An earlier part of this thread was discussing how some of the more extreme Scottish presbyterian groups are very particular about whom you mix with. And I'm sure that many Protestants are very strict about alcohol (although my brother is an elder or something in some sort of free church which doesn't seem to have any effect at all on his alcohol consumption). The comments about ribena and grape juice remind me that the canons of the Church of England require that the fermentedjuice of the grape must be used for communion.

You asked about the difference between AC and regular catholic (by which I expect you mean Roman Catholic). There are plenty of others on these message boards better equipped than I to say and there is a "What is Anglo-Catholicism" thread, although I couldn't find it just now - and it probably doesn't answer such fundamental questions.

However, for what it's worth, a Roman Catholic is obviously a member of that church and a follower of the Pope. An Anglo-Catholic is a member of an Anglican church (CofE or ECUSA) who follows in the footsteps of the C19th Oxford Movement of renewal in the CofE, which emphasised the catholic, ritualistic heritage of Anglicanism. They're also often quite conservative theologically. If you want to taste high church ritual (incense/vestments/precise movements) done properly nowadays, forget the Romans and try out an AC church.

quote:

---

In the Styx, you asked about 'kirk'. It is a Scots word for 'church'. I believe it is from 'kirkos' (Greek, meaning circle). The congregation used to meet in circular buildings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LatinMan:
Actually, I think the word "kirk" (and likewise the English "church") derives from the Greek word kyriake, an adjective meaning "the Lord's".

---

That was a suggestion of the etymology at
bartleby.com. However it goes on to say:

quote:

---

but this is most improbable, as the word existed in all the Celtic dialects long before the introduction of Greek. No doubt the word means “a circle.” The places of worship among the German and Celtic nations were always circular. (Welsh, cyrch; French, cirque; Scotch, kirk; Greek, kirk-os, etc.) Compare Anglo-Saxon circe, a church, with circol, a circle.

---

singing "As with Gladness", as a way of "looking forward to Christmas" in kingdom season. the Local Preacher taking the service used advent and Christmas interchangeably.
It wasn't even Christ the King! Admittedly, this was in a methodist church.

quote:

---

The Frees are quite different from the Free Presbyterians, if that hasn't been spelled out, and shouldn't be tarred with the same brush.
(Although they do have a few extreme people too - as the case against Donald Macleod seemed to show up)

---

Yes, that was why I gave the full name of the denomination I was talking about, but as you realised it didn't clarify things for anyone who didn't already know about the various groups using the words "free", "church" and "Scotland" in their names. So thanks. Oh, and thanks for the diagram as well which I'm going to need to refer to at times I think!
The guy who was above all responsible for my impression of the Free Kirk (as we all know, boys and girls, experience of one person is not a good reason for disliking any group ) was also in the Free Kirk of Scotland.

Chapelhead said:

quote:

---

Which of these is the "Wee Frees"?

---

I think it's the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, but that's only the way I've heard the phrase used. The implication when I've heard it is that Wee Frees are "stricter" than (the presumably somewhat larger) Frees.

Hope

I am sure these cannot be Elizabethan trays of the tiny glasses that we've discussed.

What, pray tell, is a Communion Cup?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
What, pray tell, is a Communion Cup?

---

A brief history of communion cups.

Before the removal of the cup from the laity (from about the twelfth century), in the West two types of chalice were used; the celebrant's chalice and a ministerial chalice (called a scyphus), from which the laity would drink (this was necessarily larger than the celebrant's chalice and had two handles for ease of holding.

After the priest had consecrated the wine, some of it would be added to the wine already in the ministerial chalice, consecrating the whole. The laity would then drink from the ministerial chalice (which they would do standing up, sucking the wine through a silver or gold object rather like a drinking straw). In large churches several ministerial chalices might be used, each receiving a little of the wine from the consecrated chalice.

After the cup was removed from the laity the ministerial chalices were no longer used. In addition the celebrant's chalice became smaller, as it was no longer necessary to consecrate wine to add to the ministerial chalice (the celebrant's chalice was used by the celebrant alone, so could be quite small).

When the cup was returned to the laity in the Church of England after the reformation, it was found that the chalices were not big enough for practical use, so larger communion cups were made and purchased, hence the reference you have found.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Campbellite:
I think what is meant by "communion cup" at least in our corner of Protestantism, is the small "shot glasses" that are passed in trays. Each tray usually has 40 or so communion cups.

---

Nowadays this is a common use of the term "communion cup", but I have no doubt that in the context that HT has come across is the term is being used for the item we would often now (incorrectly) term a chalice.

