Ship of Fools: Preserving English Missal and traditional liturgy?

Thread: Preserving English Missal and traditional liturgy? 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=025799

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

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Is there a place for officially, or even unofficially, encouraging centres of traditional, even out of date or nowadays uncanonical worship, rather as we are anxious to preserve some ancient features of church buildings?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 ]

Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on :

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'.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

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.

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

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!

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

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.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

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.

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

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...

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

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.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

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 ]

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

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.

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

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.

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

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.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

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.

Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on :

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.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

The 'traditional' 1662 rite was so inadequate that it was supplemented by the English missal as the default rite in my teens.

So 'traditional' is no good.

Now we have adequate rites, capable of a catholic interpretation so we no longer need these outmoded missals.

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

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.

Posted by Magic Wand (# 4227) on :

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.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

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.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

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.

Posted by jlav12 (# 17148) on :

The 1662 BCP was good enough for the Oxford Movement guys... why can't modern liberal catholics use it?

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

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...

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

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.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

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.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

Many liberal catholics do use it.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

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.

Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on :

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.

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

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.

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

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.

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

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.

Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on :

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.

Posted by Magic Wand (# 4227) on :

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?

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

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]

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

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.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

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.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

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.

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

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 ]

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

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).

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

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!

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

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?

Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on :

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.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

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...

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

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.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

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.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

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'

Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on :

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.

Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on :

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.

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

quote:
Why be concerned? Because theology matters.

(I rarely use this, or any, emoticon, so this is noteworthy.)

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

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]

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

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 ]

Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on :

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.

Posted by Magic Wand (# 4227) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:

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.

What mistaken ideas about the history of S. Clement's, liturgically at least, some people seem to have! The use of the English Missal in its fullness started with Fr Joiner in the 1920's, and continued until 2011, save for a brief experimental period in the 1970's. And it was the recent abrupt changes to the liturgy which occasioned my mentioning it in the context of the OP, so I'm not sure what sense there is in defending them on the part of some people.

Should anyone wish to seriously contend that the English Missal is still in use there, perhaps they could let me know which edition was used for the Holy Week rites? I've looked through several, of various vintages, and can find nothing that describes the services that I saw last week. And if someone does know, perhaps they can clue me in on what the curate of S. Clement's has against young Jewish people?

I suppose that, in any case, we're fortunate to have people who can tell us what Our Lord and Saviour's position would be. Clearly a different Lord and Saviour than the one who was so exacting in his prescription of the rites and ceremonies of the temple. Is Marcionism making a comeback in ECUSA these days?

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

And that ladies and gentlemen is the mind-set and mendacity of the whited sepulchres with whom we are dealing at St Clement's Philadelphia -- an Anglican version of the SSPX and the denizens of the Rorate Caeli website.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
[QUOTE] 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,

I couldn't agree more - and you're welcome to join me any Sunday to experience it. Unfortunately I am no longer a worshipping anglican for the very reasons you mention but find all the freedom I (and perhaps you) desire in a baptist church.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
And that ladies and gentlemen is the mind-set and mendacity of the whited sepulchres with whom we are dealing at St Clement's Philadelphia -- an Anglican version of the SSPX and the denizens of the Rorate Caeli website.

It's these kinds of silly arguments that led me leaving the anglican church to embrace the freedom and openness of faith through a baptist church. The longer the arguments go on (esp in the UK in the established church), the weaker the church's witness becomes.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

EM, Pharisaism exists in every tradition and denomination. Some Baptist churches are so opposed to "reading prayers from a book" that they even avoid the Lord's Prayer. And though I can't name any Baptist congregations offhand that have split over liturgical matters, I know of at least a couple that never recovered from a disagreement over what color the sanctuary carpet was to be.

As far as transubstantiation goes, I'm not particularly upset by it (though I don't think I'd go so far as to espouse it); but if you hold the opinion that the prayer book tradition and the XXXIX are important, then transubstantiation is a no-go, and from what I can tell Indifferently is a prayer book catholic. The 1662 is patient of more than one eucharistic theory, but it really seems to be pushing a kind of epiclectic virtualism.

Regarding S. Clement's, I have very little concrete data about what's going on there. Like CL, I've heard some disturbing things about Canon Reid, though from a source I can't completely trust. The few people I know personally who went there have decamped for continuing jurisdictions or the Ordinariate, so their information is second- or third-hand. Objectively, it appears as though Reid+ is bringing liturgical practice there ever so slightly more in line with the rest of TEC, and of course many people in the parish are going to see that as the thin end of the wedge. Them's the breaks.

[ 06. April 2013, 06:44: Message edited by: Fr Weber ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
EM, Pharisaism exists in every tradition and denomination. Some Baptist churches are so opposed to "reading prayers from a book" that they even avoid the Lord's Prayer. And though I can't name any Baptist congregations offhand that have split over liturgical matters, I know of at least a couple that never recovered from a disagreement over what color the sanctuary carpet was to be.

I have never denied that pharisaism exists in the baptist churches. I rather suspect that in baptist churches it's down to individuals' weakness - in mnay anglican circles it's a structural issue. Doesn't make it better only more obvious to the outsiders.

Posted by Magic Wand (# 4227) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
And that ladies and gentlemen is the mind-set and mendacity of the whited sepulchres with whom we are dealing at St Clement's Philadelphia -- an Anglican version of the SSPX and the denizens of the Rorate Caeli website.

Wow, what a content-free response! No wonder the parish is doing so well, with such people leading it these days!

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Magic Wand:
Wow, what a content-free response! No wonder the parish is doing so well, with such people leading it these days!

I would hazard to guess that L.S.K.'s (sorry for the shortening) response is in response to your own posts. If you have an issue with Father Ethan then I suggest that you take it up with him, I do believe he keeps a blog and twitter account, rather than pose questions that others on here cannot answer.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
...the "deposited" 1928 book...

I'm in the grateful possession of this curiosity through the kind generosity of a Shipmate.

