Committee 10 (Part I): Calendar resolutions for Prayer book, liturgy, and music

calendar page from the book of common prayer

There are a zillion resolutions heading to the Prayer book, liturgy, and music committee, so I’m breaking them into two posts. First, we’ll look at all the resolutions concerning our liturgical calendar. Then we’ll look at…everything else.

Since around 2009, we’ve had more than our share of liturgical chaos in the Episcopal Church. That was the year General Convention approved Holy Women, Holy Men as a kind of successor to Lesser Feasts & Fasts 2006, but with some trial use stuff in it. Then Holy Women, Holy Men was re-authorized in 2012. Then in 2015, we “made available” A Great Cloud of Witnesses as a kind of successor to HWHM. All this time, the official calendar of our church continued to be Lesser Feasts & Fasts 2006 with its feasts and fasts incorporated into the calendar of the Book of Common Prayer.

Confused yet? So is everyone else. We get calls regularly at Forward Movement from people who are mad at us for failing to follow HWHM, which hasn’t been authorized for use in any way since 2015. But it’s not just the simple question of “where can I find the real calendar” that is confusing.

We have a confused theology of sainthood and commemoration. There are some folks who treat the calendar as a kind of hall of fame, celebrating notable figures, including the first person to do this or that. In this view, the Christian discipleship of those commemorated doesn’t matter too much. Indeed, it was a struggle to get General Convention to stop adding atheists and modern rabbis to the Christian sanctoral calendar.

Finally, a bunch of folks got impatient with the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music for endlessly tinkering with the calendar. In 2018, the General Convention told the SCLM to come up with one calendar and to make it a good one. (I’m simplifying!) As a result, we authorized Lesser Feasts & Fasts 2022 that year, and it remains the official calendar of the Episcopal Church. You can buy a print copy or download a free PDF of LFF2022 from the always-useful liturgical resource site, This site is a well-organized compendium of almost everything that’s authorized for use within the Episcopal Church, including lots of explanatory notes about various liturgies. If you ever have liturgical questions or are seeking resources, this is an excellent starting point.

Anyway, we have somewhat less confusion now than we’ve had since 2009. Yay! The problem is that we made so many changes so quickly that we’ve introduced various little errors here and there. I don’t blame the folks who prepared the liturgical material. General Convention gave them a firehose worth of material and funded them with a drinking straw. We are a liturgical church. If we’re going to generate lots of new liturgical content, we need to invest in scholarly experts, pastoral experts, liturgists, historians, poets, copy editors, proofreaders, graphic designers, production experts, and on and on. Instead, we have a bunch of volunteers drafting stuff in Microsoft Word, getting a few others to have a look, and before long we’re all voting on it. We shouldn’t be surprised given our lack of investment that liturgies in the last few years have been published with typos, scholarship errors, and so on.

The sanctoral calendar is no exception. This convention is being asked to try to correct a bunch of stuff. Some of it doubtless makes sense. But I’d like to seriously suggest that we impose a moratorium on new commemorations for six or nine years so that we can let the dust settle from 15 years of chaos and sloppy work. Again, I’m not fixing blame on the people who did the work; they were doing what General Convention voted and without adequate resources. We need to take stock of what we have, and we need to perfect it. We can also do some reflection and teaching on what is a saint, anyway, so that we move closer to an agreed-upon understanding.

LFF2022 (page 617) has an excellent set of criteria for deciding who should be in the calendar. Among other things, we could simply go through our existing calendar and remove people who don’t fit the criteria we’ve already agreed on. We could be more disciplined about adding folks only when they fit the criteria.

Finally, one of my mantras is that General Convention doesn’t need to approve everything. Your local church can celebrate just about anyone you like as a saint using the commons of saints in the prayer book and other authorized sources. You don’t need 1,000 bishops and deputies to say it’s OK to remember a beloved local hero or an inspiring prophetic witness from ages past or an ancient sage. In fact, for most of its history, the church has elevated people to its calendar of commemorations only after there was a local cult of devotion. Lately, in the Episcopal Church, we’ve switched to a top-down approach in which someone decides that we need to remember this person or that person and have them added to our calendar. Perhaps we could resume the more ancient model and teach local liturgical leaders how to appropriately commemorate people who are not yet in our churchwide calendar.

On to the resolutions.


A014 Addition of Laurence Whipp to Lesser Feasts and Fasts. Full text. Likely vote: YES NO.

The explanation attached to this resolution contains links to documents for which no Spanish translation is provided.