Interestingly, the 1662 BCP (and every other service book I know of) uses the correct term "cup", except in the rubric where is states

quote:

---

And here to lay his hand upon every vessel (be it Chalice or Flagon) in which there is any Wine to be consecrated.

---

Lent is not a season, but a practise that is carried out throught all of the year. "We don't save up our sins to confess them in Lent!" "Before each service we examine ourselves, and confess our sins."

This a differnt perspective. But the major mark of Lent in Presby churches in the UK are ecumenical Lenten Study groups.

There is also a certain section of the church that seems to havefeast muddled with fast. The year before last I came out of church on Christmas morning thinking "Today of all days is when I want to rejoice and give thanks, instead I am made to feel like a miserable sinner."

I am definitely a sinner, but surely even sinners can have a chance to glorify the Lord at Christmas.

I think that the AC have quite a bit to teach us about how to feast.

quote:

---

Ah, but that is where you come across the differing theology. Easter is not once a year. Every Sunday we acknowledge, remember and rejoice in Easter.

Lent is not a season, but a practise that is carried out throught all of the year. "We don't save up our sins to confess them in Lent!" "Before each service we examine ourselves, and confess our sins."

---

But so do those who mark the liturgical year. It is for this reason that (in the West at least) that Sundays are not part of Lent because every Sunday is a fast day.

But the liturgical year changes the focus so that we can take things in better, because we cannot hope to include everything all the time. Or that's my perspective.

quote:

---

Carys said:
But so do those who mark the liturgical year. It is for this reason that (in the West at least) that Sundays are not part of Lent because every Sunday is a fast day.

---

quote:

---

Surely you mean that every Sunday is a feast day . . .

---

Of course I did. That'll teach me to post when I'm not awake!

quote:

---

Yup Carys, I know. But HT wanted the whole Lenten-non-event thing explained. I believe it is all down to Calvanistic theology.

---

I know that, it was just that the way you explained it implied that those of us who do keep the liturgical year wouldn't agree with that statement, or at least that's what I inferred! Sorry, I'm sensitive on this matter having had four years of odd looks for thinking that the liturgical year is important and valuable and something to be used to the full rather than paying lip service to it because otherwise some in the congregation will moan.

quote:

---

What do non-Lent-observing protestants do to prepare for Easter?

---

Eat Cadbury Easter Creme Eggs!

But seriously, why do you have to "prepare for Easter"?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papa Smurf:
You know this year is the first time I've heard mention of Sundays not counting in Lent -sound to me just like an excuse to break your fast, and go back on your word.
The fasting is less "impressive", because then you're just doing it 6 days in a row...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oriel:
I thought Holy Week counted as a separate fast, so it`s still 40 days up to Palm Sunday?

---

Well, you get up to some strange things north of the border . But I'm sure that Lent is 46 days because Sunday's are not fast days, because they are celebratory (and you get bread and wine).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papa Smurf:
So how many non church, (for want of a better word) people who are familiar with the idea of fasting from something for Lent know about not fasting on a Sunday ?

---

I think the teaching was that we are to live every day in a disciplined way, and to do something 'extra', like giving up a bad habit, for just a while was not sufficient. We needed to be giving that up permanently. The only reason for giving up a legitimate pleasure would be to use the money saved to help someone in poverty.

Also, Jesus fasted completely for 40 days - if we were to fast, for a reason, like seeking God's will about something, or as an adjunct to intercessionary prayer, then we would do it, privately, but not on the way to a celebration like Easter.

Jesus fasted for a particular reason and that was all about him, not necessarily for us to copy. There is definitely an awareness that Jesus was special.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Sunday's are not fast days, because they are celebratory (and you get bread and wine).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papa Smurf:
We don't get bread and wine every Sunday, and I'm sure ours isn't the only church not to....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papa Smurf:
And I think nowadays in most places Good Friday is taken as a holiday, but only because it is everywhere else, i.e. it is a UK Bank Holiday....

---

Easter Monday was definitely a major holiday, when everyone (whole families) went for a picnic and rolled dyed eggs down hills. They were very often red - don't know if any significance, or because cochineal was available, and sometimes stripy brown (onion skins tied around them while they boiled).

And in C of S, we didn't have communion necessarily either on Easter Sunday.

In my presbyterian congregation until about 10 years ago all the elders (who were at that time of course also all men) wore tail coats to dispense communion.

quote:

---

I had a free friend who told me I ought not to be wearing trousers since these were male attire. I tried to point out to him that since mine had a side zip and a 25 inch inside leg that they could hardly be for any man, but he wasn't having it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lovely Doggie:

And, re the general restrictivness of the Free Church of Scotland: I had a free friend who told me I ought not to be wearing trousers since these were male attire. I tried to point out to him that since mine had a side zip and a 25 inch inside leg that they could hardly be for any man, but he wasn't having it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Tail coat as in white tie and tails, or do you mean a frock coat?

