Category Archives: Uncategorized

2017 Advent Calendars

FMAC06.jpg

The Metropolitan Museum returns a relatively poor showing again this year with scaled-back offerings on Advent calendars, despite a dedicated catalog section for the same. The avian calendar is the most worthwhile; old customers will miss the New York-themed calendars.

The Art Institute of Chicago has an attractive, reusable calendar with 24 numbered doors behind which one can add small things.

The (US) National Gallery has a bland selection of ten calendars.

The (UK) National Gallery does a somewhat better job, especially in its provision of an Advent candle-calendar and the ongoing offering of the very wonderful altarpieces calendar.

Top prize for good calendars this year goes to the Fitzwilliam Museum at Cambridge, whose eight offerings cover themes religious, Japanese, and medieval.

The standout from Boston’s MFA is an Adoration of the Magi calendar based on a 1423 painting by Gentile da Fabriano.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Primitive Liturgy is Described Here (1950)

English Prior, 24 Laymen Show Christian Services of 1,750 Years Ago

Dom Gregory Dix, prior of the Anglican Benedictine Abbey, Burnham, Buckinghamshire, England, with the aid of twenty-four of the laity, demonstrated yesterday afternoon the liturgy of Christians in the year 200 A.D. at St. George’s Protestant Episcopal Church, East Sixteenth Street and Stuyvesant Square.

The demonstration was followed by evensong, which ended a “Liturgical Day” for 1,300 liberal evangelical and Anglo-Catholic communicants of the Protestant Episcopal Church here. Bishop Reginald Mallett of Northern Indiana celebrated holy communion yesterday morning and with his assistants faced the congregation from behind St. George’s square altar, following a primitive custom. The liturgy and responses were chanted by the congregation. The sermon was by Dom Gregory Dix.

The day’s ceremonies were begun with a religious procession out-of-doors from the Peace Chapel through East Sixteenth Street to Rutherford Place.

Included in the procession were Bishop Charles K. Gilbert and Suffragan Bishop Horace W. B. Donegan of the New York diocese; Bishop Charles Francis Boynton, formerly of Puerto Rico, suffragan-elect of New York; Suffragan Bishop Jonathan G. Sherman of Long Island, Bishop Mallett and rectors of neighboring churches. Among the latter were the Rev. Edward O. Miller, host, and the Rev. Wilfred P. Penny of St. Ignatius’ Church, co-sponsors of the day’s program.

The New York Times, October 13, 1950

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

A Faithful Steward: Clinton Rogers Woodruff (1936)

woodruff.jpgA Faithful Steward: Clinton Rogers Woodruff
By S. H. Warnock (1936)

FOR THE PAST four years, the department of public welfare in the city of Philadelphia has been noted for its capable administration. Leading citizens, irrespective of political affiliations have remarked on the fairness, efficiency, and strict adherence to the merit system which have characterized this department.

The head of the, department during these years and the man to whom credit in large measure is due for its excellent record is Clinton Rogers Woodruff, a prominent Churchman and associate editor of The Living Church.

Under the law, the mayor of Philadelphia, the Hon. J. Hampton Moore, may not succeed himself in office. In January his term expired, and the mayor’s cabinet, of which Mr. Woodruff as director of the department of public welfare was a member, was dissolved.

The writer believes that the achievements of Mr. Woodruff’s administration as evidence of a Churchman’s record in public office are of considerable interest to the Church at large.

For a number of years Mr. Woodruff has been a member of the department of Christian social service in the diocese of Pennsylvania, and its chairman since 1931. For many years he has been keenly interested in social service and public welfare work and also for many years has been the head of the city’s oldest public welfare association.

It was this background of experience which induced the mayor four years ago to select him as a member of his cabinet and to assign him to the public welfare department. Throughout those four years under most difficult conditions and with political partisan feeling frequently at white heat the department under Mr. Woodruff was virtually without criticism. As citizens now are looking to the future they are characterizing his administration as being chiefly remarkable for the broad humanitarianism of its director and for his personal interest and devotion to the duties of his office.

The office is necessarily one of tremendous detail, coming into personal contact with more individuals than perhaps any other of the many departments under the mayor. One of the striking evidences of the excellence of the department’s administration was its devotion to the principle of civil service, every vacancy being filled by the selection of the individual who was number one on the civil service list.

