Ship of Fools: Is high Anglicanism still allowed to be fun?

Thread: Is high Anglicanism still allowed to be fun? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024875

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

I've been wondering this recently. High Anglicanism used to be fun, with harmless little affectations like singing 'I'll sing a hymn to Mary' to the tune of the Eton boating song, and drinking pink gin on the two 'Rose Sundays'. Clerics were often known by the pet names — generally somewhat irreverent — that they acquired in seminary. These days, that sort of religion lives on in maybe one or two parishes in London and a tiny handful in the rest of England (primarily in Brighton and Oxford, I think) and perhaps in one or two of the major 'shrine' parishes on the Eastern Seaboard of the USA. In its place, there seems to be a new culture of censoriousness. I remember overhearing — at one of those rather louche ecclesiastical drinks' parties to which one is occasionally invited — the crestfallen curate of a well-known Anglo-Catholic parish remark to another priest that 'we're forbidden from wearing any lace at our place' (the other priest, who is one of the few examples of what we shall call 'fun Anglo-Catholicism' replied by saying 'really? we always do, except during Advent and Lent — well, except during Lent, at any rate').

My theory is that it stems from the ordination of women. This split high and highish Anglicans into two camps: the one camp (which branded itself 'Affirming Catholicism') felt the need to distance itself from the tradition that it derisively labeled as 'gin, lace, and backbiting' and embraced a culture of respectability not unlike that of Scots and Ulster Presbyterianism in days of yore; the other camp (branded as 'Forward in Faith'), felt an almost pathological need to show how 'serious' it was, and adopted a similar culture (as well as some really rather horrible vestments, presumably to show that their religion was not just about aesthetics).

Does this match other peoples impressions?

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

That is an interesting premise, but I am not entirely sure that the ordination of women is at the root.

I have also noticed this culture (to misappropriate 'culture' in this context as it is usually accompanied by a complete lack of it) of censoriousness, and not only in places ecclesiastical. There has been a noticeable decline in nearly all institutions and where these remain a new seriousness seems to have developed. Perhaps the mayoralty of London is an exception.

In High places this is certainly true. Although in certain seminaries various principals used to disapprove of quite witty and hilarious names-in-religion they continued none the less. There was Plum Tart (now an archdeacon somewhere), Radox Regina, Sweaty Betty, Beverley Hills, Poison Ivy, Dot, Deardre and Ethel to name but a few.
They often became highly dedicated priests working away their lives in difficult city parishes. AN Wilson once remarked that for all the pink gin and frivolity, they really understood self-sacrifice and often burned themselves out in parishes others would rarely touch.

That sort of Cecil Beaton campery 'Oh hark at her dear!' does seem to have gone - especially in the gay world now that things are more open.

Is it to do with institutional change, more opennness with regard to sexuality - amd much in the High church world was related to this - or what? Very interesting thread.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

There was also a drink called a 'Bourne Street' dispensed in the clergy house of St Mary's. I believe it was one part gin and two parts sherry. It is said that HRH Princess Margaret often used to pop round.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

The ordination of women is a Dead Horse. I'm not going to move this thread at the moment so please do keep away from the Dead Horse. Much obliged.

seasick, Eccles host

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Cheer up, there's lots of High Anglican Camp still in the Edmonton area (with pockets in other parts of London), and some of the practitioners are still in their twenties. There are also plenty of gin-drinking, lace-wearing priests of the female sex. We used to have one of them posting on the Ship.

[ 04. August 2012, 17:41: Message edited by: Amos ]

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
There was also a drink called a 'Bourne Street' dispensed in the clergy house of St Mary's. I believe it was one part gin and two parts sherry. It is said that HRH Princess Margaret often used to pop round.

One part gin and one part sherry with a dash of bitters. Served straight up in a chilled glass. At least that's how I've always seen it made.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

How very encouraging. All is not lost.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I think there are two sorts of 'fun' associated with anglo-catholicism. One is the camaraderie and high jinks of a parish community, celebrating their festivals (maybe with a bit of bling in the sanctuary as well as plenty of booze in the church hall), a knees-up, a pilgrimage to Walsingham or some such shrine, a farewell party for a much-loved priest. This sort of fun is inclusive and (depending on the social context) merges with the secular sort to be found in the pubs or back kitchens or dinner parties or whatever.

The other sort might well be fun for those involved, but it tends to be exclusive, clericalist (with tolerated entry to certain privileged laity), can be bitchily gossipy and camp, and very exclusive. Excluding not just the majority of the laity but also any Anglicans of a different tradition and certainly any non-Anglican Christians. (I somehow imagine that outright atheists would be more welcome).

It was this latter sort of clerical club that Kenneth Leech lambasted many years ago with the phrase 'gin, lace and backbiting.' It goes with a theological defensiveness and a delight in pretending that the rest of the Church doesn't exist. The campness used to be more understandable when gay people (especially priests) felt obliged to conceal their sexuality. At least in these circles now it is easier for them to be open and hence the atmosphere in such gatherings is more healthy. And of course the OoW has transformed single-sex clergy gatherings even amongst a-cs. Probably just as much fun in a different way. I don't know what clerical culture is like in the biretta belt regions of North London and the south coast, but in most places now anglo-catholic clergy get along fine with their evangelical and MOTR neighbours and have less desire to maintain exclusive gatherings.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

Nicely put, Angloid. The old-fashioned "fun" A-Cism could indeed be bitchy, nasty, camp and had nothing of the gospel in it. I know that first hand and, so to speak, from the wrong end. But on the other hand I've known priests who, on first impressions, you might be inclined to put into that category but who turned out to be kind, compassionate and have hearts of gold.

The real "fun" of A-Cism was a kind of knowing innocence, if that's not an oxymoron, that manifested itself in not taking oneself too seriously. For instance, the priest I knew who had a pair of gold shoelaces which he wore at Easter. Or the one who had an old biretta made into a tea-cosy. Slightly silly, slightly childish, and often a cover for a profoundly wounded person who had sacrificed much.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

I think a lot of the old campery and silliness was a release mechanism for men who spent a lot of their time in some fairly grim parishes. I think the culture was always strongest in urban areas, and also in dioceses where Anglo-catholics were not all that welcome. The new seriousness predates the dead horse, some Spikes were taking themselves rather too seriously back in the 1980s. I tend to blame it on the knock on from Vatican II, and the Catholic movement getting liturgically more mainstream.

PD

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

I thoroughly agree with both Angloid and Adeodatus. When I say that the GLB culture is still flourishing in the church, I don't mean to say that I think that's a good thing. I'm on the outside, but the young priests of my acquaintance who have been invited in, as it were, find it disquieting. They're not used to living in the closet with the door shut; the retro charm quickly wears off.

[ 05. August 2012, 05:41: Message edited by: Amos ]

Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
... the young priests of my acquaintance who have been invited in, as it were, find it disquieting. They're not used to living in the closet with the door shut; the retro charm quickly wears off.

I'm sure you are quite right about that. Today there is no value placed on closet gay or lesbian behavior. Instead, closeted activity is seen as pathological, as I am sure it is. Value is now placed on an honesty and personal integrity in matters of human sexuality. That's taken the stuffing out of Anglo-Catholic camp, gin and lace in the Anglican Communion. Good riddance.

As for fun in church, so called, I think the post World War II Liturgical Movement and the reform influences of Vatican Council II, took the wind out of the sails of treating the liturgy of the church as a game to be played by insiders in the know; clericalism in short.

Now we have a younger generation of potential sacristy rats and rather rabid church poofters who are rapidly rediscovering this discredited clericalism of the past in astonishing detail with their nimble use of the Internet and other web tools. Unfortunately, their knowledge of these matters thereby remains mostly two-dimensional and without the reference to the rather dark issues connected to it. For many of this younger set there is this golden past and heritage which has been dishonored and thrown into the trash.

Well I was there in the "golden past" of gin, camp, lace and fun in church, and again I say good riddance because of personal experience.
[Projectile]

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:

Now we have a younger generation of potential sacristy rats and rather rabid church poofters

Delightful.

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:

their nimble use of the Internet and other web tools.

These would presumably be instances of the famous bad internets?

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

I think one difference in the Anglo-Catholic culture I knew in Yorkshire was that most A-C priests were married. The sense of fun was still there, but it didn't quite have the nasty edge it got in some parishes where the 'Gay Nineties' element prevailed.

One time when I was at a gathering of Anglo-Catholics I was on the receiving end of a nice bit of bitchy humour. One of the more obviously gay clergy, who seemed to have bee reponsible for killing the better part of the first bottle of gin single-handed, was trying to chat me up and I was rescued by a kindly voice remarking, "Don't bother Fr. PD! He is so straight the only thing you could do with him if you laid him down is use him as a ruler." Thus rescuing me from the only uncomfortable moment I have ever had at an A-C gathering that was not cause by aesthetics!

