Ship of Fools: Sundry liturgical questions

Thread: Sundry liturgical questions Board: Ecclesiantics / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=008033

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

Here is a brand new thread for all those random queries that are burning for an answer.

Remember that the Ecclesiantics Dictionary is there for vocabulary-related matters and The Tatler is there for queries on vestments, liturgical impedimenta and the like.

seasick, Eccles host

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

OK, here's trivial and pedantic question.

The C of E lectionary for Morning Prayer has been reading through Matthew continuously (with a break for Colossians over Christmas) since before Advent.

Thursday 9 January comes to the end of Matthew 20. Next day starts with Matthew 23, omiting chapters 21 & 22. Saturday gets to Chapter 23.28.

Then this morning we backtrack to Matthew 21.

There must be some reason for this, probably to do with fitting in continuous reading around Epiphany.

Anyone got a good explanation?

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ardmacha:
I was asked the other day about liturgical change in Anglican cathedrals. I am very out of date and couldn't give a good answer.
Are there any Anglican cathedrals where the old High Altar is use exclusively for the sung/choral Eucharist on Sundays and there are no new altars and choir stalls on the nave-side of the choir screen ? In other words, are there any cathedrals which look and work as they did in the late 1950s/1960s ?

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:

quote:
Originally posted by ardmacha:
I was asked the other day about liturgical change in Anglican cathedrals. I am very out of date and couldn't give a good answer.
Are there any Anglican cathedrals where the old High Altar is use exclusively for the sung/choral Eucharist on Sundays and there are no new altars and choir stalls on the nave-side of the choir screen ? In other words, are there any cathedrals which look and work as they did in the late 1950s/1960s ?

I believe this is the case in Detroit Cathedral, where I was received into the Anglican Communion by the Bishop of Michigan in 1986. I haven't been there in a while, so I don't know whether a movable nave altar might be used for the 8.15am Sunday Eucharist with hymns, but I've never seen such a nave altar there.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Westminster Abbey isn't a cathedral but it behaves like one and they used the high altar, eastward facing, for Christmas midnight and morning solemn Eucharists.

Posted by BulldogSacristan (# 11239) on :

I thought that some of the Medieval cathedrals were in no way designed for the high altar to be used in connection with the nave? It was more just for the clerics' worship in the chancel. In large part because there wasn't a real worshipping congregation at a cathedral. And that, in fact, it was common for cathedrals to have altars on the nave side of the pulpitum or rood screen for masses where they expected a lot of pilgrims or something. Sort of like they do now.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Quite a few cathedrals with nave altars use the high altar on certain occasions. One that doesn't have a nave altar is Chichester: it works quite well with the Liturgy of the Word in the nave and the Eucharist at the high altar (versus populum).

Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on :

The High Altar, at the New-York Cathedral of St.John the Divine is being used on special occasions like Christmas,Easter,the Consecration and the Installation of New Bishops.
The celebrant take the westward facing position.
Normally the Nave Altar is being used for the Eucharist.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

St James' Cathedral in Toronto pulled out its high altar rather than supplementing it with a nave or quire altar. (I'm not sure where the frontal has got to in that shot, which is of the bishops concelebrating the Mass on New Year's Day in 2011 - this video is, if not more typical, at least atypical in the opposite direction).

Posted by ardmacha (# 16499) on :

Yes, I think the People's Altar (sometimes the Jesus Altar) on the west side of the screen would be used for big services, ordinations and other large events when the Quire would be too small. They were often handsome with a Laudian frontal and communion rails on three sides. I was thinking of the more modern style. Westminster Abbey used the High Altar - Eastward Position -on the Saturday Pilgrim Eucharist within the Octave of St Edward.

Posted by NatDogg (# 14347) on :

Washington National Cathedral uses its High Altar for the daily noon Eucharist -- so it is pretty active. They also use it for other special services. . . the only one that comes to mind at the moment is the All Souls Requiem.

What is interesting about that altar is that it is original to the building (put in around 1920 or so) but it has always been "pulled out" from the reredos. So the priest celebrates westward facing.

Posted by Sarum Sleuth (# 162) on :

Derby Cathedral uses the High Altar for the Sung Eucharist, as do Carlisle and Blackburn. All three buildings are relatively short by the standards of English cathedrals.

SS

Posted by aig (# 429) on :

Chichester always uses the high altar for main services as Angloid describes (service of the Word from below the Arundel screen then moving to the High altar). However occasionally there is a nave altar e.g. Licensing of Readers. . Sight lines are equally poor either way, and despite the screen, probably more people can see the action at the high altar than at a nave altar.

Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :

I never knew, until recently, that the BCP Calendar had a letter of the alphabet assigned to each day of the year. The letters used were a-g in repetition and were apparently used to determine which days were Sundays. Am I correct in this? Do they have any useful purpose now or are they included for historical purposes only?

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sarum Sleuth:
Derby Cathedral uses the High Altar for the Sung Eucharist, as do Carlisle and Blackburn. All three buildings are relatively short by the standards of English cathedrals.

SS

I was going to say one would expect it to be determined by the size of the structure as much as anything. The traditional 'High Altar half a mile to the east, behind the quire' is unlikely to be used for the main Sunday Eucharist anywhere that it is encountered I'd have thought.

It should als be noted that with regards to congregational worship, such a thing was never the intention of the High Altars in question - go far enough back and it would have used to celebrate the conventual Masses of the Benedictine monks or colleges of canons associated with the chapter.

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
OK, here's trivial and pedantic question.

The C of E lectionary for Morning Prayer has been reading through Matthew continuously (with a break for Colossians over Christmas) since before Advent.

Thursday 9 January comes to the end of Matthew 20. Next day starts with Matthew 23, omiting chapters 21 & 22. Saturday gets to Chapter 23.28.

Then this morning we backtrack to Matthew 21.

There must be some reason for this, probably to do with fitting in continuous reading around Epiphany.

Anyone got a good explanation?

No explanation but an echoing of the question. I suspect it's to do with starting a section after the baptism of Christ, which is the start of Ordinary time for the RCs and Methodists and indeed the shift to the weeks of the Daily Eucharist Lectionary for us, must remember it's year 2 tomorrow. This year with Epiphany being a Monday there were more days before Baptism of Christ, so maybe they were filler days that were Matthew 23.

The other weird lectionary glitch last week was omitting a few verses of 1 John from the continuous reading at EP although they'd featured in the Mass readings a few days before.

Carys (who also read the last verses of Ruth last Monday because it seemed weird to stop 3 verses before the end )

Posted by Mockingbird (# 5818) on :

quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I never knew, until recently, that the BCP Calendar had a letter of the alphabet assigned to each day of the year. The letters used were a-g in repetition and were apparently used to determine which days were Sundays. Am I correct in this? Do they have any useful purpose now or are they included for historical purposes only?

The Sunday letters serve the same purpose they always did. They work just as well now as they did in the 4th century.

Folk might not need them as often now as they once did, since now we have pocket-planners and computers. But pocket-planners cover only a few years at once, and computers can break down. There's nothing wrong with having a fallback.

Did you notice the lunar numbers in the far left-hand column on the pages for March and April?

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

In my family I've acquired a bit of a reputation as a calendar savant, since I know the dates of Sundays for several months to come and from there can work out what day of the week any other date is pretty much on instant demand.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

Strictly speaking, 29 February does not have a 'daily letter' in the dominical series - A through to G. That is why there are two dominical letters for leap year. (e.g. AG in 2012 & FE in 2016) Of these, the first letter refers to leap year January & February and the second letter refers to the remaining months in such a year.

I know the 'daily letter' for the first of every month throughout the year, by heart and I am aware that the same letter is repeated on the 8th, 15th, 22nd & 29th of the same month. By means of this knowledge, I can work out the day of the week for any date in any year, in my head. This of course, is in a cycle of seven rather than twelve, bearing in mind that not all months in the year have 31 days. Consequently, the first of the month on the same day of the week, occurs once, twice or thrice in the same year.

For the superstitous, when the first of the month is a Sunday, then Friday 13th ensues in the same month. Another consideration is that when the dominical letter is B (CB in leap year), then Christmas day falls on a Sunday.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

Guildford Cathedral (in which Diocese I am situated), uses the nave altar for the main Eucharist, on the first Sunday in the month; at least, they used to - I don't know if they still do.

If that is no longer the case, I am open to any such up-date.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

Correction - I should have said above that the dominical letters for 2016 are CB. I mis-counted and although I took my time over my proof-reading, I missed it. Sorry about that.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

I like the use of the word sundry for the new thread. This distinguishes it from last year's thread. [Smile]

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Some ten years ago, I attended the Sunday Sung Eucharist at Salisbury Cathedral which used the altar at the East End of the choir, probably with the presiding priest facing West. I don't think Salisbury has a nave altar. Or at any rate, not when I was there last.

The High Altar is whatever altar is used for the principal eucharist of the week. If that is now at a Westward facing altar in front of any screen, that is the High Altar.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

Given that this new year of 2014 is an 'E' year, that immediately tells us that the first Sunday in the year was 5th January and that Sunday 1st occurs in June.

It follows that:-

An 'F' day is a Monday, making Monday 1st fall in September & December. A 'G' day is a Tuesday, making Tuesday 1st fall in April & July. An 'A' day is a Wednesday, making Wednesday 1st fall in January & October. A 'B' day is a Thursday, making Thursday 1st fall in May. A 'C' day is a Friday, making Friday 1st fall in August. A 'D' day is a Saturday, making Saturday 1st fall in February, March & November.

That completes the cycle of how the 'daily' letters work for this year of 2014.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
The High Altar is whatever altar is used for the principal eucharist of the week. If that is now at a Westward facing altar in front of any screen, that is the High Altar.

Are you sure about that or is it just your opinion?

Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :

How does one know if a given year is an A, B, C, D, E, F, or G year?

Posted by Clotilde (# 17600) on :

It depends on what you are referring to! Who uses such a range of letters for the years?

I thought it was just A, B , C - for the lectionary. But then didnt the old Book of Common Prayer have complicated tables in the front about this sort of thing?

Posted by ST (# 14600) on :

Truro Cathedral still uses the High Altar on Sundays etc (or did when I was last there a couple of years ago), although they do bring a nave Altar out on occasions for other services.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
The High Altar is whatever altar is used for the principal eucharist of the week. If that is now at a Westward facing altar in front of any screen, that is the High Altar.
Are you sure about that or is it just your opinion?

I am sure that is what the words mean.

You can use the term "High Altar" to mean the one at the East End before we had one for a Westward facing president if you like, but it is not a very accurate use of words.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Alternatively, is a 'High Altar' always a main altar that is on a platform and reached by a flight of steps? Or am I being over literal?

Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I don't think Salisbury has a nave altar. Or at any rate, not when I was there last.

Venbede, while it has been two years since I was last at Salisbury, but over the years prior to that I was there a couple of times a year and each time there was a nave altar in place as well as the traditional high altar.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
How does one know if a given year is an A, B, C, D, E, F, or G year?

Good question!

Dominical letters should not be confused with the three-yearly cycle of lectionary readings A B C in rotation, followed by year 'A' again after year 'C'.

One has only to refer to the obscure part of the BCP, to the kalendar in the early part of that book, including the date of Easter. The 'daily' letter is given for every date in the year in the kalendar covering every month in the year.

Apart from that, knowing the dominical letter for the year, is akin to knowing one's multiplication tables; very often one knows a good part of multiplication tables, and the bits one doesn't know, can be worked out from the bits one does know. The same principle holds good for dominical letters, which is why I can arrive at the dominical letter for any year without reference to BCP or any other book.

It should be born in mind that the dominical letters follow one after the other in reverse order from one year to the next: - G F E D C B A. Thus - 2015 D, 2016 CB, 2017 A, 2018 G, 2019 F, 2020 ED ,,,, and so on.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

To keep it simple, one has only to pick on any date in the year falling on a Sunday; be aware of its 'daily' letter and that gives the dominical letter for the entire year. If a leap year, treat each part separately(before and after 29th February).

Posted by lily pad (# 11456) on :

Why two letters for one year though? Still very confused.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
One has only to refer to the obscure part of the BCP, to the kalendar in the early part of that book, including the date of Easter. ...

It's only obscure if you are young enough not to go back to when all services were BCP, and had a childhood which was unblessed with hours of compulsory church/chapel/choir attendance, with nothing else to read during interminable sermons.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
One has only to refer to the obscure part of the BCP, to the kalendar in the early part of that book, including the date of Easter. ...
It's only obscure if you are young enough not to go back to when all services were BCP, and had a childhood which was unblessed with hours of compulsory church/chapel/choir attendance, with nothing else to read during interminable sermons.

Not obscure to me, or I would not have been in a position to mention it. Perhaps I should have put "obscure" in inverted commas.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lily pad:
Why two letters for one year though? Still very confused.

That is only because such a year is leap year. The first letter is pre-29th February: the second letter is post-29th February.

Posted by Clotilde (# 17600) on :

A quick question please,
which came up in a chat I had.

Does the liturgy (I mean 'Western' RC mainly or Anglican) refer anywhere to Christ as THE Light of the World?

Please note 'THE LIGHT'! not 'a'?
I know its in Scripture, by the way. John 8.12

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Clotilde:
A quick question please,
which came up in a chat I had.

Does the liturgy (I mean 'Western' RC mainly or Anglican) refer anywhere to Christ as THE Light of the World?

Please note 'THE LIGHT'! not 'a'?
I know its in Scripture, by the way. John 8.12

Loads of times in Church of England Common Worship. Mostly as quotes from Scripture but also, e.g. the post-communion prayers for Sundays in Epiphany. And some of the evening "Service of the Word" liturgies. And other places.

Posted by Clotilde (# 17600) on :

Thanks for that Ken.

Anyone able to give a specific quote please, if possible.

Posted by Roselyn (# 17859) on :

Here's an eg from 3rd order communion service
"THE HOLY COMMUNION
THIRD ORDER

GATHERING IN GOD’S NAME

The service may begin with songs and/or a hymn.

The minister greets the people

The Lord be with you.
And also with you.

In Eastertide
Christ is risen. Alleluia! Alleluia!
He is risen indeed. Alleluia! Alleluia!

The minister may read one or more suitable Sentences of Scripture (see pages 10-13, 18-20, and 32-34), and may briefly explain the theme of the service.

One of these Prayers of Preparation or another suitable opening prayer may said.

Let us pray.

Almighty God, you bring to light things hidden in darkness, and know the shadows of our hearts; cleanse and renew us by your Holy Spirit, that we may walk in the light and glorify your name, through Jesus Christ our Lord, the Light of the world. AMEN."

Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :

Thanks, EFF! They are an interesting piece of history, those letters. That said, I'm glad we have the internet for this now! Cheers.

Posted by Ger (# 3113) on :

Wellington Cathedral of St Paul, New Zealand does not have a crossing/nave altar. High altar at east end beyond quite a substantial quire.

Sitting in front row of nave you need binoculars to see action at the high altar! To be fair I am not sure that a nave/crossing altar would work in the space. Funerals/ordinations are conducted across the nave/quire boundary. Have never attended a wedding there so don't know.

I am not aware, over many years/decades, of any pressure for a nave altar.

Interesting optical illusion though. From the nave there appears to be a cross set on the altar. In fact cross is set on a plinth of appropriate height behind the altar. Becomes obvious when celebrant/officiant facing west is inserted between altar and cross.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Thanks, EFF! They are an interesting piece of history, those letters. That said, I'm glad we have the internet for this now! Cheers.

Internet (which I am into!) or not, I have learnt how to use those dominical letters. It occurs to me that they can also be found in the Encyclopedia Britannica.

There is a lot more I could write and I have far from exhausted this subject.

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

I'm wanting to put together an Ash Wednesday service of appropriate length and content for people who are on a lunch hour. Thus it ideally must be about 15-20 minutes. Yet I don't want it to feel rushed. I am not planning on having any music, since our pianist won't be available that day. I do want to impose ashes, and would preferably like to offer the Eucharist.

Can anyone point me toward some resources that will help me figure this out?

Posted by JeffTL (# 16722) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
I'm wanting to put together an Ash Wednesday service of appropriate length and content for people who are on a lunch hour. Thus it ideally must be about 15-20 minutes. Yet I don't want it to feel rushed. I am not planning on having any music, since our pianist won't be available that day. I do want to impose ashes, and would preferably like to offer the Eucharist.

Can anyone point me toward some resources that will help me figure this out?

'79 BCP Rite II would work - pare readings down to the Epistle and Gospel, omitting Joel or Isaiah and the psalm. Form III intercessions, EP B. Impose ashes either where the sermon would go - making the sermon brief or absent, obviously - or immediately following the confession and absolution, which I would not omit on this occasion. It's a major fast, not a feast, so the Creed is optional also. Even with a brief sermon and the psalm, weekday mass can be said in twenty minutes without feeling rushed, but to allow for imposition of ashes those can go away if needed.

Depending on the expected crowd you might want to have an assistant to help with the chalice and ashes - a deacon would be ideal, of course, though a lay eucharistic minister would do the job excellently also.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Unless you have the tiniest congregation - like four or five - I don't think you can get through both the Eucharist and the ashing in 15 or even 20 minutes without rushing things horribly.

It it was me I'd either have a longer service or just do the ashing as part of a Service of the Word - that only happens once a year and the Eucharist can be done on any other day.

If you were in the Church of England the obvious thing to do for a very short service would be to use the liturgy for Ash Wednesday in Times and Seasons up to just before the peace - so include the confession, the readings, the ashing, and various seasonal responses, but end before the Eucharist. Even though you aren't CofE there might be some interesting or useful things in there.

Its a solemn and reflective occasion. It needs to be taken at a slow enough pace to allow time for some thought.

As it says in Note 3 of that Times and Seasons service:

quote:

The silence during the Liturgy of Penitence is an integral part of the rite and should not be omitted or reduced to a mere pause.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Ken is right. I once did a daytime Ash Wednesday service with a congregation of three plus me which was fairly minimalist and it took us half an hour. That doesn't seem an unreasonable amount of time to be out of work if lunch is a sandwich at one's desk. If it is an issue for your lunchtime congo then you could tell them at the outset how long it will take and let those who need to slip out during the peace. Whilst offering Masses over the course of Lent with the intention that their employers will repent of their hardness of heart.

Posted by lily pad (# 11456) on :

Another option might be to have it be more of a drop in thing. Set it over an hour or hour and half - like from 11:45 to 1:15.

Have some prayers and readings ready and ask someone who to plays an instrument be ready with hymns or reflective music. Even someone who likes to sing could choose some hymns and be ready. Do a prayer and reading and then have some music. If there are more people there, the hymn could be announced, otherwise just leave it as background and meditative. People would come up for the ashes while the music goes on. They could be there for as little as 10-15 minutes or for longer depending on their availability.

I would make up a small flyer and have it in the pews already to explain what it is all about and that people are free to leave when they need to. I might make a larger sign to have on the doors as people come in too. Maybe have a bookmark or card with an appropriate prayer for Ash Wednesday or Lent on it to take away with them.

Personally, I'd be very happy to know that it was an option to go to something like this. So often my schedule doesn't allow me to take part in things that have a set start time.

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

Good ideas all! Thank you.

I can be talked out of the Eucharist for the noon service, as I'm planning an evening service at the other church, which will have a bit more time.

I will go over the '79 BCP rite as a dry mass and see how long it takes, leaving off the elements suggested above.

Posted by NatDogg (# 14347) on :

We are looking for some elegant basins and pitchers (preferably sets or complimenting pieces) to use for the Maundy Thursday foot washing.

What we currently have is not that attractive or useful -- some largish clear plastic tubs that are unwieldy to maneuver and just plain ugly. Can anyone point me to an artisan, church supply house online garden center -- anything -- where we could explore some more dignified alternatives? Thanks.

Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NatDogg:
We are looking for some elegant basins and pitchers (preferably sets or complimenting pieces) to use for the Maundy Thursday foot washing.

What we currently have is not that attractive or useful -- some largish clear plastic tubs that are unwieldy to maneuver and just plain ugly. Can anyone point me to an artisan, church supply house online garden center -- anything -- where we could explore some more dignified alternatives? Thanks.

What we use are two sets of old washbasin and pitcher sets - the kind that you can often find in most 2nd hand dealers/antique shops. Price depends on quality, of course - but most of the cheaper ones even would b better than a plastic wash-up basin.

If it is likely that a large number of people are going to come forward to have their feet washed, extra set of pitchers to be refilled by the servers (with addition of some oil of lavender as a suggestion) makes the whole process somewhat seamless.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Go to your nearest Asian kitchen supply shop - decent stainless steel basins and pitchers are very reasonable prices. Just remember to use peanut butter to rub away the remnants of the price tags.

Posted by NatDogg (# 14347) on :

Thanks to you both!

Another question for general consumption. In the American Episcopal Church of any other Anglican what is the difference between a "sung" Eucharist and a "choral Eucharist? All these years and Episcopalian (and singer) and have never figured out a precise definition!

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I don't know that there is a precise distinction. But while a Choral Eucharist is of course Sung, a Sung Eucharist is not necessarily Choral. Choral implies a choir (professional, semi-professional or amateur) who sing non-congregational settings of the Ordinary of the Mass; a Sung Eucharist can involve congregational singing of simple settings for the Gloria and Sanctus, and not much else besides hymns. Choral Eucharist often, or usually, also implies that the priest will sing things like the Collect and Preface (unless he is Pope Francis).

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NatDogg:
In the American Episcopal Church of any other Anglican what is the difference between a "sung" Eucharist and a "choral Eucharist? All these years and Episcopalian (and singer) and have never figured out a precise definition!

I think "choral" means some things will be sung by the choir alone, without the congregation. Could mean the choir will sing the Ordinary (Kyrie, etc.) or parts thereof, or probably more commonly that the choir will just sing one or more anthems and maybe some or all verses of a psalm after the first lesson. "Sung" could mean the same thing or could mean there are hymns and the congregation sings the Ordinary but doesn't tell you anything definite about what the choir does, if there is one.

Posted by Choirboi (# 9222) on :

In the Episcopal Church USA, my understanding is that there must be at least two people present to celebrate the Eucharist. I am just looking for where this is written. I could not find it in TEC Canons.

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

I think Angloid's description is as accurate as you can get with the caveat that one has to be prepared for surprises! A choral Eucharist will almost always deliver a choir singing an anthem and at least part of a choral mass setting, but some parishes and Cathedrals that do the same call that type of service a Sung Eucharist, and I have even been to a low church "Holy Communion (Sung)" - thinking that the service would be said with hymns - when out pops a choir who sing a Kyrie to Palestrina!

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

One church I know of invariably advertised Choral Evensong on Easter Sunday. It was indistinguishable from the common or garden sung Evensong that they held on the other fifty odd weeks of the year. I naively asked if they censed the altar during the Magnificat. No they did not! The most recent Curate had been allowed the use of a thurible during his First Mass. But in order to keep the choir happy he had not been allowed to fill it with incense at any point!

Basically a lot of these modifiers are synonyms for Ecclesiastical Poncing Around and Allowing The Choir Director To Give The Impression That He Runs The Ambrosian Singers And Not The Church Of St. Agatha By The Gasworks.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by Gildas

quote:
Basically a lot of these modifiers are synonyms for Ecclesiastical Poncing Around and Allowing The Choir Director To Give The Impression That He Runs The Ambrosian Singers And Not The Church Of St. Agatha By The Gasworks.

I take it you have had a dispute or falling-out with an organist at some point?

An unscientific straw-poll of a few colleagues has come up with the following:

Sung Eucharist = said Preface & eucharistic prayer; if Kyrie, Gloria, etc are sung then of a simple setting that regular members of the congregation can join in; probably about 4 hymns.

Choral Eucharist = sung Preface; Kyrie, Sanctus & Agnus Dei to a more elaborate setting sung by Choir alone; congregational singing limited to hymns only.

For Evensong, I'd expect "Sung" to mean Anglican Chant for Psalm and canticles - although a chance visitor might struggle a regular would be able to join in. Either said or simple ferial responses. There might be a choir and could be an anthem.

"Choral" Evensong: Congregation would sit for Psalm and stand for canticles which would be sung by choir alone; biggish anthem; probably more elaborate responses.

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:

Basically a lot of these modifiers are synonyms for Ecclesiastical Poncing Around and Allowing The Choir Director To Give The Impression That He Runs The Ambrosian Singers And Not The Church Of St. Agatha By The Gasworks.

Or even an excuse for those who turn up to criticise and make faces which give the impression that they are chewing a wasp

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Originally posted by l'organist:

quote:
I take it you have had a dispute or falling-out with an organist at some point?

Saucer of milk ma'am? I'm a clergyman. Of course, I have had a falling out with an organist at some point. Insert organist/ terrorist joke here. On behalf of the clergy may I point out that Ecclesiastical Poncyness is not the exclusive preserve of the church musicians and that there are lots of clergy who think that they are thwarted canon missioners in some gilded cathedral or other when, in fact, the Holy Spirit knew exactly what he was doing when he called them to be Vicar, sorry, Rector, father, of St. Agatha's Behind The Gasworks.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

For us:

Sung - the Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus, Benedictus and Agnus Dei are sung by the congregation, along with the Eucharistic acclamation and the Doxology; the Psalm is said in response; the priest chants the preface and the final section of the Thanksgiving. All chant the Lord's Prayer. No communion motet unless the children's choir is listed on.

Choral - again, the Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus, Benedictus and Agnus Dei are sung by the congregation but supported by the choir; the choir chants the Psalm and some in the congregation either join in or whisper with them; the choir also sings the Gospel acclamation in full, the congregation joining in for the Alleleuias. There will be at least one communion motet, usually 2. Otherwise as for sung.

We have 7, 8, and 10 am Eucharists each Sunday. The earlier ones are said, but for the 10 am, Sundays1,3 and 5 of the month are Choral, with 2 and 4 Sung. No Choral Eucharist in January as it is summer holiday season. Choral for the Feasts, which can mean that there is a Choral service on a second or fourth Sunday. The Choir is unpaid and drawn from the congregation - I've never counted, but there must be a couple of dozen or more all up, rarely the whole on any one occasion.

For the last year or so, we have been using what is called the Riddlesdown setting for almost all Eucharists. Sometimes the standard Oz setting by Dudman is used for Sung Eucharists - beforehand, it was used for all Sung, while we used the setting at the back of TEH for Choral services. The Choir will sing a Haydn or Mozart setting for the greatest feasts. They used sing the Charpentier for Midnight Christmas, but that seems to have dropped off.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Gildas
quote:
Basically a lot of these modifiers are synonyms for Ecclesiastical Poncing Around and Allowing The Choir Director To Give The Impression That He Runs The Ambrosian Singers And Not The Church Of St. Agatha By The Gasworks.
I take it you have had a dispute or falling-out with an organist at some point?

An unscientific straw-poll of a few colleagues has come up with the following:

Sung Eucharist = said Preface & eucharistic prayer; if Kyrie, Gloria, etc are sung then of a simple setting that regular members of the congregation can join in; probably about 4 hymns.

Choral Eucharist = sung Preface; Kyrie, Sanctus & Agnus Dei to a more elaborate setting sung by Choir alone; congregational singing limited to hymns only.

For Evensong, I'd expect "Sung" to mean Anglican Chant for Psalm and canticles - although a chance visitor might struggle a regular would be able to join in. Either said or simple ferial responses. There might be a choir and could be an anthem.

"Choral" Evensong: Congregation would sit for Psalm and stand for canticles which would be sung by choir alone; biggish anthem; probably more elaborate responses.

Sounds right to me. We have a weekly Sung Eucharist (with clouds of incense every Sunday), also the priest sings the Collect, Preface etc. Nothing is sung by the choir alone, which I think is the key difference.

Posted by Roselyn (# 17859) on :

Isn't it interesting how many escaped former church choirs are wandering around loose? At least 4 I know of in Sydney

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

Ok, but I thought that I had learned on this very forum that Said = priest, Sung = priest + deacon, and Solemn = priest + deacon + subdeacon. Am I incorrect?

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Low=Said Mass.

Missa Cantata/Sung Mass= Celebrant, with chanting and musical settings. The celebrant could be assisted by a deacon (without subdeacon), but this would not be the traditional or expected understanding.

Solemn/High/Solemn High= All three sacred ministers - celebrant, deacon, subdeacon - with full ceremonial and chant.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

'Solemn' in the modern Catholic rite surely doesn't imply the presence of a subdeacon since they no longer exist. Nor have they in the C of E since the sixteenth century.

EF Roman Catholics obviously have a different practice, as do many Anglicans. But in Anglican circles one often sees someone dressed up as a subdeacon doing little else than look pretty. They no longer read the Epistle since that is a layperson's job in most churches, nor do they have much of a role to play at the offertory (or not one that couldn't equally well be done by the deacon or a server). Tat for the sake of it.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

In traditional Anglo-Catholic liturgical use I would submit that "solemn" certainly does imply the presence of a subdeacon of the mass, who will more often than not be a layman who regularly serves in other roles in the sanctuary as well. Some places do maintain the ceremonies at the offertory through the canon, in which the subdeacon puts on the humeral veil, delivers the veiled chalice and paten to the altar, participates in the preparation of the chalice (hands off wine and water to the deacon), takes the paten within the folds of the humeral veil and holds it until the end of the canon -- the latter ceremonies being residual bits from very early times that I won't go into here). BTW, I'm not an apologist for some of these archaic ceremonies; I personally dislike all the hoo-hah with the humeral veil and the paten dance. In many places, the subdeacon's role is indeed simplified.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
In traditional Anglo-Catholic liturgical use I would submit that "solemn" certainly does imply the presence of a subdeacon of the mass,

I don't agree. In the anglo-catholic 'shrines' that I know, 'high' mass had 3 sacred ministers whereas 'solemn' has one. Can't get the staff these days.

(Or any number of concelebrants but not a subdeacon can equal 'solemn'.)

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

A subdeacon is not essential to make a Mass solemn. In contemporary usage, the three sacred ministers may consist of two assisting concelebrants. It is less usual nowadays for a liturgical deacon to be in priest's orders, and that only an actual deacon (i.e. not more advanced than that in holy orders) to assist the celebrant.

A church I know that advertises Solemn Evensong, makes the only "solemn" part of it by the priest unassisted by any servers and in choir dress with scarf and hood, donning a cope just for the Magnificat, to do the censing of the altar and of the congregation himself (with no-one to cense him). Apart from the Magnificat, the service would seem to be just sung.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

You guys need to have a look at Fortescue. And I can list any number of parishes in TEC and in the Diocese of London that have the three traditional sacred monsters for masses variously designated as solemn, high, or solemn high -- all the same basic drill.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Dinosaurs all. [Razz]

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

I have certainly celebrated with three sacred ministers but it has generally been a case of Priest, Deacon and MC. On the couple of occasions when the MC in question was a twelve year old girl I jocularly referred to her as a Sub-Deacon (particularly when she assisted at an Easter Vigil where we ended up at the High Altar with the congo in the choir stalls) but I'm pretty sure that Fortescue would be revolving in his grave at that set of arrangements. I have been to Mass, for example in St. Bartholemew's Brighton where the traditional ceremonial and the role of the Sub-Deacon occurs but nowadays in most modern Carthlick places the third sacred monster is the MC.

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

Can some student of church notice boards distinguish for me

(i) Sung Eucharist
(ii) The Sung Eucharist

?

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

american piskie
One place mapped out what they wanted the sign-writer to do in full, the other didn't.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
Can some student of church notice boards distinguish for me

(i) Sung Eucharist
(ii) The Sung Eucharist

?

(i) Sung Eucharist = any Sung Eucharist.

(ii) The Sung Eucharist = only one such service and possibly suggesting the principal Sunday service.

(iii) A Sung Eucharist (indefinite article) ???

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Dinosaurs all.

Dinosaurs wearing maniples.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Suppose I wanted to use Penitential Order Rite One. Suppose I wanted to also use a projector. Does anybody know where I can find a projector ready version of a Penitential Order Rite One?

Odd combination I know.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Is this what you are after?

Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on :

Does anyone know the reasoning behind donning the chasuble just before the Eucharistic Prayer? What is, with a fair degree of snide, termed 'dressing for dinner'?

FWIW, it was the custom of our late incumbent which I have continued through interegnum. It would be nice to know why [Smile]

Posted by Mr Beamish (# 17991) on :

Sounds suspiciously Sarum Rite, to me: if I recall correctly, there is a lot of vestment shuffling in the Sarum Rite. Is that the one you use? It could be a reference to it, or something else entirely.

When +Sentamu Ebor visited Blackburn Cathedral in 2011, he removed his cope before the Eucharistic Prayer. It was later suggested that this was done because he was unwell and far too hot underneath it. He was originally to preside but another cleric took his place to support him. Perhaps the chasuble was only put on to avoid unnecessary sweating during the Liturgy of the Word?

Have some speculation! [Biased]

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

In the really olden days (until beginning of 1950s)the priest,in the Roman rite, would remove the chasuble at the sermon and replace it when he resumed the Eucharistic rite.The chasuble was seen as the Eucharistic garment and the sermon was not always part of the Eucharist.The priest wore a cope for the Asperges as it was also not strictly speaking part of the Mass.The Anglican custom of 'dressing for dinner' probably comes from this.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

In the 1950s and 50s, my 'home parish' followed Sarum usage but chasuble and maniple were always discarded for the sermon but resumed before the offertory (which immediately followed the sermon.)

The 'dress for dinner' approach is, i suspect, a misguided fashion when revised liturgies came in which had headings like 'ministry of the word' and 'ministry of the sacrament.'

Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on :

quote:
Originally posted by 3rdFooter:
Does anyone know the reasoning behind donning the chasuble just before the Eucharistic Prayer? What is, with a fair degree of snide, termed 'dressing for dinner'?

FWIW, it was the custom of our late incumbent which I have continued through interegnum. It would be nice to know why

3F

I first encountered it in a Liturgical Commission booklet on presenting the liturgy, published with the study version of Series 3 c1969(?), and in a parallel Church in Wales publication.

I don't believe this was the absolute first sighting, however - the fact that two provinces were commending it at the same time suggests an earlier common source for the idea, but I personally doubt that it is much earlier than c1960.

To my mind it is very 1960's - shades of the 20th Century Light Music Group etc!

Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on :

I think Leo may have the heart of the issue. The service book has exactly that distinction in the headings.

For any curious about the Sarum rite , this should satisfy.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I believe even the Community of the Resurrection at Mirfield tried the 'dressing for dinner' approach at one time. It didn't last.

Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on :

Angloid, you may have an important clue there! I wonder if the practice started out from (Relatively) nearby Kelham? This was a bit of a liturgical hot-house in those days, and my 'dressing for dinner' priest in those days was Kelham-trained.

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

When to veil the sanctuary crosses? Dearmer says to do so before the first Sunday in Lent. However, I believe RC practice (and modern Anglican?) is to veil on the fifth Sunday in Lent.

If it matters, we vest in purple instead of Lenten array.

Posted by NatDogg (# 14347) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
When to veil the sanctuary crosses? Dearmer says to do so before the first Sunday in Lent. However, I believe RC practice (and modern Anglican?) is to veil on the fifth Sunday in Lent.

If it matters, we vest in purple instead of Lenten array.

I was wondering about this same thing with Lent coming up! What is the consensus -- or being Ecclesiantics, what is the base of the fight that will erupt over this? [Biased]

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

If you veil, then it depends on which lectionary you're using. If one that separates Passion SUnday from Palm Sunday, and puts it on Lent V, then it makes sense to veil (empty) crosses then. If a lectionary that conflates the two and observes them on the same day, then presumably on that day -- there's no reason at all to veil anything on Lent V in that case.

I refer to veiling of empty crosses -- I have never seen the point, either liturgical or devotional, in veiling a cross with a crucified corpus. The custom began, I've been told, when the corpus was usually a Risen or Glorified Christ, and was intended to obscure the glorious body so that only the outline of the cross could be seen, and used as an appropriate aide to devotion in Passion-tide. The development of the crucified christ corpus kind of made this custom irrelevant, but that never stopped truly devout christians for whom the only thing that mattered was to do what their grandparents had "always" done, even it if no longer made sense.

John

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Seemingly stupid question alert.

Does a white stole with a five inch burgundy fringe count as a white stole?

The Archbishop wants a white stole.....

TIA

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

When I was a nipper the veiling of crosses, etc, always happened on Shrove Tuesday.

Only concession was processional cross: ornate silver-gilt number was swapped for plain wood, which was then veiled from Passion Sunday.

Evensong White stole with 5 inch burgundy fringe - sounds like a remnant from a 1920s flapper dress [Ultra confused]

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Well the fringe per se is about 3 inches but its got burgundy velvet above that.

But it was given to me by a 85 yo retiring clerical so lord knows its vintage. [Big Grin]

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

Sounds like a white stole to me!

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

For episcopal ordinations, what is the difference between a consecration and an installation, and why is there two separate services?

Posted by NatDogg (# 14347) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
For episcopal ordinations, what is the difference between a consecration and an installation, and why is there two separate services?

Consecration makes a priest a bishop - an order in holy orders. Installation installs the bishop in his or her cathedral (or office, I suppose). This is usually done with a formal "seating" in the cathedra or stall. A bishop who is already a bishop and gets another see or whatever is installed but not consecrated again.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I believe even the Community of the Resurrection at Mirfield tried the 'dressing for dinner' approach at one time. It didn't last.

Its Leeds priory, where i lived awhile (1970s), did that on weekdays because they had Morning prayer up to the end of the Benedictus before going up to the altar and starting the mass at the peace.

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

Back to the cross-veiling: what color? and what weight of fabric?
I recall that the Dearmer use (for all of Lent?) was grey, and until recently the only other color I had seen was violet, unfortunately of the 'see through' weight -- we have a lot of those and they are all perfectly hideous.
However, I've recently noticed (from St Peter's in Rome and other hot spots) the use of passion-tide red. I've not checked it out anywhere, but is this now the recommended use?

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

Previous threads that touch on veiling of the cross during Lent:

Veiling during Lent
The puzzling colors of Holy Week

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

Thanks for the links, Pancho.

I'm gathering (though it looks like there is considerable difference in practice) that those who use Lenten array tend to veil very early, whole those who use purple tend to veil late, if at all. We veiled late last year (well, it was the fifth Sunday), and I believe we shall do so again.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
When to veil the sanctuary crosses? Dearmer says to do so before the first Sunday in Lent. However, I believe RC practice (and modern Anglican?) is to veil on the fifth Sunday in Lent.

If it matters, we vest in purple instead of Lenten array.

Following Lamburn & Fortescue, we veil at the beginning of Passiontide--i.e. first Vespers of Lent V.

Veiling plain crosses only is a new one on me, but on the other hand there are as many customs as there are churches...

Posted by simwel (# 12214) on :

With regard to veiling does anyone know of a suitable liturgy?

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

The Dearmer use was unbleached linen - or as near as you could get: cream or pale grey hessian was not unheard of.

As for a rite or liturgy for veiling - no. The reredos, etc, were veiled up/covered over by a team of servers on the evening of Shrove Tuesday, after which they usually repaired to the vicarage for pancakes and a pint.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Why did modern liturgists remove the Feast of St Valentine's Day (February 14th) from the Calendar of Saints?

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Why did modern liturgists remove the Feast of St Valentine's Day (February 14th) from the Calendar of Saints?

Wikipedia saith:

quote:
Nothing is reliably known of St. Valentine except his name and the fact that he died on February 14 on Via Flaminia in the north of Rome. It is uncertain whether St. Valentine is to be identified as one saint or two saints of the same name. Several differing martyrologies have been added to later hagiographies that are unreliable. For these reasons this liturgical commemoration was not kept in the Catholic calendar of saints for universal liturgical veneration as revised in 1969.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

The Catholic Encyclopedia has more to say about the three St. Valentines.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Canadian BCP: "Certain ancient memorials whose historical character is obscure have been retained, and are printed in brackets." There's a handful of RC outlets in the US in that dedication but as far as I can see, no Anglican or Episcopalian dedications to the saint. In my student days in Dublin, there were frequently jocular references to the bits of the saint housed at the Whitefriars Street Carmelite church, and nurses from the Adelaide Hospital (since moved from that neighbourhood) were said to go there to make petition for a handsome doctor (a possible urban legend or example of Irish humour, as the Adelaide had the character of a Protestant hospital).

An Oz Carmelite of my acquaintance (whom I believe had received his formation at the Blessed Barry Humphries Diocesan Seminary or may as well have) thought that as Valentinus was a common-enough name at the time of the Tiberian martyrdoms, that some Christian of that name was likely enough caught up in the persecutions that we should feel safe in revering him.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
The Catholic Encyclopedia has more to say about the three St. Valentines.

From the same,

quote:
The custom of choosing and sending valentines has of late years fallen into comparative desuetude.

Not if you go round the local Sainsbury's it hasn't.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

Reading A.N. Wilson's novel The Vicar of Sorrows. He describes his main character as "still doing everything" he had learnt twenty years before at Mirfield. He gives cute examples (maniple among them) and then "After the consecration he still held thumb and forefinger together until all the sacred elements had been consumed"
What does this mean?

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I know a retired priest who still does it. Once the host is consecrated, the priest who has touched It, keeps his fingers (or her fingers theoretically) together to avoid any crumbs from the consecrated host dropping down somewhere.

Or something well meaning like that.

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

Do Rite I services in TEC (traditional language) use the NRSV or a tradional-language translation, such as RSV, KJV, etc.? What about traditional language services elsewhere?

[ 22. February 2014, 14:48: Message edited by: Barefoot Friar ]

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
Do Rite I services in TEC (traditional language) use the NRSV or a tradional-language translation, such as RSV, KJV, etc.? What about traditional language services elsewhere?

Ours use the NRSV (same as our Rite II services). St. Thomas', Fifth Avenue, in NYC uses KJV with Rite I, and I assume they use NRSV or RSV with Rite II.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

The thumb and forefinger kept together after the consecration until the ablutions after Communion was in the rubrics of the Roman rite until after Vatican 2.
Any particles of the Sacred Host which might have stuck to the said thumb or forefinger would be kept there until the said thumb and forefinger were washed at the ablutions after Communion.

I imagine that Anglican priests for whom it was important to follow the rubrics of the Roman Missal would do the same.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Every priest i have ever known did that - some still do.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

Thank you Venbede and Forthview - I shall now be able to retire at my usual hour with no unsolved mysteries disturbing me.

Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :

Recently I encountered a liturgy which included

quote:
Rejoicing in the Holy Spirit,
your whole Church offers you thanks and praise,
together with N, our Archbishop, N, our Bishop ....,
and all whose lives bring hope to this world.

This was at an Anglican altar, but bears the hallmarks of a Roman interpolation. No problem with that; however, I'm not sure what it means. I'm used to praying for the Bp, but this seems to be saying something different surely, since all parties are the subjects of the verb 'offer', and it is assumed that the Bp is amongst those whose lives bring hope into the world.

What thinkest the denizens?

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

That is odd, isn't it? I'd expect the departed mentioned at that point. I'd be surprised if it was Roman material. Just someone getting the wrong end of the stick.

I'd be interested if it was authorised by anyone.

Posted by Quam Dilecta (# 12541) on :

In my TEC parish, the RSV is used for readings at all services because its language retains enough echos of the KJV to fit into traditional-language liturgies. Our rector has elected not to use the NRSV, on the grounds that it has crossed the boundary between translation and paraphrase.

Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
Recently I encountered a liturgy which included
quote:
Rejoicing in the Holy Spirit,
your whole Church offers you thanks and praise,
together with N, our Archbishop, N, our Bishop ....,
and all whose lives bring hope to this world.
This was at an Anglican altar, but bears the hallmarks of a Roman interpolation. No problem with that; however, I'm not sure what it means. I'm used to praying for the Bp, but this seems to be saying something different surely, since all parties are the subjects of the verb 'offer', and it is assumed that the Bp is amongst those whose lives bring hope into the world.

What thinkest the denizens?

Sometimes I'd like to offer up our Archbishop and Bishop as part of the sacrifice [Devil]

I'll get me biretta.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
Recently I encountered a liturgy which included
quote:
Rejoicing in the Holy Spirit,
your whole Church offers you thanks and praise,
together with N, our Archbishop, N, our Bishop ....,
and all whose lives bring hope to this world.
This was at an Anglican altar, but bears the hallmarks of a Roman interpolation. No problem with that; however, I'm not sure what it means. I'm used to praying for the Bp, but this seems to be saying something different surely, since all parties are the subjects of the verb 'offer', and it is assumed that the Bp is amongst those whose lives bring hope into the world.

What thinkest the denizens?

It would appear to come from this order for a Celtic-inspired Eucharist, by an Episcopal Church publisher.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
The thumb and forefinger kept together after the consecration until the ablutions after Communion was in the rubrics of the Roman rite until after Vatican 2.
Any particles of the Sacred Host which might have stuck to the said thumb or forefinger would be kept there until the said thumb and forefinger were washed at the ablutions after Communion.

I imagine that Anglican priests for whom it was important to follow the rubrics of the Roman Missal would do the same.

I do this, too. It's more a reflection of my eucharistic piety than of any over-scrupulousness about the rubrics of the Roman Missal, though.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Whilst I am more than happy to accept that this action is a reflection of your personal Eucharistic piety I doubt that you would have thought of this particular act of eucharistic piety,had not someone else further up the chain read carefully the rubrics of the Roman rite pre Vatican 2.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Whilst I am more than happy to accept that this action is a reflection of your personal Eucharistic piety I doubt that you would have thought of this particular act of eucharistic piety,had not someone else further up the chain read carefully the rubrics of the Roman rite pre Vatican 2.

Or, as we like to call it: the Roman Rite. The rubrics of the missals I possess, both Novus and Vetus Ordo, are silent on the matter, as is the GIRM, (all at a quick glance) because it is a matter of liturgical sense and Eucharistic piety & propriety, more a matter from liturgical manuals than rubrics. It's not some weird reactionary pre-VII irrelevance, if that's what you were implying.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
The rubrics of the missals I possess, both Novus and Vetus Ordo, are silent on the matter,

I've got an old edition of the English Missal (pre-1950 at a guess), which AFAIK translated accurately the text of rubrics of the RM. It says (after the words of institution): '[he] does not disjoin his forefingers and thumbs, except to handle the Host, till after the ablutions.'

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
The rubrics of the missals I possess, both Novus and Vetus Ordo, are silent on the matter,
I've got an old edition of the English Missal (pre-1950 at a guess), which AFAIK translated accurately the text of rubrics of the RM. It says (after the words of institution): '[he] does not disjoin his forefingers and thumbs, except to handle the Host, till after the ablutions.'

Well spotted, mea culpa: "nec amplius pollices et indices disjungit, nisi quando Hostia tractanda est, usque ad ablutionem digitorum."

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Whilst I am more than happy to accept that this action is a reflection of your personal Eucharistic piety I doubt that you would have thought of this particular act of eucharistic piety,had not someone else further up the chain read carefully the rubrics of the Roman rite pre Vatican 2.

Oh, I see what you mean. Very true.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Indeed my Latin Roman Missal of 1948 (pre Vatican 2 and pre reforms of Pius XII) has indeed after the consecration of the Host:
'nec amplius pollices et indices disjungit,nisi quando Hostia tractanda est,usque ad ablutionem digitorum.' This is in red in the Missal, so one could say that it is a rubric.

A rough and ready translation might be :
thumbs and forefingers should not be disjoined any more,except when handling the Host until the ablution of the fingers.
In no way did I wish to suggest that this was a weird action,but simply to suggest that it was a rubric in the Roman Missal - a rubric which is no longer in the Missal,but an act of personal piety still carried out by some priests.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Not sure if this is the right thread for this question? With Lent about to start, and the Orthodox being much more knowledgeable about fasting than us slack westerners (particularly us slack Protestants), a weird fasting question.

Presumably in a really Orthodox country like Greece, the bakers take account of this. However in predominantly non-Orthodox or secular countries such as parts of the former USSR, what do Orthodox people do about bread on fast days and in fasting seasons? In the UK even home-made bread normally includes a dash of lard, butter or oil (preferably olive) to get the dough to have the right texture. As for bakers' bread that can contain all sorts of additives intended to improve it or make it keep better. I suspect the position is much the same in the US and most of western Europe.

Since both animal fat and olive oil are feasting foods, do Orthodox people living in non-Orthodox societies use special bakers, or is this regarded as over-scrupulosity?

I seem to remember from a similar thread either last year or the year before, that some Orthodox get round the restrictions the position on olive oil imposes on cooking generally by arguing that oil made from other ingredients such as peanuts or rapeseed doesn't count. Other Orthodox regard this as cheating and generally bad show. Am I right?

Posted by BulldogSacristan (# 11239) on :

Simple question that I haven't been able to readily find the answer to online: What, exactly,is the difference between the Monastic Diurnal and the Anglican Breviary? They both seem to be translations of the traditional Latin daily office into hieratic English, and they both seem to give Book of Common Prayer-compatible directions and rubrics.

And if these two books are largely the same sort of thing, is one appreciably better than the other?

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

I presume the diurnal contains only the day offices. The Anglican breviary contains the full office of the western church in BCP language.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
Simple question that I haven't been able to readily find the answer to online: What, exactly,is the difference between the Monastic Diurnal and the Anglican Breviary? They both seem to be translations of the traditional Latin daily office into hieratic English, and they both seem to give Book of Common Prayer-compatible directions and rubrics.

And if these two books are largely the same sort of thing, is one appreciably better than the other?

The Monastic Diurnal lacks Matins (which is separately published), and that accounts for much of the size difference. Another big difference is the distribution of psalms: the MD uses the distribution based on the Rule of St. Benedict, while the AB uses the 1911 Roman Breviary distribution. And there's no Nunc dimittis at Compline in the MD. The other significant differences are in Matins (again, this doesn't show up in the MD), where the monastic office has six psalms per nocturn rather than three. I'm sure there are numerous differences in particular antiphon texts and maybe Matins lessons as well.

As to "better" or "worse," I'd say that's an individual matter. Personally, although I sometimes use each of these books, I prefer for regular prayer to use the breviary of the community to which I belong, which is based on the BCP and also connects with the eucharistic lectionary I experience in church.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

What happens in terms of the liturgical calendar when a church is dedicated to a saint who is no longer commemorated in the calendar and/or is no longer considered a saint, eg St Christopher? Do they just not have a Patronal Festival?

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

It's not that St Christopher is no longer considered a saint.It's simply that his feast day is no longer on the universal calendar of the Catholic church.The feast may be celebrated in areas or churches particularly connected with the saint.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

IMHO there is a more fundamental problem with dedications to St Christopher. The reason why he was downgraded is because there is considerable doubt whether he ever existed, whether the his story, nice and universally known though it may be, is no more than a pious legend. If so, what is the status or value of being dedicated to a saint who isn't there?

Meanwhile, is anyone able to answer my fasting question?

[ 14. March 2014, 20:12: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

I would be interested to hear from anyone who attends/has attended a church dedicated to St Christopher or another saint without a feast day, eg St Valentine, and what they do for a Patronal Festival if they have one.

Enoch, most shop-bought bread is free of oil or butter. I've never made a standard loaf that contains it either. Particular continental bread like focaccia or brioche, yes, but not a regular white loaf.

Posted by Roselyn (# 17859) on :

I wouldn't worry about non existent ? saints. I am sure that there are plenty of saints in heaven unrecognized by people on earth, they probably have rosters where they fill in for named but non existent saints or even some of Our Lady's spare titles when the workload gets too heavy. Being humble they would welcome this opportunity.

Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I would be interested to hear from anyone who attends/has attended a church dedicated to St Christopher or another saint without a feast day, eg St Valentine, and what they do for a Patronal Festival if they have one.

When serving in Cornwall I had one church with a patron so obscure that there wasn't even certainty over gender, let alone anything else.

In the absence of a known Feast Day, some predecessor had fastened this commemoration to the first Sunday in September. Thus every year I was expected to preach a rousing sermon on a saint, even the spelling of whose name was open to debate. This was a serious homeletical challenge, but I got some measure of revenge by making the congregation find suitable hymns for the service.

The trouble is, hymns can be repeated annually, but sermons cannot! A long-remembered predecessor apparently used to preach twice each Sunday using the same sermon, only doing so in the evening with his teeth out. I was better equipped in the dental department, so I was deprived of this novel means of recycling a good sermon.

Does that help? I suspect not.

Posted by Clavus (# 9427) on :

There is a legend that, the day after the revised Calendar was published, religious supply shops hurriedly put up sale notices:

quote:
Mr Christopher Medals - Half Price!

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oferyas:
... Thus every year I was expected to preach a rousing sermon on a saint, even the spelling of whose name was open to debate. This was a serious homeletical challenge, but I got some measure of revenge by making the congregation find suitable hymns for the service. ...

That can even apply to known saints, viz the following from the hymn in an old A&M for St Bartholemew's Day - and before the hosts get in a fizz about copyright, the writer of this hymn died in 1893.

"In the roll of Thine Apostles
One there stands, Batholemew,
He for whom today we offer,
Year by year our praises due;
How he toiled for thee and suffer'd
None on earth can now record;
All his saintly life is hidden
In the knowledge of the Lord."

At least if you're CofE rather than non-Conformist, I suppose you can preach on "and some there be that have no memorial".

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by Oferyas

quote:
A long-remembered predecessor apparently used to preach twice each Sunday using the same sermon, only doing so in the evening with his teeth out.

But I shall be passing this on to the vicaress of my home parish (not where I play) who uses the same sermon THREE times on a Sunday - even though it doesn't fit the readings for the evening service.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

Can you please refrain from using forms such as "vicaress"? It is probably a while since we have had to repeat that request so I will assume you were unaware of our convention against feminised versions of ecclesiastical titles. Our past experience demonstrates their potential to generate more heat than light. The term is vicar: whatever your views on the Dead Horse, courtesy requires using the normal title for the office to which a person has been appointed.

seasick, Eccles host

[ 15. March 2014, 12:58: Message edited by: seasick ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Enoch's question - I don't know the answer, but I do know that in this country Greek and Turkish bread, which I buy a lot of (especially Turkish - the main difference between Greek and Turkish food is the spelling of the names), often claims to be made with no added ingredients.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

Jade, it would appear that your frame of reference regarding saints is a little off. Please allow me to clarify. Others have already pointed out the mistaken notion that St. Christopher was decanonized, but there is even more to the picture.

As the Church's kalendar gets overly full, every few centuries a pruning is needed, to make room for other saints, and to prevent the kalendar from becoming, as it were, top-heavy, and thus interfering with the proper of seasons. This can only be accomplished by removing saints from the universal kalendar. When this happens, saints who are removed generally remain in the local kalendars of the countries and dioceses from which they hailed, or where they toiled in the Lord's vineyards, or have other connections. Since the advent of the formal canonization process in the 10th century, that makes the business of adding and removing saints fairly routine, and even somewhat businesslike. Prior to that, canonization was more of a localized affair, and placement in the universal kalendar was a matter of when the popular veneration of a particular saint reached Rome and was recognized by the Holy Father's inserting the feast day into the Roman (and therefore universal) kalendar.

One of the criteria of the kalendar reforms announced in 1969 and begun with the kalendar of 1970 was historical evidence. Because the universal kalendar had become so full since the 16th century, the last time that it had been seriously pruned, one of the criteria used to decide which feast days would be removed was the historical evidence for the accounts of each saint's life. Now, I do not deny that the ecumenical climate of the time may have played a factor in this aspect of the reform, but it is logical that sooner or later, kalendar reforms were likely to delete some of the earliest saints, about whom we know relatively little. It would be like the renaming of streets whose namesakes are somewhat obscure to us now, or public statues and other memorials that fall into disrepair, and are eventually quietly removed and replaced by later honorees, because we have better records as to who they are and exactly what they did to earn recognition. Such an act does not imply that the former honoree did not exist or was not accomplished; it simply means that our records in that regard are spotty, and a desire to honor someone else whose record is clear and closer to our historical understanding, is then undertaken. For Americans, an example would be the gradual fading of Mark Twain in the public consciousness. Everyone still knows the name and the fact that he is a great American literary giant, but fewer people actually read, in school or elsewhere, anything that he wrote, including Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer. The same goes for the folk songs of Stephen Foster, and so on. None of this denies the role that they played in the development of American culture; it is just that their contributions seem more distant because of so many later contributors. Yet we all still know the Founding Fathers, Paul Revere, the Boston Tea Party, etc., even though these were even earlier.

Unfortunately, several of the saints who were removed from the universal kalendar had a very popular and pious following, viz., Sts. Christopher, Rita, Philomena and a couple of others. In this regard, the Holy See probably underestimated the impact on popular piety and devotion such deletions would have, as well as the likelihood that the secular media would misreport the event as a "decanonization," and that even Catholics would accept that as their understanding, television having become so dominant in everyone's lives by that point. Even the fact that the Holy See had repeatedly stated that this in no way impacted invocations of these saints, the celebration of their patronal feasts, the observance of devotions to them, or institutions named for them, did little to prevent the misperception.

In St. Christopher's case, an added burden was the fact that his feast was 25 July, which was already the feast of St. James the Apostle. Prior to the reform, the best that St. Christopher had ever managed liturgically, other than in churches named for him, was a commemoration on 25 July, i.e., a second collect, secret and postcommunion for him. With the elimination of commemorations in the 1970 missal, no one ever got a second collect, and St. Christopher was out, except in churches named for him--and on a practical note, many of those had really never observed his feast as a patronal festival, anyway, so no one really started doing so at the point, either. Whenever I visit my sister in another state, I always attend Mass at St. Christopher's church on the next corner. His name is alive and well.

St. Christopher and the other early removed saints all existed; it's just that the actual events of their saintly lives have been obscured by later pious legends, to the point where separating fact from fiction becomes difficult. But the fact that they were popularly acclaimed and ecclesiastically recognized very early on is enough to justify any continued devotion to them, even if such still depicts their lives with some of the legendary elements. This will never be an issue with saints from the early middle ages on, and especially later saints, because of methods of recordkeeping and the formal requirements of the canonization process. But devotion and patronal feasts can certainly still be the order of the day for these others.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Today,15th March, I attended Mass,quite by chance, in a church served by priests from the Redemptorist order.I was surprised to see white vestments and learned it was the Feast of Klemens Maria Hofbauer.Had I gone to another church it would have been Saturday of the First week in Lent. For Redemptorist parishes it was the feast day because K.F.Hofbauer belonged to this order.
On the other hand because he is considered as a second patron saint of Vienna,all the churches in Vienna would celebrate 15 March as Feast of St Clement Mary Hofbauer,a well attested saint,but not on the universal calendar.

Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on :

I was at an Episcopal Church USA where they did Morning Prayer instead of Holy Communion as the priest was out of town. They did a Gospel Procession. Is this usual for MP? I thought when doing MP you simply read a third lesson from a Gospel.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Re: gender specific title

Sorry, seasick

But the PP refers to themselves thus ... (yes, I was fairly mind-blown too)

[ 16. March 2014, 03:14: Message edited by: L'organist ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Graven Image:
I was at an Episcopal Church USA where they did Morning Prayer instead of Holy Communion as the priest was out of town. They did a Gospel Procession. Is this usual for MP? I thought when doing MP you simply read a third lesson from a Gospel.

Obviously, I can't speak for the ECUSA. In the CofE at Morning Prayer, there are two readings, one from the Old Testament and one from the New. The New Testament one may or may not be from a gospel, but if it is, it's still a New Testament reading and not a 'Gospel' in the Eucharistic sense.

Posted by Mockingbird (# 5818) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
a church is dedicated to a saint

Churches are dedicated to God. They may, of course, be named in honor of saints.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mockingbird:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
a church is dedicated to a saint
Churches are dedicated to God. They may, of course, be named in honor of saints.

Since when was being dedicated to God and dedicated to a saint (or several saints) mutually exclusive? From some googling it seems that churches are consecrated to God but dedicated to saints.

Ceremoniar - thank you for the information, although it seems like the RCC backpedals a bit re saints with dodgy history. I think it's quite obvious that St Christopher, St Valentine etc never really existed.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Ceremoniar - thank you for the information, although it seems like the RCC backpedals a bit re saints with dodgy history. I think it's quite obvious that St Christopher, St Valentine etc never really existed.

I completely disagree. There are actually three different Saints named Valentine, two of whom are connected with 14 February--hardly "obvious." The Roman Martyrology is the official tome on this, and is a multi-volume set, not available online. No one denies that pious legends grew up around early saints, but that does not mean they never existed. When one sees some of Rome's earliest churches named for these saints, that becomes another witness.

BTW, here is an Episcopal Church named for St. Christopher. web page

[ 16. March 2014, 23:06: Message edited by: Ceremoniar ]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

I'm well aware that non-Catholic churches are dedicated to St Christopher! It still doesn't mean that St Christopher actually existed. And maybe someone called Valentine existed, but there are at least three martyrologies for a Valentine. I understand that you have to believe the official RCC line but the rest of us don't have to. It is pretty obvious that some saints never actually existed, but why that matters I don't understand. We can still appreciate the legends about them.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I'm well aware that non-Catholic churches are dedicated to St Christopher! It still doesn't mean that St Christopher actually existed. And maybe someone called Valentine existed, but there are at least three martyrologies for a Valentine. I understand that you have to believe the official RCC line but the rest of us don't have to. It is pretty obvious that some saints never actually existed, but why that matters I don't understand. We can still appreciate the legends about them.

It matters because a saint can't pray for you if he or she doesn't exist.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

At least one (Roman) Catholic church exists dedicated to St. Christopher and that church is situated in Cheam, greater London (South) and I have been to it. It was formerly the chapel of Cheam School - which is another story.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Valentinus was a fairly common Roman name and given the large numbers martyred at Rome and in North Africa under various emperors, it is highly likely that there was a Valentinus among them and not impossible that one of the acta had its origins in fact. The Canadian BCP has his entry bracketed as one of those "whose historical character is obscure," which is probably the best way to put it.

I know of no Anglican S Valentine's, although there are plenty of RC ones; there are several Anglican S Christopher's about, including one about 2 hours walk from me. When I was in Ireland, many dedications were to Celtic saints of whom very little was known for certain and sometimes even legends were no longer available. One noted historian of the CoI told me that he had no idea if the patron of one of the points in his parish was male or female. He added that it was fortunate that God was broadminded enough to see that men could be saints and made that a sermon topic one year.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
It matters because a saint can't pray for you if he or she doesn't exist.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I'm well aware that non-Catholic churches are dedicated to St Christopher! It still doesn't mean that St Christopher actually existed. And maybe someone called Valentine existed, but there are at least three martyrologies for a Valentine. I understand that you have to believe the official RCC line but the rest of us don't have to. It is pretty obvious that some saints never actually existed, but why that matters I don't understand. We can still appreciate the legends about them.
It matters because a saint can't pray for you if he or she doesn't exist.

And? Lots of saints exist, they can pray for you instead.

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

Anyone experienced the use of incense at a funeral (not a requiem mass)? If so, when was it used?

Carys

Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :

I've been at funerals when incense was used when it wasn't a requiem. It was used to cense the coffin when it arrived at the church door (after being sprinkled with holy water), and after the prayers immediately before the Farewell and Committal (again with a good asperging of holy water on all four sides).

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:
I've been at funerals when incense was used when it wasn't a requiem. It was used to cense the coffin when it arrived at the church door (after being sprinkled with holy water), and after the prayers immediately before the Farewell and Committal (again with a good asperging of holy water on all four sides).

We only use it to cense the coffin before the Farewell and then to lead it out of the church.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

Incense is an option in paragraph 200 of the (Roman Rite) Funeral Liturgy outside of Mass. This is as part of the Final Commendation, after the invitation to prayer before the prayer of commendation. The options specify that incensation might happen before, during or after the (optional) song of farewell. I've never done this outside of Mass though.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I'm well aware that non-Catholic churches are dedicated to St Christopher! It still doesn't mean that St Christopher actually existed. And maybe someone called Valentine existed, but there are at least three martyrologies for a Valentine. I understand that you have to believe the official RCC line but the rest of us don't have to. It is pretty obvious that some saints never actually existed, but why that matters I don't understand. We can still appreciate the legends about them.
It matters because a saint can't pray for you if he or she doesn't exist.
And? Lots of saints exist, they can pray for you instead.

On a side note, when Rome declared that the poor man Lazarus (who got taken up into the Bosom of Abraham after death, not the Lazarus that Jesus resurrected) was merely a character in a parable and probably not a real person, they ordered churches dedicated to this St. Lazarus to change their names. San Lazaro happens to be hugely popular among the Cuban community in South Florida, so a group of them left the Roman Catholic Church with some priests and set up their own church "El Rincon de San Lazaro" where they have weekly Mass and continue the huge indoor/outdoor celebration of his feast day every year. All because of some post-Vatican II housecleaning in the calendar of Saints.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Is there really a word "incensation"?

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

Yes, incensation is the correct word.

Carys, according to which missal are you inquiring? The precise times vary with the missal. All of them, however, use incense and holy water on the body at the final commendation.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Does it mean something different from censing?

[ 19. March 2014, 21:00: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
It matters because a saint can't pray for you if he or she doesn't exist.

Perhaps, but surely some other saint might overhear the entreaty and strike up a prayer in response.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Does it mean something different from censing?

Nope. It means exactly the same thing.

All that's going on is a drift from verb incense to the verb cense, travelling the same road as from inflammable to flammable.

I'll go to my grave saying, "uninflammable", but "cense" does escape my lips, when to do otherwise would be seen to be pretentious.

Please pause to take note of the post-20th-century self-irony.

Posted by Clavus (# 9427) on :

John Kensit was incensed when he was incensed.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

At our last Parish Carol Service, the local Baptist minister, our guest preacher, (accompanied by a good number of his flock), remarked that it was the first time his congregation had been incensed before he started his sermon.....

.....in all fairness, only one of his people found our Rosa Mystica uncomfortable.....!

We have learned a valuable lesson - if engaged in Ecumenical Worship, just think that not everyone has the same tolerance of Carflick practices......

Ian J.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

In answer to Carys' earlier query re incense at funerals outside Requiem Masses, Father and I were recently asked to help out at a simple but poignant Common Worship funeral held at a MOTR village church in our Deanery - the deceased had now and then come to Our Place for what he called 'proper religion'!

In conjunction with the Team Vicar, we duly provided Holy Water and Incense as required, to the edification of all present (a packed church), and, as thurifer (not by any means my usual role), I was greatly diverted by the thought that this was probably the first time incense had been used in this Church since before the Reformation!

Ian J.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
At our last Parish Carol Service, the local Baptist minister, our guest preacher, (accompanied by a good number of his flock), remarked that it was the first time his congregation had been incensed before he started his sermon.....

.....in all fairness, only one of his people found our Rosa Mystica uncomfortable.....!

We have learned a valuable lesson - if engaged in Ecumenical Worship, just think that not everyone has the same tolerance of Carflick practices......

Ian J.

Was the Baptist Minister joking or serious?

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
On a side note, when Rome declared that the poor man Lazarus (who got taken up into the Bosom of Abraham after death, not the Lazarus that Jesus resurrected) was merely a character in a parable and probably not a real person, they ordered churches dedicated to this St. Lazarus to change their names.

I'm having trouble finding a reference for this. Are you able to point to a link somewhere? Wikipedia and the online Patron Saints Index both list him as a saint with a feast day and don't mention a declaration from Rome.

Now, when some of the saints like St. Christopher and St. Valentine were removed from the modern General Roman Calendar their dedications weren't necessarily removed from churches. For example, there's an old Spanish Mission in California dedicated to St. Barbara that has kept it's name and it's an active Catholic parish run by the Franciscans.

If a church in Miami did have its dedication to St. Lazarus removed I suspect it might have been a local decision rather than one from high up.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

With priestly ordination just five weeks off now (gulp!), I'm looking to buy or make a credit card sized laminated plastic card with the formula of absolution on one side and anointing on the other. Either English / Spanish bilingual, or one of each. A quick look through ecclesiastical suppliers catalogues hasn't helped me locate these, and all of the online options I've found for printing such things will only do them in huge bulk. I wouldn't object to getting a few, as I can give them to friends as ordination presents, but I don't really want 250.

Does anyone have any ideas?

[I do have the formulae on my phone, and have them memorized, but you never know when your phone will be out of batteries and your mind will go blank. Last summer my confessor of 40 years experience suddenly had a mind blink on the formula of absolution during my confession and immediately got a card out of his pocket with it on.]

Posted by gog (# 15615) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
I wouldn't object to getting a few, as I can give them to friends as ordination presents, but I don't really want 250.

Does anyone have any ideas?

Credit card size laminating pouches, print it on card and put through a standard laminator. Job done.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

EFF - the Baptist Minister was indeed being facetious (and his flock appreciated the joke - most of them, bar one or two, also appreciated the incense...).

Ian J.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
EFF - the Baptist Minister was indeed being facetious (and his flock appreciated the joke - most of them, bar one or two, also appreciated the incense...).

Ian J.

Right you are. I perceived that a serious side was being taken into account.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
Does anyone have any ideas?

Failing a better idea, is the price so prohibitive that you can't just have the lot of 250 printed up? You can easily Johnny-Appleseed them about over the next decade or three.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Get the "print-it-yourself" business card blanks from an office supply store (or use a W*rd business card template on plain white paper if you want to be Really Cheap). Type in the words, choose a nice font, copy into all the little boxes, print, and then repeat with the paper turned over for the other text. If this is too complicated, any secretary can do it (bring a nice bribe). Cut apart the resulting cards and trot down to your nearest Copymax, Kinko's or similar place where they do laminating, and ask the person ar the counter what they recommend in terms of price and quality. You don't want to just laminate the sheet first and then cut the cards apart, as the laminate adheres to itself and not to paper--so a small margin of laminate must be left around the four edges of each card to prevent peeling.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

I think I know where I would go for this but it is not going to be in their online catalogue as it requires me going to the shop and with the card design and getting them to make it up. However this should help you find a place locally. It is a small stationers that does specialists jobs such as small runs printing, photocopying, binding and laminating. It is the small runs that means they will do say a dozen cards for you.

If the worst comes to the worst let me have the details and I will see if I can get them made up for you. However it seems ridiculous having to use a Protestant in England to supply this for a Roman Catholic in USA.

Jengie

[ 22. March 2014, 10:45: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
With priestly ordination just five weeks off now (gulp!), I'm looking to buy or make a credit card sized laminated plastic card with the formula of absolution on one side and anointing on the other. Either English / Spanish bilingual, or one of each. A quick look through ecclesiastical suppliers catalogues hasn't helped me locate these, and all of the online options I've found for printing such things will only do them in huge bulk. I wouldn't object to getting a few, as I can give them to friends as ordination presents, but I don't really want 250.

Does anyone have any ideas?

[I do have the formulae on my phone, and have them memorized, but you never know when your phone will be out of batteries and your mind will go blank. Last summer my confessor of 40 years experience suddenly had a mind blink on the formula of absolution during my confession and immediately got a card out of his pocket with it on.]

Vistaprint's cheap/free (there are various offers) business cards would be ideal, and you can print on both sides. People use them for all sorts of things - my housemate is using them for her wedding's save the dates.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Vistaprint do everything from classy to tacky depending on which of their off-the-shelf designs you use.

But beware - you will get daily promotional emails form them until you beg them to stop.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
Does anyone have any ideas?
Failing a better idea, is the price so prohibitive that you can't just have the lot of 250 printed up? You can easily Johnny-Appleseed them about over the next decade or three.

This is actually what I ended up doing, via vistaprint. Just $15 to print up 250 of them, then I'll just take a few to a local printer to get laminated. Thanks all!

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

Its too late now but The Printery House at Conception Abbey in Missouri has a custom printing service.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

A Prayer Book for Australia--quick questions

What's the deal with the Prayer of the Week? Is there a special place appointed to use it? (I haven't stumbled across anywhere, but I could be missing something.) What is the history behind it?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

The Collect for the Day is chanted or said immediately after the Gloria/Trisagion and before the OT Reading. Is that what you were after?

[ 26. March 2014, 07:13: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Olaf, I assume you were referring to the Second Order, which is the one in almost universal use outside much of Sydney, where AAPB is the most common. You may have noticed that the Agnus Dei does not appear there either. From memory, it is in the Additional Prayers approved for use and again almost universally is sung between the Fraction and the Invitation.

At St Peter's Hornsby, about 5 km form here, there is an interesting pattern. The Second Order is used on Sundays 1, 3 and 5 of any month; the First Order on Sunday 2; and Third Order on Sunday 4.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
A Prayer Book for Australia--quick questions

What's the deal with the Prayer of the Week? Is there a special place appointed to use it? (I haven't stumbled across anywhere, but I could be missing something.) What is the history behind it?

Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
A Prayer Book for Australia--quick questions

What's the deal with the Prayer of the Week? Is there a special place appointed to use it? (I haven't stumbled across anywhere, but I could be missing something.) What is the history behind it?
Re- its history, it was the prayer of gathering (ad collectam) in the early church. In times of persecution, it was dangerous for everyone to arrive at the same time to a secret location - you didn't want to arouse suspicion and arrest. So people arrived at staggered times so the congregation prayed informally until the last arrival, at which point the bishop prayed the collect as the first formal part of the liturgy.

Am I understand this correctly ... that the Australian Prayer Book doesn't use the term "collect," but rather "Prayer of the Week" instead?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

My recollection is no - it's one of those things that you see all the time and therefore take no special note of - but I don't have my prayer book here at work. I'll check this evening.

[ 26. March 2014, 19:38: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

Oh, my goodness! Thank you for the replies, but do give me a little credit. [Razz]

If anybody has A Prayer Book for Australia (ca. 1990s) handy, find the section that contains the propers for Sundays and festivals.

It will look something like this:

Fourth Sunday in Lent

Prayer of the Week (typical collect-pattern prayer)

Year A:
Sentence
Prayer of the Day (typical collect-pattern prayer)
Reading Citations

Year B:
Sentence
Prayer of the Day (typical collect-pattern prayer)
Reading Citations

Year C:
Sentence
Prayer of the Day (typical collect-pattern prayer)
Reading Citations

Fifth Sunday in Lent
etc.

---------------------

The Prayer of the Week is the oddball with the odd name. The Prayers of the Day are clearly aligned to be used in the normal "Collect" part of the liturgy--that is, after the Gloria or Trisagion and before the First Reading. So what was the intended role of the Prayer of the Week?

It is a change from the Australian Prayer Book (ca. late 1970s), which did not provide such a prayer.

And note to Dubious Thomas: the Australian Prayer Book from the 1970s does indeed use the term "Collect," for exactly what one would expect. However, I refer to a newer version from the 1990s, which has an unfortunately quite similar name, A Prayer Book for Australia. The resources have similarities, but are definitely not the same. The more recent version does not remove the term "Collect" entirely (it appears for instance in the rubrics), but does seem to shy away from it.

[ 26. March 2014, 21:28: Message edited by: Olaf ]

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
The Prayer of the Week is the oddball with the odd name. The Prayers of the Day are clearly aligned to be used in the normal "Collect" part of the liturgy--that is, after the Gloria or Trisagion and before the First Reading. So what was the intended role of the Prayer of the Week?

It is a change from the Australian Prayer Book (ca. late 1970s), which did not provide such a prayer.

Did the latter book provide a prayer for each set of readings? There's an impulse you find sometimes to make the collect tie in with the readings of the day. This requires a three-yearly cycle of collects, for Years A, B and C as you see.

Some people, however, dislike this multiplication of collects, and prefer to use the same one each year for any given Sunday.

It's a guess on my part, but perhaps the Australian prayer book allows both options?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

I think I should let someone like Zappa or Emli answer the technical questions in the last couple of posts. As to prayer books:

The permitted books in Australia are three. The oldest, of course, is the Book of Common Prayer, 1662. An Australian Prayer Book (AAPB) was introduced in 1978. As a great simplification, much of this is the 1662 book in modern language. There is then A Prayer Book for Australia (APBA) of 1995. It is the Second Order Communion of this which is used almost universally outside Sydney, where AAPB is that commonly used. APBA takes account of the great liturgical changes and different theological emphases from the sixties onwards. APBA is lawful in Sydney, but it may only be used by permission of the Archbishop on a parish-by-parish basis. There would probably be about 35 to 40 parishes using APBA on a regular basis. I am aware of instances where permission has been refused. No reason need be given.

Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

Re- its history, it was the prayer of gathering (ad collectam) in the early church. In times of persecution, it was dangerous for everyone to arrive at the same time to a secret location - you didn't want to arouse suspicion and arrest. So people arrived at staggered times so the congregation prayed informally until the last arrival, at which point the bishop prayed the collect as the first formal part of the liturgy.

Leo, on what do you found this marvellous purple prose (I mean that sincerely - a great teaching point!)? I don't suppose you could point me to a book where you found it, could you please? Thanks!

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

This link will get you the full text of AAPB:

AAPB

I can't get an on-line full text of APBA.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

The 1960s RC missal called the collect the "opening prayer". In the office it was called the "concluding prayer". (They were not necessarily the same text on green weekdays.)

I notice the new 2000s RC translation has reverted to the word "collect", given its preference for Latinate language ("he took the chalice").

I still haven't a clue what the Prayer of the Week is - do you still use the prayer for Advent 4 after Christmas, Easter 6 after Ascension and Sunday before Lent after Ash Wednesday? When is it used? At the office rather than mass?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oferyas:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

Re- its history, it was the prayer of gathering (ad collectam) in the early church. In times of persecution, it was dangerous for everyone to arrive at the same time to a secret location - you didn't want to arouse suspicion and arrest. So people arrived at staggered times so the congregation prayed informally until the last arrival, at which point the bishop prayed the collect as the first formal part of the liturgy.

Leo, on what do you found this marvellous purple prose (I mean that sincerely - a great teaching point!)? I don't suppose you could point me to a book where you found it, could you please? Thanks!

I'm really not sure - it might be 'The Altar Fire' by olive Wyon or 'Liturgy Coming to Life' which was published by, i think, the BBC. More likely, Eric Lamburn's 'Behind Rite and Ceremony' (pp. 45-6 - give similar information from the later period of station masses).

Then again, it might have been way back when i was prepared for confirmation.

Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on :

OK Leo, thank you. I've got Lamburn, so I'll start there.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

The two standard possibilities which I was taught and have generally seen are that the collect either gets its name because it was the prayer which marked the moment when the people were assembled (collected together) for the beginning of worship (similar to Leo's suggestion); or that it was the prayer which followed the silent or out loud prayers of the people, introduced by oremus (let us pray), and which collected those prayers together.

[ 27. March 2014, 22:21: Message edited by: BroJames ]

Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I think I should let someone like Zappa or Emli answer the technical questions in the last couple of posts.

Thanks Gee D for dropping me in it so nicely!

In APBA the collects (that is, prayers of the collected or gathered community) are as set out as a prayer of the week (or, in Advent and Lent, of the season) and as three prayers of the day. The prayers of the week are chosen to fit the cycle of the Revised Common Lectionary, whereas the prayer of the week is, as you will see, much more general in content.

According to one of the members of the Liturgical Commission of General Synod, these prayers were intended for use by those who do not make use of the RCL in their services. This isn't very clearly and obviously explained: I had to get the said member to give the explanation and where it was to be found in the 850 pages of APBA.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I think I should let someone like Zappa or Emli answer the technical questions in the last couple of posts.
Thanks Gee D for dropping me in it so nicely!

In APBA the collects (that is, prayers of the collected or gathered community) are as set out as a prayer of the week (or, in Advent and Lent, of the season) and as three prayers of the day. The prayers of the week are chosen to fit the cycle of the Revised Common Lectionary, whereas the prayer of the week is, as you will see, much more general in content.

According to one of the members of the Liturgical Commission of General Synod, these prayers were intended for use by those who do not make use of the RCL in their services. This isn't very clearly and obviously explained: I had to get the said member to give the explanation and where it was to be found in the 850 pages of APBA.

Ah, that makes sense, and is actually very gracious. Even in the liturgical loosey-gooseyness of Lutheranism, our books assume that one will use the appointed lectionary (in my denom's case, the RCL). The expectation seems to be that if one doesn't use the RCL, one is just making everything up anyway, so why bother providing resources at all?

I do see similarities between APBA and the New Zealand Prayer Book, particularly in the offices.

Thank you for the info. I apologize for holding up the Sundry questions thread.

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

Forgiven me for asking something I've seen discussed here at length, but do I recall correctly that in TEC Palm Sunday and Passion Sunday used to be separate? Was it always so? Can someone fill me in on how and when Passion Sunday was observed? And did the change happen with the 79BCP?

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

PS: Not that y'all aren't experts in your own rights, but citing sources would be much appreciated!

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

In the RCC and TEC the last two weeks of Lent were traditionally called Passiontide, and thus the 5th Sunday of Lent was called Passion Sunday in both the Roman Missal and the 1928 BCP. In the Extraordinary Form of the RCC, Passiontide continues to be observed. This is when crosses, statues, icons and sacred images are veiled. In the Holy Week reforms of Ven. Pius XII in 1955, Passion Sunday was renamed the 1st Passion Sunday, and Palm Sunday the 2nd Passion Sunday, to further emphasize the nature of Passiontide, and the fact that the Passion was sung or read on Palm Sunday.

The 1970 Roman Missal eliminated the sub-season of Passsiontide, preferring to limit the passion theme to Palm Sunday (though permission to continue to veil on the 5th Sunday in Lent was given). Palm Sunday was thus officially rendered in Latin as Passion Sunday of the Palms, which in English was translated as Passion Sunday, also known as Palm Sunday.

The 1979 BCP, when it was released in 1976 as the final trial use edition, called the day Sunday of the Passion: Palm Sunday.

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

Thank you, Ceremoniar. I will pass along your answer to my colleague.

Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :

A quick question that I'm sure must have been asked before:

The Palm Sunday service in 'Times and Seasons' (CofE) doesn't seem to have a confession in it. Is this correct? Why? If you disagree with the answer to 'why?', where's the best place to add it?

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

I am guessing that it is following the precept that a procession or other proper rite at the start of the liturgy takes the place of a penitential rite. This notion began with the RC Holy Week reforms of the 1950s, when the prayers at the foot of the altar began to be dropped when the liturgy of the palms was celebrated. Within a couple of years, this was extended to Candlemas, too, and later, to other such occasions. This practice is frequently the case in the American 1979 BCP, too. IMHO, if this makes any sense at all (not sure that it does), it does so only if the penitential rite is normally at the beginning of the liturgy, and is the rite displaced by the procession or whatever. If the confession normally comes later in the liturgy, it difficult to justify its omission, IMHO.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

But I'd hate to move the penitential rite to the post intercessions position. i have seen it done and don't like it.

Can't we trust people to go through their own preparation and also to experience penitence as the liturgy works itself out - moving from the triumphal entry to the Passion, as if to say to oneself,'Well i welcomed him into my heart when all; was going well but then i dumped him when the going got tough.'

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

I probably have misunderstood just what you mean by the penitential rite, but assume that it means the general confession. We use APBA 2nd order, which has provision for the general confession at 2 places. The one we commonly use is near the beginning, just before absolution and the Gloria. During Advent and Lent, it moves to the alternative position just after Humble Access and before the Peace.

We had our ecumenical procession this morning, combined with the local RC and Uniting Churches. Although there is a short service to commence the procession, it is obviously inappropriate to have general confession in that.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

Well, it could be worse. We gathered outside the sanctuary, and then had the confession and absolution followed by the procession, carrying palms with no explanation, no blessing, no processional gospel.

Yet again, #LutheranFail

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Before the procession, we had the Processional Gospel, Blessing of the Palms and some general prayers. Given that it is an ecumenical procession, confession and absolution might be a bit awkward for some.

The gathering before the procession is outdoors - too large for any of the churches - then we walked singing All Glory Laud and Honour[./I] I don't know about the RCs or Unitings, but the processional hymn in church afterwards was as usual [I]Ride On, Ride On in Majesty sung at full volume.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Attention Catholics

I ( an Anglican ) have in my charge (pastorally) a young South American woman house-sitting for a family whose father died (an unpleasant death) recently.

She is terrified of being visited by his ghost.

Do any of you good Catholic brethren have any prayers off the top of your head that I might offer her in this situation?

Obviously there are plenty of Anglican ones that would do in a roundabout way but.....just wondered if youse had anything specific that don't sound as awful as some of the ones I've found via Google.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

Might one of the guardian angel prayers be helpful?

This, for example, might be a little too fulsome, but you get the idea:

quote:
O most holy angel of God, appointed by God to be my guardian, I give you thanks for all the benefits which you have ever bestowed on me in body and in soul. I praise and glorify you that you condescended to assist me with such patient fidelity, and to defend me against all the assaults of my enemies. Blessed be the hour in which you were assigned me for my guardian, my defender and my patron. In acknowledgement and return for all your loving ministries to me, I offer you the infinitely precious and noble heart of Jesus, and firmly purpose to obey you henceforward, and most faithfully to serve my God. Amen.

[ 14. April 2014, 11:38: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Or a prayer that Michael the Archangel, the warrior who was the first to wound Lucifer, and who leads God's army to stand guard over her and to fight on her behalf.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

St. Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle.
Be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the Devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray,
and do thou,
O Prince of the heavenly hosts,
by the power of God,
thrust into hell Satan,
and all the evil spirits,
who prowl about the world
seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Wow, Ceremoniar! That prayer is certainly short, and to the point. From whence does it come?

Re Palm Sunday - if you use the intercessions from Times and Seasons, they are quite penitential in tone. We had them yesterday, and IMHO they fitted in very well with the liturgy on the whole, and with my fellow-Reader's brief and pertinent homily in particular. Don't you just love it when a plan comes together?

Ian J.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

In addition to what's already been suggested, it might also help her to have a Mass offered for the deceased. She could also invite a priest round for a house blessing.

You might also suggest a Memorare to St. Joseph:

Remember, O most pure spouse of the Virgin Mary, my beloved Patron, that never it has been heard that anyone invoked your patronage and sought your aid without being comforted. Inspired by this confidence I come to you and fervently commend myself to you. Despise not my petition, O dearest foster father of our Redeemer, but accept it graciously.
Amen.

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

Is there a way to achieve the delightful scent of church incense in one's house?

I was at a different church yesterday and they had incense. I cried, I miss incense so much at my home church, which doesn't do it any more. (Perks up suddenly: maybe New Rector will permit incense! Note to self: ask New Rector.)

It occurred to me that it might be possible to acquire and burn church incense at home. I don't want a charcoal brazier though, so maybe it would have to be some other arrangement. Do they make incense sticks with the right aroma? Or some other way of burning incense?

Is there something spiritually I could do to be sure I'm respecting the church association of the incense scent? I think I'd want to set up a prayer corner for it, and burn it in connection with some sort of devotion.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Wow, Ceremoniar! That prayer is certainly short, and to the point. From whence does it come?

Ian J.

The prayer was said at the end of low mass prior to the reforms on the4 60s.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Is there a way to achieve the delightful scent of church incense in one's house?

Buy a thurible.

If you have a lamp with the lamp bulb pointing upwards, you can put a few grains on it to melt.

It messes up the bulb and I don't know if these new low energy bulbs put out enough heat, but I pass the information on without responsibility for the results.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
It occurred to me that it might be possible to acquire and burn church incense at home. I don't want a charcoal brazier though, so maybe it would have to be some other arrangement. Do they make incense sticks with the right aroma? Or some other way of burning incense?

To me, the right aroma is natural (or "pure") frankincense, without any added smellies. It's been a while, but I've sometimes burned some on quick-lite church charcoals in a brass bowl filled with sand. Never left unattended, of course. Charcoals lighted outside or near window; incense put on when coals are no longer smoking and are covered with white ash. Incense sticks or cones may be available in just plain frankincense scent. I haven't used those types, though.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

If you want the smell of frankincense at home you can do it with ceramic holders for candles and frankincense essential oil

eta - I forgot - you can get frankincense joss sticks, or frankincense and myrrh.

[ 14. April 2014, 14:52: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

You can even buy the resin and use a incense burner. I investigated a while ago and decided to stick with essential oil.

Jengie

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

The prayer to St. Michael is associated with Pope Leo XIII, who as been indicated here, in 1886 or so ordered the prayer to be said after all Low Masses. Its intention varied with the point in history, but it has both general and specific applications. Since 1965 it is no longer required to be said after Mass, though some places continue to do so, including the daily Mass on the cable channel EWTN. It is also frequently recited at the end of a rosary.

[ 14. April 2014, 16:25: Message edited by: Ceremoniar ]

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:

Is there something spiritually I could do to be sure I'm respecting the church association of the incense scent? I think I'd want to set up a prayer corner for it, and burn it in connection with some sort of devotion.

Normally, we burn incense liturgically to cense something. Given you're unlikely to have the Blessed Sacrament in your house, and censing yourself seems a little odd, you might cense an icon, a crucifix, some holy water, or a Bible.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I burn incense before the evening office on feasts and Sundays and their vigils, and sing the verses from Psalm 141 - "Let my prayer rise before you as incense" - which is suggested in the C of E Common Worship Daily Prayer.

[ 14. April 2014, 19:27: Message edited by: venbede ]

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

Is there a Diocesan Exorcist?
(Simply that an old friend of mine had that job/title after learning a lot in Zimbabwe)

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Yes, but many dioceses keep quiet about it unless they decide someone really needs to see them. It can sound quite dramatic, but apparently they deal a lot with fear, for example saying prayers about scary situations to put people's minds at rest. The dramatic stuff you read about in novels or see on films almost never happens. Most people in those roles are not listed on diocesan websites, unless it is under the general title 'Ministry of Deliverance', but here is a link to the relevant information page of Newcastle Diocese so you can read the sort of thing that is said, for yourself. Googling 'Deliverance Ministry' plus name of Diocese should give more examples.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Chorister writes:

quote:
Yes, but many dioceses keep quiet about it unless they decide someone really needs to see them. It can sound quite dramatic, but apparently they deal a lot with fear, for example saying prayers about scary situations to put people's minds at res

Ditto in the Anglican Church of Canada. Owing to a suicide in the wake of an exorcism in Toronto in the 1960s, the House of Bishops laid out some very firm guidelines. One of my clerical acquaintances notes that he could do pretty well anything discreetly and get away with it, but if he held an unauthorized exorcism, he would be hammered very badly by the bishop and could say goodbye to his clerical status.

