Thread: MW 2865: Holy Trinity Pro-Cathedral, Brussels, Belgium 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=030381
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I have read this MW report several times and I can't quite get my head around why Meet and Right So to Do walked out and gave the service 0.
Other than that the choir were not wearing matching clothing and that it didn't match his churchmanship, I am a at a bit of a loss what happened.
I have been to this church once, many years ago. I do not know anyone involved.
I have never really understood what a "Pro-cathedral" is, but I think it is a bit extreme to expect to go to something which elsewhere would be a large parish church and expect it to resemble St Pauls.
And I've been to loads of Anglican Cathedral services on several continents, and have witnessed many readings lead by laity, and chatting before the service. When we were in Brussels, we attended the African service in the afternoon, I suspect the MW would have got a terrible shock if he or she had attended that!
All the MWer has stated here is that it did not really meet their expectations, and does not really give much other information to help a fellow worshipper decide if it could be for them.
This comment in particular just seems to put the boot in
quote:
You'd think they might decide to mimic what apparently works instead of trying to reinvent the wheel
Yeah, you know many Cathedrals have numerous services to meet the needs of different congregations. I once went to the Anglican Cathedral in Cairo which had so many different services in African languages that they were having difficulty fitting them all in (and, by the way, the traditional English service for ex-pats was the worst attended. I'm not sure this has anything to do with anything).
I guess it is horses for courses, but this MW seems a tad mean to me.
[edited to supply link to report]
[ 25. June 2015, 21:51: Message edited by: Amanda B. Reckondwythe ]
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
A pro-cathedral is a church where the bishop temporarily has his chair.
The rating of 0 simply means that the reporter is not at all likely to make the church his regular. I gathered from the report that he was visiting Brussels and resides elsewhere, so the rating is completely appropriate.
He was honest in saying he did not care for the churchmanship, and he gave his reasons: atmosphere too social, ceremony too informal, absence of confession and absolution, left-leaning intercessions, meandering sermon, etc.
Others might enjoy such a service. The reporter did not, and said so with his feet as well as with his report.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
The rating of 0 simply means that the reporter is not at all likely to make the church his regular. I gathered from the report that he was visiting Brussels and resides elsewhere, so the rating is completely appropriate.
Two things.
1. I've always interpreted the rating as being shorthand for whether you would make this your regular church if possible . Most of the churches I MW are in places that I am visiting, either on holiday or on a weekend away, so nowhere near where I live. If the rating was based on the actual practicality of attending that church regularly,mthen I would be rating every church as a 0.
2. The reporter here makes it perfectly clear that the rating of 0 was because s/he has no intention of returning.
I agree with the OP. Although the churchmanship of this place isn't my cup of tea, I still think the report was rather mean spirited.
[ 26. June 2015, 07:55: Message edited by: Spike ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I also agree. Surely there is a difference between a MW report saying "I didn't like it", and explaining why they didn't; and the report saying that it was "wrong" or (in this case) "liturgically abusive" - which seems to be a very loaded term. In the end it tells us rather more about the reporter than the church"
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
He was honest in saying he did not care for the churchmanship, and he gave his reasons: atmosphere too social, ceremony too informal, absence of confession and absolution, left-leaning intercessions, meandering sermon, etc.
Others might enjoy such a service. The reporter did not, and said so with his feet as well as with his report.
Well, yes, I accept that any MW report is subjective, but I don't really see that the project is intended to slam church services we don't happen to like very much - anyone can do that by attending something they know they are not going to like.
It seems to me that it is rare that a very negative MW report is worth reading, unless wryly amusing, which this was not. The MW didn't like it and stormed out, but it was pretty obvious he/she was not going to like it from the beginning of the report - presumably long-established churches in Brussels can do little about their architecture.
This tells us a lot more about the MW-er than it does about the church.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
I'm a bit baffled by the reporter's distraction at what the choir were wearing. Looking at the photo, it seems that the men wear cassock & surplus and the women wear gowns the same colour as the cassocks worn by the men. This used to be very common in CofE churches with robed choirs. Although nowadays this is rather old fashioned and less common than it used to be, there are still a significant number of CofE churches where the choir dress like this. Given the rather traditional/old fashioned taste of the reporter, I'd have thought that s/he would not only be aware of this, but give it 100% approval.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
To be honest, this MW report gives the impression that it tells us more about the MWer than about the church service.
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
Walking out before the end of the service, seems to me to be defeating the aims and objects of what completing a MW report is about. Regardless of it being the MWer's personal choice of church or not, it ought to be a snapshot of what the complete service is about. I reluctantly walk out of services for different reasons, when my available length of time is used up.