Several other illustrations will serve to show the efficiency and the sympathy which characterized Mr. Woodruff’s administration. When he took over the office he found hundreds of men in the home for the indigent sleeping in cellars at the almshouse site. The excuse was that there was no money with Which to purchase material to equip a building already on the grounds. Within fifteen days Director Woodruff found plenty of material around the place and by using available labor in less than a month had all the men out of the cellar and in comfortable sleeping quarters—all this without one cent of expense to the city.

In another instance he found a commissary department operated by an outside party who was making a considerable profit by the sale of small articles such as cigarettes and tobacco. This was immediately stopped and with a small revolving fund the commissary was operated by the chief appointed by Mr. Woodruff and all the profits went to supply extras for the unfortunates which enabled them to make their living quarters more comfortable and nearer homelike.

Another striking reform instituted was the formation of a school for boys over 16 years of age who were committed to the house of correction for minor offenses.

Some idea of the scope of the work of the welfare department to which Mr. Woodruff gave his personal attention may be seen in the following summary: In the home for the indigent he had the responsibility of caring for an average of 2,000 men and women; in the house of correction a daily average of between 700 and 1,000, a personal assistance bureau caring for individual citizens numbering as high as 5,000 at a time, a temporary shelter for abandoned and neglected children and finding foster homes for from twenty to twenty-five of them a day; operation of a summer camp for children during July and August caring for approximately 1,800 and, in addition all year round management of forty-one city playgrounds and recreation centers with all the attending details in which the yearly attendance ran in many, many thousands.

And as the four years of this Christian public official terminate, citizens of Philadelphia today are pointing to this department as having been most efficiently and economically administered with greatly reduced appropriations, with no public service neglected, no evidence of wastefulness, and without the slightest indication of any grafting being countenanced or permitted.

The Living Church (Milwaukee), 1936, p. 1938.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Torok Case (1936)

THE CONTROVERSY over the case of Bishop Torok has broken out anew, the latest developments in it being the appeal by Bishop Manning and six other bishops for an investigation by the House of Bishops and the statement of Bishop Wilson that he has asked Dr. Torok to refrain from participating in the consecration of any bishop or ordaining any priest until the matter can again come before the House of Bishops. The curious thing about this whole unfortunate controversy is that both parties are demanding the same thing—an investigation by the House of Bishops. To ,the impartial observer it would certainly seem that the decision of the question as to the status of Bishop Torok and the desirability of admitting him as a bishop in the Episcopal Church is plainly a question for the House of Bishops to determine. However, the House of Bishops has twice had the opportunity of making a definite ruling on this whole matter—at Atlantic City in 1934 and at Houston in 1935—and twice has failed to do so. The first time the House rejected the election of Dr. Torok as Suffragan Bishop of Eau Claire but did not pass on the questions of the validity of his consecration or his status so far as the Episcopal Church is concerned. The Presiding Bishop accordingly appointed a committee to investigate these matters and that committee reported at the session of the House in Houston last November. It appears now that the bishops at Houston neither accepted nor rejected this report but declined even to receive it officially. In short, they simply dodged the whole issue.

Because the House of Bishops did not face this question fairly and squarely as it ought to have done a very grave misunderstanding and confusion has resulted. Bishop Wilson interpreted the silence of the House as giving tacit consent to his reception of Dr. Torok as a bishop in the Episcopal Church, and proceeded to do so within two weeks of the meeting of the bishops. Bishop Manning and his associates derived a directly contrary meaning from the silence of the House, and in their present protest they make out a very strong case, though we think not a conclusive one, against the acknowledgment of Dr. Torok as a bishop in the Episcopal Church.

It seems to us that both parties to the controversy are acting in good faith and-are justified in their contrary views of the attitude of the House of Bishops. If the House had simply had the courage to state definitely either (a) that Bishop Torek’s orders were valid and that he might be received as a bishop in the Episcopal Church, giving also some indication of how that acknowledgment should be made, or (b) that his orders were not valid or that for some other reason he should not be acknowledged as a bishop in the Episcopal Church—if the House had taken either of these reasonable attitudes the whole question could have been settled very easily. At Atlantic City and again at Houston a year later, the House of Bishops had the opportunity of taking such action. By choosing instead to pursue a vague and indefinite course and to postpone the day of judgment, the bishops corporately have taken upon themselves the responsibility for a controversy that was unnecessary and that cannot fail to injure the good name of the Church.

