|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Sundry liturgical questions
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
If anything I'd say the Protestant things was congregational (and metrical) psalm singing. Reading the psalm is something I've encountered more often at morning prayer when there is no music anyway.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
the congregation remains seated and reads the psalm aloud while the choir is silent. The latter practice strikes me as very Protestant (no problem with that, per se). Could anyone explain this to me?
From my childhood attending Middle of the Road Mattins and Evensong I remember that congregational singing of Anglican chant (no pointing or harmony) is so utterly dire that reciting psalms antiphonally with a break at the caesura is far more prayerful and monatic.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
Maybe the choir is not up to Anglican chant, which is quite as tricky in it way as a Byrd mass.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
As "high church Nonconformists", we frequently have the congregation read psalms responsively with the Minister. And, very occasionally, the choir chants a psalm in the Anglican way - but, to be honest, we're not very familiar with the idiom so we don't do it very well.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pangolin Guerre
Shipmate
# 18686
|
Posted
Well, the choir would be up to Anglican chant - they've tackled some pretty challenging stuff - so the congregational reading strikes me as a choice rather than making a virtue of a necessity. The church's tradition is pretty high, so I'm finding "high church Nonconformist" an intriguing explanation.
I've found in other congregations, when I've asked why they do things a certain way, I've been greeted a moment of silence, then a shrug, and, "We've always done it that way." Lost to the mists of time.
[ 16. December 2016, 11:21: Message edited by: Pangolin Guerre ]
Posts: 758 | From: 30 arpents de neige | Registered: Nov 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
I'm trying to think which parish church that might be. Apart from my own former parish (a "ministry" though not formally a chapel of ease of the cathedral) which uses the traditional Roman graduals, I can only think of two or three in the deanery with a choral tradition and a 10:30 service.
I find Anglican chant at the Eucharist to be pretty rare in Canada. Plainsong is typical for the psalm.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
I suspect the reason (apart from "we've always done it that way") is that your parish church wants the congregation to say the psalm (and doesn't think they'll be up to whatever method of singing it might use) and St. JAmes Cathedral doesn't want the people to be involved because of the excellence of the choir. (I write as one who worshipped at the cathedral, for a short while, some decades ago when the choir was certainly not excellent but was very ambitious.)
As for "protestant" singing of metrical psalms, the major denomination around here in question is the United CHurch (with presbyterian and methodist roots): I"ve yet to encounter a UCC church that used any method except the minister reading a couple of verses of a psalm. Certainly no congregational or choir involvement. But then I would not say my exploration of UCC worship has been terribly comprehensive, so I may just have hit on the exceptions. There isn't a very large selection of metrical psalms in their current hymnbook, though.
JOhn
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
By "high church nonconformist" I mean:
- detailed liturgy with written-out prayers and responsive readings;
- robed choir and minister in gown and collar;
- organ (not worship band);
- use of high pulpit for preaching ...
... as opposed to informal leading of worship, "chatty" prayers, everything led from a lectern etc.
(Possibly more of a "sacramental" approach to Communion too, rather than a purely memorialist approach).
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
georgiaboy
Shipmate
# 11294
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Yes, he did - and I've even heard that a (very) far-sighted Rabbi, knowing who the child was, saved the Holy Foreskin for future generations of the faithful to venerate (somewhere or other).
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
IJ
A hymn for the feast.
But the proper hymn for the feast is surely 'O Sacred Head, Sore Wounded.' (I'll get my cope.)
--------------------
You can't retire from a calling.
Posts: 1675 | From: saint meinrad, IN | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
I think you'll find the hymn for the circumcision is O happy day, when first was poured the blood of our redeeming Lord!
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Well, that's one I've never encountered. I wonder when anyone outside a monastic community last sang it. At least it's in Long Metre. So it shouldn't be difficult to find a tune to fit it to.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Yur tiz - though the tune (quite a nice one, IMHO) is not familiar to me..
http://www.oremus.org/hymnal/o/o245.html
Possibly hymn and tune are both of Lutheran provenance?
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I think you'll find the hymn for the circumcision is O happy day, when first was poured the blood of our redeeming Lord!
Don't forget the line from Lord of the Dance:
"They cut me down and I leapt up high"
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
No baby of an age to need/get the attentions of a bris is capable of holding up its own head, never mind leaping.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I think you'll find the hymn for the circumcision is O happy day, when first was poured the blood of our redeeming Lord!