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

Thank you to venbede, Oblatus, Curiosity killed ..., Jengie Jon and Hart for all your suggestions about incense. I'll examine the options and report back for what I ultimately do. I'm very excited!

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

I have read somewhere about priests who take a Holy Week service while barefoot. Now I cannot find it. Does anyone know anything about that? Was it the Maundy Thursday service?

Google is being unhelpful, so I thought maybe one of you would know!

[ 15. April 2014, 19:15: Message edited by: Barefoot Friar ]

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

It's a tradition in some churches for the Cross to be venerated on Good Friday after removing one's shoes. But I've never heard of an entire service barefoot--even the discalced orders wear sandals!

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I remember Father Ken Leech taking off his shoes to venerate the cross on Good Friday.

And checking on a pre-Vatican 2 missal on line I find the following rubric:

And afterward the Cross is carried by the Priest alone to the place made ready for it before the Holy Table, and, kneeling there, he sets it in place: next he lays aside his shoes, and approaches to venerate the Cross, thrice making a double genuflection before he kisses it. Which done, he returns and takes again his shoes and the Chasuble.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
And checking on a pre-Vatican 2 missal on line I find the following rubric:

And afterward the Cross is carried by the Priest alone to the place made ready for it before the Holy Table, and, kneeling there, he sets it in place: next he lays aside his shoes, and approaches to venerate the Cross, thrice making a double genuflection before he kisses it. Which done, he returns and takes again his shoes and the Chasuble.

I am curious as to which missal this was taken from? I know that it is pre-1955, as the chasuable is not worn on Good Friday in the 1962 missal, used in parishes such as mine who who use the Extraordinary Form. The other clergy and servers do likewise, and some of the laity.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

The rubrics of the modern Roman Rite still require the priest to remove his shoes for the Veneration of the Cross "if appropriate".

Posted by crunt (# 1321) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Is there a way to achieve the delightful scent of church incense in one's house?

Aurobindo Ashram incense sticks are good quality and the frankincense is superb.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Thanks all for your recommendations on prayers for my South American friend.

I realised I have The Glenstal Book of Prayer (Benedictine) tucked away in my bookshelf ( I used to use it ) and it contains lots of the prayers mentioned above as well as St Patrick's breastplate so I'm going to give that to her today. [Angel]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
It's a tradition in some churches for the Cross to be venerated on Good Friday after removing one's shoes. But I've never heard of an entire service barefoot--even the discalced orders wear sandals!

CR Mirfield did the whole liturgy barefoot last time i was there.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
I have read somewhere about priests who take a Holy Week service while barefoot. Now I cannot find it. Does anyone know anything about that? Was it the Maundy Thursday service?

Google is being unhelpful, so I thought maybe one of you would know!

I know of one local parish that does that for Good Friday. Not mine, though.

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

crunt, thanks for the suggestion. I note on the linked page that it calls them "Frank Incense Sticks." Just what I need, when I go to light one up it will talk back to me: "Why yes, that dress does make your butt look big." [Biased]

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Attention Catholics

I ( an Anglican ) have in my charge (pastorally) a young South American woman house-sitting for a family whose father died (an unpleasant death) recently.

She is terrified of being visited by his ghost.

Do any of you good Catholic brethren have any prayers off the top of your head that I might offer her in this situation?

Any prayers invoking the Holy Name of Jesus and the Holy Name of Mary would help. My mom says that people in the ancestral village would say "Ave María Purísima" (Hail Mary Most Pure) before entering an empty or abandoned house to ward off evil spirits. She also says the Magnificat is a powerful prayer.

Definitely any prayers for the dead and the souls in Purgatory would be helpful. There's a collection of these in Spanish right here. I second Ceremoniar's and Hart's suggestions especially having a priest bless the house. A Spanish version of Ceremoniar's Prayer to St. Michael is is here at the top. I'd also suggest a prayer to her Guardian Angel like this one:

quote:
Ángel de Guarda, dulce compañía,
no me desampares ni de noche ni de día.
No me dejes solo que me perdería.
Ni vivir, ni morir en pecado mortal.
Jesús en la vida,
Jesús en la muerte,
Jesús para siempre.

Amén Jesús.

Translation:
Guadian Angel, sweet company,
do not forsake me, not by night nor by day,
do not leave me alone for I would be lost.
Not to live nor to die in mortal sin.
Jesus in life.
Jesus in death.
Jesus forever.
Amen, Jesus.

[ 16. April 2014, 20:55: Message edited by: Pancho ]

Posted by cosmic dance (# 14025) on :

Our Bishop is barefoot for nearly every service I have ever seen him take. No prizes for guessing where I come from.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
It's a tradition in some churches for the Cross to be venerated on Good Friday after removing one's shoes. But I've never heard of an entire service barefoot--even the discalced orders wear sandals!
CR Mirfield did the whole liturgy barefoot last time i was there.

Bloody hippies. [Biased]

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

When I was in Melanesia, the only service I ever wore footwear (doc martin boots) was at my ordination to the priesthood. I only did that as a nod to my culture. Every other service, whether Mass or Office or anything else I was barefoot and so were just about everybody else. Many churches had rules against wearing shoes inside and sand is very hard to sweep up!

I do miss the Maundy Thursdays when I'd strip to the waist and wash peoples' feet with a bar of soap and a scrub brush and piles of real towels. Miss it so!

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

Cultural norms being what they are, that doesn't surprise me, MamaThomas. Or bother me, really, even in the case of the CR. But that never would have happened if Fr Raynes were still alive. [Biased]

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

The Angelus on Good Friday and Holy Saturday: Ring-a da bell? Or, not?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
The Angelus on Good Friday and Holy Saturday: Ring-a da bell? Or, not?

Nay. Use one of them wooden-clapper-dodgers.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

Crotalus.

But, they can only be heard in the church and the Angelus bell can be heard throughout the parish.

Do we not recite the Angelus at six, noon, and six on Good Friday, Holy Saturday, or other days of the year?

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

1. During Holy Communion, as you wait for your pew row to have its turn, what do you do?

Ideally I would want to stay kneeling since the Blessed Sacrament is exposed, but this would create some logistical hazards, which is why I believe most people stay seated, then kneel after communion. My current compromise is I keep my head bowed as I'm seated and waiting.

2. Do you bow your head every time you pass the processional cross or only when the cross is actually in procession?

Similarly, do you bow your head whenever you pass any altar where the Blessed Sacrament is not present, including every side chapel altar, or just the main central one?

3. Generally, one genuflects at the Adoramus te, Christe while making the Stations of the Cross. I realized this evening, however, that our Good Friday liturgy has the Adoramus te, Christe as an antiphon. Should one technically genuflect or make some other gesture of respect in this context?

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
1. During Holy Communion, as you wait for your pew row to have its turn, what do you do?

Ideally I would want to stay kneeling since the Blessed Sacrament is exposed, but this would create some logistical hazards, which is why I believe most people stay seated, then kneel after communion. My current compromise is I keep my head bowed as I'm seated and waiting.

Not sure what logistical hazards this creates... I generally kneel from the Sanctus until after the post-communion prayer and I have never found a logistical issue other than the need to kick the hassock under the pew as you get up.

quote:
2. Do you bow your head every time you pass the processional cross or only when the cross is actually in procession?

Only in procession, but I've never seen a church where the processional cross is in a thoroughfare.

quote:
Similarly, do you bow your head whenever you pass any altar where the Blessed Sacrament is not present, including every side chapel altar, or just the main central one?

The main one, unless mass is being celebrated at the time.

quote:
3. Generally, one genuflects at the Adoramus te, Christe while making the Stations of the Cross. I realized this evening, however, that our Good Friday liturgy has the Adoramus te, Christe as an antiphon. Should one technically genuflect or make some other gesture of respect in this context?

I'm not sure whether there is a correct way here, but I would be wary of adding too much activity into the Good Friday liturgy. Genuflecting during the Passion Narrative and to the Crucifix seems to me sufficient.

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
1. During Holy Communion, as you wait for your pew row to have its turn, what do you do?

Ideally I would want to stay kneeling since the Blessed Sacrament is exposed, but this would create some logistical hazards, which is why I believe most people stay seated, then kneel after communion. My current compromise is I keep my head bowed as I'm seated and waiting.
Not sure what logistical hazards this creates... I generally kneel from the Sanctus until after the post-communion prayer and I have never found a logistical issue other than the need to kick the hassock under the pew as you get up.

If everyone were to remain kneeling, it would require everyone go through the extra step of pushing their kneelers out of the way, lest they became a physical obstacle. Given that this is a large parish and everyone kneels to receive communion, which is given in both kinds, this would significantly lengthen a mass that is already often two hours long or more. There is also the issue where the wooden feet of the freestanding kneelers combined with the wooden floor and the acoustics of the nave would create substantial and continuous aural pollution throughout communion, which would be quite disruptive to the requisite solemnity of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ and subsequent post-communion private prayer.

quote:
2. Do you bow your head every time you pass the processional cross or only when the cross is actually in procession?
Only in procession, but I've never seen a church where the processional cross is in a thoroughfare.

At my parish, the processional cross is placed on the border between the chancel and the nave near the middle of the church during the mass. Thus, one could possibly pass it multiple times while approaching and departing from the altar rails, depending on one’s exact location in the pews.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Crotalus.

But, they can only be heard in the church and the Angelus bell can be heard throughout the parish.

Do we not recite the Angelus at six, noon, and six on Good Friday, Holy Saturday, or other days of the year?

I dunno, but my basis for saying no bell ringing isn't as sound as all that. I read that French children explain the lack of bells on Holy Saturday with the story that they all fly to Rome on Maundy Thursday evening to be blessed by the pope, and they come back for Easter bearing gifts for good children.

Edit: Evidence.

[ 19. April 2014, 12:39: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Two queries from the last few days of the thread:-

All these questions about obtaining incense burners - agreed, using actual incense and charcoal is a bit complicated, but round here, essential oils in little bottles and the little ceramic things to burn them on are almost universally available from somewhere. So are joss sticks. Apart from hippies, even quite a lot of ordinary people use the oils and little ceramic things to get rid of cooking smells. Isn't this so everywhere? Or is this peculiar to where I live?

On venerating the cross on Good Friday, does that mean that in the RCC, only the priest does that on their behalf, and the congregation don't get the chance to do so? These days, it's not that unusual in the CofE even among the GLEs, but if it happens, it's assumed anyone who wants to has the opportunity to do so.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
On venerating the cross on Good Friday, does that mean that in the RCC, only the priest does that on their behalf, and the congregation don't get the chance to do so? These days, it's not that unusual in the CofE even among the GLEs, but if it happens, it's assumed anyone who wants to has the opportunity to do so.

Veneration of the Cross by all who wish to do so has been a major feature of the Good Friday liturgy for as long as I can remember in the RC Church. I remember kissing the Feet and then a white cloth appears immediately, held by an acolyte who wipes the Feet.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
On venerating the cross on Good Friday, does that mean that in the RCC, only the priest does that on their behalf, and the congregation don't get the chance to do so? These days, it's not that unusual in the CofE even among the GLEs, but if it happens, it's assumed anyone who wants to has the opportunity to do so.
Veneration of the Cross by all who wish to do so has been a major feature of the Good Friday liturgy for as long as I can remember in the RC Church. I remember kissing the Feet and then a white cloth appears immediately, held by an acolyte who wipes the Feet.

Yup, it's a huge deal.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

After our Anglican"meditative service yesterday I popped round the corner to catch the end of the RC service.

Great big queues, hundreds of people, lining up to kiss the feet of some crucifixes.

By comparison Communion (from previously sanctified wafes) was a low-key affair. Basically the priest led us in the Lord's Prayer, said another short prayer, then the "I am not worthy but only say the word..." prayer, and then straight to distribution. Didn't take three minutes. No genuflections, elaborate actions, incense, bells, anything. The Baptists would have done it with more ritual.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

In our parish church we have a large crucifix which is a central feature of the Good Friday service ,as several hundred people will come to venerate it, forming one line.For me personally it is one of the most moving liturgies of the year.

By contrast at Communion there will be two lines.But it is wrong of Ken to indicate that this is no big deal.The Good Friday celebration is deliberately kept 'low key' that the significance of the Passion reading,the Solemn Prayers for all Mankind and the Veneration of the Cross may make a deep impression upon the faithful as well as any visitors.
As the Blessed Sacrament is brought from the Altar of Repose the faithful,having listened to the words of the prophet Isaiah foretelling the sufferings which they heard about in the Passion are 'now about to join together sacramentally in Holy Communion with the One who died on the Cross for us all'.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
...Communion (from previously sanctified wafes) was a low-key affair. Basically the priest led us in the Lord's Prayer, said another short prayer, then the "I am not worthy but only say the word..." prayer, and then straight to distribution. Didn't take three minutes. No genuflections, elaborate actions, incense, bells, anything. The Baptists would have done it with more ritual.

The Baptists haven't been doing up communion for every other service of the year with great pomp and circumstance. Their ministers aren't wearing black vestments. They don't have an exposed ten-ton solid block of stone for an altar. They don't have a stonking big reredos stood behind the altar, veiled with black sailcloth. The area from which the communion is distributed isn't stripped bare of everything that isn't nailed down; and, the Roman Catholics and the Anglocatholics have a lot of not-nailed-down stuff. The sound of the Baptists' mighty organ isn't silenced and replaced with the unaccompanied voice of a vested choir.

Less ritual than the Baptists isn't quite accurate, but it does rather make the point: He is dead.

The silent echo of the emptied out heaven is the sound of the rocks themselves.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Crotalus.

But, they can only be heard in the church and the Angelus bell can be heard throughout the parish.

Do we not recite the Angelus at six, noon, and six on Good Friday, Holy Saturday, or other days of the year?

My vote is for you to set your carillon to broadcast Aunt Fanny's best revivalist hymns during the Triduum.

That said, this appears noteworthy, with klepperer sounding a crotalus to indicate the appropriate devotional times.

Fortescue does not address the Angelus specifically. However, he does state that no bells are rung during that period between the Gloria at the Holy Thursday Mass and the Vigil, which would have occurred earlier on Saturday during his time. As he lists the other things that are removed during this time period (i.e. holy water and oil), it seems to become apparent that he refers to a wholesale omission of these. By extension, I conclude that the Angelus bell remains wholly silent as well.

The Catholic Encyclopedia at the New Advent website indicates that the bell is to be used when possible, but not essential, for the Angelus and its attached indulgence.

Give the bell a rest, then. Put Quasimodo to work scrubbing the altar.

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
By comparison Communion (from previously sanctified wafes) was a low-key affair. Basically the priest led us in the Lord's Prayer, said another short prayer, then the "I am not worthy but only say the word..." prayer, and then straight to distribution. Didn't take three minutes. No genuflections, elaborate actions, incense, bells, anything. The Baptists would have done it with more ritual.

Most of those were probably omitted because they are part of the consecration, which does not occur since the gifts are pre-sanctified from Maundy Thursday.

Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :

Right I've got a question.....We had an Easter Vigil last night and it was very moving but what on earth does 'O happy fault! O necessary sin of Adam' mean? It sounds almost Calvinist?

Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
By comparison Communion (from previously sanctified wafes) was a low-key affair. Basically the priest led us in the Lord's Prayer, said another short prayer, then the "I am not worthy but only say the word..." prayer, and then straight to distribution. Didn't take three minutes. No genuflections, elaborate actions, incense, bells, anything. The Baptists would have done it with more ritual.
Most of those were probably omitted because they are part of the consecration, which does not occur since the gifts are pre-sanctified from Maundy Thursday.

Indeed and the whole point is to keep things as low key as possible for Good Friday ( nod to the Silent Acolyte). It is Good Friday, so no celebration of the Eucharist but it also reminds us that we can only call that Friday 'Good' with reference to Easter.....I'm not saying we should anticipate Easter but rather the three services should be seen as a unity. We leave in silence on Maundy Thursday, enter and leave in silence on Good Friday and enter in silence on Holy Saturday,although I think these pratices seem to be honoured more in the breach than the observance!
I used to feel very unssettled with Holy Communion on Good Friday but now I'm beginning to see the point of it

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

I have a question about the ritual, for example during reaffirmation of baptism vows, where the priest flicks some water over people a few yards away.

I have seen this done with a long handled spoon, with something that looks like a pastry brush, and with a bundle of twigs tied together. What does the choice of implement signify either about the occasion or the priest ?

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Dunno, but this morning Father used a large sprig of rosemary (from Madam Sacristan's garden), and the entire congregation was sprinkled liberally..... no mere flicks at Our Place!

Ian J.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I have a question about the ritual, for example during reaffirmation of baptism vows, where the priest flicks some water over people a few yards away.

I have seen this done with a long handled spoon, with something that looks like a pastry brush, and with a bundle of twigs tied together. What does the choice of implement signify either about the occasion or the priest ?

Possibly a reference to 'cleanse me with hyssop'?

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
Right I've got a question.....We had an Easter Vigil last night and it was very moving but what on earth does 'O happy fault! O necessary sin of Adam' mean? It sounds almost Calvinist?

Not sure if it helps, but I was doing my regular reading of this book in Holy Week and the author mentions this section of the hymn in a chapter that encourages us to see Christ's birth, death and resurrection as the beginning of all things,and not look at creation -> fall -> law -> salvation so much in a linear narrative but rather see "how these scriptures appear retrospectively in the light of Christ" and seem them all as part of the "proclamation of the crucified and risen Christ, the eternal plan or economy of God".

quote:
This transcendent, eternal or timeless, power of God enables us to see human sinfulness embraced within the whole scriptural economy of God, in a simultaneous movement of conviction and forgiveness, revealing our falleness -- that we have always stood in need of Christ, called into being by and for him -- and yet in the same movement offering us the means by which our brokeness may be healed. In this retrospective perspective, we can speak of the "Fall" as being blessed, the 'felix culpa' [from the Exsultet], and see the "curse" of Adam and Eve, as depicted in the San Marco mosaic, as a "blessing", with Christ making the sign of the cross over his repentant creatures.

p. 89

Ian,
who crossed the Thames and had a most joyous Easter Vigil complete with the Exsultet and one of the most welcoming congregation -- and birettas as well!

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I have a question about the ritual, for example during reaffirmation of baptism vows, where the priest flicks some water over people a few yards away.

I have seen this done with a long handled spoon, with something that looks like a pastry brush, and with a bundle of twigs tied together. What does the choice of implement signify either about the occasion or the priest ?
Possibly a reference to 'cleanse me with hyssop'?

Indeed, but it is usually simpler: the church hasn't spent money to buy the actual aspergillum, the device used to dispense appropriate amounts of water up the faithful of Western Christendom. Sometimes the church doesn't even know such a formal device exists. Sometimes the church finds them preciously Catholic and therefore to be avoided. Sometimes the church is looking for a more traditional way.

There are brush-style ones, and ones that have a bulb at the end in which water is absorbed for later dispensing by flinging it through the holes. I've found that locally-improvised ones tend to dispense far too much water.

The chief reason for improvising seems to be cost. If one is Anglican, for instance, and doesn't make use of Missal liturgies, then one probably only does the sprinkling rite at the Easter, and perhaps at a rare baptism here and there. Why spend the money for such infrequent use? Catholics have the option of using the sprinkling rite weekly in place of the confession, and although it is an option not used as often as it probably should, it does make sense to own the equipment, which can also be used for blessing any number of things.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

Twig of rosemary man myself ... (or substitute when I was in Darwin)

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

We normally use small cuttings from murraya or something similar - plenty of small branchlets and small leaves to pick up and flick water. The cost of buying a formal aspergillum is just not worth it, with fresh greenery available just a couple of steps from the vestry door throughout the year.

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
The chief reason for improvising seems to be cost. If one is Anglican, for instance, and doesn't make use of Missal liturgies, then one probably only does the sprinkling rite at the Easter, and perhaps at a rare baptism here and there. Why spend the money for such infrequent use? Catholics have the option of using the sprinkling rite weekly in place of the confession, and although it is an option not used as often as it probably should, it does make sense to own the equipment, which can also be used for blessing any number of things.

This seems like an odd excuse. I easily found a proper aspergillum online new for $30 and I am sure one could be procured far cheaper second-hand. If one is going to bother with the ritual, at least do it properly, or you miss the whole point and render it hollow.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

I am far from sure that using greenery is not doing it properly. In fact, the opposite.

[ 21. April 2014, 06:13: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on :

I agree: hyssop or something similar seems perfect.

I have a bulb-ended sprinkler (there is sponge inside the hollow bulb to hold the water). One Easter the church cleaners had polished this to a mighty shine: while aiming a splash the entire thing shot out of my hand, arching over the heads of the congregation to crash into the wall.

I, it, and they, never quite recovered.... [Eek!]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

I wish I had been there.

Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:

quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
Right I've got a question.....We had an Easter Vigil last night and it was very moving but what on earth does 'O happy fault! O necessary sin of Adam' mean? It sounds almost Calvinist?
Not sure if it helps, but I was doing my regular reading of this book in Holy Week and the author mentions this section of the hymn in a chapter that encourages us to see Christ's birth, death and resurrection as the beginning of all things,and not look at creation -> fall -> law -> salvation so much in a linear narrative but rather see "how these scriptures appear retrospectively in the light of Christ" and seem them all as part of the "proclamation of the crucified and risen Christ, the eternal plan or economy of God".

quote:
This transcendent, eternal or timeless, power of God enables us to see human sinfulness embraced within the whole scriptural economy of God, in a simultaneous movement of conviction and forgiveness, revealing our falleness -- that we have always stood in need of Christ, called into being by and for him -- and yet in the same movement offering us the means by which our brokeness may be healed. In this retrospective perspective, we can speak of the "Fall" as being blessed, the 'felix culpa' [from the Exsultet], and see the "curse" of Adam and Eve, as depicted in the San Marco mosaic, as a "blessing", with Christ making the sign of the cross over his repentant creatures.

p. 89
Ian,
who crossed the Thames and had a most joyous Easter Vigil complete with the Exsultet and one of the most welcoming congregation -- and birettas as well!

Thanks Ian. That makes it a bit clearer

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oferyas:
I have a bulb-ended sprinkler (there is sponge inside the hollow bulb to hold the water). One Easter the church cleaners had polished this to a mighty shine: while aiming a splash the entire thing shot out of my hand, arching over the heads of the congregation to crash into the wall.

I, it, and they, never quite recovered....

Probably about 45 years ago, in our RC parish, the Benedictine monk priest who assisted our pastor went to asperge the choir (near the sanctuary), and that bulb flew off and hit a singer's metal chair. Sounded like a gunshot. Many ducked; a few screamed. Water followed the bulb and splatted across several singers' faces. Moment of shock, then boisterous laughter. Asperges could not be done with a straight face for years after that.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

All but the most central city churches have a yew tree: a sprig of yew is perfect for asperging...

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oferyas:
I agree: hyssop or something similar seems perfect.

I have a bulb-ended sprinkler (there is sponge inside the hollow bulb to hold the water). One Easter the church cleaners had polished this to a mighty shine: while aiming a splash the entire thing shot out of my hand, arching over the heads of the congregation to crash into the wall.

I, it, and they, never quite recovered....

And that's why they sell them with rings at the bottom- stick a finger through there and swing away to your heart's content.

Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on :

Of course all that I recount happened long ago, before all was explained when I was diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome... [Snigger]

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:

quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
The chief reason for improvising seems to be cost. If one is Anglican, for instance, and doesn't make use of Missal liturgies, then one probably only does the sprinkling rite at the Easter, and perhaps at a rare baptism here and there. Why spend the money for such infrequent use? Catholics have the option of using the sprinkling rite weekly in place of the confession, and although it is an option not used as often as it probably should, it does make sense to own the equipment, which can also be used for blessing any number of things.
This seems like an odd excuse. I easily found a proper aspergillum online new for $30 and I am sure one could be procured far cheaper second-hand. If one is going to bother with the ritual, at least do it properly, or you miss the whole point and render it hollow.

The branches are certainly an older practice, so I'm not sure I can call the newer devices more "proper," but I do like the newer devices better. I agree about money being an odd excuse...we got a very nice one for $50. Still, it's the number one excuse I have heard (this being a discussed topic since 2006 or so in my brand of Lutheranism, when we first saw sprinkling in our liturgical book.). Probably the weirdest excuse I ever heard was, "People feel bad when they don't get hit by the water." Seriously folks, grow up.

[ 21. April 2014, 20:02: Message edited by: Olaf ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
All but the most central city churches have a yew tree: a sprig of yew is perfect for asperging...

Except that I don't recall ever seeing a yew tree in a churchyard here - perhaps in Victoria or Tasmania. OTOH, plenty of murrayas, and similar shrubs around.

Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on :

quote:
One Easter the church cleaners had polished this to a mighty shine: while aiming a splash the entire thing shot out of my hand, arching over the heads of the congregation to crash into the wall.

On a related tangent. I was singing in a choir in Sydney Town Hall, semi darkened. Conductor had a baton with a small light on the end so it could be seen in the dark. The baton flew out of his hand in one passage and sailed like a shooting star over the audience.

GeeD, following on your comment about yew being uncommon down here, many churches would have a rosemary bush for a sprig to be cut from.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

We use a handful of sprigs of box (less toxic than yew). The children gather round the font and get sprinkled from the whole bunch. They then get sprigs from the bunch to sprinkle the further reaches of the congregation with the cry "Remember your baptism".

Posted by JeffTL (# 16722) on :

I've known clergy who have access to an aspergilium but prefer to use fresh foliage because it feels less sterile - the idea being that the aspergilium is basically an artificial substitute for box, yew, palm, etc, and if you have a boxwood bush out in the churchyard, why not just send someone out to collect a branch or two?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Yes. A bunch of herbs seems like the "Real Thing" and the aspergillium a bit of a substitute.

Why not grow your own hyssop? Not difficult I think.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Yes, you can get hyssop seeds quite easily, online at least. It's a member of the mint family and I think catnip/catmint would probably be the closest thing to it that's widely grown.

At my church, however, a sprig of conifer (not yew though) is used.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

What do you all use for sprinkling coffins?

Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
We use a handful of sprigs of box (less toxic than yew). The children gather round the font and get sprinkled from the whole bunch. They then get sprigs from the bunch to sprinkle the further reaches of the congregation with the cry "Remember your baptism".

I like this.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
What do you all use for sprinkling coffins?

Again, greenery cut from the church gardens. As Ken says, it feels more real than metal ever could.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

I'm having a little trouble understanding this apparent disdain for artificial aspegilliums. If only box or yew are good for aspersing, what do y'all use for the aspersorium? Must you hollow out a tree limb to use as the bucket? Do you weave a tight reed basket or tan an animal skin to hold the water? Or, are modern materials such as brass or glass acceptable for the vessel containing the water to be flung out with the all-natural aspergillium?

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
<snip>what do y'all use for the aspersorium?<snip>

Since where I am we only do this on Easter Day at the renewal of vows, the font has alway sufficed.

I guess if it was a regular feature of our worship (i.e. more than, say, half a dozen times a year) we might feel the need to invest in something, but I would have thought any decent and convenient container would do. The prices of vessels sold as being specifically for this purpose seem to range from about £75 to an eye-watering £390 (US$125-652).

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

We use brass bowls, which can hold the water. Brass is not all that modern AIUI in any event. And we use neither yew nor box. Murraya has leaves roughly the same size and shape as box, and we happen to have some growing in the church garden.

Nothing wrong with the use of metal, precious or otherwise, just a personal preference for the leaves.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
<snip>what do y'all use for the aspersorium?<snip>
Since where I am we only do this on Easter Day at the renewal of vows, the font has alway sufficed.

I guess if it was a regular feature of our worship (i.e. more than, say, half a dozen times a year) we might feel the need to invest in something, but I would have thought any decent and convenient container would do. The prices of vessels sold as being specifically for this purpose seem to range from about £75 to an eye-watering £390 (US$125-652).

Low-end aspergillums are not that expensive. What does the priest use when he is blessing something outside the church, and thus is away from the font?

Posted by JeffTL (# 16722) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Yes, you can get hyssop seeds quite easily, online at least. It's a member of the mint family and I think catnip/catmint would probably be the closest thing to it that's widely grown.

At my church, however, a sprig of conifer (not yew though) is used.

But watch out when growing catnip in the churchyard unless you want your property to become a sort of feline Denver or Amsterdam.

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

All the priests I know seem to delight in flicking as much water as they can towards people; always a smile on their face. And I recall a deacon who on his round trip around the church with the thurible always swung it as close as he could to my face without hitting it.

My question... In [higher] Anglican / Catholic churches, are there particular times *not* to make the sign of the cross at the invocation of the Trinity? For example, I attended the Easter Vigil at an Anglican church and the priest gave the final blessing in the name of the Trinity and made the sign of the cross: can I make the sign of the cross or does his cross suffice -- and overrule mine as it were -- and I should keep my hands down?

I ask primarily to not stand out or make some error. I surreptitiously looked around and no-one else seemed to be doing it but I had already started and thought I'd better end continue...I usually try to fit in with what the congregation does but thought I'd ask the wise people here as a general rule. I fear Byzantine Orthodoxy has me on automated cross-mode as soon as I hear "In the name..." [Smile]

[ 24. April 2014, 10:24: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

When and where you make the sign of the cross is up to you.

If everyone in the congregation is looking at you, intending to catch you out (which won't happen!) then they are present for the wrong reason and not having their minds on the service.

A couple of times recently, I was on the bus and passing a (Roman) Catholic church, some-one crossed himself/herself. Also in a public place, such as in a restaurant, it is not unknown to make the sign of the cross in public, saying grace.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

IME making the sign of the cross at the final blessing is usual. But again, nobody will mind if you do it in a place where nobody else does!

Personally I can never remember where people do it during the creed.....

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
[A]re there particular times *not* to make the sign of the cross at the invocation of the Trinity? <snip> I fear Byzantine Orthodoxy has me on automated cross-mode as soon as I hear "In the name..."

Ian Climacus, it's good to hear from you again.

You are uniquely positioned, now, to embrace bi-ritualism. It'll be a little awkward at first, but later it will become second nature. You'll have to keep attending Orthodox services, though to make it stick.

As in all drama, you seek your cues and then perform what is appropriate to them within the rite.

In the West—old school Roman Catholicism and and Anglocatholic circles—what is appropriate to any full invocation of the Trinity is a bow, not crossing oneself. In the East, a metania (a bow and crossing oneself) is customary.

In the West crossing oneself is customary at a whole laundry list of moments during the Office and the Mass. Ecclesianticians, in the olden days, used to delight to enumerating these places.

Briefly, some of them are: in the Mass, at the Introit or its substitute, when blessed by the priest (absolution & the final blessing), at Blessed is he who comes, at the resurrection of the dead in the Creed, at the elevation of each species after the Dominical Words, before receiving each species at communion, at Behold the Lamb of God, with the thumb on the forehead, lips, and breast before the Gospel, at the last clause of the Gloria. I'm sure there are others.

In the Office, some of them are at the incipit of the Gospel canticles, with the thumb on the lips at O Lord open thou our lips, at O God make speed to save us, at the resurrection of the dead in the Apostles Creed, and elsewhere.

As in all things, don't sweat getting it perfect. What is important is to love Jesus and to go to mass.

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

Thanks for the welcome back TSA; great to see you, some old faces and the new ones.

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
In the West—old school Roman Catholicism and and Anglocatholic circles—what is appropriate to any full invocation of the Trinity is a bow, not crossing oneself. In the East, a metania (a bow and crossing oneself) is customary.

Ahhh...that explains the services in the Catholic monasteries I bother on occasion.

Thanks for the detailed explanations, and thank you Jade Constable & Ecclesiastical Flip-flop as well for your comments and explanations. I agree that all should not be worried about what others are up to, but I suppose I was just curious as to any "rules" so I fit in as best I can when I visit. Thanks again.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
The Angelus on Good Friday and Holy Saturday: Ring-a da bell? Or, not?

No, no, no! - unless of course you want people to pause and think of a working fisherman, grieving mother or Zambian office worker.

ALL the bells are silent after the Gloria on Holy Thursday, and no, one does not recite the Angelus from then onwards. If you want to make a morning, noon and night recollection at the usual time of the Angelus, then I suggest the Stations of the Cross versicle and response "we adore you O Christ and we bless you etc"

(Way past the time when this answer may have been useful this year, of course, but maybe useful for future reference)

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

I have the real Mediterranean thing growing in my back garden. Anyone wants wild/organic (John the Baptist version) got that on the hillside too.

PM me and I will send by international courier. 'Tis a hardy thing - a bit of wet cotton wool on the stems and it should last days.

I have seen Orthodox using fresh basil also. Which has a nice smell and is presumably available IRL supermarkets

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
ALL the bells are silent after the Gloria on Holy Thursday, and no, one does not recite the Angelus from then onwards.

No bells - agree - but i still recite the Angelus because i have yet to find a source that tells me otherwise - in fact i asked on The Ship about this before.

Would be grateful if you knew the source.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

I wonder about that too. Part of me thinks it seems a strange thing to say at this point... but another part of me thinks that there is never a more important time than Good Friday or Holy Saturday to remind oneself of the Incarnation. The one who suffers, dies and descends to the dead is truly human as we are.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I don't need any bells to recite the Angelus. I agree that it is appropriate not to say it in church as part of any services after the Maundy Thursday liturgy.

But there's no reason for me not to say it as part of my private prayers, any more than there is for me not to say the rosary.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Well, private devotions are in a sense one's own business. There is no formal obligation on anyone to say the Angelus, so no formal obligation on when not to recite it.

I am expressing an opinion and would be happy to stand corrected. My opinion is based on the fact that originally the Angelus was explicitly tied to the ringing of the bell. Whether one accepts the theory that this was the curfew bell or alternately the Compline bell, either way the evening Angelus came first. People were enjoined to recite three Hail Marys when they heard the evening bell. The expanded prayers now familiar as the Angelus came later, as did the tolling of the bell in the morning and at noon.

So if the bell is silent .....

By way of contrast, the Enchiridion of Indulgences states "A partial indulgence is granted to the faithful, who devoutly recite the above prayers according to the formula indicated for the time of the year" and the indication for the Angelus are simply "During the year (outside of Paschal Season)", with nothing about not saying the Angelus on Good Friday and Holy Saturday.

So it's perhaps one of those situations where you make up your own mind.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
The Angelus on Good Friday and Holy Saturday: Ring-a da bell? Or, not?
No, no, no! - unless of course you want people to pause and think of a working fisherman, grieving mother or Zambian office worker.

ALL the bells are silent after the Gloria on Holy Thursday, and no, one does not recite the Angelus from then onwards. If you want to make a morning, noon and night recollection at the usual time of the Angelus, then I suggest the Stations of the Cross versicle and response "we adore you O Christ and we bless you etc"

(Way past the time when this answer may have been useful this year, of course, but maybe useful for future reference)

Of course this must be the right answer. I've had the privilege of being able to scamper into the church to pull the Angelus for the past year or so (Either 6a and noon or noon and 6p; I'm not working a twelve-hour day). It's an evangelical opportunity and has become almost second nature to look at the clock as the time approaches.

I had already starting pulling the Angelus at noon on Good Friday without even thinking, when, half-way through, I considered my probable error. I forbore when 6p rolled around.

I plead guilty to the enthusiasm of a little boy with a rope attached to a big bell.

Of course, in Eastertide, we've left the "three threes and a nine" of the Angelus for the "four twos and an eight" of the Regine Coeli. I find it easier to sing than speak it.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:

So it's perhaps one of those situations where you make up your own mind.

Yeah, I can live with that!

Definitely agree about the bells, of course.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Of course, in Eastertide, we've left the "three threes and a nine" of the Angelus for the "four twos and an eight" of the Regine Coeli. I find it easier to sing than speak it.

Never heard the 2s before - here, we get the 3 x 3s done faster, without a break, then the 9

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

Interesting, leo.

The Angelus has three versicle-and-responses, while the Regina Coeli has four.

Can anyone else weigh in on the manner of ringing the bell for the Angelus and the Regina Coeli?

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

Well, that post was written in haste and was wrong. Let me try again.

The Angelus has three Gospel versicle-and-responses, with a Hail Mary after each. The bell is tolled three times for each set. Then the bell is tolled nine times during the collect.

The Regina Coeli is a hymn with four lines. At each line, the bell is tolled twice. Then the bell is tolled eight times during the collect.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

I'm not aware of any time-tested indication that the bell should be rung differently for the Regina Coeli. There are lots of variants around - our old friend "local custom" peeps above the parapet.

Had I a bell I would just ring the Angelus as usual - based on the prayer being a response to the bell, rather than the bell keeping time with the prayer.

Also, the final 9 is I think just a convenience. In France and Italy you hear a great peal of bells at the end rather than 9 single strokes.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

When I had the pleasure of being at a church that recited the Angelus after Sunday Sung Mass, and when I had the honour to be MC ringing the bell, I did enquire of a priest attached to the parish what I should ring in Eastertide.

He said to just ring as usual, ie 3x3 during the Regina Caeli and 9 for the collect.

[ 03. May 2014, 20:44: Message edited by: venbede ]

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

I'm sure this has been asked before, but I am unable to find it.

How long after opening can a bottle of port be used for Communion? A small church that intincts isn't going to use a bottle very quickly at all. I am trying to balance good taste against waste.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

If it has a good seal on the screw top, I'd imagine quite a while. You could always transfer it to a container with a good seal if the bottle isn't any good. If it doesn't smell like wine anymore, it's probably not. So long as the smell doesn't give it away, you're probably fine.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

BF

You can buy port in half-bottles...

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

Oh I didn't know that. The smallest one I saw yesterday was 750ml, but I'll look for the smaller one.

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Personally I can never remember where people do it during the creed.....

Usually you make the sign of the cross at the end of the Creed (i.e., "and the life of the world to come"). I've also seen it done instead during the previous line regarding the resurrection of the dead.

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
How long after opening can a bottle of port be used for Communion? A small church that intincts isn't going to use a bottle very quickly at all. I am trying to balance good taste against waste.

This really depends on the type of port being used. One site has the following guidelines:

Really Old Vintage - 1-2 days
Old Colheita - 1-3 days
Old Vintage - 2-3 days
Young Vintage - 4-5 days
Filtered LBV - 10 days
Unfiltered LBV - 1-2 weeks
Young Colheita - 2 weeks
Ruby - 3-4 weeks
Tawny - 1 month

Port, like any wine, will definitely last longer if it's kept refrigerated once opened. The best guide, however, is likely just to taste it and judge for yourself if it is still acceptable.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Personally I can never remember where people do it during the creed.....
Usually you make the sign of the cross at the end of the Creed (i.e., "and the life of the world to come"). I've also seen it done instead during the previous line regarding the resurrection of the dead.

I don't think that this is really an "instead" so much as it is simply a second or two early. The traditional crossing here is intended as a summarizing gesture at the end of the creed.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Personally I can never remember where people do it during the creed.....
Usually you make the sign of the cross at the end of the Creed (i.e., "and the life of the world to come"). I've also seen it done instead during the previous line regarding the resurrection of the dead.

It went out with Vatican 2 (along with the genuflection except on two occasions on the year.)

Where you see it in C of E parishes is where they weren't ever instructed in the changes.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It went out with Vatican 2 (along with the genuflection except on two occasions on the year.)

Where you see it in C of E parishes is where they weren't ever instructed in the changes.

Or where they don't look to Vatican II for instructions on liturgical customs?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It went out with Vatican 2 (along with the genuflection except on two occasions on the year.)

Where you see it in C of E parishes is where they weren't ever instructed in the changes.
Or where they don't look to Vatican II for instructions on liturgical customs?

i.e. where they claim the name 'catholic' but are provincial.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
i.e. where they claim the name 'catholic' but are provincial.

Id non est, actually.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[qb] Personally I can never remember where people do it during the creed.....
Usually you make the sign of the cross at the end of the Creed (i.e., "and the life of the world to come"). I've also seen it done instead during the previous line regarding the resurrection of the dead.
It went out with Vatican 2 (along with the genuflection except on two occasions on the year.)

Given the increasing number of parishes and communities that use the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, either occasionally or regularly, I would say that this still needs to be mentioned.

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

Is it permissible to use the Te Deum in place of the Gloria on Trinity Sunday?

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

No.

If you wish to sing a Te Deum on Trinity Sunday do it as the anthem - and if that is during communion distribution then I suggest you wait until the last communicant has partaken.

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

Thanks!

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

Does anyone know what the proper liturgical postures are for the Athanasian Creed?

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
No.

If you wish to sing a Te Deum on Trinity Sunday do it as the anthem - and if that is during communion distribution then I suggest you wait until the last communicant has partaken.

Well that rather depends on what church you are from, doesn't it?

I believe the Church of England simply suggests that the Gloria 'or other suitable hymn or canticle' be used at this point.

As Barefoot Friar's profile indicates that he is a Uniting Methodist I would suggest he probably has similar latitude, and the Te Deum would certainly seem suitable if he wanted it!

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

The proper liturgical posture for the Athanasian Creed is to be well outside the church, and preferably down the pub.....

....I'll get me coat....

Ian J.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
Does anyone know what the proper liturgical postures are for the Athanasian Creed?

Standing throughout, possibly facing East.

The Athanasian Creed is seldom to be found these days. Entitled in BCP (in England) as "At Morning Prayer", it is appointed to be used in place of the Apostles' Creed, on certain liturgical days in the year, including Trinity Sunday. As an expedient, it may be used at Evening Prayer, particularly in churches that do not have both Morning & Evening Prayer.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

My post crossed with that of Bishop's Finger, in more serious vein than intended by him.

Admittedly, in the bygone days when I heard the Athanasian Creed, it sounded as if a punishment at school.

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
Does anyone know what the proper liturgical postures are for the Athanasian Creed?
Standing throughout, possibly facing East.

The Athanasian Creed is seldom to be found these days. Entitled in BCP (in England) as "At Morning Prayer", it is appointed to be used in place of the Apostles' Creed, on certain liturgical days in the year, including Trinity Sunday. As an expedient, it may be used at Evening Prayer, particularly in churches that do not have both Morning & Evening Prayer.

I only use it during Prime in the Daily Office. The rubric is from the 1928 Proposed BCP, which may explain its presence.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
The proper liturgical posture for the Athanasian Creed is to be well outside the church, and preferably down the pub.....

....I'll get me coat....

Ian J.

Have to agree. The Athanasian Creed to me veers dangerously close to Salvation by Theology.

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
The proper liturgical posture for the Athanasian Creed is to be well outside the church, and preferably down the pub.....

....I'll get me coat....

Ian J.
Have to agree. The Athanasian Creed to me veers dangerously close to Salvation by Theology.

Could you elaborate? I am unfamiliar with that concept.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
The proper liturgical posture for the Athanasian Creed is to be well outside the church, and preferably down the pub.....

....I'll get me coat....

Ian J.
Have to agree. The Athanasian Creed to me veers dangerously close to Salvation by Theology.
Could you elaborate? I am unfamiliar with that concept.

It starts:

"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly."

In other words, believe everything that follows, or you'll burn in Hell. Conversely, believe everything that follows and you won't. Salvation by mental assent to a bunch of propositions.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
Does anyone know what the proper liturgical postures are for the Athanasian Creed?
Standing throughout, possibly facing East.

The Athanasian Creed is seldom to be found these days. Entitled in BCP (in England) as "At Morning Prayer", it is appointed to be used in place of the Apostles' Creed, on certain liturgical days in the year, including Trinity Sunday. As an expedient, it may be used at Evening Prayer, particularly in churches that do not have both Morning & Evening Prayer.

I have only twice seen it used - once at Smoky Tom's in Toronto on Trinity Sunday, and another in my childhood church in Cornwall (Ontario) at evensong by a theologically enthusiastic clergy-- the latter time leaving a congregation grumpy at not getting home early enough to fire up the BBQ. Both times, we stood and faced east.

Posted by sonata3 (# 13653) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
Is it permissible to use the Te Deum in place of the Gloria on Trinity Sunday?

Perfectly permissible in the TEC 1979 BCP, and not just on Trinity Sunday.

Posted by WearyPilgrim (# 14593) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
The proper liturgical posture for the Athanasian Creed is to be well outside the church, and preferably down the pub.....

....I'll get me coat....

Ian J.
Have to agree. The Athanasian Creed to me veers dangerously close to Salvation by Theology.
Could you elaborate? I am unfamiliar with that concept.
It starts:

"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly."

In other words, believe everything that follows, or you'll burn in Hell. Conversely, believe everything that follows and you won't. Salvation by mental assent to a bunch of propositions.

. . . And in still other words, Church defined by who's out, not who's in.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

I have a horrible suspicion that Father will drone his way through Death by Athanasia at Matins on Sunday morning (we have BCP Matins every Sunday at 930am, not that anyone other than the staff ever attends).

Surely no-one actually believes such tripe, do they?

Ian J.

Posted by Pearl B4 Swine (# 11451) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sonata3:

quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
Is it permissible to use the Te Deum in place of the Gloria on Trinity Sunday?
Perfectly permissible in the TEC 1979 BCP, and not just on Trinity Sunday.

I hope you don't use the one that starts "You are God" in case You forgot.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

I defend the Athanasian Creed (which is neither) ... but if used (I've used it twice in 30 years) it needs a contextual demythologisiation - maybe only a sentence or so - first.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pearl B4 Swine:

quote:
Originally posted by sonata3:

quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
Is it permissible to use the Te Deum in place of the Gloria on Trinity Sunday?
Perfectly permissible in the TEC 1979 BCP, and not just on Trinity Sunday.
I hope you don't use the one that starts "You are God" in case You forgot.

Why's that any different in principle to saying, "For thou only art holy, thou only art the Lord, thou only, O Christ, with the Holy Ghost, art most high in the glory of God the Father"? Christ presumably didn't forget that either?

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pearl B4 Swine:

quote:
Originally posted by sonata3:

quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
Is it permissible to use the Te Deum in place of the Gloria on Trinity Sunday?
Perfectly permissible in the TEC 1979 BCP, and not just on Trinity Sunday.
I hope you don't use the one that starts "You are God" in case You forgot.

"Why yes. Yes I am, I am indeed! Bless Me!"

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:

quote:
Originally posted by Pearl B4 Swine:

quote:
Originally posted by sonata3:

quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
Is it permissible to use the Te Deum in place of the Gloria on Trinity Sunday?
Perfectly permissible in the TEC 1979 BCP, and not just on Trinity Sunday.
I hope you don't use the one that starts "You are God" in case You forgot.
Why's that any different in principle to saying, "For thou only art holy, thou only art the Lord, thou only, O Christ, with the Holy Ghost, art most high in the glory of God the Father"? Christ presumably didn't forget that either?

First, there is that little word "for". So it's not informing God of who he is, but explaining why we're praising him. (I'm sure he knows that as well, but it is ever so slightly different.)

Second, "for thou only art holy" is a decentish translation of the Latin. "You are God" is an idiotic translation of "Te Deum", so the Gloria at least has the excuse of centuries of tradition.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

If it's a question of "Is it a good translation of the Latin?" then certainly there are good reasons to object. If, however, we cut out of the liturgy every instance of telling God something God already knows, I don't think there would be much left...

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
First, there is that little word "for". So it's not informing God of who he is, but explaining why we're praising him.

"You are God . . . ." Are we simply telling God who he is, or are we telling God that we acknowledge he is indeed God?

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

Well, the grammar has definitely been re-jigged in translation.

Te Deum (both accusative) laudamus (1st person plural present active indicative)

The 1928 BCP has "We praise thee, O God." The "O" is an addition not present in the Latin, but it makes the sentence flow a bit better and doesn't obscure the meaning.

The 1979 BCP has "You are God; we praise You." To be fair, it's not miles from the sense of the Latin, but neither is it an especially faithful translation. It's a bit like changing the Collect for Advent II from "BLESSED Lord, who hast caused all holy Scriptures to be written for our learning" to "Lord, you inspired Holy Scripture to teach us" (this sort of change was rampant in the ICEL translations of the Roman Rite). Quite what motivated this, apart from an allergy to appositives, I'm not sure, but to my ear it was one of the ugliest tendencies of mod-lang liturgy.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

Te Deum laudamus is one of those phrases that just can't be translated. The idea is that we praise God for the very reason that he **is** God.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
I defend the Athanasian Creed (which is neither) ... but if used (I've used it twice in 30 years) it needs a contextual demythologisiation - maybe only a sentence or so - first.

And probably best to drop the first couple of prefatory verses.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Once we start asking questions like 'does anyone believe this tripe ?' it is not long till we start
asking 'is Christianity itself not a load of tripe?'

Like everything else in Christian prayer history it is a product of its time and has to be explained, if used in the public prayer of the Church.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

A fair point, Forthview, and I apologise if my intemperate remark caused offence.

Having said that, I do sometimes wonder at the apparent absurdity and impossibility of the things we Christians are expected (if that's the right word) to believe in!

Ian J.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

just as well we live then in the present time when all is clear and comprehensible !!!

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Well, the grammar has definitely been re-jigged in translation.

Te Deum (both accusative) laudamus (1st person plural present active indicative)

The 1928 BCP has "We praise thee, O God." The "O" is an addition not present in the Latin, but it makes the sentence flow a bit better and doesn't obscure the meaning.

The 1979 BCP has "You are God; we praise You." To be fair, it's not miles from the sense of the Latin, but neither is it an especially faithful translation. It's a bit like changing the Collect for Advent II from "BLESSED Lord, who hast caused all holy Scriptures to be written for our learning" to "Lord, you inspired Holy Scripture to teach us" (this sort of change was rampant in the ICEL translations of the Roman Rite). Quite what motivated this, apart from an allergy to appositives, I'm not sure, but to my ear it was one of the ugliest tendencies of mod-lang liturgy.

Spot on, Father! In addition to the aforementioned appositive allergy, I think that the ICEL and other translations of the period were very strongly influenced by (what were perceived to be) ecumenical concerns. The mindset seemed to be to avoid the use of ecclesiastical-sounding terminology (blessed, paschal, creed, collect, oblation, etc.), as well as verbiage that implied a vertical relationship between the transcendent God (hallowed, omnipotent, hallow, throne, dominion, hosts, precious, everlasting, etc.) and his dependent, sinful creatures (miserable, unworthy, reckless, wandering, wretched) who need to defer to Him (supplicate, beseech, vouchsafe, humbly, sanctify, pour forth, deign, etc.). The watering down of these elements, which I believe was an attempt to attract other Christians to Catholic liturgy, was not only a miserable failure in every regard, but approaches something that might need to be answered for before the Throne of Grace (all punny language intended.), because of its obfuscatory intent.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

I'm just looking at Evangelical Lutheran Worship and I note that the translation of the Collect for Purity, while in contemporary language, retains the appositive where the BAS shifts it to " ... to you all hearts are open."

On a perhaps not complete tangent, I've also noticed the tendency of newer propers to drop "the same" when Christ is already mentioned in a collect. So I end up getting a feeling of déja vu when we get to " ... through Jesus Christ our Lord", as if this is the first we're hearing of him, à la Bob Dole in The Simpsons.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
I've also noticed the tendency of newer propers to drop "the same" when Christ is already mentioned in a collect. So I end up getting a feeling of déja vu when we get to " ... through Jesus Christ our Lord", as if this is the first we're hearing of him, à la Bob Dole in The Simpsons.

If it's anything like the compilers of the NZPB/HKMOA (NZ Anglican) few studied poetics at any serious level, or learned the importance of the ear in "digesting" spoken word. There's some dreadful clunky moments that are all but sufficient to send me to the arms of the Trappists.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
sufficient to send me to the arms of the Trappists.

Beware - Thomas Merton thoroughly disliked the fact that the Trappists followed liturgical reforms to the letter.

Posted by Wm Dewy (# 16712) on :

I’m sure this has been answered here before, but I don’t find it.

We sit for the Psalm at mass. We stand for a canticle at the office. Do you also sit for a canticle if it’s used as a response to the Old Testament lesson at mass? It seems like you should, but there is always somebody who stands.

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

Since they only come a couple of times a year, I like to get people to stand. But in my congo, many don't stand for the Gospel. Either from age, stubbornness, being from a denomination where this is unheard of, they haven't noticed most people standing, and don't want to do anything such as "please stand" or "please be seated."

Well, I'll say, "let us stand for the canticle." I wish we could sing the old tune for the Benedictus es tomorrow, but only two or three people know TEC used to be Morning Prayer and remember those days and old tunes.

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
Is it permissible to use the Te Deum in place of the Gloria on Trinity Sunday?

My parish waits to say the Te Deum until right after the mass.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:

quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
Is it permissible to use the Te Deum in place of the Gloria on Trinity Sunday?
My parish waits to say the Te Deum until right after the mass.

Marion J. Hatchett in his Commentary of the American Prayer Book (1979) rides to the rescue.

The abundant, 62-page, topical index gives a subentry on "Eucharist of Easter Vigil" beneath "Te Deum." This directs the reader to a rubric on page 294 of the BCP telling that the Canticle at this service can be the Gloria in excelsis, the Te Deum laudamus,, or the Pascha nostrum. This leads the enquiring mind to search out the rubrics for an ordinary mass. So, on page 324 at the beginning of "The Holy Eucharist: Rite One," immediately after the texts for the Kyrie and the Agios o Theos, one finds this just before the text for the Gloria:

quote:
When appointed, the following hymn or some other song of praise is sung or said, in addition to, or in place of the preceding, all standing.

In short, Barefoot Friar, according to the diffuse use of the Episcopal Church, your answer is, Yes.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wm Dewy:

We sit for the Psalm at mass. We stand for a canticle at the office. Do you also sit for a canticle if it’s used as a response to the Old Testament lesson at mass?

Yes. We had that today, with the psalm being from the book of Daniel. (Just because it's not in the book of Psalms doesn't make it not a psalm, just like not all the proverbs are in Proverbs or lamentations in Lamentations).

quote:
It seems like you should, but there is always somebody who stands.

I'm impressed anyone noticed anything different!

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Is a ciborium any relation to the chuppah/huppah held above the couple during a Jewish wedding ceremony?

If so, it gives some lovely additional symbolism to the Eucharist.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

I don't know if it has a relationship with the canopy,but CIBORIUM comes from the Latin word CIBUS which means FOOD
CIBORIUM is also used sometimes as the name for a canopy over an altar,usually made of some sort of stone.The canopy can also be called BALDACCHINO
which comes from BALDACCO,being an old name in Italian for the city which many people know as Baghdad and originally referred to the fine silk hangings (from Baghdad) which were part of the canopy.

Posted by Arpeggi (# 17487) on :

I was watching a lovely video of Maundy Thursday mass at S. Ignatius of Antioch Episcopal Church in NYC. (You have do direct yourself due to the coding, if you're interested.)

The liturgy is Rite I with Catholic additions. Something curious I noticed about the liturgy was during the invitation for communion. The celebrant recites the Ecce Agnus Dei, "Behold the Lamb of God. Behold Him who taketh away the sins of the world." However this was not followed by the Domine Non Sum Dignus. ("Lord I am not Worthy...") Instead communion immediately followed.

I know neither one is strictly BCP, but I find it odd to include one but exclude the other. Is this common? Is it due to theological objections or simply parish practice?

[ 16. July 2014, 06:45: Message edited by: Arpeggi ]

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

That's Ultraspike's parish. If she were still an active Shipmate she could tell us in a flash.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arpeggi:
I was watching a lovely video of Maundy Thursday mass at S. Ignatius of Antioch Episcopal Church in NYC. (You have do direct yourself due to the coding, if you're interested.)

The liturgy is Rite I with Catholic additions. Something curious I noticed about the liturgy was during the invitation for communion. The celebrant recites the Ecce Agnus Dei, "Behold the Lamb of God. Behold Him who taketh away the sins of the world." However this was not followed by the Domine Non Sum Dignus. ("Lord I am not Worthy...") Instead communion immediately followed.

I know neither one is strictly BCP, but I find it odd to include one but exclude the other. Is this common? Is it due to theological objections or simply parish practice?

Not sure of the answer for St. Ignatius' parish, but at Ascension, Chicago, it currently goes like this:

Priest: Behold the Lamb of God; behold him who takes away the sins of the world. Happy are those who are called to his supper. Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof.
People: But only say the word, and my soul shall be healed.
Priest: The gifts of God for the people of God.

<then the administration of the Sacrament proceeds, as the Agnus Dei is sung>

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arpeggi:
The celebrant recites the Ecce Agnus Dei, "Behold the Lamb of God. Behold Him who taketh away the sins of the world." However this was not followed by the Domine Non Sum Dignus. ("Lord I am not Worthy...") Instead communion immediately followed.

This was the practice at Our Lady of Hardwork until a rector in the '90s added it in.

Now you couldn't stop the congregation from saying it, even if not prompted by the celebrant.

Posted by tessaB (# 8533) on :

Not sure if this is the right place to ask it but does anyone know what is involved in becoming a member of the Church of England.
I was baptised and confirmed a Roman Catholic, have attended a CofE church for about 20 years. I have led Sunday school, bible studies, been involved in outreach and am an occasional preacher. Now want to take the next step to be an LLM but have been told that I will have to become a member of the church. Have the last 20 years of dedication not meant that I am a member? What more do I need to do, after all I can't be baptised or confirmed again?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tessaB:
Now want to take the next step to be an LLM but have been told that I will have to become a member of the church.

You'll need to be "received into the Church of England". It's not terribly complicated - talk to your priest.

See here

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

I believe that's the procedure in the Episcopal Church USA also. RC baptism and confirmation would be seen as valid (although you may be asked to show your baptismal certificate), so you wouldn't have to receive those sacraments again. You would, however, have to be "received" into the Episcopal Church by the bishop, most likely after attending an "enquirer's class."

Posted by Jante (# 9163) on :

Tessa
A friend of mine at theological college was in the same position as you ( and by that time in training for ordination). One day when Bishop was present a small group of us gathered with her at the font in the local church and she was asked again to reaffirm her baptism vows ( as we all do at the Easter vigil) There was then a declaration ( three short questions to ask if she wanted to be received into communion with the C of E) she4 then came to the font where she was signed with the cross by the Bishop. There were then a couple of prayers. It was a very simple and moving service.
The details of the service of reception into the C of E can be found
Reception into the Church of England
There is also provision for this to take place within a Communion service we just happened to have a short service.
It doesn't deny your commitment that has been demonstrated, simply fulfils the requirement for all ordained ministers of the C of E to be members of the C of E.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Very similar to here. My recollection is that a bishop is needed and the short service fits easily into a confirmation. Perhaps if you are to become an LLM, the formalities for that along with a blessing could easily occur just after the Reception.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Same here - we recently had a combined service, with someone being received into the CofE at the same time as confirmation, baptism and reaffirmation of baptism. Once you manage to capture a pointy hat, you make use of it as much as possible, before it vanishes again for another year!

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
RC baptism and confirmation would be seen as valid (although you may be asked to show your baptismal certificate)

For someone (including, as it happens, me) who was confirmed by a mere RC priest not in bishop's orders, what's the CofE's take on the validity of the confirmation? As I understand it, CofE priests aren't permitted to confirm unless they're bishops.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hart:

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
RC baptism and confirmation would be seen as valid (although you may be asked to show your baptismal certificate)
For someone (including, as it happens, me) who was confirmed by a mere RC priest not in bishop's orders, what's the CofE's take on the validity of the confirmation? As I understand it, CofE priests aren't permitted to confirm unless they're bishops.

While the ordinary minister of confirmtion is the bishop, there are many situations in which a priest can confirm, using the chrism consecrated by his bishop. This is perfectly valid, and the C of E recognizes that. I believe that their priests are also empowered to confirm under certain circumstances, at least in danger of death, even if it rarely happens. When I grew up in TEC, that was the case.

Posted by JeffTL (# 16722) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hart:

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
RC baptism and confirmation would be seen as valid (although you may be asked to show your baptismal certificate)
For someone (including, as it happens, me) who was confirmed by a mere RC priest not in bishop's orders, what's the CofE's take on the validity of the confirmation? As I understand it, CofE priests aren't permitted to confirm unless they're bishops.

My wife was confirmed by an RC priest and that was perfectly fine when she joined TEC - the bishop's presence is essentially supplied by the grant of faculties by the RC bishop and the consecration of the chrism thereby. Presumably the CofE is similar.

Posted by recklessrat (# 17243) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tessaB:
Not sure if this is the right place to ask it but does anyone know what is involved in becoming a member of the Church of England.
I was baptised and confirmed a Roman Catholic, have attended a CofE church for about 20 years. I have led Sunday school, bible studies, been involved in outreach and am an occasional preacher. Now want to take the next step to be an LLM but have been told that I will have to become a member of the church. Have the last 20 years of dedication not meant that I am a member? What more do I need to do, after all I can't be baptised or confirmed again?

I have been through this and the process was very much as Jante described. I didn't have to do preparation classes or anything, just a very straightforward ceremony, albeit alongside some schoolchildren who were being confirmed! We did have trouble tracking down my original baptism certificate though and had to ring the RC church for a copy - a bit awkward!

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

Canon B27 confirms that the confirmation service must be performed by a Bishop but B28 allows those from other churches who have been episcopally confirmed with unction or with the laying on of hands, with the permission of the bishop, to be received into the Church of England according to the Form of Reception

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

I have seen acceptance into the CofE: the RC baptised and confirmed husband and father of two confirmation candidates was accepted into the CofE as part of the confirmation service.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JeffTL:

quote:
Originally posted by Hart:

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
RC baptism and confirmation would be seen as valid (although you may be asked to show your baptismal certificate)
For someone (including, as it happens, me) who was confirmed by a mere RC priest not in bishop's orders, what's the CofE's take on the validity of the confirmation? As I understand it, CofE priests aren't permitted to confirm unless they're bishops.
My wife was confirmed by an RC priest and that was perfectly fine when she joined TEC - the bishop's presence is essentially supplied by the grant of faculties by the RC bishop and the consecration of the chrism thereby. Presumably the CofE is similar.

CoE canonists can chip in if they wish, but in the Anglican Church of Canada, the canons require a bishop's hand. AFAIK few prelates receiving RCs ask if their confirmation was presbyteral (rare among the Latin RCs here) or episcopal. I have only seen RCs integrated into our Borg through reception.

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

FWIW, confirmation by a priest is very common for adults being received or baptised during the parochial Easter Vigil. Not at all rare. Children who are received join their agemates in the confirmation process.

[ 17. July 2014, 22:28: Message edited by: PeteC ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by recklessrat:
I have been through this and the process was very much as Jante described. I didn't have to do preparation classes or anything, just a very straightforward ceremony, albeit alongside some schoolchildren who were being confirmed! We did have trouble tracking down my original baptism certificate though and had to ring the RC church for a copy - a bit awkward!

Surely being received alongside those being confirmed is a joy? It is part of being a parish, a congregation and a community.

[fixed code - preview post is your friend]

[ 18. July 2014, 20:09: Message edited by: seasick ]

Posted by Arch Anglo Catholic (# 15181) on :

I have recent knowledge of a wise CofE Bishop who, when the question of the presbyteral confirmation of a (now) Anglican candidate for ordination to the diaconate arose, deftly dealt with the question of validity of confirmation, by swiftly and privately administering conditional confirmation on the candidate, thus not denying the validity of the former act, but merely correcting any defect (if indeed any defect occurred). No one was embarrassed, nothing was impaired, no validity denied and charity and certainty preserved!

Result!

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
FWIW, confirmation by a priest is very common for adults being received or baptised during the parochial Easter Vigil. Not at all rare. Children who are received join their agemates in the confirmation process.

I was less than well-informed, then, by a contact whose knowledge is I now think too theoretical for words, as PeteC is around the parish coalface more than those who prefer academic life.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arch Anglo Catholic:
I have recent knowledge of a wise CofE Bishop who, when the question of the presbyteral confirmation of a (now) Anglican candidate for ordination to the diaconate arose, deftly dealt with the question of validity of confirmation, by swiftly and privately administering conditional confirmation on the candidate, thus not denying the validity of the former act, but merely correcting any defect (if indeed any defect occurred). No one was embarrassed, nothing was impaired, no validity denied and charity and certainty preserved!

Result!

Hmm, but the CoE recognizes confirmation with episcopally-consecrated chrism even when administered by a presbyter ...

Posted by recklessrat (# 17243) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by recklessrat:
I have been through this and the process was very much as Jante described. I didn't have to do preparation classes or anything, just a very straightforward ceremony, albeit alongside some schoolchildren who were being confirmed! We did have trouble tracking down my original baptism certificate though and had to ring the RC church for a copy - a bit awkward!
Surely being received alongside those being confirmed is a joy? It is part of being a parish, a congregation and a community.

Oh it was, the children weren't all that straightforward, that was all!

[fixed code]

[ 18. July 2014, 20:09: Message edited by: seasick ]

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

Does anyone out there know of a relatively recent hymn, sung to the tune "Finlandia"?

I am aware of "We rest of thee" and "Be still my soul". But I am sure that there is another set of words. I have a suspicion (only that) that it might be something written by Timothy Dudley-Smith or Michael Baughan or Michael Perry.

I have found THIS wikipedia page. But this doesn't contain what I am looking for.

This is driving me mad! Can any one put me out of my misery?

Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :

This is my song, Oh God of all the nations?

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Oscar - are you thinking of a Good Friday hymn? A modern version of the lamentations? I can think of one I've sung to Finlandia like that, but can't remember enough to track it down, but I'll go dig when I'm around later.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

Yes, that's a version of the reproaches - it's in this order of service.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Yes, that's the one I was thinking of, and it is Michael Forster. I just couldn't dig the word "reproaches" out of the memory banks.

Thank you seasick.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

There's a version of the Magnificat set to Finlandia. I think it might be called "Tell out my soul," but I'm not sure.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

Isn't Tell out my soul normally sung to Woodlands?

Posted by Signaller (# 17495) on :

I was all set to trot out "We trust in you", number 446 in Hymns for Today's Church, but realised just in time that it is the 'modern' version of "We rest in Thee".

The sooner we get rid of that b***** book, the better. [Mad]

[ 20. July 2014, 18:59: Message edited by: Signaller ]

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
Isn't Tell out my soul normally sung to Woodlands?

Here's what I was thinking of. It's called "Sing out my soul."

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

I'm more familiar with "Be Still My Soul" set to Finlandia.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

There is a List on Hymnary.org of ones that have made a selection of hymnbooks (US based)

Jengie

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:

quote:
Originally posted by Arch Anglo Catholic:
I have recent knowledge of a wise CofE Bishop who, when the question of the presbyteral confirmation of a (now) Anglican candidate for ordination to the diaconate arose, deftly dealt with the question of validity of confirmation, by swiftly and privately administering conditional confirmation on the candidate. . .
Hmm, but the CoE recognizes confirmation with episcopally-consecrated chrism even when administered by a presbyter ...

Does it? Can you quote an authority for that?

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

Here you go.

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:

quote:
Originally posted by Arch Anglo Catholic:
I have recent knowledge of a wise CofE Bishop who, when the question of the presbyteral confirmation of a (now) Anglican candidate for ordination to the diaconate arose, deftly dealt with the question of validity of confirmation, by swiftly and privately administering conditional confirmation on the candidate. . .
Hmm, but the CoE recognizes confirmation with episcopally-consecrated chrism even when administered by a presbyter ...
Does it? Can you quote an authority for that?

Although it recognises it in other denominations when people are being received, CofE confirmations require a presiding Bishop:

https://www.churchofengland.org/our-faith/confirmation/what-is-confirmation.aspx

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

Thanks, I knew the link had been floated around this board before but the CofE's website is a bit labyrinthine to me.

Round these parts, the question has been further complicated by full communion with the Lutherans, who routinely confirm presbyterally. Any Lutheran who for whatever reason wished to go through the redundant procedure of being received as an Anglican would not have it repeated, even though chrism is not commonly used AFAIK.

[ 21. July 2014, 16:00: Message edited by: LQ ]

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

Dear all,

Thank you for your help, although nothing there rings the bell I was hoping for! I am beginning to think that I was barking up the completely wrong tree.

quote:
Originally posted by Signaller:
I was all set to trot out "We trust in you", number 446 in Hymns for Today's Church, but realised just in time that it is the 'modern' version of "We rest in Thee".

The sooner we get rid of that b***** book, the better.

Dude - you really, REALLY need to get rid that book. We used it in a church where I was a member BEFORE I was ordained. And it was awful even then. I can't believe that over 20 years later it is still in use.

(Having said that, I have very fond memories of "We trust in you...". It was included in the last service I attended at that church before I started training for ordination. The lines "We go in faith, our own great weakness feeling" and "We trust in you, and in your name we go." really meant something at that moment. Funnily enough, it was the first time I had come across that hymn, so I couldn't compare "We trust in you" with "We rest in thee".)

Posted by BulldogSacristan (# 11239) on :

It's not that Anglicans believe that Confirmation can't happen presbyterially, it's that as a matter of order, we do not allow our priests to confirm. According to our practice and canons, we reserve Confirmation to bishops.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Can a priest bless a new tabernacle or does that require a bishop?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I would have thought that What was put inside the tabernacle was blessing enough.

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

Of course Leo is being intentionally obtuse. Unsurprising, really.

To actually answer the question posed, one might turn to the (old) Roman Ritual, which stipulates that:

quote:
3. BLESSING OF A TABERNACLE, PYX, CIBORIUM
The blessings of the sacred appurtenances or furnishings (sacra supellex) required in sacred worship--vessels, utensils, vestments, linens, and the like--used to be reserved to cardinals, bishops, pastors, priests especially delegated thereto, and religious superiors. Now, according to the new "Instruction" of September 26, 1964, any priest may confer them. In view of past interpretation of the Congregation of Sacred Rites, this would apply only to blessings in which no special anointing is required.

I would find that helpful in answering the question, BA. I don't know if it gets you where you want to go.

[ 23. July 2014, 17:27: Message edited by: Jon in the Nati ]

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Can a priest bless a new tabernacle or does that require a bishop?

A priest may bless it. The often useful site Sancta Missa has this:

quote:
"The blessings of the sacred appurtenances or furnishings (sacra supellex) required in sacred worship--vessels, utensils, vestments, linens, and the like--used to be reserved to cardinals, bishops, pastors, priests especially delegated thereto, and religious superiors. Now according to the new "Instruction" of September 26, 1964, [text here ] any priest may confer them. In view of past interpretation of the Congregation of Sacred Rites, this would apply only to blessings in which no special anointing is required"

[ETA: X-posted with above]

[ 23. July 2014, 17:29: Message edited by: Vade Mecum ]

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
Of course Leo is being intentionally obtuse. Unsurprising, really.

You're treading a fine line on personal attacks there, Jon.

seasick, Eccles host

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I would have thought that What was put inside the tabernacle was blessing enough.

Surely. But following that logic strictly, we wouldn't consecrate churches or bless chalices.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

My book of blessings is at home and I'm at the office, but my memory is that that's one of the blessings where it refers to the minister as "the bishop, or, in his absence, any priest." So a bishop is preferred, but if you won't have one in time, any old priest will do. I'm pretty sure deacons cannot bless tabernacles. (There's almost nothing a deacon can bless for use in public worship rather than private prayer, except for holy water).

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
Of course Leo is being intentionally obtuse. Unsurprising, really.

To actually answer the question posed, one might turn to the (old) Roman Ritual, which stipulates that:

quote:
3. BLESSING OF A TABERNACLE, PYX, CIBORIUM
The blessings of the sacred appurtenances or furnishings (sacra supellex) required in sacred worship--vessels, utensils, vestments, linens, and the like--used to be reserved to cardinals, bishops, pastors, priests especially delegated thereto, and religious superiors. Now, according to the new "Instruction" of September 26, 1964, any priest may confer them. In view of past interpretation of the Congregation of Sacred Rites, this would apply only to blessings in which no special anointing is required.
I would find that helpful in answering the question, BA. I don't know if it gets you where you want to go.

But that's only relevant if your are an RC. Leo is CofE.

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

Well, Leo didn't ask the question; Beeswax did. I (and Vade Mecum) answered using sources that we found informative on the matter. Hart came in later with other sources.

Surely since Beeswax asked the question, it was something that bore answering; Leo, though, decided to jump in with a glib aside that intentionally missed the point and didn't take the question seriously.

The question was not whether one should need to bless a tabernacle at all; the question was whether, in a world in which a tabernacle must be blessed, a priest may do it on their own without the presence of a bishop.

[ 26. July 2014, 13:35: Message edited by: Jon in the Nati ]

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Presumably Beeswax asked the question from the perspective of the Episcopal church.Suggestions
from RC sources may well be mandatory (or psossibly not)for RCs but are only informative for non-RCs who are surely not obliged and sometimes actively discouraged from following RC norms and practices.

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

Surely, Forthview.

Which is why I cast my response as "informative" and "helpful" and not "dispositive."

Although for me, as a very high church Anglican, the Roman Ritual is close to dispositive regarding subjects on which there is no distinctly Anglican directive on point. It may be less so for Beeswax or others.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
My book of blessings is at home and I'm at the office, but my memory is that that's one of the blessings where it refers to the minister as "the bishop, or, in his absence, any priest." So a bishop is preferred, but if you won't have one in time, any old priest will do. I'm pretty sure deacons cannot bless tabernacles. (There's almost nothing a deacon can bless for use in public worship rather than private prayer, except for holy water).

I finally looked, and I was wrong. Well, except about deacons not being able to do the blessing, that was right. And about priests being able to do it, so I was pretty right. What I was wrong about was the rite expressing any preference that the minister be a bishop. It simply suggests (without quite requiring) that the tabernacle be blessed in the context of Mass and that the celebrant do the blessing.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

In the CofE deacons cannot bless holy water (for baptism, for example), it has to be a priest.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

I thought anyone could baptise? Have I got that wrong*? Or is it a case of not requiring holy water in order to baptise?

*an incident in, I think, Gillian Bradshaw's Kingdom of summer depends on the answer to this!

[edited to remove glottal stop!]

[ 28. July 2014, 08:23: Message edited by: Garasu ]

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Anyone can baptise in an emergency, but a priest is needed to bless the water for a church (and probably hospital) baptism.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

It's normal custom to use blessed water for baptisms but baptism in ordinary water is perfectly valid.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
In the CofE deacons cannot bless holy water (for baptism, for example), it has to be a priest.

Ah yes, this has come up before. CofE deacons are far more restricted in what blessings they can give than their RC counterparts.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

Yes, I've been to a summer baptism where the celebrant of the Mass (a visiting supply priest) blessed the water and the curate (a transitional deacon) administered baptism.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
I thought anyone could baptise?

As long as the baptizer baptizes with the intention of doing what the Church does. Have I got that right?

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
I thought anyone could baptise?
As long as the baptizer baptizes with the intention of doing what the Church does. Have I got that right?

An ancient nun of my acquaintance working in a Rwandan hospital had often baptized, no cleric being available, and regularly wrote out baptismal certificates. I ran into her in the context of a rather irregular situation where a Québécois couple were sufficiently enraged with their pastor that they would not have their daughter baptized in the parish church, so the ancient nun, a great-aunt of the woman, attended to it, and wrote out a statement afterward. I mentioned this to a canonist I met and, after a ritual explosion of gaskets, he admitted that he knew of similar cases and, as long as the intention was clear, so was the baptism. He told me that instances of this sort are known to happen after scandals in a parish involving the clergy.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

The baptism is clearly valid, but you're creating a paperwork nightmare for the one baptised whenever they want to do anything in the Church. The same applies to priests (generally working in extra-parochial ministries) who do home baptisms without bothering to inform the family's parish what's going on.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

Isn't that conflating a couple of issues, though? Baptism acts as a membership rite for many churches but also acts as a... not sure how to describe this... "ontological change" [Hot and Hormonal]

? From the membership point of view, no doubt it's helpful to have the paperwork in place and the right person doing the right things. From the point of view of the person trying to save someone from the devil and all his works, splashing them with ditch water is a pretty good start...

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

In the case of emergency baptism (in the CofE at least) if the child survives, it's recommended that s/he is taken to church for a service of thanksgiving and to be formally welcomed into the church family.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

And- can't remember, it's years since I read the old ASB rite for emergency baptism- aren't you supposed in any case to notify the child's parish priest, or perhaps the priest of the parish where the baptism takes place, afterwards?

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I was baptised in a maternity hospital (by an RC midwife) and then later taken to church for the signing with the cross, etc.

Can't remember either occasion but I'm told I cried at neither.

I have a baptism certificate from the church.

Posted by LostinChelsea (# 5305) on :

Here are the relevant rubrics from the Episcopal Church's BCP 1979:

The person who administers emergency Baptism should inform the priest of the appropriate parish, so that the fact can be properly registered.
If the baptized person recovers, the Baptism should be recognized at a public celebration of the Sacrament with a bishop or priest presiding, and the person baptized under emergency conditions, together with the sponsors or godparents, taking part in everything except the administration of the water.

As a further note in this direction, I've always understood that Baptism is placed in the BCP between the Daily Office and Holy Eucharist rather than with the pastoral rites because (perhaps among other reasons) it is expected that it is to take place as part of the community's regular worship.

Posted by Choirboi (# 9222) on :

Turning to/from the congregation

Does anyone know of any resource that instructs the priest, when turning for the salutions, to turn by the missal side rather than by the Epistle side?

My understanding has always been that the priest always turns toward the congregation and back to the altar by the epistle side, with the one exception of the orate fratres, when, instead of turning back to the altar by the Epistle side, he completes the circle, returning by the Gospel side. However, I have in one church seen the priests turn by whatever side the Missal is on at the time: i.e., by the Epistle side before the opening collect, and by the Gospel side before the Gospel. I've always thought this strange, and I wonder if anyone else has seen this in person and/or has a citation for this practice.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

You always turn by the shortest way. When you're at the Epistle horn, that's to your left; in the center or at the Gospel horn, that's to your right. You turn back to the altar in the reverse direction, as if there were a rubber band attached to your navel pulling you back toward the altar (excepting at the Orate fratres, where you indeed make a complete circle).

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
You turn back to the altar in the reverse direction, as if there were a rubber band attached to your navel pulling you back toward the altar (excepting at the Orate fratres, where you indeed make a complete circle).

--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."

--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM

...nor a puppet on a string (or elastic band). [Razz]

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

Also, after the blessing, the priest turns by his right and proceeds to the gospel horn for the last gospel.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

In the thread in Purgatory on segregated seating, leo recalled that his parish church had segregated seating for men and women well into the last half century, and that this was an Anglo-Catholic custom.

I'm suppressing my old 'If they didn't do it at Mary Mags or at the Church of the Advent, it wasn't an Anglo-Catholic custom' reflex to ask:

Has anybody else heard of men and women being required or even expected to sit separately in any CofE parish church? Is this Anglo-Catholic custom known outside of leo's former parish? Can anyone give a source for its origin?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

All Saints Margaret Street, I understand, separated men and women in the front of the nave for many years, until at least the 1950s. That's what I read somewhere anyway. The back rows (like in the cinema!) were reserved for mixed bathing.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Strict segregation here in the early days of the colony for convicts of course. I've never heard of it for free settlers though.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
All Saints Margaret Street, I understand, separated men and women in the front of the nave for many years, until at least the 1950s. That's what I read somewhere anyway. The back rows (like in the cinema!) were reserved for mixed bathing.

When I was a youngster, I went to All Saints Margaret Street for their patronal festival on Thursday 1st November 1962 for High Mass at 11.00 am (in the day-time in those days). Yes, I remember that men and women were separated in the nave - women on the left and men on the right. Segregation in this way, must have been abolished soon after that, as I do not recall meeting that situation on any subsequent visit to that church.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

St Salvators Chapel in the University of St Andrews (I know not Anglican) had segregated seating until fairly recently, probably into the later half of the twentieth century. I made the mistake at a female graduate reunion of sitting the people attending on the wrong side (in what was then the graduate seats in front of the seats reserved for the academic procession).

Jengie

[ 02. August 2014, 11:51: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]

Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :

And you weren't beaten to within an inch of your life with a haggis for doing something so obviously hurtful to Baby Jesus that he cried?

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

I have no idea of its origin, but the Methodist country chapels (and to some extent town churches) were still maintaining remnants of segregated seating into the 1950s. (One of the country chapels in our 'charge' even had separate doors for men and women. Men would generally sit on the right side, women on the left, particularly those of my grand-parents age and older. (As I recall, spouses sat together.) I never asked why -- wish now that I had!

Since this was before the Methodists started merging with other traditions, I would guess that it probably dated back to Wesley himself (?)

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

What might one expect to happen in a middle to high CofE Church when using a new altar in a refurbished chapel for the first time?

Carys

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
What might one expect to happen in a middle to high CofE Church when using a new altar in a refurbished chapel for the first time?

Carys

The choir burst into flames?
(One can but hope...)

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

BIG service. Visiting clergy, good music, much incense and holy water.

Afterwards expect reasonable nibbles and champagne.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

Champagne?? Sherry, surely.... [Biased]

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
BIG service. Visiting clergy, good music, much incense and holy water.

Afterwards expect reasonable nibbles and champagne.

All the above, but in the RCC I would expect the bishop, or if not possible, his representative, to preside and anoint the altar with chrism. See p. 15 et ff.

Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
All the above, but in the RCC I would expect the bishop, or if not possible, his representative, to preside and anoint the altar with chrism. See p. 15 et ff.

Hart, did anyone proof read that publication before it went out? I mean, with all due irreverent humour, wondering if there is a new liturgical practice that I haven't heard of when I read:

brazier for burning incense or aromatic spices; or grains of incense and small candles to bum on the altar;

[Yipee]

[ 05. August 2014, 22:34: Message edited by: Emendator Liturgia ]

Posted by fabula rasa (# 11436) on :

*bump!*
(cos I couldn't find it....)

Posted by Kayarecee (# 17289) on :

What's the theological rationale for having the congregation recite the Collect/Prayer of the Day in unison?

For that matter, what's the rationale for having only the celebrant/Presiding Minister pray it?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

There is no rationale for everyone saying the collect other than somebody thought it would be 'a nice/moving thing' to do.

There is every reason for the presider/celebrant to say it alone since it is his/her prayer once the community has 'collected'. In times of persecution, people drifted in small groups to the gathering to avoid suspicion and arrest. The bishop marked the end of informal singing and started the liturgy proper when everyone had arrived/'collected'.

The best way to discourage a congregation joining in is the SING the collects, preferably with inflections.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Quite so - and, in any case, the Collect (in the C of E, at any rate) is often simply not written or printed in a way easily read by all.

A Fond Thing Vainly Invented, saying the Collect all together, and calculated to Make The Baby Jesus Cry.

Ian J.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kayarecee:
What's the theological rationale for having the congregation recite the Collect/Prayer of the Day in unison?

For that matter, what's the rationale for having only the celebrant/Presiding Minister pray it?

I imagine some idiot made the leap from collect to collective, and went from there.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

There is every reason for the presider/celebrant to say it alone since it is his/her prayer once the community has 'collected'.

No, it's the prayer that collects our diverse prayers into one. The Mass only starts "once the people have gathered."

I think the main reason it is appointed for the presider alone is practicality. There's nothing exclusively priestly about the prayers themselves, as the same prayers are often used as closing prayers in the Liturgy of the Hours. It's the position in the Mass that calls for the presider to collect our prayers together.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
There's nothing exclusively priestly about the prayers themselves, as the same prayers are often used as closing prayers in the Liturgy of the Hours.

But it is reserved, still, for the officiant alone - not to be said (indeed sung) by all.

[ 13. October 2014, 17:22: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by croinua (# 18252) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
There's nothing exclusively priestly about the prayers themselves, as the same prayers are often used as closing prayers in the Liturgy of the Hours.
But it is reserved, still, for the officiant alone - not to be said (indeed sung) by all.

It's almost standard practice in Ireland for the closing prayers to be recited by the full assembly when praying the LOTH.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

I have 22 bishops visiting my wee pad this weekend. What's that collective noun again?

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

A Mystery Worship of bishops, I hope.

Posted by Uncle Pete (# 10422) on :

An Argument of Bishops, attended singly and severally by a Flock of Deans.

YMMV

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

A bash of bishops?????

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

[Smile]

You keep your personal habits to yourself, Gee D.

I once had to convene a visit of 17 Archdeacons to the Welsh Assembly. Did rather make me regret the decline of gaiters- that would have been a sight to see. Don't know the collective noun, though: A quibble of Archdeacons? A reprimand of Archdeacons?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Either of those is not bad, but it is a collation of archdeacons. If they are of the prissy type, its "a dainty cold collation".

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

According to this it's a bench of bishops or possibly (I've never heard this one) a psalter of bishops.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Either of those is not bad, but it is a collation of archdeacons. If they are of the prissy type, its "a dainty cold collation".

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

collective noun for bishops?

Surely either a dither or a procrastinate [Biased]

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

A Proscrastination of Bishops, I would think.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Given their stance on one dead horse issue, I'd call with 'a bigot of bishops'.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

Are these merry witticisms really 'liturgical questions'? *looking suspiciously...*

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

You may consider me pre-rebuked, but the denizens of Ecclesiantics seem to be exactly those who can help me in my puzzlement.

My Scottish and English recipe books state clearly that the jam in High Church Pudding may be "any, except blackcurrant". An Australian recipe for the dish prescribes "blackcurrant".

Can anglicans not even agree on how to prepare a simple suet pudding?

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
You may consider me pre-rebuked, but the denizens of Ecclesiantics seem to be exactly those who can help me in my puzzlement.

My Scottish and English recipe books state clearly that the jam in High Church Pudding may be "any, except blackcurrant". An Australian recipe for the dish prescribes "blackcurrant".

Can anglicans not even agree on how to prepare a simple suet pudding?

Pah! I blame it on Sydney Anglicans.

(But then I blame all things on Sydney Anglicans...)

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

To return strictly to the subject of archdeacons - and particularly archdeaconesses, as we still have the vocational diaconate for women deacons here. A group of retired archdeaconesses is correctly referred to as a décolletage. All, I hope, within hostly bounds.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
You may consider me pre-rebuked, but the denizens of Ecclesiantics seem to be exactly those who can help me in my puzzlement.

My Scottish and English recipe books state clearly that the jam in High Church Pudding may be "any, except blackcurrant". An Australian recipe for the dish prescribes "blackcurrant".

Can anglicans not even agree on how to prepare a simple suet pudding?
Pah! I blame it on Sydney Anglicans.

(But then I blame all things on Sydney Anglicans...)

I was going to say that! Then it occurred to me that High Church Pudding, whatever the jam, might be abhorrent to them. Or perhaps they see some symbolism in eating it up.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I am turning up the sleeves on what is alleged to be a Franciscan friar's robe. The usual dark brown hooded thing -- but it is made out of stretchy polyester double knit! Argh. St. Francis would never wear such a thing, this is more of an Arnold Palmer kind of fabric. I will say that it probably wears like iron, washes well, and never wrinkles or stains. So my question: do Franciscans really wear polyester these days? (And if so, how can the Pope allow this?)

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

It wouldn't be up to the pope.

Decisions on things to do with dress for religious fall under the remit of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life - known in short as the Congregation for the Religious.

Posted by sonata3 (# 13653) on :

All Souls' questions: what liturgical color are parishes using (I believe Roman Catholics have the option of white, black, or violet)? Is the Gloria sung (I believe GIRM only mentions Sundays in Advent or Lent as Sundays where the Gloria is omitted)? Are there high Anglicans who are celebrating All Souls', instead of All Saints' Sunday? Is it conceivable that a parish would use black -- and sing the Gloria?

Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on :

For a Sunday morning service in Trinity season, even on All Souls Day, I would be surprised if any Anglican/RC church omits the Gloria during Mass.

As you probably know, during Sunday morning worship, the Sunday in Trinity always takes precedence over All Souls. (Now I think All Saints would take precedence.)

I suspect if a church wants to focus more on All Souls, they would do that during an Evening Prayer instead.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

We (OF RCs) are celebrating All Souls' Day next Sunday. The Gloria is indeed omitted. Our diocesan liturgy office sent us an email informing us of that. The color choices are indeed white, violet or black. I'm going to ask my pastor what he wants me to wear (or, as my Mass is later than his, just notice what he wears and do the same). At our place, as it's still a Green season, the sanctuary furnishings will stay green regardless.

There are many options for the readings, but our ordo suggests Wis 3:1-9, Ps 23, Rom 5:5-11, Jn 6:37-40.

Posted by Planeta Plicata (# 17543) on :

EF RC here, so no Gloria, black vestments, absolution with a catafalque, unbleached beeswax candles, etc. Since November 2 is a Sunday, it's transferred to November 3 this year – and I think some years it can even be pushed out to November 4 where impeded on the Monday.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

We have our All Souls Requiem as the Vigil Mass on the Saturday this year: since we sing the setting by Faure there is no Gloria.

Black vestments, unbleached candles.

We're CofE.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
I suspect if a church wants to focus more on All Souls, they would do that during an Evening Prayer instead.

All Souls is best kept by a requiem mass.

I can appreciate that Evening Prayer or some other Word Service might be appropriate for those churches who invite relatives of those whose funerals have occurred during the preceding year.

Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :

We keep our Patronal Festival (of All Saints') in the morning, with our All Souls' Requiem in the afternoon. The latter is our second best attended service of the year, after the Midnight Mass of Christmas. We invite all those whose funerals have been conducted by our clergy during the year, and those who have asked to join the growing list invited every year.

<Grr... the vicar insists on keeping it in white. I know it's a valid choice but ... [Eek!]

Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
We invite all those whose funerals have been conducted by our clergy during the year

We invite the families of all those whose funerals have been conducted by our clergy during the year.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:

quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
We invite all those whose funerals have been conducted by our clergy during the year

We invite the families of all those whose funerals have been conducted by our clergy during the year.

Presumably the former invitation is a Hallowe'en event [Snigger]

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

Orange and black, silly. [Razz]

Just like in the month of December it's red and green. [Razz]

It would look like a department store, actually.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
We have our All Souls Requiem as the Vigil Mass on the Saturday this year: since we sing the setting by Faure there is no Gloria.

Black vestments, unbleached candles.

We're CofE.

At one time an Anglican church in Sydney, used to hold a Goth Mass on All Souls day, church lit only by candles, black clothes, all very atmospheric and used to attract the local Goth community who didn't usually darken the doorstep of churches.

Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
... the local Goth community who didn't usually darken the doorstep ...