Can anyone offer me also why the book is said to be "deposited"?

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

ENough is enough. This thread is not about St. Clements and the obviously strong opinions held about events and people there is outside the remit of this board.

Personal attack will end now -- and more than one poster is guilty -- or the posters will be reported at once to the Admins for suitable action.

John Holding
Ecclesiantics Host

Posted by Devils Advocate (# 16484) on :

"The 1928 Book would not have superseded the 1662 one. It would merely have provided some alternatives."
As far as I remember from my studies, the 1928 Prayerbook( English Version) was mainly brought in to being to control some of the perceived excesses of the Anglo Catholics at that time. ie reservation of the blessed sacrament and services associated with it ( ie. Benediction) It had one or two "sops" thrown into the mix for Anglo Catholics ( The Introductory Prayers " I will go unto the Altar of God and the use of a bowdlerised Roman "Confiteor"
These are the two parts of it which I remember thoughI seem to recall the Gloria was still at the end of the communion service and the Sanctus,Benedictus and Agnus Dei were re installed in the liturgy ( I cant find my copy to verify these facts) From my reading I believe that these "Concessions" so offended parliament that they were removed, so what was to be a sop to the A/C's became more protestant in intent than the 1662 prayerbook and became even less acceptable

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Brief look at 1928. 1662 Holy Communion is intact followed by an Alternative Holy Communion, with Gloria at the end, kyries or 10 commandments and eucharistic prayer with words of institution in the middle.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Brief look at 1928. 1662 Holy Communion is intact followed by an Alternative Holy Communion, with Gloria at the end, kyries or 10 commandments and eucharistic prayer with words of institution in the middle.

It would also have allowed a shorter version of Morning and Evening Prayer during the week.

One could say, 'why should Protestants mind if the Anglo-Catholic version was only allowed as an alternative?' but, in part, they were arguing for a protestant equivalent of the sacramental assurance we hear so much about these days.

Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
...the "deposited" 1928 book...
I'm in the grateful possession of this curiosity through the kind generosity of a Shipmate.

Can anyone offer me also why the book is said to be "deposited"?

The book is technically an official draft that was deposited before parliament for approval.

There were also a number of other unofficial proposed books around - from memory I seem to recall one of 'Dearmerite' tendancy, and one sponsored by the Modern Churchman's Union. I haven't seen copies of either of these for 40 years - copies are as rare as the proverbial hen's teeth.

Following parliamentary rejection of the 1928 book the bishops declared a state of 'liturgical emergency'(!), and noised that 'during this present emergency' they would take no action against parishes making changes broadly in line with those of the Deposited Book. This, as much as anything, created the demand which kept the 1928 book in print in the following years. A quiet and largely uncontroversial process of development thus began, leading to practices legalised in the 1960s in 'Alternative Services: First Series'.

Elements of 1928 could be found in the pattern of Parish Communion in many parishes during the 1940s and 1950s, but the 1928 Eucharistic Prayer (sadly?) did not find favour. My impression is that 1928 provisions were widely adopted in weddings and funerals during this period, but the baptism and confirmation rites were less favoured. I'm writing this account from memory (of earlier study, not from being around at the time!), and am open to correction. Hope this helps!

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oferyas:
... and one sponsored by the Modern Churchman's Union....

Yuk.

Were all the pages blank? Or were the verbs all converted to 'might', 'Almighty God, who might be our heavenly Father, who of thy tender mercy mightest have have given thine only Son ...', 'who might have made there (possibly by his one oblation ...)' etc.?

quote:

... My impression is that 1928 provisions were widely adopted in weddings and funerals during this period, but the baptism and confirmation rites were less favoured. ...

I can remember a Vicar telling me in the early seventies that he didn't do weddings with any 1928 variants because, as the book was not lawful, it was still uncertain whether such a marriage was valid, i.e. whether it took.

A celebrated wedding in 1981 is persuasive that getting names in the wrong order does not affect validity.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oferyas:

Elements of 1928 could be found in the pattern of Parish Communion in many parishes during the 1940s and 1950s, but the 1928 Eucharistic Prayer (sadly?) did not find favour.

In many 'mildly' catholic parishes (the sort that didn't dare use the English Missal*) the so-called 'Interim Rite' was used. This was basically 1662 minus the ten commandments and long exhortations, plus the Kyries, Benedictus and Agnus Dei, and with Cranmer's 'prayer of oblation' tacked on to his prayer of consecration, followed by the Lord's Prayer (before communion, rather than after it as in 1662). Sometimes the 1928 Prayer for the Church would be used, but I don't know of anywhere that used the 1928 Eucharistic prayer (though there were doubtless one or two places).

*or there would be churches where the so-called Minor Propers from the Missal would be inserted into the rite otherwise as the above.

Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on :

I'm rather fond of 1928, and would quite comfortably have its Eucharistic service replace that of 1662. However, CW Order One with Prayer C, traditional language, with some tweaking, can be made to look almost identical to 1928 (see Notes) what conforming to Canon law.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
I'm rather fond of 1928, and would quite comfortably have its Eucharistic service replace that of 1662. However, CW Order One with Prayer C, traditional language, with some tweaking, can be made to look almost identical to 1928 (see Notes) what conforming to Canon law.

I have to admit, that apart from using 1662 itself, in all the time since Common Worship was introduced, I don't think I've ever encountered anyone using the traditional language alternatives for anything. I've also never encountered the modern English version of Order 2.

I'm sure there will be those who chirp up and say 'we use them'. But as most people seem to use the 1662 book for 1662 services, I do wonder whether the time has come to save paper and produce a more compact version omitting Order 2 and the traditional language version of the Litany and collects. It should also include a version of the General Thanksgiving and the prayer of St John Chrystostom in modern English.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Common Worship gives the BCP services as many actually use it (eg, the "Interim Rite" as described by Angloid and the usual minor changes to Morning and Evening Prayer).

