It is a threadbare, tired slogan, oft used by theological drag racers, short-circuiting on the fast track, that St Paul is "not a systematic theologian". What that is supposed to mean may be questioned. Holy Church is indeed glad to identify St Irenaeus of Lyons as her first "Systematic Theologian", called forth to answer the root-and-branch attack on Orthodoxy posed by the various strains of rampant Gnosticism. St Irenaeus indeed organized his reply to include the doctrines of Revelation, Creation and Incarnation, and a demonstration of the consistency of apostolic Tradition. A modern reader finds patience sorely tried as St Irenaeus exposes the Gnostic mazes of inconsistency, wild speculation, licentiousness, and folly; but St Irenaeus effectively killed Gnosticism for nearly two millenia. It is having a second go-round now, as it joins forces with rationalism, of all things, and iconoclasm.

But is Saint Paul so "unsystematic"? The "large letters" we have from his hand, and his scribes' more refined penmanship, are largely responses to crises in the various churches he had founded. Scholars like Dr John Churd¹, and others, have patiently picked through the texts to uncover the urgent messages reaching the Apostle to which he was obliged to respond. Chances are that he responds to them in the order presented, except in the case of I Corinthians. Only Romans and Colossians are going to churches he has not yet visited. St Paul did not waste precious time writing about non-controversial subjects. (One winces to think of St Paul grinding out a monthly parish newsletter!) It is well to remember that if the First Church of Corinth had not run amok in the Liturgy, there would be no reference at all to the Eucharist in the whole Pauline corpus!¹ Churd, The Origin of I Corinthians, SPCK, Seabury, 1965.

I believe there is a fundamental mistake in "Feel Free..." as to the nature of authority in the early Church. St Paul is not "off on his own tangent" or "out on a limb" when he says to the Galatians, "You...received me as an ángelos [Malak] of God, as Christ Jesus." (Gal. 4:14) He comes to them in persona Christi. This is in full accord with our Lord's commissioning word to His chosen apostles in the Upper Room: "AMEN, AMEN, I say to you: He who receives anyone whom I send receives Me; and he who receives Me receives Him Who sent Me." (Jn 13:20) This is the very heart of the meaning of the Greek word, apóstolos, and of its strict Hebrew antecedent, seluakh: "One who is sent with a commission."

I would suggest that this ties in closely with the Lord's previous word, "He who sees Me sees Him Who sent Me." (Jn 12:45), made the more emphatic by its repetition in Jn 14:7, 14:9, and the converse in 14:17, where "the world cannot receive because it neither sees Him nor knows Him" (re-membering the coinherence of the Holy Trinity). But it will not be so with the Apostles, for "You know Him, for He dwells with you, and will be in you." This apostolic identity is not exclusively Johannine. St Luke reports that the Lord commissioned also the Seventy, telling them, "He who hears you hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him Who sent Me." (Lk 10:16 = Mt 10:40) A Johannine parallel to this last is 12:48, "He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings has a Judge; the Word that I have spoken will be his Judge on the Last Day."

The question of authority, and presence, is a key concept. It is not merely the presence of a certain number of baptized Christians that brings about a Presence of Christ that can effect the conversion of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of the Great High Priest and King. It is the presence of His authorized Representative, together with the people, constituting a visible expression of His Body, with a visible Head, who can enact the liturgical drama of His Great Wedding Feast, and His Saving Passover.

But I must get to my Case for the Systematic Argumentation of I Corinthians by St Paul. These other points will be useful in due time. Rather than beat about the bush, I think we can more easily see St Paul's entire design by going directly to the Punchline: If anyone does not acknowledge this, he shall not be acknowledged." (ICor. 14:38 -  /  -- a-gno-eî / a-gno-eîtai ) This is a rabbinical anáthema, to which our Lord's parables have allusion: "Depart from Me ... I never knew/acknowledged ['] you." (Mt 7:23; cf. Mt 25:12, Lk 13:27) {Cf. Jn 10:14, I know () My [sheep]...} Not to be acknowledged or recognized by God is the same thing as to fail of salvation. St Paul possesses no stronger language.

