Ship of Fools: Anglo-Catholicism in Dublin, Eire

Thread: Anglo-Catholicism in Dublin, Eire 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=025829

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

I think it is pretty well known that there are four Anglo-Catholic parishes in the Dublin area - St John's, Sandymount; St Bartholomew's, Clyde Road, Christ Church, Leeson Park, and All Saints' Grangegorman. I must have worshipped in all four at one time or another, but I was wondering whether they still retained the characters that they had 15 years ago.

Now, I know that Christ Church, Leeson Park has effectively closed. It merged with St Bartholomew's, though the parish legally still exists and there is a service in the chapel every Wednesday. However the main church is now used by Exaltation of the Cross Romanian Orthodox Church. So we do't need to worry about that one!

Sain John's, Sandymount, was the most "Western Use" of the three. I think when I went there it was trying to be modern Roman Rite, but the altar was still eastward facing, and the actual Rite was that of the APB. It was a big six and fiddlebacks type place. Their website shows that they subsequently pulled the altar out.

St Bartholomew's was the kind of a mish-mash that is pretty typical of moderate, liturgically conservative parishes in England, so I do not recall it being anything special except that it was in Ireland. The building itself is typically Tractarian. It has a bit of the feel of ASMS in that their are red and black tiles all over the shop. I got the feeling that there were a lot of ex-pats - Yanks and Brits -as well as a fairly well heeled "West Brit" crowd there.

All Saints', Grangegorman, was considerably little less well-heeled than St Bartholomew's, and was more High Church than obviously Anglo-Catholic. At that time it was part of the Christ Church Cathedral group of parishes and I think that tended to dilute the Churchmanship a bit. I seem to recall that it was East facing and APB. Not sure about chasubles (I think so, but I am not 100% certain) but it was definitely 'sung everything' and alb and stole.

I was wondering how things had moved on in the meantime.

Cheers,
PD

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

It's not officially called 'Eire' anymore... official name of the country is just 'Ireland' when speaking in English.

Not that there is much chance of mistaking it for any other Dublin, no?

Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on :

Very interestting to read about Anglo-Catholic practises in Dublin, Ireland.
I would like to know whether chasubles are allowed or still forbidden in the Church of Ireland.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
Very interestting to read about Anglo-Catholic practises in Dublin, Ireland.
I would like to know whether chasubles are allowed or still forbidden in the Church of Ireland.

quote:
12. Ecclesiastical apparel
(1) Archbishops and bishops at all times of their public ministration of the services of the Church shall use the customary ecclesiastical apparel of their order.
(2) Every member of the clergy at all times when ministering publicly the regular services of the Church in a church building
(a) may wear a cassock,
(b) shall wear a plain white surplice with sleeves and the customary black scarf or a stole, and
(c) may wear bands, and the hood pertaining to any university degree or other academic qualification held by that member of the clergy:
Provided that any member of the clergy shall be at liberty to wear a plain black gown while preaching.
No member of the clergy shall wear any other ecclesiastical vestment or ornament.
(3) If any question shall arise touching the suitableness of any vestment or ornament worn by any member of the clergy during the public ministration of the services of the Church, the same shall be decided by the ordinary, subject to an appeal to the Court of the General Synod.
(4) The Church does not attach any doctrinal significance to the diversities of apparel permitted by this Canon, and the apparel worn by members of the clergy in accordance with the provisions of this Canon is not to be understood as implying any doctrines other than those contained in the formularies of the Church.

Found here.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Chasubles were worn at S Barth's in the 1970s.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

Provided the parish has an established High Church tradition, and there are no complaints, the bishops are inclined to turn a blind eye to chasubles these days. I think George Simms kind of gave the nod to St Bartholomew's using them on the basis that there should be somewhere in the Diocese of Dublin where such things were allowed. Given that it is close enough to St Stephen's Green it probably made sense that the tourist should find something a bit more like home and after all he knew all about the Clyde Street tradition having been Canon Simpson's curate there.

