Translations of the Book of Common Prayer

Beginning in 1999, I have worked on digitizing the Book of Common Prayer in languages other than English. This is a current list of languages. Links are available at this address.

1. Addo
2. Afrikaans
3. Ainu
4. Amharic
5. Angas
6. Aoba
7. Arabic
8. Arapaho
9. Armenian
10. Armeno-Turkish
11. Arosi
12. Ateso
13. Awabakal Dialect
14. Aymara
15. Bandi
16. Bangala
17. Basque
18. Beaver
19. Bemba
20. Binandere
21. Bislama
22. Bohemian
23. Bontok Igorot
24. Bugotu
25. Bukar
26. Bullom So
27. Burmese
28. Car Nicobarese
29. Cheke Holo
30. Cherokee
31. Cheyenne
32. Chichewa
33. Chinese
34. Chinsenga
35. Chinyanja
36. Chipewyan
37. Chiswina
38. Cigogo
39. Cornish
40. Cree
41. Czech
42. Dakota
43. Deg Xinag
44. Dholuo
45. Dinka
46. Eastern Canadian Inuktitut (Eastern Arctic Eskimo)
47. English
48. Eskimo
49. Eskimo (Point Hope Dialect)
50. Fijian
51. Florida Language
52. French
53. Georgian
54. German
55. Giatikshan
56. Grebo
57. Greek
58. Gujarati
59. Gwich’in
60. Haida
61. Hausa
62. Hawai’ian
63. Hebrew
64. Hindi
65. “Hindoostanee”
66. Hungarian
67. Iban
68. Icelandic
69. Igbo
70. Italian
71. Japanese
72. Jawi
73. Jinghpaw (Kachin)
74. Kamba
75. Karamojong
76. Karen
77. Khmer
78. Kigiryama
79. Kikuyu
80. Kirundi
81. Kisi
82. Korean
83. Kreyol
84. Kurdish
85. Kwagūtl
86. Kwanyama
87. Kwara’ae
88. Ladino
89. Latin
90. Lau
91. Lavukaleve
92. Lombaha
93. Longu
94. Luganda
95. Luhya
96. Maasai (Samburu)
97. Maewo
98. Maisin
99. Malagasy
100. Malay
101. Malayalam
102. Manx
103. Marathi
104. Masaba
105. Merelava
106. Miriam
107. Mohawk
108. Mota
109. Mpoto
110. Mundari
111. Munsee/Delaware
112. Nahuatl
113. Nandi
114. Naskapi
115. Nduindui
116. Neklakapamuk
117. Nepali
118. Nishga
119. Norwegian
120. Nume
121. Nupe
122. Ojibwe
123. Ontong Java
124. Orokaiva (Pereho)
125. Ottawa Ojibwe
126. Pashto
127. Pennsylvania German
128. Persian
129. Polish
130. Portuguese
131. Quechua
132. Raga
133. Russian
134. Sa’a
135. Samburu
136. Samoan
137. Santa Ana
138. Saulteaux
139. Selako
140. Serbian
141. Sesutho
142. Seychellois Creole
143. Shekiri
144. Shona
145. Shoshoni
146. Sikaiana
147. Sindhi
148. Spanish
149. Sudanese Arabic
150. Swahili
151. Swedish
152. Tagalog
153. Taita
154. Tamil
155. Taveta
156. Telugu
157. Thai
158. Tibetan
159. Tigara
160. Tikopia
161. Toga
162. Tok Pisin
163. Tongan
164. Tsonga
165. Tswana
166. Turkish
167. Tutchone
168. Ubir
169. Ukrainian
170. Ulawa
171. Upper Koyukon
172. Urdu
173. Urhobo
174. Vai
175. Vaturanga
176. Vietnamese
177. Welsh
178. Western Eskimo
179. Wichí
180. Yiddish
181. Zande
182. Zimshian
183. Zulu

Advertisement

An Open Letter to Archbishop Vilatte, by Ingram N. W. Irvine (undated)

St. Nicholas’ Russian Cathedral, 15 East Ninety-seventh St.
—New York City.—

To His Grace the Most Rev. J. R. Vilatte, D. D. Old Catholic Archbishop of America:

Your Grace: I have examined and read with much pleasure the articles in your official paper, “The American Old Catholic.” I beg to thank you for your courtesy in sending me the same and also for the truths expressed therein.

I know of few more heroic Bishops in the history of the Christian Church than your grace. Dark clouds have hung heavily over you and your work; but remember, the darkest cloud that ever lowered was that which shrouded the soul of the Redeemer of mankind when it passed from the victory upon earth to accomplish the equally great victory in the place of departed spirits.

I remember well the funeral of Chief Justice Chase of the U. S. Supreme Court. Two circumstances firmly rivet the occasion in my mind: First, he was one of our great judicial heroes of the Civil War times; second, while his burial service was held in St. George’s Protestant Episcopal Church, New York City, it was the Rev. Dr John Hall, a Presbyterian minister, who preached the funeral sermon. Of course the whole affair was incongruous to me—Presbyterianism and Episcopalianism—ecclesiastical hotchpotch—yet what I heard from the lips of the very distinguished Presbyterian clergyman in reference to Chief Justice Chase is perfectly true of you, your Grace. He said: “Around high trees and mountain-tops the fiercest storms do beat. “The late Bishop Grafton and his Episcopal satellites; Rome and her fulminations; the Devil with his arrows of poverty and misrepresentations; all of these have done their worst. You, like another great Bishop of the past, have bowed your head until the storm went by. Thank God for such an Archbishop as J R. Vilatte. Saint Athanasius was banished seven times. You, in free United States, cannot be civilly touched or banished, but if you were in a Latin country, where the chains of ecclesiasticism and those of the State were interwoven and in vigor, God have mercy upon your poor human frame and soul!

Your Grace, I look upon you as one whose work can alone regenerate Western Roman and Anglican Christianity. The Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church of the East, now happily also in the West, of which I am an humble priest, will be, no doubt, the rallying point of convergence for all Christian bodies, like as she is now here in our midst, the witness of “the Faith once-for-all delivered to the saints.” The Anglican Church, “from which” as Cardinal Newman said when he belonged to her communion, “surrounding nations lit their lamps,” is so afflicted with Protestantism that she has forgotten, in too many instances, her Catholic heritage. I love Anglicans. Among them are theological giants. The Anglican Church is impregnated with saintly virtues. Such broad minded priests as Daniel I. Odell and J. Andrew Harris of Philadelphia, J. Howard Mellish, T. J. Lacey of Long Island, Karl Reiland, W. M. Greer and W. T. Manning of New York; such Bishops as Darlington of Harrisburg, Greer of New York and Adams of Boston—representing hundreds more on this side of the Atlantic as ecclesiastics not forgetting such great laymen as Chancellor Henry Budd of Pennsylvania, and ex-Chancellor Price of the same State, Mr. Gardiner of Gardiner, Maine, and A. A. Mitchell of New York, have within them, irrespective of grades of churchmanship, the very spirit of Catholicity and the key, on the Anglican side, to Church unity. But, alas! the isolation of the Anglican Communion within the domineering Western ancient Patriarchate of Rome, is pitiful. She cannot play “good Lord, good Devil.” She must either hold to Protestantism and despise Romanism, or she must come out from the midst of this ecclesiastical fog and shine in her true light as a daughter of the Mother Church of Christendom the Holy Orthodox Church of the East. Hers is a special role and nature for the benefit of all the Churches of Christendom. All look to her as a Mother.

The Anglican Church, your Grace, can never reform Rome. She can never coerce the great Protestant bodies to accept her as a mother. Her position is unique. She is a beautiful married woman but not child-bearing. Her breasts are full, but the paps have no fecundating milk. She will leave no heritage excepting that of a magnificent personal record of biblical strictures such as this and others I could quote: “Stand by thyself, come not nigh me, for I am holier than thou.” (Isaiah lv-5).

Your grace, I well remember 1906 A. D., when you and the Russian Archbishop Tikhon, the Very Rev. Dean A. A. Hotovitzky and I met in the Russian Archiepiscopal Palace in New York City. That was a solemn and sacred moment. You then and there reiterated your Orthodox principles, which were one and the same as held by the Russian and all other portions of the Holy Orthodox Church. As far as dogmas were concerned, you were one with us, of the Eastern Church then; and from your present attitude, you are the same faithful son of Orthodoxy today. The document which you signed on that occasion is still extant.

There is, of course, no question as to the validity and regularity of your Holy Orders and Episcopate. No solid argument has been adduced by Rome or England (representing the Anglican Communion throughout the world) to overthrow your contention and pontificate. As the late Bishop Coxe of the Protestant Episcopal Church well said: “No Roman prelate in the United States has an Episcopate as valid as yours.” As far as Rome is concerned, she can only speak for Rome, and by her theory the whole world has gone mad except herself. The entire Christian Church, baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and the Holy Ghost, is without spiritual guidance save that of the Vatican Curia on the “Seven Hills!” God have compassion on the poor “Successor of the Fisherman,” who poses as a so-called prisoner within the Roman cell, for whose door he himself holds the key to open and come out at will. The whole world, say they, is infidel except Rome, or schismatical, and outside the pale of redemption. Her “Treasury of superabundant merit” is a spiritual bank for her own children alone. There are no Saints outside her communion. God has no home for the rest of mankind “made in His image and after His likeness.” Holy Baptism has not conferred upon them the “Gifts of Regeneration.” They are still in the “gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity.” And yet Rome is overflowing with a devoted and self-sacrificing priesthood and laity. Her government and membership are two entirely different things. She will realize this herself before long in America.