Holy Trinity Brussels,has not always been a pro-cathedral and the Diocese of Europe, covering a wide area, is sparsely populated in Anglican terms and for ex-pats, so the density of population is not like that of any other territorial diocese.
Holy Trinity used to be a church I know, but I have not been to Brussels for some years. Until about 1959, there were two English-speaking Anglican Churches in Brussels. The Church of the Resurrection which was anglo-catholic, closed and the site was redeveloped as a department store. In those days, Holy Trinity was known as Christ Church Brussels, but changed its dedication when the two congregations merged. The then Christ Church was low church evangelical, offering Morning and Evening Prayer as the principal services, offering Choral Communion once a month. After the merger, the churchmanship became a mish-mash and took on something of a charismatic flavour.
After the merger, there used to be two Sunday morning sung services at 10.30 and 11.00 for Matins and Eucharist, respective. Matins was the service that attracted the larger congregation, but in time, these became one service at 10.30 - Eucharist, incorporating the best of Matins.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
Meet And Right So To Do just comes across as something of a fish out of water in this context. The report coms across as a strong churchmanship preference colliding with the upset of misplaced expectations. Also MARSTD doesn't seem to have picked up/ retained a weekly news sheet which reveals that Richard Frost is a Locum Chaplain for the church.
Alb and stole, and the choir dress described would be perfectly normal for many C of E parishes - especially those that might be called "traditional low-church": men and children in cassock and surplice and women in choir gowns. (Thankfully the matching cap which was common in the days of women wearing hats in church has almost completely disappeared.)
(The reference to "high school graduation-esque gowns" suggest to me that there may be a certain cultural gap between the MARSTD and the CofE as high school graduation gowns are, I think, almost unheard of in the UK.)
Likewise it would be perfectly normal in many CofE parishes for the Gospel to be read by a member of the congregation.
The Common Worship provision for Pentecost (PDF - scroll down) does omit prayers of penitence (which I too don't much like), but that is not to be laid at the door of the Pro Cathedral Church. I'm wondering the MW's "traditional Prayer Book liturgy" was 1979 rather than 1662. (Although the latter would have been a most effective insulation as it differs not only in words but also in structure.)
I also think the MARSTD seriously misapprehended the nature of pro-cathedral churches in the Church of England Diocese in Europe which led to expectations which were not going to be fulfilled.
All in all, I agree with others that one learns more about the reviewer than the church in this report. I think it is not helped by the connotations of language like "purportedly" and "which they claim" towards the end.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I think the Diocese in Europe is unlikely to use the 1979 Episcopal Church prayer book.
I'd think from this it was the 1662 prayer book: http://europe.anglican.org/diocesan-handbook/approved-and-commended-forms-of-service
[ 26. June 2015, 14:54: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
You might be right, but I took it that MARSTD was reciting from memory (there not having been Prayer Books in the pews).
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
It might have been the ASB from 1980, but I doubt that could be described as "traditional prayer-book"
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I do have the feeling that cultural / political differences are a bit in play here.
In a West European context, I wouldn't necessarily interpret intercession prayers that invoke the environment as "rather left-wing language". To my ears, even the word "environmentalism" seems to give something away about the political position of the MWer.
Granted, in our ultra-left radical loony alt.worship group in the Netherlands we talk about the environment a lot. But we're not the only ones. My parents' church, also in the Netherlands, is as MotR as they get, and it would be very normal for them to say something about the environment from the pulpit.
Also, "there was no mention of the Islamic jihadists murdering Christians" seems to come from a specific political position. On many occasions, people prefer to avoid singling out a group when it comes to speaking about the conflicts in the Middle East. I've experienced this many times, and I understand the reasons behind this.
I'm not going to debate these political positions here (some of them have been beat to death in Purg already), but the impression that I got from this report is that the MWer's political positions have influenced his/her experiences of this church a bit. I guess that whether this is a good or bad thing is an interesting question.
[ 26. June 2015, 14:58: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
The website actually says the 10am service uses "Thomas Cranmer’s Book of Common Prayer", but I doubt they actually mean the version from 1549.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
Yes. I'm sure they mean the Restoration BCP of 1662 (not Cranmer's original 1549 or 1552 books). I strongly suspect that MARSTD would be most familiar with BCP 1979
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Yes. I'm sure they mean the Restoration BCP of 1662 (not Cranmer's original 1549 or 1552 books). I strongly suspect that MARSTD would be most familiar with BCP 1979
Apologies, I see what you mean now.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
They don't need to. Cranmer also produced one in 1552 which is the lineal ancestor of 1662. Continuously since then, that is the only Book of Common Prayer that has been authorised. So that will be what they mean.