We realize that what we have said will not be popular with either party to the controversy and will bring The Living Church into further disrepute among the bishops of the Church. We feel nevertheless that the duty of the Church press is to express its opinion frankly on matters of grave importance to the Church, and that we have conscientiously tried to do. Justice to Bishops Wilson and Torok and the good name of the Church require that the House of Bishops cease evading the issue and render a clear, unequivocal, public decision in the matter at its next meeting.

The Living Church, January 25, 1936, p. 95.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Asserts Dr. Torok is Bishop of No Church (1936)

Bishop Manning, in Reply to Bishop Wilson, States That Dr. Torok Claimed Orthodox Orders

New York—Bishop Manning of New York has made public a reply to Bishop Wilson’s letter to the members of the House of Bishops (L. C, March 7th) in a letter also addressed to the members of the House, asserting that “the claim has been all along in one form or another that Dr. Torok is a bishop with the orders of the Eastern Orthodox Church” and that “this claim has been officially and publicly rejected … by the Ecumenical Patriarchate after synodical action.”

Bishop Manning also states that “the Episcopal Church was not responsible for Dr. Torok’s consecration,” and repeats his belief that the “unconstitutional action of the Bishop of Eau Claire purporting to give Dr. Torok status as a bishop in this Church” if allowed to stand uncorrected “would establish a dangerous precedent in the Church.”

The text of Bishop Manning’s letter follows:

“My dear Bishop:

“I regret greatly that it is necessary to refer to this matter again at this season. The duty imposed upon the bishops who are protesting against the action of the Bishop of Eau Claire purporting to give Dr. Torok status as a bishop in this Church is in every way a distasteful one, but the situation has been forced upon the Church and it must be met. The whole case is most unfortunate, but it would be still more unfortunate for the Church if this action should be allowed to stand and there are some statements in Bishop Wilson’s letter of February 27th which must not pass without comment.

“1. In that letter the Bishop of Eau Claire refers not very respectfully to, and in fact calls in question the good faith of, Archbishop Athenagoras who is held in the highest possible esteem and regard by all who know him. The tone of Bishop Wilson’s letter toward the official representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch is not calculated to strengthen the relations between our own Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches nor to aid the cause of unity. Certainly the attitude shown in that letter toward Archbishop Athenagoras does not represent the feeling of our bishops generally.

“2. The Bishop of Eau Claire goes so far as to write, ‘Not until June of 1934 did Athenagoras communicate this information to the Patriarch. He received a reply last March which he held for ten months. Now it suddenly comes to light when the Patriarch is safely dead.’ But Bishop Wilson ignores the statement in the Patriarch’s letter that this pronouncement was made ‘after a synodical decision.’ The judgment given is not that of the Patriarch alone. It is the judgment of the Patriarchate. And the Patriarchate is not dead. The official pronouncement refers to the fact that ‘this person has changed successively three confessions,’ and also the fact of Dr. Torok’s marriage, and states definitely that ‘his recognition as an Orthodox Bishop is inadmissible.’

“3. Bishop Wilson declares that the pronouncement by the Patriarch that Dr. Torok cannot be recognized as an Orthodox bishop is of no importance in the case. He writes ‘What of it? Nobody ever expected that he would be so recognized. I have repeatedly explained that he never intended to be an Orthodox bishop and was not consecrated for that purpose.’ But in this same letter Bishop Wilson writes that Dr. Torok requested Archbishop Athenagoras to forward his resignation to the Head of the Eastern Orthodox Communion. If Dr. Torok did not claim to be an Orthodox bishop and if ‘nobody ever expected that he would be so recognized’ why did he make this application to the Ecumenical Patriarch? The Patriarch in his pronouncement says that Dr. Torok asked ‘that his orders should be recognized as valid,’ and the official reply is that Dr. Torok’s ‘recognition as an Orthodox bishop is inadmissible.’

“4. With regard to the statement in Bishop Wilson’s letter concerning Bishop Gorazd it is at this time sufficient to say that his address to the House of Deputies in 1922, which Bishop Wilson cites, has no bearing on his status in 1924, the year of Dr. Torok’s consecration. It was in this year, 1924, that the priests ordained by Bishop Gorazd were re-ordained by the Ecumenical Patriarch’s representative in Czechoslovakia, Archbishop Savvaty of Prague.

A COMPLICATED CASE

“The case is a complicated one, but the main facts are clear enough. Leaving aside the serious questions which have been referred to previously and which would of course have to be fully enquired into before Dr. Torok could be given status as a bishop in this Church, the following facts can be shown from the records.