It would be absolute madness to argue with Rome on any subject on which her heart is fixed. She is ecclesiastically insane. She still believes herself to be “Mistress of the World.” She ignores after a fashion all Holy Orders of Christendom, except those of the Holy Orthodox Greek Catholic Church. Yet within her very bosom are the valid and regular Orders of the Old Catholic Archbishop Vilatte of Chicago which she cannot gainsay on valid and regular grounds. And thus today there is within her ancient Patriarchate (“if America can be said to be within any patriarchate”) her purgated Liturgy, her Rites and Ceremonies perfect in every respect, for all those who cling to and desire the heritage of the West in contradistinction to the ways of the East under his (i.e. your Grace’s) oversight.

Your Grace, if to-day, were not a satisfied recipient of the Holy Orthodox Russian Greek Catholic Orders, I would accept from your hands Holy Orders and count them equal in all respects with those coming from Benedict XV. of Rome. And I should believe I was holding full and sufficient spiritual powers as a priest from the inbreathing of the Incarnate Lord God who said to His Apostles: “As My Father hath sent Me even so send I you. Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel.”

I am writing to your grace in all soberness of thought, and am fearless of consequences or criticism. I believe that God has raised you up within the Western Patriarchate to convert your Roman Brethren, and to give to the Anglicans that grace where anything is lacking, would, indeed advise every Anglican (cleric) to accept from your hands conditional ordination in order that neither the East nor the West may be able to gainsay the Catholic party’s ministerial orders in the day of reunion, and that the Holy Orthodox Greek Catholic Apostolic Church may raise no question as to their Doctrine, Discipline and Worship. If a priest’s blessing may be extended to a Bishop (and I believe it can, for we of the priesthood partake of sub-episcopal powers), then may the Triune God pour upon you all the effulgence of His holiness and gifts now end ever, through ages of ages. Amen.

I beg to remain, your Grace, ever faithfully and lovingly your old and sincere friend.

Ingram N. W. Irvine.

Canon of St Nicholas’ Russian Cathedral, and Priest-in-Charge of the English Department.

A Friendly Correction (1920)

Bishops National Synod Deposition (1918)

Revived Order of Corporate Reunion, by Arnold Harris Mathew (1912)

A Guide for Union Church Conversations

Prepared for Use by the Commission on the Welfare of the Union Church (no date)

THE UNION CHURCH AND THE CHANGING AGE

The settlement of America and in particular of Pennsylvania began the process of “the changing scene”. From the time our Pennsylvania German ancestors chopped down the first trees and out of hewn logs built their rude homes, change has been a part of our American way of life. Now with the building of great highways, huge shopping centers and in some areas entire new communities the rate of change has accelerated.

Our forefathers were pioneers. They left the shores of Europe to establish new homes in a strange land. Today we often look backward and long for the days of the pioneers. In fact, in the church, we often try to keep all things exactly as they were in the day of the pioneer. Our fathers would be disappointed in us. They would want us to be pioneers in our own day as they were in theirs. They not only accepted change in life, but they brought about change. The disappearance of the wilderness and the appearance of villages, towns and cities were directly the result of their work.

In the middle seventeen hundreds in the midst of developing of Penn’s Woods, the German Lutheran and Reformed settlers began to form and build the Union Churches that we know today. There were few pastors available and the German immigrants were poor. The faith that was kindled in their hearts in the Fatherland was strong. They brought along with their Bibles and catechisms the desire for worship and education in the faith. Soon small congregations gathered together in the crossroads communities. A pastor visited every four to eight weeks.

Soon the people discovered that if they had a common house of worship they could afford to build one. They also discovered by attending each other’s services they could worship twice month rather than once a month. The Union Church, then, was born out of economic necessity rather than out of a sense of mission that the Lord has wanted us to be one church. Each denomination brought its own catechism and tradition.

The small congregations grew stronger and ministers became more plentiful. Some union Churches began to dissolve that each might call its own minister and reach out to a community where population was slowly but surely growing in numbers. Others have maintained the union to this day. They have found that it is cheaper to share a building and in most cases share a pastor with two or more congregations of the same denomination.

Scientific advance has brought rapid change in the life of the people of Pennsylvania which is unique in that it has aided in the increase of an already large production of farm produce, and yet at the same time has made the state an urbanized industrial area which leads the country in manufacturing. All this has occurred as the nation has passed from the age of the gasoline engine through the atomic age to the space age. While seemingly the church has changed little, there are many town and country churches, however, that have met the challenge of change by making adjustments in parish boundaries and in the ministry to the community through ecumenical cooperation.

Pennsylvania has increased in population from 10,498,012 in 1950 to 11,319,366 in 1960. The increase from 1960 to 1970 is expected to be even greater. In this period of expansion the membership of most Union Churches has not increased with the population growth.

On the American scene the church has been the institution most reluctant to change. Systems, methods, and ideas in many cases are as they were generations ago. One often hears the statement, “If it was good enough for my grandfather, it is good enough for me.” The present generation needs to recover the spilt of the pioneer. Our grandfathers and great-grandfathers would not have made the “good enough” statement. They felt the methods of the day were not good enough. Therefore, they left their homeland and sought a new life in a new land. They looked forward and not backward. They call us to look forward.

Change is a vital part of the Christian faith. Our Lord has said, “Put off the old man and put on the new.” Indeed, His resurrection was to new life. We look to a pioneering ministry not based on economic necessity for the Union Church, but rather for a ministry unto newness of life through the risen Christ who is the head of the church.

COMMISSION ON THE WELFARE OF THE UNION CHURCH

Change which had become a pattern for American life accelerated greatly after the Second World War. New factories, new highways, new people and in some areas even new communities increased the pressure on the Union Church to submit to change. Potential members began to pass the Union Church and seek the active program of the one denomination church rather than adjust themselves to an alternating schedule for worship, a church school that may change its curriculum every two or three years, and a limited schedule of lay activities.

To help pastors, councils and consistories who then, even as now, faced changes that at times seemed overwhelming, representatives of synods of the Lutheran Church and the Evangelical and Reformed Church, now United Church of Christ, met in Reading, Pa. on April 13, 1945 and formulated six principles for the Union Church. On November 23, 1948, following an open meeting of pastors and laymen of both denominations which took place at Red Church near Schuylkill Haven on November 4, 1948, “The Commission on the Welfare of the Union Church” was formed.

The purpose of The Commission is to study the life and work of the Union Church so that there can be offered counsel and guidance for administration, worship, long-range planning and interdenominational relationships. To this end The Commission has provided for consultants who work directly with the congregations through a study committee. The Consultant for the Eastern Pennsylvania Synod of the Lutheran Church is the Rev. Fred S. Blank, Assistant to the President of the Synod and for Central Pennsylvania Synod of the Lutheran Church, the Rev. Martin L. Tozer, D.D., Director of Home Missions. The Consultants for the United Church of Christ are the Rev. Earl R. Marks, Assistant Conference minister of Penn Northeast Conference, the Rev. John C. Shetler, D.D., Assistant to the Conference Minister of the Pennsylvania Southeast Conference, and the Rev. Richard H. Whitney, Assistant to the President of Penn Central Conference.

As of January 1, 1968 there were 149 Union Churches in Pennsylvania and Maryland. They are divided among the Lutheran Synods as follows: Eastern Pennsylvania Synod 98, Central Pennsylvania Synod 45 and Maryland 6. The distribution among the United Church Conferences is as follows: Penn Northeast 54, Pennsylvania Southeast 44, Penn Central 43, Penn West 2 and Central Atlantic 6. Approximately 40% of these churches are in process of negotiation with the consultants.

The consultants enter into negotiations with a Union Church upon invitation of the council or consistory and the first meeting for the purpose of explaining the work of The Commission is a joint meeting of the council and consistory. The consultants do not come to tell a congregation what to do, but to assist and guide the local representatives in their own study, and planning. Consultants are always available to discuss any Union Church situation with pastors, official boards or congregations even though a study committee may not be in process. Union Church negotiations normally take from two to four years.

WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATIVES BEFORE A UNION CHURCH?

There are several alternatives before all Union Churches at all times. When consultations on the welfare of the Union Church take place, these must be considered. They are:

1. Make no change. Maintain the status quo.

2. Make some minor change and/or adjustments). For example – each congregation conduct a worship service every week; make improvements) in the Christian Education Program; adjust the charge or parish alignment; etc.

3. Enter into a self-study using forms prepared for the Union Church. Each congregation’s study committee prepares its own self-study and shares findings with the study committee members of the other congregation. The study committee discusses the implications of the findings at a regular meeting.

4. Dissolve the union relationship.

a. One congregation dissolves in order for its members to unite with the denomination of the other congregation. This makes possible a new congregation of one denomination. The Lutheran Church in America and the United Church of Christ have an understanding whereby the equity rights are transferred from the dissolving congregation to the new congregation by the Conference or Synod, without financial consideration. At times there may be an imbalance in a particular area but across the state and over a longer period of time balance is maintained. This balance may be not only in the number of congregations but also in the number of members in the congregations. The dissolution of one of the congregations in one area will be matched with the dissolution of a congregation of the other denomination in another area.

b. One congregation dissolves, moves out, and erects its own church building. When church relocation is involved, it is important to secure proper approval by the Conference or Synod and the Pennsylvania Council of Churches to assure adequate planning for overall community churching and elimination of unhealthy competition.

c. One congregation dissolves and unites with another of the same denomination nearby.

d. When two Union Churches in close proximity are involved, by mutual consent both congregations can consolidate so that one congregation of each denomination results. This can be effected by one of two (2) methods:

(1) Consolidation within a building – the members of one congregation unite with the congregation of the other denomination. The congregation changing denominational affiliation must dissolve so that consolidation can take place. This can be considered anywhere within the area of the Synod or the Conference involved.