By the way, Mr Cheesy, I broadly agree with what you and the others have said on this thread. BroJames has hit quite a lot of nails firmly on the head. And as for the notion that praying about the environment marks oneself as left wing, that is either culturally disturbingly unaware or nonsense.
What the report seems to be describing is a CofE service designed to provide comprehensive worship for British and other English speaking people who happen to find themselves living in a French and Flemish speaking city. As for the statement in the MW Report,
quote:
It was too lacking in churchmanship
it's difficult not to read this as really meaning,
quote:
it wasn't the sort of churchmanship I like.
Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on
:
I have worshipped a couple of times at Holy Trinity Brussels, some years ago.,and its worship is rather lowish,middle of the Road,unlike St.Bonice at Antwerp which is Anglican in the Catholic tradition,using C.W.
But Holy Trinity has still kept the Anglican tradition,,unlike Christchurch in Amsterdam,which is very Charismatic Evangelical, and its worship can hardly be called Anglican.
The US BCP,1979 is only used in the American Churches,
on the European Continent ,where the worship is never extreme,sound American Anglican.
Most Anglican Churches in the Benelux, are quite Low Church, exceptions are St.Boniface,Antwerp and
Holy Trinity,Utrecht.
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
Walking out before the end of the service, seems to me to be defeating the aims and objects of what completing a MW report is about. Regardless of it being the MWer's personal choice of church or not, it ought to be a snapshot of what the complete service is about. I reluctantly walk out of services for different reasons, when my available length of time is used up.
Holy Trinity Brussels,has not always been a pro-cathedral and the Diocese of Europe, covering a wide area, is sparsely populated in Anglican terms and for ex-pats, so the density of population is not like that of any other territorial diocese.
Holy Trinity used to be a church I know, but I have not been to Brussels for some years. Until about 1959, there were two English-speaking Anglican Churches in Brussels. The Church of the Resurrection which was anglo-catholic, closed and the site was redeveloped as a department store. In those days, Holy Trinity was known as Christ Church Brussels, but changed its dedication when the two congregations merged. The then Christ Church was low church evangelical, offering Morning and Evening Prayer as the principal services, offering Choral Communion once a month. After the merger, the churchmanship became a mish-mash and took on something of a charismatic flavour.
After the merger, there used to be two Sunday morning sung services at 10.30 and 11.00 for Matins and Eucharist, respective. Matins was the service that attracted the larger congregation, but in time, these became one service at 10.30 - Eucharist, incorporating the best of Matins.
Erratum - in the final paragraph, for 11.00, read 11.30 for the start time of the then second Sunday service. That was a small typo I did not pick up.
Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Meet And Right So To Do just comes across as something of a fish out of water in this context. The report coms across as a strong churchmanship preference colliding with the upset of misplaced expectations ... I'm wondering the MW's "traditional Prayer Book liturgy" was 1979 rather than 1662.
It is hard not to conclude that it might have been worth the train ride to Waterloo.
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Likewise it would be perfectly normal in many CofE parishes for the Gospel to be read by a member of the congregation.
I do have the impression from these boards that that is a pond difference: I have not seen it myself even in self-consciously evangelical Anglican churches here, apart from the relatively few (in urban areas) churches with formally licensed lay readers (blue-scarfed menaces). That may have to do with the push in recent years to rediscover and respect the integrity of the diaconate, or perhaps that's just me being optimistic.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
Most Anglican Churches in the Benelux, are quite Low Church, exceptions are St.Boniface,Antwerp and
Holy Trinity,Utrecht.
That is interesting, and in line with my impressions. The general theory is that minority Anglican churches tend to react against the prevailing Christian tradition in their region: e.g., Church of Ireland, surrounded by Roman Catholics, tends to be low church; Scottish Episcopalians tend high in reaction to Presbyterianism. Yet in mainland Europe it seems that evangelical Anglicans are prevalent in the largely Protestant Netherlands, whereas as far as I know the great majority of Anglican churches in Italy tend to the anglo-catholic. France and Spain too seem to have more catholic-leaning chaplaincies, though I do know of some evangelical ones (Paris of course has one of each).
Is that an accurate picture? I am sure there are more subtleties, and some historical reasons for the various traditions. In the case of Italy it might be that aristocratic and upper-middle-class Tractarians were fascinated by Italian religion and culture, and many could have been easily persuaded that God was calling them to minister amidst the olive groves and vineyards of Tuscany etc.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I think there's something in what Angloid says where an Anglican church is a minority religious group within a prevailing culture of which its members are part, e.g. Scotland, Eire and possibly Wales. From these boards it would appear also to be the case in North America. I'd have thought it's much less likely to be so where it is an ethnic church for minority English speaking communities in a country where the prevailing culture is foreign and doesn't speak English. Logic would suggest that's more like much of rural England where the CofE has to be reasonably comprehensive and accessible to everybody who wishes to practice Christianity.