I've never heard the long exhortations at HC, and I doubt if I've been to Evensong that has the full penitential rite, the State Prayers in full and the complete psalmody for the day of the month.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Common Worship gives the BCP services as many actually use it (eg, the "Interim Rite" as described by Angloid and the usual minor changes to Morning and Evening Prayer).

I've never heard the long exhortations at HC, and I doubt if I've been to Evensong that has the full penitential rite, the State Prayers in full and the complete psalmody for the day of the month.

From time to time, I encounter BCP Evening Prayer and Communion Services. Sadly, Morning Prayer seems now to be much rarer. If you're my age, one has only to hear "Dearly beloved brethren..." for the entire introduction to roll through one's head. It's a pity when people trim it.

I also still think that there is no better classification of sins than,
"We have left undone those things which we ought to have done; and we have done those things which we ought not to have done".

It's a pity that the modernised version of that confession doesn't seem to get used very much. Clergy seem to prefer blander ones.

The prayers for the Queen and the clergy were generally used. The one for the rest of the Royal Family was sometimes left out.

However, what I'm saying is that virtually always when one goes to a BCP service, what is thrust into your hand is a BCP, not a CW.

Even when all services were BCP, the exhortations seem to have tacitly and probably illegally dropped off the radar. About 45 years ago, a vicar told me he'd been so doubtful about the condition of some of the people who had wafted into his midnight service on Christmas Eve, that he'd read the Third Exhortation. Most of them didn't notice, and those that did, did not act on it.

I've never experienced the Quicunque Vult used.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

S Thomas, Huron St, in Toronto used to do the Quicunque Vult at the early morning service on Trinity Sunday. Perhaps a more recent attender could bring us up to date?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

I've never heard the long exhortations at HC, and I doubt if I've been to Evensong that has the full penitential rite, the State Prayers in full and the complete psalmody for the day of the month.

You usually get the latter in cathedrals. Often the penitential rite too, if not the State Prayers.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Westminster Abbey does the confession and abbreviated State Prayers ( with a prayer for the Noble Order of the Bath) but I've never heard the full State Prayers since my childhood when we used them every morning as part of my prep school assembly.

(The full confession seems to crop up on Sunday evenings, which is when I'm least likely to attend cathedral evensong.)

I'm not sure WA do the psalms of the day: I'm sure nobody does the BCP psalms of the day on Sunday evening.

Which supports my point: the enthusiasts for the BCP actually follow CW, which bends over backwards to accommodate them. A bit of appreciation might well be in order.

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

I remember years ago going to All Ss Mgt St on a Sunday which was 15th August and boy did the psalmody - for the 15th evening, go on, and on, and....

Don't know when they stopped using BCP.

Nor can I recall the exact psalmody and I have not got my BCP easy to hand.

Back to main thread. All the stuff about St Clem, Philadelphia makes me think my suggestion in OPmay not be a good one. [Smile]

Or maybe it is... If the bishop oversees preserving ancient or older rites and its not at whims of individual priests.

I understand EM has several differing editions, one may have to specify which to be preserved.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oferyas:

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
...the "deposited" 1928 book...
I'm in the grateful possession of this curiosity through the kind generosity of a Shipmate.

Can anyone offer me also why the book is said to be "deposited"?
The book is technically an official draft that was deposited before parliament for approval.

Thanks Oferyas; that is verging on helpful. But, what is to deposit something before parliament? It is just what is done to a report to be received? Or, is it how a bill, motion, or resolution begins to be considered? Are things deposited before parliament in the year 2013?

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

As I understand it, Parliament had to vote to approve the new Prayer Book (vote failed, I believe).

Somewhat strange, of course, that non-conformist and non-Christian MPs would have any say in what the church's liturgy is going to be.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
As I understand it, Parliament had to vote to approve the new Prayer Book (vote failed, I believe).

Somewhat strange, of course, that non-conformist and non-Christian MPs would have any say in what the church's liturgy is going to be.

Isn't it just the quid pro quo for there being several C of E bishops in the UK House of Lords, solely by virtue of their office? Disestablishment in the UK is the answer... [Biased]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Ahem. Two of the four nations of the UK have disestablishment already, and of the other two, Scottish establishment is rather different from English. If you mean 'in England', please say so! [Biased]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Yes, but another anomaly of the situation is that the English bishops are the only ex officio religious figures in the UK parliament. It should be either all or none. Preferably none.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Ahem. Two of the four nations of the UK have disestablishment already, and of the other two, Scottish establishment is rather different from English. If you mean 'in England', please say so!

Of course, sorry about that - it is just the Church of England isn't it? And sort of Scotland.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
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.

As usual, your comments are born of ignorance. The formula for absolution in the '79 Prayerbook reads...

"Our Lord Jesus Christ, who has left power to his Church to absolve all sinners who truly repent and believe in him, of his great mercy forgive you all your offenses; and by his authority committed to me, I absolve you from all your sins: In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

Zach82: By all means challenge incorrect assertions but personal attacks are contrary to Commandment 3. Please refrain from them.

seasick, Eccles host

Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
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.
As usual, your comments are born of ignorance. The formula for absolution in the '79 Prayerbook reads...

"Our Lord Jesus Christ, who has left power to his Church to absolve all sinners who truly repent and believe in him, of his great mercy forgive you all your offenses; and by his authority committed to me, I absolve you from all your sins: In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

I was referring to the General Absolution used at the service of Holy Communion. Not that one, which is in any case straight out of the old Visitation of the Sick liturgy. There's nothing ignorant about pointing out that the 1979 "Prayer Book" is not a Prayer Book and forms no continuity with the previous ones (bar an absurd fake Elizabethan 'rite' which makes a mockery of Cranmer).

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
I'm rather fond of 1928, and would quite comfortably have its Eucharistic service replace that of 1662. However, CW Order One with Prayer C, traditional language, with some tweaking, can be made to look almost identical to 1928 (see Notes) what conforming to Canon law.
I have to admit, that apart from using 1662 itself, in all the time since Common Worship was introduced, I don't think I've ever encountered anyone using the traditional language alternatives for anything. I've also never encountered the modern English version of Order 2.