This A-bomb follows immediately after reference to a Divine Command: "If anyone... (is truly) 'spiritual' he will know that what I am writing to you is a Command of the Lord [Jesus]." [ICor. 14:37] (Those familiar with I Corinthians will recognize here a repeated chord; we will return to this.) The combination here of The Ultimate Anáthema and "a Command of the Lord" must alert us that we are dealing with a subject of the uttermost gravity. Disagree to your own eternal disgrace! What is it?

Before we work our way back to the answer, there is a prior authority to which St Paul refers: The Universal Church's universal apostolic Tradition. "What?! Did the Word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached?" (ICor. 14:36) Even the Corinthians are aware that "all the churches of the saints" have a practice that differs from their own: They are seriously out of line, and must return to the fold; they are not being true to the Apostolic Root. No variation on this point can be tolerated. Willful disobedience will meet not Paul's, but Christ's condemnation.

We hardly need reminder that St Paul faced hostile opposition and rebellion in Corinth in his absence. It appears that some Corinthians may have known Kephas (ICor 1:12), and possibly others of the original Twelve (ICor 9:5). St Paul knew that the faction opposing him in Corinth could appeal past him to Peter, or others who knew Jesus first-hand. If Paul were wrong, they could destroy his credibility for ever. He could not risk being wrong here. Nor can he risk over-playing his hand: If the potion he prescribes is too strong for the disease, they will convict him of malpractice. But he knows he is right. He has faithfully passed on the Traditions from Jesus, in full accord with what the other apostles have taught all their churches. And the disease at issue is of such character that no medicine is too strong, for the patient is in more than mortal danger. The new Corinthian Christians are disobeying the only One Who can save them; thus spurning His divine Authority as Head, they risk cutting themselves off from Christ completely.

Dr Nils Johansson has written, For the Son of Man, it was self-evident that those who belonged to His Church must adapt themselves to Him, not that He should be adjusted to them. Who would have the right to change the Commands of Christ? ¹ St Paul cites another authority, as if this all were not enough. "Even () the Torah" lines up with all the other authorities, but we note that it is cited as a secondary witness. (ICor 14:34) Scripture, Tradition, spirit-guided reasoning, and a Command of the Lord are all brought to bear on one single question.

There can be no doubt of the importance of getting the answer RIGHT. So what's up? We all know: Women speaking in the church. Big deal! They sing in our choirs, don't they? They serve on our Vestries, don't they? They read lessons, don't they? How could we get along without them today? What sort of fuddy-duddyism is this?

Let's look again. The grammar alone of this verse, 14:34, should attract our close attention:
The Women should keep silence in the churches.
For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate...
The implied contrast is notable when we fill it out:

(ALL WOMEN ) (NOT SPEAKING) (SUB-ORDINATE are to ) as ( is to) as (is to [Leading] MEN) ( SPEAKING ) ( 'ORDINATE' (if I may be permitted such a usage). "Speak in the church" () has an idiomatic sense in NT usage which comes out clearly in this parallel: 'SPEAKING' here is the same as 'ORDERING' the services, PRESIDING. In English Parliamentary use, the "Speaker of the House" is the Presiding Officer---never mind the rule that he is the one man in the Commons not permitted to speak! (Let me return in detail to this later.) Now we find the sense intended by St Paul in that oft-quoted dictum he is alleged to have written just for purposes of Anglican polemic: "All things should be done decently and in order." (ICor 14:40) It has to do not just with se- ¹ Johansson, Women and the Church's Ministry, Ottawa, p.104. consequence, but with the deeper question of authority:

If the liturgy is not ordered according to Christ's Command, known to all the first apostolic Churches, it has no validity; no, worse: IT IS SPIRITUALLY DEVASTATING TO THOSE WHO TAKE PART, WHETHER THEY KNOW IT OR NOT, for they act out the supposition that what Christ said and did does not have eternal validity, but may be 'corrected' to suit another era; they are saying that Christ's wisdom was "limited to His time". I dare say this is a fancy, rationalistic way to say, "Jesus is accursed." (ICor 12:3) (The motivating spirit is thus exposed.)