FWIW Alb and stole is probably the commonest dress in the RoI for Communion these days, whereas 15 years ago it was cassock, surplice and stole, and other fifteen years before that it probably would have been cassock, surplice, and tippet.

When I used to pop over to Dublin regularly in the 1990s I rather liked St Bartholomew's and All Saints', which kind of walked the scratch between Tractarian and Ritualist, but St John's was a bit too Roman. I do not have strong recollection of CC Lesson Park, except that it was an extraordinarily fine building outside.

Funnily enough J A F Gregg was a regular at CC Leeson Park when he was Archbishop of Dublin in the late 20s and 30s. It seems that they did not have the same degree of trouble with the PTBs as St Bartholomew's and St John's.

PD

P.S. - the habit of stating Dublin, Ireland comes from the fact my wife has quite a few relatives in Dublin, California!

[ 23. May 2013, 20:40: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

What exactly are the differences between Tractarian Liturgy and Ritualist Liturgy?

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
Provided the parish has an established High Church tradition, and there are no complaints, the bishops are inclined to turn a blind eye to chasubles these days.

I've actually served for one CofI bishop wearing a chasuble in his own cathedral church (as I'm sure I've mentioned in these parts before) so the rule may be customary, but is not necessarily enforced.

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PD:

P.S. - the habit of stating Dublin, Ireland comes from the fact my wife has quite a few relatives in Dublin, California!

Pleasanton's suburb. [Big Grin]

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
What exactly are the differences between Tractarian Liturgy and Ritualist Liturgy?

A really swift and dirty way of defining the difference is that:

Tractarians did what is required by the BCP, whilst...

Ritualists added a lot of other stuff, initially from Sarum, but later from Roman sources.

The parish I grew up in had MP and EP daily, and Communion every Sunday, Wednesday, and Holyday. Eucharistic vestments had been adopted quite a long time ago, but to add bits of the Roman Rite to the BCP or the Alternative Services when they came along was a no-no. There were stated times for Confession, a low key pilgrimage to Walsingham every year, and a few other catholic flourishes, but generally it was very much'by-the-book C of E."

PD

Posted by AndyB (# 10186) on :

I only have knowledge of St Bart's, and it is still very much in the Anglo-Catholic tradition to the best of my knowledge.

I've never actually been - not exactly my style, in the same way as I've never been to St George's in Belfast either!

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Ok - but has the definition of Tractarianism changed then as new authorized liturgies have been approved in the different Anglican provinces? The C of E is the only province where 1662 is still an option. Hasn't even the Church of Ireland authorised some things that were once seen as Roman?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Well obviously the Tractarians were a particular group of 19th century churchmen [sic] in a particular context. I don't think any Anglicans from the 20th century or later could be accurately described as such. The sort of liturgical practice PD refers to would be the moderate ritualism which developed with those sympathetic to the Tractarians and who saw themselves as following in their tradition. Even Newman, as long as he remained Anglican, continued to celebrate the eucharist standing at the north side of the altar and wearing scarf and hood. Much like the Church of Ireland until quite recently in fact.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Ok - but has the definition of Tractarianism changed then as new authorized liturgies have been approved in the different Anglican provinces? The C of E is the only province where 1662 is still an option. Hasn't even the Church of Ireland authorised some things that were once seen as Roman?

Tractarianism really died out with those who had a direct connect with the Movement of 1833-45. The last survivors - e.g. William Alexander, +Derry 1867-96; ++Armagh 1896-1911 - just made it into the 20th century. However, their particular ethos made its way into Prayer Book Catholicism which is the tradition that I grew up in.

The Alternative Services have changed the landscape a lot in terms of what is legal and what isn't. A casual observer could now confuse a moderately High Church Anglican communion service with a slightly stiff upper lip RC Mass provded they were not over familiar with either liturgy. This true even in Ireland. In the old days, the BCP, the North end, and surplice and tippet would have made it quite clear it was a C of I shack. Nowadays, the westward facing celebrant and the widespread use of alb and stole in the C of I makes the visual aspect much more alike - provided the celebrant is male. The running order of the revised Communion service is also much closer to that of Rome. The position of the Peace (ack! gag!) usually being the only dead give away if you have not read the noticeboard going in.