On the whole I have always appreciated he camardarie of Anglo-Catholicism, provided the Gin, Lace and Back-Biting were kept under control.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
...rather rabid church poofters who are rapidly...

I don't think this type of language furthers discussion. Please refrain from it in future.

seasick, Eccles host

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

It's interesting that everyone's first thoughts went to homosexuality. It's probably my fault for bringing up the clerical nicknames — some of which were undeniably rooted in a subculture not wholly distant from that of the drag club. But I also had in mind other things that were perhaps less strongly associated with sexuality.

I suppose the general decline in tolerance for drinking amongst 'polite' society has probably adversely affected gin consumption, although it seems to divide along rural-urban lines: in our little market town, church functions occasionally include a glass or two of wine, but never spirits and are more often teetotal. In contrast, the in the urban Anglo-Catholicism of my youth, it was understood that a certain core of parishoners would stay for hours after a service and drink about a bottle of wine each, plus a few very large gins and perhaps some port as well. I suspect that's becoming less common as part of the new culture of censoriousness.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
I suspect that's becoming less common as part of the new culture of censoriousness.

Not censoriousness, just common sense. Though to partly agree, maybe what's been lost from anglo-catholicism , which gave rise to the fun, is the sense of being 'extreme'. Not just extreme in ecclesiology or theology, but extreme in ceremonial, in fashion (both in church and out), in politics, sometimes - either High Tory or Marxist, extreme in consumption of alcohol....

Much as I prefer to be part of the mainstream church rather than an eccentric fringe, and prefer austerely contemplative liturgy to baroque high jinks, I have to regret that all this often means blandness, and a tendency to po-faced boredom.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Ken Leech himself is on record as saying he can't see what's the matter with being extreme? There's nothing the matter with being extremely kind or extremely generous?

(He's thinking of its use in politics as a coverall condemnation for left wing views, but I can't help think that the fact he was curate of Holy Trinity Hoxton, and never regrets the fact, may influence his attitude to the word.)

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

(S)pike, the rural/urban divide in drinking culture is related to the fear of being banned for driving under the influence, and the even greater fear of killing someone while under the influence and having one's name, photo (in clerical) and possibly even one's name in religion in all the papers.

There used to be a great drinking culture in Ecclesiantics, back when it was Mystery Worship. Most of those people have left now, but I don't for a moment imagine that they've left off drinking GIN.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

But Christianity is an eccentric fringe...

I'd rather be part of austerely contemplative worship than baroque exoticism, but I'd rather be part of baroque exoticism than being patronised and talked down to like a primary school pupil and expected to sit down throughout the entire unimaginative and unstylish proceeding.

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

It could be argued that Christianity is a religion of extremes: fasting and feasting, mourning and rejoicing. These features it shares with Judaism and Islam. Like many people of a certain age, I became interested in Buddhism as a young man, but I found the idea of the Middle Way to be vaguely unnatural, whereas the Christianity took the natural emotional states — even the extremes — and harnesses them toward God. That great Terentian maxim 'Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto' (I am Man and think nothing human alien to me) is repurposed for Christ.

Didn't Eliot say that it was only in the Christian mysteries that one could rejoice and mourn at once and for the same reason? That is because rejoicing and mourning are united in sacerdotal time. Christianity, properly understood, does not repudiate extremes of emotion — it consecrates them.

That's a rather pompous way of saying that I think there may have been a serious depth of theology behind all that high church campery.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I'm gay and I accept the ordination of women.

Before I realised I was gay, I tended disapprove of campy Anglo Catholicism. Since I realised I was gay, and that people like Ken Leech could be nourished by Anglo Catholicism, I'm much more tolerant.

I've no wish to justify myself by proving myself more serious - there but for the grace of God go I. I can see what I have in common with the campy side and I can see how defensiveness can lead to it.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

What Angloid said.

As for the OOW in the OP, most of the women clergy I know have a far earthier sense of humour than their male counterparts.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
But Christianity is an eccentric fringe...

I'd rather be part of austerely contemplative worship than baroque exoticism, but I'd rather be part of baroque exoticism than being patronised and talked down to like a primary school pupil and expected to sit down throughout the entire unimaginative and unstylish proceeding.

Hear, hear!
Also what (S)pike couchant said.

Posted by emendator liturgia (# 17245) on :

One of the former Rectors of Christ Church St Laurence here in Sydney (CCSL is THE AC parish in the diocese) was Fr Austin Day SSM, one of the most dedicated, pastorally sensitive and hard-working priests of his day (and since).

Given his initials, he was affectionally known as 'Agnus Day' by many, but no-one would ever stoop to calling him that face-to-face - the respect they held for him was in no way diminished by his campish nickname, and his oft humorous camp-like style "Oh Fr XY, we can't have you in that during procession - I'm sure we can find you something with more lace!"

Fr Austin was respected and valued by a wide range of Sydney clergy and people - he was made Area Dean and a Canon of St Andrew's Cathedral, Sydney and both the Archbishop of Sydney and the Regional Bishop attended services at CCSL.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Was the Archbishop bound, gagged and dragged in on a sledge, perchance? [Biased]

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Cheer up, there's lots of High Anglican Camp still in the Edmonton area (with pockets in other parts of London), and some of the practitioners are still in their twenties. There are also plenty of gin-drinking, lace-wearing priests of the female sex. We used to have one of them posting on the Ship.

Pray, tell where are these places? I thought St Silas was the last bastion of lace in Edmonton. Clearly I need to get out more!

Posted by emendator liturgia (# 17245) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Was the Archbishop bound, gagged and dragged in on a sledge, perchance?

Well, as you might have guessed, if certainly wasn't the current AB - he'd have an fit - when he visited my prevsious parish he was stunned enough, though he did feel the warmth of the greeting (compared, I guess, to when he visits other parishes more of his personal taste and feels the indifference to the fact that the chief pastor of the diocese is with them).

Bishop Robert Forsyth, the regional bishop, does go to CCSL once in a while, and makes a very good effort at accommodating their eccentricities.

Posted by Earwig (# 12057) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Nicely put, Angloid. The old-fashioned "fun" A-Cism could indeed be bitchy, nasty, camp and had nothing of the gospel in it. I know that first hand and, so to speak, from the wrong end. But on the other hand I've known priests who, on first impressions, you might be inclined to put into that category but who turned out to be kind, compassionate and have hearts of gold.

The real "fun" of A-Cism was a kind of knowing innocence, if that's not an oxymoron, that manifested itself in not taking oneself too seriously. For instance, the priest I knew who had a pair of gold shoelaces which he wore at Easter. Or the one who had an old biretta made into a tea-cosy. Slightly silly, slightly childish, and often a cover for a profoundly wounded person who had sacrificed much.

Abso-tutley. It's about love. If you can have silly fun, and love, and include others - grand. If you exclude others and don't love - no thanks!

I once had the priviledge of being at a (pretty mixed) deanery chapter which started with packed lunches. Two A-C priests (one female, one male) shared their lunch, and announced before starting it, "We've not brought the silver cutlery today, it being Lent". [Big Grin]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I have been musing on this 'fun' thing.

If someone things that dressing up in funny clothes and arguing about how many candles should be on the holy table and tall should they be and in which order they should be lit and extinguished, then it seems to me that they need some sort of psychiatric help.

It's an interesting (to me) question as to whether certain types of high camp churchery attracts odd people or whether it attracts normal people and makes them odd.

BTW In case someone thinks I am attacking someone else's religion, I am, myself, in the high church 'camp'. If we are not self-critical then we are moribund.

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

If someone things that dressing up in funny clothes and arguing about how many candles should be on the holy table and tall should they be and in which order they should be lit and extinguished, then it seems to me that they need some sort of psychiatric help.

It's amazing how that sentence manages to be offensive without actually making any sort of sense on even a basic semantic level.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Not intended to be offensive, merely pointing out the pathology within the catholic movement of the C of E. Fr. Ken Leech, the great historian of anglo-catholicism, has put it far more pungently in his 'Gin, lace and backbiting' paper - if you like, I'll send you a copy.

More positively, where 'fun' and a/c'ism fit together - we throw good parties. I remember great food, drink, jokes and 'turns' after weekday festival masses at S. Matthew, Carver Street, Sheffield. On a slightly less lavish style, here, in my own parish of All Saints Clifton. (Though one pays for the second glass onwards in this parish!)

The Very Rev'd Jeffrey John notes a similar thing in Wales. He'd been raised Presbyterian but 'converted' to a'c'ism 'because they know how to have fun.'

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Not intended to be offensive, merely pointing out the pathology within the catholic movement of the C of E. Fr. Ken Leech, the great historian of anglo-catholicism, has put it far more pungently in his 'Gin, lace and backbiting' paper - if you like, I'll send you a copy.

