Ship of Fools: Epiphany Calendar Question (TEC)

Thread: Epiphany Calendar Question (TEC) 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=008440

Posted by PentEcclesiastic (# 12098) on :

Hello shippies! Its been a while since I was last on board, but I do appreciate this community, especially in times like these.

I was having a conversation about worship planning for January 8, 2017. Now this time last year (before I joined the staff) they used the propers for January 6, The Day of Epiphany. However, my reading of the prayer book and other sources do not indicate that this day is transferrable, so in that case January 8, it is appropriate to use the propers for the First Sunday after the Epiphany. The curate agreed with me, but the organist/choirmaster did not.

The question is this: What is the rationale for transferring Epiphany day readings to the closest Sunday?

Secondary question: the information about the calendar in the prayer book is not exactly clear. Are there other sources that explain it in a simpler way?

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I am not an Anglican, Catholic or Lutheran, so can't tell you what the "rules" might say.

FWIW my gut feeling would be to go for the Sunday after Epiphany material if you are celebrating Epiphany on its day, or to use the Epiphany material if you're not.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

Whether it is strictly to the rules or not it is common for midweek readings to be transferred to the Sunday.

It is all down to the diocesan bishop. If the diocesan says it it OK then it is OK, irrespective if any rules.

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

quote:
Originally posted by PentEcclesiastic:
The question is this: What is the rationale for transferring Epiphany day readings to the closest Sunday?

Because the Choirmaster wants to program the Cornelius, obvs...

In the Episcopal Church, your answer, I think, is found on page 15 of the BCP. There is a chart of Principal Feasts, and a note that All Saint's Day may always be observed on the Sunday following November 1. Because it does not say that Epiphany (also a Principal Feast) can be observed on the Sunday following January 6, I think it is treated differently, and not transferred. At least, as an attorney, that is how I would read it if it were a statute.

I suspect the reasoning is that All Saints Day and the First Sunday after the Epiphany are days when you can do baptisms. Moving All Saints Day to a Sunday prevents having to do mid-week baptisms, and not moving Epiphany leaves the following Sunday open every year. (I just made this up, but I would bet that I am right...)

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

The Church of England lectionary, FWIW, has January 1st as 'The Naming and Circumcision of Jesus', with the option of transferring that Feast to the 2nd, and using instead the propers for the Second Sunday of Christmas.

Some parishes of the more Carflick persuasion will, I expect, use the Roman propers for 'Mary, Mother of God', though quite why they need yet another Marian day, I know not.

The Epiphany is celebrated on Friday 6th, though AFAIK the Cathedral is the only local church to have a full Sung Eucharist on that day. Our Place has a service at a sheltered flats development on the first Friday afternoon each month, so I expect the Epiphany will be duly celebrated there.

Sunday 8th January is, therefore, to be kept as The Baptism of Christ, which some believe to be an event of more importance (as marking the start of Our Lord's 3-year ministry) than the odd, dreamlike, and not-quite-credible tale of the Wise Men....YMMV. If, however, the parish decides to celebrate Epiphany on Sunday 8th, the propers for the Baptism of Christ are transferred to Monday 9th.

Simple, innit?

(BTW, I have heard it said that, if they had been Three Wise Women , the Epiphany would not have occurred. They would have asked directions, arrived in time for the birth, cleaned the stable, acted as midwives to Our Lady, made a casserole, and brought talcum powder and nappies.)

IJ

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

The ACC (and I think the TEC, certainly the Canadian RCC as well) rubrics apparently call for the Epiphany to be celebrated on 6 January or transferred to the previous Sunday, to allow the Baptism of the Lord to happen on the Sunday after the Epiphany. That's what we're doing, as there won't be a service on 6 January -- almost certainly no one would attend.

That may work if the Sunday before is the 4th or 5th, but IMO it reeks in any other circumstance. In a previous parish we ignored the rubrics, celebrated Epiphany on the Sunday following, did the Baptism on the Sunday after and just left out the readings for the first Sunday in ordinary time.

John

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

TBH, that seems a sensible way of doing things, if not quite as per the rubrics.

