Ship of Fools: Parish Communion movement

Thread: Parish Communion movement 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=025809

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

There are a number of references about the Parish Communion movement in the Church of England whose liturgical aims were to replace the traditional service pattern (8am said service of Holy Communion with 11am Matins or non-communicating High Mass) with a more corporate communion service at 9am or 9.30am as the main service, with congregational music and participation.

I understand that St John the Baptist, Necastle where Henry De Candole was curate led the way with this pattern in the 1920s. Does anyone know of any other churches which embraced this pattern before it became more widespread in the 1960s and 1970s?

As as aside it seems to me - in London at least -that an early celebration of Holy Communion (normally with hymns rather than sung) is now more or less confined to evangelical parishes, though normally as a precurser to a later service that is not always Eucharistic.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
There are a number of references about the Parish Communion movement in the Church of England whose liturgical aims were to replace the traditional service pattern (8am said service of Holy Communion with 11am Matins or non-communicating High Mass) with a more corporate communion service at 9am or 9.30am as the main service, with congregational music and participation.

I understand that St John the Baptist, Newcastle where Henry De Candole was curate led the way with this pattern in the 1920s. Does anyone know of any other churches which embraced this pattern before it became more widespread in the 1960s and 1970s?

As as aside it seems to me - in London at least - that an early celebration of Holy Communion (normally with hymns rather than sung) is now more or less confined to evangelical parishes, though normally as a precurser to a later service that is not always Eucharistic.

This is from personal memory (not the 1850 bit), not liturgical knowledge.

The conventional pattern in the first half of the C20, when every parish had a vicar, was Communion 8am, Morning Prayer, 11 am, Evening Prayer 6 or 6.30pm. Except in cathedrals, the latter seems to have moved from its late afternoon position 1850-70. I suspect the pattern Morning Prayer - Litany - Antecommunion faded away sometime around the same period. Communion had to be at 8am because a lot of people would not have their breakfast before taking Communion.

The Communion Service would probably be said. The other two services were sung, with choir, and a sermon, that came after the end of the BCP part of the service, but followed by a hymn.

I'd never heard of, yet alone encountered, anywhere having a non-communicating High Mass as the main service in the middle of the morning until I joined the Ship. To me, that would have seemed not CofE.

In the late 1950s we moved house and where we moved to, the local church was higher than we were used to. At least some of its main Sunday morning services were Communion, but they would have been Parish Communion type. That church was fairly new. It had been built just before the war. But this is a long time ago, I was quite young and not all that interested in these things. So I don't know whether that was a recent development or something they had done that since they opened.

By the mid-sixties, it wasn't that unusual for a church to have their main Sunday morning service as a Parish/Family Communion once a month in stead of Morning Prayer.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

When I was a boy in the early 1950s, the Vicar of the church I attended with my family, was an early pioneer of the Parish Communion movement. It was possible to be too doctrinaire about making Parish Communion the supreme service of the week and this Vicar was.

11 o'clock Matins had been discontinued and 9.15 Parish Communion reigned supreme and eventually, even the 'early service' was dropped; but 6.30 Evensong remained. Once a week, there was a mid-week parish meeting, which the Vicar considered to complement Parish Communion. I was too young to attend, but my parents went along.

By evolution, the Eucharist gradually overtook Matins as the principal Sunday service; the latter now increasingly hard to find every week. The non-communicating Solemn Eucharist was the norm in churches of a more anglo-catholic churchmanship.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Forgive my ignorance, I don't know too much about Anglican liturgy except that which is essentially an English translation of the old Roman Rite, but how can you have a "non-communicating" Eucharist? Seems like a bit of an oxymoron to me.

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

Noncommunicating high masses were ones in which the congregation did not come up for communion. For Anglo-Catholics, this was definitely an appropriation of a Pre-V2 Romish theory of the Mass. In such places, those wishing to receive Holy Communion would typically attend the early Mass around 8:00 a.m., and then might very well attend the High Mass later in the morning. In America, St Mary the Virgin Times Square was one prominent place in which this pattern once held sway.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Hmm. I'm very familiar with the old Roman Rite and I've never heard of a mass where no one communicates. At the very least the priest has to. In the OP Matins was mentioned. Matins is not a mass but one of the liturgical hours consisting of psalms and lessons. Have the two been mixed up?

I was just wondering that's all. I looked at the post and thought it a bit odd. [Smile]

Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on :

I still remember my first experience at All Saints, Margaret Street on a Sunday Morning, early sixties, when a full High Mass at 11 was the norm, however there was no communion.
This was the rule at that time in many A.C.parishes, with a late High Mass.
On the otherhand,some parishes had a different tradition, e.g.St.Paul's Knightsbridge, which had
Choral Mattins at 10.45 sermon followed by the Solemn Eucharist at 11.45 which included communion.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

According to the 1662 Prayer Book, there must be at least two or three people to receive Communion with the priest, but the Book expects only a (small?) fraction of the congregation to do so. In fact, those who wish to receive Communion are supposed to notify the priest before the service.

It was only because the provisions of the Prayer Book were largely ignored that the practice arose of Communion not being celebrated at all, except on a handful of Sundays (or less) each year. The Wesleys were ridiculed by their lax clergy brethren because they insisted on Communion being celebrated at least weekly. So in some ways, the Parish Communion movement sought only to restore what should have been "Prayer Book practice" all along.

Liturgylover, have you read A.G.Hebert's book (as editor), The Parish Communion? It outlines the ideas and development of the movement. A lot of the writing and thinking seemed to come from the Society of the Sacred Mission, of which Hebert was a member, and which did a lot of work with people involved in the Liturgical Movement on the continent.

Posted by Magic Wand (# 4227) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Noncommunicating high masses were ones in which the congregation did not come up for communion. For Anglo-Catholics, this was definitely an appropriation of a Pre-V2 Romish theory of the Mass. In such places, those wishing to receive Holy Communion would typically attend the early Mass around 8:00 a.m., and then might very well attend the High Mass later in the morning. In America, St Mary the Virgin Times Square was one prominent place in which this pattern once held sway.

At one point this was a common practice among the Anglo-Catholic parishes in Philadelphia. The last to give it up was S. Mark's, Locust Street, and not until about 1966 or 1967, if I recall correctly.

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Hmm. I'm very familiar with the old Roman Rite and I've never heard of a mass where no one communicates. At the very least the priest has to. In the OP Matins was mentioned. Matins is not a mass but one of the liturgical hours consisting of psalms and lessons. Have the two been mixed up?

I was just wondering that's all. I looked at the post and thought it a bit odd.

The principle originally eminated from the belief that it was necessary to fast overnight before receiving communion. That's why so many Anglo-Catholics attended the 8am BCP Communion service where they received, and many would return later for the 11am High Mass for full music and ceremonial but no communion as the fast had been broken.

Hence when the movement emerged it suggested the Parish Communion should be at a reasonably early hour followed by breakfast (usually coffee and maramalade rolls apparently!)

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

I see. Thank you.

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
I still remember my first experience at All Saints, Margaret Street on a Sunday Morning, early sixties, when a full High Mass at 11 was the norm, however there was no communion.
This was the rule at that time in many A.C.parishes, with a late High Mass.
On the otherhand,some parishes had a different tradition, e.g.St.Paul's Knightsbridge, which had
Choral Mattins at 10.45 sermon followed by the Solemn Eucharist at 11.45 which included communion.

That's very interesting Robert. It would be great to see an advert from the Times about Sunday services in the 1960s to compare service patters between then and now. Yet another pattern was at St Alban's Holborn where it appears there was a Parish Communion at 9.30am and non-communicating High mass at 11am.