(2) Consolidation within the charge or parish – members maintain their denominational affiliation, but transfer their membership to the building in which their denomination assumes full responsibility.

e. One congregation may disband, permitting its members to assume membership with a congregation of their choice.

HOW IS A UNION CHURCH STUDY COMMITTEE FORMED?

Constructive work for the welfare of the Union Church can be accomplished best through a study committee. This committee, properly authorized by the consistory and the council meeting separately, is the only group in a Union Church authorized to deliberate upon and make recommendations for the welfare of that Union Church.

HOW DOES THE STUDY COMMITTEE OPERATE?

The study committee is comprised of three persons from each congregation named as regular members of the study committee; one person from each congregation named as the alternate study committee member; and the pastor of each congregation. The study committee meets only when the consultants for The Commission on the Welfare of the Union Church are present. All persons should be in attendance, but only three (3) have right of vote, namely, the study committee members. Pastors and consultants have right of voice but not of vote.

Alternate study committee members have right of voice at all times, but vote only if one of the regular study committee members is absent. Alternate study committee members should attend all meetings to keep abreast of study committee de-liberations. Study committee membership is not limited to consistory and council members, but at least one member of each denomination on the study committee ought to be a member of the official board of that congregation at the time of his appointment. Members of the study committee are appointed for the entire period of discussions. If the study committee recesses at any time, membership does not expire but continues with the resumption of discussions.

Whenever a Union Church agrees to engage in study of its situation, it is wise not to make any major change or renovation until the results of the study are complete.

WHAT IS THE POWER OF THE STUDY COMMITTEE?

The only authority the study committee has is to engage in study of the union situation and make recommendations to official boards. The study committee is to be alert at all times to participate in responsible area planning and to make suggestions for the same to the official boards. Minutes of all the study committee meetings are recorded by one of the consultants while the other conducts the meeting. These roles alternate from meeting to meeting. A quantity of the minutes is mailed to each pastor (or designated person) for distribution to each member of the study committee and official board of that congregation. The consistory and the council are to discuss each set of minutes and give either approval or disapproval of recommendations as required. Council and consistory should not take action which limits the freedom for study and discussion by the study committee prior to the presentation of recommendations from the study committee. When congregational action is required, it is sought after recommendation is made by the study committee and majority approval is given by both the consistory and the council.

HOW ARE DECISIONS MADE?

Minutes of the study committee do not contain references to individuals and/or their comments relative to discussions.

Usually there are no motions since all action in the study committee is by common consent. Thus, any proposal arising out of the study committee is a union proposal. Neither consistory nor council should offer a proposal, since this would merely encourage discrimination and later might bring reproach to someone who was sincere in raising questions, issues, or suggestions.

All remarks made in the study committee meetings must be treated as confidential.

EQUITY

WHAT IS EQUITY?

Equity is the valuation placed on the total union church property, excluding the cemetery and personal property of either congregation, such as hymnals, vestments, literature, etc.

WHY SET EQUITY?

There are numerous, related, significant reasons why equity should be set on the Union Church property. If any renovation or building is contemplated, equity could determine whether such added expense is wise. At the same time it could serve as the base or the starting point, if renovation or building are decided upon, for future determination of equity. Equity is not market value. Neither is it insurance or replacement value.

The Union Church property normally is of value onlv to two groups, namely, one or the other congregation in the union arrangement. If any decision on dissolution is ever contemplated it is wise to agree on equity first. Agreement on equity may reveal what our forefathers volunteered for the Union Church property and what we in our generation have contributed toward it. Setting of equity may be the means whereby the boundary lines are clarified, the deed located and verified, and misunderstanding of financial support and records clarified, approved, or brought to a mutually, agreeable basis.

HOW IS EQUITY DETERMINED?

Experience has taught the Commission one successful way of establishing equity. It begins with a small group, the study committee, comprised of three members from each congregation.

Each member of the study committee is instructed to prayerfully, and conscientiously seek the figure that in his opinion he and his congregation would be willing to give or receive as his congregation’s share in the equity of the Union Church property.

The figure submitted is a figure on the total equity. Obviously each congregation owns one-half of the property and shares one-half of the equity. It is emphasized that the figure submitted is on a BUY or SELL basis. Either congregation should be willing to BUY or SELL on the approved equity.

Following careful instruction and after each member of the study committee has had adequate time to be prepared and permission having been granted by the council and the consistory, the study committee proceeds to set equity by one of several acceptable methods. Normally, we proceed as follows: Each member of the study committee puts his figure on a separate slip of paper. There will be six figures. The consultants gather the figures, add them, average them, and present the average figure. No one ever knows the individual figures submitted except the consultants.

If one or two figures are entirely out of line with the other figures. that is, extremely high or low, the consultants reserve the right to eliminate those figures.

The equity must first be approved by the study committee.

It is then presented to council and consistory for approval and then to the congregations, each one acting on the recommendation separately.

HOW LONG DOES EQUITY CONTINUE?

Usually equity is set for a five year period, however, an appeal for reconsideration can be presented at any time by either congregation. Up until that time when dissolution actually occurs the equity is considered a “gentleman’s agreement. Up until that time it is not a legal, binding agreement.

Ordinarily, however, if the economy of the nation continues in its present trend there is no need of reconsideration for as building costs rise the depreciation on the old building also increases. We believe under present normal circumstances, costs balance depreciation.

WHEN SHOULD EQUITY BE ESTABLISHED?

The consultants strongly stress that before either congregation in a union relationship makes a decision about its future that equity be approved. Human nature being what it is, we all prefer to buy at the lowest price and sell at the highest price.

Therefore, if either congregation has determined to buy or sell before equity is set, it will be more difficult to arrive at a fair equity figure. If you intend to continue to discuss your union relationship and meet the challenge of the changing day, then be sure to consider equity early in the discussions.

VOTING PROCEDURES

A congregation is a legal entity and acts as a body. Therefore in Union Church procedures the votes of each congregation are taken within the separate and distinct meetings of each congregation and are counted separately by respective representatives of each.

Each congregation has one vote (“YES” or “NO”), approval or disapproval, on each particular recommendation.

The vote is determined by a simple majority of those present and voting unless otherwise specified by the constitution and bylaws of the local church. A simple majority vote of approval by the members of one congregation means the recommendation has passed for that particular congregation. Approval must be given by both congregations of the Union Church for a recommendation to be approved on union matters. If one congregation disapproves, then the recommendation does not carry for the Union Church. If disapproval does occur, then the procedure of education and voting may be repeated when feasible.

COMMUNICATION WITHIN THE CONGREGATION

After the study committee is appointed the question arises, “How do we keep the congregation informed?” Immediately all sorts of rumors will spread through the congregation and the community. No method or system has yet been discovered in all of history to curtail or ban gossip.

Nevertheless, there are several ways to avoid uncontrolled rumors. When a study committee is approved and appointed, announcement of the same should be made by spoken word, bulletin and/or letter in each congregation in a similar way and, if possible, on the same Sunday. It would be helpful if the announcement in the bulletin in each congregation could be of the same wording. Explanation of what a study committee is could be made to the congregations. From the time of the appointment of a study committee, attention could be called to the fact that it is meeting, studying, and that just as soon as an agreement is reached or a proposal is to be presented, the congregations will be informed.

But, here’s the rub. Nothing specific can be reported to the congregations until a recommendation, approved by council and consistory, is. to be made to the congregations. For this reason minutes of all study committee meetings are recorded. Enough copies are always supplied for members of council, consistory and representatives of Conference and Synod. In this way each of them can be kept abreast of the discussions and at monthly meetings each group can be informed. Thus two-way communications, to some degree at least, can be maintained.

But people can be impatient. Some will think after the first meeting of the study committee all problems have been solved.

The truth is that negotiations on the average take from two to four years until a solution is reached. It is urgent, therefore, that meetings of the study committee be announced to the congregations and that the official boards read and discuss the minutes.

Normally the pastors are responsible for the printing of the church bulletin and the distribution of the minutes. By mutual agreement they can do much to satisfy the people with the news that can be shared. It is when people hear nothing of the proceedings that alarm and verbal reaction fill the vacuum.

If, and when, a recommendation is presented to the congregations, usually two congregational meetings are held in each congregation: one for discussion and one for voting. The consultants are present at their respective congregational meetings.

One of the consultants normally prepares a sample letter announcing and informing the memberships of the meetings. The same letter is to be mailed to both memberships on the same day.

If any action in the proceedings warrants the engaging of an attorney, one attorney will suffice; never engage two. The attorney’s chief task is to put into proper legal language that to which both congregations have already agreed.

Sarum Use, by H.R. Percival (1890)

Your anonymous correspondent can hardly expect me to restate  my argument which I hope most of your readers have more fully grasped; perhaps, however, it may not be amiss to point out one or two facts with regard to the Sarum Ritual. If its ultra-ritualistic and semi-superstitious character is to be exemplified, the rubrics for the procession on Palm Sunday are fully sufficient.

Anyone comparing these with the simple and dignified procession of the rest of the West will see the enormous difference. For corruption of doctrine, the peculiarities of the service for the Mass of the Presanctified on Good Friday is enough, although numbers of other instances could be cited. For the enthronement of superstition, the elaborate account of the supposed miracle of the bleeding crucifix for which a special feast day is appointed may suffice.