It is, alas, a sad fact of life that, for most churches, weekday attendance is likely to be small at any time of year, let alone the depths of winter. A cold coming we had of it etc.!

IJ

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

Pity those poor souls who find themselves cast out with the goats on the last day because they were baptized on what was technically not the First Sunday after Epiphany...

[Razz]

Posted by PentEcclesiastic (# 12098) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:

quote:
Originally posted by PentEcclesiastic:
The question is this: What is the rationale for transferring Epiphany day readings to the closest Sunday?
In the Episcopal Church, your answer, I think, is found on page 15 of the BCP. There is a chart of Principal Feasts, and a note that All Saint's Day may always be observed on the Sunday following November 1. Because it does not say that Epiphany (also a Principal Feast) can be observed on the Sunday following January 6, I think it is treated differently, and not transferred. At least, as an attorney, that is how I would read it if it were a statute.

That's what I thought too. Most of the Principal feasts would ordinarily fall on a Sunday anyway, so the ones with fixed dates, are exceptional. I just wanted to be sure that I was reading it right...

Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :

Just to add to the confusion, the Church of England Common Worship Lectionary does allow Epiphany to be transferred - this year to Sunday 8th January, with the Baptism of Christ being transferred to the 9th.

The Lectionary states in the preamble that 'The Epiphany may, for pastoral reasons, be transferred....'. It adds that 'The Presentation of Christ in the Temple (Candlemas) is celebrated on either Thursday 2nd February or Sunday 29th January.'

Both the Epiphany and the Presentation are shown as Principal Feasts; the Baptism of Christ is just a festival.

Not that it helps anyone outside England!!

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PentEcclesiastic:

The question is this: What is the rationale for transferring Epiphany day readings to the closest Sunday?

So that more people will hear them, as they would be more likely to be at church on Sunday.

The Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, and in many other parts of the world, transfers the Epiphany wholesale to the Sunday. There is no option about it and 6 January is just a normal weekday, (unless it falls on Sunday.)

The arrangement is presumably to do with keeping holy days of obligation.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Things have come to a pretty pass when even the vast RCC has to transfer major Holydays to the nearest Sunday....

Ironically, when Our Place celebrates Epiphany on 6th January at the sheltered flats complex within the parish, it will be for a congregation that can't as a rule get to the church on Sundays!

IJ

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Pity those poor souls who find themselves cast out with the goats on the last day because they were baptized on what was technically not the First Sunday after Epiphany...

Surely it isn't actually a requirement in the TEC that baptisms can only take place on certain days? Although they most often happen here on a Sunday, not even that is a technical requirement.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Yes, I wondered about that. Surely, baptism can be administered at any time or on any day, according to need.

IJ

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

While not a strict requirement, it's at least preferred practice to do them on Easter, Pentecost, All Saints, First Sunday After the Epiphany, or when the Bishop visits.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

We ( C of E ) had Christmas 2 this morning - bizarre but it's an option in our Kalendar.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Epiphany on 6th January is a major public holiday in many European countries.I think particularly of Spain and Portugal where three Kings make their appearance and bring presents for children and also Italy where an old woman called the Befana has presents for children who have been good.In these countries there are many popular customs associated with the feast day,much like Christmas when the day is celebrated both by those who are religious and those who pay little attention to what the Church has to say. In Germanic countries also Epiphany is a major holiday Germany,Austria and Switzerland.(The relics of the three wise men or the Three Holy Kings are said to be buried in the cathedral of Cologne.Epiphany is also a public holiday in some Nordic countries and one should not forget Greece which uses the Gregorian calendar and where Epiphany/Manifestation of Christ at his baptism is a major public holiday.

Where the 6th of Jan.is not a public holiday the RC church usually transfers the liturgical celebration to the nearest Sunday.