In former times Anglo-Catholicism in Ireland was a bit of a nudge-nudge; wink-wink thing. The priest who encouraged me to take Holy Orders when I was at college was a TCD man who had been ordained by ++Armagh in the 1950s, and he used to crack us undergraduates up by telling us about being "corner boys" and how they used to process in with a banner with a cross embrodiered on it because they were not supposed to use a processional cross, etc.. It kind of appeal to our student sense of naughtiness (of which there was always a superfluity!)

Cheers,
PD

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
The position of the Peace (ack! gag!) usually being the only dead give away if you have not read the noticeboard going in.

Not an infallible test. One RC congregation known to me moved the Peace to the Anglican position. And there are not a few C of E churches that do it alla Romana.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

At Milan Cathedral, following the reformed Ambrosian rite, the pax precedes the eucharistic prayer.

In its endearing attempt to keep as many people happy as possible (for which it is then criticized as too complicated and allowing anything to go) dear old Common Worship does allow the pax in the uniquely Roman postion.

Posted by WearyPilgrim (# 14593) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:

quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
Very interestting to read about Anglo-Catholic practises in Dublin, Ireland.
I would like to know whether chasubles are allowed or still forbidden in the Church of Ireland.

quote:
12. Ecclesiastical apparel
(1) Archbishops and bishops at all times of their public ministration of the services of the Church shall use the customary ecclesiastical apparel of their order.
(2) Every member of the clergy at all times when ministering publicly the regular services of the Church in a church building
(a) may wear a cassock,
(b) shall wear a plain white surplice with sleeves and the customary black scarf or a stole, and
(c) may wear bands, and the hood pertaining to any university degree or other academic qualification held by that member of the clergy:
Provided that any member of the clergy shall be at liberty to wear a plain black gown while preaching.
No member of the clergy shall wear any other ecclesiastical vestment or ornament.
(3) If any question shall arise touching the suitableness of any vestment or ornament worn by any member of the clergy during the public ministration of the services of the Church, the same shall be decided by the ordinary, subject to an appeal to the Court of the General Synod.
(4) The Church does not attach any doctrinal significance to the diversities of apparel permitted by this Canon, and the apparel worn by members of the clergy in accordance with the provisions of this Canon is not to be understood as implying any doctrines other than those contained in the formularies of the Church.
Found here.

Does all of this preclude the cope, which I understand is not technically a vestment?

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

Copes were used at St Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin in the 1990s, and by the looks of them they had been around for a while, or they had been acquired secondhand. They were also Eastward position, which is unusual for Ireland. There were rumours that they were seen to be seen in other cathedrals, but I never actually saw them in use. Christ Church Cathedral was a surplice and stole and over the Table, then an alb and stole and oer the Table joint. Kildare and Kilkenny were still north end, and Leighlin was surplice and stole and over the Table.

PD

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

The vast majority of parishes made use of an alb and stole in the 90's as far as I can remember, and I don't ever remember seeing a north end celebration there. The first time I saw a north end celebration was in Armagh Cathedral with a surplice and black scarf.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

Is there a bit of a north-south divide about cassock albs? There are plenty of ROI churches whose ministers wear stoles and cassock-albs for sacramental stuff. But I get the impression from the few churches I know in the north that these would be considered very unusual and, in some places, even undesirable. My old home church considers itself fully liturgically dressed when it changes the coloured book-markers for the Lectern Bible!

Many ROI clergy are ex-CofE, so I always assumed that the cassock-alb thing was a bit of in import, too. Though there are 'high-ish' CofI natives as well; are they are on the increase, do you think, at least sartorially?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Is reservation of the MBS allowed/tolerated anywhere in the C of I? Do the Dublin parishes mentioned reserve the Sacrament? Benediction would be frowned on (or fled in horror from), surely?