If by THE hymn for the day you mean the office hymn, it certainly isn’t. (It’s is in the first person for one thing.) As the Octave Day of Christmas the office hymns will be the same as for Christmas Day, as appears in the dear old original English Hymnal and in the Roman and Benedictine breviaries.
English Hymnal gives two hymns for the Circumcision, “Conquering kings their title take” and “O happy day”. The last is a translation of a hymn by S Bernault ob. 1724,
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
The second of which is the one mentioned above, and to which I have provided a linky.
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Where does the idea that you can only take Communion once a day come from, and how widespread is it? (For myself, I communicate 2 or 3 times every Sunday. But that is because I serve 4 different congregations, and it would feel odd to celebrate and not receive with any of them - almost as though I was not in communication with them.)
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
Is the Feast of the Naming and Circumcision of Our Lord the same as the Feast of the Holy Name of Jesus?
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Where does the idea that you can only take Communion once a day come from, and how widespread is it? (For myself, I communicate 2 or 3 times every Sunday. But that is because I serve 4 different congregations, and it would feel odd to celebrate and not receive with any of them - almost as though I was not in communication with them.)
I have heard of this rule articulated to me by a very traditional Anglo-catholic priest. He said that it wasn't that you "couldn't" take communion more than once, but that you did not receive any additional spiritual effect if you took it more than once a day, I imagine it was to combat a superstitious notion that the more communion you receive, the more blessing you get.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
Roman Catholc canon law regulates the reception of communion. It formerly limited reception to once a day. The 1983 code of canon law expanded that to twice a day, provided the second time is at Mass. Vaticum is always permitted. Yes, the purpose is to discourage superstition.
[ 27. December 2016, 01:09: Message edited by: Ceremoniar ]
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Is the Feast of the Naming and Circumcision of Our Lord the same as the Feast of the Holy Name of Jesus?
Yes and no.
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I'm under the impression, though I don't know where from, that the person who celebrates is required to receive. What Robert Armin says, would strike me as a very good reason why this should be so. There are doubtless others. If there were a conflict between that an another rule, I would have thought that one would prevail.
I've also been told on more than one occasion that there is no specific rule in the CofE against receiving more than once in the same day. People may follow that as a preference if they wish, but that is up to them. So if there is a rule elsewhere, but you are CofE, it does not apply to you.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Just so - 'The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England'!
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Receiving the Sacrament 2 or 3 times each Sunday, with different congregations, seems sensible enough (even though presiding at 3 celebrations must sometimes be tiring...).
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
The Bishop of Rome has indeed jurisdiction over the many Roman Catholics in England (approx. 5 million),as well as in other parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and northern Ireland.
Although the rule for many centuries was for Catholics to receive Communion at least once a year ( and that at Easter or thereabouts) and at most once a day, this did not apply to priests who had to celebrate Mass more than once a day for pastoral reasons - binating or trinating for pastoral reasons with permission of the local bishop - for pastoral reasons.
One of the reasons for introducing the new law about receiving Communion more than once a day was for priests who had celebrated Mass and then gone to some other special Mass - like a wedding or even a funeral where they were unable to communicate,if they were not the celebrant - again at that time concelebration was only in its infancy.
The rule now is for people to be able to receive Communion more than once a day - if they are attending a second Mass,but not just to walk into a church and receive Communion without having participated in the Mass.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
My point, Forthview, was (as you will, of course, have realised) that the rules of the RCC do not apply to Anglicans.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
And I'm afraid that I know one or two of the 5 million Romans who do not obey their own church's rules....
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Of course,my friend,Episcopal digit,I realise that the pope's writ does not apply to Anglicans,even to those who claim to be Catholics.
I'm sure also that the phrase was meant to be taken tongue in cheek.
Indeed the Bishop of Rome's jurisdiction does not extend any further than to those who listen to him and that not only in England but throughout the world.
Like yourself I know many Catholics who pay little heed to what the pope has to say, including
aome who believe that the pope is not Catholic enough.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
I'm under the impression, though I don't know where from, that the person who celebrates is required to receive.
Possibly from Gregory Dix who with his Fourfold model of the Eucharist wrote to the effect that the presider receiving the Sacrament, "completes the consecration".