They just made the interior look a bit darker ...

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

No Gloria, no Creed. Strictly speaking, All Souls shouldn't be commemorated on a Sunday, so we are celebrating Trinity XX on Nov 2 and All Souls on Nov 3 (the Victoria Requiem will be the ordinary & propers).

In black, of course!

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

All Souls on Saturday at our regular 930am Mass, probably using black vestments.

All Saints on Sunday at the 1030am Mass, probably using white + red vestments (that is to say, mainly white, but with red orphreys etc.).

We had our biennial Memorial Service yesterday afternoon, arranged in conjunction with local funeral directors (they invite the families of their....er.... clients ....from the past two years). Full church. Father wore cassock, cotta, and purple stole - his usual vesture for funerals.

Ian J.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
collective noun for bishops?

Surely either a dither or a procrastinate

Or a 'Balderdash of Bishops'?

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

An episcopy of bishops.

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sonata3:
All Souls' questions: what liturgical color are parishes using (I believe Roman Catholics have the option of white, black, or violet)? Is the Gloria sung (I believe GIRM only mentions Sundays in Advent or Lent as Sundays where the Gloria is omitted)? Are there high Anglicans who are celebrating All Souls', instead of All Saints' Sunday? Is it conceivable that a parish would use black -- and sing the Gloria?

In Canada, Anglo-Catholic parishes will not celebrate All Souls on a Sunday unless it is at a secondary service in the evening.

At our place, Saturday morning is the high mass for All Saints, Sunday is in the Octave, and Monday is All Souls, with the requiem (in black) in the evening. In Toronto, at St Thomas's, Huron Street, the latter takes the place of 7pm Evensong on Sunday, but they are fairly lazy about holy days falling on Saturday or Monday. St Mary Mag will do it on Monday. Others will do it at various times: according to our prayer book, the propers for the departed may be used at any time during the Octave of All Saints (St Matthias, Bellwoods, used to do it on the Wednesday, but I don't know what they've been up to in the absence of a full-time rector). In Montréal, the cathedral celebrated All Souls last year on Sunday the 3, but will keep it this year on Monday.

Apparently the ordinariate follows the modern Roman Rite in this respect, and I was surprised to see on Facebook a local sodality advertising a Solemn Requiem in the morning and Solemn Evensong & Benediction (!) in the afternoon. They certainly would not have done so in their days as an continuing Anglican cathedral adhering to the BCP calendar, when I visited them.

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

Our A-C TEC parish will do a 'compromise' rite (very anglican, Ya Know). (On Sunday, for a change)
To wit:

violet vestments (our blacks are sort of tacky);
incense at all the wrong places (Fr is afraid the acolytes would get confused!)
I waved Fortescue around, but it didn't work. He understood what I was saying, but wanted to be 'pastoral'.
BUT we're singing complete Fauré Requiem with organ and strings, and it should sound splendid.
PS: Rector will do silent Gregorian canon during Sanctus & Pie Jesu. (He's somewhat of a creature of contradictions, but I love him to pieces.)
Also a couple of Mozart church sonatas for opening and closing voluntaries. Yea! A good time should be had by all.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
We have our All Souls Requiem as the Vigil Mass on the Saturday this year: since we sing the setting by Faure there is no Gloria.

Black vestments, unbleached candles.

We're CofE.

This is the norm for A-C churches in Northampton too, will be in London this weekend so not sure what the churches around here do.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
We have our All Souls Requiem as the Vigil Mass on the Saturday this year: since we sing the setting by Faure there is no Gloria.

It doesn't matter whose setting you're using, the Gloria shouldn't be sung at a Requiem Mass.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

For the distant future when there are many mitred Catholic lesbians: a dicastery of bishops.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

It's been more than twenty-four hours and I still don't get it.

Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :

I'm hazarding a guess - not as hazardous as the ill-conceived comment/joke - that it is meant to be sounded as 'dyke-castary'??

Posted by sonata3 (# 13653) on :

To return to the All Souls' topic: My wife's Catholic parish (a cathedral) at their Saturday vigil Mass celebrated Confirmation in the context of the Commemoration of All Soul's; white vestments. I'll be attending another parish in the area tomorrow morning.

Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
... since we sing the setting by Faure there is no Gloria.
It doesn't matter whose setting you're using, the Gloria shouldn't be sung at a Requiem Mass.

We did the Fauré yesterday and got round the Gloria problem by singing the In Paradisum at the end, where the Gloria would have been.

Posted by Joan Rasch (# 49) on :

Not exactly a question, but those interested in liturgical customs, and are free now [Mon Nov 3 11:55 am EST in US] can watch here to see a video feed of the funeral of Boston Mayor Thomas Menino. [Roman Catholic at an ordinary neighborhood parish]. So far at least, blessedly free of commentary; it's just a feed from the church.

cheers from Boston - Joan

Posted by Joan Rasch (# 49) on :

PS to above at 12:15: this is a live feed, and the procession through the city seems to be running late...

Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :

I think this counts as a liturgical question:

I've noticed that street preachers tend to hold a microphone in one hand and a bible in the other. The bible is always closed, and they don't seem to have much intention of opening it and quoting passages (they can't because they'd have to put down the microphone).

So my question is: What is the logic behind the belief (apparently prevalent among churches who think that ranting at people on the street is a good idea) that holding a bible is an important thing to do while preaching, even if you're not going to open it?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

No idea, but perhaps it's the unconscious irruption of symbolism into circles that don't usually go in for it.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

We just read Judges 4:1-7 on Sunday.

In my humble feminist opinion we could have happily continued till the end of the Chapter and read of the nice bed-time glass of milk followed by the tent peg hammered right through a sleeping man's skull...

Does anyone know if this passage is included in any of the Main Lectionaries? If so, when?

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

But surely Jael is an example of a Strong Woman, who doesn't conform to wimpy stereotypes imposed by patriarchal oppression?

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

Strong, brave, tricky and perhaps even a friend (or more?) of Deborah...

Just wondered if the rest of the story figured in any Lectionaries.

Posted by Kayarecee (# 17289) on :

In the US, Jael is in the Episcopal Church's lectionary for the Daily Office (and so also in resources for daily prayer based off of it, like the Presbyterian Book of Common Worship: Daily Prayer, and the Lutheran Book of Worship), for Thursday of Proper 12 (Week of the Sunday closest to July 27) in Year 2. LBW, which uses the same readings but assigns them based on weeks after Pentecost the reading for Thursday of the week of 12 Pentecost, Year 2.

[ 17. November 2014, 21:09: Message edited by: Kayarecee ]

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

Thanks - not long to wait, then!

Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
We just read Judges 4:1-7 on Sunday.

Does anyone know if this passage is included in any of the Main Lectionaries? If so, when?

Fortunately not: the Anglican Lectionary here in Australia(mostly RCL) had for the Old Testament reading Proverbs 31.10-31.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
... because we haven't had a thread for posting general enquiries about liturgy in a while!

... and also because I am going to be passing through London shortly and was planning to visit S. Cyprian Clarence Gate. Their website doesn't appear to have been updated in some time, so was wondering if anybody knows if their Sunday Mass is still at 10.30?

Much obliged!

Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on :

I hope this question / request for advice fits into this section but if not, please could I be given a suggestion where it goes.

Its about cleaning church vestments. I mean chasubles, older ones. We have some that will go in a washing machine, no probs.

But we have some a bit more delicate. Do you take them to the dry cleaners?

I've noticed some charity shops have a steamer kind of thing that they seem to run over clothes. Does that clean, is it a good thing, whats it called, can it be hired?

Posted by Laud-able (# 9896) on :

As to dry-cleaning, much depends on the age of the vestment, the type of fabric, and whether there is any hand-embroidery.

Machine-sewn damask and brocade, provided that they are in sound condition, will respond well to careful dry cleaning.

Anything hand-embroidered presents more of a risk: much goldwork is couched to the underlying fabric with a series of transverse threads that in time will weaken and rot, and you could find that dry cleaning such a vestment would leave you with a jumble of detached gold.

The steaming devices to which you refer do not clean at all, but they are very useful for removing creases from fabrics that cannot or should not be subjected to ironing. A woollen garment can be freed from creases without undergoing a shine-producing encounter with a domestic iron, and hotels, for instance, can steam out curtains, drapes, and pleated table-skirts in situ.

Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on :

Thank you for those thoughts Laud-able.

One or two of the items we send for dry cleaning have candle marks. Is that a problem with the dry cleaning process?

Posted by Laud-able (# 9896) on :

Dry cleaning will remove all candle wax.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Err, no: IME dry-cleaning frequently leaves wax or a mark.

The best way to remove candle wax is with blotting paper and a warm iron, having already lifted off as much of the wax as possible (having put soiled item in a 'fridge for a while before).

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

What l'Organist said.

We've recently had to send a dalmatic to the dry cleaners (the Deacon accidentally spilled some of The Most Precious Blood onto it), and apparently the firm are being most careful about what chemicals they are to use, in case of damage.........

Ian J.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

Surely it should be reverently consumed?

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Well, we did think of just burning it, but it is quite new...... [Razz]

Good point, though..... [Help]

Ian J.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
What l'Organist said.

We've recently had to send a dalmatic to the dry cleaners (the Deacon accidentally spilled some of The Most Precious Blood onto it), and apparently the firm are being most careful about what chemicals they are to use, in case of damage.........

Ian J.

Damage to the vestment, of course.

What about damage to the MPB? The chemicals are interacting with the remnants of wine in a way clearly not contemplated by those who developed the theology and rules you have in mind.

Of course, you can say as an AC priest of my acquaintence does, that "Jesus got himself into it -- He can get himself out of it" (in connexion with the spillage of a quantity of consecrated wine onto a very large patterned carpet). But I don't suppose that bit of theology particulalry appeals...

John

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

The wine will have evaporated and so is no longer a species conveying the real presence.

Re- the idea that if god is clever enough.... Christ assumed our human nature for all eternity - so the same applies t the real presence.

Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :

This isn't a liturgical observation as such, but I can't think of where else to put it - it's not enough of a rant to go downstairs, but I feel I need to vent slightly ...

I act as secretary for the local Cemetery Committee, whose meetings are held in turn at the eight churches who use the two Anglican cemeteries in the city, and this evening we met at a church where the vicar is, shall we say, a member of the Nice Brigade™. When we concluded the meeting with the Grace, she said, "At St. Saccharine's* we hold hands and look at each other when we say the Grace".

I did, because it would have been rude not to, but boy, was I ever out of my comfort zone ... [Eek!]

**shudder**

Thank you - that's got that off my chest. [Big Grin]

* name changed to protect the terminally sugary.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

"At St Bastard's, when someone makes a suggestion like that we puke all over them..."

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
What l'Organist said.

We've recently had to send a dalmatic to the dry cleaners (the Deacon accidentally spilled some of The Most Precious Blood onto it), and apparently the firm are being most careful about what chemicals they are to use, in case of damage.........

Ian J.
Damage to the vestment, of course.

What about damage to the MPB? The chemicals are interacting with the remnants of wine in a way clearly not contemplated by those who developed the theology and rules you have in mind.

Of course, you can say as an AC priest of my acquaintence does, that "Jesus got himself into it -- He can get himself out of it" (in connexion with the spillage of a quantity of consecrated wine onto a very large patterned carpet). But I don't suppose that bit of theology particulalry appeals...

John

It's not really about damage to the MBS per se, though, is it? It's about damage (/damnation/more time on the fearful mountain &c) to us if we disrespect, destroy, or desecrate the Sanctissimum or allow it to be so desecrated. The penance Holy church used to prescribe for such actions was very lengthy...

So send to the dry cleaners if you must, but before anything make an act of reparation to the Blessed Sacrament, surely? That would also be a wonderful teaching moment for the congregation were it public.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
When we concluded the meeting with the Grace, she said, "At St. Saccharine's* we hold hands and look at each other when we say the Grace".

I did, because it would have been rude not to, but boy, was I ever out of my comfort zone ...

**shudder**
* name changed to protect the terminally sugary.

I hate that - when they do the grace, I shut my eyes throughout and make the sign of the cross.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

On dry cleaners: I've always found it pays to look for a specialist, independent cleaner - ones that advertise that they clean wedding outfits are usually very good with vestments.

On the Most Precious Blood: leo's right, once the substance has "lost the nature of wine" you can do pretty much what you like. The old Roman rules about that sort of thing aren't nearly as draconian as some folklore would have it. (De defectibus - "On defects in the Mass" - can make very entertaining reading.)

On joining hands to say the grace: try and arrange for a clergyperson to take your hand. Then scream, "It burns! It buuuuuurns!" You'll generally find the practice is discontinued thereafter.

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

Hand holding I can take or leave. Some parts of my cultural ancestry go in for that sort of thing and some don't.

BUT what really got me was that the people were supposed to look at each other while saying grace (to God???)

For that, not the hand-holding, I say. [Projectile]

Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :

It would have looked rude to avoid the hand-holding and cross myself (my usual practice during the Grace), but I avoided the eye-contact by looking at my feet in a generally embarrassed fashion.

I can thank the Almighty that I'm not subjected to such things very often. [Smile]

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
On joining hands to say the grace: try and arrange for a clergyperson to take your hand. Then scream, "It burns! It buuuuuurns!" You'll generally find the practice is discontinued thereafter.

Posted by Offeiriad (# 14031) on :

I'm sure that has been asked many times before but please could somebody give me date and place of the Authentic First Sighting of the Advent Ring or Wreath?

It was described as an 'ancient Advent custom' by our former priest, to which I muttered 'not nearly as ancient as him'. [Snigger]

(It's GREAT being an Aspie liturgist - so much opportunity for giving offence.....) [Devil]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Being Advent Sunday, ours appeared yesterday and a child lit the first candle. There was a prayer about the patriarchs.

It's not that ancient. I'm fairly sure it's appeared within my lifetime. It's also fairly clear that the candles came first and the various explanations of what they might signify were added later. Churches abhor a symbol without something for it to symbolise.

[ 01. December 2014, 13:58: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It's not that ancient. I'm fairly sure it's appeared within my lifetime.

Growing up Catholic, I can't remember ever seeing an Advent wreath in church until very recently. The Catholic Encyclopedia entry for Advent makes no mention of it.

Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :

Wikipedia has this to say about it, suggesting it evolved from a mid-winter/cycle-of-life thing (rather like Christmas in midwinter evolving from Yuletide, I suppose).

I suspect there will be several people along shortly to dispute Wiki's "Catholic"/"Protestant" distinctions ... [Biased]

Posted by Offeiriad (# 14031) on :

I can't remember encountering it in the UK before the 1980s myself. A Lutheran cross-over into the US Episcopal Church?

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

The Advent wreath has been around,like the Christmas tree,for many generations in Austria and Germany.The candles are almost always red just occasionally white,but I have never seen them,as is common in UK ,in the liturgical colours of the season of Advent.
Most homes have one,as well as offices,schools and large ones in churches.

In RC churches in Scotland they started to appear in the late 70s (By contrast it was only much later that Christmas trees appeared in RC churches in Scotland .) Advent wreaths are now fairly common in Presbyterian churches here which would not use candles at other times.They are still quite uncommon in private houses though many people buy a wreath and hang it on its side on the door.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It's not that ancient. I'm fairly sure it's appeared within my lifetime.
Growing up Catholic, I can't remember ever seeing an Advent wreath in church until very recently. The Catholic Encyclopedia entry for Advent makes no mention of it.

The Book of Blessings has a rite for blessing it during Mass. This occurs after the intercessions, even though a lot of churches do it as part of the opening rites. I imagine what happened is that most people added without realizing that we actually had a rite for that, so made one up themselves. (Most Catholic clergy don't actually spend their spare moments flicking through the index of De Benedictionibus).

I decided to stick with what people are familiar with varied slightly to not technically break any rubric. I and my candle bearers processed to the wreath rather than our usual places at the normal Mass starting time. I then blessed and lit the wreath, and then kiss the altar, walked to my chair, made the sign of the cross and began Mass. So, the blessing was technically not part of the Mass, even though it would have the feel of being part of the opening rites.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

the British children's TV show Blue Peter used to make their own Advent wreath over 40 years ago - a particularly lethal looking device made from wire coat hangers and tinsel - but I don't remember seeing on in church before the 80s

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Three purple and one pink candle seems to be the general UK tradition at least in Anglicanism (all varieties) as well as the RCC. I'm sure it's entirely due to the availability of same in convenient packs from ecclesiastical suppliers. However, those churches unused to Gaudete Sunday and rose vestments don't seem very clear about the significance of the pink candle.

Posted by Offeiriad (# 14031) on :

You're right about the rose candle, Angloid: I have heard some bizarre explanations of this!

The earliest version of a paraliturgy for candle lighting that I encountered featured a set of verses sung to the 'Holly and the Ivy' tune, and included a reference to the 'berry bright red candles and the white and shining king'.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Its a borrowing from pre-Christian Germanic tradition.

Why so certain?

Well, in Scandinavia they still have their evergreen wreath - but there it is decorated with plain white candles and is worn as a crown by a young female because its morphed into a celebration for St Lucia (Lucy).

Our Norwegian au pairs used to do this and there was great rivalry between my sisters over who was to be St Lucy; we all dressed in white and St Lucy not only got the flaming crown but also a red sash around her middle.

The safety elf would love it, of course, traipsing up and down stairs wearing an anklelength robe (alb) with a covered wire crown with naked flame candles on it [Eek!]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I'm not at all convinced that anything in modern Europe is a genuine tradition that has survived right through from a pre-Christian past. It would have to have survived first Christianisation under the medieval Catholic Church which cleared out most of it, and then the Reformation which cleared out the rest.

There's a certain sort of folklorist that wants to believe this. I suspect it's partly a desire to find more mystery than there actually is, and partly a sort of folkloric Dawkinsism.

John Barleycorn is turned into some ancient message about death and rebirth, when it's obviously a song about beer, and give the impression of dating from about 1600. A lot of nonsense is talked about corn dollies, which I suspect largely date from the same sort of period or later, probably the C18.

It's natural and unsurprising that in the dark time of the year, people should like to light candles and do interesting things with them to cheer themselves up, particularly in the context of a religion that speaks of the Light of the World. One doesn't need to look any further to find the obvious source of familiar symbolism.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Three purple and one pink candle seems to be the general UK tradition at least in Anglicanism (all varieties) as well as the RCC. I'm sure it's entirely due to the availability of same in convenient packs from ecclesiastical suppliers. However, those churches unused to Gaudete Sunday and rose vestments don't seem very clear about the significance of the pink candle.

IME, using red candles is more common in the CoE - though maybe I know mostly very low churches?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

3 purple, 1 pink and 1 white in the centre for us.

We don't run to rose vestments for Gaudete Sunday. By the time you have stoles, copes, and cinctures, then a frontal and matching paraments, you're looking at a decent sum of money - too much to justify.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
the British children's TV show Blue Peter used to make their own Advent wreath over 40 years ago - a particularly lethal looking device made from wire coat hangers and tinsel - but I don't remember seeing on in church before the 80s

I was going to say that I was pretty sure I remember Valerie Singleton making one, but I thought the candles were all white.

[ 02. December 2014, 02:49: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

4 red, 1 white candle usually here in the church. I can only remember seeing the purple and pink combinations in people's homes (and I tend to head to high churches for preference)

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

We use three purple, one rose and one white. I personally deplore the modern CoE fad of making everything liturgically coloured, but I fear I am fighting a losing battle on that one.

Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :

Wikipedia reports a debate on whether it is a genuine pre-Christian custom, whether it was invented in the 16th Century or whether it dates from 1839.

It could be that more than one opinion is correct, depending on whether you think there's a significant difference between the Scandinavian St Lucia celebration and an advent wreath.

The reference in Wikipedia for the 'it's really ancient' theory doesn't itself have references.

Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm not at all convinced that anything in modern Europe is a genuine tradition that has survived right through from a pre-Christian past. It would have to have survived first Christianisation under the medieval Catholic Church which cleared out most of it, and then the Reformation which cleared out the rest.

When you look at these things, the evidence for them being pre-christian usually has major flaws, but there remain some odd elements to the celebration that make me often suspect there may be at least grain of truth to the stories of pagan origins.

I spent a bit of time trying to get my head round Halloween. There are (apparently; I haven't tracked down exact references) Irish sources from about the 10th century describing the 'pre-christian Samhain celebration', which involved a lot of stuff involving apples and fire. This celebration certainly happened into Medieval times (and more recently in some places) even if it didn't have a pagan origin. Since the reformation, the protestants invented all the evil spirits stuff as negative propaganda to try and get rid of Halloween, and 2 very interesting things happened. One is that the only thing left on Halloween is the negative propaganda. The other is that the old celebration re-invented itself as in indisputably protestant celebration - as guy fawkes night (which still has the apple and fire obsession).

So we can be fairly certain that the apples on Guy Fawkes night are a protestant continuation of the medieval all-saints day celebration. We can't be certain it really dates to a pagan festival, but the constant theme of apples and fire is a slightly strange detail so we can't discount the idea that there is a shadow of a pagan celebration there.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

Ours were technically "Ikea red" but they look kind of "bordeau gunky" to me

Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on :

Looking ahead...

We are looking for a traditional language Candlemas liturgy which hasnt Eucharist in Evening. Choir may sing

Anyone able to point me to one or know of how itsdone?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Since a major feature of the Candlemas liturgy is the Nunc Dimittis, it would seem an easy matter to incorporate the traditional procession etc into Evensong. See Common Worship: Times and Seasons pages 203/4. Some of the prayers are in 'you' form but if people have a problem with that it should be easy enough to tudorfy the language.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Can't seem to open that link as my machine is playing up, but could its seasonal features be slotted into a 'proper' (i.e. 1662) Evensong?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I don't see why not. Of course, as soon as you insert any additional matter into a Prayer Book service, it becomes by definition a non-proper one!

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

An American Episcopalian friend has mentioned to me attending a new church where the norm is to receive Communion straight on the tongue (the usual for him is intinction). I have never heard of any Anglican doing this before! How common is this in TEC? My great-aunt (RC) still receives the Eucharist in this way but she's the only one in her church who does so. Another American Episcopalian friend sometimes attends a Latin Mass at an Episcopalian church in LA. How normal are pre-Vatican II RC practices in TEC?

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
An American Episcopalian friend has mentioned to me attending a new church where the norm is to receive Communion straight on the tongue (the usual for him is intinction). I have never heard of any Anglican doing this before!

Not TEC, but a couple of years ago it was the norm in Pusey House for a while (norms obviously change with the students). I received in the hand and was an outlier.

Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I don't see why not. Of course, as soon as you insert any additional matter into a Prayer Book service, it becomes by definition a non-proper one!

Presumably a prayer book evensong with holy communion bolted on could be described as a legitimate variant on a service of the word with holy communion.

Of course, if you're trying to preserve a local tradition of never doing service of the word with holy communion, this could be an unacceptably dangerous precedent.

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
An American Episcopalian friend has mentioned to me attending a new church where the norm is to receive Communion straight on the tongue (the usual for him is intinction). I have never heard of any Anglican doing this before!

Which, intinction or on the tongue? Both are unusual in Anglican churches IME, though the latter less so. (In my previous diocese, self-intinction was verboten for sanitary reasons).

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Another American Episcopalian friend sometimes attends a Latin Mass at an Episcopalian church in LA. How normal are pre-Vatican II RC practices in TEC?

NB the Episcopal Latin Masses in California (SF and LA) are not pre-Vatican II: they use the 1979 Book of Common Prayer. I assume this is what your friend goes to.

[ 04. December 2014, 13:51: Message edited by: Knopwood ]

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
An American Episcopalian friend has mentioned to me attending a new church where the norm is to receive Communion straight on the tongue (the usual for him is intinction). I have never heard of any Anglican doing this before! How common is this in TEC? My great-aunt (RC) still receives the Eucharist in this way but she's the only one in her church who does so. Another American Episcopalian friend sometimes attends a Latin Mass at an Episcopalian church in LA. How normal are pre-Vatican II RC practices in TEC?

Not TEC, but a Continuing church in the US--and a number of people in my parish receive on the tongue, as do I whenever I attend a Mass at which I'm not celebrating. It's uncommon, but not unusual.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
An American Episcopalian friend has mentioned to me attending a new church where the norm is to receive Communion straight on the tongue (the usual for him is intinction). I have never heard of any Anglican doing this before!
Not TEC, but a couple of years ago it was the norm in Pusey House for a while (norms obviously change with the students). I received in the hand and was an outlier.

Pretty much the norm in many anglo-cathoolic churches until the advent of swine flu

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:

I act as secretary for the local Cemetery Committee, whose meetings are held in turn at the eight churches who use the two Anglican cemeteries in the city, and this evening we met at a church where the vicar is, shall we say, a member of the Nice Brigade™. When we concluded the meeting with the Grace, she said, "At St. Saccharine's* we hold hands and look at each other when we say the Grace".

I did, because it would have been rude not to, but boy, was I ever out of my comfort zone ...

I've heard it here that it is standard practice with some American Baptists.

Looking round with daggers at all concerned or a superior sneer may be tempting, but even less polite. The instruction should be "we hold hands and look round with a vacuous and patronising smile."

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
An American Episcopalian friend has mentioned to me attending a new church where the norm is to receive Communion straight on the tongue (the usual for him is intinction). I have never heard of any Anglican doing this before!
Which, intinction or on the tongue? Both are unusual in Anglican churches IME, though the latter less so. (In my previous diocese, self-intinction was verboten for sanitary reasons).

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Another American Episcopalian friend sometimes attends a Latin Mass at an Episcopalian church in LA. How normal are pre-Vatican II RC practices in TEC?
NB the Episcopal Latin Masses in California (SF and LA) are not pre-Vatican II: they use the 1979 Book of Common Prayer. I assume this is what your friend goes to.

Sorry, I meant on the tongue (that sounds a little odd out of context!). Intinction is uncommon in UK Anglican churches but was the norm when swine flu broke out. Friend's church is in North Carolina if that helps. Also that is interesting about the Episcopal Latin Masses - I had no idea that was an option for any BCP (the 1662 BCP not having a Latin Mass for obvious reasons!.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Also that is interesting about the Episcopal Latin Masses - I had no idea that was an option for any BCP (the 1662 BCP not having a Latin Mass for obvious reasons!.

Actually, there has been an authorised and legal translation of the 1662 BCP for rather a long time.

When I was an undergraduate at Cambridge, a college dean I knew fairly well regularly said morning prayer in Latin. I went once or twice and, though I didn't catch every word, it was rather lovely. Never been to a BCP Latin mass, though.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

The University of Oxford had the BCP in Latin, and certainly 30 years ago there was one service a term in the University Church of St Mary (one of the few C of E churches to have had a former vicar recently beatified).

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Crossed post with Basilica. I wonder what the Long Exhortation was like in Latin?

Posted by Zoey (# 11152) on :

Background - attended CofE in childhood, never got confirmed or took communion, no regular church attendance for a number of years after reaching adulthood, have relatively recently started attending church regularly enough for the vicar to have noticed that I go up for blessing not communion and to have asked if I want to be confirmed.

I have some vague, hazy, half-recollection about rules / strong guidance that one should not take communion unless at peace with one's brothers and sisters in Christ or ... something. (Also maybe something about if you're at the communion rail and remember that you're in the middle of a dispute, to go and sort it out before coming back to take communion in the right frame of mind?)

Can somebody point me to a document which states this point in the proper wording? I don't think it's a complete figment of my imagination, although that's always possible. So far all my googlefu has turned up is this - https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-worship/worship/book-of-common-prayer/the-lord%27s-supper-or-holy-communion.aspx - which seems much easier to comply with than my hazy, half-memories suggested was the case for the rules / guidance about taking communion. (In other words, I think genuinely not being in malicious or open contention with one's neighbours is a significantly easier ask than genuinely being at peace with all one's fellow Christians.)

Apologies for possible garbled-ness of this question.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

The Exhortation mentions being in perfect charity with all men as a prerequisite, and the Invitation to Confession also plays on this theme : "Ye...that are in love and charity with your neighbors..." What you cite seems to be an interpretation or amplification of what the BCP service suggests.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

You mean apart from Matthew 5:23? This is interpreted as a prohibition of receiving communion/eucharist/mass when you are at odds with fellow Christians.

Jengie

[ 04. December 2014, 19:32: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
3 purple, 1 pink and 1 white in the centre for us.

We don't run to rose vestments for Gaudete Sunday. By the time you have stoles, copes, and cinctures, then a frontal and matching paraments, you're looking at a decent sum of money - too much to justify.

We have a rose set for Lent IV and Advent III, but they're of noticeably lower quality than our other vestment sets. Fine with me, really, considering that they only get used twice a year (even our black set, sadly, seems to receive more use).

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Invitation to Confession also plays on this theme : "Ye...that are in love and charity with your neighbors..." .

Neighbours, for goodness' sake.

"Ye that do truly and earnestly repent you of your sins, and are in love and charity with your neighbours, and intend to lead a new life, following the commandments of God, and walking from henceforth in his holy ways; hold hands with them and gaze at them with a self-satisfied and sentimental smirk and make your humble confession to Almighty God complacently sitting on your bottom."

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
An American Episcopalian friend has mentioned to me attending a new church where the norm is to receive Communion straight on the tongue (the usual for him is intinction). I have never heard of any Anglican doing this before!
Not TEC, but a couple of years ago it was the norm in Pusey House for a while (norms obviously change with the students). I received in the hand and was an outlier.
Pretty much the norm in many anglo-catholic churches until the advent of swine flu

That may have been the case in the spikiest of anglo-papalist circles. Nevertheless, I was confirmed over fifty years ago. I have received regularly in low to middle to average high over the years in England, Wales and elsewhere. I do not recall having ever seen anyone receive communion directly onto the tongue outside the RCC.

What I was taught then, and have always believed to be the normal practice in England, is that one places one hand over the other in the form of a cross. The bread, whether ordinary wheaten or unleavened wafer, is then placed directly into the middle of the uppermost palm.

Perhaps one shouldn't say this. I know it depends what you are used to. But to an 'ordinary' CofE person, seeing people stick their tongues out and have the bread placed upon it does look a bit odd, neither reverent nor hygienic.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I remember visiting the Shrine at Walsingham back in the dark ages, when it was impossible to receive on the hand. IIRC you had to hold a cloth under your chin as the priest administered the host.

It is still a fairly common, but by no means universal, Anglo-catholic practice. But since many (in some places, most) Roman Catholics now receive in the hand it tends to be the older or more conservative people who do this. Like Enoch, I have rarely seen anyone receive in this way in MOTR or more moderate A-C places.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

In English, it's called a housling cloth. I last saw one used in the mid-'00s in the Catholic cathedral in Shanghai.

For the record, venbede, unless you were taking the piss, it's neighbors in the American 1979 BCP.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

Wow, when I was an Episcopalian (30+ years ago), many, if not most, Anglo-Catholics received on the tongue. It surprised me that anyone would be surprised by seeing this.

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

I often receive on the tongue, and often don't. It isn't really something I think about. When I was being prepared for first communion as an RC, we were taught two options. One was on the tongue, the other was on the hand in what I would now understand to be the "wrong" way: left hand on top, then pick It up with the right hand and pop into your mouth. The latter was just too confusing me, so I tended to stick with the tongue.

In Anglican churches, people generally receive on the hand as described in the St Augustine Prayer Book: right hand on top to make a "throne" and then bring both directly to the mouth. That doesn't mix me up as much so I float pretty freely between the two now.

I did visit our neighbouring (pace TSA) Lutheran parish for Reformation Sunday and planned to receive in the hand until I saw another man in the circle do on-the-tongue and was satisfied I wouldn't be some Anglican outlier!

[ 05. December 2014, 02:11: Message edited by: Knopwood ]

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

Being brought up a pre-Vatican II Catholic, we always received on the tongue, with the altar boy holding a paten under our chin.

In the Episcopal Church my experience has been that we almost always receive on the hand, except if we want to intinct and self-intinction isn't the practice.

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

Curiously, since moving to Québec I've noticed that the practice in my local parish is that the priest intincts the host and places it on the communicant's tongue. When I was growing up (until I started attending Byzantine liturgies) receiving both species in any way was strictly for Holy Week.

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

I think I'm reading this correctly. Holy Innocents falls on Sunday this year, and is thus transferred to the first available weekday. This is according to the American '79 BCP. Amirite?

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

Yes, those of us who use older books will get Childermas Sunday (I'm rather excited!) but the new kalendars will transfer it, although the 29 is St Thomas Becket.

Now, I'm not entirely familiar with 1979, but I know it's similar to our BAS, which allows for the feasts of Christ's "companions" to be celebrated on their traditional dates during Christmas or another (St Stephen on August 3, St John the Evangelist on May 6, and the Innocents on January 11). In the BAS, these "alternative" dates are actually the primary ones, and the permission for the old dates (except on a Sunday) is merely a rubric.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
to an 'ordinary' CofE person, seeing people stick their tongues out and have the bread placed upon it does look a bit odd, neither reverent nor hygienic.

to say nothing of a person I know who has a tongue piercing and regularly receives in this manner

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

Funnily enough, I recall going to Poland in my early teens and wanting to make a good impression. Assuming that the more complicated way must be the more formal one, I made sure to concentrate on getting the hands right and duly presented them to the priest. He shook his head and placed the host on my tongue instead. Apparently the dispensation for communion in the hand hasn't been extended by the Polish episcopal conference!

Posted by JeffTL (# 16722) on :

Here in Chicago it's not at all uncommon - especially at the explicitly Anglo-Catholic parishes but you see it elsewhere also. People carrying small children are especially likely to receive communion on the tongue for practical reasons.

At my parish you see about a 1:3 ratio of lingual to manual reception, with intinction both by communicants and chalice bearers (the latter of course culminating with receiving the intincted host on the tongue). At one mass it is customary to stand in a circle to receive the sacrament, and I'll receive on the tongue if my hands are occupied with a Prayer Book or some such (i.e. if we are using Prayer C or D and I need to know the responses). Otherwise I go either way; my only real scruple is that I don't self-intinct because I know that the chalice bearer has better control of the chalice than the communicant and is less likely to contaminate the Precious Blood or make a mess.

Posted by Saint Hedrin the Lesser-Known (# 11399) on :

I'm Anglican, and I receive on the tongue.

To make sure that the priest administering the sacrament does it properly, I have to point to my mouth or gesticulate in some manner to get my point across. My priest (our cathedral's dean) has gotten used to it. Another priest mistook it for a sign that I wanted to receive an intincted wafer.

That said, I'm still in the minority.

Posted by Pearl B4 Swine (# 11451) on :

Confused.
Do you mean you wanted only a dry Host? As in, I'll have toast please, and hold the jelly?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Saint Hedrin the Lesser-Known:
I'm Anglican, and I receive on the tongue.

To make sure that the priest administering the sacrament does it properly, I have to point to my mouth or gesticulate in some manner to get my point across. My priest (our cathedral's dean) has gotten used to it. Another priest mistook it for a sign that I wanted to receive an intincted wafer.

That said, I'm still in the minority.

There is no sense in which 'does it properly' is correct. It is not the Anglican tradition. If defensible, that is only so as a 'thing indifferent'. There is no way in which it is more proper than receiving in the hand like everyone else.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Theview used to be taken by some ex-Mirfield fathers that anglicans who received on the tongue fell into two categories: (a) ex RCs, and (b) exhibitionists.

Of course, I wouldn't take such a hard-and-fast line myself, but...

The Church of England way has always been to receive the wafer in the hand and bring the hand to the mouth.

Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on :

For various reasons a friend is having to choose the hymns for her church Sunday (Communion) services.

She asked if there are websites to help. Ideally ones that don't give too much of choice [Smile]

... thoughts?

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

If the church is affiliated to the Royal School of Church Music then it should already be receiving copies of Sunday by Sunday, a publication which gives wide-ranging suggestions of music to fit in with the readings according to the CofE Common Worship lectionary and the Roman lectionary as well.

It gives hymns plus suggestions for motets, from unison simple things to 8 part difficult numbers by people like Part, etc. It even lists some organ music!

If she doesn't have access to that the the New English Hymnal gives basic choices for the Sundays of the year at the back of the book...

Posted by Offeiriad (# 14031) on :

Lots of ideas on The Text This Week website, but double check that the readings are the right ones: just occasionally the US readings are different from UK ones.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

With similar caveats, I'd suggest the Newman Hymnal, but the readings are Roman Lectionary and the music is American Catholic.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
If the church is affiliated to the Royal School of Church Music then it should already be receiving copies of Sunday by Sunday, a publication which gives wide-ranging suggestions of music to fit in with the readings according to the CofE Common Worship lectionary and the Roman lectionary as well.

It gives hymns plus suggestions for motets, from unison simple things to 8 part difficult numbers by people like Part, etc. It even lists some organ music!

If she doesn't have access to that the the New English Hymnal gives basic choices for the Sundays of the year at the back of the book...

Quite a lot of hymnbooks for use in churches which keep the Christian year have a Sunday by Sunday list at the back which, combined with the actual Sunday by Sunday, works reasonably well IME. If her church isn't RSCM affiliated she should persuade them to fork out forthwith or beg borrow or steal a copy.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Well why not use the Hymnsite as a starting point. If the church uses Roots then that too has hymns.

However the good old fashioned way of reading the readings and choosing the hymns to fit is tried, tested and reliable.

Jengie

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

And, of course, you don't have to have every hymn exactly matching the assortment of readings for that day. You can have general hymns, not corresponding to anything in particular.

Lists like the RSCM's are all well and good, but they can be a bit overwhelming if they're used exclusively.

Posted by gog (# 15615) on :

The Singing the Faith plus site has hymns from the book for each Sunday almost now, might be possible to read them across to other books.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Found this list and an English one (scroll down). There is also Hymnquest, if this is one off there is a thirty day demo but if not a lite version which does not contain copyright is also available.

Jengie

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

In an Anglican context, is it appropriate to omit the prayer of confession and pardon when Holy Baptism has been celebrated? My thinking is that we just spent some time renouncing our sin and professing faith in Jesus Christ, so saying that prayer is redundant. The 1979 BCP is silent on the matter, except that "on occasion, the confession may be omitted."

[ 16. December 2014, 15:33: Message edited by: Barefoot Friar ]

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
In an Anglican context, is it appropriate to omit the prayer of confession and pardon when Holy Baptism has been celebrated? My thinking is that we just spent some time renouncing our sin and professing faith in Jesus Christ, so saying that prayer is redundant. The 1979 BCP is silent on the matter, except that "on occasion, the confession may be omitted."

I would say not. The classical Anglican HC service includes not just a confession, but an absolution as well. Unless an absolution is expressly given in the ministration of Baptism (and I'm pretty sure it's not, not even in the 1979), the confession and absolution should still be said.

Also, I think that rubric from the 1979 is misguided (what occasion justifies omitting the confession?), but that's another argument...

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

The current C of E practice, (and as far as I remember through my adult life) is to omit the prayers of penitence and the creed when there is a baptism. (Before 2000 the intercessions got omitted as well.)

With the BCP, no, as Baptism and Holy Communion are seperate services.

My question is this:

In the Eastern churches is the eucharistic prayer called and pronounced "AnAphora" or "AnaPHORa"? Which syllable gets the stress?

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

In the Eastern churches is the eucharistic prayer called and pronounced "AnAphora" or "AnaPHORa"? Which syllable gets the stress?

In this case, the antepenult. In general, it depends on the length of the vowel in the ultima.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

Which, for those sports fans following along at home, would be anAphora.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I have just watched last night's broadcast of midnight mass from Arundel RC Cathedral and noticed that they didn't genuflect during the incarnatus section of the creed but did so AFTERwards - a profund silence.

Is this a new ruling or just local custom?

Whichever, I like it.

At our place, half the congregation caught up with the rest of us when we were standing again. And it used to be like that back in the days when we used to genuflect every Sunday, not just Xmas and Lady Day.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

Carols from Kings on Christmas Eve concluded, quite rightly, with John 1. However, the subtitles ended the first sentence with, "The Word was God's". Was this a typo, or some trendy new translation?

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Carols from Kings on Christmas Eve concluded, quite rightly, with John 1. However, the subtitles ended the first sentence with, "The Word was God's". Was this a typo, or some trendy new translation?

Probably the person typing the subtitles not being familiar with the text and not paying attention to what s/he was listening to.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

In recent years I've seen several high Anglican churches where the President sits in an imposing chair facing the congregation, between the choir stalls. Where has this practice come from? Instinctively I feel that while it may be appropriate for a Bishop it is OTT for a parish priest, but this is pure gut prejudice on my part.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
In recent years I've seen several high Anglican churches where the President sits in an imposing chair facing the congregation, between the choir stalls. Where has this practice come from? Instinctively I feel that while it may be appropriate for a Bishop it is OTT for a parish priest, but this is pure gut prejudice on my part.

Is this behind the altar? If so it's a fairly common arrangement, even extending to out here in presby land where the minister occupies a large, throne-like chair for services involving celebrating Holy Communion.

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

Hoping for some help finding some prayers. In the new year I intend to get my children involved in agriculturally-oriented activities to make them more aware of God's blessings. Can anyone point me to some appropriately themed prayers? Thanks.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Is the Arthur Rank Centre of any help?

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

There are some environmental / stewardship prayers on the A Rocha site.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
In recent years I've seen several high Anglican churches where the President sits in an imposing chair facing the congregation, between the choir stalls. Where has this practice come from? Instinctively I feel that while it may be appropriate for a Bishop it is OTT for a parish priest, but this is pure gut prejudice on my part.
Is this behind the altar? If so it's a fairly common arrangement, even extending to out here in presby land where the minister occupies a large, throne-like chair for services involving celebrating Holy Communion.

No, this is in front of the altar, looking down at the congregation. As a result the celebrant becomes the focal point, which makes me uncomfortable no matter how much s/he is representing Christ.

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
In recent years I've seen several high Anglican churches where the President sits in an imposing chair facing the congregation, between the choir stalls. Where has this practice come from? Instinctively I feel that while it may be appropriate for a Bishop it is OTT for a parish priest, but this is pure gut prejudice on my part.
Is this behind the altar? If so it's a fairly common arrangement, even extending to out here in presby land where the minister occupies a large, throne-like chair for services involving celebrating Holy Communion.
No, this is in front of the altar, looking down at the congregation. As a result the celebrant becomes the focal point, which makes me uncomfortable no matter how much s/he is representing Christ.

I can't think of a single example where this happens. Can you share the churches where you have seen this?

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

Most recently I've seen it All Saints Ascot Heath (I hope this shows what I mean) but I have seen it in several other churches as well.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

Not something I've ever seen, but it seems to me to be a lazy convenience without a theology

Posted by Roselyn (# 17859) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Most recently I've seen it All Saints Ascot Heath (I hope this shows what I mean) but I have seen it in several other churches as well.

Surely the congregation represents Christ as much as the presiding person does?

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

turning your back on the place where heaven kisses earth is ugly ...

Posted by Offeiriad (# 14031) on :

OK, I'll come clean and admit I've sat thus, occasionally - don't all shoot at once please!

I've ministered in lots of anglican gaffs which are over-blessed with furniture shall we say? ( Preaching to the lumber-yard is how an old friend described it!) Modern liturgy expects that the first half of the service be led by the celebrant at The Chair, but which chair and where? Bearing in mind that a disembodied voice from somewhere up near the altar is unedifying.....

Picture the scene, gentle Christian.... between altar and congregation you have a sanctuary with various seats, and maybe even a sedilia as well. Altar rail. Gap of four feet then chunky (but empty!) choir-stalls. There is a clergy stall among them of course, but if you are really unlucky it will be returned and backing on to a chancel screen.

Bang in front of the screen on the south side is a 7ft brass bird wearing a stole, with two steps up to reading height for the book on it's back. Matching it on the other side is a huge pulpit also approached by steps. Three feet in front of bird and pulpit the fixed pews begin. These don't stand on hard floor but on raised wooden platforms, with the heating system underneath. No, they don't move - they are fitted with Archdeacons to prevent this.

Oh, and every month the PCC (Parish Complaints Committee) meet to make sure you haven't changed anything. Of course you are in charge of the services Vicar - we're just here to make sure you don't move anything!

Now, where are you going to put the celebrant's chair? Let him who is without sin cast the first stone......

Happy New Year!
Glad to be retired!
Offeiriad

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Most recently I've seen it All Saints Ascot Heath (I hope this shows what I mean) but I have seen it in several other churches as well.

I has seen this in CofE churches which still have the altar up against the east wall. The alternative position for the celebrant would be the south side of the chancel or maybe a stall in the choir. From neither can he realy 'preside' in the visible way that is expected today. It's more usual however to set up sedilia in the crossing off centre from the choir.

[ 31. December 2014, 08:38: Message edited by: Corvo ]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Offeiriad:

Happy New Year!
Glad to be retired!
Offeiriad

Well said, Offeiriad! I concur in all respects.

The one sign of hope is that as congregations shrink and realise that their existence is in danger without radical action, they may realise that one important strategy might lie in re-ordering the building, both to enable meaningful worship and to create flexibility for other uses.

The liturgical arrangements here look fairly conventional, but the congregation have clearly accepted that the building is more than just a shrine for Sundays. This church, by contrast, has struggled with an over-large building and over-small congregation (mainly due to depopulation in the area, now reviving) for years. Through a renewal of the liturgy and community involvement, things are now looking up.

Richard Giles is not one of Ecclesiantics' heroes on the whole, but a grasping the nettle approach like his, rather than pussyfooting around, seems the only way of renewing vision. And for those who regret the disappearance of 'the old ways', well, unless you can guarantee to pack the church every Sunday for a traditional High Mass, people will always be reminded of failure and decay if they try to keep a leaking ship afloat.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

What is "meaningful worship" when its at home?

The CofE has been in a constant state of flux, either with the physical layout of churches or of its liturgy (or both) since for the past 50 years: none of it has shed much light, but it has achieved an alienation of many good and faithful people.

Leave churches alone. Look after the people you have. Maybe you'll find that that care rubs off onto others.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

That's easier said than done, l'organist. There is nothing more dispiriting than gathering with a congregation of half a dozen in a church laid out for 200 and expecting the worship to be a transforming (rather than depressing) experience. Church buildings have been adapted time and time again throughout the centuries. There is nothing particularly holy about mid-Victorian liturgical furnishings, any more than Hymns Ancient and Modern (standard 1850-whenever edition) should be in general use today. And while the great Victorian architects left buildings and fittings which need to be used with respect, the average bog-standard Victorian church has bog-standard furniture which simply impedes worship and looks ugly.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Thank you, Angloid, for that Liverpool link! A similar church to ours, and if only, ah! if only - we could do something along those lines......

(I like some, though not all, of Richard Giles' ideas!).

BTW, having the priest lead the Ministry of the Word from a chair on the chancel step seems to me to be an eminently sensible way of doing things without clearing the choir-stalls etc. I've seen this done in a small Victorian church in Lancashire, where they still had a good-sized choir to occupy the said stalls. At the Peace, the chair was simply moved to one side for the rest of the Eucharist (celebrated ad orientem).

Ian J.

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

Dispiriting maybe but a congregation of half a dozen is hardly the norm, and you are as likely to find small congregations using contemporary worship in modified spaces than those using traditional worship in unmodified ones.

Surely the churches that have most successfully adapated have made their buildings (not just their churches) available to the community during the week, including provision for mid-week worship, and have thought carefully about the balance between how to include families and newcomers and exisiting congregations.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

All churches are available to their community if they are open during the day. It is up to the worshippers to ensure that the community knows the building is open and then to engage with groups who may wish to use the building.

As for using a building designed to hold 200 for worship with a much smaller number: you can always move into other areas, such as side chapels, choir stalls, etc: you don't have to use the high altar and have people seated in the nave.

But if you're going to encourage this then you have to address the biggest hurdle many of us face, which is the heritage lobby which won't allow us to alter our buildings or adapt them to today's needs.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Horses for courses, l'Organist. Horses for courses.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I was a great enthusiast for reordering in my liturgical Anglo-Papalist days. But it depends on what is done.

The opposite of fussy, mannered and antiquarian Eastward facing liturgy is not awesome, austere, stylish and impressive liturgy involving the whole people of God. It is sentimental, infantilising, patronising communion services bereft of any sense of wonder, terror or sense that the only appropriate response to God’s gracious and unmerited love is total commitment.

The clergy are not necessarily to blame. That seems what the punters want.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

The problem is not what the punters want, but that we leave them thinking it is all we offer.

Where a person joins the church is not the place from which they should leave. This goes theological, liturgically and spiritually. If a person is not transformed by contact with the Church then we have failed.

We failed because in the end religion tries the impossible, that is to make sense out of chaos. In as far as we succeed we manage to communicate the unimaginable nature of God.

Jengie

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Eastward-facing liturgy does not have to be fussy or antiquarian - depending, of course, on the topography of your church!

We (very occasionally) move our 'nave altar' to enable an ad orientem 1662 BCP celebration at our old High Altar (we have a very short chancel.....with no awkward choir stalls!). It works for us, but we do have the inestimable benefit of movable furnishings......

(I would love to shift our portable, if rather heavy, pews to allow an arrangement like that linked to by Angloid above....).

Ian J.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

The opposite of fussy, mannered and antiquarian Eastward facing liturgy is not awesome, austere, stylish and impressive liturgy involving the whole people of God. It is sentimental, infantilising, patronising communion services bereft of any sense of wonder, terror or sense that the only appropriate response to God’s gracious and unmerited love is total commitment.

I couldn't agree more, if you mean the latter 'often appears as the opposite of fussy..etc.' This is usually because a congregation does not appreciate the importance of liturgy and simply follows a trend ('westward facing' rather than the Table in the midst of the assembly) which has only been half thought through. IME it is very easy to have a casual attitude to, and feel uninvolved with, a liturgy that is put on by 'experts' 'at the front' - whether that is a Tridentine High Mass or a jolly school-assembly-type parish communion. If the liturgy takes place in the midst of the assembly (on the lines of the St Dunstan's link I gave) its power and seriousness are unavoidable.

But when I said 'horses for courses', congregations each have their own character, and more practically, church buildings vary a great deal. 'Re-ordering' in many cases might mean a re-ordering of the liturgy and rethinking how the congregation might use a building which either for structural or 'heritage' reasons is difficult to adapt.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I have just watched last night's broadcast of midnight mass from Arundel RC Cathedral and noticed that they didn't genuflect during the incarnatus section of the creed but did so AFTERwards - a profund silence.

Is this a new ruling or just local custom?

Whichever, I like it.

At our place, half the congregation caught up with the rest of us when we were standing again. And it used to be like that back in the days when we used to genuflect every Sunday, not just Xmas and Lady Day.

Bump

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

I've never heard of that. I explained the genuflection before the Creed and there was a nice wave of people (from front to back) attempting it.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
What is "meaningful worship" when its at home?

It's a fair question, perhaps, but probably about as answerable as "what is meaningful sport" or "what is meaningful art".

There probably isn't a litmus test, but vast combinations of litmus variants out of which we who are answerable for such matters must struggle (with the help of God's Spirit) to midwife a liturgical future.

I work on the premise that worship (including architecture and its applications) must convey the mysteries of the God who is involved in the vast cosmic narrative of Creation, Fall, Redemption, Consummation/Restoration, and convey that to three generations at a time. Christ you know it ain't easy, as Lennon said.

So I am constantly assessing: does this convey? What does it convey? Is there good news in this conveyance (for surely the narrative of God is Good News, always)?

My pad generates some challenges in this respect, and it will be up to each generation using it to assess how best to rise to those challenges. I'm not sure we've got it right but it is an evolving, changing thing as our understanding of the God we worship grows and we approach those changes in awe and, I hope, humility. Richard Giles has much to offer us here, but there will be many other visions incorporated into our assessments as we try to generate gospel-vehicle-worship for a changing world (and the vast monolith is not often that full ... more often like this, alas).

[ 01. January 2015, 17:41: Message edited by: Zappa ]

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

Happy New Year to all. The new civil year also means a new sundry liturgical thread, does it not? [Biased]

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

Make decisions in Eccles based on civil calendar? Is outrage!

Last year, hosts waited till Feast of Baptism of Lord. Is Tradition™ now.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
Make decisions in Eccles based on civil calendar? Is outrage!

Last year, hosts waited till Feast of Baptism of Lord. Is Tradition™ now.

No

Once is nice to do things differently
Twice is how things usually are done
Thrice is it is traditional
four times and dictat by the Pope/General Synod/ General Assembly/Conference or other religious authority
five is biblical
Six must be a rule of nature
Seven and it is time to change.

Jengie

[ 01. January 2015, 21:32: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

I have two questions from my recent holiday in Malta. This first was in a church that I visited as a tourist when no service was taking place. The alter seemed to be on three levels. At the back was the highest with six candles on it, at the front the lowest where I think the bread and wine would be placed during the mass. But on the middle level was an object about four feet high, covered in material of the liturgical colour green. It looked rather like a very short priest wearing a chasuble and facing east. It was not possible to see what was within the material - does anyone know what it was ? I wondered if it could be something for holding the reserved sacraments, but previously I have only seen them held in a hole in the wall or hanging from the ceiling.

The second question was during the mass I attended at St John's cathedral in Valletta. Several priests were involved. When I have been at Anglican eucharists with more than one priest, one has administered the sacraments to the others. But in this case the main celebrant, after taking some himself, moved away to the side and the others came forward and took a wafer and dipped it in the chalice themselves. Is this the normal Catholic practice where more than one priest is present ?

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

I'm guessing the object you're talking about was a tabernacle, and that the green cloth was its veil. Some churches do have free-standing ones that aren't built into a wall. Did you notice a tabernacle elsewhere in the church?

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

From the 1500s onwards until fairly modern times it has been customary to have the tabernacle (receptacle for holding the consecrated bread) in the centre of the High Altar. Tabernacle means small tent and recalls the tent in which the Ark of the Covenant was kept.In a Jewish synagogue there is in the sanctuary the Ark (occasionally called the tabernacle) covered with a veil.Inside are the Scrolls of the Law or the living word of God.
In a Catholic church the cupboard or receptacle contains the consecrated Hosts or the living presence of Christ.
Until Vatican 2 the tabernacle should be covered with a veil in the liturgical colour of the day.
If the tabernacle was sited in a wall there was usually just a small curtain in front of it.
In recent years it has no longer been mandatory to have the tabernacle veiled ,but you will still see it sometimes.However there should be a lamp burning before it ,as also in a synagogue.

With altars now mainly free standing the tabernacle can really be anywhere (in a place which encourages devotion).

In a concelebrated Mass the principal celebrant usually distributes a section of the Host to other
celebrants or they may take it from the paten.The concelebrants will then come forward to drink from
the Chalice before distributing Communion to other clergy,servers or lay people.

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

Has anyone come across a tradition whereby the symbols and incense grains are removed from the Paschal case set the end of the Christmas season?

Carys

Posted by Roselyn (# 17859) on :

Is it only Anglicans that don't like sitting in the front rows/pews?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Mrs A, in her nonconformist days, would try to get to chapel early 'so she wouldn't end up sitting on the minister's knee'.

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

I once attended an ecumenical Maundy Thursday service in a Baptist church. I sat a few rows back and was the furthest forward...

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Tho' perhaps those nice Baptists were trying to make you feel at home.

[ 03. February 2015, 22:20: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Back of Church Sunday.

Pretty par for the course, I would have thought.

Posted by Roselyn (# 17859) on :

Looks like it's not just Anglicans. Why do people huddle in the back pews, are they ashamed. scared, cold?? I am particularly interested in why they do this in wide, well lit rooms with doors at the side.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

At a guess, people don't want to be on show and they think that, if they sit near the front, everyone else will be looking at them.

As well the front seats are where you put invited guests at the service, or the wedding party at a wedding. So perhaps people feel instinctively that others will think they are putting themselves forward (into the high seats at the banquet, as it were) if they sit near the front.

(Unless the front seats are near the door to the nursery and SUnday School rooms, in which parents may frequently be seen in them.)

John

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Roselyn:
Looks like it's not just Anglicans. Why do people huddle in the back pews, are they ashamed. scared, cold?? I am particularly interested in why they do this in wide, well lit rooms with doors at the side.

Closer to the coffee in the back, easier to slip out to your car in the parking lot or maybe hoping to be less conspicuous if/when falling asleep. Those are three that readily spring to mind.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

Greater chance of getting picked on by the teacher if you sit in the 'inverted T'...

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Just out of curiosity, what do the denizens of Ecclesiantics think to the decision we made here to melt down the remains of our 2013 Paschal candle and use the wax to make baptismal candles? Pleasing symbolism? Sacrilege? Good stewardship of resources?

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Our church has a fairly high, central pulpit. People say that they get a crick in their necks if they sit too close to the front, downstairs. (We also have a gallery, where a few folk like to sit).

I did once see a lovely cartoon of a church where all the pews were mounted on a "travolator" system. At the start of the service someone pressed a button, and all the pews moved forward ...

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Just out of curiosity, what do the denizens of Ecclesiantics think to the decision we made here to melt down the remains of our 2013 Paschal candle and use the wax to make baptismal candles? Pleasing symbolism? Sacrilege? Good stewardship of resources?

It's all in the motivation. What did you mean by it? That's what it meant.

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

"Style of Worship: Modern Catholic"

What type of liturgy would you expect to find at a CofE church thus described? I ask following a discussion with someone when it became clear that it meant two completely different things to us both!

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Roselyn:
Looks like it's not just Anglicans. Why do people huddle in the back pews, are they ashamed. scared, cold?? I am particularly interested in why they do this in wide, well lit rooms with doors at the side.

I've heard a theory that in the days of pew rents (don't know whether these existed outside the CofE)the cheaper/ free seats were at the back, so people tended to sit there. Don't know whether this is true or not.

Posted by Joan_of_Quark (# 9887) on :

A question about CofE offices - does anyone know why portions of Psalm 119 seem to show up more often on Wednesdays than other days of the week?

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Joan_of_Quark:
A question about CofE offices - does anyone know why portions of Psalm 119 seem to show up more often on Wednesdays than other days of the week?

It doesn't seem, it is so. In the ordinary time cycle the psalms are gone through over 7 weeks. Ps 119 is split into 7 and occurs alternately on Wed MP and Wed EP. I keep 2 makers in the psalms one for the general cycle and one for 119.

Carys

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
"Style of Worship: Modern Catholic"

What type of liturgy would you expect to find at a CofE church thus described? I ask following a discussion with someone when it became clear that it meant two completely different things to us both!

Depends who is using the term.

Among anglo-catholics it differentiates from those who use old liturgies and celebrate eastward-facing. That means they will worship in a post-vatican 2 style, using either the 'novus ordo' Roman rite or Common Worship modern language.

Among 'official' C of E publicarions such as parish profiles when advertising for a new pries, the term is likely to mean affirming catholic supporting ordained women - differentiating them from 'traditional catholic' meaning Forward in Faith with flying bishops.

[ 04. February 2015, 13:29: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Joan_of_Quark:
A question about CofE offices - does anyone know why portions of Psalm 119 seem to show up more often on Wednesdays than other days of the week?

I don't know what was in the minds of the Common Worship editors, but I imagine it has something to do with the fact that 119 has traditionally been the psalm used at the 'lesser hours' of Prime, Terce, Sext etc, which have generally been condensed into one Midday Office, as used by most religious communities. So if you are not saying a midday office, you use the midday psalm as a midweek one instead.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's all in the motivation. What did you mean by it? That's what it meant.

Possibly. My motivation was what to do with an oversized Paschal candle that hadn't been burned down very far. I did think that there was a nice symbolism in not only lighting the baptismal candle from the paschal candle but making it from one. I have no desire, however, to cause a stumbling block to others so though I would ask and see what others made of the idea.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Having 119 every morning and evening for several consecutive days would be very boring - I never used the BCP psalms. 119 is pretty repetetive.

So they've put 119 on Wednesdays, alternatively in mornings and evenings.

CW also makes sure psalms specific to morning (ie 5) are in the morning and psalms specific to evenings (ie 4) are in evenings.

I'm pissed off that the Lauds psalms (148, 159 & 150) roll up on Saturday evenings when they could be assigned to the morning earlier in the week where they belong.

Aso a pity 110, the Vesper psalm above all, crops up on a morning.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
My motivation was what to do with an oversized Paschal candle that hadn't been burned down very far.

Seems a perfectly fitting use for it, so long as the baptismal candles that got made are fit for purpose. The only danger to guard against is if you run out of those, and those are seen as somehow holier than other ones.

We return the remnants of our paschal candle to the candle company who give us a rebate and use it the wax to make more candles. Does your supplier not offer this? If they do, then on the one hand there's something nice about dealing with it in house, but only if you're good enough at making candles that the end result is good.

(Sorry for two cautions about this: in my novitiate, we had a religious brother who thought he was much better than he was at making candles. It caused the sacristans no end of trouble.)

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

You know, it never occurred to me that it was possible to botch up making candles, having first done it as an 8 year old. I think we could make 20 or so from the one candle and given we get 1-2 baptisms a year I don't think running out would be an issue, not that the Presbyterians and Baptists locally are keen on considering any object "holy" anyway.

It also didn't occur to me to check with the supplier about recycling, but then I suspect with the shipping cost it wouldn't be worthwhile.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

Still no new thread for the new year? [Big Grin]

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
It also didn't occur to me to check with the supplier about recycling, but then I suspect with the shipping cost it wouldn't be worthwhile.

We always ship back our previous year's Paschal candle. The shipping costs are usually within a dollar of what we get as a credit for next year's candle, but it's a good thing to do environmentally.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Having 119 every morning and evening for several consecutive days would be very boring - I never used the BCP psalms. 119 is pretty repetetive. ...

That may be part of the point. There are a series of significant words that are repeated all the way through it, usually once in each eight verse block.

Changing the subject to making baptismal candles out of the unburnt remnants of the previous year's Paschal candle, if one has the skills, that strikes me as a really brilliant idea.

I'm sure there can't be anything wrong with doing it. The candles are lit from this year's one anyway. No candles have been transubstantiated in the making of either. I'd say go for it.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

I use the old BCP monthly rota for the Psalms. It helpfully splits Ps 119 up over several days. The downside is that I always dread the 15th day of the month, when at Evening Prayer I have to read Ps 78, the 72-verse behemoth.

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Still no new thread for the new year?

I'm attached to the old one. It's familiar and worn in, like that pair of comfy jeans I wear under my cassock when I'm feeling lazy.

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I use the old BCP monthly rota for the Psalms. It helpfully splits Ps 119 up over several days. The downside is that I always dread the 15th day of the month, when at Evening Prayer I have to read Ps 78, the 72-verse behemoth.

I recall hearing an anecdote of a 19th century judge who, having sentenced some ne'er do well for a minor crime (probably being poor, or wanting a job, or something dreadful like that) who gave the felon two pieces of advice.

One was to buck up and get his act together.

The other was never to Evening Prayer on the 15th of the month.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I use the old BCP monthly rota for the Psalms. It helpfully splits Ps 119 up over several days. The downside is that I always dread the 15th day of the month, when at Evening Prayer I have to read Ps 78, the 72-verse behemoth.

When preparing to take our choir over to St Mary's Cathedral, Edinburgh, for a week's summer residence, our choirmaster received this in reply to his submitted list of anthems, psalm settings, etc.: "Aug. 15...Ps. 78, all verses??????"

There were at least that many question marks. I believe our choirmaster's reply was, "Yes."
[Big Grin]

Posted by Banner Lady (# 10505) on :

Beadwork on stoles - acceptable or unacceptable?

I have been asked to make an ordination stole for a friend, and she has settled on a Tudor cross made out of antique liturgical silk fused to a red linen stole. The cross is beautiful, but needs an edging to define it. She is a lady who likes a bit of bling and I have encouraged her to wear only subtle jewellery for the big day. But I was thinking that instead of a metallic thread edging around the cross, (I am not good at metallic threadwork) I could pick it out with a tiny row of red/gold seed beads. What say the experts?

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

I doubt there's a hard and fast rule on that one ... if it looks good and glorifies the Creator, go for it

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Your plans for the stole sound lovely - go with them and I hope your friend appreciates the time and talent invested therein!

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

I like the idea of making baptismal candles out of the previous year's Paschal Candle.

While we're on the Paschal Candle, my query on the bottom of the last page has been missed. (admittedly the original had a couple of swypo's which I've corrected below)

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Has anyone come across a tradition whereby the symbols and incense grains are removed from the Paschal candle at the end of the Christmas season leaving it bare from then until the new one is blessed?

Carys

Carys

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
When preparing to take our choir over to St Mary's Cathedral, Edinburgh, for a week's summer residence, our choirmaster received this in reply to his submitted list of anthems, psalm settings, etc.: "Aug. 15...Ps. 78, all verses??????"

Clearly not the Church of Scotland, then, with their Metrical Psalms, where I have heard ministers announce (e.g.): "Let up be upstanding and singing Psalm 78, verses 1 to 12, 19 to 26, and 42 to 47, to the tune 186". Clearly the Presbyterians are good at paying attention! [Devil]

[ 13. February 2015, 13:25: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

And you resisted the temptation to shout 'House!'

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Actually, it never occurred to me (I was young and serious in those days!) [Cool]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
I like the idea of making baptismal candles out of the previous year's Paschal Candle.

While we're on the Paschal Candle, my query on the bottom of the last page has been missed. (admittedly the original had a couple of swypo's which I've corrected below)

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Has anyone come across a tradition whereby the symbols and incense grains are removed from the Paschal candle at the end of the Christmas season leaving it bare from then until the new one is blessed?

Carys
Carys

??? What on earth would be the justification for this? I've heard of some benighted places where the Paschal Candle is extinguished at Pentecost (or even on Ascension Day) and then hidden in a cupboard for the rest of the year. But the symbolism of the candle is surely that it represents the Risen Christ with, and leading, his people 'through all the times and ages', and especially the current year.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Thank you Angloid. Summed up beautifully.

Carys : your place is seriously at fault if they denude the paschal candle like that. It should stay as it is, usually by the font so that it is handy for baptisms, and only be removed just before the lighting of the new fire on the next Easter Eve.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Thank you Angloid. Summed up beautifully.

Carys : your place is seriously at fault if they denude the paschal candle like that. It should stay as it is, usually by the font so that it is handy for baptisms, and only be removed just before the lighting of the new fire on the next Easter Eve.

Surely it should be removed during the stripping of the altars on Maundy Thursday. It's also used, of course, at funerals, where it should stand at the foot of the coffin.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

Remembering, of course, that the custom of using the paschal candle at funerals and baptisms is entirely of modern origin, beginning c. 1970. Prior to that it was indeed retired after Ascension or Pentecost. Hardly "benighted."

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Remembering, of course, that the custom of using the paschal candle at funerals and baptisms is entirely of modern origin, beginning c. 1970. Prior to that it was indeed retired after Ascension or Pentecost. Hardly "benighted."

A little investigation (ok, Google) reveals that in England it was the tradition to melt down the paschal candle and make tapers to be lit at the funerals of the poor:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11515b.htm

I also note from the same text that folk at Salisbury didn't do things by halves. I wouldn't want to be the one lifting 36ft of candle into the air 3 times to chant "the light of Christ"! [Razz]

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Remembering, of course, that the custom of using the paschal candle at funerals and baptisms is entirely of modern origin, beginning c. 1970. Prior to that it was indeed retired after Ascension or Pentecost. Hardly "benighted."

Indeed. It was one of the best and most significant changes in post Vatican II liturgy.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Thank you Angloid. Summed up beautifully.

Carys : your place is seriously at fault if they denude the paschal candle like that. It should stay as it is, usually by the font so that it is handy for baptisms, and only be removed just before the lighting of the new fire on the next Easter Eve.
Surely it should be removed during the stripping of the altars on Maundy Thursday.

I am not sure about the 'should' but I always remove it when the altars are stripped and replace the candlestick when getting the church ready for the Easter Vigil.

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Thank you Angloid. Summed up beautifully.

Carys : your place is seriously at fault if they denude the paschal candle like that. It should stay as it is, usually by the font so that it is handy for baptisms, and only be removed just before the lighting of the new fire on the next Easter Eve.

That was my understanding but someone did this without word to anyone somewhere I know prior to a funeral because an old church of theirs had done it. It was pastorally insensitive to say the least so I wondered if it was more than the foible of one priest somewhere... but idiosyncrisy is the conclusion I'm coming too. Thankfully it was restored for the funeral.

Carys

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Thank you Angloid. Summed up beautifully.

Carys : your place is seriously at fault if they denude the paschal candle like that. It should stay as it is, usually by the font so that it is handy for baptisms, and only be removed just before the lighting of the new fire on the next Easter Eve.
Surely it should be removed during the stripping of the altars on Maundy Thursday. It's also used, of course, at funerals, where it should stand at the foot of the coffin.

Though I often think that, while this is correct, it must cause some confusion to punters whose loved one died in for example pre-Easter 2015, if they are not frequenters of church or Ecclesiantics (poor misguided souls) to have him/her dispatched to the hereafter beneath last year's date.

In fact it can begin to look like a metaphor for the Church somnambulant: tired and has been.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

Interesting. This had never occurred to me. Do you ever refer to the Paschal candle during funeral preaching? For some reason, I always talk about it before a baptism, but rarely during a funeral.

Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :

We had our local Area (Suffragan) Bishop celebrating our Ash Wednesday Eucharist last night (and very lovely it was too).

He was without his Episcopal Ring throughout.

1) Is this some Ash Wednesday tradition of which I was hitherto unaware? I quite realise the most likely answer is that it's being repaired, he's lost it, or he forgot to put it on yesterday morning, but I thought I'd check!

2) If a Bishop is blessing sans ring, should he use the "priestly" hand position (whole hand) or the "bishoppy" hand position (fore and middle finger extended, other two fingers down)?

Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I am not sure about the 'should' but I always remove it when the altars are stripped and replace the candlestick when getting the church ready for the Easter Vigil.

Our paschal candlestick is particularly splendid, golden and ornate, so I remove it along with some of the other ornaments whilst what passes for our Lenten array is up. It's brought out only for baptisms and funerals in Lent.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

If you're holding a Eucharist for a special occasion on a Sunday evening, do the intercessions follow the usual pray for the world, church, each other, saints format or should the intercessions be more tailored for the occasion considering the larger intercessions would have been covered in the Sunday morning Eucharist?
#Anglicanliturgy

Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :

Whilst browsing Google Books, I came across a article from 1913 discussing the reform of the Roman Breviary by Pius X. A curious excerpt follows:

quote:
For the laity at large, as already noted, the most interesting feature in the new programme is the privileged position now accorded to the Office and Mass of the ordinary Sundays of the year. Speaking generally, it may be said that in future the Sunday will only be displaced by feasts of high rank, one practical consequence of which will be that henceforth the epistle and Gospel read to the congregation from the pulpit will rarely be in disagreement with the epistle and Gospel of the Mass read at the altar, an anomaly which in recent years must often have jarred upon those possessing any sense of the liturgical fitness of things.

The anomaly does indeed seem jarring to me. But how did this odd situation come about in the first place? Does this mean that if the Nth Sunday after Pentecost was pushed away by the Feast of St. N, the priest would celebrate the first half of the Mass of St. N, preach a sermon about the readings for the Nth Sunday after Pentecost, and then resume the Mass of St. N? And was this required, or only permitted?

Posted by Conrad Noel (# 18352) on :

I was asked the other day about liturgical change in Anglican cathedrals. I am very out of date and couldn't give a good answer.
Are there any Anglican cathedrals where the old High Altar is use exclusively for the sung/choral Eucharist on Sundays and there are no new altars and choir stalls on the nave-side of the choir screen ? In other words, are there any cathedrals which look and work as they did in the late 1950s/1960s ?

Canterbury has a complete division between the nave and quire, due to a long flight of steps and the pulpitum screen. The quire is much as it was in the 1960s, although the high altar has been brought down to the platform in the middle of the long flight of steps from the quire to the Trinity chapel where the shrine of St Thomas Becket once stood. This position is the original siting of the altar, and the position at the top of the steps was a Victorian invention.
In terms of Sunday Eucharists, the 8am BCP is celebrated facing East, and the Sung 11 am is celebrated facing West. In the summer, and on principle feast days, the nave is used, where there is an altar.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Unless things have changed very recently, Chichester, a small cathedral, has a massive choir screen but no altar in front of it. For the Liturgy of the Word on Sundays the ministers are positioned in front of it, then after the Peace they go to the High Altar, which is fairly modern and free standing, and take up a westward facing position. I don't think that would work in a larger building unless there was enough room in the Quire for the whole congregation.

Although Liverpool, which is vast, sometimes use the High Altar (I think in Advent) with the congregation stranded in outer space. Though there is no screen to block the view.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Our cathedral has this. You can tell by the description that they are very proud of it, but it always gives me the feeling that an inadvertent priest with full sleeves has only got to do a liturgical flourish and the precious body and blood will be scattered in all directions.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

Please could someone tell me what is the opposite/negative of the verb "to vest" (ie put on vestments)?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

The word 'divest' exists. It does though tend to be used of removing all garments.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Divest?

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Unless things have changed very recently, Chichester, a small cathedral, has a massive choir screen but no altar in front of it. For the Liturgy of the Word on Sundays the ministers are positioned in front of it, then after the Peace they go to the High Altar, which is fairly modern and free standing, and take up a westward facing position. I don't think that would work in a larger building unless there was enough room in the Quire for the whole congregation

The same happens at Derby (or at least it did until recently), but that's another small cathedral.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

Pronunciation?
Die-vest
Dee-vest
Divvest

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

The first, I think. But don't ask me: I'm not even sure it's the right word.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

"Un-vest" tends to be what I hear in casual conversation.

Posted by Jante (# 9163) on :

Divest is probably correct but I tend to sau I'm going to disrobe [Razz]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Conrad Noel:
I was asked the other day about liturgical change in Anglican cathedrals. I am very out of date and couldn't give a good answer.
Are there any Anglican cathedrals where the old High Altar is use exclusively for the sung/choral Eucharist on Sundays and there are no new altars and choir stalls on the nave-side of the choir screen ? In other words, are there any cathedrals which look and work as they did in the late 1950s/1960s ?

The SEC Cathedral in Oban has no screen and only uses the high altar, but it is only just over 100 years old and somewhat eccentric in any case.

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

Is there a certain time of day at which the Good Friday liturgy is supposed to be observed? Is it by tradition, or by rubric?

(Reason being: My friend and I got into an argument about whether it was okay to have the regular Good Friday liturgy in the evening, or whether it must be held about noon.)

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

In the RCC, the Good Friday liturgy is supposed to be celebrated around 3PM, but "if pastoral circumstances suggest..." (I'm not a fan of that expression, as it ends up getting twisted to justify just about anything), it may be celebrated anytime between noon and early evening. It may not be celebrated in the morning.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

In traditionally Catholic countries Good Friday is not usually a public holiday.This has been the case since the 1600s.It was originally to stop people doing the things they normally do on public holidays,like going drinking and carousing.

Thus in Germany with a good number of areas of Protestant culture Good Friday is still a holiday all over.In neighbouring Austria which is mainly an area of traditional Catholic culture Good Friday is not a public holiday.In these areas the Good Friday liturgy will more often take place at the end of the working day starting some time after 5pm

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

At my current parish we do the Good Friday liturgy timed to conclude about 3pm, and then do Taize prayer in the evening (with a very crucicentric focus) so as people who couldn't get off work can still gather for prayer. A former parish of mine took the opposite approach: Stations of the Cross followed by confessions at the traditional hour, and then the liturgy in the evening.

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

Last year I went somewhere that had evening prayer around four or fivish and then the liturgy and hour or so after that. Working off of a not perfect memory. I remember it was late enough that I was able to leave work a little early and then make it across the Bay.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
so as people who couldn't get off work can still gather for prayer. A former parish of mine took the opposite approach: Stations of the Cross followed by confessions at the traditional hour, and then the liturgy in the evening.

My former parish in Leeds did the Solemn Liturgy at 7.30pm because it's a working day.

I wish there would be at least one church in each city that did that. Here, they are all around 2 or 3pm.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
In the RCC, the Good Friday liturgy is supposed to be celebrated around 3PM, but "if pastoral circumstances suggest..." (I'm not a fan of that expression, as it ends up getting twisted to justify just about anything), it may be celebrated anytime between noon and early evening. It may not be celebrated in the morning.

I thought that for RCs, the Good Friday liturgy replaced Vespers, so 2pm is far too early and 3 pm the earliest

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

We generally have it at 7. That allows for us to have a choir (who are all working people with day jobs) and for parishioners to actually make it to the service, as well (which is a full-on Good Friday Liturgy with the Altar Service, Solemn Collects, Veneration of the Cross & Communion from the Reserved Sacrament).

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I thought that for RCs, the Good Friday liturgy replaced Vespers, so 2pm is far too early and 3 pm the earliest

You're right that vespers is not said by those who participate in the passion celebration, but that's not because the times would clash.

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
We generally have it at 7. That allows for us to have a choir (who are all working people with day jobs) and for parishioners to actually make it to the service, as well (which is a full-on Good Friday Liturgy with the Altar Service, Solemn Collects, Veneration of the Cross & Communion from the Reserved Sacrament).

Ah yes. Thanks!

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

When I was growing up the routine was

9am Stations of the Cross
12 noon Solemn Good Friday Liturgy
6pm Compline

The 3 hours, of course, contained Matins, Ante Communion and Evensong. I seem to recall singing Bairstow's Lamentation as well as John of Portugal's Crux fidelis.

In my present place we'll have a series of readings, motets and hymns from 2-3pm and, if previous years give an indication, most of the congregation will be conspicuous by their absence - Easter in our neck of the woods (meaning Friday-Monday) being the most important weekend of the year to exercise the powered gardening tools.

Posted by Laurence (# 9135) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Conrad Noel:
I was asked the other day about liturgical change in Anglican cathedrals. I am very out of date and couldn't give a good answer.
Are there any Anglican cathedrals where the old High Altar is use exclusively for the sung/choral Eucharist on Sundays and there are no new altars and choir stalls on the nave-side of the choir screen ? In other words, are there any cathedrals which look and work as they did in the late 1950s/1960s ?

This may be slightly anomalous, but Bradford's mediaeval nave was extended Eastwards in the early 1960s to make it feel rather more Cathedral-esque in scale. The resulting High Altar, behind the choir, is used for Sunday morning Eucharists.

It's visible on the photos here: Bradford Cathedral website

It works fairly well I think; much better in term of liturgical unity of space than the hodgepodge one often sees of 1880s altar either cemented to the wall or precariously pulled out, the whole array being hid behind a 1980s coffee table anyway!

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

Thanks, everyone. I'm off to Heaven to ask for good recipes for crow. [Big Grin]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

For various reasons, our GF Liturgy has been at 11am for the past few years (i.e. ending at around noon), and this seems to have worked for us. However, this year, we have our Diocesan Bishop as guest preacher, so, to accommodate him (he is attending two other services in our Deanery on Good Friday!), we have put it forward to 10am. This seems a bit early to me, but somewhen about 130pm - 3pm seems more appropriate. YMMV.

Ian J.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

Strictly a Friday midday person myself - though this faith community has an earlier "kiddiwinkles crucify him" service that I am yet to drive. I axed the three hours in favour of the Solemn Proclamation (with Mass of the Pre-sanctified) ...

Maundy Thursday 7.30 pm ...

[ 11. March 2015, 16:52: Message edited by: Zappa ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

"kiddiwinkles crucify him" sounds fun. Action choruses and all that? Special new lyrics for 'If I had a hammer'?

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

I would expect the kiddiwinkles crucify him to be a narrated re-enactment with enthusiastic kiddiwinkles in "costume"

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Station of the Cross for children is what I've known.

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

I need a liturgy to bless and light the Paschal candle on Easter morning. We have no Vigil service, so it will need to be at the main service on Easter Day. I've checked several prayer books, including the New Zealand BCP, the SEC's '28 BCP, CofE's CW and ASB, and TEC's BCP and Enriching Our Worship. Google is being unhelpful as well.

Any pointers? Would I be horribly wrong to take the collect from TEC's Vigil rite and tweak it ever so slightly and use that? (The tweak would be to change "Sanctify this new fire..." to "Sanctify this new light...", since we're also not doing a bonfire.)

Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on :

Try here. The vigil service tells you how to mark and bless your paschal candle (SEC, 1967 for those who wish to know).

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

Barefoot F:

I think your instinct about adapting the TEC blessing prayer as you suggest is a good one. If you want to do something a bit more elaborate you could add the final section of the Exsultet (sung or said) which begins (I may not be quoting quite correctly) 'May the Daystar find it ever burning...' which would seem appropriate to the morning, and leave out all the 'night verily blessed' material.

Purists might squirm and moan, but the Exsultet has been chopped and changed around so much over the years that I wouldn't feel bashful about it at all. [Big Grin]

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

Thank you, Kingsfold and Georgiaboy. I think this answers my question.

Posted by Offeiriad (# 14031) on :

A church I attend has removed the Passion element completely from its observance of Palm Sunday, so the whole service will focus on the Entry into Jerusalem.

I imagine there may be lively opinions on this (!), but can anybody point me to a source that shows the Passion element (in particular the reading of the Passion Gospel) was clearly part of the rite from earliest times? If not most ancient, when did it begin? (I know there was a time when there were two Masses, a Palm Mass followed by a procession, concluding with a Mass including the Passion Gospel.) With deepest respect to our Orthodox brethren, I am especially interested in Western developments. Any thoughts welcome.

(I know, I know, in a situation where only a minority attend on Good Friday, it is a pastoral and theological disaster to go from palms to resurrection on succeeding Sundays! I'm not in charge - right? Thank you.) [Ultra confused]

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I can't lay my hands on my copy of Egeria, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't passion reading there.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

A Companion to Common Worship Volume 2 ed. Bradshaw (SPCK 2006) states "The Roman observance of Palm Sunday originally had the singing of the Passion as the central feature".

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

As is often the case, the Catholic Encyclopedia entry is instructive if you can put up with the verbiage:

quote:
In the three oldest Roman Sacramentaries no mention is found of either the benediction of the palms or the procession. . . . The name Dominica in palmis, De passione Domini occurs in the "Gelasianum", but only as a superscription; and Probst ("Sacramentarien und Ordines", Münster, 1892, 202) is probably correct in suspecting . . . De passione Domini [to be] the original inscription. . . .

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I can't lay my hands on my copy of Egeria, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't passion reading there.

Egeria herself doesn't mention the Passion on 'The Day of Palms'. She only mentions it on Good Friday.

However, John Wilkinson, who wrote 'Egeria's Travels' said that the 5th Century Armenian lectionary shows the direction in which Cyril's Jerusalem church was travelling. That lectionary in listed in the book and, on p. 266, lists Matthew's passion narrative for Palm Sunday.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

Not a question but a note of this new book from Canterbury Press.
An inclusive edition with some drawings of various vestments on women priests!

Church Linen, Vestments and Textiles
A Practical Guide to Their Use and Care
Author(s): Margery Roberts, Nicholas Elder, Christopher Chessun

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

If offeriad's parish are good MOTR C of E, they should look at their foundation documents. The BCP never calls the Sunday before Easter "Palm Sunday" and the gospel is the passion according to St Matthew.

Palm Sunday processions of course are the thin edge of the wedge of course....

Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :

When we do Stations of the Cross during Lent, I usually light a white votive by each one - OL&SJC is present in each. This year, we are to hold it at 12.30 on Good Friday, leading up to An Hour At The Cross - so no candles, I think, 'cos we put them all out last night? What thinkest thou?

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

No candles.
IMO only unbleached candles should be used in Holy Week apart from at the Maundy Thursday mass.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Christos Anesti Shipmates.

Does anyone know where the following words come from?

quote:
This is the table, not of the Church, but of the Lord.
It is to be made ready for those who love him and who want to love him more.
So, come, you who have much faith and you who have little, you who have been here often and you who have not been for a long time, you who have tried to follow and you who have failed.
Come, not because it is I who invite you: it is our Lord.
It is his will that those who want him should meet him here.

I thought they were rather good, but can't trace any source. I googled an extract from them, which gave several instances, in various different countries, but all of them appear to have got them from somewhere else.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Yes John Hunters Invitation to Communion. I have Blogged about it giving the original. A very significant bit of liturgical innovation.

Jengie

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

It is included in the Baptist worship book "Gathering for Worship", in more than one setting of Communion.

I use it often, but I doubt if many other Baptist ministers do.

Here is another Invitation, somewhat similar:

Here is the table of the Lord,
we are gathered to his supper,
a foretaste of things eternal.

Come, when you are fearful,
to be made new in love.
Come, when you are doubtful,
to be made strong in faith.
Come, when you are regretful,
and be made whole.
Come, old and young,
there is room for all.

[ 05. April 2015, 13:02: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Wow, Jengie, many thanks. I posted a question and got an answer in less than half an hour.

Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :

In our Anglican place, back in the day when women were not permitted in the surpliced choir, anecdotally they were seated conveniently in the adjacent chapel so that they could contribute to the singing without upsetting anyone's sensibilities.

I've now discovered something apparently similar elsewhere, such as here. I wonder if it was at all common? It reminds me of early deaconesses preaching from the chancel step because they were denied the place of teaching authority in the pulpit.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
In our Anglican place, back in the day when women were not permitted in the surpliced choir, anecdotally they were seated conveniently in the adjacent chapel so that they could contribute to the singing without upsetting anyone's sensibilities.

I've now discovered something apparently similar elsewhere, such as here. I wonder if it was at all common? It reminds me of early deaconesses preaching from the chancel step because they were denied the place of teaching authority in the pulpit.

I saw this in Wantage Parish Church about 35 years ago - men in cottas in the stalls and women in a chapel beyong the rood screen.

It was all birettas and English Missal back then. (Ss Peter & Paul)

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :

Does anyone other than Anglicans use the Easter Anthems?

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Does anyone other than Anglicans use the Easter Anthems?

Do even Anglicans use the Easter Anthems any more??? Not that many, I suspect.

Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Does anyone other than Anglicans use the Easter Anthems?

Well - I think they may be an Anglican construct although I don't know but the verses do come I think from various parts of Scripture

I don't know how many churches use it but in my part of Cambria we always have used them and not given them up usually in the position of the psalm

I suppose they could be used as an anthem (!) at Evensong, in fact that could be done by a church with thin reserves as far as the choir is concerned

I do like them actually!

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Does anyone other than Anglicans use the Easter Anthems?
Do even Anglicans use the Easter Anthems any more??? Not that many, I suspect.

Anyone in the SEC following the order for Morning Prayer on the website will be:
http://www.scotland.anglican.org/morning-prayer-wednesday-8-april-2015/
So, yes, probably not that many. [Biased]

[ 08. April 2015, 19:40: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
... Does anyone know where the following words come from?

quote:
This is the table, not of the Church, but of the Lord.
It is to be made ready for those who love him and who want to love him more.
So, come, you who have much faith and you who have little, you who have been here often and you who have not been for a long time, you who have tried to follow and you who have failed.
Come, not because it is I who invite you: it is our Lord.
It is his will that those who want him should meet him here.

...

Jengie, quite by chance, this afternoon, I came upon these words which are apparently from St John Chrysostom's Paschal Homily. Do you think there any possibility John Hunter might have been influenced by it?

quote:
If anyone is devout and a lover of God, let them enjoy this beautiful and radiant festival.
If anyone is a grateful servant, let them, rejoicing, enter into the joy of his Lord.
If anyone has wearied themselves in fasting, let them now receive recompense.

If anyone has laboured from the first hour, let them today receive the just reward.
If anyone has come at the third hour, with thanksgiving let them feast.
If anyone has arrived at the sixth hour, let them have no misgivings; for they shall suffer no loss.
If anyone has delayed until the ninth hour, let them draw near without hesitation.
If anyone has arrived even at the eleventh hour, let them not fear on account of tardiness.

For the Master is gracious and receives the last even as the first; He gives rest to him that comes at the eleventh hour, just as to him who has laboured from the first.
He has mercy upon the last and cares for the first; to the one He gives, and to the other He is gracious.
He both honours the work and praises the intention.

Enter all of you, therefore, into the joy of our Lord, and, whether first or last, receive your reward. ....

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I would have thought that St John C would not have thought that there was any tension between being the table of the Lord and the table of the church.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Re the Easter Anthems, we use them at daily Morning Prayer during Eastertide (as per the Franciscan Office, but they're in Common Worship as well, IIRC), and also at Matins (BCP) on Easter Sunday and on Low Sunday.

None of these services have more than 6 or 7 peeps at each, though....

Ian J.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Yes

The study of Liturgy started in the mid 19th Century in Scotland (so much so that the CofS Liturgical Society was founded in 1865. He is known to have used other ancient sources but unattributed. The Reformed traditions approach to liturgical studies is both scholarly and very much shaped by the need to produce fresh liturgy for Sunday. For a Congregational minister, interested in liturgy, coming such a text while working in Scotland would make the adaptation almost inevitable.

There was in the US in 19th Century is a very Catholic form of Reformed Theology. I know of scholars who believe that fueled the interest in liturgy.

Jengie

Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Re the Easter Anthems, we use them at daily Morning Prayer during Eastertide (as per the Franciscan Office, but they're in Common Worship as well, IIRC), and also at Matins (BCP) on Easter Sunday and on Low Sunday.

None of these services have more than 6 or 7 peeps at each, though....

Ian J.

We used them at the Easter Sunday morning Choral Eucharist but I've had a little look round and it doesn't seem to be as common as I thought

Hereford Cathedral used them at Choral Mattins on Easter Sunday ( yes Mattins still survives in some places!)from what I can see

I think but do not know that they're more closely associated with the Offices rather than the Eucharist so perhaps we're a bit unusual but on the other hand using them at the Eucharist does mean that they are sung when there's a decent congregation I suppose.......

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Entirely appropriate at any Eastertide Eucharist, IMHO.....

(...and they make a welcome change from the Venite.......whyever did ++Cranmer insist on saying it every blessed day?)

Ian J.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:

(...and they make a welcome change from the Venite.......whyever did ++Cranmer insist on saying it every blessed day?)

Ian J.

Heresy!

(You're not wrong, though.)

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Entirely appropriate at any Eastertide Eucharist, IMHO.....

(...and they make a welcome change from the Venite.......whyever did ++Cranmer insist on saying it every blessed day?)

Ian J.

