Thread: Slightest Discomfort 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=026497
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on
:
I'm not sure where to put this and expect it to sink like a stone, but I've been wondering about the fairly recent phenomenon of Christians, (especially Anglicans as they are the ones I know best)to be extremely afraid of the slightest discomfort in church.
Even Somerset Maugham hinted he thought Christians thought God wanted them to be slightly uncomfortable, but in the shriveling branches of Anglicanism I have seen lately there is an utter abhorrence of any and all discomfort.
Very, very old people will kneel but younger elderly people won't because of their knees or back. "Let us pray" once meant "kneel and pray," now it most often means "remain standing" or "gather your papers and sit down."
Fasting or even giving something up for Lent is practically unheard of nowadays expect among very young enthusiasts for Old Time Religion, as far as I know. When I cite rubrics in the prayer book mentioning fasting or abstinence I'm almost always met with "I never knew that was there."
In churches that have a choir, I've seen several times members quite openly put their thermoses in their stalls or even carry them in along with their hymn books to sip during the service.
Bishops and priests frequently request for a glass of water or something to be placed on the pulpit or credence and I've even it placed on the altar a couple of times.
I've seen whole families going to breakfast before church, I gather completely unaware of the ancient tradition of fasting, though I have met a few elderly (80+) people tell me they won't even take their medicine before Communion on Sundays. I'm not talking about flaming spikes; just average old church goers of MOTR to low church spirituality.
But on the other hand I see full Pentecostal churches which practice fasting and encourage it.
They can hold their hands up for almost the whole service, and don't tell me that doesn't hurt!~
I wonder if mainliners' needs for blankets in the winter and cold air in the summer and no kneeling or fasting or even stewardship campaigns to "give till it hurts" have hurt the church's witness rather than helped it.
Other churches seem to have the capacity to "offer it up" more than mainliners. Or am I again making too much of nothing?
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Hmmm! You're on to something there, Mama T.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Modern churches (evangelical? others?) seem to want to get rid of pews and replace them with comfy chairs; also to have well-heated buildings rather than expect worshippers to keep their coats on. The reasons get mixed up with evangelism, with the argument that people won't be attracted to churches without lots of home comforts, but I suspect it's often to the convenience of the already-churchgoers.
I remember our new vicar arriving at a very cold time of year and expecting the choir to go and sing at an outdoor service in their very flimsy thin cassocks. When we complained, he declared 'A load of wimps, the lot of you!'. He was well wrapped up in his thick woollen cape at the time....
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
And don't get me started on loos. However did people manage years ago, with no basic facilities?
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
They wore many layers of absorbent clothing. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on
:
Funny thing is, Angloid, the very same people seem to relish torturing themselves with exercise, yoga, cleaning diets, veganism and so on.
During a Lenten study one year, a nurse seemed to be genuinely offended when I brought up fasting in Lent and before receiving the MBS and I was met with several "but what about this or that scenario?" until I mentioned that patients usually have to fast before surgery don't they?
She thought fasting is beneficial as long as it was recommended by any source but the church.
I find this weird. People will fast because of a Facebook post or go without electricity for a day or an hour on earth day, but forgo breakfast before Mass?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Avoiding physical discomfort is not the same as avoiding spiritual discomfort, and the latter seems to me to be much more important. Plus, while churches could do a lot better in this area, we are much more aware of the needs of people with disabilities and other physical needs. What about diabetics who need to keep glucose tablets with them, or those whose doctors have advised them not to kneel in prayer? What is the difference between sitting to pray and kneeling to pray - surely it is about the kneeling of the heart? It seems uncharitable in the extreme not to let people have a drink of water with them or a blanket in cold weather, and IME it's the church's lack of charity in general that contributes to its failure, not providing for people's needs.
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on
:
I can't always kneel because of fluctuating physical health. Currently I'm in a non-kneeling stage. I much prefer to kneel when I can, though, as I find that it leads to a much better focus on prayer.
As for the temperature of churches, it's no secret that most English churches are ridiculously cold in the winter, and often too warm in (very brief) summer. During this year's very cold Holy Week, I noticed that the only places in the church that were habitable were the confessional and at the altar rail. Some theological lesson in that, perhaps.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Some people can't get through a whole service without continuously checking their smartphone for messages.
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Avoiding physical discomfort is not the same as avoiding spiritual discomfort, and the latter seems to me to be much more important. Plus, while churches could do a lot better in this area, we are much more aware of the needs of people with disabilities and other physical needs. What about diabetics who need to keep glucose tablets with them, or those whose doctors have advised them not to kneel in prayer? What is the difference between sitting to pray and kneeling to pray - surely it is about the kneeling of the heart? It seems uncharitable in the extreme not to let people have a drink of water with them or a blanket in cold weather, and IME it's the church's lack of charity in general that contributes to its failure, not providing for people's needs.
That's what I hear all the time, though I have yet to see a church that insists on kneeling or forbids blankets or bottles of water. People will gladly leave things like this at home and not mind it a bit if a museum or anything but a church says "no food or drinks" immediately react in horror to a suggestion of putting up with a bit of discomfort in church.
Basically, it's about discipline. Does anyone honestly think the church wants to insist that arthritics kneel or alcoholics be forced alcohol down their throats?
But whenever I bring up "offering it up" (an old RC practice from the 50s I think) I'm met with "but what about all the people that cannot kneel/stand/whatever. I am not talking about them. I'm talking about traditional, respectful postures and nominal fasting--of course if your doctor says you must take a pill with food upon arising--no one is going to bat an eyelid and never has.
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Some people can't get through a whole service without continuously checking their smartphone for messages.
I'm a little more old fashioned - I keep a copy of the BCP tucked away in my stall for getting through the really boring sermons... Can't beat reading the preface bits, or the table of affinity ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on
:
In Lutheranism there is always a force, which I have come to term Keepin It Real. It biases itself toward innovation, and rejects tradition at every juncture. There is room for questioning tradition, no doubt, but it is pure hubris to always think one's own novel thoughts must be the correct way, simply because tradition=old=wrong/out of touch.
Example:
Mabel: You can't do that.
Barney 'Martin Luther' Stinson: Challenge accepted!
[ 14. August 2013, 23:08: Message edited by: Olaf ]
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
Mama -- People don't do it -- fasting before communion, for example -- because no one has ever told them about it and they haven't a clue what you're talking about.
Who didn't tell them -- why, their parents, their priests and all the other godly people who raised them in the 1950s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s and so on.
Many (not all) of the dieciplines of which you speak are/were common to a very small stream within Anglicanism -- I'm reasonably sure that when I started fasting before communion once Iwas confirmed, I was the only one in the parish -- and I certainly had not been told about this by the clergy or adults of the congregation or my familiy. So look to those you thought were practising those disciplines, and ask them why they didn't teach their children -- and ask their clergy why they didn't teach their children, and ask your brothers and sisters among the ordained today if they are teaching their parishioners.
JOhn
And btw, I stopped fasting before communion when, with 3 small children and as music director in charge of a band that sometimes numbered over 20, it would be up at 7 am and no food before 12. I could stand the lack of food, but people had issues with my temper -- and those issues stopped when I started eating brakfast. YMMV, of course, but I think I chose the better course for my family and for the responsibilities I exercised in the parish. And as a consequence, none of my children knew about fasting before communion.
J
[ 14. August 2013, 23:37: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Forgive me, but have you looked at the Gospel Lesson for this next week?
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2012:49-56&version=NIV
Seems to me, if anything the Gospel Lesson is saying if you are truly following me, you can expect a lot of discomfort.
So what if the elderly can't kneel like they used to (I know I can't). So what if the pews are too hard. So what if people complain about the heat--or lack of heat--in a building.
There are people who still are experiencing real discomfort because of their profession of faith.
Let's get real people. Live your faith and see what discomfort can really mean.
Posted by PD (# 12436) on
:
I don't know what this says about the church environment I grew up in, and that is that whilst the fast and abstinence during Lent and on Fridays was mentioned, fasting before Communion was not. I suspect that the reason for this was that one of the services was so damn early that breakfast would have to be foregone just to get there on time, and the other morning service had traditionally been Matins.
'Sit-stand-kneel' seems to have been replaced by 'sit-stand-slump' in my parish, and the worst offenders are not necessarily those of a certain age. It seems to be connected with a certain anti-tradition mindset some folks have. They seem to want to experience Church like they experience most of the universe, sat in a recliner with a remote in one hand and a drink by the other.
PD
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
a glass of water or something to be placed on the pulpit
I'm with you on the ubiquitous plastic water bottles, MT, but as someone who preaches reasonably often, I can assure you that the glass of water in the pulpit is a mere necessity and not a luxury.
Do you really want sermons interrupted with extended periods of coughing?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
Bishops and priests frequently request for a glass of water or something to be placed on the pulpit or credence and I've even it placed on the altar a couple of times.
Our priest sometimes has a glass of water available, from which she will take a sip if her voice gives out in the middle of the sermon. She doesn't keep it there just in case she feels a bit thirsty.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Some people can't get through a whole service without continuously checking their smartphone for messages.
That's usually a symptom of a bigger problem - irrelevant service content, usually a crap preacher.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Some people can't get through a whole service without continuously checking their smartphone for messages.
That's usually a symptom of a bigger problem - irrelevant service content, usually a crap preacher.
That is why we have prayerbooks in the pews, so as to examine the prefaces and tables of affinity. Bibles work as well, and I have happily read chapter after chapter and epistle after epistle as the cleric gave us their Joycean stream-of-consciousness.