I know 2 parishes which use Order 1 trad language as their principal service. I have also thrice encountered Order 2 contemporary. 1 was a one off in a college chapel, 1 not sure if it was regular & 3rd I think was a regular (monthly?) compromise, when later morning service was not a Eucharist, early one (9 I think) was contemporary but still order 2. I found it very strange, but I'm no fan of BCP communion order* and have slight trad lang preference.

Carys

*Real irony is I can only recall 2 BCP Eucharists that I've attended, so may actually have used order 2 contemporary more often.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
I was referring to the General Absolution used at the service of Holy Communion. Not that one, which is in any case straight out of the old Visitation of the Sick liturgy. There's nothing ignorant about pointing out that the 1979 "Prayer Book" is not a Prayer Book and forms no continuity with the previous ones (bar an absurd fake Elizabethan 'rite' which makes a mockery of Cranmer).

Oh, in your mind "forms no continuity" means "Is not a verbatim copy" and "does not require" means "Does not repeat a particular formula at every opportunity." Therefore, a book intended to be a book to be the common prayer of an Anglican Church is not the Book of Common Prayer. Fair enough.

[ 09. April 2013, 23:12: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

Individual churches will vary in their use of traditional liturgy through the years. Some years ago it was quite common for a weekday, often Wednesday morning, Communion service to be prayer book in places where modern language was used on a Sunday at the Sunday Eucharist.

Some churches, like the one I mentioned in the OP had a distinctive tradition often a minority and technically illegal one. Nevertheless it was distinctive and part of the greater whole.

It was this distinctiveness I was wondering whether the church should carefully encourage to be preserved, in the same way as some older church furnishings and architectural features are preserved, by church law - faculties are needed to change.

It seems we preserve architectural features for historic and aesthetic reasons. Could not a similar argument apply to another art form - liturgy?

Having said which I have grave doubts having read here about the goings on and tensions in Philadelphia which have been reported

[Smile]

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

Regarding trad language CW Order 1/cont language CW Order 2, Oxford is a very strange place.

Of the central Anglo-Catholic parishes, all of them (by which I mean, St Mary Magdalen, St Barnabas, St Thomas the Martyr) use CW Order 1 in trad language (unless Mags has changed since I last attended on a Sunday).

Of the slightly further out ones, St John's New Hinksey also uses trad language.

Before moving to this part of the world, I'd never encountered trad language A-Cism before. (And still find it a bit odd!)

Thurible

Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:

Before moving to this part of the world, I'd never encountered trad language A-Cism before. (And still find it a bit odd!)

Thurible

My you are young! When I was a lad there was nothing else but trad language.

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

That's very interesting Thurible.

Are there many churches of the AC mould using traditional language with the English Missal in evidence? After all it has a range of supplementary material in it.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:

Before moving to this part of the world, I'd never encountered trad language A-Cism before. (And still find it a bit odd!)

Thurible
My you are young!a When I was a lad there was nothing else but trad language.

True. But Midlands ACism was using the 1970 Missal as soon as it was out, as far as I can work out. (Yes, of course there were exceptions.)

Thurible

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

Hosting

quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
Having said which I have grave doubts having read here about the goings on and tensions in Philadelphia which have been reported

I will repeat what my esteemed fellow host said:

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
ENough is enough. This thread is not about St. Clements and the obviously strong opinions held about events and people there is outside the remit of this board.

We take an extremely serious view of posters who ignore clear hostly directions and have drawn this matter to the attention of the admins. Any further infractions will receive a response from them.

seasick, Ecclesiantics host

End hosting

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

I apologise. If, however, I may explain. I made a suggestion in my OP. subsequent comments made in the discussion have led me to believe this may not actually be a good idea.

I should have simply said that and not referred to a specific.

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

I'm sceptical of the notion of parish churches as living liturgical museums. The situation is perhaps a bit different in England, where so many A-C parishes went over to the Novus Ordo rite, and where therefore the older liturgical styles are rather an exoticism these days that might just possibly attract a viable parish membership and ongoing visitorship. My own view, however, is that an A-C parish like All Saints Margaret Street, which combines liturgical tradition with some modernisations and simplifications has a greater attraction to a wider range of people. Of course, Margaret Street also has a tradition of superlative music and a unique, stunning building, resources with which many parish churches will not be blessed. Yet, having relatively less in the way of musical resources and architectural resources would to my mind argue even more strongly for a liturgy that is not perceived as excessively stuffy, fiddly or arcane by the traditionally minded Anglo-Catholics whom one is presumably hoping to attract (and likewise those non-A-C who would potentially be attracted to a traditionally orientated A-C liturgy, albeit one not grossly out of the liturgical mainstream).

I question whether most places will have the population numbers of those inclined to an exotic liturgy niche parish that would keep such a parish viable and which would advance the catholic Christian mission of propogating the gospel and the sacraments to all sorts and conditions of men. Indeed, ISTM, there is a real danger of getting so tied up in the details of complex liturgy that the gospel and the sacraments themselves get lost amidst all the chancel prancing (and I say this as one who is very much a ritualist).

Actually, within North American A-Cism, there has been organic liturgical development over the past forty years, and this has taken place within a Prayerbook-Missal tradition, as contrasted with a wholesale shift to Novus Ordo liturgy (though Novus Ordo ceremonial has certainly been influential within the American Church). This would not, in fact, be unlike the situation of CofE A-C parishes that use the trad CW rite with a mixture of old and modernised ceremonial.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
As I understand it, Parliament had to vote to approve the new Prayer Book (vote failed, I believe).

Somewhat strange, of course, that non-conformist and non-Christian MPs would have any say in what the church's liturgy is going to be.
Isn't it just the quid pro quo for there being several C of E bishops in the UK House of Lords, solely by virtue of their office? Disestablishment in the UK is the answer...