Here, all Paul's lines of authority and argument converge. I am convinced he has demonstrated the use of each of these in the previous portions of the Epistle, in order that we should not be surprised to find ALL of them utilized at last in his most important case, aside from the Resurrection itself.

In addition to the grand fireworks finale ending Ch. 14, I} "Commands of the Lord" appear in various forms in I Corinthians: 7:10-- "Not I, but the Lord (gives charge)" about marriage /divorce 9:14-- The Lord commanded (that full-time ministry is proper) [cf. Gal 6:6] 11:23-"I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you..." but he is careful to distinguish: 7:25-"I have no command of the Lord (about the unmarried)" 7:12- "I say, not the Lord (about unbelieving spouses)" (A tyrant or liar would not have to admit this.) 7:6--- "I say this by way of concession, not of command..."

II} Tradition of all the churches is cited: 4:17- "... my ways...as I teach them everywhere in every church." 11:16-"We recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God." (therefore the contentious must submit)

III} Scripture closes several disputes: 4:6- "(...learn) not to go beyond what is written [in general] 5:13 -- "Drive out the wicked..." summarizes Deut 17:2-7 6:16- "The two shall become one flesh" explains the spiritual nature of all sexual relations. 9:9 -- "You shall not muzzle an ox..." explains why clergy are often fed hay? -- No, just more on sowing and reaping. Ch 10 -- Numerous references to the Passover, baptism, idolatry (I do not cite every reference to the OT; some are to illustrate a particular point, rather than to terminate a dispute.)

IV} Reasoning out the problem when all other authorities are silent is a necessary procedure. 7:12-- "I say, not the Lord..." 7:25-- "I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy..." 7:40-- "I think that I have the Spirit of God." This is not said with pomposity, but to bring the factious Corinthians back to their senses. Paul's judgment is formed "in the Spirit". They, on the other hand, have clearly let wrong and deceitful, ungodly spirits take control.

In addition to word from Chloe's people (ICor 1:11; 5:1), an official letter from Corinth has come with questions (ICor 7:1). As we examine the text in Ch 5-8, we detect that the written questions from the Clerk of the Vestry did not mention the scandal of the incestuous man (Ch 5); they'd rather he not know! Paul's source is likely Chloe's people. Truth some-times reaches us from unofficial sources, too. But there is an order, a system, to Paul's treat-ment. He treats these various problems in a way that will allow him to return (Chh 9-14) to the content of Chloe's more honest report of the most potentially disastrous misbehavior, to deal with it in the most effective and convincing way. There is no indication that the issue of conduct of the Eucharist was brought to him by the Vestry at Corinth; but all sorts of things have been said behind his back to diminish his moral authority there. So we find that he introduces in Ch 1 themes he will return to and develop later on.

The superiority of Christ to all His servants is set forth, and the Cross (Salvation) is contrasted with secular and sacred "wisdom". (Ch 1-2) The novice status of the Corinthians is restated, their short parish history is recalled; they are warned against being "puffed up", setting themselves above apostolic authority, or apart from the Universal Church. (Ch 3-4) They have tolerated immorality and are commanded corporately to repent, and to expel the guilty man; squabbles should be arbitrated within the Church; the Gospel delivers us from sin, not into it; immorality does not accord with Christ; He can change you. (Ch 5-6) Because the Christian's body is holy (an idea abhorrent to the contemporary Greek philosophical mind), Paul can now deal with the questions from the Vestry about marriage, divorce, unbelieving spouses, social status, celibacy, virgin daughters, remarriage of widows. (Ch 7) The source of the question on idol meats seems not be the Vestry, in my opinion; Paul uses it to put limits on the haughty, inflated use of "superior gnôsis," contrary to charity and consideration of Christian Unity. (Ch 8) Corinth's bigger problem is from this inflated gnôsis.

Ch 9 responds to challenges about Paul's "rights" as an Apostle. He has not insisted on exercising these, but he insists that he does have them. He responds to personal criticism, defending himself by appeal to the Torah (Dt 25:4), and an otherwise unknown Command of the Lord (9:14; cf. Lk 10:7); he also appeals to common sense with three homey examples (9:7). Paul has bent over backward to make the Gospel appealing; there has been no selfishness on his part, rather the very opposite.