John Holding's point about fasting is interesting. Few Anglicans in Canada know of it and it appears to be a practice of a small minority. Of all of my seriously conscientious churchgoing friends, perhaps a tenth fast. I have run into curious surprise when I let on that I normally breakfasted after services than before-- on two occasions it led to interesting conversations but generally people nervously changed the topic. I got the feeling that they would have been more comfortable talking about sexual practices.
Posted by roybart (# 17357) on
:
I love threads of the everything-is-going-to-hell-in-a-handbasket variety. Harumph. Harumph.
About fasting before communion -- as a pre-Vatican II child, I recall the rule as involving one of the BIG R.C. mortal sins, at least as it was presented to us by the nuns. I mean, Jesus was really hurt (and angry) if you sipped even a single mouthful of juice or chewed some gum before receiving communion.
How quickly that rule disappeared in the early 60s. One day, you go to hell if you do it and are unfortunate enough to die before going to confession. The next day, it's never mentioned again.
PD wrote:
quote:
'Sit-stand-kneel' seems to have been replaced by 'sit-stand-slump' in my parish, and the worst offenders are not necessarily those of a certain age. It seems to be connected with a certain anti-tradition mindset some folks have.
Count me among the "sit-stand-slump" brigade -- though not due to laxity or a sinful wish for comfort. I'm perfectly happy to kneel as long s you want at the communion rail, or even on the floor. However, those pull-down kneelers force your body so close to the pew in front of you that you are obliged to assume an unnaturally upright position. "Slumping" allows you to bow your upper body and your head. For me, this is actually more what kneeling is meant to accomplish. Besides, slumping doesn't mess up the creases in your trousers.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
I agree with Roybart about slumping-- with developing osteoarthritis, kneeling and genuflecting is no longer automatic and I make sure of a point of leverage so that I might avoid alarming worshippers by falling down in the aisle or tumbling down the chancel steps. Perhaps I sin by depriving them of amusement?
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
We always provide a glass of water each for the choir as it is important to keep well hydrated when singing a full Choral Eucharist or Choral Evensong. I am sure none of our lot fast before the 10.30 Choral Eucharist and can't really see what is the obligation to do this - I'm sure God doesn't require elaborate rituals of the church members, just sincerity, faithfulness and a willingness to treat others as we wish to be treated. Nowhere in the Bible have I found much of the strictness that is espoused by some Christians.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
I stopped kneeling when the people in front of me stopped, and I found if I knelt I had my face in their hair - not even an Anglican crouch to lean forward. (And the kneelers were removed)
And mobile phones in church - I used to check mine when my daughter was home alone sick and I was leaving her to attend the service.
Fasting in Lent is commonly mentioned and giving up things isn't unusual. I got fed up of being sabotaged by the people I worked with, deliberately, because they didn't approve. If I chose not to eat chocolate or whatever, I would have a long verbal attack about the stupidity of fasting and catholic traditions.
Fasting before communion is another one I do know about and did for years, but if you don't want me coughing throughout the service I need to take my asthma medication and something to drink to clear my mouth and throat afterwards.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
And don't get me started on loos. However did people manage years ago, with no basic facilities?
In my young days as a choirboy, there were a number of days when exiting by the vestry door there would be a man, or men, standing along the south wall of the church. Don't know how the women (i.e. the majority of the congregation) managed. But if people fasted before the service it would help if there were no toilets.
As for smartphones in the service &mdash: Some people are making notes on the sermon/notices on them. We used to get by with pen and paper.
(Says someone who reads the intercessions from a Kindle.)
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
The congregation at a catholic eucharist are not passive observers - they are active participants.
Sitting for prayers looks pretty passive to me.
And it is not just an occasion for individual prayer, but a corporate action.
Everybody actin differently doesn't look very corporate to me.
I've known a priest taking a weekday BCP Holy Communion to omit a few words from the invitation to confession to reflect the posture of those present. The words were those in brackets - "make your humble confession to Almighty God (meekly kneeling upon your knees)."
Perhaps priests using Eucharistic Prayer B should adapt it as "We thank you for counting us worthy to sit, kneel or whatever we find most comfortable in your presence and serve you."
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on
:
I frequently go to Church without having breakfast, but that's more to do with getting up late
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Pre-communion fasting went along with a tradition of early communion services. Generally the 11.00 service would be Mattins, or in some 'high' places a Sung Eucharist at which only a minority (generally the elderly and infirm) communicated. So it was no great hardship. More difficult would have been to get up half an hour earlier to have breakfast before the 8am.
Mama T makes some challenging comments, and I'm sure we could all toughen up. But in the UK at least a great number of churches are too cold for comfort for much of the year, and it's difficult to concentrate on prayer or relax in God's presence if you are trying to stop freezing.
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I stopped kneeling when the people in front of me stopped, and I found if I knelt I had my face in their hair - not even an Anglican crouch to lean forward. (And the kneelers were removed)
I find that continuing to kneel, elbows in the person in front's shoulders, works well when wanting them to move.
Thurible
Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on
:
I can't kneel in the position required by most pews - not through discomfort (although there would be plenty of that) - but because my legs are likely to go into excruciating spasms that would render me totally incapable, and unable to get myself out of the position.
The thing that really upsets me about this is the thought that other people are looking at me and making judgements about why I am not kneeling, and assuming that I am not engaged with the service or concentrating on God.
Would you like me to wear a disabled badge? Because it's not always evident that there's anything wrong when I'm able to sit and stand normally.
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
Oh, were you in front of me, I wouldn't mind at all - as long as you moved forward slightly at the kneeling times so that I could kneel. (Or even explained beforehand that you weren't going to be able to move out of the way.)
Thurible
Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on
:
I would be leaning forward, so I wouldn't be causing you any trouble. If my behaviour genuinely impacts on anyone else I always take whatever steps are necessary to ameliorate the effects, whether by sitting somewhere where I am not in the way, or by explaining the situation.
There's not a lot I can do about those who watch and judge without any direct involvement though, since I don't really think they are entitled an explanation of my medical situation.
In fact, if my actions were dictated by any other non-medical factor I would feel the same way.
Posted by Trickydicky (# 16550) on
:
1) One of my congregation collapsed during my sermon (!) I went to visit her is casualty. The nurse in the hospital said that Sunday mornings could be quite busy with elderly people who had struggled to get to church and had missed breakfast.
2) In our church, during prayers, no-one 'slumps'. We merely adopt the Methodist Shampoo position. Hands on knees, head in hands, fingers running through hair...
But I agree with the OP. Jesus fasted. So should we. But it seems you can only fast if you are trying to lose weight or if you are trying to raise money for Oxfam.
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
Don't get me going or I'll be dragged to hell. Anglicans have forgotten their knees. It shows.
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
Bishops and priests frequently request for a glass of water or something to be placed on the pulpit or credence and I've even it placed on the altar a couple of times.
That said, in my current climate, during the Wet Season (as you would know), to fail to rehydrate for an hour whilst wearing clericals, alb and chazzie would be to invite a rushed exit in an ambulance. That is so liturgically messy. I drink about a litre of water during a wet season mass, about a third of that in dry season.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trickydicky:
But I agree with the OP. Jesus fasted. So should we. But it seems you can only fast if you are trying to lose weight ...
That doesn't actually work, by the way.
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
Fasting before communion is normal enough, imo. I am not an expert, but afaik, the minimum is one hour, but for anyone with a medical condition the requirement is only 15 minutes.
Medicine is exempt from fasting requirements, as is food if the medicine is connected with a meal.
Water is never included in fasting; water can be taken at any time, including during a service if someone is struck with a fit of coughing or whatever. I always have water with me in any service, and I have no problem drinking it if I need to, either to suppress a cough or to prevent dissociation.
Fasting practices seem to be optional; we adopt them if we think there is spiritual benefit in doing so. The intention is to focus the attention on God. If the only result is that we obsess about cornflakes during every service, then there really is no point.
Ministers who have three services every Sunday morning can't be expected to survive all of that without breakfast, but for the average person there can be great benefits in adopting some difference in the daily routine on the day they are going to Mass, from that of any other day.
I think the important issue is spiritual benefit, and if there is any doubt about it, a person should check with their priest. There is always a danger with any religious practice, and moderation is sensible. One person's moderate will vary from another; a priest might help to work out a sensible balance.
[ 15. August 2013, 11:46: Message edited by: Anglo Catholic Relict ]
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
I'm sure there's something in the small print of the First Council of Nicaea about normally standing to pray.
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
Don't get me going or I'll be dragged to hell. Anglicans have forgotten their knees. It shows.
I knelt at my former church. Nobody kneels at my new church. Actually, the Vicar does. Nobody else.
It is really difficult to do the same as everyone else, and remain sitting down.
Sometimes if there are not many people and I am right at the back (which I normally am), I will kneel, as long as nobody notices. But usually I try to do what everyone else is doing.
Maybe there is a good proportion of every congregation who would kneel, if they saw someone else doing so. Who knows?
[ 15. August 2013, 11:53: Message edited by: Anglo Catholic Relict ]
Posted by roybart (# 17357) on
:
Originally posted by Thurible (addressing drifting star): quote:
Oh, were you in front of me, I wouldn't mind at all - as long as you moved forward slightly at the kneeling times so that I could kneel.
That's the advantage of "slump." You don't sit upright. You lean forward, knees almost but not quite touching the kneeler, with torso and head at a more-or-less 45-degree angle. Weight is borne by the back of the upper leg.
