As promised, this is the second in a series of truthful postings about what’s really been happening at S. Clement’s Church, Philadelphia. This particular truth deals with the slow elimination of the Anglo-Catholic Traditions long held at S. Clement’s, and how most have been dismissed without any replacement at hand.
For those who perhaps are not familiar with S. Clement’s, a little history would be suitable (don’t worry; it’s just a summary). The church was built in 1859 as a very typical Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America (PECUSA) in a part of town that was in no way affluent (typical of Anglican churches which were usually established in the needy parts of cities and towns to minister to those who were in need). It was designed as a church typical for that time period – not really an altar, more of a table with no candlesticks, no crucifix, etc. This was the humble birth of S. Clement’s parish.
Little by little, the parish grew, as did the Oxford Movement in England, and caught up to the PECUSA, to Philadelphia, and to S. Clement’s Church. Little by little, the parish became higher and higher in its form of worship. First candles were placed on the table, then a crucifix, eventually, the sanctuary was expanded to fit a high altar, 6 candlesticks, tabernacle, crucifix, shrines, side altars, etc. (over time). The Cowley Fathers came to Philadelphia and took over the administration of the parish which eventually led through to the rectors of the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s when S. Clement’s rose above the other Anglo-Catholic parishes as a diadem (Okay, so I’m using literary license, but it’s still true).
During the 70’s, and the rectorate of Fr. Hendricks, S. Clement’s saw the decline and ultimate decimation of Anglo-Catholic traditionalism. In response to the dictates of the church-at-large, a free-standing altar was placed in the main church and S. John’s Chapel, and the liturgy followed the more modern Book of Common Prayer. Truly, the church halls were full during these years, but not the masses themselves. People would spill into the parish hall on Sundays after mass from the nearby clubs to continue their partying into the afternoon rather than going home.
But, as prayers were answered, a new Rector was called to the parish, and S. Clement’s rose again like the Phoenix from the ashes, and dove deeper into her Anglo-Catholic traditions. Fr. Fitzhugh restored the missal and the traditional lectionary, as well as a regular Sunday evening service. The free-standing altars were taken away and the great traditions of Solemn High Mass and Low Mass were re-instituted. Fr. Laister restored the English Missal, and was a renowned spiritual director and confessor, organized regular parish retreats, and (with Fr. Swain as his curate) the only parish mission at S. Clement’s in modern times. Fr. Swain (as Rector) restored the full Western ceremonies, the silent Roman Canon, the traditional Holy Week, the Roman lessons for much of the year, and the Latin congregational creed, and he organized American Anglo-Catholicism’s millennium “Christ our Future” celebration at S. Clement’s. This was followed by an increased use of the Roman offices, including Vespers on Sundays, and all of the Hours at Christmas and for the Triduum, and the remainder of the Roman lessons.
And through these rectors, the pews at the services of S. Clement’s began to fill.
S. Clement’s had a full parish and liturgical life because it had a Gospel to preach, and everything else grew out of that. S. Clement’s was finally, once again, the hallmark of Anglo-Catholicism. People came to spend time there more than just Sunday mornings. There were weekday Guild masses as well as meetings of the different Guilds; there were large receptions on major feast days that entertained lots of visitors; major feast days were announced, and notices were sent out to people who had an interest in seeing what S. Clement’s had to offer at these times; there were parish dinners, and meetings of committees; there were Lenten activities throughout the season with Stations of the Cross and dinner on Fridays and Lenten talks and instructions. There was a Christmas bazaar and a summer parish picnic, quiet days of reflection and introspection in Lent and Advent for preparation. There were two masses daily, every day. S. Clement’s even volunteered at a soup kitchen once a month – a reflection of times past when S. Clement’s ran a hospital, a hostel for women, and other supports of the community.
The parish had a busy and fulfilling life, and people came because there was something to come to; a use to be had, and a Gospel to be preached. And most importantly, S. Clement’s was at its strongest in holding fast to the liturgy that was “stuffy,” “antiquated,” and a “museum” (as some have called it). Rather than people being turned off by the beauty of the ancient traditions, they were coming to see them, and experience them.