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

Liturgylover, have you read A.G.Hebert's book (as editor), The Parish Communion? It outlines the ideas and development of the movement. A lot of the writing and thinking seemed to come from the Society of the Sacred Mission, of which Hebert was a member, and which did a lot of work with people involved in the Liturgical Movement on the continent.

Thanks Adeodatus. I read his book some time ago and found it a fascinating read: he was an interesting character and I recall he also had been influenced by Yngave Brilioth whom he met when working in Sweden, and helped translate his book Eucharistic Faith: Catholic and Evangelical into English.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
[That's very interesting Robert. It would be great to see an advert from the Times about Sunday services in the 1960s to compare service patters between then and now. Yet another pattern was at St Alban's Holborn where it appears there was a Parish Communion at 9.30am and non-communicating High mass at 11am.

When I worshipped at St John's Newcastle in the early 1980s, the advertised programme was still 9.30 Parish Mass, 11.00 High Mass. By then, however, it had become fairly common for people to receive Communion at the High Mass, so what they really had was two congregations.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

The Parish Communion Movement did not happen in a vacuum, it is almost precisely matched in NonConformity with the Family Church Movement with people like Bert Hamilton.

Jengie

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
[That's very interesting Robert. It would be great to see an advert from the Times about Sunday services in the 1960s to compare service patters between then and now. Yet another pattern was at St Alban's Holborn where it appears there was a Parish Communion at 9.30am and non-communicating High mass at 11am.
When I worshipped at St John's Newcastle in the early 1980s, the advertised programme was still 9.30 Parish Mass, 11.00 High Mass. By then, however, it had become fairly common for people to receive Communion at the High Mass, so what they really had was two congregations.

How nice to meet someone who worshipped at St John's - it is a beautiful church. Am I right in thinking that the 9.30am Eucharist employed a congregational setting and the 11am a choral one? Was forward altar used at either service?

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
[That's very interesting Robert. It would be great to see an advert from the Times about Sunday services in the 1960s to compare service patters between then and now. Yet another pattern was at St Alban's Holborn where it appears there was a Parish Communion at 9.30am and non-communicating High mass at 11am.
When I worshipped at St John's Newcastle in the early 1980s, the advertised programme was still 9.30 Parish Mass, 11.00 High Mass. By then, however, it had become fairly common for people to receive Communion at the High Mass, so what they really had was two congregations.
How nice to meet someone who worshipped at St John's - it is a beautiful church. Am I right in thinking that the 9.30am Eucharist employed a congregational setting and the 11am a choral one? Was forward altar used at either service?

The nave altar, with, I think, a Laudian frontal, was used for both when I was there. Behind it was a beautiful wrought iron screen leading to the chancel. I think the 9.30 Mass used Shaw and Merbecke; the High Mass was sometimes a bit more ambitious, but the choir were very few in number sometimes - they once sang the Byrd 3-part Mass with only three people in the choir!

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

My home parish was of the High Church leaning Tractarian variety and the services. According to the Old Parish Magazines, the pattern in the 1910s was

Sundays:
8.00am HC
10.30am MP
11.45am HC (2nd and 4th)
2.30pm Catechism and Children's service
6.30pm Evensong

Weekdays
8am MP
5pm EP
HC - Tuesdays and Holydays 7.30am; Thursday 10.30am.

In the 20s through the 60s the parish had the following

Sundays:
8.00am HC
10.30am MP/HC alternating
2.30pm Sunday School
6.30pm EP

Weekdays
10am MP
5.30pm EP
HC as before.

The big upheaval started in a small way with the introduction of a Parish Communion (Series 1/2) between the early celebration and MP, so in the late-60s the pattern was

8am HC
9.30am Parish Communion
10.30am MP
2.30pm Sunday School
6.30pm EP

Weekdays were down to just communion services with an even celebation on Fridays being introduced to replace Thursday morning, and celebrations early on Tuesday and mid-morning on Wednesday.

MP faded pretty quickly - one suspects because the clergy were not exactly neutral on the issue. It disappeared entirely in the mid-70s at which point my family stopped going to church altogether - not that they had been all that regular to start with!

It is a bit difficult to say if the parish communion movement succeeded or not. In one sense it did - mid-morning HC is now the main service in a lot of parishes in the UK and "most all" in the USA. On the other hand, the parish breakfast and the parish meeting elements have not really caught on. What has really happened is that most places picked up on non-fasting HC as the mid-morning service, but with a lot of the social and didactic elements of the PCM being left on the roadside.

In the end I am not sure whether the PCM did much for mission and evangelism, or for parish cohesiveness. It seems to work best in a mod. catholic environment, and once a month in mod. Evo parishes. Otherwise it seems to have fallen a bit flat.

PD

[ 18. April 2013, 14:58: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Hmm. I'm very familiar with the old Roman Rite and I've never heard of a mass where no one communicates. At the very least the priest has to. In the OP Matins was mentioned. Matins is not a mass but one of the liturgical hours consisting of psalms and lessons. Have the two been mixed up?

I was just wondering that's all. I looked at the post and thought it a bit odd.

No.

The priest DID communicate - alone - at the 11.00 high masses.

Those who obeyed the Prayer Book also got two old ladies to communicate with them so that the rubric was obeyed.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

Did the deacon and subdeacon at High Mass? (All well before my time!)

Thurible

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

I have a little book called Sunday Morning - The New Way published in 1938 and edited by one Brother Edward, 'Priest-Evangelist'. It consists of a series of essays by the incumbents of various churches describing how they introduced the Parish Communion (often followed by a parish breakfast)to their congregations, and what the effects were. The churches concerned were:

St. Peter, Chalvey, Slough;
Byker Parish Church, Newcastle-upon-Tyne;
St. Peter, Lampeter Velfrey (Wales);
A new housing estate in North Greenford, Middlesex;
St. Thomas, Coventry;
St. Mary, Portsea;
St. Mary Magdalene, Sunderland;
Woodchurch, Cheshire;
Flimwell, Sussex;
St. Ninian's (Episcopal) Cathedral, Perth, Scotland.

All the essays refer to congregational Parish Communion services introduced during the 1930s, with a starting time of 9am or thereabouts.

One interesting conclusion common to all is that there was not a huge increase in the size of the congregation, but that, instead, spiritual growth was marked.

Ian J.

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

Thanks Bishop's finger for this interesting list of churches.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Did the deacon and subdeacon at High Mass? (All well before my time!)

Thurible

Not entirely sure what you are asking. High Mass, deacon and subdeacon were needed. A layman could be subdeacon, but a deacon had to be in holy orders. A celebrant supported by a team of servers, constituted a sung mass.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

I think the question being asked is whether or not the deacon and sub-deacon at an otherwise non-communicating High Mass did, in fact, make their own Communion as well as the priest.

Ian J.

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

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Did the deacon and subdeacon at High Mass? (All well before my time!)

Thurible
Not entirely sure what you are asking. High Mass, deacon and subdeacon were needed. A layman could be subdeacon, but a deacon had to be in holy orders. A celebrant supported by a team of servers, constituted a sung mass.

No doubt Thurible was asking whether the deacon & subdeacon communicated with the priest at the non-communicating High Mass. I wish I could say I remember but I do not recall.