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

Reservation of the sacrament isn't permitted, insofar as you won't (so far as I know!) find an aumbrey or tabernacle in a CofI church, and I think(?) it's banned in the canons. But it's normal to consecrate extra bread and wine at a regular church communion, and put them in the home communion box for later. It's also problematic when the usual bread of choice is ordinary loaf, which doesn't 'keep' the way wafers do. What to do with the Precious Body when it's green and furry?!

And Benediction isn't in the CofI liturgy. I'm sure there would be some CofI people who would like it. But I can't imagine it sitting well with many CofI congregations (to say the least!).

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
it's normal to consecrate extra bread and wine at a regular church communion, and put them in the home communion box for later.

So the 'communion box' becomes in effect a moveable tabernacle? How do they square that with Article 28, 'The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.' ?

Do you, or does anyone else, know if reservation is practiced (obviously 'illegally') at those Dublin churches or anywhere else in the C of I?

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
So the 'communion box' becomes in effect a moveable tabernacle? How do they square that with Article 28, 'The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.' ?

I suppose they could say, "It says it's not by Christ's ordinance, but it doesn't say we can't do it."

[Devil]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
So the 'communion box' becomes in effect a moveable tabernacle? How do they square that with Article 28, 'The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.' ?
I suppose they could say, "It says it's not by Christ's ordinance, but it doesn't say we can't do it."

Well quite. That's the way Anglo-catholics have always (quite legitimately IMHO) have always got round it. But the C of I canons were surely designed to enforce a protestant interpretation of the articles. It seems very odd, and illogical, to ban reservation in a (fixed) aumbry or tabernacle, but allow it in a moveable box (which possibly would not be accorded the same reverence as the former).

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Reservation is done in almost every hospital both north and south. This is generally done out of practical necessity. Some nursing homes have it too. In terms of home communion to the sick, it used to be the practice that you had to celebrate the liturgy minus the Gloria and Creed in full with each individual person, but now you have the option of communion by extension which can be done in various ways. That has essentially led to reservation in many places. However there are churches that have always practiced reservation with an aumbry safe; they have tended to be, St Patrick's Cathedral, St John's, St Bartholomew's, All Saint's and possibly a few others (in Dublin), St John's, St George's and St Peter's (in Belfast).

Benediction is rare, but it is done in St John's and St Bartholomew's. Other places tend to opt for a type of 'adoration' thing.

The best way to understand it is that the Church of Ireland tries not to change the canons where possible, but rather allows for local custom, practice, tradition and permission of the Bishop where it might be a liturgical thing. But it works both ways: it would be quite hard to have a lot of evangelical stuff and fresh expressions in line with the CofI canons, so there is a certain flexibility and tolerance both ways.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Could it be that allowing the Sacrament to be kept in a portable 'communion box' reinforces the idea that It is intended only for the Communion of the Sick?

Ian J.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Bishop's Finger, I'd love to be able to report that it is a theological thing, well thought out and considered, but the 'troubles' in the north mean it is sadly a bigotry thing, borne of ignorance of their own faith and teaching and of more concern to be not doing what 'those other ones do'. But it's changed in the south - some would say changed a long time ago. It might change in the north too; depends on what way society goes I guess and whether people can return to thinking about their faith in a fruitful and wholesome way rather than in a sectarian way.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
The position of the Peace (ack! gag!) usually being the only dead give away if you have not read the noticeboard going in.

Not an infallible test. One RC congregation known to me moved the Peace to the Anglican position. And there are not a few C of E churches that do it alla Romana.

Although Newman, as far as I am aware, never wore the scarf. Only the surplice and hood, without the cassock. The scarf used to be reserved to dignitories and Doctors and Divinity.