Not wishing to derail the thread with a tangent, but it is not a question of quid pro quo. The presence of bishops is a deemed-to-be-useful hangover from the mediaeval summoning of the powerful into the House of Lords; passage of the BCP through Parliament is a continuance of Tudor regulatory practice-- nobody at the time considered that MPs could be anything but members of the Church.

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
As I understand it, Parliament had to vote to approve the new Prayer Book (vote failed, I believe).

Somewhat strange, of course, that non-conformist and non-Christian MPs would have any say in what the church's liturgy is going to be.
Isn't it just the quid pro quo for there being several C of E bishops in the UK House of Lords, solely by virtue of their office? Disestablishment in the UK is the answer...
Not wishing to derail the thread with a tangent, but it is not a question of quid pro quo. The presence of bishops is a deemed-to-be-useful hangover from the mediaeval summoning of the powerful into the House of Lords; passage of the BCP through Parliament is a continuance of Tudor regulatory practice-- nobody at the time considered that MPs could be anything but members of the Church.

As the Established church the Church of England has a duty to all who live in England. Parliament defends this, and so has a right to check the C of E is doing this. MPs do this even if not C of E - as elected representatives.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
As the Established church the Church of England has a duty to all who live in England. Parliament defends this, and so has a right to check the C of E is doing this. MPs do this even if not C of E - as elected representatives.

And even if not English. As in so many other areas, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs have the right to vote on C of E matters.Some people may think this mish-mash of anomalies that we call the British Constitution (as if) is both effective (possibly) and democratic (no way).

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
As the Established church the Church of England has a duty to all who live in England. Parliament defends this, and so has a right to check the C of E is doing this. MPs do this even if not C of E - as elected representatives.

I understand the argument, but I'm not sure that people who aren't communicants should have any say in how the C of E prays. If non-communicants aren't eligible to serve on their parochial church council, why should they be setting policies above even the diocesan and provincial levels?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
And even if not English. As in so many other areas, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs have the right to vote on C of E matters.Some people may think this mish-mash of anomalies that we call the British Constitution (as if) is both effective (possibly) and democratic (no way).

Since there doesn't seem to be much prospect of getting a devolved assembly for England equivalent to what the other bits of the UK have, when Parliament debates or votes on anything that in the other parts of the UK has been devolved, i.e. relates only to England, the MPs from other parts of the UK should be excluded from either speaking or voting. It would be a simpler snap solution to a serious wrong done to English voters. This may reveal that in the eyes of some liturgists I have serious personal flaws, but to me, this would be a more important subject than the substance of this thread. However, even I can see that as regards the thread, it's about as blatant a tangent as one could imagine.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
However, even I can see that as regards the thread, it's about as blatant a tangent as one could imagine.

Well, perhaps. But the whole business of establishment is bound up with C of E liturgy and you can't discuss one without the other.

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
As I understand it, Parliament had to vote to approve the new Prayer Book (vote failed, I believe).

Somewhat strange, of course, that non-conformist and non-Christian MPs would have any say in what the church's liturgy is going to be.
Isn't it just the quid pro quo for there being several C of E bishops in the UK House of Lords, solely by virtue of their office? Disestablishment in the UK is the answer...
Not wishing to derail the thread with a tangent, but it is not a question of quid pro quo. The presence of bishops is a deemed-to-be-useful hangover from the mediaeval summoning of the powerful into the House of Lords; passage of the BCP through Parliament is a continuance of Tudor regulatory practice-- nobody at the time considered that MPs could be anything but members of the Church.
As the Established church the Church of England has a duty to all who live in England. Parliament defends this, and so has a right to check the C of E is doing this. MPs do this even if not C of E - as elected representatives.

Or more simply the CofE is Erastian.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

...said the disappointed theocrat (oh for the good old days of JC McQuaid, eh?). No it isn't: it has some peculiarities of governance which are conditioned by its historical development and relationship to the English and then British state.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
However, even I can see that as regards the thread, it's about as blatant a tangent as one could imagine.
Well, perhaps. But the whole business of establishment is bound up with C of E liturgy and you can't discuss one without the other.

But I wasn't just talking about the CofE, yet alone liturgy.

Posted by nose bleed high (# 17629) on :

Can I ask a basic question. Are there any anglo catholic churches in London who have the old English Missal with say, Psalm 43 in the preparation and the Last Gospel?

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

An interesting question nose bleed high... In fact I wonder how many EM churches of the form you describe are in England.

I also understand there are different styles - different editions I mean, the EM went through different editions with different emphases.

Posted by Conchubhar (# 17602) on :

I believe that S. Magnus the Martyr, London Bridge does their Sunday High Mass according to the English Missal and the weekday masses according to the modern Roman Rite. Both are celebrated traditional facing east.

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

I'd have to go through my facebook messages from a certain former Shippie who is familiar with current usage at St Magnus Martyr to get the specifics of his description, but I know he reported to me a few months ago that St MM London Bridge uses what he described as a rather idiocyncratic "hybrid" rite that is not strictly English Missal. I'll see if I can't look up the relevant communication for the details.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Oferyas:

Elements of 1928 could be found in the pattern of Parish Communion in many parishes during the 1940s and 1950s, but the 1928 Eucharistic Prayer (sadly?) did not find favour.
In many 'mildly' catholic parishes (the sort that didn't dare use the English Missal*) the so-called 'Interim Rite' was used. This was basically 1662 minus the ten commandments and long exhortations, plus the Kyries, Benedictus and Agnus Dei, and with Cranmer's 'prayer of oblation' tacked on to his prayer of consecration, followed by the Lord's Prayer (before communion, rather than after it as in 1662). Sometimes the 1928 Prayer for the Church would be used, but I don't know of anywhere that used the 1928 Eucharistic prayer (though there were doubtless one or two places).

*or there would be churches where the so-called Minor Propers from the Missal would be inserted into the rite otherwise as the above.