Going back to Knopwood's query about who reads the gospel, if this is a binding rule in North America, he/she is onto something. It's definitely not the case in England that reading the gospel is as a matter of rubric or canon law restricted to the ordained or the ordained + readers. There are probably individual churches that insist on this, but CW doesn't. I'm fairly sure the ASB didn't. I suspect that if there are those that insist on this, they will be well up the candle. In MoR village churches, it's fairly usual for the same person to read all the readings.
There is, though, a tendency that if the service includes a gospel procession, then that is done by someone who is part of the team at the front.
The instructions in the 1662 BCP assume that the celebrant reads both epistle and gospel, but it reads as though this was just because nobody had thought about the point. It went with leading the service. It was assumed he did it because he could read. It doesn't appear to have been a matter of doctrine.
Mant's compendiously annotated BCP from the early C19, which comments on most things, doesn't comment on this instruction.
The change is part of the same trend that over my lifetime has seen the intercessions done by someone from the congregation.
I seem to remember noticing that the position with the gospel is different in the service books in Wales, though when I mentioned this before on a different thread, I got the impression it may not there always be observed.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
The solution to stop any old Tom, Dick of Harry is to SING the gospel.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:
It is hard not to conclude that it might have been worth the train ride to Waterloo.
I thought for a moment that you meant catching the Eurostar and worshipping here - but, of course, and apart from any issues of churchpersonship, said train doesn't go to (London) Waterloo any more!
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:
It is hard not to conclude that it might have been worth the train ride to Waterloo.
I thought for a moment that you meant catching the Eurostar and worshipping here - but, of course, and apart from any issues of churchpersonship, said train doesn't go to (London) Waterloo any more!
The reference to Waterloo is ambiguous; Waterloo Station in London, or Waterloo - the site of the battle not far from Brussels? The station is named after the battle - that way round! I don't know which Waterloo Knopwood was referring to.
I don't know off the top of my head whether or not the battle-site is reachable by train from Brussels.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
This is Belgium. Of course there is.
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
This is Belgium. Of course there is.
I'm glad to hear it and that validates my point even more. When I visited the Waterloo battlefield many years ago, I got there from Brussels by other means.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
The reference to Waterloo is ambiguous; Waterloo Station in London, or Waterloo - the site of the battle not far from Brussels? The station is named after the battle - that way round!
Not quite. Waterloo Bridge in London is named after the battle. Waterloo station is named after the bridge.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
/Railway nerd alert/:
And there were also Waterloo railway stations in (at least) Aberdeen and Liverpool - probably named after adjacent quays which, in turn, were named after the battle!
/Alert ends/.
[ 27. June 2015, 14:51: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop: When I visited the Waterloo battlefield many years ago, I got there from Brussels by other means.
I walked from Brussels to Waterloo once. It takes about 3.5 hours, almost all of it through the Sonian Forest. A very beautiful walk, I can recommend it.
(And now that I think about it, I did take the train back the next day ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
You can go by bus or by train
bus to Waterloo Eglise
or train to Waterloo gare or to Braine l'Alleud
The train is quicker to get to the area but you need to walk or take the bus from the stations depending on whether you wish to visit the Musee Wellington or the Butte du Lion.
The bus will generally drop you closer to the historic sites.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
I have seen the gospel read by a young girl in an evangelical powerhouse, but in the church I go to it is always read by clergy or a reader. But I recognise it is not a C of E requirement.
This is quite different from a lay person reading the biddings for the intercessions (as I will tomorrow, dv). This is the prayer of the faithful and it is totally appropriate for them to be articulated by one of them.
Reading the gospel is quite another matter. It is quasi sacramental. But I don't want to argue the point.
The MW is not very charitable. If I was at an Anglican Sunday eucharist conducted in a manner that irritated me, I'd stay to the end in order to receive communion. Christ is present in the bread and wine consecrated by a priest, however liturgically inept s/he may be.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
The MW is not very charitable. If I was at an Anglican Sunday eucharist conducted in a manner that irritated me, I'd stay to the end in order to receive communion. Christ is present in the bread and wine consecrated by a priest, however liturgically inept s/he may be.
The reporter appears to have flounced out during the post communion prayer which implies s/he received communion. Even so, it's rather rude to walk out on the Lord's supper without bothering to thank Him.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Logic would suggest that's more like much of rural England where the CofE has to be reasonably comprehensive and accessible to everybody who wishes to practice Christianity.