So if a presider celebrates but does not receive, that could possibly from a pure Gregory Dix point of view, entail that the Mass is invalid or at best irregular.
quote:
I've also been told on more than one occasion that there is no specific rule in the CofE against receiving more than once in the same day. People may follow that as a preference if they wish, but that is up to them. So if there is a rule elsewhere, but you are CofE, it does not apply to you.
Considering that people fret and worry about people coming to church once on a Sunday, I think we shouldn't be worrying about the eager beavers who come to church more than once.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
presiding at 3 celebrations must sometimes be tiring...
You might say that - I couldn't possibly comment. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
I'm under the impression, though I don't know where from, that the person who celebrates is required to receive.
Possibly from Gregory Dix who with his Fourfold model of the Eucharist wrote to the effect that the presider receiving the Sacrament, "completes the consecration".
It is more than that. For Catholics, the mass is a sacrifice. The priest's reception of communion completes the sacrifice.
--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Tobias
Shipmate
# 18613
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Is the Feast of the Naming and Circumcision of Our Lord the same as the Feast of the Holy Name of Jesus?
This is indeed a difficult question to answer, given that different churches often use different names for the same occasion, or put feasts on different days.
As far as I know, there is no calendar that has two distinct feasts with those exact names.
There are calendars that have 'The Circumcision of Our Lord' on the first of January, and a separate feast of the Holy Name of Jesus on another date.
[If you're interested:
The 1662 BCP has the Circumcision on Jan. 1, with collect and readings. It also has 'Name of Jesus' written in the calendar on August 7, the day after the Transfiguration. (I think this was the date of the feast in the Sarum Rite.) But it makes no provision for the observance of the day as a feast - nothing beyond putting the name in the calendar.
The proposed BCP of 1928 provided a collect and readings for the Holy Name (still on Aug. 7), which it included in the category of "Lesser Feasts and Fasts and other days which it is permitted to observe".
In the old form of the Roman Rite (pre-Vatican II, and still in use nowadays as the 'extraordinary form') there is, in addition to the Circumcision on Jan. 1, a Feast of the Holy Name on the Sunday between Jan. 1 and the Epiphany, or, if there isn't such a Sunday, on Jan. 2.
In the modern, 'ordinary form' of the Roman Rite, the feast of the Holy Name was initially removed, since the giving of the Holy Name was already recalled in the gospel for Jan. 1. (which, in that calendar, is not the Circumcision at all, but the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God.) But popular demand (I don't know how widespread) led to its being reinstated - but this time only as an 'optional memorial', and always on Jan. 3.]
For what it may be worth (and I'm no expert on this particular point), the Canadian Book of Alternative Services gives Jan. 1 simply as 'The Naming of Jesus', without mention of the circumcision, and without a feast of the Holy Name on another date. The Canadian BCP of 1962 has "The Octave Day of Christmas and Circumcision of our Lord, being New Year’s Day" on Jan. 1, and has "The Name of Jesus" on Aug. 7.
I think that where a decision has been made to have "the Naming of our Lord" on January 1, either on its own, or (as in the CofE's Common Worship) combined with "the Circumcision", commemoration of "the Naming" is treated as being equivalent to commemoration of "the Holy Name". It seems that in such calendars there is not a second feast specifically of the Holy Name.
--------------------
Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit.
Posts: 269 | From: Terra Australis Incognita | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Is the Feast of the Naming and Circumcision of Our Lord the same as the Feast of the Holy Name of Jesus?
Yes and no.
Well I'm glad that's cleared up.
Tempted to call it a very Anglican solution save that Ceremoniar has left Anglicanism and gone to Rome. Perhaps some of his Anglicanism did not get washed off?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Planeta Plicata
Shipmate
# 17543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tobias:
In the old form of the Roman Rite (pre-Vatican II, and still in use nowadays as the 'extraordinary form') there is, in addition to the Circumcision on Jan. 1, a Feast of the Holy Name on the Sunday between Jan. 1 and the Epiphany, or, if there isn't such a Sunday, on Jan. 2.