That one I have read.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

Personal disagreements and personal attacks do not belong in Ecclesiantics. If posters wish to engage in such things then the Hell board is available to you.

leo: I take an extremely dim view if using a need for psychiatric help as a pejorative. I advise against doing that again.

More generally, if this thread cannot be a constructive discussion of culture changes in Anglo-Catholicism as per the OP then it is in danger of being closed.

seasick, Eccles host

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

The late Austin Day was certainly high camp with an excellent sense of humour.

It must be at least 20 years since he went to that Great Procession in the Sky.

I think previous Archbishops of Sydney and the current Bishop of South Sydney had and have a somewhat more comprehensive view of Anglicanism than Peter Jensen. Surprisingly, SPK they appeared to have entered CCSL voluntarily. However, there is one item of dress, (once framed on the wall with appropriate note) celebrants at CCSL were officially forbidden to wear. That caused some wry amusement.

Even in Sydney I believe good Evangelicals are looking forward to the end of the Jensen era.

[ 07. August 2012, 00:41: Message edited by: Sir Pellinore (ret'd) ]

Posted by Quam Dilecta (# 12541) on :

Among Anglo-Catholics in TEC, any remaining sense of fun has been dampened by the realization that their parish could be next on the firing line, their priests deposed, and their buildings and endowments confiscated.

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Quam Dilecta:
Among Anglo-Catholics in TEC, any remaining sense of fun has been dampened by the realization that their parish could be next on the firing line, their priests deposed, and their buildings and endowments confiscated.

It seems many bishops are very tolerant of Anglo-Catholicism. I'm not so sure they would want too many Anglo-Catholic churches or clergy, but usually the ones that exist seem to be more than safe.

I suspect that the safest ones would be the ones that do a souped-up BCP79 High Novus Ordo sort of thing, while the ones that would be in the most danger would be the ones who cling to the old missals. Was this what you meant?

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
The late Austin Day was certainly high camp with an excellent sense of humour.

It must be at least 20 years since he went to that Great Procession in the Sky.

I think previous Archbishops of Sydney and the current Bishop of South Sydney had and have a somewhat more comprehensive view of Anglicanism than Peter Jensen. Surprisingly, SPK they appeared to have entered CCSL voluntarily. However, there is one item of dress, (once framed on the wall with appropriate note) celebrants at CCSL were officially forbidden to wear. That caused some wry amusement.

Even in Sydney I believe good Evangelicals are looking forward to the end of the Jensen era.

As I understand it, CCSL is like a bowl of nuts, it keeps all the nuts in one place. In Sydney the Powers That Be do not like the flavour of the CCSL nut.

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
The late Austin Day was certainly high camp with an excellent sense of humour.

It must be at least 20 years since he went to that Great Procession in the Sky.

I think previous Archbishops of Sydney and the current Bishop of South Sydney had and have a somewhat more comprehensive view of Anglicanism than Peter Jensen. Surprisingly, SPK they appeared to have entered CCSL voluntarily. However, there is one item of dress, (once framed on the wall with appropriate note) celebrants at CCSL were officially forbidden to wear. That caused some wry amusement.

Even in Sydney I believe good Evangelicals are looking forward to the end of the Jensen era.

Not quite 20 years: Fr Austin joined the Procession around the 5th November 2001, may he +rest in peace and rise in glory. [Votive]

Quoth Amos:

quote:
Cheer up, there's lots of High Anglican Camp still in the Edmonton area (with pockets in other parts of London), and some of the practitioners are still in their twenties. There are also plenty of gin-drinking, lace-wearing priests of the female sex. We used to have one of them posting on the Ship.

What, you mean, not you dear? [Biased]

No longer in my twenties, but certainly lace-wearing and gin-drinking here - and I look forward to sharing one with you next year when I am in the UK I hope!

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

SPK , the history of CCSL does not bear out your comment. Yes, it was a very individual church in Sydney for many years, at least as far as liturgical practices were concerned, but for many years and especially in the depression, it was in the strong tradition of Christian Socialism practiced in many AC parishes in the UK. The amount of welfare work carried out there is amazing.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
...As I understand it, CCSL is like a bowl of nuts, it keeps all the nuts in one place. In Sydney the Powers That Be do not like the flavour of the CCSL nut.

There were always a few places in Sydney which did not fit into the Sydney Evangelical mould.

St James, King Street was traditionally more High than A-C.

St Mary the Virgin, Waverley was in the CCSL mould.

Sydney tended to polarise people.

I wouldn't tend to use the word "nut" about CCSL although it certainly had some great eccentrics.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

But it's not as if worship as entertainment or fun is limited to A-Cs, although different people will have different ideas of fun.

All those sermons which start with an obligatory "joke".

Those praise and worship services with imitation rock music.

The sermon slot on a Harvest Festival taking the form of the Crunchy Carrot Game involving the children (I've seen this).

The Sally Army using music hall music because why should the devil have all the best tunes?

And as for camp, I was amazed to look through Sacred Songs and Solos. When he cometh, when he cometh to make up his jewels. I mean, I ask you.

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

quote:
Originally posted by Quam Dilecta:
Among Anglo-Catholics in TEC, any remaining sense of fun has been dampened by the realization that their parish could be next on the firing line, their priests deposed, and their buildings and endowments confiscated.

That should only be a worry for those few parishes that refuse to reasonably adhere to the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Episcopal Church as established by her lawful and democratic national governance. If one does not show some semblance of such adherence, it is indeed strictly down to the sufferance of the Ordinary as to whether deviations will be tolerated. It should be perfectly possible to use the basic bones of the 1979 BCP as structure for the liturgy - especially the canon of the mass - augmented by various Anglo-Catholic accretions. Non-BCP liturgies fall under the rubrics of so-called "Rite III" and are thus technically illicit for habitual use as the principal Sunday service. Thus, for example, the Roman Canon from the English Missal should not really be used habitually for the principal Sunday Mass, though it could be used on "special" occasions and for masses other than the principal Sunday Eucharist (thus, for an early Sunday Mass and for weekday Eucharists).

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I am still wondering what the connection between high anglicanism and 'fun' is. 'Fun' strikes me as being about 'entertainment' or of 'making light of' something.

At the heart of our religion is the mass. The holy sacrifice is not a joke. It isn't about doing magic with bread and wine but is the offering of ourselves in union with Christ on the cross. The priest who offers it is called to live a sacrificial life and lay people are to do likewise.

Someone had a sig 'No maniple, no mass' I'd rather have 'no sacrifice, no mass'. Otherwise, the mass is a charade.

Th oft-stated ' you can't get to Easter without going through Good Friday' is about lived experience, not trite urging of people to attend the Triduum liturgies as entertainment.

The catholic tradition might have flashy robes but it also invites us to regular self-examination and confession, fasting and almsgiving.

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

A now deceased Anglo-Catholic priest of my aquaintance used the term "fun" to derisively describe other Anglo-Catholic clergy who did things he considered over the top either liturgically (saying the mass in Latin and suchlike) or in their personal lives. I believe he himself had been rather "fun" back in his younger days, but was a model of apparent rectitude by the time I had occasion to meet him and visit his parish church a few times (Mt Calvary, Baltimore -- now gone over to the Ordinariate)back in the late 1970s. I never thought that "fun" had a good connotation in the Anglo-Catholic context in many instances. You could only use it without irony in describing a few things such as a joyous procession of Our Lady and that sort of thing, as long as it didn't become too camp (though perhaps what is judged camp is a matter in the eye of the beholder).

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
It should be perfectly possible to use the basic bones of the 1979 BCP as structure for the liturgy - especially the canon of the mass - augmented by various Anglo-Catholic accretions. Non-BCP liturgies fall under the rubrics of so-called "Rite III" and are thus technically illicit for habitual use as the principal Sunday service. Thus, for example, the Roman Canon from the English Missal should not really be used habitually for the principal Sunday Mass, though it could be used on "special" occasions and for masses other than the principal Sunday Eucharist (thus, for an early Sunday Mass and for weekday Eucharists).

Although, strangely, your little shack in Philadelphia seems to use 'Rite III' for most of it's services, without apparently incurring the wrath of the ordinary....

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

True, but that could change under a new bishop. BTW we have been using the BCP canon (American order) at most of our Sunday high masses this summer rather than the Romish Rite III canon. I suppose I shall be frustrated in my wish to experience a solemn high Eucharistic Prayer C (the Star Trek Canon) sadly.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Perhaps fun could be said to be the result of taking the liturgy seriously but not taking oneself too seriously.

Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I think there are two sorts of 'fun' associated with anglo-catholicism. One is the camaraderie and high jinks of a parish community, celebrating their festivals (maybe with a bit of bling in the sanctuary as well as plenty of booze in the church hall), a knees-up, a pilgrimage to Walsingham or some such shrine, a farewell party for a much-loved priest. This sort of fun is inclusive and (depending on the social context) merges with the secular sort to be found in the pubs or back kitchens or dinner parties or whatever.

