|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Sundry liturgical questions
|
Liturgylover
Shipmate
# 15711
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
Originally posted by Arch Anglo Catholic:
I have recent knowledge of a wise CofE Bishop who, when the question of the presbyteral confirmation of a (now) Anglican candidate for ordination to the diaconate arose, deftly dealt with the question of validity of confirmation, by swiftly and privately administering conditional confirmation on the candidate. . .
Hmm, but the CoE recognizes confirmation with episcopally-consecrated chrism even when administered by a presbyter ...
Does it? Can you quote an authority for that?
Although it recognises it in other denominations when people are being received, CofE confirmations require a presiding Bishop:
https://www.churchofengland.org/our-faith/confirmation/what-is-confirmation.aspx
Posts: 452 | From: North London | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
Thanks, I knew the link had been floated around this board before but the CofE's website is a bit labyrinthine to me.
Round these parts, the question has been further complicated by full communion with the Lutherans, who routinely confirm presbyterally. Any Lutheran who for whatever reason wished to go through the redundant procedure of being received as an Anglican would not have it repeated, even though chrism is not commonly used AFAIK.
[ 21. July 2014, 16:00: Message edited by: LQ ]
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
Dear all,
Thank you for your help, although nothing there rings the bell I was hoping for! I am beginning to think that I was barking up the completely wrong tree.
quote:
Originally posted by Signaller:
I was all set to trot out "We trust in you", number 446 in Hymns for Today's Church, but realised just in time that it is the 'modern' version of "We rest in Thee".
The sooner we get rid of that b***** book, the better. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Dude - you really, REALLY need to get rid that book. We used it in a church where I was a member BEFORE I was ordained. And it was awful even then. I can't believe that over 20 years later it is still in use.
(Having said that, I have very fond memories of "We trust in you...". It was included in the last service I attended at that church before I started training for ordination. The lines "We go in faith, our own great weakness feeling" and "We trust in you, and in your name we go." really meant something at that moment. Funnily enough, it was the first time I had come across that hymn, so I couldn't compare "We trust in you" with "We rest in thee".)
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BulldogSacristan
Shipmate
# 11239
|
Posted
It's not that Anglicans believe that Confirmation can't happen presbyterially, it's that as a matter of order, we do not allow our priests to confirm. According to our practice and canons, we reserve Confirmation to bishops.
Posts: 197 | From: Boston, Massachusetts | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Can a priest bless a new tabernacle or does that require a bishop?
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
Of course Leo is being intentionally obtuse. Unsurprising, really.
To actually answer the question posed, one might turn to the (old) Roman Ritual, which stipulates that:
quote:
3. BLESSING OF A TABERNACLE, PYX, CIBORIUM
The blessings of the sacred appurtenances or furnishings (sacra supellex) required in sacred worship--vessels, utensils, vestments, linens, and the like--used to be reserved to cardinals, bishops, pastors, priests especially delegated thereto, and religious superiors. Now, according to the new "Instruction" of September 26, 1964, any priest may confer them. In view of past interpretation of the Congregation of Sacred Rites, this would apply only to blessings in which no special anointing is required.
I would find that helpful in answering the question, BA. I don't know if it gets you where you want to go.
[ 23. July 2014, 17:27: Message edited by: Jon in the Nati ]
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Can a priest bless a new tabernacle or does that require a bishop?
A priest may bless it. The often useful site Sancta Missa has this:
quote:
"The blessings of the sacred appurtenances or furnishings (sacra supellex) required in sacred worship--vessels, utensils, vestments, linens, and the like--used to be reserved to cardinals, bishops, pastors, priests especially delegated thereto, and religious superiors. Now according to the new "Instruction" of September 26, 1964, [text here ] any priest may confer them. In view of past interpretation of the Congregation of Sacred Rites, this would apply only to blessings in which no special anointing is required"
[ETA: X-posted with above]
[ 23. July 2014, 17:29: Message edited by: Vade Mecum ]
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
Of course Leo is being intentionally obtuse. Unsurprising, really.
You're treading a fine line on personal attacks there, Jon.
seasick, Eccles host
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I would have thought that What was put inside the tabernacle was blessing enough.