This position should not offend even the most judgmental of fellow congregants. It is compatible with prayers that call for kneeling -- permitting you to look downward when introspective or upward when something is going on that requires attention. It does not inconvenience the more traditional kneeling person behind you -- the kind who wants to stick his or her head and hands over the back of your pew.
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on
:
Have to say I'm a bit puzzled by this - if you feel it appropriate to kneel, then kneel. If not, then don't.
What does it matter how other people come before God?
Posted by flags_fiend (# 12211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
Don't get me going or I'll be dragged to hell. Anglicans have forgotten their knees. It shows.
I knelt at my former church. Nobody kneels at my new church. Actually, the Vicar does. Nobody else.
It is really difficult to do the same as everyone else, and remain sitting down.
Sometimes if there are not many people and I am right at the back (which I normally am), I will kneel, as long as nobody notices. But usually I try to do what everyone else is doing.
Maybe there is a good proportion of every congregation who would kneel, if they saw someone else doing so. Who knows?
I usually kneel for the communion prayer etc. at my church, and other than the minister I am the only person that does so (out of a large congregation). I decided that my choosing to kneel was a matter between me and God and no-one else's business, so I would say if you want to kneel then you should do so and try not to worry about what other people think - they should have more important things to think about during communion anyway...
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
Have to say I'm a bit puzzled by this - if you feel it appropriate to kneel, then kneel. If not, then don't.
What does it matter how other people come before God?
But we are not talking about private devotion here - we are talking about taking part in a corporate action.
That's why I'd advocate standing. "We thank you for counting us worthy to stand in your presence and serve you."
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
Have to say I'm a bit puzzled by this - if you feel it appropriate to kneel, then kneel. If not, then don't.
What does it matter how other people come before God?
But we are not talking about private devotion here - we are talking about taking part in a corporate action.
That's why I'd advocate standing. "We thank you for counting us worthy to stand in your presence and serve you."
Exactly! Kneeling is appropriate for personal prayer and individual acts of devotion such as penitence. Most eucharistic liturgy is neither. In any case, the design of much church seating doesn't allow for prolonged kneeling. It's not about 'comfort' in a superficial sense, but if you are being distracted by aching joints/moving chairs/other peoples' bodies, then kneeling is counter-productive.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
It's quite easy to kneel in the choir stalls as they have been built in a certain way to facilitate a sort of perched kneel (rather like monks). But I think if I was in the congregation and knelt down, I'd get stuck in that position and never be able to get up again! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
It's a good idea not to be made too comfortable in church, though, as half of us (at least) would probably fall asleep....
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
And don't get me started on loos. However did people manage years ago, with no basic facilities?
I used to go round the side (graveyard) - it's fun being a bloke.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
Water is never included in fasting;
Ministers who have three services every Sunday morning can't be expected to survive all of that without breakfast, but for the average person there can be great benefits in adopting some difference in the daily routine on the day they are going to Mass, from that of any other day.
Water used to be forbidden - Bishop Mervyn Stockwood's autobiography mentions fear of cleaning his teeth in case he swallows some water. (And muslims still don't drink water during Ramadan's daylight hours)
Priests weren't supposed to eat or drink until the last mass they'd celebrated (often the non-communicating high mass at 11, ending after noon) - we used to have an odd way of doing the ablutions so that they didn't include extra, unconsecrated wine or water - I think it was called 'bination.'
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Bishop Mervyn Stockwood's autobiography mentions fear of cleaning his teeth in case he swallows some water.
Wasn't that Harry Williams?
quote:
Priests weren't supposed to eat or drink until the last mass they'd celebrated (often the non-communicating high mass at 11, ending after noon) - we used to have an odd way of doing the ablutions so that they didn't include extra, unconsecrated wine or water - I think it was called 'bination.'
Does that mean 'tipping it in the bin'?
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Water used to be forbidden - Bishop Mervyn Stockwood's autobiography mentions fear of cleaning his teeth in case he swallows some water. (And muslims still don't drink water during Ramadan's daylight hours)
Priests weren't supposed to eat or drink until the last mass they'd celebrated (often the non-communicating high mass at 11, ending after noon) - we used to have an odd way of doing the ablutions so that they didn't include extra, unconsecrated wine or water - I think it was called 'bination.'
I remember the days when, at the church I went to as a student, Father would greet people at the church door after the 11a.m. High Mass while devouring a large bacon sandwich. Back then, fasting meant fasting.
On the other hand, at a church where I worked the 8a.m. service was a Low Mass, and employed a server of riper years who walked a mile to get to church. After the eighth or seventeenth time he had to retire to the vestry feeling faint, we invented an ancient tradition that his walk to church made him a pilgrim, and that pilgrims are excused fasting. After that, he used to arrive at church fully cornflaked and he and we were a lot happier.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
I cannot fast before Communion since I have to take medication in the morning with food. I cannot kneel for prayer or for Communion - for prayer because the pews in my church are too close together and it requires contortions I am not capable of, and for Communion because my church has a dais with no rail and I cannot balance while kneeling without a rail. However we are always told to kneel or stand in our church anyway.
I do fast during Lent, and just have breakfast and a small afternoon meal, and either cut down on meat or cut it out completely.
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
Have to say I'm a bit puzzled by this - if you feel it appropriate to kneel, then kneel. If not, then don't.
What does it matter how other people come before God?
St Augustine asked this question of the Blessed Ambrose, on behalf of his mother,who was confused about different fasting practices in different cities. The Blessed Ambrose answered, and I follow his answer, which has turned into a proverb of a kind; when in Rome, do as the Romans do.
The Blessed Ambrose actually spoke of Milan, but Rome will do just as well. He said if he knew of any better practice, he would follow it; this was the best answer he had to offer.
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by flags_fiend:
I usually kneel for the communion prayer etc. at my church, and other than the minister I am the only person that does so (out of a large congregation). I decided that my choosing to kneel was a matter between me and God and no-one else's business, so I would say if you want to kneel then you should do so and try not to worry about what other people think - they should have more important things to think about during communion anyway...
That was my attitude at my former church, which was Anglo Catholic.
Having been effectively thrown out of that church, I have taken refuge in a more middle of the road church, and am wary of being too different until I understand the full range of people present. There are a lot who are very, very different indeed, and most who are in the middle. I am trying to find a way to belong, and that is hard enough without importing all my former A/C behaviours as well.
If I feel safer in time then they may return.
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
Water is never included in fasting;
Ministers who have three services every Sunday morning can't be expected to survive all of that without breakfast, but for the average person there can be great benefits in adopting some difference in the daily routine on the day they are going to Mass, from that of any other day.
Water used to be forbidden - Bishop Mervyn Stockwood's autobiography mentions fear of cleaning his teeth in case he swallows some water. (And muslims still don't drink water during Ramadan's daylight hours)
Priests weren't supposed to eat or drink until the last mass they'd celebrated (often the non-communicating high mass at 11, ending after noon) - we used to have an odd way of doing the ablutions so that they didn't include extra, unconsecrated wine or water - I think it was called 'bination.'
Bination refers simply to celebrating twice in one day: to trinate is to celebrate thrice, as priests are dispensed to do at Easter and All Souls; there are even dark tidings of poor buggers who quadrinate for 'pastoral necessity' (that catch-all justification which is almost as good as Canon B5...).
The practice to which you refer was (I think) to refrain from abluting the remains of the first mass until the ablutions of the second (or third, or eighty-first...) and then to take both together, thus preserving the fast. You might mean something else, but that's the practice I know. It doubtless made more sense when ablutions were universally done after Mass at a side altar or sacrarium, rather than after Communion, as now.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Bishop Mervyn Stockwood's autobiography mentions fear of cleaning his teeth in case he swallows some water.
Wasn't that Harry Williams?
No, Stockwood - he also told me personally over one of those typical lunches of his where one had no choice but to listen.
It wouldn't surprise me of Fr. Harry had similar phobias before his breakdown. endlessly.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
Water is never included in fasting;
Ministers who have three services every Sunday morning can't be expected to survive all of that without breakfast, but for the average person there can be great benefits in adopting some difference in the daily routine on the day they are going to Mass, from that of any other day.
Water used to be forbidden - Bishop Mervyn Stockwood's autobiography mentions fear of cleaning his teeth in case he swallows some water. (And muslims still don't drink water during Ramadan's daylight hours)
Priests weren't supposed to eat or drink until the last mass they'd celebrated (often the non-communicating high mass at 11, ending after noon) - we used to have an odd way of doing the ablutions so that they didn't include extra, unconsecrated wine or water - I think it was called 'bination.'
Bination refers simply to celebrating twice in one day: to trinate is to celebrate thrice, as priests are dispensed to do at Easter and All Souls; there are even dark tidings of poor buggers who quadrinate for 'pastoral necessity' (that catch-all justification which is almost as good as Canon B5...).
The practice to which you refer was (I think) to refrain from abluting the remains of the first mass until the ablutions of the second (or third, or eighty-first...) and then to take both together, thus preserving the fast. You might mean something else, but that's the practice I know. It doubtless made more sense when ablutions were universally done after Mass at a side altar or sacrarium, rather than after Communion, as now.
Yes, you're right - to quote myself (Church Times Questions' quote:
This describes the ritual for ‘bination’, which took place: when a priest celebrated more than one eucharist on the same day. As he had to receive communion a second time, he would be breaking the fast from midnight if he consumed unconsecrated wine at the ablutions
‘The wine that is poured into the chalice’ refers to that which is used to cleanse it after the priest and people having already partaken of the blood of Christ. The wine that is poured ‘upon his fingers’ was used to remove particles from the wafers.