---

Well really HT, I'm surprised at you. I'm sure that Lovely Doggie meant a Morning Coat or, as Colonialist Rebel Rubes such as Alastair Cooke might call it, a 'Cutaway' coat. A frock coat, as worn by the clergy and all other professions in their everyday working life, is different from a Morning Coat which is worn for daytime formal wear and a Tail Coat is only worn with a white tie in the evening for extra formal wear (in place of the dinner coat and black tie). Thus the Church of Scotland elders who, no doubt, were dispensing communion on behalf of their Governor, Queen Elizabeth, were quite correct to wear Morning Coats. If only more laymen were as well versed in these matters as they.

quote:

---

daisymay recalled:
Easter Monday was definitely a major holiday, when everyone (whole families) went for a picnic and rolled dyed eggs down hills. They were very often red - don't know if any significance, or because cochineal was available, and sometimes stripy brown (onion skins tied around them while they boiled).

---

Actually, yep, there is a reason for red eggs, and it's all to do with Mary Magdalene.

From

this web page (which incidently also has a really nice icon image of her)

quote:

---

The Eastern tradition tells us that after the Ascension she journeyed to Rome where she was admitted to the court of Tiberius Caesar because of her high social standing. After describing how poorly Pilate had administered justice at Jesus’ trial, she told Caesar that Jesus had risen from the dead. To help explain His resurrection she picked up an egg from the dinner table. Caesar responded that a human being could no more rise from the dead than the egg in her hand turn red. The egg turned red immediately, which is why red eggs have been exchanged at Easter for centuries in the Byzantine East.

---

This page has a slightly different version, and symbolic meanings for other colours.

Counting the days til Easter...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
A Tail Coat is only worn with a white tie in the evening for extra formal wear (in place of the dinner coat and black tie).

---

I think that, if one is being very particular, "black tie" (dinner jacket and black bow tie) is the alternative to the more proper "white tie" (tail-coat and white bow tie) rather than the other way around.

I was taught that if an invitiation to dine included the words "Dress informal" then it referred to black tie (which is informal, compared with white tie, the normal attire for dining).

One of my pet peeves is that so few men (especially orchestra conductors, it seems)understand the difference between tail-coat trousers and dinner jacket trousers.

And I am very disappointed that Lovely doggie's elders have stopped wearing morning coats. I have no doubt that it added a great deal of charm to the service. Does anyone still have such a tradition?

Inanna,
Now, the Scots got their Stone of Destiny from Syria (and it was originally Jacob's pillow), so it's quite possible that we got the egg tradition from the East as well. We didn't aquire the RC church till much later, and there are interesting theories about the Celtic Church.

The following requires an understanding that Baptist ministers get very wet during baptisms (but usually not as wet as those baptised).

The pastor of the church at which I was baptised wore "casual" clothes for baptisms (shirt and trousers), but I used to know a pastor who thought it unseemly for him to lead a service in other than a suit and tie, consequently for baptisms he had a washable suit (one suspects a high polyester content).

I have also heard that some minsters have a set of "waders" to put over their other clothes when baptising, in order to keep their clothes dry, but I have never seen these in use (I have also heard it rumoured that the vatican has an ancient set of such waders, suggesting a long tradition for them - but this may be entirely untrue).

Could people share with me their own traditions and experiences of clerical attire for proper "dunkings"?

The Brethern halls in Fife also used waders to keep their elders dry when they were baptising. Once, the water in the baptistry was too deep and slopped over the top and the elder was so weighed down that he nearly couldn't drag himself out of the pool.

Another time a wee elder was baptising half a dozen young strapping six footer fishermen. He managed all right for the first five, but slipped and was dragged under with the sixth.

We were baptised in white overalls, and strictly instructed to wear thick, non-transparent bras and pants - no wet t-shirt parades allowed. However, when it came to my children's era, daughter was baptised in dungarees and son in jeans. Two men in the congregation did the baptism, one on each side, very easy and efficient. They dressed in shorts and t-shirts.

Once we had a visitor who was amazed that we could have a whole baptistry full of "holy water", not realizing it wasn't.

We had immersion heaters to warm the water up, and once nearly boiled people - luckily someone noticed steam rising and added cold water.

The dresses were fairly non-see-though when wet, but we were instructed to wear swimming costumes underneath, for the sake of decorum.