Surely. But following that logic strictly, we wouldn't consecrate churches or bless chalices.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
My book of blessings is at home and I'm at the office, but my memory is that that's one of the blessings where it refers to the minister as "the bishop, or, in his absence, any priest." So a bishop is preferred, but if you won't have one in time, any old priest will do. I'm pretty sure deacons cannot bless tabernacles. (There's almost nothing a deacon can bless for use in public worship rather than private prayer, except for holy water).
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
Of course Leo is being intentionally obtuse. Unsurprising, really.
To actually answer the question posed, one might turn to the (old) Roman Ritual, which stipulates that:
quote:
3. BLESSING OF A TABERNACLE, PYX, CIBORIUM
The blessings of the sacred appurtenances or furnishings (sacra supellex) required in sacred worship--vessels, utensils, vestments, linens, and the like--used to be reserved to cardinals, bishops, pastors, priests especially delegated thereto, and religious superiors. Now, according to the new "Instruction" of September 26, 1964, any priest may confer them. In view of past interpretation of the Congregation of Sacred Rites, this would apply only to blessings in which no special anointing is required.
I would find that helpful in answering the question, BA. I don't know if it gets you where you want to go.
But that's only relevant if your are an RC. Leo is CofE.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
Well, Leo didn't ask the question; Beeswax did. I (and Vade Mecum) answered using sources that we found informative on the matter. Hart came in later with other sources.
Surely since Beeswax asked the question, it was something that bore answering; Leo, though, decided to jump in with a glib aside that intentionally missed the point and didn't take the question seriously.
The question was not whether one should need to bless a tabernacle at all; the question was whether, in a world in which a tabernacle must be blessed, a priest may do it on their own without the presence of a bishop.
[ 26. July 2014, 13:35: Message edited by: Jon in the Nati ]
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Presumably Beeswax asked the question from the perspective of the Episcopal church.Suggestions
from RC sources may well be mandatory (or psossibly not)for RCs but are only informative for non-RCs who are surely not obliged and sometimes actively discouraged from following RC norms and practices.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
Surely, Forthview.
Which is why I cast my response as "informative" and "helpful" and not "dispositive."
Although for me, as a very high church Anglican, the Roman Ritual is close to dispositive regarding subjects on which there is no distinctly Anglican directive on point. It may be less so for Beeswax or others.
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
My book of blessings is at home and I'm at the office, but my memory is that that's one of the blessings where it refers to the minister as "the bishop, or, in his absence, any priest." So a bishop is preferred, but if you won't have one in time, any old priest will do. I'm pretty sure deacons cannot bless tabernacles. (There's almost nothing a deacon can bless for use in public worship rather than private prayer, except for holy water).
I finally looked, and I was wrong. Well, except about deacons not being able to do the blessing, that was right. And about priests being able to do it, so I was pretty right. What I was wrong about was the rite expressing any preference that the minister be a bishop. It simply suggests (without quite requiring) that the tabernacle be blessed in the context of Mass and that the celebrant do the blessing.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
I thought anyone could baptise? Have I got that wrong*? Or is it a case of not requiring holy water in order to baptise?
*an incident in, I think, Gillian Bradshaw's Kingdom of summer depends on the answer to this!
[edited to remove glottal stop!]
[ 28. July 2014, 08:23: Message edited by: Garasu ]
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
It's normal custom to use blessed water for baptisms but baptism in ordinary water is perfectly valid.
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
In the CofE deacons cannot bless holy water (for baptism, for example), it has to be a priest.
Ah yes, this has come up before. CofE deacons are far more restricted in what blessings they can give than their RC counterparts.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
Yes, I've been to a summer baptism where the celebrant of the Mass (a visiting supply priest) blessed the water and the curate (a transitional deacon) administered baptism.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
I thought anyone could baptise?
As long as the baptizer baptizes with the intention of doing what the Church does. Have I got that right?
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
I thought anyone could baptise?
As long as the baptizer baptizes with the intention of doing what the Church does. Have I got that right?