UPDATE: See comments below the post. Multiple sources say this proposal will be withdrawn, or perhaps recommended for discharge. So 7WD is changing our tune to a NO.

The explanation does a nice job of explaining why Laurence Whipp, who was organist at the American Cathedral in Paris in the middle of the 20th century, meets the criteria set forth in Lesser Feasts & Fasts 2022 for inclusion in the calendar. I’m willing to trust the Standing Commission on Liturgy & Music, assuming they’ve thoroughly vetted Whipp as meeting all the criteria and as not possessing other characteristics that might be problematic in terms of his inclusion in our calendar.


A117 Withdraw Rev. William Porcher DuBose from the Lesser Feasts and Fasts Calendar — Second Reading. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

Frustratingly, there’s no explanation for this resolution. We should not allow resolutions to be entered in our system without explanations, since that leaves deputies & bishops guessing as to the thinking of proposers. In this case, it’s an easy riddle to solve. Two years ago, General Convention approved 2022-C003, which was the first reading of the removal of DuBose from our calendar. It takes two conventions to add or remove someone from the calendar, since the date of commemorations is part of the calendar printed in the prayer book, and prayer book modifications take two conventions. DuBose was a notorious white supremacist, and thus his commemoration as a person demonstrating Christian discipleship is problematic.

No saint is perfect, because all saints are people. We all sin and have fallen short of the glory of God, So we shouldn’t reject saintly commemoration because someone has committed sins. However, there are degrees of sin. People should be evaluated by the context in which they lived. You can’t expect to meet a feminist or an advocate of racial equality in the Middle Ages. But we can choose not to commemorate people who were “above and beyond” even for their era. DuBose is in this category. Still, let us pray for the repose of his soul and his reconciliation with his Maker. And let us pray for all those who were harmed by his virulent white supremacy.


A118 Authorize the Commemoration of Harriet Ross Tubman — Second Reading. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

Again, there is no explanation here. It would be super awesome if the SCLM could tell us more about their work. But, again, this one is an easy “mystery” to solve. Until 2022, Harriet Tubman was commemorated on July 20 along with Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Amelia Bloomer, and Sojourner Truth. General Convention passed the first reading of a plan to move Tubman to her own commemoration on March 10 (see 2022-C007). Back in their 2022 explanation, the SCLM said that this is because Tubman has grown in importance within the Black community. I’m all for this. Stanton, Bloomer, and Truth will still be commemorated on July 20.


A119 Authorize the Commemoration of Frederick Howden, Jr. — Second Reading. Full text. Likely vote: YES, if amended.

The SCLM must hate transparency. Or maybe there was a glitch in the system, because this resolution also has no explanation. (I’m kidding about their hatred of transparency, but I’m super curious why they didn’t include explanations!) Howden, who was a military chaplain in World War II, was proposed for commemoration in 2022 (see 2022-A008). You can read a draft biography in the additional documents included with the 2022 resolution. His case is compelling, though I think the collect needs to be modified from what was proposed in 2022, which offers a fill-in-the-blank to add whatever other chaplain(s) you want. That’s not really how commemoration collects work. Maybe this is already fixed, but we wouldn’t know since there’s no explanation for the resolution.


A120 Authorize the Commemoration of Simeon Bachos, the Ethiopian Eunuch — Second Reading. Full text. YES, if amended.

As you will have guessed, there is also no explanation for this resolution. This is the second reading to add the Ethiopian Eunuch, a central figure in Acts 8, to our calendar. This was first proposed in 2022-A008). I’m happy enough to commemorate most any biblical figure, though I don’t think we should make up names to go with them. Simeon Bachos is a name that tradition ascribes to the Ethiopian eunuch (similarly to the tradition that gives the name Photini to the woman at the well). Since historicity is one of our stated criteria, I’d prefer to take the scriptures at their word and accept these figures as historic, but without adding details not contained within the scriptures. Let’s just commemorate the Ethiopian eunuch with that title.

By the way, sometimes you hear people using the Ethiopian eunuch as an example of why we should baptize anyone, any time. “Look, here is water! What is to prevent me from being baptized?” Fair, and I agree that when someone says this, we should baptize them! But we might also note that the Ethiopian was on his way back from Jerusalem, where he had been worshiping, and he was already reading the scriptures. So he had some considerable skin in the game already. I’m not here to dissuade you from baptizing anyone, ever. Just noting that the baptism in Acts 8 didn’t come out of nowhere.


