|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Epistle
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Ditto. If we have two readings I'm more inclined to differentiate them according to OT and NT than between gospel account and epistle.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
(S)pike C., as you may know, at St Clement's Philly the Epistle is chanted by the subdeacon (normally) facing eastward. My preference would be for it to be chanted by the subdeacon facing the people. Since it is read for the edificaiton of the faithful, I find it a bit silly to be facing away from the congregation. The celebrant is, of course,simultaneously reading the Epistle up at the altar, sotto voce, flanked by the deacon and the two acolytes behind the deacon.
Have I understood correctly that two people are simultaneously reading the same passage in different parts of the church - or does the "Correction to my post above" correct that as well?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
I happily preach Christ from the whole of Scripture. I don't think there's anything special about the story of Herod killing John the Baptist (Gospel reading) rather than Philippians 2 (non-gospel reading) that makes it more suitable for use in a communion service.
Basically because the latter is Paul's (admittedly inspired) reflections on the Christ-event; the former, or perhaps more accurately the four gospels as a whole, is a first-hand (or close second-hand) record of the Christ event. Even allowing for the writer's own interpretation and other factors. The Gospel (ie the writings of the four evangelists) has always been recognised as the primary element of the - wider sense - Gospel, surely?
No. The gospel is no more 'apparent' in the gospel accounts than it is in any other NT text, although their contribution is unique and vital. These texts are not more special than any other biblical text. In fact I think it is a mistake to call these texts 'gospels' - they are biographical accounts of Jesus' earthly ministry according to particular authors which tell us something about the gospel. But they are not the gospel.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Have I understood correctly that two people are simultaneously reading the same passage in different parts of the church
I think so. Unreformed RC practice, unthinkingly copied by some Anglicans who should know better, had come to think that the priest should himself read every word of the liturgy irrespective of what was done by others. This was because the 'low mass', in which the priest necessarily did everything because there were no other ministers present, was seen as the norm, rather than the exception. So that you had the nonsense of the priest reading the words of the Gloria while it was being sung, and then sitting down; or as above, reading the epistle and gospel even though they were read aloud by others. Inability to delegate, they call it in some contexts!
[ 03. September 2012, 16:47: Message edited by: Angloid ]
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
Yes, Enoch, you have understood correctly. Bizarre isn't it? The celebrant says these things privately, that is, audible only to himself.
This is true of the Epistle and Gospel, the minor propers, and the ordinary (Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei), if sung by a cantor or choir.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
The gospel is no more 'apparent' in the gospel accounts than it is in any other NT text, although their contribution is unique and vital.
[my italics]
Enough reason, one would think, why an excerpt should be read at every celebration of the eucharist.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Thanks Angloid and Silent Acolyte. On this board one learns something new and odd every day.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Is the apparently common TEC use of vested subdeacons because American a-cs, unlike their British counterparts, are less influenced by contemporary RC practice?
I can understand the special treatment given to the Gospel (deacon, standing, lights and procession), but why should the 'epistle' appear to be more important than the OT, by reserving it to a vested cleric? At least, that is the signal it would give to me.
Where the epistle is chanted, is the OT also chanted? And if not, why not?
Is it not simply because at the time the customs developed there was no OT reading at Mass? One might surmise that if the older rites had OT readings then someone (probably a cleric, probably vested) would have been appointed to read them. I suspect it's more a historical accident than a privileging of the Epistle over the OT. Indeed, remembering that the "Epistle" in the older rites was sometimes from the OT it might be argued that both should now be read by the subdeacon, if you happen to have one handy.
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
(S)pike C., as you may know, at St Clement's Philly the Epistle is chanted by the subdeacon (normally) facing eastward. My preference would be for it to be chanted by the subdeacon facing the people. Since it is read for the edificaiton of the faithful, I find it a bit silly to be facing away from the congregation. The celebrant is, of course,simultaneously reading the Epistle up at the altar, sotto voce, flanked by the deacon and the two acolytes behind the deacon.
Have I understood correctly that two people are simultaneously reading the same passage in different parts of the church - or does the "Correction to my post above" correct that as well?