There were also some Catholic-leaning places where the Interim Rite was used which would not go as far as the minor propers but would crank out something from EH or HA&MR at the appropriate points in the service. If you stuff a 1662 in front of me I will still tend to do the Interim Rite. Oddly, I am not as comfortable with the 1928 American BCP as with the Interim Rite as in the former the Epiclesis is after the Words of Institution. This makes the major elevations liturgically uncomfortable for me. The ceremonial says 'western rite' but the actual layout of the Canon is far closer to that of the Eastern rite. I guess I am a bit unusual in regarding such things as actually having some importance. I am currently trying to decide if I buy the theory that the American version of the epiclesis actually refers to the benefits of Communion rather than the actual consecration.

The sort of parish I fervantly miss is the old-fashioned 'Tractarian' churches of my childhood. We had quite a few of them around my way which maintained Morning Prayer as the main service most Sundays, but had Low Mass with Eucharistic vestments and all the basic points of catholic observance at 8.00am and after Matins. They also had daily MP and EP and Communion on Holydays and a couple of times in the week. I know that to a lot of folks these days that sounds like a curious hybrid, but it was fairly frequent in cautious areas 30 years ago.

PD

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PD:

The sort of parish I fervantly miss is the old-fashioned 'Tractarian' churches of my childhood. We had quite a few of them around my way which maintained Morning Prayer as the main service most Sundays, but had Low Mass with Eucharistic vestments and all the basic points of catholic observance at 8.00am and after Matins. They also had daily MP and EP and Communion on Holydays and a couple of times in the week. I know that to a lot of folks these days that sounds like a curious hybrid, but it was fairly frequent in cautious areas 30 years ago.

PD

Sounds just like the church of my teenage years ( didn't have a church in childhood!). Unfortunately it's changed a bit, but in the wrong direction (mildly happy-clappy I think).

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

Having attended a Pontifical High Mass celebrated according the American Missal yesterday, I will have to say, yes, it all worth keeping in use rather than preserving. It took me back to being a teenager in an English Missal parish 30 years ago.

PD

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Conchubhar:
I believe that S. Magnus the Martyr, London Bridge does their Sunday High Mass according to the English Missal and the weekday masses according to the modern Roman Rite. Both are celebrated traditional facing east.

Three years ago, in my last few months in the Church of England, I sometimes went to St Magnus the Martyr, though more often to St Alban the Martyr, Holborn. They certainly had their own distinctive liturgy, celebrated ad orientem, much of it taken from the English Missal. But it was definately a hybrid, which I've never encountered elsewhere.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

I am old enough to remember the slow changers still doing Series 2 with all the Carflick bits ad orientem at a time when we were experimenting with Series 3 and the Daily Lectionary - so I am guessing that I am talking about the mid to late-1970s.

I would imagine that what Magnus Martyr and St Alban's Holborn are doing is English Missal adapted to keep it almost on the right side of Comic Washup, or CW Traddy Language with all the Carflick bits. Certainly an eccentric achievement, but somewhere where we have been before in terms of methodology.

PD

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
I am old enough to remember the slow changers still doing Series 2 with all the Carflick bits ad orientem at a time when we were experimenting with Series 3 and the Daily Lectionary - so I am guessing that I am talking about the mid to late-1970s.

I would imagine that what Magnus Martyr and St Alban's Holborn are doing is English Missal adapted to keep it almost on the right side of Comic Washup, or CW Traddy Language with all the Carflick bits. Certainly an eccentric achievement, but somewhere where we have been before in terms of methodology.

PD

I am sure that's true for St Magnus, but I think St Alban's BS now uses the Roman Rite - with the exception of the Creed which is sung to Martin Shaw.

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

The Southport church of the OP prides itself on its English Missal tradition. (Which edition?)

Is it alone in its pride and public dedication to this missal?

What we seem to be saying is that other places use EM a bit, but just a bit.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
The Southport church of the OP prides itself on its English Missal tradition. (Which edition?)

Is it alone in its pride and public dedication to this missal?

What we seem to be saying is that other places use EM a bit, but just a bit.

I think in its heyday that's the way the vast majority of EM-using churches used it. There were of course the hardcore 'Western Rite' parishes, but they were rare outside of London and a few other biretta belts. Most places just had it on the altar as a resource for the priest and few ordinary punters would notice the difference in the rite as spoken/sung.

Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on :

On Easterday 2012, I attended the Solemn Mass at St.Alban's Holborn.
The hymns were from the new English Hymnal,the liturgy was the modern Roman Rite.
But inspite of this.the atmosphere was very Anglican and certainly rather different from the
average R.C.parish-church.
The ceremonial was more reformed than at Margaret Street and the reception afterwards was very warm, wonderful hospitality.

Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Most places just had it on the altar as a resource for the priest and few ordinary punters would notice the difference in the rite as spoken/sung.

In fact this was the custom in my childhood parish which called itself a "Prayerbook Catholic" parish.

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
The Southport church of the OP prides itself on its English Missal tradition. (Which edition?)

Is it alone in its pride and public dedication to this missal?

What we seem to be saying is that other places use EM a bit, but just a bit.
I think in its heyday that's the way the vast majority of EM-using churches used it. There were of course the hardcore 'Western Rite' parishes, but they were rare outside of London and a few other biretta belts. Most places just had it on the altar as a resource for the priest and few ordinary punters would notice the difference in the rite as spoken/sung.

Angloid are you saying western rite churches used it inits entirety or didn't use it? Sorry not quite clear to me from your post.

[Smile]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

You can't use the EM 'in its entirety' because it contains two incompatible rites: the Roman rite and 1662. But I see what you mean, and I think a church that called itself Western Rite would use very little if any of the Prayer Book provision (except that texts like the Gloria, creed etc would be in the Cranmerian version).

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Most places just had it on the altar as a resource for the priest and few ordinary punters would notice the difference in the rite as spoken/sung.
In fact this was the custom in my childhood parish which called itself a "Prayerbook Catholic" parish.