I only recall that very occasionally some would come to the rail following the mass for quiet "private" communions but it was assumed they had fasted from midnight. Those who made their communions at the early mass and returned to high mass did so, as was the custom - to offer thanks for their communions in this act of worship.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

Our parish had non-communicating Solemn High Mass at 11 for some years under a rector who also would say weekday Low Mass "short" if no one came forward for Communion: he'd receive the Sacrament himself and then turn around to see if any of the faithful wished to receive; if they did, he'd start the "Communion Devotions," which included the people's confession/absolution, Domine non sum dignus, etc. If no one came forward, he'd skip all that and go to the postcommunion prayer.

A later rector made the abolition of non-communicating Masses one of the conditions of his accepting the call to our parish.

The Sunday practice of non-communicating High Mass has a remnant, I believe, in our sermon-free 8 a.m. Low Mass. No sermon was preached at Low Mass because people would come back for High Mass with sermon.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Another pioneering Parish Communion parish was Our Lady and St Nicholas, Liverpool. From the late 1920s I think.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Some other early examples of the Parish Communion, mentioned in Br. Edward's Sunday Morning - The New Way, are:

St. Saviour, Poplar, c.1900 - 8am High Mass (!) followed by breakfast (Communion was received - fasting, of course - at the High Mass, with, by c.1938, 200 communicants.....)

Temple Balsall (Birmingham?) 1913

Yarm-on-Tees, Yorkshire, 1923

The Ascension, Malvern Link, 1925

I expect some of the churches mentioned in this book are still alive and flourishing today, but I wonder how many still have a weekly Parish Communion?

Ian J.

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Some other early examples of the Parish Communion, mentioned in Br. Edward's Sunday Morning - The New Way, are:

St. Saviour, Poplar, c.1900 - 8am High Mass (!) followed by breakfast (Communion was received - fasting, of course - at the High Mass, with, by c.1938, 200 communicants.....)

Temple Balsall (Birmingham?) 1913

Yarm-on-Tees, Yorkshire, 1923

The Ascension, Malvern Link, 1925

I expect some of the churches mentioned in this book are still alive and flourishing today, but I wonder how many still have a weekly Parish Communion?

Ian J.

I have had a quick look and most are indeed still around and looking well. It seems however, that most have now moved to a 10am Sung Eucharist -one or two though still mention a Family Mass or family service at 9.30am, but the term Parish Communion seems to have been discarded in the main.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

The examples above show that the PC movement included some quite 'full-on' Anglo-catholic places, even though many others persisted with their non-communicating High Masses. Another such was Christ Church, Clapham, in south London, which was I think the first church in London to use (or revive, anyway) Eucharistic vestments, back in the 1850s. It was always 'western rite' Anglo-catholic but when I first encountered it in the early 60s it had 9.30 parish mass followed by breakfast, and I am sure that was not a recent innovation.

[ 18. April 2013, 20:27: Message edited by: Angloid ]

Posted by BulldogSacristan (# 11239) on :

So my parish's current schedule of Sunday masses: 8:00 Low Mass
9:00 Sung Mass
11:15 Solemn High Mass
is actually a holdover from the High Mass's being a noncommunicating mass? How very interesting.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

I visited St. John the Baptist Newcastle a few years back (nearly ten I guess) and they were still very proud of their role in the Communion movement, including daily celebrations during the week as well.

The possible significance of the breakfast had never occurred to me - it sounds like this was something which was actually a very important element of the fellowship associated with the concept of the Parish Communion, at least in the early days. One imagines that when fasting fell almost entirely out of fashion it dropped by the wayside (some connection with the end of rationing, one wonders?)

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
According to the 1662 Prayer Book, there must be at least two or three people to receive Communion with the priest, but the Book expects only a (small?) fraction of the congregation to do so. In fact, those who wish to receive Communion are supposed to notify the priest before the service.

It was only because the provisions of the Prayer Book were largely ignored that the practice arose of Communion not being celebrated at all, except on a handful of Sundays (or less) each year. ...

Not quite. The rule was (and I think probably still is) that there must be other communicants than just the priest. The rubric is preferably 4+ and a minimum of 3.

The rubric also says that everyone must communicate at least three times per annum of which Easter must be one. I was told somewhere around the time I was confirmed, that if one could not communicate on Easter Sunday, this counted anytime between Palm Sunday and Low Sunday inclusive. I don't know what the authority was for that.

The Reformers would have been very hostile indeed to the concept of a priest only mass. It represented much of what they detested most about early Tudor Catholicism.

The normal Sunday morning practice until the mid C19 seems to have been Morning Prayer, Litany, and then Antecommunion, ending with the sermon. This only proceeded on to Communion itself if there were people who had given in their names. "And when there is a Communion, the Priest shall then place upon the Table so much Bread and Wine as he shall think sufficient. ..." then follows the prayer for the Church Militant.

It is not surprising that there was a widespread impression that church was a place to sleep and be bored.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Hmm. I'm very familiar with the old Roman Rite and I've never heard of a mass where no one communicates.

If you look at a Roman Missal from before 1970, there is no Communion of the People - the rite of communion from the Rituale Romanum could be inserted , but was optional. In my St Joseph Daily Missal, it's printed with a red line down the left margin. Since many Anglo-Catholic parishes, as you note, followed more or less a vernacular rendering of then-contemporary Roman Rite liturgy (dovetailed to a greater or lesser extent into the Common Prayers of the Communion Office) it was common for some parishes to serve breakfast after the "early celebration."

In these parishes, the High Mass served a function rather like Mattins in more "mainstream" ones: you returned at 11 to sing and/or serve, pray, and hear the sermon. A few communicants, mostly those too elderly or infirm for the Eucharist fast, would satisfy the rubric by communicating with the priest.

ETA that the Canadian revision of 1962 reduced the requirement, permitting celebrations so long as one person apart from the celebrant received the sacrament. This would presumably allow (in letter if not intention) the old practice of priests serving each other's Masses and then swapping off.

[ 19. April 2013, 05:16: Message edited by: LQ ]

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

The normal Sunday morning practice until the mid C19 seems to have been Morning Prayer, Litany, and then Antecommunion, ending with the sermon. This only proceeded on to Communion itself if there were people who had given in their names. "And when there is a Communion, the Priest shall then place upon the Table so much Bread and Wine as he shall think sufficient. ..." then follows the prayer for the Church Militant.

It is not surprising that there was a widespread impression that church was a place to sleep and be bored.

Actually, the main problem with the old Dry Service was the parson and clerk duet with the laity reduced to spectators. Once folks were able to join in it became much less boring. A couple of times a year I still do the old "Morning Service" and folks seem to like roaing their way through some old-fashioned hymns, the canticles and the commandments. It wouldn't do every week, but as a change it still has a following.

Two other churches strike me as being precursors of the PCM - St Mary the Virgn, Primrose Hill, where the original PD introuced a 9.15am Sung Eucharist c. 1902, and Thaxted under Fr Conrad Noel which went in for a similar arrangement from 1911 onwards. Both had a good deal of 'Merry Englishry' about them, but both had strong fellowships and addressed catholic teaching and social issues.

PD

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
The examples above show that the PC movement included some quite 'full-on' Anglo-catholic places, even though many others persisted with their non-communicating High Masses. Another such was Christ Church, Clapham, in south London, which was I think the first church in London to use (or revive, anyway) Eucharistic vestments, back in the 1850s. It was always 'western rite' Anglo-catholic but when I first encountered it in the early 60s it had 9.30 parish mass followed by breakfast, and I am sure that was not a recent innovation.

It's good to have mention of a London Church, very few of which have been mentioned in stuff that I have read about the PC movement.

I imagine that most of the central London churches have tended always to have been at the more extreme ends and were not therefore hugely influenced by the movement, though both St John's Hyde Park and St Martin-in-theFields still have a 10am Parish Eucharist with congregational setting as their main service.