Because he inherited the medoeval Roman Catholic office which always, daily, had the Venite as the 'invitorium' for the first office of the day - and still does.

Benedeictus and Magnificat are also said daily.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Thanks, leo - I didn't know that about the Venite (I realise the Gospel Canticles are for daily use, of course - we say the Benedictus every morning...).

Ian J. (aka Heretic Of This Parish)

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Yes

The study of Liturgy started in the mid 19th Century in Scotland (so much so that the CofS Liturgical Society was founded in 1865. He is known to have used other ancient sources but unattributed. The Reformed traditions approach to liturgical studies is both scholarly and very much shaped by the need to produce fresh liturgy for Sunday. For a Congregational minister, interested in liturgy, coming such a text while working in Scotland would make the adaptation almost inevitable.

There was in the US in 19th Century is a very Catholic form of Reformed Theology. I know of scholars who believe that fueled the interest in liturgy.

Jengie

Thank you for that. It's really interesting, and something I wasn't properly aware of.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

A friend has asked if I will take a wedding for some mates of his. They want a Christian service, but not in church. You can get married in all sorts of places by a registrar; are there limits on where a priest can conduct a service?

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I can't answer that ... but there's nothing to stop them having a civil ceremony with the Registrar (to do the "legal" bit) and then have you marry them "properly" (i.e. in a Christian ceremony, but with no legal significance).

That is of course the norm in many countries, anyway.

[ 11. April 2015, 21:58: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
You can get married in all sorts of places by a registrar; are there limits on where a priest can conduct a service?

A C of E priest? I rather think that an actual marriage outside a parish church would require a Special Licence. Whilst in principle one could be granted for a wedding in a hotel or whatever, it seems rather unlikely.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
[qb] Roman Catholic office which always, daily, had the Venite as the 'invitorium' for the first office of the day - and still does.

Benedeictus and Magnificat are also said daily.

A seasonal tag, "eg "The Lord is truly risen, alleluia" today, alternates with the verses of the Venite. This was also a possibility in the 1928 BCP.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
A friend has asked if I will take a wedding for some mates of his. They want a Christian service, but not in church. You can get married in all sorts of places by a registrar; are there limits on where a priest can conduct a service?

We have to get the bishop's permission to do a wedding outside of a church. There's a list of places for which that permission is basically pro forma and then anywhere else you genuinely have to ask, and be prepared to be told no. All of the pro forma-ish ones are clearly Christian (eg. an ecumenical military chapel).

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

Basicaly a CofE priest can only conduct weddings in a CofE church (with the expeption of special permission for places like hospitals.)

Secular venues are only to gave secular services with no religious content.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

To have a CofE wedding anywhere other than in a parish church that the couple have the requisite connection with requires a Special Licence. This is not from the diocese but from the Archbishop of Canterbury. They aren't a right and I believe are very rarely given for anything other than,
- for a wedding in an ordinary church the couple are connected with but don't satisfy the residence requirements (this should be much rarer now the ordinary rules have been relaxed).
- for a wedding in an ecclesiastical building not normally authorised for weddings (e.g. a college chapel).
- for a wedding in a hospital bed.

I suspect the prospect of persuading anyone to give one a Special Licence for a wedding in a hotel or some scenic open air location is so close to nil as not to be worth pursuing.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
[qb] Roman Catholic office which always, daily, had the Venite as the 'invitorium' for the first office of the day - and still does.

Benedeictus and Magnificat are also said daily.
A seasonal tag, "eg "The Lord is truly risen, alleluia" today, alternates with the verses of the Venite. This was also a possibility in the 1928 BCP.

In the US 1928, it doesn't alternate with the verses, but is sung as an antiphon before the Venite (to the same tune).

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

If a wedding is a sacrament, the minister of the sacrament are the couple. Why do they need a Christian minister other than a witness and president at a nuptial mass?

If a wedding is signing a property covenant, (which it is at a minimum and a far greater recognition of that would be welcome) then why do you need a Christian minister at all?

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
If a wedding is a sacrament, the minister of the sacrament are the couple. Why do they need a Christian minister other than a witness and president at a nuptial mass?

If a wedding is signing a property covenant, (which it is at a minimum and a far greater recognition of that would be welcome) then why do you need a Christian minister at all?

I agree, but I believe in the CoE's case it has to do with clergy being registrars? I think also possibly to do with the very tight rules about places licensed for civil weddings.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

As far as RCs are concerned the presence of the priest is to help ascertain that the couple are meaning to do what the Church understands by the sacrament.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

A lot of the English rules on marriage are designed to prevent clandestine or secret marriages, to make deception and bigamy more difficult and to avoid the uncertainty that existed in the past as to who was really married to whom.

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
As far as RCs are concerned the presence of the priest is to help ascertain that the couple are meaning to do what the Church understands by the sacrament.

And of course the Code of Canon Law allows for marriage by the simple exchange of vows before a lay witness if either or both of the parties is in danger of death, or if the unavailability of any priest or deacon is expected to continue for a month or more.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

You do not need a minister. The practice of having weddings in church was actually fairly late and due to the requirement to have the wedding in the church grounds (irc church porch) so that it was visible to the whole community. In other words about public space rather than sacred space.

Jengie

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Bear in mind that I know nothing of English marriage laws, or C of E canon law. Would it be possible for your mate's friends to have a registry office wedding, which will cover the legal requirements, and then that you conduct a service of blessing the couple in the place of their choosing? In effect what happens in many countries, even though the religious ceremony is usually called a wedding also, not a blessing.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

Many thanks for all the suggestions. Will get back to my mate and see what develops.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

- for a wedding in an ecclesiastical building not normally authorised for weddings (e.g. a college chapel).

Is it common for college chapels not to be authorised for weddings? I was married in the Anglican & Free Church Chapel while at university and I just had to get banns read as normal.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Is it common for college chapels not to be authorised for weddings? I was married in the Anglican & Free Church Chapel while at university and I just had to get banns read as normal.

I know mine wasn't (friends were married by special licence there), and I didn't think it was that unusual.

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

I think very few of the Oxford College Chapels are licensed for weddings. I stumped up the necessary fee for a Special Licence from the Legate sorry Archbishop of Canterbury to see my daughter married in one.

Christ Church of course must be licensed being the cathedral; and I don't know if Merton is still allowed to masquerade as the Parish Church of St John.

Saturdays in summer are quite fun, as the parish registers of the city churches are hurried from one college chapel to another.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I have a feeling, but may be completely wrong, that one might need an Archbishop's Licence to be married in a cathedral, and that the reason may be that most cathedrals don't have a parish. In which case, it's also possible that if a cathedral has got a parish, then one can get married there.

Is there a shipmate out there that actually knows?

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Actually most of our cathedrals are also parish churches - perhaps something we inherited from the time when bishoprics were done away with? - and they function as all other parishes.

For example, if you live within the parish of St Albans Abbey then you can get married there, have your children baptised there, etc. Chichester and Hereford cathedrals also have frequent weddings of people who qualify by virtue of living within the cathedral's parish.

Of course, arranging a wedding in a cathedral where there are other considerations may require greater flexibility about day and time. But you get married by banns same as in any other church.

As for an Archbishop's Licence: these are extremely rare and take a great deal of organisation to obtain. Most people who get married by licence have either a registrar's licence or a surrogate's licence.

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I have a feeling, but may be completely wrong, that one might need an Archbishop's Licence to be married in a cathedral, and that the reason may be that most cathedrals don't have a parish. In which case, it's also possible that if a cathedral has got a parish, then one can get married there.

Is there a shipmate out there that actually knows?

I think one has a right to get married in the Cathedral in Oxford if one lives within "the peculiar place of the House of Christ in Oxford" -- I hope I have got that right, someone who was so married once told me what the banns said, but that was some years ago!

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Actually most of our cathedrals are also parish churches - perhaps something we inherited from the time when bishoprics were done away with? - and they function as all other parishes.

I always thought that there were 'parish church cathedrals' (largely, though perhaps not exclusively, former town parish churches upgraded), and the rest - the majority of medieval foundations. The former used to be distinguished by having a Provost instead of a Dean.

I don't know the legal position, but I would guess that the non-parochial cathedrals had nonetheless a sort of quasi-parish in the cathedral close, with similar rights for its residents. But they are not parochial in the normal sense. However, I'd have thought that regular worshippers in the cathedral would be entitled to be married there, as are regular worshippers in any church even if they live outside the parish.

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

[del]

As for an Archbishop's Licence: these are extremely rare and take a great deal of organisation to obtain. Most people who get married by licence have either a registrar's licence or a surrogate's licence.

"Not very common" at most! I've seen umpteen. I don't think that they need much organisation to obtain: just a question of filling in the forms, and getting the vicars of the happy couple's parishes to sign it off. But the ABC's licence lets one do things the others don't, so they are not interchangeable.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by american piskie

quote:
I think one has a right to get married in the Cathedral in Oxford if one lives within "the peculiar place of the House of Christ in Oxford" -- I hope I have got that right, someone who was so married once told me what the banns said, but that was some years ago!

What it means is that anyone who is a member (graduate or undergraduate) of Christ Church, Oxford, is entitled to get married in the college chapel - which is the cathedral for the diocese of Oxford.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I have a feeling, but may be completely wrong, that one might need an Archbishop's Licence to be married in a cathedral, and that the reason may be that most cathedrals don't have a parish. In which case, it's also possible that if a cathedral has got a parish, then one can get married there.

Is there a shipmate out there that actually knows?

I was once told by a Canon Precentor about a clergyman from the Diocese who wished to marry his intended in the Cathedral. Neither he nor his intended lived in the Cathedral's parochial area and so he applied for an Archbishops Licence. He was told that he hadn't been able to demonstrate an adequate link to the Cathedral. The Canon Precentor picked up the phone to the relevant office and asked "which part of he was ordained in the Cathedral and is a member of the Diocesan clergy in good standing escaped you". I understand that the wedding was a most happy occasion.

Archbishops Licences are strange and wonderful things. AIUI, once upon a time they were nodded through with a muttered "whatevs", then there was some kind of reform and it got really stringent. Subsequently it got a bit more sensible.

The three I was involved with, at various times, went through without fuss - on one occasion I was fixing someone else's mess and the couple had done all the right things but the banns had not been called, on another the vagaries of the parish system was working with the maximum unfairness (nowadays they would have got in with a qualifying connection), the third was a rather complicated business with a gypsy wedding - I advised them to have a discreet civil ceremony followed by a blessing in church, but apparently only I would do as registrar and to my surprise and delight the office came through with the licence. It was one of the two occasions on which I was kissed by the bride at the end of the ceremony!

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

When I was a pastoral assistant in the early 90s my Vicar was involved in trying to get an Archbishop's Licenec for some reason or another, and had great difficulty in persuading the relevant official (actually I think only a paralegal) at whatever firm of solicitors handled these things to issue one. Then the official asked "wait a minute, isn't that the parish where Albertus's Realname is?" and became much more co-operative- turned out to be a friend of a friend!
Not really the way things should work, though.

Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :

Having read about the legalistic machinery involved in ol' mother CofE, I'm glad that out here in the Antipodes we've streamlined things, especially with regards to Banns (never heard any for the last 40 years or so, though they are still optional). Also, there is no requirement to be resident in an area or have defined attachment to a church - couples do 'rock up' and ask to be married there because they like the look of the place, or the gardens are beautiful, or they know one of the resident clergy and want him/her to marry them. We also have occasions when people use our churches who are from other traditions and don't have the facilities for a wedding, even bringing their own clergy with them.

While clergy who are authorized to conduct wedding ceremonies are supposed to perform such services in a church building, this is in many cases a requirement more often observed in the breach. Many of my clerical associates have conducted weddings in parks, in 'wedding chapels' attached to function centres, hotels, etc. None of these ceremonies are anything like 'liturgy-lite' with full authorized liturgies from AAPB or APBA (the national Prayer Books). Many of us give serious attention to the preparation of the couple, with pre-wedding discussions over 4-6 sessions.

[ 15. April 2015, 22:24: Message edited by: Emendator Liturgia ]

Posted by Barnabas Aus (# 15869) on :

Indeed EL. Our daughter was married last year. Originally due to be a botanical garden wedding it was moved to a surf clubhouse due to rain. The ceremony was the full liturgy according to APBA, conducted by our dear friend who has known her since she was but a toddler. While we would have loved a church wedding, her husband is still smarting from some callous clergy behaviour during his late mother's terminal illness.

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

May I continue to burn our Paschal candle every Sunday after Pentecost? We got the smallest one we could find but it is still huge, and it seems a waste to leave so much of it unburned. I don't expect many baptisms or funerals between now and next Easter.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Same with us, but we recycle the old paschal candle by removing the decorative bits and sawing it into six-inch long sections for use at various shrines around the church!

Wot? No shrines? Oh............

Ian J.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Can you wrap it carefully up in paper (and hopefully you kept the original shipping box) and reuse it next year? Or whenever a wedding or funeral turns up.

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

Here state-side wedding rules are not quite (read not nearly) so stringent, but they do vary from state to state, esp regarding such items as where and when one may get a license, what (if any) medical tests are required, etc.

In one state where I lived, clergy were required to have posted a bond with the county clerk (AIUI), which once done, was good for life throughout the state. This caused a problem once in our parish, as the asst set to officiate at the wedding had not yet posted his bond, and no other priest was available on short notice. The couple scooted across the state line to be married by a JP, and got back in time for a 'blessing of the marriage' with no-one the wiser, except those with sharp ears at the changes in the words!

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Can you wrap it carefully up in paper (and hopefully you kept the original shipping box) and reuse it next year? Or whenever a wedding or funeral turns up.

It will be marked with the year so it can't be simply re-used.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

The information about the year is usually applied as a pre-printed design - a bit like the 'tattoos' you could buy in my childhood!

If it is that type then it can be removed, as follows:

very carefully, and using wadded towelling between the jaws and the candle, place the candle in a bench-mounted vice
take an old palette knife and heat the blade
slowly and carefully slide the heated blade between the candle and the transfer
continue to re-heat the blade and slide until you have removed the whole thing
smooth over the surface of the now undecorated candle before wrapping in tissue and storing in a cool place

Good luck!

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

At the end of Lent, we do this to remove the year from our paschal candle and put in our daily Mass chapel for the Easter season (getting a new one for the main church each year). We found that our numbers were actually pinned on, so needed a pair of pliers to get the pins out.

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

A couple of questions about 'hands,' based on recent observations at the monastery where I'm currently employed:

1. During the Eucharistic Prayer, the concelebrating priests raise their hands, presumably imitating the celebrant's 'orans' position. However, I observe priests making these gestures:

'I caught a fish this big!'
'Don't shoot!'
'I think it's raining.'
'Black power!' (fists in the air)
'Buddy, can you spare a dime.'

The celebrant is doing it right, most of the con-cels are not copying his posture!

2. The various gestures are repeated during the Our Father, the lay brothers now joining in. I thought I remembered from long-ago liturgical studies that the 'orans' was something only the celebrant did. So what's going on?

3. We frequently have groups of visitors. Many of them indulge in hand-holding during the Our Father. What's with this?

If this is allowed by GIRM or whatever, okay. But it looks bizarre!

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

1. Every time I see someone approximate orans with palms up I want to yell "Cut that shit out, this isn't Calvary Chapel!"

2. A lot of stuff creeps in as mimicry. Out here it seems very common for people to echo the celebrant's manual actions at the Sursum corda, especially in Latino congregations.

3. I don't know if the GIRM expressly forbids hand-holding, but I don't think it's contemplated, and by a strict reading of the rubrics I don't believe it's allowed.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Hand-holding at the Our Father? [Projectile]

Sounds horribly twee.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Actually most of our cathedrals are also parish churches - perhaps something we inherited from the time when bishoprics were done away with? - and they function as all other parishes.

For example, if you live within the parish of St Albans Abbey then you can get married there, have your children baptised there, etc. Chichester and Hereford cathedrals also have frequent weddings of people who qualify by virtue of living within the cathedral's parish.

Of course, arranging a wedding in a cathedral where there are other considerations may require greater flexibility about day and time. But you get married by banns same as in any other church.

As for an Archbishop's Licence: these are extremely rare and take a great deal of organisation to obtain. Most people who get married by licence have either a registrar's licence or a surrogate's licence.

The licence issued either by the diocesan registrar or by a surrogate is a Common Licence. The other kind of licence is an Archbishop's Special Licence, issued where applicants

quote:
have a genuine and longstanding demonstrable link to the church building (and its congregation/worshipping community) where they wish to be married, which is sufficiently strong to justify the issue of a Licence. As part of this, applicants for a Special Licence will usually need to show a worshipping connection, over a period of time, with the church where they hope to marry. [link]

The following are cathedrals with parishes:

Newcastle,
Southwell,
Wakefield,
Southwark,
Birmingham,
Sheffield,
St Edmundsbury,
Chelmsford,
Coventry,
Bradford,
Blackburn,
Derby,
Leicester,
Portsmouth,
St Albans,
Manchester,
Ripon and
Truro.

For these cathedrals you can get married in them under the usual terms of the Marriage Measure by Common Licence (usually issued by a surrogate or the registrar of the diocese) or after Banns if you have a Qualifying Connection.

In the other cathedrals,

Chichester,
Exeter,
Hereford,
Lichfield,
Lincoln,
London (St Paul’s),
Salisbury,
Wells,
York,
Carlisle,
Durham,
Winchester,
Canterbury,
Ely,
Norwich,
Rochester,
Worcester,
Gloucester,
Bristol,
Chester,
Oxford,
Peterborough

you can only get married by Archbishop's Special Licence. These can be used for marriage in a building where the usual Qualifying Connections can't be established, or where the building is not licensed for marriages.

The Royal Peculiars such as Westminster Abbey have their own rules. (E.g. The only people that can be married in Westminster Abbey are members of the Royal Family, Order of the Bath members and their children, and anyone living in the Abbey's Precincts.)

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
The various gestures are repeated during the Our Father . . . . Many of them indulge in hand-holding.

I hate the orans mimicry and especially the hand-holding. Reminds me of AA. I half-expect people to swing their hands and chant, "Keep coming back, it really works."

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
A couple of questions about 'hands,' based on recent observations at the monastery where I'm currently employed:

1. During the Eucharistic Prayer, the concelebrating priests raise their hands, presumably imitating the celebrant's 'orans' position. However, I observe priests making these gestures:

'I caught a fish this big!'
'Don't shoot!'
'I think it's raining.'
'Black power!' (fists in the air)
'Buddy, can you spare a dime.'

The rubrics for concelebrants specify which portions of the EP they should adopt the orans posture for. It's not imitation; they're offering a Mass and so use the appropriate posture. What you describe sounds like the variety of postures I see that fit under a broad understanding of orans. FWIW, I've noticed the "don't shoot!" orans as much more common among monastics than other priests.

quote:

2. The various gestures are repeated during the Our Father, the lay brothers now joining in. I thought I remembered from long-ago liturgical studies that the 'orans' was something only the celebrant did. So what's going on?

(Con)-Celebrants adopt the orans posture during the Our Father by rubric. For all other participants in the Mass, there is no assigned posture. Many people find the orans a helpful posture for prayer and they are quite at liberty to make it. As a Jewish prayer posture, it was not restricted to priests and there is no reason to restrict its use among Christians.

quote:

3. We frequently have groups of visitors. Many of them indulge in hand-holding during the Our Father. What's with this?

This is a reasonably common practice. With the source of all unity enthroned on the altar, while proclaiming a prayer grounded in our common filiation, many find it helpful to embody that unity by joining their hands with their neighbor. While it would be somewhat improper for (con)celebrants to join with this (as they should be making the orans posture), others are at liberty to adopt whatever posture they wish at this time.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
The following are cathedrals with parishes: [list]
[...
In the other cathedrals, [list]
...
)

I notice that Liverpool does not feature on either list. It is a comparatively recent foundation which has never had a parish, but I understand that the cathedral close (which didn't exist until 20 or so years ago) functions as a sort of parish and people who live there can get married in the cathedral. Does anyone know if any of the other non-parochial cathedrals have a similar set-up?

Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :

Back to Paschal candles. I've been in a reuse parish before, where the year etc was just a transfer. But I did see a picture of a Maundy Thursday altar of repose that had three previous years' Paschal candles at different heights. I liked that.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
The following are cathedrals with parishes: [list]
[...
In the other cathedrals, [list]
...
)
I notice that Liverpool does not feature on either list. It is a comparatively recent foundation which has never had a parish, but I understand that the cathedral close (which didn't exist until 20 or so years ago) functions as a sort of parish and people who live there can get married in the cathedral. Does anyone know if any of the other non-parochial cathedrals have a similar set-up?

I think Guildford (which also doesn't appear on the list) is similar.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

So the rule of thumbe seems to be:
cathedrals of dioceses created before C19: no parish
cathedrals of later dioceses: parishes, because created from parish churches- except Liverpool and Guildford which were completely new foundations.
Is that right?

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by georgiaboy

quote:
We frequently have groups of visitors. Many of them indulge in hand-holding during the Our Father. What's with this?

This sounds like a variant on what we have on this side of the pond, the hand(s) trying to loosen a screw fitment light bulb.

On the subject of Cathedral parishes, the above list is not accurate since most cathedrals have a parish, although for some it is limited to the Close; there are people who qualify to get married in them by virtue of living in the parish, plus they have an electoral roll so there are couples who qualfy on that basis as well.

In addition, most cathedrals are happy to accommodate the weddings of their former choristers.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I notice that Liverpool does not feature on either list

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
I think Guildford (which also doesn't appear on the list) is similar.

You're quite right. A cut and paste error on my part. The situation for both is very similar and neither is a parish church.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
So the rule of thumbe seems to be:
cathedrals of dioceses created before C19: no parish
cathedrals of later dioceses: parishes, because created from parish churches- except Liverpool and Guildford which were completely new foundations.
Is that right?

Basically, yes.

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
On the subject of Cathedral parishes, the above list is not accurate since most cathedrals have a parish, although for some it is limited to the Close; there are people who qualify to get married in them by virtue of living in the parish, plus they have an electoral roll so there are couples who qualfy on that basis as well.

I think you are wrong about most cathedrals having a parish. Here is my source.

Also, those which do not have a parish do not have an Electoral Roll, though many, maybe all, have a Community Roll. Being on the roll demonstrates a connection with the cathedral, and will generally mean that the cathedral will support a person's application for a Special Licence to be married there.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

Guildford Diocese was formed on Sunday 1 May 1927, but the purpose-built new Cathedral was not consecrated until Wednesday 17 May 1961. The pro-cathedral before the new building was ready, was Holy Trinity Guildford (still there as a parish church).

Prior to the opening of the permanent Cathedral, the crypt chapel was open for worship, within the partly built permanent cathedral. In those days, that Church when it was opened for worship, became a conventional district and was not raised to parish status in 1961.

The present day qualification for entry onto the Cathedral electoral roll, is the requirement to be a habitual worshipper for the required length of time and there is no consideration for any resident qualifications, in the absence of a parish.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Sorry BroJames, I'm not wrong: all cathedrals have parishes but not all cathedrals have been a parish church and nothing more during their history.

The link you give explains the status of Deans, especially those who are parish priest first, dean second - but that doesn't mean the cathedral doesn't have a parish.

Whether or not a cathedral was originally the church in a monastic foundation makes no difference because the ancient abbeys were also parish churches - something which many remained after the dissolution. The exceptions were those abbeys - mainly cistercian - in out-of-the-way places where there was no lay population to use the church for worship (Fountains, Strata Florida, Llanthony, etc).

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Sorry BroJames, I'm not wrong: all cathedrals have parishes but not all cathedrals have been a parish church and nothing more during their history.

The link you give explains the status of Deans, especially those who are parish priest first, dean second - but that doesn't mean the cathedral doesn't have a parish.

. . .

Note 26. "None of the cathedrals founded before the nineteenth century is a parish church as such, though parts of several of them have at some time been used as parish churches, and in some there were small parish churches in the close".

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Sorry BroJames, I'm not wrong: all cathedrals have parishes but not all cathedrals have been a parish church and nothing more during their history.

The link you give explains the status of Deans, especially those who are parish priest first, dean second - but that doesn't mean the cathedral doesn't have a parish.

Whether or not a cathedral was originally the church in a monastic foundation makes no difference because the ancient abbeys were also parish churches - something which many remained after the dissolution. The exceptions were those abbeys - mainly cistercian - in out-of-the-way places where there was no lay population to use the church for worship (Fountains, Strata Florida, Llanthony, etc).

So what is the parish church of the parish [which you assert exists] of a cathedral which is not a parish church [which the C of E thinks exist -- see eg the guidance notes on the 2008 Marriage Measure]? I don't doubt most cathedrals have associated non-parochial areas but I am not convinced by your assertion that these peculiar places are parishes.

(Not quite serious: Dammit, follow the money! If they were parishes they'd have a Parish Share, and we all know that our Parish Share in inflated because the cathedral congregation doesn't contribute.)

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

Here's a map showing the Oxford Cathedral curtilage as extra-parochial:

Oxford City Parishes

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

My researches here suggest that the four non-parish-church cathedrals which are shown has having parishes all have parish 'names' such as "Cathedral Ex.[tra] Par[ochial]", "Cathedral Precinct" etc. Of the remainder, seven are shown as being wholly within one or more parish church parishes.

The others neither have a parish name, nor are they shown as being within parishes.

Norwich is something of an oddity in that the cathedral was built in the parish of St Mary in the Marsh in Norwich, and when that parish church was demolished one of the chapels within the cathedral was designated to be the parish church. Something similar happened with St Paul's cathedral in London and St Faith's.

The areas over which the non-parish-church cathedrals have jurisdiction are not parishes, but extra-parochial areas. (As indeed were many Abbeys, about ten percent of which, apparently, were already in use as parish churches prior to the dissolution)

Posted by Cathscats (# 17827) on :

Since this whole parishes or not parishes discussion began with a query about weddings, it should be noted that in Scotland until recently the reverse of the English rules applied. I.e. Ministers could (and still can) conduct a wedding anywhere but registrars had to use their offices. Registrars are now allowed out (!) but tend the charge a lot, while Church of Scotland ministers may not make a charge for offering the ordinances of religion, which includes weddings.

I have just come back from conducting a lovely wedding in the bride's parental home. It was a very Christian affair!

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

Related to the cathedral question I suppose - what about holding weddings in (Anglican) convent/monastery chapels in England? Or for that matter, private chapels in stately homes?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Yes, good question. For example, I see that Lord Salisbury still has a domestic chaplain (with a chapel) at Hatfield. Can he celebrate legally valid marriages? And what about proprietary chapels?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Related to the cathedral question I suppose - what about holding weddings in (Anglican) convent/monastery chapels in England? Or for that matter, private chapels in stately homes?

This would require a special licence. If you have some real connection with the chapel (it's your school chapel, or you own the stately home and it's your chapel) then it will be granted.

The owner of a stately home is unlikely to be able to host C of E weddings in his chapel as a business.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Robert Cecil's chapel at Hatfield isn't licensed for weddings - he wasn't married there in any case because he married an RC.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

CofE weddings can only happen in CofE premises.

The stately home can apply to be a civil venue for business but they can't be CofE only civil weddings.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

Would, then, a CoE convent's chapel come under CoE premises?

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
CofE weddings can only happen in CofE premises.

The stately home can apply to be a civil venue for business but they can't be CofE only civil weddings.

No. CofE weddings under Special Licence can take place anywhere and at any time. That is part of the point of the Special Licence - for example to enable death bed marriages in hospital.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
CofE weddings can only happen in CofE premises.

The stately home can apply to be a civil venue for business but they can't be CofE only civil weddings.
No. CofE weddings under Special Licence can take place anywhere and at any time. That is part of the point of the Special Licence - for example to enable death bed marriages in hospital.

Sorry I was talking about the ‘business’ side of weddings, not extreme cases and pastoral situations.

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
CofE weddings can only happen in CofE premises.

. . .

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Would, then, a CoE convent's chapel come under CoE premises?

No convent was ever 'owned' by the Church of England, but the chapel might be licensed for worship. But a Special Licence would allow marriages even if it were not. It could also allow marriages in unlicensed buildings or places belonging to other denominations. When I was a student in London I went to SL marriages at the University Church of Christ the King which was actually a Catholic Apostolic Church simply rented by the Diocese ( I think for 10/- a year).

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

Thank you! I was only talking about individual cases and not using chapels as part of a wedding business.

Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Yes, good question. For example, I see that Lord Salisbury still has a domestic chaplain (with a chapel) at Hatfield. Can he celebrate legally valid marriages? And what about proprietary chapels?

Christ Church, Bath is licensed for weddings.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

So what did everyone get up to for Trinity Sunday?

We had Holy, holy, holy, and then St Patrick's breastplate: the 3 or 4 wedding couples in church to hear their banns being read looked suitably stunned - and that was before we gave them O thou, the central Orb by Charles Wood.

The Piece d'Orgue by JSB to finish, of course.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I had an unusual question. At our church the Altar Guild does the flowers in addition to all the vessels/wine/table hangings. A parishioner asked me if the large triangular flower arrangement by the altar was Trinitarian in intent. I was forced to reply that for vases of that size there really are only two options. The flowers are either vaguely globular, or dimly triangular in arrangement. (We are not avant-garde enough to have rectangular floral displays.) He was disappointed.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
So what did everyone get up to for Trinity Sunday?

Baptisms at both morning Masses. When I took the bookings, I thought that that would tie in nicely with Trinity Sunday, then looked at the readings, and found that the lectionary compilers had had the same idea.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
Baptisms at both morning Masses. When I took the bookings, I thought that that would tie in nicely with Trinity Sunday, then looked at the readings, and found that the lectionary compilers had had the same idea.

Baptisms at our place, too. One service, four baptisms—an infant from one family and the father and two elementary school-age sons from another family. Add to that ordination and installation of elders and deacons.

"Holy, Holy, Holy" was the processional hymn. Most other hymns were more baptismal in focus.

Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
So what did everyone get up to for Trinity Sunday

As sickness meant I had to miss church yesterday but had done all the arrangements and printing for it beforehand, I can advise that at our little A-C shack we had:

Organ Prelude: Samuel Scheidt's "Wir glauben all an einen Gott"
Chortal Prelude: William Byrd's ‘O lux beata Trinitas’
Processional Hymn: 1st part of St Patrick's Breastplate'
Gradual Hymn: 'Holy, Holy, Holy'
Sermon Meditation: ‘Sanctus’ from ‘Deutsche Messe' by Franz Schubert
Offertory Hymn: St Patrick's Breastplate Pt. 2
Communion music: Tchaikovsky's Cherubic Hymn No. 2
Recessional Hymn: 'I the Lord of Sea and Sky'(so right when the OT lesson was Isaiah 6:1-8).
Postlude: 'Sinfonia' from Cantata 29 - J.S. Bach (arr. Guilmant)

All to the choral mass setting by Dudman -lots of singing, and with the backdrop of the cross of flames which was intentionally left there from last Sunday's service.

Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
So what did everyone get up to for Trinity Sunday?

St. Patrick's Breastplate (or Paddy's Bra as it's known in the Church of Ireland) in procession
Mass setting: Schubert in G
Motet: Hymn to the Trinity - Tchaikovsky
plus Holy, holy, holy and sundry other seasonal hymns
Postlude: Bach Prelude and St. Anne Fugue (which has Trinitarian references - three sections, three flats in the key-signature, and time-signatures based on threes or groups of three).

Evensong featured a flock of Byrd:

Byrd Responses
Psalms 146 and 150 (not by Byrd)
Byrd: Second Service
Byrd: Prevent us, O Lord
Postlude: Byrd: The Earle of Oxford's Marche

Instead of the Apostles' Creed, we sang the Athanasian Creed to Anglican chant - did anyone else do that?

Posted by Roselyn (# 17859) on :

Any idea what symbol on wooden font cover in the shape of a wide triangle with three wooden arrows in it might be? It is in Anglican church in Port Macquarie, NSW.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Our main service started with a magnificent introit by an English composer of whom I had not heard and whose name slips my mind, but I'd say from the end of the Renaissance. Then the Beastplate as the processional hymn. Holy, Holy, Holy was the Gospel gradual. The communion motets were Byrd's Ave verum corpus and a much more modern one. A couple of other seasonal hymns rounded it out. Then a bit of J S as a postlude - hard not to have him on a Sunday morning.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I had an unusual question. At our church the Altar Guild does the flowers in addition to all the vessels/wine/table hangings. A parishioner asked me if the large triangular flower arrangement by the altar was Trinitarian in intent. I was forced to reply that for vases of that size there really are only two options. The flowers are either vaguely globular, or dimly triangular in arrangement. (We are not avant-garde enough to have rectangular floral displays.) He was disappointed.

No no no! You are a fantasy writer. You should have extemporised some fanciful theological explanation and sat back to see whether it spread! I came up with something on these boards a while ago about the symbolism of different coloured Christmas tree baubles and I live in hope that someone believed it and has ever since dressed their tree accordingly.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I save that creativity for people who call me from Bangalore or Indonesia telling me that my computer needs a patch.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

[Smile]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

The introit was something by Gibbons
Setting Warren’s S. Paul’s Service

Hymns:

Holy holy holy
Filled with the Spirit’s power
How shall I sing
We sing a love

Hymn to the Trinity Tchaikovsky

Posted by teddybear (# 7842) on :

Question for all of you liturgi-geeks, especially you with familiarity with the RC: Can a priest consecrate the Chrism? I read on the old Catholic Encyclopedia that at one time the Holy See would permit certain priests to consecrate the Chrism under certain circumstances. Is this ever done now? And, if a priest were to do so without permission would it be illicit and valid or just in invalid as well as illicit? What say ye? I know in many of the only Orthodox Churches only a Patriarch can consecrate Chrism and not every year at that.

Posted by Barnabas Aus (# 15869) on :

Roselyn wrote:

quote:
Any idea what symbol on wooden font cover in the shape of a wide triangle with three wooden arrows in it might be? It is in Anglican church in Port Macquarie, NSW.

Could it be a variation on the carpenter's square and spear, which are the traditional heraldic emblems for St Thomas, who is the patron saint of that church?

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

Priests may confirm with chrism consecrated by a bishop, and this happens fairly often, but its consecration is reserved to bishops.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas Aus:
Roselyn wrote:

quote:
Any idea what symbol on wooden font cover in the shape of a wide triangle with three wooden arrows in it might be? It is in Anglican church in Port Macquarie, NSW.
Could it be a variation on the carpenter's square and spear, which are the traditional heraldic emblems for St Thomas, who is the patron saint of that church?

I'd have thought it far more likely to indicate the Trinity.

Posted by Arch Anglo Catholic (# 15181) on :

I agree that it is highly likely that the symbols are those of St Thomas - the odd triangle will indeed be a carpenter's/mason's Square.

I base my logic on my understanding that the church is dedicated to St Thomas too, or so St Google of the Mystic Knowledge advises...

Posted by Barnabas Aus (# 15869) on :

I have worshipped in Port Macquarie once, but had the misfortune to choose the cafe church service which is held in the parish hall, so haven't been into the historic church. At the service I attended, communion was distributed from a broken wholemeal loaf and wee cuppies - wine to the left of the tray and grape juice to the right. I think it is the lowest parish on the candle in the whole of the Diocese of Grafton.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

While of course I would know nothing about the Diocese of Grafton, when I didn't know said diocese most it was certainly the happiest-clappiest and I have no indication of change since.

If hypothetically I were in the region I would attend a different parish church about 20 kms west. But I'm sure a Trinitarian God is worshipped there, too.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arch Anglo Catholic:
I agree that it is highly likely that the symbols are those of St Thomas - the odd triangle will indeed be a carpenter's/mason's Square.

I base my logic on my understanding that the church is dedicated to St Thomas too, or so St Google of the Mystic Knowledge advises...

I don't know of course, but from what we learn here of the church it is unlikely they would be much into either their patron saint or sanctoral symbolism. I used to go to a church dedicated to St Thomas with a permanent incense fug and never saw a triangle. The statue of St Thomas held a set square, which was L shaped: quite different from a triangle.

As I say, almost certainly a symbol of the Trinity.

[ 16. June 2015, 16:40: Message edited by: venbede ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Is it something like this? Or are the arrows the broad arrows which were aand perhaps still are used to mark British government property, the church in question dating back to the early colonial period? They look like this.

Posted by Roselyn (# 17859) on :

it is dark, skeletal and 3 dimensional about 3 inches on the long edge. Arrows radiate from middle of long edge have parallel edges and a medium sized triangle where they meet the other sides. May be errors in this description as it is some weeks since I saw it.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Roselyn:
it is dark, skeletal and 3 dimensional about 3 inches on the long edge. Arrows radiate from middle of long edge have parallel edges and a medium sized triangle where they meet the other sides. May be errors in this description as it is some weeks since I saw it.

For someone coming new to this thread, this is a mysterious and terrifying post.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Not entirely helpful, blink and you will miss it! However one gets an idea. Remains obscure though.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I blinked. But I was gobsmacked to see box pews. That would be C19 Low Church in England, but I can't imagine any would be vibrant evangelical church in England retaining them nowadays.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

... unless they were Grade 1 Listed perhaps?

What I found strange were not the pews but the long shorts worn by the older boys! Reminiscent of the Colonel's "Hill House" School in Kensington (London) - but that only goes up to age 13.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

PS St. John's, Downshire Hill, has box pews under the gallery but not in the central part of the nave: this has chairs.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by teddybear:
Question for all of you liturgi-geeks, especially you with familiarity with the RC: Can a priest consecrate the Chrism? I read on the old Catholic Encyclopedia that at one time the Holy See would permit certain priests to consecrate the Chrism under certain circumstances. Is this ever done now? And, if a priest were to do so without permission would it be illicit and valid or just in invalid as well as illicit? What say ye? I know in many of the only Orthodox Churches only a Patriarch can consecrate Chrism and not every year at that.

Like Ceremoniar says, priests cannot consecrate chrism, only bishops can.

I was told, in the Episcopal Church, anyway, that priests can, however, consecrate the oil of the sick. Can anyone confirm that (no pun intended)?

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:

quote:
Originally posted by teddybear:
Question for all of you liturgi-geeks, especially you with familiarity with the RC: Can a priest consecrate the Chrism? I read on the old Catholic Encyclopedia that at one time the Holy See would permit certain priests to consecrate the Chrism under certain circumstances. Is this ever done now? And, if a priest were to do so without permission would it be illicit and valid or just in invalid as well as illicit? What say ye? I know in many of the only Orthodox Churches only a Patriarch can consecrate Chrism and not every year at that.
Like Ceremoniar says, priests cannot consecrate chrism, only bishops can.

I was told, in the Episcopal Church, anyway, that priests can, however, consecrate the oil of the sick. Can anyone confirm that (no pun intended)?

I have heard this said by a TEC bishop. However, that doesn't mean that it is so. And I have no documentation to hand to either affirm or refute the statement.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

In the Church of England, Canon B37 (scroll down the page), provides that oil for the sick can be consecrated by a priest. Also, I see the 1979 BCP makes provision for the priest to bless oil for the sick in its provision for Ministration to the Sick.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

Also, in the Common Worship book of Pastoral Services, there are a couple of prayers over the oil, for use by priests.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

A church near me is having a 'Dedicated Mass'.

What's that? (Not dedication festival)

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
A church near me is having a 'Dedicated Mass'.

What's that? (Not dedication festival)

Never heard of it. Can you find out from the church concerned?

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

A little googling suggests that it is a term used in RCC for a mass with a particular seasonal or other focus, or for the anniversary of death of a particular person.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
A church near me is having a 'Dedicated Mass'.

What's that? (Not dedication festival)

Never heard of it either. Can you give some context? Is this literally just a line on a bulletin saying "Tuesday, 7pm: Dedicated Mass" or did you come across it as part of some larger unit (sentence / document) which would help us understand it?

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

Or, thinking further, is it a "Dedicated Mass," ie. a Mass at which the well(!)-known music group "Dedicated" will be playing, or a Mass provided for the members of the lay association "Dedicated", etc. If I came across the phrase with no explanatory context, that's how I'd understand it. (We have a "Rejoice! Mass" on campus, which is a Mass that the "Rejoice!" music group provide the music for.)

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

It's also possible that the person who put that in the bulletin (or on the signboard, or wherever) simply didn't know what a votive Mass was, or didn't think anyone else would.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

That sounds likely - a new parish administrator has only been on post for about a month after the retirement of someone who did the job for 20 years.

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

Does anyone know of a way to get hold of a Common Worship eBook (for use on Kindle) without getting it through Amazon? A search with the words "common worship kindle" has not been successful.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

Download the pdfs and send them to your kindle?

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

I'll give that a go, thanks.

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

I'm not sure if this question is in the right place...

My grandmother died a few weeks ago and her funeral was this week. The day after the funeral I (along with the other grandchildren) was asked to visit her old house to see if there were any pictures, bits of furniture, kitchen/garden stuff we would like. I did so.

In her bedroom I found on a table a little ceramic pillbox and could hear something rattling around inside. Thinking it might be a pill which could be dangerous if a child found it (she took Warfarin) I opened the box. I discovered what appeared to be a quarter of a Communion wafer. Now, I had no idea how that had got there, and no idea if it is consecrated or not. My instinct was to consume it, but for some reason I didn't. Should I have done so?

My concern is that being a fairly unremarkable pillbox, when the house is cleared it will just go to some charity shop somewhere and someone will discover the (possible consecrated) quarter of wafer and just put it in the bin. My mum is still staying at my grandmother's old house until all the clearing is done. Should I ask her to consume the wafer do you think?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

If I were you I'd ask your (or your grandmother's) parish priest and follow their advice unless it seems entirely unreasonable (e.g. 'give it to the cat'). Even if you were just going to throw it away, it'd be reasonable to take it out of the pillbox before it goes to the charity shop- you'd do that if it were a quarter of a cream cracker.

[ 14. August 2015, 10:16: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

Thanks Albertus. This'll be a good q for my vicar when I see him this Sunday!

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Nice one to chat about in the coffee breaks at BAP too (or maybe not!)

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

I'd be inclined to simply consume it (reverently), or, if such is to hand, to put it in a fire or stove (e.g. an Aga or Rayburn).

Best not to take any chances - or, IOW, your first instinct was correct!

Ian J.

Posted by Joan_of_Quark (# 9887) on :

Consuming the host is definitely the best option. If no-one can do that, I am pretty sure the canonical thing to do instead would be to dissolve it in water rather than put it on a fire. That is, wrap it in a cloth (napkin, handkerchief?) and take it to a priest. They would then dissolve it in water until it no longer resembled bread and then pour the solution down a sacrarium (if their sacristy had one, or a font that drains to earth, or the consecrated ground outside a church).

Posted by Josiah Crawley (# 18481) on :

Here's a question about a Funeral Mass.

Is there a special way the coffin is honored with incense at the end or is it just surrounded with incense?

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I'm not sure if its written down anywhere but this is what used to happen at an AC church where I worked:

when the coffin arrived at the church door the priest took the thurible and gave 3 lots of 3 to the head end;
at the Commendation the priest took the thurible and, walking clockwise, moved around the coffin holding the thurible on a short chain so he could make small circles;
having made a complete circuit he again censed the coffin with three groups of 3 short swings at the head end.

As I say, I'm not sure if this is the 'standard' but it is what happened in one place.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I'm not sure if its written down anywhere but this is what used to happen at an AC church where I worked:
when the coffin arrived at the church door the priest took the thurible and gave 3 lots of 3 to the head end;
at the Commendation the priest took the thurible and, walking clockwise, moved around the coffin holding the thurible on a short chain so he could make small circles;
having made a complete circuit he again censed the coffin with three groups of 3 short swings at the head end.
As I say, I'm not sure if this is the 'standard' but it is what happened in one place.

That's what we do at our place. Don't forget to sprinkle with Holy Water as well.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

ditto

Though I have seen a variation whereby EVERYONE sprinkles the coffin as they pass it on their way up to communion.

Posted by Josiah Crawley (# 18481) on :

What about when the coffin is already present from the night vigil?

Is there censing of it in the Mass before the end?

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

We sprinkle as the coffin is brought into the church (as a sentence is read recalling baptism), right before the pall is put on. At the end, I cense much as has been described above, but without anything special at the head. I will stop to cense the Paschal candle as well.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

My impression is that it is not all that frequent in the CofE. Common Worship says,

quote:
The coffin may be sprinkled with water on entry. This may occur at the Commendation, or at the Committal.

but when I've seen it done, it has been when the coffin leaves the church, i.e. Commendation. My understanding, for what it's worth, is that it represents the water of our baptism.

An undertaker looked very disapproving a few years ago, when somebody asked about a pall, and said 'palls are very London' - by which he meant they aren't used anywhere else and he hadn't got one.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

Do undertakers bring the pall to churches in London? I'm used to the pall being something that the church provides (even though the funeral home staff are the ones that actually put it on the casket).

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
Do undertakers bring the pall to churches in London? I'm used to the pall being something that the church provides (even though the funeral home staff are the ones that actually put it on the casket).

I've no idea. The point he was making was that they didn't use them where he was. I don't think they are part of usual church furniture. I can't recall having ever seen one.

However, one thing you may not realise which I think is very different from US funeral customs, is that the coffin always has its lid on at a UK funeral.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

My church (US Anglican) has a pall for coffins. It is, I believe, white, in token of the Resurrection. I have never seen it in use. I have seen funerals conducted with the ashes from the cremation; the urn gets its own credence table and a little pall (white).

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

However, one thing you may not realise which I think is very different from US funeral customs, is that the coffin always has its lid on at a UK funeral.

My experience here (in my part of the Catholic Midwest) is that when we do the funeral in the church, the casket is closed and the pall is used. When it's at the funeral home, the casket remains open.

I've only had a few funerals with cremains. When cremains are brought to church, we treat them exactly as Brenda describes. Many get cremated, but usually after the funeral.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
Do undertakers bring the pall to churches in London? I'm used to the pall being something that the church provides (even though the funeral home staff are the ones that actually put it on the casket).
I've no idea. The point he was making was that they didn't use them where he was. I don't think they are part of usual church furniture. I can't recall having ever seen one.

The pall is not a piece of church furniture. It is the cloth that covers the casket during the Catholic funeral Mass. It is also used by other liturgical Christians. Traditionally it was black, as in this picture, but since 1970 they have more commonly been white pictured here.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

They are deucedly expensive, being so large, and if I was a church I'd be happy to let the funeral directors do this bit. In other words, if you don't already have one, don't begin!

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Have it made, as we did. and pay your (probably immigrant) seamstress well!

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

At one of my old churches, it was just part of one of the white Mass sets, so we always used that one for funerals. Same deal at our basilica.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

This is ours. You can see why I say, expensive!

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

Considering the large size of a funeral pall, and how frequently the average parish uses one (nearly every single funeral), the cost is not really that expensive. It will be used multiple times per year, for many years.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Don't think I've ever seen one used here (England and Wales).

Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :

They are largely not in use here in OZ from my (admitted) limited exposure. What tends to be more the 'norm' is casket flowers - a flower arrangement that covers most of the top of the casket. Of course, there is the Australian flag for the funeral of ex-servicepersons.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

I infer that the posts stating that funeral palls are not used here or there are not speaking from an RC perspective. The placing of the pall is part of the rite of the Mass of Christian Burial. As an Anglo-Catholic youth in the Episcopal Church, I always saw them used there, as well.

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

One lurks in a chest in the church where I worship. Clearing out the sacristy twenty years ago we found a sheaf of forms setting out funeral wishes --- "I wish the pall to be used" was one of the boxes to tick. Was there not an anglo-catholic confraternity that encouraged their use?

I also think I used to see them used at a Remembrance Day requiem, and possibly All Souls too.

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

Watching the televised mass on Sunday from Nuestra Señora del Tránsito in Madrid by courtesy of RTVE I was surprised to see the gospeller (I speak anglican; I thought he was the deacon, and indeed his vestment was very dalmatic-like, but it wasn't and he was one of the concelebrants) put on the humeral veil to carry the gospel book to the ambo and proclaim the gospel.

I have never seen this done, either with my own eyes or on the telly. Comments?

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

I've never seen this done either. It is, however, common when you have no deacon but do have concelebrants to have one of them proclaim the gospel.

Posted by Offeiriad (# 14031) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is ours. You can see why I say, expensive!

Fascinating! And isn't the 'urn pall' on the same page suspiciously like a chalice veil?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Is there any British RC shipmate who can speak for whether an RC funeral here has to have a pall as part of the ceremony?

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Re palls - we don't get that many funeral Masses at Our Place (or even non-Eucharistic funerals, for that matter), but IIRC some at least of our local funeral directors provide their own seemly purple pall.

Local custom at local crematoria seems to be a wreath or two on the coffin (with maybe a framed photo of the deceased), all (presumably) discreetly removed by the undertaker after the curtains have closed and before the body descends to the fire...... [Help]

Ian J.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Before Vatican 2 it was very common in RC churches, at least in Scotland, to have a black pall over the coffin.

Since Vatican 2 the use of the catafalque,the use of the six unbleached candles around the coffin and the use of a black pall has disappeared - along with black funeral vestments.

One of the churches in Edinburgh used for a time a white funeral pall ,after Vatican 2, along with the Paschal (Resurrection) candle but I haven't seen that for a long time.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I am sorry to report that at our church we don't have an urn pall. We just use a chalice veil, which are all nearly a yard square. We are a large church and setting for Holy Eucharist involves between 7 and 9 chalices (and six ciboria and five large flagons of wine) so we had to have a veil custom made large enough.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

I am not sure if there be a uniform practice among local RCs. Of recent funerals I have seen palls at the Latin Latin church (black at SS Clement & Anne) and the Irish basilica (white at S Patrick), but not among the Italians at S Antony's, nor the franco-ontarian parish in Embrun.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I think the references to funerals where an urn containing cremains is brought into the church is also quite a significant cultural difference. I've never seen that here, and I'm not sure that it would that easy to arrange it.

If the body is cremated, there are three options.

The first is that there is a funeral service in church which ends with a commendation. The body then goes to the crem, corresponding to the grave, where there is a brief committal and then it is burnt, either immediately - or one sometimes suspects, later in the day. In due course (not immediately) the ashes are given back to the undertaker.

The second is a funeral service at the crem, ending in committal, again corresponding to the grave, and then as above.

The third, particularly in rural areas where the crem is a long way off, is for the cremation to take place first - that being in effect the funeral - and a memorial service to be held later the same day or on a different day.

But I've never been to a memorial service where the urn has been brought back into the church. That would be rather like digging the body up again.

Posted by Offeiriad (# 14031) on :

Historically, cremation was envisaged as 'preparing the body for burial' - maybe a parallel to embalming? - so that the remains would be in church as 'the body of the deceased', then buried - like a body - at the committal straight after the funeral service in church.

The now familiar modern pattern - of cremation following the funeral service in church, i.e. treated as the equivalent of burial - soon became the norm, but is actually an inversion of the pattern originally intended!

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

It is also cheaper to haul around an urn, rather than a full-sized body in a coffin. You need a special vehicle to transport a coffin; you can put an urn on the front seat of your car or beside you on a bus. I can easily see why, if you plan to cremate anyway, the cremation takes place before any of the other obsequies.

Posted by Offeiriad (# 14031) on :

True, but it isn't good if this portability defeats the tradition of remains having a permanent final resting place. Granny's urn still being on the mantlepiece ten years after she died was a possibility never envisaged by Christian tradition.

(I once heard of a husband divorced by his wife for 'unreasonable behaviour', chief example of which was that the husband would rile his wife by putting the urn with her mother's ashes in the bay window, then opening and closing the curtains using the pulley mechanism while whistling 'Abide with me'!)

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I'm not sure if its written down anywhere but this is what used to happen at an AC church where I worked:
when the coffin arrived at the church door the priest took the thurible and gave 3 lots of 3 to the head end;
at the Commendation the priest took the thurible and, walking clockwise, moved around the coffin holding the thurible on a short chain so he could make small circles;
having made a complete circuit he again censed the coffin with three groups of 3 short swings at the head end.
As I say, I'm not sure if this is the 'standard' but it is what happened in one place.

I thought the rule was no incense before the offertory at a funeral mass?

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

Whose rule? While at parishes I've worked at, we've just used incense for the committal, the basilica here at Notre Dame uses incense as for a regular Mass in addition.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

In the Extraordinary Form--so consequently in all Roman Catholic churches prior to 1970--incense is not used at a Requiem Mass until the offertory.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
In the Extraordinary Form--so consequently in all Roman Catholic churches prior to 1970--incense is not used at a Requiem Mass until the offertory.

As specified in manuals like Fortescue's and in Ritual Notes. We've tended to follow Fortescue, even though we use BCP 1979, so in a Requiem Mass there's no incense until the Offertory, the line "Happy are those who are called to his supper" is omitted, and a couple of other changes. No censing of people, maybe, other than the deceased at the end? I could look it up.

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
In the Extraordinary Form--so consequently in all Roman Catholic churches prior to 1970--incense is not used at a Requiem Mass until the offertory.
As specified in manuals like Fortescue's and in Ritual Notes. We've tended to follow Fortescue, even though we use BCP 1979, so in a Requiem Mass there's no incense until the Offertory, the line "Happy are those who are called to his supper" is omitted, and a couple of other changes. No censing of people, maybe, other than the deceased at the end? I could look it up.

Obl: You are correct about 'no censing of people' at ExForm Requiems (Requieae?) Per Fortescue, anyway. But yes, censing (and sprinkling) the body at the absolution. This is burned in my memory as I burned my hand on the thurible at the Absolution in one of my first outings as an acolyte. (That was in 1959 or thereabouts, but it's a vivid memory!)

And to you, Oblatus, greetings from The Hill (St. Meinrad) where I'm now employed!

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
... The Hill (St. Meinrad) where I'm now employed!

[OT...]
Congrats! I've taken three retreats there now. I find it a wonderful place to reconnect with God. I don't have a monastic vocation, but a week per year of it does me a world of good.

If you'll be praying regularly at all with the monks, I hope we get lots of their insights shared on board the ship here!
[/OT]

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
And to you, Oblatus, greetings from The Hill (St. Meinrad) where I'm now employed!

You mean Heaven on Earth. Congratulations!

Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :

This isn't exactly liturgical, but I can't think of anywhere else to put it: did anyone else use the tune Deo Gracias (The Agincourt Carol) for the Office Hymn at Evensong today, to mark the 600th anniversary of the battle?

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

We use it for Forth in the peace of Christ. To mark the occasion we also had some of Walton's suite for Olivier's film of Henry V before the service.

Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :

We had some of the Walton after the morning service too, and D. did some improvising on Deo Gracias before and during.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
This isn't exactly liturgical, but I can't think of anywhere else to put it: did anyone else use the tune Deo Gracias (The Agincourt Carol) for the Office Hymn at Evensong today, to mark the 600th anniversary of the battle?

Am I the only shipmate who followed this link and was amazed to discover the church with a procession, a robed choir, a gospel book held high, a stone altar, hemispherical apse and a crucifer is Presbyterian? It isn't what Presbyterian usually looks like in the UK, either in Scotland or in the rest of the country.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

That's astonishing. I'd say it was a bit higher than our AffCath CinW shack.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
This isn't exactly liturgical, but I can't think of anywhere else to put it: did anyone else use the tune Deo Gracias (The Agincourt Carol) for the Office Hymn at Evensong today, to mark the 600th anniversary of the battle?
Am I the only shipmate who followed this link and was amazed to discover the church with a procession, a robed choir, a gospel book held high, a stone altar, hemispherical apse and a crucifer is Presbyterian? It isn't what Presbyterian usually looks like in the UK, either in Scotland or in the rest of the country.

Judging by the thickness of the book, I'd say that's a Bible rather than an Gospel Book. The surprisingly huge Gospel Book at my Orthodox cathedral is still considerably thinner than that.

I once attended the Eucharist at a local university chaplaincy here in Manchester where the Bible was carried in in just that manner - held aloft and open to the day's reading. When I asked about it I was told that, although the celebrant that day had been Anglican, the chaplaincy was ecumenical and the carrying in of the Bible was a Presbyterian tradition maintained by the URC presence there. So the practice is not unknown in the UK.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Yes, Bible Carrying in is frequent in URCs and is an adoption from the CofS. Normally it is closed, not open. Although I expect hot denials, it plays a symbolic role in the creation of sacred space within the tradition. It is not essential but acts as reinforcement. The conjunction of Word, Sacraments and People are the essentials for sacred space. You will normally find communion table and font at the front in URCs for this reason as well.

Robed choirs are also more common among Presbyterians than other Non-Conformists in England (i.e. no unheard of). There are some CofS with Robed Choirs but they are more common in America.

Presbyterianism has a high ceremonial form which makes the adoption of such procedure feel natural.

Jengie

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

After my very enjoyable experiences at St Giles Cathedral, St Columba (London) and Crown Court (London), I wasn't at all surprised to see the features described in the link.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

It certainly used to be very common in the Church of Scotland for the beadle (church officer) to carry up to the pulpit with some solemnity,just before the service began, a large copy of the Bible.

I have never been to a service in Glasgow cathedral (High Kirk of St Mungo) but was intrigued to see on Sundays a service of Choral Evensong advertised. I wonder if it is the same as the Anglican Choral Evensong.

I was even more intrigued to see, even although only in a musical setting interspersed with readings and prayers, a Requiem Mass at the interchange time between All Saints and All Souls.

Time was when most Church of Scotland Christians would not have known about All Saints/All Souls.

Posted by Cathscats (# 17827) on :

But you wouldn't see any of it at my little Churches of Scotland! An Australian doctor in a local hospital who had been to a service at one of the more formal, robed-choir type of Church of Scotland congregations once congratulated me on our "liturgy". I reflected that few of my congregants would even know the word.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

So does the beadle still carry the Bible to the pulpit in your church ?

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
This isn't exactly liturgical, but I can't think of anywhere else to put it: did anyone else use the tune Deo Gracias (The Agincourt Carol) for the Office Hymn at Evensong today, to mark the 600th anniversary of the battle?
Am I the only shipmate who followed this link and was amazed to discover the church with a procession, a robed choir, a gospel book held high, a stone altar, hemispherical apse and a crucifer is Presbyterian? It isn't what Presbyterian usually looks like in the UK, either in Scotland or in the rest of the country.

When I saw "a stone altar" and "hemispherical apse," I somehow knew it was East Liberty Pres in Pittsburg. It doesn't get much higher than that among Presbyterians over here. (Though they would still call the piece of furniture the Table, the Communion Table or the Lord's Table, not the altar.)

As for the other points, robed choirs are almost universal among Presbyterians over here. The robes may not be cassocks and surplices/cottas (which can certainly be found), but it's an un-robed choir that would be unusual.

Processions are also quite common. In some congregations (such as mine), they're an every Sunday thing. In other congregations, they're more of a festal thing.

A processional cross or crucifer is less common, but usage has increased over the last few decades. I think they rarely raise eyebrows anymore. Carrying the Bible in procession is even less common than a processional cross in my experience, but again is not necessarily rare either.

As for the Table and apse, without question a stone Table is unusual. Wood is by far the norm. A central Table with pulpit to the side, perhaps with apse-like architecture, are very common over here. But in few places will they be as ornate as at East Liberty. A penchant for relative simplicity still reigns in many places.

[ 30. October 2015, 16:54: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
So does the beadle still carry the Bible to the pulpit in your church ?

No beadle at our local CofS but an elder does that duty every Sunday. The pulpit is then left empty because the minister prefers the lectern...

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

A musical one, copied from Roselyn's closed thread:

quote:
Does anyone have the music to "Lo here is Fellowship"? please

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
So does the beadle still carry the Bible to the pulpit in your church ?

Yes, the congregation stands, the Beadle carries the Bible in, the congregation sits down, and the minister comes in.

It's reversed at the end of the service. The congregation stand for the benediction, and remain standing whilst the Beadle carries the Bible out. The congregation then sit while the minister walks to the front door, ready to bid farewell to departing congregants.

ETA - The Beadle carries the Bible to and from the lectern, not the pulpit.

[ 23. November 2015, 18:34: Message edited by: North East Quine ]

Posted by Episcoterian (# 13185) on :

This one must come up every now and then:

What liturgical colour is being used now for ordinations? I've always thought it was just red (as a commemoration of the Holy Spirit etc.). My googling of ordination invitations (looking for ideas for my own) picked up some places (mostly RC and Anglican) asking clergy to come in white stoles.

So, what's the current use in your necks of the woods?

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

We do our diaconate ordinations on Sundays, so use whatever the regular color for that Sunday is (normally green given the timing). We do our priestly ordinations on the Saturday during the Easter Octave, so wear white.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Episcoterian:
This one must come up every now and then:

What liturgical colour is being used now for ordinations? I've always thought it was just red (as a commemoration of the Holy Spirit etc.). My googling of ordination invitations (looking for ideas for my own) picked up some places (mostly RC and Anglican) asking clergy to come in white stoles.

So, what's the current use in your necks of the woods?

Orthodox ordinations have no liturgical colour. The ordination is a brief rite of 5-15 minutes which is inserted into the pertinent section of the liturgy of the day. The colour worn is that of the feast or season, much like the western Catholic practice mentioned by Adam.

Is a liturgical colour for ordinations an Anglican custom?

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

I suspect there's an etymology for a liturgical colour for ordinations that goes: ordinations at Petertide -> St Peter and St Paul are celebrated in red -> ordinations are celebrated in red.

(British) Methodist ordinations use red - the usual reason given being for the Holy Spirit, which isn't inappropriate...!

[ 29. November 2015, 07:05: Message edited by: seasick ]

Posted by Kayarecee (# 17289) on :

The ELCA (one of the big groups of Lutherans in the USA) specifies red for ordinations; the rationale is because ordination is about the Holy Spirit being invoked over the ministry of the ordinand. Our ordinations are seldom if ever done during the principal Sunday service, though I suspect that the color would be red regardless. USA'n Lutherans being what we are, though, the actual stoles worn at an ordination can be red, white, gold, multicolored, or "other," depending on the clergyperson wearing them, and one recently-ordained classmate of mine has ordination pictures where he's wearing a green stole, despite all the other clergy in the picture wearing something resembling red. I'm not sure why.

But red -> Holy Spirit is the rule for my little corner of the Church, at least for presbyteral ordinations, which are the only ordinations that the ELCA recognizes, which I could go on at length for, but that's another rant. =)

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

I'd have to check the American Missal to be sure, but I'm pretty sure that the Mass for ordinations is a votive of the Holy Spirit, which would make the liturgical color red.

Nothing to do with Petertide or martyrdom, I'm afraid.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

In my experience, it would seem that red is becoming the norm for ordinations of ministers in the Presbyterian Church (USA). As Kayarecee said of the ELCA, these ordinations rarely if ever take place during the principal Sunday services. They are technically services of the presbytery, so will occur when ministers from around the presbytery are able to attend, usually on a Sunday afternoon or evening.

But we also typically have ordination of elders (and perhaps deacons) once a year in each congregation, unless by chance everyone elected to serve at that time has already been ordained. These ordinations do take place during the principal Sunday service, and in my experience, the color of the day or season is almost always used. Red might be used instead of green if the ordinations take place during ordinary time.

[ 02. December 2015, 17:38: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :

Help please!

Liturgical traditions/ discipline are a little bit different here in the Anglican church Kenya.
Before I make a fool of myself could someone please confirm for me the theme of each of the Advent candles as having talked to several people here I am now doubting what I thought I once knew!
Thanks

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

I've never heard of the candles having 'themes'; they're candles. Together, they symbolize the light entering into darkness, bit by bit, week by week. The third candle is customarily pink, to match the rose vestments that can be worn on the that Sunday. I know there are some customs linking the Sundays in Advent with various 'themes,' but I wouldn't apply those specifically to the candles. I would say that to the extent the Sundays have 'themes,' they should be dictated by the lectionary.

As I've been lighting candles recently, I've been also reflecting on our call to be light for the world, and how candles do this by allowing their hardness to be melted, being softened to bring light. A decent metaphor for discipleship, I think, probably not original to me, but hardly traditional either. Of course, discipleship imperatives only enlighten to the extent they're grounded in christological indicatives, and this one seems to be.

Posted by ElaineC (# 12244) on :

Peace, Love, Joy, Hope and Christ.

At least that's what I found on Google Images when I was looking for an Advent picture.

I'm preaching on the fourth Sunday and while doing some research I saw Hope mentioned as a theme.

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :

Thank you both for replying
ElaineC, Those were the words I recalled but it was the order that was being questioned here the only one being certain was the third- Joy
Adam, I agree whole-heartedly about the Lectionary but I had in times past (in a catholic setting) been taught that each of the Sundays were Hope, Peace, Love, Joy- The pink candle for Gaudete Sunday being the one associated with Joy.

Still a little bit confused but getting there!

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
Before I make a fool of myself could someone please confirm for me the theme of each of the Advent candles as having talked to several people here I am now doubting what I thought I once knew!

There is no single set of "themes" for each candle. As Adam. says, they are simply candles. The symbolism is the growing light of the candles while the natural light of the world wanes.

Any symbolism of specific candles—"this is the candle of Hope," "this is the candle of Joy," etc.—is, as it were, after-the-fact symbolism, presented in various devotional guides and resources. While hope, joy, peace and love seem to be common themes (though I have seen others), the order varies among different guides and resources.

The exception to that is the central Christ candle, which does indeed symbolize the arrival of the Christ.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

There are different traditions around. One is patriarchs, prophets, John the Baptist, the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

A few years ago, some of us here did a bit of research on this.

It's quite clear that the candles came first and then, because we're Christians and that's how we are, people felt they ought to symbolise something. So there are now quite a lot of different answers.

I think all of them are built round the idea that Jesus is the Light of the World and is coming into it. So the fifth central candle always represents Jesus Light of the World and is lit at midnight on Christmas Eve or on the morning of Christmas Day.

The CofE's recommended sequence is
- Advent 1 - The Patriarchs
- Advent 2 - The Prophets
- Advent 3 - John the Baptist
- Advent 4 - The Virgin Mary
- Christmas Day - The Christ

Those fit the readings and the prayers in the lectionary and Common Worship.

Other attributions for the first four are, Hope, Love, Joy and Peace - with some uncertainty about the order -, Prophets, Bethlehem, Shepherds, Angels, or Expectation, Joy, Hope, Purity.

There also seems to be no unanimity about what colour they ought to be, except that the Christ candle in the middle is always white. The other 'fork handles' most often seem to be all red, or with three purple and one pink, in which case as Adam says the pink one goes with the third Sunday. Somewhere I've heard it said that pink is the colour you get if you mix purple and white wax, but if so, whether it came second or it came first and purple for the others followed, I don't know. In the CofE's ordinary colour scheme, Advent is purple.

The candles themselves seem to come from either Germany or Scandinavia. I slightly wonder whether there's any connection with the unusual but spectacular Swedish tradition of wearing a ring of burning candles on one's head in honour of Santa Lucia. For those that have never heard of this, here's a Youtube.

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :

OK now it is all becoming clearer.

I'd heard of the Patriarchs etc. themes too and
I also grew up with the idea of the increased light as each candle was lit culminating with the final candle- Christ Himself. The hope etc. theme was a later idea I encountered.

I'm glad to know that there is no set theme for each Sunday- I fear I may well have been indoctrinated by someone being very enthusiastic in their chosen devotional approach and being me I was afraid of making a mistake.....

I'll encourage people here to use whatever works for them in their Advent meditations.

Thank you all.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
There also seems to be no unanimity about what colour they ought to be, except that the Christ candle in the middle is always white. The other 'fork handles' most often seem to be all red, or with three purple and one pink, in which case as Adam says the pink one goes with the third Sunday. Somewhere I've heard it said that pink is the colour you get if you mix purple and white wax, but if so, whether it came second or it came first and purple for the others followed, I don't know. In the CofE's ordinary colour scheme, Advent is purple.

The use of a rose candle reflects the tradition of using rose rather than purple as the color for the third Sunday (Gaudete Sunday). Rose being considered a lighter shade of purple, it is to reflect the somewhat relaxed joy allowed just over half-way through what was an otherwise penitential season, represented by purple.

On this side of the pond, the candles are almost always purple or purple and rose if the congregation uses purple as the color for Advent, or blue (or blue and rose) if the congregation uses blue for Advent. I've seen all white candles occasionally. I don't think I've ever seen red candles used.

[ 08. December 2015, 14:11: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Nearly all British Nonconformist churches would use the red candles rather than the other colours. They might also assign different meanings to each Sunday in Advent.

[ 08. December 2015, 16:12: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

Then again, there's this method...

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

If you use blue vestments for Advent and are considering blue candles to match, BE CAREFUL!
Because the church supply store didn't have blue candles, our priest purchased them from a candle shop, and didn't find out until Sunday morning that they were blueberry scented. It was dreadful! Even the incense didn't cover it up. (And as the weeks went along and more candles were lighted, of course it just got worse.

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

BTW, before the Lectionary was reformed, the 'themes' for the 4 Sundays of Advent were Death, Judgement, Heaven & Hell. (Heaven coming with rose vestments.)

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
If you use blue vestments for Advent and are considering blue candles to match, BE CAREFUL!
Because the church supply store didn't have blue candles, our priest purchased them from a candle shop, and didn't find out until Sunday morning that they were blueberry scented. It was dreadful! Even the incense didn't cover it up. (And as the weeks went along and more candles were lighted, of course it just got worse.

We had that several years ago. Miss-Know-It-All was going to do up the chapel Advent wreath better than the rest of us peons could. The scent was so bad I couldn't go into the Chapel during Advent because of my allergies.
[Mad]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
BTW, before the Lectionary was reformed, the 'themes' for the 4 Sundays of Advent were Death, Judgement, Heaven & Hell. (Heaven coming with rose vestments.)

Nice idea. I like it. So perhaps next year we could suggest that the candles represent the Four Last Things. They affect us all. They'd make a really good sermon series. Past generations heard them but they hardly ever get mentioned now.

Or does that jar a bit with the imagery of increasing light coming into the world. Does the thought of a candle of Death strike you as Goth?

To link those themes to the lectionary, though, would have depended on what lectionary one was talking about. Checking the 1662 BCP, the only reading that fits that scheme is in the second week. The first is about the entry into Jerusalem and the third and fourth are on John the Baptist.

Incidentally, the 1662 epistle for the 1st is from Romans 13 and is the source of the Advent collect. That used to be prayed as an extra collect throughout the season. I seem to recall Leo, who is much more knowledgeable about these things than I will ever be, saying that these days having more than one collect is deprecated.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
BTW, before the Lectionary was reformed, the 'themes' for the 4 Sundays of Advent were Death, Judgement, Heaven & Hell. (Heaven coming with rose vestments.)

Well, those were the themes often preached upon during Advent (the Four Last Things). But as Enoch points out, the BCP lessons for the season don't really support them.

It's the custom these days to preach on the lessons appointed for the day. That wasn't always the case.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

Incidentally, the 1662 epistle for the 1st is from Romans 13 and is the source of the Advent collect. That used to be prayed as an extra collect throughout the season. I seem to recall Leo, who is much more knowledgeable about these things than I will ever be, saying that these days having more than one collect is deprecated.

I wonder why that is? I find having the extra collect in Advent and Lent helps further differentiate the season from other times. But perhaps the additional collect is disliked because it reduces the amount of time available for footling sodded-about extras or rambling extempore prayer and/or notices.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

The Roman Missal used to have up to three collects at various Masses. Since Vatican 2 only one collect is allowed in the Roman Rite.

I assume that Leo's advice comes from this.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

It's a Vatican II sort of thing, and has generally been seen as good advice by Anglicans as well (at least at Holy Communion, the three assigned for Evensong remain in situ). No prohibition on using extra ones though...

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

If you treat the invitation 'let us pray' to do just that, then the prayer will mainly consist of what people do in the subsequent silence. These 'prayers' are then summed up in the 'prayer of the assembly', namely the Collect. What would any additional spoken prayers be doing?

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

The etymology of the word "collect" is unclear. Using that etymology to drive liturgical practice is on shaky ground to begin with, even without the obvious post-hoc theologizing.

And does anyone really think that people can only pray for one thing at a time? Or that if different people are praying for different things at the same time, it's somehow destructive of unity?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Who said anything about etymology? It might be a handy teaching tool to say that 'the collect' 'collects our prayers'. But that isn't the reason for the practice.

It might not be how the prayer and its position in the liturgy has evolved, but to me at least it makes a lot of sense... I come to worship with my thoughts all over the place, as do others with other thoughts: the silence before the prayer is a stilling moment when these thoughts and prayers can settle and finally be focussed in one prayer uttered by the president on behalf of all. An additional prayer with another topic stirs it all up again. The place for extra topics and biddings is in the prayers of the people or intercessions.

But that's just one way of doing it, albeit the way that is directed/recommended by official Catholic and Anglican liturgy. I'm sure you can argue the case for just about any practice.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

In any case the etymology is not that broad ... it refers either to "collecting together" the people or "collecting together" the people's thoughts. Therefore more than one collect scatters or bifurcates rather than collects.

So does a bunch of wobbly nonchalant voices obeying the vacuous invitation "let's all just read the collect together," but that no doubt is a-wholly-nother sundry liturgical question.

When however I am supreme dictator of the world anyone who thus invites or obeys will go up against the wall.

In Christian love.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
There also seems to be no unanimity about what colour they ought to be, except that the Christ candle in the middle is always white. The other 'fork handles' most often seem to be all red, or with three purple and one pink, in which case as Adam says the pink one goes with the third Sunday. Somewhere I've heard it said that pink is the colour you get if you mix purple and white wax, but if so, whether it came second or it came first and purple for the others followed, I don't know. In the CofE's ordinary colour scheme, Advent is purple.
The use of a rose candle reflects the tradition of using rose rather than purple as the color for the third Sunday (Gaudete Sunday). Rose being considered a lighter shade of purple, it is to reflect the somewhat relaxed joy allowed just over half-way through what was an otherwise penitential season, represented by purple.

On this side of the pond, the candles are almost always purple or purple and rose if the congregation uses purple as the color for Advent, or blue (or blue and rose) if the congregation uses blue for Advent. I've seen all white candles occasionally. I don't think I've ever seen red candles used.

I am still baffled by the Roman Catholic church I saw a couple of weeks back which had an Advent Wreath with three purple candles and one red one around the outside, and the pink one in the middle. I am guessing it is due to simple confusion rather than actually implying the use of rose vestments for the Masses of Christmas, interesting thought that might be!

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Advent wreaths are a custom or tradition. They are , of course, not part of the liturgical rite
and as such not catered for in the rubrics of the Roman Missal.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
n this side of the pond, the candles are almost always purple or purple and rose if the congregation uses purple as the color for Advent, or blue (or blue and rose) if the congregation uses blue for Advent.

I think I need to amend this, as I have now been in two places of worship within the last week—an Episcopal parish church and an Episcopal school chapel—where the paraments were blue but the candles on the Advent wreath were purple and rose.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:

So does a bunch of wobbly nonchalant voices obeying the vacuous invitation "let's all just read the collect together,"

I'm not too keen on well meaning MOTR priests introducing the collect not with "let us pray" but saying "The collect for the seventeenth Sunday after Trinity".

That is jargon. Those who understand what it means don't need to be told. Those who don't will be confused.

It's another example of the mistake of thinking worship is primarily didactic.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

In your tradition, is the Last Sunday after Epiphany now termed "Transfiguration Sunday?"

And is the colour, white or green?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
In your tradition, is the Last Sunday after Epiphany now termed "Transfiguration Sunday?"

And is the colour, white or green?

Isn't the Transfiguration the 6th of August?

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

It is indeed, Enoch.

The transfiguration gospel figures in the RCL on either the second Sunday of Lent or the Sunday before Lent, as it looks to the passion.

There is an American Lutheran church, of which Gramps is a member, who have created an Epiphany season running from Epiphany to the Sunday before Lent and seeing the Transfiguration as a example of epiphany. They are perfectly entitled to do that, but it is not why the transfiguration was originally connected with time of the year.

I like a bit of green between Epiphany and Lent.

(The C of E ends an Epiphany season at Candlemas, for which there is ancient precedent. The RCs end it on the Sunday after the Epiphany, their feast of the Baptism. For the Orthodox, the Epiphany is the feast of the Baptism.)

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:

So does a bunch of wobbly nonchalant voices obeying the vacuous invitation "let's all just read the collect together,"
I'm not too keen on well meaning MOTR priests introducing the collect not with "let us pray" but saying "The collect for the seventeenth Sunday after Trinity".

That is jargon. Those who understand what it means don't need to be told. Those who don't will be confused.

So you can call it 'the special prayer for today.' - yuk!

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
In your tradition, is the Last Sunday after Epiphany now termed "Transfiguration Sunday?"

And is the colour, white or green?

Never heard of this.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:

So does a bunch of wobbly nonchalant voices obeying the vacuous invitation "let's all just read the collect together,"
I'm not too keen on well meaning MOTR priests introducing the collect not with "let us pray" but saying "The collect for the seventeenth Sunday after Trinity".

That is jargon. Those who understand what it means don't need to be told. Those who don't will be confused.

So you can call it 'the special prayer for today.' - yuk!

Yuk and double yuk!

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
In your tradition, is the Last Sunday after Epiphany now termed "Transfiguration Sunday?"

And is the colour, white or green?
Never heard of this.

See above. I've only ever heard of it from Gramps' posts here.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:

So does a bunch of wobbly nonchalant voices obeying the vacuous invitation "let's all just read the collect together,"
I'm not too keen on well meaning MOTR priests introducing the collect not with "let us pray" but saying "The collect for the seventeenth Sunday after Trinity".

That is jargon. Those who understand what it means don't need to be told. Those who don't will be confused.

So you can call it 'the special prayer for today.' - yuk!
Yuk and double yuk!

And trile yuk if everyone is invited to join in saying this special prayer.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
In your tradition, is the Last Sunday after Epiphany now termed "Transfiguration Sunday?"

And is the colour, white or green?
Never heard of this.
See above. I've only ever heard of it from Gramps' posts here.

The Revised Common Lectionary designates the last Sunday before Lent as "Transfiguration Sunday," and the gospel reading is the story of the Transfiguration. It is regularly observed as such by Lutherans, Presbyterians, Reformed, Methodists and other denominations on the side of the pond. In those churches, the color will be white.

From my observation, at least around here the Transfiguration us still officially August 6 in Episcopal churches, but it is rarely observed as such unless there happens to be a regularly-scheduled service that day anyway. The Transiguration will also be commemorated on the last Sunday after Epiphany, but it likely will not be called "Transiguration Sunday." Can't speak to the color.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:

So does a bunch of wobbly nonchalant voices obeying the vacuous invitation "let's all just read the collect together,"
I'm not too keen on well meaning MOTR priests introducing the collect not with "let us pray" but saying "The collect for the seventeenth Sunday after Trinity".

That is jargon. Those who understand what it means don't need to be told. Those who don't will be confused.

So you can call it 'the special prayer for today.' - yuk!
Yuk and double yuk!
And trile yuk if everyone is invited to join in saying this special prayer.

Heartily agreed! Good New Year's Resolution for all leaders of liturgy: say the black, do the red. Simples. [Smile]

[ 01. January 2016, 14:41: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

May we start a new liturgical questions thread for the new year?

Posted by David Goode (# 9224) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
May we start a new liturgical questions thread for the new year?

Surely you should have made that suggestion on the first day of Advent!

Posted by Offeiriad (# 14031) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zappa:
[qb]

So does a bunch of wobbly nonchalant voices obeying the vacuous invitation "let's all just read the collect together,"
I'm not too keen on well meaning MOTR priests introducing the collect not with "let us pray" but saying "The collect for the seventeenth Sunday after Trinity".

That is jargon. Those who understand what it means don't need to be told. Those who don't will be confused.

So you can call it 'the special prayer for today.' - yuk!
Yuk and double yuk!
And trile yuk if everyone is invited to join in saying this special prayer.

This triune horror is very firmly established here, and all the others on the ministry team helping out during the vacancy love it, and think it should continue.

The chances of a competent liturgist eventually being appointed chaplain are slightly less than my chances of winning Euromillions, so what can one do?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

new question

In this MW report on the 10.30pm service on Christmas Eve, Shepherd at the Desert Church, Sun City, Arizona, there's a reference to a separate Children's Talk. How many other places can there be which assume there will be children at the midnight service - even if it isn't actually quite as late as midnight? I was amazed. The only ones I've ever seen there have been in the treble and alto lines of a choir.

Is it the UK or Arizona that is out of kilter with the rest of the world on this?

Personally, I'd also, incidentally, have been uneasy about including Father Christmas in service. However moving (rather than cheesy) it might have been, I'd have found the message his presence conveyed very confusing.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Offeiriad:
This triune horror is very firmly established here, and all the others on the ministry team helping out during the vacancy love it, and think it should continue.

The chances of a competent liturgist eventually being appointed chaplain are slightly less than my chances of winning Euromillions, so what can one do?

I can see plenty of reasons why you or anyone else might not like it. I'm not that keen on it myself. But why is it specifically a liturgical error?

1. I don't think one can avoid the accusation that 'collect' is Revspeak, religious jargon that conveys very little even to educated parishioners.

2. There doesn't even seem to be unanimity on its etymological history. So insisting on its importance as a descriptive term isn't reliably saying all that much.

3. Since the congregation says "Amen" to it, since it doesn't contain any element that is restricted to the ordained and since in some places even now, parishioners are encouraged to use it during their own daily prayers, it is very difficult to argue that any error is being perpetrated by having them all say it rather than just the leader/president.

4. For many years, the congregation has been encouraged to join in the Collect for Purity and the Evening Collect. As far as I am aware, not even the most liturgically picky have ever deprecated their doing so.

The precious can continue to look down on all those who either do not have their liturgical sensitivity or who sit rather more lightly on it. Can you, though, actually persuade the unpersuaded to agree that it matters, that this is anything more than another version of the feeling that the service doesn't 'work' since the lectern was moved three feet to the left?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
There doesn't even seem to be unanimity on its etymological history. So insisting on its importance as a descriptive term isn't reliably saying all that much.

Since the congregation says "Amen" to it, since it doesn't contain any element that is restricted to the ordained ... For many years, the congregation has been encouraged to join in the ....Evening Collect. As far as I am aware, not even the most liturgically picky have ever deprecated their doing so.

Wrong on 3 counts:

Lay people also say 'Amen' to the eucharistic prayter but that doesn't mean they can usurp the role of the priest in saying it altogether.

The collect was the prayer said by the bishop when all had arrived (having come in small groups to avoid arrest) in the early church. So it's the bishop's prayer -or delegated to whoever he allows to preside.

The 3rd collect at Evensong is part 3 of 3 and should be intoned like the other 2.

Posted by Offeiriad (# 14031) on :

Very fair questions, Enoch (and Leo has replied before me to some points, but I'm not rewriting this lot now!). I'll have to admit my comment was slightly 'tongue in cheek',but let me try some answers.....

1. Entirely agree with you here. In our service sheet I label it 'Prayer of the Day: The Collect'.

2. OK. I think the balance of historical opinion would say it is the ancient 'Oratio ad Collectam' - The Prayer at the Gathering (of the people) - the ancient beginning of the service, the President calling the assembly to prayer after the singing during the entry of the ministers. A surprising number of people love to know these details, enriching their sense of the historical continuity of the liturgy.

3 Yes. I would say that in a hieretic liturgy it belongs to the Leader of Worship, who of course need not be ordained. At the risk of starting another favourite Ship hare, in terms of personality types, structured and hieretic liturgy 'works' for a surprisingly high proportion of the Personality Types represented in the average congregation.

Because the Collects were not written to be recited by congregations, many of them use phrases and grammatical constructions which aren't easy for a group to read aloud. And the first casuality when corporate recitation is introduced is always the balancing and beautiful Trinitarian endings mistakenly cut off (since the error entered print with the 1662 BCP) as '...through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.'

4 Series 2 (1967) onwards invited the congo to join in the Collect for Purity by printing it in bold and lining it out for recitation. The 'Evening Collect' hasn't been presented in the same way, and corporate recitation of this is far less usual, though I have heard of it being done.

Does that help explain my thinking?

Posted by Offeiriad (# 14031) on :

Sorry, I seem to be on my way to providing my own trinitarian ending! Or is repeating myself a sign of advancing age????

Posted by Offeiriad (# 14031) on :

It seems that every time I tried to edit I reposted. Please will a host rationalise this mess (the last version is the best one!) and save me from a bill for taking up too much space? Thank you. [Smile]

[no problem -- JH]

[ 02. January 2016, 23:17: Message edited by: John Holding ]

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Asking the congregation to say the collect is excluding the illiterate.

Posted by Offeiriad (# 14031) on :

That is indeed a very valid point.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Of whom there are very few now, at least in the UK, so we needn't worry excessively about that, but of whom there would have been a lot more in 1549/1662 etc. And now I think of it the parts in the BCP services that are for the congregation to say do, don't they, tend to be either following the words of the minister, or fairly short things that are easy to memorise.
But why on earth would anybody want the congo to join in the collects etc? Just some phoney milk-and-water concept of inclusiveness, I guess. Pah.

Posted by Offeiriad (# 14031) on :

Total illiteracy is relatively uncommon, but functional illiteracy is more widespread than we imagine, and reading ages vary - hence the varying linguistic registers of daily newspapers.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

The Literacy Trust gives UK rates of 1% illiteracy, 5% with a literacy level below that of an 11 year old and a 16% rate of functional illiteracy. That 16% wouldn't be able to cope with the collect of the day.

(Literacy problems are much more common than most people realise.)

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Asking the congregation to say the collect is excluding the illiterate.

That's all very well, but that argument equally excludes them from singing the hymns, whether in a hymn book or projected onto a screen. Are you suggesting we should revert to lining out for the sake of a small minority, who are probably not present anyway?

[ 02. January 2016, 21:56: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

Memorising hymns/worship songs is going to be much easier for a functionally illiterate person (or indeed a person with limited English, which churches in the wake of a huge refugee crisis may well have more of) given that most churches have a relatively limited repertoire. Collects change daily, hymns won't.

That said, I think the congregation saying the collect is just unnecessary liturgically-speaking regardless of a congregation's literacy skills. Although it's not the most elegant Eucharistic prayer, Prayer H is a better example of more interactive liturgy in my opinion.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

My tongue was in my cheek. However although most people can read and write, many will be confused by elaborate directions like “We turn to page 3 in the blue books and say together the prayer at paragraph 5.” And so they don’t join in and sense they are not part of what’s going on.

As Pomona says with characteristic wisdom, it's just unnecessary.

And it reinforces the misleading impression that the service is words in a book rather than an embodied act of worship by a body of people.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Memorising hymns/worship songs is going to be much easier for a functionally illiterate person (or indeed a person with limited English, which churches in the wake of a huge refugee crisis may well have more of) given that most churches have a relatively limited repertoire. Collects change daily, hymns won't.

Ever actually counted them. For my Ph.D. I worked out that there were probably around 600-800 different hymns each congregation could sing. An active repertoire of 400 and another about 200-400 enough knew in the congregation so that if chosen they would sing them.

That is quite a lot of memorising to do.

Jengie

p.s. a major failing of Church Hymnary 3 was that it had under 700 hymns; 800-1000 is held to be about right. Congregational Praise with over a thousand was held to be too long.

Posted by Offeiriad (# 14031) on :

Jengie, that is a fascinating statistic, but as a retired parish priest feels a tad optimistic. Do you mean 600 different tunes, or 600 different hymns that can be sung to maybe 200 different tunes?

My own experience suggests that an average congregation can sing maybe 150 different tunes with some confidence. My Aspieness and musical memory enabled me to know around 500, and that led to me being treated with semi-divine reverence by many of my organists. [Overused]

Surely you aren't suggesting that I have simple ministered in below average settings all my life without my being average enough to realise it? Quelle horreur! [Big Grin]

Or might it be a denominational thing, with Anglicans generally being hymnologically challenged?

[ 03. January 2016, 10:11: Message edited by: Offeiriad ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Offeiriad:
Series 2 (1967) onwards invited the congo to join in the Collect for Purity by printing it in bold and lining it out for recitation.

And, of course, the 'Prayer of preparation' isn't technically a 'collect'.

I think it came from the old vesting prayers.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

Just curious: did anyone do/hear the proclamation of the dates of moveable feasts today? How about blessing chalk? Eat king cake? Any other Epiphany traditions I'm forgetting?

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

Isn't Epiphany this coming Wednesday?

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Offeiriad:
Jengie, that is a fascinating statistic, but as a retired parish priest feels a tad optimistic. Do you mean 600 different tunes, or 600 different hymns that can be sung to maybe 200 different tunes?

My own experience suggests that an average congregation can sing maybe 150 different tunes with some confidence. My Aspieness and musical memory enabled me to know around 500, and that led to me being treated with semi-divine reverence by many of my organists.

Surely you aren't suggesting that I have simple ministered in below average settings all my life without my being average enough to realise it? Quelle horreur! Or might it be a denominational thing, with Anglicans generally being hymnologically challenged?

In the second congregation my method was to mark on my copy of hymn book (bought specifically) what hymns were sung each week. This gave me over 200, however I was consistently getting 50% new hymns each week. On a mark and recapture method it is possible to estimate the actual population size.

Then there were the occasions when someone brought up a totally unused hymn, usually at a sing-hymn-a-long around the piano where people chose the hymns. Normally there were enough who knew the hymn to sing these hymns despite they were never used in formal morning worship.

The standard hymnbook was Songs of Fellowship with the BBC for the few that it missed.

Oh I have no idea how many hymns I know. I suspect somewhere over a thousand, my assumption in any URC is that I know a hymn not that I do not know it. I am not exceptional Baptist Trainfan, Busyknitter and the belated Ken all would have similiar repertoire as well as many others.

The 150 is actually not a good measure of your congregations actual breadth of hymn singing. That is the set of hymns you will use in worship that they know, not the full set of hymns they will sing. The advantage that both my congregations had was that there were a variety of Sunday preachers.

Jengie

[ 03. January 2016, 18:09: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

For the Rc church if the 6th January is not a public holiday the solemnity is moved to the nearest Sunday.
6th Jan is in Europe a public holiday in Austria,Cyprus,Spain,Finland,Greece,Italy,Portugal.Sweden and Slovakia,also in a number of the German states and a Holyday of Obligation in Ireland.