This does not affect,however,TEC

Posted by Mockingbird (# 5818) on :

Og has the right of it. Note in addition that the Feast of the Baptism of our Lord is not even mentioned in the rules of precedence, pages 15-18. It is listed on page 31, and again on page 312. As Og has pointed out, there is no rule for any day but Hallowmas (November 1), the feast of a church's dedication, and the feast of a church's patron or title, to be transferred to a Sunday. (These last two rules are on page 16.) In addition, The Lesser Feasts and Fasts, Fourth Edition considers the use of the Gospel narrating Christ's baptism in all years, and the Gospel narrating the wedding at Cana on the 2nd Sunday after Epiphany in year C, as features of "modern lectionary reform." This implies that transferring the Epiphany to Sunday and effectively skipping the Baptism of Christ by transferring it to a weekday would be a step backward, returning to an exaggerated emphasis on the Magi at the expense of the other two of the tria miracula by which the Epiphany is considered to be adorned.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
(BTW, I have heard it said that, if they had been Three Wise Women , the Epiphany would not have occurred. They would have asked directions, arrived in time for the birth, cleaned the stable, acted as midwives to Our Lady, made a casserole, and brought talcum powder and nappies.)

But wasn't the whole problem (i.e., the slaughter of the innocents) that the wise men did stop and ask directions? [Biased]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Seems to me that they went to the obvious place (i.e. they believed that a new prince had been born, so they went to the palace).

No blame in that - it was in fact only after Herod had sent them on their journey to the right town that the star (allegedly) gave them more specific guidance.

So: do we blame God for not giving them a better aid to navigation? Hmmm ...

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

We had Brismas today...

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Brismas? [Confused]

Re the Wise Women - no, they asked directions before they set off, so they didn't have to stop en route. They would also have had the good sense (having read up about Herod beforehand) not to arouse him to bloodthirsty fury by casually mentioning a possible usurper...

(Is this beginning to sound like a Terry Pratchett novel?)

IJ

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

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Brismas?

Holy Name (a bris being a Jewish circomsicion ceremony).

Incidentally, while Holy Name is not a TEC Principal Feast, it may (but not must) take the place of the regular Sunday if it falls on a Sunday. Same deal with the Presentation.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Thank you, Og!

IJ

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

Lamb Chopped is in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, which retains the dual Circumcision and Naming nomenclature, like Common Worship (but flipped).

Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Brismas?
Holy Name (a bris being a Jewish circomsicion ceremony).

Incidentally, while Holy Name is not a TEC Principal Feast, it may (but not must) take the place of the regular Sunday if it falls on a Sunday. Same deal with the Presentation.

Of course TEC used to call it (and some churches still do) the Feast of the Circumcision. By the way, although I know of churches called "Church of the Holy Name," I've never heard of a "Church of the Circumcision." Has anyone else?

[ 02. January 2017, 15:21: Message edited by: Al Eluia ]

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I had an idea that the Society of Jesus kept 1 January as their feast of title.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

your idea is a good one but not 100% right.
3rd January is the Titular Feast of the Jesuit Order - the Holy Name of Jesus.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I seem to remember seeing a Jesuit liturgical calendar some years ago at a retreat house, before the 3 January Holy Name.

Posted by gog (# 15615) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Epiphany on 6th January is a major public holiday in many European countries.

Also to do with the days lost when we moved from the Julian to the Gregorian calender, and the tradition of gifts been given through Christmas

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

No - in many ways Epiphany on 6th January is an older festival than Nativity on 25th December.
For those who follow the older Julian calendar Christmas Day is 7th January with its vigil celebration on the evening of 6th January and the Epiphany on 19th January.

Amongst the Orthodox communities Greece follows the Gregorian calendar, so Christmas and Epiphany are on the same dates as the Western church, while many Orthodox (and including Ukrainian Catholics )follow the Julian calendar for religious festivals (Greece,however, follows the Julian calendar for the moveable feast of Easter.)

Going back to another post it seems to me that the Bishop of Rome does have some jurisdiction in the realm of England,since the calendar is that which was issued by pope Gregory XIII in
the 1580s after the break with Rome.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
... Going back to another post it seems to me that the Bishop of Rome does have some jurisdiction in the realm of England,since the calendar is that which was issued by pope Gregory XIII in
the 1580s after the break with Rome.

But it wasn't adopted here until 1752. It's still the reason why the tax year runs 6th April-5th April.