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
Two other churches strike me as being precursors of the PCM - St Mary the Virgn, Primrose Hill, where the original PD introuced a 9.15am Sung Eucharist c. 1902, and Thaxted under Fr Conrad Noel which went in for a similar arrangement from 1911 onwards. Both had a good deal of 'Merry Englishry' about them, but both had strong fellowships and addressed catholic teaching and social issues.

PD

I had forgotten about St Mary, Primrose Hill. Do you know, PD, if they would have had a later service of choral Matins? I imagine this was eventually dropped and the Sung Eucharist moved to a later time (it's now at 10.30).

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I would imagine that at St Mary's Primrose Hill, Percy Dearmer would have done it by the BCP and had Morning Prayer first. I wonder if he did an 8am, since there is no precedent in the BCP?

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Did the deacon and subdeacon at High Mass? (All well before my time!)

Thurible
Not entirely sure what you are asking. High Mass, deacon and subdeacon were needed. A layman could be subdeacon, but a deacon had to be in holy orders. A celebrant supported by a team of servers, constituted a sung mass.
No doubt Thurible was asking whether the deacon & subdeacon communicated with the priest at the non-communicating High Mass. I wish I could say I remember but I do not recall.

I only recall that very occasionally some would come to the rail following the mass for quiet "private" communions but it was assumed they had fasted from midnight. Those who made their communions at the early mass and returned to high mass did so, as was the custom - to offer thanks for their communions in this act of worship.

I believe the deacon and subdeacon did not receive communion with the celebrant, but I am not certain. This question may be akin to asking - How far did the pax go? (For those who don't know, the PAX peace was a mini-embrace after the consecration, the fore-runner of the customary handshake all round. Sometimes, the pax was confined to the sacred ministers, or it could be passed on to any clergy in choir as well and perhaps to the MC with or without including the other servers in the sanctuary team - generally stopping short of sharing it with the congregarion.)

The point I am making is that how far the reception of communion went (as with the pax), may have varied from place to place in accordance with local custom. But I am open to correction on that.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Wouldn't also depend on whether the deacon and subdeacon felt prepared to receive? If they were priests (as was often the case) they may have already celebrated their own masses and thought it inappropriate, or they might not have been fasting, or...

The 'non-communicating' mass was not a tradition solely confined to nosebleed high parishes. One very moderate 'prayer-book Catholic' parish known to me in the late fifties/early sixties, a late adopter of the Parish Communion, used to alternate Mattins and Sung Eucharist. Nobody was barred from receiving at the latter, but it was not the 'done thing' except perhaps for the elderly and infirm.

It was long the custom at a nuptial mass, even or especially in MOTR parishes, for communion to be offered to the couple alone. And I attended an episcopal consecration in the 1970s at which communion was only given to the new bishops and their families.

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

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Hmm. I'm very familiar with the old Roman Rite and I've never heard of a mass where no one communicates.
If you look at a Roman Missal from before 1970, there is no Communion of the People - the rite of communion from the Rituale Romanum could be inserted , but was optional. it was common for some parishes to serve breakfast after the "early celebration."

As mentioned upthread - St Mark's in Philadelphia had a non-communicationg high mass into the mid 1960s. A very popular full breakfast was served after both early masses and was retained for some years after the high mass became a communicating mass.

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

Question about non-communicating Masses in the Anglo-Catholic tradition: at Easter, Pentecost, and Christmas was Communion normally administered at High Mass to larger numbers of people? In other words, on these occasions did the normally non-communicating Mass acquire a Communion of the People?

Posted by Sarum Sleuth (# 162) on :

I can answer a couple of queries raised in various posts.

First, St John's, Newcastle. Originally the Parish Communion was celebrated at the High Altar facing east It was followed by a High Mass with Sarum ceremonial. In the late 60s/early 70s the church was re-ordered and the present central altar installed. Westward facing celebrations commenced at this time for both services. The Parish Breakfast after the 9.30 service was still in place up till at least 1978 when I left the church for London.

Secondly, Primrose Hill. Dearmer did not introduce a Parish Communion, but always made it clear that anyone suitably prepared could communicate at the 11.15 High Mass. This did not endear him to many more advanced anglo-catholics who regarded such a suggestion as little less than heresy. The 9.30 Parish Communion came in two incumbents later in the early 1930s. This survived until the early 1980s when the church was redecorated and the two congregations merged at a 10.30am High Mass. In the last few years a fortnightly Family Eucharist which is specifically aimed at families with young children has been introduced at 9.15am.

SS

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

Thanks SS.

Am I right in thinking that the Parish Communion services at St John's and St Mary were fully congregational - i.e. no choir, and both sung congregationally to the Merbecke or Shaw settings?

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

SS, may I ask what changes were made to the interior of St Mary's Primrose Hill in the 1980s I've only seen it in its present form and don't know how much the Parson's Handbook illustrations reflected the original appearance of the church.

[ 19. April 2013, 18:31: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Another question for SS. Did Dearmer celebrate an 8am Holy Communion? I've skimmed through The Parson's Handbook and I can't find anything about it, which since it isn't mentioned in the BCP doesn't surprise me.

Posted by Magic Wand (# 4227) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Hmm. I'm very familiar with the old Roman Rite and I've never heard of a mass where no one communicates.
If you look at a Roman Missal from before 1970, there is no Communion of the People - the rite of communion from the Rituale Romanum could be inserted , but was optional. it was common for some parishes to serve breakfast after the "early celebration."

As mentioned upthread - St Mark's in Philadelphia had a non-communicationg high mass into the mid 1960s. A very popular full breakfast was served after both early masses and was retained for some years after the high mass became a communicating mass.

And wonderful breakfasts they were! I remember often pestering my parents to take us to the early Mass so that we could have breakfast afterward!

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Question about non-communicating Masses in the Anglo-Catholic tradition: at Easter, Pentecost, and Christmas was Communion normally administered at High Mass to larger numbers of people? In other words, on these occasions did the normally non-communicating Mass acquire a Communion of the People?

Not in any of the parishes that I've ever read about, which isn't to say that it was done in some places. The expectation would have been that anyone seriously interested in receiving Holy Communion would have assisted at an earlier Mass.

[ 19. April 2013, 20:45: Message edited by: Magic Wand ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Broadly speaking, from at least the late 1930s you'd find a Parish Communion (as well as a said 7 or 8am) at any church where the incumbent was ex-Mirfield.

To accommodate those who "didn't belong to do communion" - for reasons including the belief that sharing the chalice was insanitary - they organised Sunday morning along the lines:

7 and/or 8am - said Communion
9/9.30am - Parish Communion
11am - sung Matins
12.45am - said communion (only in larger parishes)
6.30pm - Evensong

Depending on how high or low Evensong might be relocated to the mid-afternoon or replaced with compline & benediction.

Rural parishes tended to be lower: even in 2001 I was still being told that a parishioner didn't understand why there was the "obssession" with communion, and we still get a good congregation for choral Matins once a month.

With the disappearance of Matins there is a new development: in many parishes (where I attend included) disinclined to have 3 readings at the parish communion, Matins or Evensong is often the only place where an Old Testament reading is heard.

But then ... in a parish I know of it took the organist badgering for 7 years before they finally got a sung communion service on Christmas Day, the norm having been a children's tableaux vivants with carols only [Eek!]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Magic Wand:

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Question about non-communicating Masses in the Anglo-Catholic tradition: at Easter, Pentecost, and Christmas was Communion normally administered at High Mass to larger numbers of people? In other words, on these occasions did the normally non-communicating Mass acquire a Communion of the People?
Not in any of the parishes that I've ever read about, which isn't to say that it was done in some places. The expectation would have been that anyone seriously interested in receiving Holy Communion would have assisted at an earlier Mass.