This practice has ceased because we have relaxed the fasting rules and only use water for the ablutions.
CT Oct 2009
Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on
:
I keep seeing posters explaining why they, personally, are not able to kneel or fast or both. Pardon me for my ignorance if I'm incorrect, but I was under the distinct impression that the OP specifically was talking about people who are able to kneel and who are able to fast. Me, in other words. I never eat breakfast on Sunday mornings, for a variety of reasons, and am perfectly okay with that. And I've only met one set of kneelers that made kneeling difficult. I surely am not the only person on earth who is able to fast and kneel.
The rule is, and has always been, if you're physically unable to kneel, for whatever reason, then you aren't expected to do so. In some cases, such as in the Eucharistic prayer of 79 BCP (TEC), you are invited to stand or kneel. But if you must remain sitting, then no one is going to bat an eye.
Similarly, if you're diabetic or take morning medications or hypoglycemic or one of a number of other things, and thus you must eat breakfast without fail, then by all means do so. A) no one knows if you don't tell them, and B) your continued existence is more important than whether or not you eat. Besides, the minimum fasting time is an hour before mass - very easy for an 11:00 service, and still do-able for a 9:00.
Besides, if you can't fully fast, how about cutting out the meat, or some other aspect that you enjoy but can remove without harm? For instance, I might need to eat breakfast in order to not fall into diabetic shock, but how simple can my breakfast be? What can I trim out this one morning every week to help me remember Christ and his sacrifice?
And if you're not led to do any of the above, then so be it. Those who do fast shouldn't judge those who do not, and vice-versa.
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on
:
I choose not to kneel and not to fast. They are relics of a bygone era.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
I would prefer to kneel to pray in church. Alas, there isn't any room to kneel in either of the churches here, possibly by design of staunch Calvinists of a previous generation who considered kneeling to be Papist idolatry. But then I suspect that of being the reason for almost every idiosyncrasy I find here.
Posted by Trickydicky (# 16550) on
:
Caissa wrote:
quote:
I choose not to kneel and not to fast. They are relics of a bygone era.
Jesus fasted. If mattered to Jesus, why does it not matter to us?
I hate fasting - I find it hard work, and when I do fast, I do not always manage to do so properly. Family life gets in the way. But I'm becoming increasingly convinced that we really, really need to concentrate on spirituality. And nearly all Christian traditions include fasting.
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on
:
Jesus was crucified. Should we go and do likewise?
[ 15. August 2013, 18:40: Message edited by: Caissa ]
Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
I'm not sure where to put this and expect it to sink like a stone, but I've been wondering about the fairly recent phenomenon of Christians, (especially Anglicans as they are the ones I know best)to be extremely afraid of the slightest discomfort in church.
Preach It !
Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Jesus was crucified. Should we go and do likewise?
If need be, yes. He did tell us to take up the cross and follow him.
Posted by Trickydicky (# 16550) on
:
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Caissa:
Jesus was crucified. Should we go and do likewise?
If need be, yes. He did tell us to take up the cross and follow him.
Thankyou, Barefoot Friar.
Caissa, we seem to have lost contact with the divine. We cannot 'fake' it, but perhaps there are things we can do or should be doing which makes it easier for God to reach us. And Jesus found that fasting worked for him.
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
I keep seeing posters explaining why they, personally, are not able to kneel or fast or both. Pardon me for my ignorance if I'm incorrect, but I was under the distinct impression that the OP specifically was talking about people who are able to kneel and who are able to fast.
Of course, my question to the OP is why are you judging people?
I do understand that Mama Thomas is a priest with cure of souls, but that to me means triply you should catechize and then get out of the way of the person's relationship with God.
But that's just me.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
I choose not to kneel and not to fast. They are relics of a bygone era.
So's yer avatar.
Posted by flags_fiend (# 12211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by flags_fiend:
I usually kneel for the communion prayer etc. at my church, and other than the minister I am the only person that does so (out of a large congregation). I decided that my choosing to kneel was a matter between me and God and no-one else's business, so I would say if you want to kneel then you should do so and try not to worry about what other people think - they should have more important things to think about during communion anyway...
That was my attitude at my former church, which was Anglo Catholic.
Having been effectively thrown out of that church, I have taken refuge in a more middle of the road church, and am wary of being too different until I understand the full range of people present. There are a lot who are very, very different indeed, and most who are in the middle. I am trying to find a way to belong, and that is hard enough without importing all my former A/C behaviours as well.
If I feel safer in time then they may return.
I don't think kneeling to pray is particularly A/C, the church I go to is low con-evo C of E (if I understand the terminology correctly) and the few times people have mentioned to me that they noticed me kneeling has basically been to say that it seems an appropriate thing to do, they just choose not to themselves. No-one has ever said anything to me that suggests they think it is odd. Incidentally everyone who is able to does kneel to take communion at the rail at the front, so I suppose in some ways I am just extending that time of kneeling to be longer for me, which I find helpful for concentrating on the words being said and thinking about what it means (rather than being distracted).
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Luke 18 doesn't allow people to get too self-righteous about fasting, though:
"Two men went up into the temple to pray;
one was a Pharisee, and the other was a tax collector.
The Pharisee stood and prayed to himself like this:
‘God, I thank you, that I am not like the rest of men, extortioners, unrighteous, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.
I fast twice a week. I give tithes of all that I get.’
But the tax collector, standing far away, wouldn’t even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying,
‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’
Interesting that they didn't kneel, either. I expect the ground was rather dusty in those days.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Kneeling is just a custom of some churches. Not a bad custom, but not, you know, necessary.
Posted by Plique-ŕ-jour (# 17717) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
I keep seeing posters explaining why they, personally, are not able to kneel or fast or both. Pardon me for my ignorance if I'm incorrect, but I was under the distinct impression that the OP specifically was talking about people who are able to kneel and who are able to fast.
But how can you tell what people's reasons are?
I kneel if I'm in a pew. If I'm in a lightweight chair which will knock into the person behind me if I try to scoot onto and off of it during the liturgy, I sit.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
On the other hand, at a church where I worked the 8a.m. service was a Low Mass, and employed a server of riper years who walked a mile to get to church. After the eighth or seventeenth time he had to retire to the vestry feeling faint, we invented an ancient tradition that his walk to church made him a pilgrim, and that pilgrims are excused fasting. After that, he used to arrive at church fully cornflaked and he and we were a lot happier.
Let's hear it for new ancient traditions! My family banned fasting before church when I fainted one morning, as a child. I've never thought about it since.
But also, seems to me when Jesus mentioned fasting he wasn't referring to Sunday mornings. I read that Wesley fasted Wednesdays and Fridays until 4 pm. That makes more sense to me, a fast as a thing in itself, not just a prelude.
Besides, if Sunday is a feast day, breakfast should be a special celebratory meal, not absent!
But the water bottle thing, I've been puzzling recently what happened, we never used to think we needed to have a bottle of water in hand at all times. Were public water fountains more common?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by flags_fiend:
I don't think kneeling to pray is particularly A/C,
IME, kneeling to pray is normal in most A/C places, and also most traditional MOTR places. Slump-to-pray seems to be more common in "modern" MOTR places that have done away with pews in favour of chairs, and probably also tend towards modern praise band-type music. In the one evo place I've been, sit-to-pray, as opposed to slump, seemed to be the norm, but I don't want to draw conclusions from one visit to one church.
I think there's value in having the congregation do the same things, as a sign of unified corporate prayer or something, but that's not a very strong opinion, so if you feel that as an act of personal piety you should adopt a posture that is not the norm in your church, and as long as you're not doing it to draw attention to yourself, go ahead.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
Fasting communion -
I'm nosebleed high and followed what I understood the Roman rule were: fasting for one hour before communion, although bona fide medicine doesn't count.
And with a one hour service, that doesn't mean much.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
I'm not worried about what others think of me.
However there are congregations where it would be inconsiderate to others to stand when they are sitting in a church with no kneeling room.
In which case I sit on the edge of the seat, with both feet planted on the floor a bit apart, and my back straight - the classic meditation position.
This in fact require more physical attention - discomfort if you like - than kneeling in a pew with my bum resting on the bench and my arms on the pew rest.
And no, the eucharist is not an occasion for private devotion, but corporate liturgical action.
[ 16. August 2013, 07:50: Message edited by: venbede ]
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
But the water bottle thing, I've been puzzling recently what happened, we never used to think we needed to have a bottle of water in hand at all times. Were public water fountains more common?
My former church had vast clouds of incense. I used to be aware of the occasional cough turning into something more, and would take the person concerned a glass of water from our kitchen. It did not happen every service, but often enough.
I carry a bottle of water myself for the same kind of eventuality. Not as a drink, but in case it is needed. And because I habitually dissociate when stressed, and the water can help me to remain grounded.
[ 16. August 2013, 07:54: Message edited by: Anglo Catholic Relict ]
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by flags_fiend:
I don't think kneeling to pray is particularly A/C,
IME, kneeling to pray is normal in most A/C places, and also most traditional MOTR places.
That may well be the case, but I am not familiar enough with my new church to know for certain.
It is difficult enough to adapt to a new home, without deciding to behave exactly as I did in the former one, without regard for it being a different tradition. As has been said by other people, I am worshipping with a new congregation, within a church with its own traditions, some familiar, some less so. I am not an individual bringing my own individuality into a collection of other individuals, like on a trip to the supermarket.
[ 16. August 2013, 07:59: Message edited by: Anglo Catholic Relict ]
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by flags_fiend:
I don't think kneeling to pray is particularly A/C,
IME, kneeling to pray is normal in most A/C places, and also most traditional MOTR places.
