Canons of the Church

Effective date: 1-26-2020

Our organization, in affiliation with the United Episcopal Catholic Communion, follow their beliefs and canons. As this church is a ordinate of the United Episcopal Catholic Communion, it may have a subset of canons related specifically to the Anglo-Catholic faith.  The canons of the United Episcopal Catholic Communion take precedence.

Section I: Leadership and Governance

Note: It is the purview of the Ecumenical Patriarch, sole incorporator of this church, to make the decision to associate our entire church organization with any other church organization or communion of churches. At such time that may occur, the following canons may be null and void depending on the agreement with the church or communion we associate with.


A. The leader of the church, hereto known as the Ecumenical Patriarch, is the chief spiritual leader and is church patriarch for life, as sole incorporator of the church in the United States of America. The Ecumenical Patriarch will, under personal discretion, relinquish stated leadership to a successor.

B. The Ecumenical Patriarch sets the mission and goals for the communion and national church. The Ecumenical Patriarch may select diocesan bishops (see section D) and has the power to remove them by his or her authority.

C. Any Bishops or clergy that associate in whole or in part with this church, will be advisers to the Ecumenical Patriarch. The will be allowed a “straw vote”, non binding, when counseling the Ecumenical Patriarch on church operations.

D. The Ecumenical Patriarch may, under personal discretion, grow this organization to include dioceses (bishoprics) in the event that becomes necessary. The Ecumenical Patriarch may also create a Bishops Council if so required. The Bishops Council would in this case take over all counseling actions to the Ecumenical Patriarch, and oversee the operations of the diocese.

E. It is our expectation that clergy will work together in a collegiate and civil manner. We encourage debate and we do not penalize others for their differences of belief and opinion; however, if for some reason we have a clergy member who is causing division or disruption within the church, this person may be removed from the church by the Ecumenical Patriarch without recourse.

F. Our organization will strive to provide a safe haven for all presbytery to practice their faith without fear of the rhetoric and insanity that has permeated sects within our faith. We use the Bible, 39 Articles, the Seven Sacraments and general rubrics that were tried and true within the first 2000 years of this faith. We do understand that tolerance of differences must be a cornerstone of the faith, and clergy will be encouraged to have open discussions, without fear of retribution. 

Notes on parts A and D: The Ecumenical Patriarch will act as sole head of the church for a period of three (3) years from the initial date of Jan 1, 2020. The Ecumenical Patriarch will use full discretionary authority to add, modify or remove articles from the canons, beliefs and rubrics. This process is intended to remove all bias, power struggle, politics and other distractions from the church/communion until such time the maturity of the organization justifies the existence of a bishop's council.

G. The duties of all bishops fall into a simple framework: teachers, mentors, counselors and confidants to all clergy under them. The bishops do not have the authority to add or remove clergy without the express knowledge and acceptance of the Ecumenical Patriarch. Any reprimands that may be set against wayward clergy must also be approved by the Ecumenical Patriarch.


Section II: Ordination

A.Ordination to the deaconate and priesthood can be performed at the discretion the Ecumenical Patriarch. Our main concern is that their calling is true and that they receive the proper training to perform their duties. All exceptions to these requirements must be approved by the Primus. All candidates will serve a 6 month probationary period.

1. Candidates must be age 21 or older for deacon,

​ 2. Candidates must be age 25 or older for the priesthood.

B. The Ecumenical Patriarch reserves the right to incardinate a Bishop into this organization if growth dictates the need. The Ecumenical Patriarch may also work with other Bishops of apostolic succession to consecrate a Bishop if the need arises.


Section III: Consecrations

A. Bishops must be at least 35 years of age with ministerial experience. Any exceptions to the requirements must be approved by the Ecumenical Patriarch​.

B. In the event of church growth, and if the Ecumenical Patriarch asks that a bishop consecrate a new bishop on behalf of the church at large, that bishop must comply if they are near the candidate and it would not pose a hardship to them.


Section IV: Incardination

A. Incardination will be allowed for deacons, priests and bishops. The base requirements are valid apostolic succession, no criminal history  and of proper age as stated above.

B. Any scholastic requirements will be reviewed on a case by case basis.

C. It is strictly FORBIDDEN for any affiliated member to directly recruit through word of mouth, letter, email, other electronic means or by social media. This is illicit and unacceptable to this organization. Prospective clergy must locate our resources and truly feel the calling to be part of the organization. The may locate and research us through the "general" information of the the website, job posting or general social media content. Any member who has actively recruited from any outside organization will be immediately released with no recourse.

D. Clergy who have been properly, within the canons of a previous organization, released from said organization by excardinations may seek incardination into the UECC. In the event the excardination is not final or valid, all communications and agreements with this organization are null and void.

E. All presbytery who may have minor or major injunctions against them with a previous organization may not seek incardination with this organization without a mandatory one year formation process. Any presbytery defrocked, by way of laicization is exempt from entering the orders of this organization.

F. All clergy seeking incardination to this organization must serve a probationary period of no less than 6 months.


Section V: Vacancies

A. No criteria at this time


Section VI: Ministerial Freedom:

A. While there is an episcopal structure, it is not the church leaderships’ desire to dictate how clergy practice their personal ministries. The only requirement is to be in agreement with our beliefs and canons. We do not dictate how the services are conducted, but we do have an expectation that each service will include communion and follow one of the approved books of common prayer. Outside of that, churches who associate with our organization can conduct low, broad, or high church services.

A1. For the Anglican Affiliation: Approved liturgies:

A1a. High Mass: High Mass, more rigid and formal, will utilize only the 1662, 1928 or UECC specific liturgies. The 1662 BCP must have the prayers to the English Monarchy and Parliament removed for US usage.

A1b. Low mass: Less formal and more open to all faiths, the Low Mass may use the  AAC specific liturgies. 

A1c. Broad mass: Described as more flexible and via media; that is it is liturgical between Anglo-Catholic and Anglican. Broad may use AAC specific liturgies, or the UECC specific liturgy of A1a.

A1d. The 1979 BCP is NOT Anglican in it's structure. The 1979 BCP is unique to the Episcopal Church USA. It's usage is not recommended. None the less it may be utilized ONLY for Low Mass and Rite I will be the only valid option. Right II is not to be utilized. Permission must be granted by the Ecumenical Patriarch. 

B. Each ministry under the umbrella of our organization will determine whether or not it wishes to officially incorporate under 501c3 status or service as an unincorporated religious association under 508c1A, or operate as a 1st Amendment Church. Any churches that affiliates with us maintain their own property and freedom to leave. We do not require they provide funding to the national church and we will not, in whole or in part, provide any financial support to them. Churches in other countries must follow their own laws.

​C. We give free reign to practice ministry as one pleases so long as they do no harm to the reputation of the church by their affiliation, do not engage in illegal activities (all illegal activity will be immediately reported to the police), and do not put the church at legal risk by engaging in dangerous activities such as snake handling, poison drinking etc. We will not, in whole or in part, sign off of exorcisms or other such acts. Each party takes on that responsibility under their liability, and will hold this church harmless in all instances.

C1. Within the context of the autonomous operations of the individual churches, it is clearly stated that all organizations and presbytery associated with us must follow the canons and beliefs of this communion, and any general rubrics, such as clergy dress and public behavior. All organizations must also practice within the frameworks of the supported liturgies.

C2. This organization, in whole or in part, takes no legal responsibility for any actions of the affiliated entities. Each affiliated church/presbytery is hereby given notice that it is the afflictions responsibility to secure liability insurance as a blanket to secure protection for their organization. The affiliations are hereby informed that they are members of this organization based only on religious precepts, and not secular business precepts.

D. The role of the bishops, if our growth dictates forming a full diocese structure, will be to provide moral and spiritual support to the clergy. Their goal is to be servant leaders who develop others in their ministry rather than being traditional "overseers". The structure of the church is meant to maximize individual ministerial freedom; however, do expect the chain of command to be respected.

E. This organization is an Open Communion of Churches. We are open to all no matter the social status, creed, race or sexual orientation. There are no exceptions. All presbytery wishing to associate with our organizations must act accordingly. No affiliation will operate under this organization as a closed entity. This canon is directed at gay marriage, woman clergy and open communion.

F. All clergy of this organization within the universal church of Christ, voluntarily associate with this organization. This organization does not grant compensation or financial assistance. This organization provides a path for those wishing to serve the universal church as a calling, and not a business. 

G. This organization will none the less agree that any independent clergy that may derive income from their own congregation may do so. It is the responsibility of the clergy in this instance, to follow all tax laws associated with that income.

H. For any clergy or congregation that may subsequently own property or other church possessions, we declare we hold no right, real or imagined, to stated property or possessions.

I. This organization practices open communion. All are welcome at Gods table. The act of Holy Comminion is one of recieving spiritual food.  


Section VII: Clergy Behavior

A. In general all clergy are to be respectful of all others, with disregard for personal feelings or general opinions. All clergy are to hold themselves aloof of any personal bias. They are to be respectful of the secular and theological differences of all persons they are in contact with.

B. This church takes no responsibility for the moral or legal transgressions of any member of the clergy or their congregations. Any such transgression will be cause for immediate removal from the church, with no recourse. 

C. The clergy is encouraged to use social media to reach each other and the masses. With that being said any misuse of social media will be monitored carefully. Any act considered derogatory, disrespectful, illegal or otherwise unacceptable in the religious or secular realm will be dealt with by immediate removal from the organization.

D. The clergy will under no circumstance promote a political stance on the pulpit, social media or other media. This falls under the IRS Laws of the United States and the clergy within this jurisdiction.

E. It is within the purview of the Ecumenical Patriarch to make all determinations related to reprimand. This will include but not limited to:

E1. Ad clerum, as a letter of reprimand, for any transgressions by the presbytery that may warrant the action

E2. Reassignment to a lesser office within this organization

E3.  Laicized, having rights of clergy status fully removed an no longer exercised within this organization. Loss of clerical state may be recognized outside this organization.


Section VII: Hierarchy 

A. The episcopal structure will be made up of archbishops, bishops, vicar generals, priests and deacons.  

B. The chain of command will be followed at all times.


Section VIII: All Clergy and Probationary Status

All clergy will have a minimum six (6) month probationary period, or more, as directed by the Ecumenical Patriarch.


Section IX: Personal Enrichment and continued formation

A. We soundly believe that all presbytery must be Christ Centered. Through two millennia, private prayer, prayer in groups and quiet reflection outside of liturgies in a physical building was proven crucial to the stability and strength of the faith.

A1. The expectation of this organization is for the presbytery to, as much as possible, balance their religious and secular life. 

A2. Practice the Daily Offices, in private or with others

A3. Practice private prayer and reflection 

A4. Pray the rosary (Catholic or Anglican). This is a solid practice that embraces reflection and prayer

A5. Continued Formation:  We as presbytery must embark on a journey of seeking the knowledge of our Christian Faith.