In which case did they take at all seriously the rubric about communicating at least three times a year, or to put this in more catholic terms, with the obligation that everyone should be houselled at Easter?

Posted by Cruet (# 14586) on :

LSK,
SMV NYC had non-communicating High Mass until
FR. Taber's death, 1964. Fr. Garfield became Rector and the custom ceased. Fr Taber had communicating High Mass on Christmas Eve.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
With the disappearance of Matins there is a new development: in many parishes (where I attend included) disinclined to have 3 readings at the parish communion, Matins or Evensong is often the only place where an Old Testament reading is heard.

Why? Page 5 of the red Lectionary clearly states:

"In the choice of readings other than the Gospel reading, the minister should ensure that, in any year, a balance is maintained between readings from the Old Testament and the New Testament."

Posted by Poppy (# 2000) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
With the disappearance of Matins there is a new development: in many parishes (where I attend included) disinclined to have 3 readings at the parish communion, Matins or Evensong is often the only place where an Old Testament reading is heard.

Why? Page 5 of the red Lectionary clearly states:

"In the choice of readings other than the Gospel reading, the minister should ensure that, in any year, a balance is maintained between readings from the Old Testament and the New Testament."

Three readings at the main service are the norm in in the team of churches I work in and we range from open evo to angolo catholic in churchmanship. Most of the Anglican churches around us are in the conservative evanglelical tradition where they seem to be preaching on a theme rather than looking at the lectionary each week and going [Ultra confused]

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
With the disappearance of Matins there is a new development: in many parishes (where I attend included) disinclined to have 3 readings at the parish communion, Matins or Evensong is often the only place where an Old Testament reading is heard.

Why? Page 5 of the red Lectionary clearly states:

"In the choice of readings other than the Gospel reading, the minister should ensure that, in any year, a balance is maintained between readings from the Old Testament and the New Testament."

Two reasons, I would think.

1. Closet Marcionism.
2. A lack of knowledge and understanding of the Old Testament and its context, leading to a reluctance to deal with it in sermons and fear that the weirder passages may scare the congregation.

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

I have just been doing some more reading and it seems like the founders of the Parish Communion movement had quite a strict definition of what a proper Parish Communion arrangement constituted.

First of all, a Eucharist which was intended to be the main service of the day and to which all communicate. Thus it was important for any other Sunday services to be seen as secondary. I had forgotten that Hebert had described the non-communicating High Mass as a "mutilated rite"!

Secondly, congregational participation through the prayers, the offertory procession, and responses through the liturgy and the music.

Thirdly, everyone worshipping together - rather than specific provision for children or family services.

People's expectation of fasting suggested that the service should begin by 9.30am at the latest, though there appeared to be a divergence of views as to whether fasting prior to communion was in fact required.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
I have just been doing some more reading and it seems like the founders of the Parish Communion movement had quite a strict definition of what a proper Parish Communion arrangement constituted.

First of all, a Eucharist which was intended to be the main service of the day and to which all communicate. Thus it was important for any other Sunday services to be seen as secondary. I had forgotten that Hebert had described the non-communicating High Mass as a "mutilated rite"!

Secondly, congregational participation through the prayers, the offertory procession, and responses through the liturgy and the music.

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:

It is my understanding that the return of the offertory procession was something restored to the liturgy in the 1960s in the RCC, immediately followed by others, whereas the parish communion movement in the C of E dates to the interwar era, with roots at the turn of the last century. Therefore, it would seem that the parish communion movement was alive and well quite some time before offertory processions became de rigueur once again. [/QB][/QUOTE]

That's certainly what I thought but there are certainly references to offertory processions in Anglican Parish Communions in the 1930s (see the SCM Dictionary of Liturgy and Worship)- this led to censure by Michael Ramsey whilst Bishop of Durham in the 1950s about possible mis-interpretation of what this represented.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Just thought that the reason L'organist's church doesn't hear the Old Testament at Holy Communion is because they use the BCP epistles and gospels.

If they did what Thomas Cranmer expected, they would of course already have heard the OT reading at Morning Prayer.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

The old Roman Rite only has the Epistle and Gospel too with the Old Testament is heard mainly in the hours.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The old Roman Rite only has the Epistle and Gospel too with the Old Testament is heard mainly in the hours.

But as that was in Latin and nobody could understand it anyway, it didn't matter so much.
[Devil]

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The old Roman Rite only has the Epistle and Gospel too with the Old Testament is heard mainly in the hours.
But as that was in Latin and nobody could understand it anyway, it didn't matter so much.

So does the Byzantine Rite have only the Epistle and Gospel. But as were talking about Anglican liturgy...one can't separate the mass from the hours: both are the prayer of the Church and thus of equal importance.

[ 20. April 2013, 19:15: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

quote:
posted by Venbede
Just thought that the reason L'organist's church doesn't hear the Old Testament at Holy Communion is because they use the BCP epistles and gospels.

Actually no. Not sure what the reasoning is - have asked but the most coherent (!) answers I've ever got are "having 3 readings makes the service too long" and "I get fed up hearing the proper names in the OT mangled".

From this you will, correctly, infer that (a) any parish eucharist (a term deemed dangerously "high" by some of the congregation!) a minute over the hour is seen as a major problem, even at major festivals, and (b) we once had a slightly sniffy DD as incumbent.

But at BCP Matins ...

Generally, the Old Testament is seen as something to be covered in Sunday School - which takes place at the same time as the main service (no, children don't come in for communion) or at non-eucharistic services. [Confused]

But then in our diocese they are so busy trying to ensure a parish doesn't have a priest (we foud our own) you're just grateful to have services at all. Methinks we're long overdue a new archdeacon [Devil]

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
Our parish had non-communicating Solemn High Mass at 11 for some years r.

I don't recall the exact year, but it would have been I think 1958 or 59, attending the High Mass at your church. It was non-communicating, and I can recall the MC (nicknamed 'the mountain of lace' closing the gates in the screen after the offertory.

Posted by Quam Dilecta (# 12541) on :

Until the 1960's (before my time), my decidedly Anglo-Catholic parish had four Sunday Masses, Low Masses at 7 A.M. and 8 A.M., a sung "Family Mass" at 9 A.M., and a High Mass at 11 A.M. The early masses included neither sermon nor music. The "Family Mass" must have been similar to those promoted by the Parish Communion movement in England, with simple choral or congregational Mass settings. At the High Mass, which was non-communicating; the music was rendered by a choir of men and boys.

I am told that the 9 o'clock and 11 o'clock Masses drew quite distinct congregations. By the 1970's, the four Masses had been consolidated to two: a Low mass at 8 A.M. and a High Mass (no longer non-communicating) at 10 A.M. This pattern has persisted to the present day.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

Up until the 1970s most big city Anglo-Catholic parishes had a Sunday morning Mass schedule that looked like Southwest Airways' schedule between LAX and Las Vegas with Masses on the hour everyhour until they ran out of priests. The Local RC shack would have been exactly the same.

PD

[ 21. April 2013, 05:22: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
Up until the 1970s most big city Anglo-Catholic parishes had a Sunday morning Mass schedule that looked like Southwest Airways' schedule between LAX and Las Vegas with Masses on the hour everyhour until they ran out of priests. The Local RC shack would have been exactly the same.

PD

Indeed! I remember those days. "Assembly line masses" I called them.

