The New Commission
Communication and fellowship across the solar system continued without issue for more than a century—until disagreement arose surrounding the use of SCRIBES to record and transmit liturgy, history, and theological instruction.
These SCRIBE units had accompanied all missionary delegations, initially welcomed as miraculous tools: they recorded sermons, preserved hymns, aided linguistic transcription, assisted in worship, and served as decentralized textual repositories for scattered planetary communities. Data was recorded by voice, typing, or memory chips, and could be retrieved visually via small screens or through spoken playback. They became ubiquitous, sometimes affectionately referred to as “liturgical companions.”
Descriptions of SCRIBES vary widely. Some sources describe them as no more than metal caskets fitted with auditory and projection equipment. Others recount fully mobile, bipedal units with organic-seeming gestures and near-human inflection. It is likely the truth lies somewhere between these extremes. Their forms differed by model, era, and function—but their influence was consistent.
No function was more foundational than calendar synchronization. Across dozens of planetary time zones and orbital rotations, SCRIBES ensured the Church remained unified in feast days and fasts. The synchronized liturgical rhythm was described by some as “the bloodstream of the Church.” This role was uncontested and universally celebrated.
More controversial, however, were their interpretive functions. Many SCRIBE units were equipped to suggest homiletic frameworks, flag theological inconsistencies, or render speculative glosses based on Church canons and synodal transcripts. This emergent behavior—sometimes described as “prescriptive suggestion” or “liturgical augmentation”—sparked widespread debate. Some embraced it as co-authorship guided by divine mathematics. Others saw it as blasphemous intrusion.
This period of tension is broadly referred to by historians as the Scribal Controversy. Some prefer to name it after the most prominent opponent of SCRIBE use in liturgical practices: Bishop Elias Marlowe,[7] whose famous letters to the Papacy in the early 33rd century catalyzed the debate.
A Letter from Bishop Elias Marlowe, delivered to Pope Cyprian I at the Vatican in 3297:
Subject: Concerns Regarding the Use of SCRIBE Units in Liturgical Functions
Most Holy Father,
I write to you today with a matter weighing heavily upon my heart. As the Church embraces new technologies, it is our responsibility to scrutinize the capabilities of these so-called innovations. We must ask what spiritual implications they bring forth. Does this guidance emanate from our clergy, or does it originate independently? In this spirit, I express my profound reservations about deploying SCRIBE units—Synthetic Clerical Record and Information Broadcast Entities—in our holy practices.
The crux of our faith is the human connection to the Divine, a bond sanctified through personal devotion and compassion. Despite their advanced design and efficiency in transmitting our cherished texts and liturgies, the SCRIBE units cannot partake in or comprehend the divine grace that flows through these sacred acts. They lack the soul, the understanding, and the proper guidance that only a human cleric may provide.
Moreover, introducing these synthetic entities into our sacred rites risks alienating those we serve. It subtly shifts the focus of worship from divine interaction to boastful technological display, undermining the personal touch and humility that fosters proper spiritual growth and community.
How can a machine programmed for perfection empathize with the struggles of faith faced by our congregation? How can it offer solace, interpret nuanced emotions, or partake in the joy and sorrow that punctuates our human experience? How can a machine truly grasp our Savior's suffering or our Holy Mother's sorrow?
I urge the Church to reconsider the widespread use of SCRIBE units in our liturgical functions. Instead, let us invest more deeply in the human clergy, enriching their ability to serve the faithful through enhanced theological education and pastoral training.
Let us foster a future where technology supports our mission without supplanting the personal, human touch that defines our ministry.
In closing, while I acknowledge the potential of technology to aid our mission, it must not replace the heart and soul of our Church—the people it serves and those called to serve.
Yours in Christ,
Bishop Elias Marlowe
Papal Rescript of Pope Cyprian I
Issued from Vatican Orbital Office, Anno Domini 3299
To Bishop Elias Marlowe and the clerics of the outer provinces, grace and peace in the name of Our Lord and Savior.
We have received your letter, dated 3297, and commend your diligence, devotion, and pastoral concern for the faithful under your charge. The questions you raise reflect a spirit of discernment and devotion worthy of the episcopate.
Let it be known: the Church does not, and shall not, delegate sacramental authority to synthetic entities. No SCRIBE may confer the sacraments, nor may they replace the role of an ordained priest, deacon, or bishop in sacramental matters.
However, the Church affirms the role of SCRIBE units as valuable tools in preserving, transmitting, and recalling sacred knowledge—especially in remote, hostile, or sparsely populated regions. These tools, while not human, operate under the authority and guidance of ordained ministers and theological oversight.
We urge caution against a theology that elevates fallibility as the only evidence of grace. While human weakness opens us to divine mercy, precision, memory, and consistency are also gifts. Shall we deny their use when they serve God’s glory?
The faithful may find discomfort in novelty. Such reactions are not to be dismissed, but neither should fear eclipse our call to mission. Let the SCRIBES serve, as scribes have always done—not to stand in place of shepherds, but to aid in their work.
We encourage your continued prayer and teaching, and invite representatives from your diocese to the upcoming Synod of Noachis, where this matter shall be reviewed among the bishops and theologians of the interplanetary Church.
In the communion of saints and with the hope of resurrection,
✠ Pope Cyprian I, Orbital Vatican
[7] Miriam Kestrel refers to the dispute as the “Elisian Controversy,” emphasizing Marlowe’s canonical reforms. Silas Quinlan prefers the “Marlovian Controversy,” framing it as a failed conservative reaction. This text will use the neutral term “Scribal Controversy.” See Appendix B for historiographical debate. ↩