Why your correspondent was not familiar with these and dozens of other quite as flagrant examples, I cannot imagine. The study of almost any one of the so editions of which he speaks would have been sufficient. Your correspondent does not appear to be quite up to date in Liturgiology. Mr. St. John Hope, in his admirable monograph upon the English Liturgical Colours, has at last placed this question beyond all controversy. His conclusion in brief is this—but one thing is certain, and that is that white was the universal colour for Lent in England! Outside of this he shows there was almost no uniformity. Your correspondent will find a short resume of Mr. Hope’s article in the January number of the (English) Church Quarterly Review, written by Dr. Wickam Legg. Pray allow me before closing to point out to your readers just how far we have got on this Sarum question. We find that in the Prayer Book there are many peculiarities of the Roman Books and but few of the Sarum Books. An analysis of the Litany (for example shows that while there are traces of Sarum influences yet that in the main it follows the continental uses, and chiefly the German. I need not point out to students of Liturgiology how this happens to be the case. The same is true of a large part of the Prayer Book. While, then, it is readily granted that Sarum use had its influence in framing our present services, the statement (so often made and until recently so universally accepted) that Sarum Use was the basis of our Prayer Book appears to rest upon no foundation whatever.

What your correspondent says about the ready access that there is now to Sarum Books is, comparatively speaking, true, but here again we find ourselves faced by a tremendous difficulty. We have not only the Sarum Books but we have also contemporaneous descriptions of the services in different parts of England and these descriptions do not agree with the Sarum directions! I have digested a large number of these and shall hope some time to be able to speak with some positiveness upon the subject, but it is evidently the work of years; and until this is done by some one, mere statements, unsupported by contemporary writers, and only made by authors more than 300 years afterward, can be no proof of the even approximate universality of the Sarum Ritual. I should add that the extensive use of the Revised Sarum Psalter is not disputed.

I do not know whether any one else is pursuing his researches by the same method as myself. I hope others are doing so who have better opportunities of consulting rare books found only in the libraries of the Old World, but at least mine have gone far enough to shew the unreliability of most of what was called information upon the Sarum question.

I can well remember the time when I shared your correspondent’s views, and it was not until I had devoted more attention to the subject that I found I had been misled by similar false statements to those which are evidently now influencing him. In closing I would say that while my chief contention was the identity in all essential points of our present celebration of the Holy Eucharist with that of the past, I yet am of the opinion of those who considered that the Service Books of mediaeval England had become “corrupt” and “superstitious,” and that the ritual was often “barbaric” and “theatrical,” and therefore needed Reformation. Unless I misunderstood “Boston” he deems the Reformation un-called for and is one of those (I use his own rather curious expression) “Catholic Churchmen that look back with longing to the days when the Church of England held the Catholic Faith in its entirety.”

—Henry R. Percival, The Church Eclectic, May, 1890, pp. 171-173.

The Order of Corporate Reunion Briefly Discussed in Twenty-Five Questions and Answers (1877)

Q. 1. I have heard some talk about a Society which calls itself the “Order of Corporate Reunion.” Can you tell me anything about it?
A. It is a voluntary association of Catholics in the Church of England, who have combined to carry out certain objects, which they believe to be necessary and lawful. I myself, concurring in these objects, have willingly sought and obtained admission into the Order.

Q. 2. Is it a secret society, pray?
A. By no means. Its promoters desire nothing more earnestly than that its objects, aims, and modes of working should be known as generally as possible.

Q. 3. What is its first object?
A. The attainment of a sound doctrinal agreement, and a public affirmation to that effect.

Q. 4. How is this carried out?
A. By the solemn acceptance and profession of a common Catholic Rule of Faith, plain, clear, and easily understood. This has been publicly announced in the Pastoral lately issued, and printed in the first number of its Magazine.

Q. 5. What is its next object?
A. To supply the defect consequent upon the lapse of actual spiritual jurisdiction in the Church of England.

Q. 6. What do you mean by a lapse of actual spiritual jurisdiction?
A. I mean that the Bishops, by submitting to the enactment and operation of the Public Worship Regulation Act, have let the powers intrusted to them as rulers of the Church, pass out of their own hands, into those of a layman. As this is quite inconsistent with the divine constitution of the Church, inasmuch as it was to the Apostles and their Successors only that Christ gave the power of ruling the Church; therefore there is now no spiritual authority in the Church of England which is in harmony with Christ’s institution.

Q. 7. How, then, can the Order supply this defect?
A. By obtaining the help of men who have received Episcopal Orders; and who will be obeyed by the members in purely spiritual matters, which are now left unheeded by the Diocesan Bishops.

Q. 8. But surely, such a course must be unlawful?
A. Not at all. For there is no law to prevent any layman or Clergyman who is a member of the Church of England from being ordained or consecrated abroad. Then supposing a person so consecrated, there is no law to prevent him from returning to England. In fact this kind of thing is constantly being done in connection with Colonial Churches.

Q. 9. But how can any Bishops, so consecrated, have authority to act in England?
A. In the first place, these Bishops make no claim to any temporal or civil recognition or authority whatever. Secondly, they are pledged not to originate a secession or schism from the Established Church. Thirdly, they only receive the obedience of those who are willing to have recourse to them; and after all, this is the real foundation of all spiritual authority. Fourthly, they will not perform their functions in the public Churches of the Establishment. Lastly, they will only administer those rites, and perform those functions, which, though of divine institution, and immemorial usage in the Catholic Church, the Diocesan Bishops of England refuse to administer or perform.

Q. 10. To what functions or rites do you refer?
A. Such as the Consecration of Chrism; its application in Confirmation; the Consecration of Oil for Unction of the Sick, and others of that nature.

Q. 11. But is not the interference of such Bishops entirely unheard of in the Church? As is not the whole scheme contemplated by such a society of volunteers equally strange and novel?
A. Not at all. Besides the Diocesan Bishops, there are many others now in England, such as the Suffragan and Colonial Bishops, who discharge Episcopal functions. Our Bishops will only do much as they do. Again, such Societies as the Church Association and the Church Missionary Society, voluntarily take upon themselves many of the functions which properly belong to Bishops. And the Society of the Holy Cross provides a supply of Oil for the Unction of the Sick.

Q. 12. Are these the only reasons you can give for the institution of your Order?
A. By no means. One of the most important objects we have in view, is to remedy the evils which spring from the careless way in which Baptism has for a long time been, and still is, administered.

Q. 13. I do not understand what you are talking of?
A. Many persons are, beyond all doubt, actually unbaptized without being aware of the fact. A very common custom used to be prevalent, of administering this Sacrament to as many as a dozen children at once, by merely tinging the moistened hand once in the direction in which they were, held in their nurses’ arms, while the words appointed were said once, in the plural.

Q. 14. You don’t mean to tell me that this is true?
A. I believe it is perfectly true. I have no doubt about it. I have seen and spoken to persons who have witnessed it. Many persons living have done so.

Q. 15. But if this be so, how are you to know who has been rightly baptized, and who has not?
A. That is the very point. Of course we cannot know. The only thing we do know is, that shameful carelessness and neglect have been very common.

Q. 16. How, then, do you propose to remedy the evil?
A. The only safe and certain remedy is, for all persons to be baptized in the conditional form, unless they can prove, by the clearest evidence, that they have been properly baptized. This is the rule followed in the Roman Church. And plain common-sense shows that it is the only safe one.

Q. 17. But cannot our present Bishops do all this?
A. Certainly they can. But it is equally certain that they don’t. But that is not all. Suppose that the Bishops themselves, or some of them, have been among those thus imperfectly baptized; we have to consider what would follow upon such a state of things.

Q. 18. I see what you mean: and should be glad to know how you propose to meet this difficulty.
À. This is, in fact, the chief reason which has compelled us to seek for the consecration of independent Bishops. For the great probability which exists that some of the Bishops may never have received valid Baptism, throws a doubt over the reality of their possession of a true Episcopal character.

Q. 19. Then do you mean to say that our Bishops are not true Bishops?
A. They are certainly Bishops in the eye of the law of the land. This law does not clearly lay down the requirements of valid Baptism. This is peculiarly one of those spiritual things which the Church alone is competent to deal with. But it is a fact that no ancient Episcopal Churches recognize the English Bishops as such; and from what I have said it is almost, if not quite, impossible to prove that during the past hundred years, Baptism has been so administered as to ensure a proper application of water to the persons. And thus many of those who have afterwards become Bishops may have been actually unbaptized. Therefore, as among other things, we desire to promote the Corporate Reunion of Churches, so we are compelled to do what we can to remedy this defect.

Q. 20. I should like to know what you propose to do in this case?
A. I think I have told you enough to show you how we are prepared to meet all these difficulties. For, as we make sure of the valid Baptism of every member of our Order, and impose no conditions upon any persons inconsistent with their duties as members of the Established Church; it is clear that we remove all doubts on this head. And then, as we have amongst us Bishops of undoubtedly valid Consecration, who are ready in every case to supply all possible defects of Ordination, we have nothing wanting to enable was to put an end to all the uncertainty which is so sad and so discreditable.

Q. 21. I must confess that what you propose is reasonable enough, and yet many persons express very strong objection against the plans of your Society.
A. I am quite aware of it. There is an amount of hostility already manifest for which I am unable to account. Still, looking at the way in which it is expressed, and the quarter from whence it proceeds, I can only say that it convinces me only the more fully of the great need there is for the work we have taken in hand.

Q. 22. Perhaps there is some objection to the persons who are engaged in promoting it?
A. If there were, what has that to do with the main question? I take it that the first thing to be considered is, whether the facts are as we affirm them to be. Then, whether the mode in which we propose to deal with them is lawful and efficient.

Q. 23. Are the facts denied?
A. Not that I know of. One thing I am sure of: they are true, whether denied or admitted. And, being true, there is an obvious necessity for something to be done.

Q. 24. Granting the facts, is there no other way of dealing with them?
A. That is a fair question. But the facts should first be well looked in the face. This has not yet been done. Then if any other persons have a better plan to propose under the circumstances we shall be glad to listen to them. But, as the facts are simply ignored, of course no one troubles himself about remedies.