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

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
Up until the 1970s most big city Anglo-Catholic parishes had a Sunday morning Mass schedule that looked like Southwest Airways' schedule between LAX and Las Vegas with Masses on the hour everyhour until they ran out of priests. The Local RC shack would have been exactly the same.

PD

The difference being in the (R) Catholic parish there would have been simultaneous masses in the upper AND lower churches on the hour.

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Quam Dilecta:
Until the 1960's (before my time), my decidedly Anglo-Catholic parish had four Sunday Masses, Low Masses at 7 A.M. and 8 A.M., a sung "Family Mass" at 9 A.M., and a High Mass at 11 A.M. The early masses included neither sermon nor music. The "Family Mass" must have been similar to those promoted by the Parish Communion movement in England, with simple choral or congregational Mass settings. At the High Mass, which was non-communicating; the music was rendered by a choir of men and boys.

I am told that the 9 o'clock and 11 o'clock Masses drew quite distinct congregations. By the 1970's, the four Masses had been consolidated to two: a Low mass at 8 A.M. and a High Mass (no longer non-communicating) at 10 A.M. This pattern has persisted to the present day.

I think it's also interesting to note that - in the UK - it seems that with the almost universal adoption of at least one morning Eucharistic service, a service at 10.30am or before generally tends to have a congregational setting, and anything later tends to be fully choral, part of this historical legacy.

8am Communion seems to have persisited pretty well: it would be interesting to know if those that attend still maintain the fasting practice.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
Up until the 1970s most big city Anglo-Catholic parishes had a Sunday morning Mass schedule that looked like Southwest Airways' schedule between LAX and Las Vegas with Masses on the hour everyhour until they ran out of priests. The Local RC shack would have been exactly the same.

PD
The difference being in the (R) Catholic parish there would have been simultaneous masses in the upper AND lower churches on the hour.

Where do yu put the bar if you have another church in the basement?

Inquiring Anglo-catholic minds want to know...

PD

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

You don't - you support local enterprise by going to the pub up (or down) the street!

Ian J.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

ACs do: RCs of course have 'St Whatever's Catholic Sports & Social Club' round the corner.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
I think it's also interesting to note that - in the UK - it seems that with the almost universal adoption of at least one morning Eucharistic service, a service at 10.30am or before generally tends to have a congregational setting, and anything later tends to be fully choral, part of this historical legacy.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I don't go to the pub because I'm concerned to support local businesses. I go to the pub because I want a drink.

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

You're speaking of a tiny minority of churches here. There are very few churches these days with the resources to provide choral music or even a choir. Even the prestigious city centre parish that I know well has a congregational setting at its main mass and occasionally imports a small professional choir for special occasions. As for the great majority of suburban, inner city or especially rural parishes, forget it, unless there is a rare combination of a musical vicar, a keen organist/choir director, and willing volunteers.

Central London, as always, may be different. [/QUOTE]

That may be your experience but it's not mine. Putting the exception of Central London aside, almost every suburban (Anglican) parish church in London has a choir (most of them robed, but admitedly variable in quality), and there are a significant minority that use choral mass settings either weekly or once a month.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Maybe. I think London generally (not just the centre) is different. In my experience (and some of it is in inner-suburban London) even when there is a choir all they do is lead the hymns and a simple mass setting that all are encouraged to join in. Maybe they contribute an occasional anthem but that is all.

Not that there is anything wrong with that approach. I prefer it personally. But if you are looking for Mozart or Palestrina or even something much less ambitious, there will be only a few churches that provide it.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Liturgylover asks:

quote:
8am Communion seems to have persisited pretty well: it would be interesting to know if those that attend still maintain the fasting practice.

As far as I can tell (speaking here of Ottawa, Toronto and Montréal), about half of the 8.00 am crowd seem to be fasters. While only a few have told me outright that they do so, others are heading off to breakfast, to to a local bakery to pick up treats, or off to brunch, would suggest that this is so. I know of some older worshippers who have a light breakfast (fruit, toast and coffee/tea) for health reasons, but the early hour tends to preclude the heavy breakfast crowd. When you add on to this the debauched young who somehow drag themselves from bed for the Holy Mysteries, I think this would total up to about half, perhaps more in summer when folk are freed from fortifying themselves for a pre-dawn winter excursion to church.

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

quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

You're speaking of a tiny minority of churches here. There are very few churches these days with the resources to provide choral music or even a choir. Even the prestigious city centre parish that I know well has a congregational setting at its main mass and occasionally imports a small professional choir for special occasions. As for the great majority of suburban, inner city or especially rural parishes, forget it, unless there is a rare combination of a musical vicar, a keen organist/choir director, and willing volunteers.

Central London, as always, may be different.

That may be your experience but it's not mine. Putting the exception of Central London aside, almost every suburban (Anglican) parish church in London has a choir (most of them robed, but admitedly variable in quality), and there are a significant minority that use choral mass settings either weekly or once a month. [/QUOTE]

Maybe they do, but Outside the M25 - yes, that's most of the country - is not London, central or otherwise.

And out here in the wild untamed wilderness beyond Watford most parish churches have a choir of about half a dozen enthusiastic amateurs who do as Angloid describes. Possibly, sometimes, in harmony, but often not.

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
/QUOTE]

Maybe they do, but Outside the M25 - yes, that's most of the country - is not London, central or otherwise.

And out here in the wild untamed wilderness beyond Watford most parish churches have a choir of about half a dozen enthusiastic amateurs who do as Angloid describes. Possibly, sometimes, in harmony, but often not.

Yes, I have ventured outside the M25 - shock, horror - and when I have done so perhaps I have just been lucky in that the parishes that I visited all had choirs (most of which were half decent) Admitedly my experience outside London has been based on fairly large towns, but I have had pleasant surprises in Bibury, Southwold and elsewhere. I am sure it's different in those country places where the priest has to drive from church to church to minister to a handful .

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

quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
/QUOTE]

Maybe they do, but Outside the M25 - yes, that's most of the country - is not London, central or otherwise.

And out here in the wild untamed wilderness beyond Watford most parish churches have a choir of about half a dozen enthusiastic amateurs who do as Angloid describes. Possibly, sometimes, in harmony, but often not.
Yes, I have ventured outside the M25 - shock, horror - and when I have done so perhaps I have just been lucky in that the parishes that I visited all had choirs (most of which were half decent) Admitedly my experience outside London has been based on fairly large towns, but I have had pleasant surprises in Bibury, Southwold and elsewhere. I am sure it's different in those country places where the priest has to drive from church to church to minister to a handful .

And also in suburban churches. I'd suggest you're only likely to find a choir doing the sort of stuff you're referring to in the parish churches of larger towns - you would at St Mary's Chesterfield, for example, and in Bolsover Parish Church, but not in many of the village or suburban parish churches further out from the centre.

We're not out in the sticks, but in the united Benefice where I live there are three churches; only one has a choir and it normally numbers about four and sings in unison.

eta - oh yes, St Mark's Sheffield has (or at least had) a good choir, but it prides itself on its musical tradition and is a big church.

[ 23. April 2013, 15:56: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Liturgylover asks:
quote:
8am Communion seems to have persisited pretty well: it would be interesting to know if those that attend still maintain the fasting practice.
As far as I can tell (speaking here of Ottawa, Toronto and Montréal), about half of the 8.00 am crowd seem to be fasters. While only a few have told me outright that they do so, others are heading off to breakfast, to to a local bakery to pick up treats, or off to brunch, would suggest that this is so. I know of some older worshippers who have a light breakfast (fruit, toast and coffee/tea) for health reasons, but the early hour tends to preclude the heavy breakfast crowd. When you add on to this the debauched young who somehow drag themselves from bed for the Holy Mysteries, I think this would total up to about half, perhaps more in summer when folk are freed from fortifying themselves for a pre-dawn winter excursion to church.