Pond difference. I suspect many if not most 'anglo-catholic' churches in the US have clung onto old devotional and ceremonial customs which most in the UK have discarded in the light of Vatican 2. But I'm only guessing, from what I have picked up here on the Ship. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
'. . . in the light of Vatican 2' seems a bit of a stretch.
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Pond difference. I suspect many if not most 'anglo-catholic' churches in the US have clung onto old devotional and ceremonial customs which most in the UK have discarded in the light of Vatican 2. But I'm only guessing, from what I have picked up here on the Ship. Please correct me if I am wrong.
From the churches I know (which is not really many) the practice varies depending on the extent to which it happens to have an A/C priest who moves the church gradually higher, or has a genuine high tradition of its own.
In the first kind (as with my former church) there will be grumbling at every 'Roman' practice, exaggerated coughing and waving of service orders as the incense passes, and not much kneeling. Genuine A/Cs will be in the minority; we probably only had three, not including the Vicar. Two now I am gone. The rest thought A/Cm is only about keeping women out of the pulpit.
In the latter, most people will be genuinely A/C and understand what it means. They will be likely to kneel if they possibly can, and sometimes even if they can't. And there must be a gradation in between the two.
I went to a +Richborough Year of Faith event at the Abbey a couple of weeks ago, and there was lots of kneeling, lots of bowing and curtseying to the Bishop, lots and lots of loveliness. Other A/C churches from my town were represented, and I met lots of old friends, but there was nobody from my former church.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
'. . . in the light of Vatican 2' seems a bit of a stretch.
Broad brush, Trisagion! Gross generalisation and exaggeration, I agree, but English anglo-catholicism has been influenced by modern RC trends to a greater extent than in the States. I believe.
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
'. . . in the light of Vatican 2' seems a bit of a stretch.
I think this is true enough. Although some more liberal A/Cs accept Vatican 2 happily enough, I know plenty of more traditional ones who take no notice of it whatsoever. If pride were not such a sin, they could be said to take great pride in remaining resolutely unVatican2d.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[ 16. August 2013, 08:56: Message edited by: Anglo Catholic Relict ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
[QUOTE]I went to a +Richborough Year of Faith event at the Abbey a couple of weeks ago, and there was lots of kneeling, lots of bowing and curtseying to the Bishop, lots and lots of loveliness.
I'm sure you won't but please don't forget that there will be a good number from within your own communion - let alone people in the street - who find this strange and, in all probability, a remnant of a best forgotten past.
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
... I sit on the edge of the seat, with both feet planted on the floor a bit apart, and my back straight - the classic meditation position.
This in fact require more physical attention - discomfort if you like - than kneeling in a pew with my bum resting on the bench and my arms on the pew rest.
This is similar to what I do, partly because I have bad knees and partly because I was taught that position in some meditation sessions I used to go to years ago.
I have given up kneeling almost entirely apart from when receiving at the altar rails, which I can manage. When I tried kneeling for an extended time once my knees hurt so much I thought blow this, what's the point!? It certainly didn't encourage any devotion!
In my shack we stand for corporate prayer, which I like to do. And as Chorister mused, 1st century Jews prayed standing...
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
[QUOTE]I went to a +Richborough Year of Faith event at the Abbey a couple of weeks ago, and there was lots of kneeling, lots of bowing and curtseying to the Bishop, lots and lots of loveliness.
I'm sure you won't but please don't forget that there will be a good number from within your own communion - let alone people in the street - who find this strange and, in all probability, a remnant of a best forgotten past.
I do not regard any of this as a remnant of a best forgotten past, least of all an Anglican past. The past has precious little to do with it, imo; present A/C practice has about the same relationship with Anglican history as Gibson's Braveheart has to Scottish history.
Anglicanism is a very broad church, and rightly so. The A/C side of the church meets the needs of people in the church today, to worship in a particular way, for a particular reason. But we are worshipping God in 2013. It is just as modern in its own way as all those OHPs and guitars in the evangelical church down the road. Both are modern expressions of spirituality.
To discount A/C worship or practice as 'best forgotten' is to do a disservice to thousands of devout, conscientious people. We don't do that to evangelical or mainstream Anglicans; why do it to A/Cs?
[ 16. August 2013, 09:25: Message edited by: Anglo Catholic Relict ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
[QUOTE]To discount A/C worship or practice as 'best forgotten' is to do a disservice to thousands of devout, conscientious people. We don't do that to evangelical or mainstream Anglicans; why do it to A/Cs?
I didn't say I agree with such an opinion but it is there. It may not be expressed in the same way but A-C's are not always kind to evangelical or mainstream Anglicans either.
The in fighting is one of the reasons why I left the Anglican church.
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I didn't say I agree with such an opinion but it is there. It may not be expressed in the same way but A-C's are not always kind to evangelical or mainstream Anglicans either.
The in fighting is one of the reasons why I left the Anglican church.
I am sorry to hear that, but I can understand it totally.
I am with you on the in fighting. It is a disgrace, from whatever source. I like the breadth of Anglicanism, and would defend any part of it that was in danger of marginalisation or worse. Not that my defence would make any difference, but I would try.
[ 16. August 2013, 09:59: Message edited by: Anglo Catholic Relict ]
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
'. . . in the light of Vatican 2' seems a bit of a stretch.
Well... 'following Roman Catholic practices that have become common in Western Europe in the years since Vatican II regardless of what the Council itself might have said' then!
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I didn't say I agree with such an opinion but it is there. It may not be expressed in the same way but A-C's are not always kind to evangelical or mainstream Anglicans either.
The in fighting is one of the reasons why I left the Anglican church.
I am sorry to hear that, but I can understand it totally.
I am with you on the in fighting. It is a disgrace, from whatever source. I like the breadth of Anglicanism, and would defend any part of it that was in danger of marginalisation or worse. Not that my defence would make any difference, but I would try.
I tried in 1984 and it didn't work for me -- ok I can kind of sort myself out but the final straw was people tut tutting at my supposedly badly behaved 3 and 2 year olds. They smiled and said hello - a lot. They still do. Not that there were many children there anyway: I knew why.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
'. . . in the light of Vatican 2' seems a bit of a stretch.
Broad brush, Trisagion! Gross generalisation and exaggeration, I agree, but English anglo-catholicism has been influenced by modern RC trends to a greater extent than in the States. I believe.
I think it is fairer (in Canada, at any rate) to say that modern RC trends and middle-of-the-road Anglicanism have a lot in common, as far as externalities go. But this may be a local thing.
Perhaps one of the problems of contemporary Anglicanism have been identified in this thread-- a strong opinion that one current model of practice is the best-suited for this period and other models are, at best, to be tolerated. Inclusivity is a word which seems to be used by many of us only when provided with a long nose on which to look down.
As far as standing rather than kneeling goes, we are no more obliged to used ancient Jewish practice than any other. But perhaps one might be permitted to use the monastic staff of the eastern churches, to prop oneself up as the event goes on? My trusty adjustable Kompardell hiking stick might come in handy in such parishes, although it is not in a liturgical colour.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trickydicky:
1) One of my congregation collapsed during my sermon (!) I went to visit her is casualty. The nurse in the hospital said that Sunday mornings could be quite busy with elderly people who had struggled to get to church and had missed breakfast.
2) In our church, during prayers, no-one 'slumps'. We merely adopt the Methodist Shampoo position. Hands on knees, head in hands, fingers running through hair...
But I agree with the OP. Jesus fasted. So should we. But it seems you can only fast if you are trying to lose weight or if you are trying to raise money for Oxfam.
My mother was raised in a Pentecostal family, and she used to tell me about the fasting they used to do. (It wasn't in connection with Lent.) But I never saw my mother fast, and she never introduced me to fasting. She raised me in the Methodist church and I remained faithful until recently; but I've never heard a Methodist sermon or a small group talk about the value of fasting, not even in relation to Lent. There's a cultural remnant of 'giving something up for Lent', but that hardly equates to fasting. And in any case, most churches still dish out the cakes and the chocolate biscuits during Lent.
I think it's a shame that fasting is so alien to mainstream Christian culture. Yes, you can do it alone, but in most cultures and religions it's something you do as part of a community of people who support each other.
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
To discount A/C worship or practice as 'best forgotten' is to do a disservice to thousands of devout, conscientious people. We don't do that to evangelical or mainstream Anglicans; why do it to A/Cs?
The best person (despite all his other faults) I have heard put these sentiments across was ++George. As he wrote in Living Tradition:
quote:
Nurtured though I was in Evangelical Anglicanism, I have grown in my appreciation of the Catholic tradition: its vigour, its understanding of ministry, its colourful history, but perhaps above all, its spirituality...But I also greet you as an Archbishop of Canterbury who believes your importance is not limited simply to the history of our Church. Yours is a key witness if its future is to be healthy. I have no doubt that the integrity of Catholicism is vital for the well-being and future of Anglicanism. The decline of Anglican Catholicism...hurts us all. Its demise in the Church of England would be a tragedy.
And he goes on to explain what he means, but also most importantly how damaging it is to view ourselves in terms of 'parties'/'factions' within the Anglican Church.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I think it's a shame that fasting is so alien to mainstream Christian culture. Yes, you can do it alone, but in most cultures and religions it's something you do as part of a community of people who support each other.
There's something very important here that svet may not have intended and I have not been able to articulate.
If there's a common practice, then there's no need for self consciousness in adopting it (am I really, really sincere in doing it?) and no need for others to regard it as personal self righteousness on the part of those who adopt it.
