|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Random Liturgical Questions (answers on a postcard, please)
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Would I be correct in assuming before that, all those assisting at the Eucharist would have been ordained ministers?
I think it would be closer to the truth to say that in the vast majority of parishes nobody at all ever assisted at Communion. The vicar did everything.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
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.
But remember it's not just a job anyone can do or help with. Only those authorised by the bishop may assist in the distribution of Communion.
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
georgiaboy
Shipmate
# 11294
|
Posted
In TEC there is (or was?) a requirement that lay persons assisting at communion (administering the chalice) be licensed by the Bishop.
I think all that was required was that your priest sent in your name and you got licensed.
I had been licensed in a previous diocese but not in my present one when, acting as server at a well-attended 7 am mass on Ash Wednesday, the celebrating bishop said to me 'Are you licensed to administer the chalice?' At my reply of 'No sir.' he said 'You are now!'
--------------------
You can't retire from a calling.
Posts: 1675 | From: saint meinrad, IN | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Would I be correct in assuming before that, all those assisting at the Eucharist would have been ordained ministers?
I think it would be closer to the truth to say that in the vast majority of parishes nobody at all ever assisted at Communion. The vicar did everything.
I was confirmed in the 1960s, and that's my recollection, though if there was a curate, he would probably assist. Most Communion Services in those days were at 8am, with fairly small congregations. As I've quoted on another thread, even the devout usually only communicated once a month.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sacred London:
But remember it's not just a job anyone can do or help with. Only those authorised by the bishop may assist in the distribution of Communion.
Quite. But only the vicar's stubbornness prevented him from submitting names of such people to the bishop.
--------------------
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 Enoch:
Most Communion Services in those days were at 8am, with fairly small congregations. As I've quoted on another thread, even the devout usually only communicated once a month.
Except, of course, at those churches where it had been the main service for decades, or at least since the Parish Communion movement. At the church I was brought up in the 1960s mass was said every day and several times on a Sunday, but then I cannot remember there not being three or four priests on the staff.
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
The regulations on the licensing of lay persons are permissive rather than mandatory, so if the incumbant (or for that matter, the bishop) is bloody-minded enough the whole thing can be derailed.
I have a dim recollection fro my teenage years of being told that the bishop kept an eye on how many licenses to administer the chalice being issued to each parish. I seem to think we usually had 3 or 2 EEMs assisting 1 or 2 clergy for an average of 120 communicants on any given Sunday, and the pool being about 6 or 7 EEMs.
In the jurisdiction where I serve as a bishop, which is traditionalist, the Canons are silent on this issue, but the practice has grown up of allowing the lay readers in larger parishes to administer the chalice in the absence of a deacon. The rule of thumb is that the parish has to have an average of at least 25 communicants, and/or the priest is elderly or infirm.
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
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
At a couple of times in my life I've been exploring ordination and found myself regularly administering the chalice, never with AFAIK a licence from the Bishop. However, one was a Missions to Seamen chapel (in England) which effectively ran as a Peculiar, while in both parishes (one in England, one in Wales) where I did this the incumbent happened to be Rural Dean at the time and each said that they could licence me informally under some kind of delegated authority. I don't know whether this is legally correct, though.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
At a couple of times in my life I've been exploring ordination and found myself regularly administering the chalice, never with AFAIK a licence from the Bishop. However, one was a Missions to Seamen chapel (in England) which effectively ran as a Peculiar, while in both parishes (one in England, one in Wales) where I did this the incumbent happened to be Rural Dean at the time and each said that they could licence me informally under some kind of delegated authority. I don't know whether this is legally correct, though.
The regulations allow the bishop to delegate the power to authorise to the archdeacon, but not the rural dean. The application has to be made, and is granted, in writing - so it can't really be made informally (and you'd know if you had it).
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 application has to be made, and is granted, in writing - so it can't really be made informally (and you'd know if you had it).
Though in my experience the bishop (or archdeacon) just sends a letter to the incumbent listing the names: individual EMs don't get anything in writing. Practice clearly varies between dioceses.
--------------------
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
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
And in my experience, any lay Eucahristic ministers have to have the approval of the PCC before being put forward.
