|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Random Liturgical Questions (answers on a postcard, please)
|
aig
Shipmate
# 429
|
Posted
Originally posted by Fr Raphael
quote:
How do you make incense less smokey and more smelly (in the best cense of course)
The charcoal needs to be lit well in advance and be very hot before the incense is imposed: lighting the charcoal 20 minutes before needed will work. Adding new charcoal after the gospel will keep the thurible at furnace level.
I'm not sure about little spoons. On Pentecost we were using huge lumps of incense; the president got frustrated with the spoon to lump ratio and tipped the boat contents - all of them - onto the charcoal, which being white hot, did not go out.
I also have exploding charcoal stories with the bonus of involving small children. You have to be careful...
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
That's not how we do it here.......
Posts: 464 | From: the middle bit at the bottom slightly to the right | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Devils Advocate
Shipmate
# 16484
|
Posted
I always light the charcoal with a Kitchen blow torch. It also pays to keep the lid up when you aren't using the Thurible.
--------------------
"Oh I have wrought much evil with my spells"
Posts: 97 | From: Lincs | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Raphael
Apprentice
# 17131
|
Posted
Is rosa mystica a good one for smokeless zones?
It seems to be nice in odour and low in smoke when I have come across it.
Posts: 40 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oblatus
Shipmate
# 6278
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aig:
Originally posted by Fr Raphael
quote:
How do you make incense less smokey and more smelly (in the best cense of course)
The charcoal needs to be lit well in advance and be very hot before the incense is imposed: lighting the charcoal 20 minutes before needed will work. Adding new charcoal after the gospel will keep the thurible at furnace level.
I'm not sure about little spoons. On Pentecost we were using huge lumps of incense; the president got frustrated with the spoon to lump ratio and tipped the boat contents - all of them - onto the charcoal, which being white hot, did not go out.
I also have exploding charcoal stories with the bonus of involving small children. You have to be careful...
I'm not a thurifer in our shack; I've only observed the work of our thurifers. They blast the coals to life on a gas ring that's set into a niche. The smoke from the coals goes up a flue from there. Only when the coals are covered with white ash are they taken off the ring with tongs and placed in the thurible bowl, where they are then mashed a bit with a fork (to expose more hot surfaces). The incense itself seems to be a mix of powdery, chunky, and broken bits, and consists of frankincense and something more floral depending on the thurifer. I think I'd stick with frankincense as being less irritating and more churchy-smelling, but that's my personal preference. The celebrant uses a small spoon to charge the thurible, being careful not to cover all of the coals' hot surfaces and thereby smother them.
Posts: 3823 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
A new query.
In the UK, church weddings are weddings. CofE ones take effect automatically, and everyone else's do because their priests and ministers are made deputy registrars.
In many countries though, e.g. France, weddings are done by the state and people who want a church wedding have to have a separate ceremony.
In Common Worship, there's a separate service for blessing a civil wedding. Historically, this has usually - but not exclusively - been used where one of the couple has been divorced.
However, two questions:-
In the Diocese of Europe, and other places where all church marriages have to be preceded by a civil marriage, are all marriages done as blessings?
In many such countries, the default church is RC. Does the RC church in, say, France, do weddings as blessings or does it pretend the couple aren't already married, and do what we'd regard as the full show?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
The civil marriage and the church marriage are both the full show, if I recall correctly - even in the Roman Catholic Church.
The civil marriage takes place the day before and is usually a quiet affair. The church wedding is where the hoopla is, if hoopla is desired.
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
The RC Church does not have a service of Blessing. What we do is called a convalidation. It is just the usual marriage service, with no alterations. The only thing missing is the signing of the civil register.
The name convalidation indicates what it is doing: recognising the civil marriage, but making it equally a Christian marriage. So not a "validation" (which would suggest the civil marriage was not valid) but a CONvalidation - making it valid for both Church and State.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
In the C of E the full marriage service (save for the legal bits) may be used after the civil ceremony. This is, I understand, more popular than the Service of Dedication which has a penitential feel to it. For a century or so until the latter was introduced this was the only way of having a liturgical 'blessing' after a civil marriage.
[ 07. June 2012, 17:40: Message edited by: Sacred London ]
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
What do you mean by the 'legal bits'? I assume the vows ("I N take you N to be my...") are unrepeatable in that form. On a couple of occasions I have amended that to '..have taken...'. But I wonder what the official position is, especially that of the Diocese in Europe.