A121 Authorize the Commemoration of the Consecration of Barbara Clementine Harris — Second Reading. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

Sit down, I have some shocking news. There’s no explanation attached with this resolution. Your intrepid blogger is not deterred. This is the second reading of a plan to add the Consecration [sic] of Barbara Clementine Harris to the calendar, with the first reading having been approved in resolution 2022-C023. Bishop Harris was, of course, the first woman to be ordained bishop in the Anglican Communion. My only desired amendment here would be to remove the word “consecration” to align with the baptismal ecclesiology of our current prayer book. Bishops, priests, and deacons are all ordained to their respective offices. And the ordination of each order includes a consecration. Or if you want to talk about the consecration of bishops, make sure you also talk about consecrating deacons and priests. And if you like Bishop So-and-so was “ordained and consecrated” then so too was Deacon Such-and-such also “ordained and consecrated.” But this is a tiny detail, and I’m perfectly delighted to commemorate a singularly inspiring bishop, woman, leader, and fellow disciple. We can go back and fix this one — and the Consecration of Samuel Seabury — at some future convention.


A122 Withdraw the trial use commemoration of Episcopal Deaconesses. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

Surprise, surprise, there is an explanation attached to this resolution, and it’s a good thing. It notes that the SCLM “heard feedback from the church that it would be better to honor specific, named, deaconesses rather than to honor the vocation generically, just as we honor specific nurses, bishops, teachers, or missionaries on the Calendar rather than honoring each vocation as a collective.” Fair. They have a plan to commemorate some specific deaconesses.


A123 Authorize the trial use Commemoration of Adeline Blanchard Tyler and her Companions — First Reading. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This resolution would add Adeline Blanchard Tyler to the calendar for commemoration on November 4. She was the first woman to be made deaconess back in the 19th century. I’m completely happy to commemorate her; she sounds amazing from the biography in the attached documents. However, there is clearly work to be done to get the propers ready for prime time. There’s no Rite I collect, and the provided collect is not quite in line with the standard form of collects. The attached bio is way too long to fit in the space allotted within Lesser Feasts & Fasts. So I think the SCLM needs a bit more time to work on this one, and then we can add her to the calendar in due course. I also think, as I wrote in the introduction, that we would do well to wait a bit before adding folks to our calendar. The above-listed resolutions are all second readings, which means our work this time is simply finishing what has been begun. That’s different from starting from scratch on calendar changes.


A124 Authorize the trial use Commemoration of Liliʻuokalani of Hawai’i — First Reading. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

If passed, we would be approving the first of two readings necessary to add Liliʻuokalani of Hawai’i to the calendar for commemoration on January 29. As with the previous resolution, it appears to me that the SCLM is not quite done with the propers. I think we would do well to wait until we have perfected material. In the meantime, the explanation notes there is already a local commemoration in Hawai’i. Folks there — and elsewhere — can commemorate this worthy figure even before official adoption. Among other things, there’s no Rite I collect. The bio needs a bit of work. The SCLM had a lot on their plate this time, so it’s completely understandable not everything is ready. Since local commemoration need not be delayed, I think we could delay adding Liliʻuokalani until everything is ready to go.

Also, as I wrote in the intro to this post, I think we might put a moratorium on adding people and moving things around to give ourselves time to get things a bit more organized and consistent.


A125 Add Optional Fast Days to Lesser Feasts and Fasts. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

Nope. There is no explanation, so I can’t speculate on why the SCLM wants to take this work on. They mention a mandate from 2018 (!) but that resolution also has little information. Even in their Blue Book report, there is little more than this cryptic line: “We would also like to revisit the question of adding additional optional fast days to the calendar, which General Convention had directed us to consider in 2018 (2018-A-67), but which was delayed by the pandemic. We had a robust conversation this biennium about possibilities, and hope that our successors will be able to take up that work.” Given our difficulty in promulgating high-quality liturgies, and given the massive amount of work already on their plate, I think this is something we can take a pass on. Perhaps there is some need for this I can’t imagine, but I have never once heard anyone say, “I sure wish we had a few more fast days in LFF.”

Let’s save ourselves some work and free up the SCLM to complete other necessary work which will occupy their time. And, again, let’s also invest the resources necessary to get the kind of liturgical work our church needs. The SCLM folks mean well and do their best. I don’t doubt that! But they are under-resourced. The solution is to increase resources and decrease work. This resolution is an easy pass for me.