A51. This organization has the expectation that all presbytery will, of their own accord, partake in the continued reading and study of the bible, christian liturgical works and to embrace the historical documents of the churches past.

A52. It is within the purview, at the discretion of the Ecumenical Patriarch, to designate readings or studies in an effort to ensure continued formation of any of our presbytery.


Section X: Rubrics of Dress

A. All clergy, when performing tasks such as office time, meetings, visitations or transacting church business directly with on or more individuals is required to purport themselves as clergy. The minimum requirement for dress will be clergy dress shirt with clergy collar. This will be standard for both the Catholic and Anglican organizations.

B. For clergy that rent space or own church property, and are holding the equivalent of office hours or otherwise transacting church business at said site, may have the option of clergy shirt and collar or may at their discretion wear a cassock of appropriate color per their office. 

C. For our Anglican clergy that rent space or own a physical property, and hold regular services to a congregation, these dress requirements are enforced:

C1. MINIMUM Dress for the Mass (no communion) or Offices - Clergy shirt of appropriate color with collar, alb, cincture (rope or band). Stole of the appropriate color for the day and season (see note C1a).

NOTE: For any Mass where Holy Communion is held the chasuble is required. It may be fiddle-back or poncho style as fits the personal taste of the clergy.

C1a. Colors

White is the color proper to Trinity Sunday, the feasts of Our Lord, except those of His Passion, the feasts of the Blessed Virgin, angels, confessors, virgins and women, who are not martyrs, the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, the chief feast of St. John the Evangelist, the feast of the Chains and of the Chair of St. Peter, the Conversion of St. Paul, All Saints, to consecration of churches and altars, the anniversaries of the election and coronation of the pope and of the election and consecration of bishops; also for the octaves of these feasts and the Offices de tempore from Holy Saturday to the vigil of Pentecost; it is used for votive Masses when the feasts have white, and for the nuptial Mass; also in services in connection with the Blessed Sacrament, at the burial of children, in the administration of baptism, Holy Viaticum, and matrimony.

Red is used the week of Pentecost, on the feasts of Christ's Passion and His Precious Blood, the Finding and Elevation of the Cross, the feasts of Apostles and martyrs; and in votive Masses of these feasts. It is used on Holy Innocents if the feast occur on Sunday and always on its octave.

Green is employed in Offices de tempore from the octave of the Epiphany to Septuagesima, and from the octave of Pentecost to Advent, except on ember-days and vigils during that time, and on Sundays occurring within an octave.

Violet is used during Advent and from Septuagesima to Easter, on vigils that are fast days, and on ember-days, except the vigil of Pentecost and the ember-days during the octave of Pentecost. Violet is also used for Mass on rogation-days, for votive Masses of the Passion and of penitential character, at the blessing of candles and of holy water. The stole used in the administration of penance and of extreme unction and in the first part of the baptismal ceremonies must be violet.

Black is used in offices for the dead, and on Good Friday.

Exception: For consecration and ordination this organization allows for either white or red to be used. Red is preferred.

The drapery and vestments affected by the law of liturgical colors are (a) the antependium of the altar, and as a matter of appropriateness, the tabernacle veil; (b) the burse and chalice veil; (c) maniple, stole, chasuble, cope, and humeral veil; (d) maniple, stole, tunic, and dalmatic of the sacred ministers, and also the broad stole and folded chasuble when employed. All these must correspond with the rules prescribing the use of each color.

C2. At the discretion of the clergy, when holding the Offices and a certain formality is desired,  may wear choir dress. This may include the 'tippet' traditional to the Anglican Church historically.

C3. Dress requirements for the Anglo-Catholic Ordinate may be set by the Bishop of the ordinate.


Section XI. Positions

All clergy associate with this organization voluntarily. They agree to abide by our canons and beliefs based on the associated doctrines of the christian bible. No clergy position is construed as employment, real or imagined. We offer no financial assistance or indebtedness to any property. This organization will not provided any references or assistance to any seeking visa or permanent residence outside of the requester home county. 

Section XII. Leaving this organization

A. All clergy desiring to leave this organization in good faith will be required to inform their respective diocesan bishop with no less than 90 days notice. This process is in place to allow the organization to determine the effects of said vacancy. This also protects all parties involved in the process to guarantee a clergy member is not serving two masters. This organization will not process an excardination letter until the full 90 days is complete.

B. In the event that notice of intent to leave the organization is not provided, and excardination is not approved, it is within the purview of this organization to perform the following:

B1.  Laicized, having rights of clergy status fully removed an no longer exercised within this organization. Loss of clerical state may be recognized outside this organization. This organization reserves the right to inform all organizations of this loss of clerical status at our discretion.

C. This organization reserves the right to grant excardination in less than 90 days as is seen fit for a member leaving in good faith.


XIII. Consistory

A. The Council of Bishops, hereto called the Consistory, will be the advising body for the Ecumenical Patriarch with regards to church operation, theology, liturgy, rubrics, ethics and all matters of the church excluding secular activities.

B. Each member of the Consistory is seated by invitation from the Ecumenical Patriarch.

B1. Sitting members of the Consistory will advise the Ecumenical Patriarch with regards to accepting a new member to fill a seat on the Consistory. This will be a non binding, non voting advisory to the Archbishop.

C. The members of the Consistory must be an active Diocesan Bishop.

C1. Under certain circumstances, at the discretion of the Ecumenical Patriarch, a Vicar General in good standing may sit on the Consistory to fill a required position.

D. The number of sitting bishops on the Consistory will always be an even number of members.

D1. The responsibility of the Consistory is to advise the Ecumenical Patriarch on all matter of church operation within the context of the canons, rubrics and beliefs.

D2. The members of the Consistory will be voting members. The majority will be responsible for all oral and written information regarding the suggested changes to church operations.

D3. If at anytime there exists an odd number of members sitting in the Consistory, one seat will be a non-voting member. This individual will have responsibilities as an advisor only.

E. Veto Vote, vote tie. The Ecumenical Patriarch will hold the right, without question, to perform any of the following actions:

E1. As head of the church, negate any vote the Ecumenical Patriarch deems not in the best interests of the organization.

E2. The Ecumenical Patriarch will, without question, act in the capacity to resolve a tie vote.

E3. Table or remove any discussion previous to a vote that the Archbishop deems to be outside the operations, canons or beliefs of the church.

F. Consistory Guidelines for discussions.

F1. Under no circumstances, real or imagined, shall the Consistory discuss, or bring to vote, the topic of inclusiveness or affirmation. This organization is an open church, and all are welcome.

F2. The Consistory is welcome to discuss theological differences, but each member must at all times be tolerant of such differences. This includes, but not limited to, the essence of the Holy Eucharist.

F2a. None the less, as spiritual father, the Ecumenical Patriarch has the right to accept or deny such discussions.

F3. The Consistory will be allowed to discuss delivery methods of our faith; audio, video, internet, newsletters, in home services, physical church, other.

F3a. That not withstanding, this organization believes our priestly promise binds us to reach the people with the word of our Lord. Unless the delivery method conflicts in some way with the canons of the church or secular law, it is within the purview of the clergy to do whatever it takes to reach those in need.

F4. While we as Bishops will have our own personal views on salvation i.e; heaven hell, the official position should always be down to the individual, and we should ensure that all clergy and Bishops teach that there are many views on this without attacking other positions. 

G. Removal of a member from a Consistory seat.

It is within the purview of the Ecumenical Patriarch to remove any member of the Consistory. This rule is not open for discussion within the Consistory.

G1. As the church father, the Ecumenical Patriarch must understand the qualification of each member of the Consistory, and determine the suitability of any sitting bishop to fill a Consistory seat.

G2. The Ecumenical Patriarch may perform the removal of a bishop from the Consistory with with or without explanation, justification or reasons; real or imagined.


XIV. Independence 

A. While we allow a high level of autonomy for our affiliates, we expect our clergy to do no harm to the reputation of the church by their affiliation, do not engage in illegal activities (all illegal activity will be immediately reported to the police), and do not put the church at legal risk by engaging  in dangerous activities such as snake handling, etc. 

B. All clergy must be responsible for their personal liability insurance, if they so desire to pursue that option. This organization does not have employees, we provide only a path to achieve viable clergy and congregations, with theological support of said clergy and congregations. 

B1. This organization does not support in any form, real or imagined, excommunication. If clergy seeks an excommunication, the clergy is required to scribe a letter to this organization waiving this organization of any responsibility for the act. There are no exceptions to this canon.


XVI. Legal Concerns

A. This organization will not accept affiliations with organizations that have outstanding lawsuits against said affiliate candidate.


XVII: Consecrations - practice and exceptions (w/ References to other related practices)

*Much of the historical and biblical information to support this canon section exists in whole or in part in a separate document entitled Effectual Episcopacy.

The practice of consecration of clergy is far more ancient than the practices embodied as part of Christianity. The practice amongst the early Jews is well documented in Old Testament texts.

Herein is documented the accepted practices of this organization.

A. The candidate to fill the duties of a bishopric must be 35 years of age. 

B. The candidate must show great knowledge of biblical history, theology and have a finite understanding they are a 'shepherd'  of the people on behalf of the church. Power trips, ego or a judgmental attitude will result in possible reprimand from the Ecumenical Patriarch. 

C. It is desirable that a minimum of two (2, 3) Bishops of valid Apostolic Succession attend to the requirements of the Consecration liturgy.

C1. While this is the accepted norm for Apostolic Organization, let it here be known that there are exceptions to any rule based on extraordinary circumstance. With respect to natural disasters, pandemics, long term disruptions or times of need, the church must recognize the need for continued operations. The following will be considered sub-conditione:

C1a. In the operations of this organization the consecration of a candidate may, under the approval and supervision of the Ecumenical Patriarch, be performed by a single Bishop of valid Apostolic Succession. While many Apostolic Churches lay the moniker of "illicit" on this practice, and demand removal. We recognize the act as being necessary in any time of need. This is supported by Roman Canons 953 and 2370. The practice is also supported by the fourth rule of Gregory IX expressly states: Propter necessitatem, illicitum efficitur licitum — “Necessity makes licit what is illicit.”

C1b. As can be seen, the detractors are ignoring the axiom Qui cum regula ambulat, tuto ambulat — “He who walks with the rule, walks safely.” All organizations should remember, if they had forgotten, that Pope Gregory IX left eleven rules and Boniface VIII eighty-eight for the true interpretation of the law. These rules, according to Canon 20, can supply the defect of the rule in a particular case, as in the case we presently find ourselves.