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly Plummer
Shipmate
# 13354
|
Posted
So that's different from being authorised to take home communion, where you get a nice certificate signed by the bishop - I suppose in case the communicant wasn't sure that it was all official, though no one ever asked to see mine.
Posts: 577 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
No in my diocese they are done in the same way and there is no shiny certificate at all..
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
Just been to the 1000 mass where I asked the vicar about this. Of course he immediately thought I was volunteering, so I had to quickly think of an excuse.
He showed me some letters of authorization to distribute communion issued by the bishop. They were quite formal, with the diocesan coat of arms, and looked like licences or certificates. It seems that in our episcopal area copies are given to the incumbent (to be kept in the safe), to the person authorized, the area dean, and another is kept by the bishop. The authorization is only for the parish and the incumbent's copy is to be returned if the person moves or 'steps down'.
I pointed out the one he was showing me was for someone who died several years ago, and then thought it best to get back to being pedantic on the internet
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Polly Plummer:
So that's different from being authorised to take home communion, where you get a nice certificate signed by the bishop - I suppose in case the communicant wasn't sure that it was all official, though no one ever asked to see mine.
The rule about 'extended communion' (is that what is meant here?) seems to be that "that the service should be led only by a person who has been specifically authorized for this purpose by the bishop . . . normally a deacon, Reader or lay worker licensed under Canon E 7. . .
Those who have been given permission (under the provisions of Canon B 12) to assist in the distribution of Holy Communion may assist in that way, but the minister who leads the service must have a more specific authority from the bishop, and be appropriately trained'.
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
No I think 'extended communion' refers to services held in church in the absence of a priest. 'Home communion' I would take to mean the Blessed Sacrament being taken to the homes of the sick and/or housebound (in this context: 'house masses' are different).
As I understand it, the bishop's permission to administer the sacrament applies both to administering in church during the eucharist and to taking it to the sick. Leading formal worship in church is a different matter and would imply more restrictions.
--------------------
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:
No I think 'extended communion' refers to services held in church in the absence of a priest. 'Home communion' I would take to mean the Blessed Sacrament being taken to the homes of the sick and/or housebound (in this context: 'house masses' are different).
As I understand it, the bishop's permission to administer the sacrament applies both to administering in church during the eucharist and to taking it to the sick. Leading formal worship in church is a different matter and would imply more restrictions.
Yes, you are quite right (on both points). I think I was wondering what was different from "home communion". As you rightly say the authorization under Canon B 12 is for a lay person to distribute the sacrament in the parish - rather than (only) in the church.
[ 21. June 2012, 12:17: Message edited by: Sacred London ]
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vulpior
Foxier than Thou
# 12744
|
Posted
Our Diocese no longer requires the Bishop's licence for those who assist with distribution of communion. The parish priest and wardens are supposed to agree and the priest should notify the name(s )and invite any objections to be submitted directly to the bishop or via priest/wardens.
The document detailing this explicitly rules out extended communion.
--------------------
I've started blogging. I don't promise you'll find anything to interest you at uncleconrad
Posts: 946 | From: Mount Fairy, NSW | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
Our Diocese no longer requires the Bishop's licence for those who assist with distribution of communion. The parish priest and wardens are supposed to agree and the priest should notify the name(s )and invite any objections to be submitted directly to the bishop or via priest/wardens.
I don't think there has ever been a requirement for a licence. What you describe sounds much like the required process of authorization. Of course it's up to the bishop in the end.
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
No I think 'extended communion' refers to services held in church in the absence of a priest. 'Home communion' I would take to mean the Blessed Sacrament being taken to the homes of the sick and/or housebound (in this context: 'house masses' are different).
As I understand it, the bishop's permission to administer the sacrament applies both to administering in church during the eucharist and to taking it to the sick. Leading formal worship in church is a different matter and would imply more restrictions.
In my diocese the permission letter from the bishops says whether people are authourised to assist in church or to take communion out to the sick.
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
In TEC there is (or was?) a requirement that lay persons assisting at communion (administering the chalice) be licensed by the Bishop.