Q. 25. I don’t suppose the public at large will care to enter upon the subject. I have in most places heard your Society spoken of as a band of crazy fanatics. But in any case, you have said enough to convince me that there is something calling for serious consideration, and 1 should like to know more about the matter.
A. We shall do all we can to give every information. Inquiry must lead to good; and, sooner or later, the very existence of our Order must lead to inquiry. The more we have tried to ascertain the truth, the more clearly we have found that it is as I have stated One thing further I have to say about the persons who have undertaken this work. Their names cannot add to, nor diminish from, the force of the arguments for or against the principles of the Order. We have nothing to do with persons as such. We avoid all political disputes. We see a grave need in the circumstances of the time. We have long looked for some definite and certain guidance from acknowledged leaders. Their counsel is, in effect “Do nothing. Whatever occurs still do nothing.” We cannot concur in this counsel. As none others are forthcoming, we have been compelled to act for ourselves. Wealth, and talent and position would powerfully assist in furthering such a work as ours when once started. But we must not wait for these. We see the Church. in danger and necessity; and, since none others will come forward to grapple with the evils which are clearly seen by us, we have, in all humility and patience, taken those steps which alone seem calculated to remove them. In doing this we have consulted in the first place our own necessities and consciences; at the same time we are able and willing to help others who may seek our aid. But we shall be perfectly contented to go on our way by ourselves in patience and obscurity, interfering with no one, and seeking only to give a good account to Him Whom we love and serve.

The Order of Corporate Reunion Briefly Discussed in Twenty-Five Questions and Answers.
London: David Nutt, 1877.

Priestly Concelebration at the Altar, by H. Boone Porter, Jr. (1973)

New York: The Anglican Society, for distribution at the General Convention, 1973.

Like so many other expressions, the term “eucharistic concelebration” is open to differences of interpretation. In a sense, everyone participating in Holy Communion is concelebrating the Eucharist. The term is more often used, however, to describe priests who are joining together in the service specifically as priests, performing together the sacramental actions at one altar. This latter, narrower sense is the subject of the present discussion. Nonetheless, the general, broader sense of the phrase cannot be ignored if we are to understand the principles involved.

We are all accustomed to any number of lay persons worshipping together in unison. Similarly, certain special lay persons may discharge special responsibilities together. A dozen or more singers sing together in the choir. Two or three men or boys may be acting as servers or acolytes. Several men may be ushers. Several persons, men, women, or children, may bring forward the alms and oblations. In the Liturgy of the Lord’s Supper which is presently undergoing trial use, there may be two or even three lay readers functioning at one service (Old Testament lector, epistoller, and litanist). Few parishes are fortunate enough to have more than one deacon, but two or more deacons certainly can function in one service since, beside the reading of the Gospel, diaconal duties properly include leading the intercessions, arranging the elements on the altar at the offertory, distributing Holy Communion, performing the ablutions, and, when necessary, carrying the sacrament to the sick. In the liturgy now being tried, the Summary of the Law, the Invitation to the General Confession, and the Dismissal may also be assigned to a deacon. On occasion a deacon may preach. Several deacons could be kept busy, particularly if there were many communicants. In short, there is nothing incongruous or surprising in having several ministers of the same rank or order share together their liturgical duties.

The Role of Additional Priests

By the same token, several priests can be included in one service. The old way to do this—normal Anglican usage of the past few decades—was to have an assisting priest read the Epistle and administer the chalice. If there were two assistant clergy, one read the Epistle and the other the Gospel. The rest of the time they simply knelt (or stood) at the sides of the sanctuary. All of this was good as far as it went, but if lay persons are trained to read the Epistle, they should not be displaced every time a visiting priest happens to appear. After all, the priest could be assigned some other part to read; the layman couldn’t. If, furthermore, the Epistle and Gospel are read with dignity from the lectern and pulpit, or from the chancel step, the old positions of the epistoller and gospeller at each end of the altar require some new justification. We are today rediscovering the integrity of the Ministry of the Word. During this first half of the Eucharist, the principal priest is primarily to preside and, like everyone else, to hear the Word of God in a framework of praise and prayer. An additional priest would, in the absence of a deacon, read the Gospel, and he might preach. Other additional priests, like other worshippers, are there to honor God by listening. They should be standing or sitting at their scats or sedilia, not standing or kneeling at the altar, for the Ministry of the Word.

In the more specific sense, sacerdotal concelebration really begins at the offertory. In the recent past, an assisting priest usually did nothing at the offertory, since the preparation of the bread and wine was considered an unimportant detail of housekeeping which the congregation should not notice. Today we want it to be conspicuous—as indeed the Anglican Society has long urged that it should be. An additional priest or two make it easy to accentuate the offertory. This is especially true in a large church, or on a special occasion, when several patens and chalices are to be used. Two or three priests, with the deacons (if any), can meet the oblation-bearers in the chancel and, while facing the people, fill the patens and pour the wine and water into the chalices. The priests can then go to the altar and present in unison the vessels they arc holding, as also the alms.

They can then remain right there, standing about the chief celebrant, during the prayer of consecration. When there is a free-standing altar, it looks very well to have a semi-circle of ministers back of it, thus completing the circle of Cod’s people around His holy table. Opinions differ as to whether the priests should recite all, or parts of, the prayer of consecration in unison aloud, or in an undertone, or whether different ones should say different parts of it. Theologically, all or any of these are valid options. Many of us, however, will prefer the indubitably older practice of having the additional “fellow-presbyters” simply stand in silence beside the chief celebrant. Their position gives visible evidence of there “priestly intention” of supporting and endorsing his words. If there are several vessels, concelebrants can help fulfill the rubrical requirements of putting hands on chalices, etc. During the Invocation, all the priests may appropriately make the sign of the cross in unison towards all of the elements. (When facing the people, priests should remember to make one large, deliberate, and dignified sign of the cross, not the jerky wiggling of the hand which was formerly too much in fashion.)

In the ancient Roman rite, a distinctive role of the concelebrants was the breaking up of the consecrated bread. In the Liturgy of the Lord’s Supper, with the fraction restored as a distinct section of the rite, this practice  may be conveniently restored, as is suggested in the long rubric regarding the ministers at the beginning of the text. Without entering here into the complicated question of whether “real bread” should be restored at the altar, it is always simple enough to have several large wafers on the paten so that there will be adequate material for several priests to be visibly engaged in breaking for some seconds. If the majority of the congregation are really to see it, the fraction must go on for more than a moment. It is better to extend the time by breaking more hosts, rather than by confusing one’s self and others with the exotic gestures of an elaborate commixture.

All the clergy can conveniently communicate standing together about the altar, passing the vessels from one to another. If there are many concelebrants, they may distribute Communion to the people while the chief celebrant remains at the altar, or withdraws to his seat. Afterwards, one or two of the priests (if there be no deacons) can take the vessels to the credence table, or a side altar, or the sacristy and perform the ablutions, while the rest continue with the Post-communion and conclude the liturgy.

In short, concelebrating priests participate in the Ministry of the Word basically like everyone else, by joining in the’ prayers and chants and by listening to the Word of God. If there is no deacon, one of the priests will read the Gospel, and one of them or the chief celebrant, will preach. In the second half of the rite, they will have a visible role at the altar in taking, giving thanks, breaking, and receiving. With good planning, it is possible for the participation of added priests to give dramatic emphasis to the main actions of the rite, and they can do so without crowding out deacons, lay readers, or others who should also retain their proper share in the total liturgy. It will be noted that if the Liturgy of the Lord’s Supper is performed in strict conformity to the preliminary rubric regarding ministers, there may be two lay lectors (O.T. and Epistle), one or more deacons (Gospel, intercessions, offertory, etc.), several concelebrating priests, and a senior’ priest or (better still) a bishop as chief celebrant and president of the liturgical assembly.

Variations on Special Occasions

Within this basic traditional pattern, a good deal of flexibility is possible. I recently participated in a concelebration of the Liturgy of the Lord’s Supper at a large conference in which it was desired that two bishops should have a part. For the Ministry of the Word, both bishops sat side by side in their chairs (with several priests to the right and left of them), but the suffragan presided, reciting the Collect for the Day, etc. For the Ministry of the Sacrament, both stood side by side at the altar (with the priests still on either side of them), but the diocesan presided, reciting the sursum corda, preface, and remainder of the canon. This arrangement was convenient and gave clear expression to the unity of the episcopate and the close association of the episcopate with the presbyterate. 

At a conference in another diocese, the bishop sat in his chair in the chancel, but did not wish to preach or lead the prayers. Accordingly, one of the priests did so. The bishop’s presidency over the first half of the rite was dramatically expressed, however, at the Greeting of Peace. Each of the priests and deacons in the chancel came up individually to be greeted by the bishop, and then they passed the Peace to the other worshippers. The bishop’s presidency over the second half of the rite was expressed after the Lord’s Prayer, when he came up to the altar and began the breaking of the consecrated bread.

At the last Annual Meeting of the Anglican Society, half a dozen priests concelebrated together. One of the concelebrants read the Gospel and preached; another led the intercessions; and others helped at the offertory, etc., thus distributing the diaconal duties among the priests in a very convenient fashion.

I would suggest that at the ordination of a priest or bishop, the newly ordained, after joining the chief celebrant in the fraction, might appropriately be the one to invite the communicants with the words “Holy things for the People of God”. Similarly, when a bishop is ordained, he can give his blessing at the end. The circle of priests, or bishops, who lay on hands in these ordinations should of course remain as the circle of concelebrants in the Eucharist.