Newman's surplice was known occasionally to be quite crumpled or mildly dirty. Cosmo Gordon Lang was once vicar of the university church, and remarked that there was an old lady who still went who remembered Newman, and made that observation. She also observed his distinct voice when reading the lessons, and that he appeared to glide to the lectern.

[deleted duplicate post]

[ 27. May 2013, 16:26: Message edited by: seasick ]

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Reservation of the sacrament isn't permitted, insofar as you won't (so far as I know!) find an aumbrey or tabernacle in a CofI church, and I think(?) it's banned in the canons. But it's normal to consecrate extra bread and wine at a regular church communion, and put them in the home communion box for later. It's also problematic when the usual bread of choice is ordinary loaf, which doesn't 'keep' the way wafers do. What to do with the Precious Body when it's green and furry?!

And Benediction isn't in the CofI liturgy. I'm sure there would be some CofI people who would like it. But I can't imagine it sitting well with many CofI congregations (to say the least!).

Erm... not quite. Even when I was toddling about in Ireland 15-18 years ago, a few places were reserving the sacrament in an ambry. IIRC, Christ Church Cathedral and All Saints, Grangegorman (Phibsboro') both had a little ambry tucked away in a quiet corner. I seem to think the same was true at Cork Cathedral. What you usually won't find is a honking great tabernacle on the High Altar - that is a bit too obvious and likely to scare the more protestant horses! Ulster tends to be a bit touchier about things like reservation than the rest of the country mainly because of the Presbyterian factor ("there's nothing but a paper wall between you and the Papists") and the sectarian shite. I would imagine a 'safe place in the sacrstry' is more common up there apart from a few places like St George's, Belfast.

The C of I has a tendancy to allow things to become accepted then change the Canons not the other way about. It makes sense in a Church which has traditionally been very careful about maintaining its identity in the face of a much larger RCC, and it is of-a-piece with the sual Irish concept of law. The Irish tendancy (which I seem to have inherited from that side of the family) is to finesse things as exemplified by the fact a friend of mine once found himself taking a drink with an off duty Garda office in a closed pub at 1am in the morning. It was OK because the Garda officer was off-duty and the pub was closed. Nuances somewhat lost on the average Englishman...

PD

[ 27. May 2013, 18:51: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Is there a bit of a north-south divide about cassock albs? There are plenty of ROI churches whose ministers wear stoles and cassock-albs for sacramental stuff. But I get the impression from the few churches I know in the north that these would be considered very unusual and, in some places, even undesirable. My old home church considers itself fully liturgically dressed when it changes the coloured book-markers for the Lectern Bible!

Many ROI clergy are ex-CofE, so I always assumed that the cassock-alb thing was a bit of in import, too. Though there are 'high-ish' CofI natives as well; are they are on the increase, do you think, at least sartorially?

The north seems to be more given to cassock, surplice and scarf/stole mainly due to the stronger evangelical tradition there. Conservative places in the South were much the same, but as there were more English clergy and more liberal-catholic influence cassock-albs were fairly common, but not in a majority in the mid-1990s. Chasubles were still confined to the slack handful of Anglo-Catholic shacks in Dublin and Belfast.

When I was given the rough guide to celebrating in Ulster (i.e. Northern Ireland, plus Donegal, etc.) I was told surplice, scarf and north end unless they stand behind. In the South it was surplice and stole, and stand behind unless they have not pulled the Table forward in which case north end, or "round the corner." In most cases I would go round the corner without any complaints.

PD

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

Sorry, what is meant by "round the corner" in this context?

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

Is it the same thing as north-ending, or some other variation?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
... And Benediction isn't in the CofI liturgy. ...

I'm not aware of it's being in the CofE one either!

Indeed, is there anywhere in the Anglican Communion where it is officially allowed and/or provided for?

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Sorry, what is meant by "round the corner" in this context?

Celebrating the Lord's Supper from the northern part of the west side of the altar to honour the 'north side' provision in rubrics and Canons of the C of I. During the prayers one faced approximate SSE to avoid "turning one's back on the people"

PD

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0