I think all that was required was that your priest sent in your name and you got licensed.
I had been licensed in a previous diocese but not in my present one when, acting as server at a well-attended 7 am mass on Ash Wednesday, the celebrating bishop said to me 'Are you licensed to administer the chalice?' At my reply of 'No sir.' he said 'You are now!'
If I recall correctly, there is an emergency clause that allows a priest in a pinch to appoint somebody to distribute at that service.
Funnily enough, the only time I ever administered communion was in an Episcopal church.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
Thanks all for your responses. Very interesting.
I was wondering if lay assistance at the Eucharist brought about the demise of the Deacon in liturgical function.
But having read a bit more of the history of the diaconate, it looks like it became a transitional order in the middle ages.
But then other places spoke about a kerfuffle in the 4th century when presbyters (priests) started getting stroppy that it was Deacons that became Bishops and not presbyters so things changed then.....
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
I have to agree that the (over) use of EEMs has tended to undermine the deacon's ministry, and I am inclined to think that this is a bad thing.
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
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Except that deacons were as rare as hen's teeth long before EEMs came in.
--------------------
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
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
I have to agree that the (over) use of EEMs has tended to undermine the deacon's ministry, and I am inclined to think that this is a bad thing.
PD
I have seen, more than once, a (RC) deacon sitting on his butt in a chair in the sanctuary as EEMs administer the chalice during Mass.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
"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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Sacred London:
The application has to be made, and is granted, in writing - so it can't really be made informally (and you'd know if you had it).
Though in my experience the bishop (or archdeacon) just sends a letter to the incumbent listing the names: individual EMs don't get anything in writing. Practice clearly varies between dioceses.
I get the impression ours is more or less a formality. Itws the voicar who decides, they submit a list of names, and the Bishop says yes.
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
And in my experience, any lay Eucahristic ministers have to have the approval of the PCC before being put forward.
On the other hand our PCC has in the past asked the vicar *not* to put some names forward.
quote:
Originally posted by Polly Plummer:
So that's different from being authorised to take home communion, where you get a nice certificate signed by the bishop - I suppose in case the communicant wasn't sure that it was all official, though no one ever asked to see mine.
I've never seen such a certificate!
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I was wondering if lay assistance at the Eucharist brought about the demise of the Deacon in liturgical function.
That didn't really exist in the CofE in the early modern period. Not in parish churches anyway. Some very marked Anglo-Catholic parishes reintroduced it - I guess in the late 19th century though I am not sure - but it was never the norm in the CofE. I have met ordained clergy who have never heard of the practice of "deaconing" at a Communion service.
In fact I've even explained to one or two of them what it meant - which I suppose would horrify some of the more candleiferous among us here, seeing as I'd never heard of it before I read about it on this website a few years ago, even though I'd been going to CofE churches for some years, including some very Anglo-Catholic ones. One of them did sometimes have more than one robed minister at the table, though only when some theology students made a day trip up from Chichester (shows how long ago it was) to Brighton (well, Hove, actually). Tthe parish churches I attended for my first three years in London were markedly Anglo-Catholic (one with clergy of a rather liberal and sensitive disposition, the other a bit more robust and has since gone to FiF) and I've often visited higher-church parishes places as one-offs before and since, but the norm really does seem to be either the civar does everythign, or else lay people read scriptures and the intercessions and assist at communion on a rota.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
The evangelical practice seems to be for the deacon, if there is one, to do all the presidential parts of the liturgy except the eucharistic prayer (and strangely, despite the provision for 'us/our' form of words, the absolution). Which to this liturgical pedant seems odd, and strangely unreformed catholic in its view of the priest's role.
I think most MOTR and MOTR+ parishes with actual deacons use them in the traditional way. It's just that in the nature of things few parishes actually have them.
--------------------
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
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I think most MOTR and MOTR+ parishes with actual deacons use them in the traditional way. It's just that in the nature of things few parishes actually have them.
Yes. And I asked my Bishop if this was a question of cost (i.e. alot of parishes around here can barely afford one ordained minister let alone two). He seemed to think so.