The other sort might well be fun for those involved, but it tends to be exclusive, clericalist (with tolerated entry to certain privileged laity), can be bitchily gossipy and camp, and very exclusive. Excluding not just the majority of the laity but also any Anglicans of a different tradition and certainly any non-Anglican Christians. (I somehow imagine that outright atheists would be more welcome).

Most excellently said, Angloid.

I am in a parish that has been on the high side of middle (even by US standards) for a while, and has been definitely tending more towards A-C due to the work of our interims, both members of the (Anglican) Society for Catholic Priests. One is a man, one is a woman.

The sort of fun described in the first paragraph has been very much a part of our parish life. (As one of the resident sacristry rats, I'm truly enjoying their bling, and have learned a lot.)

However, the work of the interims has been in many ways to work on breaking down the bitchy gossip/backbiting/divisions in our midst. It may be "fun" for those doing it ... but not for those on the other end.

Fr. Temp, as a gay man, can absolutely camp it up with the best of them and has fit in well with our extant gay male mafia, but it's not at others' expense - he's a very inclusive pastor.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I am still wondering what the connection between high anglicanism and 'fun' is. 'Fun' strikes me as being about 'entertainment' or of 'making light of' something.

...

An excellent post in toto, leo.

There is, indeed, quite a difference in having fun, however innocent and good for you that is and Christian Joy which often comes after a great deal of suffering. Suffering and the spiritual growth it entails are part and parcel of Christianity. Amazingly, in Christ's case, that suffering was undertaken quite voluntarily.

During the Eucharist we should be reverently attentive.

Some high camp A-C humour is, I think, often stress relief. Many clergy don't like being put on a pedestal and surrounded by reverent "Father-worshippers" all the time.

Some A-C flagship churches do seem a bit heavy on the entertainment side of the liturgy. Strictly speaking, the Eucharist is not meant to entertain us as much as to raise us up out of our everyday lives for a temporary glimpse of Heaven where Time and Eternity intersect.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

Agree with Leo but it doesn't preclude having fun. Doctors and surgeons and funeral directors frequently use in house jokes and amusement amongst themselves which would be shocking to the rest of us.

I remember the first time I encountered that AC 'Oooo look at her!' Frankie Howard-Larry Grayson High church theological college humour. I had to lie on the floor to get my breath back it was so funny.

The (welcome) openness in sexuality has probably led to a demise of some of this, but not quite. There was something amusing and slightly freemason-like about sexuality in the past in these circles that could be very amusing.

A clerical friend said 'I used to prefer it much more when it was behind the bikesheds and exclusive. Now being 'gay' is so common.'

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

....and SERIOUS.'

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

sebby, there are times to split your sides, but the Eucharist may not be an appropriate one.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

However much the gin-and-lace brigade amused themselves back in the presbytery, when it came to the liturgy they were often amongst the most po-faced of the lot. Just look at some of the pictures posted on the 'videos' thread.

I think (well I would, being a woolly Anglican) that there is a happy medium between treating worship as a stand-up entertainment and as a boring duty. ('It is not only right, it is our duty and our joy.')

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
I remember the first time I encountered that AC 'Oooo look at her!' Frankie Howard-Larry Grayson High church theological college humour. I had to lie on the floor to get my breath back it was so funny.

Personally, I find
this a little dated.

Posted by Percy Blakeney (# 17238) on :

What an interesting discussion!

Personally I hope some high ritual is done with a twinkle in the eye, a sense of playfulness before the Lord. [Smile]

I fear that we may be a bit too serious in worship at times, then, maybe, it's just God who has the fun in smiling at the po faces.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
I remember the first time I encountered that AC 'Oooo look at her!' Frankie Howard-Larry Grayson High church theological college humour. I had to lie on the floor to get my breath back it was so funny.
Personally, I find
this a little dated.

Dated, yes. And I can see why people now might be offended by old-fashioned high camp. But I must admit to a sort of militant nostalgia. It's like Harvey Fierstein's drag queen character says in Torch Song Trilogy - "Well, once the ERA and Gay Civil Rights Bills have been passed, me and mine will find ourselves swept under the carpets". He was right. We've assimilated. We've become polite, middle class, inoffensive heterosexual role-players. Hell, we might as well introduce beige as a liturgical colour - for every season.

And Percy Blakeney, you have a point about a sense of playfulness. There's a lovely couple of lines in an old Doctor Who story that go something like -

"Are you serious?"
"About what I do, yes. Not necessarily about how I do it."

Posted by Percy Blakeney (# 17238) on :

Indeed! I like to think God likes to watch his children playing.

Worship should have an element of fun.

Too often it comes across as didactic - to educate people rather than joyful worship. [Smile]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Hell, we might as well introduce beige as a liturgical colour - for every season.

So tasteful! So C of E!

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

And Percy Blakeney, you have a point about a sense of playfulness. There's a lovely couple of lines in an old Doctor Who story that go something like -

"Are you serious?"
"About what I do, yes. Not necessarily about how I do it."

Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
...rather rabid church poofters who are rapidly...
I don't think this type of language furthers discussion. Please refrain from it in future.

seasick, Eccles host

You're the host here, seasick, so I will of course do whatever you wish. In addition, my apologies are extended for any offense taken by anyone, if that might be so.

If I may, however let me identify myself publicly as a gay Episcopalian with a solid Anglo-Catholic background of many years and a good theological education. I have also been of the closet as gay man for a long time.

I could go further and be more specific about my identity, by let's just say that I have been a part of and seen the culture of church fun from the from the inside; the good and the bad. So having been a part of all that myself, I cast no aspersions on anyone or any group as a critic or by using perjorative terminology. Instead, I merely meant to be humorous, but it seems that did not come across properly. Hence my sincere apologies.
*

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Percy Blakeney:
Indeed! I like to think God likes to watch his children playing.

Worship should have an element of fun.

Too often it comes across as didactic - to educate people rather than joyful worship.

There's fun and then there's utter Christian joy which takes you out of yourself.

God save us from the "educative function".

Posted by mettabhavana (# 16217) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Hell, we might as well introduce beige as a liturgical colour - for every season.

Has been known in Methodism.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

One thing I have come to realise is that one can leave Anglo-Catholicism, but it does not leave you. Oddly my departure from narrow Anglo-Catholicism into a broader form of High Churchmanship was prompted by having to deal with the old-fashioned version pedalled in the continuum. Culturally I have more in common with the Common Worship in an Vatican II wrapper variety of Anglo-Catholicism than the Trent Preservation Society type. The latter is a variety of Anglo-Catholicism which I like to visit but not dwell in, perhaps because I realise deep down that the Church has moved on, though the jury is out on how far.

I am very much a product of the sort of Anglo-Catholicism coming out of Staggers in the mid-1980s, which definitely post-Vatican II, but still had a bit of a hankering for the old ways. However, there was definitely a sense in which they wanted to be more at peace with mainstream Anglicanism. However, that did not put a damper on the parties because I can remember some fairly serious post-High Mass piss-ups and the cotton wool heads that followed. The new seriousness came later - probably in the 1990s when there was a very real sense of having our backs against the wall. It was also noticeabe that some of the stauncher part animals had left for Rome or committed matrimony by that time which tended to break up our circle. Before 1995 one could always be sure of replacements coming along, but at that point things went very seriously downhill.

PD

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:

Hence my sincere apologies.

I’ve been posting here for eleven months, and although I’ve seen a number of hostly reproofs, I can’t remember many if any sincere or convincing apologies. Thank you very much Rob.

I have serious doubts about the motivation of the OP, but I think it does bring up some important points about irony, sexuality, a sense of the ridiculous, drama and so forth in the Christian life.

When I saw Rob’s post I thought here was another pompous straight liberal man, ignoring that aspect.

Seeing where he’s coming from, I fully sympathise, as one poofter to an another, with him having to be called “Roberta” at college and whatever other silliness. Thank heavens I never went to theological college in those days.

[ 10. August 2012, 17:20: Message edited by: venbede ]

Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
...rather rabid church poofters who are rapidly...
I don't think this type of language furthers discussion. Please refrain from it in future.

seasick, Eccles host
You're the host here, seasick, so I will of course do whatever you wish. In addition, my apologies are extended for any offense taken by anyone, if that might be so.

If I may, however let me identify myself publicly as a gay Episcopalian with a solid Anglo-Catholic background of many years and a good theological education. I have also been of the closet as gay man for a long time.