In the Tridentine Rite, the celebrant and/or sacred ministers say all the parts of the Mass that are sung by the choir or said by another minister. Thus, the celebrant goes to the gospel side of the altar during the gradual and reads the Gospel in the "silent" or "secret" voice before the deacon sings the Gospel out loud from the north side of the sanctuary. Similarly, the celebrant is reading the Epistle in a low voice during the time that the subdeacon is singing that reading aloud. Likewise, the sacred ministers, joined by servers to the extent feasible, recite the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, and other bits of the Ordinary whilst the musical settings of these texts are being sung by the choir. This is usage followed in the English Missal and thus done at St Clement's.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Yes, Enoch, you have understood correctly. Bizarre isn't it? The celebrant says these things privately, that is, audible only to himself.
This is true of the Epistle and Gospel, the minor propers, and the ordinary (Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei), if sung by a cantor or choir.
Apologies, SA: I missed your post before reiterating the same answer.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
. This is usage followed in the English Missal and thus done at St Clement's.
And people used to criticise the Parson's Handbook as 'British Museum religion'! ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
The English Missal is Vatican Museums religion, surely? Actually I quite like the British Museum religion of St Percy.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
My own impression, as a Brit resident in the USA, is that Anglo-Catholic practice, as opposed to theology, was and is a little more mainstream in PECUSA/ECUSA/TEC than it ever was in the Church of England. As a result there has been less of a tendancy to unthinkingly follow the local RC interpretations of the Vatican II documents on the liturgy, and the Novus Ordo liturgy. The Biretta Belt went a bit more post-Vatican II in its liturgical practice than the Coasts bac in the late-70s, but I think the Coasts are catching up.
I find that St Hardup's is stuck firmly in the mid-1960s. The ceremonial of the main Sung Mass is simplified but still largely Tridentine. However, some of the 'silly stuff' has been eliminated. For example, the celebrant sits and listens whilst the acolyte or subdeacon reads the Epistle facing the people. Also, there is a rule here that unless there is a very, very good reason to do otherwise, the BCP rubrics take precedence over Ritual Notes. The Low Masses are more 'Eastward facing Novus Ordo' in ceremonial.
We have allowed our use to evolve a little, but we still remain rather traditional. Lay people, in the form of licensed lay readers, are permitted to administer the chalice, and lay folks read the lessons at the Offices - if I can get the volunteers. The liturgy is a living thing, and we have to hit a balance between fossilization and revolution, and let things evolve slowly.
PD
[ 03. September 2012, 18:08: Message edited by: PD ]
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Apologies, SA: I missed your post before reiterating the same answer.
Da nada, LSvK. Besides, I fumbled the name of the voice the priest uses, while you got it right. Anyway, Angloid got past the post first as the three of us were rushing to describe this oddness.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Yes, Enoch, you have understood correctly. Bizarre isn't it? The celebrant says these things privately, that is, audible only to himself.
Percy Dearmer in The Parson's Handbook agrees with this in regard to the epistle. The 1662 BCP says the priest reads the epistle, so that is what he must do. The epistle is read or sung audibly at the same time by another minister from "the appointed place" (unspecified in the main text). In a footnote, Dearmer suggests chanting the epistle is probably impractical in most places, although he allow for the possibility.
Dearmer spends some time insisting that the epistle is read facing the people, which is also suggested by Fortescue's buddy, J O'Connell.
However the BCP says the reader should conclude by saying "Here endeth the epistle" so that is what should always be said even when the passage comes from a Biblical book which is not a letter, ie Acts or Revelation.
All perfectly logical of course, but don't go saying Percy cannot be pedantic and fussy at times.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
All perfectly logical of course, but don't go saying Percy cannot be pedantic and fussy at times.
Oh, Percy's the epitome of pedantic. Legalistic even. But there was good reason for this: he was defending ceremonial practices by pointing out their conformity to the rubrics of the BCP, and hence ensuring that everything he did in church was.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Where the epistle is chanted, is the OT also chanted? And if not, why not?
In our case, yes.
