Monthly Archives: January 2013

HWHM Update

At the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music (SCLM) meeting yesterday, there was quite a lot of debate around the best way to proceed with HWHM. The minutes aren’t finished yet which means that I haven’t gone back through the conversation carefully. However, it was decided that we would not make any firm decisions now and are waiting to hash it out in person at our June meeting.

There was a decent amount of interest in the historical almanac idea.

Currently the plan is for Sandye and me to :

go back through General Convention legislation, achieve clarity on just what we can and are supposed to mess with,
put together a proposed list of who would be in the almanac and the Calendar,
identify which commemorations are in the “keep” list and which in a “questionable” list
present proposed guidelines (if there are any changes from the current) and the degree to which we think we should allow exceptions to the guidelines/criteria

Current Considerations on HWHM

[I submitted the following thoughts to my fellow members of the SCLM in advance of our discussion tomorrow.]

Introduction

When Dr. Meyers informed me that we would spend some time discussing Holy Women, Holy Men at this meeting, identified the material she was circulating to the group, and asked if there was any additional material for inclusion, I had hopes that I would be able to complete in time a formal response to the ATR paper that she had written along with Dan Joslyn-Siemiatkoski. As I worked on it over the past week it has become abundantly clear that I will not be able to give it the care it deserves and circulate it with enough time for it to be read in advance of the meeting. Rather than producing a comprehensive argument, I thought it might be helpful to jot down the major concerns that I have with HWHM and that others have mentioned to me either on my blog or in person.

Before I begin with these concerns, though, I must start by acknowledging that a tremendous amount of work has gone into this project. My intention is neither to denigrate nor attempt to undo that work. To that end I’ve already reached out to Bishop Alexander (whom I know well as my former diocesan) to request his perspective on HWHM. Rather, I believe that the current state of HWHM serves as a foundation that can be built upon and refined to craft a high-quality, theologically-grounded Calendar reflecting our multiple diversities that can be proudly claimed by the whole Church.

The other point which must be stated—and cannot be overstated as we approach this work, I think—is that the Calendar is the official record of individuals commemorated throughout the transnational Episcopal Church. Entry onto the Calendar is not what makes a saint. Furthermore, not being included on the Calendar does not prevent an individual from being a saint or from being honored as one.

The calendar is, currently, our sole practice of social memory which is the process by which societies and organizations connect themselves to the past and make statements by reference to people and events of the past concerning their present identity. Being included on the Calendar means that an entry has particular bearing on who we are and what we do as a body of believers. Furthermore, the balance of the various kinds of saints says something significant about how we construe our priorities as a church and what roles and disciplines we value. The Calendar’s role in defining and directing Episcopal self-identity must be carefully guarded lest the Calendar become the property of one faction or another rather than being a collection that can be embraced by the whole church.

Clarity on the relationship between the Baptismal Covenant/Baptismal Ecclesiology and an Episcopal theology of sanctity

One of the foundational discussions of sanctity in Scripture occurs within the Pauline writings. In the two great letters on the church—1 Corinthians and Ephesians (with a healthy dash of Philippians thrown in for good measure)—a vision of Christian life emerges grounded in the principle of imitation. This vision is succinctly captured in Ephesians 5:1-2: “Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children, and live in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.” To read this as an individual call to an individual person would be incorrect, however, for this is the capstone of a broader discussion in the chapter before. Chapter 4 is a sustained argument to “lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called” (Eph 4:1). The gifts of the Spirit are not just for individual edification but for a grander purpose:

To equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ. We must no longer be children, tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine, by people’s trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming. But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every ligament with which it is equipped, as each part is working properly, promotes the body’s growth in building itself up in love. (Eph 4:12-16)

In Baptism, all Christians are grafted into the Body of Christ; however, incorporation into the Body of Christ does not automatically confer the Mind of Christ. As individuals we must grow to maturity, but our own maturity can never be fully separated from the rest of the community. True maturity, a faithful imitation of Christ, is constituted by a relationship with Christ and his Church, a relationship rooted in faith and made visible in works of love that communicate Christ and bring the rest of the Church towards maturity as well. This is the life of discipleship. But what does it look like in practical terms?

As Episcopalians, this is where we can turn to the Baptismal Covenant. Following the rite in the prayer book, a life of discipleship minimally means:

believing in the Triune God as revealed in the Church’s Creed
continuing in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in the prayers
persevering in resisting evil, and, whenever we fall into sin repenting and returning to the Lord
proclaiming by word and example the Good News of God in Christ
seeking and serving Christ in all persons, loving our neighbor as ourselves
striving for justice and peace among all people and respecting the dignity of every human being

This is a life grounded in the faith of Christ and that reflects that inward belief and personal transformation in outward action and corporate transformation. If the Baptismal Covenant reflects our core understanding of discipleship, then our definition of sanctity must necessarily be rooted in the keeping of the Baptismal Covenant. After all, a covenant is an agreement between two parties: God makes promises to us, but we also make promises back—the transformation of discipleship is, among other things, about us holding up our end of the bargain! One aspect of the saints, then, is that these are mature Christians who, in their keeping of the Baptismal Covenant, inspire the rest of us to do the same.

In using the Baptismal Covenant to frame our understanding of what makes a saint, two items need to be noted. First, the covenant relationship with God found in Baptism is not optional. It’s hard to be an exemplary keeper of promises you haven’t taken. Second, history tells us of a myriad good, moral, inspiring, and important people not all of whom need a place on our Calendar. Sanctity is not just a matter of morality or inspiration—it’s about incarnating Christ to the community in the pattern of a life shaped by Christian maturity.

The report from the Calendar Committee in the 1982 Blue Book contains a line which keeps coming back to my mind because it so succinctly challenges a facile understanding of the saints and why we remember them: “It is essential that the prime criterion for inclusion in the Calendar continue to be (as is traditional) the witness of the person commemorated to the power of the Risen Christ, rather than a pedagogical desire to set certain persons forward as ‘examples’ for the faithful to follow” (Blue Book 1982, 146). To me, this quote focuses not upon specific actions or general types of action, but the way that each individual life in its totality shows itself to be an offering to the Church in and through the imitation of Christ and incarnating his message of love in its own radically particular time, place, and situation. Do some entries in HWHM focus on certain exemplary deeds rather than a life suffused with Christ?

The Eschatological Implications of Baptism

I focused on this angle in the Living Church article so I won’t rehash it here but to note the high points. Because of the nature of our life-in-Christ due to Baptism, the whole Christian community is eternally present as Christ is present. The saints are fellow-workers with us now. The collects give me the odd feeling of talking about someone in the room as if they were not there—we talk to God about the saint as if they weren’t part of our immediate worshipping community.

Too, we likewise fail to acknowledge how the individuals identified might feel about being included on a Calendar of this kind; Calvin and Barth must not be too pleased given their own thoughts on the saints!

Sufficiency of the Criteria

Since the publication of the proposed sanctoral calendar for the Episcopal Church in 1957, three sets of selection criteria have been put forward.

In the 1982 Blue Book, Thomas Talley presented a work entitled “The Passion of Witness: Prolegomena to the Revision of the Sacred Calendar” that included five criteria for inclusion: 1. Historicity; 2. Christianity; 3. Significance; 4. Historical Perspective; and 5. Memorability. Talley ends by saying that this list is not intended to be exclusive:

While other criteria may be appropriate or needed, and while suggestions toward them are invited, these have been set forth as consistent with the theology of sanctoral commemoration which we have articulated and which we take to be fundamental to further development of our celebration of the victory of Christ, “in memory of those athletes who have gone before, and to train and make ready those who are to come hereafter.” (Blue Book 1982, 161)

During the vote to add 7 new names to the Calendar in 1985 and the subsequent argument in the House of Bishops over the appropriateness of Aelred and Edmund, the Bishop of Texas made an amendment that the SLC present a report to the 1988 convention that contained “clear and detailed” guidelines that would govern the inclusion of new names. This passed as resolution 1985-A092. The following convention saw resolution 1988-A097 that presented Talley’s criteria with only a few changes in wording (like the clarification that two generations of perspective is equivalent to fifty years, hearkening back to the Lambeth study on saints which recommended the same length of time).

Also in 1985, the SLC rather sourly submitted a resolution (with the pointed note that it was submitted, not recommended) adding Charles Stuart—aka King Charles the Martyr—because the House of Bishops had expressly desired it to do so, and it was canonically required to obey. This resolution (1985-A094) was tabled and died upon adjournment. However, Charles returned at the head of resolution 1991-A119 and, in combination with 1991-A118, made this the year of Calendar Backlash at convention. The list of names for final authorization recommended in 1991-A118 was savaged, the House of Bishops rejecting all but one of the entries and demanding a rationale for the rest at their next meeting. The Deputies fought back and insisted that two entries be replaced (Bride and Underhill). The Bishops relented and the resolution was passed. With the appearance of 1991-A119 and a list of names book-ended by King Charles and Thomas Becket, the committee scrapped the resolution wholesale and submitted in its place a strongly worded reaffirmation of the 1988 criteria, a demand for expansion of the criteria particularly around the concept of martyrdom, directed a wider circulation of the criteria, and tasked the SLC alone with historical inquiry and the provision of material around candidates pointedly preventing the House of Bishops from submitting names directly.