Yet he also said that somewhere in the New Zealand, the common model is Priest and Deacon per parish. And this model works remarkably well because the Deacon works in the community and makes ties to the church.
Makes sense.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
In the UK, the problem will be not only cost, but there just isn't enough clergy for that model.
The numbers of stipendiary clergy are being reduced and in the next 5-10 years even more are set to retire.
Curates are few and far between and curacies are purely training posts then after the requiered 3-4 years they go on to other posts - if they can get them!!
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
That didn't really exist in the CofE in the early modern period. Not in parish churches anyway.
There was a requirement at least until latish in the 19th century for fellows of Oxford and Cambridge colleges to be in holy orders. This would be fulfilled by being in deacons' orders. I think Lewis Carroll, for example, never became a priest.
I wonder whether this was also the case for the headmasterships of some schools and for posts like almshouse masterships.
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
In the UK, the problem will be not only cost, but there just isn't enough clergy for that model.
The numbers of stipendiary clergy are being reduced and in the next 5-10 years even more are set to retire.
Curates are few and far between and curacies are purely training posts then after the requiered 3-4 years they go on to other posts - if they can get them!!
I have a vague memory that in one of the London Areas all the Readers were recently asked whether they would like to 'upgrade' to the Distinctive Diaconate.
There may be legal implications to being in holy orders - apart from having to dress in a way that is a sign and mark of their holy calling.
[ 23. June 2012, 07:52: Message edited by: Sacred London ]
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sacred London:
There was a requirement at least until latish in the 19th century for fellows of Oxford and Cambridge colleges to be in holy orders. This would be fulfilled by being in deacons' orders. I think Lewis Carroll, for example, never became a priest.
Yes of course. But that sort of "diaconate" is very different in practice from the "diaconate" of trainee priests. And those academics would have been very unlikely to have functioned as liturgical deacons at Holy Communion. At the begining of the century they would probably not have known what such a thing was, unless they were ecclesiastical historians, and even by the end of it only the more catholic-moinded would have attended churches where it was done.
What they almost certainly would have done from time to time is to preach. And if particularly keen they might have presided at Morning and Evening Prayer in their college chapels, which would have been their normal round of worship.
And as most Anglicans only attended Holy Communion three or four times a year there would not have been much opportunity for liturgical deaconing even if they had wanted to. Which they probably didn't. The chances are that if they had even heard of it most of them looked on it as a rather dubious innovation, suspiciously Papistical, a somewhat camp new fashion imported from Italy. (Not that they would have used the word "camp" before the 20th century. But they might have made knowing remarks about sensistive, over-excitable, and artistic-minded young men)
quote:
Originally posted by Sacred London:
I have a vague memory that in one of the London Areas all the Readers were recently asked whether they would like to 'upgrade' to the Distinctive Diaconate.
We Readers were all asked that. Or rather asked our opinion on whether it was a good idea. I think they even sent us a form to fill in. It was even discussed at General Synod. Most of us said "no" rather firmly. If we had wanted to be ordained we would have asked to be ordained. Some of the clergy seemed surprised. It was as if they had assumed tht Readers were some kind of wannabe clergy (like the bloke in "The Rev") all deeply lomnging for ordination and somehow deficient without it. Looked at that way its mildly insulting.
quote:
There may be legal implications to being in holy orders - apart from having to dress in a way that is a sign and mark of their holy calling.
Lots of clergy don't dress differently anyway so I doubt if that would be an issue.
Though there seem to have been recent changes in the CofE. You see a lot more clerical dress on the street than you used to. Isuspect its to do with ordainign women - many of them went for distininctive clerical dress in a big way, maybe its encouraged some of the men to follow suit.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Morlader
Shipmate
# 16040
|
Posted
"... maybe its encouraged some of the men to follow suit..."
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
.. to utmost west.
Posts: 858 | From: Not England | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Sacred London:
There was a requirement at least until latish in the 19th century for fellows of Oxford and Cambridge colleges to be in holy orders. This would be fulfilled by being in deacons' orders. I think Lewis Carroll, for example, never became a priest.
