Category Archives: Uncategorized

Sine Nomine (1902)

I am a loyal Anglican,
A Rural Dean and Rector;
I keep a wife and pony-trap,
I wear a chest-protector.
I should not like my name to be
Connected with a party;
But still my type of service is
Extremely bright and hearty.

Of course, one has to keep abreast
Of changing times and manners;
A Harvest Festival we keep,
With Special Psalms—and banners;
A Flower-Service in July,
A Toy-Fund Intercession,
And, when the hens lay well, we hope
To start an Egg-Procession.

My wife and I composed a form
For dedicating hassocks,
Which (slightly changed) we also use
For surplices and cassocks;
Our Bishop, when we sent it for
His Lordship’s approbation,
Remarked: “A very primitive
And pleasing compilation.”

To pick the best from every school
The object of my art is,
And steer a middle course between
The two contending parties.
My own opinions would no doubt
Be labelled ‘High’ by many;
But all know well I would not wish
To give offence to any.

When first I came I had to face
A certain opposition,
And several friends in town advised
A short Parochial Mission;
I thought that quiet pastoral work
Would build foundations firmer.
It did. This year we started “Lights,”
Without a single murmur.

One ought, I’m certain, to produce
By gradual education
A tone of deeper Churchmanship
Throughout the population.
There are, I doubt not, even here
Things to be done in plenty;
But still—you know the ancient saw—
“Festina lentè—lenté.”

I humbly feel that my success,
My power of attraction,
Is mainly due to following
This golden rule of action:
“See all from all men’s point of view,
Use all men’s eyes to see with,
And never preach what anyone
Could ever disagree with.”

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Asperges Come to Times Square (1933)

The leading article in The Chronicle for last month, which had for its thesis the fact that the Anglo-Catholic movement today is increasingly emphasizing Roman practices and doctrine, has been well borne out by a new practice instituted in the Protestant Episcopal Church of St. Mary the Virgin, in New York, on the first Sunday of October, which was observed as the Feast of the Dedication, and the opening of the Winter schedule of services. Before the High Mass on Sunday the Roman rite of the Asperges is now given each Sunday in this parish. For the benefit of readers of this periodical who are doubtless ignorant of this ceremony, we may continue and explain that the Asperges is the sprinkling of holy water over the priests and acolytes in the sanctuary and then over the faithful in the congregation. The name of the ceremony is taken from a portion of the Psalm which is chanted during the procession as the three sacred ministers, accompanied by the ceremonarius, who bears the holy water bucket, go down and up the aisle, the celebrant of the Mass casting water on either side of him as he passes along: Asperges me hyssopo et mundabor, that is to say, Thou shalt purge me with hyssop and I shall be clean, etc. The congregation at St. Mary’s, or, at least that portion of it which follows blindly and avidly all the latest importations from Rome which the Cowley Fathers introduce into this parish, were filled with rather more glee than devotion when they heard that the ceremony was to be instituted. They supposed that they would be “one up” on St. Ignatius’ Church, a rival to St. Mary’s in adding exotic rites. But those at St. Ignatius’ are not as slow as they have sometimes appeared to be to some folk down at St. Mary’s, and on the first Sunday in October St. Ignatius’ congregation were also sprinkled with holy water. However, with a difference. “We don’t do it the same as St. Mary’s,” one of the Ignatian congregation told us in a superior air, the difference being that instead of passing down the aisle, the priests simply stand at the gates of the sanctuary and sprinkle the people from that point. It is more simple and doubtless saves time. We understand that there are two other parishes in the Diocese which indulge in this rite—Corpus Christi, and St. Augustine’s Chapel, of Trinity Parish. Returning to St. Mary’s, as we might return to our mutton were we French, we are informed that the whole program of High Mass has taken on a very Roman tint. There is a great deal of plainsong, the propers and the secrets of the Mass are said as appointed in the Roman Missal, the processional hymn and the usual hymn before the Holy Gospel have been omitted. There is no doubt of the direction in which the Cowley wind is blowing. Before another few years St. Mary’s will be like all the other churches served by the Cowley Fathers—very Roman and very mechanic. This will be a distinct pity in the church life of New York, for although a man may have disagreed with the teachings at St. Mary’s, there has never been any denying the fact that from a musical standpoint it ranked very high. The finest Masses were sung superbly at St. Mary’s, and even the hymns were, in their own way, classics. They were selected not from one hymnal, but from many sources. A large number of them were based on German chorals, and they were not only of a high standard from a musical viewpoint, but they were high in literary quality. But this is all in keeping with the Cowley Fathers’ plan to “popularize” St. Mary’s, and great stress has been laid on what the Roman Church knows is popular, such as the cultus of the Sacred Heart, with Votive Masses on every first Friday, the dedicating of every Saturday to the Gran Madre di Dio, with a Votive Mass, which the calendar calls, “Of St. Mary on Saturday,” and also Votive Masses of St. Therese, who has been the most popular saint in the modern Roman Church, and the incentive for more cash being put in money-boxes than the world dreams. At Corpus Christi Church, in New York, we believe, there is a Guild of St. Therese, which meets to study the life of this recently-canonized saint, and to further her cultus in the Protestant Episcopal Church. All of this is simply by way of substantiating what the leading editorial of last month maintained. Many a movement has died from excesses on the part of some of its rattle-brained followers, and it sometimes appears as if the extreme Anglo-Catholics are going to wreck the whole movement in the Protestant Episcopal Church. We do not expect them to pay any attention to our predictions, but we have conferred seriously with many Anglo-Catholic lay-folk, and if the Anglo-Catholic clergy knew how they are increasingly alienating a large number of their lay-folk, they would perhaps stop awhile and catch their breath. They apparently agree with the Red Queen that it takes all the running they can do to keep in the same place.

—The Chronicle (Poughkeepsie), November, 1933, p. 43.

Leave a comment

Filed under 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.

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