Our present Prayer Book allows a much smaller role to deacons and lay lectors and, as often pointed out, it tends to be a priestly monologue. With the Prayer Book rite it is, therefore, especially desirable to divide the priestly prayers between different concelebrants, even if the principal prayers are all left to the chief celebrant. Thus one may read the Prayer for the Whole State of Christ’s Church, another the Prayer of Humble Access, another the Post-communion Thanksgiving, etc. This has, of course, often been done.

When Should Concelebrations Take Place

It is evident that the foregoing suggestions and comments are chiefly directed toward special occasions when many people are involved in the liturgy, as at ordinations, conferences, conventions, etc. There are also some places, such as monasteries, cathedrals, and seminaries, where several clergy are normally present, and some degree of concelebration may be desirable either as the regular routine, or at least on certain days. Among our seminaries, Nashotah House has found a daily concelebration to be of value, as has also the Order of the Holy Cross.

No one, so far as I know, proposes that the average parish should have a concelebrated service as its normal usage. Yet there are special times when such an arrangement may meet a genuine need. There may be a visiting missionary preacher from another branch of the Anglican Communion who is not sufficiently familiar with our American liturgy to celebrate alone. Or an aged or infirm priest may welcome the chance to have some place in the sanctuary on the great feasts of the year.

Since the Parson’s Handbook, by C. E. Pocknee (1973)

New York: The Anglican Society, for distribution at the General Convention, 1973.

That we now have something like a recognizable Anglican Use, particularly in our cathedrals and larger churches, is due in no small measure to the late Percy Dearmer, the author of The Parson’s Handbook and the general editor of The English Hymnal. Dr Dearmer belonged to a generation which produced a galaxy of scholars who were also deeply devoted dhurchmen. With Dearmer were Walter Howard Frere, Charles Gore, W. H. St John Hope, J. Wickham Legg, Francis Deles, and Jocelyn Perkins; later there came A. S. Duncan-Jones and J. H. Arnold. All these were members of the Alcuin Club, founded in 1899 to promote loyalty to, and the study of, the Book of Common Prayer. It was the merit and achievement of The Parson’s Handbook that it collated and brought together all the researches of scholars, notably those of the associates of Dearmer, such as W. H. Frere and J. H. Wickham Legg, and made them available to the ordinary parish priest who had not the time and inclination to delve into the researches that were required. The book was in fact an haute vulgarisation of the works that had been published during the previous thirty years. Dearmer’s book was first published in April 1899, and 1903 an enlarged edition appeared, which was to remain substantially unaltered in the twelfth edition Which appeared in 1932. The seventh impression of that edition appeared in 1957.

The founder members of the Alcuin Club took as their watchword loyalty to the Book of Common Prayer and to the Church of England, Catholic and Reformed. They believed the English Prayer Book to have Catholic rites and ceremonies which did not require to be supplemented by additions and borrowings from the Roman Missal. One of the first publications of the Alcuin Club was J. T. Micklethwaite’s Ornaments of the Rubric, which gave in great detail all the ornaments and ceremonial adjuncts that could legally be used with the Book of Common Prayer. Micklethwaite’s investigations were based on the supposition that the Ornaments Rubric, which first appeared in the Elizabethan Prayer Book of 1559, and which we quote herewith: And here it is to be noted that such ornaments of the church, and of the ministries thereof, al all times of their ministration, shall be retained and be in use as were in this Church of England, by the authority of Parliament, in the second year of the reign of King Edward the Sixth, laid down a precise date, namely the second year of Edward the Sixth (28 January 1548 to 27 January 1549), at which all the ornaments and appointments of the Church of England were determined. Readers of Micklethwaite’s work were surprised to learn how much  pre-Reformation ceremonial had been retained by the Church of England. In effect the writer argued that anything that had not been expressly repudiated or forbidden by the Church was still permissible.

It was inevitable that the founders of the Alcuin Club, and popularization of its researches in Dearmer’s handbook, should look back to pre-Reformation usage in this country since the first English Prayer Book had evolved from the pre-Reformation rites. These rites were exemplified in the service books of the illustrious cathedral church of Salisbury, whose ceremonial customs and service books had for several decades before 1549 been increasingly adopted throughout the Whole of the Province of Canterbury. This was the celebrated Sarum Use, whose customary was edited and published in a printed text in 1898 by W. H. Frere. Dr Dearmer and his associates were inclined to suppose that the Sarum Use was something peculiarly English and insular; and they sometimes used this argument against the post-Tridentine ceremonial Which the later Anglo- Catholic movement was introducing into some of our parish churches under the epithet of the “full Western Use.” We now realize that there is nothing peculiar to the Provinces of Canterbury and York in the Sarum Use. A study of the rites in use in France, the Low Countries, and Germany in the last part of the Middle Ages will reveal much that has strong affinities with medieval Salisbury. We may say that the Sarum Use represents the trend of liturgical practice throughout Northern Europe in the late Middle Ages. Thus apparelled albs and full surplices were in use- everywhere, even in Italy. We may also point out that there is nothing peculiarly insular about an altar surrounded by four posts and enshrined by curtains. The term “English Altar” was not used by Dearmer, although he rightly claimed that this type of altar was particularly suited to the east end of the English parish church with its low window. In fairness to the writer of The Parson’s Handbook, a careful reading will show that the author does not propose to restore all the complicated ceremonial of the Sarum rite, but rather a modified and adapted form that would fit the Book of Common Prayer, which has become known as the “English Use”. Thus Dearmer and his associates were opposed to the reintroduction of the late medieval ceremony of the Elevation of the Host with its accompanying bell-ringings, censings, and genuflexions, which the rubrics of the 1549 Book had forbidden. Nearly fifty years after Dearmer had dealt with this matter it was to occupy the increasing attention of Roman Catholic scholars such as Jungmann and Parsch. The latter was to write, much more forcibly than the former Vicar of St Mary’s, Primrose Hill: “It cannot be denied, however, that by this elevation and the accompanying adoration of the sacred Species, an alien element was brought into the Mass, which had the effect of beclouding the true significance of the Holy Sacrifice. The Mass came to be less and ‘less appreciated as the sacrifice of Christ. Instead, a movement arose in which the adoration of the Eucharist was greatly developed, and thereby the spiritual energies of the faithful were, in the course of centuries, turned away from the sacrifice itself.’”

Indeed, it is one of the ironies of the situation that many of the things which were advocated in The Parson’s Handbookhave now come to be accepted by the liturgical movement within the Roman Catholic Church to-day, and they can no longer be dismissed as “British Museum” or “Dearmerism”. The active participation of the laity in a Mass that is completely audible, such are the aims of the reforms that are now taking place in the Roman rite.

The whole trend of Sunday morning worship as manifested to-day in the Parish Eucharist had been foreshadowed by John Wordsworth in the Ministry of Grace (1901), and by W. H. Frere in Some Principles of Liturgical Reform. Both writers had advocated a return to the old canonical hour of 9 a.m. for the chief act of Sunday morning worship. Charles Gore, Percy Dearmer, and Walter Frere were all opposed to the late High Mass with few or no communicants that had been introduced by the Anglo-Catholic movement into the Church of England. Gore in The Body of Christ (1901) had stigmatized the custom as “a seriously defective theology”. In our own day Rome is just as concerned to discourage non-communicating attendance at Mass; and we now have the spectacle of large numbers of communicants at High Mass on Sundays at the Roman Catholic cathedral at Westminster.

In the Church of England a considerable impetus to the reform of Sunday morning worship was given in 1935 by the publication of Liturgy and Society by Father A. G. Hebert, S.S.M., and two years later of the same writer’s The Parish Communion. In both books there is an examination of the relation between the sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of his Church in the Holy Eucharist. The excessive individualism which had characterized western religious devotion and thought, both Catholic and Protestant, since the Middle Ages was subjected to a critical scrutiny and contrasted with the corporate doctrine of the Eucharist as exemplified in the primitive Church in the writings of the New Testament and of the Fathers. The matter has been further underlined since the close of the Second World War by the increasing desire for reunion on the part of all Who profess and call themselves Christians. The nature of the Church as the Body of Christ and the relations between clergy and laity have taken on a new complexion. Indeed, the whole idea of  church membership has been raised by the debate which the Baptismal Reform Movement has started in the Church of England in regard to nominal church membership through infant Baptism. The word “laity” now means the laos, the people of God, and not merely those people who are not in Holy Orders.

No survey of the changes that have come about in liturgical belief, and practice during the last half-century can ignore the work of the Anglican Benedictine, the late Dom Gregory Dix, who, in The Shape of the Liturgy (1945), published a large volume which raises many questions but does not always supply the right answers. It is an uneven work, some of which is based on the writer’s brilliant intuitions (some of which proved to be true), rather than upon factual evidence. Indeed, it is one of the chief weaknesses of the book that it is often unsupported by factual evidence in the arguments that it presents. As a work of precise scholarship it cannot stand alongside that of the Austrian Jesuit, Father Joseph Jungmann, who in the two volumes of Missarum Sollemnia, translated into English under the title, The Mass of the Roman Rite, has placed the whole of western Christendom in his debt. The chief merit of Dom Gregory Dix’s book lies not in his unravelling of the complexities of liturgical history, a task for which he was not fully equipped, but rather in his insistence that we should look back to the pre-Nicene era to the eschatological element in eucharistic worship rather than to the historical element that came to the fore from the end of the fourth century. Here Dix was on much surer ground in claiming that the Eucharist not only looks back to the upper room but also forward to the last things, as all the historic liturgies, almost without exception, insist that we celebrate the Eucharist “until his coming again”. There is in the Holy Sacrament of the altar a realized eschatology.