If I can be needlessly pedantic, the General Roman Calendar of 1954 was the last one to have a feast day of the Circumcision -- it was eliminated from the General Roman Calendar of 1960, which is the only one authorized for use in the extraordinary form today,
Posts: 53 | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
James Kiefer's calendar for The Episcopal Church has it as the Holy Name of Jesus, or the Circumcision of Christ - the heading reading to me as if it is the one event of naming and circumcision. Can anyone say if the circumcision was the day of naming also?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Luke 2.21 says quote:
After eight days had passed, it was time to circumcise the child; and he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb
which implies that naming and circumcision went together.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Yes, for Jesus - but was that the usual custom? Just curious.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Historically, there was a widespread folk belief that babies hadn't really got their names until they had been baptised with them. A relative of mine was always said to have ended up with the wrong name because the vicar had got it wrong.
[ 29. December 2016, 08:19: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
It is certainly our tradition that the baptismal names are the proper names for a child. In reality though, the proper names are those on the registration documents. I know of one woman whose registered name is Jeniffer - her father had been celebrating a bit before he reached the registry.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
From Chabad.org:
quote:
A baby boy is given his Jewish name at the brit, ritual circumcision. The name chosen by the parents is considered prophetic. For this reason, it is customary for the couple not to discuss the name of their child with others, prior to the naming. The parents should also not call the child by the decided name, even between themselves, until it is bestowed at the circumcision.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Is the Feast of the Naming and Circumcision of Our Lord the same as the Feast of the Holy Name of Jesus?
Yes and no.
Well I'm glad that's cleared up.
Tempted to call it a very Anglican solution save that Ceremoniar has left Anglicanism and gone to Rome. Perhaps some of his Anglicanism did not get washed off?
Not at all sure what that means.
It is true that there have always been three elements focused on the first of January: the Octave Day of the Nativity, the Circumcision, and the Holy Mother of God. Regardless of what the day has been called at various points in Catholic history, all three elements have been, and continue to be, evident in the propers of the Mass of that feast day. The Holy Name, a much later feast, is obviously related to the events of the same day, but has been observed on other dates, most commonly between the first of January and Epiphany.
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peter Owen
Shipmate
# 134
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm under the impression, though I don't know where from, that the person who celebrates is required to receive.
In the Church of England, it is in Canon B12 para 2.
2. Every minister, as often as he shall celebrate the Holy Communion, shall receive that sacrament himself.
It is also required by the rubrics of both the Book of Common Prayer and Common Worship.
--------------------
Πετρος
Posts: 266 | From: overlooking Liverpool Bay | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
One hears occasionally of clergy celebrating (say) 3 Eucharists on one Sunday, who overdo it with the consecrated wine, and have to get one of the wardens of church no.3 to drive them home...
*hic* Go in peash, to love and sherve the Lord! *hic*
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tobias
Shipmate
# 18613
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Planeta Plicata:
quote:
Originally posted by Tobias: In the old form of the Roman Rite (pre-Vatican II, and still in use nowadays as the 'extraordinary form') there is, in addition to the Circumcision on Jan. 1, a Feast of the Holy Name on the Sunday between Jan. 1 and the Epiphany, or, if there isn't such a Sunday, on Jan. 2.
If I can be needlessly pedantic, the General Roman Calendar of 1954 was the last one to have a feast day of the Circumcision -- it was eliminated from the General Roman Calendar of 1960, which is the only one authorized for use in the extraordinary form today,
Quite right. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit.
Posts: 269 | From: Terra Australis Incognita | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Goode
Shipmate
# 9224
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Planeta Plicata:
If I can be needlessly pedantic, the General Roman Calendar of 1954 was the last one to have a feast day of the Circumcision -- it was eliminated from the General Roman Calendar of 1960, which is the only one authorized for use in the extraordinary form today,
How appropriate: in 1960, the feast of the Circumcision got the chop.
Posts: 654 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
An announcer on our ABC gave details about a programme for this evening, noting that today was the Feast of the Circumcision and that one of the compositions was perhaps appropriately by Thomas Carver.
[ 01. January 2017, 07:15: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Peter Owen:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm under the impression, though I don't know where from, that the person who celebrates is required to receive.
In the Church of England, it is in Canon B12 para 2.
2. Every minister, as often as he shall celebrate the Holy Communion, shall receive that sacrament himself.
It is also required by the rubrics of both the Book of Common Prayer and Common Worship.
Thank you for that confirmation.
If any shipmate is interested, by the way, the sermon this morning was about circumcision.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
Several years ago our local newspaper had a story about a circumcision having to be postponed because the mohel had been in an accident on his way to the bris. He'd been cut off by another car.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
Perhaps he tried to get ahead of the other driver?
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
Someone should have given him some tips about driving.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