C1c. The Holy See of Rome has set precedence for consecrations with a single bishop; (Letters Apostolic of Leo XIII, “Trans Oceanum”, April 18, 1897; “Acta Sanctae Sedis“, 1896-97, XXIX, 659). This was declared official as a document in 1909, and was melded within the new document Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

C1d. The Catholic Church teaches that one bishop is sufficient to consecrate a new bishop validly (that is, for an episcopal ordination actually to take place). There  may be dispensation from this requirement in extraordinary circumstances (for example, in missionary settings or times of persecution).

Pius XII. "Episcopali consecrationis". Archived from the original on 2 March 2013. Retrieved 20 September 2013. Episcopalis Consecrationis Ministrum esse Episcopum et ad huius Consecrationis validitatem unum solum sufficere Episcopum, qui cum debita mentis intentione essentiales ritus perficiat, extra omne dubium est diuturnaque praxi comprobatum.

[That the minister of episcopal consecration is a bishop, and that only one bishop–who performs the act with the necessary intention of the mind performs the essential rites—is necessary for the validity of that consecration, is proved beyond all doubt and by long practice.]

 C2. Within the precepts of consecration, an issue was manifest that has not been fully addressed; the issue of the 2020/2021 Covid pandemic. With church organizations closed based of local, state and federal rules set down during the pandemic, the church literally stopped functioning. Religious organizations worldwide were forced into a "virtual church", and hence a huge debate ensued regarding the legitimacy of virtual religious practices. Herein we will set down practices of this organization that are valid and righteous based on sections C1a, C1b, C1c and C1d..

C2a. In time of trial and tribulation where normal practices of the church are halted or impractical, we hold the right of interpretation of any canons or rubric as required. This includes but not limited to changes in

C2a1. Ordinations

This canon is open for future edits

C2a2. Consecrations

The mission critical aspect of consecration is the basis of this canon. Several factors come into play; The normal practice of a minimum of two (2, 3) bishops Ecumenical Patriarch, and the laying on of hands. The minimum requirement of two (2, 3) bishops was discussed in Section III part C.

The laying on of hands presents a interesting dichotomy.

First, laying on of hands was an ancient Jewish practice that was merely symbolic, and represented no transferal of power or authority. The action was a human factor of kindness and recognition to the recipient, one of honor and respect.

Second, there was absolutely no symbolic or other purpose for the laying on of hands of the original Apostles. Biblically, due to circumstances, they were in a locked and shuttered room. Without interaction from another individual, the spirit came to them unbidden. The probable first reference to the laying on of hands was the Apostle Paul.

Paul is also an interesting dichotomy. The original Apostles set down three (3) rules for acceptance of another into their ranks. 

The requirements that can be gathered are as follows:

The candidate was required to be someone who followed Jesus during his entire earthly ministry, beginning from Jesus’ baptism by John to Jesus’ ascension into heaven (1:21–22a).

The candidate was required to have seen Jesus after His resurrection (1:22b).

The candidate needed to have been appointed by the Lord Jesus himself (1:24–25).

Paul, depending on various interpretations, failed at least two if not three of these early canons. He was not appointed by Jesus. In the book of  Acts 9:1–19; 22:6–16; and 26:12–23 describes the encounter of Paul with Jesus.

First, there were no witnesses, as people around the area only saw a light, but heard nothing.

Second, Jesus told Paul he would receive instructions, and the instructions were to "evangelize to the Gentiles". He was not ordered to present himself to the other Apostles, nor was he ordered to be one of their number. Hence no "appointment" took place.

Paul also failed the first rule, he had never followed Jesus in the early ministry.

It may be construed that Paul had absolutely no proof of any interaction with Jesus. There was no individual to verify the encounter. So from the perspective of the Apostles, Paul may have also failed the second rule.

Yet, Paul was inducted. This may have been the first example of sub conditione.

Those who staunchly support Apostolic Tradition (of which most documented facts were lost, or never recorded) direct us to believe that the laying on of hands is required to pass on power and authority. There are many references in biblical text that do show times hands were laid on individuals during healings, general miracles or other activities. Yet, there are many more references where that did not occur. In all cases, the Holy Spirit still made itself manifest. 

Within the context of the information provided, it is understood that the laying on of hands has a fixed place in Christianity. That not withstanding, with respect to operations of the church in times of great trial and tribulation, it may be assumed that the act of laying on of hands may not be necessary if the intent of doing otherwise is true and righteous. 

C2a3. In ending, during times when the church is faced with extraordinary circumstance, as with the Covid pandemic, there is solid justification to perform certain critical activities with advanced technology "virtually". While this describes a worse case scenario, under the rules and discussions stated previously these activities are fully licit by necessity.

C2a4. It may be stated here that an ordination or consecration may under these circumstances be declared sub conditione, with the possibility to make corrections at some future time.

C3. General issues with assumed legitimacy. If we assume that consecrations with exceptions, such as consecration under a single Bishop are illicit, then almost all consecration today are illicit. Even those of the Roman Catholic Church may be considered illicit.

C3a. The Novus order no longer follows the ancient format for the anointing of oil and the prescribed words that sanctify and codify the actual action of imposing the authority of the Bishopric upon the candidate. These words and actions are REQUIRED by ancient practice and Papal Order which is in effect;

C3a1. Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, Nov. 30, 1947: “But regarding the matter and form in the conferring of every order, by Our same supreme apostolic authority We decree and establish the following: …in the Episcopal ordination or consecration… the form consists of the words of the ‘Preface,’ of which the following are essential and so required for validity:

 “Complete in Thy priest the fullness of Thy ministry, and adorned in the raiment of all glory, sanctify him with the dew of heavenly anointing.” 

C3a2. Hence, it is these words and anointing that make a Bishop, not the liturgy or pomp and circumstance. And not even the laying on of hands, which is NOT a Christian practice. The laying of of hands is a Jewish practice from antiquity, and has no meaning other than a 'human recognition'. It bestowed no power or authority. 

C3a3. Case in point; The original Apostles did not have the laying on of hands by anyone. No human intervention consecrated them. The spirit came to them is a 'locked room', and required no human to bestow the power and authority upon them.

C3a4. Also, within the context of required elements of the Rite, set down since the beginning of the church, this simple prayer to our Lord to accept the authority has been removed from almost all consecrations in existence today;

”Give him, O Lord, the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven… Whatsoever he shall bind upon earth, let it be bound likewise in Heaven, and whatsoever he shall loose upon earth, let it likewise be loosed in Heaven.  Whose sins he shall retain, let them be retained, and do Thou remit the sins of whomsoever he shall remit… Grant him, O Lord, an Episcopal chair

C4. The most ancient traditions of the laying on of hands is based purely on the statement;

"By the laying on of hands, the apostles and elders were showing that they made an offering to God of the people whom they admitted to the ministry."

This does not, real or imagined, state that the laying on of hands 'sanctifies' the ordination or consecration. It directly implies it is a HUMAN act of acceptance.

Rather, the sanctification by ancient practice and canon law is based on the Holy Chrism. 

C4a. This is fully supported by retorts of a huge cross representation of theologians;

Calvin said that only pastors laid hands on ministers: “it was not the whole people, but only pastors, who laid hands on ministers” (Calvin 1965: 2:236). Strong denies such an idea. He said that ordination is an act of the whole church, not the act of a privileged class in the church. He wrote,

The council of ordination is not to be composed simply of ministers who have been themselves ordained. As the whole church is to preserve the ordinances and to maintain sound doctrine, and as the unordained church member is often a more sagacious judge of a candidate’s Christian experience than his own pastor would be, there seems no warrant, either in Scripture or in reason, for the exclusion of lay delegates from ordaining councils. It was not merely the apostles and elders, but the whole church at Jerusalem, that passed upon the matter submitted to them at the council, and others than ministers appear to have been delegates. The theory that only ministers can ordain has in it the beginning of a hierarchy. To make the ministry a close corporation is to recognize the principle of apostolic succession, to deny the validity of all our past ordination, and to sell to an ecclesiastical caste the liberties of the church of God (Strong 1963: 920-21).

In his study of laying on of hands in Patristic literature, Vogel (1972: 7-21) concluded that throughout tradition the laying on of hands was never lacking, but he said that it is legitimate to wonder if it is absolutely necessary. The act of Chirotony [the laying on of hands in order to bestow a blessing in an ecclesiastical rite] passes on the mandate given by the church, but this might well be transmitted by other means. The laying on of hands is not sufficient for the ordination of a minister, if the mandate is lacking.

Case in point;

As per Pope Pius XII laying on of hands was not the sanctification of ordination or consecration, it was clearly stated that anointing was. This is supported by the text;

"In order that there may be no occasion for doubt, in conferring each Order the imposition of hands be done by physically touching the head of the person to be ordained, although a moral contact also is sufficient for the valid conferring of the Sacrament."

C5. With all respect to the universal church, if exceptions to ancient practice (and subsequent canons and rubrics exist) then the rulings of current canon law and that of ancient church fathers must be observed with respect to these exceptions;  Canons 953 and 2370, the fourth rule of Gregory IX, Letters Apostolic of Leo XIII, “Trans Oceanum”, April 18, 1897; “Acta Sanctae Sedis“, 1896-97, XXIX, 659, Pius XII. "Episcopali consecrationis" and Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis. 

C5a. We as an organization do not recognize the authority of any organization to rebuke this organization, clergy or affiliation for accepting these interpretation of 'exceptions'.

C6. Within the context of both the laying on of hands and anointing with oil, we see a distinct dichotomy. While it is true that biblical text describes the spirit coming forth during these acts, there are just as many references to the spirit coming unbidden. None of the original had hands laid upon them, they received the spirit unbidden by a human. The donkey that received the spirit and spoke did not have a human lay hands or anoint it with oil. Many of the healings attributed to the spirit did not have the laying on of hands - such as spitting in the eye or a person simply to 'go forth' and be healed.

C6a. While these dichotomies exist in the references of the Holy Bible, it is NOT up to those to debate that they understand the mind of God. The statements "we think this is what Christ wanted" or "it is tradition" is based on human arrogance of self worth. We must all beware that Christ made it very clear that we, and even the Apostles, could never understand him. And this is proven throughout our biblical text. The Apostles made many mistakes, and they did not always agree on theology or the practice of their faith.


Section XVI: Dismissal of Clergy

1. By Psalm 110:4 and the canons of the major apostolic churches, once ordained, the priesthood is for life.

2. No organization may 'cancel' the rite of ordination.

3. If the dismissal is for non criminal reasons, the clergy may enter into association with other organizations.

3a. If the infraction is a criminal activity, the priest is still a priest, none the less no church should entertain an association with that individual.

4. A laicized priest may continue to perform his priestly duties, as long as it is not in the name of the organization that implemented the laicization.

4a. While this practice is considered illicit, it is valid.