Something I still don't think was ever answered on the previous thread about this, is whether before 1752, recusants celebrated Easter on the same day as their heretic neighbours or whether they followed the papal calendar used on the continent.

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
No - in many ways Epiphany on 6th January is an older festival than Nativity on 25th December.
For those who follow the older Julian calendar Christmas Day is 7th January with its vigil celebration on the evening of 6th January and the Epiphany on 19th January.

And the Armenians in Jerusalem still celebrate Christmas in one shot on January 19th.

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

The days lost were lost in September in England - so we jumped from September 2nd to September 14th in 1752. Because we converted relatively late, we had to lose 11 days, other countries lost more or less. This was apparently enacted in the Calendar Act of 1751 which is when the date that the New Year started changed from Lady Day to New Year's Day. But there is evidence this change may have been earlier - 1660 with the accession of Charles II who may have been following the Scottish Calendar, where 1 January was the start of of the year.

(The date that really made a difference was Michaelmas, 29 September, the date that blackberries have the devil's coat is thrown over them. Blackberries are often good until 10 October.)

Posted by PentEcclesiastic (# 12098) on :

This has been very helpful, and I'll bring this up during our planning meeting for next year. We're going to observe Epiphany on Sunday the 8th, and transfer the propers for the baptism to the following Sunday, on which we are having a baptism, just in case y'all were wondering. [Smile]

We'll definitely get it right next year.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Whether England waited till 1752 to adopt the new papal calendar is immaterial here.It still remains the calendar as issued by pope Gregory XIII in 1584 (I think)

The writ of the pope was ,of course not accepted uniformly all over Europe,even in the 'Catholic' countries and took a long time to be implemented.It didn't play such an important part in people's lives as few people travelled and not many people would have accurate timepieces either.

Scotland certainly accepted 1st January as the start of the New Year as early as 1600,but not the calendar as an entity. It meant for Presbyterians that Christmas celebrations could be transferred to a more secular occasion.Even as late as the 1960s 25th December was not a holiday in Scotland.New Year was the big holiday and many churches would have Watchnight services just like the Catholic midnight Mass a week before.

It is indeed difficult to know if recusants in England celebrated religious festivals according to the calendar in vogue in England or to that issued by that issued by the pope.Since they met in secret there would be no public celebrations.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Whether England waited till 1752 to adopt the new papal calendar is immaterial here. It still remains the calendar as issued by pope Gregory XIII in 1584 (I think)

It isn't immaterial, though, if you're standing by your phrase

quote:
it seems to me that the Bishop of Rome does have some jurisdiction in the realm of England.

He has jurisdiction if he issues commands and they are followed because he has commanded them. He doesn't have jurisdiction if the calendar isn't changed for over 150 years, and is then changed because it's recognised that his is a better calendar.

quote:
It is indeed difficult to know if recusants in England celebrated religious festivals according to the calendar in vogue in England or to that issued by that issued by the pope. Since they met in secret there would be no public celebrations.

I'm not sure, and would be quite interested to know, how true that was by the 1750s. It may be more part of the Catholic myth version of British history as presented in, say, 1950, the obverse of the Protestant wind and the Armada or Foxe's Book of Martyrs.

One gets the impression that for long periods of time, provided the Catholics kept a low profile, didn't plot with the French or Spanish and behaved themselves, they were usually left alone. And of course, from 1685-8, they would have been much more open.

[ 03. January 2017, 09:56: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by BulldogSacristan (# 11239) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PentEcclesiastic:
This has been very helpful, and I'll bring this up during our planning meeting for next year. We're going to observe Epiphany on Sunday the 8th, and transfer the propers for the baptism to the following Sunday, on which we are having a baptism, just in case y'all were wondering.

We'll definitely get it right next year.

Clearly you can (and will) do whatever you please, but this is 100% incorrect and not allowed by the prayer book. Transferring the propers for the first Sunday after the Epiphany to the second Sunday after the Epiphany really only compounds the mistake. In other words, when are you going to stop? There's little to no guesswork involved in the calendar, and that makes your decisions easy and blameless.