Ch 10 sets the question of idol meats in a fresh perspective by showing that the new Corinthian Christians have taken part in a spiritual Passover in Christ. The Exodus provides ample warning against backsliding. He is quoting back to them some who have misused themes in his own preaching, expressions meaning one thing to a Jew, another to a pagan. [It is possible that some of the repetition here is due to the mess in the filing cabinet in the Corinth Parish Office, and that some paragraphs belong to Paul's previous letter (see ICor 5:9), as IICor 6:14-7:1 undoubtedly does. The length of that passage may provide a clue as to the "standard paper size" of the time.]

When we reach 11:2, we enter a four-chapter examination of liturgy. Even Ch 13's famous Hymn of Love is polemical in purpose here, set against uncharitable, haughty claims of spiritual superiority, based on exercise of charísmata. True spiritual gifts build up the Body, and are not used to violate spiritual principles such as Headship, or the dominical Order (seder) of the Eucharist. "Agápê does not insist on its own way." (13:5) Spiritual gifts are under control; they are not ecstatic. It is proper for women to take vocal part (11:5) in the prayers and prophesying in church, given those gifts; but "speaking" is out of the question. This is not contradictory, when we understand the technical character of the expression, laleîn en tê ekklêsía.

It is clear the NT Church had officials: Apostles, Prophets, Teachers. (12:28-30; Rom. 12:6-8; Eph. 4:11) The "royal priesthood" of the People of Christ no more abolishes headship and order than the "kingdom of priests" (all Israel) abolished the offices of the Tribe of Levi, or the House of Aaron. Biblically these priesthoods stand along side each other: Of ADAM, as Spokesman of Creation to God Of ISRAEL, as Spokes-nation of all Mankind to God (Ex. 19:6) "You shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." Of LEVI, as Spokes-tribe of Israel to God. Of AARON, as Spokesman of Levi & the Nation to God. [On a different scale stands the mystical High Priesthood of MELCHIZEDEK, to whom Abraham (and Levi) payed tithes, a type of JESUS' own High Priesthood, superior to that of Aaron. (Hebrews 3-10)]

This sets the "Royal Priesthood" of the Church as a whole (IPeter 2:9) in the right context. Ex 19:6 does not unpriest the priests! [Terry Fulham is very wrong here.] It means the Church has the same, or greater, dignity in the plan of Salvation than Israel had. (In any case, Peter refers to the baptismal Chrismation with the Sign of the Cross, the TAV, in holy oil.) Liturgical leadership in the Temple was indisputably possessed by the priests, at God's decree, under the High Priest. At Passover, wherein the Lord established the New Covenant in His Blood, liturgical leadership in the home was the indisputable possession of the father.

A widow who headed a household was to join herself to another household so that a man would preside at the Seder. [Thus we see that ordination of women to this liturgical role canonizes the modern dysfunctional family.] Laleîn by itself in the NT is not a technical term; it simply means "speak", never "babble / prattle" as in other Greek literature, or as in English, "Lollard", or Irish, Lawler. It becomes technical only when part of a determinative expression: laleîn ta rhêmata, ...ton logon, ...tên oikodomên (edification). Ekklêsía is the Church assembled for worship. (Cf. Hebrew / Aram-aic.) If by laleîn en tê ekklêsía Paul was writing only of disturbances, tarássein, "disturb / trouble / agitate / confuse" would have been perfectly suitable and clear.

In Corinth, the church body had given to women a "right" which was not in its gift. The church is being blamed, not the women! Vs 36-37 make clear that Corinth is not the fountain of the Gospel or ecclesiastical order, and cannot establish novelties. Corinth claimed some prophet's private gnôsis as authority for changing apostolic practice. Paul sets himself against such an exaggerated estimate of their spiritual gifts because of the more than fatal consequences. They have been so carried away with gnôsis they have forgotten Agápê Incarnate, Christ Himself, without Whom there could be no spiritual gifts, and to Whom they must be subject.