5. Details discussing this canon may be seen in the section General Comments on Dogma, Canons and Beliefs. 

6. This organization will consider an affiliation with a priest laicized for non criminal reasons; Marriage, Change Organization, or release for ambiguous canon law reasons.


Section XVII: Online Ministry Certificates

1. While most States in the United States, and countries around the world, may accept Online 'pay for ministry' certificates, we do not accept affiliation or incardination with clergy of these organization without reservation.

2. The priesthood in Apostolic Succession must be held in highest esteem and credibility. Training in the area of theology, divinity, formation and ethics are critical to insure a priest is in full recognition of the awesome responsibilities in ensuring the sanctity of the church is not tarnished.

3. Whereas the legal standing of Pay for Ministry Certificates may be legal in civil court, they do no lend themselves to the Apostolic Traditions set down by our Lord and the Apostles.

4. Whereas there is a perception of illegitimacy, real or imagined, of Pay for Ministry certificates,  this may create a credibility conflict within the operations of this organization.



General Comments of Canons, Rubrics and Other Practices

Practices in times of great need

During great times of need, the early church fathers and legislators of the canons and rubrics saw a requirement to place mandated exceptions in place. The intent was to insure that the solace of the church, continued placement of clergy to serve the masses, was an ethical and moral imperative.

 This organization created and verified our canons, rubrics and mandates of the church with the intent of embracing the ancient faith previous to the upheavals of the early and late 1500’s that saw a fracture in the universal church.

 Our canons and rubrics are strongly dependent on those of the church from approximately 1000AD to approximate 1500AD. We consider the canons, mandates, rubrics and general theology to be more factual and closer to the intent, actions and word of our Lord, the Apostles and early church fathers. Many of our practices date back to 40AD to 300AD. With great pride we support and adhere to many canons, rubrics and practices of our Protestant brethren who saw fallibility in many of the practices that were derived from arrogance, greed and the search for power in ages past.

 Within the context of the above statements, the decision to ordain or consecrate outside of the standard practices of the church is right and just in great times of need. The decision is valid, under canon law, to ordain a priest or consecrate a bishop under the premise of sub-conditione. [Tentative date may be set to make licit what appears to be illicit, albeit not required.]

 Sub-conditione is the practice, of the knowledge and exception is to be made that may be considered illicit but valid, and the act may or may not be made fully licit at a later date.

 Herein we list the irrefutable canons and mandates that validate the action of stated ordinations and consecrations. The information listed is based on the perceived need in the early church to continue the actions and solace of the church during times of great trials and tribulation. In this context, the Covid-19 pandemic can be placed in the same category as the plague of the middle ages, other natural disasters or the need of the early church bring the solace of the church to remote areas quickly in time of need.

 We declare that other conditions of great need may exist and will be examined by this organization on a case by case basis.

 We recognize that times of great need have occurred throughout church history. As seen later in this text the venerable [original] canons of 20, 953 and 2370 fully support subsequent mandates.


 That the Bishop is the Minister of Episcopal Consecration and that for the validity of this Consecration only one Bishop is sufficient to perform the essential rites with the required mentality, it has been proven beyond all doubt by long-lasting practice”.


The subsequent perceived issue revolves around the form and matter of the acts within the ritual. The form is the word of the rite and the matter may be a physical act. It is believed that the laying on of hands is require as the matter (act) that brings into play the Holy Spirit. According the canons and mandates this is not factual within context.


As per Sacramentum Ordinis:

 In order that there may be no occasion for doubt, in conferring each Order the imposition of hands be done by physically touching the head of the person to be ordained (consecrated), although a moral contact also is sufficient for the valid conferring of the Sacrament.

This statement clearly shows that the church recognized the NEED for an exception to the rule, and is above refute.

And hence these statements are absolute, unequivocal and without interpretation:

 . that the form, and the only form, is the WORDS which determine the application of this matter (act), which unequivocally signify the sacramental effects.”

It is the words ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’, and not the laying on of hands that calls the Spirit.

In a 1947 the Pope mandated this clarification to end all controversy or misunderstanding of the form and matter.

Per these mandates, it is clear that even though, the laying on of hands is traditional. ONLY the words 'Receive the Holy Spirit' are required, not the physical touch of a human. Hence, within the context of the previous mentioned consecration, the form [words] existed in a face to face act [matter], and the laying on of hands was waived temporarily via ‘sub-conditione’.

 While the desire is the matter, to lay on the hands, the very word unequivocally clearly indicates the hands are secondary. Hence, it may be assumed illicit not to lay on the hands, but the act is valid ‘ unequivocally’.

 Detractors claim that physical presence is required to provide the form [word] and the act [physical]. Not only do the mandates of the past make this thinking invalid, we must look upon biblical reality. The original Apostles, when gathered for Pentecost did not have a physical presence by any clergy [or the Lord] in documented fact. The spirit came to them unbidden.

 Therefore, even the usage of internet based technology may be utilized in great times of need. This is valid in the context the form [words] are valid in a face to face format. The matter [act] can be waved [hands] based on the unequivocal mandates quoted previously. This matter now becomes one of sub-conditione.

 If we as Christians maintain that the bible is infallible, these supporting scriptures dictate that laying on of hands, or even ‘physical presence’ to call the power of the spirit is errant and not required [direct conflict with other passages]:

 Acts 2:1-4, Acts 3:1-11, Acts 5:15-16, Acts 9:32-35, Acts 9:36-43, Acts 14:8-10, Acts 16:16-18, Acts 19:11-12, Mathew 15:21-28, John 4:46-52, Matthew 9:1-4, John 5:1-9, John 11:38-44, Matthew 9:18-22

 Within context of using the internet, the internet is not evil, only humans embody that trait. If via video candidates can ‘see’ each other, that is more than occurred in many of the instances in the book of Acts and is a ‘presence’. The requirement of the laying on of hands to pass the Holy Spirit is well document as a non-requirement.

 This document is supported fully by the following: (Canon numbering has changed over time, the mandates are above refute)

 Canons 20, 953 and 2370, the fourth (4th) rule of Gregory IX, Letters Apostolic of Leo XIII, “Trans Oceanum”, April 18, 1897; “Acta Sanctae Sedis“, 1896-97, XXIX, 659, Pius XII. "Episcopali consecrationis" and Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, Rule 88 of Boniface VIII.

 We list here support for the actions of the consecration in question from these listed sources that are specifically in place to support actions in times of great trial and tribulation:

Gregory IX expressly states: Propter necessitatem, illicitum efficitur licitum — “Necessity makes licit what is illicit.”

These rules, according to Canon 20, “can supply the defect of the rule in a particular case, as in the case we presently find ourselves”.

Rule 88 of Boniface VIII also expressly states Certum est quod is committit in legem qui legem verbum complectens contra legis nititur“It is certain that one sins against the rule who adheres to the letter and leaves aside the spirit”.

Therefore, it is unjust to impute to the legislator a desire to greatly harm the Church during a need to SERVE God and the faithful, forbidding the ordination of bishops and priests and the administering of the sacraments to the faithful who ask for them”.

The words of the canons and mandates are recorded for all posterity, irrefutable and righteous in content, context and validity.

These are the canons, rubrics, mandates with associated form and matter that are recognized by this organization, disregarding the justification of other outside influences.

The ordination of a priest or consecration of a bishop under the circumstances attested to in this document (or similar times of great trial), and the factual account of the need, is valid in the Apostolic Church and above contestation.

We hold great respect for all Christian organizations worldwide. We find no fault with the canons, mandates, rubrics serving the form and matter of their operation and theology. With all due respect, the reciprocal must also manifest itself.

Cramner and Hooker place this in a more reformed context (paraphrased):

Apostolic succession is viewed not so much as conveyed mechanically through an unbroken chain of the laying-on of hands, but as expressing continuity with the unbroken chain of commitment, beliefs and mission starting with the first apostles; and hence emphasizing the enduring yet evolving nature of the Church.


Apostolic Tradition (Form and Matter)

Definition of Tradition:

1. A belief or story or a body of beliefs or stories relating to the past that are commonly accepted as historical though NOT VERIFIABLE (or based on perception)(such as a religious practice or a social custom)

Christianity is rich with tradition. Tradition is what gives us music to praise the Lord, even though Christ gave no order to do so. (There is no “Go forth and sing to all nations…”).

Our liturgies are tradition, they are predominantly words and prayers of praise for our Lord, but not dictated by Christ to “Do this ….”. The exception is the sacraments obviously.

Many rubrics and Canons were derived from traditions and not from actual biblical fact. We will discuss only one of them here.

In much of our clergy practices, the laying on of hands plays a major role. Blessings, ordinations, consecrations and others.

Historically where did the laying on of hands come from within the Judeo Christian environment? The origins are traced back to the ancient priesthood we can read about in the Old Testament. The laying on of hands was NOT used to transfer any sort of power or authority. The laying on of hands was one of human compassion, recognition and showing honor to a subject. It was nothing more than a “handshake agreement” such as we use today.

Within the Christian realm, the laying on of hands took on another meaning. Many believe that the laying on of hands was REQUIRED to sanctify an act and impart power and sometimes authority. We can see this in ordinations and consecration assuming the laying on of hands is required to pass on the Holy Spirit. We see this various aspects of miracles of healing in biblical text.

For many theologians, they stand on the platform that because Jesus laid on hands, that it is expected of his subsequent Apostles, their disciples and clergy. And that it is REQUIRED to be practiced.

The issue at hand is Christ never said “Go forth and lay hands on all nations ….” Unless it is a direct command from Christ, it is a practice of ‘observed perception and subsequent human reaction’.

The crux is seen in biblical text. Were there times that hands were laid upon during an action performed by Jesus or the Apostles? Absolutely.

BUT, there were as many, or more, where the power of the spirit came WITHOUT TOUCH, especially human touch.

A very few of the biblical references are listed below (bottom of document) that distinctly refute the laying on of hands.

Here is the human part of the issue. Far too many make the claim “We believe this is what Jesus meant or wanted”. This is sanctimonious and arrogant at best. Jesus made it very (most abundantly) clear that no one, not even his disciples (Apostles) could ever understand.

Jesus proved this during his entire 33 year life, and is seen clearly by the many misunderstandings and mistakes attributed to the disciple/Apostles.

Reading those texts, if we declare the bible infallible, human touch by the laying on of hands was not required. In these texts, read carefully. There are TWO PARTS;

1. The Form

2. The Action (Matter)

The form is the words that were spoken. In the case of these texts, Jesus or the Apostles gave a prayer or command. They often did not touch, by any physical means.

The act, which we would assume to be the physical touch may NOT have occurred.

This brings us to an interesting dichotomy in our liturgical practices, rubrics and Canons.