In the common Russian chant tradition, the Old Testament and sometimes the apostolic readings are chanted on a single note, perhaps with some inflection, while the Gospel is read to a particular chant. In another Russian tradition, the apostolic readings, and sometimes the Gospel, are done in a "rising from the grave" tone, in which the reader begins very low and goes up by a fraction of a tone for each line, (often increasing in volume as he goes).
My poor convert English ears cannot bear the latter tradition. Therefore, I tend to use a Carpatho-Russian chant, in which a simple chant with three repeating musical phrases is used for the Old Testament, and the Epistle and Gospel are read to a more elaborate form. There's a video of me getting this Epistle chant slightly wrong (and too fast due to nerves) on the day of my ordination here. I learnt the chant from sheet music but have since heard a Ukrainian priest of Carpatho-Russian extraction do the Gospel in this manner, as well as having a recording of me doing it commented on by another priest of similar background so have modified my practice accordingly.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
The Scrumpmeister, you have a very pleasant voice to listen to.
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
At one of the cathedrals of my favorite Orthodox bishop, everything is sung. Everything. Well, except for "I believe and I confess," which is said, but everything else is sung.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
The Scrumpmeister, you have a very pleasant voice to listen to.
You're very kind, Mamacita. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) Thank you. My mother's side of the family has been blessed in this way.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
In the Tridentine Rite, the celebrant and/or sacred ministers say all the parts of the Mass that are sung by the choir or said by another minister. Thus, the celebrant goes to the gospel side of the altar during the gradual and reads the Gospel in the "silent" or "secret" voice before the deacon sings the Gospel out loud from the north side of the sanctuary. Similarly, the celebrant is reading the Epistle in a low voice during the time that the subdeacon is singing that reading aloud. Likewise, the sacred ministers, joined by servers to the extent feasible, recite the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, and other bits of the Ordinary whilst the musical settings of these texts are being sung by the choir. This is usage followed in the English Missal and thus done at St Clement's.
Wow. I guess we know who gets the Redundancy Department of Redundancy Award. [/opinion][/MethodistRoots]
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emendator Liturgia
Shipmate
# 17245
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Generally, we only have one reading; the one that is to be expounded by the preacher, who might be 'ordained' but is just as likely to be an unlicensed member of the church.
And to think that people have accused me of being a 'wind up'. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
(S)pike Whoever could possibly have imagined that of you, of all people! ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
[ 04. September 2012, 08:39: Message edited by: Emendator Liturgia ]
--------------------
Don't judge all Anglicans in Sydney by prevailing Diocesan standards!
Posts: 401 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
No more discussion of that tangent, please, Emendator.
dj_ordinaire, Eccles host
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Rob
Shipmate
# 5823
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid
... And Mr Rob, in his Americo-centricism, fails to note that it was the Roman Lectionary of the post-Vatican 2 era, and the world-wide and ecumenical Liturgical Movement, that inspired the lectionary of the 1979 Prayer Book and subsequent versions such as RCL ...
"Americo-centrism!" - ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Not to stray to far from the OP and the Epistle, let me agree that all the influences mentioned by Angloid did indeed influence the drafting of the 1979 American prayer book. But that is not the point.
My actual point is that the American 1979 BCP achieved adoption and authority as the prayer book of the national church, and it influenced the life of The Episcopal Church accordingly and uniformly. That includes, in 99% of cases, the terminology and practice concerning the lessons and Holy Gospel of the Eucharist.
You can write up as many nifty liturgies and prayer books as you like, but the question is how many of them will gain acceptance and authority as a national standard? All the churches of the Anglican Communion have developed these alternative rites which are options, but some of those churches are still stuck with the "official" book of 1662, notably the Church of England. Hence the OP on the Epistle here because there are so many variants.
*
Posts: 862 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
My actual point is that the American 1979 BCP achieved adoption and authority as the prayer book of the national church, and it influenced the life of The Episcopal Church accordingly and uniformly. That includes, in 99% of cases, the terminology and practice concerning the lessons and Holy Gospel of the Eucharist.