Does the idea to transfer it at all come from a notion that no one would bother to show up to an Epiphany mass? Perhaps my parish is a particular case, but the Epiphany mass is one of the more well attended services. I can't help but think if a service was reasonably well planned that at least <i>some</i> people would show up.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Because it does not say that Epiphany (also a Principal Feast) can be observed on the Sunday following January 6, I think it is treated differently, and not transferred. At least, as an attorney, that is how I would read it if it were a statute.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

Transferring feasts to the nearest Sunday only reinforces the message that church is for Sundays, and why in the world would you want to go on any other day of the week?!

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I think so much depends on the particular parish. In a village where there are a lot of retired people around during the day, a daytime midweek service (timed to tie in with visits to the surgery, village shop of travelling library) might work well. In a busy estate with lots of young families, it might be impossible both during the day (everyone out at work) and the evening (cooking, washing, putting the kids to bed). In a city centre a short lunchtime service might well be attractive to Christian office workers, if well-publicised.

I agree though with doing all one can to show that our Faith is not just for Sundays.

[ 03. January 2017, 16:27: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by PentEcclesiastic (# 12098) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
Clearly you can (and will) do whatever you please, but this is 100% incorrect and not allowed by the prayer book. Transferring the propers for the first Sunday after the Epiphany to the second Sunday after the Epiphany really only compounds the mistake. In other words, when are you going to stop? There's little to no guesswork involved in the calendar, and that makes your decisions easy and blameless.

Does the idea to transfer it at all come from a notion that no one would bother to show up to an Epiphany mass? Perhaps my parish is a particular case, but the Epiphany mass is one of the more well attended services. I can't help but think if a service was reasonably well planned that at least <i>some</i> people would show up.

I don't know that the reason is that no one would come or not. I do know that it was a pastoral decision in light of all of the moving parts that would have to do an about face to pull it off (mine is a large parish). I'm not saying that it's right, but we've already decided to think through this more critically next cycle.

Someone mentioned that January 6 is a holiday in Europe, and a priest who lived in Europe confirmed that it was a huge day there, so I wonder if if the insistence on this fixed date as principal feast is one of the vestiges of our TEC's history with the CofE.

And "Fr Weber" and "Baptist Trainfan" (see above) have suggested another problem with transferring it to Sunday, and that is that the Church then becomes a Sunday-only place. I can't help but agree. I think with good thoughtful planning around the feast cycles in the calendar, we might be more successful in the TEC (at least) at reclaiming some of this way of marking time.

[ 04. January 2017, 05:02: Message edited by: PentEcclesiastic ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PentEcclesiastic:
... Someone mentioned that January 6 is a holiday in Europe, and a priest who lived in Europe confirmed that it was a huge day there, so I wonder if if the insistence on this fixed date as principal feast is one of the vestiges of our TEC's history with the CofE. ...

Pent, a few odd thoughts. I don't know whether these are helpful. First of all, Europe is not a single place. It stretches over a huge area. It includes lots of different countries and cultures. The UK, Scandinavia and much of Northern Europe are culturally Protestant. South, South-Western, much of Central and the Irish Republic are culturally Catholic. Most of Eastern and South-Eastern Europe are culturally Orthodox. European Turkey and Bosnia are culturally Moslem. Some parts were Communist for part of the C20 and others weren't. Epiphany is more marked civilly in some countries than others.

Epiphany was more marked here in the past, but was one of the official holidays that ceased to be in 1833. Since then, it has been an act of bankruptcy for a bank to be closed on any day other than Christmas Day, Good Friday or one of the bank holidays introduced by law from 1871. So after 1833, particularly in the Gradgrind commercial climate of the time, the other holidays steadily ceased to be.

Epiphany remains on the 6th January in the CofE but Common Worship now allows the alternative of celebrating on an adjoining Sunday. I think this is a fairly recent concession.

I don't think this should be interpreted as meaning it has been, or can be, transferred. I think it is correct to regard it as an optional alternative to make sure it doesn't get left out.