Posted by ArachnidinElmet (# 17346) on :

Does anybody know the approximate length of the ordination of a bishop in the RCC? I'm attending one this month but have only attended ordinations to priesthood before.

[ 04. January 2016, 15:23: Message edited by: ArachnidinElmet ]

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Offeiriad:
Series 2 (1967) onwards invited the congo to join in the Collect for Purity by printing it in bold and lining it out for recitation.
And, of course, the 'Prayer of preparation' isn't technically a 'collect'.

Formally, it's a collect.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Offeiriad:
Series 2 (1967) onwards invited the congo to join in the Collect for Purity by printing it in bold and lining it out for recitation.
And, of course, the 'Prayer of preparation' isn't technically a 'collect'.

Formally, it's a collect.

…and is designated as a collect by both 1662 BCP and 1928 Prayer Book

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

Jengie - that is interesting, but I think churches who use worship songs more than a hymnbook tend to use a much smaller repertoire. In my experience they tend to be the churches who would be more likely to get the congregation to say the collect and so on. It's the higher churches who - generally - have a more sacerdotal view of things (so some things are for the priest because of the priestly office) who will use office hymns and work their way through the New English Hymnal.

Are we including seasonal hymns/carols?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Offeiriad:
Series 2 (1967) onwards invited the congo to join in the Collect for Purity by printing it in bold and lining it out for recitation.
And, of course, the 'Prayer of preparation' isn't technically a 'collect'.

Formally, it's a collect.
…and is designated as a collect by both 1662 BCP and 1928 Prayer Book

but it isn't an 'oratio ad collectam'.

Posted by Offeiriad (# 14031) on :

It is a Collect in terms of technical construction, but I believe it (and the Lord's Prayer that went with it) comes from either the 'Preparation' or the 'Vesting Prayers' of the mediaeval Sarum Rite.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
In the second congregation my method was to mark on my copy of hymn book (bought specifically) what hymns were sung each week. This gave me over 200, however I was consistently getting 50% new hymns each week. On a mark and recapture method it is possible to estimate the actual population size.

How long did you do this? I'm not sure if the assumptions underlying the mark and recapture method are met here. (Actually, I know they're not; the question is to what extent that skews the result). M+R assumes that there's no correlation between being captured in one sample and being captured in the next, but most churches deliberately avoid picking the same hymn two weeks in a row, and certain hymns will only occur at certain times of year. This means there's a pretty substantial negative correlation between being picked from one week to the next, and positive one between picked on two weekends a year apart, breaking the assumptions on the model.

I would guess that most Catholic congregations would have a smaller hymn repetoire than most Protestant ones, but I'm still surprised at how large a count you got.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ArachnidinElmet:
Does anybody know the approximate length of the ordination of a bishop in the RCC? I'm attending one this month but have only attended ordinations to priesthood before.

The rite isn't much more complicated than ordination to the priesthood, but the more bishops you have involved the more things seem to get dragged out! I imagine there might be lots of 'showcasing' parts of the diocese which might take time too. So, in short, I have no idea. I'd guess 2 hours. I'd be interested to hear back from you once the deed is done.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
How many other places can there be which assume there will be children at the midnight service - even if it isn't actually quite as late as midnight?

Our place always has two or three children as acolytes at that service - where by children I mean between about ages 6 and 12. There's usually a couple of other children of similar age in the congregation.

In all cases, they are children of families who are "involved" at church, and so probably have a parent in the choir, serving as a LEM or something.

We'll get several more teenagers, but they'd neither be expecting a "children's talk" nor consider it a particularly late night.

[ 04. January 2016, 18:48: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

It's beside the point whether it's the oratio ad collectam or not. A collect is a prayer of a certain formal structure. The Collect for Purity is one, and so are (most of) the Collects, Secrets and Post-Communions of the pre-V2 Roman Rite.

Posted by ArachnidinElmet (# 17346) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:

quote:
Originally posted by ArachnidinElmet:
Does anybody know the approximate length of the ordination of a bishop in the RCC? I'm attending one this month but have only attended ordinations to priesthood before.
The rite isn't much more complicated than ordination to the priesthood, but the more bishops you have involved the more things seem to get dragged out! I imagine there might be lots of 'showcasing' parts of the diocese which might take time too. So, in short, I have no idea. I'd guess 2 hours. I'd be interested to hear back from you once the deed is done.

Many thanks, Adam. That's helpful. My (former as of yesterday) parish priest is being ordained in Westminster at the end of the month and I'm thinking practicalities for those of us attending. I'd be happy to let you know how it went.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
It's beside the point whether it's the oratio ad collectam or not. A collect is a prayer of a certain formal structure. The Collect for Purity is one, and so are (most of) the Collects, Secrets and Post-Communions of the pre-V2 Roman Rite.

It has the form of a collect and the text was originally a collect.

But it doesn't have the function of a collect in the 1662 BCP and derivatives. It is a prayer of preparation.

I'm very glad that it is not treated as mandatory (as it hasn't been in the CofE since Series 2 IIRC). I regard it as a MOTR shibboleth.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

I'm very glad that it is not treated as mandatory (as it hasn't been in the CofE since Series 2 IIRC). I regard it as a MOTR shibboleth.

Well said. It is a beautiful prayer and well-suited to private preparation for the Eucharist. I tried as a compromise saying it with the congregation before the entry hymn, following it with a time of silence, but the MOTR legalists eventually succeeded in having it moved back to within the liturgy. Like the Prayer of Humble Access, these prayers of private devotion don't fit very well into the structure of modern liturgies.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

Well, that could be an indication that the modern liturgies aren't very good.

Just kidding. Mostly.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

And it does't fit in with the structure of primitive liturgies, more to the point.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

What about the collect for the Queen before the collect of the day?

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

That does have the function of a collect as in the Sarum or Tridentine rite where multiple collects were possible.

It means that for 1662 Anglicans, every eucharist is a votive mass for the sovereign with a commemoration of the day.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
That does have the function of a collect as in the Sarum or Tridentine rite where multiple collects were possible.

It means that for 1662 Anglicans, every eucharist is a votive mass for the sovereign with a commemoration of the day.

Can you persuade me that the concept of a votive mass is compatible with either the 1662 Prayer Book or the tradition that it embodies?! [Snigger]

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I was being mildly satirical. A votive mass was certainly part of the tradition of which the BCP was successor.

Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :

One could argue that the 1662 BCP does have a tradition of votive Masses, as there are proper Collects, Epistles, and Gospels provided for The Communion of the Sick and the ordination of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
One could argue that the 1662 BCP does have a tradition of votive Masses, as there are proper Collects, Epistles, and Gospels provided for The Communion of the Sick and the ordination of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.

One could, but it wouldn't answer the test 'persuade'. The Communion of the Sick is for the benefit of the sick person, so that they can receive. Its role in the Ordination Service expresses "the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another" (Art 28) and the need of those ordained and ordaining to partake. The notion of a votive mass is based in the concept of the mass as a sacrifice. Whatever line other provinces may now take on this, that is not compatible with either Article 31 or the text of the prayer of consecration in the 1662 Prayer Book.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

My point was the overwhelmingly monarchist attitude of the BCP, which I find totally unacceptable, despite my boundless admiration for the integrity of Elizabeth the Second.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Ah. I did not pick that up.

As a matter of curiosity, if one is high enough to speak in terms of votive masses and the intention of the mass, does that mean that it then becomes an offering for everyone who is prayed for, from HMQEII to Mrs Murdoch's leg and Father Peter's piles? Are they all, by being prayed for, made part of the intention. Or if not, what has to happen to them to be raised in status from being interceded for, to being part of the intention?

I know I've expressed that slightly facetiously, but it's a serious question.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

It is a very RC thing having a specific intention for a mass, in the way RC parish notices say 8am Monday Mrs O'Reilly's intention, 8am Tuesday Mr Antonioni's intention.

I've never come across that in Anglican catholic churches.

All the people prayed for at mass are prayed for, but it is quite appropriate to have a major intention, ie in masses for the departed.

Posted by Offeiriad (# 14031) on :

I second that, venbede. Although I've seen (done!) plenty of Votive Masses in the A/C tradition, I can't say I've ever encountered much evidence of such Mass intentions.

One thing puzzles me: in RC terms I always thought that the intention of a Mass in a parish church on Sundays or Holy Days of Obligation must be for the people of the parish. Yet here in France, notice sheets often give the impression that a Sunday Mass is being offered for a particular intention. Am I misunderstanding this?

Posted by Offeiriad (# 14031) on :

Addendum to last: in Anglican usage I see a Votive Mass as having themed propers, e.g. 'Of the Holy Spirit'. A Mass intention doesn't imply or require the use of themed propers.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

The mass as sacrifice, well that's another can of worms or dead horses.

But all Christian worship including intercession, take part in the eternal offering of Christ, interceding for us, and in a sense is sacrifial.

That is particularly the case with the eucharist which is re-presenting the one eternal sacrifice of Christ.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
... for 1662 Anglicans, every eucharist is a votive mass for the sovereign with a commemoration of the day.

Sounds Ok to me

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Offeiriad:
One thing puzzles me: in RC terms I always thought that the intention of a Mass in a parish church on Sundays or Holy Days of Obligation must be for the people of the parish. Yet here in France, notice sheets often give the impression that a Sunday Mass is being offered for a particular intention. Am I misunderstanding this?

As I understand it, the intentions of one of the Sunday masses must be for the people of the parish. Other Sunday masses can have different or additional intentions.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Just as Nick Tamen said ,one of the Sunday Masses should be offered 'pro populo' though I also agree that this is not always clear.

In France Masses are often offered for multiple intentions, but one should also remember that in addition to the particular intention, prayers are offered for all the faithful both living and dead.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Is the term "votive mass" still in RC use, Forthview?

I see from my 1970s missal masses for various occasions (eg. for vocations, Christian unity, harvest) as well as sets of readings and prayers for saints and mysteries of the faith for use other than on festival days (eg. Our Lady, the Sacred Heart, the Holy Spirit.)

If the use of either category is contrary to the 39 articles, so much the worse for the 39 articles.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

My understanding is that a 'Votive Mass' is a Mass offered on
a day where no 'obligatory 'Mass should be offered.

The prime example of an 'obligatory' Mass is that 'missa pro populo' which a parish priest is bound to offer for his parishioners every Sunday.

On non obligatory days the priest may use the texts and prayers of a Votive Mass instead of the Mass of the day.

Our parish priest will very often offer a Votive Mass of the Sacred Heart on a Friday, not only the first Friday of the month where that used to be a general custom.

On Saturdays a Votive Mass of the Blessed Virgin will often be offered.

Votive Masses are allowed on days where there is no obligatory feast, but usually the Readings will be the Readings of the Day. .Only very special Feast days will now have their own Readings which interrupt the flow of the general weekday Readings

Hope this is not too complicated but to summarise:

A votive Mass of the Sacred Heart would comprise
The Antiphons,Prayers and, if appropriate, Preface of the Sacred Heart but normally the Readings from Scripture assigned to the particular day - say Friday in the Third Week of Ordinary Time.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

The intention of the Mass and whether or not it's a Votive are two entirely different things. The situation when you can say a votive Mass are outlined here.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
It is a very RC thing having a specific intention for a mass, in the way RC parish notices say 8am Monday Mrs O'Reilly's intention, 8am Tuesday Mr Antonioni's intention.

I've never come across that in Anglican catholic churches.

Our TEC shack (which isn't terribly spiky, or more than averagely Catholic) sees the mass offered for a specific intention from time to time - perhaps a handful of occasions in the year. The priest announced the intention at the start of the service - there has never been a notation in our bulletin.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I've never come across an Anglican church where the 'intention' is for a private individual (like 'Mrs O'Malley's intention). But in the past – though I have not noticed it anywhere in the last several years -– it used to be quite common for churches, perhaps MOTR 'upwards', to print a list of daily 'intentions' for which the mass was offered. They were always the sort of topics that would normally figure in the intercessions, such as 'the sick', 'local hospitals', 'peace in the Middle East': general rather than specifically personal.

Posted by Offeiriad (# 14031) on :

Many Anglican Dioceses circulate a calendar of prayer suggestions juxtaposing church and community prayer topics - my all time favourite one day asked prayers for the Diocesan Bishop and for the criminally insane......

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

Generally speaking, a votive Mass may be offered on any day where it is not forbidden to do so. In practice, this means Sundays and holy days of obligations, as well as certain other days, such as Holy Week, Easter octave, etc.

Generally, even though it is a feast day, a Mass of that day must be offered, but then another Mass that day could be a votive Mass. The term votive Mass is still quite frequently used in the RCC, as it is the term used in the missal. Ritual Masses are Masses that are celebrated at specific occasions, such as a wedding, confirmation, ordination, a Eucharistic Congress, etc. Votive Masses are typically either for a specific need (the sick, protection against storms, the dying, for the grace of the Holy Spirit, etc.), or they are for devotion (of the Holy Cross, the Precious Bloood, the Sacred Heart, etc.). In fact, a votive Mass is typically the Mass for that feast day in the kalendar, but celebrated on another day, for devotional purposes. A parish might celebrate a votive Mass for St. Anthony if there is a meeting of the St. Anthony's Guild, etc.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Is having the Angelus at the end of Mass a specifically Anglo-Catholic thing or does it have roots either in Pre-Reformation England or at some other time or place in the RCC? Here in the US, I have been to both Ordinary Rite (Novus Ordo) and Extraordinary Rite (Tridentine) Masses in the RCC and have never encountered the Angelus at the end of Mass, but maybe it was something they used to do that they do not do anymore? Or something only associated with Solemn High Mass (which Anglo-Catholics of a certain stripe do all the time, but is only rarely done when RCs celebrate the Extraordinary Rite)? Or is it a specifically English or Anglo-Catholic thing? Does anyone know the history of this and why it was introduced whenever and wherever it was?

Posted by Offeiriad (# 14031) on :

Here in France it should be possible to end the 11am Mass with the Angelus at 12, but that would require the service to (a) be well regulated, and (b) start on time. As it is, the Angelus bells are all electrified (in our shack it is controlled by a mechanism titled 'Quasimodo'!) and crash out to destroy the mood of the service during or immediately after Communion.

A nice manual Anglican Angelus at the appropriate moment (even if a few minutes late) would be far more seemly.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

The Angelus is a devotion prayed three times each day: at sunrise, noon and sunset, at the sound of a bell intended to call the faithful to prayer. It is not background music for the eucharist -- I hate it when it is treated as such!

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

The pope, who is usually considered to be Catholic, prays the Angelus publicly every Sunday and Holyday at 12 noon when he is in Rome.
6a.m.,12 noon and 6p.m. are the traditional times for the Angelus but they need not be followed in every detail.

Posted by Offeiriad (# 14031) on :

In France, the Angelus is 7am, noon, and 7pm.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Is having the Angelus at the end of Mass a specifically Anglo-Catholic thing or does it have roots either in Pre-Reformation England or at some other time or place in the RCC? Here in the US, I have been to both Ordinary Rite (Novus Ordo) and Extraordinary Rite (Tridentine) Masses in the RCC and have never encountered the Angelus at the end of Mass, but maybe it was something they used to do that they do not do anymore? Or something only associated with Solemn High Mass (which Anglo-Catholics of a certain stripe do all the time, but is only rarely done when RCs celebrate the Extraordinary Rite)? Or is it a specifically English or Anglo-Catholic thing? Does anyone know the history of this and why it was introduced whenever and wherever it was?

I am referring to the prayers of the Angelus, said without bells, and not at any particular time of day - but said by the clergy and congregation at the end of Mass. I have observed it at several Anglo-Catholic parishes, and I was wondering when, where, and why the practice started.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

The AC parishes where I have worked have had the Angelus (or other Marian Antiphon) at the beginning of Mass.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Is having the Angelus at the end of Mass a specifically Anglo-Catholic thing or does it have roots either in Pre-Reformation England or at some other time or place in the RCC? .... Or is it a specifically English or Anglo-Catholic thing? Does anyone know the history of this and why it was introduced whenever and wherever it was?

The Angelus would have died out in England at the Reformation. Any CofE or other Anglican adoption will have been an attempt by fairly spiky Anglo-Catholics to revive it. Unlike candles and more colourful vestments, it has not got back within the range of 'normal' CofE practice again.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I suspect the original questioner was not suggesting the Angelus was a 'normal' Anglican tradition, but questioning whether this anglo-catholic practice (of saying it publicly in church, usually after a mid-morning mass ending about noon) was common in the RC church, or ever had been.

The Community of the Resurrection at Mirfield ring the bell at the usual time of the devotion (always before or after one of the offices) but it is not said publicly.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Did saying the Angelus before or after Mass in Anglo-Catholic parishes start because Masses tended to either end around noon (if they started between 10 and 11 am) or begin at noon? I have been to parishes where it is said after Mass with no ringing of bells, even if Mass is ending at 11:30 am (or 8pm!). I have also seen it prayed at another parish before Mass (and this was an evening Mass for the Epiphany on a weekday).

I wonder whether some Anglo-Catholics appended the Angelus to the end of Mass, regardless of the time of its celebration, as an alternative to the Leonine Prayers, which were perhaps a bit too Papist. Thoughts? I do not know why it would have been regularly added to the beginning of Sunday Mass unless it was due to the time Mass began or just as a way to encourage Marian devotion. I was wondering if anyone knows when this trend started.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The AC parishes where I have worked have had the Angelus (or other Marian Antiphon) at the beginning of Mass.

How often was it the Angelus? And why was it at the beginning of Mass?

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Did saying the Angelus before or after Mass in Anglo-Catholic parishes start because Masses tended to either end around noon (if they started between 10 and 11 am) or begin at noon? I have been to parishes where it is said after Mass with no ringing of bells, even if Mass is ending at 11:30 am (or 8pm!). I have also seen it prayed at another parish before Mass (and this was an evening Mass for the Epiphany on a weekday).

I wonder whether some Anglo-Catholics appended the Angelus to the end of Mass, regardless of the time of its celebration, as an alternative to the Leonine Prayers, which were perhaps a bit too Papist. Thoughts? I do not know why it would have been regularly added to the beginning of Sunday Mass unless it was due to the time Mass began or just as a way to encourage Marian devotion. I was wondering if anyone knows when this trend started.

I think Fr Hunwicke had a post about this a while back. I'll have to look it up.

Certainly the only times I've heard the Angelus said/sung (or rung while prayed silently) appended to Mass was when the timing would justify it - i.e. after a Sunday Mass ending at midday, or before a Mass beginning at noon or 6pm. And apart from the Regina Caeli, I've never heard any other antiphon substituted for it (as opposed to the seasonally variable Marian Antiphon after Evensong/Vespers/Compline). I note that the St Bede Breviary online includes the option of saying the Angelus before Mattins and Evensong, presumably on the assumption that they might each begin around 6 o'clock.

I only have experience of the pre/post-Mass Angelus in Anglican churches, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything as the RC parishes I knew before swimming the Thames weren't especially "spiky".

I believe I have heard the Leonine Prayers, or at least the Salve Regina, following a 1962 Mass. And I have heard the Domine salvam fac for the Queen said after Mass in an ordinariate church.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

When the Cowley Fathers were still at Cowley, they had Evensong (BCP in plainchant with antiphons for the Magnificat) at 6pm.

They recited the Angelus first.

Posted by Joan Rasch (# 49) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
When the Cowley Fathers were still at Cowley, they had Evensong (BCP in plainchant with antiphons for the Magnificat) at 6pm.

They recited the Angelus first.

... And this custom continues to this day in the US SSJE community.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

In our A-C shack, the Angelus is only ever publicly recited at the end of Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer (seven days a week), not in connection with Mass. So it's said at approximately 7:25 a.m. and 6:25 p.m. on weekdays, and at 7:45 a.m. on Sundays. It's not said at the end of Sunday Choral Evensong.

We do change to the Regina caeli in Eastertide. As for other antiphons, we have sometime in Lent done the Angelus at the beginning of Evening Prayer and then the Ave Regina caelorum at the end of Evening Prayer.

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
When the Cowley Fathers were still at Cowley, they had Evensong (BCP in plainchant with antiphons for the Magnificat) at 6pm.

They recited the Angelus first.

In the 1970s there was a real jangle of bells in East Oxford: the Cowley Fathers, the All Saints Sisters, the sisters at Nazareth House, the Greyfriars, and often the Parish Church too all rang the Angelus. Ichabod.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Can I ask a completely (well, slightly) different question.

Last Sunday we had a united service at our local Anglo-Catholic church. It was "Sung Evensong with Benediction". I enjoyed it but was left feeling a bit puzzled by the Benediction, and not just because I have different views on the Sacrament in general and the Real Presence in particular.

What I found strange is that it seemed to be Communion without actually "communing" - as someone said, it felt like being taken to a restaurant and asked to admire the food being displayed in glass cases, before returning home without having eaten.

Where does this service come from and how is it regarded in traditions which include it?

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

It was an eighteenth century RC development, I believe. I'm sure someone will be along with the details soon.

At a gut level I love Benediction. It does round off Evensong nicely. But obviously, its not everyone's cup of tea (including Orthodox and many RCs.)

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Top marks to your local A-Cs, BT, for having the chutzpah to put on Benediction as a United Service!
Actually, seriously, it's good to hear of a church saying 'this is what we do, share it' rather than 'here's a bit of something from everywhere (and probably not enough of any of them)'.
I well remember when I first encountered Benediction, when I was rather lower in my Eucharistic theology than I am now. What did strike me was the intense prayerfulness and adoration of it. Even if one only saw the Host as being symbolic of Christ, or a reminder of Him, it helped focus the sense of worship.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

I'm sorry you were left feeling disappointed with Benediction. It goes back to well before the 18th century,but became very popular in Catholicism after the Council of Trent.

It is a given,which one doesn't argue with in Catholicism, that Christ is fully present in the Sacred Host. The consecrated Hosts are kept in a tabernacle to be taken to the Sick who cannot be present at the eucharist.(I'm sure you know all this)

Gradually it became popular to expose the Sacred Host at evening devotions.It does as Albertus said,focus our devotion.Remember that until the 1950s Mass was not celebrated in the evening.

The 39 Anglican Articles,if I am right,forbid the adoration of the Sacred Host.

Since Vatican 2 the rite of Benediction has become much less popular in RC churches,partly because Mass is celebrated in the evening also.

However many churches will have longish periods of silent prayer before the Sacred Host exposed in a monstrance.

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

Forthview gives a common, but not quite correct, reading of the XXXIX. I don't have the text before me, but IIRC, it reads 'was not by Christ instituted to be carried about or gazed upon' (at least that's the sense of it). Nobody of course would argue with that. It does NOT however read 'Christ said Don't Do It.' thus leaving an admittedly casuistric loophole for A-Cs to happily gallop through over the years.

Re the OP: in my parish in North Carolina, the Angelus was said immediately following the daily masses which began at 5:30 (so it was a few minutes late) and sung immediately following the Sunday 11 am High Mass, so also a few minutes late. Bells were rung.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

That's right on the 39 Articles, but the Black Rubric says that the bread and wine remain in their very natural substances and therefore may not be adored, for that were idolatry... I think most Anglo-Catholics ignore that though [Big Grin]

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
That's right on the 39 Articles, but the Black Rubric says that the bread and wine remain in their very natural substances and therefore may not be adored, for that were idolatry... I think most Anglo-Catholics ignore that though

That's why St Thomas', Huron Street, in Toronto, is careful to call its Benediction service "Devotions," doesn't do the actual benediction with a monstrance (the Sacrament is under a veil on the high altar during the service), and instead of the traditional antiphon "Let us forever adore the most holy Sacrament" is sung "Let us adore Christ our Lord in the most holy Sacrament."

As an Anglo-Catholic in a parish that uses the traditional antiphon, I'd say the latter version above is what we really mean. Or at least what I really mean.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by stonespring

quote:
How often was it the Angelus? And why was it at the beginning of Mass?

Always the Angelus except in Eastertide up to Pentecost - then we sang the Regina Caeli.

No idea why it was at the beginning - that was the situation whe I arrived in the parish and I wasn't going to question (was young and green then!).

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
That's right on the 39 Articles, but the Black Rubric says that the bread and wine remain in their very natural substances and therefore may not be adored, for that were idolatry... I think most Anglo-Catholics ignore that though

O, that Extra Calvinisticum!

Because "the right hand of God" is a physical place with a zip code, amirite?

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

At our parish (EF), we recite the Angelus at the end of the rosary, immediately before the Sunday High Mass, because that is at 11:30AM. The practice of reciting the Angelus at the end of Mass is not specifically AC; it is common at EF parishes, when the Mass begins or ends close to noon. Most Masses, however, do not end at that time.

I love, love, love Benediction. As has been stated here, the presence of evening Masses cut into the practice on Sundays. Though with many parishes having extended hours of Adoration now--some even have perpetual Adoration--one does see Benediction as part of that, though usually the simple form. Some parishes have Benediction as part of Lenten or Advent programs, or evenings when priests are preaching as part of a specific program.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

The local RC parishes have Benediction at the conclusion of the Corpus Christi procession which finishes in front of one of the nunneries and is followed by the Marian antiphon, then Evening Prayer in the sisters' chapel.

Regarding the Angelus being sung publically after Masses that end at noon or before ones which start at 6, this seems to be a real A-C peculiarity and I'd like to know where it came from. I suppose some very advanced clergy must have reasoned nobody would do such things by themselves without being led by example!

In England too my parish did it - said rather than sung during Lent, and replaced with the Regina Coeli in Eastertide.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Top marks to your local A-Cs, BT, for having the chutzpah to put on Benediction as a United Service!
Actually, seriously, it's good to hear of a church saying 'this is what we do, share it' rather than 'here's a bit of something from everywhere (and probably not enough of any of them)'.

We agreed as a united group of ministers (CofE, Baptist, Methodist, URC but sadly not Catholic as he was unwell) that this was the way we wanted to go. We felt vindicated when the Bishop, in his sermon, referred disapprovingly to "ecumenical soup" in which all traditions are watered down to the lowest common denominator. But it does mean that, next year, the High Church folk must be ready to experience (say) Methodist worship.

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

Here is the post I had in mind.

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:

Regarding the Angelus being sung publically after Masses that end at noon or before ones which start at 6, this seems to be a real A-C peculiarity and I'd like to know where it came from. I suppose some very advanced clergy must have reasoned nobody would do such things by themselves without being led by example!

In England too my parish did it - said rather than sung during Lent, and replaced with the Regina Coeli in Eastertide.

Interestingly almost every Anglo-Catholic parish in London seems to sing the Angelus (with Regina C in Eastertide)at the end of mass, even one where mass begins at 9.30, as opposed to the more usual 10.30 or 11am start. I must admit I am so acclimatised to this now that I would probably think it strange of it weren't sung. The only parish I have come across that sings it at the beginning is St Mathias Stoke Newington.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
Interestingly almost every Anglo-Catholic parish in London seems to sing the Angelus

I hope you mean "every Anglo-Catholic parish in London which I have visited recently". You can't spend your time monitoring them all.

And you speak as though they are a limited and definite number, whereas the boundaries are far more fluid.

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
Interestingly almost every Anglo-Catholic parish in London seems to sing the Angelus
I hope you mean "every Anglo-Catholic parish in London which I have visited recently". You can't spend your time monitoring them all.

And you speak as though they are a limited and definite number, whereas the boundaries are far more fluid.

Picky, aren't you?....When I said London, I meant Diocese of but am speaking most of Central and North London. And yes, I have visited (not monitored) many over the last 3 years and have friends at many others. I don't see the boundaries as being fluid at all.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

A comment on the Fr. Hunwicke blog post linked to above re: the Angelus at the end of Mass in Anglo-Catholic parishes mentions hearing at St. Clement's Episcopal Parish in Philadelphia that the practice is following with what is done at St. Mary's, Bourne St. As I have no knowledge whatsoever of that church in London, I ask if anyone else does and whether or not it is known for inspiring other parishes to emulate its liturgical practices.

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

I am not sure about its influence elsewhere but St Mary Bourne St retains a distinctive liturgical identity. High Mass is in traditional language, the EP is the catholic BCP varient, sung Creed and Our Father, Sung propers, and mass ends with the Ite missa est and Angelus sung before the shrine of Our Lady of Peace. Choral mass on Sunday but sung mass (De Angelis) for weekday feasts. Evensong is sung (rather than choral) and an altogether low key affair, though the same cannot be said for Evensong with Double Benediction for Corpus Christi. The Angelus is said prior to Evensong at 6pm.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

We may have had this discussion sometime before, but do many Anglo-Catholic churches do the Blessing of St Blaise on 3rd February ?

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
the EP is the catholic BCP varient,

As permitted by note 27 on page 335 of Common Worship.

St Mary's is a lovely example in its fittings of tasteful 1930s baroque. The basic Victorian building is not large.

What I remember of High Mass there was the acolytes sitting on the side steps up to the altar facing outward during the sermon.

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
We may have had this discussion sometime before, but do many Anglo-Catholic churches do the Blessing of St Blaise on 3rd February ?

St Silas, Kentish Town is one..

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
A comment on the Fr. Hunwicke blog post linked to above re: the Angelus at the end of Mass in Anglo-Catholic parishes mentions hearing at St. Clement's Episcopal Parish in Philadelphia that the practice is following with what is done at St. Mary's, Bourne St. As I have no knowledge whatsoever of that church in London, I ask if anyone else does and whether or not it is known for inspiring other parishes to emulate its liturgical practices.

Fr Gordon Reid, recently retires as Rector of S Clement's philadelphia lived in the clergy house at Bourne Street in the early 90s, when he was Vicar General of Gibraltar. Maybe he exported some Bourne Street customs?

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:

Regarding the Angelus being sung publically after Masses that end at noon or before ones which start at 6, this seems to be a real A-C peculiarity and I'd like to know where it came from. I suppose some very advanced clergy must have reasoned nobody would do such things by themselves without being led by example!

In England too my parish did it - said rather than sung during Lent, and replaced with the Regina Coeli in Eastertide.
Interestingly almost every Anglo-Catholic parish in London seems to sing the Angelus (with Regina C in Eastertide)at the end of mass, even one where mass begins at 9.30, as opposed to the more usual 10.30 or 11am start. I must admit I am so acclimatised to this now that I would probably think it strange of it weren't sung. The only parish I have come across that sings it at the beginning is St Mathias Stoke Newington.

Actually now I think of it I've sung in after Sunday Masses starting at 9.30 as well... I guess it is at the point where it has effectively become a sort of Marian thanksgiving more than a noonday devotion!

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
We may have had this discussion sometime before, but do many Anglo-Catholic churches do the Blessing of St Blaise on 3rd February ?

We do, but depending on when 3rd February falls, we sometimes do this at the end of the Candlemas Masses on 2nd February.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
A comment on the Fr. Hunwicke blog post linked to above re: the Angelus at the end of Mass in Anglo-Catholic parishes mentions hearing at St. Clement's Episcopal Parish in Philadelphia that the practice is following with what is done at St. Mary's, Bourne St. As I have no knowledge whatsoever of that church in London, I ask if anyone else does and whether or not it is known for inspiring other parishes to emulate its liturgical practices.
Fr Gordon Reid, recently retires as Rector of S Clement's philadelphia lived in the clergy house at Bourne Street in the early 90s, when he was Vicar General of Gibraltar. Maybe he exported some Bourne Street customs?

S Clement's has had a fairly longstanding reputation as an A-C shrine church, far predating Reid's tenure. Reports indicate that while Reid was rector, he worked to rein in the parish's extravagantly Tridentine tendencies, prompting some speculation as to whether he had a brief from the bishop to bring S Clement's liturgical practices closer to the mainstream of TEC. No idea as to whether that's actually true, of course.

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
S Clement's has had a fairly longstanding reputation as an A-C shrine church, far predating Reid's tenure. Reports indicate that while Reid was rector, he worked to rein in the parish's extravagantly Tridentine tendencies, prompting some speculation as to whether he had a brief from the bishop to bring S Clement's liturgical practices closer to the mainstream of TEC. No idea as to whether that's actually true, of course.

I don't recall Fr Reid showing any low church tendencies at Bourne Street, but it is over 20 years since I last spoke to him. And if you do have low church tendencies, Bourne Street is hardly the place to express them...

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Old St Paul’s Edinburgh is the leading Anglo Catholic church of the Scottish Episcopal Church, although since they have women priests, some here may deny that.

They have Evensong and Benediction on Sundays with a few subtle adaptions.

The Marian privileges mentioned in the Divine Praises are nuanced, shall we say.

The translation of O Salutaris has been adapted to modern sensibilities. Instead of “O saving victim opening wide/ The gates of heaven to MAN below”, it is sung “The gates of heaven to ALL below.”

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

Well, the mainstream of TEC practice is hardly low! But it doesn't usually encompass offices from the Anglican Breviary and (as a friend of mine said) generally practicing religion like an 18th-century Belgian.

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

The translation of O Salutaris has been adapted to modern sensibilities. Instead of “O saving victim opening wide/ The gates of heaven to MAN below”, it is sung “The gates of heaven to ALL below.”

When I was last there (it was a festival day with street procession) I was struck by how violently the hymn texts had been bowdlerized (vandalized?). As an instance EVERY bit of military verbiage had been excised from 'For All the Saints,' which took quite a bit of doing. As the texts were all printed in the leaflet, I don't know whether this was a parish peculiarity or that of the hymnal in use, but it was disconcerting.

As for 'O saving victim' you should just leave it in 'God's own holy Latin'!

[Yipee]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Quite right. Or where there's no Latin, do what I do and make sure you have a copy of A&M/ The English Hymnal to hand, and sing the proper words from that (if you can't remember them).

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

A new query. I can't remember whether I, or someone else, has asked this before.

Back in the 1950s, i.e. 60 years ago, I can remember the then equivalent of what these days are called the Intercessions, sometimes being being prayed from half way down the central aisle in stead of the vicar's pew in the chancel. Lay people didn't do Intercessions in those days. I think this was from a prayer desk, but I can't quite remember. I can't recall having seen this done anywhere since. So I don't know whether this was a peculiar quirk of one particular vicar, an old fashioned practice that was dying out, or even something that's quite widespread in circles different to mine.

Has anyone else ever encountered this? Does anyone say, 'O we always do that'? Either way, does anyone know why it was done? Or, for that matter, when or why it died out?

Posted by Crucifer (# 523) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Has anyone else ever encountered this? Does anyone say, 'O we always do that'? Either way, does anyone know why it was done? Or, for that matter, when or why it died out?

There are at least a couple of Anglican churches here in Winnipeg that have these prayer desks in place (St. Luke, and St. George Crescentwood). I have not been to a Sunday Eucharist at either of these places in a long time, so I don't know if they are still using them or not.

In our parish (St. Michael and All Angels), the layperson reading the Intercessions used to stand in the centre aisle facing east while reading the intercessions, but in more recent times they have been read from the lectern in order to make them audible for those with diminished hearing.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

In the parish I attended here in Ottawa some 20 years ago, the custom was for the (lay) prayer leader to lead from the middle of the nave, using a microphone. As far as I know, that's still the case.

John

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
A new query. I can't remember whether I, or someone else, has asked this before.

Back in the 1950s, i.e. 60 years ago, I can remember the then equivalent of what these days are called the Intercessions, sometimes being being prayed from half way down the central aisle in stead of the vicar's pew in the chancel. Lay people didn't do Intercessions in those days. I think this was from a prayer desk, but I can't quite remember. I can't recall having seen this done anywhere since. So I don't know whether this was a peculiar quirk of one particular vicar, an old fashioned practice that was dying out, or even something that's quite widespread in circles different to mine.

Has anyone else ever encountered this? Does anyone say, 'O we always do that'? Either way, does anyone know why it was done? Or, for that matter, when or why it died out?

I think that in (say) the 1960s it was still quite common. As it was explained to this incomer, this was the desk from which the litany was read on the appointed occasions---although that was pretty much ignored by then.

I suspect it died out when lay people began to "lead" the intercessions.

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :

I think there is some symbolism in the Prayers of the faithful coming from the faithful, rather than being read at them. The fact that often they are read towards the congregtion from a lectern is maybe what has turned them into mini sermons. They are not really addressed to God at all.

At S Mary's Bourne Stree (which has cropped up somewhere here before), the custom was for them to be read by a layperson from the back of the nave. I also recall another church in the north of England where the Vicar would process, with server, to the back of the nave to read the bidding prayers at Mass.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

At my last church, the intercessions were done from the nave.

I still do this for the prayers after the anthem when I officiate at Choral Evensong.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
The fact that often they are read towards the congregtion from a lectern is maybe what has turned them into mini sermons. They are not really addressed to God at all.

Like.

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
In the parish I attended here in Ottawa some 20 years ago, the custom was for the (lay) prayer leader to lead from the middle of the nave, using a microphone. As far as I know, that's still the case.

John

I have seen this in several parishes and I much prefer it. I think it can help in focussing the congregations minds on prayer to God, rather than looking at what the Intercessor is wearing or how they are delivering the petitions.

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
The fact that often they are read towards the congregtion from a lectern is maybe what has turned them into mini sermons. They are not really addressed to God at all.

Like.

I am thinking of bidding prayers about current events, secular or ecclesiastical, which are used to make points. So rather than 'Let us beseech Almighty God to guide the general Synod in Westminster niw assembled', one gets' Almighty God, as you have doubtless seen in the Church times, the general synod is debating a revision to the rules on fasting communion. We pray that the true doctrine of the early church requiring fasting from midnight the night before will be upheld, as it is here at St Frithfroths, and that all of us present may in our personal lives and practises continue to maintain that discipline, excepting, of course, the elderly and sick.'

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

When I do intercessions, I always address the congregation who are doing the actual interceding.

Back to Enoch's point. I suspect a litany desk was nothing to do with the Holy Communion (sic).

The BCP requires the Litany to be said every Wednesday and Friday as well as Sunday. A special desk looks like a Victorian adjunct to this practice.

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

...

The BCP requires the Litany to be said every Wednesday and Friday as well as Sunday. A special desk looks like a Victorian adjunct to this practice.

It's not so much the desk that's special, but where it is placed: it's to comply with Joel 2:17, surely? "Let the priests, the ministers of the LORD, weep between the porch and the altar, and let them say, Spare thy people, O LORD, and give not thine heritage to reproach, that the heathen should rule over them: wherefore should they say among the people, Where is their God?"

I assume the Victorians thought they were restoring some medieval custom or other, but haven't a clue if there are medieval litany desks.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Regarding honorifics:

I noticed that people who are named Deans or Canons start using their new honorific before their actual installation. Newly named Deans for example, use "Very Rev" before their actual installation. This is in contrast to ordination in which it is a definite No-No for ordinands to go by "Rev" before the laying on of hands. Can anyone offer a rationale?

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Regarding honorifics:

I noticed that people who are named Deans or Canons start using their new honorific before their actual installation. Newly named Deans for example, use "Very Rev" before their actual installation. This is in contrast to ordination in which it is a definite No-No for ordinands to go by "Rev" before the laying on of hands. Can anyone offer a rationale?

Ordination is ontological, sacramental and lifelong. Canonries and deaneries are simply appointed positions.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Simple question. Does the Queen's reign date from 6th February 1952 or 2nd June 1953? The answer to that question explains also why Deans and Canons are such from appointment, not ceremony.

Thank you meanwhile to all those who have answered my question about the Intercessions being taken from half the way down the central aisle.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Simple question. Does the Queen's reign date from 6th February 1952 or 2nd June 1953? The answer to that question explains also why Deans and Canons are such from appointment, not ceremony.

Thank you meanwhile to all those who have answered my question about the Intercessions being taken from half the way down the central aisle.

From 1952-- there is a constitutional discussion on whether or not she reigns from the moment of her predecessor's death or from the moment of her proclamation (usually 2-4 days later). Authorities lean toward the former. There is an argument that the spiritual nature of kingship comes from the moment of anointing (the physical crown itself is on the irrelevant, if decorative, side)

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

She was visiting Africa when her father died. It was said at the time the she went to bed a princess and woke up a queen.

(Stop sniggering at the back)

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
When I was last there (it was a festival day with street procession)

That business about For All the Saints is very silly.

Anyone who doesn’t know Edinburgh will not appreciate how courageous, not to say batty, Old St Paul’s are in having a street procession.

It is not on a street. It is half way down a 45 degree steep alley descending from the Royal Mile to a street running along side Waverley Station, where there is a lift up to the church for the disabled access.

Heaven only knows how the manage a street procession, but I hope they get in John Knox’s House just down the Royal Mile.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

they walk up from the back entrance to the church to the top of the passageway on to the Royal Mile (High Street) then walk down about 100 metres and turn back down another alleyway which takes them down to the lower road and back in the front entrance of the church, which necessitates climbing back up stairs which are called the Calvary Stairway.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Deans and Canons are such from appointment, not ceremony

... not, I think in the antipodes. I had to wait months to swap a Ven for a Very [Roll Eyes]

Posted by mrs whibley (# 4798) on :

Apologies if this has been asked many times before.
Our Vicar remarked this morning that this year Lent was following rather hot on the heels of Christmas and making him feel a bit dizzy. Is it possible for the seasons to overlap - that is, can Easter ever be so early (in the Western church) that Ash Wednesday falls before Candlemas?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Not quite but very nearly- AIUI the earliest date that Ash Wednesday can fall is 4 February so there's always at least 3 February to catch your breath between the two!

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

If you follow the BCP caldendar, Septuagesima can fall before Candlemass as it would this year.

In which case, Candlemass falls after the final Sundays after Epiphany and the run up to Lent has started.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Enoch, I've come across (even led) lay intercessions from the central aisle (well, actually tucked just into the second crossing so the microphone wasn't a trip hazard) - facing forward with the congregation and as a part of the congregation. But I have experienced it in several other churches.

(I prefer an open ended bidding sentence and then silence for intercessions.)

Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :

Intercessions (1): Christ Church Bath had (has?) a microphone at the back of the pews from which the intercessions were (are?) led.

Intercessions (2): I find it helpful to use a sequence of (a) Let us pray for; (b) brief pause; (c) an actual petition; (d) versicle/response. I'm a child of Series 3/ASB!

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
Intercessions (1): Christ Church Bath had (has?) a microphone at the back of the pews from which the intercessions were (are?) led.

Intercessions (2): I find it helpful to use a sequence of (a) Let us pray for; (b) brief pause; (c) an actual petition; (d) versicle/response. I'm a child of Series 3/ASB!

I had a look at the website of Christ church Bath as I recall once going into a church in Bath and finding a BCP HC in progress, with the priest in surplice and scarf at the North End, which was rather thrilling, and I wondered if this was that. But no, I find that it is, even more thrillingly, a proprietary chapel. Bath is exactly the sort of place which must have been full of them once. I wonder how many still exist?

In re your thoughts on bidding prayers, I agree with you 100%. But i guess I am a series 3/ ASB child too.

Posted by Offeiriad (# 14031) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
I had a look at the website of Christ church Bath as I recall once going into a church in Bath and finding a BCP HC in progress, with the priest in surplice and scarf at the North End, which was rather thrilling, and I wondered if this was that. But no, I find that it is, even more thrillingly, a proprietary chapel. Bath is exactly the sort of place which must have been full of them once. I wonder how many still exist?

I've just looked at their website too: what a shock! I've always associated Proprietary Chapels with BCP and snakes-belly churchmanship - clearly not in Bath!

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Offeiriad:

quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
I had a look at the website of Christ church Bath as I recall once going into a church in Bath and finding a BCP HC in progress, with the priest in surplice and scarf at the North End, which was rather thrilling, and I wondered if this was that. But no, I find that it is, even more thrillingly, a proprietary chapel. Bath is exactly the sort of place which must have been full of them once. I wonder how many still exist?
I've just looked at their website too: what a shock! I've always associated Proprietary Chapels with BCP and snakes-belly churchmanship - clearly not in Bath!

It is odd. Bath I would think in the 18th century would have been full of proprietary chapels, where those taking the waters would have gone to listen to fashionable preachers. That the one that has survived is catholic is interesting, and I guess there must be a story there.

The Grosvenor Chapel in Mayfair is not low, and that's probably the best known surviving proprietary chapel. All Saint's Margaret Street started out as one. And I guess the Shrine at Walsingham is one, but I doubt it is actually licensed under the Proprietary Chapels Act.

Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
It is odd. Bath I would think in the 18th century would have been full of proprietary chapels, where those taking the waters would have gone to listen to fashionable preachers. That the one that has survived is catholic is interesting, and I guess there must be a story there.

From memory (rather hazy and distant memory):

It was built as a church without pew rents. At that time, the typical parish church charged pew rents, so if you couldn't pay you couldn't go to church. Hence there was a movement to build churches without pew rents so that poor servants could actually go to church. (I don't know whether the idea of providing free pews in ordinary churches crossed anyone's mind) I don't actually know why it was set up as a proprietary chapel and not a chapel of ease of the parish, but it was. As an aside, I think St Mary's Bourne Street is another example of a church built to not charge pew rents.

Anyway, Christ Church started off as a typical Old High Church setup. I think that at the time, Walcott parish, the parish it was in, was a similar style (but without any riff-raff cluttering up the pews of course). Then the patronage of Walcott was bought by the Simeon Trustees at some point in the mid 19th century, and relations between the 2 churches have been frosty ever since. Attempts have been made to convert Christ Church to a parish, but these have always floundered.

The broader picture is that there was a load of nonconformist activity in Bath (Wesley, the Countess of Huntingdon etc) so some anglo-catholic patronage society whose name I forget was buying up a lot of churches to provide a counterbalance. The Simeon Trustees stepped in to provide a counterbalance to the anglo-catholics, and the 2 of them ended up owning almost every parish in the city centre. In that environment, I'm guessing that neither side wanted a new neutral parish springing up.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Christ Church Bath attracts the more liberal types since most other churches in the city are either Forward in Faith or Evangelical.

Their recent parish profile, advertising for a new incumbent, requires someone in sympathy with the aims of the Sineon's Trust but it is fairly 'open'.

I know 2 retired priests who assist there and they are both liberal catholics.

[ 08. February 2016, 14:29: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

Asking on behalf of a friend here in the US who would like to purchase a statue of Our Lady of Walsingham. Do any of you know of a place in the US where one could be purchased (so as to avoid the transatlantic postage)? Many thanks for any help.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

If friend is in Chicago, I'd recommend going to talk to the nice people at Watra's. (Not the 1st floor; when you go in, let them know you need to go up to the church goods floor).

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

I was intending to attend an Ash Wednesday service tomorrow but find myself struggling with a horrible flu. (Thanks flu shot for nothing.) What does one do on this particular day if they find themselves providentially hindered?

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

Curl up with a copy of TS Eliot's Ash Wednesday.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
I was intending to attend an Ash Wednesday service tomorrow but find myself struggling with a horrible flu. (Thanks flu shot for nothing.) What does one do on this particular day if they find themselves providentially hindered?

If you actually have flu, that's your penance for the day right there. You might focus your prayer on explicitly joining your suffering to Christ's.

Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :

If you actually have flu, stay in bed! You won't be able to get up anyway if it's really flu. Stay in bed, drink plenty of fluids, and look after yourself.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

If you're CofE, tay in bed and read morning or evening prayer by yourself, with the Commination.

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:

quote:
Originally posted by Offeiriad:

quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
I had a look at the website of Christ church Bath as I recall once going into a church in Bath and finding a BCP HC in progress, with the priest in surplice and scarf at the North End, which was rather thrilling, and I wondered if this was that. But no, I find that it is, even more thrillingly, a proprietary chapel. Bath is exactly the sort of place which must have been full of them once. I wonder how many still exist?
I've just looked at their website too: what a shock! I've always associated Proprietary Chapels with BCP and snakes-belly churchmanship - clearly not in Bath!
It is odd. Bath I would think in the 18th century would have been full of proprietary chapels, where those taking the waters would have gone to listen to fashionable preachers. That the one that has survived is catholic is interesting, and I guess there must be a story there.

The Grosvenor Chapel in Mayfair is not low, and that's probably the best known surviving proprietary chapel. All Saint's Margaret Street started out as one. And I guess the Shrine at Walsingham is one, but I doubt it is actually licensed under the Proprietary Chapels Act.

I don't think the Grosvenor Chapel is a proprietary chapel. It's a chapel of ease in the parish of St George Hanover Square. The only proprietary chapel (I think) in the Diocese of London is St John's Downshire Hill in Hampstead.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Here you are. Proprietory until 1829 and a chapel of ease since then.

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

Likely not in the same category (and certainly not covered by the same British legislation), but one of the parishes in my diocese began life when a local brewery baron took exception to the Tractarian airs of the first Lord Bishop of Montreal. Although its liturgy followed the BCP it had no affiliation at all with either the diocese or the C of E (as we then were), but was instead a privately-owned congregation of the Countess of Huntingdon's Connexion! It was not brought into the fold until after Molson's death.

[ 11. February 2016, 00:09: Message edited by: Knopwood ]

Posted by JeffTL (# 16722) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
I was intending to attend an Ash Wednesday service tomorrow but find myself struggling with a horrible flu. (Thanks flu shot for nothing.) What does one do on this particular day if they find themselves providentially hindered?

Rome says it's not a holy day of obligation, though it gets better turnout than most of them. The 1979 BCP lists it as a Holy Day (akin to Annunciation, Visitation, or the feasts of the Apostles, inter alia) and as a Day of Special Devotion alongside the rest of Lent save Annunciation and non-festal Fridays. I don't know of any other church obligating anyone to attend Ash Wednesday services either.

I'd personally treat the occasion as analogous to being seriously ill on a Sunday. A comfortable cup of tea and Morning Prayer in bed it is.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:
Likely not in the same category (and certainly not covered by the same British legislation), but one of the parishes in my diocese began life when a local brewery baron took exception to the Tractarian airs of the first Lord Bishop of Montreal. Although its liturgy followed the BCP it had no affiliation at all with either the diocese or the C of E (as we then were), but was instead a privately-owned congregation of the Countess of Huntingdon's Connexion! It was not brought into the fold until after Molson's death.

That reminds me of a chapel which existed- I think still does (Gamaliel or somebody might know- he's from that way)- in Monmouthshire. Founded in the C19 by Lady Llanover (the one who more or less invented 'traditional' Welsh costume as worn on St David's Day) as a Welsh-speaking chapel of the CofE, as it then was here; then after Lady Ll had a row with the diocese over something or the other, given to the Presbyterians on condition that they continued to use the BCP in Welsh; ownership retained by Lady Ll's heirs even after they converted to the RCC. So a chapel owned by a lay RC where Presbyterians worshipped according to the forms of the CofE!

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
So a chapel owned by a lay RC where Presbyterians worshipped according to the forms of the CofE!

And, to go full circle, most recently was holding services under the Church in Wales..

[ 11. February 2016, 10:21: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Well found- thank you!

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Lady Llanover, as well as being the wife of the man who may have given his name to Big Ben, also collected Welsh recipes.

Elizabeth David quotes her extensively. I bake her recipe for rice bread and at the moment we are salting down some duck legs. Welsh salt duck was one of her ideas that Elizabeth David liked very much.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

From the ODNB on Augusta, Lady Llanover

At Aber-carn, the school that Lady Llanover directly supervised taught through the medium of Welsh, and it was there also that she and her husband endowed an Anglican church, which was transferred to the Welsh Calvinistic Methodists in 1862 following the refusal of the vicar to conduct the services in the vernacular. At that time she personally supervised the preparation of a revised version of the Book of Common Prayer for use at the new church. A fervent protestant, she later endowed other Welsh dissenting chapels at Llanofer and Aber-carn. Her interest in the continuation of Welsh traditions led her to employ a resident harpist and to establish a harp manufactory at Llanofer.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Just for the heck of it. Then there is the URC in Port Sunlight.

Jengie

Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on :

As evidenced by the discussion above, the odd byways of Anglican ecclesiastical organisation, such as Proprietary and Qualified chapels, can provide some mild fascination. Then there are peculiars or peculiers, royal or otherwise. In conversation a while back about churches in the centre of Cambridge with a friend reasonably well versed in church legal matters, St Edward King and Martyr cropped up. I was aware that its status is unusual. In a piece of mid 15th century property development, the church of St John Zachery was compulsorily purchased because Henry VI wanted the land on which it stood to build his new college. This church had been used for worship by Trinity Hall, even though there was a chapel within the precincts of the college itself. By way of recompense the king passed over to the Master of the college the right in perpetuity to appoint a chaplain (not an incumbent?) to Edward K&M. The college could then use that building for worship in lieu of the demolished church (its own chapel notwithstanding, presumably).

So much for history - but what is the status of the church now? The questionably (at best) reliable wikipedia reckons it a royal peculiar - because of the gift of appointment to the chaplaincy was made by the king, perhaps? The venerable archdeacon does not agree - here. My friend ruminated for a moment and then came up with his opinion - that the church is a 'donative'. The archdeacon's view is otherwise, but that apart, what is a 'donative'? As far as I can make out there isn't a great deal on the internet about this class of church, and what there is is not particularly helpful. Is anyone here better enlightened? What is the origin and rationale of a donative? Do any survive - other than the place in Cambridge, if indeed, pace his venerableness, it is one?

[ 14. February 2016, 19:48: Message edited by: Metapelagius ]

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

St Thomas the Martyr Newcastle seems similar to St Edward's:

From Wiki

"The modern St Thomas the Martyr has no parish, but neither is it a Peculiar (ecclesiastical enclave), making it unique in the Church of England. It is governed by the Body Corporate (comprising the senior priest and Churchwardens) and ultimately through Acts of Parliament. It lies within the Diocese of Newcastle, the Archdeaconry of Northumberland and the Deanery of Newcastle. It was formally separated from the Hospital of St Mary Magdalene in 1978, but the senior priest of the church is still referred to as the Master."

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
Just curious: did anyone do/hear the proclamation of the dates of moveable feasts today? How about blessing chalk? Eat king cake? Any other Epiphany traditions I'm forgetting?

Even though the feast is moved to Sunday in the U.S. we had kings' cake and hot chocolate after weekday mass on the 6th of January (Wednesday).

Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :

quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:

quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
It is odd. Bath I would think in the 18th century would have been full of proprietary chapels, where those taking the waters would have gone to listen to fashionable preachers. That the one that has survived is catholic is interesting, and I guess there must be a story there.
From memory (rather hazy and distant memory):

It was built as a church without pew rents. At that time, the typical parish church charged pew rents, so if you couldn't pay you couldn't go to church. Hence there was a movement to build churches without pew rents so that poor servants could actually go to church. (I don't know whether the idea of providing free pews in ordinary churches crossed anyone's mind) I don't actually know why it was set up as a proprietary chapel and not a chapel of ease of the parish, but it was. As an aside, I think St Mary's Bourne Street is another example of a church built to not charge pew rents.

Anyway, Christ Church started off as a typical Old High Church setup. I think that at the time, Walcott parish, the parish it was in, was a similar style (but without any riff-raff cluttering up the pews of course). Then the patronage of Walcott was bought by the Simeon Trustees at some point in the mid 19th century, and relations between the 2 churches have been frosty ever since. Attempts have been made to convert Christ Church to a parish, but these have always floundered.

The broader picture is that there was a load of nonconformist activity in Bath (Wesley, the Countess of Huntingdon etc) so some anglo-catholic patronage society whose name I forget was buying up a lot of churches to provide a counterbalance. The Simeon Trustees stepped in to provide a counterbalance to the anglo-catholics, and the 2 of them ended up owning almost every parish in the city centre. In that environment, I'm guessing that neither side wanted a new neutral parish springing up.

That's about it; well recalled. Were you in Bath when I did the murder mystery pub crawl with Beau Nash, Wesley and the Countess?

From what I was told, I don't think there was active Anglo-catholic purchasing going on, simply that with the Oxford Movement flourishing Simeon's Trustees were determined to try to keep it out of the West Country. There's a good half-dozen Simeon's parishes in Bath, including the Abbey. There's no solid block of A-C patronage.

Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
That's about it; well recalled. Were you in Bath when I did the murder mystery pub crawl with Beau Nash, Wesley and the Countess?

Yes I was. That brings back memories.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

I listen regularly to Choral Evensong on the BBC radio 3 website...
The last 2 weeks I have noticed that the choir has enunciated "throughout all generations" (in the Magnificat) as "gener-ah-tee-ons".
Am I imagining things?
If not is this a London thing? (Both churches were London ones - Temple and St Batholomew the Great)

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
I listen regularly to Choral Evensong on the BBC radio 3 website...
The last 2 weeks I have noticed that the choir has enunciated "throughout all generations" (in the Magnificat) as "gener-ah-tee-ons".
Am I imagining things?
If not is this a London thing? (Both churches were London ones - Temple and St Batholomew the Great)

I've heard similar pronunciations by choirs. There's also 'our prayers and supply-case-ee-ons'. It's a musicianship affectation and should be mocked as one.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I've heard similar pronunciations by choirs. There's also 'our prayers and supply-case-ee-ons'. It's a musicianship affectation and should be mocked as one.

Sometimes the rhythm as notated requires the archaic pronunciation. Apparently the composer expected that pronunciation and notated the rhythm accordingly. I wouldn't mock this. Another such archaism is the word Spirit on one note, to be pronounced something like "sprit."

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

Sometimes - sometimes it is affectation. While I admire and respect what they do, I eventually had to give up listening to the Compline Choir broadcasts from Seattle Cathedral because I found them to be overly performed, without the natural speech-like delivery of plainsong - suffering from an excess of "musicianship", if you will.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

Whatever it is, it's been around for at least 40+ years in most English cathedral choirs. Certainly not new or recent. By now it's surely a valid option on its own terms.

John

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

Thanks everyone!

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by Galilit

quote:
I listen regularly to Choral Evensong on the BBC radio 3 website... The last 2 weeks I have noticed that the choir has enunciated "throughout all generations" (in the Magnificat) as "gener-ah-tee-ons". Am I imagining things? If not is this a London thing? (Both churches were London ones - Temple and St Batholomew the Great)

It all depends on the age of the music setting: music from the 16th, 17th and early 18th centuries frequently make the word "salvation" have four syllables and it is obvious from those manuscripts that survive that the use of a "shun" (or "shone") sound for the "tion" part of the word was unknown. In fact it is partly through music settings that people can see how pronunciation must have changed over the centuries.

No, its nothing to do with London: you can visit churches and cathedrals as far west as St David's and north as Durham and find the same pronunciation - which should, of course, be sung pro-nun-see-ay-see-on!

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

What L'Organist said. There's nothing new or affected about it - it's just doing the music the way the composer wrote it. In fact, where you get the 5-syllable "generations" you usually get the 3-syllable "throughout" ("thuh-roo-out").

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I also thought that it was the way the Cathedral Psalter points it.

That evensong was lovely - Thompkins, Gibbons, Morley etc. and no organ.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
I listen regularly to Choral Evensong on the BBC radio 3 website...
The last 2 weeks I have noticed that the choir has enunciated "throughout all generations" (in the Magnificat) as "gener-ah-tee-ons".
Am I imagining things?
If not is this a London thing? (Both churches were London ones - Temple and St Batholomew the Great)
I've heard similar pronunciations by choirs. There's also 'our prayers and supply-case-ee-ons'. It's a musicianship affectation and should be mocked as one.

In the case of the settings at the two services referred to, that is how the composers had set the words to music. When those settings were written a number of these latinate endings were still sounded in the way that the Latin had been. You can find it in verse of the period as well (e.g. 'salvation' in John Donne's sonnet 'Annunciation', or 'expansion' in his 'A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning").

I don't think it is common to find choirs which do this, unless the music they are singing demands it.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I went to Evensong at our Parish Church on Sunday, and they did that too.

Occasionally we sing anthems where it is clearly the only way to fit the words to the music.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

As others have commented, above, it depends on the text underlay. If the composer clearly intended for the "ti" to have its own syllable, then that's how it's done. It's the same sort of thing as the "-ed" ending taking its own syllable; if the composition requires it, then you do it, although you probably wouldn't in everyday speech.

Chant settings in the Hymnal 1940 don't make two separate syllables for "-tion," so it would be a rather silly affectation to insert it into them.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

I fear that I have fallen for the silly affectation, having heard the Weather Report in plainchant. For the curious, here is the back story.

I recall being at meetings in my former life, and outing Anglicans of a certain vintage by referring to the Programme for Diversity Extenti-on.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Augustine: I'm being a pedant perhaps, but the King's Singers' rendition of the weather forecast is in Anglican chant: plainchant is another term for plainsong or Gregorian chant.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Augustine: I'm being a pedant perhaps, but the King's Singers' rendition of the weather forecast is in Anglican chant: plainchant is another term for plainsong or Gregorian chant.

I had always identified the two (Anglican & plainchant versus plainsong & Gregorian), so appreciate the correction.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Not pedantic any more than distinguishing jazz and rap.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

As Anglican chant is designed so that any sentence, irrespective of the number of syllables it contains, can be fitted to the chant, this way of singing words with '..tion' at the end is unnecessary for Anglican chant. So despite what others have said, I still maintain it is usually an affectation,

The only possible exception would be a tune written as an anthem at a time when such a word really was pronounced that way and which is set out in the composer's original manuscript showing '..tion' as two syllables with a separate note for each.

Anything composed that way more recently simply shifts the accusation of affectation from the choir's director to the composer.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

And what about those settings that refer to the 3rd person of the MHT as 'Sprit'?

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

Yes, I actually heard that one today (Byrd - King's College Cambridge choir). Which I'd not have noticed but Oblatus put me onto it above.
Also heard "let us not be led into tem-tay-tee-yon"
Don't you just love the passive - "Who? Us? Tempted?"

[ 25. February 2016, 17:58: Message edited by: Galilit ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Having had a chance to check, it confirms my original thought: the pronunciation of gen-er-ay-seeons was in the Magnificat and was down to the setting: in the case of The Temple Church it was the First Service by Thomas Morley (c1557-1602) and at St Bartholomew the Great (sung by the choir from Royal Holloway College) it was the Second Service by Orlando Gibbons (1583-1625).

The choice of setting (note, not chant for the Canticles) is where the pronunciation can be said to come from.

No one would sing "generations" that way in either plainchant or Anglican Chant.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

We had an elderly, ex-vicar's wife, ex-teacher as a neighbour when I was a child. She was terribly correct and pronounced words like that in her normal speech:

Ch-ris-ti-ans in 4 syllables,
con-gre-ga-sh-i-on as 6 syllables
p-ro-noun-ci-a-ci-on as 7 syllables

She must have been a Victorian child as she was older than both my grandparents. She spoke a version of received pronounciation in really deep dark rural countryside which tended to be behind the times pre-mass media, so was probably harking back to an earlier era. (I remember being fascinated and counting syllables.)

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

As well as the number of syllables, there's also the matter of the sh sound.

Current pronunciation would be gen-er-a-shun.

Is the archaic pronunciation "gen-er-er-a-SEE-on" or "gen-er-a-SHE-ON"? Or even "gen-er-a-TI-on"?

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

IIRC, some spellings of the period indicate that '-tion' endings were pronounced '-SEE-on'

[ 26. February 2016, 10:21: Message edited by: BroJames ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

We don't play Shakespeare, and we don't conduct 1662 services using our attempts to mimic how we think people pronounced English in the sixteenth or seventeenth century. Indeed, if we did, some of us would undoubtedly be arguing whether the correct pronunciation for the BCP was as we claim English was spoken at the Restoration, or 100 years previously.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
We don't play Shakespeare, and we don't conduct 1662 services using our attempts to mimic how we think people pronounced English in the sixteenth or seventeenth century.

Some people do: see this. and navigate to "Original Pronvnciation".(This was featured on BBC "Newsnight" yesterday).

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

Music is a bit different, Enoch. When you change the way the text is sung, you change the piece.

There's lots of music up through the 19th century (and probably some 20th-century stuff as well) that syllabizes the past participial "-ed" ending. And of course, in performing Shakespeare those endings are normally pronounced when necessary to round out a line of iambic pentameter. Since we don't do that in spoken speech anymore (with a few exceptions), should we start changing them too?

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
We don't play Shakespeare, and we don't conduct 1662 services using our attempts to mimic how we think people pronounced English in the sixteenth or seventeenth century.

I may be unduly sensitive in seeing your post as a response to mine immediately preceding it. Mine was purely a response to the one preceding it about which possible polysyllabic pronunciation of '-tion' might be appropriate when music written by (e.g.) Gibbons or Morley (or other composers of that general era) requires it.

I agree with you that the 1662 BCP does not, and Anglican chant, plainsong, or modern settings should not require such a pronunciation - and if they do, it strikes me too as an affectation.

[ 26. February 2016, 16:58: Message edited by: BroJames ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Some people do: see this. and navigate to "Original Pronvnciation".(This was featured on BBC "Newsnight" yesterday).

OP Shakespeare is great (and reveals a whole load of rude puns that pass you by if you have actors declaiming in RP).

I'd go to an OP 1662 service, and think it great fun, but it would be odd in the extreme to make that your regular form of worship.

As far as using early modern pronunciation in anthems and mass settings goes, I see less reason to translate a pronunciation to modern English than I do to translate from Latin or Greek to English.

If you are happy on occasion to sing the Kyrie in Greek, you have no cause to complain about "generations" with five syllables.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Some of us even pay to see OP Shakespeare and Passion in Practice when they are around. It's fascinating to see and hear.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Should you sing Wesley's and Watts hymns in the original pronunciation? Seriously there is clear indication in the hymns that pronunciation has changed (rhymes and rhythms).

Jengie

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

"Join" pronounced "jine"?

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Not pedantic any more than distinguishing jazz and rap.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Should you sing Wesley's and Watts hymns in the original pronunciation?

For congregational singing, everyone's going to sing the modern pronunciation. You can mark extra syllables, but it's awkward in the extreme to try and mark pronunciation.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
She was terribly correct...

p-ro-noun-ci-a-ci-on

The irony of this is too de-li-ci-ous not to be pointed out.

[Big Grin]

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

I am remembering someone in her nineties when I was a child, but I really don't think she said pro-noun-ci-a-ti-on, or pro-noun-ci-a-shi-on, but really pro-noun-ci-a-ci-on. It's one that stuck in my head because it was so odd. That and the the five syllables of Ch-r-is-ti-an, which did have a ti sound. Her accent was similar to that of early recordings of the Queen, very slowly enunciating every syllable.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Particularly pronounced (no pun intended) examples of this pronunciation in today's BBC R3 Choral Evensong .

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

That's because Byrd's responses demand it.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

Yes..."lead us not into "tem-ptay-cee-yon"

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

by the time you've intoned that the attractiveness of sin has seriously wilted

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

Actually, it makes ME feel less guilty but more contrite...

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Stole over chasuble? Shurely shome mishtake.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Lets me charitable and say that this weekend's revelations may have been at the forefront of his remind, rather than the niceties of liturgical vesture.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

As Archbishop, what he does defines the rules, just as with Pope Frances and whose feet a Pope may wash on Maundy Thursday.

[ 11. April 2016, 08:15: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Stole over chasuble? Shurely shome mishtake.

Logo on mitre as well. Boo! If that's a trend, it needs to be stopped.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Stole over chasuble? Shurely shome mishtake.

That is OK in this case as it is a plain chasuble - so the stole acts as orphreys. This became fashionable with the advent of the 'chasalb'.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Stole over chasuble? Shurely shome mishtake.

I've seen it before. Some are designed that way. (I'm not saying I think it's right, just that it happens)

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Stole over chasuble? Shurely shome mishtake.
I've seen it before. Some are designed that way. (I'm not saying I think it's right, just that it happens)

A bit of a 70s thing I think, and made 'popular' by firms like Slabbinck.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

On Easter Day I attended a dawn Confirmation Service. We were asked to bring bells and jingle them during the Gloria, which was new to me. Was this because of Easter or Confirmation do you think?

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

When the Gloria comes back on Maundy Thursday, the bells in the church are supposed to be rung, and the organ used for accompaniment (it is the last time they will be heard until Easter). Likewise, at the Easter Vigil, the organ and bells sound for the first time since Maundy Thursday at the Gloria.

It sounds like you were at a Vigil-less place that nevertheless wanted to mark the old custom. In the same way, there are parishes where the Exsultet is chanted on Easter morning, since there was no Vigil service.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
As Archbishop, what he does defines the rules, just as with Pope Frances and whose feet a Pope may wash on Maundy Thursday.

Pope Frances? Do you know something the rest of us don't?

And leo- chasalb? Is there really such a thing? Say it ain't so. When I looked for pictures Google thought I meant 'chasabl' which appears to be a website for, ahem, gentlemen who prefer the larger gentleman.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
On Easter Day I attended a dawn Confirmation Service. We were asked to bring bells and jingle them during the Gloria, which was new to me. Was this because of Easter or Confirmation do you think?

The bells should have been silent since the Gloria on Maundy Thursday and they are rung again at the Easter Vigil to mark the end of Lent and the Vigil.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Double posted with Fr W.

I seem to remember chasuble/albs in Vanheems catalogues in the 70s.

At least evangelical bishops actually wear chasubles now rather than copes.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
As Archbishop, what he does defines the rules, just as with Pope Frances and whose feet a Pope may wash on Maundy Thursday.
Pope Frances? Do you know something the rest of us don't? ...

I do not know if you remember that there was a big row a year or two ago among the pernickety and those who think they know better than the Holy Father, when Pope Francis included women and non-Christians among those whose feet he washed.

I'm no expert in these things. I'm CofE, not Catholic and my knowledge of this comes only from the Ship and the press. But the feet were supposed to be male, Catholic and preferably at least priests if not cardinals.

[ 12. April 2016, 08:31: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Pope Francis, not Frances.

The Roman Catholic Church haven't got round to electing a woman pope yet.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by Robert Armin

quote:
... bring bells and jingle them during the Gloria ...

As mentioned above, this happens twice: after the intonation of the Gloria on Maundy Thursday and again at the Easter Vigil.

The correct term for this is a strepitus.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
On Easter Day I attended a dawn Confirmation Service. We were asked to bring bells and jingle them during the Gloria, which was new to me. Was this because of Easter or Confirmation do you think?

This is suggested for most (if not all) the possible variants of the Easter Liturgy suggested in Common Worship:Times and Seasons (PDF)

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Pope Francis, not Frances.

The Roman Catholic Church haven't got round to electing a woman pope yet.

My apologies. I hadn't noticed that. Automatic text correction and the worldwide IT industry's preference for deciding what it would like things to say rather than what I want, strikes again.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
The Roman Catholic Church haven't got round to electing a woman pope yet.

But would anything prevent a newly elected pope from taking a woman's name?

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

That would be interesting. I always stressed to my confirmation students that their confirmation saint didn't have to be the same gender as them. I never had a male pick a woman, though. Male and female confirmands sometimes picked angels; female confirmands picking humans picked mainly female names, but sometimes male names; male confirmands picking humans picked solely male names. It would be neat to see a Pope break this pattern!

I do know some Franciscans with Mary as one of their names in religion, but I think they all go by their other name (eg. "Mary Bonaventure" goes by "Br. Bonaventure" in day-to-day conversation).

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

In a number of Romance language countries Mary is often used as a male name but comes after a more recognisably male name e.g. Jose Maria (Spanish)
Jean- Marie (French) Giovanni Maria (Italian) and non Romance language but Catholic provenance Erich Maria Remarque (German).

If Maria comes first it will be a female person
e.g. Marie-Jose, a Belgian princess who became Queen consort of Italy.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Don't Cistercian monks all take Mary as a first name, before their usual name 'in religion'? I seem to think Thomas Merton (Fr Louis OCSO) was strictly Frater Maria Ludovicus (if that is the Latin for Louis).

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
In a number of Romance language countries Mary is often used as a male name but comes after a more recognisably male name e.g. Jose Maria (Spanish)
Jean- Marie (French) Giovanni Maria (Italian) and non Romance language but Catholic provenance Erich Maria Remarque (German).

If Maria comes first it will be a female person
e.g. Marie-Jose, a Belgian princess who became Queen consort of Italy.

That's curious. I've always assumed the Italian name Mario is the masculine form of Mary.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
On Easter Day I attended a dawn Confirmation Service. We were asked to bring bells and jingle them during the Gloria, which was new to me. Was this because of Easter or Confirmation do you think?
This is suggested for most (if not all) the possible variants of the Easter Liturgy suggested in Common Worship:Times and Seasons (PDF)

We use party poppers too.

It is a relic of the time when the bells rang at the start of the Gloria on Maundy Thursday evening - and they ring again when the gloria is resumed at Easter.

[ 12. April 2016, 15:38: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Robert Armin
quote:
... bring bells and jingle them during the Gloria ...
As mentioned above, this happens twice: after the intonation of the Gloria on Maundy Thursday and again at the Easter Vigil.

The correct term for this is a strepitus.

I've only ever heard "strepitus" used to refer to the loud noise made at the conclusion of the office of Tenebrae. I suppose the ringing of bells could also be called a din or crashing noise, but "tintinnabulum" seems like it might be a more appropriate Latin word.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Yes, the strepitus is not the ringing of the bells during the Gloria. And at the consecration on Maundy Thursday the bells are replaced by the crotalus - a rattle.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
That's curious. I've always assumed the Italian name Mario is the masculine form of Mary.

That is indeed true, and it is part of the Holy Father's birth name--Jorge Mario Bergoglio. He used it frequently as a cardinal, and it was included in the Latin announcement of his election to the pontificate: Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum: HABEMUS PAPAM! Eminentissimum ac reverendissimum Dominum, Dominum Georgiam Mariam Sanctæ Romanæ Ecclesiæ Cardinalem Bergoglio, qui sibi nomen imposuit Franciscum. In English, that is: I announce to you a great joy. WE HAVE A POPE! The Most Eminent and Reverend Lord, Lord Jorge Mario, Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church Bergoglio, who takes to himself the name Francis.

Normally, Mario is the masculine form of Mary, but when the name is given in honor of Our Lady or another saint whose name includes hers, it is often rendered in the feminine Mary, Marie or Maria, depending on the language. Thuse, one sees St. Jean-Marie Vianney, St. Jose Maria Escriva, or Brother Augustine Mary.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

I have always assumed that Mario is an Italian form of the Latin Marius.
Italian language Wikipedia bears this out, though it tells us that Marius is the masculine form of the name of the Roman family 'gens Maria'. It has little to do with the Latin name of the Virgin Mary.

It is possible that the Latin form of the Hebrew name of Mary was chosen for its similarity to the family 'gens Maria'

For what it is worth Italian wikidedia says that occasionally people will use the name 'Mario' because of linking it with 'Maria'

It further suggests that when used for a male person it should be stressed on the 'a' rather than the more commonly stressed'i'

I listened carefully more than once to the Cardinal who announced 'Habemus papam' and it was my impression that he said :

Dominum Georgium Marium S.R.E.cardinalem Bergoglio

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I have always assumed that Mario is an Italian form of the Latin Marius.
Italian language Wikipedia bears this out, though it tells us that Marius is the masculine form of the name of the Roman family 'gens Maria'. It has little to do with the Latin name of the Virgin Mary.

It is possible that the Latin form of the Hebrew name of Mary was chosen for its similarity to the family 'gens Maria' in pagan times. However, like all saints' names, when a Catholic chooses the name it certainly is not for the pagan family, but usually the Mother of God or a saint named for her. You can be sure that is from where the Pope's middle name derived.

For what it is worth Italian wikidedia says that occasionally people will use the name 'Mario' because of linking it with 'Maria'

It further suggests that when used for a male person it should be stressed on the 'a' rather than the more commonly stressed'i'

I listened carefully more than once to the Cardinal who announced 'Habemus papam' and it was my impression that he said :

Dominum Georgium Marium S.R.E.cardinalem Bergoglio

The last line is what I posted above.

It is true that Mario derives from the Latin Marius, and that was from the family gens Maria in pagan times. However, like other saints' names, when a Catholic chooses the name, it usually is not for the pagan family, but for the Mother of God or a saint named for her. You can be sure that is from where the Pope's middle name derived.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

I'm happy to accept the pope's middle name whatever its origin or whatever the intention his parents had in giving him this middle name.

On my screen,however, you seem to have written Dominum Georgiam Mariam - which would suggest a closer link with Maria that Mario indicates.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Perhaps his Grace of Canterbury has been shopping with Belgian Roman Catholics.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

Church supply companies, who are far more influential in what apparel is used by clerics than many would realize, pushed the stole-over-the chasuble style beginning in the late seventies. The trend peaked in the eighties and early nineties, then began to fade, partly because of RC liturgical reminders than a stole is to be worn under the chazzie, and also because like secular fashion designers (and auto manufacturers), church suppliers are always eager to introduce new items to convince churches that they need the newest and best. There are still some RC places in the U.S. that wear this style, but not too many.

[ 13. April 2016, 11:25: Message edited by: Ceremoniar ]

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
I do know some Franciscans with Mary as one of their names in religion.

It is (or used to be) common among nuns. I can remember a Sister Jerome, Sister Eduardo and Sister Thomas Francis from my Sunday school days.

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:

There are still some RC places in the U.S. that wear this style, but not too many.

I think one would be too many.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Perhaps his Grace of Canterbury has been shopping with Belgian Roman Catholics.

But there are some gorgeous (other) things on that site...

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I have always assumed that Mario is an Italian form of the Latin Marius.
Italian language Wikipedia bears this out, though it tells us that Marius is the masculine form of the name of the Roman family 'gens Maria'. It has little to do with the Latin name of the Virgin Mary.

It is possible that the Latin form of the Hebrew name of Mary was chosen for its similarity to the family 'gens Maria'

For what it is worth Italian wikidedia says that occasionally people will use the name 'Mario' because of linking it with 'Maria'

It further suggests that when used for a male person it should be stressed on the 'a' rather than the more commonly stressed'i'

I listened carefully more than once to the Cardinal who announced 'Habemus papam' and it was my impression that he said :

Dominum Georgium Marium S.R.E.cardinalem Bergoglio

It looks like his birth name is Jorge Mario, but I don't think it would be unusual at all for a boy in a Spanish-Speaking country to be named Jorge Maria. Jose Maria is a pretty common name for men. And in Spanish-Speaking countries, it is also very common for a person to have basically two first names, rather than viewing the second name as a "middle" name.

[ 13. April 2016, 21:35: Message edited by: stonespring ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Church supply companies, who are far more influential in what apparel is used by clerics than many would realize, pushed the stole-over-the chasuble style beginning in the late seventies. The trend peaked in the eighties and early nineties, then began to fade, partly because of RC liturgical reminders than a stole is to be worn under the chazzie, ...

The Archbishop of Canterbury is not an RC bishop. He is entitled, as he pleases, to ignore RC liturgical reminders, or to be completely unaware of them.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

And indeed, a few years back a bishop from an evangelical background would not have worn a chasuble at all on principle. (They wore copes or even rochet and chimere).

Archbishop Welby is wearing a chasuble. I think that's an advance. (Pity about the external stole, but that's a detail.)

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Church supply companies, who are far more influential in what apparel is used by clerics than many would realize, pushed the stole-over-the chasuble style beginning in the late seventies. The trend peaked in the eighties and early nineties, then began to fade, partly because of RC liturgical reminders than a stole is to be worn under the chazzie, ...
The Archbishop of Canterbury is not an RC bishop. He is entitled, as he pleases, to ignore RC liturgical reminders, or to be completely unaware of them.

I really do not get the point here. Did someone say otherwise?

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Church supply companies, who are far more influential in what apparel is used by clerics than many would realize, pushed the stole-over-the chasuble style beginning in the late seventies. The trend peaked in the eighties and early nineties, then began to fade, partly because of RC liturgical reminders than a stole is to be worn under the chazzie, ...
The Archbishop of Canterbury is not an RC bishop. He is entitled, as he pleases, to ignore RC liturgical reminders, or to be completely unaware of them.

Quite true. But the stole over the chasuble still looks twatty.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Church supply companies, who are far more influential in what apparel is used by clerics than many would realize ...

Not for 99% of Baptists. [Big Grin]

Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Church supply companies, who are far more influential in what apparel is used by clerics than many would realize ...
Not for 99% of Baptists.

Some here may recall 'That was the week that was' broadcast by the BBC in the 1960s, introduced by David Frost. Frostie would invite viewers to send him quotes that could be misconstrued. One such was a declaration made by a Baptist minister - "I shall wear nothing to distinguish me from members of my congregation". To which DF observed that it almost certainly would ...

[ 14. April 2016, 20:20: Message edited by: Metapelagius ]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Church supply companies, who are far more influential in what apparel is used by clerics than many would realize ...
Not for 99% of Baptists.

Presumably East of Greenwich they wear anoraks.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

[Overused]

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Church supply companies, who are far more influential in what apparel is used by clerics than many would realize ...

Aside from the trends that have been around since the 1970s of stoles over chasubles, the cassock-alb, and futuristic, folksy, arts-and-crafts-y, child-friendly (showing faces of children, etc.), rainbow-colored, multiculturally-patterned, etc., vestments, a more recent reintroduction of more traditional vestment styles, and vestments marketed to female clergy, what other trends in vestments can be attributed to church supply companies? (I guess you could add confirmation stoles for laity to this list.)

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
]Aside from the trends that have been around since the 1970s of stoles over chasubles, the cassock-alb, and futuristic, folksy, arts-and-crafts-y, child-friendly (showing faces of children, etc.), rainbow-colored, multiculturally-patterned, etc., vestments, a more recent reintroduction of more traditional vestment styles, and vestments marketed to female clergy, what other trends in vestments can be attributed to church supply companies? (I guess you could add confirmation stoles for laity to this list.)

"Sarum" blue.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Confirmation stoles for laity? WTF? This is basically just the tatmongers looking for a new marketing oppportunity, isn't it?

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I can gloomily report the introduction of baptismal candles at our church. They're not plush -- just a taper candle, in a box that you can write the date of the baptism and the name of the v/i/c/t/i/m on, but it's just another bit of useless detail. Everybody who is baptized gets one; the priest lights it from the Paschal candle and gives it to the candidate (or, in the case of babies, the parents). The very worst was, however, when one not-very-savvy new priest gave them the baptismal napkins. They are linen, and embroidered. At $40 a pop the Altar Guild set up a horrible yell.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I can gloomily report the introduction of baptismal candles at our church. They're not plush -- just a taper candle, in a box that you can write the date of the baptism and the name of the v/i/c/t/i/m on, but it's just another bit of useless detail. Everybody who is baptized gets one; the priest lights it from the Paschal candle and gives it to the candidate (or, in the case of babies, the parents). The very worst was, however, when one not-very-savvy new priest gave them the baptismal napkins. They are linen, and embroidered. At $40 a pop the Altar Guild set up a horrible yell.

Don't all churches give candidates baptismal candles these days? My impression is that they became prevalent about the same time as sharing the peace. I'd tend to regard not using them as being a bit behind the times in rather the same way as not having the peace. Both have a simple and obvious symbolism that it would strike me as a bit curmudgeonly to reject.

I've not encountered special napkins though. Babies traditionally have often been presented in a white christening robe, but these belong to the family, the baby arrives in them and they are very often passed down from generation to generation.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

The baptismal towels are to dry off the little brow, as the howling infant is passed back to the parent. Ours are prettily embroidered with a scallop shell. We don't have anywhere near enough, and some clever supplier is making paper ones that look very similar and cost lots less.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Church supply companies, who are far more influential in what apparel is used by clerics than many would realize ...
Not for 99% of Baptists.
Presumably East of Greenwich they wear anoraks.

And north of Watford, cloth caps.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Church supply companies, who are far more influential in what apparel is used by clerics than many would realize ...
Not for 99% of Baptists.
Presumably East of Greenwich they wear anoraks.

A certain Minister of my acquaintance conducted worship in a short-sleeved shirt and Hawaiian shorts.

Admittedly it was August Bank Holiday weekend.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Don't all churches give candidates baptismal candles these days?

No.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I can gloomily report the introduction of baptismal candles at our church. They're not plush -- just a taper candle, in a box that you can write the date of the baptism and the name of the v/i/c/t/i/m on, but it's just another bit of useless detail. Everybody who is baptized gets one; the priest lights it from the Paschal candle and gives it to the candidate (or, in the case of babies, the parents). The very worst was, however, when one not-very-savvy new priest gave them the baptismal napkins. They are linen, and embroidered. At $40 a pop the Altar Guild set up a horrible yell.

The custom of the baptismal candle appears in the Rituale Romanum of 1964 and is of considerably greater antiquity than that. It's not an invention of church supply vendors, although they've certainly taken advantage of the perceived need. The only difference is that whereas the candle used to be supplied by the baptizand's family, it is now purchased from a supplier.

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

I can report that baptismal candles were in use (at least in some parishes) in the TEC Diocese of Chicago at least as early as 1960, and apparently earlier than that.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The baptismal towels are to dry off the little brow, as the howling infant is passed back to the parent. Ours are prettily embroidered with a scallop shell. We don't have anywhere near enough, and some clever supplier is making paper ones that look very similar and cost lots less.

We just use a purificator

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
The custom of the baptismal candle appears in the Rituale Romanum of 1964 and is of considerably greater antiquity than that.

The instruction given the newly baptized is beautiful: "Take this burning candle as a reminder to keep your baptismal innocence. Obey God's commandments, so that when our Lord comes for the joyous wedding feast you may go forth to meet Him with all the saints in the halls of heaven, and be happy with Him forevermore."

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
I can report that baptismal candles were in use (at least in some parishes) in the TEC Diocese of Chicago at least as early as 1960, and apparently earlier than that.

Indeed. I handed one to the celebrant at the appropriate moment in the Great Vigil this year. Right after sticking my thumb into the deepest part of the chrism when I handed him the little shell full of invisible oil. Which was OK because that hand had a glove of wax on it from holding a candle throughout the prophecies and not being very graceful with the ups and downs of the collects.

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:

quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
I can report that baptismal candles were in use (at least in some parishes) in the TEC Diocese of Chicago at least as early as 1960, and apparently earlier than that.
Indeed. I handed one to the celebrant at the appropriate moment in the Great Vigil this year. Right after sticking my thumb into the deepest part of the chrism when I handed him the little shell full of invisible oil. Which was OK because that hand had a glove of wax on it from holding a candle throughout the prophecies and not being very graceful with the ups and downs of the collects.

And after all these years!
[Big Grin]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Double posted with Fr W.

I seem to remember chasuble/albs in Vanheems catalogues in the 70s.

At least evangelical bishops actually wear chasubles now rather than copes.

I've just sen the chasubles in the Church Times - they were made in bulk for concelebrants at an open air eucharist in Zambia - Anglican Consultative Council.

[ 16. April 2016, 10:01: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :

Does anyone know how come the OT canticle is put between the psalms, but the NT canticle comes after them in the Liturgy of the Hours?

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I wondered about that for years.

In the pre Vatican 2 breviary and the Rule of St Benedict, there is no NT canticle at Evening Prayer.

There is however an OT canticle at Morning Prayer which is followed by the praise psalms, 148, 149 and 150. The service gets the name "lauds" from these psalms.

The revised Divine Office is wondnerful in many ways, but it replaces the three praise psalms with a selection of psalms throughout the psalter of a praise nature.

The OT caanticle remains in it previous place, between the regular psalms and the praise psalms. But the structure does look odd.

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :

Thanks.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I've just sen the chasubles in the Church Times - they were made in bulk for concelebrants at an open air eucharist in Zambia - Anglican Consultative Council.

I apologies to dyfig for my lousy spelling.

Even more extraordinary than an evangelical wearing a chasuble, is having concelebration at other than a FiF mass.

I like concelebration (far from being clericalist, it dilutes the clericalism, IMHO) but I've never seen an Aff Cath or "liberal" catholic place do it.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I like concelebration (far from being clericalist, it dilutes the clericalism, IMHO) but I've never seen an Aff Cath or "liberal" catholic place do it. [/QB]

It's done quite often at the Atonement, Chicago.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Glad to hear that, oblatus.

My lousy spelling includes getting dyfrig's name wrong.

Apologies.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

I like concelebration (far from being clericalist, it dilutes the clericalism, IMHO) but I've never seen an Aff Cath or "liberal" catholic place do it.

We used to have it at my place (of which you my well be familiar [Biased]

) under the previous incumbent

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Confirmation stoles for laity? WTF? This is basically just the tatmongers looking for a new marketing oppportunity, isn't it?

A retired RC priest lamented that at my own confirmation, which I did as an adult, I did not have a red stole on. They are the norm in some RC parishes in the US, especially the ones in dioceses where confirmation happens when children are older and closer to high school graduation. I have even seen tiny white stoles for kids coming up for first communion. I think it's odd that these things are most popular in the RCC, which makes pains to point out how the priesthood of all the baptized is distinct from the ministerial priesthood of ordained priests and bishops, but, given so many other trends of post-Vatican II Roman Catholicism, it's not that surprising.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

I like concelebration (far from being clericalist, it dilutes the clericalism, IMHO) but I've never seen an Aff Cath or "liberal" catholic place do it.

I've seen it at a fair few of the more Rome-looking women-friendly Anglo-Catholic places. The St Albans Pilgrimage is the obvious one, with more than 100 concelebrants. Anglican Catholic Future's festival included concelebration on at least one occasion, though oddly it was restricted to bishops.

I also like concelebration for the same reason: it subverts the "Russian doll" model of ordination. Priests act as priests, deacons as deacons, laity as laity: each has their own place and each is equally important. A priest isn't a layperson-plus, but a separate vocation.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
... I also like concelebration for the same reason: it subverts the "Russian doll" model of ordination. Priests act as priests, deacons as deacons, laity as laity: each has their own place and each is equally important. A priest isn't a layperson-plus, but a separate vocation.

Not sure I can follow what you mean by "Russian doll" model. I definitely disagree with you though, if you are saying that a priest is not also a lay person. However high one's understanding of orders, there is nobody who isn't also a lay person, not even a bishop.

In the same way, both priests and bishops continue to be deacons. Orders are cumulative, not separate.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

"Lay person" is not an order.

I think what Enoch means is "a member of the baptized", which is indeed the highest vocation in the church. The other orders are only there to assist the baptized's ministry.

"Lay person" to me only means "not ordained".

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

PS

I'd far rather see a spare priest sitting in mufti in the congregation with the rest of the body of the baptized or concelbrating in a chasuble in the sanctuary than sitting "robed and in the sanctuary" doing nothing in particular.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
"Lay person" is not an order.