As a result of the Caroline Martyrdom Controversy, the SLC brought forward 1994-A074 which altered and expanded upon the Talley criteria. It offered eight, the first of which gave a much clearer definition of martyrdom: 1. Heroic Faith; 2. Love; 3. Goodness of life; 4. Joyousness; 5. Service to others for Christ’s sake; 6. Devotion; 7. Recognition by the Faithful; 8. Historical Perspective. While Talley’s criteria put forth a good set of generalities, this set is superior. Sanctity and its criteria don’t just fulfill one function; it isn’t just about who goes on an official Calendar. A robust set of criteria for sanctity serves as a working definition of the life of discipleship—it offers a plumb-line for the practice of the faith and puts flesh on the bones of Christian maturity. What Talley presented were procedural guidelines. Enshrined in 1994-A074 is a roadmap towards a life hid with Christ in God.

Connected with the criteria was also a process. Brought up in criterion 7 and documented in sections III and IV, this resolution outlines a process where commemoration begins at the local level, gradually grows and attracts more attention, and—if there is enough momentum and conviction that this commemoration should become a church-wide phenomenon—a formal proposal may be made. In such a case, “documented evidence of the spread and duration of local commemoration is essential to include in the proposal to the Standing Liturgical Commission.” Section IV identifies the requirements for National (now “Church-wide”) Recognition including 3 or more bodies participating in the process and a formal proposal containing “a detailed rationale for commemoration based on the Guidelines (above) and demonstrating how this person manifests Christ and would enhance the devotional life of the Church,” a biography, “information concerning the spread and duration of local or international commemoration of this individual or group,” and proposed collects and readings.

This is quite a process and includes quite a lot of devotion and documentation. As a result, it comes as no surprise that the 1997 Blue Book, after citing the complexity of the process, contains the following note: “no new names have come before the commission” (Blue Book 1997, 282). However, beginning in 2000 and continuing in 2003, names began entering back on the resolution docket headed—ironically—by Florence Nightingale, one of the entries specifically rejected by the bishops in the Calendar Revolt of 1991. In each of the cases, I wonder if the proposals mandated by 1994-A074 were duly submitted. The process was required; was it followed?

Following resolution 2003–A100 which directed the work that would ultimately become Holy Women, Holy Men, the Blue Book 2006 states that the Calendar Committee “created new principles of revision as agreed norms within which the proposed revision would be developed” (Blue Book 2006, 131). The set of 10 criteria offered for approval in 2006-A057 are these: 1. Historicity; 2. Christian Discipleship; 3. Significance; 4. Memorability; 5. Range of Inclusion; 6. Local Observance; 7. Perspective; 8. Levels of Commemoration; 9. Combined Commemorations; 10. Common of the Saints. Looking at the source of the criteria, the first are largely those of Talley (1, 2, 3, 4, and 7) borrowing only the principle of local observance (6) from the 1994 set, and introducing four new principles (5, 8, 9, and 10). While only 1 criterion was adopted from the 1994 set, its procedure was retained largely intact requiring the proposal with its documentations, particularly to local observance. It should be noted, though, that the present criterion 7 n local observance was weakened by being deemed “normative” but not necessary. Although 5 is new in its inclusion among the criteria, it reflects a concern with diversity in the Calendar which was expressed by Talley and the Calendar Committee in 1982 and reaffirmed by several resolutions in the intervening years particularly focusing on the inclusion of women and people of color.

In 2009, a textual revision was made to criterion 3 on Significance. Candidates may either exemplify heroic faith or “They may also be people whose creative work or whose manner of life has glorified God, enriched the life of the Church or led others to a deeper understanding of God;” this alteration was passed in resolution 2009-A098 though not without an attempt (albeit unsuccessful) to strike the new addition.

My chief concern is the shift from 1994 to 2003: these are—once again—procedural notes rather than a vision of the sanctified life. Certainly a sanctified life is referenced in criterion 2 and is connected to living out the Baptismal Covenant, but is quite spare when viewed against the 1994 provisions: “What is being commemorated, therefore, is the completion in death of a particular Christian’s living out of the promises of baptism.”

I see a need in the Church for a stronger vision of discipleship. Evangelicals may talk about the “Purpose-Driven” this and that, but we as a Church have been poor at providing a purpose, a goal, for the Christian life in general and a spiritual life built around the prayer book system of spirituality in particular. What we offer the world is a sacramental path to discipleship. Our official Calendar of saints should be a straight-forward proclamation of what that looks like and offer a crystal clear vision of Christian maturity backed up by the biographies and lives included therein.

Faithfulness to the Criteria

While I would like to see a stronger set of criteria, a failing of the present work is that it is not even faithful to the criteria it offers.

Historicity has once again become an issue. This was a particular hobby horse of Prayer Book Studies IX which insisted that anyone commemorated be historically verifiable. In particular, it memorably vented its spleen on St. George:

The fact that he has become a patron saint of England does not make him any the more real; nor does it necessitate making him a saint of the American Church. Fairy-book tales may indeed be edifying. When they become part of the folklore and tradition of a great nation they can become stirring symbols. But it is asking too much of the majority of our American Church membership, who have no such traditional and patriotic associations with the name, to respond with mature devotion to a saint of whom it can only be said, “He may have existed, sometime, somewhere.” (PBS IX, 36)

The appendix to the study also included a set of saints celebrated within the Anglican Communion but not recommended for the American Church; some of these were on historical grounds notably Valentine, George, Anne, Cecilia, and Catherine. The middle three now appear in HWHM. Has new evidence of their historicity appeared in the last fifty years? Furthermore, Lucy is back who was one of the saints who was presented then disappeared after the Calendar Backlash of 1991. (And I do note these with a certain regret as, like many Anglo-Catholics, I have a love for the martyr saints of the persecution years.)

The “50 year” clause of the Perspective criterion is a clear case. Either someone qualifies on a mathematical basis or they do not. If they do not qualify for church-wide recognition on mathematical grounds, then the promotion and observance of a local commemoration—as directed in the criteria—should certainly play a role in keeping the commemoration before the faithful until the required time has passed.

Baptism is explicitly listed as a requirement for inclusion in criterion 2. Rabbi Goode of the Dorchester Chaplains has been often and publicly cited as a failure of this criterion in public debate. No one is saying (certainly not within my hearing!) that Rabbi Goode is any less of a heroic witness of faith for his lack of baptism. But he is a heroic witness of the Jewish faith, not the Christian faith, and for us to co-opt him as one is quite insensitive to him and his tradition. Especially as we seek to tie the Baptismal Covenant and a baptismal ecclesiology to a theology of sanctity, baptism must be required for entry on the Calendar. Again—I say this with regret—if Anne and Joachim, parents of the BVM, need to be removed for the sake of consistency, so be it.

The most complicated criterion to apply and yet the arguably most import is criterion 2 on Christian discipleship. All other criteria—and here I’m looking specifically at that added line in criterion 3—are subject to it. Indeed, the presence of 2 is why the wiggle-room provided by that line in 3 does not bother me. However, in the definitional reduction between 1994 and 2003, applying additional sufficiently fine criteria around “the completion in death of a particular Christian’s living out of the promises of baptism” is complicated. One thing that we can say, though, is that those who chose to turn their backs on the church and its community will fall short of this criterion. According to my limited knowledge, this would disqualify people like W.E.B. DuBois and John Muir. And, if the “promises of Baptism” include fidelity to the creeds with which our Baptismal Covenant begins, then the case of Florence Nightingale (and possibly others) does need to be examined again.

The Number and Growth of Commemorations

The sheer volume of people added to the Calendar in HWHM is problematic. Particularly with the addition of so many names, I am concerned that we are not able to give each commemoration the attention it deserves to ensure that we are selecting the finest examples of Christian maturity who will inspire us to a similar maturity. While I am sure that there is an official table that contains all the data pertinent to HWHM, I have not yet seen it and fall back on my own resources; my initial sweep of calendrical proceedings over the past 50+ years yields the following graph:

The next logical question is this: where do we stop? When are we done? We’ve already begun adding multiple commemorations to some days—will we go until there are no ferial days left?

On the practical side, the growing number of commemorations causes problems for our diversity statistics. Based on my unofficial data this is the gender balance over the years:

Attention was first explicitly drawn to gender in 1982 and we see an immediate improvement in the next edition of LFF released in 1988. We have seen improvement with the influx of names in the introduction of HWHM in 2009, but women haven’t broken the 20% mark yet. It seems unlikely that the percentage will get much better without some sort of drastic intervention such as the removal of quite a number of men and the continued addition of women.

The Professionalization of the Calendar

As mentioned in my Living Church piece, I have difficulty with the way that we are clustering professions: architects on December 16^th, artists on August 5^th, composers on July 28^th. Indeed, when you come right down to it, I have an issue with criterion 9 which advocates linked and combined commemorations. Again, going back to a baptismal basis, clustering commemorations lessens the individuality and therefore the witness of the people commemorated. Clustering draws attention to and exalts the “type” rather than the human life that bore witness to Christ. Yes, Christians of all professions can be and have been saints—but I fear that this gathering leads to abstracted types and examples rather than the witness of resurrected lives.

The “Modernization” of the Church

As I mentioned at the outset, the Calendar is a practice of social memory and it functions as a collective rather than a group of discrete individuals. After all, this is why diversity in the collection is important… The composition of the group matters and says something about how we understand our Church as a group and our selection of important people and events. Not just the individuals but the balance of the group is a powerful expression of group identity. One of the effects of the huge influx of names is a sudden disproportionate effect upon the balance of the church over time. This graph tracks the count of named individuals by the centuries in which they died according to the main points in Calendar revision:

In the proposed Calendar of 1957 there were observable spikes at the 4^th century, the 13^th century and the 19^th century. Now the graph is completely dominated by the modern period. There are more saints in the last three centuries than in the seventeen leading up to them. The implicit message is an embrace of temporal myopia: we only recognize as important those people and events that have occurred within our immediate past. The converse is that we do not value our past and our connection to the church of our ancestors. Are we a church that sees ourselves in continuity with the baptized through the ages, or are we a church that understands ourselves as a recent phenomenon?