I think in practice that's how most continental chaplaincies operate these days. Especially as they no longer minister exclusively to English expatriates but to people from all over the world for whom English is their first language or just the language they know better than that of the country they are in. But the historical background remains obvious: vestments and calling (male) priests Father seems to be the norm in Italy; less so it seems in northern Europe.
quote:
Going back to Knopwood's query about who reads the gospel, if this is a binding rule in North America, he/she is onto something. It's definitely not the case in England that reading the gospel is as a matter of rubric or canon law restricted to the ordained or the ordained + readers. There are probably individual churches that insist on this, but CW doesn't.
It's not unusual in even strongly evangelical churches for the priest, if not the deacon, to read the gospel as the norm. But as you say it is not required by rubric or canon law, although CW says coyly that 'in some traditions the ministry of the deacon... has included.. the reading of the Gospel,' and suggests that as a model for the liturgical ministry of a Reader.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I went to a CofE service this morning, and I can confirm that the Gospel was read by a laymember. Also, there were two candles on the table (this is the first time I counted; the Ship is having a bad influence on me ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
).
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop: When I visited the Waterloo battlefield many years ago, I got there from Brussels by other means.
I walked from Brussels to Waterloo once. It takes about 3.5 hours, almost all of it through the Sonian Forest. A very beautiful walk, I can recommend it.
(And now that I think about it, I did take the train back the next day )
I wasn't going to mention this, because it is not relevant to this discussion, but in 1957 when I was a youngster, I was staying in Brussels and my hosts kindly took me to the Battlefield by car and that is all I know about how to get there from Brussels. That is my one and only visit to the battlefield, ever.
Knopwood does not respond to clarify whether s/he was referring to Waterloo Station in London, or whether to Waterloo in Belgium, so that uncertainty still remains.
Spike, your clarification that Waterloo Station is named after Waterloo Bridge, which in turn is named after Waterloo Battlefield - you learn something new every day!
Apart from the time factor which I mentioned earlier, I would not walk out of a service; if I don't like what I find, I don't have to go back again.
I know that a layperson rather than an ordained person reading the Gospel at the Eucharist is not to be encouraged, but I do sometimes come across that on my travels, especially if it is by a licensed lay minister.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
it's rather rude to walk out on the Lord's supper without bothering to thank Him.
I ofgen did that at weekday masses so as to get the bus to work - saying the post communion prayer 'to myself, as it were'.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Funny how even Anglicans perceive things completely differently to each other.. I have been in ultra-low Anglican churches for decades and was not even aware that there was a special "Gospel" reading, nor that there was any question that this should be read by the priest. I can only remember a handful of occasions that the vicar even read the bible reading, I thought it was entirely normal for someone else to do it.
Having frequented a major English Cathedral in recent weeks, I now appreciate what you are all talking about.
That said, patrons are wandering in and out of the service at all times. If there was any offence taken at this constant "rudeness", the service wouldn't end.
Personally, I think I have walked out of a service once in my entire life. And I got a serious bollocking from the wife afterwards, so now I just sit till the end and fume.
Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
Knopwood does not respond to clarify whether s/he was referring to Waterloo Station in London, or whether to Waterloo in Belgium, so that uncertainty still remains.
I'm sorry, I assumed the remark was tongue in cheek: the link is clearly to a ".be" domain.
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Going back to Knopwood's query about who reads the gospel, if this is a binding rule in North America, he/she is onto something. It's definitely not the case in England that reading the gospel is as a matter of rubric or canon law restricted to the ordained or the ordained + readers. There are probably individual churches that insist on this, but CW doesn't.
It's not unusual in even strongly evangelical churches for the priest, if not the deacon, to read the gospel as the norm. But as you say it is not required by rubric or canon law, although CW says coyly that 'in some traditions the ministry of the deacon... has included.. the reading of the Gospel,' and suggests that as a model for the liturgical ministry of a Reader.
I believe it's the same here: customary, but not required. (Similarly, there's no prohibition of a full celebration of the Eucharist on Good Friday, though the BAS notes that it is not customary). As I indicated, I have seen lay readers read the Gospel on a few occasions. And it occurs to me now too that I myself read the Gospel as a parish intern. It's also the practice at my seminary, though that is a somewhat special "lab" context. Certainly even in snakebelly low parishes here the BAS rubrics differentiate the Gospel from the other readings by the acclamations ("Glory/praise to you ... ") and the posture ("All stand for the Gospel.")
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I have been in ultra-low Anglican churches for decades and was not even aware that there was a special "Gospel" reading
Having frequented a major English Cathedral in recent weeks, I now appreciate what you are all talking about.