In the Christian practice of ordination and consecration, it is assumed that the laying on of hands is MANDATORY to sanctify the ordination or consecration. It is also assumed that this ‘act’ passes on the Holy Spirit. This assumption runs into a dichotomous situation; absolutely none of the original Apostles had the laying on of hands. (Book of Acts: Pentecost).

Yes, that is biblical fact. They were in a locked room and the spirit came unbidden. No one said words of sanctification and no hands were laid upon them.

This is actually supported by the Holy Roman Catholic Canons/Rubrics;

As per the ancient rite, The essential “form of the Sacrament” is a PRAYER, no accompanying imposition of hands is required or called for. {Sacramentum Ordinis}. Even though, the laying on of hands is traditional. ONLY the words 'Receive the Holy Spirit' is required, not the physical touch of a human.

Firstly, the reference to Sacramentum Ordinis is as follows:

6. In order that there may be no occasion for doubt, in conferring each Order the imposition of hands be done by physically touching the head of the person to be ordained, although a moral contact also is sufficient for the valid conferring of the Sacrament.


And the most important part:

. that the form, and the only form, is the WORDS which determine the application of this matter (act), which unequivocally signify the sacramental effects.”


While the desire is the matter, to lay on the hands, the very word unequivocally clearly indicates the hands are secondary. Hence, it may be assumed illicit not to lay on the hands, but the act is valid ‘ unequivocally’. This is supported fully by the following, and can be made licit at any later date, or not;

Canons 20, 953 and 2370, the fourth rule of Gregory IX, Letters Apostolic of Leo XIII, “Trans Oceanum”, April 18, 1897; “Acta Sanctae Sedis“, 1896-97, XXIX, 659, Pius XII. "Episcopali consecrationis" and Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis.

The textural info above is well documented, factual and beyond contestation.

This is also supported by the controversy set down by the detractors of the Novus Ordo. The matter, the hands, became the consecrating and sanctifying act, and the word of the prayer to God for the sanctification was nullified.

And again a rather disturbing support that the laying on of hands is not required or important to sanctify and consecrate;

Then he dips the thumb of his right hand in the holy chrism and anoints the head of the Bishop-elect kneeling before him, making first the sign of the cross on the crown, then anointing the rest of the crown, saying in the meanwhile;


May thy head be anointed and consecrated by heavenly benediction in the pontifical order.”
May this, O Lord, flow abundantly upon his head, may this run down upon his cheeks, may this extend unto the extremities of his whole body, so that inwardly he may be filled with the power of Thy spirit, and outwardly may be clothed with that same spirit. May constant faith, pure love, sincere piety abound in him. May his feet by Thy gift be beautiful for announcing the glad tidings of peace, for announcing the glad tidings of Thy good things. Grant to him, O Lord, the ministry of reconciliation in word and in deed, in the power of signs and of wonders. Let his speech and his preaching be not in the persuasive words of human wisdom, but in the showing of the spirit and of power. Give to him, O Lord, the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, so that he may make use of, not boast of the power which Thou bestowest unto edification, not unto destruction. Whatsoever he shall bind upon earth, let it be bound likewise in heaven, and whatsoever he shall loose upon earth, let it likewise be loosed in heaven. Whose sins he shall retain, let them be retained, and do Thou remit the sins of whomsoever he shall remit. Let him who shall curse him, himself be accursed, and let him who shall bless him be filled with blessings. Let him be the faithful and prudent servant whom Thou dost set, O Lord, over Thy household, so that he may give them food in due season, and prove himself a perfect man. May he be untiring in his solicitude, fervent in spirit. May he detest pride, and cherish humility and truth, and never desert it, overcome either by flattery or by fear. Let him not put light for darkness, nor darkness for light: let him not call evil good, nor good evil. May he be a debtor to the wise and to the foolish, so that he may gather fruit from the progress of all. Grant to him, O Lord, an Episcopal chair for ruling Thy Church and the people committed to him. Be his authority, be his power, be his strength. Multiply upon him Thy + blessing and Thy grace, so that Thy gift he may be fitted for always obtaining Thy mercy, and by Thy grace may be faithful.”
Note the word CONSECRATED. This is an ABSOLUTE. Whereas the laying on of hands was not, which was described as form only (the words), not the act (matter) which is the laying on of hands.
And finally;


Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, Nov. 30, 1947: “But regarding the matter and form in the conferring of every order, by Our same supreme apostolic authority We decree and establish the following: …in the Episcopal ordination or consecration… the form consists of the words of the ‘Preface,’ of which the following are essential and so required for validity:

-- “Complete in Thy priest the fullness of Thy ministry, and adorned in the raiment of all glory, sanctify him with the dew of heavenly anointing.”

Note the word SANCTIFY.

Taken in context the anointing with OIL and the “command” to use ONLY the word prescribed sanctify and consecrate.

Taken in context, this implies that the laying on of hands was never more than a ‘human acknowledgment’, one of love and compassion and acceptance of the individual the ritual was performed on. No sanctification, power or authority was given by the laying on of hands.


Nonetheless this does pose another dichotomy. If we follow this to a logical conclusion, large numbers of priests and bishops for many hundreds of years, in most of the Apostolic Denominations, are ILLICIT.

*** Many were never sanctified and consecrated with oil. ***

Now, all of this becomes irrelevant as there are Canons and rubrics that are expressly designed to make ‘what is illicit, licit’. That is not covered in this text.

Cramner and Hooker place this in a more reformed context (paraphrased):

Apostolic succession is viewed not so much as conveyed mechanically through an unbroken chain of the laying-on of hands, but as expressing continuity with the unbroken chain of commitment, beliefs and mission starting with the first apostles; and hence emphasizing the enduring yet evolving nature of the Church.


Below you you find the Acts of the Apostle and the Acts of Jesus that never required laying on of hands.

Acts 2:1-4

1 When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place.

2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting.

3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them.

4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.


Acts 3:1-11

The Lame Beggar Healed

1. Now Peter and John were ogoing up to the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour.

2 And a man lame from birth was being carried, whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple that is called the Beautiful Gate to ask alms of those entering the temple.

3 Seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple, he asked to receive alms.

4 And Peter directed his gaze at him, as did John, and said, “Look at us.”

5 And he fixed his attention on them, expecting to receive something from them.

6 But Peter said, I have no silver and gold, but what I do have I give to you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk!”

7 And he took him by the right hand and raised him up, and immediately his feet and ankles were made strong.

8 And leaping up, he stood and began to walk, and entered the temple with them, walking and leaping and praising God.

9 And all the people saw him walking and praising God,

10 and recognized him as the one who sat at the Beautiful Gate of the temple, asking for alms. And they were filled with wonder and amazement at what had happened to him.


Acts 5:15-16

Peters Shadow

15 So that they even carried out the sick into the streets and laid them on cots and mats, that as Peter came by *** at least his shadow *** might fall on some of them.

16 The people also gathered from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing the sick and those afflicted with unclean spirits, and they were all healed.


Acts 9:32-35

The Healing of Aeneas

32 Now as Peter went here and there among them all, he came down also to the saints who lived at Lydda.

33 There he found a man named Aeneas, bedridden for eight years, who was paralyzed.

34 And Peter said to him, “Aeneas, Jesus Christ heals you; rise and make your bed.” And immediately he rose.

35 And all the residents of Lydda and Sharon saw him, and they turned to the Lord.


Acts 9:36-43

Dorcas Restored to Life

36 Now there was in Joppa a disciple named Tabitha, which, translated, means Dorcas. For she was full of good works and acts of charity.

37 In those days she became ill and died, and when they had washed her, they laid her in an upper room.

38 Since Lydda was near Joppa, the disciples, hearing that Peter was there, sent two men to him, urging him, “Please come to us without delay.”

39 So Peter rose and went with them. And when he arrived, they took him to the upper room. All the widows stood beside him weeping and showing tunics and other garments that Dorcas made while she was with them.

40 But Peter put them all outside, and knelt down and prayed; and turning to the body he said, “Tabitha, arise.” And she opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter she sat up.

41 And he gave her his hand and raised her up. Then, calling the saints and widows, he presented her alive.

42 And it became known throughout all Joppa, and many believed in the Lord.

43 And he stayed in Joppa for many days with one Simon, a tanner.


Acts 14:8-10

Paul and Barnabas at Lystra

8 Now at Lystra there was a man sitting who could not use his feet. He was crippled from birth and had never walked.

9 He listened to Paul speaking. And Paul, looking intently at him and seeing that he had faith to be made well,

10 said in a loud voice, “Stand upright on your feet.” And he sprang up and began walking.


Acts 16:16-18

Paul and Silas in Prison

16 As we were going to the place of prayer, we were met by a slave girl who had a spirit of divination and brought her owners much gain by fortune-telling.

17 She followed Paul and us, crying out, “These men are servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to you the way of salvation.”

18 And this she kept doing for many days. Paul, having become greatly annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.” And it came out that very hour.


Acts 19:11-12

The Sons of Sceva

11 And God was doing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul

12 so that *** even handkerchiefs or aprons *** that had touched his skin were carried away to the sick, and their diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them.


The Acts of Jesus

Mathew 15:21-28

The Syrophoenician Woman

21 Jesus went away from there, and withdrew into the district of Tyre and Sidon.

22 And a Canaanite woman from that region came out and began to cry out, saying, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is cruelly demon-possessed.”

23 But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and implored Him, saying, “Send her away, because she keeps shouting at us.”

24 But He answered and said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

25 But she came and began to bow down before Him, saying, “Lord, help me!”

26 And He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.”

27 But she said, “Yes, Lord; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.”

28 Then Jesus said to her, “O woman, your faith is great; it shall be done for you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed at once.

John 4:46-52

46 Once more he visited Cana in Galilee, where he had turned the water into wine. And there was a certain royal official whose son lay sick at Capernaum.

47 When this man heard that Jesus had arrived in Galilee from Judea, he went to him and begged him to come and heal his son, who was close to death.

48 “Unless you people see signs and wonders,” Jesus told him, “you will never believe.”

49 The royal official said, “Sir, come down before my child dies.”

50 “Go,” Jesus replied, “your son will live.” The man took Jesus at his word and departed.

51 While he was still on the way, his servants met him with the news that his boy was living.

52 When he inquired as to the time when his son got better, they said to him, “Yesterday, at one in the afternoon, the fever left him.”


Matthew 9:1-4

1 And he entered into a ship, and passed over, and came into his own city.

2 And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.

3 And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth.

4 And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?


John 5:1-9

The Healing at the Pool

1 Some time later, Jesus went up to Jerusalem for one of the Jewish festivals.

2 Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades.

3 Here a great number of disabled people used to lie—the blind, the lame, the paralyzed.

[4] 5 One who was there had been an invalid for thirty-eight years.

6 When Jesus saw him lying there and learned that he had been in this condition for a long time, he asked him, “Do you want to get well?”