*
Well yes. And I admire, with some envy, TEC for this. But AFAIK (S)pike couchant is not a member of TEC nor an American resident, so your point is irrelevant.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurence
Shipmate
# 9135
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
All perfectly logical of course, but don't go saying Percy cannot be pedantic and fussy at times.
Oh, Percy's the epitome of pedantic. Legalistic even. But there was good reason for this: he was defending ceremonial practices by pointing out their conformity to the rubrics of the BCP, and hence ensuring that everything he did in church was.
And I wonder whether at the same time, he was making the more subtle point that a strictly literalistic interpretation of the BCP produced ludicrousnesses like "Here endeth the Epistle" ("No it's not, it's Acts!"). A delicate game to play.
Posts: 648 | From: Lincolnshire | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
My actual point is that the American 1979 BCP achieved adoption and authority as the prayer book of the national church, and it influenced the life of The Episcopal Church accordingly and uniformly. That includes, in 99% of cases, the terminology and practice concerning the lessons and Holy Gospel of the Eucharist.
*
Well yes. And I admire, with some envy, TEC for this. But AFAIK (S)pike couchant is not a member of TEC nor an American resident, so your point is irrelevant.
I also suspect that it is the tolerated but unofficial use of terminology from the Knott Missal and the Roman Catholic Mass which are of more interest to the OP than a strict adherence to the 1662.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laurence:
And I wonder whether at the same time, he was making the more subtle point that a strictly literalistic interpretation of the BCP produced ludicrousnesses like "Here endeth the Epistle" ("No it's not, it's Acts!").
Which is why we refer to it as the reading from the apostle.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vulpior
Foxier than Thou
# 12744
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
quote:
Originally posted by Laurence:
And I wonder whether at the same time, he was making the more subtle point that a strictly literalistic interpretation of the BCP produced ludicrousnesses like "Here endeth the Epistle" ("No it's not, it's Acts!").
Which is why we refer to it as the reading from the apostle.
Oh. Didn't know that. I like!
--------------------
I've started blogging. I don't promise you'll find anything to interest you at uncleconrad
Posts: 946 | From: Mount Fairy, NSW | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Wow. I guess we know who gets the Redundancy Department of Redundancy Award. [/opinion][/MethodistRoots]
To be fair, I've been known to do that whilst in the congregation - say the relevant part of the prayers as a supplement to the rather ornate Latin setting being sung at the same time. If one can't easily follow a prayer then it seems to make sense to me...
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oxonian Ecclesiastic
Shipmate
# 12722
|
Posted
quote:
…a strictly literalistic interpretation of the BCP produced ludicrousnesses like "Here endeth the Epistle" ("No it's not, it's Acts!").
The Book of Common Prayer directs that the Epistle, when not taken from an epistle, be announced "The portion of Scripture appointed for the Epistle". Presumably, therefore, the correct ending on such occasions is "Here endeth the portion of Scripture appointed for the Epistle"? That is what I say when that happens.
Posts: 174 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oxonian Ecclesiastic
Shipmate
# 12722
|
Posted
Apologies for the double post, but I must also respond to the conversation above about whether the Epistle (or a portion of Scripture appointed for it!) will suffice in a Church of England Eucharist. The new 'Additional Eucharistic Prayers' booklet, when giving the 'Structure of a Celebration of Holy Communion', states that 'a Gospel reading must be included'. Moreover, the Notes to 'A Service of the Word with a Celebration of Holy Communion' in the main volume of Common Worship state that 'The notes to the Order for the Celebration of Holy Communion…apply equally to this service.' Those notes clearly assume that the Liturgy of the Word will culminate with the Gospel reading.
What makes me worry is the idea that there are English Anglicans who don't *want* a Gospel reading in a eucharistic celebration. It seems a bizarre desire.