I have heard rumours that some Evangelicals now celebrate the Holy Communion without a gospel reading. They jolly well shouldn't. It's a mandatory part of the service. The name "Evangelical" means following the gospel in any case.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I have been in ultra-low Anglican churches for decades and was not even aware that there was a special "Gospel" reading
Having frequented a major English Cathedral in recent weeks, I now appreciate what you are all talking about.
I have heard rumours that some Evangelicals now celebrate the Holy Communion without a gospel reading. They jolly well shouldn't. It's a mandatory part of the service. The name "Evangelical" means following the gospel in any case.
I have seen this done in the form of a "First Reading" and a "Second Reading." I was told that the second reading was not always a gospel text as for some days other texts worked better. I was not certain what this meant and the priest involved made it clear to me that he did not wish to pursue the conversation.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I often did that at weekday masses so as to get the bus to work - saying the post communion prayer 'to myself, as it were'.
Motivation is everything. Leaving early with regret is quite different from stomping out in a huff, even if you're keeping the stomping hidden inside yourself.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I have heard rumours that some Evangelicals now celebrate the Holy Communion without a gospel reading. They jolly well shouldn't. It's a mandatory part of the service. The name "Evangelical" means following the gospel in any case.
Don't get me wrong, of course, most low Anglican services I have attended have a gospel reading. They are just not necessarily a "Gospel" reading and not necessarily read by the priest.
I appreciate what you are saying, but before seeing how the Gospel is clearly indicated in the Cathedral (where there is a special parade and song-and-dance), I was not even aware that this was supposed to be a defined part of the service, much less that it should be read by the priest.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I haven't really kept count, but I think it happens rather often in our church that the Gospel isn't read. But then and again, we're not Evangelical.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
In the modern Roman rite,on Sundays and special Feast days,there is a 'First Reading',usually from Old Testament,followed by a 'Second Reading',usually from New Testament(not Gospels).
These passages are generally read by lay persons.
There follows then the Gospel reading which is the high point of the Liturgy of the Word. This should be read by a person with authority to do so in the midst of the community of the People of God,i.e. a bishop,priest or deacon.
Occasionally a lay person will read the Gospel - at a Service of Word and Sacrament without a priest (Communion by Extension)
Or when a number of different languages are used and no priest can be found to declaim the Gospel in a particular language which has particular meaning for the participants.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Looking at things from the other side from low church Anglicans I remember once being surprised when speaking to a Presbyterian.
The person was not sure what I meant when I said the 'Gospel'.I had always thought thought that Presbyterians knew a lot more about the Gospel than Catholics. They probably do,but didn't know about this particular use of the word 'Gospel'.
Perhaps this was the same with Mr Cheesy.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
'Igh Church, and indeed nowadays MOTR, Anglicans often make more of a ritual fuss about the gospel reading than RCs following the Roman ritual.
Rome says the gospel should be read from the same place as the other readings.
Anglicans often have a gospel procession half way down the nave and read it there.
(Since I'm the sort of creep who sits at the front, this means I can swivel round in my place to attend to the gospel reading.)
This does not apply to readings from the gospel at Evensong as the second lesson. The gospels never provide the readings for the Roman office.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
....Anglicans often have a gospel procession half way down the nave and read it there.
(Since I'm the sort of creep who sits at the front, this means I can swivel round in my place to attend to the gospel reading.)....
Very helpful the procession is, too. It lets me (as churchwarden) turn round and count the number of people in the congregation so that I can put it in the register of services.
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on
:
Back to this being a Pro-Cathedral, how come it's a pro-Cathedral when the diocesan bishop has a perfectly good proper Cathedral in Gibraltar? Is it the place where a Suffragan bishop hangs out? Suffragans in England seem to manage without pro-Cathedrals, but I guess having many cathedrals might be useful in geographically larger diocese.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
A pro-cathedral is a building which temporarily serves the purpose of containing the bishop's 'cathedra' or episcopal seat which is a symbol of his authority.
'Temporarily' is a vaguely used word as the RC cathedral in Dublin is ,I think,still known as the 'pro-cathedral,as the much earlier Catholic cathedral has been in the hands of the Church of Ireland for centuries and likely so to remain.
Someone in my family thought that a 'pro-cathedral' was a shortened form of pro(testant) cathedral.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
Back to this being a Pro-Cathedral, how come it's a pro-Cathedral when the diocesan bishop has a perfectly good proper Cathedral in Gibraltar?
Distance, I think. Gib is a long way from Northern Europe where most of the congregations are.
quote:
Is it the place where a Suffragan bishop hangs out? Suffragans in England seem to manage without pro-Cathedrals, but I guess having many cathedrals might be useful in geographically larger diocese.