The Category of “Prophetic Witness”

In HWHM there are 23 individuals within 18 commemorations who are identified with the epithet of “Prophetic Witness.” I have two issues with this category. The first is that its use implies an exclusive property. Our Commons are drawn in such a way that they are not the air-tight categories of former days (Bishop-Confessor-Doctor, Virgin-not-Martyr, etc.) but are flexibly open. Nonetheless, they define particular areas of effort and focus: Pastor, Missionary, Theologian/Teacher, etc. Introducing Prophetic Witness among them seems to indicate an area of focus. I’m sympathetic to that intention, but this is the wrong name. To retain this label is to imply that martyrs are not prophetic witnesses. And yet that is at the very heart of the Christian definition of martyrdom! As is well-known, the English word “martyr” is a loan-word from the Greek term for “witness”; to suggest that there is nothing prophetic about being willing to give up your life for your faith is crazy! Likewise, monasticism represents a principled stance against the predominant principles and values of a society. How is this not a prophetic witness? Indeed—most of the saints on our calendar represent a form of prophetic witness because a life of discipleship will always stand out by means of its virtues, character, and disciplines of life from those around it; it will be a witness of the resurrection that will always challenge the power structures around it.

This leads to the second issue—the category is euphemistic; the use of the term imbues it with an artificial gravitas. A more accurate epithet would be “social reformer,” “renewer of society” as used in the Lutheran calendars, or “social progressive.” After all, as a thought-experiment, it could be argued that in his fight to preserve the rank of Bishop from the Puritans, Charles Stuart was being prophetic to the prevailing society around him. Could he then be called a “Prophetic Witness” and fit in the company of the others? Of course not! What would distinguish him from the others is that they sought to alter the status quo while he sought to preserve it. Again, we believe the Gospel calls us to personal transformation and to extend that transformation and liberation into the culture around us; this is a helpful and necessary category—but it needs a more accurate name.

Clarity on Liturgical Function

It is clear from the time the Proposed Calendar appeared in Prayer Book Studies IX that the propers provided were intended for Eucharistic celebration and were never intended to replace the in-course readings in the Daily Office. Explicit notice of this would serve to reduce confusion. I would think that in the section “Concerning the Proper” a line or brief paragraph could be added identifying the Eucharistic nature of the propers, but allowing that the collect can be used in the Office either as the Collect of the Day (governed by the order of precedence in the Calendar section of the prayer book) or in addition to the Collect of the Day.

Historical Almanac vs. Sanctoral Calendar

One of the fundamental questions before us concerns the nature of the document itself: is it an historical almanac or a sanctoral calendar? The line between the two can be fuzzy because, since we recognize only historical figures as saints and the saints ran their earthly races in the past, data about them is historical data. I would draw the distinction between the two in this way. An historical almanac is a record of people and events in the past that are meaningful to the group compiling it. It is a practice of social memory, but its entries are selected by a criterion of importance—the people and events are either important in their own right, say something important about how we see ourselves and our corporate identity, or both. A sanctoral calendar, in contrast, is a remembrance of individuals who stand as exemplars of Christian maturity and whose lives and witness call us to Christian maturity as well.

Some of the recent commemorations added in particular have been moving us in the almanac direction. Take, for example, the new trial commemoration of Virginia Dare and Manteo approved for August 17^th. Virginia and Manteo were among the first people baptized in North America. At first glance, this looks like a really good idea: it grew out of a local diocesan commemoration, it adds needed diversity to the Calendar by giving us a woman and a Native American, and it focuses our attention on baptism. My issue is this: how does Virginia Dare’s life manifest Christian maturity and call us to the same? Unfortunately, this is really hard to assess because she was part of the Roanoke Colony that disappeared! There is absolutely no record of her life—only the fact of her baptism.

I feel torn with commemorations like this one because it does offer us something worth remembering—but is the place for it a sanctoral calendar? Perhaps one way to honor the work that has been done without confusing the categories is to issue an official almanac precisely for items like these that are significant and important but don’t meet the criteria or fit the concept for sanctoral celebration. An official almanac too would be a useful repository for information about important people who didn’t rise to the level of sanctity for whatever reason but whom it is important for the Church to remember. It might also be the perfect waiting place for those who have not yet crossed the 50-year threshold but whom we are still considering as candidates for the sanctoral calendar.

Again, thinking practically, moving some individuals into an almanac will give us an opportunity to redress the ongoing gender gap issue which has been put before us time and again—and mandated legislatively since 1982.

In Conclusion

Holy Women, Holy Men represents a lot of hard work on Church History and Episcopal History. For that it deserves our praise. But there are still issues that need to be addressed. The sufficiency of our criteria and our adherence to them stand first and foremost in my mind. The balance of the Calendar is also a crucial issue for how we describe our connection to the ages that have come before us; the current composition reflects a radically disproportionate emphasis on the modern period. There are other ways—notably an official almanac—that can be used to preserve this work and yet to keep the integrity of the sanctoral Calendar. I look forward to our upcoming discussion, and to the rest of the work that lies before us.

SCLM Meetings: Past and Future

One of the issues with Church committees, commissions and decision-making processes is their almost constant state of opacity. It doesn’t need to be this way and, indeed, isn’t supposed to be this way. Minutes are taken for the meetings and the minutes are posted publicly—it’s just that very few people know anything about where they are…

As the secretary of the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, I feel it’s my job to take the best minutes possible and get them out to those who are interested in wading through them. Thus—without further ado (and only two months after the fact!)—at this link you will find a PDF file of my minutes for the November meeting for the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music.

These are out just in time for another meeting to roll around. This upcoming Wednesday will be another meeting. The agenda is publicly posted as a PDF here. The single biggest topic on our plate with essentially an hour of the two hour meeting devoted to it is Holy Women, Holy Men. You’ll note on the agenda that I will be jointly leading this portion of the discussion as the Chair and Vice chair of the Commission have seen fit to appoint me co-chair of the Calendar Committee alongside Sandye Wilson. In preparation for the meeting, Ruth Meyers circulated an article she had co-authored on HWHM, my piece and the subsequent responses from the Living Church, and the Principles from HWHM itself. I have one other piece to submit for study and reflection which I will post here after I have delivered it to the Commission.

Needless to say, this will be an important meeting for those who have strong feelings about HWHM and the Church’s Calendar. Please keep the Commission and its work in your prayers!

Tracking Sanctity: Graphs

I had an exceeding late night last night… In the past I’ve been trying to offer substantive thoughts and comments on the growth of the Episcopal Calendar. I’ve even got a post in the pipeline on the 1988 revision of LFF. However, this morning there will be no substantive thoughts. Just pictures. I’ll let them do the talking…

Growth of Black Letter/Optional Observance Calendar Entries from 1957-2013

Percentage by Gender from 1957-2013 by Revisions

Percentage by Ordination Status from 1957 to 2013

Percentage by Category from 1957 to 2013 [Click to Enlarge]

Entries and Named Individuals by Century as of 1957

Entries and Named Individuals by Century as of 2013

Thoughts? Comments? Observations?

[Updated: This graph fills in some gaps between the last two. Here I have plotted together the sum of named individuals by century according to major revisions of the Calendar. Thus, you can see—especially when viewed alongside the first graph—when people of a certain time were added over and against others…]

Tracking Sanctity: Lesser Feasts & Fasts 1980

The next official supplement after the 1973 Revised Edition was the Third Edition of LFF published in 1980. This one does contain a quite substantial preface that gives a sense of what was going on. Basically, it was the BCP. Everybody was very busy with getting that done—as a result, there were very few changes to the Calendar. Our total adds here is one: Edward Bouverie Pusey, Priest, 1882.

Legislative Materials and Quandries

Now—the thing that I don’t completely understand is the data from the Episcopal Digital Archives… We’re finally at the point where we can see both reports to General Convention and resolutions considered.

This is the section of the report to the 1976 General Convention concerning LFF:

(4) The Commission found it possible to add only two names and one commemoration to the Calendar since the approval of Lesser Feasts and Fasts in 1964 and the trial use Calendars in 1970 and 1973. These are the names of Absalom Jones, Priest (February 13), and Edward Bouverie Pusey, Priest (September 18). The commemoration added is that of Holy Men and Women of the Old Testament (November 8). A number of suggestions were made to the Commission for inclusion of other names common to certain Anglican calendars and the names of heroes of the Faith indigenous to, or connected with missionary work on, the American continent. The Commission did not have the time to give adequate consideration to these suggestions. Therefore, at its last meeting, it set up a permanent committee on the Calendar to consider these pending suggestions, and also some other aspects of the Calendar in the light of experience.

Say what?

Here’s what’s odd… Of the three entries mentioned, Absalom Jones was present on the 1973 Calendar in the Revised Edition; Pusey was not and did not appear until the current 1980 Third Edition under discussion; the Holy Men and Women of the Old Testament on the Octave of All Saints doesn’t appear on any Calendar that I’ve seen. Perhaps better data on the legislative history will clear this situation up. [Update: I’ve now checked this against Prayer Book Studies 19; neither Jones nor Pusey are found there. Thus, Jones must have been added for the 1973 while Pusey wasn’t added until sometime between 1973 and 1980.] At the ’76 GC, the 1973 Revised Edition was authorized for optional use.