7 “Sir,” the invalid replied, “I have no one to help me into the pool when the water is stirred. While I am trying to get in, someone else goes down ahead of me.”

8 Then Jesus said to him, “Get up! Pick up your mat and walk.”

9 At once the man was cured; he picked up his mat and walked.


John 11:38-44

Jesus Raises Lazarus From the Dead

 38 Jesus, once more deeply moved, came to the tomb. It was a cave with a stone laid across the entrance.

39 “Take away the stone,” he said. “But, Lord,” said Martha, the sister of the dead man, “by this time there is a bad odor, for he has been there four days.”

40 Then Jesus said, “Did I not tell you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?”

41 So they took away the stone. Then Jesus looked up and said, “Father, I thank you that you have heard me.

42 I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me.”

43 When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!”

44 The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face. Jesus said to them, “Take off the grave clothes and let him go.”


Matthew 9:18-22

Jesus Raises a Dead Girl and Heals a Sick Woman

18 While he was saying this, a synagogue leader came and knelt before him and said, “My daughter has just died. But come and put your hand on her, and she will live.”

19 Jesus got up and went with him, and so did his disciples.

20 Just then a woman who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years came up behind him and touched the edge of his cloak.

21 She said to herself, “If I only touch his cloak, I will be healed.”

22 Jesus turned and saw her. “Take heart, daughter,” he said, “your faith has healed you.” And the woman was healed at that moment.


Holy Communion Outside the Church

General Communion:

In every celebration of the Eucharist, there should be a sufficient number of ministers of Holy Communion so that it may be distributed in a reverent and orderly manner. Bishops, priests and deacons distribute Holy Communion in virtue of their office as ordinary ministers of the Body and Blood of the Lord. When the size of the congregation or the incapacity of the bishop, priest, or deacon requires it, the celebrant may be assisted by other bishops, priests, or deacons.

If such ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are not present, "the priest may call upon extraordinary ministers to assist him, i.e., duly instituted acolytes or even other faithful who have been deputed for this purpose. In case of necessity, the priest may also depute suitable faithful for this single occasion (GIRM 162)."

Can. 910 - 2. The extraordinary minister of holy communion is an acolyte or another member of the Christian faithful designated according to the norm of can. 230, - 3.

The listed rubric and canon are the basis for the dispensing of Holy Communion in the operations of this organization.


Holy Communion Outside the Church:

We do believe, that the norm is for valid clergy to dispense the rite of Holy Communion. That not withstanding, the following rules apply;

1. Under conditions of holding communion in retirement home, homes of the home bound, cases of illness or other time of need the Sacrament of Holy Communion can be administered by one of the faithful at the discretion of the clergy. We do request that proper training in the handling of the host and wine, and the proper application of the rite be enacted.

2. In the case of impending death, an emergency Sacrament of Holy Communion may be administered by any individual chosen by valid clergy.

3. Holy Communion is allowed during internet service under two conditions;

3a. The valid clergy gives instruction on the proper handing of the bread and wine to those participating on the remote circuit. The clergy must also instruct the participants of the proper actions that must occur if; the host is dropped or desecrated or the wine is spilled or desecrated. The valid clergy then is responsible for the form (the proper words of consecration).

3b. The valid clergy has in their possession pre-packaged sacrament kits, sanctifies and blesses them during a valid Communion Service. The valid clergy gives instruction on the proper handing of the bread and wine to those participating on the remote circuit. The clergy must also instruct the participants of the proper actions that must occur if; the host is dropped or desecrated or the wine is spilled or desecrated.

By canon law and Papal Mandates, this process is legitimate in INTENT and in particularly in NEED. The early church fathers fully understood the need for exceptions to the rule.

. that the form, and the only form, is the WORDS which determine matter (act), which unequivocally signify the sacramental effects.”


In the context of the internet, there is much debate that “the clergy must be PHYSICALLY present in the same space as the participants”. This has no documented rubric to support this claim. The claim is based on two detractors;

1. That the spirit cannot be transmitted over the internet

2. Jesus, the Apostles or the Church Fathers could never have perceived the existence of the internet.


The sanctimony of these comments is obvious and horrifying. These statements clearly imply;

1. Jesus, the spirit and the Father are NOT all powerful. The claim that the spirit needs a HUMAN to move the spirit is ludicrous at best, heresy at the worst. The spirit is called by prayer and the form (the WORDS). Supporting this is the Acts of the Apostles and Jesus where there was no human touch, and in many cases not within sight of the receiver.

2. This also insinuates our God cannot see the Beginning and the End. Therefore, when the spirit came upon our Apostles they declared visions of the future. The book of Revelation is definitive proof. If Christ knows us in the womb and in the grave, then he did not see the future of the church? In the mission of Paul, he ran a major portion of his church via a very important technology; Paper.

Times change, Christianity must be flexible or fade. Great need requires great change.

Rule 88 of Boniface VIII also expressly states Certum est quod is committit in legem qui legem verbum complectens contra legis nititur“It is certain that one sins against the rule who adheres to the letter and leaves aside the spirit.”

Fourth rule of Gregory IX expressly states: Propter necessitatem, illicitum efficitur licitum — “Necessity makes licit what is illicit.”

Pope Gregory IX left eleven rules and Boniface VIII eighty-eight for the true interpretation of the law. These rules, according to Canon 20, can supply the defect of the rule in a particular case, as in the case we presently find ourselves.

Within the discussion regarding Holy Communion, there is no distinction made regarding the desired outcome;

1. Transubstantiation

2. Consubstantiation

3. Remembrance.

It may be held that our early church fathers did not fully understand the ‘mystery’ of the Eucharist. In many dissertations, it is clear they felt the Eucharist may be in multiple states at multiple times.

Justin Martyr affirms here both the symbolic nature of the Eucharist—its having the appearance of bread and wine and also its being the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus:

For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of his word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, said, “This do in remembrance of me, this is my body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, he said, “This is my blood;” and gave it to them alone

Regarding St. Irenaeus;

For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.


What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ.


Having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, Jesus made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is My body,’ that is, the symbol of My body. There could not have been a symbol, however, unless there was first a true body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a symbol. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new covenant to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body that is not a body of flesh” (Against Marcion, 4.40).

The Didache:

Written in the late-first or early-second century, referred to the elements of the Lord’s table as “spiritual food and drink” (The Didache, 9). The long passage detailing the Lord's Table in this early Christian document gives no hint of transubstantiation whatsoever.

Justin Martyr (110–165):

  1. the bread which our Christ gave us to offer in remembrance of the Body which He assumed for the sake of those who believe in Him, for whom He also suffered, and also to the cup which He taught us to offer in the Eucharist, in commemoration of His blood"(Dialogue with Trypho, 70).

Clement of Alexandria:

The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood” (The Instructor, 2.2).


We have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist” (Against Celsus, 8.57).

Cyprian (200–258)

Sometimes described the eucharist using very literal language, spoke against any who might use mere water for their celebration of the Lord’s Table. In condemning such practices, he explained that the cup of the Lord is a representation of the blood of Christ: “I marvel much whence this practice has arisen, that in some places, contrary to Evangelical and Apostolic discipline, water is offered in the Cup of the Lord, which alone cannot represent the Blood of Christ” (Epistle 63.7).

Eusebius of Caesarea (263–340):

Espoused a symbolic view in his Proof of the Gospel:

For with the wine which was indeed the symbol of His blood, He cleanses them that are baptized into His death, and believe on His blood, of their old sins, washing them away and purifying their old garments and vesture, so that they, ransomed by the precious blood of the divine spiritual grapes, and with the wine from this vine, "put off the old man with his deeds, and put on the new man which is renewed into knowledge in the image of Him that created him." . . . He gave to His disciples, when He said, "Take, drink; this is my blood that is shed for you for the remission of sins: this do in remembrance of me." And, "His teeth are white as milk," show the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body. For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and was to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body, He taught the purity and brightness of such food by saying, “And his teeth are white as milk” (Demonstratia Evangelica, 8.1.76–80).

Athanasius (296–373):

Similarly contended that the elements of the Eucharist are to be understood spiritually, not physically: “[W]hat He says is not fleshly but spiritual. For how many would the body suffice for eating, that it should become the food for the whole world? But for this reason He made mention of the ascension of the Son of Man into heaven, in order that He might draw them away from the bodily notion, and that from henceforth they might learn that the aforesaid flesh was heavenly eating from above and spiritual food given by Him.” (Festal Letter, 4.19)

Augustine (354–430):

Clarified that the Lord’s Table was to be understood in spiritual terms: “Understand spiritually what I said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify me shall pour forth. . . . Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood” (Exposition of the Psalms, 99.8).

John Calvin:

Maintains that the Lord's Supper is both a remembrance (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:23-26) and that there is a spiritual presence of Christ (1 Cor 10:16-17) at the Lord's Table. While the phases "Do this in remembrance of Me" (1 Cor 11:24, 25) and "on the night He was betrayed" (1 Cor 10:23) point to the fact that the Lord's Supper is a "remembrance" of the Lord's past atonement, 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 point to the fact that it is more than a mere remembrance:

The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation [Greek, koinonia, meaning fellowship] in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation [koinonia] in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

So, when believers drink the cup and eat the bread, the whole body of Christ is therefore joined to the Lord in deep spiritual fellowship. By faith those "in Christ" partake of the body and blood of Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit who pours the life of Christ into them. There is spiritual nourishment (John 6:53-57) and union (1 Cor 10:17) as believers participate by faith in the Lord's Supper. Christ is present with believers at the Table (spiritually, not physically). So, this view assists us in understanding that the Lord's Table is a rich symbolic covenantal meal, but not another sacrifice.

This sample of early fathers comments and understanding shows that they believed that the Eucharist may actually exist in multiple forms, and that human perception allowed us to only comprehend based on our limited abilities to grasp the mystery and the true intent of the Christ.


The 39 Articles of the Anglican Faith, Article 28 regarding Holy Communion:

XXVIII. Of the Lord's Supper.
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ. Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.


General Comments on Dogma, Canons and Beliefs - Continued

Laicizing Clergy

The church teaches that clergy “are clergy forever”, even though they may have left willingly or fallen from grace. This is fact, plain and simple. Yet there are many organizations that twist biblical text and their own canons to the limits.

The church has, since it’s ancient roots, stated clearly that the sacraments are absolute, and cannot be taken away. The two that come to mind immediately are baptism and ordination/consecration. That sets the stage to continue into the subject. We may list various Canon Laws as we move through the narrative.

The Catechism states in no uncertain terms that Holy Orders leave an “indelible mark of the spirit’ on the recipient. (c.1582). This matches Ps. 110.4, “You are a priest forever”. The Canon is not simple dogma, it is fact as it is based on a biblical ‘absolute’.