An ancient nun of my acquaintance working in a Rwandan hospital had often baptized, no cleric being available, and regularly wrote out baptismal certificates. I ran into her in the context of a rather irregular situation where a Québécois couple were sufficiently enraged with their pastor that they would not have their daughter baptized in the parish church, so the ancient nun, a great-aunt of the woman, attended to it, and wrote out a statement afterward. I mentioned this to a canonist I met and, after a ritual explosion of gaskets, he admitted that he knew of similar cases and, as long as the intention was clear, so was the baptism. He told me that instances of this sort are known to happen after scandals in a parish involving the clergy.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
The baptism is clearly valid, but you're creating a paperwork nightmare for the one baptised whenever they want to do anything in the Church. The same applies to priests (generally working in extra-parochial ministries) who do home baptisms without bothering to inform the family's parish what's going on.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
Isn't that conflating a couple of issues, though? Baptism acts as a membership rite for many churches but also acts as a... not sure how to describe this... "ontological change" ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) ? From the membership point of view, no doubt it's helpful to have the paperwork in place and the right person doing the right things. From the point of view of the person trying to save someone from the devil and all his works, splashing them with ditch water is a pretty good start...
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
In the case of emergency baptism (in the CofE at least) if the child survives, it's recommended that s/he is taken to church for a service of thanksgiving and to be formally welcomed into the church family.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
And- can't remember, it's years since I read the old ASB rite for emergency baptism- aren't you supposed in any case to notify the child's parish priest, or perhaps the priest of the parish where the baptism takes place, afterwards?
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
I was baptised in a maternity hospital (by an RC midwife) and then later taken to church for the signing with the cross, etc.
Can't remember either occasion but I'm told I cried at neither.
I have a baptism certificate from the church.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LostinChelsea
Shipmate
# 5305
|
Posted
Here are the relevant rubrics from the Episcopal Church's BCP 1979:
The person who administers emergency Baptism should inform the priest of the appropriate parish, so that the fact can be properly registered.
If the baptized person recovers, the Baptism should be recognized at a public celebration of the Sacrament with a bishop or priest presiding, and the person baptized under emergency conditions, together with the sponsors or godparents, taking part in everything except the administration of the water.
As a further note in this direction, I've always understood that Baptism is placed in the BCP between the Daily Office and Holy Eucharist rather than with the pastoral rites because (perhaps among other reasons) it is expected that it is to take place as part of the community's regular worship.
--------------------
Best when taken in moderation.
Posts: 237 | From: Deep South USA | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboi
Shipmate
# 9222
|
Posted
Turning to/from the congregation
Does anyone know of any resource that instructs the priest, when turning for the salutions, to turn by the missal side rather than by the Epistle side?
My understanding has always been that the priest always turns toward the congregation and back to the altar by the epistle side, with the one exception of the orate fratres, when, instead of turning back to the altar by the Epistle side, he completes the circle, returning by the Gospel side. However, I have in one church seen the priests turn by whatever side the Missal is on at the time: i.e., by the Epistle side before the opening collect, and by the Gospel side before the Gospel. I've always thought this strange, and I wonder if anyone else has seen this in person and/or has a citation for this practice.
--------------------
Like as the hart desireth the waterbrooks, so longeth my soul after Thee, O God.
Posts: 136 | From: Philadelphia, PA | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
You always turn by the shortest way. When you're at the Epistle horn, that's to your left; in the center or at the Gospel horn, that's to your right. You turn back to the altar in the reverse direction, as if there were a rubber band attached to your navel pulling you back toward the altar (excepting at the Orate fratres, where you indeed make a complete circle).
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
You turn back to the altar in the reverse direction, as if there were a rubber band attached to your navel pulling you back toward the altar (excepting at the Orate fratres, where you indeed make a complete circle).
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
...nor a puppet on a string (or elastic band). ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
Also, after the blessing, the priest turns by his right and proceeds to the gospel horn for the last gospel.
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
In the thread in Purgatory on segregated seating, leo recalled that his parish church had segregated seating for men and women well into the last half century, and that this was an Anglo-Catholic custom.
I'm suppressing my old 'If they didn't do it at Mary Mags or at the Church of the Advent, it wasn't an Anglo-Catholic custom' reflex to ask:
Has anybody else heard of men and women being required or even expected to sit separately in any CofE parish church? Is this Anglo-Catholic custom known outside of leo's former parish? Can anyone give a source for its origin?