The report to the ’79 GC accurately describes what will be found in the Third Edition of LFF:

2. The revision of Lesser Feasts and Fasts(last revised in 1973) was also undertaken in response to numerous requests and pursuant to a Resolution of the General Convention of 1976. This revision conforms to the Calendar on pages 15-33 of the Proposed Book of Common Prayer. and it is intended to assist in the optional observance of these days. In preparing the present edition, the Commission carefully reviewed the existing collects, lections, psalms, and biographical material. A number of collects were retained; others were revised or replaced. The Commission also reviewed the lessons and psalmody provided with the intention of enriching the observance of fixed holy days. With this same end in view, the Commission also carefully reviewed all the biographical material. A number of the biographies included in the 1973 revision were retained. Some others were revised or replaced where it appeared to the Commission that the devotional and homiletical use of the material would be enhanced. The Commission retained the collects and readings for the weekdays of Lent, and, in line with this useful precedent, it added collects and readings for the weekdays of the Fifty Days of Easter. It also included brief commentaries on the meaning or historical observance of the Major Feasts in the Calendar.

The plan of work describes where things will be heading in the 1980-2 triennium:

(2) A detailed study of the criteria for the inclusion of names of persons and commemorations in the Calendar of the Church has barely begun. It involves careful study of basic principles and consultation with other Churches of the Anglican Communion and with other Christian Churches. The Commission already has on file a number of valuable suggestions. All of these call for considerable background of research and study.

Honestly, you can’t help but laugh… So, with a Calendar containing a current total of 153 entries and154 named individuals, a study of criteria for including people has barely begun. While both PBS9 and PBS19 say quite a lot about the Calendar there really is very little about objective criteria for inclusion except for the insistence that all included by historically verifiable. Now that a Calendar is in place, we will go back and begin identifying criteria and thinking up a theology that we can fit to it.

Changes in the 1980 Third Edition

The 1980 Third Edition of LFF represents the results of a great effort begun in 1945 with the establishment of a committee to look at the Calendar up to the establishment of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer. The general shape and content of the Calendar was nailed down and its relationship to the rest of the prayer book’s theology and liturgies worked out. As I read through these things, it’s very tempting to see the ark from 1945 to 1977 as the Massey Shepherd Calendar as he is the consistent and dominant voice in the studies, prefaces, and reports that I’ve seen to this point. He had chaired the Drafting Committee and, as the Preface to the 1973 Revised Edition noted, drafted most of the biographical material included there.

In 1977 a new Drafting Committee was put together to revise LFF; Shepherd was not on it. The new chair of the Drafting Committee was Charles Guilbert, the Custodian of the BCP. He became custodian in 1963 and held the position until his death in 1998. Guilbert led the work of revising the collects. Two other members of the Committee led the effort to rewrite the biographical material. Thus, while the 1973 Revised/Second Edition was a revolution in terms of the shape of the Calendar in its giving of full propers to all entries and the increase of Red Letter/Holy Days, the 1980 Third Edition is equally a revolution as the internals come “under new management.” Will we see trends laid down here that enable us to christen a Guilbert Calendar up to the point of HWHM? We’ll find out.

Seen from this angle, the need for a discussion on criteria for inclusion does begin to make a little more sense. If Shepherd had essentially been calling the shots, then things are now about to change…

In terms of practical details, the lessons were overhauled and changed around, and the proper prefaces identified in the 1973 book had to all be changed to meet the new preface system in the proposed prayer book (and there was some more shuffling of categories as read through the propers). Likely the biggest change was in the collects.

This is the book that introduces the biographical collect. The preface puts it this way: “The purpose of the revision of the Collects for the Lesser Feasts was to ensure that each Collect be distinctive of the person commemorated, or of that aspect of the Church’s life to which that person contributed most significantly” (LFF 1980, iv). The prayer texts begin inserting snippets from the saint’s writings or the inclusion of details that are the textual equivalent of Meaningful Eye-Contact. I want to look at the collect issue separately, but I have a suspicion that a lot of what is thought of the content and form (though not necessarily language) of the HWHM collects is directly related to what one thinks of these revisions here.

In brief, the 1973 Revised edition gave us Calendar 2.0; the 1980 Third Edition did hardly anything to the overall shape of the Calendar, but did quite a large amount of work on the internal details making this a very strong case of Calendar 2.1.

Tracking Sanctity: Lesser Feasts & Fasts 1973

The next stop on the run-up to the sanctoral kalendar of the ’79 Prayer Book was the revised edition of Lesser Feasts & Fasts issued in 1973. Like its predecessor in 1963, there is not a whole lot of didactic or analytic text in this book. There is, however, an interesting preface from which I will cite down below.

This is a very significant text because of a number of important policy shifts that it contains. Few, if any, of these are explained, but they are definitely present. If the 1957 book represented the first crack at the Calendar, this is unquestionably Calendar 2.0. Here are the things that I identify as major alterations:

An increase in Red Letter days: 6 feasts originally introduced in the 1957 study as Black Letter days were promoted to Red Letter-level Holy Days. A brand-new one was added as well. All of these are feasts celebrating biblical people or events. What the shift represents is a new freedom in identifying major holy days apart from the predecessor kalendars whether English or American.
Inclusion of the Calendar material: The first material in the book after the preface is a version of what will become “The Calendar of the Church Year” section on pp. 15-8 of the ’79 Prayer Book. This spells out in new detail the relationship between Holy Days (containing Feasts of Our Lord and Other Major Feasts) and the Days of Optional Observance. The language of “Red Letter” and “Black Letter” disappears. Ironically, this is the first kalendar printed in color in a book of this sort and the Holy Days appear in red!
Abolition of Collect-Only Entries: In this book there are no longer levels of distinction between feasts that get full propers and those that only receive collects. All entries are provided with materials giving them two psalms, an Epistle, a Gospel, a Collect, and identifying the Proper Preface to be used. However, some feasts receive their own specific readings while others use the readings appointed in a particular common.The varieties and implications of this change will be discussed in detail below.
Turn to the Modern Age: Two-thirds of the entries added were from the 19th and 20th centuries. When a consolidation and unqualified group are removed from the reckoning, the fraction jumps to four-fifths. This will begin a major trajectory that will only accelerate in coming years.
Move to Consolidation: In the 1957 Proposed Calendar there were only two entries with more than one named individual: Cyril and Methodius, and Latimer and Ridley. One of the principles explicitly called out in the 1957 study was that Anglican Calendars tended to offer one person per entry (except in the case of mass martyrdoms). The Wesley brothers were added together in 1963, but the current work gives us the first example of a consolidation. Timothy and Titus had received their own separate days in 1957, but in 1973 they appear together as “Companions of Saint Paul.” While this is only one entry, it sets a precedent that will be increasingly followed.
Dropping of the term “Saint”: In text of the 1957 study, there was absolutely no hesitation to use the word “saint.” There was no sign of any hesitation to regard the people placed on the Proposed Episcopal Calendar as saints in the classical catholic sense. In the Proposed Calendar offered, though, only biblical personages were honored with the title. Thus, in the 1957 Calendar we have Black Letter days for Saint Timothy, Saint Titus, Saint Joseph, Saint Mary Magdalene, and Saint Mary. (Oddly, Cornelius the Centurion did not receive it…) In the expansion of biblical figures in 1963 we saw Saints Mary and Martha of Bethany, Saint Joseph of Arimathea, and Saint James of Jerusalem added. In 1973, most of these were elevated to Holy Days, but those who remained Days of Optional Observance lost their “Saint.” While there was always a reticence with this title for post-biblical figures, now only those biblical persons honored with Holy Days received the accolade.
Collects appear in Contemporary as well as Traditional Language: This is not a surprise, but should be noted for completeness’s sake.

Contents

Preface (p. vii)

The Calendar (p. 3)

The Collects, Psalms, and Lessons
The Weekdays in Lent (p. 20)
The Lesser Feasts (p. 34)
The Common of Saints (p. 156)

Appendices
Biographical Sketches (p. 173)
Indices
The Sources of the Collects (p. 281)
The Lessons (in Canonical order) (p. 289)
The Selections from the Psalms (p. 297)
Alphabetical Listing (p. 304)

The first thing the Contents reveals is the absence of several kinds of days that had appeared in the previous book. While the Weekdays of Lent are here, gone are the Ember Days, the days in the Easter Octave, and the Rogation Days. The days in the Easter Octave are still mentioned in the Calendar section as having precedence over Holy Days, but they do not appear here. Too, the Ember and Rogation Days are not mentioned as examples of Days of Optional Observance in the explanatory portion of the Calendar rubrics as they are now.

The biographical sketches remain separate from the propers.

The Preface to the work offers a glimpse into the changes that have occurred. It’s short, so here it is:

The General Convention of 1970 authorized the Standing Commission to publish this revised edition The Calendar and the Collects, Epistles, and Gospels for the Lesser Feasts and Fasts and for Special Occasions, first published as “Prayer Book Studies” XVI in 1963 and authorized for trial use by the General Convention of 1964. With certain amendments it was re-authorized by the General Convention of 1967.