I think what Enoch means is "a member of the baptized", which is indeed the highest vocation in the church. The other orders are only there to assist the baptized's ministry.

"Lay person" to me only means "not ordained".

No - all the baptised are 'o laos - the people of God - so bishops are laypeople.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
it subverts the "Russian doll" model of ordination. Priests act as priests, deacons as deacons, laity as laity: each has their own place and each is equally important.

Fully vested, bishops look like Russian dolls - the tunicle and dalmatic under chasuble

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
A retired RC priest lamented that at my own confirmation, which I did as an adult, I did not have a red stole on. They are the norm in some RC parishes. . . . I have even seen tiny white stoles for kids coming up for first communion.

I remember wearing a white arm band (not stole) for first communion and a red one for confirmation. See here.

[ 18. April 2016, 11:51: Message edited by: Amanda B. Reckondwythe ]

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
"Lay person" is not an order.

I think what Enoch means is "a member of the baptized", which is indeed the highest vocation in the church. The other orders are only there to assist the baptized's ministry.

"Lay person" to me only means "not ordained".
No - all the baptised are 'o laos - the people of God - so bishops are laypeople.

That's where the word comes from, not what it means. (Etymological fallacy.)

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Quite. "The baptised" is a positive description - "lay" here means precisely non ordained.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Ordained persons are ineligible to stand as Lay Chair of Synods or as Lay Members of General Synod in the C of E.

Which would suggest the C of E takes "lay" to mean non-ordained, as I said.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Which explains clericalism - bad theology.

McWQuarrie is quoted as sayng that theordained are part of the laos and then goes on to discuss abuses of authority that result from forgetting this fact.

This RC points out the the division between lay and ordained does not exist in the NT.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Confirmation stoles for laity? WTF? This is basically just the tatmongers looking for a new marketing oppportunity, isn't it?
A retired RC priest lamented that at my own confirmation, which I did as an adult, I did not have a red stole on. They are the norm in some RC parishes in the US, especially the ones in dioceses where confirmation happens when children are older and closer to high school graduation. I have even seen tiny white stoles for kids coming up for first communion. I think it's odd that these things are most popular in the RCC, which makes pains to point out how the priesthood of all the baptized is distinct from the ministerial priesthood of ordained priests and bishops, but, given so many other trends of post-Vatican II Roman Catholicism, it's not that surprising.

That's just clericalism by the back door.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

This RC points out the the division between lay and ordained does not exist in the NT.

I agree. Would you not therefore agree with me that "the baptized" is a preferable term to "the laity"?

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

For Catholics, Lumen Gentium defines the term laity thus:

quote:

31. The term laity is here understood to mean all the faithful except those in holy orders and those in the state of religious life specially approved by the Church.

As for 'confirmation stoles,' I've never seen them. In this diocese, we have a dress code for confirmation and they would not be permitted.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
[QB] For Catholics, Lumen Gentium defines the term laity thus:

[QUOTE]
31. The term laity is here understood to mean all the faithful except those in holy orders and those in the state of religious life specially approved by the Church.

What about religious who are not in holy orders? Are they or are they not 'lay'? If if not, what?

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

"Lay" in those terms is all those who are not A in holy orders and B in the religious life.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
[QB] For Catholics, Lumen Gentium defines the term laity thus:

[QUOTE]
31. The term laity is here understood to mean all the faithful except those in holy orders and those in the state of religious life specially approved by the Church.
What about religious who are not in holy orders? Are they or are they not 'lay'? If if not, what?

In our diocese we have a religious sister who is also a Reader, so that implies (to me at least) that she is regarded as a lay person.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
What about religious who are not in holy orders? Are they or are they not 'lay'? If if not, what?

According to this definition, they are not lay, they are religious. It's not the only definition operative. Even the current Code of Canon Law uses 'lay' at points to mean baptized but not ordained. There are multiple definitions of the word floating around, even in official ecclesial documents.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
What about religious who are not in holy orders? Are they or are they not 'lay'? If if not, what?
According to this definition, they are not lay, they are religious. It's not the only definition operative. Even the current Code of Canon Law uses 'lay' at points to mean baptized but not ordained. There are multiple definitions of the word floating around, even in official ecclesial documents.

A related but not exactly identical topic is the "nuptial" vocation of male non-ordained religious and voluntarily celibate laypeople who are not part of any religious order. The RCC has of late emphasized that everyone has a purpose of being part of a spousal relationship, even if that relationship is not in married life. So priests are married to the Church and female religious are married to Christ. But what about male non-ordained religious and celibate laypeople? (Male permanent deacons, btw, are by design almost always married or widowed, although very few are ordained who have decided to spend life in celibacy so they belong in this ambiguous category too when it comes to nuptial purpose.) I know it's a non-liturgical tangent and not worth discussing at length here, but there is a similar confusion of terms as to categories of people.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

That is before you get to Reformed Elders. I am still trying how to figure out filling in the forms for that one. By Reformed Church tradition Elders are both "Ordained" and "Lay"

"Lay" here meaning part of the congregation, not ordained to Word and Sacrament (are ordained to Ruling and Serving), not usually theologically trained beyond the local congregation, not paid, do not usually lead worship but do have pastoral responsibilities. A local appointment that is recognised by the denomination.

Jengie

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
No - all the baptised are 'o laos - the people of God - so bishops are laypeople.

I wonder if this is a difference between the CofE and the RCC or those who take their theology from it. Whatever Basilica may claim about Leo's reasoning as being based on the etymological fallacy, what Leo posted is what I understand to be the normal Anglican take on this, i.e. the etymology is regarded as making a clear statement of theology, not a fallacy.

I think I've read somewhere that the Orthodox view is the same. Is there an Orthodox shipmate who can answer this one.

It is also, certainly, as I said earlier, the standard view in the CofE that holy orders are cumulative. So all bishops and priests remain deacons with a deacon's calling to serve.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

Traditionally, the RC view has been that the orders are cumulative as well--hence the bishop's vesting in tunicle and dalmatic underneath his chasuble.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

And one which "sticks". Unlike Baptist deacons, who cease to be deacons once their time of service is over, Reformed elders (at least in the URC) are ordained for life. That means that most churches have several "non-serving Elders" in the congregation, which always puzzles me a bit.

But then I'm a Baptist!

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Unlike Baptist deacons, who cease to be deacons once their time of service is over, Reformed elders (at least in the URC) are ordained for life. That means that most churches have several "non-serving Elders" in the congregation, which always puzzles me a bit.

That is the case in all Presbyterian denominations with which I am familiar.

I would note, though, that "non-serving" means not serving on the (Kirk) Session/Elders' Meeting/consistory. At least in PC(USA) polity, it does not foreclose active involvement in other areas requiring that one be an elder. For example, I am not currently on Session, but I have recently served on a presbytery commission. (Unlike committees, only ministers and elders may serve on a commission, which has authority to act on behalf of the entire presbytery.)

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
That is before you get to Reformed Elders. I am still trying how to figure out filling in the forms for that one. By Reformed Church tradition Elders are both "Ordained" and "Lay"

"Lay" here meaning part of the congregation, not ordained to Word and Sacrament (are ordained to Ruling and Serving), not usually theologically trained beyond the local congregation, not paid, do not usually lead worship but do have pastoral responsibilities. A local appointment that is recognised by the denomination.

Indeed, which at least in my neck of the Reformed woods, leads some to suggest that the clergy–laity distinction doesn't really fit us at all.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
[QB] For Catholics, Lumen Gentium defines the term laity thus:

[QUOTE]
31. The term laity is here understood to mean all the faithful except those in holy orders and those in the state of religious life specially approved by the Church.
What about religious who are not in holy orders? Are they or are they not 'lay'? If if not, what?
In our diocese we have a religious sister who is also a Reader, so that implies (to me at least) that she is regarded as a lay person.

Just to confuse things, readers or lectors have in the past been a minor order in parts of Anglican Africa (I'm not sure of the current situation). In Anglican canon law, non-clergy monastics are, as far as I can figure out, lay persons under vows in community. In Canada, our few religious-order clergy are members of the order of clergy in diocesan synods, but their unordained homies are not.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
No - all the baptised are 'o laos - the people of God - so bishops are laypeople.
I wonder if this is a difference between the CofE and the RCC or those who take their theology from it. Whatever Basilica may claim about Leo's reasoning as being based on the etymological fallacy, what Leo posted is what I understand to be the normal Anglican take on this, i.e. the etymology is regarded as making a clear statement of theology, not a fallacy.

That was purely about the idea that clergy are actually laity, because all belong to the laos. That's certainly not the standard Anglican view: laity are, by definition, the not-clergy.

quote:
I think I've read somewhere that the Orthodox view is the same. Is there an Orthodox shipmate who can answer this one.

I'm not Orthodox (I'm a CofE priest), but my understanding is that, liturgically, once a priest is so ordained he would never again act as a deacon.

quote:
It is also, certainly, as I said earlier, the standard view in the CofE that holy orders are cumulative. So all bishops and priests remain deacons with a deacon's calling to serve.

A subject that is always debated around Chrism masses – should the priests present speak the deacons' vow? (A side topic that I won't address.)

I'm not sure that is a terribly historical view – in that the idea of a deacon in the current understanding is fairly new to the CofE. But I agree it's the version that's fairly standard in the CofE, hanging on from the Roman Catholic view. The modern Catholic view is to emphasise that priests are priests, deacons are deacons and laity are laity, hence the focus on concelebration as the norm (see GIRM 114).

Similarly, the bishop's vesting in dalmatic under the chasuble is now seen as representing the fullness of orders he holds and their unity, rather than the idea that he is simultaneously deacon, priest and bishop. It's a change in emphasis, not doctrine, of course.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
QUOTE]A subject that is always debated around Chrism masses – should the priests present speak the deacons' vow? (A side topic that I won't address.) change in emphasis, not doctrine, of course.

They do in this diocese.

Posted by Pearl B4 Swine (# 11451) on :

I want to have a copy of the "Saint Dunstan's Plainsong Hymnal". No luck, so far. Amazon says the Psalter is available, but the hymnal is unavailable. Could anyone suggest a source? Thanks.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

You've searched all the usual sites: Amazon, Ebay, abe.books?

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

Would it be worth contacting the Community of St Mary in Kenosha directly?

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pearl B4 Swine:
I want to have a copy of the "Saint Dunstan's Plainsong Hymnal". No luck, so far. Amazon says the Psalter is available, but the hymnal is unavailable. Could anyone suggest a source? Thanks.

Is this it?

Posted by Pearl B4 Swine (# 11451) on :

It is! Bless you, and many thanks.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pearl B4 Swine:
It is! Bless you, and many thanks.

You're welcome, and I'm very glad you asked about this, because I was unaware of it. On finding it, I can see it's potentially very useful.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

As far as I know, the St Dunstan's Psalter is a production of the Antiochene Orthodox (Western Rite), and unrelated to the Plainsong Hymnal.

The Psalter is very good, though--and besides including the psalms set to Sarum tones also includes plainsong settings for the canticles, the ordinary, and the Marian antiphons, as well as notes on ceremonial. A good investment.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Because I am the sewer and mender on our Altar Guild, the appeal has come to me, and now I'm coming to you.
I am ISO an emblem, to sew onto the bottom of a tippet. If you click around on this product page you can see a tippet with the shield of the Episcopal church at the end of it.
I am in search of a similar emblem, only it needs to be that of the church of St. George's in Baghdad. If you go to my Pinterest page you can see their emblem. (Ignore the photograph of the knitted hat.) I am almost certain that the church does not make their own emblem for sale -- I am certain they have more important things to do in Baghdad.
Does anyone know where I might buy such a thing, to sew onto a tippet?

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

Various vestment supply houses would be a possibility. I know that Almy's (in the US) and likely Wippell's stock certain shield-type patches to be affixed to tippets. They probably do not stock the particular one you are seeking, but possibly would be able to make one up, however, that sort of custom work might be expensive. If you have access to a shop that customizes school uniforms or golf shirts, that might be a possibility, but you would need to supply a sharp image of the design you want.

BTW, the Blessed Percy said quite firmly that tippets (or scarves, as he called them) should be PLAIN, and not adorned with shields, crosses or battle ribbons.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Canons are allowed to adorn their scarves with the cathedral's coast of arms.

Maybe Percy was jealous ecause he didn't get to be a canon?

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Whether it -ought- to be done is not in the Altar Guild's purview. The rector wants it done, and so we're off to the races. He's the one with the theology degree, let him worry about it.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Canons are allowed to adorn their scarves with the cathedral's coast of arms.

Maybe Percy was jealous ecause he didn't get to be a canon?

But Blessed Percy was a canon, collated to his stall at Westminster in 1931!!

AFAIK scarf-adornment came to be practised, originally primarily by former military chaplains, after WWI. I have only known canon-brandishing from the 1980s, but perhaps others have seen it before then.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Because I am the sewer and mender on our Altar Guild, the appeal has come to me, and now I'm coming to you.
I am ISO an emblem, to sew onto the bottom of a tippet. If you click around on this product page you can see a tippet with the shield of the Episcopal church at the end of it.
I am in search of a similar emblem, only it needs to be that of the church of St. George's in Baghdad. If you go to my Pinterest page you can see their emblem. (Ignore the photograph of the knitted hat.) I am almost certain that the church does not make their own emblem for sale -- I am certain they have more important things to do in Baghdad.
Does anyone know where I might buy such a thing, to sew onto a tippet?

The emblem is the arms of the Anglican Diocese of Cyprus and the Gulf. Clerical outfitters such as Wippell's supply that sort of thing for preaching scarves. Maybe the diocese can help, or Wippell's. You probably know that there are also online embroidered badge services, but I don't know what price they might be.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

So would the scarf in the pic (I can't access it) belong to soemone who was a canon of one of the diocese's cathedrals?
I take your point, Brenda, that you feel that it's not for you to argue with the Rector about what goes on the tippet- but surely it's a bit iffy, if not actually forbidden somewhere, to adorn your robes in a way which suggests that you are something that you are not (i.e. a canon of a particular cathedral)? A bit like looking at the hood of a degree which is not your own and thinking 'oh, that's more attractive than my hood, I'll get the Altar Guild to run me one up'?

Posted by Offeiriad (# 14031) on :

I second that, Albertus: is he a Canon of the Diocese of Cyprus and the Gulf? If not, why does he want to look like one?

[ 29. April 2016, 12:50: Message edited by: Offeiriad ]

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Oh, he's a canon -- Canon Andrew White, of St. George's in Baghdad. I forget what he's doing or becoming at our church, however. Cannot find the weekly leaflet.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Oh, he's coming to your church? Wow. Entirely appropriate then.
I remember him when he was a vicar in Balham (S London), twenty-odd years ago. He was very well respected even then.
I should ask the Diocese of Cyprus & The Gulf where they get theirbadges from, if Wippell's haven't got one for you.

[ 29. April 2016, 13:14: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Oh, now that's a good idea. I have also emailed Wippels, in a spirit of excitement and optimism. Almy's, their American equivalent, naturally could do nothing.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Canon Andrew White is a very well known person. But unless this is being prepared as a gift for him, which he can take away with him, wouldn't it be a bit odd for your vicar to prepare a special tippet and expect you to go to a great deal of effort, for a single occasion. Is he going to wear it or your vicar? If he's going to wear it, he might have one already. If your vicar is going to wear it, perhaps he shouldn't be doing. It's a bit like saying that because our guest preacher has a Cambridge DD, although I've only got 5 GCSEs, I'm going to put on the academic dress of one to welcome him or her.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Sorry, I don't know. I am down here at the bottom of the totem pole. What they're doing up there at the top is on them.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
No - all the baptised are 'o laos - the people of God - so bishops are laypeople.
I wonder if this is a difference between the CofE and the RCC or those who take their theology from it. Whatever Basilica may claim about Leo's reasoning as being based on the etymological fallacy, what Leo posted is what I understand to be the normal Anglican take on this, i.e. the etymology is regarded as making a clear statement of theology, not a fallacy.
That was purely about the idea that clergy are actually laity, because all belong to the laos. That's certainly not the standard Anglican view: laity are, by definition, the not-clergy.

Quite so.

The Greek word despota is the common term of affection and respect for a bishop as a father and figure of authority. Whatever one might think of one's bishop, it would be silly to argue that the English word despot means the same thing, simply because of its etymology. The same applies to laos: we all know what it means but that doesn't dictate how the word laity is used and understood in English.

quote:

quote:
I think I've read somewhere that the Orthodox view is the same. Is there an Orthodox shipmate who can answer this one.
I'm not Orthodox (I'm a CofE priest), but my understanding is that, liturgically, once a priest is so ordained he would never again act as a deacon.

Right again.

In a similar way, a bishop would never serve as a priest. True, there may be times when a full Hierarchical Liturgy isn't possible due to limited resources or other considerations but even then some of the elements of the episcopal ceremonial and functions will be employed.

Posted by Lincoln Imp (# 17123) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Canon Andrew White is a very well known person. But unless this is being prepared as a gift for him, which he can take away with him, wouldn't it be a bit odd for your vicar to prepare a special tippet and expect you to go to a great deal of effort, for a single occasion. Is he going to wear it or your vicar? If he's going to wear it, he might have one already.

Andrew White has come to our town on several occasions, Anglican and Baptist churches, and given talks in front of all and sundry. I can assure you that he brought his own vestments for the occasion. Mine was a high-Anglican parish, and he wore his own white stole with the St. G's Cath badge and his own embroidered cotta-alb. Even more interestingly it was Lent and our vicar wore a purple chasuble even though AW was the celebrant. For civic and Baptist occasions AW wore a bow tie, check shirt and blazer. It is likely that he has his own scarf/ tippet with badge for a low church outfit.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln Imp:
For civic and Baptist occasions AW wore a bow tie...

A real one, I trust.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

Perhaps the tipper duly adorned is intended as a gift for Canon White.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I could only wish our Rector were giving us more than two weeks to pull the rabbit out of the hat. He seems to believe we can spin gold out of straw. Which on occasion we have done of course. There was that horrid wedding when no one in the bridal party thought to try the flower girl's gown onto the child in question until ten minutes before the service. I had that period of time to turn up six inches on a satin gown. A roll of scotch tape should form part of the tool kit of every wedding, did you know? If the hem fell down the moment they recessed down the aisle it's no problem of mine, and if tape had failed I would have resorted to a stapler with shedding a tear.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

St George's Baghdad is not a cathedral. The diocese of Cyprus and the Gulf has two cathedrals: St Paul's, Nicosia and St Christopher's Bahrain.

I can't find from the web site where Canon White has his stall and indeed he may be an honourary canon of a cathedral in another diocese.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

He was a residentiary Canon of Coventry at one time.
My impression of him was that he was an Evangelical who, rather pleasingly, looked like a posh A-C. But I have never seen him officiating in church.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Edit window closed: Coventry is the only canonry that he lists in Who's Who. Don't have access to Crockford.

Posted by Lincoln Imp (# 17123) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:

quote:

quote:
I think I've read somewhere that the Orthodox view is the same. Is there an Orthodox shipmate who can answer this one.
I'm not Orthodox (I'm a CofE priest), but my understanding is that, liturgically, once a priest is so ordained he would never again act as a deacon.
Right again.

In a similar way, a bishop would never serve as a priest. True, there may be times when a full Hierarchical Liturgy isn't possible due to limited resources or other considerations but even then some of the elements of the episcopal ceremonial and functions will be employed.

And yet, ABC Justin quite happily and very deliberately served as Deacon to the female presiding priest at the 2014 Eucharist of Thanksgiving (a tautology!) for 20 years of female priests in the UK. He even wore a Dalmatic.

Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln Imp:

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:

quote:

quote:
I think I've read somewhere that the Orthodox view is the same. Is there an Orthodox shipmate who can answer this one.
I'm not Orthodox (I'm a CofE priest), but my understanding is that, liturgically, once a priest is so ordained he would never again act as a deacon.
Right again.

In a similar way, a bishop would never serve as a priest. True, there may be times when a full Hierarchical Liturgy isn't possible due to limited resources or other considerations but even then some of the elements of the episcopal ceremonial and functions will be employed.
And yet, ABC Justin quite happily and very deliberately served as Deacon to the female presiding priest at the 2014 Eucharist of Thanksgiving (a tautology!) for 20 years of female priests in the UK. He even wore a Dalmatic.

Thereby proving that one doesn't need to have an ounce of liturgical understanding to be Archbishop of Canterbury!

(From here was then to follow a long rant about how far too often the liturgy is used to make gestures and express personal preferences without any consideration for the connection between what we do and what we believe. But I thought better of posting it.)

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Showing not much liturgical understanding, perhaps- but a good deal of humility. I'd call that a very acceeptable deviation from the strict norm, on a particular occasion.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Those who complain about the Archbishop of Canterbury deaconing are very similar to those who complained about Pope Francis washing the wrong sort of feet. Indeed, it's only the fact that these are leaders in different churches which suggests that the complainers might not actually be the very same people.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln Imp:

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:

quote:

quote:
I think I've read somewhere that the Orthodox view is the same. Is there an Orthodox shipmate who can answer this one.
I'm not Orthodox (I'm a CofE priest), but my understanding is that, liturgically, once a priest is so ordained he would never again act as a deacon.
Right again.

In a similar way, a bishop would never serve as a priest. True, there may be times when a full Hierarchical Liturgy isn't possible due to limited resources or other considerations but even then some of the elements of the episcopal ceremonial and functions will be employed.
And yet, ABC Justin quite happily and very deliberately served as Deacon to the female presiding priest at the 2014 Eucharist of Thanksgiving (a tautology!) for 20 years of female priests in the UK. He even wore a Dalmatic.

When did ABC Justin become an Orthodox bishop?

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Bottom line is a deacon is a deacon: once priested you remain a priest, whether you act as a deacon for a service, stay as Little-Snoring-on-the-Slumber for 50 years or become Archbishop of Canterbury.

Maybe we in the CofE have lost sight of this when we've accepted the tautology of people describing the service at which a priest becomes a bishop as an ordination when the correct term is a consecration.

As for whether or not it is 'fitting' for a bishop or archbishop to act as deacon at a service - surely that is showing proper humility and collegiality, very much in the spirit of the Lord.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Showing not much liturgical understanding, perhaps- but a good deal of humility. I'd call that a very acceeptable deviation from the strict norm, on a particular occasion.

I'd agree. For that one particular occasion it was right to have a woman president. Even liturgically appropriate.

In the old days he could have worn a cope and sat in a fald stool.

Ritual Notes gave extensive directions.

PS Scrumps is quite right too. Orthodox practice does not necessarily apply.

[ 30. April 2016, 11:35: Message edited by: venbede ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Just as it seemed right for a Forward in Faith 'flying' bishop to act as a concelebrant when a priest, celebrating his 50th anniversary of ordination was principal celebrant.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
Eucharist of Thanksgiving (a tautology!)

a tautology, incidentally, not unlike that enshrined in the title pages of the NZ Anglican Prayer Book, where the first eucharistic order is called "thanksgiving of the people of God."

[Ultra confused]

It's not, as a Eucharistic Liturgy in a Prayer Book, likely to be the "thanksgiving of the lambs of satan," nor the Pisstaking of the Prunes of Demeter

The second order is called "thanksgiving for creation and redemption" ... because of course that would never normally be a part of a Eucharistic prayer [brick wall]

The third is so abysmally bad I try not to go there. And there's a couple more scattered randomly around the book.

Oh, but I digress.

Posted by Lincoln Imp (# 17123) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:

quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln Imp:

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:

quote:

quote:
I think I've read somewhere that the Orthodox view is the same. Is there an Orthodox shipmate who can answer this one.
I'm not Orthodox (I'm a CofE priest), but my understanding is that, liturgically, once a priest is so ordained he would never again act as a deacon.
Right again.

In a similar way, a bishop would never serve as a priest. True, there may be times when a full Hierarchical Liturgy isn't possible due to limited resources or other considerations but even then some of the elements of the episcopal ceremonial and functions will be employed.
And yet, ABC Justin quite happily and very deliberately served as Deacon to the female presiding priest at the 2014 Eucharist of Thanksgiving (a tautology!) for 20 years of female priests in the UK. He even wore a Dalmatic.
When did ABC Justin become an Orthodox bishop?

So none of this has anything to do with ontology and the indelible character of a priest/ deacon/ bishop which is shared RC/ Anglican and orthodox theology? What then?

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

This conversation reminds me a card I got made by a third-grader after my priestly ordination, which read:

quote:

Happy Priest Hood! You're still part dicn.

// I'll get my cope...

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln Imp:
So none of this has anything to do with ontology and the indelible character of a priest/ deacon/ bishop which is shared RC/ Anglican and orthodox theology? What then?

I wasn't making a doctrinal statement but rather confirming and expanding Basilica's example from Orthodox practice. I was confused when an example of an Anglican bishop was seemingly given to counter a point being made about Orthodox practice.

However, on the point of doctrine, is it actually the case that the "indelible character" idea is shared? I had thought this a particularly Latin way of looking at it.

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

I have a question about the gradual hymn in Anglican worship. I have always known a hymn to be sung immediately before the reading of the gospel. However this week I happened to be at a different church where a hymn was sung instead before the reading from St Paul's letter to the Romans.

There were 3 readings, no Psalm.

What is the difference between these two formats ?

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

What is the difference? Well, it largely comes down to custom.

Before Series III (!) there was never an Old Testament reading at a communion service so most churches had a hymn betwixt Epistle and Gospel - those with a broader musical range might sing a psalm instead.

When 3 readings came in it was envisaged that a psalm would go between OT and NT readings - I think it was thought that a responsorial psalm would be within the compass of most parishes - but in many churches they either put in another hymn or moved the hymn from before the Gospel to before the NT reading, maybe because they put in sung Gospel acclamations.

It all comes back to the question of local usage and custom which can differ hugely from place to place and can result in what an outside would think of as bizarre: for example the church I found that had the Lord's Prayer twice - once in traditional language at the end of the intercessions and again in modern language before the Agnus Dei. [Confused]

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

Not an Anglican, but I wonder if that hymn before the Pauline reading was meant to be the psalm. Was the text a paraphrase of a psalm text?

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
Not an Anglican, but I wonder if that hymn before the Pauline reading was meant to be the psalm. Was the text a paraphrase of a psalm text?

Coming from a metrical psalm tradition, that's what I wondered. Our hymnals are usually good about designating a text as a psalm—"God is Our Refuge and Our Strength (Psalm 46)", for example—but in my experience other hymnals may not do this as much.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I have a question about the gradual hymn in Anglican worship. I have always known a hymn to be sung immediately before the reading of the gospel.

If you have a gospel procession with lights and incense, you need a hymn to get the stoking up and movement done.

It's called 'the gradual' because the various ministers come dowen the steps during it.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
Not an Anglican, but I wonder if that hymn before the Pauline reading was meant to be the psalm. Was the text a paraphrase of a psalm text?

Yes, that's normally been the case when I've seen that done. Other churches either use the hymn as the gradual or don't have one in the middle of the readings at all. As Leo says, this often depends on how elaborate their Gospel procession is, and how much time is needed to prepare it (although a plainchant Alleluia and proper gradual can actually provide more time than you would think!)

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

The hymn was unknown to me and distinctly unmemorable so I will have to try and find it on google to see if it could have been based on a psalm.

I am not a musician but I thought the choir were quite good, certainly stronger than the choir at my own church which does do a responsive psalm.

The gospel procession with a cross and 2 candles took place in silence.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

If it was a hymn based on a psalm, it should have been Psalm 8 which is the one set for Trinity Sunday - in case that's any help tracking it down.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Hymnary.org's list of hymns (supposedly?)based on Psalm 8 is here.

[ 22. May 2016, 16:57: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

When saying the Roman Liturgy of the Hours (which I do for festivals rather than the C of E Daily Prayer) it is possible to run on Morning Prayer after the Office of Readings. In which case, the hymn for Morning Prayer can be used for the Office of Readings and the versicles at the end of Readings and start of Morning Prayer are omitted.

I also omit the hymn for Morning Prayer (ie I recit one hymn in the entire celebration, after the invitatory) although this is not specified. Is it intended there should be two hymns when the offices are recited together?

Posted by Laxton's Superba (# 228) on :

Does anyone know of an online resource that would give access to pointed psalms, with the markings between syllables (forgive me that I know not its technical name), NRSV, ideally laid out according to the revised common lectionary? I can find NRSV psalms, I can find lectionary readings, but not pointed psalms online. A congregation member currently does the layout for us by hand but we would like to move to a more easily copiable resource. Thanks in advance.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

I think you mean like those contained in this pdf. Scroll down the first part is how to chant and it only afterwards has the psalms

Jengie

Posted by Laxton's Superba (# 228) on :

Ah, that is exactly the kind of thing I was after. What I hadn't considered is the use of the purple RSCM chant book from which we rarely deviate, but could do, given that this is a terrific resource. Thank you very much. [Overused]

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laxton's Superba:
A congregation member currently does the layout for us by hand but we would like to move to a more easily copiable resource.

quote:
Originally posted by Laxton's Superba:
Ah, that is exactly the kind of thing I was after.

Laxton Superba, just a reminder, which you may not need, to remember copyright considerations before making copies. The PDFed book to which Jengie Jon linked indicates that copyright (1987) is held by The Church Pension Fund; the book is still in publication. (I can't help but wonder if permission was received to put the PDF online to start with.) Copyright acknowledgments for individual settings are on page 335–36.

At least in the PDF, I don't see anything saying that if a congregation owns one copy of the book, permission is given to copy individual psalms for one-time use in worship. (I have seen such permission in other similar books.)

Good luck!

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I think the copying of musical material for use in worship is generally covered by the Church Copyright Licence in the UK. Is there a similar system elsewhere?

[ 15. June 2016, 05:37: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet: I think the copying of musical material for use in worship is generally covered by the Church Copyright Licence in the UK. Is there a similar system elsewhere?

Yes, but such licenses only cover the copyrighted music or lyrics of participating copyright holders, to whom a group like CCLI pays royalties. Some large sacred music publishers (like GIA in the States) do not participate. It seems to me that denominational publishing houses also often do not participate.

In other words, even if your church uses the Church Copyright Lcense, you still have to verify that the music you want to copy is covered by the license before copying it—that or get permission from the copyright holder.

[ 15. June 2016, 12:39: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

A classic example of this is Morning has broken. If it is in hymn books and sung at a normal service then there is no charge for copyright, but if the words are reproduced for something like a wedding - in other words not a regular service - then you have to contact the trustees of the estate of Eleanor Farjeon who levy a fee of c£30. This despite the fact that the words feature in the books the church normally uses and that you have sufficient for each member of the wedding congregation.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

When the congregation makes the sign of the cross during a (Western) liturgy, do they end with their fingers on their right shoulder or should they return their hands back to the center of their chest? I was used to the former but I have noticed that in the choir I sing in the norm is to do the latter.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I was taught the former. (Taught by the nuns at St. Camillus Catholic School.)

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
A classic example of this is Morning has broken. If it is in hymn books and sung at a normal service then there is no charge for copyright . . . .

Well, technically there is, or was, a charge. The charge was factored into the cost of the book, and the publisher will pay royalties to copyright holders based on the number of books sold. A portion of what the purchaser pays covers copyright charges. So, it's more accurate to say that if it is in the hymnal and is sung from the hymnal, then there is no additional copyright charge.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
A classic example of this is Morning has broken. If it is in hymn books and sung at a normal service then there is no charge for copyright, but if the words are reproduced for something like a wedding - in other words not a regular service - then you have to contact the trustees of the estate of Eleanor Farjeon who levy a fee of c£30. This despite the fact that the words feature in the books the church normally uses and that you have sufficient for each member of the wedding congregation.

I think Nick Tamen may be right there, though if you want to press the point, you need to take legal advice from a practising lawyer with an insurance policy. If it is in your hymn books, I would have thought the copyright owner would find it difficult to demand a fee or to sue you unless and until you have printed it out in a wedding booklet.

£30 for a single use sounds a bit grasping. At that rate, it would be better to find something that is out of copyright.

[ 15. June 2016, 21:39: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If it is in your hymn books, I would have thought the copyright owner would find it difficult to demand a fee or to sue you unless and until you have printed it out in a wedding booklet.

Indeed, because the copyright holder has given permission for it to be printed in the book.

I have a hymn published in a hymnal. Prior to publication, I signed necessary papers giving permission for the hymn to be printed in the book, as well as in the electronic formats (including a format for projection). As a result, anyone using it in the published format is authorized to do so. In return for giving permission, I receive a royalty check annually, based on sales for that year.

I do, however, sometimes get emails from churches that use a different hymnal but want to print the hymn in question in their service bulletin. For that they do need my permission, which I always give provided they indicate something along the lines of ”Copyright Nick Tamen, reprinted with permission," and that they send me a copy. I don't charge a fee—certainly not $42 (around £30).

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I thought I made it clear: we have to pay the additional charge when it is printed in an Order of Service for a wedding/ funeral because that was the agreement the trustees reached when agreeing to it being in hymnals which are covered by the CCLI scheme.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I thought I made it clear: we have to pay the additional charge when it is printed in an Order of Service for a wedding/ funeral because that was the agreement the trustees reached when agreeing to it being in hymnals which are covered by the CCLI scheme.

The first part—that payment must be made when it is printed in an order of service—you did make clear. But the second part wasn't clear, at least to me, in what you said. Sorry if I misunderstood, but I read you as saying there was no copyright charge for music in hymnals, and I was simply clarifying that there was, in fact, a copyright charge built into the purchase price.

(And perhaps things are different in the UK, but here hymnals aren't covered by a CCLI license. That license only allows for one-time use. Hymnals deal directly with the copyright holder.)

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

You can use hymns printed in various hymnals copyrighted under CCLI for printing or projecting if you hold a licence. When I was working in church admin I put any hymn selections through a program called Hymnquest, which gave me all the copyright details to print on the service booklet with the licence details for CCLI and OCP as required. It also stored the information to submit to CCLI and OCP each year/quarter as the declaration against the subscription. (I added in the hymns in booklets produced by other people, even when they mucked up the copyright information by copying from 5 years before.)

Having dug to find evidence of the rumours I'd heard of people being prosecuted for using Morning has broken, Martin Shaw lost against Cat Stevens as the judge ruled that the only copyrighted version was Martin Shaw's exact version. There's another Farjeon hymn, which is not covered by CCLI, People Look East, although there is a version around of this one that is covered by CCLI in Sing Praise

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
When the congregation makes the sign of the cross during a (Western) liturgy, do they end with their fingers on their right shoulder or should they return their hands back to the center of their chest? I was used to the former but I have noticed that in the choir I sing in the norm is to do the latter.

From my experience, the answer may differ depending on whom we are discussing. Generally speaking, I concur with Brenda Clough that the sign of the cross ends at the right shoulder in the Western Rite.

If one is assisting as an altar server/acolyte during the Mass, however, one mostly keeps one’s hands folded in front of oneself, as if praying. In this case, I was taught that after touching the right shoulder, one’s hands should return to the default, folded-hands position. So, at least in this sense, one’s hands would be returning to the center chest.

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

For me, returning to the chest is something I learned after swimming the Thames. It's not something I would have thought to do in my RC days.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:
For me, returning to the chest is something I learned after swimming the Thames. It's not something I would have thought to do in my RC days.

In my experience it's something of a shibboleth in the Church of England: finishing at the right shoulder marks you out as Rome-ish; returning to the chest marks you as more English/Dearmerite/"Sarum".

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
When the congregation makes the sign of the cross during a (Western) liturgy, do they end with their fingers on their right shoulder or should they return their hands back to the center of their chest? I was used to the former but I have noticed that in the choir I sing in the norm is to do the latter.

I did the latter in my previous middle-of-the-road parishes but went to the former sometime after joining my current Anglo-Catholic parish. So I returned to the more RC practice I grew up with.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Apart from noticing that the Orthodox cross from right to left, the Catholics and the CofE (usually, if they cross themselves at all) from left to right, and Russians often do an extra little flourish at the end, I had not appreciated there were 'rules' about this. Can anyone summarise them for me? I've also noticed also that the Orthodox hold their fingers 3-2 whereas most Catholics and CofE don't seem to bother.

I believe Old Believers hold their fingers 2-3. Does anyone know?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

What looks particularly ridiculous is those priests who make the sign of the cross over people and then not only return to the middle but then drop their hand down to their waist. It looks sort of broken.

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Apart from noticing that the Orthodox cross from right to left, the Catholics and the CofE (usually, if they cross themselves at all) from left to right, and Russians often do an extra little flourish at the end, I had not appreciated there were 'rules' about this. Can anyone summarise them for me? I've also noticed also that the Orthodox hold their fingers 3-2 whereas most Catholics and CofE don't seem to bother.

I believe Old Believers hold their fingers 2-3. Does anyone know?

I think that's about right. I often import/modify Eastern practice and touch my toes after the sign of the cross at the elevations (wherever they occur) when I am in a congregation where the custom is to stand for the anaphora.

Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on :

So what do people do with leftover bits of candles?
We have a large bag of part-candles which may not be big enough for another service, and are wondering what the best thing to do with them is...

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Our Altar Guild wrestled with this issue for years, until we finally switched over to liquid wax candles.
The most important issue is to sort them out -- colors, if any, or if you mixed real beeswax candles with cheaper artificial wax ones.
We would gather all the real beeswax ends and melt them together to make new candles. You can strain out the bits of wick and pour the melted wax into some sort of mold. We had one shaped like a dove. The dove candles enjoyed a ready sale at Christmas for use on mantels, in windows, etc.
You can also do this with the artificial candles, but do them in a separate batch because the wax melts at a different temperature.
If this seems like too much work, find someone who does batik, or a preschool teacher who is making ice cube candles with the kiddies. You can color wax by adding the ends of crayons, of which preschools always have plenty.
Real beeswax is expensive and has some value. Artificial wax, not so much

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :

Bits always come in handy for lighting the charcoal for the thurible, of course. And some companies will take them back and recycle them. Hayes and Finch did that when I used to get my stuff from them. They don't pay you, though...

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:
For me, returning to the chest is something I learned after swimming the Thames. It's not something I would have thought to do in my RC days.
In my experience it's something of a shibboleth in the Church of England: finishing at the right shoulder marks you out as Rome-ish; returning to the chest marks you as more English/Dearmerite/"Sarum".

You know, I've never noticed that I even do that! Maybe I'm just Sarum by instinct!

Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :

I've just returned from a few weeks in England and was struck again by clergy who 'cross' themselves by moving their fingers or thumb in horizontal motions, no vertical 'cross' at all. I don't know that I've seen it in the States. Is this just lazy or does it connote something?

The most recent occasion I had observed this was in a cathedral, a canon in an ornate gothic chasuble and incense used quite liberally.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:
For me, returning to the chest is something I learned after swimming the Thames. It's not something I would have thought to do in my RC days.
In my experience it's something of a shibboleth in the Church of England: finishing at the right shoulder marks you out as Rome-ish; returning to the chest marks you as more English/Dearmerite/"Sarum".
You know, I've never noticed that I even do that! Maybe I'm just Sarum by instinct!

I'd never thought of it in those terms before. So from what I can make out I cross myself like a Roman but the extent to which I cross myself (i.e. like an old Babushka) is certainly not Roman, or at least not Modern Roman.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

One of my churches has three lovely containers for oil: healing, chrism and catacheumens. Healing is clear, but I get muddled about the other two. Which should I use for baptism, and which for confirmation?

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

In the Roman Rite of baptism for infants, the oil of catechumens is used for the pre-baptismal anointing (freedom from evil) and chrism is used for the post-baptismal anointing (strength to do good). In the RCIA, the oil of catechumens may be used at any stage during the catechumenate, and is often used as proximate preparation for baptism (but not during the Easter Vigil itself). There is no post-baptismal anointing in the RCIA, as confirmation follows at once. Chrism is used for confirmation.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

In C of E Common Worship, the oil of Baptism/Catechumens is used at the signing of the cross before baptism. The oil of Chrism can be used at the prayer that 'you may be daily be renewed by his anointing Spirit' which follows the baptism. So in line with the RC practice as described above. But if only one oil is used it is the former.

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

Who normally sits in the choir stalls apart from the choir ? I was at the choral Eucharist at Chichester cathedral this morning. I was quite close to the back, and noticed when I arrived heads in the choir stalls. I thought at first it was the choir and that there would be no processing in. But there was, and when it came to going up to the altar for communion, I saw that there were quite a few other people sitting alongside the choir.

Would they just be the first people to arrive, or is there some particular group of people who would go there ?

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

At Chichester, Mattins is at 10am, followed quite quickly by the Eucharist at 11am. Perhaps those in the quire were the Mattins congregation, staying on for the Eucharist?

Ian J.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I've certainly sat in choir stalls for cathedral services. If you arrive early at Westminster Abbey for weekday Sung Evensong, you can sit in the choir stalls rather than in the stacking chairs in the transept.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I've certainly sat in choir stalls for cathedral services. If you arrive early at Westminster Abbey for weekday Sung Evensong, you can sit in the choir stalls rather than in the stacking chairs in the transept.

I've sat in the Lord High Commissioner's stall for Evensong in the Abbey. I look for that one whenever there's a big service on TV (wedding, pope visit, etc.).

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Having attended evensong in a number of cathedrals, I can't think of a time when I didn't sit in a choir stall, except in London (St. Paul's and Southwark). Not true of morning services, though I've been to far fewer of those. Most recently we sat directly facing a real live Lord and his Lady (although he's "only" a Life Peer and not of my political persuasion).

[ 12. September 2016, 07:14: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
Who normally sits in the choir stalls apart from the choir ? I was at the choral Eucharist at Chichester cathedral this morning. I was quite close to the back, and noticed when I arrived heads in the choir stalls. I thought at first it was the choir and that there would be no processing in. But there was, and when it came to going up to the altar for communion, I saw that there were quite a few other people sitting alongside the choir.

Would they just be the first people to arrive, or is there some particular group of people who would go there ?

In Canterbury it depends on the service. In most services the Quire is large enough to contain the majority of the congregation - sometimes it expands into the chapels at the sides (I can't remember the names of those, sorry).

At very large services, the majority of the congregation is in the nave with just the choir in the Quire. Sometimes they begin in the Quire and then end up at the front of the nave, I think because the acoustics are quite different in different parts of the building.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I was at an Evensong in Norwich fairly recently where most of the congregation sat in the Quire with a few overspill members in the Nave. Towards the end of this particular service (I think it was the Cathedral's Patronal Saint's day) we were ALL invited to process up the aisle, singing, behind the choir and out of the West Door. We gathered outside for a prayer and the Blessing. This was rather good!

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

In many cathedrals seats in the Quire on Sundays are reserved for parents of junior choristers: this means they don't have to arrive too early and get to spend the maximum amount of time with their son/daughter.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

Many thanks to Adam and Angloid for their helpful answers to my query. However, I am still a bit puzzled. The CW liturgy I have inherited for baptism has only one anointing, after the water has been administered, and we all go on to pray that the candidate might "fight valiantly under the banner of Christ".

Notwithstanding my confusion, in future I shall use the Oil of Catacheumens on the newly baptised, and leave the Oil of Chrism for the Bishop at Confirmations.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Many thanks to Adam and Angloid for their helpful answers to my query. However, I am still a bit puzzled. The CW liturgy I have inherited for baptism has only one anointing, after the water has been administered, and we all go on to pray that the candidate might "fight valiantly under the banner of Christ".

Are you sure? That doesn't look like Common Worship to me. I know there have been new and simplified versions but I don't think they have changed the structure. If there is only one signing and anointing it may come after the baptism, but the prayer 'Fight valiantly...' always precedes the blessing of water and the baptism.

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
Who normally sits in the choir stalls apart from the choir ? I was at the choral Eucharist at Chichester cathedral this morning. I was quite close to the back, and noticed when I arrived heads in the choir stalls. I thought at first it was the choir and that there would be no processing in. But there was, and when it came to going up to the altar for communion, I saw that there were quite a few other people sitting alongside the choir.

Would they just be the first people to arrive, or is there some particular group of people who would go there ?

Chichester Cathedral is my home church (we also attend things at our parish church) and I know several people from the regular congregation who choose to sit in the Quire stalls or on the chairs beyond the stalls as you approach the altar. As far as I know they don't have special permission but I have often wondered what might happen if a visitor were to accidentally sit in "their" seat.... [Snigger]

I usually sit in the Nave for the Sung Eucharist as I love the sense of space and the experience of being caught up into something bigger, the drama if you like, of the Eucharist.

If I am attending Evensong I sit in the Quire stalls and really appreciate the sense of intimacy.

I really do love our Cathedral!

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
...I have often wondered what might happen if a visitor were to accidentally sit in "their" seat....

Probably the same as in any church (yup, I was guilty of pew stealing a few weeks ago!).
[Hot and Hormonal]

I've only been to Chichester Cathedral once (Sunday morning Eucharist), and it was indeed beautiful. I must go back some day.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Have Chichester finally managed to overcome their strange reluctance to use incense properly? When I was there for the Eucharist they had a thurifer who walked in the processions and stood around producing smoke, but nothing (including the altar) was ever censed in the traditional way.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Obviously taking their cue from ++ Justin who handles a thurible with all the grace and fluency of a duck perfoming musket drill.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
...I have often wondered what might happen if a visitor were to accidentally sit in "their" seat....

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Probably the same as in any church (yup, I was guilty of pew stealing a few weeks ago!).

I quote a parishioner overheard muttering to clergy;

quote:
If we must have visitors can the sidesmen please make sure they don't sit in my spot

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

Attitudes like that ensure that the C of E will continue to shrink.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Attitudes like that ensure that the C of E will continue to shrink.

In my case, mentioned upthread, it wasn't the C of E (though it was a church of the Anglican Communion).

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

I'm in possession of a liturgical text that contains a rubric referring to "the hymn of Notker Balbulus". I understand that a number of texts are attributed to Notker the Stammerer but, as no incipit is given, I'm not sure exactly what this refers to. Does anyone have any ideas?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Obviously taking their cue from ++ Justin who handles a thurible with all the grace and fluency of a duck perfoming musket drill.

Surely the more appropriate comparison is with a dog walking on its hind legs? ('It's not that one expects to see it done well, but...') [Biased]

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

At one time Media Vita was attributed to Notker. Maybe this is what the book is referring to?

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Albertus' comment on ++Justin's handling of a thurible is surely much more gracious than L'organist's acid remark. Not everyone has the advantage of a High Church upbringing, and credit should be duly given to those willing to step out of their comfort zone....

Ian J.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
At one time Media Vita was attributed to Notker. Maybe this is what the book is referring to?

Thank you, Fr Weber.

This would make sense as it is given as a seasonal variation for use in Lent.

That helps.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by Bishop's Finger

quote:
Albertus' comment on ++Justin's handling of a thurible is surely much more gracious than L'organist's acid remark. Not everyone has the advantage of a High Church upbringing, and credit should be duly given to those willing to step out of their comfort zone....

It has nothing to do with 'upbringing' and everything to do with being prepared to take on every element of the job and get it right. Being unable to perform properly one the ceremonial functions of office after nearly 4 years in post displays an arrogance and unwillingness to learn/ adapt that is worrying.

Am I being unfair? You may think so, but if you or I had shown a similar unpreparedness to perform in a job competently we would have been warned about it, and a subsequent lack of improvement would have brought about a sacking: that's what happens in the real world, so why is the church different?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

It is a very minor part of the Archbishop of Canterbury's job to be skilled in handling a liturgical object stylishly that it is unlikely that any of his predecessors between 1558 and 1928 had ever had occasion to touch.

[ 21. September 2016, 12:30: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Just so - and to accuse the poor ++ of being 'arrogant' and 'unwilling to learn/adapt' is hardly fair (unless one has proof to the contrary).

Ian J.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I think that criticism of ++Justin is quite unfair. I can think of some pukka anglo-catholic clerics whose liturgical deportment is clumsy to say the least. And as far as I know Justin was the first Dean of Liverpool to host a Walsingham Festival incorporating Exposition and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I read in Walsingham Review a year ago that when Abp Justin was due to process fully vested with two attendant deacons from the Slipper Chapel to the village, just before the procession moved off he removed his shoes. The two deacons gamely thought they should do the same.

The incident implies that ++ Justin certainly appreciates the importance of the large liturgical gesture.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

Does anyone know whether Pontius Pilate appears in the synaxarium or calendar of the Ethiopian Catholic Church?

I'm curious about whether this is one of the Ethiopian traditions that they kept or whether it was lost as part of the union with Rome.

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

I was at the Edward the Confessor pilgrimage at Westminster abbey today. It included a festival Eucharist. About 8 priests were in the procession, though some may have been deacons as I am not good at recognising vestments. They all had red and gold vestments on.

When it came to the liturgy of the sacrament, all except the dean, who was the sole celebrant, took off their red and gold and just had the white surplice on. After we had received communion, they all went and put them back on again.

I have not seen this before. I have been in more evangelical churches where only the celebrant puts on vestments in the first place, but that is a bit different. Is what I saw today a common practice and what does it mean ?

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
Does anyone know whether Pontius Pilate appears in the synaxarium or calendar of the Ethiopian Catholic Church?

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

quote:
The Abyssinian Church reckons him as a saint, and assigns 25 June to him and to Claudia Procula, his wife.

But no mention is made of the Ethiopian Catholic Church.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I was at the Edward the Confessor pilgrimage at Westminster abbey today. It included a festival Eucharist. About 8 priests were in the procession, though some may have been deacons as I am not good at recognising vestments. They all had red and gold vestments on.

When it came to the liturgy of the sacrament, all except the dean, who was the sole celebrant, took off their red and gold and just had the white surplice on. After we had received communion, they all went and put them back on again.

I have not seen this before. I have been in more evangelical churches where only the celebrant puts on vestments in the first place, but that is a bit different. Is what I saw today a common practice and what does it mean ?

If the vestments in question were copes (heavy embroidered cloaks) it is almost certainly a matter of practicality. They would get in the way when adminstering.

I suspect they were copes - the Abbey would not
have concelebrants in chasubles.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I suspect they were copes - the Abbey would not have concelebrants in chasubles.

Nor, usually, celebrants. I remember attending a weekday Eucharist at the Abbey and being surprised to see the celebrant wearing a cope instead of a chasuble. He kept his hands folded throughout the service; the cope makes manual acts not too easy, especially the splendid and apparently heavy cope this celebrant was wearing.

I think I remember his orans position for the collect; his hands were still rather close together in front of him but were flat, with palms facing each other.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Did the communicants stand or kneel to receive? If they knelt a cope would definitely get in the way.

Incidentally, which altar was used? I remember being surprised at a eucharist in the choir when a temporary central altar was used until communion, when the elements were taken to the East End altar and communicants walked past the central altar that had actually been used at knelt at the communion rails.

They might have well used the East End altar throughout.

Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on :

I saw the same practise at the Abbey some years ago at the annual Corpus Christi Eucharist.
The celebrant was vested in the traditional chasuble,wheareas the other clergy,members of Chapter wore copes,which they took at the ministry of the Sacrament.
I have never witnessed this practise before,neither with the Anglicans nor Roman-Catholics.
I felt it somewhat strange.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I can remember St Paul's never using chasubles before Dean Graeme Knowles' time.

There's good C of E precedent for copes, whereas chasubles are a bit dubious, is the thought.

And about six years ago I saw Bishop Nicholas Baines preside at the eucharist for a licencing in a cope. It was a small church where they always used a chasuble.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

There seems to have been an expectation that bishops would wear cope and mitre for the eucharist even when chasubles were the tradition. Probably originating in [a] a suspicion of chasubles as being 'Romish', and [b]a false idea that a cope was specifically episcopal garb. I've seen quite a few bishops (who would normally and happily wear chasuble) thus arrayed. It was probably ++Rowan who was nearly always photographed presiding in a chasuble, who changed that, and ++Justin has continued the tradition.

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

They used the east end altar. The congregation were sitting facing sideways to the altar in the area between the choir stalls and the sanctuary. We had tv monitors to watch as except in the front rows, there's too much of an angle to see right into the sanctuary.

We received the communion standing. The clergy stood still at the front of the sanctuary and people went up to them in a steady queue. I guess maybe 500 people.

I am confused about why a chasuble might be considered dubious. They used lots of incense and prior to the service they had exposition of the sacrament in the Lady chapel. Aren't those more catholic than using chasubles ?

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

In response to Angloid's post, actually a retired bishop was there. But he was not the celebrant, and was among those to remove whatever it was he was wearing. I received the communion from him in fact.

Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on :

It was the current Bishop of Chichester,Dr.Martin Warner,who introduced the chasuble at St.Paul's,so around 2005.
He was working at that time,as one of the Canons of the London Cathedral.Dr.Moses was the Dean at that period.
Looking at the report on the Festival St.Edward;s Eucharist,I still find it very strange that the
Canons vested in copes, took off this vestiture at the Ministry of the Sacrament.
I am very curious to learn why this was done ?
Is this a Westminster Abbey custom ?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:

I am confused about why a chasuble might be considered dubious. They used lots of incense and prior to the service they had exposition of the sacrament in the Lady chapel. Aren't those more catholic than using chasubles ?

They're not dubious, really, these days. Nor as you point out is incense or even exposition of the Blessed Sacrament. All have been sighted/smelt in that bastion of Protestantism Liverpool Cathedral. But for years since the reformation the C of E outlawed the traditional vestments except that the cope was allowed/ prescribed for cathedrals. As far as I know the diocese of Sydney is now the only part of the Anglican Communion to declare the chasuble illegal.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Are chasubles still illegal in Ireland, in theory anyway?

Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on :

When I was on the staff of a (CofE) cathedral thirty years ago, there was not a chasuble to be found in the place. Celebrants at every mass wore a cope and the three sacred ministers all wore a cope (each!) throughout the Chapter Mass on Sunday mornings. I notice that the cathedral in question does now possess a full set of chasubles, but haven't learned whether they have the dalmatics and tunicles to go with them.
I have experienced many occasions when clergy slip off the cope during services (most often when they're heading up to the pulpit) because, whilst they are mighty fine and dignified garments, they are a bugger to wear if you're doing anything more practical than just processing on the flat or sitting down.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Are chasubles still illegal in Ireland, in theory anyway?

Chasubles are illegal in Sydney and in addition, the Abp requires an undertaking from new clergy that one won't be worn. St Sanity uses copes. Always removed for preaching and then back on for the rest of the service. They can get in the road a bit at the Consecration, but the awkwardness goes with a little practice. They certainly look easier to manage than a maniple*, for example. We also use dalmatics and tunicles on special feasts. Very hot, totally unsuited for the climate.

*I don't think they're banned, just not used.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I can remember St Paul's never using chasubles before Dean Graeme Knowles' time.

There's good C of E precedent for copes, whereas chasubles are a bit dubious, is the thought.

And about six years ago I saw Bishop Nicholas Baines preside at the eucharist for a licencing in a cope. It was a small church where they always used a chasuble.

What about when Graham Leonard was Bishop of London in the 1980s?

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

I love the St James King St and Christ Church St Laurence means to negotiate the canons! Sadly, though I was once offered an opportunity to work at one of them, the fact that I was a dastardly and sinful divorcee precluded me from a licence.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
I love the St James King St and Christ Church St Laurence means to negotiate the canons! Sadly, though I was once offered an opportunity to work at one of them, the fact that I was a dastardly and sinful divorcee precluded me from a licence.

No chasubles at them either - copes all around.

You have 2 counts against you Zappa - you were divorced and so was Kuruman. Either is enough to stop your getting a licence, the 2 together may well bar your attending a service even.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
What about when Graham Leonard was Bishop of London in the 1980s?

Copes all round, as I recall. Maybe Bp Graham managed a chasuble when presiding, but I wouldn't swear to it.

Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on :

Bishop Leonard wore always his own chasuble when he was the Presider at the Eucharist in St.Paul's
Cathedral.
His successors copied this tradition,however the current
Bishop is using now the vestments belonging to the Cathedral.
I recently visited Liverpool Cathedral,when you enter this imposing edifice,your eyes are drawn to the magnificent
Reredos of the High Altar and this gives you a very catholic feel.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Did the communicants stand or kneel to receive? If they knelt a cope would definitely get in the way.

Incidentally, which altar was used? I remember being surprised at a eucharist in the choir when a temporary central altar was used until communion, when the elements were taken to the East End altar and communicants walked past the central altar that had actually been used at knelt at the communion rails.

They might have well used the East End altar throughout.

Can't remember whether we stood or knelt to receive; I'd guess stood. I think the service might have been in St Faith's Chapel. Or St George's. I vaguely remember some confusion over which one I needed to find.

Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :

I will be in England later in the month, and will find myself in a place where a Christingle service is on offer. Beyond oranges with candles stuck in, I'm a but at a loss as what this might entail. Online-peeping has provided much information about the symbolism but not much about the actual service. I assume it is geared to children, and further assume I probably have no need of making a special trip, but I wonder what such a service is comprised of. This is in a cathedral if it matters.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

[Tangent] I glanced at the title of the thread in the menu and momentarily read "Sundried liturgical questions" and wondered if I had strayed to Heaven's "Potluck: Recipes 2016".[/tangent] [Snigger]

Carry on.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
I will be in England later in the month, and will find myself in a place where a Christingle service is on offer. Beyond oranges with candles stuck in, I'm a but at a loss as what this might entail. Online-peeping has provided much information about the symbolism but not much about the actual service. I assume it is geared to children, and further assume I probably have no need of making a special trip, but I wonder what such a service is comprised of. This is in a cathedral if it matters.

You might be better asking the cathedral itself if you want to know how they do it.
I have seen many Christingle services and while yes they are geared to children and families there has been a tremendous variation in how they are done.
From lively all age with not much liturgy – messy church - and some that were Eucharistic and quite formal.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

The curious thing about Christingle services in the UK is the idea that many people have that they are an ancient custom, universally observed, rather than a modern, local custom little known in most parts of the world.

Unless you're prepared to deal with explaining time and time again (as I did on first moving back to the UK), that no, you really have never heard of Christingles until recently, I would keep quiet about it.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
I'm in possession of a liturgical text that contains a rubric referring to "the hymn of Notker Balbulus". I understand that a number of texts are attributed to Notker the Stammerer but, as no incipit is given, I'm not sure exactly what this refers to. Does anyone have any ideas?

Hymn 494 in the old Dearmer/Vaughan Williams English Hymnal is attributed to B Notkar (840-912) and is the only work by him in the hymnal. Called the Alleluyatic Sequence its opening line is "The strain upraise of joy and praise", The tune given in Troyte No 2 (Irreg).

I knew a rather tasteful church with an understated catholicism which always sang it on the Sunday before Lent, to have a final blast of alleluias.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
The curious thing about Christingle services in the UK is the idea that many people have that they are an ancient custom, universally observed, rather than a modern, local custom little known in most parts of the world.

Unless you're prepared to deal with explaining time and time again (as I did on first moving back to the UK), that no, you really have never heard of Christingles until recently, I would keep quiet about it.

AFAIK in Canada it is mainly found in Mennonite churches. Otherwise I can't say that I've heard of it. A Presbyterian minister has just told me by telephone that it's new to her as well.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

I remember having to ask on the ship a few years ago what a Christingle service is. They're completely unheard of in my neck of the woods.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

We have one every year, a week or so before Christmas, to end the 'autumn term' of our affiliated Scouts, Cubs, and Beavers groups. The kidz themselves make the Christingles, and the service (appropriate songs, readings, prayers, and short homily) is based on material in Common Worship: Times and Seasons.

We usually get around 150 adults and children - a full church - so a good opportunity to preach the Gospel to many who might come to no other Christmas service. It's open to all, not just the uniformed youngsters and their families, but we also have a Crib Service on Christmas Eve for the even younger ones!

IJ

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I remember having to ask on the ship a few years ago what a Christingle service is. They're completely unheard of in my neck of the woods.

Lucky you!

Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on :

While we are on the subject of Christingles, thought people might like to see this that I stumbled upon yesterday [Smile]

Posted by Doone (# 18470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
While we are on the subject of Christingles, thought people might like to see this that I stumbled upon yesterday

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

I have a question from this morning's service. I go to an Anglican church, where, as in many Anglican churches, the gospel is brought from the front to the middle of the congregation to be read. We stand to sing a hymn immediately prior to this and remain standing to hear the gospel. Today there was a visiting priest in the congregation. He was not known to me but as recognisable as a priest because he wore a clerical shirt and collar.

He stayed sitting down for the hymn, and stood up only when the reader of the gospel arrived with the bible. He was not an old or infirm man so I think he did this because he considered it appropriate. Is this a usual practice in some churches ? Does it signify anything in particular ?

Posted by keibat (# 5287) on :

quote:
Today there was a visiting priest in the congregation. He was not known to me but as recognisable as a priest because he wore a clerical shirt and collar.

He stayed sitting down for the hymn, and stood up only when the reader of the gospel arrived with the bible. He was not an old or infirm man so I think he did this because he considered it appropriate. Is this a usual practice in some churches ? Does it signify anything in particular ?

Lutherans sit for hymns; I therefore surmise he is a Lutheran pastor. I have certainly encountered situations where Lutherans attending an Anglican service have remained firmly seated when all around them rose to sing. But Lutherans (at least the ones I am familiar with) do stand to hear the Gospel.

I lived/have lived for over 40 years in Lutheran countries/regions and have never understood why anyone able to stand would prefer to sit to sing – it just doesn't help the breathing!

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Yesterday's family service was combined with Christingle. Church was absolutely packed and the extra chairs had to be used [Yipee]

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by keibat:
Lutherans sit for hymns

I believe this is because the hymns are so bloody long (every line incoporating every doctrinal exactitude and every heretical inexactitude requiring correction known to religio-humanity)

Posted by Ratratrat (# 18669) on :

At the weekend, I was visiting a friend and attended his parish church. My parish church back home is pretty traditional when it comes to the CofE liturgy, but I was struck that my friend's church had the Summary of the Law and the Comfortable Words, which I don't think I've ever heard recited before.

Could somebody explain to me when these (and other parts of the CofE liturgy) stopped being used widely, and why?

Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on :

quote:
posted by Ratratrat:

my friend's church had the Summary of the Law and the Comfortable Words, which I don't think I've ever heard recited before.

It may well be a seasonal variation. If I remember correctly, when I was back in England, our Lent and Advent liturgies used the summary of the Law and Comfortable words.

Here in Scotland, we have both in the Advent variation of the 1970 Liturgy we use (Scottish Episcopal Church).

[ 05. December 2016, 15:52: Message edited by: kingsfold ]

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

Ratatrat, you don't say what order of service you are used to, but the Holy Communion service in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, taken strictly and literally, uses the Ten Commandments, but the Summary of Christ's Law is a substitute for that and the Ten Commandments are seldom to never, read out.

The Comfortable Words are a normal feature of 1662 BCP Communion and both the Summary of Christ's Law and the Comfortable Words are very familiar to adherents of that liturgical rite.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by keibat:
Lutherans sit for hymns . . . .

Interesting. I've never encountered that among American Lutherans. Around here, they stand to sing.

But regardless, surely this falls under a "when in Canterbury" rule. Even if the custom of ones own tradition is to sing seated, it seems very odd to insist on remaining seated when visiting a congregation of another tradition and that congregation stands to sing.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

At Lutheran services I've been to, the custom was to stand for the opening and closing hymns, but to sit for the Gradual hymn (standing up for the Gospel, of course), and for the Offertory hymn.

IJ

Posted by Ratratrat (# 18669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
Ratatrat, you don't say what order of service you are used to, but the Holy Communion service in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, taken strictly and literally, uses the Ten Commandments, but the Summary of Christ's Law is a substitute for that and the Ten Commandments are seldom to never, read out.

The Comfortable Words are a normal feature of 1662 BCP Communion and both the Summary of Christ's Law and the Comfortable Words are very familiar to adherents of that liturgical rite.

Hi EF,

I am used to Order One Traditional Language, in which I believe the Decalogue/Summary of the Law and the Comfortable Words are options, but as I mention, I have never heard them used.

Do you have any idea when and why these options fell out of widespread use?

Posted by Ratratrat (# 18669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
Ratatrat, you don't say what order of service you are used to, but the Holy Communion service in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, taken strictly and literally, uses the Ten Commandments, but the Summary of Christ's Law is a substitute for that and the Ten Commandments are seldom to never, read out.

The Comfortable Words are a normal feature of 1662 BCP Communion and both the Summary of Christ's Law and the Comfortable Words are very familiar to adherents of that liturgical rite.

Posted by keibat (# 5287) on :

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by keibat:
Lutherans sit for hymns
To which, Zappa replied: I believe this is because the hymns are so bloody long (every line incoporating every doctrinal exactitude and every heretical inexactitude requiring correction known to religio-humanity)

Really? Not at Lutheran services I've attended. The hymn tradition is largely similar to that of the main anglo churches in character, and indeed there's a lot of overlap not only within the anglo countries but also in Continental Europe.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ratratrat:
.. I am used to Order One Traditional Language, in which I believe the Decalogue/Summary of the Law and the Comfortable Words are options, but as I mention, I have never heard them used.

Do you have any idea when and why these options fell out of widespread use?

I'm under the impression the use of the Summary of the Law to precede the Confession is quite widespread. The full Ten Commandments less so, though until quite recently we had them regularly in Advent and Lent.

The Comfortable Words are part of the BCP form of service and are available as an option in Common Worship Order 1. I rather miss them and wish they were used more often. I am fairly sure they are compulsory in Order 2 which is basically the BCP with a few permitted alternatives + a modern language alternative.

Incidentally, I can't off-hand remember when I last encountered Order One Traditional Language rather than the more usual form. It may just be the limited diversity of my experience but I get the impression it is becoming quite rare.

Somebody who knows more about these things can perhaps elucidate further but I don't think all the Eucharistic prayers exist in Traditional Language form.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

I suspect Zappa was being ironic... [Razz]

I hope...

IJ

Posted by keibat (# 5287) on :

Ecclesiastical Flip-flop wrote:

quote:
The Comfortable Words are a normal feature of 1662 BCP Communion and both the Summary of Christ's Law and the Comfortable Words are very familiar to adherents of that liturgical rite.

To which Ratratrat replied:
Hi EF,
I am used to Order One Traditional Language, in which I believe the Decalogue/Summary of the Law and the Comfortable Words are options, but as I mention, I have never heard them used.

Do you have any idea when and why these options fell out of widespread use?

Flipflop has it right: 1662 specifies the full 10 Commandments, each with its own liturgical response. Our Lord's Summary of the Law was authorized at some point – probably C19, possibly not till 1928 – and became very widely used, but the Full Ten were still certainly in use down to the end of the BCP Era (i.e. 1960s).
– I'm not familiar with CW Order One Trad, so can't comment on that; in our parish, at BCP Eucharists the priest usually uses the Summary, but this last weekend I know the Full Ten were used. – As for the Comfortable Words, in my experience they are used at BCP celebrations without exception; I'm quite surprised to hear that they might be omitted.
Can other Shipmates who are familiar with Order One Trad comment?

Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
While we are on the subject of Christingles, thought people might like to see this that I stumbled upon yesterday

I gave the Christingle a miss in the end but did attend the 'Advent Procession' in the same place, which turns out was basically Advent Lessons and Carols by candlelight and was magnificent.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
I suspect Zappa was being ironic...

I hope...

IJ

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

We use the APBA Second Order (as does virtually everywhere outside Sydney, Armidale and North-West Aust) and that has the summary of the Law before general confession; also comfortable words between intercessions and Humble Access.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ratratrat:

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
Ratatrat, you don't say what order of service you are used to, but the Holy Communion service in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, taken strictly and literally, uses the Ten Commandments, but the Summary of Christ's Law is a substitute for that and the Ten Commandments are seldom to never, read out.

The Comfortable Words are a normal feature of 1662 BCP Communion and both the Summary of Christ's Law and the Comfortable Words are very familiar to adherents of that liturgical rite.
Hi EF,

I am used to Order One Traditional Language, in which I believe the Decalogue/Summary of the Law and the Comfortable Words are options, but as I mention, I have never heard them used.

Do you have any idea when and why these options fell out of widespread use?

If you have never heard them used, you may be very parochial and not given to going round to other churches very much.

Off the top of my heard, I cannot answer your question, if other shipmates haven't beaten me to it. I can always get back to you later.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
If you have never heard them used, you may be very parochial and not given to going round to other churches very much.

Off the top of my heard, I cannot answer your question, if other shipmates haven't beaten me to it. I can always get back to you later.

Most worshipping Christians are very parochial, and rightly so: stability is a virtue, ecclesiastical tourism not necessarily so. In any case, it depends on which churches you visit. It is quite possible that most churches in a particular area have a similar approach to liturgy.

As for when and why these features fell out of general use, I would say from the advent of the 'alternative services' in the 1960s, or at least the ASB in 1980, when they were specifically marked as optional. Why: much to do with the playing down of the note of judgement and penitence in Christianity generally (but there could be some cause and effect reinforcement going on there.) As well as the sense, in the case of the Comfortable Words, that there is no obvious natural place for them that doesn't interrupt the flow of the liturgy.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I’m certain fiddling about with the BCP pre-dated the alternative series, even in MOTR churches.

Two examples.

When I first began to attend 9.30 Holy Communion I was duly handed a BCP. I wondered whatever happened to the Exhortations. Anyone ever heard them said? But they are a mandatory part of the service.

Father Colin Stephenson was Administrator of Walsingham in the late 50s and was often asked to help out at neighbouring parishes. He had no wish to impose Anglo Catholic bits and tried to give them what they wanted, ie straight BCP.

After one such service a churchwarden came up and said “Thank you very much, padre, but we aren’t as High Church as you and we don’t have the Ten Commandments.”

(The joke being I don’t suppose the Ten Commandments were ever used at mass at Walsingham or similar churches.)

Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
We use the APBA Second Order (as does virtually everywhere outside Sydney, Armidale and North-West Aust) and that has the summary of the Law before general confession; also comfortable words between intercessions and Humble Access.

Gee D, while you are totally correct with regards to the liturgy as it is in print, I draw your attention to the rubric which says, in respect of the Summary of the Law, that it "may be used according to local and seasonal custom, in any appropriate form and sequence - and allows for 'other suitable passages' with regards to the Confession in its earlier position, while in its second place (before the Greeting of Peace), it says 'The deacon or other minister introduces the confession with the following [God is steadfast in love....], a seasonal introduction, or other suitable words.

With regards to the Comfortable Words, again it is an optional extra (along with the and/or Prayer of Approach), signified by the thick grey line running down the page.

From my experience of churches of the same ilk here in Sydney and hence in the wider national body, each Sunday you are more likely to have the seasonal introductions than the summary of the law; and only sporadic use of the Comfortable Words.

As it is Advent, thought I would include the Invitation to Confession for Advent:

The Lord comes, brining to light things now hidden in darkness, and disclosing the purposes of the heart. Let us open our hearts and prepare for his coming, confessing our sins in penitence and faith.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Thanks for that detail; it's so long since I actually looked at a prayerbook that I'd forgotten the rubrics at the side.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

As for when and why these features fell out of general use, I would say from the advent of the 'alternative services' in the 1960s, or at least the ASB in 1980, when they were specifically marked as optional. Why: much to do with the playing down of the note of judgement and penitence in Christianity generally (but there could be some cause and effect reinforcement going on there.) As well as the sense, in the case of the Comfortable Words, that there is no obvious natural place for them that doesn't interrupt the flow of the liturgy.

Growing up with the ASB in Somerset I was used to the summary of the law being used regularly, while the comfortable words were a regular feature of the liturgy from Common Worship used when I lived in West Yorkshire. I don't know how common that experience was.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
If you have never heard them used, you may be very parochial and not given to going round to other churches very much.

Off the top of my heard, I cannot answer your question, if other shipmates haven't beaten me to it. I can always get back to you later.
Most worshipping Christians are very parochial, and rightly so: stability is a virtue, ecclesiastical tourism not necessarily so. In any case, it depends on which churches you visit. It is quite possible that most churches in a particular area have a similar approach to liturgy.

By turns, I am both very parochial and at other times, I am incapable of being parochial, or my E F-f name, wouldn't be what it is!

I challenge any Anglican Vicar to ask me to be a churchwarden!

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Can anyone think of a good reason why the church in the parish where I live is deciding to dispense with the Circumcision, Naming of Christ and Feast of the Holy Family and go straight to The Epiphany on 1st January?

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Maybe they want to celebrate the Epiphany ahead of the actual day, so that The Baptism of Christ can be properly observed on Sunday 8th January, as per the Lectionary?

The Lectionary permits transfer of the Epiphany to Sunday 8th January if required.

Whatever, I doubt if many churches will have a sizeable congregation on 1st January, anyway.

IJ

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Can anyone think of a good reason why the church in the parish where I live is deciding to dispense with the Circumcision, Naming of Christ and Feast of the Holy Family and go straight to The Epiphany on 1st January?

Again, we hark back to the BCP 1662 and the feast of the Circumcision occurs in that Kalendar on 1st. January.

The modern RC Kalendar on 1st January commemorates, the solemnity of 'Mary Mother of God'. Yes, in a different Kalendar, 1st January commemorates 'The Naming of Christ'.

In the modern RC Kalendar, the feast of the Holy Family is kept on the Sunday between Christmas and New Year, or if it doesn't occur, on 30th. December.

I understand that the feast of the Baptism of Christ is kept on the Sunday after Epiphany.

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:

I understand that the feast of the Baptism of Christ is kept on the Sunday after Epiphany.

In 2017 (this year [Biased]

) the Baptism has to be squeezed in on Monday 9th Jan if one has celebrated Epiphany on Sunday the 8th.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:

I understand that the feast of the Baptism of Christ is kept on the Sunday after Epiphany.
In 2017 (this year ) the Baptism has to be squeezed in on Monday 9th Jan if one has celebrated Epiphany on Sunday the 8th.

That thought crossed my mind, but I was trying to keep it relatively simple.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Can anyone think of a good reason why the church in the parish where I live is deciding to dispense with the Circumcision, Naming of Christ and Feast of the Holy Family and go straight to The Epiphany on 1st January?

Maybe they don't want to be reminded that Jesus:

a) was Jewish and
b) had sexual organs

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Jesus ...

had sexual organs

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Yes, he did - and I've even heard that a (very) far-sighted Rabbi, knowing who the child was, saved the Holy Foreskin for future generations of the faithful to venerate (somewhere or other).

[Paranoid]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Damn - should've checked beforehand. It wasn't the Rabbi, it was an old Hebrew woman who saved the foreskin (or Holy Prepuce). It says so in Wikipedia, so it must be right:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Prepuce

IJ

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

I believe that for those following the newer calendars, it just works out this year that Epiphany, if not kept on the 6, has to be on the 1st, because Sunday the 8 is the Baptism of the Lord. This came up on one of the rubrical groups on Facebook.

We will have our usual High Mass of the Circumcision; it will just be on Sunday instead of an additional high mass during the week.

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:
I believe that for those following the newer calendars, it just works out this year that Epiphany, if not kept on the 6, has to be on the 1st, because Sunday the 8 is the Baptism of the Lord. This came up on one of the rubrical groups on Facebook.

We will have our usual High Mass of the Circumcision; it will just be on Sunday instead of an additional high mass during the week.

Well it seems not to be so in the (RC) Diocese of Westminster. I did check their calendar.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

The Epiphany outranks the Baptism of the Lord, so if one is to be dumped out of a church's calendar it has to be the latter.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:
I believe that for those following the newer calendars, it just works out this year that Epiphany, if not kept on the 6, has to be on the 1st, because Sunday the 8 is the Baptism of the Lord. This came up on one of the rubrical groups on Facebook.

We will have our usual High Mass of the Circumcision; it will just be on Sunday instead of an additional high mass during the week.

If the Epiphany is kept on Sunday 8, the Baptism is shunted to Monday 9. I've checked Universalis.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
It says so in Wikipedia, so it must be right:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Prepuce

What wikipedia doesn't make clear is how the foreskin(s) are preserved.

Are they pickled in ethanol or vinegar or just miraculous? And did they look like lumps of several-millennia-old foreskin?

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

On a practical note the mohel (ritual circumciser) asked me if I wanted to keep the boys' "bits" (29 and 25 years ago).
Apparently some people do. They keep them in the bottle of wine used in the ceremony.
Why they do this and whether they are brought out ever again I do not know. Nor do I want to.

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

Regarding the confusion of festivals following Christmas:

Liturgical revisers (of varying levels of intelligence) have so mucked about with Jan 1 (by whatever name), Epiphany, Baptism of Our Lord, that it is nearly impossible to make any logical sense of this segment of the year, since some of it is governed by calendar date and some of it by day of the week.
And then there's Innocents-Steven-and-John, trying to get their licks in.
The RCC's penchant for renaming and shifting stuff around also tends to confuse others who more-or-less vaguely follow its lead.

Sigh -- it was all so much simpler before Trent! [Confused]

And I still miss the opportunity to celebrate one of the 3 'witness days' on a Sunday, recalling a long-ago Holy Innocents mass with red vestments surrounded by masses of poinsettias.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
On a practical note the mohel (ritual circumciser) asked me if I wanted to keep the boys' "bits" (29 and 25 years ago).
Apparently some people do. They keep them in the bottle of wine used in the ceremony.
Why they do this and whether they are brought out ever again I do not know. Nor do I want to.

I thought that Judaism insists that the forsekin be buried.

[ 10. December 2016, 16:09: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
On a practical note the mohel (ritual circumciser) asked me if I wanted to keep the boys' "bits" (29 and 25 years ago).
Apparently some people do. They keep them in the bottle of wine used in the ceremony.
Why they do this and whether they are brought out ever again I do not know. Nor do I want to.
I thought that Judaism insists that the forsekin be buried.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that in C18 italy castrati were given their removed bits to carry around in a little bag, so that they could in due course be buried with them. This was so that they would have them restored in the resurrection. However Mk 12:25 would suggest they will be neither necessary nor useful there.

Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
On a practical note the mohel (ritual circumciser) asked me if I wanted to keep the boys' "bits" (29 and 25 years ago).

I recall the old gag about the mohel who kept all the foreskins he'd removed in his career and, on his retirement, handed them to a leather worker to be made into something useful. When he expressed dissatisfaction with the finished product, the leather worker said, "It's only a wallet now, but if you rub it, it turns into a suitcase." I wouldn't dream of relating such a joke in Ecclesiantics though. [Biased]

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:
I believe that for those following the newer calendars, it just works out this year that Epiphany, if not kept on the 6, has to be on the 1st, because Sunday the 8 is the Baptism of the Lord. This came up on one of the rubrical groups on Facebook.

We will have our usual High Mass of the Circumcision; it will just be on Sunday instead of an additional high mass during the week.
If the Epiphany is kept on Sunday 8, the Baptism is shunted to Monday 9. I've checked Universalis.

That's more sensible. Our Book of Alternative Services has this:

quote:
When January 1 is a Sunday, these propers will be used instead of those for the First Sunday after [sic] Christmas, or those of the Epiphany may be used.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Yes, he did - and I've even heard that a (very) far-sighted Rabbi, knowing who the child was, saved the Holy Foreskin for future generations of the faithful to venerate (somewhere or other).

IJ

A hymn for the feast.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Yes, well. A candidate for the Dead Horses thread, although it was probably written with great faith and sincerity.

Posted by David Goode (# 9224) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
[QUOTE]Are they pickled in ethanol or vinegar or just miraculous? And did they look like lumps of several-millennia-old foreskin?

More like whelks in vinegar, I should think. Was the old lady forewarned to exercise such formidable foreskin foresight.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Formalin would have been best, had she been forewarned long enough in advance to foreorder it.

Isn't English a fun language?

IJ

Posted by David Goode (# 9224) on :

It was obviously foreordained.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Fortuitously!

(I'll get me coat, and away to the Circus...)

IJ

Posted by David Goode (# 9224) on :

I'll forego any more puns.

Coat's already on...

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

Cut it out, will you? [Killing me]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Forsooth, Sir - wherefore?

IJ

Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :

I hesitate to interrupt the proceedings, but a couple days have passed, so...

Most of the time I attend the 11am at the local Anglican Cathedral, occasionally the 10:30 at a local parish church. (They're equidistant from me - the Cathedral gives me those precious extra 30 minutes.) When it comes to the Psalm, at the Cathedral the superb choir sings it while the congregation sits. At the parish church - which has an excellent choir of its own - the congregation remains seated and reads the psalm aloud while the choir is silent. The latter practice strikes me as very Protestant (no problem with that, per se). Could anyone explain this to me?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

If anything I'd say the Protestant things was congregational (and metrical) psalm singing. Reading the psalm is something I've encountered more often at morning prayer when there is no music anyway.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
the congregation remains seated and reads the psalm aloud while the choir is silent. The latter practice strikes me as very Protestant (no problem with that, per se). Could anyone explain this to me?

From my childhood attending Middle of the Road Mattins and Evensong I remember that congregational singing of Anglican chant (no pointing or harmony) is so utterly dire that reciting psalms antiphonally with a break at the caesura is far more prayerful and monatic.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Maybe the choir is not up to Anglican chant, which is quite as tricky in it way as a Byrd mass.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

As "high church Nonconformists", we frequently have the congregation read psalms responsively with the Minister. And, very occasionally, the choir chants a psalm in the Anglican way - but, to be honest, we're not very familiar with the idiom so we don't do it very well.

Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :

Well, the choir would be up to Anglican chant - they've tackled some pretty challenging stuff - so the congregational reading strikes me as a choice rather than making a virtue of a necessity. The church's tradition is pretty high, so I'm finding "high church Nonconformist" an intriguing explanation.

I've found in other congregations, when I've asked why they do things a certain way, I've been greeted a moment of silence, then a shrug, and, "We've always done it that way." Lost to the mists of time.

[ 16. December 2016, 11:21: Message edited by: Pangolin Guerre ]

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

I'm trying to think which parish church that might be. Apart from my own former parish (a "ministry" though not formally a chapel of ease of the cathedral) which uses the traditional Roman graduals, I can only think of two or three in the deanery with a choral tradition and a 10:30 service.

I find Anglican chant at the Eucharist to be pretty rare in Canada. Plainsong is typical for the psalm.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

I suspect the reason (apart from "we've always done it that way") is that your parish church wants the congregation to say the psalm (and doesn't think they'll be up to whatever method of singing it might use) and St. JAmes Cathedral doesn't want the people to be involved because of the excellence of the choir. (I write as one who worshipped at the cathedral, for a short while, some decades ago when the choir was certainly not excellent but was very ambitious.)

As for "protestant" singing of metrical psalms, the major denomination around here in question is the United CHurch (with presbyterian and methodist roots): I"ve yet to encounter a UCC church that used any method except the minister reading a couple of verses of a psalm. Certainly no congregational or choir involvement. But then I would not say my exploration of UCC worship has been terribly comprehensive, so I may just have hit on the exceptions. There isn't a very large selection of metrical psalms in their current hymnbook, though.

JOhn

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

By "high church nonconformist" I mean:

- detailed liturgy with written-out prayers and responsive readings;
- robed choir and minister in gown and collar;
- organ (not worship band);
- use of high pulpit for preaching ...

... as opposed to informal leading of worship, "chatty" prayers, everything led from a lectern etc.

(Possibly more of a "sacramental" approach to Communion too, rather than a purely memorialist approach).

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Yes, he did - and I've even heard that a (very) far-sighted Rabbi, knowing who the child was, saved the Holy Foreskin for future generations of the faithful to venerate (somewhere or other).

IJ
A hymn for the feast.

But the proper hymn for the feast is surely 'O Sacred Head, Sore Wounded.' (I'll get my cope.)

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I think you'll find the hymn for the circumcision is O happy day, when first was poured the blood of our redeeming Lord!

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Well, that's one I've never encountered. I wonder when anyone outside a monastic community last sang it. At least it's in Long Metre. So it shouldn't be difficult to find a tune to fit it to.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Yur tiz - though the tune (quite a nice one, IMHO) is not familiar to me..

http://www.oremus.org/hymnal/o/o245.html

Possibly hymn and tune are both of Lutheran provenance?

IJ

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I think you'll find the hymn for the circumcision is O happy day, when first was poured the blood of our redeeming Lord!

Ouch

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I think you'll find the hymn for the circumcision is O happy day, when first was poured the blood of our redeeming Lord!

Don't forget the line from Lord of the Dance:

"They cut me down and I leapt up high"

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

No baby of an age to need/get the attentions of a bris is capable of holding up its own head, never mind leaping.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I think you'll find the hymn for the circumcision is O happy day, when first was poured the blood of our redeeming Lord!

If by THE hymn for the day you mean the office hymn, it certainly isn’t. (It’s is in the first person for one thing.) As the Octave Day of Christmas the office hymns will be the same as for Christmas Day, as appears in the dear old original English Hymnal and in the Roman and Benedictine breviaries.

English Hymnal gives two hymns for the Circumcision, “Conquering kings their title take” and “O happy day”. The last is a translation of a hymn by S Bernault ob. 1724,

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

The second of which is the one mentioned above, and to which I have provided a linky.

IJ

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

Where does the idea that you can only take Communion once a day come from, and how widespread is it? (For myself, I communicate 2 or 3 times every Sunday. But that is because I serve 4 different congregations, and it would feel odd to celebrate and not receive with any of them - almost as though I was not in communication with them.)

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Is the Feast of the Naming and Circumcision of Our Lord the same as the Feast of the Holy Name of Jesus?

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Where does the idea that you can only take Communion once a day come from, and how widespread is it? (For myself, I communicate 2 or 3 times every Sunday. But that is because I serve 4 different congregations, and it would feel odd to celebrate and not receive with any of them - almost as though I was not in communication with them.)

I have heard of this rule articulated to me by a very traditional Anglo-catholic priest. He said that it wasn't that you "couldn't" take communion more than once, but that you did not receive any additional spiritual effect if you took it more than once a day, I imagine it was to combat a superstitious notion that the more communion you receive, the more blessing you get.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

Roman Catholc canon law regulates the reception of communion. It formerly limited reception to once a day. The 1983 code of canon law expanded that to twice a day, provided the second time is at Mass. Vaticum is always permitted. Yes, the purpose is to discourage superstition.

[ 27. December 2016, 01:09: Message edited by: Ceremoniar ]

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Is the Feast of the Naming and Circumcision of Our Lord the same as the Feast of the Holy Name of Jesus?

Yes and no.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I'm under the impression, though I don't know where from, that the person who celebrates is required to receive. What Robert Armin says, would strike me as a very good reason why this should be so. There are doubtless others. If there were a conflict between that an another rule, I would have thought that one would prevail.

I've also been told on more than one occasion that there is no specific rule in the CofE against receiving more than once in the same day. People may follow that as a preference if they wish, but that is up to them. So if there is a rule elsewhere, but you are CofE, it does not apply to you.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Just so - 'The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England'!

[Two face]

Receiving the Sacrament 2 or 3 times each Sunday, with different congregations, seems sensible enough (even though presiding at 3 celebrations must sometimes be tiring...).

IJ

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

The Bishop of Rome has indeed jurisdiction over the many Roman Catholics in England (approx. 5 million),as well as in other parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and northern Ireland.

Although the rule for many centuries was for Catholics to receive Communion at least once a year ( and that at Easter or thereabouts) and at most once a day, this did not apply to priests who had to celebrate Mass more than once a day for pastoral reasons - binating or trinating for pastoral reasons with permission of the local bishop - for pastoral reasons.

One of the reasons for introducing the new law about receiving Communion more than once a day was for priests who had celebrated Mass and then gone to some other special Mass - like a wedding or even a funeral where they were unable to communicate,if they were not the celebrant - again at that time concelebration was only in its infancy.

The rule now is for people to be able to receive Communion more than once a day - if they are attending a second Mass,but not just to walk into a church and receive Communion without having participated in the Mass.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

My point, Forthview, was (as you will, of course, have realised) that the rules of the RCC do not apply to Anglicans.

[Roll Eyes]

And I'm afraid that I know one or two of the 5 million Romans who do not obey their own church's rules....

IJ

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Of course,my friend,Episcopal digit,I realise that the pope's writ does not apply to Anglicans,even to those who claim to be Catholics.

I'm sure also that the phrase was meant to be taken tongue in cheek.

Indeed the Bishop of Rome's jurisdiction does not extend any further than to those who listen to him and that not only in England but throughout the world.

Like yourself I know many Catholics who pay little heed to what the pope has to say, including
aome who believe that the pope is not Catholic enough.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
I'm under the impression, though I don't know where from, that the person who celebrates is required to receive.

Possibly from Gregory Dix who with his Fourfold model of the Eucharist wrote to the effect that the presider receiving the Sacrament, "completes the consecration".

So if a presider celebrates but does not receive, that could possibly from a pure Gregory Dix point of view, entail that the Mass is invalid or at best irregular.

quote:

I've also been told on more than one occasion that there is no specific rule in the CofE against receiving more than once in the same day. People may follow that as a preference if they wish, but that is up to them. So if there is a rule elsewhere, but you are CofE, it does not apply to you.

Considering that people fret and worry about people coming to church once on a Sunday, I think we shouldn't be worrying about the eager beavers who come to church more than once.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
presiding at 3 celebrations must sometimes be tiring...

You might say that - I couldn't possibly comment. [Biased]

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

quote:
I'm under the impression, though I don't know where from, that the person who celebrates is required to receive.
Possibly from Gregory Dix who with his Fourfold model of the Eucharist wrote to the effect that the presider receiving the Sacrament, "completes the consecration".

It is more than that. For Catholics, the mass is a sacrifice. The priest's reception of communion completes the sacrifice.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Is the Feast of the Naming and Circumcision of Our Lord the same as the Feast of the Holy Name of Jesus?
Yes and no.

Well I'm glad that's cleared up. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Tobias (# 18613) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Is the Feast of the Naming and Circumcision of Our Lord the same as the Feast of the Holy Name of Jesus?

This is indeed a difficult question to answer, given that different churches often use different names for the same occasion, or put feasts on different days.

As far as I know, there is no calendar that has two distinct feasts with those exact names.

There are calendars that have 'The Circumcision of Our Lord' on the first of January, and a separate feast of the Holy Name of Jesus on another date.