A126 Transfer dates of commemorations in Lesser Feasts and Fasts. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This resolution solves the “problem” that we have many days with two or more commemorations on a single day. Of course, the first question that comes to mind is, “Why did we stack up commemorations if we didn’t want to have stacked commemorations?” A natural second question is, “What is the issue with allowing people to make a choice in which commemorations they keep?” We already have rubrics that allow for the transfer of lesser feasts, so if one wanted to commemorate both of the lesser feats on a single day, that’s easy to do.

There are three reasons I oppose this resolution. First, as I just wrote, I don’t see a “problem” that actually needs to be fixed. Second, moving feast days around will result in MORE confusion in our church, not less. Everyone who doesn’t go out and buy Lesser Feasts & Fasts 2024 will have the wrong calendar. Almost brand-new resources will suddenly be out of date. People are already massively confused about our calendar, let’s not shuffle the deck chairs calendar dates to fix things that don’t need to be fixed. Third, we have proven that our liturgical actions often have unintended consequences. As part of our multi-triennium holding pattern, let’s take a long hard look at our full calendar holistically. If we then decide we need to “declutter” or move things around, let’s do it all at once, carefully and thoroughly.


A127 Establish a Working Group to Update Biographies in Lesser Feasts and Fasts. Full text. Likely vote: YES, if amended.

This resolution aims to clean up the biographies for all the folks commemorated in Lesser Feasts & Fasts. by authorizing “the creation of a small working group of church historians to review the biographies in Lesser Feasts and Fasts, taking note of changes in scholarship that have occurred since many of the biographies were first approved, and make any appropriate revisions.” In addition to church historians, I’d like to see church theologians, poets, and skilled writers involved in this work. Let’s make sure our biographies are historically accurate, theologically strong, and beautiful to read. The resolution also encourages this group to consider if any of the folks we commemorate might need to be revisited for being involved in the slave trade, for example. While I don’t think we should judge ancient people with a fully modern lens, we can well choose who to commemorate or not. This makes sense. The working group would have six years to work, and then they’d report to the SCLM. Sounds fine to me. Let’s just make sure we expand the circle of folks who are involved in the work.


A128 Concerning minor edits to Lesser Feasts and Fasts. Full text. Likely vote: YES, if amended.

If passed, this resolution would authorize the SCLM to fix little mistakes in Lesser Feasts & Fasts without recourse to a full resolution and action by General Convention. Makes good sense. I think it’s healthy to have one more outside person overseeing any corrections. This could be added to the plate of the Custodian of the Book of Common Prayer, or perhaps it could require approval by the Presiding Bishop and President of the House of Deputies. This won’t happen frequently, so I don’t think it’s a major burden on anyone to co-sign what the SCLM proposes.


A129 Lectionary for Lesser Feasts and Fasts. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

Lesser Feasts & Fasts provides just two lessons (either an OT or an Epistle, plus a Gospel) for most feasts. This resolution would add a third lesson so that folks commemorating these would have the option of a “normal” flow of three lessons during Holy Eucharist. I’m fine with that. My concern is that I spent 30 seconds looking at the lectionary and found an error. Maybe I just happened to spot the only one. Or maybe there are others. Again, for the sake of avoiding confusion, I’d like to propose that we wait on this until everything has been double- and triple-checked. I know that we don’t pay proofreaders to look at this stuff, so I don’t blame volunteers — who are doubtless doing their best — for missing stuff now and then. But let’s invest the resources to do this well, if we’re going to do it.

If we don’t want to wait a triennium, let’s spend $10,000 or so and hire the necessary professionals to ensure that what resource that is eventually release is perfected. We could authorize the SCLM to make necessary changes and to publish this once it’s done. But it doesn’t seem done now (unless I just happened to spot the one error. It’s in the Confession of St. Peter, by the way.).

While I probably wouldn’t use the three lessons provided by this resource, I don’t mind offering them for folks who would like to have more scripture in their celebrations.


C011 Add Howard W. Thurman to The Episcopal Church Calendar. Full text. Likely vote: YES, but only to refer to the SCLM.

This resolution wants to add Howard Thurman to our calendar of commemorations. Thurman was amazing, and I’m personally grateful for his writing. I think it’s quite likely that he should have a place on our calendar of commemorations. The challenge is that the way we do this is to develop a set of propers and then propose the commemoration with its propers. This resolution does not include the necessary ingredients for Thurman to be added. A solution would be to refer this resolution to the SCLM for their consideration. They can use that as a mandate, if desired, to develop propers. Then we will be in a position to add this commemoration.