The new edition is made necessary because changes have been made in the Calendar, and because certain materials from the 1963 edition have been included in Services for Trial Use, authorized by the General Convention of 1970 and published in 1971. Opportunity has thus been afforded to enrich this new edition with the following changes and additions:

The Collects of the earlier edition have been carefully revised, and several new ones have been included. They are provided in both traditional and contemporary language, as in Services for Trial Use.

Optional Collects and daily schedules of Psalms and Lessons are given for the weekdays of Lent. The new schedule of Lessons, but not of the Psalms, is substantially that proposed for experimental use in the Roman Catholic Church’s Ordo Lectionum Missae of 1969.

Commemorations which hitherto had only a Collect are now assigned Psalms and Lessons, either individually or by reference to The Common of Saints.

The texts of the Lessons have not been written out in full, since it is now permitted to read them from several translations (Title II, Canon 2). The references for the Lessons are from the Revised Standard Version. Verses from the Psalms are numbered according to The Prayer Book Psalter Revised. The corresponding verses in the 1928 Prayer Book, when they differ, are shown in brackets.

Biographical notes and sketches about the commemorations have been prepared for this edition by the Rev. Massey H. Shepherd, Jr. Many of them are revisions of the notices scattered in “Prayer Book Studies” IX, XII, XVI, and 19.

The Collects, Psalms, and Lessons in this book are for optional use at the times appointed, in accordance with the rules of precedence of The Calendar. The officiant may always substitute, at his discretion, appropriate selections from The Common of Saints. It is our hope that this new edition will be received with the same favor throughout the Church as was the earlier book, for the enhancement of our common worship and devotion.

The Drafting Committee on the Calendar, Eucharistic Lectionary, and the Collects has been responsible for preparing this edition: The Reverend Massey H. Shepherd, Jr., chairman; the Reverend Canon James R. Brown, and the Reverend Messrs. Lawrence L. Brown, Reginald H. Fuller, and Donald L. Garfield.

All sorts of revisions have been going on. Entries are being added, Scripture lessons are being added all around, collects are being changed, a number of new Commons have been added; there’s a lot of flux here. Point 3 is one of the biggest policy shifts but no information around it is given here—just the statement that it has occurred. I think that Point 4 was also a significant change as it no longer meant that everything had to be constrained by the printed page, several of the readings got longer perhaps in relation to this.

One of the other things not to lose sight of from this preface is its passing mention of Vatican II. We weren’t the only ones doing kalendar changes in this period—the Roman Catholic kalendar was undergoing fairly major revision in this era as well and the full story of the Episcopal kalendar is likely incomplete without looking at parallel developments across the Tiber. Certainly the emphasis on historicity seen in PBS9 was common with the Roman commission, but I suspect other parallels will appear there as well driven in large part by the Liturgical Renewal Movement that was at work in both churches.

Changes to the Calendar

In the 1973 Calendar there are 13 new entries not in the ’63 Calendar containing 13 named individuals.

One of these is a brand-new Holy Day: the Confession of St Peter. Additionally, 6 days already on the Calendar were promoted up to Holy Days:

SAINT JOSEPH
THE VISITATION OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY
SAINT MARY MAGDALENE
SAINT MARY THE VIRGIN, MOTHER OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST
HOLY CROSS DAY
SAINT JAMES OF JERUSALEM, BROTHER OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, AND MARTYR, C. 62

One of these new entries is the above-mentioned consolidation of Timothy and Titus on the same day so this is technically a new entry but these individuals are clearly not new additions.

There have also been some exits from the Calendar. Obviously, the entries for “Saint Timothy” and “Saint Titus” have disappeared/been replaced. In August, “Jeremy Taylor, Bishop of Down, Connor, and Dromore, 1667” was moved from his previous position on August 14th to August 13th. In the 1963 Calendar, the 13th had contained “Hippolytus, Bishop, and Martyr, c. 235” who has now been dropped from the Calendar.

Here are the stats on just the new Days of Optional Observance:

By ordination status:

3 bishops (30%)
4 priests (40%)
1 deacon (10%)
1 religious (10%)
1 laity (10%)
3 unqualified collectives

By gender:

9 male (90%)
1 female (10%)
3 unqualified collectives

Entries by category:

3 Multiple Martyrs
3 Male Confessors
1 Martyr
1 Virgin/Doctor
1 Bishop/Confessor
1 Multiple Bishops/Confessors (2 individuals [Timothy & Titus])
1 Confessor/Doctor
1 Hermit/Monastic

Entries by Continent of Major Activity:

3 in N America
3 in Europe
2 in Africa
1 in Polynesia
1 in Asia
1 in the Middle East
1 unquantifiable (Commemoration of All Faithful Departed)

Entries by Century:

Due to its obvious breadth, the entry for the “Commemoration of All Faithful Departed” doesn’t appear on the chart.

The New Shape of the Calendar

Ok—so now the stats of the Calendar as a whole…

In the 1973 Revised Edition of Lesser Feasts & Fasts there are 152 entries of which 33 are Holy Days and 119 are Days of Optional Observance. Within the Days of Optional Observance there are 121 named individuals.

Here are the stats on the Days of Optional Observance…

By ordination status:

62 bishops (51%) [+1/-1%]
26 priests (21%) [+4/+2%]
5 deacons (4%) [+1/+1%]
11 religious (9%) [+2/+2%]
15 laity (12%) [-3/-4%]
5 unqualified collectives (4%) [+3/+2%]

The drop in laity here is due to the upgrading of entries: St Mary Magdalene and the 2 entries naming the BVM left the tally.

Named individuals by gender:

109 male (90%) [+7/+2%]
12 female (10%) [-2/-2%]

Again, the drop in women is due to the upgrade of the Marys.

Entries by category:

30 Bishop/Confessors
20 Male Confessors
14 Bishop/Confessor/Doctors
9 Hermit/Monastics
9 Confessor/Doctors
8 Bishop/Martyrs
8 Multiple Martyrs (only 3 named individuals, though)
5 Martyrs
4 Multiple Bishops/Confessors (9 named individuals)
3 Female Confessors
2 Virgin/Abbesses
2 Virgin/Doctors
1 Multiple Female Confessors
1 Multiple Male Confessors (2 named individuals)
1 Virgin/Martyr
1 Feast of the BVM (2 individuals [her parents])
1 general (Commemoration of All Faithful Departed)

Entries by Continent of Major Activity:

73 in Europe (76 named individuals) (61%)
15 in the Middle East (18 named individuals) (13%)
12 in North America (10%)
10 in Africa (9 named individuals) (8%)
5 in Asia (4 named individuals) (4%)
2 in Polynesia (1 named individual) (2%)
1 unquantifiable (Commemoration of All Faithful Departed) (1%)
1 in Australia/New Zealand (1%)

By Century:

As you can see, there remain three obvious spikes: the 4th century, the 13th century, and the 19th century.

As we approach the publication of the ’79 Prayer Book as as its shape gels, we begin to have new movement towards informal categorization of the entries by means of two factors in the propers, the commons and the proper prefaces. That is, in the “Category” classification above, I’ve been going by the traditional method using the kinds of categories and commons historically found in breviaries and missals. While we saw moves in this direction with 5 specific and 1 general Commons in the 1963 book, we now achieve the 14 Commons consisting of 5 Categories (“Deaconess” was dropped, “Pastor” was added) that will appear in the ’79 Prayer Book (with minor tweaks in a few of the collects):

Martyr (3 options)
Missionary (2 options)
Pastor (2 options)
Theologian or Teacher (2 options)
Monastic (2 options)
Saint (3 options)

There are a couple of tricky things when in comes to applying these categories, though. First, they’re not air-tight. What do you do with Boniface or James Hannington, both martyr/missionary/pastor types? Classically there were specific propers for Bishop/Martyr that would apply; not so under this framework. That’s not a criticism per se because the flexibility given to emphasis different aspects in different situations is a bonus. However, the way that we categorize our saints simultaneously teaches us about the nature and perception of sanctity in a given time and place.

Second, everybody is assigned their own collect but some entries in the calendar get specific proper readings: psalms, an epistle, and a gospel; others are assigned a Common and receive the generic readings. What’s going on here—is this another way of creating a hierarchy within the Days of Optional Observance that was swept away by the decision to give everyone propers? The evidence seems to suggest not. Of the entries that received full propers under the Black Letter system, none of them lost proper readings. These were retained (but sometimes tweaked). On the 1963 Calendar there were 68 entries that did not receive readings; on the 1973 Calendar, 46 entries received Common readings. Thus, there is not an easy correlation between the old “lesser” entries and the entries in this calendar that received Commons. This suggests to me that the distinction is not based in a hierarchy but has more to do with “fit”—if a particular entry fit another passage of Scripture better than the Common under which they would ordinarily fall, they were assigned that Scripture, otherwise they received a Common.

Furthermore, even among the assigned lessons there are signs of de facto Commons emerging. In the 1963 proper readings there were no duplicate readings in the Epistle and only 1 verse of overlap. There were no duplicates or overlaps in the Gospels. In the 1973 proper readings, both “Perpetua and her Companions, Martyrs at Carthage” and “The Martyrs of Uganda” are assigned identical Psalms, Epistles, and Gospels (Pss 124; 138|Heb 10:32-39|Matt 24:9-14). Within the Psalms there are 29 entries that share an introit either in full or in part with another entry. In the Epistles:

John Henry Hobart and Hilary share 2 Tim 4:1-8;
William Reed Huntington and William Augustus Muhlenberg share Eph 4:11-16.
There are 7 entries with overlap.