Posts: 174 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
In the Tridentine Rite, the celebrant and/or sacred ministers say all the parts of the Mass that are sung by the choir or said by another minister. Thus, the celebrant goes to the gospel side of the altar during the gradual and reads the Gospel in the "silent" or "secret" voice before the deacon sings the Gospel out loud from the north side of the sanctuary. Similarly, the celebrant is reading the Epistle in a low voice during the time that the subdeacon is singing that reading aloud. Likewise, the sacred ministers, joined by servers to the extent feasible, recite the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, and other bits of the Ordinary whilst the musical settings of these texts are being sung by the choir. This is usage followed in the English Missal and thus done at St Clement's.
Wow. I guess we know who gets the Redundancy Department of Redundancy Award. [/opinion][/MethodistRoots]
I tend to think that the vain repetitions and excessive notes of text-obscuring polyphonic Mass settings represent the greater redundancy.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic:
quote:
…a strictly literalistic interpretation of the BCP produced ludicrousnesses like "Here endeth the Epistle" ("No it's not, it's Acts!").
The Book of Common Prayer directs that the Epistle, when not taken from an epistle, be announced "The portion of Scripture appointed for the Epistle". Presumably, therefore, the correct ending on such occasions is "Here endeth the portion of Scripture appointed for the Epistle"? That is what I say when that happens.
There are times when I have been heard to exclaim 'Let commonsense and the Proposed BCP be your friend...!' It instructs the reader to conclude "Here endeth the Epistle/Lesson" according to what has been read.
PD
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic:
What makes me worry is the idea that there are English Anglicans who don't *want* a Gospel reading in a eucharistic celebration. It seems a bizarre desire.
Even more bizarre when you consider that most of these people describe themselves as evangelicals.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic:
What makes me worry is the idea that there are English Anglicans who don't *want* a Gospel reading in a eucharistic celebration. It seems a bizarre desire.
Even more bizarre when you consider that most of these people describe themselves as evangelicals.
Its not that they don't want to read from the Gospels, its that they see the readings and the sermon and the hymns and the rest of the worship as all of one piece, connected, supporting each other. So they will preach on what is read, and read what is to be preached. It would not occur to them to add in extra readings that seemed unconnected with the rest of the worship.
Places that do that will often ask a visiting preacher what they intend to preach on and use that as the main Bible reading. Or they might have a programme of readings working through one book, or developing one theme. Churches that are in the habit of preaching through a book over some weeks often find the published lectionaries inadequate - it can seem to them that the readings are too short (especially the OT readings) and selective, they miss out too much, they too often jump over the apparently harder sayings or verses, they encourage the bad habits of skipping through the Bible looking for your favourite topic and of treating a text as a collection of isolated verses rather than a coherent narrative.
I am only the reporter here... I use the lectionary and try to get all the readings in (though our vicar resists sometimes)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I use the lectionary and try to get all the readings in
You may not like me saying this, ken, but in some ways you're a better catholic than many in the C of E.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic:
Those notes clearly assume that the Liturgy of the Word will culminate with the Gospel reading.
Simply wrong. The Liturgy of the Word culminates with the proclamation of the gospel in the sermon. (CW p332, note 13).
And ken's right (of course) in terms of the priority of ensuring thematic continuity and the general dissatisfaction with the RCL because of its omissions, lack of systematicity and complete obliviousness to local pastoral need, etc.
It's worth saying that I do straight BCP / CW order 1/2 communion (with multiple readings including a gospel reading, usually from the lectionary) at least three Sundays per month, and there's no plan to change that.
It's also worth saying that more people seem to want to come to the services where we don't do that.
[ 06. September 2012, 08:50: Message edited by: Custard ]
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
When presiding at Communion, I read the bit from Paul about Communion - "What I learned I passed onto you ... on the night he was betrayed Christ Jesus took bread ...". If, instead of that I read one of the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper would that satisfy the requirement within the CofE for a Gospel reading at a Communion service? Or, does the Gospel have to be read within the context of the preceding Liturgy of the Word and preached on?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
Alan,
the Gospel has to be read within the context of the Liturgy of the Word at the Eucharist under the C of E's regulations. However, it does not have to be preached on - you can go for the NT or the OT if you like. I usually find more to preach on in the Epistle than I do the Gospel so I imagine I run about 3 to 1 in favour of preaching on the former.
PD
[ 06. September 2012, 15:12: Message edited by: PD ]
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oxonian Ecclesiastic
Shipmate
# 12722
|
Posted
quote:
Simply wrong. The Liturgy of the Word culminates with the proclamation of the gospel in the sermon. (CW p332, note 13).
Quite how something which is said 'normally' to occur and which may be omitted except on Sundays and Holy Days can be regarded as the culmination of the Liturgy of the Word is beyond me.
I wonder whether the attendance patterns at your liturgically particular Eucharists, when compared with your less rubrically obedient gatherings, might have more to do with the time at which they occur? I certainly can't imagine people saying, "No, I don't think I will go to church today, because they'll be using Common Worship and reading the Gospel"!
Posts: 174 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Quam Dilecta
Shipmate
# 12541
|
Posted
One measure of the importance of the gospel reading in the Eucharist is the long-standing rule that that anyone who does not arrive in time to hear the gospel is not supposed to receive the Sacrament at that service.
--------------------
Blessd are they that dwell in thy house
Posts: 406 | From: Boston, Massachusetts, USA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
Are they locking the doors at the gospel at your prayer shack, Quam Dilecta?
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
georgiaboy
Shipmate
# 11294
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Quam Dilecta:
One measure of the importance of the gospel reading in the Eucharist is the long-standing rule that that anyone who does not arrive in time to hear the gospel is not supposed to receive the Sacrament at that service.
Long ago, in a diocese far away, there was a TEC parish whose members attending the 9 am Sunday mass were notorious late-comers.
One of the priests addressed the problem thusly (IIRC in a special announcement) 'The church teaches that one should arrive in time to hear the Gospel if intending to receive the HC; and one should CERTAINLY arrive in time for the General Confession -- BUT I SUPPOSE that if you get here in time to make it up to the rail, we'll give you Communion.' (All said in a very exasperated tone.)
I don't recall whether or not it helped!
--------------------
You can't retire from a calling.
Posts: 1675 | From: saint meinrad, IN | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic:
[QUOTE]I wonder whether the attendance patterns at your liturgically particular Eucharists, when compared with your less rubrically obedient gatherings, might have more to do with the time at which they occur? I certainly can't imagine people saying, "No, I don't think I will go to church today, because they'll be using Common Worship and reading the Gospel"!
Less than you'd expect. A previous church had the times almost exactly reversed, and the effect was the same. More people turned up to SotW done well than to CW/BCP HC done well.
I suspect it is because the CW liturgy is generally aimed at middle-class white folk aged 60 and over who have been going to church all their lives.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
In our humble little shack, the epistle is read from the chancel step, by the subdeacon if there is one, or by a lay person: occasionally me. When I am listening to the readings (intoned in the case of gospel, more often than not), I am conscious that this is different from reading the text myself, and I do not follow it. Ever. It is an opportunity for the text to take flight into sound and time, to be part of the offering and experience of the liturgy, and to do this, to my mind, it must take on the provisionality of the moment, rather than being fixed in a written text, available at any point.
When I am reading, when not wondering what comes next - an element relatively easily eradicable by preparation - I am conscious of the effect of my reading on the words, and of the drama that is happening between the text, my reading, and the listening hearts of the congregation. Sounds overblown, I know, but I think that's what's going on.
[ 09. September 2012, 18:33: Message edited by: FooloftheShip ]
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
A bugbear of mine. People don't sing psalms because the only way of singing them that anyone is likely to be able to remember, is almost unsingable except by a fully trained choir. And reading one means you end up with four readings.
Not at my place! At the 11:15 eucharist we have all 3 readings, with the psalm chanted using anglican chant, which, while led by the choir, is congregational, and with pretty good congregational response at that.
BTW, at the 9am eucharist, where there are only 2 readings, the 1st is just about always from the OT and not the epistle.
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
For a Lutheran church, we have surprisingly few good singers, and yet we still manage to sing the Psalm fairly well each week.
Anglican Chant is 4 note : 6 note
Our tones are 4 note : 4 note
There also exists 2 note : 2 note
It really couldn't get much easier.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