--------------------
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
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
What do you mean by the 'legal bits'? I assume the vows ("I N take you N to be my...") are unrepeatable in that form. On a couple of occasions I have amended that to '..have taken...'. But I wonder what the official position is, especially that of the Diocese in Europe.
No, you can have the vows as they stand (and they probably should not be amended) and the declaration. The legal bits are the enquiry about objections (too late) and the signing of the register.
[ 08. June 2012, 07:45: Message edited by: Sacred London ]
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
What do you mean by the 'legal bits'? I assume the vows ("I N take you N to be my...") are unrepeatable in that form. On a couple of occasions I have amended that to '..have taken...'. But I wonder what the official position is, especially that of the Diocese in Europe.
Have a look here on page 57
http://www.churchofengland.org/media/35588/complete.pdf
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
On the basis of that Canon, e.g.
quote:
use such form of service, as may be approved by the General Synod under Canon B 2,
I would deduce that one must use the service in CW for the blessing of a civil marriage and may not cut and paste bits of the ordinary wedding service to make up something else that looks more like an imitation wedding. Am I correct?
However, do the Canons apply in full in the Diocese of Europe?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
On the basis of that Canon, e.g.
quote:
use such form of service, as may be approved by the General Synod under Canon B 2,
I would deduce that one must use the service in CW for the blessing of a civil marriage and may not cut and paste bits of the ordinary wedding service to make up something else that looks more like an imitation wedding. Am I correct?
However, do the Canons apply in full in the Diocese of Europe?
No. It says clearly the form for the Solemnization of Matrimony ie the Marriage service .
The Diocese of Europe is a diocese of the Church of England - and canon law applies.
[ 08. June 2012, 10:58: Message edited by: Sacred London ]
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sacred London:
The Diocese of Europe is a diocese of the Church of England - and canon law applies.
But surely not when canon law conflicts with the law of the particular country. And that particular canon seems ambiguous in any case.
--------------------
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
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Sacred London:
The Diocese of Europe is a diocese of the Church of England - and canon law applies.
But surely not when canon law conflicts with the law of the particular country. And that particular canon seems ambiguous in any case.
No of course not, but how would that be the case here? Nor do I see the ambiguity in the canon.
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
It didn't seem that ambiguous to me. There's an authorised book with a prescribed service in it. But Sacred London tells me I've misunderstood it and am wrong.
Incidentally, on this, suppose a couple marry civilly at a time when they have no faith, and subsequently come to faith. If one takes the high view that a church marriage is sacramental and a civil one is not, does the blessing service convert the one into the other?
I'm assuming that what Triple Tiara says about convalidation states the RC position, but I don't think we have that anywhere - or if we do, I've never heard of it.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It didn't seem that ambiguous to me. There's an authorised book with a prescribed service in it. But Sacred London tells me I've misunderstood it and am wrong.
Only wrong in the sense that the marriage service is permitted after a civil marriage. The canon is about adding a service of Solemnization of Matrimony after a civil marriage (rather than what is popularly called a 'blessing'). It states only an authorized service may be used. The BCP Marriage service is permanently authorized. The Service of Dedication is not a form of Solemnization of Matrimony.
[ 08. June 2012, 15:29: Message edited by: Sacred London ]
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Incidentally, on this, suppose a couple marry civilly at a time when they have no faith, and subsequently come to faith. If one takes the high view that a church marriage is sacramental and a civil one is not, does the blessing service convert the one into the other?
I am not sure that is the high church view. A civil marriage might be sacramental. There is really no such thing as a service of blessing. An authorized form of the Solemnization of Matrimony could be added at any time after the civil marriage. This is a matter of choice for the couple. It does not affect the status of the marriage so it's not a form of convalidation.
[ 08. June 2012, 15:39: Message edited by: Sacred London ]
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
But apart from the Blessing one, is any form of service currently
quote:
approved by the General Synod under Canon B 2,
for this purpose? And apart from the Blessing service, is there any other service in this context which would currently comply with?
quote:
the Canons and regulations of the General Synod for the time being in force.
I'd find it difficult to be persuaded otherwise than that the default conclusion has to be that the existence of a different form of service means that unless the full marriage service has also been explicitly approved for this purpose, it isn't.
It perhaps doesn't matter too much. If the couple are already married in law, using the wrong form of service is only a canonical error, with no legal consequences. But what prompted my original question was what the practice is where there is no legal alternative to having a church wedding in two stages.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
But apart from the Blessing one, is any form of service currently
quote:
approved by the General Synod under Canon B 2,
for this purpose? And apart from the Blessing service, is there any other service in this context which would currently comply with?
quote:
the Canons and regulations of the General Synod for the time being in force.
