Here we see a letter from the first Bishop of Pittsburgh, Bishop Kerfoot, to a group of laity who certainly do NOT want any ritualist or High Churchmanship to go on in their parish. (The parish, Christ Church, Meadville, is now in the Diocese of Northwest Pennsylania.)
My Dear Brethren:--On my return from a visitation on the 30th inst., I received here a paper without date, but inclosed in an envelope post-marked Meadville, July 21. The paper was signed by the nine members of the Parish of Christ Church, Meadville, to whom I address this reply. You claim to speak only for yourselves, as private members of the congregation, representing no other members, not in any way speaking for the Vestry. The paper calls itself a Protest; it does not come to me as a "presentment," in any of the ways provided in Section I, Canon I, of this Diocese. It does, however, charge a Presbyter of the Diocese with various uncanonical, and unrubrical acts and customs, and what is yet more serious with a "total disregard of his pledged word." These are very grave charges; the responsibility incurred by those who make them is very grave; the good standing and reputation of a Presbyter as a Minister and as a man, is impugned, and his Bishop is called on to council and admonish him.
That paper is signed by nine members of the church, several of them aged men, and therefore claim the Bishop's respectful attention; and in view of all this I give careful regard to its statements. I gather out of the paper seven specifications.
1. The use of the Offertory in the ordinary collections.
2. The Choral Service.
3. Intoning the Prayers.
4. Singing the Responses to the Commandments.
5. The choir singing alternate verses in the Offertory sentences.
6. The frequent use of the Surplice instead of the Gown in preaching.
7. Turning the back on the congregation in the service, especially in consecrating the elements in the Holy Communion.
I will notice each item; and I do this trusting to my knowledge of your Parish and its history without waiting to make any further inquiries touching the facts of the [11/12] case, either from the rector or yourselves: 1. In putting No. 1 among your charges, you have forgotten or overlooked the fact, that as Bishop of the Diocese I have twice given you my official judgment and council on this point; once in a special meeting of the Vestry of your Parish (April 27, '67) which I attended at their request that I might decide sundry questions touching the proper customs and rules of the service; and again in my address to the Convention of the Diocese in Erie the next month. You will find that judgment on page 79 of the Journal of 1867. It justified and recommended the mode which your charge seems to condemn, which is (I believe) the mode used in Meadville, which has been my own custom for more than a quarter of a century, and which is a very common, if not a very general use throughout the Church in our Country. No. 2 and 3, must refer to a very few and special services which were desired by some of the people, and which were so held as to interfere very little if at all, with the privileges of those who did not like such a service. Such an indulgence to the musical tastes of a part of the congregation might be premature, or inexpedient or unedifying, but it cannot be pronounced a violation of the order of the Church, such musical services are not common in America, but they are very common as well as ancient in England. They need not, and in the instance in Meadville I know they do not, imply any feeling or taste alien to our Anglican Communion and Church. No's. 4, 5, and 6, are, and long have been, among the allowed uses of the American Church. No's. 4 and 6 have been my own custom for more than a quarter of a century, and to No. 5, I can see no objection. I often meet the custom in and out of my Diocese. These items (4, 5 and 6,) may be questions of taste, but cannot be made questions of principle. No doctrine can be involved in them.
No. 7 is too general and indefinite a statement. I must interpret your words by my knowledge of the worship in your church. This leads me to infer only that for convenience of kneeling or worship, or for proper privacy in his own devotions, the minister may stand or kneel in the same direction with the people, not facing them, and that this has no significance beyond general convenience, propriety and reverence. The case being thus understood as I believe, that it fairly and truly ought to be, no devout churchman need deny his Pastor the comfort and edification in God's House which a minister craves as well as his people. My own feeling and custom express themselves in this answer. The rubrical posture of the Priest in consecrating the [12/13] elements in the Holy communion is "Standing before the Table." This, almost necessarily as our chancels are generally arranged, make most of the people who are kneeling towards the table, see the back of the Minister, if their eyes are lifted from their Prayer Books. How shall the Priest "stand before the table" and not have his back to the people? Those of you who have been present when I have administered the Holy Communion in your church, must have noticed that I have so stood "before the Table" in that one part of the Eucharistic service. I do not see how else the Rubric can be so accurately complied with. The point is one of no special moment. The consecrating Minister sometimes stands at the right side of the Table as in the ante-communion Service, but the natural meaning of the Rubric is the use which you seem to condemn.
Turning and bowing to the altar, as acts of reverence, or worship of any sort towards it, or to any person or presence or sacred thing there, or as implying any exageration or perversion of the Church's doctrine of the Holy Communion, would be grave error in opinion and use; but I know your Rector's Theology and custom too well, to have any apprehension of any such error in him.
As to the pledge to the Vestry which the Sector is alleged to have disregarded, of course I must wait some such complaint coming from the Vestry itself. I am however very sure that Mr. BYLLESBY is incapable of any wilful violation of his promise, and I ought also to add that the cordial and respectful terms in which many members of Vestry have spoken to me of Mr. BYLLESBY make me sure that no complaint is contemplated by these official representatives of the Parish. It is a very serious charge, this one of the forfeiture of one's word. Men in the world repel the charge with indignation, for it blights their good name. May I remind honorable laymen that like themselves, the clergy have some rights in this matter of character, and an honest pride in their good name; and that their hearts are as sensitive as those of other men to the intimations of dishonor? Need I remind any one that a clergyman's good name is dear to his home and his children and that the church counts on her laity protecting the reputation of her clergy as well as her own honor from inconsiderate and unjust reproach?
And now, dear Brethren, will you not all for Christ's sake and his Church's give up this opposition to your Pastor? If your Rectors are to be thus beset by objections and hindrances; if their office among you is to bring them little freedom to act and frequent occasion for humiliation [13/14] and disappointment, no man of energy or power will take the place. You have such a man now, and your congregation is thriving as it never did before in numbers and resources. You see this. I beg you to cease opposing the work. You cannot stereotype the church's feelings and modes after the mind or preference of any man, old or young, or after the custom, in little matters that happened to prevail a generation ago. Other men will have their wishes and tastes, and new generations will think and act for themselves; and if those put in chief control of the Church in a Diocese decide such matters of detail as it is their office to do, when discussions arise about them,--ought not orderly men at once, and cheerfully concur, and let the discussion drop? How else can the church perform in Meadville her proper and much needed work of declaring and sustaining the truth about our Redeemer's Deity as defined in the Creeds, and of manifesting forth her character and office as His Church and Kingdom among men?
Some of you, brethren, are now very aged men. Your time for doing good cannot be long. You hope that you have done the Church some good service in the past. I pray you to use the rest of your days and of your influence to promote that spirit of love, humility and peace which is so essential to the Church's order and growth, which so beautifies the closing years of good men; and so further their preparation for the clearer light and the fuller love of the Church in the better world. I am Brethren,
Truly and faithfully,
Your friend and servant in Christ,
JOHN B. KERFOOT,
Bishop of Pittsburgh.Pittsburgh, Aug. 1, 1868.
2 comments:
How odd that the Bishop would think [t]urning and bowing to the altar, as acts of reverence, or worship of any sort towards it, or to any person or presence or sacred thing there, or as implying any exageration or perversion of the Church's doctrine of the Holy Communion, would be grave error in opinion and use...I thought that bowing to the altar was a custom that never died out in the CofE - wouldn't he have been familiar with it, even though an American?
No, I believe most of what we assume is unbroken praxis, in fact dates to the catholic revival. Good thing for the catholic revival!
Post a Comment