If Christ and His Commands were neglected, one could not count on belonging to those who had been saved when the Day of Judgment would come.¹ If Paul had not so strongly stressed the necessity for obeying the commands of God and of Christ as he does in ICor. 11-14, [Christianity] would have become an antinomian and libertinistic gnostic sect which would scarcely have survived the classical world.²

We need to examine the evidence concerning the conduct of worship in St Paul's churches. Fortunately we have an eye-witness account from Troas, in Acts 20:7-12. Paul was there for preaching and instruction, and the Breaking of Bread. Luke stylistically joins two similar words to describe the teaching: dialegesthai / homileîn. Of 10 uses of the former, seven clearly mean "discuss", even "dispute" to the point of riot; the other three uses can be seen then to fall into line. (Acts 17:17-18; 24:25-26; 18:4, 19; 19:8; 24:12; and 19:9; 20:7, 9.) The Vulgate renders dialegesthai as disserere, disputare, loqui cum; the Peshitta agrees, using mallei am, "speak with", in all but two of the citations. We learn from this that the traditional rabbinical method, learned at the feet of Gamaliel, was used by Paul: A formal question-and-answer format was followed. The Mishnah shows how the (chaired) rabbi posed questions on the Torah before his pupils for decision and let them reply, or else replied himself. This was customarily "staged" on formal occasions, with two who had prearranged the dialogue. Homilía (as in the Emmaus Road account, Lk 24:15) became the standard term; it implied an "intimate conversation". Syzêteîn is indisputably the rabbinical technical term for their discussions with fellow rabbis. We glimpse this procedure in Lk 2:46-7, where Jesus at 12 - BEFORE His Bar Mitzvah ---that's the point!--- has taken the central teaching Chair amongst the Teachers of Israel and is posing questions for them to resolve under His guidance, for He is Wisdom Incarnate. (That's why His Mother remembered it so well!)

We learn that the homilía was not carried on indiscriminately, but only between those who had been appointed to it. This is a clear implication of the order in ICor. 12:28-30: All are NOT apostles, prophets, teachers... The same meaning is seen in Lk 12:41-44: The steward is an apostle, set over Christ's Household, to give them spiritual food at the proper time, not only in Communion, but also in teaching. Self-appointment will not do. The distinction of authorized spokesmen [ordained] from unordained must be maintained. (This of course has nothing to do with inequality.) The Corinthians had gotten this wrong. They confused gifts with offices, power. "Earnestly desire the higher gifts" --not the offices! (ICor 12: 31) [Remember Acts 20: 29-30!] Jesus gave the apostles authority and commission prior to the charismata. It is just not true to imagine that the Early Church had a "charismatic ministry" which later "degenerated" and was supplanted by an "institutional" one. (Harnack's theory has been thoroughly exploded.) A claim to charismatic endowment was not sufficient to justify moving from one Church office to another. Appointment, ordination, authorization, was required.

The Corinthian enthusiasts understood ministry entirely in terms of charísmata, and that means that they do not understand it at all. Their lack of respect for the Apostle is but an expression of this lack of understanding.³ ¹ Johansson, p. 56.
² ibid., p. 57.
³ Schlier, in Johansson, p. 76.

Johansson writes, It is impossible to allege any NT passage which obliterates the distinction between one who is in the Church's ministry and one who is not.¹

It appears the Early Church instituted the Levitical ministry as the divinely given Blueprint for her own. The three Orders of Levi (2Kings 23:4) correspond to, and explain the development of, the Church's conception of office. Genetic Succession in Levi became the model for organic, Apostolic Succession, and accounts for such expressions as Tertullian's, that Catholic bishops are "Bearers of the Apostolic Seed." The 70 of the Sanhedrin were originally cohenim, and elders (presbyteroi). In Acts 15, the elders uncontestedly sit in Council, without being "created" by the Apostles, because of the Lord's appointment of the 70, recorded in Luke 10. ["72" is a scribal error.] From them had come Matthias and Joseph Barsabbas Justus as candidates for the episcopal-Apostolate (Acts 1:20, where Peter quotes LXX Ps. 109:8ff.) These were modeled on the 70 elders of Numbers 11:16. It was natural for them to take the role of substitute in the absence of the Apostle/High Priest in the liturgical life of the Church, as their counterparts would do in the Temple, certain rites being reserved. In Latin, presbyter  prester -- naturally merging two concepts in "priest". As for the Diaconate, the Church's first need was for administration of charities. (Acts 6) In the Temple, this was done by Levites who were not cohenim. Apostolic ordination set apart seven for this work. It was only natural that, in a short time, this Order would also assume the liturgical role of the Levites of the Temple, eg., as Cantors, Masters of Ceremony, handlers of Sacred Vessels for the sacrificial blood, and so forth.