Hence, like Baptism, Holy Orders cannot by the power of man be erased.

Likewise, c.209 bluntly states that once an individual receives ordination, that ordination cannot be made invalid. Human clergy CANNOT override the blessing of the Trinity and the descending of the spirit.

None the less, clergy may be released from duties by whatever church follows such canons. This does NOT mean they are no longer a priest. It is a BUSINESS agreement that this individual may no longer practice as a priest in that particular organization. This practice, called laicization, is a practice that is only valid for the church enacting that practice on a priest within their organization. It has little or no meaning within the operations of independent autonomous organizations outside the church in question.

When a priest is laicized, either by request or has fallen from grace, he is still a priest, but from the ‘business’ perspective of that particular church, is no longer allowed to exercise the power of the orders. c.292

Yet, this individual is still clergy, and if they were to hold Mass outside of their organization, it is still considered a valid Mass. The act may be considered illicit, but keep in mind there is a massive canon law difference between illicit and invalid. That information is not discussed here.

Can a laicized priest, who wishes to leave voluntarily, re-enter the clergy of the original organization? Yes. It is difficult, as any church would not wish priests ‘not making up their minds’, but it is possible. If an individual priest wishes to return to active status in that given church, that individual should not be ordained again, as they are already a priest.

There is curious wording in the canons of many churches. c.976 is no exception. It clearly states that ANY priest, even one who may no longer operate under that particular organization, may not only hear confession but grant absolution in times of great need. So if a laicized priest came upon a dying victim in a car accident, that priest is REQUIRED to hear confession and provide absolution.

Hence, a priest is always a priest.

How about other autonomous organizations. Those organizations do not, real or imagined, have to accept the laicization of any other church. As far as they are concerned that priest is still a priest and may be incardinated into their church.

* Now of course if the laicization was for sex abuse or any serious felony or misdemeanor, an organization should not entertain an affiliation with that priest That is only logical.

None the less, if a priest of one organization was laicized for an ambiguous canon infraction or a request to ‘change organizations’, they may be incardinated into any other organization with little or no fanfare.


1. Is a priest a priest forever. Yes.

2. Can a priest be removed from duties of a specific organization. Yes.

3. If a priest is laicized, is he still a priest? Yes. (see number 1)

4. Can a laicized priest be incardinated and accepted in another organization. Yes.

5. Can any organization claim that they have removed a priests ordination. No. Human clergy CANNOT override the blessing of the Trinity and the descending of the spirit.

6. Do the Canons of laiciztion of one organization effect the Canons of another independent organization? No

7. Can a laicized priest practice outside the original church that laicized that priest, without joining another church? Yes. It may be considered illicit, but is fully valid.


As per eleven (11) Canon rules of Pope Gregory IX and the eighty-eight (88) Canon rules of Pope Boniface VIII, the concept of any illicit act within the church is explained in detail;

These rules, according to Canon 20, can supply the defect of the rule in a particular case, as in the case we presently find ourselves. Consequently, the fourth rule of Gregory IX expressly states: Propter necessitatem, illicitum efficitur licitum — “Necessity makes licit what is illicit.”

Rule 88 of Boniface VIII also expressly states Certum est quod is committit in legem qui legem verbum complectens contra legis nititur“It is certain that one sins against the rule who adheres to the letter and leaves aside the spirit.” Therefore, it is unjust to impute to the legislator a desire to greatly harm the Church during a need to SERVE God and the faithful, forbidding the ordination of bishops and priests and the administering of the sacraments to the faithful who ask for them.

At the very least, especially in time of ‘great trial and tribulation’, traditional acts may be required to be put aside for the benefit of the faithful and the church. This includes but not limited to; a single bishop for consecration, foregoing the laying on of hands, using virtual technology to maintain church operations for the faithful and stability of the church itself and applying special actions for all sacraments in general. The church simply cannot ‘stop’.

At the very least, the practice of sub conditone comes into play for these non traditional actions. This is fully supported by Roman Catholic Canons 953 and 2370. This ‘exception’ manifests itself with the Anglican Ordinates with the Roman Catholic Church.

Out of necessity to create the Anglican Ordinates, the Roman Church followed the precept Propter necessitatem, illicitum efficitur licitum - “Necessity makes licit what is illicit.”

Hence, a laicized priest, one who has been laicized for non criminal acts, may fully operate as a priest whereas they are a priest forever. The actions of man can never erase the mark of the Holy Spirit at ordination or consecration.

And by the 99 rules set down that have NEVER been overturned or modified, any church may make licit what is considered illicit in time of need.


Final analysis:

It is important here to keep in mind a critical distinction: once a man is ordained a priest, he will always have the ability to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and nobody on earth can take that ability away from him. As we’ve noticed before, canon law follows theology, so it is no surprise that the code (c. 290) echoes the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1581-1582) in asserting that priestly ordination which is validly conferred never becomes invalid. “You are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchisedech.”


General Comments on Dogma, Canons and Beliefs - Continued


Tradition and dogma are two separate and disparate entities. Tradition is a human concept and practice, based on human feeling, intent and personal need. Tradition is the passing on of customs and beliefs that make humans feel 'involved' with the world, none the less are not entirely based on worldly or divine facts, and if so may be indirectly related based on conflicting occurrences.

Be aware there are two types of dogma; dogma based on absolutes and dogma based on perceptions or assumptions.

We use the word dogma to be true, factual and consistent.

Canons, rubrics and liturgies inherently have a certain amount of tradition seeping into the text. This may be the lack of our ability to understand the divine, and to do the best we can to sing praises to the divine. Yes, our Lord told us very succinctly that we can never understand the mind or intent of God, and not even the Disciples (Apostles) could fully understand. He proved this over and over, up to the actions at the last Supper, and even immediately after his resurrection and first encounter with his followers. Even after receiving the Holy Spirit in the house that Christ bid them await that arrival, the Apostles made mistakes based on understanding. Peter, Paul and instances of disagreements with other Apostles show this clearly.

Dogma, those things that we MUST do, without hesitation, come from our Lord, not from tradition. The specific words spoken to "do this" as in "Do this in remembrance of me" or Go forth and baptize all nations" are factual dogma, and all of our human practices must revolve around those hard facts.

Much tradition in the church precedes the Christian faith by millennia. Some traditions are formed around a single ambiguous sentence in scripture. Some traditions are based on actions that occurred in one book, none the less were supplanted by an action somewhere else in the text.

Human conjecture is not dogma.

Tradition is not bad. Tradition allow us to express our need to come close to the divine. Most tradition has "good intent". None the less there is tradition that clouds the true dogma. Traditions give us our music and our liturgies of praise. Traditions do not always present us us proven facts, and those traditions that are perceptions or assumptions cannot be canons or rubrics.

Traditions may seep into the very sacraments we hold most holy. If we truly believe our sacraments exist based on our Lord telling us distinctly to “Do this…” must we not keep that sacrament pure and untarnished by external traditions? If our Lord stated we should “Do this…” should we not do so without question or debate? And if we do not fully comprehend should we not rely in FAITH to meet the end our Lord intended?

Take a close look at the canons, rubrics and liturgies of the church, then open your mind to compare that to the true dogma set down by our Lords words. The canons, rubrics and liturgies are full of traditions that may make us as humans feel participatory, none the less may be taken totally out of context with the words of our Lord. At the same time, look carefully at the actions of our Lord, actions that only the power of the Trinity may perform. Compare that to some of the actions we have usurped thinking we humans are more than just flesh.

Bear in mind tradition is based on human differences. The traditions practiced by Peter, Paul, the Apostles in Jerusalem and Mark in Alexandria were all different. Take a close look at the traditions James the brother of Jesus (half brother?) practiced. There were massive differences in practices.

Traditions form a pattern of praise for our Lord, within the limits of our meager human comprehension of the divine. Praise is good, very good.

But this is not dogma.

Many of the independent organizations have embraced the dogma of the ancient church, and look critically at the applicability of traditions, especially those that conflict the actual requests made by the Lord to us. These organizations are fighting hard for truth, integrity and a complete dogma based on the words of the Lord, and FAITH. This may be, and may always be, an uphill battle against the power, control and capitalistic resources of those who wish to maintain a hold on on the faith.

Take a careful look at the canons of any church of choice. Remove all canons based on traditions that do not fall into the words of the Lord; “Do this…” “Go forth…”

Next, remove all the canons based on “actions” in biblical text, where that same action either does not occur elsewhere, or conflicts with actions in subsequent text.

Many canons may be reduced to a three or four page document.

We have a choice. We choose to exercise that choice. Dogma is the truth of the words of the Lord, not traditions, not debate, not “we think this is what Christ wants/meant”. If we do not understand, which the Lords emphatically states we cannot. Then only FAITH exists, and should be embraced.


Technology and the Church: Intent and usage

This organization embraces the ancient dogma and beliefs of the early church fathers. None the less, we do see clearly the changes in dogma based on changes in society, and that includes technological changes.

Change is neither good or bad, we do though see that human imperfection may use change in nefarious ways.

This organization with an open mind embraces change and technology that can be utilized to the benefit of the church; in particular to reach the disenfranchised, remote bound, home bound or others who cannot readily receive the solace of the church in “physical” form, or those forgotten or denied access by the mainstream organizations.

Technology used with pure intent benefits the church universal. During the time of the Apostles, the main form of presenting the church were meetings in the catacombs, homes or traveling to remote regions to bring the word to those in need.

The Apostle Paul strongly believed in spreading the word by a more efficient means using the technology of the day; using quill, ink and paper to send his epistles and letters to the far reaches of the realms of that time.

Today, many of the mainstream organizations decry the usage of mass electronic media as being inherently wrong, that there is no place for that media in the church. Television, audio, video and the internet are not evil and to be pushed away as such. This is shortsighted. Yes, there are things in the electronic realm that go against our sense of morality. But let us place this in context; Paul wrote wonderful epistles and letters. There are others who created writings of great moral conflict and evil. So does that mean pen and paper cannot be part of the church?

At one time television was the target of mainstream church groups. The outrage was loud and targeted, and those that televised many of the original christian programs were slandered in private and in public. But there was a a beacon of light that many remember that changed much of the negative perception of religion on the media of TV, the rock solid teaching and commentary of the Rev. Fulton J. Sheen. He used the television medium as his pen and paper, and millions were blessed.

Recorded audio and video has seen the same bias against usage within some organizations. If we can put images of words on paper, why cannot the same words be vocalized on a recording?

The greatest bias today is the usage of the internet for religious content. A medium that can reach multi-millions with the simple click of a mouse to “send” must be embraced. The usage of this medium is mission critical to reach those who have lost the church of their choice, are disenfranchised, live in remote regions or may be home bound by age or illness.