As I’ve said before, I think we need to have a waiting period before we add folks or move things around. But perhaps Thurman is an exception to that rule. In any case, we can’t add him yet. So let’s refer this to the SCLM for their consideration.


C012 Add Howard W. Thurman to the Episcopal Church Calendar. Full text. Likely vote: YES, but only to refer to the SCLM.

See commentary on C011.


C020 Add Ilia Chavchavadze of Georgia to Lesser Feasts and Fasts. Full text. Likely vote: NO, but perhaps this could be referred to the SCLM.

As with C011, this resolution says it wants to add someone to the calendar of commemorations. The resolution does not provide the necessary ingredients. The biography included does not make it clear the Ilia Chavchavadze satisfies all the criteria enumerated in LFF for inclusion in the calendar. Perhaps so. Perhaps this proposal could be referred to the SCLM for their consideration.


C021 Second General Convention Reading to add Élie Naud, Huguenot Witness to the Faith, 1722, to Lesser Feasts and Fasts. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This resolution claims to offer a second reading of a plan to add Élie Naud to our calendar of commemorations. But I’m not sure we had a first reading. As nearly as I can tell, Naud was included in A Great Cloud of Witnesses (2015) , which was never authorized for use, merely “made available.” The only mention of Naud I could find in the archives was in a 2018 resolution containing draft language with a calendar copied from AGCW, but that portion of the resolution was never enacted. So, if anything, this would be a first reading. But there are no propers here. Perhaps, if anything, this could be referred to the SCLM for them to untangle this and then decide of Naud should receive a first (?) reading for inclusion in the calendar.


C023 Commemorating The Philadelphia Eleven in the Church Calendar. Full text. Likely vote: YES, but only to refer to the SCLM.

We are near the 50th anniversary of the first ordinations of women as priests in the Episcopal Church. I am profoundly grateful for the ministry and leadership of women in our church, and I’m especially thankful for the courage of those early trailblazers. It could well make sense to have a commemoration of those first ordinations in our calendar. However, this resolution does not contain the necessary ingredients fo this to happen. Therefore, the best course of action available to us now would be to refer this to the SCLM for their consideration.


D033 Add George of Lydda, martyr, to Lesser Feasts and Fasts. Full text. Likely vote: YES, but only to refer to the SCLM.

The explanation attached to this resolution contains documents for which no Spanish translation has been provided.

This resolution would add St. George (patron of England, among other things) to our calendar of commemorations. It is widely agreed that he lacks historicity but meets many other criteria for inclusion in our calendar. Given the worldwide cult of devotion to him, I think it is worthy of our consideration to add him. This should be referred to the SCLM for their consideration.


D046 The Commemoration of Sister Sophi and her companions, the Deaconesses of The Order of St. Katherine, of the Appleton Church Home. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This proposes to add a commemoration of some 19th century deaconesses. You can read biographical material in the attached documents (helpfully provided in Spanish and English, yay!). The propers need some help: the “collect” is not quite in the proper form yet, and the bio will need to be shortened to fit in the space provided by LFF. And I lack the expertise to know if these folks meet the criteria set forth in LFF for inclusion in our calendar. All of this is to say that we should refer this to the SCLM for their consideration.


SHAMELESS COMMERCIAL PLUG! The illustration is from the calendar page of the gift edition of the Book of Common Prayer sold by Forward Movement. It’s the 1979 prayer book with red rubrics, a leather cover, ribbon marker, and gilt-edge pages. If you want a beautiful BCP for home or church use, this is your friend. You can get it from Forward Movement directly, from Amazon, or your local bookseller. Please note: I do not receive a commission if you buy this! I’m just proud of Forward Movement’s work on this one.

16 Responses

  1. Geoffrey McLarney says:

    I thought I had read that the proposal for the Whipp commemoration had been withdrawn by its backers?

    • Scott Gunn says:

      That is entirely possible, and perhaps the tracking system just hasn’t been updated yet. We shall see!

      • Liza says:

        Yes, Laurence Whipp is not coming from the SCLM, but it is an A resolution because it was one of the ones leftover from the 2022 General Convention. So, the SCLM has not yet reviewed it. I wasn’t at the hearing, but I also heard that it emerged there that the local diocese is no longer supporting it at this time after further research.

        • John Cheek deputy on PBLM says:

          That is correct though I still don’t know why

        • Scott Gunn says:

          Thanks, all. I have updated the post. If anyone finds errors or knows about other late-breaking changes, please let me know. Don’t want any fake news on here!