A dear elderly priest, who went to glory four or five years ago, told me that the parish he'd been in (for may years) was "Prayer Book through and through - or so they thought..." When the Vicar finally retired, they were adamant that they wanted a Prayer Book priest who'd give them the Prayer Book. (They'd be joined to another parish at this point.)

Well, they got one. Who was very confused by the reaction he got the first Sunday after the interregnum when he celebrated the BCP Communion Service. He phoned up the former Vicar and asked what was going on. "Ah," said the former Vicar (with a twinkle in his eye as he told the story) "it was straight BCP - just interspersed by the English Missal."

Thurible

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

When I was still in the UK we had two priests who used the EM. One took every possible "Western Rite" option. The other tended to follow the 1662 only adding those bits entirely absent from the BCP. The feeling of the former approach was as though some other religion was being taught, the latter approach came across as a somewhat enriched, in all the right ways, BCP service. I definitely preferred the BCP+ version.

I get much the same feeling when I am dealing with Anglican Missal (American Edition) where some of its practitioners seem to want to do the Tridentine Mass in English, and the American Missal, which comes across as enriched American 1928 BCP.

PD

[ 26. April 2013, 23:48: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by Quam Dilecta (# 12541) on :

As a witness to the transition from the American Missal to the 1979 Prayer Book in my home parish, I can testify that the change was much more apparent at Low Masses than Solemn Masses. At the latter, the changes were largely confined to posture (less kneeling, more standing) and to the readings and collects; the chanted minor propers continued as before.

With loss of the spoken propers, however, Low Masses lost the touches of seasonal color which these snatches from the Psalter provide. Despite the decades which have passed, I still miss the flood of alleluias which permeated the weekday masses during Eastertide.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Quam Dilecta:
With loss of the spoken propers, however, Low Masses lost the touches of seasonal color which these snatches from the Psalter provide. Despite the decades which have passed, I still miss the flood of alleluias which permeated the weekday masses during Eastertide.

We kept the spoken propers for Sunday Low Masses, and they're printed in the service sheet for the celebrant to say; I believe the texts are those of the English Gradual. On weekdays, there's a Daily Roman Missal on the celebrant's lectern for optional use of the entrance antiphon and Communion verse, especially on holy days. Some celebrants also add the responsorial psalm refrain to our recitation of the psalm from the BCP, and I've heard the alleluia and verse read sometimes as well (although it wouldn't be in an RC said Mass).

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
I've heard the alleluia and verse read sometimes as well (although it wouldn't be in an RC said Mass).

Wouldn't it? I've been to RC masses (otherwise said) when the alleluia is sung. Is it the custom to omit it altogether?

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
I've heard the alleluia and verse read sometimes as well (although it wouldn't be in an RC said Mass).
Wouldn't it? I've been to RC masses (otherwise said) when the alleluia is sung. Is it the custom to omit it altogether?

I believe the rubrics say it should be omitted if it can't be sung. So those who sing it at a said Mass are right, even if I think it's a little odd to sing just that.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

My recollection of the change over from the Interim Rite to Series 3 was that things suddenly got a lot plainer. On weekdays the old minor propers were replaced by a responsorial psalm, and the saints become much less prominent in the parish liturgy. My home shack moved towards the centre not long after that so frequent midweek Masses became a things of the past, though MP and EP hung on until 2002/3.

I have a bit of a convuluted relationship with the whole Missal tradition. I like to add the private prayers of the celebrant, the minor propers, and a few other minor its and pieces, but wholesale reorganisation of the BCP rite is not for me. Typically when I lived in the UK I would do the ninefold Kyrie instead of the Decalogue except in Lent and Advent, and the Prayers after the consecration would be arrange in their ancient order, but other than that it was all additions - the Minor Propers being the most obvious.

PD

Posted by Maureen Lash (# 17192) on :

For the information of PD and others who have shown an interest, I am reliably informed that the form of service in use at St Luke's Southport is the Interim Rite with the prayers at the preparatory prayers and, on Sundays, the Asperges, added at the beginning and the last gospel at the end. Propers are from the English Gradual and the Ordinary is sung to Merbecke. It is all rather English and not at all exotic. There was a minor disruption to this pattern under the two most recent and short lived priests in charge who used respectively Common Worship in contemporary language and Pope Paul's new mass. In the present interregnum St Lukes has reverted to the Interim Rite with the full support and encouragement of the Bishop of Liverpool.

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

But how can the church then say it is English Missal, and seem to make a particular point of saying it, and it being a big part of its identity.

Come to think of it am I not understanding here. Is 'interim 'rite more or less English Missal?

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

The English Missal incorporates the "Interim Rite" which was the 1662 BCP prayers rearranged into something resembling the traditional shape. The EM version is something close to:

Collect for Purity
(Ninefold Kyrie)
Gloria
Collect
Epistle
Gospel
Creed
Sermon
Offertory
Prayer for the Church Malignant
Invitation and
General Confession
Absolution and Comfy Words
Sursum Corda
Preface
Sanctus
(Benedictus)
Humble Access
Consecration
Oblation
Lord's Prayer
(Pax)
(Agnus Dei)
=Communion=
Thanksgiving
Blessing

The only imports were the Kyrie, the Benedictus, Pax, and Sanctus, but there had been a pretty extreme rearrangement of the rest. To this is added the Preparation and Private Prayers of the celebrant from the Roman Rite, and the minor propers.

Those of us who were interim rite, but a bit less brave would usually leave the Gloria before the Blessing, and simply Substitute the ninefold Kyrie for the Decalogue. There were a slack handful of other variants, but the general idea was to 'put the Canon' back together - i.e. to have the Prayer of Consecration followed by the Oblation and the Lord's Prayer before the Communion of Priest and People.

PD

Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on :

So forgive my ignorance, but what exactly was "interim" about the Interim Rite? Who made it up or rather where did it come from? Was it an "accepted" rite, or merely a cobbled together A/C thing?