In the Gospels:

Ignatius of Antioch and John Donne share John 12:23-26;
William Tyndale and Justin Martyr share John 12:44-50;
Basil the Great and Catherine of Siena share Luke 10:21-24;
Samuel Isaac Joseph Scherechewsky and Jerome share Luke 24:44-48;
Francis and Anselm share Matt 11:25-30;
Margaret of Scotland and J.M. Neale share Matt 13:44-52;
Nicholas Ferrar and Bede share Matt 13:47-52 (overlapping with the previous two…);
Theodore of Tarsus, Jeremy Taylor and Dunstan share Matt 24:42-47;
Elizabeth of Hungary, William Wilberforce, and F.D. Maurice share Matt 25:31-40 and Martin of Tours picks up at v. 34;
The Consecration of Samuel Seabury and Thomas Bray share Matt 9:35-38

Two things in all of this. First, with the expansion of the Calendar and the extension of proper readings overlap and duplication is bound to start happening despite the apparent intentions of the committee up through 1963. Second, it’s interesting to note the reappearance of the traditional medieval Commons particularly in the Gospel readings.

So—to pull together this line of thought—there are now Commons that are used as a rough categorization principle. However, of the 119 Days of Optional Obligation, only 46 are so classified.

A better—but less specific—means of classification appears in the provisioning of Proper Prefaces. Before there had only been one proper preface. This did prompt an interim measure reported by the Episcopal News Service:

In further action, the two presiding officers have authorized two Prefaces for lesser Saints’ Days, as alternatives to the Proper Preface for All Saints’ Day on such commemorations. The new Prefaces, which are provided both in contemporary and traditional forms, read as follows:

1. ” For the wonderful grace and virtue declared in all your (thy) saints, who have been the chosen (choice) vessels of your (thy) grace, and the lights of the world in their (several) generations: ”

2. “Who in the obedience of your (thy) saints have (hast) given (unto) us an example of righteousness, and in their eternal joy a glorious pledge of the hope of our calling: “

Now, 7 different Proper Prefaces were assigned to Days of Optional Observance:

PP for a Saint: 72
PP for Holy Week: 19 [for martyrs]
PP for Apostles: 8 [for missionaries]
PP for the Incarnation: 7 [for theologians/teachers]
PP for Pentecost: 7 [also for missionaries]
PP for Trinity Sunday: 5 [also for theologians/teachers]
PP for Trinity Sunday or Pentecost: 1 (First BCP)
PP for Commemoration of the Dead: 1 (All Souls)

So, this does introduce some native categories into the current kalendar but they still remain very broad.

For what it’s worth, Laud, Tyndale, Latimer/Ridley, and Clement of Rome (?) receive the Proper Preface for a Saint rather than the Holy Week Preface given to everyone else traditionally identified as martyrs.

Relaxing into the Person of Christ

I’ve been pondering Christopher’s last post for a couple of days now. In it, he draws our attention to the nuance necessary around themes of baptism, discipleship and sanctification.

I’m of two minds on the topic at the moment.

On one hand, I appreciate the image of relaxing into the person of Christ. That connects with me on all sorts of levels. As one of my chief physical disciplines is tai chi, I resonate with the idea that relaxation is one of the ways that we return to a more natural state —as opposed to the tension which we manufacture as a defense mechanism against the world and which thereby distorts us muscularly from our proper shape and function. The idea of relaxing into the person of Christ as a way of understanding discipleship, as a form of the imitation of Christ, and as a way of reconnecting with the image of God woven into us at our beginnings makes a lot of sense.

On the other hand, Christopher writes with reference to the situation of the “terrified conscience” (as Luther termed it). There are now and always will be these consciences in our churches and our theology—particularly our ascetical theology—does need to recognize it. But (and you knew there’d be a “but”…) I can’t help but think that the dominant character of our time is not the “terrified conscience” but the “complacent conscience.” The complacent conscience doesn’t need to be told not to stress out about their salvation status—they’re not doing that anyway. The complacent conscience doesn’t need to be told that God’s grace is sufficient, they already assume it, and in doing so may even presume upon it. I suspect that what this conscience needs is to be reminded that a yet more excellent way awaits them—but that it will require effort and action on their part.

Does this mean we need to advocate for a return to works-righteousness? Of course not. And yet, as beautiful as I find the image of relaxing into the person of Christ and as much as it makes sense to me, I wonder if this image of (apparent) inaction speaks the needed word of the Gospel to those who need not fewer reasons but more to engage and to be transformed.

I’m still pondering…

Tracking Sanctity: Programming Note

As I move through this series, I find errors and realize that things not previously mentioned are, actually, worth mentioning. As a result, I will go back and make updates and correct errors in previous posts. Unless I find a particularly egregious error, I’ll make these silently. At the present moment the only error I’ve found that approaches being a serious one is that I had the feast of St Timothy marked as falling in the 20th century—hence the graphs show 1 commemoration then; that’s wrong and will be corrected to show Timothy in the 1st century where he belongs!

Tracking Sanctity: Lesser Feasts & Fasts 1963

The second half of Prayer Book Studies 9 came out as Prayer Book Studies XII. I haven’t laid eyes on it yet, so the next stopping point is in 1963; a press release from 1964 identifies it as Prayer Book Studies XVI, but the copy I hold gives no indication of being a part of the Prayer Book Studies series. Rather it is simply titled The Calendar and the Collects, Epistles, and Gospels for the Lesser Feasts and Fasts and for Special Occasions.

It contains no prefatory or explanatory material. The Contents are as follows:

The Calendar (p. 1)

The Collects, Epistles, and Gospels for the Lesser Feasts and Fasts (p. 15)
Advent Season (p. 17)
Lenten Season (p. 22)
Easter Week (p. 49)
Rogation Days (p. 55)
Whitsun Week (p. 59)
Autumn Ember Days (p. 65)
The Lesser Holy Days (p. 70)
The Common of Saints (p. 154)

For Special Occasions (p. 163)

Indices (p. 191)
Alterations in Scripture Lessons (From the Authorized Version) (p. 193)
Index of Scripture Lessons (In Canonical Order) (p. 196)
Movable Days and Seasons (In Chronological Order) (p. 201)
Immovable Days (In Alphabetical Order) (p. 203)
Common of Saints and Special Occasions (p. 205)

Changes to the Calendar

Looking at the Calendar of this book in comparison with PBS9, it’s clear that someone’s been busy—and in some interesting ways. To back-track a moment, you may recall that PBS9 had an appendix entitled “Notes on Certain Rejected Commemorations.” In this short bit of text, it identified a number of commemorations not added to the Calendar. First was a set of 11 early English, Scottish, and Welsh saints honored in other parts of the Communion. These were not accepted as the Commission thought they would give a disproportionate weight to a single tradition. Then, a set of 9 other observances commemorated elsewhere in the Communion were identified and reasons given for their non-inclusion. To give you a sense of the list it included Valentine, George (of course), Anne, and the Nativity and Conception of the BVM.

The 1963 1st Edition of Lesser Feasts and Fasts introduces 22 new entries adding 25 named individuals to the Calendar. Of the 11 rejected early English saints, 5 were added (Wulfstan, Chad, Cuthbert, Richard of Chichester, and Alphege). (I’m surprised Ninian wasn’t on the PBS9 banned list but he gets included here too…) Additionally, one of the other commemorations was added, the Parents of the BVM. Technically “Anne” wasn’t added because her name wasn’t mentioned—but it’s the thought that counts!

Overall, the additions seem to be centered around biblical personages not in the Calendar before, and adding in a number of medieval folk omitted the previous time around. Here are the stats on just the additions:

By level:

4 Commemorations
18 Memorials

By ordination status:

12 bishops (48%)
6 priests (24%)
0 deacons
2 religious (8%)
5 laity (20%)
1 unqualified collective

By gender:

20 male (80%)
5 female (20%)
1 unqualified collective

By category:

7 Bishop/Confessors
4 Male Confessors
2 Bishop/Martyrs
1 Multiple Male Confessors
1 Bishop/Confessor/Doctor
1 Confessor/Doctor
1 Multiple Martyrs
1 Virgin/Doctor
1 Virgin/Abbot
1 Feast of the BVM
1 Multiple Bishops/Confessors
1 Multiple Female Confessors

Entries by century:

As you can see, the pattern is similar to what we saw before—commemorations for Patristic era and earlier saints, memorials only for the later.

The New Shape of the Calendar

Ok—so now the stats of the Calendar as a whole, including both the original 1957 list and the 1963 additions…

The Calendar now contains 140 entries with 142 named individuals. There are 26 Red Letter Days (+/- 0), 47 Black Letter commemorations (with full propers) (+7), and 67 Black Letter memorials (collect only) (+15).

Looking at the 114 Black Letter Days and their 112 named individuals we have

By ordination status:

61 bishops (53%) [+12/-1%]
22 priests (19%) [+6/+1%]
4 deacons (3%) [+0/-1%]
9 religious (8%) [+2/0%]
18 laity (16%) [+5/+2%]
2 unqualified collectives (2%) [+1/0%]

By gender:

102 male (88%) [+20/-2%]
14 female (12%) [+5/+2%]

Entries by category:

29 Bishop/Confessors
20 Male Confessors
13 Bishop/Confessor/Doctors
9 Bishop/Martyrs
8 Hermit/Monastics
8 Confessor/Doctors
5 Multiple Martyrs
4 Martyrs
3 Feasts of the BVM
3 Multiple Bishops/Confessors
3 Female Confessors
2 Virgin/Abbesses
1 Virgin/Doctor
1 Multiple Female Confessors
1 Multiple Male Confessors
1 Virgin/Martyr
1 Apostle
1 Feast of Our Lord

Entries by century:

Not a whole lot of change in the shape—perhaps a bit more exaggeration: the peaks at the 13th and 19th centuries have both grown a bit higher.