Yes of course. But that sort of "diaconate" is very different in practice from the "diaconate" of trainee priests. And those academics would have been very unlikely to have functioned as liturgical deacons at Holy Communion. At the begining of the century they would probably not have known what such a thing was, unless they were ecclesiastical historians, and even by the end of it only the more catholic-moinded would have attended churches where it was done.
Yes, I agree. My point was that there were presumably a few more 'permanent' deacons around than we assume, and that the order (rather than the liturgical role) might have been better known than it is today.
quote:
There may be legal implications to being in holy orders - apart from having to dress in a way that is a sign and mark of their holy calling.
Lots of clergy don't dress differently anyway so I doubt if that would be an issue.
I was being facetious about dress, but wondering whether there might be other legal implications of, say Readers, becoming Deacons and therefore entering holy orders - along the lines of not being able to serve on juries, be MPs etc.
[ 23. June 2012, 11:13: Message edited by: Sacred London ]
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sacred London:
I was being facetious about dress, but wondering whether there might be other legal implications of, say Readers, becoming Deacons and therefore entering holy orders - along the lines of not being able to serve on juries, be MPs etc.
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 removed the disqualification from jury service and The House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Act 2001 repealed the provisions of The House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act 1801. Lords Spiritual are still disqualified for sitting in the House of Commons.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Sacred London:
I was being facetious about dress, but wondering whether there might be other legal implications of, say Readers, becoming Deacons and therefore entering holy orders - along the lines of not being able to serve on juries, be MPs etc.
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 removed the disqualification from jury service and The House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Act 2001 repealed the provisions of The House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act 1801. Lords Spiritual are still disqualified for sitting in the House of Commons.
But aren't there other things like not being allowed to bear arms? And wouldn't they also come under the clergy discipline regulations.
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
But they might have made knowing remarks about sensistive, over-excitable, and artistic-minded young men)
Many of them might have been sensitive, over-excitable and artistic minded young men.
[ 23. June 2012, 12:58: 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
|
|
Bos Loquax
Shipmate
# 16602
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
1. Do you cross yourself at the beginning of the Gloria in Excelsis? I've seen it done (and it fits the rule of crossing yourself at canticles etc. drawn from Gospel text, such as the Benedictus, Magnificat, and Nunc Dimittis), but there are already lots of gestures in that particular hymn. I'm just curious if anyone here has seen it done, or can give a good reason one way or the other.
I have never done it, have never seen it done, and had never conceived of doing it--not, of course, that Doing So Is Wrong, just that I've neither seen it nor thought through all the possible places where I could conceivably cross myself.
Here I wonder if there's a difference because (1) those "Gospel canticles" have historically been used differently and (2) those canticles are more directly taken from Scripture (cf. venbede's post).
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
The other canticles are gospel texts, and we cross ourselves at the start as we (or at any rate some of us) do at the start of a gospel reading. The Gloria is not a gospel text.
Is either of my points part of the historical reasons for the difference in crossings?
Many people in my parish, including me, will cross ourselves at the beginning of those Gospel canticles within the offices and cross ourselves at the end of the Gloria in excelsis when we use it elsewhere. Our 1979 US prayer book gives us the option of using the Gloria in excelsis as an office canticle, and it appears in the table of suggested morning usage on p. 144, but I have yet to see it as an office canticle in corporate prayer.
Posts: 58 | From: California | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sacred London:
But aren't there other things like not being allowed to bear arms?
That hasn't stopped them from blessing battleships.
--------------------
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
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
On one or more threads the topic has come up of what different folks call the mass or eucharist or holy communion or the Lord's Supper. This is especially discussed in anglican contexts the term one uses is usually considered to indicate how high or low on the candle one is.
However i just came across a usage i have never before encountered. St. Andrew's Episcopal Church in Cincinnati Ohio calls it Eucharistic Mass! ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) ... like what other kind of mass is there?
Has anyone else heard this particular term?
Edited for punctuation
[ 02. July 2012, 23:41: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
I haven't, but I wouldn't be surprised if somebody here had.
It really is Textbook Episcopanglican Doublespeak, isn't it, like "Sacramental Rite"?