I could go further and be more specific about my identity, by let's just say that I have been a part of and seen the culture of church fun from the from the inside; the good and the bad. So having been a part of all that myself, I cast no aspersions on anyone or any group as a critic or by using perjorative terminology. Instead, I merely meant to be humorous, but it seems that did not come across properly. Hence my sincere apologies.
*

Correction: That sentence in my second paragraph above should read, "I have also been out of the closet as a gay man for a long time."
*

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

I'm not old enough to remember life before the FiF/AffCath divide, but I sense that religion was more "fun" then for obvious reasons.

I think life in general is less fun now and I think fear is at the root. We hear it said all the time - Where are all the characters now? Keeping our heads down with good reason.

People take themselves too seriously now and many are, often, rightly afraid to be themselves. Mistakes are not tolerated and lead to exclusion. The result is a society based on appearance alone. Some of our wisest & most charismatic people are kept to the fringes.

Gone is the fun of the gentleman amateur - here is the age of the miserable expert.

Rant over!

Posted by Cryptic (# 16917) on :

Vaticanchic - your points are very nicely summed up in this article from the Sydney Morning Herald - Death of the Ratbag. It's from a few years ago now (and very Oz-centric) but the point about conformity is well made.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

The parish I work in is not Anglo-Catholic, but I think that the rector would like it more so ideally. Anyway, IMHO his sermons keep getting better and better, and the Holy Gospels from St. John that that the lectionary has given us in recent weeks have really inspired him. He deserves a much larger audience.

Last Sunday he mentioned Madeleine L'Engle's suggestion to the effect that we believe Jesus
to have been fully a human being who walked on water. Therefore, she said, if we can't do so as well, perhaps it is because we have forgotten how.
Maybe, he continued, what we have forgotten is the necessary lightness of heart, and too seldom does church life help us with that shortcoming anymore.

For example, we might focus so much on the Eucharistic elements and their mystical meaning, about which many fine and learned books have been written, that we overlook what we do with them. To remember Jesus in the Eucharist must include remembering someone who loved the social experience of sharing a meal with friends. This must be one reason why He chose this as act to be our most distinctive connexion with Him. Whatever the Eucharist may be, it should never be joyless.

Perhaps my picture of Anglo-Catholic life in its remarkable heyday is somewhat romanticized (since a tinge of romanticism is of the essence). But
it does seem from numerous anecdotes that part
of the genius of those Puseyite slum missionaries was the sense of fun with which they set about
turning the social order on its head-- exalting the humble and meek. They were hard-working and dedicated, but they were also "characters." Since that time, parts of the church, including parts of Anglo-Catholicism, have been hijacked by cultural warriors intent instead on keeping the mighty on their seats. Good humor doesn't tend to be useful in such a project.

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

What Alogon said.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
I'm not old enough to remember life before the FiF/AffCath divide, but I sense that religion was more "fun" then for obvious reasons.
<big snip>

Gone is the fun of the gentleman amateur - here is the age of the miserable expert.

Rant over!

My dim recollection is that the FIF/AffCath divide opened up around 1990. We always knew the Movement had a liberal wing and a traditional wing, but the whole matter had been dealt with by using humour.

"Don't mine him, dear, he's just a Prot in a chasuble!" Or "Pray for him, he went to Westcott House."

It turned nasty about 1990, then came the split and grey suits. The whole experience was very painful and I nearly left Anglicanism and Christianity altogether. In the end it was a matter of having to be where I could receive the sacraments. For me, at least, that's when the fun kind of went out of it, and being an Anglo-Catholic increasingly became a matter of being allowed to survive. As a symtom of what was happening, I seem to recall that the last of the really epic Anglo-Catholic parties I attended was in 1993/4 since then things have gotten a whole lot tamer.

As for 'the Gentleman Amateur' I am afraid the grey suits are hounding him to extinction. I hang on to as much of the old spirit as I can, but every one seems to be afraid and so bloody serious these days. They are scared of the lawyer, the rule book, the code of practice, political correctness and all the other garbage we have enslaved ourselves with. We seem to have bred a generation of priests who won't take a chance and go into panic mode when they get something that is not in the handbook. The phrases 'close enough' and 'not ideal but we can work with it' seem to have been forgotten, and 'think for yourself' has been banned. Anglo-Catholicism is in danger of becoming boringly middle class and safe. I fear Affirming Catholicism has already achieved it - a bit like New Labour really.

PD

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

I don't believe that "middle class and safe" is a preserve of either side of the FiF/AffCath divide (I use FiF through gritted teeth, but that's more of a hellish conversation). Neither of the congregations I have been part of which have significant FiF tendencies have been notable for their engagement with under-privilege. Instead, they have been notable for taking for granted the death of liturgy as a living tradition and picking over its bones, trying to give it the most exact replica they possibly can of its movements in life at a given point in history.

That feels a little unkind, but I believe very strongly that this at least the effect if not the intention of obsession with handbooks and liturgy as historical reenactment. The true nature of liturgy is not historical reenactment; it is an invitation to the holy spirit to enter into the life of the church as the whole body of Christ now. It needs the kind of organic engagement, not the kind of forensic attention to isolated detail it tends to gets from fanatics.

Posted by mettabhavana (# 16217) on :

quote:
The true nature of liturgy is not historical reenactment; it is an invitation to the holy spirit to enter into the life of the church as the whole body of Christ now. It needs the kind of organic engagement, not the kind of forensic attention to isolated detail it tends to get from fanatics.

Threefold Amen. [Overused]

Wish we had a quick [LIKE] button!

Posted by Ondergard (# 9324) on :

When I was at Wesley College, Bristol, I was fortunate enough to have been given the opportunity of taking part in a college exchange with the Anglican College in Chichester (sadly, like WCB, no more). It opened my eyes to the depth of Anglo-Catholic spirituality, as well as the conviviality and frivolity of its participants.

There was Lesser Silence, and Greater Silence, and a daily angelus bell, and Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament, and daily prayers for the Holy Father but pointedly not for the Archbishop of Canterbury, and all the look-at-me-genuflecting and dressing up that you might expect from what I might be bold to call the "Self-Consciously Catholic" elements; there was a priest giving homilies at Mass, in one of which (when knowingly in the presence of Methodist students) he made casual reference to "...Lutheranism, Wesleyanism, and other errors and heresies"; there were sub-altars in all student rooms, whose flint slab led unbroken through to the central altar at the heart of the Student House - and lots more.

What I remember most though about all that was the enormous crucifix on the lawn outside the chapel, and the quiet reminder from an old priest who was teaching there whose name escapes me that "without Good Friday there can be no Easter Day"; and all the wisdom which flowed from that simple statement.

What I remember of the students is being told by one of them that "... in this place, if he isn't married, he's gay, and sometimes even being married is no guarantee of heterosexuality".... shortly before he glanced over my shoulder at the door to St Richard's Bar and saying, in a deliberately camp voice, "Excuse me, I must go over and be gratuitously rude to Paul for five minutes." and then introduced me to another student who rejoiced in being the namesake of a famous rock musician.

I remember most of all the warmth and relaxed humour of the students. So, for a Methodist, I have fond memories of my experience of Anglo-Catholicism - so much so that I still have a rosary draped around a crucifix on my study wall, which I still use in daily devotions, I still cross myself when receiving communion at a communion rail, and I still pray for some of the students I met then, and have never met since.

I hope they are still having fun.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
I don't believe that "middle class and safe" is a preserve of either side of the FiF/AffCath divide (I use FiF through gritted teeth, but that's more of a hellish conversation). Neither of the congregations I have been part of which have significant FiF tendencies have been notable for their engagement with under-privilege. Instead, they have been notable for taking for granted the death of liturgy as a living tradition and picking over its bones, trying to give it the most exact replica they possibly can of its movements in life at a given point in history.

That feels a little unkind, but I believe very strongly that this at least the effect if not the intention of obsession with handbooks and liturgy as historical reenactment. The true nature of liturgy is not historical reenactment; it is an invitation to the holy spirit to enter into the life of the church as the whole body of Christ now. It needs the kind of organic engagement, not the kind of forensic attention to isolated detail it tends to gets from fanatics.

I would agree with nine-tenths of what you say. The soft-centred antiquarianism that is a characteristic of some of the FiF crowd gets on my tits too, and I am a fellow Traddie. No, the sort of Anglo-Catholicism I grew up with usually thrived in parishes that were 'a bit rough' and tended to have more than half an eye on contemporary RC practice whilst still remaining recognizably Anglican. As for grim reality it was usually outside the church door in one form or another usually in the forms of high unemployment and poverty due to the collapse of traditional heavy industry.

The obsession with Ritual directories and so on is a manifestation of either the grey suit mindset, or of a need to escape the grey suits. I am not sure which - maybe its both. On the whole it does not have much to do with the heart of Anglo-Catholicism which is the Gospel and the Sacraments.