Items of Note

First, there were some changes in level to some of the 1957 entries. 3 memorials were moved up to become commemorations (Bede, the Martyrs of Lyon, and Jerome). Not sure why this happened. I know the Martyrs of Lyon is a commemoration near and dear to the heart of Dr. Robert Wright at GTS but I don’t know if he had anything to do with this.

Second, October reveals an odd shift. With a dearth of Reformation and post-Reformation saints in the Calendar, it is the only month containing Christians killed by Christians—Wyclif and Latimer/Ridley. Whereas both of these entries had been marked as “Martyrs” in 1957, the “Martyr” label is here dropped in both cases. I was warned to look for this… Apparently there was a period where it was thought that Christians killed by Christians shouldn’t be considered martyrs. That’s pure bull-hockey in my book, but here it is…

Third, seven feasts changed dates, often with no presenting cause. That is, they went from one date to another without anything “forcing” them from their original date. That suggests to me that there were some ecumenical rumblings about coming up with standard dates for saints but exactly where this is coming from, I don’t know. Perhaps the Canadian 1962 BCP had an effect here…?

Propers

The feasts given “full” propers are provided with a Collect, Epistle, and Gospel. (Note that these are liturgical “Epistles” and not necessarily selections from the NT letters; of the 47 commemorations, 16 receive Epistles from the OT or Apocrypha.) The selections are rarely long, most falling in the 3 to 6 verse range with a few going longer than that. These are also printed in full as the AV/KJV was the only Bible appointed for liturgical use in the church. There is no repetition of the biblical lessons—each feast receives its own unique material. The rubrics don’t say that these are materials for Mass and not Offices but neither do the have to—they are clearly set up as Mass Propers with no view to their use in the Office. (I.e., the use of sanctoral scripture propers in the Office for non-Holy Days has always been an abuse and was not the intention of this book book or its replacements.)

Commons beyond just “Saint” appear here for the first time, giving us a better sense of how the Commission broke down the categories. Commons containing a Collect, Epistle, and Gospel are provided for:

Martyr
Missionary
Theologian or Teacher
Monastic
Deaconess
Saint (2 options given)

The inclusion of “Deaconess” seems quite odd especially as there are none represented in the Calendar! Perhaps this is foreshadowing…

As in the 1928 Prayer Book, no Proper Preface is identified and the “Saint” Common with its two collects reflect what is in the ’28 book.

Tracking Sanctity: Prayer Book Studies IX

In 1957 the Standing Liturgical Commission issued Prayer Book Studies IX: The Calendar (henceforth PBS9). This report had been in the works since 1945 and throughout that period three people had consistently been represented: Dr. Massey Shepherd, Dr. Bayard Jones, and the Rev. Morton Stone. Bayard died in April of 1957, shortly before the final publication of the work, but had read and approved most of it before his passing.

Massey notes in the Preface that the work as a whole was too long for it all to appear together; as a result, the propers would appear as a separate work later. At this point it was noted only that the Black Letter days listed in italics would receive full propers—the ones without italics would receive only a memorial collect. (For ease of reference, I am referring to the italicized items receiving full propers as “commemorations” and the items receiving only collects as “memorials.”)

Here are the contents:

The Proposed Calendar (p. viii)

Part One: The History of Prayer Book Calendar Revision
I. The Reformation (p. 3)
II. Red and Black Letter Days (p. 8)
III. Recent Anglican Revisions (p. 12)

Part Two: Principles of Calendar Construction
I. The Development of Saints’ Days (p. 17)
II. The Problem of Modern Reconstruction (p. 24)
III. Recent Anglican Calendars (p. 28)

Part Three: Proposals for Revision
I. Principles of the Present Proposals (p. 35)
II. Changes Proposed in the Red Letter Days (p. 39)
III. Notes on the Black Letter Days (p. 42)

Appendices
1. Comparative Tables of Anglican Calendars (p. 107)
2. The Proposed Calendar in Chronological and Topical Order (p. 120)
3. Notes on Certain Rejected Commemorations (p. 125)
4. General Bibliography (p. 128)
5. Alphabetical Index of Commemorations, with Special Bibliographies (p. 130)

The Proposed Calendar

The proposed calendar contains 118 entries with 117 named individuals. Of these entries, 26 are Red Letter Days, 40 are Black Letter commemorations (full propers), 52 are Black Letter memorials (collect only). Looking solely at the 92 Black Letter entries, there are 91 named individuals of whom there are:

49 bishops (54%),
16 priests (18%),
4 deacons (4%),
7 religious (8%),
13 laity (14%), and
1 unqualified collective (2%)

Sliced another way, there are:

82 men (90%)
9 women (10%)
1 unqualified collective (>1%)

Along classical lines there are:

22 Bishop/Confessors
15 Male Confessors
12 Bishop/Confessor/Doctors
8 Hermit/Monastics
7 Priest/Confessor/Doctors
7 Bishop/Martyr
5 Martyrs
5 Multiple Martyrs
3 Female Confessors
2 Feasts of the BVM
1 Virgin/Martyr
1 Virgin/Abbess
1 Apostle
1 Multiple Bishops/Confessors

Denominationally, there are no surprises:

54 are from the pre-Schism Great Church
8 are pre-Reformation Western Catholic
1 is pre-Reformation Eastern Orthodox
26 are Anglican

By Century:

Obviously, the Patristic period gets the most commemorations with the 4th century scoring 14 entries total. Then there are spikes in the memorials for the 12/13th century renaissance of religious life with the friars et al., a jump up at the Reformation, then a massive ramp-up for the 19th century. Not surprisingly, this Calendar identifies the Late Early Medieval period and Late Medieval period as the nadirs of saintly existence!

Notes on History of PB Calendar Revision

One of the items that I had not heard before was that there was a study of the kalendar conducted in the run-up to the American 1928 BCP. In the first report of the Joint Commission of the Book of Common Prayer in 1916, it recommended the addition of 45 saints’ days to the calendar; this was increased to 54 in its third report in 1922 (p. 14). These days did not received propers, but a generic proper for saints was offered. Ironically, the days were all cut but the propers were accepted! These proposed days are provided in the Comparative Tables.

Notes on Principles of Calendar Construction

Development

After noting the rise of the cult of martyrs, the study summarizes the initial period in this way:

Thus by the close of the ancient period of the Church’s history, the Calendars of the several churches contained a variety of types of commemoration, of which the chief ones were these:

Anniversaries of the death of martyrs.

Anniversaries of the death of saints, not martyrs.

Dates of the translation of relics of martyrs and saints.

Dates of the dedication of churches and edifices of cult in honor of martyrs and saints.

Dates of the invention [finding] of relics of martyrs and saints (including the Apostles and Evangelists).

Yet in all this elaboration of the cult of saints, one basic principle unites all its varied forms of commemoration. It was the celebration of the fulfillment of a holy life, not its temporal beginning, but its earthly end. The conception of “death and resurrection” was inherent in all of these anniversaries. (p. 20)

A bit before this section had been called out the qualities of non-martyr saints sought in the 4th century: “lives [that] were outstanding examples of courageous witness for the faith against heresy, of monastic virtues of worldly renunciation, or of conspicuous charity and service” (ibid.). These sections are our first glimmers of a modern Episcopal theology of sanctity.

Then they move on to the medieval period which is worth citing at some length:

The medieval Church built its Calendars upon the basic principles of the earlier period. Martyrdom was still the supreme testimony to sanctity, though the occasion for such testimony was not so constant. Particularly notable in the medieval outlook was the emphasis upon the miraculous as evidence of a holy life. The early Church, of course, had not overlooked this aspect of supernatural grace in the lives of the saints. But the medieval churchmen came to regard miracles as the primary proof of sanctity—whether the miracles were performed during the course of the saint’s earthly life, or after his death. This emphasis upon miracles still obtains in the Latin Church’s weighing of evidence for official canonization.

The medievalists were not, however, so superstitious about the miraculous as to forget the importance of character, or the variety of ways whereby the grace of sanctity was made effectual in the Church. The roster of medieval saints includes all kinds of distinguished service: missionaries and founders of churches and monasteries, eminent scholars and theologians, masters of the discipline of contemplation and life of prayer, and ministers of charity and works of mercy. Special mention should also be made of the deep impression made upon the medieval mind by unselfish, Christian statemanship in the arena of politics. It has been said that medieval saints tend to fall into one of three categories: royal, episcopal, or monastic. But these [p. 22]were precisely the chief avenues , given the structure of medieval society, by which men and women were drawn into ways of constructive and outstanding leadership, paths that tested to the full the qualities of humility, courage, and charity. (pp. 21-2)

Ok—a couple of interesting things here… First, miracles are essentially raised only to be dismissed. The study noted that they were used as evidence of sanctity but doesn’t go into why. It does use in passing the phrase “supernatural grace” but doesn’t do anything with it or consider it further. Second, it’s interesting to note the take on “episcopal, royal, monastic.” The tack taken puts an emphasis on public leadership. We’re not just looking for holy people—we’re looking more for holy people who have made a measurable social impact. Thus, the royal saint gets a better shot at recognition than the peasant contemplative.