There was a day where the churches and clergy would travel to seek out these individuals, with the desire to bring the solace of the church directly to them. Today, the common theme is; it’s not our job, it is too expensive, if they really desire the church they must come to us.

That theme is sanctimonious at the very least.

All electronic media today gives the church the ability to reach those unreachable. If we truly believe our mission is to reach those in greatest need, why is the one medium to accomplish this shunned?

There are many who decry technology stating that the physical presence on holy ground or physical presence of a priest is required for the presentation of the solace of the church, presentation of the word of Christ and the presentation of the Holy Spirit. This may be considered an oxymoron; the spirit can and will present itself whenever it so desires, without human intervention or clergy participation. The spirit is not hindered by anything made by human hands.

Christ’s word and spirit will come to all who in true faith call upon them – on holy ground, at home, in remoteness, on paper, on electronic storage media, television internet or any technology that mankind can use.

If we use the technology in true faith, with proper intent there is no wrong in the act. The words of Christ will still be true, and the spirit will come – the spirit has no barriers.

This organization will utilize technologies with care, in the same vein that the early church fathers used changing technologies to better server the faithful.


General Comments on Dogma, Canons and Beliefs - Continued

Human incapability to understand – General misinterpretations

We were created with free will. Yes this is a two edge sword; free will allows us to embrace good or evil. This is the human condition. We are driven to seek understanding; we study, debate and research. This is who we are. But we are flawed, and each individual will have a unique ability to understand based on our uniqueness.

Within the context of our Christian faith we debate, study and research the word. This action of human curiosity and the path to understanding creates a unique dichotomy, one that has fractured the church not only today, but has existed from the time of the earliest church fathers.

Our Lord made it abundantly clear that we could never understand the mind, soul and existence of the trinity. Not even the original disciples could comprehend the word or intent of much that Christ said and accomplished. This is proven over and over again right up to, and also during the last Supper.

Much of the mainstream dogma is based on debate. This is substantiated by many writings of the church fathers of the first councils, and is still occurring to this day, and in all likelihood throughout our future.

Dogma based on “We think this is what Christ meant” or "We think this is what Christ's actions represent” is not and should never be dogma. This is a human catch-22.

Even the Apostles, after receiving the holy spirit in the house Christ sent them to, struggled with dogma. Peter and Paul had many disagreements on the beliefs and actions of the church. Mark, in Alexandria dis not practice the exact same dogma, neither did the Apostles in Jerusalem. Not even Christ's brother (half-brother?) practiced the same dogma. The framework for denominationalism was not a seed that was planted in the middle ages, it was there from day one.

The original Apostles set down only a few hard fast rules, some were immediately made null. From the book of Acts we glean these rules:

    1. The candidate was required to be someone who followed Jesus during his entire earthly ministry, beginning from Jesus’ baptism by John to Jesus’ ascension into heaven (1:21–22a).

    2. The candidate was required to have seen Jesus after His resurrection (1:22b).

    3. The candidate needed to have been appointed by the Lord Jesus himself (1:24–25).

This is a very interesting dichotomy; Paul never followed Jesus and was never appointed by Jesus (he was converted only, based on biblical text) therefore is Paul an illicit Apostle (Bishop)? In the book of Acts, these rules set down by the Apostles are “and” statements and not “or” statements. None override the other. How did this issue of understanding/misunderstanding Christ’s early church come to be? It was the human component.

If the dogma and canons of the two largest Christian Churches are taken into account, we see that laying on of hands if “required” for all actions and that “Apostolic Tradition” is to be held as truth. Hence, all of the original Apostles could not be the earliest bishops of the church, as they never had the laying on of hands. It can also be construed that Paul could never have been an Apostle (or bishop) in any context, as he failed rule 1 and rule 3 of the Apostles, hence nullifying rule 2.

Our blessed Mary was not immune for the lack of human understanding. Mary was blessed by the Holy Spirit, and became with child. She bore into this world our Lord. But we look at the story of the 12 year old Jesus in the temple, with Mary in attendance. The text is clear; she was amazed but could not understand what was occurring.

In our mainstream dogma, canons and rubrics, and the study of theology behind all of it, there is the perception that once the Holy Spirit does descend on someone, that they are “inspired” and do not have issues of understanding. This is totally out of context within the inerrant word of the bible. We see that even with the spirit, the human component still had issues understanding and human error was still a factor.

We strive to understand that which is above our comprehension. We make petty dogma based on what makes us comfortable. We bicker about leaven and un-leavened bread, we bicker about the species and Christ's presence, we bicker about whether the spirit requires human touch to transfer the spirit.

This is our human failure, the desire to understand that which we were never meant to comprehend.

Our Lord projected to us the concept that we must overlook our human failings; our striving to comprehend the incomprehensible – This is where FAITH fills the gaps.

The petty example of leavened and un-leavened bread is the perfect example of how little we comprehend as humans. All bread in nature is leavened. In nature, in every corner of the inhabited world, there is natural yeast in the air or on surfaces we prepare the bread on. All bread in leavened by nature itself, even though we do not see it – even one single yeast cell is all that is required.

Holy Communion – The Apostles did not totally agree on how/when the species became sanctified; or whether it was a “mystery”, a mystery not possible to comprehend..

The controversy over the laying on of hands is well documented. None the less, was there laying on of hands? Yes.

Yet, there were many instances where the spirit was called without the laying on of hands. The woman touching the robes of our Lord, the spirit was transferred through the inanimate object of the robes. The mystery of the donkey Christ rode in Jerusalem, the fact the original Apostles received the spirit, without physical intervention, in the home Christ sent them to. The raising of Lazarus with a prayer and a shout.

There are also many, somewhat ambiguous, references indicating the spirit may be passed to our day to day inanimate objects, or even animals. This is substantiated by the dogma of any denominations that believe the spirit possibly dwells within relics.

Our Lord never forced understanding onto us, he asked for nothing more than belief and faith. This must not be overlooked.

FAITH fills the gaps where comprehension fails us. Faith has taken a back seat in the actions of the church.

None the less our Lord did ask us to perform certain acts, even though he did not indicate we must understand his intent: “Go Forth..”, “Do this…”, “This I say to you …” should be the cornerstone of the only factual dogma we embrace. If Christ told us to do it, that is dogma. If Christ did not tell us to do it, that is not dogma. Our human actions and “interpretations” are not dogma – these actions are human rubrics open to critical inspection, and said actions are a hypothesis of probability.

None the less, God made each and every human unique, and each of us will come closer to the trinity by the measure of understanding that we alone posses. No one else will have that exact same understanding. We all must be cognizant of those differences, this is simple fact of the human condition.

This organization strongly believes in the one holy catholic and apostolic church, with all of our differences, and sometimes it’s failings.

We made a priestly promise before both God and man to bring the solace of the church to the people via the word of our Lord. We will work closely with other organizations towards this end; assisting congratulations in need, assisting organizations with ordinations of deacons and priests, consecration of bishops, working with the disenfranchised or any myriad of other tasks the church requires.

We will respect your dogma and will not decry your beliefs based on your uniqueness. It is not our place to force you to believe as we do. In our work with other organizations we will strive to purport ourselves in a manner consistent with the respect your organization deserves.

None the less, we will protect and defend our canons, beliefs, rubrics and all encompassing dogma with a fierce and unrelenting focus; a focus that is clear that we are not perfect and will never understand the mind of God. That we, with true love and faith, will do our flawed human best to present to the world the “intent” of the word.


General Comments on Dogma, Canons and Beliefs - Continued

The Spirit

Within the dogma of Christianity, the existence of the eternal trinity is paramount. Faith tells us that the trinity is pure and ultimately all powerful. The Spirit moves of free will, and in mysterious ways we as flawed humans will never comprehend.

There is dogma today that directs us to this premise: The Spirit must manifest itself by physical contact, and we practice human contact in that same vein within our clerical actions.

None the less, biblical text is very explicit, and if we truly have faith that text is inerrant, we must look at the other actions of the Spirit.

The Spirit did not require physical contact when it appeared to the original Apostles. It came, without human bidding or human intervention to the Apostles in a home with locked doors.

The Spirit, and that power held within, was transferred via the inanimate object of our Lord’s robes healing the bleeding woman.

The Spirit, with a simple prayer and a shout and no physical contact, entered and raised Lazarus from the dead.

The spirit entered Mary with no physical contact.

In many biblical texts the Spirit is manifest in many objects, even animals. It came with the very waters of creation. The donkey that could view and recognize an angel, and then spoke.

Objects of day to day usage have been entered by the Spirit. Objects of the Saints past are said to have special power…. We call then relics. By piously venerating the holy relicsof the Saints, the Church reveres them as temples of the Holy Spirit. The spirit entered them of free will, with no required physical contact.

The Spirit does not need humanity to do it’s work. It existed before the existence of man, and will be in existence when we are gone.

The Spirit will come, bidden or unbidden, based on our measure and need. We as humans hold no sway over the Spirit.


General Comments on Dogma, Canons and Beliefs - Continued

The Spirit (continued)

Within the church, there are many elements that make up our holy life; true dogma, canons, rubrics and liturgies being in the forefront.

Dogma is constrained by one simple fact, the words of our Lord. The words of “do this…” or “go forth” are dogma, as we were specifically asked to perform those actions. Canons, rubrics and liturgies are human interpretations of actions that we feel may be pleasing to the divine, or may simply make us feel better about ourselves.

Within the context of those comments, it is imperative to look at our human interactions with the Holy Spirit.

It is deeply embedded in the canons of the Apostolic Church, that the Holy Spirit requires human intervention, by presbytery, to move and do its divine work.

Herein lies a dichotomy.

We believe that the Trinity is eternal, always existing and forever existing. If we stand on this premise, we must look at creation closely. The spirit came upon the waters of the earth. There was no human intervention because humans, and hence clergy, were not yet created.

The story of the donkey, The spirit came to the donkey unbidden, the donkey hence recognized an Angel, and spoke words. There was no intervention by a human.

The bleeding woman, touching the mere hem of our Lords garment, drew power out of Jesus. The spirit did not require assistance to do this. And we must look closely at the fact the spirit moved through an inanimate object.

In several of the major denominations, it is believed that the spirit resides in relics; human or inanimate.

The Holy Spirit came to the original Apostles, behind locked doors in a home, totally unbidden by clerical action.

Many healing acts in our biblical text follow the same concept. Some require interaction, others nothing more than a simple prayer.

Many of the acts of our presbytery that are considered part of dogma are not of Christian origin. They follow many of the acts of the priests from the line of Melchizedek passed down through generations. Many of the acts held no power of any type, they were acts of human compassion, caring and simple acknowledgment. Those same acts today are considered dogma, and that a priest must perform the act otherwise the spirit is powerless to interact with humans.