PD

Posted by sydney (# 16012) on :

Reference has been made by a number of contributors to Christ Church St Laurence in Sydney. I started going to CCSL just as Father Austin arrived. He had a hard act to follow in Father John Hope who had been rector there for 38 years. Father John introduced all the Anglo Catholic innovations there (reserved Sacrament, the Benediction, the English Missal services etc).
Father Austin's arrival in 1964 coincided with the changes (horrors?) that were taking place in the Roman church and Father Austin determined that changes occur at CCSL but waited about 5 years to make his first moves. In about 1970 he replaced the English Missal with the Series 2 and later the Australian Prayer Book. Example of "progress" ("Pray brethen that this my sacrifice and yours be acceptable to God the Father Almighty" became "Lord we have these gifts to share"). So much for progress. Father Austin retained of course many traditional Anglo Catholic practices (the Asperges, the Angelus loads of incense) but nothing in my mind will ever replace the beauty both in language and gesture of the English Missal services where every word and gesture was the result of centuries of use. These modern services just follow the whim of individual priests. I probably sound like a reactionary but so be it.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sydney:
nothing in my mind will ever replace the beauty both in language and gesture of the English Missal services where every word and gesture was the result of centuries of use. These modern services just follow the whim of individual priests.

I have to laugh: what is an Anglican priest doing using the English Missal if not following his [sic, usually] own whim? No reason why a few whims shouldn't be indulged of course; that's what this thread is all about. Most of the 'fun' of anglo-catholicism came from skirting very close, or beyond, the letter of the law.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sydney:
nothing in my mind will ever replace the beauty both in language and gesture of the English Missal services where every word and gesture was the result of centuries of use. These modern services just follow the whim of individual priests.

Centuries of use! [Eek!]

More like a few midweek nights over a bottle of port in the vicarage of Holy Trinity Hoxton where Fr Kenrick and his wife and their friend the vicar of St Alban's, Holborn, and maybe a few old Cambridge chums, put together a translation of the then-current Roman mass into cod Tudor (as in 1662) and played around with cutting-and-pasting various Anglican prayers into different bits of the Roman service!

He sounds like a nice chap, and he was a botanist, which is always a good thing, but the English Missal does seem to be the result of probably at most seven years practice in two or three parishes between about 1905 and 1912 (presumably putting into effect some of the ideas they and their friends had thought before they had got livings of their own)

It might (or might not) be a beautiful liturgy, but it was as congregational and as made-up on the spot and as personal to the situation of the compilers and translators and their churches as any Methodist hymn sandwich or Iona wee worship book. And nothing wrong with that as far as I can see. But its a lot nearer to being the "whim of individual priests" than either the Prayerbook was or Common Worship is.

[ 16. September 2012, 14:09: Message edited by: ken ]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Dead right there ken.
[Smile]

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
the heart of Anglo-Catholicism which is the Gospel and the Sacraments.

PD

and there was me thinking it was having lots of nice things to put lace on. [Roll Eyes]

Mea culpa, this is frivolous with a very small sprinkling of bile, but it does chime with my experience, particularly when it comes to the use of tat to keep out public exposure of spirituality.

[deleted multiple posts and fixed code]

[ 16. September 2012, 20:41: Message edited by: seasick ]

Posted by sydney (# 16012) on :

I find these attitudes to the English Missal incredible some would say ignorant. The English Missal was the old Tridentine Rite in English. If that is not centuries of use based on trained and schooled good taste I don't know what is. The priests of that era were guided by the Ritual Notes (the Red Bible) which they used to good effect. Those of us brought up in that era the Missal services have a permanent place in our hearts. By the way I started a thread a few years on the use of the Missal in churches in London today. Only two were identified, St Magnus the Martyr and St Michael and All Angels Croydon. Any updates on this?

PS I am not your typical Sydney Anglican.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

FooloftheShip

1. May I commend to your use the preview post feature and the UBB practice thread in the Styx? That was quite an impressive multiple posts/broken code mess-up for someone with more than 500 posts.

2. If you think that your post contains bile, it may well not be appropriate for Ecclesiantics. As a reminder, we strive to maintain an atmosphere of respect for the different traditions represented and discussed here.

seasick, Eccles host

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
FooloftheShip

1. May I commend to your use the preview post feature and the UBB practice thread in the Styx? That was quite an impressive multiple posts/broken code mess-up for someone with more than 500 posts.

2. If you think that your post contains bile, it may well not be appropriate for Ecclesiantics. As a reminder, we strive to maintain an atmosphere of respect for the different traditions represented and discussed here.

seasick, Eccles host

I managed to make this mess, I think, by excessive use of preview post, rather than too little. A little time on the practice thread may be well spent. I have just noticed the mess I made and sent a message to one of your fellow hosts requesting the kindness of removing two of the examples.

In terms of judgement, the complication is that it is kind of my tradition. Internecine warfare is always the bloodiest. I shall, however, be more careful in the future, on both counts.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sydney:
I find these attitudes to the English Missal incredible some would say ignorant. The English Missal was the old Tridentine Rite in English. If that is not centuries of use based on trained and schooled good taste I don't know what is.

I don't know what 'good taste' has to do either with liturgy or the subject of this thread. The 'fun' of anglo- (and most other sorts of) catholicism has always been its over-the-top-ness and exuberance which is miles apart from cathedral dignity. Both have their place of course.

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:

I have just noticed the mess I made and sent a message to one of your fellow hosts requesting the kindness of removing two of the examples.

Clarification: I had sent the message before seeing the hostly reply on the thread.

[ 16. September 2012, 20:50: Message edited by: FooloftheShip ]

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

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by sydney:
I find these attitudes to the English Missal incredible some would say ignorant. The English Missal was the old Tridentine Rite in English. If that is not centuries of use based on trained and schooled good taste I don't know what is.
I don't know what 'good taste' has to do either with liturgy or the subject of this thread. The 'fun' of anglo- (and most other sorts of) catholicism has always been its over-the-top-ness and exuberance which is miles apart from cathedral dignity. Both have their place of course.

I think a good, honest example of High Church fun would be the Walsingham National. I'm afraid, however, that there is much A-C fun that is little more than bitchy, queeny, campy, elitist excess. I hope that strain is going the way of the Dodo, frankly.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by sydney:
I find these attitudes to the English Missal incredible some would say ignorant. The English Missal was the old Tridentine Rite in English. If that is not centuries of use based on trained and schooled good taste I don't know what is.
I don't know what 'good taste' has to do either with liturgy or the subject of this thread. The 'fun' of anglo- (and most other sorts of) catholicism has always been its over-the-top-ness and exuberance which is miles apart from cathedral dignity. Both have their place of course.
I think a good, honest example of High Church fun would be the Walsingham National. I'm afraid, however, that there is much A-C fun that is little more than bitchy, queeny, campy, elitist excess. I hope that strain is going the way of the Dodo, frankly.

I doubt it. And to be liberal, there is room for all. One person's 'campy eleitist excess' is another person's fun.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
One person's 'campy eleitist excess' is another person's fun.

Not if it's at the expense of others.

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sydney:
By the way I started a thread a few years on the use of the Missal in churches in London today. Only two were identified, St Magnus the Martyr and St Michael and All Angels Croydon. Any updates on this?

If so, please start another thread. This is a bit of a tangent.

Thanks.
Mamacita, Eccles Host

Posted by tomb (# 174) on :

I searched for a thread in Ecclesiantics that might explain to me why the Guardian's article on the successor to the Archbishop of Canterbury was quick to point out that virtually all of the potential candidates were Evangelical.

Given the tenor of this thread, I'm sort of figuring out why. Is eccentricity now the hallmark of anglo-catholicism?

Now, don't get me wrong, I was one of the cranky people on the Ship who objected to re-naming Mystery Worship "Ecclesiantics." And, to this day, I habitually spell GIN in all caps (particularly when I know it will annoy somebody).

But I have to ask you, is anglo-catholicism so discredited in the UK as a viable expression of Christian faith that even the Guardian, for God's sake, doesn't even mention a viable AC candidate for ABC?

Are y'all just playing around and talking amongst yourselves?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I think it's more the case that, having just had an Anglo-Catholic ABC, we're unlikely to have another one straight away.

Anglo-Catholicism does suffer from the current disease of dumbing down within the church - the idea that the unwashed masses aren't able to cope with anything that is unfamiliar or that they might have to ask questions about to understand. Evangelicals do tend to be better at that.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

With the recent conflicts in the Communion in mind, perhaps many High Anglicans; Anglo-Catholics and others do not find as much "fun" in ecclesia as they used to?

Perhaps some of aforesaid "fun" is becoming a trifle hysterical?

It is a difficult time.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

I started attending an AC church about 7 or 8 years ago because of its liberal theology, being tired of the Jensenite agenda on offer nearly everywhere else. I must say I don't see fun being had at all in my AC parish, they take themselves very seriously and IME are actually much less fun than many of their con-evo counterparts.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tomb:
I searched for a thread in Ecclesiantics that might explain to me why the Guardian's article on the successor to the Archbishop of Canterbury was quick to point out that virtually all of the potential candidates were Evangelical.