Moving to the Reformation, the study notes that the Reformers cut the kalendars of the first authorized prayer books back to the strictly Scriptural, admitting: “that in the matter of holy days the Reformers set up a new principle of selection, unknown hitherto in the tradition of the Church” (p. 23). No mention is made here of the process or significance of the addition of Black Letter days in the 1561 revision. In the historical section it had only been noted that this influx of saints occurred but they were seen as a change to the almanac rather than the rite as no propers had been assigned to them. While that may be, their omission here is not entirely explained away so easily.

Modern Reconstruction

Moving to the present and current, the study notes that General Convention is the only group now authorized to alter the kalendar. Therefore, “A revision of the Prayer Book Calendar that has any chance of being adopted by the General Convention, must be based on principles that are consistent with and agreeable to the various perspectives on the problem that are widely held throughout the Church” (p. 24). Two broad positions are sketched. The first is the (catholic-leaning) traditionalist: “it would build the Church’s Calendar upon the basis of those holy days that were of widespread observance in the Western Church at the time of the Reformation” (p. 25). The second are the modernists who are “less moved by considerations of tradition than by the evaluations of modern historiography. . . . They would see the Calendar in terms of its teaching value, a list of heroes in the long life of the Church, whose lives and accomplish-[p. 26] ments continue to be a living inspiration to modern churchmen. Not only would they stress the importance of authentic information about the life and death of each saint commemorated—that is, a ‘true story’ that is inspiring and edifying—but they would be ‘ecumenical’ in selection. Less concerned with the orthodoxy of the saint, they are more interested in his achievement and his impact upon the on-going life of Christendom” (pp. 24-5).

What they’re after, then, is the overlap between the two groups. And, in discussing it, they put quite a bit of weight on the burden of proof for sanctity—what must be met for acceptability:

Neither the pre-Reformation test of miracle nor the Reformation norm of Scripture carries much merit in the Church any longer. The common basis of all judgment is the effect upon edification, the moral and spiritual influence of devotion to the memory of the saints. This is, in effect, a pragmatic norm, and difficult to apply with assured objectivity. It is undoubtedly colored by our unconscious ‘American’ way of evaluating heroism in all spheres of life. It is our way of knowing men ‘by their fruits.’ It is unlikely that any saint will be admitted to the Calendar of the American Church, by vote of General Convention, unless it can be shown that the candidate for such an honor is ‘worthy’ of emulation of his life and example, irrespective of his ancient record of cult in the Calendars of past generations. By the same token, it is unlikely that any saint will be ‘canonized’ by the General Convention without considerable evidence, by official cult or otherwise, of widespread agreement as to his merits. (p. 26)

The assumption here is that a straight-up ancient kalendar won’t be accepted. GC would be too critical for that. I must say, reading this passage over the past 55 years of Episcopal history, I think some things have changed and that General Convention operates on different principles of discernment now than it did then.

At this point, the study talks about Frere’s work that I mentioned the other day. At this point it only notes that the non-Prayer Book saints to whom things are dedicated in America are different from those in England identified by Frere, but that the number had been growing of late.

Recent Anglican Calendars

The study then surveys the significant Anglican Calendars revised since the opening of the 20th century. From this survey it draws 5 points:

There is a clear distinction between Red and Black Letter days—only the Red must be observed; Black are always optional. Too, none of the books provide full propers for all Black Letter days.
There is greater agreement about saints of the ancient church than the medieval.
There’s no agreement on when certain observations should be placed that don’t appear in the 1662 book.
Most Anglican Calendars avoid having more than one entry on a day.
All of the Calendars include descriptive notes on the saint, their life, work, and death.

Proposals for Revision

Principles of the Present Proposals

I was very interested to learn what is stated at the outset of this section:

For the past ten years, the Standing Liturgical Commission has devoted time at each of its meetings in discussing the materials of this study. With each change in personnel of the Commission the tentative list of Calendar changes, first drawn up in 1945, has been reviewed and revised. . . . The changes and additions herewith have with but few exceptions been unanimously approved throughout the long period of study and discussion. Where the Commission has been sharply divided over particular proposals for inclusion, and has been unable to come to a solution satisfactory to most, if not all, of the members, the proposed entry has been omitted. Thus, some of the prolonged and difficult work of the Commission on this Calendar has led, seemingly, to negative results. But the Commission believes that the energy spent on this disputed and unresolved problems has by no means been wasted. We believe that the concrete result of our labors probably represents the type of Calendar that will be acceptable to the vast majority of the Church’s membership. (p. 35)

Disagreement on the Commission about the kalendar is not new!

A fundamental necessity is historicity. It states in no uncertain terms that a person must be historically verifiable in order to appear on the list. The premiere case in point is St. George:

The fact that he has become a patron saint of England does not make him any the more real; nor does it necessitate making him a saint of the American Church. Fairy-book tales may indeed be edifying. When they become part of the folklore and tradition of a great nation they can become stirring symbols. But it is asking too much of the majority of our American Church membership, who have no such traditional and patriotic associations with the name, to respond with mature devotion to a saint of whom it can only be said, “He may have existed, sometime, somewhere.” (p. 36)

(At a later date we’ll check in on pp. 338-9 of HWHM…) They note that the Feast of All Saints with its octave have been provided for the celebration of the saints not otherwise remembered by the church with the implication that if George were a real saint, he would be properly provided for there.

The official statement on criteria is this:

The choice of commemorations in the proposed Calendar has been made primarily on the basis of selecting men and women of outstanding holiness, heroism, and teaching in the cause of Christ, whose lives and deaths have been a continuing, conscious influence upon the on-going life of the Church in notable and well-recognized ways. There are included martyrs, theologians, statesmen, missionaries, reformers, mystics, and exemplars of prayer and charitable service. In every instance care has been taken to list persons whose life and work are capable of interpretation in terms morally and spiritually edifying to the Church of our own generation. In addition, a few festivals commemorating events of particular importance in the heritage of our own Communion have been included, such as the memorial of the First Prayer Book and the bestowal of the American Episcopate. (p. 37)

It goes on to comment on matters of denomination. Only Anglicans are named post-Reformation. This is due to “a lack of sufficient unanimity” regarding proper selection. “The Commission does believe very strongly, however, that any extension of the present Prayer Book Calendar should give recognition to the fact that our Anglican tradition has produced, and continues to produce saintliness” (ibid.).

Concluding Thoughts

It’s quite fascinating to look over this work at this point in our history. The assumptions that it takes for granted are no longer the case. Ideology plays a much larger explicit role in church politics now than it did then. The mechanisms too for making and continuing change have altered.

A key point that I want to note is the focus on the historical and the historic. In the push to ensure the historicity of the entries included, the eschatological is being pushed to the margin. Spiritual lives are still considered a critical component, but the relation of the miraculous to the eschatological life isnot present, or do we see anything like the question, “Can I see this person participating in the great chorus of heaven?” Moral and spiritual conduct are the key arbiters. While criteria for what that conduct looks like appears, it is not codified, and is not given an explicit theological foundation either. This is primarily a pragmatic document, not a theological one: there is no theology of the saints here.

The closest we come to theology is, actually, explicitly not theological. The “Principles for the Present Proposals” section ends in this way:

It has often been remarked that the Prayer Book provides the parish priest with an excellent teaching manual for the study of the Bible, the doctrine and ethics of the Church, and, of course, the principles and practices of worship and prayer. It has lacked but one thing, an adequate instrument for teaching the history of the Church. The present proposal should do much to meet this need. With the names on this Calendar arranged in a historical, or, topical order, the parish priest will have a convenient guide and outline of Church History from its beginnings to the present time. Such a study should greatly reinforce the other teachings of the Prayer Book, as they are exemplified in the lives of the saints. (p. 38)

The intent here is to say that a solid kalendar will complete the teaching value of the Prayer Book. And that’s true. But what bothers me—especially given the vantage of major hindsight—is the way this passage connects the saints and Church History without offering explicit integration into church doctrine. The last line is helpful, but is too little, too late. The saints aren’t just historical figures! The question of sanctity is intimately bound with the nature of discipleship, of Christology, and of the sacraments. The saints show us what Christian maturity looks like—not just the scope of Church History! And yet, the historical dimension of the Episcopal Calendar has increasingly been highlighted to the exclusion of the spiritual, sacramental, and eschatological dimensions. This study doesn’t do that—but it doesn’t say much against it, and it leaves a theological vacuum in its wake…

The St. Bede Blog

Formerly haligweorc; Liturgical Spirituality for the Episcopal Church

Monthly Archives: January 2013

HWHM Update

Current Considerations on HWHM

Introduction

Clarity on the relationship between the Baptismal Covenant/Baptismal Ecclesiology and an Episcopal theology of sanctity

The Eschatological Implications of Baptism

Sufficiency of the Criteria

Faithfulness to the Criteria

The Number and Growth of Commemorations

The Professionalization of the Calendar

The “Modernization” of the Church

The Category of “Prophetic Witness”

Clarity on Liturgical Function

Historical Almanac vs. Sanctoral Calendar

In Conclusion

SCLM Meetings: Past and Future

Tracking Sanctity: Graphs

Tracking Sanctity: Lesser Feasts & Fasts 1980

Tracking Sanctity: Lesser Feasts & Fasts 1973

Relaxing into the Person of Christ

Tracking Sanctity: Programming Note

Tracking Sanctity: Lesser Feasts & Fasts 1963

Tracking Sanctity: Prayer Book Studies IX