Summarizing much of Dean Johansson's minute examination, we find that the didáskalos gave all the answers in the homily. No others had the right to do this. (Corinth may have had several. See I Clement.) However, certain "possessors of gnôsis" had decreed that women could enter into this formal homilía, contrary to apostolic tradition, and from there had moved into being "teachers", and ergo (at least potentially) presidents of the liturgy.

We find a tight parallel between Paul's line of argumentation in 9:1-15 and 14:33-8. In both, it is urgent that all obey the Lord's Command. However, in each case, he patiently builds up a high pedestal on which finally to lay the Lógion of the Lord. 1) Principle of Church Order –Tradition; 2) Commonsense custom in the world - reasoning; 3) Testimonies of Scripture; 4) a Determinative Command or Word of the Lord, not quoted exactly, out of a kind of reverence --- the same seen in Josephus, where it comes to the Words of God. (See Johansson, p.81-2) This is but one of many proofs that 14:33-8 belongs to Paul's original text, and is not a tampered, or later insertion. (See M. Hauke, Priesthood, p. 365ff.)

Women could be prophets, but prophets must wait upon inspiration. The prophet is also subject to the Church's wisdom, to assay the veracity of a message. The Teacher had on-going authority in the local Church in the absence of the Apostle. A woman was not permit-ted to be a teacher in the liturgical setting. In Israel, a woman could be a prophetess, but she could not be a teacher or cohen. Johansson writes.
Perhaps it was expected [in Corinth] that Paul, who in I Cor 11:11-12 and in ¹ Johansson, p. 78.

full agreement with the Jesus Tradition most emphatically proclaims the full religious equality of women with men, might have broken with Judaism in the question of women and the ministry, just as he broke with Judaism in many other respects, even some of central importance. That he did not do so can be explained in one way only --- a Command of the Lord forbade it..¹

I Timothy 2:11-15 shows us the use of didaskeîn en tê ekklêsía exactly parallel to ICor. 14:34-8's laleîn... This is from Paul's hand (a private letter ad clerum, as Robinson argues, will take a different tone and vocabulary than a public letter); discovery of a tiny fragment of it in Qumran's Cave 7 makes it pre-67 AD, and indisputably Paul's own. [The arguments used to say it is not Paul's, if used on Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, could prove he did not also write the Gettysburg Address, and vice versa!] Preceding each is a discussion of women's apparel: ICor 11:2-12: I Tim. 2:9-10. The thought is so parallel in each: but in the latter, women are not permitted didáskein. Given the compelling force of Paul's argument in ICor 14, we must conclude that laleîn en tê ekklêsía has the meaning of "teach", in the specific sense that the Teacher of the Word is liturgical President for the Sacrament.

We face, then, a dominical Command, invoked by St Paul to deal with the rebellion in Corinth. All the churches were in accord, except Corinth. "Liturgical diversity" in this matter was anáthema, because there was just such a Divine Command. It is valid for the duration of the Church's sojourn on earth. To repeat,

For the Son of Man it was self-evident that those who belonged to His Church must adapt themselves to Him, not that He should be adjusted to them.²

And the Paraklete would not contradict what the Lord had set for foundations, He would only remind the disciples of those already laid. (Jn 14:25-6) Without any reservation, Paul subordinates the Torah to Christ, but nothing authoritatively contradicts the known Command of the Lord.