It is not, therefore, a new ceremonial that has to be devised or even a revision of the liturgy that is paramount, but rather a change of emphasis in eucharistic worship. Much of the argument between Catholic and Protestant about the nature of the eucharistic sacrifice is outmoded and meaningless; and for this fact we must indeed be thankful since the way is now open for the recovery of unity at the Lord’s Table. While the primitive era is exercising a great fascination on the liturgical scholars of our time, we must beware of a kind of antiquarian “primitivism”. This kind of thing would be as false as the appeal to the Middle Ages which Characterized much Which the Oxford Movement introduced in its later stages. We cannot ignore nearly twenty centuries of church life. Nor would it be true to imply that all forms of liturgical development since the primitive era have  been unfruitful and completely corrupt. Such an idea has dogged the steps of reformers and sectarians from the Middle Ages onwards. The Holy Ghost has not left himself without a witness in all ages. The latitudinarianism of the eighteenth century can be offset with the hymns of Charles Wesley, and William Law’s A serious Call to a devout and Holy Life.

We must now turn to another aspect of the work of Dr. Dearmer and his associates. Dearmer, Gore, and others were strongly imbued with a sense of social righteousness and justice. They perceived that the Church could not preach the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man if some sections of the community were under privileged as well as sweated and underpaid; and at the turn of this century there were many who were in that state. Moreover, some of the things turned out under these conditions were cheap, shoddy, and worthless. This applied to some of the ornaments and furnishings that were being supplied to our churches. Such things were often badly designed, uninspired, and badly produced. They were an offence against God and man. Craftsmanship there certainly was, but it was being subordinated to commercialism and exploitation. Our churches were being filled with appalling stained glass and equally appalling brass fittings and ornaments. Dearmer and his associates founded the Warham Guild to show how even simple things could be well made and designed; and also to pay those who made and produced such things, craftsmen, embroiderers, and seamstresses, adequate and proper compensation for their labours. It was little use the preacher in the pulpit urging social righteousness if the surplice that he wore proclaimed the sweating of those who made such things and cheapness of production as the primary consideration in the ornaments of the church. During the past half century there has been a vast improvement in such matters in regard to the ornaments and furnishings that have been put into our churches, although not all church furnishers have caught up with the vastly increased knowledge that has affected both design and production.

One of Dr. Dearmer’s associates was the late Francis Eeles. He was particularly concerned with the amateurish manner in which our parish churches and cathedrals were being maintained. Considerable damage was being done both in repairs to the structure as well as in the custody of the medieval and renaissance fittings that were to be found in many of them. It was largely through the labours of Dr Eeles that much of this amateurish approach to the care of our churches has ceased. He became the first secretary of the Central Council for the Care of Churches, with an advisory committee for each diocese, to which all alterations and proposals for new ornaments and fittings in a parish church must be submitted for recommendation. Under the faculties Measure, 1938, the chancellor of the diocese must authorize by licence or faculty any structural alterations as well as new furniture and ornaments. While the chancellor is not obliged to concur with the opinions expressed by the diocesan advisory committee, he usually takes note of their recommendations and opinions as the committee is authorized by the diocesan bishop to advise both the incumbent and his parochial church council as well as the chancellor. But it should be underlined that the final decision regarding the granting of a faculty lies with the chancellor.

On the whole, the system has worked well and it has prevented the wrong kind of structural repairs to many of our historic churches, and has rejected unsuitable, badly designed, and unfunctional ornaments and furniture. But there are some serious anomalies in the system which call for urgent consideration. Not all diocesan advisory committees possess the same degree of liturgical and ecclesiological knowledge; and in some instances known to us bad designs and unfunctional fittings have been passed by an advisory committee. Moreover, amongst diocesan chancellors there is sometimes a conflict of opinion as to what may legally be placed in a parish church. In one diocese an inscription asking for prayers for the departed may be passed by the chancellor and in another diocese it will be refused. One chancellor will grant a faculty for a ciborium over the altar, while in the adjoining diocese such an ornament will be refused. Also, there is the serious criticism that cathedrals and collegiate churches are not subject to faculties and they are, therefore, free to introduce any ornament or alteration which the dean and chapter choose to make, while in the same diocese a parish church will be refused the same things. It is true there is a Cathedrals’ Advisory Committee, but no cathedral chapter is obliged to consult it, and in practice some do not. The supposition that cathedral and collegiate chapters possess an omniscience and omnicompetence in matters liturgical and ecclesiological is not true and is disproven by the conduct of some of our cathedral services. If incumbents and their parochial church councils are to be subject to diocesan advisory committees and faculty law, so also must our greater churches, since one of the new canons approved by the Convocations of Canterbury and York says the cathedral church is the mother church of the diocese and in matters liturgical should be the exemplar to the diocese. Cathedral dignitaries must be subject to the same discipline and order of Canon Law as the incumbent and his people in the smallest country parish in the diocese. This is a matter that calls for urgent reform.

The Parson’s Handbook assumed loyalty and obedience to the  Church of England and the authority and teaching of the Book of Common Prayer. Here we are at one with Dearmer, Gore, and Frere. But such loyalty did not prevent them from urging the need for changes in the rites of the Prayer Book, provided these changes were approved by the Convocations of Canterbury and York. This problem still remains with us. It is now fashionable to talk of liturgical experiment to meet the pastoral situation. We do not regard the 1662 Prayer Book as a fifth Gospel and incapable of improvement and revision. But we are opposed to the idea that the parson can make up his own services and substitute them for the authorized rites of the Church of England. Such an idea is contrary to Church Order and the whole conception of corporate authority as recognized in every part of Catholic and historic Christendom. We gladly recognize that in the Missal, Pontifical, and the older Sacramentaries of the Roman rite, as well as in the rites of eastern Christendom, there are treasures which could enrich and supplement our existing Prayer Book liturgy. But such things must be introduced by proper and constitutional authority. It is a serious breach of discipline for a priest or bishop to substitute the rite of another part of the Church for that officially authorized by the Church of England and the Churches of the Anglican Communion.

We also agree with the words of the report of the Lambeth Conference of 1958: “When in the past there has been discussion on the place of the Book of Common Prayer in the life of the Anglican Communion, the underlying assumption, and often declared principle, has been that the Prayer Book of 1662 should remain as the basic pattern, and indeed, as a bond of unity in doctrine and in worship for our Communion as a whole. . .. Yet it now seems clear that no Prayer Book, not even that of 1662, can be kept unchanged forever, as a safeguard of established doctrine.” Mr. Wigan’s recently published book, The Liturgy in English, shows conclusively that the other Churches of the Anglican Communion have moved a considerable way from 1662, and W. J. Grisbrooke, in Anglican Liturgies of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, has shown that there never was an uncritical acceptance of the 1662 Book on the part of Anglican scholarship before the Oxford Movement. The supposition that it was the Catholic revival of the nineteenth century which caused discontent with the liturgy of 1662 is an entirely erroneous one. Wherever the Churches of the Anglican Communion have been freed from Parliamentary interference and control there has been a reversion to the type of liturgy exemplified in the First English Prayer Book of 1549, beginning with the Scottish Liturgy of 1637, through the American Book of 1789, and finding its most recent expression in the liturgies of the Canadian Church in 1959 and that of the Province of the West Indies of the same year. The further suggestion of the 1958 Lambeth Conference was that the time had come to consider one liturgy for the whole Anglican Communion. In the light of the facts set out above we may assume that such a liturgy is most unlikely to be that of 1662. Liturgies, such as that now in use in the Church of South India, also indicate the same pattern of liturgical worship. If the price the Provinces of Canterbury and York have to pay for the revision of the English liturgy is disestablishment, then they should be prepared to pay that price. The age has long gone by when men could be compelled to pray by act of Parliament. There must be freedom for the Church of England to order and revise her liturgy in accordance with the teaching of the Holy Scriptures and that of the undivided Church. Ecclesia Anglicana libera sit!

The Three Sacred Ministers: An Outmoded Concept? by H. Boone Porter, Jr. (1973)

New York: The Anglican Society, for distribution at the General Convention, 1973.

Ever since medieval times, a typical practice of Western Christendom has been the employment of three sacred ministers to mark the solemn celebration of the Holy Eucharist. Referred to as priest, deacon, and subdeacon, or as celebrant, gospeller, and epistoler, these three hieratic figures have long been characteristic of Western worship at its best.

They have graven deep furrows in our religious thought and practice. In medieval theology, as represented by St. Thomas and other writers, the three sacred orders of the ministry are no longer defined (as in antiquity) as bishop, priest, and deacon. Instead, they were defined, in accord with contemporary medieval liturgical usage, as priest, deacon, and subdeacon. (See Summa Theologica, Quest. 37, Articles 2 & 3, Supplement). Such has continued to be the normal Roman teaching until recent years. In architecture, the long gothic Chancel, with its distant view of the sanctuary at the end, was perfectly suited to display the altar with three symmetrically placed figures before it. In order to make the subdeacon match the deacon, the tunicle was invented to clothe him. Our altars are still customarily raised on three steps, one for each order to stand on; and traditional sedilia provide three seats for them to sit in.

During the late medieval, renaissance, and modern period, the liturgy has been attenuated by the individualistic outlook common to laity and clergy alike. During these long centuries, the customary usage of three sacred ministers at a solemn celebration has been a most valuable witness, maintaining some awareness of the properly corporate and collegial character of liturgical action. Today, however, the Church is ready for a much deeper and broader understanding of corporate liturgical worship. The arbitrary restriction to three ministers is a limitation that is now very difficult to defend. There are repeated occasions when two, or four, or six, or seven ministers would better suit the circumstances.

WHAT IS THE TRADITIONAL NORM?