I'm not thinking so much of fasting as using other ritual actions like kneeling or standing for prayer.
Obviously the accepted ritual actions may differ between traditions, as svit's mentions of pentecostals reminds me. But common actions are not so much important in themselves as a way of relating to something that is bigger than my individual experience.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
Bishops and priests frequently request for a glass of water or something to be placed on the pulpit or credence and I've even it placed on the altar a couple of times.
If I'm preaching or speaking, at church or anywhere else, I'll have a glass of water. A workman has to look after his tools. It makes no more sense to try ot preach without some water for yur throat than it does to try to drive the church minibus without having oil in the whatever-it-is-that-vans-need-oil-for.
I take my authority from the great Chalrles Spurgeon who liked to have brandy-and-water to hand when speaking. They don't make Baptists like that any more
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
One of our duties as server is to ensure that there are glasses of water at the pulpit and for the priest, deacon and sub-deacon. Just water though, and I was brought p to understand that drinking water was not breaking a fast.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I would prefer to kneel to pray in church. Alas, there isn't any room to kneel in either of the churches here, possibly by design of staunch Calvinists of a previous generation who considered kneeling to be Papist idolatry. But then I suspect that of being the reason for almost every idiosyncrasy I find here.
As a staunch Calvinist kneeling is alien to me, but I don't know why this should be so. (If I'm on holiday, attending a church where people are kneeling, I do what everyone else is doing.)
I have knelt on precisely three occasions; when I was at the front being blessed after my first Communion, after our wedding, and after being ordained an elder.
Why don't Calvinists kneel? I've never questioned it. I know it's part of the no-idolatry theology, but where does it come from?
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
Bishops and priests frequently request for a glass of water or something to be placed on the pulpit or credence and I've even it placed on the altar a couple of times.
If I'm preaching or speaking, at church or anywhere else, I'll have a glass of water. A workman has to look after his tools. It makes no more sense to try ot preach without some water for yur throat than it does to try to drive the church minibus without having oil in the whatever-it-is-that-vans-need-oil-for.
I take my authority from the great Chalrles Spurgeon who liked to have brandy-and-water to hand when speaking. They don't make Baptists like that any more
Cottontail's Tip of the Day: Better by far than water (though perhaps not better than brandy!) is flavoured water or flat lemonade. If you have a serious tickle in the throat, water doesn't help much, but the sugar in lemonade soothes like a cough mixture.
I discovered this unexpectedly in one church I was visiting, when I took a swig of water and found myself swallowing some peach-flavoured concoction. It was vile. But it worked.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
For those wondering on the Reformed (Presbyterian/Congregational etc) then this article looks as if it is scholarly tracing of the tradition.
Reformed Worship is a website worth visiting for those interested in the Reformed Worship Tradition and Practice. It is classical Reformed in stance so expect problems with discerning whether this is Evangelical or Liberal. I know people indicative of both stances published on there.
Jengie
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
My mother was raised in a Pentecostal family, and she used to tell me about the fasting they used to do. (It wasn't in connection with Lent.) But I never saw my mother fast, and she never introduced me to fasting.
My daughter lives with me. She has never 'seen' me fast either. She may or may not realise that I even do it, but I certainly don't talk about it.
There is no need for anyone else to know; it is easy enough to make small adjustments without being too obvious about it.
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
And he goes on to explain what he means, but also most importantly how damaging it is to view ourselves in terms of 'parties'/'factions' within the Anglican Church.
I would agree with that. A/C worship is no more a faction than mainstream or evangelical. It is more a matter of preference within one communion; a continuum.
[ 17. August 2013, 13:48: Message edited by: Anglo Catholic Relict ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Anglo Catholic Relict
If it's important to you I don't know why you wouldn't talk about it with your own daughter. It might be of benefit to her own spiritual growth.
But I fully accept that we all do what feels best to us.
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Anglo Catholic Relict
If it's important to you I don't know why you wouldn't talk about it with your own daughter. It might be of benefit to her own spiritual growth.
But I fully accept that we all do what feels best to us.
Well, my daughter already thinks me enough of a religious nut, I am a bit reluctant to make that worse. And I have always done my best not to interfere in her spiritual journey; I trust the Lord to manage that one himself.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
For those wondering on the Reformed (Presbyterian/Congregational etc) then this article looks as if it is scholarly tracing of the tradition.
It is worryingly satisfying to have one's prejudices confirmed.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Anglo Catholic Relict
If it's important to you I don't know why you wouldn't talk about it with your own daughter. It might be of benefit to her own spiritual growth.
But I fully accept that we all do what feels best to us.
Well, my daughter already thinks me enough of a religious nut, I am a bit reluctant to make that worse. And I have always done my best not to interfere in her spiritual journey; I trust the Lord to manage that one himself.
Ah well, if you're concerned about being teased by your daughter because of your religious habits I can understand that. My mother didn't face that issue with me.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I take my authority from the great Chalrles Spurgeon who liked to have brandy-and-water to hand when speaking. They don't make Baptists like that any more
Following in Spurgeon's footsteps is, of course, the only reason why I partake of the occasional cigar.
Posted by Trickydicky (# 16550) on
:
Are things like posture in prayer, fasting etc. a recognition that our body is part of who we are, and any spirituality must include the body? Would worship be different if we'd just run a marathon, not had breakfast, or rolled out of bed and driven 100 yards to church after a bacon butty?
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
I always find that, if I don't eat for a while, I really appreciate the next thing that I eat, when I finally start eating again. I wonder if, therefore, the appreciation of the host is increased by not eating anything since the previous night? If so, that could be a positive reason to fast (rather than seen as a denial of something).
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
. . . If so, that could be a positive reason to fast (rather than seen as a denial of something).
I am interested by this remark and have noticed similar sentiments expressed by a number of Shipmates on several occasions, particularly around Lenten observances. The "I'm not giving up anything this year. I'm going to take up this or that instead." approach.
What's behind it? Is there some reason for why we feel uncomfortable with the idea of fasting/abstaining from something?
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
. . . If so, that could be a positive reason to fast (rather than seen as a denial of something).
I am interested by this remark and have noticed similar sentiments expressed by a number of Shipmates on several occasions, particularly around Lenten observances. The "I'm not giving up anything this year. I'm going to take up this or that instead." approach.
What's behind it? Is there some reason for why we feel uncomfortable with the idea of fasting/abstaining from something?
It may be that they have been cautioned against giving up something for vanity or dieting concerns. Everybody diets nowadays, or goes gluten-free or vegan or something. Perhaps people are judging that fasting for Lent might be a little too convenient for their ideal eating habits or desired body image, and choosing to forgo it.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Yes, there's a very strong association now with diets / slimming.
But the idea of the food you are given after a fast being extra desirable - I reckon there's mileage in that.
[ 21. August 2013, 21:54: Message edited by: Chorister ]
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
Bishops and priests frequently request for a glass of water or something to be placed on the pulpit or credence and I've even it placed on the altar a couple of times.
Our priest sometimes has a glass of water available, from which she will take a sip if her voice gives out in the middle of the sermon. She doesn't keep it there just in case she feels a bit thirsty.
Again, our context is a little different. I get through about a litre and a half of water during a Eucharistic hour, more in the "build-up" and Wet seasons (which are just beginning now). It's not to moisten my throat but to replace approximately the same amount that I sweat during an hour and a quarter ... It's a serious health issue in this climate. The alb has to be washed each week, though the chazzie generally survives (but for health reasons I remove it post-communion, as another few minutes in it would be too much. I am already approaching light-headedness by then).
In six weeks I'll be back in Aotearoa. I'll miss the challenge of the heat, but won't need more than a sip, if that, of water. I will return to "let us kneel to pray ... "
But as for "let's sit on our arse and pray ... ", I have a feeling it just ain't a good message. Unfortunately the architecture and furnishings of my church preclude anything else. Is it coincidence that there is, shall we say, a degree of entrenched and militant complacency endemic here?
Posted by CuppaT (# 10523) on
:
The things Mama Thomas said sound fairly orthodox to me, at least not unfamiliar. We fast before Communion from the night before, even the children, or if it is an evening Liturgy, from breakfast or lunch, whichever one can manage. Great Lent is strict. The other fasts throughout the year are slightly less so. We kneel and prostrate regularly, at home and at church, but not on Sundays or during the Paschal season. So, yeah, the Orthodox fast and kneel, but mostly we just stand around and pray.
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on
:
Yes, almost all people of faith of whatever religion have outward expressions of faith and practice fasting. Orthodox Christians are great at it! Moslems, most practicing Jews I know, Pentecostals fast and pray.
It's just been my impression that most mainliners are somehow offended by these things among themselves.
I really have seen people offended by my pointing out the days of fasting or discipline and self-denial in various books of common prayer, but happily join in a Face Book fast for a greener planet or some such (not that there's anything wrong with that!)
I know a lady who has worked in Saudi Arabia and gladly fasted along with her Muslim co-workers during Ramadan, but give up something for Lent? How dare you even suggest such a horrid thing! We are supposed to take something on that give up anything!
Apparently, people of a certain age in certain mainline denominations were taught that it is the height of hypocrisy to fast and that to do so is repugnant not only to God but to all sense of human decency--and no one can fast anyway...the doctors say it is foolish and dangerous. You can't lose weight, you'll make yourself ill, it's barbaric, and ....
It's OK for Jews to fast on Yom Kippur and Muslims in Ramadan and Orthodox Christians and people who are into New Age fads but really....