When the current Rector, Canon W. Gordon Reid, was called to S. Clement’s in August of 2003, he swore to defend, uphold, and protect the Anglo-Catholic traditions the parish so dearly treasured and for so long fought. He called to him a curate who was impeccable in qualifications, staunch in the Anglo-Catholic traditions, and eager to learn what he could of the ceremony at S. Clement’s. By Corpus Christi of 2007, the pews were full, and because, for so long, many people wanted to see what a Corpus Christi mass looked like at S. Clement’s, even though they were too far away to attend, a DVD was created, having been recorded live during the mass.
But even by that time, things were changing. The second daily mass had been cancelled Mondays through Saturdays (only kept on Sundays), even though there were enough priests to say those masses (including a Curate and an Honorary Assistant Priest). And over the next couple of years, even with the presence of that Curate and Assistant Priest in residence, our traditions began to disappear for no reason.
By 2008, our Curate was gone, having been called to be the Rector of his own parish, and by early 2011, our Assistant Priest (one who dearly loved just being at S. Clement’s and being part of our traditions) had passed away, having been continuously marginalized by the Rector for his adherence to the catholic faith. There were no more Guild meetings or masses, quiet days of Advent and Lent were never scheduled, and everything else was either cancelled or just deleted from the schedules. The only services retained through this period were Stations of the Cross and Benediction on Fridays during Lent, and Sunday Vespers. That is, until recently, when the Rector saw fit to cancel Sunday Vespers for no other reason than as retaliation against a Vestry which remained vigilant in their fiduciary responsibilities. His reason publicly (on his personal blog) stated that it was merely because there was lack of attendance, even though there were always some people sitting in the pews. It reminded me of the article in the Philadelphia Inquirer in a previous year about the Low Mass (also known as the “Shepherd’s Mass”) on Christmas morning (S. Clement’s being one of the very few churches that still hold it). In the article, the Rector was quoted as saying, “We would continue to do this, even if only one person came.”
If the Rector had never made promises at the time of his selection, this blog entry would never have been written. But the issue remains that he swore and promised to uphold these traditions to the search committee and to the vestry. His direct quotes from the minutes of the 2003 meeting of the search committee: “My heart is with the Tridentine Mass.” English Orthodoxy with its very ancient liturgy is growing,” (when discussing the liturgy at S. Clement’s). Most revealing from the minutes, when discussing the Daily Office, “Father does not mind if it is Evensong or Vespers as long as it is done.” And finally, regarding his priestly duties of care of the sick, “The parish is widespread, and he believes in taking the Blessed Sacrament to the sick.” Sadly, he has not continued with visitations either.
And now we see a parish which was once rich and vibrant with parochial life waning and spiritually starving, and only offering the absolute bare minimum of Sunday Low Mass and High Mass, and weekday Low Mass Mondays through Saturdays, said Evensong Mondays through Fridays, and a “perpetual novena” which is no longer even said on Sundays anymore at the Shrine of Our Lady of Clemency.
The next truth to be unveiled: How a Vestry and Parish can have their Voice stolen from them.
To be continued…
Feb 10, 2012 @ 21:31:47
I believe that I, at least, have previously obliquely characterised liturgy at S. Clement’s as antiquarian, not “antiquated”: there is a distinct difference. I, for one, did indeed call into question whether or not antiquarian liturgy by itself is sufficient to sustain the viability of any parish church. Elsewhere, I noted that a potential pitfall for Anglo-Catholic parishes is liturgy that is excessively fussy, whilst the merely High Church parishes tend to have as their potential pitfall ceremonial that is executed with a militaristic precision that seems more appropriate to the Manual of Arms than to Catholic Christian liturgical services (you know, white gloved crucifers with stony expressions,.executing turns at sharp right angles, gripping the processional cross in a postured, military way as though it were a firearm…) Actually, if I have to take one excess over the other, I’ll choose A-C fussiness to High Church militarism; and either one over Low Church sloppiness (their characteristic pitfall, not to say all Low Church ceremonial is necessarily sloppy or irreverant).