Given the tenor of this thread, I'm sort of figuring out why. Is eccentricity now the hallmark of anglo-catholicism?

Now, don't get me wrong, I was one of the cranky people on the Ship who objected to re-naming Mystery Worship "Ecclesiantics." And, to this day, I habitually spell GIN in all caps (particularly when I know it will annoy somebody).

But I have to ask you, is anglo-catholicism so discredited in the UK as a viable expression of Christian faith that even the Guardian, for God's sake, doesn't even mention a viable AC candidate for ABC?

This seems rather odd given that both Bishop Chartres and Bishop James have strongly High Church backgrounds. Of course, neither belongs to that small band of ACs so extreme they would have nothing to do with a parish which followed another tradition but then it is hard to see how anyone who was exclusively associated with a single 'party' could be in the running for ABC.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Wasn't Stephen Cottrell among the Guardian list too? He's Aff Cath. Though again sympathetic to evangelicals and in no way 'party minded'.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Yes, there has been bit of a tendency to 'alternate', at least since Coggan followed Ramsey and perhaps even when Fisher followed Temple. (Not sure what Fisher's churchmanship was- does 'Public School' best decribe it?)

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

Isn't part of the problem that the Evangelicals have most of the young 'uns and most higher folks are of that age where "fun" isn't immediately obvious, e.g. watching the regional bowls championship, exchanging banter with the young lady who changes the colostomy bag, etc.

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

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Yes, there has been bit of a tendency to 'alternate', at least since Coggan followed Ramsey and perhaps even when Fisher followed Temple. (Not sure what Fisher's churchmanship was- does 'Public School' best decribe it?)

I thought that was the standard, almost explicit, pattern? I'd assumed we were due an evangelical next.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Indeed. I suppose I can see why they do it, and on the whole the results have been acceptable - with the glaring exception of George Carey, though IIRC there wasn't really anybody very obvious, Evangelical or not, in the frame when ++Runcie went- David Hope was a bit young (and A-C), John Habgood a bit old. Was David Sheppard considered? There was some talk then of ++Robin Eames (Armagh), but I don't know how serious a possibility this was.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Isn't part of the problem that the Evangelicals have most of the young 'uns

Nope.

More likely that Evangelicals have most of the money. And in the larger Anglican communion the Evangelicals have the larger provinces. So it doesn't matter where the next ABC's sympathies lie. He won't be able to go about pissing off the Evangelicals in the same way that an Evangelical is, regrettably, able to piss off the catholics or liberals.

Rowan was never as liberal as his detractors made out anyway, I've noticed some Evangelical sympathies in his speeches. He is as close to the centre of Anglicanism as any Archbishop has been. There's nothing to be alternative to.

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

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Isn't part of the problem that the Evangelicals have most of the young 'uns
Nope.

More likely that Evangelicals have most of the money. And in the larger Anglican communion the Evangelicals have the larger provinces. So it doesn't matter where the next ABC's sympathies lie. He won't be able to go about pissing off the Evangelicals in the same way that an Evangelical is, regrettably, able to piss off the catholics or liberals.

Rowan was never as liberal as his detractors made out anyway, I've noticed some Evangelical sympathies in his speeches. He is as close to the centre of Anglicanism as any Archbishop has been. There's nothing to be alternative to.

I was thinking in terms of the fun element rather than the ABC element when I made that comment.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Tangent Alert
It's a long term pity, and a mark of one of the CofE's failings, that people think it's more important that the next Archbishop belongs to the same faction as themselves, than that he is a person who combines in the same person, wisdom, leadership and holiness.

By the way, according to Radio Bristol yesterday, the name of the new Archbishop is to be announced tomorrow.

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

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Tangent Alert
It's a long term pity, and a mark of one of the CofE's failings, that people think it's more important that the next Archbishop belongs to the same faction as themselves, than that he is a person who combines in the same person, wisdom, leadership and holiness.

By the way, according to Radio Bristol yesterday, the name of the new Archbishop is to be announced tomorrow.

I think there are significant numbers of people, in all factions, who struggle to believe that he could combine those qualities if he's not of their faction. After all, all people who are right, wise and holy agree with me by definition, don't they? [Biased]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

By the way, according to Radio Bristol yesterday, the name of the new Archbishop is to be announced tomorrow.

How can this be, since the Crown Commission meets on Wednesday and Thursday this week to do as last bit of praying before deciding?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

By the way, according to Radio Bristol yesterday, the name of the new Archbishop is to be announced tomorrow.
How can this be, since the Crown Commission meets on Wednesday and Thursday this week to do as last bit of praying before deciding?

No idea. I was only half listening with the programme on in the background, when I suddenly heard this odd statement, and thought, 'how do they claim to know?'.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Indeed. I suppose I can see why they do it, and on the whole the results have been acceptable - with the glaring exception of George Carey, though IIRC there wasn't really anybody very obvious, Evangelical or not, in the frame when ++Runcie went- David Hope was a bit young (and A-C), John Habgood a bit old. Was David Sheppard considered? There was some talk then of ++Robin Eames (Armagh), but I don't know how serious a possibility this was.

In my fantasy alternate universe Jim Thompson was appointed in place of George Carey, but that's doubtless rather implausible as he was only a diocesan Bishop after the latter was appointed to Canterbury.

Posted by Arch Anglo Catholic (# 15181) on :

Returning from the misty Isles of Tangent, in my benefice one of the retired clergy wishes to have a requiem for a recently, and dearly missed, departed relative. He fondly remembers the excting days of the late Canon B F Brindley, but feared that the days of Anglo Catholic ebullience had passed, to be replaced with euro tat.

Since a good number of the clergy, retired, NSM and otherwise, are of the High persuasion, this has led to much joy; surprising perhaps in what could be a dismal time?

The fraternal nature of the clergy chapter has led to a steady stream of those who want to help, with increasingly excited ideas with regard to ritual and ceremonial.

This could be vacant, vain and empty, but here it just isn't.

The desire is very much to support and to serve our friend and to worship our God, both with joy in times of hardship. This has put a smile on the face of the bereaved and reinvigorated the elderly retired who are looking forward to donning the black requiem vestments with much glee.

Daft? You might think so, but it's good, old High Anglican joy which filters through. We now have a queue for the sacred ministers...I'm going to MC so steaming handbags at the ready, here we come!

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

By the way, according to Radio Bristol yesterday, the name of the new Archbishop is to be announced tomorrow.
How can this be, since the Crown Commission meets on Wednesday and Thursday this week to do as last bit of praying before deciding?
No idea. I was only half listening with the programme on in the background, when I suddenly heard this odd statement, and thought, 'how do they claim to know?'.

Well, it's past 1100, when such announcements are made.

Radio Bristol isn't the most prestigious of outfits - after all, they've had me on it several times over the years!

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I started attending an AC church about 7 or 8 years ago because of its liberal theology, being tired of the Jensenite agenda on offer nearly everywhere else. I must say I don't see fun being had at all in my AC parish, they take themselves very seriously and IME are actually much less fun than many of their con-evo counterparts.

I had noticed, over the years, both in Sydney and up here, an almost complete lack of any sense of humour in these circles.

Posted by Laud-able (# 9896) on :

To Evangeline and Sir Pellinore:

You should come down south, where we will give you all the bells and smells, sound preaching, warm acceptance and laughter that you could possibly want.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laud-able:
To Evangeline and Sir Pellinore:

You should come down south, where we will give you all the bells and smells, sound preaching, warm acceptance and laughter that you could possibly want.

Oooh that sounds very enticing, Melbournians are often telling me I should move south, perhaps they're onto something.

Posted by Laud-able (# 9896) on :

Well, if you can't get to Marvellous Melbourne at the moment, keep the liturgical flag flying in whatever Catholic oasis you can find in the desert.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

Having grown up and been educated in Melbourne and visiting occasionally I am unsure whether, beneath the pizazz, the same sort of deep malaise may not exist.

The Anglican Communion is going through a difficult time and I think that uncertainty is evident in ordinary people.

Christians are not necessarily meant to be happy in the normal 21st Century sense but to experience the deep, abiding Joy that Easter represents. I think we sometimes confute the two.

Posted by Laud-able (# 9896) on :

It is true that Anglicans have much to be concerned about at international, national and even diocesan levels, but I think that in the parishes we can have some relief. Certainly we are Easter people, and the joy of the Resurrection informs – or should inform - all that we are and all that we do.

I don’t mean that we should go about like Pollyanna - we may still grumble about schismatic dioceses and weak bishops and tedious synods - but at least in contributing to the life of the parish we should be cheerful in doing what we do, remembering that ‘God loveth a cheerful giver’ (and – I hope – a cheerful and loving clergy and people).