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Nothing could be more puzzling than this, Mama T. I wonder if it connects with the Protestant misunderstanding of the Sabbath and the consequent reaction allowing anything and everything on the Lord's Day? Some thoughts to ponder as I reflect on next Sunday's gospel.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Yes, there's a very strong association now with diets / slimming.
But the idea of the food you are given after a fast being extra desirable - I reckon there's mileage in that.
Yes - I've always thought that I could manage Orthodox fasting if I had their Pascha feasts to look forward to! I do fast during Lent though, I just can't cut food out totally due to the medication needs. In the past I've usually fasted on Good Friday despite being in a church where the concept of fasting was rather alien (I wasn't on medication then).
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
Yes, almost all people of faith of whatever religion have outward expressions of faith and practice fasting. Orthodox Christians are great at it! Moslems, most practicing Jews I know, Pentecostals fast and pray.
It's just been my impression that most mainliners are somehow offended by these things among themselves.
I really have seen people offended by my pointing out the days of fasting or discipline and self-denial in various books of common prayer, but happily join in a Face Book fast for a greener planet or some such (not that there's anything wrong with that!)
I know a lady who has worked in Saudi Arabia and gladly fasted along with her Muslim co-workers during Ramadan, but give up something for Lent? How dare you even suggest such a horrid thing! We are supposed to take something on that give up anything!
Apparently, people of a certain age in certain mainline denominations were taught that it is the height of hypocrisy to fast and that to do so is repugnant not only to God but to all sense of human decency--and no one can fast anyway...the doctors say it is foolish and dangerous. You can't lose weight, you'll make yourself ill, it's barbaric, and ....
It's OK for Jews to fast on Yom Kippur and Muslims in Ramadan and Orthodox Christians and people who are into New Age fads but really....
I suspect, rather, that "Take it on" is a slight over reaction to the idea that so long as you stopped eating cholcolate in Lent, all was well. WHich is, of course, a gross misunderstanding of what fasting is supposed to be about. It was (and is?) a fairly common (mis)understanding, however, and derives from the less than wonderful teaching about fasting that people received from their clergy, their teachers, their parents and the saintly people of t heir congregations. As I said before.
John
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on
:
Thanks, John. Of course it is. Several elderly ladies in various congregations have told me they were taught to take something on for Lent as being preferable to their childhood instructions to give up chocolate digestives.
The only meaningful thing I've seen of this slight remnant of righteousness is one parish that used to have people fast for one or two meals a week and to put the money saved into a special basket to be given to a charity beyond the church's borders. This scheme lasted one Lent.
Most people can't be expected to "take something on" they are too busy.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
I think there is something in what you say despite the reaction in this thread, and it's something that pricks my conscience from time to time. It comes with a feeling that Western Christianity has become a bit lazy. There's an Ortho shack near me and the children are taken from school to church to have two hours of instruction and teaching in the faith every single day. There is also an expectation that the adults in the congo pray every morning and every night and read extensively around theology and spiritual writings of the saints, fast every feast day and season and receive instruction regularly. But it's more than just an expectation to be honest - they actually do it. I don't know if this is normative for Ortho's in general or if this congregation is just very dedicated (they are very large in number).
About 7 or 8 years ago our congo (episcopalian) was asked to use an office throughout Lent as part of their personal devotion and to give feedback on it at the end. Over 90% in the feedback said they were too busy to participate.
I've noticed too in relation to other faiths (admitedly looking from the outside in which can always give a false impression) that they have a real love of their faith, deep dedication and real devotion. It makes us (as in episci's) look like a bunch of whingers who want everything handed to us on a plate.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Western Christianity has become very lazy in that people who you would once have expected to be dedicated regular attenders at Church now come once in a blue moon, when they haven't got anything more exciting or interesting to do. Try running a choir on that basis and you'll see what I mean.
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Western Christianity has become very lazy in that people who you would once have expected to be dedicated regular attenders at Church now come once in a blue moon, when they haven't got anything more exciting or interesting to do. Try running a choir on that basis and you'll see what I mean.
Betty Butterfield agrees and has a theory as to why.
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Well, my daughter already thinks me enough of a religious nut, I am a bit reluctant to make that worse. And I have always done my best not to interfere in her spiritual journey; I trust the Lord to manage that one himself.
Ah well, if you're concerned about being teased by your daughter because of your religious habits I can understand that. My mother didn't face that issue with me.
Sadly, she is not teasing. My faith is very important to me, and helps me retain what sanity I have left. But it would not particularly help anyone else if I went around talking about it all the time. As far as other people are concerned, my faith is who I am and how I live, but the majority of it is private. I pray in private, I fast in private. I rarely talk about it because it is not easy to find the right words.
I try my whole life to be as normal as I can manage, within the constraints of my health. If I talked about my faith any attempt to pretend to be normal would be completely undone.
[ 24. August 2013, 07:15: Message edited by: Anglo Catholic Relict ]
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
. . . If so, that could be a positive reason to fast (rather than seen as a denial of something).
I am interested by this remark and have noticed similar sentiments expressed by a number of Shipmates on several occasions, particularly around Lenten observances. The "I'm not giving up anything this year. I'm going to take up this or that instead." approach.
What's behind it? Is there some reason for why we feel uncomfortable with the idea of fasting/abstaining from something?
I was advised to do this some years ago, by the Curate at my church. At the time I had a young daughter and an alcoholic husband to deal with, and life was not easy. The Curate thought that in the circumstances giving anything up would be redundant.
I made an altar cloth, veil and burse for the church, with a matching chasuble and stole for the Vicar. I bought the material, and I spent Lent making the set, which was blessed on Palm Sunday and used at Easter.
Another year I 'took on' kneeling for the Eucharistic prayer, inter alia. More recently I have painted Paschal candles. But I have more time than most people.
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
Most people can't be expected to "take something on" they are too busy.
We can all find time to do what we want to do.
[ 24. August 2013, 07:29: Message edited by: Anglo Catholic Relict ]
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
I try my whole life to be as normal as I can manage, within the constraints of my health. If I talked about my faith any attempt to pretend to be normal would be completely undone.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
indeed!
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
. . . If so, that could be a positive reason to fast (rather than seen as a denial of something).
I am interested by this remark and have noticed similar sentiments expressed by a number of Shipmates on several occasions, particularly around Lenten observances. The "I'm not giving up anything this year. I'm going to take up this or that instead." approach.
What's behind it? Is there some reason for why we feel uncomfortable with the idea of fasting/abstaining from something?
I was advised to do this some years ago, by the Curate at my church. At the time I had a young daughter and an alcoholic husband to deal with, and life was not easy. The Curate thought that in the circumstances giving anything up would be redundant.
I made an altar cloth, veil and burse for the church, with a matching chasuble and stole for the Vicar. I bought the material, and I spent Lent making the set, which was blessed on Palm Sunday and used at Easter.
Another year I 'took on' kneeling for the Eucharistic prayer, inter alia. More recently I have painted Paschal candles. But I have more time than most people.
What a wise Curate you had, and what imaginative things to do. Rather than give something up I try and take something on too (though I suppose one could say that by doing that one is 'giving up' time).
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
What a wise Curate you had, and what imaginative things to do. Rather than give something up I try and take something on too (though I suppose one could say that by doing that one is 'giving up' time).
Yes, he is a sweetie. Now a Rector, rather than a Curate, but still a very dear friend.
And of course we can always go both.
I have another friend who was very keen that Christians ought never to talk about what we do irt fasting, in line with Biblical injunctions; we can either fast for God or for those around us, and it is best to do it for God. She used to say, everyone knows when Moslems are fasting; the whole world knows what they are doing and when they are doing it. The Christian way is different; nobody should know.
Dear old B.
[ 24. August 2013, 10:18: Message edited by: Anglo Catholic Relict ]
Posted by CuppaT (# 10523) on
:
On the other hand, there is a time for feasting and a time for fasting. Jesus even said, When the Bridegroom is taken away, then they will fast. And so, we do, till he comes again. Then we will really feast!
But as far as other people knowing, there is something to be said for there being general rules for a fast, so that no one is going off willy-nilly making up their own way, one giving up a slight thing and another giving up too much, both foolish. With general rules, everyone knows what is allowed, and so that is what is served at church functions, and then if people need exceptions due to health considerations, they clear that with their pastor, or perhaps they check their own conscience, but at any rate, honesty prevails.
You know, it isn't that long since the whole church was fasting together and such things were assumed. Read some of the old literature set several centuries back and you will find references to it as a matter of course.
What did Jesus do when he wanted to pray intensely?
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CuppaT:
What did Jesus do when he wanted to pray intensely?
The Lukan Paul certainly knelt ... Acts 21.5
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
I understood that traditionally in Lent, we were not only supposed to give something up (fasting) but to take something on (almsgiving and prayer).
The taking on something is self discipline as much as giving up.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I understood that traditionally in Lent, we were not only supposed to give something up (fasting) but to take something on (almsgiving and prayer).
The taking on something is self discipline as much as giving up.
Yes. St. Chrysostom calls anything else a devil's fast.