I don't think so. I don't think this church has any kind of permanent bishop, just an occasional one. I don't think it would be called a Cathedral in England - pro or otherwise. Poss analogous to Coventry Cathedral pre 1918 when it was a parish church with special status.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
My guess is that this has to do with the prior existence of the colonial Diocese of Gibraltar (1842), which covered the fortress-colony and whose bishop was responsible for CoE chaplaincies in southern Europe and the Mediterranean. Northern European chaplaincies were part of the Diocese of London (by Caroline order-in-council) and, for many years were administered by the Bishop of Fulham, suffragan to the Bishop of London.
Around 1980 (if memory serves me well), they tried to rationalize the Anglicans-in-Europe situation by creating a Diocese of Gibraltar in Europe (there is an overlapping TEC jurisdiction called the Convocation of American Churches, as well as overlapping Portuguese and Spanish Churches, and then there are the Old Catholic Churches, and now there are arrangements under the Porvoo Agreement, all fodder for ecclesiastical jurisdiction foamers and geeks). So Brussells' pro-cathedral status likely finds its origin in its Fulham jurisdiction days....
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Ah yes, you might be right there. Of course, we now have a diocese in England with three, I think cathedrals (W Yorks and the Dales), though how long that will last I don't know. And CofI dioceses seem to have lots of cathedrals, although CofI shipmates will be able to tell me whether e.g. Limerick, Ardfert, Aghadoe, Killaloe, Kilfenora, Clonfert, Kilmacduagh and Emly is strictly speaking one diocese or a collection of dioceses.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Just to be confusing, it looks like the Bishop of Gibraltar in Europe is based in Brussels.
http://holytrinity.be/node/835
So I was completely wrong, sorry.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Used to be based somewhere near Crawley, IIRC, handy for Gatwick Airport.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Diocese of Europe admin is based in the UK, the Bishop is in Brussels, Cathedral in Gib. Handy.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Diocese of Europe admin is based in the UK, the Bishop is in Brussels, Cathedral in Gib. Handy.
Sort of how the Dutch government works
Posted by Offeiriad (# 14031) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Diocese of Europe admin is based in the UK, the Bishop is in Brussels, Cathedral in Gib. Handy.
If I understand right, the territory included in the diocese amounts to about 25% of the land mass of the world. Seen in that context, what you describe is centralisation!
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on
:
Well I guess the bishop's local church is allowed to be a pro cathedral.
I'd never thought about where the diocese of Gibraltar was administered from before. Interesting.
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Diocese of Europe admin is based in the UK, the Bishop is in Brussels, Cathedral in Gib. Handy.
I have picked up that Revd. Canon Robert Innes, until now, Chancellor of the pro-cathedral in Brussels, has been appointed Bishop of Gibraltar in Europe. (They have chancellors, rather than deans in this case.)
I notice that while Canon Innes has been on the staff of the pro-cathedral, he had a home address in Waterloo, interestingly enough. It is recorded somewhere, that he is going to be based in Brussels when he takes up his new appointment and it may mean that he won't be moving house.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Ah yes, you might be right there. Of course, we now have a diocese in England with three, I think cathedrals (W Yorks and the Dales), though how long that will last I don't know. And CofI dioceses seem to have lots of cathedrals, although CofI shipmates will be able to tell me whether e.g. Limerick, Ardfert, Aghadoe, Killaloe, Kilfenora, Clonfert, Kilmacduagh and Emly is strictly speaking one diocese or a collection of dioceses.
In Ireland, these are united dioceses, usually with a cathedral for each of the constituent sees (although a few of the western ones have not had a functioning cathedral for some centuries, such as Achonry in the diocese of Killala & Achonry, which united with Tuam-- in the United Diocese of Limerick et al, Ardfert cathedral burned down in 1641 and Emly's was demolished in 1877 and this united diocese retains two cathedrals of the original 8). Owing to (among other things), civil disorder and the absence of Irish-speaking clergy, many of the western and southern dioceses never had more than a nebulous existence.
While it's odd ecclesiology, multiple cathedrals is not a new phenomenon, nor restricted to Ireland. The RC diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall in eastern Ontario features a cathedral and a co-cathedral, but no chapter for either of them.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
I have picked up that Revd. Canon Robert Innes, until now, Chancellor of the pro-cathedral in Brussels, has been appointed Bishop of Gibraltar in Europe.
Yes he is now in office, having been consecrated in July last year.
Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
While it's odd ecclesiology, multiple cathedrals is not a new phenomenon, nor restricted to Ireland. The RC diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall in eastern Ontario features a cathedral and a co-cathedral, but no chapter for either of them.