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laud-able:
It is true that Anglicans have much to be concerned about at international, national and even diocesan levels, but I think that in the parishes we can have some relief. Certainly we are Easter people, and the joy of the Resurrection informs – or should inform - all that we are and all that we do.

I don’t mean that we should go about like Pollyanna - we may still grumble about schismatic dioceses and weak bishops and tedious synods - but at least in contributing to the life of the parish we should be cheerful in doing what we do, remembering that ‘God loveth a cheerful giver’ (and – I hope – a cheerful and loving clergy and people).

Quite so, if we can't be joyful as we go about celebrating the resurrection and "being Christian" in our daily lives then we might as well give up altogether. It's easier said than done though, but I'd like to see "us" try.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

I think, Evangeline, sometimes "we" try too hard and erect a false front which might be so convincing we even deceive ourselves. Self-knowledge is a dangerous thing. As T S Eliot said "Human kind cannot bear very much reality".

Certainly, when I was in Sydney at the parish now christened St Doc's, there seemed to be an undercurrent of unease. Given the parish and parishioners' odds with the archdiocese that was no shock but most of them - a generalization I know - seemed not to be genuinely happy.

In my penultimate parish up here the emphasis seemed to be a sort of surface "pastoral care" which didn't really touch the depths of people's needs.

One of the problems Australian Anglo-Catholics - another broad generalization - seem to have to me is a penchant for concentrating on externals and a total ignoring of their Shadow side, which I think needs to be brought into consciousness for them to be fully alive and function as a genuine human beings with depth and feeling.

I think this search eventually has to become an individual one: one I think many people are unwilling to take because it appears too frightening. Sadly there are few genuine mentors around. The genuine, deep, feeling Christian mystic tradition appears all but lost in contemporary Australian Anglicanism. The Christian Meditation Movement, often substituted for it, is a shallow and unsatisfactory one.

Group worship is necessary but no substitute for working quietly on oneself. They both need to come together for a church or Church to be alive.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

Interesting and thought provoking post Sir P, I think you may be right I have found a certain aridity about St Docs, hard to put my finger on but I think perhaps it is that focus on corporate worship and symbols etc at the expense (rather than in conjunction with) of quietly working on yourself and your relationship with God. It seems to flow on to relationships within the church too...

I too long for somewhere to engage in the mystic tradition, I don't see it anywhere in Australian Christianity, perhaps we're all just too much into instant gratification.

PS. For interests sake, how long ago were you at St Docs?

[ 27. September 2012, 23:50: Message edited by: Evangeline ]

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

I was at St Doc's when Michael Nixon was Rector, Evangeline. That's going back a good 20 years.

Posted by Laud-able (# 9896) on :

Quoting Sir Pellinore:

‘. . . a sort of surface "pastoral care" which didn't really touch the depths of people's needs. . . .. . . most of them - a generalization I know - seemed not to be genuinely happy. . . . for concentrating on externals and a total ignoring of their Shadow side . . .’

I do note that you are talking in general terms, and I am very much aware that I am limited in personal experience, because my commitment for more than sixty years – apart from occasional overseas jaunts - has been made to the one parish. I can only suppose that my fellow parishioners and I have led something of a charmed life.

Much further up the thread Leo wrote:

I am still wondering what the connection between high anglicanism and 'fun' is. 'Fun' strikes me as being about 'entertainment' or of 'making light of' something. . . . The catholic tradition might have flashy robes but it also invites us to regular self-examination and confession, fasting and almsgiving.

Well, if ‘fun’ is too flippant a word, how about ‘cheerful enjoyment’?

Admittedly I would prefer to describe our vestments as ‘not expressed in fancy—rich, not gaudy’, and I don’t know that we would be highly rated for fasting, but we do attend to self-examination, and very much – I believe – to almsgiving and other works of charity.

I don’t want to labour the point, but for at least some Anglo-Catholics it is by no means either a butterfly existence or a life of gloomy disillusion.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

Our reactions to most things tend to be entirely subjective, Laud-able. "One man's meat ..."

Whilst not gainsaying anything you've said I think there are many who keep on moving out of the revolving doors of various churches determined not to return.

I do think there is an enormous lack of genuine spiritual depth in Anglicanism in this country. It's that spiritual depth which breeds saints and grows churches. On current figures I think Anglicans are maintaining the situation with the laager.

Posted by Laud-able (# 9896) on :

With regard to the 'revolving doors', is it perhaps that some people look upon the church (whatever it might be) as a kind of shop - that is, a place to be avoided if it doesn't answer their immediate needs - rather than a community to which they must commit something before they can hope to receive anything in return?

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

I think people often come, or come back, sometimes for a considerable time, Laud-able and somehow (rightly or wrongly) find it isn't quite their cup of hemlock.

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

Given my location, it is almost compulsory for me to be interested in the mystic tradition. I duly am, being a regular reader of and meditator on the Revelations of Divine Love. The question is how to join that up with the rest of life, within the church and outside.

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

Forgive the double posting, but my previous one has another half, which it almost implies. For me, the drama of liturgy and the deep calm of the mystic tradition are like inhaling and exhaling: neither lives happily without the other. If I go too long without contemplative prayer, I become spiritually undernourished, or the spiritual equivalent of diabetes sets in, owing to an excess of sugar with nothing to create balance; if I go too long without the beauty and drama of liturgy, everything starts to feel dull and excessively worthy.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laud-able:
Much further up the thread Leo wrote:

I am still wondering what the connection between high anglicanism and 'fun' is. 'Fun' strikes me as being about 'entertainment' or of 'making light of' something. . . . The catholic tradition might have flashy robes but it also invites us to regular self-examination and confession, fasting and almsgiving.

Well, if ‘fun’ is too flippant a word, how about ‘cheerful enjoyment’?

Admittedly I would prefer to describe our vestments as ‘not expressed in fancy—rich, not gaudy’, and I don’t know that we would be highly rated for fasting, but we do attend to self-examination, and very much – I believe – to almsgiving and other works of charity.

I don’t want to labour the point, but for at least some Anglo-Catholics it is by no means either a butterfly existence or a life of gloomy disillusion.

Good - I agree with this.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

I think FOS all traditional Western Christian mystics have been fully practicing members of the Church: Theresa of Avila; John of the Cross; Francis of Assisi etc.

It goes without saying.

My stated "worry" is that conventional Anglo-Catholic religiosity is not engendering this.

Posted by tomb (# 174) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arch Anglo Catholic:
Returning from the misty Isles of Tangent, in my benefice one of the retired clergy wishes to have a requiem for a recently, and dearly missed, departed relative. He fondly remembers the excting days of the late Canon B F Brindley, but feared that the days of Anglo Catholic ebullience had passed, to be replaced with euro tat.

Since a good number of the clergy, retired, NSM and otherwise, are of the High persuasion, this has led to much joy; surprising perhaps in what could be a dismal time?

The fraternal nature of the clergy chapter has led to a steady stream of those who want to help, with increasingly excited ideas with regard to ritual and ceremonial.

This could be vacant, vain and empty, but here it just isn't.

The desire is very much to support and to serve our friend and to worship our God, both with joy in times of hardship. This has put a smile on the face of the bereaved and reinvigorated the elderly retired who are looking forward to donning the black requiem vestments with much glee.

Daft? You might think so, but it's good, old High Anglican joy which filters through. We now have a queue for the sacred ministers...I'm going to MC so steaming handbags at the ready, here we come!

My God, is it possible for you to write a sentence not in the passive voice?

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

one wishes
he remembers

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

Most of the sentences in that post seem to be in the active voice.

Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by sydney:
I find these attitudes to the English Missal incredible some would say ignorant. The English Missal was the old Tridentine Rite in English. If that is not centuries of use based on trained and schooled good taste I don't know what is.
I don't know what 'good taste' has to do either with liturgy or the subject of this thread. The 'fun' of anglo- (and most other sorts of) catholicism has always been its over-the-top-ness and exuberance which is miles apart from cathedral dignity. Both have their place of course.
. I'm afraid, however, that there is much A-C fun that is little more than bitchy, queeny, campy, elitist excess. I hope that strain is going the way of the Dodo, frankly.

Queeny and campy need not be synonymous with elitist or bitchy. It is that prejudice that I frankly wish would go the way of the Dodo

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
I think FOS all traditional Western Christian mystics have been fully practicing members of the Church: Theresa of Avila; John of the Cross; Francis of Assisi etc.

It goes without saying.

My stated "worry" is that conventional Anglo-Catholic religiosity is not engendering this.

The latter part of that chimes with my experience; sadly, therefore, it doesn't go without saying in the circles in which conventional A-C religiosity is practices.

Posted by BulldogSacristan (# 11239) on :

At first glance, I don't see any sentences that in the passive voice?

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0