  2. Bob Chapman says:

    I strongly believe that your suggestion of letting the dust settle for a few conventions is the absolute best suggestion.

    Vote to receive all of these, but not approve. Choose the most expedient method to quickly dispose and move on to something important and serious. An idea of something important and serious is establish something equivalent to the ACNA’s Diocese for the Sake of Others with a Suffeagan Bishop that reports directly to the Presiding Bishop (modeled after the Federal Ministries Suffeagan).

    As you said, there is nothing stopping the commemoration of any of the new proposals. For that matter, nothing requires commemoration of those already on LFF. They are turning LFF into a triennial Lent Madness. However, when everyone wears the Golden Crown, no one wears the Golden Crown.

    There are some people that I seriously in the proposals that should be commemorated. Nothing stops me from commentating them personally. It would be preferable to make the next changes to LFF be deliberate, intentional, and correct the first time.

    I know I’m probably in the minority. So was John the Baptist.

  3. Liza says:

    It is surprising to me, given the role that liturgy plays in the life of our church, that we have no staff member with any responsibility for liturgy. It wouldn’t necessarily need to be a full time job; I’m sympathetic to the desire for a leaner staff structure. But the Anglican Church of Canada has a MUCH smaller staff than we have, and they still have someone for whom that is in their portfolio, who can help to coordinate the work of volunteers and use staff resources for things like proofreading and translating. Most other American churches that I can think of also have a liturgy staff person (differently named depending on the polity). It does seem to me that we get what we’re willing to pay for, and for as long as we insist on having our liturgy created ONLY by volunteers without any staff support, the quality is probably going to reflect that.

    Regarding A123 and A124, those propers came directly from the local proposals (the Association for Episcopal Deacons and the diocese of Hawai’i). The SCLM voted to endorse them, but didn’t really tinker with them at all. (But perhaps should. I’m not really arguing with that. That’s just where those came from.)

    As for explanations, I’m not 100% clear on this, so I may be wrong, but for second readings I think those are filed automatically by the GCO, so I don’t think it’s the SCLM that is wantonly withholding explanations! (But maybe it is, and that confusion is precisely the problem…)

    • Scott Gunn says:

      I completely agree, and this is why I keep saying we need to invest in liturgy. A couple of full-time staff would not be out of order.

      I wondered about the 2nd reading explanations. And now I can add this to the list of things to fix about General Convention. Regular deputies and bishops need a little guidance on this stuff, so we need to find a way to provide explanations.

      And A123 and A124 just need some work. I assumed SCLM had not written these, but they can take up the project in the coming triennium if these are referred.

  4. Julia Yunker Miller says:

    Thank you for this whole series. I’m learning so much.

  5. John Cheek says:

    Curious as to why you did not weigh in on A130 and A131?

  6. James Richardson says:

    C011 & C012 — Scott, thanks for your support for adding Howard Thurman to the calendar. The proper way for General Convention to add someone to the calendar is to refer it on first reading to the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music to write the Propers and biographical statement. These two resolutions do this, referring to the SCLM to do this work, and then bring it back in 2027 for the second reading. Thanks again.

  7. Micah W. says:

    “We already have rubrics that allow for the transfer of lesser feasts”—can you point me to these? I had believed that this wasn’t permitted rubrically, although often done in reality.

    • Scott Gunn says:

      Oops. You are correct! In my haste, I scrambled the rubric that permits (under limited circumstances) the transfer of major feasts — and the prevalent practice, as you note, of people just doing willy-nilly what they want. You are correct.

      We could fix this with a note in the next LFF or BOS, I suspect. It would be a reasonable accommodation for local communities. But aside from that, my main point still holds: if we have two commemorations stacked on a day, folks are free to choose which one to keep.

      Thanks for reading so carefully!

  8. Keakealani says:

    In a very minor side note, I am someone who actually does believe we need fast days in LFF, both to make the name make sense and because self-denial as a spiritual practice has a long history in Christianity and should be commended. I would be open to considering days of repentance and fasting along a similar explanation of commemoration – perhaps a day of creation care repentance, or a fast associated with the martyrdom of key figures whose deaths were related to ongoing problems.

    That all said, the best fast practice is the one we already have – the Friday abstentions mentioned in the BCP calendar. And I would *much* rather have those increase in prominence than to add some separate commemoration.

Leave a comment!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.