered me. But to whom does one speak about this? The priest? Evidentally he approved it since he was there, and it took practice for the memorized presentation. And how much of a ‘whiner’ do I want to appear? Ah, the problems!
Leaving out parts of the service, like the gloria or the Memorial Acclaimation is another thing that bothers me. Or using inappropriate hymn/praise-prayer songs in the liturgy.
So it’s not only the ‘liberal’ reappraisers who mess with the liturgy, it’s the orthodox reasserters as well.
We’ve lost the heart of liturgical theology, I think.
I was ordained in the Diocese of PA and remember St. Clements. The services were glorious indeed. Louie Crew would love it there.
I may be confusing St. Clements with another church, my memory is less than perfect. But I vaguely recall reading the website of a decidedly High Church TEC parish in the Philly area that also made a point of describing themselves as “inclusive and welcoming.” This was at least a couple of years ago and I did not see such language after just checking their website now. Am I thinking of a different parish?
And Ralph is very correct in observing that High Church is not the same as orthodox (small ‘o’).
Having read a good bit of material on St Clement’s website, they are still theologically orthodox…at least as of about a year ago. I am quite certain they disapprove of WO, which as most of you know I support.
One thing that one must understand is that there is an element of pastoral ministry involved. W/o pigeonholing or assuming too much, it has been my observation that any number of parishes with orthodox clergy-often anglo-catholic but sometimes more traditional Anglican-struggle mightily with the question of how to best minister to gay parishoners. Downtown churches like St Clement’s, given their proximity to predominanty gay communities, are on the front lines of a genuine pastoral question that ties in with present controversies.
Randall
Alice:
I am not sure what you mean in regards to Mr. Crew, and perhaps I am jumping to conclusions, but it does not look very kind. Shame.
Randall
It was not meant to be unkind. Louie Crew is high church. As someone above has mentioned, high church does not automatically mean theological orthodoxy. Ceremony and ritual can be very beautiful and very meaningful, but these also can be empty, especially if disconnected from their roots in tradition.
I realize I’m about a year and half late to this thread, which I found looking for discussion on S. Clement’s whose website I admire, and am not sure if anyone will even see this comment. However, as a professional classical musician (cellist), I feel compelled to register my strong disagreement with the claim that it is wasteful or inappropriate for churches to “put on” elaborate masses like S. Clement’s does in a “needy” world. The suggestion that it would be OK if all the musicians were volunteers makes this person’s suggestion even more offensive. Musicians NEED to earn a living like everyone else, and the Church has always been a part of that, as it should be. The idea that highly skilled musicians, who depend for their livelihood on being paid to play their instruments, should be expected to routinely donate their services to the church makes me livid. No one expects an architect to design a church for free or construction workers to build it for free. Why should musicians be any different? I commend S. Clement’s for their commitment to excellence in sacred music–but excellence does indeed cost money, and there is nothing wrong with that!