Twelfth Night isn't significant in the way it was in Shakespeare's time, but is still when you are supposed to take all your Christmas decorations, cards etc down. On that assumption, our local authority designates refuse collections shortly after when they will take your Christmas tree away.

Every year, people have arguments as to whether Twelfth Night is the evening of the 5th or 6th January. I've always been told it is the evening of the 5th, because the first night is the evening of Christmas Eve and the Twelfth one is the last night in the Christmas season.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Every year, people have arguments as to whether Twelfth Night is the evening of the 5th or 6th January. I've always been told it is the evening of the 5th, because the first night is the evening of Christmas Eve and the Twelfth one is the last night in the Christmas season.

I'm hopeless about this and always have to count the nights on my fingers:
24/12 - Eve of Christmas - but still Advent (and if a Sunday will be fourth Sunday of Advent)
25/12 - first night of Christmas
26/12 - second night of Christmas
27/12 - third night of Christmas
28/12 - fourth night of Christmas
29/12 - fifth night of Christmas
30/12 - sixth night of Christmas
31/12 - seventh night of Christmas
1/1 - eighth night of Christmas
2/1 - ninth night of Christmas
3/1 - tenth night of Christmas
4/1 - eleventh night of Christmas
5/1 - twelfth night of Christmas
6/1 - first night of Epiphany

[ 04. January 2017, 13:09: Message edited by: BroJames ]

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
when they will take your Christmas tree away.

They ain't taking mine away. I've planted it (in a myriad different houses) almost every year since about the late 1960s). The years I've missed I haven't had one.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Enoch asked if recusant Catholics before England joined the rest of Western Europe (apart from Sweden) in adopting the calendar as issued by pope Gregory XIII,if the Catholics celebrated religious festivals according to the new Gregorian calendar or the older Julian calendar followed by England.

I don't know what recusants did but if we look at today we can say that there are different time zones.Catholics throughout the world will generally follow the calendar and the hours as they are in their country e.g. 12 noon in Rome is not 12 noon in UK and certainly not 12 noon in Adelaide,Australia nor in Los Angeles,California.

Within the Catholic church,where the pope has universal jurisdiction, there are several rites which follow different calendars.At this time of Epiphany we are aware that Byzantine rite Catholics celebrate Christmas on 7th January and Epiphany on 19th January - these being the equivalent of 25th Dec. and 6th Jan in the old calendar.

I would think then that recusant Catholics would follow the calendar as it was in England at the time.In spite of the fact that hanging,disembowelling and quartering of priests ordained abroad more or less came to an end in 1679 it was still not safe in the 1700sto advertise that one was a Catholic.Catholicism tended to be contemplative rather than activists. Doors would have been locked when prayers (code word for Mass) were said. External solemnity of feasts would have been unknown.In Georgian England,however, there would be more sense of accommodation on both sides of the religious divide.Only then would some Catholics have begun to bother abouyt following the intricacies of the Roman calendar at the 'right' time.

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

I agree with most of what Forthview has said.

But there were times when there were Roman Catholic queens consort who were allowed under their marriage contract to have a private chapel. I guess that their chaplains used whatever Portuguese or French calendar that they'd brought from home: but I'd like to know for sure. Was it all as in pre-Synod of Whitby days, the King celebrating Easter, the Queen still deep in Lent? What did they do about Christmas?

I also imagine that whatever the Queen's chapel was doing "spilled out" as it were, and that recusants, at least in London, kept in step with what was going on in the officially tolerated royal chapel.

Too many guesses and imaginings, I must ask some historians.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Indeed the Chapels royal of the Catholic queens were places where Catholics could go to experience full Tridentine rites. However after the Glorious Revolution handicaps came again - exclusion from the legal profession, exclusion from inheriting or buying land, prohibition from keeping arms or serviceable horses. Needless to say these handicaps could be circumvented if one had high enough status. Those who longed for Tridentine ceremonial within an English context would go to the many English convents and monasteries in the Low Countries or France.