I would challenge any praise of the silent canon as a normal liturgical practice as a truly misguided, if not frankly silly, pining for one of the worst liturgical developments historically in the Western Church, one which obstructs the ability of the congregation to fully participate in offering the Eucharistic Sacrifice. On the rare occasions I’ve run onto it at other Anglo-Catholic parishes, including my old Fort Worth parish church of St Timothy’s, it was confined to occasions of lengthy concert requiem masses on All Souls day. Otherwise, I would assert that if the musical setting for the ordinary of the mass on a normal Sunday is so long that it seems to require the canon be said silently to keep the service from excessive longsomeness, then the musical composition is inappropriate for a Sunday celebration of mass. There are plenty of exquisite settings of the mass ordinary by Byrd, Palestrina, Mozart and others that are not of excessive duration for a reasonable Sunday celebration and for one not requiring a silent canon as a practicality (a damn poor reason for the Eucharistic canon to be said sotto voce). I would also point to the likely perplexity that a silent canon creates for non-Catholic visitors, who even with a mass book, may have little sense of what’s going on and why.
Frankly, posts on this blog leave me wondering about the author’s devotion to the pedantry of old religious ceremonies as opposed to the sublime reality of the Mass itself, most especially the Reality of Our Lord and God in the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar, impelling our grateful affection and adoration.
Unquestionably, the Holy Eucharist – the central and supreme act of the Church’s worship – should be offered in the beauty of holiness. However, there is more than one way that the Mass may be celebrated in reverence, beauty and catholic fidelity.
Oh, just a word on our former curate, Fr Wall — I did note on his fb page a picture of him celebrating mass in his current parish church with the assistance of a liturgical subdeacon who was clearly a woman. They were also celebrating in the westward position. Maybe Fr Wall is more than you had thought.
Feb 10, 2012 @ 23:01:19
Excuse the double post, please, but this just in – stop the presses! Fr Wall suffers himself to celebrate the Holy Eucharist at the church of which he is now rector using Rite II from the 1979 BCP! Most unsound. Another wolf formerly masquerading in lace alb and fiddleback chasuble. Besides allowing a creature with two X chromosomes to assist at the altar! Rend your hearts and not your garments, and turn unto the Lord your God.
Feb 15, 2012 @ 23:48:53
We thank you for your concern over the female subdeacon; however, I am sure even she would have had a better idea of how to serve at the altar than you displayed at Candlemas !
Feb 17, 2012 @ 12:32:15
Thanks so much, Juanito. The fact is, I was drafted at the last minute, the plan for some details of the service such as the lighting of the congregations’ candles was insufficiently thought out by those in charge, some of the original instructions were contradicted, and the service was inadequately rehearsed. This would all have been unnecessary if a number of the servers, behaving like spolit children, hadn’t decided to suspend or resign their service in the sanctuary.
Feb 17, 2012 @ 15:43:36
Spoiled children, Dr Ezell? Really? Did the servers just one day up and decide to quit serving? (That’s rhetorical; you’ve already said that you possess inside knowledge of the situation, which you cannot reveal.) Have you no regard for solidarity or compassion (meaning of course, “to suffer with”)? To refer to men who have served faithfully for twenty or thirty years in such a way is, well, more revealing of what is planned for S. Clement’s than it is of the character of the servers.
I think that the real lesson to be learned is that actions have consequences (cf. S. Luke 14, 31). I am continually surprised that intelligent men seemingly act with so little foresight, when practically all of this conflict could have been avoided. So if anyone is acting like spoiled children, perhaps it is those who have embarked on this madness, and not those who have been the victims of their outrages?
Feb 17, 2012 @ 16:26:53
Outrages? What hyperbole! However, it seems to me that you are placing yourselves in a position from which you will have great difficulty achieving reconciliation when this all shakes out. My perception is that this group have put themselves in a position that would seem to make it difficult for them to find a way of satisfactory being within the parish community, and in harmony with their parish clergy. Your course of action in recent times impresses as sadly precipitous and ill-considered.