“1. The claim has been all along in one form or another that Dr. Torok is a bishop with the orders of the Eastern Orthodox Church. On this claim the whole case has been based, and it is this claim which has been officially and publicly rejected not only by the Ecumenical Patriarch but by the Ecumenical Patriarchate after synodical action.

“2. Dr. Torok has never been recognized as a bishop in the Eastern Orthodox Church and there is no Church of which our Church has any knowledge in which he is recognized as a bishop.

“3. The Episcopal Church was not responsible for Dr. Torok’s consecration, and never assumed nor recognized any responsibility for it. This can be proved from the records beyond all question.

“4. As Bishop Wilson expresses doubt in regard to my statement that Dr. Torok was notified some time ago of the pronouncement by the Patriarch I may say that this information was given to me by Archbishop Athenagoras himself. Whether Dr. Torok has yet received the communication I cannot say, but I can and do state on the authority of Archbishop Athenagoras that the official notification was sent to him.

“This- case has been an unfortunate one for the Church from its beginning but the important facts can be clearly shown from the records and these facts will be presented to the House of Bishops when it meets.

“The matter of most immediate concern to the Church is the unconstitutional action of the Bishop of Eau Claire purporting to give Dr. Torok status as a bishop in this Church. If that action should be allowed to stand uncorrected it would establish a most dangerous precedent in the Church.”

(The Rt. Rev.) William T. Manning,
New York City. Bishop of New York.

The Living Church, March 14, 1936, pp. 339, 351.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

A More Judicial Attitude (1936)

BISHOP MANNING’S LETTER, published in this issue, in which he states that our editorial in The Living Church of March 28th gives “a distinctly wrong impression” as to his relation to the Torok case, requires an editorial reply, despite our disinclination to pursue the matter further. Since the Bishop’s letter revolves about four main points, we shall endeavor to answer these seriatim.

(1) Bishop Manning says: “Your claim that ‘The Living Church has taken no part in this controversy’ is an extraordinary one in view of the editorials and other statements on this matter which you have published during a period of more than two years.”

The controversy referred to in the sentence that Bishop Manning partially quotes is not the general question of the status of Bishop Torok but the particular controversy between Bishop Manning and Bishop Wilson, of which we said: “The Living Church has taken no part in this controversy except to record the news as it has developed.” We have recorded the news as it developed, that being a legitimate function of the Church press. Editorially, here is exactly what The Living Church has said about these matters since the original letter of protest by Bishops Mann, Ward, and Manning last December. In our issue of December 14th, after enumerating their charges, we said: “These are very serious charges indeed. The Living Church does not venture to express any opinion about them one way or another but does insist that both justice and honor demand that they be sifted fully and impartially.” The only other editorial in which we discussed this matter was in our issue of January 25th, in which we stated: “It seems to us that both parties to the controversy are acting in good faith and are justified in their contrary views of the attitude of the House of Bishops. . . . Justice to Bishops Wilson and Torok and the good name of the Church require that the House of Bishops cease evading the issue and render a clear, unequivocal, public decision in the matter at its next meeting.” If to demand a full and fair investigation and a just decision is to take part in a controversy, then and then only is Bishop Manning right in charging that we have been a party to this controversy.

(2) Bishop Manning says: “The case is far indeed from being one mainly of discussion between the Bishop of Eau Claire and myself.” Bishop Ward also makes this point in his letter in this issue.

We agree, though the controversy has revolved about the discussion between these two individuals. Bishops Wilson and Manning each claim the support of about 48 bishops for their respective positions. (We have heard on good authority that, incredible though it seems, there are several duplicates on these two lists!) Of course the matter is one that concerns not only the bishops but the clergy and laity of the entire Church.

(3) Bishop Manning says: “The primary question is not that of Dr. Torok’s fitness for the office of a bishop in this Church, as your editorial indicates. That question has now fallen into the background.”

We must respectfully disagree with the Bishop of New York at this point. If the issue as to Bishop Torok’s fitness has fallen into the background it is none the less the underlying element in the whole discussion. Bishop Manning himself has on several occasions made public but veiled references to “other serious matters” in connection with the Torok case. He has never said what these “matters” are and has thus succeeded in throwing a shadow of suspicion on Bishop Torok’s character. Is he now going to let that question slide into the background without bringing his charges into the open so that the man he accuses of nameless “matters” can have an opportunity of answering them?

(4) Bishop Manning says: “The question now before the Church is, Has the Bishop of Eau Claire, or any individual bishop, the right to ‘receive’ one who claims to hold the office of bishop, and give him status as ‘a bishop in this Church’?”