I'd find it difficult to be persuaded otherwise than that the default conclusion has to be that the existence of a different form of service means that unless the full marriage service has also been explicitly approved for this purpose, it isn't.
It perhaps doesn't matter too much. If the couple are already married in law, using the wrong form of service is only a canonical error, with no legal consequences. But what prompted my original question was what the practice is where there is no legal alternative to having a church wedding in two stages.
I am not sure I completely follow your reasoning, but I think the answer is that no service has been approved for what Canon 36 envisages.
The notes to the Service of Prayer and Dedication state quite clearly that it is not a marriage service. It cannot therefore be a service of the Solemnization of Matrimony such as the Canon permits may be added after a civil marriage.
In the absence of a specially approved service the Canon can only be referring to the Marriage services of the BCP and presumably CW.
The origins of the Canon lie in the years after the introduction of civil marriage in England in 1837. Its purpose is to permit those validly and 'fully' married in a civil marriage to 'change their mind' and have a church service "added" - presumably at any point later. It therefore comes close to addressing the original question here about having a church service after a civil marriage where the latter is obligatory (as in the Diocese of Europe).
The Service of Prayer and Dedication was devised to deal with a different issue, namely marriage after the breakdown of a previous marriage when the former partner is still alive. That's why it has a penitential feel to it and wording which clearly distinguishes it from a marriage service. It was never envisaged as a service to follow an obligatory civil marriage.
Where the marriage service is "added' after a civil marriage it does not mean the marriage is happening in "two stages". The civil marriage is the marriage, and the addition is a kind of 'celebration' of it. That's why the vows are used but there is no signing of the register.
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
More of a random question than a random liturgical question, but...
Was the Brotherhood of St Andrew - the old TEC men's organisation associated with a particular churchmanship (High, Low, or Broad) or non-aligned? My assistant wants to start a chapter here, and I will not do anything that screams 'X. churchpersonship' if I can avoid it.
PD
[ 10. June 2012, 14:13: Message edited by: PD ]
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
But apart from the Blessing one, is any form of service currently
quote:
approved by the General Synod under Canon B 2,
for this purpose?
For the sake of completeness and clarification (and before we leave the topic), it should be pointed out that the Order of Prayer and Dedication After a Civil Marriage (presumably what is meant here by the 'Blessing' service) is not a service approved by the General Synod under Canon B2", but is a service "commended by the House of Bishops as being suitable for use by ministers in exercise of their discretion under Canon B5".
The General Synod has not approved any service for use after a civil marriage, but Canon B 36 permits the addition of a service of Solemnization of Matrimony after such a marriage.
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
georgiaboy
Shipmate
# 11294
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
More of a random question than a random liturgical question, but...
Was the Brotherhood of St Andrew - the old TEC men's organisation associated with a particular churchmanship (High, Low, or Broad) or non-aligned? My assistant wants to start a chapter here, and I will not do anything that screams 'X. churchpersonship' if I can avoid it.
PD
While I have no personal experience with BoSA, I know that chapters of it were found throughout the Diocese of Kentucky, which at that time was somewhat lower than MOTR, so I would guess non-infectious for 'catholic tendencies'.
The organization slipped out of sight in Ky sometime in the late 1950s IIRC.
--------------------
You can't retire from a calling.
Posts: 1675 | From: saint meinrad, IN | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
The Brotherhood of St Andrew was still found in various Texas dioceses perhaps into the first decade of the 21st Century (certainly in the Diocese of Texas, and in the Diocese of Northwest Texas into at least the late C20). I think I recall it from the Diocese of Dallas and the area that subsequently became the Diocese of Fort Worth into the 1980s, though it had less presence in that Anglo-Catholic/High Church territory than in the aforementioned dioceses. I always perceived it as being an artifact of low to MOTR churchmanship and typically existing where you also had Daughters of the King (DoK). I never knew much about them.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
sonata3
Shipmate
# 13653
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
The RC Church does not have a service of Blessing. What we do is called a convalidation. It is just the usual marriage service, with no alterations. The only thing missing is the signing of the civil register.
The name convalidation indicates what it is doing: recognising the civil marriage, but making it equally a Christian marriage. So not a "validation" (which would suggest the civil marriage was not valid) but a CONvalidation - making it valid for both Church and State.