Most English Catholics in the 1700s avoided too much contact with Jacobitism. Particularly in London urban Catholicism started to stabilise in the first half of the 18th century showing social features of nonconformity with a pattern of worship based on weeks rather than seasons and Sunday sometimes called the Sabbath. A devotional writer called John Gother provided vernacular commentaries and translations of collects, epistles and gospel passages in conjunction with the celebration of Mass. I would imagine that this would be within the framework of the English calendar . Mass was usually celebrated in taverns or alehouses. Others of the approximately 20 000 Catholics in London in the 18th could attend Tridentine rites with full ceremonial at the various Embassy chapels. These may have followed the Gregorian calendar before the English calendar changes.

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

We managed almost 30 at last night's Epiphany Eve procession (not counting the choir of 24), despite frigid temperatures (about 0 on the F scale) and six inches of snow. Although the kids who were supposed to portray the Magi dropped out.

Thursday is our normal Evensong night, so unless Epiphany falls nearer a Sunday, we do our procession on the nearest Thursday. So that helps attendance. Lessons and Carols type format, with readings from Luke (the Shepherds arriving at the manger and the Circumcision) Matthew (the Wise Guys appear through the Holy Innocents, broken up into four parts), TS Eliot, Rumi, and Isiah (Arise Shine). Good music, including some chestnuts like Mendelssohn's "There Shall a Star" and the Peter Cornelius I linked to at the top of the thread, a few interesting modern-ish pieces including Eric Whitacre's haunting Lux Aurumque, and the only chance you get to sing We Three Kings

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
... frigid temperatures (about 0 on the F scale) and six inches of snow ... the kids who were supposed to portray the Magi dropped out

Smart magi. Would bugger up a few "Christmas" cards though. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
...frigid temperatures (about 0 on the F scale) and six inches of snow. Although the kids who were supposed to portray the Magi dropped out.

not quite in the spirit imagined by Lancelot Andrewes*, is it?

quote:
... A cold coming they had of it at this time of the year, just the worst time of the year to take a journey, and specially a long journey. The ways deep, the weather sharp, the days short, the sun farthest off, in solsitio brumali, ‘the very dead of winter.’

... With them it was but vidimus, venimus ; with us it would have been but veniemus at most. Our fashion is to see and see again before we stir a foot, specially if it be to the worship of Christ. Come such a journey at such a
time? No; but fairly have put it off to the spring of the year, till the days longer, and the ways fairer, and the weather warmer, till better travelling to Christ. Our Epiphany would sure have fallen in Easter week at the soonest.

*Dead these 400 years, Hosts, so safely out of copyright

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

Eliot, of course, borrows those lines for his "Journey of the Magi," which we read. Seemed particularly appropriate.

Posted by keibat (# 5287) on :

I've been ruminating on one of the original questions in this thread, viz., if the celebration of the Epiphany to the Magi is transferred to the Sunday following 6 January, what happens to the festival of the Baptism of our Lord? – and pace the current rubrics and the various liturgical commissions, mandating the Baptism onto the immediately following Monday, it seems to me that its transfer to the subsequent Sunday, i.e. the second Sunday after 6 Jan, makes excellent pastoral and liturgical sense. There's little benefit in bewailing the dystrophy of weekday celebrations of festivals etc , and the consequent transfer to an appropriate Sunday – the sabbaths and the feria were made for humankind, no vice versa; and in most parishes, Sunday congregations do offer the most obvious context to celebrate the cycle of the Church's year. So if the Epiphany occupies one Sunday, why not celebrate the Baptism also on a Sunday? –

and incidentally, this is of course in any case what will happen in years where the 6 January falls on a Sunday!

Posted by sonata3 (# 13653) on :

quote:
Originally posted by keibat:
it seems to me that its transfer to the subsequent Sunday, i.e. the second Sunday after 6 Jan, makes excellent pastoral and liturgical sense. There's little benefit in bewailing the dystrophy of weekday celebrations of festivals etc , and the consequent transfer to an appropriate Sunday – the sabbaths and the feria were made for humankind, no vice versa; and in most parishes, Sunday congregations do offer the most obvious context to celebrate the cycle of the Church's year. So if the Epiphany occupies one Sunday, why not celebrate the Baptism also on a Sunday?