We might ask, "Why would this liturgical question be so important?" I suggest the answer may be found in Scriptural Iconography:

The Passover Seder was our Lord's most carefully chosen moment for instituting the Eucharist. He invested the ancient Rite with deep new meaning. He fulfilled it. He assumed the role of FATHER of the Family. (I believe this, and baptismal Rebirth, gave the Church the ancient practice of addressing the liturgical president and regular baptizer as "Father", first to bishops.) The shape of the Seder, with its narration of the Redemption, then the offering of Thanks, shaped the Eucharist: but alone it was not enough.

This new Rite was offered by the GREAT HIGH PRIEST, and offered for sins, so elements of Yom Kippur be-came mingled [eg., Passover's Lamb now takes away sins of the world, not just of Israel], and the Great Entrance of the High Priest into the Holy of Holies is highlighted. Thus the Sanctus ¹ Johansson, p. 86. ² Ibid., p. 104. became an element (Isa. 6), and the bells from his vestments (Ex 28:33-4)¹ became the bells of the thurible, or the Sanctus bells.

Christ rips down the veil! But this was not yet enough! Christ is also the HEAVENLY BRIDEGROOM, Who supplies the wine at Cana, in whose presence the Friends of the Groom rejoice. His Bride is the Church, and they share the Cup under the gold and crimson silk huppah², emblematic of His Blood, the veil of His Paschal Protection. And so, the Wedding Supper of the Lamb!³ This is divinely given "iconography." It has many layers of meaning, as all good ikons do.

Attacking this divine Given is Iconoclasm; and as the Seventh Council wisely decreed under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Iconoclasm is "the sum of many heresies and errors." Modern rationalism, the critical spirit bent on reductionism, alienated from the Father, teams up with the "superior" spirit of gnôsis, falsely so-called. This unholy trinity of heresies has deceived many. Its intent is their everlasting separation from Christ. That is not my word, but the Word of Christ, voiced by St Paul, His chosen Apostle to us Gentiles, and confirmed by the universal practice of the Church. The Corinthians knew it, and finally came back into line. The Protestant Episcopal Church, USA, is now in deadly error. Return to the Lord's Command is the only option for the sane.

1. The significance of Caiaphas tearing his robe on the morning before Passover can hardly be over-estimated. It was ritually defiling. His vestments were made "so that they may not be torn" (Ex. 28: 32; 39:23; Lev. 21:10; Mt 26:65; Mk 14:63). Then comes the stunning word that Jesus' clothing is "not torn" (Jn 19:24). Caiaphas is now precluded from offering the Passover that afternoon at three. Annas is under Roman inhibition. No new man of the House of Aaron can be consecrated by then. Jesus Himself makes "His OWN oblation of Himself once offered" (the correct reading of Cranmer's non-standard spelling, "õne", as the Non-Jurors saw), for He is both High Priest and Willing Victim. -- This was all deftly caught by an iconographer in a scene the size of a large postage stamp, which I once saw in Carmel.

2. Jewish Ceremonial Embroidery, Kathryn Salomon, 1988, Batsford Ltd, London, p. 104, citing the Talmud. Ancient churches customarily had a canopy over the altar, a remembrance of the huppah. It continues as the baldachino, and as the canopy carried above the Blessèd Sacrament in procession.

3. Thus an avowed, practicing homosexual, set upon so defiant a life, cannot fulfill this role as HUSBAND without creating an ikonic distortion and contradiction. The Liturgy is clearly "the longest running Drama in the world." A woman may memorize the lines, learn the gestures, wear the clothes, and strut the stage quite competently; but she can never effectively play Hamlet as Shakespeare's play.

It would require entire rewriting; it would no longer be Shakespeare. Likewise, the "Inclusive" Language Liturgies (ILLs) now being concocted, in naming God "mother", stand in violation of the Third Commandment, defying the revelation given to the holy prophets, and through our Lord Himself, that God is to be named as "Father". It was no accident, but the design of Providence, that Israel alone, in the ancient world, had no priestesses.
Rose Monday
February 11, 1991,
Second Anniversary of the Boston Masquerade

---Fr Christopher P. Kelley, SSC, DD, is rector of St Michael's-by-the-Sea in Carlsbad, CA 92018