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

It kind of happened after World War I as a stop gap until the revision then under way could be completed. Most bishop's turned a blind eye to the fact that quite a few clergy were taking liberties with the BCP Communion service - usually saying the Kyrie instead of the Decalogue and placing the Prayer of Oblation after the Consecration. I guess you could say it had a degree of authorization.

PD

Posted by anselmo (# 17685) on :

As a priest who has celebrated all the Anglican liturgies, let me assure you that the 1549 Anglican Mass is anyting but a museum piece for tens of thousands who strive to take God seriously. The 1662 Prayerbook and its counterparts seem more a museum piece; but the ancient liturgies are eternal.
The American Episcopal 1979 Prayerbook seems more a museum piece now than it ever has. I knew a priest who served with Margaret Mead on the liturgical commission that produced it. Well-intended, it now strikes one as something sort of forlornly cultic and oblique.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

Anselmo I suspect your comments rather eflect your churchmanship rather than an objective reality. My own perception is that 1549 is really cumbersome and archaic; 1662, etc., are old-fashioned but still workable, and the 1979 BCP is 'help - seventies shit!' Suspect the whole thing definitely a YMMV issues. However, my two disclaimers are that I am Anglo-Irish and High Church.

PD

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anselmo:
The American Episcopal 1979 Prayerbook seems more a museum piece now than it ever has. I knew a priest who served with Margaret Mead on the liturgical commission that produced it. Well-intended, it now strikes one as something sort of forlornly cultic and oblique.

Which made me laugh out loud, as I'm in a parish that uses the 1979 daily and find it anything but the way you've described it. Different strokes...

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

Most liturgies work when they are celebrated in a way that says - 'this is how we do that worship thing - get over yourself!' When some feels they have to explain/apologize/mess with shit all the time, then it is a fail no matter which liturgy you use.

I have always seen attracted to that element in the catholic movement in Anglicanism whose attitude is basically 'this is the Mass - its what we do!' I like a real clear structure which is free from the intrusive presence of the presider, and is God-focussed.

For this reason, the English Missal/Interim Rite tradition is attractive to me.

PD

[ 19. May 2013, 06:01: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

Is the EM rite you refer to PD of a specific edition of the English Missal? I understand there are significant differences between the editions of that. missal.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
Is the EM rite you refer to PD of a specific edition of the English Missal? I understand there are significant differences between the editions of that. missal.

I am probably thinking of the 1958 edition which is the one with which I am most familiar. However, there was a little bit of tinkering being done even with that version to accomodate the fact that the parish had the Green Book (A Shorter PB) in the pews!

PD

[ 20. May 2013, 01:08: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
Most liturgies work when they are celebrated in a way that says - 'this is how we do that worship thing - get over yourself!' When some feels they have to explain/apologize/mess with shit all the time, then it is a fail no matter which liturgy you use.

I have always seen attracted to that element in the catholic movement in Anglicanism whose attitude is basically 'this is the Mass - its what we do!' I like a real clear structure which is free from the intrusive presence of the presider, and is God-focussed.

For this reason, the English Missal/Interim Rite tradition is attractive to me.

PD

This.

The principal of an unnamed but easily guessed theological college has apparently been heard to remark, on being told that the liturgy is complex or arcane: "This is what the Church does" which I think is a superbly robust approach to inhabiting one's liturgy.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:

The principal of an unnamed but easily guessed theological college has apparently been heard to remark, on being told that the liturgy is complex or arcane: "This is what the Church does" which I think is a superbly robust approach to inhabiting one's liturgy.

Mike Ovey?

Thurible

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:

The principal of an unnamed but easily guessed theological college has apparently been heard to remark, on being told that the liturgy is complex or arcane: "This is what the Church does" which I think is a superbly robust approach to inhabiting one's liturgy.
Mike Ovey?

Thurible

No comment [Snigger]

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PD:

quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
Is the EM rite you refer to PD of a specific edition of the English Missal? I understand there are significant differences between the editions of that. missal.
I am probably thinking of the 1958 edition which is the one with which I am most familiar. However, there was a little bit of tinkering being done even with that version to accomodate the fact that the parish had the Green Book (A Shorter PB) in the pews!

PD

I'm almost sure the 1958 edition of the English Missal was the last edition of it. I think it integrated Roman and Anglican lections and collects more than earlier editions.

Despite finding it difficult among us here to find a church which actually uses the English Missal rite, rather than just as a resource book, I think the English Missal has been the most widely used of the Anglican Missals.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

Yes, 1958 was the last edition of the EM, and the Canterbury Press reprint is a photographic reproduction of it. I think if the brew of influences had been a little different when I was a teenager I would have ended up being a the sort of Anglo-Catholic who usually uses the modern Rite, but uses the EM occasionally just to remind folks of how it was done. As it happens my background was considerably more moderate. I was used to an environment that was middle in ceremonial and moderately catholic in theology.

PD

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

PD - as ever very interesting. Thanks.

Now you mention how it was done... How was it done?

By which I mean which book of ritual guided the priest through the English Missal? I suppose it was Ritual Notes, but that too, as I understand it went through many editions, and was more a dip in and out resource than slavishly followed. Right?

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

Ritual Notes was one possibility, though some purists used to sit up at nights fitting Fortescue to the English Missal. The various editions of Ritual Notes tended appear tended to appear after the various revisions made by Rome, so the John XXIII reform is embodied in 1964 edition; the New Holy Week in RN 10 (1957); the late 1930s clean up of the Pian Missal in the 9th edition, and so on and so forth.

It all gets a bit convoluted as not only did Ritual Notes'editor have to take account of Rome's twitching about, but the fact that Anglo-Catholics were using both the English Missal and the Anglican Missal. You tend to find that the editors of RN take a middle course between the two versions in the hopes of satisfying both. However, this becomes less of an issue as time passes as the Anglican Missal (SSPP, 1921) gradually became less opular as time passed.

All I can say is thank goodness I am English Use!

PD

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0