[If you're interested:
The 1662 BCP has the Circumcision on Jan. 1, with collect and readings. It also has 'Name of Jesus' written in the calendar on August 7, the day after the Transfiguration. (I think this was the date of the feast in the Sarum Rite.) But it makes no provision for the observance of the day as a feast - nothing beyond putting the name in the calendar.
The proposed BCP of 1928 provided a collect and readings for the Holy Name (still on Aug. 7), which it included in the category of "Lesser Feasts and Fasts and other days which it is permitted to observe".
In the old form of the Roman Rite (pre-Vatican II, and still in use nowadays as the 'extraordinary form') there is, in addition to the Circumcision on Jan. 1, a Feast of the Holy Name on the Sunday between Jan. 1 and the Epiphany, or, if there isn't such a Sunday, on Jan. 2.
In the modern, 'ordinary form' of the Roman Rite, the feast of the Holy Name was initially removed, since the giving of the Holy Name was already recalled in the gospel for Jan. 1. (which, in that calendar, is not the Circumcision at all, but the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God.) But popular demand (I don't know how widespread) led to its being reinstated - but this time only as an 'optional memorial', and always on Jan. 3.]

For what it may be worth (and I'm no expert on this particular point), the Canadian Book of Alternative Services gives Jan. 1 simply as 'The Naming of Jesus', without mention of the circumcision, and without a feast of the Holy Name on another date. The Canadian BCP of 1962 has "The Octave Day of Christmas and Circumcision of our Lord, being New Year’s Day" on Jan. 1, and has "The Name of Jesus" on Aug. 7.

I think that where a decision has been made to have "the Naming of our Lord" on January 1, either on its own, or (as in the CofE's Common Worship) combined with "the Circumcision", commemoration of "the Naming" is treated as being equivalent to commemoration of "the Holy Name". It seems that in such calendars there is not a second feast specifically of the Holy Name.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Is the Feast of the Naming and Circumcision of Our Lord the same as the Feast of the Holy Name of Jesus?
Yes and no.
Well I'm glad that's cleared up.

Tempted to call it a very Anglican solution save that Ceremoniar has left Anglicanism and gone to Rome. Perhaps some of his Anglicanism did not get washed off?

Posted by Planeta Plicata (# 17543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tobias:
In the old form of the Roman Rite (pre-Vatican II, and still in use nowadays as the 'extraordinary form') there is, in addition to the Circumcision on Jan. 1, a Feast of the Holy Name on the Sunday between Jan. 1 and the Epiphany, or, if there isn't such a Sunday, on Jan. 2.

If I can be needlessly pedantic, the General Roman Calendar of 1954 was the last one to have a feast day of the Circumcision -- it was eliminated from the General Roman Calendar of 1960, which is the only one authorized for use in the extraordinary form today,

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

James Kiefer's calendar for The Episcopal Church has it as the Holy Name of Jesus, or the Circumcision of Christ - the heading reading to me as if it is the one event of naming and circumcision. Can anyone say if the circumcision was the day of naming also?

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

Luke 2.21 says

quote:
After eight days had passed, it was time to circumcise the child; and he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb

which implies that naming and circumcision went together.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Yes, for Jesus - but was that the usual custom? Just curious.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Historically, there was a widespread folk belief that babies hadn't really got their names until they had been baptised with them. A relative of mine was always said to have ended up with the wrong name because the vicar had got it wrong.

[ 29. December 2016, 08:19: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

It is certainly our tradition that the baptismal names are the proper names for a child. In reality though, the proper names are those on the registration documents. I know of one woman whose registered name is Jeniffer - her father had been celebrating a bit before he reached the registry.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

From Chabad.org:

quote:
A baby boy is given his Jewish name at the brit, ritual circumcision. The name chosen by the parents is considered prophetic. For this reason, it is customary for the couple not to discuss the name of their child with others, prior to the naming. The parents should also not call the child by the decided name, even between themselves, until it is bestowed at the circumcision.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Is the Feast of the Naming and Circumcision of Our Lord the same as the Feast of the Holy Name of Jesus?
Yes and no.
Well I'm glad that's cleared up.
Tempted to call it a very Anglican solution save that Ceremoniar has left Anglicanism and gone to Rome. Perhaps some of his Anglicanism did not get washed off?

Not at all sure what that means.

It is true that there have always been three elements focused on the first of January: the Octave Day of the Nativity, the Circumcision, and the Holy Mother of God. Regardless of what the day has been called at various points in Catholic history, all three elements have been, and continue to be, evident in the propers of the Mass of that feast day. The Holy Name, a much later feast, is obviously related to the events of the same day, but has been observed on other dates, most commonly between the first of January and Epiphany.

Posted by Peter Owen (# 134) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm under the impression, though I don't know where from, that the person who celebrates is required to receive.

In the Church of England, it is in Canon B12 para 2.

2. Every minister, as often as he shall celebrate the Holy Communion, shall receive that sacrament himself.

It is also required by the rubrics of both the Book of Common Prayer and Common Worship.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

One hears occasionally of clergy celebrating (say) 3 Eucharists on one Sunday, who overdo it with the consecrated wine, and have to get one of the wardens of church no.3 to drive them home...

*hic* Go in peash, to love and sherve the Lord! *hic*

IJ

Posted by Tobias (# 18613) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Planeta Plicata:

quote:
Originally posted by Tobias: In the old form of the Roman Rite (pre-Vatican II, and still in use nowadays as the 'extraordinary form') there is, in addition to the Circumcision on Jan. 1, a Feast of the Holy Name on the Sunday between Jan. 1 and the Epiphany, or, if there isn't such a Sunday, on Jan. 2.
If I can be needlessly pedantic, the General Roman Calendar of 1954 was the last one to have a feast day of the Circumcision -- it was eliminated from the General Roman Calendar of 1960, which is the only one authorized for use in the extraordinary form today,

Quite right. [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by David Goode (# 9224) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Planeta Plicata:
If I can be needlessly pedantic, the General Roman Calendar of 1954 was the last one to have a feast day of the Circumcision -- it was eliminated from the General Roman Calendar of 1960, which is the only one authorized for use in the extraordinary form today,

How appropriate: in 1960, the feast of the Circumcision got the chop.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

An announcer on our ABC gave details about a programme for this evening, noting that today was the Feast of the Circumcision and that one of the compositions was perhaps appropriately by Thomas Carver.

[ 01. January 2017, 07:15: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Peter Owen:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm under the impression, though I don't know where from, that the person who celebrates is required to receive.
In the Church of England, it is in Canon B12 para 2.

2. Every minister, as often as he shall celebrate the Holy Communion, shall receive that sacrament himself.

It is also required by the rubrics of both the Book of Common Prayer and Common Worship.

Thank you for that confirmation.

If any shipmate is interested, by the way, the sermon this morning was about circumcision.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

Several years ago our local newspaper had a story about a circumcision having to be postponed because the mohel had been in an accident on his way to the bris. He'd been cut off by another car.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

Perhaps he tried to get ahead of the other driver?

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

Someone should have given him some tips about driving.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
One hears occasionally of clergy celebrating (say) 3 Eucharists on one Sunday, who overdo it with the consecrated wine, and have to get one of the wardens of church no.3 to drive them home...

*hic* Go in peash, to love and sherve the Lord! *hic*

IJ

This is a problem which many Canadian (and I imagine in other countries as well) clergy have in multi-point parishes where three celebrations in a morning are not entirely unknown. I remember a certain venerable and respectable cleric telling how, at the beginning of his ministry when he was still judging how much wine to consecrate, he erred several times in a row and appeared at his Sunday lunch, much the worse for wear to his wife's surprise and disapproval, and grateful that he had not been stopped by the constabulary.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Why do none of these priests ever have the common sense to invite other communicants to share in consuming the remains?

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

These days I do, if there are excessive remains. However, I was caught out when a curate, many years ago. I had been put on antihistamines for the first time, and not warned about the effect they have on alcohol. Thankfully I got home safely, but couldn't work out why driving was so much effort.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
One hears occasionally of clergy celebrating (say) 3 Eucharists on one Sunday, who overdo it with the consecrated wine, and have to get one of the wardens of church no.3 to drive them home...

*hic* Go in peash, to love and sherve the Lord! *hic*

IJ
This is a problem which many Canadian (and I imagine in other countries as well) clergy have in multi-point parishes where three celebrations in a morning are not entirely unknown. I remember a certain venerable and respectable cleric telling how, at the beginning of his ministry when he was still judging how much wine to consecrate, he erred several times in a row and appeared at his Sunday lunch, much the worse for wear to his wife's surprise and disapproval, and grateful that he had not been stopped by the constabulary.

In the Diocese of Toronto, there is a running joke that since ordinations take place at St Paul's Bloor Street, the largest and most evangelical parish in the Diocese where reservation of the Sacrament is an absolute no-no (being all too catholic and of course it is condemned in the blessed Thirty-Nine Articles), that the newly ordained deacons had the joy of consuming all the remaining consecrated wine.
[Razz]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by David Goode:

quote:
Originally posted by Planeta Plicata:
If I can be needlessly pedantic, the General Roman Calendar of 1954 was the last one to have a feast day of the Circumcision -- it was eliminated from the General Roman Calendar of 1960, which is the only one authorized for use in the extraordinary form today,
How appropriate: in 1960, the feast of the Circumcision got the chop.

We kept Christmas 2 yesterday.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Why do none of these priests ever have the common sense to invite other communicants to share in consuming the remains?

Certainly in the CofE it's been there in the rubric since 1662:

quote:
And if any of the Bread and Wine remain ...of that which was consecrated... the Priest, and such other of the Communicants as he shall then call unto him, shall, immediately after the Blessing, reverently eat and drink the same.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

Two more, if I may:

a) In many Anglican churches the Gospel is taken into the centre of the church to be read. Why is this?

b) What expenses are Lay Readers supposed to claim in the CoE? Would it include mileage for all services they take, or would their home church be exempt? (I know that isn't liturgical, but it is ecclesiastical, and I'm hoping someone will know.)

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

From the Diocese of Canterbury website:

"Readers offer a voluntary and unpaid ministry, and do not usually accept a fee for their services. However, they should be reimbursed for travelling and other expenses incurred through the performance of their duties, especially outside their parish/benefice. Car mileage should be reimbursed at the current rate approved as set by the Diocesan Board of Finance (DBF).

Some Readers are authorised to conduct funerals; they are now able to claim 80% of the funeral fee that is paid to the DBF by submitting the appropriate claim form available from the Diocesan website or Diocesan House). This remuneration is on a casual ad hoc basis and does not constitute an employment relationship between the DBF and the Reader.

It is also the responsibility of the Reader to declare and return to Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs any fee they receive from the DBF in respect of the performance of Occasional Offices".

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Two more, if I may:

a) In many Anglican churches the Gospel is taken into the centre of the church to be read. Why is this?

b) What expenses are Lay Readers supposed to claim in the CoE? Would it include mileage for all services they take, or would their home church be exempt? (I know that isn't liturgical, but it is ecclesiastical, and I'm hoping someone will know.)

Not an answer, but an opinion regarding a)
The rubrics of the TEC BCP are clear that all the lessons (Gospel included) and the sermon are to be delivered from the same pulpit/lectern/ambo. And yet --- at about the same time as this document was published the so-called 'Gospel procession' began to become popular throughout TEC, high, low or muddle. It can sometimes become quite ludicrous, as when all those attending are sitting near the front of the nave, and the procession passes them by to go half-way to the west doors. (I've seen this happen on many occasions.) It is distinctly UNedifying, IMNSHO!

Of b), I know not.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Why do none of these priests ever have the common sense to invite other communicants to share in consuming the remains?

"...at the beginning of his ministry..." They soon learned how to measure the wine, but even as a 15-year-old acolyte, I was called upon to do my bit with the contents of an Easter flagon.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Two more, if I may:

a) In many Anglican churches the Gospel is taken into the centre of the church to be read. Why is this?

In many (most) C of E churches of a higher-than-central tradition, this seems to be the general practice (except at smaller 'said' services). I imagine it evolved from the pre-Vat 2 High Mass, or Dearmer's re-invention of medieval custom, when the deacon would process with thurifer etc and stand facing north (proclaiming the Gospel to the heathen: as any fule know, they all live beyond Watford). This has evolved into the less geographically specific practice of reading it in the midst of the people.

I suppose the theory of it is that the Gospel is being proclaimed to the world, but it doesn't really work if many of us (the people of God) whose task it is to do that after the liturgy, can't hear it properly because the reader has their back to us. The emphasis on the ambo as the place of proclamation, and the unity of all Scripture (three readings and psalm) plus the homily, makes a lot more sense.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
It doesn't really work if many of us (the people of God) whose task it is to do that after the liturgy, can't hear it properly because the reader has their back to us.

Get them a clip-on radio microphone!

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

That may not solve actually solve the problem. Why:

It is surprising how much of hearing is actually lip reading.
untrained microphone users will often be put off by hearing their voice come back at them from behind.
Classical feedback situation

Jengie

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Why do none of these priests ever have the common sense to invite other communicants to share in consuming the remains?

This does happen in some churches, often in my direction and I am the one to be called upon to consume the remaining wine.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
What expenses are Lay Readers supposed to claim in the CoE? Would it include mileage for all services they take, or would their home church be exempt? (I know that isn't liturgical, but it is ecclesiastical, and I'm hoping someone will know.)

In the Church of England, there is no such thing as "Lay Reader" as the word Lay was dropped about half a century ago [Razz]

But I digress. I've never heard of anyone claiming expenses for attending a service at their own church, but when taking a service at another parish or conducting a funeral, I claim travel expenses. In the case of a funeral, I claim mileage for the pastoral visit(s) to the family as well. If travelling to another parish, the church I'm visiting meet the expenses. For a funeral, my own parish pays although they also receive a pretty hefty fee for the funeral anyway.

As a member of my Diocesan Readers' Board I'm entitled to expenses for travelling to the Diocesan office and those are met by the board.

ETA: I recently attended a service in another church in my role as a board member to present a certificate to a retiring Reader. Expenses for this were also met by the board.

[ 04. January 2017, 17:14: Message edited by: Spike ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Some Readers are authorised to conduct funerals; they are now able to claim 80% of the funeral fee that is paid to the DBF by submitting the appropriate claim form available from the Diocesan website or Diocesan House)

80% of £77 is not much - I used to have to take a half day off and reimburse my school £150 for supply cover.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
can't hear it properly because the reader has their back to us.

that's why God invented radio mikes and/or why some of us chant the reading.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
What expenses are Lay Readers supposed to claim in the CoE? Would it include mileage for all services they take, or would their home church be exempt? (I know that isn't liturgical, but it is ecclesiastical, and I'm hoping someone will know.)
In the Church of England, there is no such thing as "Lay Reader" as the word Lay was dropped about half a century ago

More's the pity - some Readers act as if they're para-clergy.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
What expenses are Lay Readers supposed to claim in the CoE? Would it include mileage for all services they take, or would their home church be exempt? (I know that isn't liturgical, but it is ecclesiastical, and I'm hoping someone will know.)
In the Church of England, there is no such thing as "Lay Reader" as the word Lay was dropped about half a century ago
More's the pity - some Readers act as if they're para-clergy.

True, but quite a few dioceses are changing the name to "Licensed Lay Minister"

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

quote:
In the Church of England, there is no such thing as "Lay Reader" as the word Lay was dropped about half a century ago.

Well, you live and learn. I'm sure I've heard the term "Lay Reader" more recently than 50 years ago; certainly the term Licensed Lay Minister is prevalent in these parts.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

We Blue-Scarfed (Scarved?)Menaces are still referred to as 'Lay Readers' in this Diocese.

If we (along with Pastoral Assistants, Evangelists etc.) wish to become 'Licensed Lay Ministers', then some further training is required, so as to make sure all are singing from more or less the same hymnsheet (I think)...

IJ

Posted by keibat (# 5287) on :

quote:
We Blue-Scarfed (Scarved?)Menaces are still referred to as 'Lay Readers' in this Diocese.

...and in many other contexts, especially non-formal ones. It helps to quickly clarify what is being referred to – Reader has after all other meanings as well: a library user (sadly now often referred to as 'customers', grrr); in UK-type universities, an academic position between lecturers and full professors; and of course, even more generally, the reader of a book or periodical. ('A merry Christmas to all our readers', etc.) There is, moreover, no harm in calling Readers 'lay Readers', since lay they are, and the word has reappearerd in the newer term Licensed Lay Minister.

(By the way, I note with some frustration the habit of many Shipmates of taking it for granted that all other Shipmates who join a thread know where everyone else is from ... "this Diocese"? There are (Wikipedia informs me) 759 dioceses in the Anglican Commuinion – and not all Shipmates are Anglican, tho' this specific question about Readers is.)

And...

quote:
If we (along with Pastoral Assistants, Evangelists etc.) wish to become 'Licensed Lay Ministers', then some further training is required, so as to make sure all are singing from more or less the same hymnsheet (I think)...

No, only Readers are referred to as Licensed Lay Ministers; moreover, at least in the C of E, only Readers are licensed (a term they share with the ordained clergy) – the other categories of lay ministers are 'authorized'.

Training for new Readers / LLMs in the C of E is today fairly rigorous – it took me over three years (part-time) to complete all the requirements. I was originally licensed in the Diocese in Europe, and currently hold PtO's [Permission to Officiate] in Europe and in Lincoln – too old to be issued with a full licence any more: that ends at age 70. But many Readers, and ordained clergy too, are over 70 and continue to minister on a PtO.

keibat from the [european] far north and the lincs rim

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

keibat, do bear in mind that some Shipmates prefer to maintain a degree of anonymity - hence 'this Diocese'. Perhaps I should have said 'my Diocese'?

IJ

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Perhaps I didn't express myself very well regarding Licensed Lay Ministers in this Diocese. This, from the Diocesan website:

'In some dioceses Readers are known as LLMs, but in [this Diocese] the designation LLM will cover a range of roles, responsibilities and duties which will vary according to the gifts and abilities of the individual, the needs of their parish or ministry setting, and the context of their ministry. Licensed Lay Ministry in the Diocese....will cover a broader spectrum, and different areas of ministry than currently exercised by Readers, Pastoral Assistants and Evangelists. The selection process for licensed ministry is more rigorous, especially in the area of leadership, so new candidates for LLM gain experience in and knowledge about different expressions of ministry, with an emphasis on development of ministry leadership .'

Those who have not opted to become official LLMs retain their previous title e.g. (Lay) Reader, Pastoral Assistant, or Evangelist.

Simples!

IJ

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
What expenses are Lay Readers supposed to claim in the CoE? Would it include mileage for all services they take, or would their home church be exempt? (I know that isn't liturgical, but it is ecclesiastical, and I'm hoping someone will know.)
In the Church of England, there is no such thing as "Lay Reader" as the word Lay was dropped about half a century ago
More's the pity - some Readers act as if they're para-clergy.

In the land of freezing rain, they're still know as lay readers, and the curious can examine the diocesan manual here.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
What expenses are Lay Readers supposed to claim in the CoE? Would it include mileage for all services they take, or would their home church be exempt? (I know that isn't liturgical, but it is ecclesiastical, and I'm hoping someone will know.)
In the Church of England, there is no such thing as "Lay Reader" as the word Lay was dropped about half a century ago
More's the pity - some Readers act as if they're para-clergy.
True, but quite a few dioceses are changing the name to "Licensed Lay Minister"

Yes - we have here. But I am lay and i read books!

Posted by keibat (# 5287) on :

DEAR BISHOP'S FINGER:

quote:
keibat, do bear in mind that some Shipmates prefer to maintain a degree of anonymity - hence 'this Diocese'. Perhaps I should have said 'my Diocese'?

Sorry. Yes, bearing in mind some of the stuff that gets posted on the Ship, anonymity would in some cases seem to be very advisable.

It is nonetheless sometimes frustrating when folk refer to their own quite specific situation, but it's difficult to make good sense of it without context. TEC? SEC? C of E? ACSA? ACC? ACNA? – let alone those provinces without an acronym, or even those churches which have no formal links with Canterbury at all...

But to turn to your following post, quoting your diocesan website:

quote:
The selection process for licensed ministry is more rigorous, especially in the area of leadership, so new candidates for LLM gain experience in and knowledge about different expressions of ministry, with an emphasis on development of ministry leadership

The emphasis probably differs from diocese to diocese, but it strikes me that this seems to treat licensing as so to speak a notch above whatever procedure is used for other forms of ministry, i e more akin to the licensing of ordained ministers (clergy). One way I've heard this justified is that the reason that licensed Readers in the C of E are approved to preach, and to take funerals, is precisely because they have a more rigorous training,

There will of course be those who dismiss the value of or need for such training – tho' in my admittedly limited (and specific) experience, these have tended to be folk who do not have such training.

But to be honest, the whole field of ministry by the unpriested is currently in a state of flux, across many churches – cf the resurgence of the distinct diaconate in the Roman Church; and in 20 years time it may well look different than it does today; as moreover the priesthood does, and will.

And such shifts have happened in the past, too – not least, the transformation of the episcopally-centred urban Church of the first few generations into the presbyterially-ministered, diffuse organization that has dominated the traditional churches ever since.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

keibat, your apology is accepted in the spirit in which it was offered! [Biased]

You are right in saying that lay ministry in many dioceses (of the Church of England, but elsewhere as well, I expect) is in a state of flux. You are also right in opining that current training is rigorous - much more so than when I was first licensed forty years ago - and not far off (so I have been told) the standard required for ordination.

IJ

Posted by Offeiriad (# 14031) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
You are right in saying that lay ministry in many dioceses (of the Church of England, but elsewhere as well, I expect) is in a state of flux. You are also right in opining that current training is rigorous - much more so than when I was first licensed forty years ago - and not far off (so I have been told) the standard required for ordination.

IJ

(One-time Director of Reader Training signing in) [Smile]

Two comments I'd like to offer:

1 I've been ordained for getting on for 40 years, during which time Reader training has always been in a state of flux!

2 As signalled by (for example) the Hind Report , Readers should be trained to an equivalent standard to clergy. That official rhetoric doesn't carry through into Real Life[TM]: on average the amount spent on training each Reader is 25% of the amount spent on training each ordination candidate.

Despite that discrepancy, I've known places where the Readers emerge from training better trained than their ordinand counterparts! But my experience across a number of dioceses suggests that Reader Trainers are invariably worse resourced, and less valued and supported by the hierarchy, than those involved in training clergy. 'Brethren: It should not be so!'

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by keibat:
the unpriested

clericalism lurks behind that term

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Offeiriad:

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
You are right in saying that lay ministry in many dioceses (of the Church of England, but elsewhere as well, I expect) is in a state of flux. You are also right in opining that current training is rigorous - much more so than when I was first licensed forty years ago - and not far off (so I have been told) the standard required for ordination.

IJ
(One-time Director of Reader Training signing in)

Two comments I'd like to offer:

1 I've been ordained for getting on for 40 years, during which time Reader training has always been in a state of flux!

2 As signalled by (for example) the Hind Report , Readers should be trained to an equivalent standard to clergy. That official rhetoric doesn't carry through into Real Life[TM]: on average the amount spent on training each Reader is 25% of the amount spent on training each ordination candidate.

Despite that discrepancy, I've known places where the Readers emerge from training better trained than their ordinand counterparts! But my experience across a number of dioceses suggests that Reader Trainers are invariably worse resourced, and less valued and supported by the hierarchy, than those involved in training clergy. 'Brethren: It should not be so!'

Plainly reader training should not be second-rate. But if you're going that far with expecting candidates to invest time and effort in their training, why not just have a default position of making them ordained clergy- deacons at least- with some kind of local non-stipendiary status?

Posted by keibat (# 5287) on :

leo commented:

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by keibat:
the unpriested
clericalism lurks behind that term

Not really. I meant, specifically, that there is widespread and quite radical change in process that is affecting the ministry roles of those who have not been ordained Priest – in other words, including Deacons (who are ordained and licensed), Readers (who are licensed but not ordained) and sundry other categories with titles which seem to vary between dioceses (who are however neither ordained nor licensed).

[I gave the priests and deacons capital letters here not out of clericalism but as an egalitarian gesture to match the Readers, who've been capitalized throughout most of this discussion.] – There is also of course change currently taking place that affects both Priests and Bishops, but it feels to me that the scale of change is more drastic for the subpresbyterial orders. [Biased]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
]Plainly reader training should not be second-rate. But if you're going that far with expecting candidates to invest time and effort in their training, why not just have a default position of making them ordained clergy- deacons at least- with some kind of local non-stipendiary status?

Because being a Reader is lay ministry. I turned down ordination in order to be one.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Just so, because Reader ministry is distinctive, and not second-rate.

OTOH, there might well also be a case for the C of E expanding its permanent diaconate (it has one already), and some Readers might well wish to take that step if they could.

IJ

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Well, yes, but *what* is distinctive about it, apart from that it's a lay ministry?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Lay folk focus on secular, not on church.

Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Lay folk focus on secular, not on church.

One could say:

quote:
They are to serve the community in which they are set, bringing to the Church the needs and hopes of all the people. They are to work with their fellow members in searching out the poor and the weak, the sick and lonely and those who are oppressed and powerless, reaching into the forgotten corners of the world, the at the love of God may be made visible.

Oh, hang on. That omits the sentence that tells me who 'they' are in that... deacons.

(It's from the Common Worship Ordinal).

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Lay folk focus on secular, not on church.

Meaning what, in this context?

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

Much as I'm learning about licensed lay ministry from all these comments, I'm still hoping for some more light to be thrown on my first question - what is the symbolism of reading the Gospel from the centre of the congregation. Given how widespread the custom is I would expect there to be a rationale behind it somewhere.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Here's a total guess: "The light shines in the darkness... and the darkness has not overcome it" plus "You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden" added to "Let your light so shine before men..."

It's a visual symbol for the people of God shining the light of of the Gospel of Christ out into a dark world.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Also a 'visual aid', showing Christ (in the form of His words) coming amongst the assembly of faith?

Not sure how recent or widespread this custom is in the C of E, but I know of 3 local churches (all MOTR or 'high' which do it).

IJ

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Lay folk focus on secular, not on church.
Meaning what, in this context?

Seeing one's secular work as one's chief vocation. Preaching and teaching in church should reflect thid.

Furthermore, the focal ministry of Readers is teaching and preaching. That of the diaonate is service, pastoral care.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Much as I'm learning about licensed lay ministry from all these comments, I'm still hoping for some more light to be thrown on my first question - what is the symbolism of reading the Gospel from the centre of the congregation. Given how widespread the custom is I would expect there to be a rationale behind it somewhere.

I doubt that there is any rationale because it's a high church, rather that a catholoic practice.

The old custom of facing north was symbolic of taking the gospel to the pagans.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomM:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Lay folk focus on secular, not on church.
One could say:

quote:
They are to serve the community in which they are set, bringing to the Church the needs and hopes of all the people. They are to work with their fellow members in searching out the poor and the weak, the sick and lonely and those who are oppressed and powerless, reaching into the forgotten corners of the world, the at the love of God may be made visible.
Oh, hang on. That omits the sentence that tells me who 'they' are in that... deacons.

(It's from the Common Worship Ordinal).

At the time when CW was written, the C of E had no clear theology of the diaconate - it still doesn't.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Much as I'm learning about licensed lay ministry from all these comments, I'm still hoping for some more light to be thrown on my first question - what is the symbolism of reading the Gospel from the centre of the congregation. Given how widespread the custom is I would expect there to be a rationale behind it somewhere.
I doubt that there is any rationale because it's a high church, rather that a catholoic practice.

The old custom of facing north was symbolic of taking the gospel to the pagans.

That I find fascinating; I'd assumed high Anglican practices were rediscoveries of RC use. However, even so, there must have been a reason why they came up with this particular idea.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

If the 'old custom' of facing north was the original RC practice, then it is clear that it morphed in two ways once the original symbolism of facing the heathen (and of course we are all in the north) became irrelevant. RCs (rightly and sensibly in my view) settled for reading the Gospel along with the other scriptures from the ambo; most Anglicans seem to have gone for wandering into the congregation (because that's where the heathen are?).

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

I had always been told that reading the Gospel in the midst of the congregation symbolized the Word coming to dwell among us. I have no source on that, however.

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

Go figure, the Anglican Church of Canada has an FAQ on this, but it doesn't really seem to answer its own question.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

I agree that the preferred place for all the readings (and the sermon) should be the lectern or ambo, the Gospel being marked out as important by the use of acclamation, lights, incense, and the people respectfully standing.

However, the lectern at Our Place is bl**dy awkward to get in and out of (narrow steps etc.), and it's difficult to wield the thurible without banging it against the woodwork, Gospel book, acolytes' heads, or adjacent pillar (with interesting results). Hence, perhaps, the slightly less awkward alternative of taking the Gospel to the middle of the church.

OTOH, I suppose we could compromise by simply reading the Gospel from the chancel step, where there's room to manoeuvre!

IJ

I

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

As churchwarden, I find it jolly useful having the Gospel read in the middle of the congregation and us all turning to face it. It's when I count the heads for the register.

Posted by Ratratrat (# 18669) on :

Hello all. Quick question. Listening to St Thomas Fifth Avenue webcasts and noticed that at Evensong, the Apostles' Creed is chanted. As a CoE churchgoer and regular cathedral Evensong attendee, I'd never encountered the practice before. Is this a particular American practice?

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

I doubt if it's common practice anywhere nowadays (as indeed Evensong, at least in the UK, is not [Disappointed]

), but we did use to chant (or, more accurately, monotone) the Creed at The Tin Tabernacle Of My Yoof (50+ years ago... [Ultra confused]

).

John Merbecke, better known for his setting of the 1549 Communion Service, did also write music for the other services:

http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/Merbecke/Merbecke.htm

It seems that Merbecke's settings fell into disuse quite quickly, until revived in the 19thC, so it's probably impossible to tell to what extent they 'caught on' back in 1549.

IJ

Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by TomM:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Lay folk focus on secular, not on church.
One could say:

quote:
They are to serve the community in which they are set, bringing to the Church the needs and hopes of all the people. They are to work with their fellow members in searching out the poor and the weak, the sick and lonely and those who are oppressed and powerless, reaching into the forgotten corners of the world, the at the love of God may be made visible.
Oh, hang on. That omits the sentence that tells me who 'they' are in that... deacons.

(It's from the Common Worship Ordinal).
At the time when CW was written, the C of E had no clear theology of the diaconate - it still doesn't.

Yes. But we have even less of a theology of Reader ministry.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Lay folk focus on secular, not on church.
Meaning what, in this context?
Seeing one's secular work as one's chief vocation. Preaching and teaching in church should reflect thid.

Furthermore, the focal ministry of Readers is teaching and preaching. That of the diaonate is service, pastoral care.

Right, now we're getting somewhere. Preaching and teaching.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ratratrat:
Hello all. Quick question. Listening to St Thomas Fifth Avenue webcasts and noticed that at Evensong, the Apostles' Creed is chanted. As a CoE churchgoer and regular cathedral Evensong attendee, I'd never encountered the practice before. Is this a particular American practice?

used to be common in England

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Furthermore, the focal ministry of Readers is teaching and preaching. That of the diaonate is service, pastoral care.

Well yes, I suppose so, but they overlap. Most Readers of my acquaintance are very active in service and pastoral care and every deacon I've ever encountered has had a very active preaching and teaching role.

[ 10. January 2017, 19:26: Message edited by: Spike ]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Same here, and most Readers of my acquaintance would probably concur. Opportunities for leading Morning/Evening Prayer, and for preaching, are somewhat less now than they used to be, given the now-common 'one service Sunday'!

IJ

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Furthermore, the focal ministry of Readers is teaching and preaching. That of the diaonate is service, pastoral care.
Well yes, I suppose so, but they overlap. Most Readers of my acquaintance are very active in service and pastoral care and every deacon I've ever encountered has had a very active preaching and teaching role.

Pastoral work isn’t in the original license for a Reader though it appears in some dioceses’ verions.

I don’t regard myself as gifted in this fiend, though I do give spiritual direction which could be considered to be a specialised form of it.

Different people bring different gifts to Readership and the church should beware narrowing them down by trying to give a label and job description to every minister.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

Do you do funerals? Surely that's pastoral.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Lay Readers in this Diocese can elect (as I did) to go for further training, if they wish, to allow them to take funerals. One's licence is then suitably endorsed by the Bishop.

It is indeed important pastoral work, coupled with the liturgical aspect as well, of course, and the need (for the sake of all concerned) to do a good job.

IJ

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Do you do funerals? Surely that's pastoral.

Yes - never thought of that but you're quite right.

Posted by KevinL (# 12481) on :

quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Two more, if I may:

a) In many Anglican churches the Gospel is taken into the centre of the church to be read. Why is this?

b) What expenses are Lay Readers supposed to claim in the CoE? Would it include mileage for all services they take, or would their home church be exempt? (I know that isn't liturgical, but it is ecclesiastical, and I'm hoping someone will know.)
Not an answer, but an opinion regarding a)
The rubrics of the TEC BCP are clear that all the lessons (Gospel included) and the sermon are to be delivered from the same pulpit/lectern/ambo. And yet --- at about the same time as this document was published the so-called 'Gospel procession' began to become popular throughout TEC, high, low or muddle. It can sometimes become quite ludicrous, as when all those attending are sitting near the front of the nave, and the procession passes them by to go half-way to the west doors. (I've seen this happen on many occasions.) It is distinctly UNedifying, IMNSHO!

Of b), I know not.

Correct me if I am missing something, because TEC "rubrics" are confusing, but I think reading the Gospel from the "midst of the congregation" is explicitly contemplated and permitted.

"It is desirable that the Lessons be read from a lectern or pulpit, and that
the Gospel be read from the same lectern, or from the pulpit, or from the
midst of the congregation. It is desirable that the Lessons and the Gospel be
read from a book or books of appropriate size and dignity."

cf. pg. 406, "Additional Directions"

[ 21. January 2017, 18:32: Message edited by: KevinL ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I'm not aware of any, and am fairly sure our rubrics don't deal with this point. There are quite a lot of things they do cover, but this isn't the sort of thing on which they are likely to prescribe.

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

You are quite correct; my failure to re-read the 'Addl Directions'!

Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on :

We have three Readers now and our vicar sensibly encourages us to play to our strengths. I stick with preaching (and organ playing) and avoid all pastoral duties, not because I couldn't do them but because there would be a lot too much of an overlap with work; I'm a therapist in social services, and my area includes my parish, so confidentiality is already a bit of a minefield.

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

I know there has been a thread on this in the past, but I wonder if I could take the ship's view on something. I'm starting at Westcott House this September and want to buy a cassock before I go. Where do people recommend in the UK? Are J&M still the best combination of cost and quality? What about for other vestments, eg alb or surplice? J&M or elsewhere?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

J & M are brilliant - but beware putting your credit card details online to them - mine was scammed by a 3rd party and J & M didn't seem unduly concerned.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I had a Preaching Gown made for me by J&M about 10 years ago; it was reasonably priced and is still in excellent condition. It has been machine-washed a few times, too!

[ 27. January 2017, 17:29: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

How very seemly, Pastor! Preaching bands to go with it as well, I presume?

I know this is from a different firm, but they do look good...

http://www.wippell.com/s-21-preaching-gowns.aspx

IJ

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

J&M are good value for money, if by that you mean that you get a decent quality for a relatively low price. In my view, Wippells are equally good value for money: though you pay more, you get a better product. (Words cannot say how much I love the fly front on my cassock.)

If you're going to be spending a lot of time in your cassock (unlikely at Westcott -- as I understand it cassocks were virtually banned in the not-too-distant past as "divisive") it might be worth an extra hundred quid or so for a high-quality one.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

My J & M wool gabardine cassock is still in good condition 26 years on.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

I made the mistake of buying a cheapo double-breasted cassock from a small firm I will not name. Within a couple of months, all the buttons had come loose or fallen off, and the lining of one sleeve was coming adrift!

Fortunately, Our Place's multi-talented Auntie J. (now promoted to glory) came to the rescue, and my cassock was soon in far better nick than when new. It is still in good nick five years on, though not worn much in the past year.

IJ

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

Thanks all. Loads of recommendations for J&M from clergy and ordinand friends too, so think I'll probably go with them. Now the ridiculous range of options : what material, how many pleats, how many buttons, what shape collar, what collar gap, cuffs, oversleeves, Cape, cincture? Oysh!

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
If you're going to be spending a lot of time in your cassock (unlikely at Westcott -- as I understand it cassocks were virtually banned in the not-too-distant past as "divisive") it might be worth an extra hundred quid or so for a high-quality one.

From the time I've spent there, the only time I've seen people in cassocks is when serving.

Interestingly, J&M are relatively expensive for things like albs and surplices. Watts and co are cheaper! Would love a Watts and co cassock, but their made to measure is very expensive. Will have to make do with one of their albs instead...

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Now is not the time to be thinking about cost since this is a purchase of essential kit. Really you need TWO cassocks: one heavyweight for winter and a lightweight for summer and for when you need to pack light; as a bonus a lightweight cassock should be washable too, so you cut down on dry-cleaning bills.

I'd recommend Croft Design: the quality of sewing is excellent and they have a good range of fabrics.

Posted by Rosa Gallica officinalis (# 3886) on :

Alternatively get yourself a cheaper lightweight cassock for college & invest in a heavyweight woollen one when you get your pre-ordination robes & vestments grant. Your preferences about style may well change while you're at college.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Gallica officinalis:
...pre-ordination robes & vestments grant.

Is that standard in the U.K.? I never heard of it in the U.S., but I love it! Around here, newly ordained deacons get one hand-made stole and that's it.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Yes, I believe it is standard practice in the C of E.

Lay Readers, OTOH, have to shell out their own £££, although the Blue Scarf is presented to new Readers at their licensing.

IJ

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Our parish- CinW- paid for our latest Reader's cassock and surplice, and I had the impression that was standard practice.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Good for them! I've not heard of it being done for Readers as a general practice, though. Mind you, it's ermmmmm years since I was licensed, so things may have changed.

IJ

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Thanks all. Loads of recommendations for J&M from clergy and ordinand friends too, so think I'll probably go with them. Now the ridiculous range of options : what material, how many pleats, how many buttons, what shape collar, what collar gap, cuffs, oversleeves, Cape, cincture? Oysh!
*snip*

First, you needn't buy everything at once, so you can stock up as legacies come your way. I would suggest, as have others, two cassocks, light-weight for summer, and heavy-weight for winter. To be mischievous, you can have one as Latin, and the other as Sarum/double-breasted. Collar gap will depend on whether or not you wear a shirt with clerical collar. Cincture and cape for the Latin, and cincture for the Sarum (unless you want to do a *name of bishop redacted* and have a vow-of-poverty belt). Cuffs, I am told, are good for sermon notes and can even take a cellphone with a bit of velcro to hold it in place.

You're better off to invest in a good-quality garment if you can, as the per-wearing cost will amortize nicely for you, and as a well-tailored garment can be more easily let out as Spiritual Maturity comes to be reflected in your waistline.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Our parish- CinW- paid for our latest Reader's cassock and surplice, and I had the impression that was standard practice.

In this diocese, it's compulsory

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

Thanks again all. Messrs Gammarelli are in town next week so thought it would be rude not to pay them a visit!

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Our parish- CinW- paid for our latest Reader's cassock and surplice, and I had the impression that was standard practice.
In this diocese, it's compulsory

I don't think it's compulsory in my diocese, but any parish that didn't pay for its Readers robes would get glared at very sternly by the PTB

Posted by gog (# 15615) on :

quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
I'm starting at Westcott House this September and want to buy a cassock before I go. Where do people recommend in the UK? Are J&M still the best combination of cost and quality? What about for other vestments, eg alb or surplice? J&M or elsewhere?

One thing to check, do you need one before you go. I know where I trained we had a wardrobe full of cassocks to borrow for when they where needed, and this in turn let us find the style and form that suited us best before we spent money on them.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by gog:

quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
I'm starting at Westcott House this September and want to buy a cassock before I go. Where do people recommend in the UK? Are J&M still the best combination of cost and quality? What about for other vestments, eg alb or surplice? J&M or elsewhere?
One thing to check, do you need one before you go? I know where I trained we had a wardrobe full of cassocks to borrow for when they where needed, and this in turn let us find the style and form that suited us best before we spent money on them.

Very good point. Has Westcott House said you need to get one? Or do you just like the idea of wandering around in one?

I would imagine that unless the college expects you all to wear them the way Etonians wear tail coats or waitresses little aprons, most people don't acquire one until they are about to be ordained at the end of the course.

Posted by Rosa Gallica officinalis (# 3886) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Gallica officinalis:
...pre-ordination robes & vestments grant.
Is that standard in the U.K.? I never heard of it in the U.S., but I love it! Around here, newly ordained deacons get one hand-made stole and that's it.

Yes, most dioceses give a grant (I think it's about £1000) at ordination- but don't forget stipends are comparatively lower over here.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Around here, newly ordained deacons get one hand-made stole and that's it.

Handmade? Wouldn't one normally wear the stole that goes with the chasuble or dalmatic in the color of the day?

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Around here, newly ordained deacons get one hand-made stole and that's it.
Handmade? Wouldn't one normally wear the stole that goes with the chasuble or dalmatic in the color of the day?

Our Deacons receive the stoles as they're ordained, and dalmatics are not worn. In fact, very few churches around here use dalmatics except for special occasions.

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by gog:

quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
I'm starting at Westcott House this September and want to buy a cassock before I go. Where do people recommend in the UK? Are J&M still the best combination of cost and quality? What about for other vestments, eg alb or surplice? J&M or elsewhere?
One thing to check, do you need one before you go? I know where I trained we had a wardrobe full of cassocks to borrow for when they where needed, and this in turn let us find the style and form that suited us best before we spent money on them.
Very good point. Has Westcott House said you need to get one? Or do you just like the idea of wandering around in one?

I would imagine that unless the college expects you all to wear them the way Etonians wear tail coats or waitresses little aprons, most people don't acquire one until they are about to be ordained at the end of the course.

I've been told that either a cassock and white alb or white cassock alb (no thanks, for various reasons) is needed for serving in college. In answer to gog's question, I could probably get by with borrowing stuff, but I've been offered these as a gift and I intend to take up the offer! I'm also tall and fat and would like something that actually fits...

Back to Enoch, I don't think wandering around in cassocks is encouraged, even at Westcott House!

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

Smoke from Yesterday:

Just before our Ash Wednesday Abbatial Mass, the Choirmaster was griping that incense was being prepared, 'and it's not a feast day.' says he.

I said 'What about for blessing the ashes?' 'Just holy water.'

I shut up, as I didn't want to argue with my boss, but it seemed to me that he should have known that incense doesn't primarily signify 'festivity,' but rather 'hallowing' as of the sacrifice. His line of thought seemed more like a MOTR Episcopalian idea of 'something pretty to dress up the service.'

Your thoughts?

I'm not going to argue the point with him, but I still think I'm right!

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

And so you are.

IJ

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Dare I say it, but detail of the liturgy to be followed is not a matter for the Choirmaster (or Organist for that matter) but for the rector/parish priest/ senior minister/pastor.

[ 02. March 2017, 20:04: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :

quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
'and it's not a feast day.' says he.

By that logic one would surely never cense the coffin a funeral?

Even if one trades in the 'funeral as celebration of life' currency, it's still curely not a festal occasion.

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

I have two questions arising from the service I attended this morning. It was at the church of St Michael and all angels, West Croydon.

The first concerns crosses. I am familiar with a cross being carried in at the front of the choir, servers, and priests etc as they enter. In this case there were two crosses however, one at the front of the group and a second one just ahead of the priest. At the end of the service, one cross left with the servers and priest, who exited rapidly, being gone by the time the first verse of the last hymn ended. The choir remained in their place throughout the hymn, then left in silence with the other cross. What if anything was the significance of this ?

The other question is about incense. When I have seen it used before, the person carrying it has entered swinging it gently on the way up to the sanctuary. In this case however it was carried still by the person's side, as it apparently was not lit. He took it up to the altar, where it was lit and then used.

[ 26. March 2017, 17:48: Message edited by: moonlitdoor ]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

I can't answer your query about crosses, as we don't usually carry one at Our Place (being short-staffed!), but the use of two does seem a bit unusual. Doubtless Anne Expert will be along soon...

As regards the incense, I suspect that the charcoal was in fact already alight as the thurible was carried in, as it does take a few minutes for the charcoal to fully ignite. I wonder, therefore, if the thurifer was a bit late in getting things ready, and, rather than delay the start of the service, they decided to begin promptly, and worry about the incense when they reached the altar.

My tuppence-worth...

IJ

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

(not an answer but simply inspired by your Q) I went to a church in Northern Virginia for an ordination, and they had a thurifer who seems to have learned his moves from Michael Jackson. He swung that thing in a wide horizontal circle over the heads of the congregation, to the full length of the chain. All our jaws were dropped open; that was a church which knew it had been censed.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I was there this morning in my kilt. Sorry to miss you.

I noticed the non-swing of the incense today. I believe it shouldn't be swung until the priest has put incense in at the introit. It can be put on in the sacristy beforehand, but perhaps this didn't happen. I'll ask the thurifer next time I see him.

As regards crosses, why not? One for the choir and one for the sanctuary party.

As a matter of fact, Fortesuce and O'Connor don't think processional crosses are that important. Apparently they are not used in the diocese of Rome.

I hope you enjoyed it. The Sunday School and the three readings were introduced, I'm glad to say. at the start of Lent.

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

That is a coincidence venbede. I think you are enjoying a bit of poetic license in considering west Croydon as being in the north downs ! I was visiting Croydon to go to the Mitcham road crematorium where my parents were laid to rest, and chose St Michael's for its relative proximity. It was different from my usual but I liked it.

I was just curious about the crosses as I had not seen two be carried before.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

The thurible can be swung or not at the entrance depending on whether the thurifer thinks the coals need to get hotter (so some moving air will encourage more intense burning) or are just about right. It's an art or a science I hope to learn soon when I'm trained to be a thurifer.

I suspect that what was happening at the altar after the entrance was not the lighting of the coals but the placement of incense on the already-hot coals just before using the thurible to cense the altar. Our MC's cue for this activity is "Make incense." Sometimes this is also called "charging the thurible."

Posted by Japes (# 5358) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Dare I say it, but detail of the liturgy to be followed is not a matter for the Choirmaster (or Organist for that matter) but for the rector/parish priest/ senior minister/pastor.

As an organist I totally agree, but as my current incumbent is disinterested in detail, has a poor memory, and, shall we say, somewhat inexperienced in the more Anglo Catholic traditions and as a result insists on sidling up to me on a weekly basis to check on such detail I currently have no choice to be very aware of the detail. I do my best to be tactful and suggest rather than dictate, though.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

A hard and narrow path to tread. Perhaps there's a priest in a neighbouring parish who could mentor?

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Indeed, and perhaps the church's Sacristan could help, too.

What is refreshing to know is the fact that the priest is willing to admit ignorance, and to ask for advice.

IJ

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

St. Michael's Croydon is a church I know and I go there from time to time, but I wasn't there Sunday just gone.

The two processional crosses make sense, if each is used in a separate procession - one for the choir and one for the sanctuary party. As already indicated, the incense may or may not have been blessed in the sacristy beforehand. If beforehand, the thurible would be swung on the way in. If not until the introit, then the thurible would not be swung on the way in.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
That is a coincidence venbede. I think you are enjoying a bit of poetic license in considering west Croydon as being in the north downs !

West Croydon is on the plain, but Croydon itself is on the edge of the North Downs and the crest is only a mile away. By the time you get to South Croydon and its golf courses (a spectacular contrast to West Croydon) the chalk is very much in evidence and you are on the slopes of the Downs.

I was being deliberately naughty in describing Croydon as "an historic market town nestling in a fold of the North Downs". It is more or less an accurate description, but totally misleading, as you notice.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

In the days* when the 1662 BCP Communion Service was pretty well ubiquitous, was it the usual practice to omit the Gloria in Lent and Advent?

The Church Of My Yoof used 1662 for the 8am Sunday service, and also after Matins (1st Sunday), and Evensong (3rd Sunday), but I can't recall what our custom was in those seasons.

(* Those dear, dead days, beyond recall...... ).

IJ

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
In the days* when the 1662 BCP Communion Service was pretty well ubiquitous, was it the usual practice to omit the Gloria in Lent and Advent?

The Church Of My Yoof used 1662 for the 8am Sunday service, and also after Matins (1st Sunday), and Evensong (3rd Sunday), but I can't recall what our custom was in those seasons.

(* Those dear, dead days, beyond recall...... ).

Those strictly observing all the rubrics would include the Gloria in excelsis at every Holy Communion service.

To add to whatever is posted presently on this, here's a previous discussion on the topic. Thought I'd share it because it came up for me in a Google search.

[ 01. April 2017, 14:19: Message edited by: Oblatus ]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Yes, I thought this vital question (!) may have arisen before..... [Paranoid]

Consensus seems to be to include the Gloria as per the rubrics, and I guess that's what we did way back when.

IJ

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

If Miss Amanda were to hear the Gloria done during Advent or Lent, you'd have to revive her with smelling salts.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Ah yes, but here in this Realm of England, whence Ye Boke Of Commone Prayere doth come, ye Rubricks are followed as Our Blessed Lord intended.

Such Papistical Tendencies are to be forsworn!

IJ

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

But I'm told that the Baby Jesus and his Blessed Mother have been known to weep profusely over more than one "Rubrick."

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

But not over ye Rubricks prescribed by ye former Archbishop Cranmer, of Blessed Memory....

[Disappointed]

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

It's easy to forget that the Roman Rite, despite being by far the predominant of the western rites, does not dictate the norms of others.

My own church uses a restored version of the Gallican Mass, during which the primary hymn sung between the Kyrie and the Collect is the Benedictus. The Gloria is just one of a number of seasonal and festal variations (used during Christmastide and the paschal season). The rite is no less Catholic or Orthodox for not following the Roman custom, and if Anglicans using the BCP are satisfied that their BCP rite is Catholic, then I see no reason why its rubrics ought to be disregarded in favour of those of another rite.

(Says an outsider, who is happy to be told to mind his own business.)

[ 02. April 2017, 16:45: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I'm trying to remember, and I may not be correct, what happened back in the days when all services were 1662.

In 1662 of course, the Gloria comes after Communion, not at the beginning of the service. There is nothing in the rubric about leaving it out at any season. I'm fairly sure that in most churches, it was therefore always used. I think it would have been regarded as an irregularity to omit it.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Not so Enoch: I've never attended a church where the Gloria was said or sung during Lent and Advent: that goes from nose-bleed high to through the basement floor low.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

L'organist, I'm not talking about now. I'm trying to remember what was normal 50+ years ago, and also with some awareness of how people thought about rubrics in former times.

I've also checked two communion manuals I've inherited, one from the 1930s and one from the 1890s, and a BCP with notes where the king is William IV. None of them mentions anything about omitting the Gloria for part of the year.

I've also inherited a copy of the abortive 1928 book another relative was given at confirmation sometime around 1930. There, the alternative version of the Communion Service that was never authorised. There, the Gloria is in the same place at the end as in the BCP. It would have allowed the omission of the Gloria except on Sundays and Holy Days, but no mention of its being permissible to omit it in any season.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I too was talking about time back to the late 1950s!

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm trying to remember, and I may not be correct, what happened back in the days when all services were 1662.

In 1662 of course, the Gloria comes after Communion, not at the beginning of the service. There is nothing in the rubric about leaving it out at any season. I'm fairly sure that in most churches, it was therefore always used. I think it would have been regarded as an irregularity to omit it.

The Canadian BCP also features the Gloria after the Communion (note that the canon is much longer than the 1662 as it includes an epiclesis) and if my memory serves me well, the Lenten omission of the Gloria only started rolling in eastern Ontario parishes from the mid-1970s on. John Holding might have his own impressions.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Without hard documentary evidence the only things any of us can rely on are hazy memories and varying practice from parish to parish.

My early experience of the BCP eucharist was in a middle-of-the-road village parish with a vicar of catholic tendencies. The liturgy was straight from the book with a couple of exceptions I remember. One was always to omit the ten commandments in favour of the threefold Kyrie (in English); the other was to omit the Gloria in Advent, Lent and ferias (also the creed on the latter) - in line with the Kalendar published by Knott of English Missal fame. And the whole service was topped and tailed with the Preparation of priest and server (mainly psalm 43), and the Last Gospel (John 1.1-14). This was in the early 1960s.

I have little experience of other parishes' traditions at that time, but I have an inkling that evangelicals then would be more likely to obey the rubrics and never omit Creed and Gloria on any occasion.

When the Gloria is at the end of the service à la 1662, it does seem a bit pedantic to follow the rules that apply to another rite altogether to omit it, when it serves as a thanksgiving for the sacrament just received. But for those of us who have become acclimatised to the more traditional structure of the rite, it does seem odd to include it in the penitential seasons. When I regularly celebrated 1662 I have to admit I omitted the Gloria at those times.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

Further to what Augustine wrote, I'm reasonably sure that until well on in the 1970s when adventurous parishes deserted the BCP in large numbers for more contemporary rites, the Gloria would never have been omitted in any season, at least in Canada. Except in the highest and most lofty AC parishes, of which there may have been a dozen in all of Canada. In general terms, the kind of reasoning that omits the Gloria in Lent is part of liturgical reform and the use of contemporary language, in Canada. Here, if you use the BCP (again, except in the highest of parishes) you do so as it is written.

My memory is somewhat hazy, but I rather think that Sunday eucharist at Christ CHurch, Oxford, in the early 70s, invariably included the Gloria (after the Kyrie, though, not at the end of the service). As the custom was to sing the service to a fully composed setting -- at that time, usually Palestrina or Byrd or one of that ilk, I think for musical reasons if no others, the Gloria would not have been omitted.

John

Posted by Rosa Gallica officinalis (# 3886) on :

At our Lent Group this afternoon someone commented that where she worshiped during WW2 the Te Deum was replaced at Matins by Psalm 91. We wondered whether this was local custom, diocesan instruction (Guilford diocese) or widespread.

Has anyone else ever heard of this?

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Gallica officinalis:
At our Lent Group this afternoon someone commented that where she worshiped during WW2 the Te Deum was replaced at Matins by Psalm 91. We wondered whether this was local custom, diocesan instruction (Guilford diocese) or widespread.

Has anyone else ever heard of this?

The Proposed Book of 1928 allows Ps. 51 to replace Te Deum. Might she have misremembered it as 91?

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Perhaps, but Psalm 91 is a prayer for protection, most apposite in time of war if you think you're the side being aggressed! OTOH, the deeply penitential Psalm 51 might be more appropriate if you think your side is in the wrong....

IJ

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Perhaps, but Psalm 91 is a prayer for protection, most apposite in time of war if you think you're the side being aggressed! OTOH, the deeply penitential Psalm 51 might be more appropriate if you think your side is in the wrong....

Good points. Ps. 91 may have been an extraordinary measure, even if it isn't an option provided in the rubrics.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

There is a whole movement in the USA around Psalm 91 for soldiers: bandana's in all different colours and camouflages, bracelets, dog tags and keyrings

A woman named Jill Boyce had a dream (in 2002)and a vision of Psalm 91 on a bandana and as they say the rest is history.

I was in chemo in 2009-10 and got some of the bandana's and a pewter bracelet that I still wear (engraved with Ps 91:5)

Though personally I think Psalm 144 is a better fit for active soldiers. I prayed it daily in a wee Office-y thingy that I wrote when my elder son was doing his compulsory army service.

Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on :

OK folks, I could do with some help.

How do I remove olive oil, candle wax and soot from the same piece of altar linen?

I can melt the wax off, no problem, but I still need to shift the soot and also olive oil from the same bit of fabric.....

Solvent of some sort for the oil, then soak the whole thing in stain remover?

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by kingsfold:
Solvent of some sort for the oil, then soak the whole thing in stain remover?

My first thought was "Dawn cuts the grease." It's the washing-up liquid famous for working well for cleaning birds covered with thick oil after a tanker ship runs aground. It's also considered a mild detergent so less likely to damage the fabric than some other things. Anyway, that might be good for "breaking up" the oil and helping wash it away. Then probably a stain removing substance like Borax or Oxy-Clean.

(I have no vested interest in any of these brands.)

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

The recommended way of getting rid of oil is by adding undiluted detergent to the oil spot before washing.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Treat the olive oil as for wax: brown paper and a hot iron. Anything that remains will then disappear if you soak in a solution of soda crystals.

If after all that some of the soot remains its a simple case for bleach.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Go lightly with the bleach -- it can eat right through. Dilute it, and go several rounds rather than try to take the stain out in one attempt.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

I can't help feeling that perhaps the time has come for some new linen to be called for....

IJ

Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on :

Oh we've probably got a spare or two about the place, but it's worth trying to clean it up.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Indeed - it's good stewardship!

IJ

Posted by DitzySpike (# 1540) on :

Hello folks. I'm trying my luck here, crowd-sourcing for resource. If any one has a copy of the LTP Workbook for Lectors (US Edition). Would you kindly send a picture of the 2 pages reading of Baruch at the Easter Vigil? Thank you.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Why can't you just download and print off the readings from Bible Gateway or something?

IJ

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

Yes. Bible Gateway has the New American Bible (Revised Version) which is, I think, the relevant translation. The Lectionary reading from Baruch is Baruch 3:9-15,32; 4.1-4. So at least you'd be able to get the text of the reading, although not the notes and typographical help for lectors that the Workbook provides.

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by DitzySpike:
Hello folks. I'm trying my luck here, crowd-sourcing for resource. If any one has a copy of the LTP Workbook for Lectors (US Edition). Would you kindly send a picture of the 2 pages reading of Baruch at the Easter Vigil? Thank you.

Do you just need the reading or do you need the notes and other help from the workbook as well?

If it's just the reading that you need, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishop has a page with the daily readings from Mass. The ones for the Easter Vigil can be found here:

Holy Saturday at the Easter Vigil

You can scroll down to Reading 6 for the reading from Baruch.

Posted by DitzySpike (# 1540) on :

Thanks BF, Pancho and BrJames. Yes, I would like to have a look at the workbook's annotation and underlines. A very challenging text to proclaim.

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by DitzySpike:
Thanks BF, Pancho and BrJames. Yes, I would like to have a look at the workbook's annotation and underlines. A very challenging text to proclaim.

You're in luck. LTP has a preview of the book online and the preview includes the reading from the Baruch, but the print is tiny and you have to scroll more than have way down the sample to reach it.

Workbook for Lectors, Gospel Readers, and Proclaimers of the Word

[ 13. April 2017, 03:27: Message edited by: Pancho ]

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

Or you can type Baruch into the search field to get to it more quickly. Also there seems to be a possibility of enlarging the size of the preview.

Posted by DitzySpike (# 1540) on :

Thanks all. It is useful.

Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on :

Thanks all,

I'm pleased to say that my linen has been dealt with as best can be with a combination of hot iron, washing up liquid and Vanish ™

Fortunately someone else said they'd deal with the purificators quite frankly buggered up by some other person washing/dusting (??) the altars with vinegar and bitter herbs. They weren't half a mess....

[ 14. April 2017, 21:28: Message edited by: kingsfold ]

Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on :

I am almost seriously beginning to think about assembling/defining what you might loosely define as being a sacristan/server/general dogsbody's chemistry set....

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

All of a sudden....i'm washing the communion linen.

Can see me being here often from now on....many thanks for everything so far!

Posted by Kayarecee (# 17289) on :

So we just had our annual Chrism Mass last week, and I picked up the shiny new vial of freshly-consecrated anointing oil. (My denomination (or at least this strain of tradition within it) only uses one species of oil for all one's anointing needs, but that's another thread). Thing is, we still have oil left over from previous years.

Now obviously, this means I need to be finding more excuses to anoint people in order to use up this vial by Holy Week next year [Big Grin]

, but how, if at all, does one go about disposing of old anointing oil?

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Burn it.

Reverently, of course.

IJ

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Burn it.

Reverently, of course.

IJ

Offically, supposed to be burned in sanctuary lamps - which is difficult if yours are electric.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Electric?

Is Outrage!

IJ

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Our church is ISO consecrated oil for anointing. If yours needs a home, pm me and I'll get you our mailing address. (I went and put the phrase into the search window at Ebay, just to see what would happen. OMG.)

Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :

We use the previous years oils at the heart of the New Fire on Easter morning, with a touch of <ahem> accelerant. [Mad]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Burn it.

Reverently, of course.

IJ
Offically, supposed to be burned in sanctuary lamps - which is difficult if yours are electric.

Don't most people use those long-burning candles from Hayes and Finch?

Posted by Tobias (# 18613) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Burn it.

Reverently, of course.

IJ
Offically, supposed to be burned in sanctuary lamps - which is difficult if yours are electric.

On Easter afternoon my brother was telling me that at his church the congregation at the Easter Vigil had been given battery-powered plastic candles for the Service of Light. [Disappointed]

The congregation also received stern instructions from the parish priest: "The candles are not souvenirs! You must return them so that we can use them again next year."

quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
We use the previous years oils at the heart of the New Fire on Easter morning...

That's a good idea - I like it!

Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Electric?

Is Outrage!

IJ

Hmmm......in our shack we used the Mail somebody had left behind to start the New Fire.......
[Two face]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

O well done!

Is most definitely NOT Outrage!

IJ

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

[QUOTt at his church the congregation at the Easter Vigil had been given battery-powered plastic candles for the Service of Light.[/QB][/QUOTE]
Health & Safety (The Children's Society make glow torches for Christingle.)

Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :

[rant ON]

One of our non-stipendiary clergy (an archdeacon) was presiding at the BCP Choral Eucharist this morning, and when the time came for the Kyrie (we were singing Darke in F, which has a particularly nice one) she just wittered straight on through as if it was a said service. It's just as well I didn't see her afterwards.

She should have known better - when she's not on duty she sings in the choir ... [Mad]

[/rant OFF]

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Today (second Sunday in Easter) the assistant rector decided it would be great to start the sermon with a couple rounds of Jeopardy. Alex, I'll take the Christian Calendar questions. THIS MAN SHOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED TO DOWNLOAD VIDEOS. [Projectile]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

There is a special circle of Hell reserved for these idiots, where they are required to recite Ritual Notes aloud, for all eternity, whilst horrid little demons poke them with red hot pitchforks every time they make a mistake.

Which is in every clause.

IJ

Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :

Oh no. .Is Outrage
Parson's Handbook!

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
There is a special circle of Hell reserved for these idiots, where they are required to recite Ritual Notes aloud, for all eternity, whilst horrid little demons poke them with red hot pitchforks every time they make a mistake.

Which is in every clause.

IJ

Wouldn't churchwardens' staves with specially sharpened ends be a more appropriate instrument of torment?

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

What makes you think I didn't have churchwardens in mind in the first place?

[Two face]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
Oh no. .Is Outrage
Parson's Handbook!

Surely no work of St Percy would be available in hell?

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Electric?

Is Outrage!

IJ
Hmmm......in our shack we used the Mail somebody had left behind to start the New Fire.......

I'm surprized it didn't self-combust on its own, with Infernal Flames.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

But no-one said it had to be lit [Ultra confused]

I expect they opened the sealed and fire/venom-proof container in which the bits of paper were being safely kept, whereupon the Wail let out a loud Heil!, and then spontaneously combusted.

[Eek!]

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

Does anyone know of an online Compline podcast?

The Community of S.Mary the Virgin (Wantage) had one which was LOVELY but the (Ordinariate) Sisters of the Blessed Virgin Mary are not able to do it yet. (Aside: anyone thinking of bequeathing so they can set it up?)

I know of a few Vespers but that is less suitable as I am either making dinner or gin-and-tonic-ing or both around that time.
I want something more bedtime-y; "perils and dangers of this night", "a quiet night and a perfect end" sort of thing...

Or little online written devotions or books ...it doesn't really have to be "real nuns actually singing".

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
Does anyone know of an online Compline podcast?

Here's a daily one based on the RC Liturgy of the Hours - Night Prayer

Here's a more traditional weekly one from a US Episcopal Cathedral.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

Oh thank you -I had happened upon the St Mark's one on Youtube and will definitely sign up for that.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

The First Order Anglican Franciscan Night Prayer was popular for a while. You can find a document detailing it on their website. You can find the slightly more complex version from Celebrating Common Prayer from Oremus

Jengie

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

The text of Compline was originally invariable throuughout the year so it could be recited by heart in the dark.

The modern RC version has different psalms for the days of the week.

The modern C of E version allows a lot of seasonal variations, which was not the original idea.

In both cases, it is allowed to ignore the variation and use the same version each day (with a few alleluias in the Easter season.)

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
In both cases, it is allowed to ignore the variation and use the same version each day (with a few alleluias in the Easter season.)

Galilit has inspired me to look for a recorded Compline that's of the unchanging variety and would be lovely to listen to and pray along with (and memorize) any night of the year. There's a Clare College one, I think, although it won't be the CD I have of Compline for St Somebody of Canterbury (Thomas?) recorded back in pre-Rutter times with robotic chanting.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

Yes, Venbede - the Compline I used to listen to from Wantage was unchanging and I very soon learnt it by heart, especially as I was "praying it" with the podcast.

The one I am using at the moment is from A New Zealand Prayerbook ("because it was there"). Like all the ANZPB there are tons of options at every point - though at least there is always ONE that I like a lot more than the rest. It has a "Reading" (a couple of Bible verses) with 7 variations (Mon, Tues, etc); and at the end is a Sentence for the Day ditto.

I am thinking I prefer the stable one. More sleepifying and a contrast my personal daily outlook on life of "I wonder what will happen next"

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I use the unvarying one from C of E Common Worship - confession, hymn, the three psalms (4, 91 and 134), reading and Nunc Dimittis.

https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-worship/worship/texts/daily2/night/compline.aspx

St Benedict gave those three psalms and no Nunc. I don't like using other psalms. (Although Compline is the office I say least frequently.)

[ 26. April 2017, 08:57: Message edited by: venbede ]

Posted by David Goode (# 9224) on :

You can enjoy monastic Compline here.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by David Goode:
You can enjoy monastic Compline here.

Thanks...this is lovely. I'd just rather pray and memorize it po angielsku.

[Smile]

And Benedict's Nunc-less Compline is a great thing to pray after already having used the Nunc dimittis at BCP Evening Prayer. I thank him for this every time.

[ 26. April 2017, 16:08: Message edited by: Oblatus ]

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

The Latin takes my MIND out of the equation, I find. Sometimes, being such a Protestant, I find myself THINKING too much (and praying too little). Don't get me wrong, I know enough liturgical Latin that I know where I am.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

I will be in Melbourne, Australia, on Thursday, May 25, and am wondering if the Anglican Diocese there celebrates Ascension on Ascension Thursday or if it moves it to the following Sunday. Specifically, what do they do at St. Paul's Cathedral? Do all Anglicans in Australia have the same practice regarding when they celebrate the Ascension or is it different in every diocese - or different in every parish?

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

Different in every parish. Melbourne is a very multichrome diocese. I'd be very surprised if the cathedral didn't have a Thursday Ascension Day liturgy.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

St Paul's would definitely have a Eucharist as would some of the other city churches (I think not the old Cathedral), suburban parishes less likely. St Sanity has a Thursday morning Eucharist in any event; St Jame King St and CCSL in the city definitely.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

How do RCs address deacons who are due to be ordained priest in due course?

Orthodox would call them Deacon Smith.

Anglo Catholics, I'm sorry to say, seem to call them Father Smith.

And do such RC deacons get assigned to a parish or are they ordained while still at seminary?

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

A RC nun of my acquaintance used to address me as Father after we first met, dropped me down to Deacon Callan when she realised I hadn't been priested and addressed me as Father Callan afterwards. As I am a high church Anglican I took this to be an ecumenical compliment rather than a recognition of my orders!

That said she was rather on the liberal end of the spectrum. As a Deacon I was delegated to go on the ecumenical York Course committee and at our first meeting the Methodist rep apologised that there was no Catholic on the panel that year. She responded: "Don't worry, last year we had Ann Widdecombe, so I think that's a step in the right direction".

Posted by Peter Owen (# 134) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I will be in Melbourne, Australia, on Thursday, May 25, and am wondering if the Anglican Diocese there celebrates Ascension on Ascension Thursday or if it moves it to the following Sunday. Specifically, what do they do at St. Paul's Cathedral?

The cathedral website has this Music List for Major Services: Easter to St Paul 2017 which lists choral evensong at 5.10 pm on Ascension Day. The Regular Services page lists said eucharists on Thursdays at 9.00 am and 12.15 pm.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
How do RCs address deacons who are due to be ordained priest in due course?

Orthodox would call them Deacon Smith.

Anglo Catholics, I'm sorry to say, seem to call them Father Smith.

And do such RC deacons get assigned to a parish or are they ordained while still at seminary?

I can only speak to Canadian experience. Generally they seem to get "Reverend Mister Smith," but the French appears to be "le réverend diacre Smith." I would wonder if the Reverend Mister would apply to transitional deacons in religious communities, but my source, usually good on these arcane matters, had no idea.

A quick scan of local RC doings suggest that most transitional deacons get priested while in seminary, unlike Anglican procedure where deacons are sent into parishes, then priested (usually) after their first year.

Bulletin! another telephone call tells me that Byzantine Catholic transitional deacons sometimes are assigned to parishes before priesting, but are sometimes priested in seminary or monastery-- it depends if they need the parish staffed quickly. The Maronites send their married transitional deacons back to the homeland for priesting (they haven't had to since 2014 but they do it anyway) and further training, while the Ukrainians priest them here. Nomenclature follows eastern practice, viz., Deacon Boris Smith.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I think not the old Cathedral

Oooh, no.

Posted by BulldogSacristan (# 11239) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
A RC nun of my acquaintance used to address me as Father after we first met, dropped me down to Deacon Callan when she realised I hadn't been priested and addressed me as Father Callan afterwards. As I am a high church Anglican I took this to be an ecumenical compliment rather than a recognition of my orders!

I don't think that is terribly remarkable, and I wouldn't necessarily read too much into it. In fact, I'd think the nun was being very rude if she hadn't addressed you as father. It's standard politeness to address people however they are accustomed to being addressed, and it doesn't mean that the person doing the addressing is tacitly recognizing the claims that a title might make.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
How do RCs address deacons who are due to be ordained priest in due course?

Orthodox would call them Deacon Smith.

We would never call them "Deacon surname" - not ever. It would be "Deacon Christian name" or "Father Christian name", or sometimes "Father Deacon Christian name", but Orthodox clergy are never called by their surname. For clarity, they might sometimes be referred to or an envelope might be addressed to "Father Christian name + surname". However, the surname is not a part of Christian identity but rather the Christian name, which can be given at baptism, chrismation, ordination, or monastic tonsure, and is the name by which we receive the sacraments and by which we are addressed within the Christian community. The surname is of the world and is never used to address Orthodox clergy.

[ 19. May 2017, 21:29: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Thanks, Scrumps, for the clarification.

My question was about addressing deacons. I'd be glad for an RC to comment,

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

RCs would never address a deacon as 'Father' unless they thought that the deacon was a priest - as is sometimes the case. In general RCs are not too used to having deacons around and if they happen to be wearing a dog collar they may well be addressed mistakenly as 'Father' until the parishioners discover what the priestlike person is.

Generally nowadays transitional deacons will spend some time in a parish.They might be addressed as Rev.Mr Smith or Rev Deacon Smith or just Rev deacon John or simply as 'John'.

We have in our parish here a permanent married deacon who has been a member of the parish for many years.He is simply addressed by his first name.He helps out in two parishes,takes RCIA, does some baptisms and weddings,occasionally preaches of a Sunday and whenever he is free,he will carry out the role of deacon at Sunday or weekday Masses.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Thanks, Forthview,

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

First a query for the Orthodox. Am I right that it is customary in the Orthodox world to address monks as Father, irrespective of whether they are ordained or not?

Second, on RC permanent deacons, I had a work colleague once who was one. He certainly had a wife, and seemed to do much the same sort of things as a Reader does in the CofE.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Or, to put it another way, C of E Readers can these days act pretty much as Deacons (apart from officiating at weddings and baptisms).

IJ

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

In my neck of the RC woods, transitional deacons spend nearly a year at a parish and are generally addressed as "Deacon Last Name." Permanent deacons are addressed as Deacon Last Name or Deacon First Name, as per parish custom and the deacon's preference. Either way they are The Rev. Mr. So-and-So. In many, if not most, American dioceses, permanent deacons are a familiar sight, with large parishes in archdioceses frequently having multiple permanent deacons.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
First a query for the Orthodox. Am I right that it is customary in the Orthodox world to address monks as Father, irrespective of whether they are ordained or not?

With some qualification, that's right, Enoch: in the Eastern Orthodox Church, monks are "Father" while nuns are "Mother". The same is the custom even among western rite monastics who are under Eastern Orthodox churches.

However, my experience in the Western Orthodox Church is that nuns are "Sister". I haven't yet encountered any Western Orthodox monks who have not been ordained but I assume they would be "Brother".

I am unfamiliar with the practice among the Oriental Orthodox.

In general people tend not to be too fussy about these things, as they are only polite honorifics and not part of any official title. Properly, monastics and clergy are addressed by their clerical position, e.g. "Nun Barbara", "Priest Thomas", "Deacon Mark", "Priestmonk Jeremy", "Bishop Theodore", "Monk Gregory", and so forth, although this is more commonly seen in writing, with the less formal "Mother" and "Father" being used more in speech.

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

Is anyone familiar with the Walsingham national pilgrimage ? I was in Norfolk on holiday this weekend so I decided to go along.

I am curious about the large number of people who entered in the procession, as there were several different kinds of vestments. As I am not familiar with the details of vestments I probably have the names wrong. The majority wore white albs(?) about half with a red stole and half with a gold. Then there were a few with gold chasubles, and some with a dark blue vestment of some kind.
At the back were some in purple who I assume were bishops.

I am also interested to know the significance of the fires which a couple of people were carrying.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

I too was there at the Walsingham National on Monday and I have been going nearly every year for many years.

I have not fully grasped the perspective from which you put your questions. If you are asking what is a chasuble as opposed to an alb, the alb derived from the Latin albus -white. The stole is worn over the alb (over both shoulders for a priest and over the left shoulder for a deacon). For most of the concelebrating priests, that was the sole vesture.

The chief concelebrants add the chasuble, but the few deacons wear the dalmatic in place of the chasuble. (I cannot give the etymology for chasuble and dalmatic.

Blue is the colour of Our Lady and the underlying colour of white is for a festival.

The torches (as opposed to candles) give a more powerful symbol of light.

At the time of writing, no other shipmate has written in, but this could very well cross with any other post.

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

The perspective of my question was why there were so many different vestments worn and who would wear what. For example why did some have red stoles and some gold ? Why did some have gold chasubles and some blue ( if the blue ones were chasubles ) ?

I have not been to many eucharists where more than one priest was present, but at those I have been to, everyone was wearing the same liturgical colours.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
The perspective of my question was why there were so many different vestments worn and who would wear what. For example why did some have red stoles and some gold ? Why did some have gold chasubles and some blue ( if the blue ones were chasubles ) ?

I have not been to many eucharists where more than one priest was present, but at those I have been to, everyone was wearing the same liturgical colours.

I tried to correct it by adding more details of the bishops vesture, but the technology would not have it and I may try again later.

Any variations, such as red or gold, would not have been inappropriate; the clergy would have brought their own with them, giving that variation and any "standard" colour could not very well be insisted upon.

Oh, I see, the blue cloaks would have been worn by the guardians (clerical and lay) of the Shrine.

[ 31. May 2017, 12:30: Message edited by: Ecclesiastical Flip-flop ]

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

The pilgrimage was Mystery Worshipped.

[ 31. May 2017, 12:37: Message edited by: Amanda B. Reckondwythe ]

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
I cannot give the etymology for chasuble and dalmatic.

The Catholic Encyclopedia is our friend.

Chasuble is from the Latin casula (literally "little house"), a poncho-like outer garment worn in the time of the middle to late Roman Empire.

Dalmatic is from a garment popular among well dressed Dalmatian folk.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
The pilgrimage was Mystery Worshipped.

This is curiosity. If this was an ecumenical event and both the CofE and RC diocesan bishops were present, how did they handle communicating?

Did the two teams concelebrate on two altars next to each other?

If so, how did they keep in synch bearing in mind that the words wouldn't have been exactly identical?

Or was there first one mass and then another?

And was it made clear to the congregation which queue they should join to receive, and if so how?

How did the stewards stop the faithful from joining the wrong queue?

Was it like Northern Ireland where it's said the locals can tell who's which, even if they look and sound the same to everyone else?

Or are these silly questions? They shouldn't be. After all, this is the Ecclesiantics board.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
I cannot give the etymology for chasuble and dalmatic.
The Catholic Encyclopedia is our friend.

Chasuble is from the Latin casula (literally "little house"), a poncho-like outer garment worn in the time of the middle to late Roman Empire.

Dalmatic is from a garment popular among well dressed Dalmatian folk.

Thanks Amanda. I was writing off the top of my head on first reading the post. I was being non-committal about coming back to that, having looked it up.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
The pilgrimage was Mystery Worshipped.
This is curiosity. If this was an ecumenical event and both the CofE and RC diocesan bishops were present, how did they handle communicating?

Did the two teams concelebrate on two altars next to each other?

If so, how did they keep in synch bearing in mind that the words wouldn't have been exactly identical?

Or was there first one mass and then another?

And was it made clear to the congregation which queue they should join to receive, and if so how?

How did the stewards stop the faithful from joining the wrong queue?

Was it like Northern Ireland where it's said the locals can tell who's which, even if they look and sound the same to everyone else?

Or are these silly questions? They shouldn't be. After all, this is the Ecclesiantics board.

As I indicated, I was present at this year's National Pilgrimage.

The newly published MW report is definitely for this year of 2017 and not for a previous year and this only took place 48 hours ago!!! I am amazed and bewildered it was written, processed and edited so quickly; I would have needed more time!

The report is factual and accurate, but I have one or two minor disagreements about it; e.g. the nun did not lead the Rosary all the way through, and at some point, a male voice took over, who could only be heard over the loud-speaker, who was out of sight for me to identify. I could make one or two corrections about the accuracy of vocabulary re-the Bishops' vesture.

In reply to some of Enoch's point's:-

Remember that there were TWO main services, but only ONE of which was an ANGLICAN Mass. The RC Bishop was not necessarily present at BOTH services, and he only featured at the non-Eucharistic one. So as far as I can see, there could have been no cause of possible confusion regarding intercommunion, or otherwise.

There were communion stations at various points and all communicants were intended to be Anglican. But I did look in vain in the bespoke service booklet, for instructions what to do, if any non-communicants preferred to receive a blessing instead. They could have been instructed either to carry the service booklet, or else to cross their hands over their chest.

As is common knowledge, the Anglicans permit intercommunion, whereas it is the Roman Catholics who do not.

I hope I have made myself clear.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
The newly published MW report is definitely for this year of 2017 and not for a previous year and this only took place 48 hours ago!!! I am amazed and bewildered it was written, processed and edited so quickly; I would have needed more time!

Let it never be said that the Ship publishes stale news! [Yipee]

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
The newly published MW report is definitely for this year of 2017 and not for a previous year and this only took place 48 hours ago!!! I am amazed and bewildered it was written, processed and edited so quickly; I would have needed more time!
Let it never be said that the Ship publishes stale news!

I am not suggesting that! But even so......!

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

I'll take it as a feather in the reporter's cap for filing his report so timely, and as a feather in my church bonnet for editing and publishing it so quickly.

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

I think your record for one of mine was 2.5 hours from the time the report was submitted to the time it was published.

Albeit, that I was still doing my own editing on it on the Monday evening following the Sunday morning service.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
The RC Bishop was not necessarily present at BOTH services, and he only featured at the non-Eucharistic one. So as far as I can see, there could have been no cause of possible confusion

But wasn't there Benediction during or aftrer the procession? There used to be in the years I went.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
The RC Bishop was not necessarily present at BOTH services, and he only featured at the non-Eucharistic one. So as far as I can see, there could have been no cause of possible confusion
But wasn't there Benediction during or aftrer the procession? There used to be in the years I went.

This year, unlike previous years, Benediction was not included in the afternoon service, possibly because of this ecumenical aspect. Vespers & Benediction were scheduled for 18.00 hours in the Shrine Church; I could not stay, because I was governed by a chauffeur who did not wish to stay that long.

I can go on to make two other observations about the report; in...er...the other place, the MWer refers to - "a misogynistic comment from a priest in the pub after the service, where the tone of his voice implied an objection to women that was not based entirely on theology." I think I know who that said priest was; I know all about him; he was there and say no more!

The MWer touches on the vociferous protesters, without going into detail and he also says that one place interestingly the procession did not go to was the shrine church. Well, these protesters are militant protestant extremists of Iain Paisley ilk. In past years, the procession used to go past the shrine church, but it is all a question of how to combat these protesters. They make their base at the village pump and so the procession ceased to go that way, so that their fierce shouting does not conflict with the singing of the pilgrimage hymn and the recitation of the Rosary. If there is sufficient interest to consider these militant protestants in more detail, I can open a new thread on this, or another board.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
The MWer touches on the vociferous protesters. . . . Well, these protesters are militant protestant extremists of Ian Paisley ilk. In past years, the procession used to go past the shrine church, but . . . they make their base at the village pump and so the procession ceased to go that way, so that their fierce shouting does not conflict with the singing of the pilgrimage hymn and the recitation of the Rosary.

It never fails to amaze me how some people apparently love to hate.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
I'll take it as a feather in the reporter's cap for filing his report so timely, and as a feather in my church bonnet for editing and publishing it so quickly.

You and the reporter do indeed deserve a feather or more. Thank you.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

A separate thread might be interesting (in Hell?).

Who are these protesters, what do they want, and why do they bother (given the obvious success and attraction of Walsingham)?

O wait....that's what they don't like, maybe?

Here's a video from 2010, though it's not exactly high-quality:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX-vq3bQqZE

IJ

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
A separate thread might be interesting (in Hell?).

Who are these protesters, what do they want, and why do they bother (given the obvious success and attraction of Walsingham)?

O wait....that's what they don't like, maybe?

Here's a video from 2010, though it's not exactly high-quality:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX-vq3bQqZE

IJ

An interesting video about the militant protestant objectors at Walsingham. "No Son without the Mother!" - the priest doing that is Fr. Paul Williamson, Vicar of St. George's Hanworh, Middlesex and I am no stranger to his church. He is the one I think the MWer was referring to who made the outspoken misogynist remark, for he is a renowned campaigner against women's ordained ministry.

OK, I will go on to start a new thread abount the Walsingham objectors.

But before I do, I am not sure I agree with the MWer who said that the nun could not count to ten in leading the Luminous Mystries of the Rosary. I was using Rosary beads and my counting to ten always tallied with what was being rehearsed over the loud speaker.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
The perspective of my question was why there were so many different vestments worn and who would wear what. For example why did some have red stoles and some gold ? Why did some have gold chasubles and some blue ( if the blue ones were chasubles ) ?

There is quite a clever little organisational trick being used, which would not be obvious to the casual observer: those in red would have been the ones who ministered the chalice to communicants. I have that on good authority and it's really as simple as that.

White and gold are interchangeable as liturgical colours.

The blue cloaks are not vestments - probably best described as ceremonial garb perhaps.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Good to hear from you, TT, and thanks for the explanation. Sometimes, the simple answer is the right one.

IIRC, the blue cloaks are worn by the Guardians of the Shrine (presumably clerical and lay), no?

IJ

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Good to hear from you, TT, and thanks for the explanation. Sometimes, the simple answer is the right one.

IIRC, the blue cloaks are worn by the Guardians of the Shrine (presumably clerical and lay), no?

IJ

I thought I said that earlier on in this thread, but you are quite correct - the blue cloaks are the wearers' insignia (clerical and lay) of the College of Guardians of the Shrine.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Thanks - I must have missed your earlier post.

Blue is, of course, the colour traditionally associated with Our Lady, but what is the 'correct' shade of blue (if any) for Eucharistic vestments? For use at Marian or OLW Masses, that is.

Our Place possesses a full set of High Mass vestments in a most gorgeous shade of kingfisher/azure blue, though they don't get used that often...the chasuble comes out for our monthly Walsingham Cell Mass, and IIRC we used the full set once when The Assumption fell on a Sunday (or we transferred it to the Sunday!). I think our late churchwarden ordered them from India (and paid for them himself, bless him), but I can't find a link.

We also have a lightweight pale blue chasuble, together with a cream chasuble which has nice blue fleur-de-lis and other Marian motifs embroidered thereupon.

IJ

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I’m sure your blue vestments are lovely so go ahead and use them for any feast of Our Lady you like. But I am not aware of any historic or contemporary precedent for blue as a festive liturgical colour. It was the colour for Advent in the Sarum use and I gather popular for Advent in some American RC circles.

I remember as a teenage hearing an Orthodox monk explain that for the Orthodox blue was not associated with the Mother of God but rather red for blood, as she gave life to the Son of God.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
It was the colour for Advent in the Sarum use and I gather popular for Advent in some American RC circles.

Not in RC circles. Purple/violet is the prescribed color for Advent in American RC churches; using blue instead is not permitted. Blue is, I believe, permitted for some Marian feasts.

Advent Blue—which from what I have seen can range from a medium, royal blue to a deep midnight blue—has become very common in Episcopal, Lutheran and Methodist churches, and is sometimes found in Presbyterian churches.

[ 03. June 2017, 20:15: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I got the idea of blue for Advent in RC circles from Ship of Fools. It is not official and I seem to remember that those mentioning it disapproved.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I got the idea of blue for Advent in RC circles from Ship of Fools. It is not official and I seem to remember that those mentioning it disapproved.

Well, "chromatically rogue" priests and parishes are always a possibility. If it happens, though, I don't think it's widespread. Use of Advent blue in Episcopal and Lutheran churches, on the other hand, seems to have become the norm, at least around here.

And I should have checked before posting—apparently (approved) RC use of blue vestments in the States is limited to certain Marian shrines.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

Blue vestments for Advent, along with the claim that this was the use of Sarum, is a concept invented by church supply companies nearly fifty years ago. Not only will one not find this supported by history, one also notices the equally novel claim that Advent is not a penitential season.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

I had a vague suspicion that blue was indeed approved for RC Marian shrine use, but, given that Our Place is C of E, we shall probably continue to delight in being 'chromatically rogue'!

I think I've mentioned before that we do possess a dark blue chasuble for Advent, but it is old and fragile, and not now used.

IJ

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

Azure blue was sometimes used for Mary Magdalene (as was saffron due to her hair) so perhaps her feast? It's not far away...

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Oh, I've not heard that before! Well, July 22nd (St.Mary M's day) is a Saturday, when we have a regular Eucharist, so we've another excuse to break out the blue.

Where does the idea that her hair was saffron come from, though?

IJ

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

Mary Magdalene is traditionally portrayed as having red or strawberry blonde hair.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I got the idea of blue for Advent in RC circles from Ship of Fools. It is not official and I seem to remember that those mentioning it disapproved.

When I was a curate-priest countless years ago, encountering eggs as one does, I was assiduously climbing the candle. My curacy parish, as it happened, had a set of electric blue vestments, made, I was told, for a former (Very Low™) vicar by a devoted seamstress of the dreaded Ladies Guild, one who knew little of ecclesiantics. She made it because his favourite football (Australian Rules [Disappointed]

) team wore blue. Being Very Low™ he never wore it, and had long since left the parish. His successor my training vicar was, while carflic, not tewwwiibly Sarum-inclined. For many years it reclined in the vestry cupboard.

I however vaguely heard the tradition of Sarum blue, and noticed too that the Australian Lectionary included the option S. Bl. for Marian feasts. So I blew the dust off it and wore it for a Marian Feast (while I was curate in charge and could get away with anything).

It was years later I realised that S. Bl. stood for Special Blessing (and was of course spread far wider and far-er through the lectionary than just Marian Feasts). [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Mary Magdalene is traditionally portrayed as having red or strawberry blonde hair.

"Traditionally"? Where?

Posted by Laud-able (# 9896) on :

If you flick through the Google images attached to the entry "St Mary Magdalene" you will see that in Western art she is usually represented as having abundant fair/reddish hair, without a veil. Her other attribute in iconography is the pot of spikenard.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

Yes, it's very common in Western art, esp medieval/early modern. And lots of that hair!

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laud-able:
If you flick through the Google images attached to the entry "St Mary Magdalene" you will see that in Western art she is usually represented as having abundant fair/reddish hair, without a veil. Her other attribute in iconography is the pot of spikenard.

I tried that and found some blondes, some redheads, some brunettes, some veiled. There were also some of her with an egg, which is how I usually picture images of her. Then something hit me -- the resemblance between a famous Icon of Mary Magdalene and the famous National Geographic cover of an Afghan girl.

[ 05. June 2017, 00:32: Message edited by: Pigwidgeon ]

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Mary Magdalene is traditionally portrayed as having red or strawberry blonde hair.

Be still my beating heart [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Now, now.....

....but in some portrayals, she is indeed drop-dead gorgeous. No wonder Our Blessed Lord may well have been in love with her...

IJ

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

To quote the line from the play Marat/Sade:

Confine your passion to the lady's mind.
Your love's platonic, not the other kind.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

'Magdalene'- AIUI related to Hebrew/ Aramaic words meaning 'Tower'. Could this have been a physical nickname for a tall woman? Tall, sensual, redhead....golly....

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

[Eek!]

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

Magdala is a first century Jewish town (was - it's an archeological "dig" as I write). It is just north of Tiberias on the shores of the Sea of Galilee/Kinneret.

As we went there to do the weekly supermarket trip yesterday I thought to myself "Hmmm.... since it was a 'New Town' perhaps Mary had left, had to leave, or or been expelled from another village".

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

A new town? Like Basildon? So a Palestinian Essex Girl as well?
This gets better and better....

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

More interesting to me is where she came from originally and under what circumstances she left there and settled in Magdala.

(Being a feminist always on the look-out for Wimmin Being Oppressed by the Patriarchy a la 1980's ideological time warp)

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
...I did look in vain in the bespoke service booklet, for instructions what to do, if any non-communicants preferred to receive a blessing instead. They could have been instructed either to carry the service booklet, or else to cross their hands over their chest.