This would, in a sense, restore a feature of the old Roman calendar, in which the Octave of the Epiphany was The Baptism of Our Lord.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Accepting that the OP concerned TEC: the Christmas holidays here are mid-summer, schools on a long break, many people (including us) away at the beach/coast. Mid-week services work during Lent and Holy Week, but there would be no-one at one now. So St Sanity observed Epiphany last Sunday and tomorrow will observe the Baptism of Christ. Not sure what will be done tomorrow here, we shall find out.

Posted by Tobias (# 18613) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Lessons and Carols type format, with readings from Luke (the Shepherds arriving at the manger and the Circumcision) Matthew (the Wise Guys appear through the Holy Innocents, broken up into four parts), TS Eliot, Rumi, and Isiah (Arise Shine).

I'm intrigued by the mention of a reading from Rumi - it could be quite appropriate, on the feast of Christ's manifestation to the Gentiles. Can you provide a link or a reference to the text you used? I would be most interested.

I've heard the T.S. Eliot reading used at Epiphany services, but it's rather too austere for my liking on what should be a festal day - and of course singularly inappropriate in this part of the world, where Epiphany is in summer!

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Someone asked about the rationale for the Baptism of the Lord being celebrated on a Monday if the Epiphany is celebrated on a Sunday,be that 6th January or 7th or 8th January.I cannot answer for TEC but can explain the ideas behind the Roman calendar (which usually gives a certain inspiration to the TEC).

Epiphany is a festival commemorating the public manifestation of Christ.It may or may not have as its first inspiration a water festival held on the Nile on 6th Jan. At any rate it commemorated the baptism of Christ. The Romans took this Greek festival and added a festival commemorating the actual birth of Christ and his manifestation to the shepherds. They then commemorated principally on 6th Jan the manifestation of Christ to the ( three) Wise Men.

The Roman liturgy forgot about the Baptism recalling it however on the Octave of the Epiphany on 13th Jan with an Epiphany liturgy as on 6th Jan but the Gospel recalling the Baptism of Christ.It wasn't until 1955 that this day by decree of Pius XII took the name Baptism of Christ.It is highly unlikely, that the TEC had a Feast of the Baptism of Christ before that time.

Pope Paul VI fixed the Feast of the Baptism of Christ as the first Sunday after Epiphany or if there wasn't one on the Monday after the Sunday of Epiphany.

There is a reason for this. Before Vatican 2 weekdays without a particular feast repeated the Sunday liturgy. Since the changes following Vatican 2 every weekday has its own liturgy.

Immediately after the Sunday after or of Epiphany begins Ordinary Time and the Readings are those of the First week in Ordinary Time.If Epiphany is celebrated on a Sunday then you are only taking one day away from the Readings of Ordinary Time by celebrating the Baptism of Christ on the Monday.
Following Vatican 2 the weekly cycle of Biblical readings in the daily liturgy have received greater importance and the weekday liturgies are not simply a repeat of the Sunday liturgical readings nor indeed are there as many commemorations of saints, unless they are important to the local community.

This, at least is the rationale for the date of the Baptism of Christ which closes the Christmas cycle, apart from the Presentation of the Lord which follows 40 days after Christmas.

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

quote:
Originally posted by Tobias:

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Lessons and Carols type format, with readings from Luke (the Shepherds arriving at the manger and the Circumcision) Matthew (the Wise Guys appear through the Holy Innocents, broken up into four parts), TS Eliot, Rumi, and Isiah (Arise Shine).
I'm intrigued by the mention of a reading from Rumi - it could be quite appropriate, on the feast of Christ's manifestation to the Gentiles. Can you provide a link or a reference to the text you used? I would be most interested.

I was hoping to find a link with just the text, but this is the best I have found. First poem on the left column, starting "Last Night I saw the realm of joy and pleasure." Read between the Magi finding Jesus, and the Magi returning by a different road.

We have been using it for a while now. I do not know what went into the decision to use it, but I think it works well.

Posted by Tobias (# 18613) on :

What a wonderful poem - thank you!

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0