My wife and I had a convalidation, not after a civil marriage, but after being married in an Episcopal Church (which, as far as the Catholic church was concerned, was apparently a civil marriage). My wife was perfectly happy with our Solemn High Nuptial Mass at an Episcopal Church, but then insisted on convalidation about a year later when she realized that her marriage in an Episcopal Church might make it more difficult for our children to get into Catholic elementary schools. Apparently the diocesan office that must approve these things became somewhat apoplectic when looking over the order of service of our marriage.
--------------------
"I prefer neurotic people; I like to hear rumblings beneath the surface." Stephen Sondheim
Posts: 386 | From: Between two big lakes | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
The Brotherhood of St Andrew was still found in various Texas dioceses perhaps into the first decade of the 21st Century (certainly in the Diocese of Texas, and in the Diocese of Northwest Texas into at least the late C20). I think I recall it from the Diocese of Dallas and the area that subsequently became the Diocese of Fort Worth into the 1980s, though it had less presence in that Anglo-Catholic/High Church territory than in the aforementioned dioceses. I always perceived it as being an artifact of low to MOTR churchmanship and typically existing where you also had Daughters of the King (DoK). I never knew much about them.
That will fit in nicely with the prevailing churchmanship around here then!
PD
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
Does anyone know of a funeral prayer that reads, more or less, something like this:
"Give us grace, O Lord, to use well that time that is left to us in this world, that in the world to come we might have life eternal."
I seem to recall it being from one of the BCPs but am certainly not sure of that.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
The conclusion of the intercessions in the (C of E) Common Worship Funeral service reads: quote:
Give us the wisdom and grace to use aright the time that is left to us here on earth, to turn to Christ and follow in his steps in the way that leads to everlasting life.
That may of course be adapted from a stand-alone prayer which might be the one you are looking for.
[ 12. June 2012, 17:31: Message edited by: Angloid ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
There's also this one, which fulfils the same function in the service:
O God, whose days are without end, and whose mercies cannot be numbered. Make us, we beseech you, conscious of the shortness and uncertainty of life, and let your Holy Spirit lead us in holiness and righteousness all our days, that, when we shall have served you in our generation, we may be gathered with those who have gone before us, having the testimony of a good conscience, in the confidence of faith and the comfort of hope, in favor with You, our God, and in perfect charity with the world. All which we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
I am reaching back into the cobwebs of years gone by so those may be what I'm thinking of or modern equivalents. Thanks.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
I know it isn't what was requested but what has been shared remind me of the beautiful concluding prayer of the litany for the departed:
quote:
O God of spirits and of all flesh, Who hast trampled down death, defeated the devil, and given life to thy world; do Thou, the same Lord, give rest to the souls of thy departed servants (N. and N.) in a place of brightness, a place of refreshment, a place of repose, where all sickness, sighing, and sorrow have fled away. Pardon every transgression which they have committed, whether by word or deed or thought. For Thou art a good God Who lovest mankind; because there is no man who lives yet does not sin, for Thou alone art without sin, thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy word is truth.
For Thou, O Christ our God, art the Resurrection and the Life, and the Repose of thy servants who have fallen asleep, and unto Thee we ascribe glory, together with thy Father, Who is without beginning, and thine all-holy, good, and life-creating Spirit, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Raphael
Apprentice
# 17131
|
Posted
When iis the zuccheto worn liturgically?
I have seen a priest remove it for the Eucharistic prayer, but I am not sure when it is on and when off I
Is it right that some wear it under the beretta / mitre?
Posts: 40 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Raphael:
Is it right that some wear it under the beretta...?
Are you absolutely sure this is what you meant?
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
There are some rough parishes out there, Michael...
--------------------
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
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Raphael:
When iis the zuccheto worn liturgically?
I have seen a priest remove it for the Eucharistic prayer, but I am not sure when it is on and when off I
Is it right that some wear it under the beretta / mitre?
It is removed for the EP, yes. Yes, it is worn under a biretta or mitre.
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Raphael
Apprentice
# 17131
|
Posted
Thanks.
So is it only taken off for the Eucharistic Prayer? It remains on at all other times?
Posts: 40 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
Correct. It is removed from the start of the preface dialogue and remains off through the end of communion.
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
However, if they are Roman Catholics then they do not use the zucchetto at all during the liturgy - that is reserved to those of episcopal rank. Clerics may indeed wear a skull-cap all day long, if they wish, but as soon as they participate in the liturgy, they leave it in the sacristy.
That's not just me being a spoil-sport - them's the rules.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Raphael
Apprentice
# 17131
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
However, if they are Roman Catholics then they do not use the zucchetto at all during the liturgy - that is reserved to those of episcopal rank. Clerics may indeed wear a skull-cap all day long, if they wish, but as soon as they participate in the liturgy, they leave it in the sacristy.
That's not just me being a spoil-sport - them's the rules.
Thank you Ceremoniar and Triple Tiara. It seems hen that there are two sets of rules.
Are they rules with current written authority or is it tradition.
I know Triple Tiara, I am sure with knowledge, quotes the rules, but can I ask whe these RC rules about the use of the zuccheto are to be found?
Posts: 40 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Raphael:
It seems then that there are two sets of rules.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Raphael
Apprentice
# 17131
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Raphael:
It seems then that there are two sets of rules.
Sorry Ceremoniar, maybe I have puzzled you.
What I mean is you say one thing, with authority, and Triple Tiara says another about the Zuchetto.
I was thinking then that there are either two people's different opinions or thoughts, or maybe two different official rules on this.
Maybe the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite and the modern form have different rules.
Posts: 40 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
No, it was not used by ordinary clerics in the EF.
It seems that this was one of those things that crept in as a special "privilege" granted to prelates.
This is one of those "rules" that are not often broken so there isn't an authoritative text as such saying "Priests: don't do it!" Rather it's more by way of "Bishops: do it" that the rules are clear.
In other words, the rubrics are silent about the zucchetto for ordinary clerics and very specific for prelates.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Raphael:
What I mean is you say one thing, with authority, and Triple Tiara says another about the Zuchetto.
Where?
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Raphael
Apprentice
# 17131
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
And a link.
Looking again at the St Edward Brotherhood site. Is there a popular fragrance? I notice the frankincense is least expensive, is that OK?u
Posts: 40 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
Does anyone know at what point in the Anglican church did lay assistants at the Eucharist became the norm?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Raphael:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
And a link.
Looking again at the St Edward Brotherhood site. Is there a popular fragrance? I notice the frankincense is least expensive, is that OK?u
It depends on the type of fragrance you prefer. I have never known frankincense to be used neat in an Orthodox church, where sweeter incense tends to be the cultural norm. However, the mustier smelling types of incense that are more customary in western churches smell that way because of their higher frankincense content. To many people, it is this that makes church smell like church.
As sacristan at my old Anglican church, I would simply buy the St Edward's frankincense in the big box (the monastery supplies my local Christian bookshop and church supplies place) and we would just use that. With a mortar & pestle and some essential oils from The Body Shop, I was able to vary the fragrance on any given day (rose oil for the Mother of God, sweet orange for Eastertide nd so forth) without losing that base churchy smell.
My parish now doesn't buy incense. People just donate it when they come back from their holidays in Greece or Eastern Europe so we use whatever comes, keeping the nicer ones for feasts and festal seasons. We do get some of the St Edward's incense too. Someone gave us three sachets of the rather nice Byzantium for Pascha but I forgot so I'm saving it for our patronal feast.
[ 20. June 2012, 05:42: Message edited by: Michael Astley ]
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Does anyone know at what point in the Anglican church did lay assistants at the Eucharist became the norm?
In the Church of England authorised lay people may distribute Holy Communion under Canon B 12(3) and in accordance with regulations passed by General Synod. In fact, those originally made by the Church Assembly in November 1969 remember in force.
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
Thank you Sacred London. I thought it might be around that time.
Would I be correct in assuming before that, all those assisting at the Eucharist would have been ordained ministers?
I guess I'm asking because I think I might be more called to serve the distinctive diaconate rather than the priesthood.......perhaps I should start a thread....I have lots of questions that Google is not helping much with. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Thank you Sacred London. I thought it might be around that time.
Would I be correct in assuming before that, all those assisting at the Eucharist would have been ordained ministers?
That's right. Deacons are specifically authorised by the 1662 Ordinal "to help [the priest] in the distribution [of holy Communion]".
(In my previous post I should have said the 1969 regulations remain in force. )
[ 20. June 2012, 11:25: Message edited by: Sacred London ]
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Useful information, Sacred London, but Evensong's question asked about this practice 'becoming the norm'. I suspect, apart from licensed Readers, it took a while to catch on in some parishes. There was a parish where I was occasionally called upon to help out in the mid-1970s. The pernickety traditionalist of a vicar refused to allow any lay person to help with the administration even though there was a large number of communicants; I remember rebelling and saying that I was willing to preach and/or celebrate but not travel miles just to do a job lots of other people could. I don't think that changed his mind.
--------------------
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
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