It is true that this question is now before the Church and we do not yield to the Bishop of New York or anyone else in our desire to have it settled. But there is another question before the Church that is at least equally important and perhaps more so. It is this: Has the Bishop of New York or any other bishop or priest the right to make grave charges that cast a slur upon the character of a fellow-clergyman without giving him a fair opportunity to reply before a duly constituted tribunal?

In any secular matter the civil court would protect the right of the accused to be squarely faced with the accusation against him and would permit him to testify in his defense and call witnesses to support his testimony. Will the Church be less just in protecting the rights of an accused bishop than the State is in protecting the rights of the defendant in a civil case?

If the Bishop of New York and those who support him in his contention that no investigating committee should be appointed but rather that the House of Bishops should consider the matter directly will agree that Bishop Torok be permitted to defend himself before the full House of Bishops and bring witnesses there to support his defense, then we shall feel that their contention is a just one. If, however, Bishop Manning and his associates intend simply to present their side of the case before the House of Bishops, probably in secret session, and expect the House to arrive at an ex parte decision, then we are forced to the conclusion that they are demanding an unjust method of procedure and one that is not worthy of the Church.

In a letter to the editor, accompanying his public letter, Bishop Manning writes: “I wish it were possible for you to take a more judicial attitude in the matter.” We for our part wish it were possible for Bishop Manning to take a more judicial attitude; but since he has chosen rather to be cast in the role of prosecuting attorney we hope he will find it possible to permit the defense the same privileges that he claims for the prosecution.

The Living Church, April 4, 1936, pp. 423-424.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Torok Case (1936)

The Living Church, April 4, 1936, p. 420

TO THE EDITOR: It was my hope, and that of the bishops with whom I am acting, that no further statement on the action of the Bishop of Eau Claire in regard to Dr. Torok would be necessary until the meeting of the House of Bishops, but your editorial (L.C, March 28th) gives a distinctly wrong impression as to my relation to the case and I must therefore ask you kindly to publish this brief statement in correction. Your claim that “The Living Church has taken no part in this controversy” is an extraordinary one in view of the editorials and other statements on this matter which you have published during a period of more than two years.

The case is far indeed from being one mainly of discussion between the Bishop of Eau Claire and myself, as all know who have read the published statements. What I have felt compelled, most unwillingly, to write on this matter represents, as you know, the conviction and position of a great number of the bishops of this Church, and this conviction has not been reached without careful thought and consideration.

The primary question is not that of Dr. Torok’s fitness for the office of a bishop in this Church as your editorial indicates. That question has now fallen into the background. In spite of the position taken in this matter by the House of Bishops at Atlantic City, and at Houston, the Bishop of Eau Claire, acting apparently with the assent of the Presiding Bishop (see the Presiding Bishop’s published reply to the protest sent to him by Bishop Mann, Bishop Ward, and myself), has taken action purporting to give Dr. Torok status as a bishop in this Church, and The Living Church has announced this action in its columns, and has recorded it, and published it as though it were official action in the Living Church Annual for 1936 (see page 500, and elsewhere, in that volume).

Apart from all personal questions relating to Dr. Torok, therefore the question now before the Church is, Has the Bishop of Eau Claire, or any individual bishop, the right to “receive” one who claims to hold the office of bishop, and give him status as “a bishop in this Church”? This vital constitutional matter, which your editorial ignores, is the question now before us, and this question must be dealt with, and can only be dealt with, by the House of Bishops itself, or by the General Convention, and not by another unofficially appointed committee.

(The Rt. Rev.) William T. Manning, New York. Bishop of New York.


TO THE EDITOR: May I file a respectful but emphatic protest against the statement in your editorial column of March 28th, that “The dispute (about Dr. Torok) has been principally between Bishop Manning, who opposes vigorously the recognition of Dr. Torok, and Bishop Wilson who is equally determined to have him recognized.”

The Bishop of New York is not waging single combat, but is clearly and strongly giving expression to the view of many other bishops, members of the House which on two occasions, at Atlantic City and Houston, refused to approve of the election of Dr. Torok and declined to give him the status of a bishop in this Church.

The main question to be considered at the next meeting of the House is not the other matters in this case, important as they may be, but the constitutionality of the action of the Bishop of Eau Claire; and for this decision the House does not need guidance by a committee.

(The Rt. Rev.) John C. Ward, Erie, Pa. Bishop of Erie.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized