|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Preserving English Missal and traditional liturgy?
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
This church takes pride in using the English Missal. It appears to be a significant feature of the church's identity and life, and it would seem the church is anxious to preserve it.
I cannot help but think the rite of the English Missal is nowadays rather a museum piece. But then again museums have their role in societies. They can help us understand how we got to where we are, and help us appreciate the beauties, and miseries, of the past.
There have been other Anglican Missals, I know. It would be interesting to hear of other Anglican 'museums of liturgy' - to coin a phrase which I mean to be neutral, and not insulting.
A good museum, after all, can be educating, interesting and enjoyable!
Is there a place for officially, or even unofficially, encouraging centres of traditional, even out of date or nowadays uncanonical worship, rather as we are anxious to preserve some ancient features of church buildings?
[ 03. April 2013, 22:44: Message edited by: Percy B ]
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
In what sense could the English Missal be described as 'traditional'? It's basically an English translation of a liturgy which has never been officially sanctioned for use in English by anyone anywhere, and is illegal for use in the Church of England. Our 'traditional' liturgy is the Book of Common Prayer. If we wanted to to maintain something of our actual, living tradition with Common Worship this could be done, even using Order One, by rearranging the liturgy and carefully choosing the prayers to correspond closely to the 1928 Prayer Book. This would be authentically traditional, whilst being at the same time acceptable by modern liturgical standards.
There is nothing 'liturgically traditional' about the English Missal. Combine it with all the ceremonial actions of the post-1570 Roman Rite, which has NEVER had official use in the English Church, and it is merely a concoction of some rather eccentric Anglo-Papalists who like to call themselves 'Anglo-Catholics'.
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
No rite is a museum piece. All are valid celebrations of the eucharistic sacrifice be they charismatic; post Vatican II in spirit; Tridentine; house church pottery chalice-ish; BCP 1662; Common Worship.
Different rites suit different cultures and communities. I don't see why it should be a problem. In theory the RCC recognises many different rites.
In an Anglican context, in York, the Minster has world class music and liturgy with cathedral Common Worship; right next door is St Michael le Belfrey which is overhead projector and jeans; a few streets away is All Saints North Street with the English Missal. All three examples are CofE. Fantastic. The same Eucharist. There is a place for all.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
I think you and I must disagree about the use of the term 'traditional' Indifferently. The English Missal has been used, by tradition, in my parishes in the past. The parish I linked to in the OP is an example. Oh yes, it may not have been officially sanctioned but that is not an indicator to traditional use, I think.
I see your point, Sebby. I understand what you say about the churches you refer to in York, although I am not sure that All Ss North St does actually use the English Missal - but I simply question that.
However, Sebby, to go back to the analogy of museums. Museums are kept and sustained often by some form of authority. They are seen as preserving culture, and in themselves evolve and develop.
Some churches are not given permission to remove old monuments or pews because of their historic value. This can be a nuisance to the worshipping congregation, but it also preserves what is there for future generations.
What I am wondering is whether certain places of worship should preserve certain rites and traditions, and that authority encourages and helps them to do so - by, for example, only allowing careful and small changes.
There are far fewer English Missal parishes than there were. Indeed perhaps there are only one or two. No doubt people here will be able to name those which are. No doubt some bishops or archdeacons will want those parishes to stop being English Missal parishes. However, should we look at a bigger position and encourage preservation. After all, as Sebby indicates, liturgy is to be lived and used. Traditonal liturgies have a place in the modern church and not just in the archives!
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liturgylover
Shipmate
# 15711
|
Posted
A slight tangent but it feels appropriate to post here as it may be of interest to other shipmates. St Bart's the Great will be reconstructing an ancient liturgy for the Feast of St Peter in June:
On Saturday 29th June 2013 at 7pm we will be holding a Reconstruction of a Medieval Liturgy for the Feast of S. Peter the Apostle. The church will be rearranged to provide an appropriate physical layout, and the liturgy will reflect the way that a Mass would have been celebrated here before the English Reformation. All welcome.
Posts: 452 | From: North London | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
I've been to St Bart's when they had a medieval Sunday. The 8am was according to 1549, and the main service a Sarum reconstruction.
Strictly illegal of course, but interesting. Not least because 1549 seemed so wordy by comparison.
I do wish people wouldn't use the word "traditional". There are all sorts of traditions.
Or use the word "liberal" for that matter.
--------------------
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
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
University chapels would probably rank highly on a list of places to create a 'liturgy museum' if that is what the line of thought leads to.
Normally freed from many of the restrictions on liturgical rites etc. that Parish Churches face whilst also putting it withinan educational setting as well to ensure that some of the atagonists might be somewhat placated.
Whilst at uni I went through the filing cabinets in the vestry and the range and bredth of different Eucharists that were filed there was astonishing - and as far as I could tell from records many had been used (I'm not sure how much was down to it being a Peculiar, I've always been hazy on just exactly what is aand is not allowed in a peculiar...)
i suppose that some universities do have an expertise in liturgy and do 'put on' a variety of liturgies for academic purposes but I have no idea of any inparticular...
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liturgylover
Shipmate
# 15711
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I've been to St Bart's when they had a medieval Sunday. The 8am was according to 1549, and the main service a Sarum reconstruction.
Strictly illegal of course, but interesting. Not least because 1549 seemed so wordy by comparison.
St John's, Hyde Park recently received permission from the Bishop of London to run a 1549 Eucharist in the evening as a one-off. Alas I couldn't attend.
Posts: 452 | From: North London | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
University chapels would probably rank highly on a list of places to create a 'liturgy museum' if that is what the line of thought leads to.
Normally freed from many of the restrictions on liturgical rites etc. that Parish Churches face whilst also putting it withinan educational setting as well to ensure that some of the atagonists might be somewhat placated.
Whilst at uni I went through the filing cabinets in the vestry and the range and bredth of different Eucharists that were filed there was astonishing - and as far as I could tell from records many had been used (I'm not sure how much was down to it being a Peculiar, I've always been hazy on just exactly what is aand is not allowed in a peculiar...)
i suppose that some universities do have an expertise in liturgy and do 'put on' a variety of liturgies for academic purposes but I have no idea of any inparticular...
*scratches head* I think the only liturgical museum pieces you would have found in the chapels at my university were RC folk mass circa 1970 and a high speed collision of "world church" music circa 1992, evangelical praise choruses circa 1995 and dash of Iona "ritual action" ideas.
I suppose that's what comes of attending a 60s new university.
[ 04. April 2013, 14:04: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
I wasn't thinking so much of one off reconstructions.
It seems to me liturgy is not really about that, more about forming a community and that community at worship. For some parishes this may be an older, traditional style, liturgy like the English Missal. The witness and style of this community and liturgy, reglulalrly using this rite, is a witness to the rich variety of the worship of the church, and suits some people.
My thought is that such places (in a sense akin to living museume in that they preserve good things from the storehouse of the church and use them) - should be affirmed and preserved.
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
No rite is a museum piece. All are valid celebrations of the eucharistic sacrifice be they charismatic; post Vatican II in spirit; Tridentine; house church pottery chalice-ish; BCP 1662; Common Worship.
Different rites suit different cultures and communities. I don't see why it should be a problem. In theory the RCC recognises many different rites.
In an Anglican context, in York, the Minster has world class music and liturgy with cathedral Common Worship; right next door is St Michael le Belfrey which is overhead projector and jeans; a few streets away is All Saints North Street with the English Missal. All three examples are CofE. Fantastic. The same Eucharist. There is a place for all.
Just because a rite fulfils the very barest of requirements for validity doesn't make it either licit, edifying, or theologically correct. Such a mentality has been central to the liturgical crisis within the Catholic Church over the last 40+ years.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
I wasn't thinking so much of one off reconstructions.
It seems to me liturgy is not really about that, more about forming a community and that community at worship. For some parishes this may be an older, traditional style, liturgy like the English Missal. The witness and style of this community and liturgy, reglulalrly using this rite, is a witness to the rich variety of the worship of the church, and suits some people.
My thought is that such places (in a sense akin to living museume in that they preserve good things from the storehouse of the church and use them) - should be affirmed and preserved.
Or such practice may be the province of waning communities unable to attract new members to themselves (perhaps apart from a handful of aesthetes and cranks), and thus dooming themselves to a slow demise, coupled with an ultimate failure of Christian witness and evangelism.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
A key issue is whether a particular liturgy helps people to worship God, in Christ, in Spirit and in truth. If it does, it can be defended. If it is merely an antiquarian exercise, or if it enables the participants to admire themselves being cleverer or more knowing than the ecclesiastical hoi polloi, then it becomes no more than an act of worship and, if eucharistic, a serious abuse of the sacrament.
However, unless there really is a pronounced stink of the latter, I think we should give our fellow believers the benefit of the doubt. I'm CofE. I believe I have been edified to experience, even if I'm not always allowed to participate fully, how the Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Church of Scotland, Brethren or whoever worship. This is sharing something of the Christian experience of brothers and sisters divided by space or ecclesial boxes.
The communion of the saints means that believers in other times are also our brothers and sisters. So, to me, it is legitimate to worship as they did, provided worship genuinely remains a verb and doesn't become an act, something theatrical or antiquarian.
I do, though, agree with Indifferently. In the CofE, the phrase 'traditional liturgy' only legitimately describes the 1662 BCP. It should not be used to describe relatively recent generations' quirky innovations.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
I was going by, as Enoch above seems to agree, a rather generally received notion of the idea of what is and what is not 'traditional'.
'Traditional', in Church terms, means something which has acquired the authority of years of use, and can be said to be part of the living 'tradition' of the Church. The 1662 Prayer Book is the officially sanctioned office book of the Church of England, and it has been continuously for 350 years. The English Missal was a recent invention by Anglo-Catholics in the twentieth century, and has had very limited use. It is not a real part of the Church universal, or even the Church of England, canon of received or adopted tradition, now or ever.
That said, of course, because of certain doctrinal matters I would certainly have to find myself at All Saints North St the next time I am in York.
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
I'd tend to agree with Leo. CW can be done wonderfully, as can the 1979 BCP rites of TEC. 1662 isn't adequate to a catholic standard for celebration of the Eucharist. The various Anglican missals could do with revising to bring them up to contemporary liturgical standards.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Magic Wand
Shipmate
# 4227
|
Posted
It should be said, however, that transitioning a parish that has been accustomed to the English Missal or something similar must be done slowly and carefully. S. Clement's, Philadelphia has abandoned their former use of the English Missal, and the results have been nothing short of catastrophic in terms of both attendance and finances.
Posts: 371 | From: Princeton, NJ | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
I would side with affirmation rather than proscription. It is still the same eucharistic sacrifice. And if it helps a community or clientele (including the occasional despised aesthete) why not?
Indeed, why not both and?
In the CofE numbers are getting so embarrassing if media calculations are to be believed, the church should hang onto any aesthete it can, before the National Trust makes a takeover bid.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Or such practice may be the province of waning communities unable to attract new members to themselves (perhaps apart from a handful of aesthetes and cranks), and thus dooming themselves to a slow demise, coupled with an ultimate failure of Christian witness and evangelism.
The church mentioned in the OP seems to be one such. Certainly they have had great difficulty attracting and retaining parish priests in recent years.
--------------------
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
|
|
jlav12
Apprentice
# 17148
|
Posted
The 1662 BCP was good enough for the Oxford Movement guys... why can't modern liberal catholics use it?
Posts: 34 | From: Albany, New York | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Magic Wand:
It should be said, however, that transitioning a parish that has been accustomed to the English Missal or something similar must be done slowly and carefully. S. Clement's, Philadelphia has abandoned their former use of the English Missal, and the results have been nothing short of catastrophic in terms of both attendance and finances.
Interesting, but I can't see any problems mentioned on their glorious website!
What rite do they use now - seems close to EM looking at service sheets.
This is a parish of kind I am meaning - living 'museum' of liturgy enriching the variety the church offers...
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Magic Wand:
It should be said, however, that transitioning a parish that has been accustomed to the English Missal or something similar must be done slowly and carefully. S. Clement's, Philadelphia has abandoned their former use of the English Missal, and the results have been nothing short of catastrophic in terms of both attendance and finances.
St Clement's Philly continues to use the English Missal, which is the only service book on the altar there - I can say this from immediate esperience. However, the American Anglicam Canon of the Mass is now normally used there as opposed to the Roman canon. The minor propers are now being chanted mostly in Emglish as well. Any attack on the slight changes at St Clement's amounts to libelous slander, and I mean this quite literally.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jlav12:
The 1662 BCP was good enough for the Oxford Movement guys... why can't modern liberal catholics use it?
The same reasons as anyone with historic sensitivity can't use it. It is politically and psychologically repressive, concentrating on individual sinfulness to ensure compliance with the political elite of the land.
Fortunately, it hasn't worked.
And there's still good stuff in it, although not the Communion Office.
--------------------
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
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
Many liberal catholics do use it.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jlav12:
The 1662 BCP was good enough for the Oxford Movement guys... why can't modern liberal catholics use it?
Because the Oxford Movement as it originated wasn't really about liturgy? It was more about Erastianism than it was about the Real Presence.
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
I prefer 1928 to 1662 from an aesthetic perspective. New liturgies gloss over human sin with the result being that people think they can just do what they od llike. (The 1979 US Prayer Book is even worse, where the General Absolution does not even have the caveat of repentance, and is reduced to a sort of magic spell).
The wonderful thing about 1662 was that it emphasized the doctrine of justification by faith alone. The problem with it was that it does not express eucharistic sacrifice as clearly as perhaps it ought to. However, it's still a good liturgy - just not perfect.
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liturgylover
Shipmate
# 15711
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
I prefer 1928 to 1662 from an aesthetic perspective. New liturgies gloss over human sin with the result being that people think they can just do what they od llike. (The 1979 US Prayer Book is even worse, where the General Absolution does not even have the caveat of repentance, and is reduced to a sort of magic spell).
Of course the 1928 rite has never been authorised, though Alternative Series 1 and Order two in Common Worship come close.
I think it is a bit of a leap to assume that people think can they do what they like simply because the wording at confession has been revised. And the dumbing down that you suggest is not at all universal in modern liturgies. Series 3 introduced "through ignorance, through weakness, through our own deliberate fault" and CW retained a simplified form of Cranmer's wording at the absolution.
As an aside someone told me that Pope Benedict absolutely loved the prayer of humble access.
Posts: 452 | From: North London | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
It would be important for American shippies to clarify that references to 1928 are in regard to the proposed English BCP of 1928 that Parliament failed to adopt. This would have been a real BCP, as opposed to the Alternative services and Common Worship that followed, signalling the CofE's giving up on trying to get BCP revision through Parliament. I would think that the only way there will ever be a new BCP is if/when the CofE is disestablished. The reasons for parliamentary recalcitrance would be different now than in the inter-war period; now I would imagine the politicians simply wouldn't want to get involved at all in such a matter.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Magic Wand:
It should be said, however, that transitioning a parish that has been accustomed to the English Missal or something similar must be done slowly and carefully. S. Clement's, Philadelphia has abandoned their former use of the English Missal, and the results have been nothing short of catastrophic in terms of both attendance and finances.
I doubt that iss to do with liturgy but rather the recent antics of the rector and the shedding of light on his squalid past in Scotland.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
The US 1979 alleged "Book of Common Prayer" is not really a BCP at all, having little to no continuity with the historic liturgies from 1549 onwards, until as late as the Canadian 1962 Prayer Book.
As for the Absolution, the authentic prayer book requires 'hearty repentance and true faith'. The 1979 US Prayer Book version places no such condition on being absolved of sins.
In terms of Common Worship, one can reconstruct 1928 Proposed out of Order One pretty closely, by noting that in the Notes not only can one use 'alternative' traditional language translations - thus opening up use of the BCP confession and absolution - one can also move the Confession/Absolution to *after* the hearing of God's word.
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Magic Wand
Shipmate
# 4227
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by Magic Wand:
It should be said, however, that transitioning a parish that has been accustomed to the English Missal or something similar must be done slowly and carefully. S. Clement's, Philadelphia has abandoned their former use of the English Missal, and the results have been nothing short of catastrophic in terms of both attendance and finances.
St Clement's Philly continues to use the English Missal, which is the only service book on the altar there - I can say this from immediate esperience. However, the American Anglicam Canon of the Mass is now normally used there as opposed to the Roman canon. The minor propers are now being chanted mostly in Emglish as well. Any attack on the slight changes at St Clement's amounts to libelous slander, and I mean this quite literally.
It's only libelous slander if it's not true, but nice try attempting to use the Ship's policies to shut down the discussion.
The changes are not slight, even if the English Missal remains on the altar. Holy Week was a travesty, although at least this year they didn't use white vestments on Good Friday. Are you saying that you thought it was all done decently and in order?
Posts: 371 | From: Princeton, NJ | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Magic Wand:
although at least this year they didn't use white vestments on Good Friday.
My God! The swines! Call the police!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oblatus
Shipmate
# 6278
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
The US 1979 alleged "Book of Common Prayer" is not really a BCP at all, having little to no continuity with the historic liturgies from 1549 onwards, until as late as the Canadian 1962 Prayer Book.
On the contrary, I consider the 1979 BCP a triumph, both contemporary and with full continuity with historic liturgies. It's a highly worthy successor in the line of USA BCPs.
Posts: 3823 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Any attack on the slight changes at St Clement's amounts to libelous slander, and I mean this quite literally.
Oh do grow up and get a life beyond the chanting of propers. This kind of comment is the sort of thing that puts people off church not bringing them to it.
So that church is beyond criticism? They must be perfect then.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
It would be important for American shippies to clarify that references to 1928 are in regard to the proposed English BCP of 1928 that Parliament failed to adopt. This would have been a real BCP, as opposed to the Alternative services and Common Worship that followed, signalling the CofE's giving up on trying to get BCP revision through Parliament. I would think that the only way there will ever be a new BCP is if/when the CofE is disestablished. The reasons for parliamentary recalcitrance would be different now than in the inter-war period; now I would imagine the politicians simply wouldn't want to get involved at all in such a matter.
Can you explain that please.
The 1928 Book would not have superseded the 1662 one. It would merely have provided some alternatives. The conduct of any service in accordance with 1662 would still have been lawful, as it remains to this day. It remains normative. As far as I am aware, nobody has ever seriously suggesting abolishing any part of it, or forbidding people to use it, rather than allowing people not to follow it to the letter or to use other material in stead. That is the current position with Common Worship. There are recalcitrant clergy, both Anglo-Catholic and evangelical who follow neither. People grumble that they should be disciplined. I'm not conscious of any great demand to forbid others the use of 1662.
The quantity of authorised material involved and the number of variants would make it impractical to issue Common Worship as one volume. You may not approve of that, but it happens to be the way we do things over here.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Any attack on the slight changes at St Clement's amounts to libelous slander, and I mean this quite literally.
Oh do grow up and get a life beyond the chanting of propers. This kind of comment is the sort of thing that puts people off church not bringing them to it.
To be honest, it's both the nit-picking criticism (hence my last post) and the apoplectic response to it that have that effect.
I'm no iconoclast, but ultimately these things are of secondary (at best) importance. I'd sooner a congregation where the minister only remembered his dog collar half the time and made half the liturgy up as he went along but where all comers were made to feel welcome and the really important things that Jesus banged on about when he was talking about sheep and goats were actually done, than one where the rubrics and jots and tittles of canon law were followed to the letter but the place was essentially a religious club for the initiated and newcomers got the distinct impression that they'd better become like everyone else pretty quick or get a cold shoulder, and where disputes over those minutiae escalate to hostiliy.
Both the above descriptions probably (hopefully in the latter case) don't actually exist, but you know what I'm getting at, I hope.
[ 05. April 2013, 16:24: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
I have a life beyond the chanting of propers, thanks very much. Nonetheless, I'd say that at least in an Anglican Church the propers are better rendered in English as opposed to Latin.
As to the 1979 BCP, all of the Rite I material is continuous with the Prayerbook tradition. As with the its predecessor American BCPs, however, the traditional rite in the '79 edition reflects the Scottish/Laudian Eucharistic canon, as opposed to the dreadful English order of 1552-1662. For those offices in '79 that do not have a traditional language rite, there is the Anglican Service Book, which renders everything into Rite I idiom; this is entirely consistent with the rubrics, which state that Rite II language may be conformed to that of Rite I, and vice versa. The larger point, however, is that the Rite I order for the Holy Eucharist maintains the traditional prayers from previous BCP editions. The daily offices are likewise congruent with the long-established BCP tradition.
As to things being done decently and in order at St Clement's this Holy Week, if one is amongst that group of critics who on other social media are lamenting the 1955 Pian reforms of the Holy Week liturgy, then I suppose there would have been plenty of room to criticise modestly shortened liturgies used at St Clement's. I myself spent the Triduum and Easter at a certain famous parish church in London that is most assuredly NOT a museum of liturgical antiquities and which boasts a large, thriving congregation and visitorship, superlative liturgy and music, and which celebrates the Catholic faith as taught by the Church of England. Hence, I can't comment on the minutae of the Holy Week services at St Clem's after Palm Sunday. Again, if you're one of those people who think the 1955 RC reforms of the Holy Week liturgy were the beginning of the end of civilisation, you probably would have found much about the rites observed at St Clement's with which to be dissatisfied.
To reiterate, the English Missal is still used at St Clement's, together with a plethora of old fashioned ceremonial virtually unknown almost anywhere else in the Anglican world. One should note that the English Missal includes both the Anglican and Roman eucharistic canons of the Mass. The fact that the Anglican canon is used, rather than the Roman, in no way changes the fact that the English Missal is being used (and one might say the English Missal in its late American edition).
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The conduct of any service in accordance with 1662 would still have been lawful, as it remains to this day. It remains normative.
But only because of the parliamentary failure of the "deposited" 1928 book and the subsequent move by the church to a series of internally-authorized alternatives (beginning with parts of '28). If it had been successful, unless I've very much misunderstood, replacing 1662 is precisely what it would have done.
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Again, if you're one of those people who think the 1955 RC reforms of the Holy Week liturgy were the beginning of the end of civilisation, you probably would have found much about the rites observed at St Clement's with which to be dissatisfied.
I have as little patience as you for the "loyal opposition" at S. Clem's but I admit I am "one of those people" (although I surely won't miss the 4pm Easter Vigil) and remarks like this one make it harder to assuage the grumblings of those similarly minded!
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
There are oblique references to St Clements, Philadelphia, but they are puzzling to me who knows not the story.
Can anyone tell us what's going on, or has gone on, or point to a link about it.
It does connect with the OP insofar as it could be thought of as a museum piece worth preserving - but what tensions then arise?
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
The problem with "Common" Worship is that it, and the chaos which preceded it, has led to a complete abandonment of two key principles of Common Prayer:
1. That the rite and liturgy in use throughout the Church ought to be standard and uniform, to a practicable degree.
2. That the Orders and Services of the Church should be contained in a book of modest size which it could be realistically expected for the laity to each own a copy and pray from it frequently.
One of the great things about 1662 and other Prayer Books is that they are all contained in one small book. Common Worship has reams of seasonal material, which is great if that's your thing and you long for a return to the sorts of service which happened when the Church of England was under the Papal yoke. But that makes it impossible for people to comprehend. People moan about BCP being the same thing every week - well, yes, but the Faith is the same thing every second!
We desperately need a return to some form of uniformity of practice in the Church of England. It has got to the stage now that one cannot enter one church or another without encountering some extremely questionable unprovable doctrine or another in the liturgy, which Common Prayer to its great credit was at pains to avoid making.
How many times can one go into an Anglo-Catholic service and watch the priest lift up the consecrated bread and say, "THIS IS THE LAMB OF GOD"? How can one go to a charismatic evangelical parish, have them use Eucharistic Prayer H (the horror!) and have a non-vested clergyman hand out half a bread roll and a plastic cup with (I hope not grape juice!) wine in it, which comes to you by way of the stranger next to you and say, "REMEMBER the body of Christ, broken for you"?
I dearly wish 1928 had been passed, and we'd left it there. But you'll still find articles on the Church Society website decrying it as Popery even today, so there's no hope for us.
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
How many times can one go into an Anglo-Catholic service and watch the priest lift up the consecrated bread and say, "THIS IS THE LAMB OF GOD"? How can one go to a charismatic evangelical parish, have them use Eucharistic Prayer H (the horror!) and have a non-vested clergyman hand out half a bread roll and a plastic cup with (I hope not grape juice!) wine in it, which comes to you by way of the stranger next to you and say, "REMEMBER the body of Christ, broken for you"?
Sorry to derail the thread slightly, but I'd like to join Karl: Liberal Backslider in bafflement at the passion with which such (to me, anyway!) minutiae of procedure can be discussed.
Half a bread roll - good grief! A plastic cup - shocking! Using the word 'remember' in the distribution of the elements - heaven forbid!
Yes, we've all got our stylistic preferences and views on liturgical best practice, but I don't understand this outrage (that's how it comes across to me, at least) when things aren't done as one would prefer. Maybe I should start a thread on this topic...
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
There are oblique references to St Clements, Philadelphia, but they are puzzling to me who knows not the story.
Can anyone tell us what's going on, 613-898-9653or has gone on, or point to a link about it.
It does connect with the OP insofar as it could be thought of as a museum piece worth preserving - but what tensions then arise?
There is no link to which I could refer you that is at all objective or even fully reality-based. I will not comment on this board outside the subject of strictly liturgical issues , unless there is a need to refute patent untruths. As to liturgical history, researching the parish archives will reveal that until the late C20 the structure of the liturgy was basically conservative American BCP, including such features as the Collect for Purity, Summary of the Law, and so forth -- not an English language Tridentime Mass at all. Late in the previous century a small group of enthusiasts pushed a particular liturgical programme based on a very rigid use of the English Missal. The subsequent situation is very complex and goes far beyond merely liturgical matters. This is,however, IMO what happens with museum liturgy: if you don't adhere to the most purist version of the particular museum piece, you are considered a revisionist and malefactor. Liturgy becomes the end all, be all, whilst the actual Sacrament being celebrated and the meaning of feasts and fasts being commemorated gets lost in the obsession over liturgical perfectionism. There are, of course, those who will disagree, but I don't think Our Lord and Saviout is among that group.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
How many times can one go into an Anglo-Catholic service and watch the priest lift up the consecrated bread and say, "THIS IS THE LAMB OF GOD"? How can one go to a charismatic evangelical parish, have them use Eucharistic Prayer H (the horror!) and have a non-vested clergyman hand out half a bread roll and a plastic cup with (I hope not grape juice!) wine in it, which comes to you by way of the stranger next to you and say, "REMEMBER the body of Christ, broken for you"?
Sorry to derail the thread slightly, but I'd like to join Karl: Liberal Backslider in bafflement at the passion with which such (to me, anyway!) minutiae of procedure can be discussed.
Half a bread roll - good grief! A plastic cup - shocking! Using the word 'remember' in the distribution of the elements - heaven forbid!
Yes, we've all got our stylistic preferences and views on liturgical best practice, but I don't understand this outrage (that's how it comes across to me, at least) when things aren't done as one would prefer. Maybe I should start a thread on this topic...
Indifferently's ire at these extreme examples is not based on mere stylistic preference. He is expressing theological objections to the transubstantialist celebration of the Anglo-Catholics on the one hand, and the memorialist celebration of the evos on the other. The point is that neither of these extremes accurately represents the theology of the BCP (and thereby, presumably, the Church of England). Why be concerned? Because theology matters.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Point taken, Fr Weber, but in my post I tried to pick on elements of Indifferently's comments that didn't seem to be based on theology. I can see that 'half a bread roll' and 'a plastic cup' might not be aesthetically pleasing but what's the theological relevance? I'll concede 'REMEMBER the Body of Christ', though; there's certainly room for theological significance in the word 'remember'
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
Basically, as above.
Stylistically, yes I do have my preferences - I prefer simple clergy dress and an overall lack of fussiness - but those are matters, mostly, of taste.fir
However, the above are not merely matters of taste but, as the contributor says, are matters of doctrine - seeming to rule on controversies the Church of England has known since the Reformation it has no power to definitively rule on. The BCP eucharistic liturgy, faulty as it is, has room for a number of interpretations, but holding up the wafer and saying, "Behold the Lamb of God! Behold Him who takes away the sins of the world!" is not merely an affirmation of the Real Presence, but of Transubstantiation, it seems to me.
Similarly, saying 'Remember' when you hand me the eucharistic elements disallows me from thinking of the Real Presence in any form, and merely thinking this is a piece of bread.
Neither is acceptable, and these are not matters of taste. If I was complaining about fiddle-back chasubles and how many candles were on the altar then I'd get your point.
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Point taken, Fr Weber, but in my post I tried to pick on elements of Indifferently's comments that didn't seem to be based on theology. I can see that 'half a bread roll' and 'a plastic cup' might not be aesthetically pleasing but what's the theological relevance? I'll concede 'REMEMBER the Body of Christ', though; there's certainly room for theological significance in the word 'remember'
I'll concede those two. Though I think that sharing one chalice itself is a powerful symbol of our being 'very members incorporate in the Mystical Body' of Christ.
'This is the Lamb of God' or 'Behold the Lamb of God!' are the worse because Common Worship does in fact allow 'Jesus is the Lamb of God' which, coupled with an elevation, could allow for agreeable liberty of thought, even in a high-parish. But many Anglo-Catholic parishes nevertheless insist on the controversial wording which, strictly speaking, is in defiance of canon law.
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
quote:
Why be concerned? Because theology matters.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
(I rarely use this, or any, emoticon, so this is noteworthy.)
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Thanks for your replies, Indifferently. I do share your concern for theology and how it relates to our worship practices, albeit from the other end of liturgical candle!
I was just taken aback by how strongly you expressed your views, especially the parts where I couldn't see a theological underpinning. Even with such an underpinning, like with the 'remember' thing, I can't see how it's such a huge deal.
But I suppose I'll always be a bit nonplussed by threads like this though, and that's fine; each to their own and charity in all things... ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Absurd. Transubstantiation is merely a theory about the nature of the Real Presence. I must tell you that especially prior to the advent of the 1979 BCP, many MOTR clergy of the Episcpal Church in the USA used this formula and many continue to do so. The formula could for exsmple be equally consistent with Lutheran sacramental union. Cross-posted: referring to "Behold the Lamb of God..."
[ 06. April 2013, 00:05: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Thanks for your replies, Indifferently. I do share your concern for theology and how it relates to our worship practices, albeit from the other end of liturgical candle!
I was just taken aback by how strongly you expressed your views, especially the parts where I couldn't see a theological underpinning. Even with such an underpinning, like with the 'remember' thing, I can't see how it's such a huge deal.
But I suppose I'll always be a bit nonplussed by threads like this though, and that's fine; each to their own and charity in all things...
Sorry! Sometimes I can express things in a certain way which doesn't help.
'Remember' wasn't the chief offence. It was more that the whole tenor of the Communion liturgy was pronouncedly memorialist. The famous 'Prayer of Humble Access' had been edited to replace the lines, 'Grant us therefore, gracious lord, so to eat the flesh of thy (your) dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his Body, and our souls washed through his most Precious Blood' with some distinctly memorialist wording, whereby the idea of receiving Christ in the eucharist was more or less made impossible. I did ask the Priest (who was dressed casually, and preferred to be called Pastor) on what authority he had changed the wording, and he did tell me that it was to avoid Transubstantiation, but I am of the view that he ended up throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