That's interesting, thanks. I know there are a real mixture of people who attend the 8am in my local parish, and someone told me today that about half of the regular 20 attendees fast and then go off for coffee together.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

The fast before Communion folks attend the earlier of the two Masses here, then disappear off to breakfast. Were it not for the fact there is also a 10.30am Sung Mass I would be one of the fast brigade and there would be breakfast in the Parish House afterwards. I am basically sunk for fasting Communion if Mass starts any later than 9.30am as there is a good chance that hyperglycemia will set in.

Back in the late 1980s, early 1990s I would occasionally attend a nearby Anglo-Catholic parish which generally ran on Merbeck or Martin Shaw. However, about three times a year Father would arrange for a small orchestra and reinforce the choir so they could do a Mozart or Haydn Mass. This was regarded as a great treat by all, though I suspect the highlight for some was the wider range of booze and eats after Mass than usual.

PD

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
I am basically sunk for fasting Communion if Mass starts any later than 9.30am as there is a good chance that hyperglycemia will set in.

I thought people were except from the fasting rules for medical reasons.

I certainly was as a teenager - I used to faint unless i'd had something to eat before mass.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

I read somewhere that one is exempt from fasting over the age of 60, certainly if it meant fasting from midnight. However, I am over 60 and I would not feel any ill-effects if I chose to fast from midnight.

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
Back in the late 1980s, early 1990s I would occasionally attend a nearby Anglo-Catholic parish which generally ran on Merbeck or Martin Shaw. However, about three times a year Father would arrange for a small orchestra and reinforce the choir so they could do a Mozart or Haydn Mass. This was regarded as a great treat by all, though I suspect the highlight for some was the wider range of booze and eats after Mass than usual.

PD

Out of interest, PD, what time was this sung communion? I have been surprised when looking at parish websites that a fair few parishes still maintain the practice of a 9.30am sung Communion. There only seem to be one or two now that have them earlier than this.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
I am basically sunk for fasting Communion if Mass starts any later than 9.30am as there is a good chance that hyperglycemia will set in.
I thought people were except from the fasting rules for medical reasons.

Yes, there is a medical exemption and I suppose I should be glad that there is such a thing. However, I am somewhat old school and I do not particularly enjoy having to breakfast before a morning Mass. I find that with evening Masses I am happiest with either scheduling them quite early - say, 5.30pm - so Mass is before dinner; or quite late - say 8pm, so a fair amount of time has elapsed since tea time.

PD

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
Back in the late 1980s, early 1990s I would occasionally attend a nearby Anglo-Catholic parish which generally ran on Merbeck or Martin Shaw. However, about three times a year Father would arrange for a small orchestra and reinforce the choir so they could do a Mozart or Haydn Mass. This was regarded as a great treat by all, though I suspect the highlight for some was the wider range of booze and eats after Mass than usual.

PD
Out of interest, PD, what time was this sung communion? I have been surprised when looking at parish websites that a fair few parishes still maintain the practice of a 9.30am sung Communion. There only seem to be one or two now that have them earlier than this.

Considering this was 20-25 years ago, I think the Sunday Sung/High Mass was always 9.30am, and we fasted. OTOH, if it was a weekday, which I think the "Viennese Masses" tended to be, it was 5.30pm and we were all on our word of honour that we had kept the three hour rule.

PD

Posted by Patrick (# 305) on :

Christ is Risen!
Since Smokey Mary NYC has been mentioned at least twice on this topic, a long time Jesuit friend (Memory Eternal!) recalled how he and his mother would go to the low Mass there at 8AM, have a leisurely breakfast and return for the 11 AM High Mass for "adoration". Indeed, Father Donald Garfield moved St. Mary into the Anglican main steam not only by encouraging Communion by the congregation at the High Mass but also by bringing in Prayer Book devotions, like Litany in procession before the High Mass in Lent. Fr. Garfield was said to have worn a Canterbury Cap and to have carried a copy of the 1549 Prayer Book while a student at General Theological. He was ordained a deacon at the English Use parish of St. John, West Roxbury, Massachusetts, and wore the appareled albs and amices used by Parson Handbook practitioners while he was at that (now defunct) parish. Although, while he was rector at St. Mary, he brought in Passiontide red vestments for Palm Sunday, he kept basically to the Fortescue (but not O'Connell) traditions he inherited from his predecessors at that parish. He was a genius when it came to executing liturgical ceremonial, and the memory of festal processions at St. Mary before the (through his innovation now usually evening) high Masses on the great feasts still bring tears to my eyes. May his memory be eternal!

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

Well, how extraordinary and confusing all this is to someone like me, brought up as Catholic in England--so, Mass with communion every Sunday; who then worshipped briefly with the Methodists in the USA--again, worship service with communion every Sunday; and then joined the Episcopalians in the USA--in my parish, two services every Sunday, one at 8 am for early birds and one with more singing at 10:00, but both communion services incorporating the communion in the service.

In other words, even though I switched between denominations, the structure of the Sunday service was always the same, with its recognizable parts of the Liturgy of the Word and then the Communion, and of course many prayers overlapping or echoing each other between denominations. So I felt pretty much at home liturgically in all.

How confusing then to find oneself in some Anglican churches at what I thought was to be a Eucharist, only to find the Communion was tacked on at the end after half the congregation had gone, as a sort of afterthought. Or where you have to keep track of which Sunday it is--first, second, or whatever--to know whether there will be communion or not.

I had no idea of the variety and different possibilities.

I would say, while knowing nothing of the Parish Communion Movement, that--as someone says upthread--it has "worked" in that the main Sunday service being a Communion service every week has become much more common. But it doesn't yet seem to be the norm,as I am belatedly discovering!

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

Here there is Matins once a month - and a service I would usually try to avoid.

However, I got the Sunday wrong today and it was...Matins.

I have to admit that there was a sizeable congregation, and I noticed a number of people there one of whom I knew to be Buddhist, and two others Quakers.

It does seem that there is an argument that there should be a non-communion service on offer for those (as in this village) who are Christian in name, are well meaning to the Church, but who aren't that committed. For example, they wouldn't dream of joining any group, and would probably shudder at being considered religious .

A while ago in a different Post, there was a discussion about 'Constantinian Christians', the Church and State variety, often (but by no means exclusively), ex-members of the Armed Forces who seem to have dropped off in recent years. I remember the posts to have been disparaging. But might the Parish Communion movement (for whatever good theological reasons) have alienated them? They will/would never be 'converted' to weekly communicants, or in some cases communicants of any kind, but would just stop going.

I hesitate to quote such an authority, but I beleive George Carey once said something similar?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

If Mattins is the only service on offer, especially on the Feast of Pentecost, something is wrong. But otherwise you have a point.

Sung Mattins has almost disappeared from the schedules of parish churches and most cathedrals. However, one cathedral I know maintains Sung Mattins (at something like 10.00) which is followed by the Eucharist at 11.00. The Eucharist is definitely the 'main service' and attracts the larger congregation, but there is a sizeable crowd for Mattins. The Dean explained to me that it is largely made up of retired people, many of them from the armed forces or other professions, who think deeply and enjoy listening to sermons which challenge them to think more. Maybe many of them are not conventional Christians; certainly they are not sacramentally inclined.