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
All Saints Margaret Street, I understand, separated men and women in the front of the nave for many years, until at least the 1950s. That's what I read somewhere anyway. The back rows (like in the cinema!) were reserved for mixed bathing.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Strict segregation here in the early days of the colony for convicts of course. I've never heard of it for free settlers though.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
All Saints Margaret Street, I understand, separated men and women in the front of the nave for many years, until at least the 1950s. That's what I read somewhere anyway. The back rows (like in the cinema!) were reserved for mixed bathing.
When I was a youngster, I went to All Saints Margaret Street for their patronal festival on Thursday 1st November 1962 for High Mass at 11.00 am (in the day-time in those days). Yes, I remember that men and women were separated in the nave - women on the left and men on the right. Segregation in this way, must have been abolished soon after that, as I do not recall meeting that situation on any subsequent visit to that church.
--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ¡Felices Pascuas! Happy Easter!
Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
St Salvators Chapel in the University of St Andrews (I know not Anglican) had segregated seating until fairly recently, probably into the later half of the twentieth century. I made the mistake at a female graduate reunion of sitting the people attending on the wrong side (in what was then the graduate seats in front of the seats reserved for the academic procession).
Jengie
[ 02. August 2014, 11:51: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emendator Liturgia
Shipmate
# 17245
|
Posted
And you weren't beaten to within an inch of your life with a haggis for doing something so obviously hurtful to Baby Jesus that he cried?
--------------------
Don't judge all Anglicans in Sydney by prevailing Diocesan standards!
Posts: 401 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
georgiaboy
Shipmate
# 11294
|
Posted
I have no idea of its origin, but the Methodist country chapels (and to some extent town churches) were still maintaining remnants of segregated seating into the 1950s. (One of the country chapels in our 'charge' even had separate doors for men and women. Men would generally sit on the right side, women on the left, particularly those of my grand-parents age and older. (As I recall, spouses sat together.) I never asked why -- wish now that I had!
Since this was before the Methodists started merging with other traditions, I would guess that it probably dated back to Wesley himself (?)
--------------------
You can't retire from a calling.
Posts: 1675 | From: saint meinrad, IN | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
What might one expect to happen in a middle to high CofE Church when using a new altar in a refurbished chapel for the first time?
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
What might one expect to happen in a middle to high CofE Church when using a new altar in a refurbished chapel for the first time?
Carys
The choir burst into flames?
(One can but hope...)
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
BIG service. Visiting clergy, good music, much incense and holy water.
Afterwards expect reasonable nibbles and champagne.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
Champagne?? Sherry, surely.... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
BIG service. Visiting clergy, good music, much incense and holy water.
Afterwards expect reasonable nibbles and champagne.
All the above, but in the RCC I would expect the bishop, or if not possible, his representative, to preside and anoint the altar with chrism. See p. 15 et ff.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emendator Liturgia
Shipmate
# 17245
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
All the above, but in the RCC I would expect the bishop, or if not possible, his representative, to preside and anoint the altar with chrism. See p. 15 et ff.
Hart, did anyone proof read that publication before it went out? I mean, with all due irreverent humour, wondering if there is a new liturgical practice that I haven't heard of when I read:
brazier for burning incense or aromatic spices; or grains of incense and small candles to bum on the altar;
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
[ 05. August 2014, 22:34: Message edited by: Emendator Liturgia ]
--------------------
Don't judge all Anglicans in Sydney by prevailing Diocesan standards!
Posts: 401 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
fabula rasa
Shipmate
# 11436
|
Posted
*bump!*
(cos I couldn't find it....)
Posts: 465 | From: scepter'd isle | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kayarecee
Apprentice
# 17289
|
Posted
What's the theological rationale for having the congregation recite the Collect/Prayer of the Day in unison?
For that matter, what's the rationale for having only the celebrant/Presiding Minister pray it?
Posts: 25 | From: The Cornfields | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
There is no rationale for everyone saying the collect other than somebody thought it would be 'a nice/moving thing' to do.
There is every reason for the presider/celebrant to say it alone since it is his/her prayer once the community has 'collected'. In times of persecution, people drifted in small groups to the gathering to avoid suspicion and arrest. The bishop marked the end of informal singing and started the liturgy proper when everyone had arrived/'collected'.
The best way to discourage a congregation joining in is the SING the collects, preferably with inflections.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