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
Except that (and i am open to correction) while all sacraments are rites, not all rites are sacraments. (I am thinking of both RC and the various Angl. uses of the term sacrament here)
ETA that of course you are right that sacramental rite is, in any case, redundant.
[ 03. July 2012, 00:17: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
<snip> i just came across a usage i have never before encountered. St. Andrew's Episcopal Church in Cincinnati Ohio calls it Eucharistic Mass! ... like what other kind of mass is there?
Has anyone else heard this particular term?
I am going to go out on a limb here and hazard a guess: that the parish in question serves a community where the entire Episcopal/Anglican lexicon is itself a foreign tongue, and that the good folks at St Andrew's are trying to be as clear as possible on the style of worship that one can expect at their shack. And for that good effort I am happy to grant them a lot of slack.
As to sacraments/rites/sacramental rites, I'm no expert, but I find it convenient, when talking with the children and the yoots at our place, to refer to "big-S Sacraments" and "small-s sacraments." People pretty much "get" that, at the basic level of things. (If they wish to go to seminary some day, or to post in Ecclesiantics, of course, they'll need to ratchet things up a notch).
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
And if they read their Luther carefully (or their Schillebeeckx for that matter), they'll learn there's only really-big-S SACRAMENT: Jesus Christ.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
uffda
Shipmate
# 14310
|
Posted
FWIW I agree with Mamacita on this one. Over the years I have presided over many non-eucharistic funerals or weddings, or weekday services, only to have a Roman Catholic approach me and say "I really enjoyed your Mass." I think "Mass" is just a word that some use to mean "service."
Although the wording is a bit awkward, a Eucharistic Mass seems to be a way to let folks know that Holy Communion will be offered.
--------------------
Invincibly ignorant and planning to stay that way!
Posts: 1031 | From: Buffalo, NY | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
And if they read their Luther carefully (or their Schillebeeckx for that matter), they'll learn there's only really-big-S SACRAMENT: Jesus Christ.
Hart, thank you for that. I will be using it.
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlav12
Apprentice
# 17148
|
Posted
Why does the 1979 Prayer Book place the Benedictus before the Te Deum in Morning Prayer?
Posts: 34 | From: Albany, New York | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jlav12:
Why does the 1979 Prayer Book place the Benedictus before the Te Deum in Morning Prayer?
I would speculate that the Te Deum makes for a bigger final canticle, being a really big doxology. Putting the Benedictus after might seem a bit anti-climactic. Now some would say that in the full-blown medieval office (and its modern Roman descendants) the Te Deum should come first because it was/is in the office of Matins, which preceded the office of Lauds, which has the Benedictus. Personally IMHO i think the '79 BCP order is better. Morning Prayer is not 2 offices run one after another as is the case when Matins and Lauds are celebrated together. The BCP Morning Prayer is one office in and of itself, containing elements of not just 2, but 3 offices (Matins, Lauds and Prime). Thus having its own structure as a single office, there is no reason IMHO that it should painstakingly put those elements in the precise order that they would appear if one if one were using those 3 separate offices.
That's, as i say, just my opinion, mostly on the grounds of aesthetic structure. As always YMMV.
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
geroff
Shipmate
# 3882
|
Posted
I spent some of today doing some research into some parish records of a small church in the Southwell diocese - I came across a faculty from 1902 which was presented to the bishop, on behalf of the parish, by a person titled "Vicar General'. What does this mean in this Church of England context? Would he be the Chancellor today?
--------------------
"The first principle in science is to invent something nice to look at and then decide what it can do." Rowland Emett 1906-1990
Posts: 1172 | From: Montgomeryshire, Wales | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
Ultimately somebody English will pop by here and clear it up, I'm sure.
Until then, here appears to be a clue.
quote:
In 1770 he was appointed Vicar-General of the Southwell College of Canons, and had jurisdiction over 28 Churches for all purposes, except Confirmation and Ordination.
When I have encountered the term in Catholic situations, it has meant a person who assisted the bishop in administrative affairs. When the late Archbishop of Chicago passed away, it was the Vicar General who basically filled in. (In this case, the Vicar General was one of the auxiliary bishops.)
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