Posted by Trickydicky (# 16550) on
:
I'm a (traditional free church) church leader. I fast. I think it is good to fast (as well as feast). I want to encourage my church to fast. I have to tell them I fast, otherwise they will accuse me of hypocrisy. But then I don't want to tell them I'm fasting because it seems too 'holy'! Oh well. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
At our church newer members seem unable to stay in the worship space for the course of our service. (I know any Orthodox readers might be chuckling over this because our worship isn't as physically active as yours; but bear with me here.) It's incredible. Our services generally last about an hour and a quarter at most on the average full-church Sunday morning. And I know at least some of these folks think nothing of spending hours at home quietly in chairs/on sofas surfing the Internet, snoozing, watching television or working on sedentary hobbies. But remaining in our sanctuary for a little more than an hour seems to be asking too much. And I'm not talking about legitimate needs to use the bathroom or deal with fussy infants; I'm talking about reasonably healthy, baby-unencumbered adults having a sudden impulse to wander into the fellowship area -- maybe even grab a cup of coffee in the kitchen (pre-Eucharistic fasting is not a norm in Lutheran circles) -- maybe even go out for a smoke break.
I also might catch hell from some parents for mentioning this, but I also wonder when children -- again, not teething infants/fussy toddlers but fairly independent, teachable, self-regulating small children -- became unable to cope with corporate worship if it didn't involve snacks. I feel so sorry for our church janitor, who on top of the messes made in the fellowship area every week also has to clean up smashed Froot Loops and dripped Gogurt and whatever else the parents feed their kids in the pews. I'm just waiting for this trend to move age-upward, until church is like a movie theater and we sit around with our jumbo sodas, munching our popcorn and Good & Plenties.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I've always wished I could wander out for a breath of fresh air from time to time. I'm glad to learn that it's now become socially acceptable, LutheranChik, even if not to you
In other words, people do it because they can. In the past social mores prevented them from doing so even if they wanted to.
Similarly once of a day children made it through without snacks etc. because they feared what would happen to them if they didn't sit their in silence. Personally I'm rather pleased that is no longer the case, even if it does make like a bit difficult at times. Parents are trying, desperately, and I fear with little success, to make church a place their children actually want to be and not loathe.
[ 28. August 2013, 21:38: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
In a church with a liturgical whole, as it were -- where one part flows into another in a crafted way that makes theological and aesthetic sense -- I'm not sure, other than maybe during announcements or the offering or the sort of long and chaotic "passing of the peace" that's normative in a lot of churches these days, where wandering out of worship really works. Okay; maybe during hymns one doesn't like. But in addition to the sense that people don't think an hour of focused corporate worship is possible or desirable, there's also the issue of disrupting others who WANT that time -- insisting on crawling over their legs or otherwise inconveniencing then while one is making one's escape; speaking in "outside voices" in ways that drift back into the sanctuary and otherwise creating distraction. And for some people this is more than a matter of their own preference. My better half has PTSD after a violent attack while in the military, and often has problems with group events where the action goes "off script"; it's a trigger; she has a hypersensitivity to things like odd noises and movements in her peripheral vision or behind her that make it hard for her to worship in a non-anxious way when there's random wandering and sounds going on during in-unison parts of worship.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Perhaps you need a dialogue with the wanderers in and out. Find out why they feel the need to do it.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Perhaps you need a dialogue with the wanderers in and out. Find out why they feel the need to do it.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
LutheranChik posts: quote:
I'm just waiting for this trend to move age-upward, until church is like a movie theater and we sit around with our jumbo sodas, munching our popcorn and Good & Plenties.
It's already here: I have sat in a chair at an Episcopal church in Florida where I was parked between two women, one with a jumbo iced-cappucino with extra whip, and another with a Danish pastry and a large coffee from the snacks table at the back. The licking of Danish from the fingers did make me less enthusiastic over the passing of the Peace which came along.
In my Irish years, the men leaving and re-entering the church was fairly common. Slipping out the door does not seem to have come to Canada, although one finds it a bit at Greek Orthodox churches, where the men are compelled by Holy Ethnic Tradition to sneak out for a smoke break. In rural Ontario churches at funerals, men will sneak out for a quick sip from a mickey (a 200ml-375ml bottle of rum or rye)-- I have seen this at both Presbyterian and UCC churches -- even in the depths of winter.
However, her point on diminishing attention span and priorities is worth some reflection and Canadians are not far off culturally on this from their neighbours south of the border. I like the (rapidly disappearing) Anglican tradition of a short (35-40 minute) service at 8.00 am or 8.30 am for those who don't like/are challenged by long services, followed by a longer one for those who revel in the whole kit and kaboodle. People are different, with different needs, and shouldn't all be stuffed into the same attention-span box, if it can be arranged.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Perhaps you need a dialogue with the wanderers in and out. Find out why they feel the need to do it.
For the next edition of Common Worship:
President:. Why are you leaving?
Response: For a quick snifter.
P. That is right and good.
R. We shall return.
then the congregation shall depart, severally, for a space. On their return:
P. Are you now refreshed?
R. A damn sight better than by your sermons.
P. Thanks be to God.
R. Alleluia.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Perhaps you need a dialogue with the wanderers in and out. Find out why they feel the need to do it.
For the next edition of Common Worship:
President:. Why are you leaving?
Response: For a quick snifter.
P. That is right and good.
R. We shall return.
then the congregation shall depart, severally, for a space. On their return:
P. Are you now refreshed?
R. A damn sight better than by your sermons.
P. Thanks be to God.
R. Alleluia.
There's always one, isn't there?
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
I've not noticed people (without children) wandering in and out. But I have noticed people checking their smart phone at regular intervals during the service. Which is presumably a sign of a wandering mind if not a body.
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on
:
Last Sunday I did a Rite I Eucharist (the one that makes nods to Elizabethan-style English). One man said he hated it because the service was "much too long." Checking my phone, I saw we were actually out a few minutes earlier than usual.
Yes, people have become so used to being utterly within their comfort zone that the slightest unfamiliarity will upset them.
There are changes in things like the to me miraculous ability to pause a live television broadcast and resume at will. No longer are we bound by even the TV--we zip through commercials and boring bits of movies and shows, "drive-thru windows" for fast food so we don't even have to get out of our cars. It's been said before but we really have become a society that doesn't delay gratification. Sad it has also penetrated into our religious life.
Posted by Kitten (# 1179) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I've not noticed people (without children) wandering in and out. But I have noticed people checking their smart phone at regular intervals during the service. Which is presumably a sign of a wandering mind if not a body.
If I saw someone doing this I wouldn't automatically assume their mind was wandering, They could have a reasonable excuse for doing so, being on call for example, or checking that their phone was on silent, or even using a Bible app to follow the readings or look up a reference from the sermon
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on
:
But sometimes they're texting their friends or playing Dots or Angry Birds or reading the news. At least they're in church...
Honestly, I've heard more phones go off in church than at the flix (though to be fair I spend more time at services than at the movies).
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
Last Sunday I did a Rite I Eucharist (the one that makes nods to Elizabethan-style English). One man said he hated it because the service was "much too long." Checking my phone, I saw we were actually out a few minutes earlier than usual.
Yes, people have become so used to being utterly within their comfort zone that the slightest unfamiliarity will upset them.
There are changes in things like the to me miraculous ability to pause a live television broadcast and resume at will. No longer are we bound by even the TV--we zip through commercials and boring bits of movies and shows, "drive-thru windows" for fast food so we don't even have to get out of our cars. It's been said before but we really have become a society that doesn't delay gratification. Sad it has also penetrated into our religious life.
Sad or not, it has. What are we going to do about it? Work with it? Talk about it with our congregations?
But what's it got to do with gratification, delayed or otherwise? What's the delayed gratification of sitting through church scratching our arses for something to do? What are we doing wrong in church that makes inane conversations on Bookface or Angry Birds or whatever rather more engaging?
[ 29. August 2013, 21:44: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on
:
I must admit inefficiency in a worship service irritates me. The last Rite I TEC liturgy I attended took 49 minutes, with four full hymns, sung ordinary, sermon, and walking continuous communion distribution. That was with the entire prayer of intercession (with local additions!) and the long version Eucharistic Prayer (I).
That same church takes about 45 minutes for Rite II.
Efficiency, people!
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kitten:
If I saw someone doing this I wouldn't automatically assume their mind was wandering, They could have a reasonable excuse for doing so, being on call for example, or checking that their phone was on silent, or even using a Bible app to follow the readings or look up a reference from the sermon
You haven't been to my church, have you?
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I've always wished I could wander out for a breath of fresh air from time to time.
Not hard in some churches
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I've always wished I could wander out for a breath of fresh air from time to time.
Not hard in some churches
One certainly hopes that this church makes regular use of flabella, for properly keeping the insects at bay!
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
LutheranChik posts: quote:
I'm just waiting for this trend to move age-upward, until church is like a movie theater and we sit around with our jumbo sodas, munching our popcorn and Good & Plenties.
It's already here: I have sat in a chair at an Episcopal church in Florida where I was parked between two women, one with a jumbo iced-cappucino with extra whip, and another with a Danish pastry and a large coffee from the snacks table at the back. The licking of Danish from the fingers did make me less enthusiastic over the passing of the Peace which came along.
In my Irish years, the men leaving and re-entering the church was fairly common. Slipping out the door does not seem to have come to Canada, although one finds it a bit at Greek Orthodox churches, where the men are compelled by Holy Ethnic Tradition to sneak out for a smoke break. In rural Ontario churches at funerals, men will sneak out for a quick sip from a mickey (a 200ml-375ml bottle of rum or rye).
I've heard that in previous centuries CofE services could be quite noisy. People would snore, break wind, laugh, play with puppies, etc. The clergy would sometimes complain about disrespectful behaviour.
Re walking in and out, I've heard that in some of the black-led Pentecostal churches this is fairly acceptable, and isn't seen as a sign of disrespect. One reason for it must be that services are quite long.
[ 01. September 2013, 23:22: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0