Feb 17, 2012 @ 17:01:01
I think, Dr Ezell, that your own use of hyperbole is well-known from your postings of late, and I also think that “outrages” is actually entirely appropriate to describe several things that have occurred. But that’s as may be.
The larger issue, however, is what all of this means for the future of the parish. You assert that our actions have been “precipitous and ill-considered,” and I answer that those actions are merely sensible responses to any number of grave provocations, and we could go back and forth over who started what and when, and in the end we would probably have achieved very little, if anything. Going forward, in the absence of any reasonable discourse, it seems to me that, rather than any sort of harmony, there will be a steadily increasing enmity between the two factions. There is no doubt in my mind that such enmity will be perceptible to any visitor, and that perception will almost certainly inhibit the growth that is wanted and needed. This, then, will in all likelihood lead to a protracted stalemate, which will last until, say, January of 2015, an ecclesial “cold war” of attrition, if you will, with resources diverted from mission to internecine struggles. All very sad, but not something that we haven’t seen before in the church, and nothing that S. Clement’s won’t survive, even if there are an unpleasant three years in the offing.
Feb 18, 2012 @ 00:48:53
Paul, you seem content to dig in your heals and precipitate a stalemate in parish governance for the next three years. I wonder how you could justify the damage that you yourself say that will do to S. Clement’s and the mission of this parish church, as well as why you would care to make yourselves miserable for three years whilst you wait, I presume, for the incumbent rector’s retirement (inflicting misery on others in the meantime, as well).
May I remind you that the parish church is the most local expression of the Church Universal, and is no one’s private club. This goes equally for the governance structures of the parish church.
Your group are in rebellion against your parish priest and your bishop. Your position is indefensible. I don’t see that you care for S. Clement’s as the Body of Christ in Centre City Philadelphia at all, but rather only for S. Clement’s as some sort of exclusive and exclusionist liturgical club that takes a willfully, intransigently oppositional position toward the polity and ecclesiology of the Episcopal Church, as expressed in the persons of your parish priest, your lawful bishop, the governance structures of your national province and the lawful primate of the Episcopal Church.
I perceive – and devoutly hope – that you will not succeed in your vain folly.
One can only hope you may have thought about your recourse in the event it proves you have made a very serious miscalculation in this deluded course of action that you and other members of your “quorum” have embarked upon.
Feb 18, 2012 @ 12:21:17
Change and decay in all around I see;
O Thou who changest not, abide with me.
Feb 18, 2012 @ 13:02:33
Classrooms and labs,
loud boiling test tubes,
sing to the Lord a new song!
Athlete and band,
loud cheering people,
sing to the Lord a new song!
He has done marvelous things.
I too wil praise him with a new song!
Mar 07, 2012 @ 00:08:02
Dr. Ezell,
I find it odd that you call the type of religion formerly had at Saint Clement’s “antiquarian” when it is a liturgy that has developed organically over the course of roughly two thousand years. You also “call into question whether or not antiquarian liturgy by itself is sufficient to sustain the viability of any parish church.” I take it that you are unfamiliar with the study conducted by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University and released in 2009 (Study of Recent Vocations to Religious Life”). The findings of this report show that traditional religious orders attract younger people, whereas religious orders that have modernized do not. This trend is easily applied to Protestant Christianity where it is the more conservative Evangelical Christians that are seeing the real increase in active younger members. I take it you are also familiar with Rodney Stark’s “Theory of Religion”. I read several chapters of this book years ago and find many of his conclusions about high and low “tension” religions to have come true to-day.
I also have one question for you. Why are you at Saint Clement’s in the first place? You seem to agree with almost none of what the parish has stood for. It baffles me that you would select it as your regular place of worship unless you have an agenda to tear it all down. If that is the case then I do not understand how you can dare to call yourself a Christian. You should really be ashamed of yourself.