Our diocese has a co-cathedral too. The diocese contains two major urban areas. The larger has the cathedral and the smaller the co-cathedral. Major diocesan events that permit it get done twice. Trust me, we think nothing odd of it at all when we we're saved a four hour round trip during Holy Week to attend chrism Mass!
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on
:
In Valletta Malta, where I was in January, there is a Catholic cocathedral and an Anglican procathedral within short distance of one another.
I wasn't sure of the difference, but wikipedia says that a pro is temporary. I guess temporary is a relative term.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
Well, indeed, the main Roman Catholic church in Dublin (!) is a Pro-cathedral. I've never worked out if this is a snub to the Dubs or because there is still some long-term plan to replace it with a permanent cathedral at some later point.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Not the only example. The Bishop of St David's lives at Abergwili which is just outside Carmarthen and a long way from St David's.
In the diocese of Bath and Wells, the cathedral is at Wells. Bath Abbey is a parish church.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
And Monmouth diocese's cathedral is at Newport.
Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Ah yes, you might be right there. Of course, we now have a diocese in England with three, I think cathedrals (W Yorks and the Dales), though how long that will last I don't know. And CofI dioceses seem to have lots of cathedrals, although CofI shipmates will be able to tell me whether e.g. Limerick, Ardfert, Aghadoe, Killaloe, Kilfenora, Clonfert, Kilmacduagh and Emly is strictly speaking one diocese or a collection of dioceses.
In Ireland, these are united dioceses, usually with a cathedral for each of the constituent sees (although a few of the western ones have not had a functioning cathedral for some centuries, such as Achonry in the diocese of Killala & Achonry, which united with Tuam-- in the United Diocese of Limerick et al, Ardfert cathedral burned down in 1641 and Emly's was demolished in 1877 and this united diocese retains two cathedrals of the original 8). Owing to (among other things), civil disorder and the absence of Irish-speaking clergy, many of the western and southern dioceses never had more than a nebulous existence.
While it's odd ecclesiology, multiple cathedrals is not a new phenomenon, nor restricted to Ireland. The RC diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall in eastern Ontario features a cathedral and a co-cathedral, but no chapter for either of them.
And the Diocese of New Westminster, IIRC, still retains its former cathedral in New Westminster as a pro-cathedral, in addition to the current one in Vancouver. (The naming of the diocese has always struck me as rather like calling that of Toronto "the Diocese of Mississauga," but perhaps NW was originally destined for loftier status. It would explain the name).
The oldest RC church in Toronto, St Paul's Basilica (so designated in 1999), is also a pro-cathedral.
Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Well, indeed, the main Roman Catholic church in Dublin (!) is a Pro-cathedral. I've never worked out if this is a snub to the Dubs or because there is still some long-term plan to replace it with a permanent cathedral at some later point.
Christchurch has been the cathedral of Dublin since the 1100s. As there are currently some squatters in it that have proven rather hard to evict, a pro-cathedral is needed. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
As one C of I clergyman told me, the RCs reckon Dublin has three cathedrals. One pro, and two amateurs.
(The C of I has two Dublin cathedrals - Christ Church and St Patrick's.)
[ 30. June 2015, 07:00: Message edited by: venbede ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
There's a thought- where you have a 'national cathedral' like St Patrick's or the one at Washington DC, which bishop's cathedra does it contain? Presiding Bishop, in the case of Washington, the PB not having a diocese? But what about St Patrick's, where both Irish Primates have their own dioceses and cathedrals?
[ 30. June 2015, 07:45: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on
:
Is that a similar situation to in Rome, where the bishop of Rome has both St John's Lateran (which I think is actually Rome's cathedral) and St Peters.
I get the impression that what happens is that everyone tends to forget about the city cathedral.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I have been in ultra-low Anglican churches for decades and was not even aware that there was a special "Gospel" reading
Having frequented a major English Cathedral in recent weeks, I now appreciate what you are all talking about.
I have heard rumours that some Evangelicals now celebrate the Holy Communion without a gospel reading. They jolly well shouldn't. It's a mandatory part of the service. The name "Evangelical" means following the gospel in any case.
My experince here was that not only did they not have the Gospel but there was no offertory or fraction either.
This is a far cry from the prayerful and 'legal' evangelical communion services in the late 1950s.
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
I have picked up that Revd. Canon Robert Innes, until now, Chancellor of the pro-cathedral in Brussels, has been appointed Bishop of Gibraltar in Europe.
Yes he is now in office, having been consecrated in July last year.
If my information refers to last year and not this, then my oversight.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0