I've always shied away from any service that appears to rival or supplant the Eucharist, and such worship would not be to my taste. Not every parish church has a significant number of people like the above; few have the resources or numbers to support an additional service. But it is too easy to dismiss Mattins-goers (or those who prefer more informal 'services of the Word') as superficial or not really committed to the worship of the Church. While I am convinced that the Sunday mass should be at the heart of all we do as a Christian community, we ought to be aware of such people, whether we see them as 'fringe members', 'seekers' or just interested pagans.

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

Indeed. Sebby might think that they're not likely to ever be "converted" to regular communicants, but I think they're the most likely mission field you've got [Biased]

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

I agree with all that. There was actually an 8.00 am Eucharist.

It's probably the role of the CofE to mop up the unconventional, the not-so-committed, and so on. There were a sizeable group there this morning who like the language of the BCP and Sung Mattins, but who aren't really much into theology, or believe that much to be honest. I suspect that were Michael Foot to have lived here, he would have been a regular at such a service for aesthetical, language, and historical reasons and for 'space'. They are more likely to say 'Whitsunday' rather than 'Pentecost'.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Indeed.

Today was definitely WHITSUNDAY in our parish.

The usual crowd (c15) were at the said 8am BCP communion service.

Sung Matins was the main service: good congregation (52 adults, 7 children) plus full choir (19) plus self and PP. (There was also a baptism at 11.30)

We have a fair sprinkling of ex-military and they definitely prefer Matins. If they come to any communion service it is going to be the said 8am, never the sung except at Christmas.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Not at all a bad turn-out for Sung Mattins - but how does the number compare with your Parish Communion service?

We offer BCP Mattins every Sunday* at 930am (the Parish Mass following at 1030am), but the congregation rarely numbers more than half-a-dozen (mostly The Staff). We advertise it on our own websites and on the Prayer Book Society website, but have never AFAIK had any BCP-seeking visitors......

*even the Cathedral sometimes does away with its usual Sunday 945am Choral Mattins e.g. on Palm Sunday or Remembrance Sunday!

Ian J.

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

St Giles-in-the-Fields has now ditched its weekly choral Matins owing to declining numbers and was one of the last London parishes - excluding the Cathedrals and Royal Chapels - to do so. There are just half a dozen that alternate Choral Matins and Choral Eucharist. The Eucharist is, without doubt the main morning service. Many of the Open Evangelical churches offer a 9am Communion with hymns (and sometimes sung mass parts ) that are growing in popularity.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

I am a bit of a dinosaur churchmanship-wise. I rather like to get up about 7.45am on a Sunday scrape into the early celebration at 8.29:59, go home have a fry-up and go back for Matins at 11am. My wife prefers a mid-morning Sung Eucharist.

I am also tolerant of the old-fashioned trick of cutting MP a bt short and going into the BCP Communion service. I prefer it to the Slow Mass/Parish Communion set up which can get a bit chaotic if folks are not paing attention.

PD

[ 20. May 2013, 01:33: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

PD, I would actually be very happy with that (as long as I get a Choral Evensong in the evening) but alas, I can't fast before receiving Communion anyway due to needing to take medication in the morning with food. So quite happy with my current mid-morning Sung Eucharist (my church does not have Evensong).

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

Meds in the morning is something the Good Lord understands. H takes what we can do, and by His grace turns it into so much more. I am constantly humbled by how much more merciful He is towards us than we are towards ourselves!

Anyway...

I concur about Evensong, and I am bit irritated that I cannot quite put into words what it is I get out of the Sung Office. I guess it might be my inner monk trying to get out - though I suspect that my inner monk is a rather rowdy Culdee rather than a nice tidy Benedictine!

I guess that in many respects my spirituality finds the modern rush a bit of a pain. I do not suppose anyone these days would much care for Sung Matins followed by a Sung Communion, but to me a couple of hours worshipping God is time well spent. It then seems natural to have a leisurely lunch with some good conversation, and go back for Evensong, but everything seems to militate against that these days.

I guess my spirituality is more Dutch Oven than Microwave.

PD

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

quote:
posted by Bishop's Finger
Not at all a bad turn-out for Sung Mattins - but how does the number compare with your Parish Communion service?

That's about average for a parish communion - Family Communion is usually higher because on the other Sundays the children (and some parents, plus helpers) are involved with Sunday School.

Bearing in mind the village has only 620 households I reckon our numbers are pretty good, even allowing for a fair sprinkling of 'refugees' from nearby parishes; of course, the fact that we have a local CofE secondary school does skew the numbers a bit ...

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
Meds in the morning is something the Good Lord understands. H takes what we can do, and by His grace turns it into so much more. I am constantly humbled by how much more merciful He is towards us than we are towards ourselves!

Anyway...

I concur about Evensong, and I am bit irritated that I cannot quite put into words what it is I get out of the Sung Office. I guess it might be my inner monk trying to get out - though I suspect that my inner monk is a rather rowdy Culdee rather than a nice tidy Benedictine!

I guess that in many respects my spirituality finds the modern rush a bit of a pain. I do not suppose anyone these days would much care for Sung Matins followed by a Sung Communion, but to me a couple of hours worshipping God is time well spent. It then seems natural to have a leisurely lunch with some good conversation, and go back for Evensong, but everything seems to militate against that these days.

I guess my spirituality is more Dutch Oven than Microwave.

PD

St Mary Abbott attempt a (fairly successful) combination of Choral Matins followed by Choral Eucharist once a month where the Matins acts as the service of the word and then picks up with the peace and Eucharistic Prayer.

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

quote:
Originally posted by PD:

I guess my spirituality is more Dutch Oven than Microwave.

PD

You mean you fart and then force everyone under the duvet with you?

Posted by Cruet (# 14586) on :

Patrick, what you say about St. Mary's under the rectorship of Fr. Garfield is true. Let's not forget the large professional choir directed by James Palgrove, and assisted by
McNeil Robinson, the brilliant organist.
Unfortunately this grandeur was never to be seen or heard again.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:

quote:

St Mary Abbott attempt a (fairly successful) combination of Choral Matins followed by Choral Eucharist once a month where the Matins acts as the service of the word and then picks up with the peace and Eucharistic Prayer. [/qb]

That's what is colloquially referred to as a Frankenmass over here - I assume the term was coined by folk who don't like the arrangement. What I was thinking of was the old Church of Ireland thing of cutting MP off after the Benedictus/Jubilate, then doing the Preces and fixed collects before sliding into the complete Communion Service. It is a bit on the long side (about an hour and a half) so I do not attempt it here as this lot get restive if I go too much over an hour.

We do chanted MP complete with sermon, then after the Offertory we pick up the Communion service at the Sursum Corda every other second Sunday of the month, and that alternates on Second Sundays with a very short MP - O Lord, open thou & c., Venite, Psalm, Lesson, Canticle, and the Communion service. As I said up thread, I prefer the longer arrangement, but it is tough on the average one hour a week churchgoer. It is difficult enough to get them in for anything these days. A lot of folks prefer to be entertained not join in.

PD

[ 20. May 2013, 17:57: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by Patrick (# 305) on :

Quite right, Cruet. Thank God I was around to experience those days (including Msgr. M. Bourke's liturgics at Corpus Christi parish). Apart from the processional hymns, the music at the Offertory was always exhilarating. I believe that the use of SMV entailed singing that hymn up to the penultimate stanza, then came some magnificent notes from the organ while the censing was completed and, finally, the congregation resuming at the final stanza of the hymn. Breath taking! As a friend of mine used to remark, "O McNeil, you've done it again!"

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0