How much historical authority does lie behind the threefold stereotype? First of all, it does not go back to the earliest periods of Catholic worship. In the age of Hippolytus, Augustine, Chrysostom, or Basil, a solemn celebration was led by a bishop, concelebrating with several priests (or “fellow presbyters ). They were assisted by° as many deacons, who were helped by as many subdeacons as might be on hand, and there were as many readers and cantors as were necessary to read the lessons and lead the chants appointed for the day. 

Secondly, even in the late medieval and modern latin rite, the most solemn enactments of the mass are still based on that pre-medieval pattern. In the fullest forms of the pontifical mass, the officiating bishop is assisted by several priests, several deacons and subdeacons, and several taper-bearers. Such a practice survived down to modern times in certain European cathedrals on Maundy Thursday and a few other great feasts. (A. A. King, in Liturgies of the Primatial Sees, London & New York, 1957, discusses this practice in connection with the Cathedral of Lyons, where it still continues. In Liturgy of the Roman Church, London & New York, 1957, the same author describes the papal solemn mass). The present Vatican Council, in its admirable Constitution on the Liturgy, rightly recalls attention to the central and plenary character of the episcopal celebration.

Therefore all should hold in great esteem the liturgical life of the diocese centered around the bishop, especially in his cathedral church; they must be convinced that the preeminent manifestation of the Church consists in the full active participation of all God’s holy people in these liturgical celebrations … at which there presides the bishop surrounded by his presbytery and by his ministers. (IV, 41).

Thirdly, it may be pointed out that while the medieval rite was still a living thing, it did not permit itself to be hamstrung by the threefold scheme of sacred ministers. In the small parish, where there was no deacon or assistant priest, the parish clerk could still chant the Epistle on Sundays and feasts, and the priest himself could come down to the lectern to chant the Gospel. (See C. Atchley, The Parish Clerk, and his Right to Read the Liturgical Epistle, Alcuin Club Tracts IV, 1903, 1924).

Fourthly, the threefold scheme has never been universal, for it is unknown to the Eastern Churches. In normal Orthodox usage, as many priests as are present concelebrate together: priests never masquerade as deacons or subdeacons. When deacons are present, they perform their proper duties, irrespective of whether one or several priests are officiating. So too do subdeacons where members of this ancient rank are on hand. In most Orthodox communities, the Epistle is taken by a reader who simply steps out of the congregation in lay clothes. In short, the limiting of sacred ministers to a priest, a deacon, and a subdeacon has no universal or comprehensive claim.

THE PRESENT PROBLEM

Granting that the threefold scheme has had no monopoly on the arrangement of solemn worship in the past, what are the objections to it in the present or future?

First, it may be pointed out that if the Eucharist is to be celebrated and the three available ministers are in fact a priest, a deacon, and a subdeacon, then the customary Western pattern is an excellent arrangement. In fact, however, this very rarely happens. Apart from the Armenians and certain other smaller Eastern groups, the subdiaconate scarcely exists anywhere today. Within the Anglican Communion, it is now normally conferred only within the Province of South Africa. The use of priests to fulfill all three roles puts the whole rite on an artificial and misleading basis. If ill-tom ei\ ed liturgical usage could confuse so great a theologian as Aquinas, it can certainly confuse the average lay person. Ceremonial and \esture ought to clarify, rather than obscure, what is happening.

On occasions when more than three clergy are present, the arbitrary concentration on three “sacred” ministers unnecessarily relegates the others to the side-lines. The use of ordained clergy for epistolers, furthermore, is very questionable. It may have been necessary in ages when the laity were illiterate, but today any congregation ought to have one or more competent lectors, and they ought normally to be able to perform their office without having to put on an elaborate costume which makes them look like ordained clergy in the eyes of the congregation.

Particularly regrettable is the still widespread assumption that the two assisting ministers can only function at a fully choral celebration. This view is still being implanted in younger clergy by the customs still followed in certain seminary chapels. Unfortunately, many congregations are not familiar with an elaborate choral rite, and they will only become familiar if it is introduced to them by degrees in a flexible manner. The rigid, authoritarian, “all or nothing” approach is no longer tenable—if indeed it ever was.

One young curate recently told me, with obvious bitterness, that during the entire period of his diaconate the rector under whom he served had never once permitted him to read the Gospel, prepare the elements at the offertory, or perform the ablutions. Then three days after he had been advanced to the priesthood, a solemn mass was performed in the parish and for the first time he was assigned to be “deacon”!

It is evident that the celebration of the Holy Mysteries, by a priest, deacon, and subdeacon represents simply one of many ways of arranging a group of clergy. In America at the present time, it is not normally the most reasonable or useful way. Practical convenience, pastoral sensitivity, and the theology of holy orders all require a more flexible and more realistic manner of deploying clergy and lay assistants in the liturgy. In the subsequent section of this essay, we will consider how this can be done. 

Part II

In the previous section, we briefly surveyed the history of the solemn celebration of the Holy Eucharist. We saw that in varying times and varying places, varying numbers of clergy, in various ranks, have exercised their liturgical ministry. The limitation of the solemn rite to three ministers, whether called priest, deacon, and subdeacon, or celebrant, gospeller and epistoler, cannot claim to be either ancient or universal. In many cases, it is inconvenient, misleading, and otherwise unsuitable. But what then are some of the alternative patterns? In order to answer this question, we must first understand what we are trying to achieve.

THE REASONS FOR SEVERAL MINISTERS

The use of additional clergy and lay assistants has two major objectives, both of which are important. First, additional persons enable the rite to be performed more effectively and more expeditiously. It is easier to listen attentively to Epistle, Gospel, and Sermon if we hear them from different persons with differing voices. The dramatic force of the rite is enhanced if additional clergy enable the more rapid distribution of Holy Communion, and if they can dispatch the ablutions.

Secondly, additional persons give visual and audible expression to the corporate nature of the rite. When the Eucharist appears (as, alas, it so often does) as a “one man show” performed by the officiating priest, its very nature is compromised. The sacrament of Christ’s Body is the sacrament of the Church, in which different members perform different functions in an orderly manner. The solemn collaboration of different orders of persons in the liturgy expresses the holy community of the Household of God.

Other reasons for additional ministers also arise in particular cases. Thus, lay readers and young clergy cannot learn to perform their tasks properly if they have no opportunities to practice. The local church will have little idea of its place within the Church Catholic if visiting clergy from other places cannot be welcomed into the sanctuary. 

PRACTICAL CONTEMPORARY SOLUTIONS

With these objectives in mind, we can consider concrete means of achieving them. The average congregation has only one ordained clergyman, the priest. In order to give the liturgy a more visibly corporate character, therefore, the role of lay readers must be zealously promoted. In many congregations it is an attainable to have a layman read the Epistle at every public celebration of the Eucharist, even the “simple, said service” at an early hour. Nor should the occasional presence of visiting priests cause the readers to be squeezed out of their regular role. This consistent use of lay readers in the Church’s chief act of worship can have a marked effect on a congregation.

If shortened Matins precedes the Eucharist (at least at certain seasons) this provides the occasion for a lay officiant at the office, and an Old Testament reader. When the Litany is sung or said before the Eucharist, this too can be assigned to a layman Thus the rector can have two or three lay ministers reading significant portions of the rite. He will of course also have servers and, in an increasing number of parishes, representatives of the congregation will bring die elements forward at the offertory. Thus the service ceases to be an individual performance by one clergyman.

Another kind of question arises with regard to the diaconate. In many parts of the Christian Church, its effective revival is now being called for. Some of us believe that the Holy Eucharist will never gain its rightful place in the life of the Episcopal Church, unless we also can provide at least one deacon in every parish to help administer Holy Communion in the liturgy and also to carry the sacrament to the sick (as well as helping in various other ways). Our canons now have clear provision for the diaconate, and   in every

diocese there are many mature and experienced laymen who could be encouraged to study for this order while remaining in their secular professions and occupations. (See H. B. Porter, The Ministers of the Distribution of Holy CommunionSupplemental Report II, the General Convention, 1964.) Several dioceses already have a number of men serving very usefully in this order.

In certain larger centers and on certain special occasions, there is the problem of fitting several priests into the rite. Some form of concelebration is the answer to this question. Once it is understood that a group of priests can offer the Eucharist together, the exact details of arranging the rite can easily vary according to the number of participants, the size of the sanctuary, the nature of the occasion, etc. (For an extended Anglican discussion, see Basil Minchin, Every Man in His Ministry, London, 1960. For an excellent modern Roman account, see Mother Jean McGowan, Concelebration, New York, 1964.) Some of us who have repeatedly celebrated in this fashion have found it very satisfactory.

These remarks would be gravely incomplete if no mention were made of the episcopate. Our present rubrics require the bishop to give the absolution and blessing in the liturgy, but these are only peripheral ceremonies not integral to the eucharistic action as such. Should not the bishop, as bearer of the apostolic commission, preach the Gospel and preside at the Lord’s Table? In rubrical terms, this would mean delivering the sermon, and reciting the eucharistic prayer, beginning with the sursum corda. The local priests, as his collaborators and associates, would properly concelebrate with him. Performed in this way, the rite is extraordinarily impressive.

In conclusion, we see that the three authentic orders of sacred ministers are not those of priest, deacon, and subdeacon. Rather they arc those of bishop, priest, and deacon. Each of these orders can and should have their proper roles in the Holy Mysteries, whether they be represented by one or by several individuals. The fullest participation of ordained clergy, furthermore, should not crowd out all the functions of lay readers and other assistants. All of these, and the choir, should carry out their roles in such a spirit and in such a manner that the congregation as a whole is not suppressed, but is rather stimulated to a new awareness of itself as a community of priestly people who glorify God through Christ in the fellowship of His Life-giving Spirit.