I suppose that giving such instructions could be seen as actively encouraging the practice, which not everyone might like to do, especially in a place such as Walsingham, where Roman Catholic practice can be seen in some ways as a standard.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
...I did look in vain in the bespoke service booklet, for instructions what to do, if any non-communicants preferred to receive a blessing instead. They could have been instructed either to carry the service booklet, or else to cross their hands over their chest.
I suppose that giving such instructions could be seen as actively encouraging the practice, which not everyone might like to do, especially in a place such as Walsingham, where Roman Catholic practice can be seen in some ways as a standard.

I have always gone for a blessing in RC Mass and have never been reprimanded for it! Is it not standard practice?

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

Firstly, to make my position clear; as a communicant, I did receive at the Walsingham National Pilgrimage.

Secondly, no non-communicant is compelled to go forward to receive a blessing, but in my experience, receiving a blessing is encouraged for non-communicants at RC Masses.

Thirdly, I remain unclear as to what is the correct procedure on that pilgrimage occasion, for any non-communicants to receive a blessing. It doesn't affect me, but if I wanted to know, I would enquire locally.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
Firstly, to make my position clear; as a communicant, I did receive at the Walsingham National Pilgrimage.

Secondly, no non-communicant is compelled to go forward to receive a blessing, but in my experience, receiving a blessing is encouraged for non-communicants at RC Masses.

Thirdly, I remain unclear as to what is the correct procedure on that pilgrimage occasion, for any non-communicants to receive a blessing. It doesn't affect me, but if I wanted to know, I would enquire locally.

Blessings for non-Communicants in the RCC are certainly not prohibited and they are so common in Western countries with large numbers of non-Catholics that they are basically common practice. I often do not see instructions in service leaflets telling non-communicants they may receive a blessing, though. Traditionalist (by which I mean enthusiasts of pre-Vatican II practices) Catholics, though, tend to dislike the practice, and will point out that (AFAIK) the Vatican has never encouraged blessing of non-communicants, at least not as a regular thing (I am not sure if local bishops' conferences have or not, and people can correct me if I am wrong about the Vatican). Traditionalists think that non-Communicants should stay in their pews and make an act of spiritual communion (which is not a substitute for actual reception of the sacrament). They might also think that blessing of non-communicants interrupts the distribution of communion in such a way that the Blessed Sacrament is in danger of being dishonored, or that invisible micro-crumbs of the Sacrament might fall onto the floor of the church while the priest blesses someone without being caught by an altar boy with a paten.

Also, since coming before the Blessed Sacrament is its own blessing, and indeed some priests do bless non-Communicants by making the sign of the cross holding a consecrated host, it probably sends Traditionalists into conniptions when they see priests put down a consecrated host and bless someone with his hand alone, or worse, as some priests do, bless someone by laying his hand on their head (the crumbs!). I honestly find the hand-laying-on practice in this case irreverent towards the Blessed Sacrament, too, although I agree that Traditionalists can go overboard with this sort of thing.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
Firstly, to make my position clear; as a communicant, I did receive at the Walsingham National Pilgrimage.

Secondly, no non-communicant is compelled to go forward to receive a blessing, but in my experience, receiving a blessing is encouraged for non-communicants at RC Masses.

Thirdly, I remain unclear as to what is the correct procedure on that pilgrimage occasion, for any non-communicants to receive a blessing. It doesn't affect me, but if I wanted to know, I would enquire locally.
Blessings for non-Communicants in the RCC are certainly not prohibited and they are so common in Western countries with large numbers of non-Catholics that they are basically common practice. I often do not see instructions in service leaflets telling non-communicants they may receive a blessing, though. Traditionalist (by which I mean enthusiasts of pre-Vatican II practices) Catholics, though, tend to dislike the practice, and will point out that (AFAIK) the Vatican has never encouraged blessing of non-communicants, at least not as a regular thing (I am not sure if local bishops' conferences have or not, and people can correct me if I am wrong about the Vatican). Traditionalists think that non-Communicants should stay in their pews and make an act of spiritual communion (which is not a substitute for actual reception of the sacrament). They might also think that blessing of non-communicants interrupts the distribution of communion in such a way that the Blessed Sacrament is in danger of being dishonored, or that invisible micro-crumbs of the Sacrament might fall onto the floor of the church while the priest blesses someone without being caught by an altar boy with a paten.

Also, since coming before the Blessed Sacrament is its own blessing, and indeed some priests do bless non-Communicants by making the sign of the cross holding a consecrated host, it probably sends Traditionalists into conniptions when they see priests put down a consecrated host and bless someone with his hand alone, or worse, as some priests do, bless someone by laying his hand on their head (the crumbs!). I honestly find the hand-laying-on practice in this case irreverent towards the Blessed Sacrament, too, although I agree that Traditionalists can go overboard with this sort of thing.

Stonespring, your profile does not say where you are, nor in what country of the world you are from. You might be in UK (as I am), or you might be no-where near.

If you are suggesting that blessings for non-communicants at RC Masses are not to be encouraged, then that is not my experience. But supposing you are away from UK, then things may be that way different in your part of the world. Blessing by laying the hand on the person's head, is 'Anglican' and in my experience, something like the sign of the cross is made with the host over the persons head, avoiding physical contact, at RC Masses. The printed instructions, seem invariably to give directions, to encourage receiving the blessing.

Things are that way different at Extraordinary-Rite Masses, where I agree that non-communicants are encouraged to make an act of spiritual communion.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

I'm in the US. I'm an RC interloper in Anglo-Catholic parishes. I have no problem with Anglicans having their own practice for blessing non-communicants with the sign of the cross or the hands on the head, based on the Eucharistic theology of the church, the parish, and the priest. I was commenting on RCC practice here, where I have observed the sign of the cross with host, sign of the cross without host, and hands on the head, all done by both priests and lay eucharistic ministers - but of course practices vary from diocese to diocese and parish to parish, especially in terms of what is printed in leaflets. Nevertheless, here in the US RCC blessing of non-communicants is pretty much universally offered even if there is nothing about it in the leaflet, which the exception of Tridentine Rite Masses. Although I have been to RC Mass in the UK twice, although at locations that were probably not typical of your average RC Mass (Westminster Cathedral and Brompton Oratory). I don't remember
what the practice was on those two occasions regarding blessing of non-communicants, but I imagine that if I had come forward at Westminster Cathedral, at least, with my arms crossed I would have received a blessing.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I'm in the US. I'm an RC interloper in Anglo-Catholic parishes. I have no problem with Anglicans having their own practice for blessing non-communicants with the sign of the cross or the hands on the head, based on the Eucharistic theology of the church, the parish, and the priest. I was commenting on RCC practice here, where I have observed the sign of the cross with host, sign of the cross without host, and hands on the head, all done by both priests and lay eucharistic ministers - but of course practices vary from diocese to diocese and parish to parish, especially in terms of what is printed in leaflets. Nevertheless, here in the US RCC blessing of non-communicants is pretty much universally offered even if there is nothing about it in the leaflet, which the exception of Tridentine Rite Masses. Although I have been to RC Mass in the UK twice, although at locations that were probably not typical of your average RC Mass (Westminster Cathedral and Brompton Oratory). I don't remember
what the practice was on those two occasions regarding blessing of non-communicants, but I imagine that if I had come forward at Westminster Cathedral, at least, with my arms crossed I would have received a blessing.

Yes, with arms crossed over one's chest at Westminster Cathedral, you would have received a blessing. Carrying a book or service paper to indicate a blessing, is another of those 'Anglican' practices.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
...I did look in vain in the bespoke service booklet, for instructions what to do, if any non-communicants preferred to receive a blessing instead. They could have been instructed either to carry the service booklet, or else to cross their hands over their chest.
I suppose that giving such instructions could be seen as actively encouraging the practice, which not everyone might like to do, especially in a place such as Walsingham, where Roman Catholic practice can be seen in some ways as a standard.
I have always gone for a blessing in RC Mass and have never been reprimanded for it! Is it not standard practice?

I certainly didn't mean to suggest that anyone would be reprimanded for this in a Catholic church. Indeed, if a non-communicant were to present himself to the priest for a blessing at the time of Communion, I expect that the majority of priests would oblige, but this seems a very different matter from the active encouragement of this sort of interpolation indicated by giving explicit instructions of how to do it in a service booklet.

Where it is actively encouraged, I can only imagine it is because the individual priest has chosen to do that, and not because it is actually a part of the Catholic Mass. In a place where Roman Catholic liturgical norms might be seen as a standard to aspire to, it certainly wouldn't strike me as in any way surprising that there was no active encouragement of something that is not a part of those norms, which is the point I was making in my initial reply.

Certainly, from my Orthodox perspective, it makes no sense. In the rites of both east and west, the priest invokes God's blessing on the gathered people numerous times in key parts of the Mass where those blessings have a particular meaning, but you wouldn't see people wandering up to the priest during communion to ask for their own individual blessings, any more than you would expect to see people do so during the Gospel, or the offertory procession, or the eucharistic canon. It would seem equally strange in all cases as it just doesn't belong. Outside of a liturgical context, there are all manner of opportunities to ask a priest for a blessing, and we have a culture of just that, but just not as additions to the communal Liturgy.

I realise that for people from traditions where this is customary it might sound odd for me to say so, but that is how it looks to me.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

It is quite common now in RC parishes in this country for children who have not yet made their First Communion to come up with parents and friends to receive a blessing.It is not uncommon to see adults approach also for a blessing.There is, however, no general direction from the bishops that this should be done.

As the Scrumpmeister says there is a general blessing of the congregation at the end of Mass and so there is no real need to go forward for an individual blessing at the time of Communion.This is apart from the fact that nowadays the majority of the participants will go forward(which was not the case 50 years ago) and understandably those not going to Communion do not want to be left behind.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
It is quite common now in RC parishes in this country for children who have not yet made their First Communion to come up with parents and friends to receive a blessing.It is not uncommon to see adults approach also for a blessing.There is, however, no general direction from the bishops that this should be done.

As the Scrumpmeister says there is a general blessing of the congregation at the end of Mass and so there is no real need to go forward for an individual blessing at the time of Communion.This is apart from the fact that nowadays the majority of the participants will go forward(which was not the case 50 years ago) and understandably those not going to Communion do not want to be left behind.

It is not compulsory for non-communicants to go forward to receive a blessing, but in my experience, it is encouraged.

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

YMMV, of course, but in more than 50 years as an Anglican communicant, and in many parishes and cathedrals both here in the USA and the UK, I have NEVER seen this:

'Carrying a book or service paper to indicate a blessing, is another of those 'Anglican' practices.'

Though I am sure that it is done in some places. Anglicans, in my experience, remain surprisingly 'insular' (sorry about the incipient pun) and tend to assume that what is done in one's home parish is universal practice.

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
YMMV, of course, but in more than 50 years as an Anglican communicant, and in many parishes and cathedrals both here in the USA and the UK, I have NEVER seen this:

'Carrying a book or service paper to indicate a blessing, is another of those 'Anglican' practices.'

I have seen it widely in the UK; although I've never thought about it, it is such a commonplace that I have assumed it's what's taught in the training colleges, "if you don't want to receive communion, but would like to come up for a blessing please bring your service paper as a sign" is common form at weddings and the like where there will be a very mixed congregation.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
...I did look in vain in the bespoke service booklet, for instructions what to do, if any non-communicants preferred to receive a blessing instead. They could have been instructed either to carry the service booklet, or else to cross their hands over their chest.
I suppose that giving such instructions could be seen as actively encouraging the practice, which not everyone might like to do, especially in a place such as Walsingham, where Roman Catholic practice can be seen in some ways as a standard.
I have always gone for a blessing in RC Mass and have never been reprimanded for it! Is it not standard practice?
I certainly didn't mean to suggest that anyone would be reprimanded for this in a Catholic church. Indeed, if a non-communicant were to present himself to the priest for a blessing at the time of Communion, I expect that the majority of priests would oblige, but this seems a very different matter from the active encouragement of this sort of interpolation indicated by giving explicit instructions of how to do it in a service booklet.

Where it is actively encouraged, I can only imagine it is because the individual priest has chosen to do that, and not because it is actually a part of the Catholic Mass. In a place where Roman Catholic liturgical norms might be seen as a standard to aspire to, it certainly wouldn't strike me as in any way surprising that there was no active encouragement of something that is not a part of those norms, which is the point I was making in my initial reply.

Certainly, from my Orthodox perspective, it makes no sense. In the rites of both east and west, the priest invokes God's blessing on the gathered people numerous times in key parts of the Mass where those blessings have a particular meaning, but you wouldn't see people wandering up to the priest during communion to ask for their own individual blessings, any more than you would expect to see people do so during the Gospel, or the offertory procession, or the eucharistic canon. It would seem equally strange in all cases as it just doesn't belong. Outside of a liturgical context, there are all manner of opportunities to ask a priest for a blessing, and we have a culture of just that, but just not as additions to the communal Liturgy.

I realise that for people from traditions where this is customary it might sound odd for me to say so, but that is how it looks to me.

Although it is not technically an "official" practice in the RCC, I think it makes sense to many RC people and priests, who think of it as coming forward to be close to the Blessed Sacrament, to adore it, and to be blessed by the Blessed Sacrament itself (which is why, in an RC context, I oppose blessing non-communicants that come forward with merely the priest's hand). An Orthodox understanding of the Liturgy, as opposed to an RC one, may not support this line of thinking, though.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
YMMV, of course, but in more than 50 years as an Anglican communicant, and in many parishes and cathedrals both here in the USA and the UK, I have NEVER seen this:

'Carrying a book or service paper to indicate a blessing, is another of those 'Anglican' practices.'

Though I am sure that it is done in some places. Anglicans, in my experience, remain surprisingly 'insular' (sorry about the incipient pun) and tend to assume that what is done in one's home parish is universal practice.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:

quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
YMMV, of course, but in more than 50 years as an Anglican communicant, and in many parishes and cathedrals both here in the USA and the UK, I have NEVER seen this:

'Carrying a book or service paper to indicate a blessing, is another of those 'Anglican' practices.'

Though I am sure that it is done in some places. Anglicans, in my experience, remain surprisingly 'insular' (sorry about the incipient pun) and tend to assume that what is done in one's home parish is universal practice.

In a friend's Episcopal parish in the southern US, this is the practice. I had not heard of it until she told me about it ten years ago.

Posted by keibat (# 5287) on :

georgiaboy wrote:

quote:
'Carrying a book or service paper to indicate a blessing, is another of those 'Anglican' practices.'

and various Shipmates have responded with varying degrees of confirmation and dismissal. Having lived for many years as an Anglican in a Nordic Lutheran environment, I was used to their convention of putting a hand on the opposite shoulder to request a blessing rather than communion. It works well: it's very clear, and doesn't depend on having had one's wits about one to pick up the service booklet and take it with. On relocating to England a few years ago, I then encountered the booklet practice, and can confirm that it is today used in many C-of-E churches.
On the other hand, it was in the Anglican Diocese in Europe, where congregations characteristically attract a rather ecumenical gathering of worshipers from many different Christian traditions, that I became familiar with the practice of explicitly stating, often both in print in the service booklet and also spoken, that "All baptized Christians are welcome to receive communion", sometimes with the tactful addition: "subject to their discretion" or something similar. In my own experience it was usually only the Orthodox who would systematically refrain.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

And the Dutch Reformed.

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

I've not seen this addressed here before. If it has been, my apologies.

I have observed many (not all) Hispanic and some Anglo RCs and Anglicans who, when making the sign of the cross, finish by kissing their right thumb. I've not asked any of them about this, because it would seem sort of a personal question, but I've wondered.

Any explanation(s), ideas?

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
I have observed many (not all) Hispanic and some Anglo RCs and Anglicans who, when making the sign of the cross, finish by kissing their right thumb. I've not asked any of them about this, because it would seem sort of a personal question, but I've wondered.

I think they're forming a cross with their thumb and forefinger, so they're kissing the Cross.

Someone called Ken on a Roman Catholic forum I found explained it:

My wife who is from the Philippines does this. It is because they make a cross with their thumb and index finger and make the sign of the cross with their thumb and index finger crossed, like a cross. After touching their right shoulder they then kiss the "cross" made by their thumb and forefinger. This is the identical practice when praying the rosary and making the sign of the cross with the crucifix and then kissing the crucifix.

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:

quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
I have observed many (not all) Hispanic and some Anglo RCs and Anglicans who, when making the sign of the cross, finish by kissing their right thumb. I've not asked any of them about this, because it would seem sort of a personal question, but I've wondered.
I think they're forming a cross with their thumb and forefinger, so they're kissing the Cross.

Someone called Ken on a Roman Catholic forum I found explained it:

My wife who is from the Philippines does this. It is because they make a cross with their thumb and index finger and make the sign of the cross with their thumb and index finger crossed, like a cross. After touching their right shoulder they then kiss the "cross" made by their thumb and forefinger. This is the identical practice when praying the rosary and making the sign of the cross with the crucifix and then kissing the crucifix.

Oh thanks, now I know what I'm doing.

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:

quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
I have observed many (not all) Hispanic and some Anglo RCs and Anglicans who, when making the sign of the cross, finish by kissing their right thumb. I've not asked any of them about this, because it would seem sort of a personal question, but I've wondered.
I think they're forming a cross with their thumb and forefinger, so they're kissing the Cross.

Someone called Ken on a Roman Catholic forum I found explained it:

My wife who is from the Philippines does this. It is because they make a cross with their thumb and index finger and make the sign of the cross with their thumb and index finger crossed, like a cross. After touching their right shoulder they then kiss the "cross" made by their thumb and forefinger. This is the identical practice when praying the rosary and making the sign of the cross with the crucifix and then kissing the crucifix.

Thanks. I had some vague memory that it was somehow related to Rosary devotions.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

I was under the impression that, generally, in the Episcopal Church, at a funeral, if ashes are present, we don't put a photo of the deceased with the ashes. I feel like that's akin to an open casket. Was I imagining this?

My understanding is that the theology behind the closed casket covered in a pall is that all are equal before God in death, and what you look like and how much you could spend on a casket are not important at that point. Similarly, urns are covered with a pall, because whether they're fancy or a plastic box from the crematorium is also irrelevant. Doesn't placing a framed photo or three near the ashes undo that?

If photos are placed by ashes, are they ever also placed by caskets?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I don't think I've ever been to a funeral at which the deceased's ashes were present in the church. Cremation constitutes committal. So retrieving the ashes and displaying them at a memorial service would be theologically much the same as digging the person up again.

If either the burial or cremation have already taken place, the service is referred to as a memorial service. It's not at all unusual where someone has had some sort of role in the community for the family to have their own funeral first, and a memorial for more public mourners to take place sometime subsequently.

The coffin being open at a funeral is as good as unknown here.

Palls are a bit unusual. I once heard an undertaker reply to the suggestion of a pall as 'very London'. It is not unusual to put other things on top of the coffin during the service, flowers, wreaths, and sometimes the deceased's Bible. They don't get buried or burnt by the way.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

In the US it's very common to have the urn at the memorial service. Sometimes covered with a pall (we use one of the veils for this) and sometimes not. I haven't seen the photo by the urn/on the coffin here, but very often now there is either a photo display or a video montage of the deceased during life. These are almost always assembled by the family and are greatly helpful for the mourners; you can see the deceased in the context of her life. This is usually set up out in the narthex or downstairs in the fellowship hall, so that people can look at it after the service.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
It is quite common now in RC parishes in this country for children who have not yet made their First Communion to come up with parents and friends to receive a blessing.

As a practical matter, small children need to come to the altar with their communicant parents / caregivers, because you can't leave them by themselves in a pew. And once the kid is there, it seems a bit rude to just ignore them.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
In the US it's very common to have the urn at the memorial service.

Technically, as Enoch suggests, if the cremated remains are present, it’s a funeral, not a memorial service. Remains = funeral; no remains = memorial service. At least that’s the distinction I was always taught.

One thing I have learned on the Ship is that British and American cremation practices are very different. There is no committal or service of any kind at the crematory in the States, nor is anyone likely to be present for the cremation other than those doing it. No family, no clergy. It’s no different from the mortician preparing the body and putting it in a coffin for the service; the cremation folks cremate the body and put the ashes in an urn, which is then turned over to the family. The commital happens wherever the ashes are to be finally buried or placed—a columbarium, a scattering garden, etc.

So the comparison that Enoch makes—that having the cremated remains at the funeral is akin to digging up a buried body and bringing it back to the church—only translates here if the cremated remains have already been buried or placed in a columbarium or the like.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

The majority of funerals/memorial services at my church are for cremations, and more often than not the ashes are present. We have a columbarium in our garden, so the ashes are often placed in that following the service (sometimes the whole congregation attends, sometimes just family). During the service the urn with the ashes is placed in an "ossuary" similar to this one. A bouquet is often placed at the base. Photographs (and sometimes other memorabilia) are often displayed in the narthex and/or the parish hall if a reception follows there.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

Interesting point about cremation as committal. What Nick Tamen says is definitely true in the US. Interestingly, though, the state of Michigan (at least; other states may vary) considers cremation to be final disposal of a body, so that cremains may be moved around without any legal issues (which, of course, makes sense). But it seems odd for the Church to consider cremation a committal, since the ashes will then be taken and placed somewhere. I know the Catholic Church frowns upon keeping your loved one's ashes on your mantle or wherever...and I agree completely. It's important to let go! So placing the urn in a columbarium in a church or elsewhere, or scattering the ashes somewhere - that's more of a committal in the sense that from there, you're not moving the ashes around anymore, and you're certainly not hanging on to them.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
No family, no clergy. It’s no different from the mortician preparing the body and putting it in a coffin for the service;

Not necessarily the best comparison as, at least around here, the "coffining" is attended by (traditionally male) family members and with the minister present. If the death takes place away then the minister or elders will meet the coffin at the ferry and escort it to the church (or the home if the funeral is to be held there, as it sometimes is).

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
No family, no clergy. It’s no different from the mortician preparing the body and putting it in a coffin for the service;
Not necessarily the best comparison as, at least around here, the "coffining" is attended by (traditionally male) family members and with the minister present. If the death takes place away then the minister or elders will meet the coffin at the ferry and escort it to the church (or the home if the funeral is to be held there, as it sometimes is).

Ah, well, there you go. That’s different here as well.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
American cremation practices are very different. There is no committal or service of any kind at the crematory in the States, nor is anyone likely to be present for the cremation other than those doing it. No family, no clergy.

Not universally true. When my nephew died, the family attended the cremation. Brief viewing beforehand. We were told that we could stay as long as we wanted to while the actual cremation took place.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

It seems even the words are different here.

- The place where cremation happens is a crematorium here, often abbreviated to crem. We don't use the word 'crematory'.

- An ossuary is a place where bones alone are stored, a practice which is as good as unknown now, but was sometimes done in the Middle Ages. I think it is sometimes the practice on the continent to dig up the body again after about five years when the flesh has all rotted away, wash the bones and sore them in an ossuary or bone-house. Once buried, English law is very reluctant indeed to allow a body to be dug up again.

- A columbarium would be a fancy Latin word for a dovecote.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

The fact that ossuary has an alternative term in English as 'Charnel House' may lead in part to the belief they did not exist in England. They did as can be seen from this report in the Telegraph and this description of what is claimed to be Britains best preserved. They fell out of use in Victorian times irc when cities really began to expand quickly and modern funeral practices such as out of town cemetries were adopted.

Jengie

[ 24. November 2017, 20:46: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

I hear both crematory and crematorium here, with the frequency bring heavily slanted to crematorium. I usually say crematorium; I didn’t realize I’d used crematory until after the edit window closed. Really don’t know why it’s what I typed.

As for columbarium (which is indeed derived from the resemblance to a dovecote), what is a place for keeping urns containing cremated remains called there?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

It is called a columbarium here, and the Sydney Anglican diocese has very strict rules about construction of them on church property. OTOH, they are common at crematoriums (crematoria would not be used here) for the obvious reason that they make lots of money for the owners.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I hear both crematory and crematorium here, with the frequency bring heavily slanted to crematorium. I usually say crematorium; I didn’t realize I’d used crematory until after the edit window closed. Really don’t know why it’s what I typed.

As for columbarium (which is indeed derived from the resemblance to a dovecote), what is a place for keeping urns containing cremated remains called there?

Although undertakers and others give back ashes in urns, we don't usually keep them permanently in them. Churches generally insist that ashes should be buried, either in small wooden mini-coffins or poured into the ground. A small plaque can then go over the spot. They look rather like Moravian gravestones. A lot of people would rather scatter ashes, and frequently do, but both churches and public officials tend to discourage this.

Remember that one big difference between Britain and the places that many shipmates live, is that most of the time, the earth here is wet and muddy, not dry and hard.

There's a widespread belief that ashes are good for the soil, by analogy of the way we use bone meal as fertiliser. However, this is a delusion. Bone meal is produced by grinding up animal bones. When a person is cremated, all the nutrients have gone up the chimney.

I've heard there's a move beginning to develop that cremation isn't as environmentally better than burial as people have tended to assume. Yes, it takes up less space, but burial puts the nutrients back in the soil and cremation doesn't. Furthermore the burning consumes quite a lot of energy. And though you obviously can't grow crops on a graveyard, within my lifetime I've seen sheep put to graze in one.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Technically a crematorium is the entire facility -- the building, the office, the coffin reception area, etc. The actual oven-like object that does the burning is called the cremator.

A good example of a relatively modern ossuary is the catacombs in Paris. These date back to the 19th century and were a solution to the overcrowded graveyards of Paris. For years work crews dug up the bones and stacked them, neatly, down in the tunnels under the Left Bank. They kept them organized and labeled by church, and now (after city renovations and various wars) the labels may be the only evidence of a church and its location.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Although undertakers and others give back ashes in urns, we don't usually keep them permanently in them. Churches generally insist that ashes should be buried, either in small wooden mini-coffins or poured into the ground. A small plaque can then go over the spot. They look rather like Moravian gravestones. A lot of people would rather scatter ashes, and frequently do, but both churches and public officials tend to discourage this.

Both of those things (burial and scattering) happen here, but many, many churches have columbariums for the placement of ashes. I know of some where the urns are the decorative kind that come from the funeral home, but most seem to be utilitarian, cylindrical “urns” made to fit securely in the niches of the columbariums.

Sometimes there will be a “scattering garden” near the columbarium; I know some churches that only have scattering gardens, with a wall where names can be mounted or a book in the church with names recorded. An increasing number of non-church related cemeteries also have columbariums and/or scattering gardens. .

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

This is all so fascinating! I always wondered why "columbarium" sounded like a reference to doves.

In my experience in the US (in Metro Detroit and in San Francisco), the crematorium would send the ashes in a plastic box inside a velvet bag - although I've also been shown a fancy box that the urn was sent in. The churches I've worked at which had columbariums would then transfer the ashes into a box that was sized for their niches - in one case, a metal box, and in the other, a plastic box. (We're not fancy.)

The church I worked at in San Francisco had a columbarium that was sometimes sought out because San Francisco doesn't allow graves of any kind, for the most part, within the city - it's a waste of real estate. (OK, I'm putting that really cynically - the fact is the city is only 49 square miles, bounded by water on 3 sides, and hilly. And, yes, the real estate value is insanely high.) At some point in its history, all the graves were dug up and the bodies moved south to a town called Colma, which now is known for having more dead residents than living. There's still a military graveyard in SF, and some columbariums here and there.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

The great argument against scattering is the loss of a memorial, and of a place for the family to come and pay their respects. My parents wanted to be scattered under the Golden Gate Bridge; I am not going to go back there to memorialize them. (Traffic makes it impossible.)
The further argument against scattering in some random location (the park etc.) is that nobody knows what the future of that place will be. If they bulldoze it and erect a restaurant would that be OK?
Scattering in a church property gets you around those problems; with luck the church will always be there, and the family can always go to the church to say a prayer or something.
The number of very creative things that can be done with ashes is large, and Americans have done (if not invented) them all.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

The question of What To Do With Ashes is still exercising us at Our Place (we need to do something with the mortal remains of our late Churchwarden, and scattering is verboten - forbidden - by our Archdeacon, and, AFAIK, by the rules of the church to which we belong).

Having recently cleared some considerable space in our basement by replacing two huge old gas boilers by a sleek modern energy-efficient version, I rather like the idea of a subterranean columbarium...

IJ

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The coffin being open at a funeral is as good as unknown here.

Common for Afro-Caribbean funerals.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Now that I didn't know.

If I get asked to conduct such a service, I won't be discombobulated (though, frankly, I've seen enough corpses not to be spooked thereby under any circumstances).

IJ

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

The University of Pittsburgh (in Pennsylvania) runs
the Allegheny Observatory, erected in Edwardian times by plutocrats who had a yen for science. Although it is not at all usual for an astronomical facility, a couple of the directors of the place has their ashes installed in the basement, in the foundation that supports the main telescope. There's a little columbarium down there with plaques and names.

So retrofitting your building with a couple niches shouldn't be such a much.

[ 26. November 2017, 17:31: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

Has anybody actually been to St Mark's Compline in Seattle? Or listening to the podcast regularly?
I happened upon it on the interwebz a while ago, read around a bit, and just getting back to it again.

That means I listened to one last night - but all new Spiritual Practices have a beginning and a first time! I used to listen to the streamed one from Community of St Mary the Virgin, Wantage for ages but of course that is now "off".

It's interestingly different from the British "tradition" and I am wondering if I will get used to the accents reasonably quickly. Also, it seems to be different every time - which I thought Compline as the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
Has anybody actually been to St Mark's Compline in Seattle? Or listening to the podcast regularly?
I happened upon it on the interwebz a while ago, read around a bit, and just getting back to it again.

That means I listened to one last night - but all new Spiritual Practices have a beginning and a first time! I used to listen to the streamed one from Community of St Mary the Virgin, Wantage for ages but of course that is now "off".

It's interestingly different from the British "tradition" and I am wondering if I will get used to the accents reasonably quickly. Also, it seems to be different every time - which I thought Compline as the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow

I've never attended but have often listened. My impression is that the regular congregation for Compline is young, diverse, and otherwise unchurched. The changing elements in the service from week to week (psalms, "orison," etc.) may inject something of the day and/or season, where a strictly monastic Compline would eschew all variation. Might help make the ensemble more attractive to good singers, as well, if it's not the same every week.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The coffin being open at a funeral is as good as unknown here.
Common for Afro-Caribbean funerals.

I grew up with that as a norm. It's done in US funeral homes, if the service is held there, and it's done in some of the less-catholic churches. It wasn't until I became an Episcopalian, and then later at my Catholic grandmother's funeral, that I witnessed and learned of the tradition of closing the coffin before the service begins. Now it's kind of shocking to me if I go to a service where the coffin is open!

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
The changing elements in the service from week to week (psalms, "orison," etc.) may inject something of the day and/or season, where a strictly monastic Compline would eschew all variation. Might help make the ensemble more attractive to good singers, as well, if it's not the same every week.

They also have tiny intercessions where people are mentioned by (first) name: last night someone who'd died called "John" and a woman who was ill.

I assume the format has changed and developed over the decades so that now it is the unique service it is today ... part Compline, part Choral Evensong, part concert, part General Public Liturgy ... well done them as it obviously meets a variety of needs to a wide variety of people in Seattle and they reckon another 10 000 listen on line

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Parents both stipulate in their wills they are to be scattered in the river Wharfe at Bolton Abbey, which trumps any church rules on the subject. Mum's already there, Dad will follow.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

But not these people

Jengie

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Parents both stipulate in their wills they are to be scattered in the river Wharfe at Bolton Abbey, which trumps any church rules on the subject. Mum's already there, Dad will follow.

I assume by now that Mum is well into the North Sea (God rest her soul)

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Parents both stipulate in their wills they are to be scattered in the river Wharfe at Bolton Abbey, which trumps any church rules on the subject. Mum's already there, Dad will follow.
I assume by now that Mum is well into the North Sea (God rest her soul)

Well, yes. But you know what I mean.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The coffin being open at a funeral is as good as unknown here.
Common for Afro-Caribbean funerals.
I grew up with that as a norm.

Same here. I easily served at over 100 funerals in my Anglican childhood and teenage years. I can think of two where the coffin was closed; in both cases the deceased had died in an RTA so there was an understandable reason to have the coffin closed.

In my Orthodox experience in adulthood, similarly, all funerals have been open coffin.

It seems strange to me now when I go to a funeral and coffin is closed.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

Fact of the day: It's not allowed to have an open coffin at a service in a crematorium chapel.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Is that a local authority rule, Spike?

And does the C of E (or any other denomination)allow an open coffin at a church funeral service?

If so, it must then have to be discreetly closed before burial (whether in churchyard or other cemetery) or cremation...

IJ

Posted by Roman Cataholic (# 18736) on :

It's fine in the Roman Catholic tradition

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Is that a local authority rule, Spike?

I'm not sure. We were told this by a funeral director when I did my funeral training.

ETA: Come to think of it, I don't think it's a local authority thing. The course I did was diocesan wide which covers quite a lot of local authorities. Also, we have both local authority and private crems in the diocese, so I think it must be a national thing.

quote:

And does the C of E (or any other denomination)allow an open coffin at a church funeral service?

Yes, I've seen it quite a lot with African and Afro Carribean funerals.

[ 29. November 2017, 21:33: Message edited by: Spike ]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

OK, so does the closing of the coffin take place somewhere in the church (or sacristy), prior to the burial in the churchyard, or the transport to cemetery or crematorium?

I just have this silly mental picture of discreet hammering echoing around the building, whilst the mourners await the next stage in the proceedings... [Paranoid]

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Roman Cataholic:
It's fine in the Roman Catholic tradition

It's a possibility but I'm not sure. I've never come across a funeral mass with an open casket in the U.S. or Mexico. Yes at vigils, wakes and rosaries but those are distinct from the actual funeral mass held in the parish church. Maybe funeral masses with an open casket are held or have been held in other places places and/or at other times but, generally speaking, it's not common practice where I have lived. It is something I would have to investigate.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
OK, so does the closing of the coffin take place somewhere in the church (or sacristy), prior to the burial in the churchyard, or the transport to cemetery or crematorium?

I just have this silly mental picture of discreet hammering echoing around the building, whilst the mourners await the next stage in the proceedings...

IJ

The lid goes back on after the commendation and before the body is taken out of church. The funeral director usually has a small screwdriver in his/her pocket and is (usually) very discreet

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

As I said, it was a silly mental picture.

My imagination-o-meter clearly needs recalibrating, as I'm sure all funeral directors are discreet in these matters (they get paid enough!).

[Biased]

Posted by Roman Cataholic (# 18736) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:

quote:
Originally posted by Roman Cataholic:
It's fine in the Roman Catholic tradition
It's a possibility but I'm not sure. I've never come across a funeral mass with an open casket in the U.S. or Mexico. Yes at vigils, wakes and rosaries but those are distinct from the actual funeral mass held in the parish church. Maybe funeral masses with an open casket are held or have been held in other places places and/or at other times but, generally speaking, it's not common practice where I have lived. It is something I would have to investigate.

I'm not really debating. It's fine in the Catholic tradition and it happens.

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Roman Cataholic:
I'm not really debating. It's fine in the Catholic tradition and it happens.

I didn't intend to start a debate and I acknowledged it was possible at different times and places. However, I think it's important to not mislead people. I observed that it's not something that I've encountered as a fairly well informed, life-long Catholic.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

According to the Episcopal (U.S.A.) Book of Common Prayer:

quote:
The coffin is to be closed before the service, and it remains closed thereafter. It is appropriate that it be covered with a pall or other suitable covering.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The coffin being open at a funeral is as good as unknown here.
Common for Afro-Caribbean funerals.
I grew up with that as a norm. It's done in US funeral homes, if the service is held there, and it's done in some of the less-catholic churches.

Maybe it’s a regional thing, but I can’t remember the last time I went to a funeral around here—whether in a church or a funeral home—with an open casket. It was somewhat common in some churches when I was younger, but the practice definitely seems to have faded.

Open caskets at a visitation the night before the funeral, on the other hand, are more common.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
As I said, it was a silly mental picture.

My imagination-o-meter clearly needs recalibrating, as I'm sure all funeral directors are discreet in these matters (they get paid enough!).

IJ

Hehe.

It's as Spike says.

Coffin lids tend to be screwed into place, rather than nailed, so there's no banging to worry about.

In my experience, the coffin is usually designed with screws which have ornate tops that are just twisted into place. You can see the sort of thing I mean here.

At the end of the service, the pallbearers approach, place the lid on, screw it in place, then lift the coffin to remove it from the church. This way, it is the body, as opposed to the coffin lid, that is censed and sprinkled with holy water at various points in the service.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Two Orthodox funerals I have attended (one in Ottawa, the other in Toronto)-- both ROCOR (the more old-Russian of the Orthodox churches)-- had open caskets at the ceremony with some hand-kissing of the deceased. I was not present at the committal, so cannot tell if the lids were screwed on or the nails hammered in-- they were hammered-in in the David Lean film of Dr Zhivago.

Posted by Cathscats (# 17827) on :

When I did funeral training in Chicago (with the PC(USA)) I was told to beware of the undertakers, who tended to want to tell the novice clergy that of course the coffin would be open. My mentor said this was because they wanted to show off their embalming skills and wanted to have the limelight when closing it. In fact some of them, it seems, liked to have the congregation file out past the open coffin before closing it, presumably not if in a crematorium.

My mentor said such practises made it difficult for the message of the resurrection to stick with the mourners. [Biased]

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

There's a huge regional variation, as you can easily see, in funeral customs. Furthermore, because we're such a mobile society, people have different expectations. As a result, funeral directors will mostly do what you tell them to. If you say you want an open coffin, they'll do it.

If you, personally, want an open coffin service, be sure and tell somebody about it. Otherwise your next of kin will just do whatever they feel like. Communicate your wishes now, while you're on deck to do it, and there'll at least be a sporting chance it'll come off the way you want. And while you're at it you could make a note of the hymns you want sung, the psalm to be read, maybe even the preacher you do not want to deliver the homily. (I've already warned my husband about the one priest, who has a penchant for YouTube videos, that I don't want.)

[ 30. November 2017, 18:20: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

An odd one and I cannot believe we have not tackled it before but I cannot recall the answer.

Why is purple used as a penitential colour when in the rest of life it is associated with royalty and wealth?

Jengie

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

Something to do with Mark 15. 17-20 ?

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Maybe. I am googling but not finding anything consistent. I might try my father who is good on stories about the less seemly side of liturgical development.

Jengie

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

I seem to recall it having something to do with the darkness of the color, and maybe the way material dyed black (the penitential color before purple) faded.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

Sorry to double post, but I just remembered something that may be pertinent: Technically speaking—at least in terms of the Catholic Church and the General Instructions for the Roman Missal—the color for Advent and Lent is violet, not purple. Standard English usage notwithstanding (except in ROYGBIV), violet and purple are not the same color. Violet is a little closer to blue while purple is a little closer to red.

It is the slightly-reddish purple that was expensive to make and was therefore associated with royalty and the rich. (Incidentally, the dye was made from shellfish, meaning that the purple robe that was mockingly placed on Jesus as “King of the Jews” was ritually unclean.)

It is the slightly-blueish violet that is the color of humility and penitence.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
(Incidentally, the dye was made from shellfish, meaning that the purple robe that was mockingly placed on Jesus as “King of the Jews” was ritually unclean.)

I stand corrected by a much more knowledgeable shipmate. While the first part of my statement is accurate, the second part is not. The dye was made from shellfish, but that would not make the clothing ritually unclean. Apologies, and my thanks for the correction.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

We have a new priest who has been taking out of the storeroom in the church a number of old vestments for use in the liturgy. On All Souls' day I thought he was wearing a black chasuble which has not been liturgically correct since the Vatican Council in the 1960s.On looking closer it was indeed the colour which Nick Tamen has just described as violet. The same vestments are now being used in Advent. As a side issue it will make the change to the rose coloured vestments of the Third Sunday of Advent more apparent.

The word 'purple' and forms of this word in other languages can have different meanings. 'Raised to the sacred purple' is an expression meaning one has been made a cardinal. 'I porporati' is an expression in Italian which means 'Cardinals'

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Ok I have been googling. The reason for purple/violet is not clear still.

What is clear is the distinction of purple and violet liturgically is not colour but process. The purple you are talking of is Tyrian purple and was lost largely due to the fall of Constantinople in 1206. It was always expensive but with fall it became more reserved for the elite. Intriguingly the process is clearly related to the that for making the dye for Tekhelet which is a blue colour. The difference seems to be how much sunlight the dye is exposed to in creating.

That is purple so what is violet. The answer this is a mix of lesser dyes to create a non-colourfast hue of a similar colour to purple. Thi Pope Innocent III specified as an alternative for Black. I suspect in this case this refers to a purple colour that is caused by mixing red and blue dies. I suspect the mixing is important.

Oddly this use of purple or violet is almost the exact opposite of today. Violet is a perfect hue on the light spectrum while purple is the mix of red and blue.

Most of this I got from here .

I find the quote from this page on symbolism of colour as interesting

quote:
Judaism
In the Torah, Judaism's holy text, many colors are referenced and their meanings explained. Purple gets its symbolism in Judaism from the combination of two other colors, red and blue. In the Jewish tradition red symbolizes sin and blue represents the glorification of God, and when the two combine to form purple the meaning is transformed into one of redemption and purification.

Jengie

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

Back to the open casket track:

In my childhood in the US Southern states, so no air conditioning, open doors & windows, etc. At pre-funeral visitations/'viewings' the open casket was covered with a thin lace veil draped from the open lid down across the body and hanging down in front. (IIRC black with a lace edge for men, white with a floral border for women & children).
I wondered much about this and asked my mother, who shushing me, said 'It's to keep the flies off, dear.'

Alas, it's been many years since I've seen one of these.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

Jengie, that's so fascinating! Thank you!

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

I should have said that mixing dyes of red and blue before we had modern pigments was a decidedly tricky process and that the 'purple' would often end up as brown. Thus the idea that 'purple' was a faded black has some traction. A good purple is a rare thing unless you have dyes that are pure hues. I discovered that in Junior School so sorry no web reference. Most purples would have been dirty colours.

Jengie

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

The book The Rarest Blue by Baruch Sterman tells of the rediscovery of the secret of the Techelet/Davidian blue; the shellfish, the processing and the now-available "ptil ha-techelet"/blue thread for the fringes of the tallit/prayer shawl.

As I recall the pink-purple-blue spectrum was to do with exposure to light after immersion in the dye stuff. It's a few years since I read it (and what a page-turner it was!) so I can't remember which way it went (more light --> less blue, more purple or the opposite. But light was the critical variable.

Dyers would have been highly skilled and the rarity of the shellfish would also have contributed to the whole enterprise being incredibly expensive. But I imagine what there was would have been really good quality or rich people would not have bought it

Pity we can't ask Lydia (Acts 16)...

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

There is article on the finding of the Tekhelet. There are apparently two snail species involved in the production of purple and blue and yes sunlight is important but then I get confused.

Jengie

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I just put a reserve on the Sterman book at my local library.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
We have a new priest who has been taking out of the storeroom in the church a number of old vestments for use in the liturgy. On All Souls' day I thought he was wearing a black chasuble which has not been liturgically correct since the Vatican Council in the 1960s.

Does All Souls' Day not come under the provision of masses for the dead, for which black is permitted? Or is it categorised separately?

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

I meant of course "tzitzit" not "tallit"

[Hangs head in shame and thinks "What is the Hebrew for hara-kiri?"]

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Scrumpmeister Masses for the Dead which are funeral Masses may be celebrated in purple vestments or much more often these days in white vestments expressing hope and joy for the future.

On All Souls' Day the liturgical colour is purple.
To respect the integrity of the Tridentine rite the colour black would be used for a Requiem Mass.

At the end of the day even with the new rite I don't know who would complain if the mourners wished black vestments to be used.That being said few mourners would express such a wish.

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

Back again to open caskets, it seems to be de rigueur among Filipinos whatever their confessional loyalties may be.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Scrumpmeister Masses for the Dead which are funeral Masses may be celebrated in purple vestments or much more often these days in white vestments expressing hope and joy for the future.

On All Souls' Day the liturgical colour is purple.
To respect the integrity of the Tridentine rite the colour black would be used for a Requiem Mass.

At the end of the day even with the new rite I don't know who would complain if the mourners wished black vestments to be used.That being said few mourners would express such a wish.

I have a definite recollection of the GIRM giving black as a permitted colour for masses for the dead. Mind you, it's been some years since I delved into the detail of the modern Roman Rite, so that may well have changed in the meanwhile.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal does allow white, violet, or black vestments in Masses for the Dead. However, for All Souls Day, it specifies violet.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
There is article on the finding of the Tekhelet. There are apparently two snail species involved in the production of purple and blue and yes sunlight is important but then I get confused.

Jengie

All, incidentally, quite important to interpretation of Paul.

I forget why! [Killing me]

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

No wait ... it was Revelation ...

quote:
At Acts 16:11–15, Luke recounts an encounter between
Paul and Lydia, the latter described as “from the city of Thyatira” and a
“dealer in purple cloth” (Luke was probably writing after John, so I am not
implying influence here). Purple cloth was made purple by dyeing with the
shellfish murex trunculus or murex brandaris, rendering those involved
ritually unclean, according to the Torah (Lev 11:10–12). It is probable that
Lydia and the women with her were particularly open to the gospel as they
were ritually unclean, on account of their trade, and ostracized by orthodox
Jews. They quickly accepted the gospel (Acts 16:14–15): by contrast,
the whore of John’s vision remains trapped in her purple adornments, immersed
in her uncleanness. There is a vivid illustration of the human need
for grace in this contrast between Luke’s humble gospel-recipient from Thyatira
and, in John’s vision written in part for the church at Thyatira (and no
doubt Philippi), the celestial whore of Babylon. Whether Lydia remained
in Philippi or returned to her home town of Thyatira, her story would have
been known to John’s audience, and the contrast between Lydia’s rejection
of a purple lifestyle and the whore epitomizing all that purple and scarlet
implied was a potent local image.

(I can quote that because I wrote it [Roll Eyes]

... fellow hosts, no copyright infringement)

Now back to scheduled broadcasts.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
No wait ... it was Revelation ...

quote:
At Acts 16:11–15, Luke recounts an encounter between
Paul and Lydia, the latter described as “from the city of Thyatira” and a “dealer in purple cloth” (Luke was probably writing after John, so I am not implying influence here). Purple cloth was made purple by dyeing with the shellfish murex trunculus or murex brandaris, rendering those involved ritually unclean, according to the Torah (Lev 11:10–12). It is probable that Lydia and the women with her were particularly open to the gospel as they were ritually unclean, on account of their trade, and ostracized by orthodox
Jews. They quickly accepted the gospel (Acts 16:14–15): by contrast, the whore of John’s vision remains trapped in her purple adornments, immersed in her uncleanness. There is a vivid illustration of the human need for grace in this contrast between Luke’s humble gospel-recipient from Thyatira and, in John’s vision written in part for the church at Thyatira (and no doubt Philippi), the celestial whore of Babylon. Whether Lydia remained in Philippi or returned to her home town of Thyatira, her story would have
been known to John’s audience, and the contrast between Lydia’s rejection of a purple lifestyle and the whore epitomizing all that purple and scarlet implied was a potent local image.
(I can quote that because I wrote it ... fellow hosts, no copyright infringement)

Now back to scheduled broadcasts.

Zappa, are you sure of that? A. Was Lydia Jewish? She's described as a 'worshipper of God'. That implies that she was a Gentile fellow-traveller to some extent. and B. Even if she had been Jewish, was a person rendered tref by touching shellfish, rather than actually eating it?

[ 15. December 2017, 22:12: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
The General Instruction of the Roman Missal does allow white, violet, or black vestments in Masses for the Dead. However, for All Souls Day, it specifies violet.

Thank you for this.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

I’ve just seen something on a tv show which has never occurred to me before: is champagne acceptable as communion wine? Personally, I can’t see why not. Champagne is unadulterated fermented fruit of the grape, so it ticks the boxes for me. (My only problem would be adding water to it, which is a Crime Against Champagne.)

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

No, I can't see why not - except that the fizz might make a susceptible communicant sneeze, in which case the Most Precious Blood would be....er.... broadcast around the sanctuary.

Which would not be a Good Thing.

IJ

Posted by John3000 (# 18786) on :

Unadulterated wine is pretty hard to come by these days, sulphites and sugar being the most common additives. Is communion wine normally specially sourced and supplied for that purpose or is any old wine used? I should imagine truly unadulterated champagne is even hard to find...

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Well, other churches may differ, but at Our Place (C of E, but Igh Church, Anglo-Carflick), we use a fairly bog-standard Chardonnay - the sort of thing you get for a fiver or so from Tesco or Asda.

There are, of course, special 'Communion Wines' available from ecclesiastical suppliers who are after £££, but, since Our Blessed Lord simply used the usual wine of His time at the Last Supper, I don't see that we (in our time) need to be too precious about it.

IJ

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

There are suppliers of altar wine, which is always a notch more expensive. In the interests of economy we (the Altar Guild, who does the buying) switched long ago to a cheap ruby port which we buy in big jugs. Our congregation likes it sweet and red; if it's not sweet enough there's muttering and complaint.
At one point in the past we had a very zealous deacon who assured us that the communion wine should not be sweet, because the cup of Jesus was a bitter one. Since the AG's duty is to do what the clergy wants, I offered to buy the most horrid (and cheap) bottle of plonk on offer and try it out in the chalices. Luckily wiser clergy heads prevailed and we have stuck to sweet red port.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

We also use Port, which I buy at our local wine mega-store.

Since Communion wine is not usually refrigerated after opening, a high alcoholic content helps save it becoming something like what Our Blessed Saviour was offered on a sponge while on the Cross.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

Ah, now I’d always heard that port was out of order because it’s fortified with spirits (or some such technicality). As to additives like sulphites, I expect they’re covered in the rubrics by whatever the Latin is for “wiggle room”.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I've noticed that (with a few exceptions) the higher the church, the whiter the wine. Low church places tend to be the ones that go for dark sticky red port. Since they are also less likely to claim that the wine 'is' blood, it seems counter-intuitive to me. Any suggestions as to why? (White wine makes it easier to wash purificators).

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Sevenhill Winery in South Australia was established by the Jesuits to make communion wine and still does. And if it's not straying into advertising, their normal drinking wines are also very pleasant. Very hard to find in bottle shops but easy to order in dozen lots.

BTW, Apera is the name now usd here for sherry-style wines, just as sparkling wines can now longer be called champagne etc.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Well, other churches may differ, but at Our Place (C of E, but Igh Church, Anglo-Carflick), we use a fairly bog-standard Chardonnay - the sort of thing you get for a fiver or so from Tesco or Asda.

There are, of course, special 'Communion Wines' available from ecclesiastical suppliers who are after £££, but, since Our Blessed Lord simply used the usual wine of His time at the Last Supper, I don't see that we (in our time) need to be too precious about it.

IJ

I think this is quite an interesting question (for a very narrow theological definition of interesting).

It is certainly undeniable that Jesus used the wine of his day. But how does that translate today? Should we use the wine of our day, or the closest we can get to the wine of Jesus' day?

For me, as a theologically conservative Anglo-Catholic, I'd prefer to go towards using the wine (and bread, for that matter) of Jesus' day. I'm a big fan of the scandal of particularity -- it's not just the general principles of "incarnation" that matter; it's the details.

Both sides can be taken to a logical extreme. On the one hand, you can end up requiring the bread and wine to be specific, licensed forms. On the other, you can end up celebrating the Eucharist with sliced white from Asda and Coke. Both take the argument too far, IMO.

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I've noticed that (with a few exceptions) the higher the church, the whiter the wine. Low church places tend to be the ones that go for dark sticky red port. Since they are also less likely to claim that the wine 'is' blood, it seems counter-intuitive to me. Any suggestions as to why? (White wine makes it easier to wash purificators).

If what is in the chalice is blood, it is much less important that it looks like blood. In fact it can help to reinforce precisely that point.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

One snarky priest I knew referred to white Communion wine as "The plasma of Our Lord."

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

Regarding champagne in the chalice:

One of my professors, who was ordained in Belgium, said that the wine at his first mass was 'fizzy and bubbly,' so presumably champagne or one of its cousins.

And in a parish where I formerly worked there was a New Year's Eve mass at which champagne was used.

On the subject of red v white wines:

I recall that in the A-C parish in which I was confirmed a sacramental wine called 'Angelica' was used. It was rather like a light, dry sherry, IIRC.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I am also informed that it is essential that the wine have alcohol in it. In other words, no grape juice. Don't know how true this is, or how universal.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I am also informed that it is essential that the wine have alcohol in it. In other words, no grape juice. Don't know how true this is, or how universal.

Someone else please correct me if I have this wrong, but my understanding is that the RC rule is that must may be used in certain circumstances, such as when a priest is an alcoholic. Must is grape juice that has not yet started fermenting. It has trace amounts of alcohol. The difference between must and, say, Welch's is that nothing such as pasteurization has been done to must to prevent fermentation—it's still possible, it just hasn’t gotten going yet.

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Well, other churches may differ, but at Our Place (C of E, but Igh Church, Anglo-Carflick), we use a fairly bog-standard Chardonnay - the sort of thing you get for a fiver or so from Tesco or Asda.

There are, of course, special 'Communion Wines' available from ecclesiastical suppliers who are after £££, but, since Our Blessed Lord simply used the usual wine of His time at the Last Supper, I don't see that we (in our time) need to be too precious about it.

IJ
I think this is quite an interesting question (for a very narrow theological definition of interesting).

It is certainly undeniable that Jesus used the wine of his day. But how does that translate today? Should we use the wine of our day, or the closest we can get to the wine of Jesus' day?

For me, as a theologically conservative Anglo-Catholic, I'd prefer to go towards using the wine (and bread, for that matter) of Jesus' day. I'm a big fan of the scandal of particularity -- it's not just the general principles of "incarnation" that matter; it's the details.

Both sides can be taken to a logical extreme. On the one hand, you can end up requiring the bread and wine to be specific, licensed forms. On the other, you can end up celebrating the Eucharist with sliced white from Asda and Coke. Both take the argument too far, IMO.

The directive in my tribe is that “[t]he bread used for the Lord’s Supper should be common to the culture of the congregation.” I agree it can be taken to the extreme, though I have rarely seen that happen.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
The directive in my tribe is that “[t]he bread used for the Lord’s Supper should be common to the culture of the congregation.” I agree it can be taken to the extreme, though I have rarely seen that happen.

You are fortunate! I have seen it happen, and in a church the directive you quote is assuredly not in force!

Both are, I think, theologically sustainable positions to hold. I lean towards the "literal" translation of the rite; but I can see why others prefer a "dynamic" translation.

Posted by JeffTL (# 16722) on :

The Roman Catholic Diocese of St. Petersburg (http://www.dosp.org/worship/wp-content/uploads/sites/28/Wine-Used-for-Mass-2011.pdf) allows anything 8-20% abv and made of grapes, which could theoretically include Port but I've never known Roman Catholics to use it. The Diocese of Davenport (http://www.davenportdiocese.org/documents/2016/6/litWinesEucharist-updated112711.pdf) requires 8-14% abv (explicitly prohibiting fortified wine), but notably endorses the entire table wine production of California, plus a handful of local wineries in Iowa, as appropriate for sacramental use. Davenport prohibits sparkling wine due to the presence of added sugars.

My personal view on the matter is also unfavorable to sparkling wine for the Eucharist, but coming at it from a different angle. I've seen pictures of liturgies where such wine was consecrated still in the (usually prestigious) bottle. While the elements should certainly be of excellent quality, this seems to cross the line into conspicuous consumption at the altar, regardless of any deeper questions about whether it is wine-y enough or a needless breach of tradition. Save it for coffee hour along with equally attractive alternatives.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Wikipedia article on Sacramental Wine seems quite knowledgeable including on the fortifying with spirit.

Jengie

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I've noticed that (with a few exceptions) the higher the church, the whiter the wine. Low church places tend to be the ones that go for dark sticky red port. Since they are also less likely to claim that the wine 'is' blood, it seems counter-intuitive to me. Any suggestions as to why? (White wine makes it easier to wash purificators).

It is because it 'is' blood it that doesn't need to look like blood.

Sticky redness makes it 'look like' blood (because it isn't).

[ 21. December 2017, 07:15: Message edited by: Corvo ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Two questions particularly for Ecclesiantics who are into church music.

The first, is something I've wondered about for some time. Is there a reason why choristers seem to pronounce 'l's in such an odd way?

The second is, do many really serious organists, especially the young male ones, get a bit geeky about all the technology, stops to pull, ways to synchronise that etc.? Do any of them get a thrill from being let loose on an instrument that has got more keyboards than anyone can play simultaneously?

Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :

I tried to introduce 'amber' communion wine here (moderately A-C) and was dissuaded by those who feared congregational revolt. We might try again next year, after some gentle teaching.

As I said at the time, if the wine has to be blood-red, then it should be accompanied by a realistic Body.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Is there a reason why choristers seem to pronounce 'l's in such an odd way?

I don't know what you mean. Could you explain more thoroughly?

Choristers are given lots of pronunciation advice, though. For example: the letter "r" barely exists in positions other than at the beginning of words. Thus, "peace on earth" would sound more like "peace on eth". And at the beginning of a word "r" is always trilled.

We are also told to lean our vowels toward an "ah" sound and to avoid "uh". Thus, "child" sounds more like "chah-ild" and "come" sounds like "cah-im" rather than "cuh-im."

And a hard "c" is always to be emphasized almost to the point of sounding like a chiff on an organ pipe.

We are told to emphasize consonants in general, which might be what you are getting at with your question re the "l" sound. It can be overdone, though.

quote:
Do many really serious organists, especially the young male ones, get . . . a thrill from being let loose on an instrument that has got more keyboards than anyone can play simultaneously?

I can't speak from experience, but organists whom I know do indeed wax ecstatic when let loose on a truly outstanding instrument.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Amanda, it's a bit difficult to explain what I mean. I was noticing it when I was watching the service at King's College, Cambridge this afternoon, but I've noticed it before.

On organs, I was asking not so much about the quality of the instrument, the organ equivalent of a Strad, so much as just the thrill of having all those knobs to pull and keyboards to twiddle on.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Is there a reason why choristers seem to pronounce 'l's in such an odd way?
I don't know what you mean. Could you explain more thoroughly?

Yes, please.

Do you mean how it’s more noticeable in singing that “I” is a diphthong—“ah:ee”? A (good) singer never moves to the second vowel of the diphthong until the end of the diphthong: “maaaaaaah-een” for “mine.” Otherwise you get “maah-eeeeen.”

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Sorry, I realise I was ambiguous. I'm full of cold at the moment and not thinking as clearly as I would wish. The 'l' was a small 'L'.

[ 25. December 2017, 07:56: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

As a chorister, I can't recall being told to pronounce "L" sounds in any specific way. I've listened to some of the King's College Youtubes, though, and I think I see what you mean.

I wonder if regional differences are coming into play here.

Our good savants tell us (at least Wikipedia says they do) that "L" is an "alveolar lateral approximant" and that there are four variants of it: dental, denti-alveolar, alveolar, and postalveolar, all referring to the exact spot at which the tongue touches the teeth or the alveolar ridge when articulating the "L" sound.

I wonder if the choirboys at King's don't use one of those variants in their everyday speech, and thus in their singing as well. I would say that my "L"s are "dental" and that the choirboys' "L"s are "denti-alveolar", but I'm no linguist and certainly not a savant -- nor is my hearing what it used to be.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I've never done linguistics and I can't follow what those terms mean. In normal English as spoken here, I think there are two 'L' sounds, one where it comes at the beginning of the word, and the other at the end of words and often in the middle. So a word like 'label' includes both. But what choristers sound as though they are singing is different from either. It isn't singing one, where you'd expect to hear the other.

The chorister one is distinctive but I don't know how to describe it. As I can't work out how they produce it, I can't describe how to emulate it.

Welsh contains a third 'L' sound represented by 'll' but the chorister one isn't that one either (which isn't a sort of 'thl' the way a lot of us English think we're representing it with).

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

When did Christmas become Christmass? Or, given the word, when did it become Christmas from Christ's Mass, then go back? I'm seeing it regularly in Anglican churches' service booklets.

I do not recall Christmass in my youth. Then again, I grew up in Sydney so Mass was verboten in most parts.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

Well, it seems to be common for other major feasts like Candlemas and Michaelmas too.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

Christmas has become Christmass? I haven’t seen that; it hasn’t found it’s way here, apparently, and with luck it never will.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Not necessarily common, but 'advanced' A-C churches seem to like adding the extra 's'. I guess it's supposed to reinforce the idea that it's a Christian religious festival...

Seems a bit precious, IMHO.

IJ

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Well, it seems to be common for other major feasts like Candlemas and Michaelmas too.

"Childermas" for Holy Innocents. And on 1st January, the feast of the Circumcision of Our Lord, I like to wish my friends a Merry Brismas.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I've never done linguistics and I can't follow what those terms mean. In normal English as spoken here, I think there are two 'L' sounds, one where it comes at the beginning of the word, and the other at the end of words and often in the middle. So a word like 'label' includes both. But what choristers sound as though they are singing is different from either. It isn't singing one, where you'd expect to hear the other.

The chorister one is distinctive but I don't know how to describe it. As I can't work out how they produce it, I can't describe how to emulate it.

Welsh contains a third 'L' sound represented by 'll' but the chorister one isn't that one either (which isn't a sort of 'thl' the way a lot of us English think we're representing it with).

These concepts can be difficult to describe. Are you able to link us to a recording of what you mean?

There are various free apps that will record an mp3 on a mobile phone or tablet. I use Hi-Q. This can then just be uploaded to Google Drive or similar and a link posted here.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Not necessarily common, but 'advanced' A-C churches seem to like adding the extra 's'. I guess it's supposed to reinforce the idea that it's a Christian religious festival...

Seems a bit precious, IMHO.

IJ

It's plugging the eucharist as 'mass' - a bit silly, I think.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Perhaps not, if that's the word (i.e. Mass) one's parish habitually uses on noticeboards, service booklets etc.

IJ

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
These concepts can be difficult to describe. Are you able to link us to a recording of what you mean?

There are various free apps that will record an mp3 on a mobile phone or tablet. I use Hi-Q. This can then just be uploaded to Google Drive or similar and a link posted here.

A link to a YouTube video would work too—perhaps one of the choir at King's College, since that’s where Enoch mentioned noticing it.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

If you can access it, Here's a youtube of the King's Carol Service for 2015, sound only. It's very marked in the treble solo of the first verse in Once in Royal David's City in the 'L's in 'royal' and 'cattle', less marked in some of the other 'L's. It's almost but not quite as though there's an extra very short vowel being inserted.

And as a comparison, here's a youtube of the service from 1954 this time with visuals, where the soloist is not doing it.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If you can access it, Here's a youtube of the King's Carol Service for 2015, sound only. It's very marked in the treble solo of the first verse in Once in Royal David's City in the 'L's in 'royal' and 'cattle', less marked in some of the other 'L's. It's almost but not quite as though there's an extra very short vowel being inserted.

And as a comparison, here's a youtube of the service from 1954 this time with visuals, where the soloist is not doing it.

Thanks. I'll admit that I don’t hear a big difference in the Ls. It does sound a bit like the chorister is coming to the L earlier in the syllable and singing through it, rather than hitting the L quickly at the very end of the syllable. Unlike many other consonants, L does not stop the sound and can be sung on pitch.

And he may be throwing a very quick schwa between the L and the next consonant—d or sh—for enunciation purposes.

[ 27. December 2017, 20:55: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

Posted by John3000 (# 18786) on :

Just wondering if christenings are ever done nowadays on Christmas Day, should it be a Sunday?

I've been researching my family tree and I see that one of my ancestors was baptised in the CoE as an infant on Sunday 25th December 1817.

Perhaps this reflects the increased significance lent to Christmas now compared to days gone by. Another relative came to a rather grim end on Christmas Day 1908 and the inquest in front of a full jury was held on the 26th!

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

"Ever" is a big word ... there were two babies christened/baptised at my Māori church last week, but I'd have to say it's not altogether commonplace anywhere I know. They were (coincidentally [Biased]

) mokopuna (grandchildren) of the coordinating priest. I was presiding but stepped aside for that part of the liturgy.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

I guess Sunday is the most common day for Baptisms, especially if a family party is coming from Far and Wide.

Our Place offers Baptism either during the Sunday Mass (usually taken up by church families, not that there are that many of them), or at 12 noon, after the Mass.

We do sometimes, for various logistical or pastoral reasons, hold Baptisms on another convenient day, such as a Saturday.

It's traditional, in some parts of the C of E at least, not to celebrate Baptism during Lent (unless it's an emergency, of course).

Christmas Day - even if not a Sunday - seems a very suitable occasion for a Baptism!

IJ

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

I've just realised I've misunderstood John3000's post, by reading an 'or' in front of 'should'!

Oops - my bad. Sorry about that. [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

My daughter was baptised on a Wednesday (at the regular mid-week Eucharist; no point being welcomed into the family of the church if that family aren't there to greet you) so that we could all be in the same place at the same time - consequences of living a long way from grandparents and godparents who are clergy.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

My children were baptised in the church where I spent most of my childhood at Evensong on a Low Sunday when the church's own choir and organist were officially "off"; it wasn't exactly a problem since among the Godparents alone we had 3 FRCOs, all the GPs sang well, and the guests/ GP's plus ones made up a fine impromptu choir so we had Dyson in D, Smith responses and Blessed be the God and Father.

The congregation were appreciative and the incumbent looked slightly shell-shocked; the infants slept through the whole thing.

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

FRCOs?
[Confused]

Posted by David Goode (# 9224) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
FRCOs?

The clue is in the poster's ship name.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

I don't quite understand how an organist is necessarily a good singer though.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Don't worry. FRCO means nothing to me either, and still doesn't. Obviously, we none of us belong to the right in-crowd. We have been put in our places, doubtless appropriately.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Fellows of the Royal College of Organists. And, again: they can play - but can they necessarily sing?

I like the idea of the GPs singing well - I wasn't aware that the Accident & Emergency Department had a choir! [Devil]

[ 02. January 2018, 09:06: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

- or Surgery (not A&E) - silly me!

Posted by John3000 (# 18786) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I don't quite understand how an organist is necessarily a good singer though.

They will hopefully at least know the tune, whereas I wouldn't expect a random party of christening guests to even attempt to sing Dyson in D from memory.

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I like the idea of the GPs singing well

Urogenital would make a catchy rhyme.

[Smile]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I like the idea of the GPs singing well
Urogenital would make a catchy rhyme.

That really is taking the piss out of the original post.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

All right, all right,: GPs = Godparents.

Yes, FRCO = Fellow of the Royal College of Organists.

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

Thank you, all.

---

A question I keep forgetting to ask. Why do the Catholics (at least down here) collect 2 sets of monetary offerings? Is one for the parish, one for the diocese? Or one for the parish, one for the poor?

The Russian Orthodox church I frequented in Newcastle had 2 collections - one for the church and one for the archdiocese. I did hear that people were more generous with one than the other!

Posted by sonata3 (# 13653) on :

Here in the US, there are often (but not always) second collections. When there are, the intent of the second collection (missions in Africa, the diocesan seminary where diocesan clergy are trained, collections for the order which administers the parish) is announced before the second collection is taken.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
All right, all right,: GPs = Godparents.

And there was I, thinking you were talking about doctors!

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

[Big Grin]

quote:
Originally posted by sonata3:
Here in the US, there are often (but not always) second collections. When there are, the intent of the second collection is announced before the second collection is taken.

Would that were the case here. On High Feast Days, if I can call them that!, a mention may be made of work in Israel or similar, but from week to week I remain unsure.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

In my part of the UK (CofE) we only have two collections if one is a "special" - in other words for some special appeal (likely to be a natural disaster or similar) or a special cause or focused-on institution.

The first collection is that taken during the Offertory Hymn and is for the church: it is of cash - loose or in envelopes so we can claim tax relief - and those who use the direct debit planned giving scheme can take a token as they enter to put into the plate. Once all the bags/plates have been circulated they are processed to the altar where the Prayer over the gifts is used before they are taken to a side table.

The second collection is always advertised during the notices, which are read out just before the Peace and Offertory, and is collected by plates placed by the doors. People who wish to use the gift aid tax relief scheme can use a special envelope which is available next to the plate. A sidesperson is always on duty (collecting hymn books, etc) by the plate and once everyone other than sidespeople have left church the second ("retiring") collection is carried into the vestry where the duty churchwarden and sidesperson/people will say a short prayer of thanks before it is counted out, recorded and placed in the safe for the treasurer to deal with.

Second collections that come to mind over the past year include: Grenfell Tower appeal, Christian Aid, Water Aid, various DEC appeals, RSCM (Church Music Sunday) and, of course, the traditional Easter Offering.

The only time when two "causes" will be collected for in the same plate is at funerals/memorial services where, if the family suggest it, donations to a chosen charity can be made in the plate by the door if the envelopes are provided for the purpose.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
In my part of the UK (CofE) we only have two collections if one is a "special" - in other words for some special appeal (likely to be a natural disaster or similar) or a special cause or focused-on institution.

Two collections are unheard of in my tribe, and I suspect having two collections would be considered somewhat bizarre. If there is some kind of special appeal or offering, it is dealt with by some combination of:

• marked envelopes placed in the pews that the special offering can be placed in before being put in the offering plate;
• the memo line on checks; and
• an announcement that any “loose” offering (cash or undesignated check) will go to the special cause.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

In other words in exactly the same way that it is dealt with at my place, its just that you don't label them as separate.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

In these days of direct debits and bank transfers, cheques are increasingly rare and many people don't carry spare cash. I suspect 'passing the plate' during services is one of those traditions that will soon disappear. It has already in many places.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Fifty years ago it was standard practice in RC churches in Scotland to have two collections, one at the offertory and then one after Communion. That is ignoring also the special monthly collection and the others at Christmas and Easter.
That has long since disappeared. We do have a second collection for a special occasion from time to time. Our present parish priest prefers that the second collection should be a retiring collection, but those responsible for the collecting keep reminding him that a retiring collection will be significantly lower than one where a plate is put directly in front of the churchgoers. So many people will just slip past a plate which is held out at the door of the church.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
In other words in exactly the same way that it is dealt with at my place, its just that you don't label them as separate.

Not really, if I understood you correctly, as in my tribe both would be collected simultaneously at the Offertory, not one at the Offertory and the other at the door as people leave.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
In these days of direct debits and bank transfers, cheques are increasingly rare and many people don't carry spare cash. I suspect 'passing the plate' during services is one of those traditions that will soon disappear. It has already in many places.

We still have lots of people who pay their pledge by check, which they put in the plate. There are also lots of smaller churches around here that don’t have electronic payment methods.

That said, we’ve started putting cards in the pews that can be used to note electronic payments or to note/offer non-monetary contributions, particularly in terms of volunteering, whether with the church or elsewhere. We went this direction for a couple of reasons:

• a sense that collecting an offering serves a meaningful purpose;
• a desire to emphasize that the offering is about more than money;
• a desire to enable everyone, including those who give electronically or whatever, to participate; and
• a desire to gather information about all the ways members of the congregation give of their time and their talents.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Interesting, Nick. Do you get many people using the cards to inform you of their gifts and talents?

It's certainly important to emphasise that stewardship is not just about £££ (or $$$)!

IJ

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
There are also lots of smaller churches around here that don’t have electronic payment methods.

I have my bank configured to send my contribution to the church monthly. What this means in practice is that the bank prints a check and mails it to the church, who then banks it.

quote:

That said, we’ve started putting cards in the pews that can be used to note electronic payments or to note/offer non-monetary contributions, particularly in terms of volunteering, whether with the church or elsewhere.

We ask people to pledge whatever level of financial support they can annually (which helps with budgeting) and on the same form invite people to pledge all the non-monetary support they offer (volunteering in whatever capacity). As you say, we need money, but we don't just need money - we need people to commit to being a community.

Cards noting electronic or whatever payments made to support the church were brought up at our AGM a couple of years ago. There was one person who was keen that some kind of indicator or token representing his personal offering be brought to the altar to be blessed, and nobody else who thought they would take advantage of such a facility.

The one person said that his current practice was to place a couple of dollars in the plate and consider them a marker for his rather more substantial automatic contribution, and that he was happy to continue with that. So we all shrugged and said "OK then".

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
In these days of direct debits and bank transfers, cheques are increasingly rare and many people don't carry spare cash. I suspect 'passing the plate' during services is one of those traditions that will soon disappear. It has already in many places.

I hardly ever use cash these days.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
we’ve started putting cards in the pews that can be used to note electronic payments

we have those too for those who feel unable to pass the plate without putting something in.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

Our own, and other churches at which I worship, no longer pass a plate. It is st the entrance so those who wish can place a gift in it as they arrive (making use of Gift Aid envelopes if they wish). The offering is presented and dedicated during the service, but there is still a plate at the back after the service for any who wish to make an offering but missed the plate on their way in.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Our own, and other churches at which I worship, no longer pass a plate. It is st the entrance so those who wish can place a gift in it as they arrive (making use of Gift Aid envelopes if they wish). The offering is presented and dedicated during the service, but there is still a plate at the back after the service for any who wish to make an offering but missed the plate on their way in.

Are there any security concerns about either procedure and what does your auditor say? Ours would be very unhappy about it.

[ 05. January 2018, 20:12: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

I have noticed how in Spain the collection is taken up in cloth bags. Enquiring of a local why this was instead of collection plates, he said that there were two explanations; either that it reduced the embarrassment from the sound of coins in the plate, or the possibility that breezes might cause the banknotes to fly away.

The late spouse of one of my former colleagues grew up gay in a Lutheran household in Missouri in the 1950s and had many stories about the experience. He told me that he attended a service where a neighbouring Holiness minister informed worshippers as the plate was being passed that he did not want to hear the jingle-jangle of the devils' hooves, but the gentle rustle of the angels' wings.

As my home parish features many SCA rejectees who really wish that they could place half-crowns, livres and sols, and wampum, as their offering, most of the collection comes up as cheques in envelopes. The parish treasurer would dearly love more of us to convert to electronic automatic payments. I suspect that he would happily allow the SCA types to place beaver pelts or beads on the plate as their symbolic offering if they would but sign up to an automatic payment.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
... As my home parish features many SCA rejectees who really wish that they could place half-crowns, livres and sols, and wampum, as their offering, most of the collection comes up as cheques in envelopes. The parish treasurer would dearly love more of us to convert to electronic automatic payments. I suspect that he would happily allow the SCA types to place beaver pelts or beads on the plate as their symbolic offering if they would but sign up to an automatic payment.

What does SCA stand for please?

Posted by John D. Ward (# 1378) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
What does SCA stand for please?

Society for Creative Anachronism

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
... As my home parish features many SCA rejectees who really wish that they could place half-crowns, livres and sols, and wampum, as their offering, most of the collection comes up as cheques in envelopes. The parish treasurer would dearly love more of us to convert to electronic automatic payments. I suspect that he would happily allow the SCA types to place beaver pelts or beads on the plate as their symbolic offering if they would but sign up to an automatic payment.
What does SCA stand for please?

As John D Ward answered. My apologies for not giving the specific reference, as I should have.

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

I'm not sure if I should be worried that it looks like fun. And I looked for a group near me.

When I lived in Sydney, my (Orthodox) church did not take a collection but had a locked box near the candles up the back. GeeD, or his auditor, may have concerns, even if I add that we rented a hall so people came in via the front.

The box afforded minimal security (single, ordinary lock) but no issues were ever noted.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John D. Ward:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
What does SCA stand for please?
Society for Creative Anachronism

Well that's certainly something I've never heard of before. I don't think they're well known round here. There is something called The Sealed Knot which recreates battles of the Civil War (the one in the 1640s).

[ 07. January 2018, 07:03: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

In the UK you tend to get LARPing (live action role playing - think historical reenactment for D&D campaigns) rather than SCA - actual historical reenactment tends to be strictly historical. I do know clergy who have official to semi-official ministries with both tabletop and live action role players - I'm sure I've seen something about it at Greenbelt.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
My apologies for not giving the specific reference, as I should have.

You're just a naughty little boy.

Meanwhile .. cloth bags are used at my wrong side of the tracks joint ... these days of polymer bank notes (outside the USA which seems to stick determinedly with indistinguishable slices of paper) they become a little tricky, as the notes are springy and one has to push them down into the mouth of the bag, giving a visual impression of pilfering.

Which reminds me of a mortifying moment when I was eight, at boarding school (yes [Roll Eyes]

), at which we had to put five cents into the offertory plate each Sunday night at chapel. I guess the compulsory offering was designed to express our immeasurable joy at encountering The Divine™ in liturgy and the thrilling prospect of the week's tedium now imminent, but I parenthesize). To my horror I realised I had spent my five cents on a five cent pick and mix bag of lollies (NZ-speak for candy/sweets). Creative, I reached out and touched the coins, pretending to place mine amongst the gifts my confreres had given to their loving, munificent God.

A prefect's hand flashed out and grabbed my wrist, and I was interrogated fiercely as to why I was attempting to steal God's money.

Fortunately he was a friend of my older brother (and, funnily enough, a Facebook friend of mine nearly 50 years later) and permitted my defence to stand. (Oh ... and he is a lawyer these days: perhaps I started him on his career path).

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Our own, and other churches at which I worship, no longer pass a plate. It is st the entrance so those who wish can place a gift in it as they arrive (making use of Gift Aid envelopes if they wish). The offering is presented and dedicated during the service, but there is still a plate at the back after the service for any who wish to make an offering but missed the plate on their way in.

We used to do that but didn't get as much money - so we went back to the old way.

Posted by JLB (# 10670) on :

We do that, and a short while after starting we compared giving for several weeks either side of the change. We found it made no difference to the amount given. It has also encouraged regular members of the congregation to give by bank standing order now that they don't feel obliged to be seen to put their gift in the plate.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Our own, and other churches at which I worship, no longer pass a plate. It is st the entrance so those who wish can place a gift in it as they arrive (making use of Gift Aid envelopes if they wish). The offering is presented and dedicated during the service, but there is still a plate at the back after the service for any who wish to make an offering but missed the plate on their way in.
Are there any security concerns about either procedure and what does your auditor say? Ours would be very unhappy about it.

In our place, the plate is out in a prominent public place (within the building) and under the eye of the duty warden and the welcomers, so there's minimal chance of someone taking the whole thing, and probably less chance of someone slipping something out of the plate, than there is if plate or bags are passed down the pews. In other places I have been to where the plate is in an entrance vestibule, the welcomers take it in with them when the service begins, so again there's not much chance of it being 'lifted'.

We do find that at big services (baptisms, for example) there is less in the plate (not because anything is taken out), but that seems to be a fair price to pay to avoid expecting a random attender at a baptism service to pay for something they may not really want to be at, and don't fully understand, thereby confirming their impression that the church is always asking for money.

We make an occasional exception for some big services where the collection is going to some external good cause (e.g the Children's Society at our Christingle service).

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by BroJames

quote:
We do find that at big services (baptisms, for example) there is less in the plate (not because anything is taken out), but that seems to be a fair price to pay to avoid expecting a random attender at a baptism service to pay for something they may not really want to be at, and don't fully understand, thereby confirming their impression that the church is always asking for money.

Tsk, tsk! You are aren't doing it right!

For what could be termed 'occasional' services you "seed" the plate - in other words start the ball rolling by putting in, say, a £5 note and a few £2 coins: this shows those who may not be regular attenders the appropriate amount to think of giving.

This practice started at our place by accident: we had a private baptism (Yes, I know, not ideal) pretty soon after a Matins and the sidesperson on duty was rather slow and the plate was put back into church with the notes still on it. To everyone's surprise the giving from a smallish congregation was more than five times what it had been for the previous baptism where there were more people. So now we "seed" the plate every time - and in our defence I'd point out that in the winter particularly the cost to heat the church for a wedding is well over £100 ....

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

My childhood (Church of England) parish in the 1980s had a plate at the back of church for people to give as they came in. It wasn't passed around during the service. That remains their practice today.

Similarly, my (Eastern Orthodox) parish of ten years had a locked box by the candles, in a similar arrangement to the one mentioned by Ian Climacus, and never took a collection during the service.

I remember a time in my early 20s, when I was unemployed and had nothing to give, and I belonged to a CofE church where passing the plate was the practice, there were some Sundays I just didn't want to go. It was humiliating. Perhaps a little lesson in humility was no bad thing for me, but creating a situation where everyone can see what their neighbours are putting into the plate, or whether people are putting anything in at all, seems unkind.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by BroJames
quote:
We do find that at big services (baptisms, for example) there is less in the plate (not because anything is taken out), but that seems to be a fair price to pay to avoid expecting a random attender at a baptism service to pay for something they may not really want to be at, and don't fully understand, thereby confirming their impression that the church is always asking for money.
Tsk, tsk! You are aren't doing it right!

Hmm. In our experience it’s not for want of something already in the plate that we don’t get as much at such services as we would if the plate was passed around.

It does also cost us to heat the church for winter weddings, but that is a legitimate charge included in the fees for ‘winter’ weddings, and not something we hope to recoup from the collection.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

I know what I think are 'All Age Worship Services'* but have just come across a very different use of the terminology.

Has anyone else come across this as Catholic Renewal style worship by congregations belonging to The Society described in this way?

Jengie

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Sorry the '*' above should link to:

*Good 'All Age Services' are services where consideration is given to people accessing worship in a variety of ways and each able to gain something from the worship. They tend to be multi-sensory, multi-paced and engage on a number of intellectual levels. They are very difficult to do. Bad 'All Age Services' are worship where the content is dumbed down that it insults a Junior School-aged child in the hope that everyone can follow.

Jengie

[ 09. January 2018, 13:57: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

They are very hard to do. It's hard enough to put a film on which my kids (13, 11 and 9) would all watch, let alone trying to cater for toddlers and coffin-dodgers as well. Best I can suggest is "short" so anyone finding it crap doesn't have to suffer long. Our services are all all-age (we only meet twice a month) and with half an hour and some well chosen AV we manage something that works for us. But there's lots we don't do - we don't do congregational singing, except, for reasons not entirely clear, but it has so evolved, the Sanctus. It solves (often quite central) arguments over hymns or worship songs - we don't do either.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Short is good - Our Place has a monthly Saturday afternoon 'Crafty Church' which begins with a short act of worship, about 15 minutes max.

The kidz (age range is 7-12) enjoy it (!), and many eagerly volunteer to read the prayers (short) or Bible passage (very short).

The service includes 2 or 3 songs (or even 'grown-up' hymns), and is lay-led.

Our Sunday morning Eucharist often has a few children attending, but there is currently no separate 'Sunday School'.

The youngsters are therefore in church for the whole service, which very rarely lasts more than an hour.

IJ

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
...some well chosen AV we manage something that works for us. But there's lots we don't do - we don't do congregational singing

Wondering how you use AV if you don't have congregational singing. I thought AV usually meant PowerPoint slides of praise songs (but that's only something I've experienced in real life one time).

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Well, PowerPoint (or whatever) can also be used for the words of congregational prayers, or for images illustrating the sermon etc.

I'd like to pick up Karl's remark about no congregational singing, though. Does your church, Karl, have singers/musicians who perhaps exercise that ministry on the congregation's behalf, much as a cathedral choir would do at Evensong, IYSWIM?

IJ

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Well, PowerPoint (or whatever) can also be used for the words of congregational prayers, or for images illustrating the sermon etc.

I'd like to pick up Karl's remark about no congregational singing, though. Does your church, Karl, have singers/musicians who perhaps exercise that ministry on the congregation's behalf, much as a cathedral choir would do at Evensong, IYSWIM?

IJ

No. It's just not something we do. There are bad memories in the church of tedious traditional hymns and overbearing Charismaticism, often in the same people, and we've very much become a congregation for people who couldn't cope with either or both. It's just something we don't do. Apart, strangely, for this African Sanctus which we have a recording of but which people started singing along to. It's amazing how traditions catch on. We meet in the back room of a pub so we're a bit short on organs and I can only imagine the hyperventilating and panic attacks if someone turned up with a guitar and rainbow strap.

We sang a few carols on Christmas Eve, after the service.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
...some well chosen AV we manage something that works for us. But there's lots we don't do - we don't do congregational singing
Wondering how you use AV if you don't have congregational singing. I thought AV usually meant PowerPoint slides of praise songs (but that's only something I've experienced in real life one time).

Ye gods no, we'd rather eat our own earwax! We use AV extensively; we use it for clips which tie into the theme of the lectionary, and often thoughts on the theme from places like http://www.theworkofthepeople.com/ to expand on it. Oh, and for the responses in the Eucharist. We're not complete iconoclasts.

We meet in the back room of a pub. We had to give up our own premises for financial reasons; the original café idea didn't quite work out for us, but fortunately the vicar is good friends with the bloke who runs a pub so we meet there. Means you can have a pint on the go during the service.

[ 10. January 2018, 21:30: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Thanks, Karl. Your outfit sounds a bit like a 'Fresh Expression' begun a few years ago in this Fair City by a Pioneer Minister, though IIRC, they started from scratch in a pub.

Now I come to think of it, I don't know if the group - some 20-25 peeps - still meets, the priest having gone to another Diocese some while back.

IJ

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

It is an FE.

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

Sounds like a really great church, Karl. Thanks for sharing what you do.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Thanks. It works for us, I think is what I'd say.

Posted by Senex (# 18906) on :

A bit of an obscure question but looking at answers to posts here I think answers may be forthcoming.

I always thought that at a celebration of Eucharist / Mass the bread and wine for consecration had to go on the additional cloth, the corporal. At most services I go to that seems to be what is done.

But then I have seen big celebrations with loads of silverware and that cannot be happening. I think I am right as well that at some of the really big services not everything is even on the one table.

So .... is it just that the corporal is desirable but not actually necessary?

Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Senex:
A bit of an obscure question but looking at answers to posts here I think answers may be forthcoming.

I always thought that at a celebration of Eucharist / Mass the bread and wine for consecration had to go on the additional cloth, the corporal. At most services I go to that seems to be what is done.

But then I have seen big celebrations with loads of silverware and that cannot be happening. I think I am right as well that at some of the really big services not everything is even on the one table.

So .... is it just that the corporal is desirable but not actually necessary?

Strictly, no the corporal is not actually necessary. But indicates neatly the intention to consecrate all the elements placed on it. (Corporals do exist in varying sizes too - one could have a corporal covering the whole altar).

But it strikes me as a bit wrong not to have the elements to be consecrated on the altar itself. (Though the vessels used to hold the consecrated elements during the distribution might not be - e.g. you could have a very large chalice, from which smaller chalices more apt for communion are filled.)

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

We gear up of a Sunday with six ciboria, a bread box, a separate bread box of gluten-free wafers, either 7 or 9 chalices, and five flagons that each hold a bottle of wine. All of these cram up onto the holy table for the consecration, but there simply isn't room on the corporal for them all. However the celebrant always touches each vessel when he says the consecrating words.

Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on :

We just lay out more than one corporal.....

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

I've also seen, on at least one occasion, a corporal the size of a tablecloth.

Posted by Senex (# 18906) on :

Thanks for the replies.

A follow up comment or two...

At these big papal masses I have seen Several tables used to put the chalices and plates on. So it seems it’s about what the priest intends to consecrate is consecrted even if not at altar where ‘main action’ is.

For me this would explain how sometimes the cruets contains wine and water remain on altar side even after they have been used to pour wine into chalice.

But it does raise the rather flippant question... how far can chalice be from the priest [Smile]

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Senex:
Thanks for the replies.

A follow up comment or two...

At these big papal masses I have seen Several tables used to put the chalices and plates on. So it seems it’s about what the priest intends to consecrate is consecrted even if not at altar where ‘main action’ is.

For me this would explain how sometimes the cruets contains wine and water remain on altar side even after they have been used to pour wine into chalice.

But it does raise the rather flippant question... how far can chalice be from the priest

Not sure about the Papal Mass you were watching but I read an article about one in the US. The hosts (bread) and wine intended to be distributed to the congregation at a stadium Mass was consecrated by priests other than the Pope who would be attending the Papal Mass at a separate Mass prior to the Papal one, with one giant table serving as an altar. The bread and wine consecrated at the Papal Mass itself was only for the Pope (and perhaps the altar party) to consume, and an army of deacons distributed the pre-consecrated hosts and wine to the congregation by intinction (dipping) only (although a recipient could request to only receive the consecrated bread without intinction if s/he wished, I believe). This was under Benedict XVI, so Francis may do things differently, and different countries may have different practices when they host the Pope.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Senex:
So it seems it’s about what the priest intends to consecrate is consecrated even if not at altar where ‘main action’ is. . . . But it does raise the rather flippant question... how far can chalice be from the priest

This brings to mind the old saw that the nuns used to tell us in Sunday school: If a priest happened to be walking by a bakery, and happened to look in the window, and happened to speak the words of consecration as he did so . . . then every loaf of bread in that bakery would become . . . (You know the rest of the story).

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
]This brings to mind the old saw that the nuns used to tell us in Sunday school: If a priest happened to be walking by a bakery, and happened to look in the window, and happened to speak the words of consecration as he did so . . . then every loaf of bread in that bakery would become . . . (You know the rest of the story).

And if he happened to walk past a wine shop?

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Yes, the Sacrament is valid in either kind...

IJ

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

I don't think our nuns drank wine. Hot chocolate was probably their strongest treat.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
We gear up of a Sunday with six ciboria, a bread box, a separate bread box of gluten-free wafers, either 7 or 9 chalices, and five flagons that each hold a bottle of wine. All of these cram up onto the holy table for the consecration, but there simply isn't room on the corporal for them all. However the celebrant always touches each vessel when he says the consecrating words.

In the Byzatine Rite, the opposite solution is adopted. The symbolism of the "one cup" takes precedence over other considerations. So, for celebrations with large numbers of cummunicants, the chalice is as big as it needs to be. It all fits on the antimins so there's no concern about the location of additional chalices, into which the Precious Blood is dispensed only after the consecration.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Oddly enough I think the Reformed Churches of Christ had a similar concern and dispensed from the chalice to the wee cuppies.

Jengie

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Oddly enough I think the Reformed Churches of Christ had a similar concern and dispensed from the chalice to the wee cuppies.

I've seen that in some Lutheran churches over here. Those chalices are referred to as pouring chalices.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0