|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Random Liturgical Questions (answers on a postcard, please)
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
My parish church, which is MOR, has a decent Rite 2 Eucharist on Sundays. The clergy are all vested with chazzy, dalmatic, etc. The custom is that the presider and the preacher are usually different, and the preacher processes in wearing a cope, which the verger takes from him or her before the gosprl and brings back after communion. But it is in no way a "choreographed solemn high mass" such as higher up the candle churches have, nor is that its goal i would guess. In the weekly listing for upcoming roles the verger seems to have the task of making sure everything runs smoothly, including the sound system, and making sure all the readers have shown up. If one of the readers or the one who lrads the prayers of the people fail to show up, the verger does it. I'm not sure what his/her role is in our parish's very efficient communion distribution system (We also have a "head acolyte")
This seems very different from vergers in England. How does it compare to other U.S. Episcopal churches?
[ 06. September 2012, 10:05: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
I think the verger/MC thing varies from place to place in the US - it's based on the resources and needs of particular churches, isn't it? My experience is with two cathedrals. At my home church (a cathedral), there are only ceremonial vergers. On staff there's a clerk of the works (who lurks on these boards - hi, if you're reading this!) who does a lot of what we vergers do outside of services at the cathedral where I work - in terms of caretaking, anyway.
But a verger can serve as MC. It's actually a natural fit if you can't spare someone else for MC duties. I'm not sure if that's what they do back home, but when I was a lector, I was supposed to report to the verger when I arrived, so I assume the verger was functioning also as MC.
Where I work, the MC is just someone who is rota'd for that role each week. It's normally a lay person (as clergy are needed for other roles), and one of our canons takes turns at it. The MC writes everyone's role up on the board (we have a chalkboard in the vestry with a diagram of the sanctuary and slots for all the roles, the MC fills names in) and writes out the processional order as well. Then they check off who arrives, and find replacements for roles that aren't filled. During the service, they open the curtain that we process out from (in the choir aisle, as that's where our vestry is), and generally keep an eye on things, especially during the distribution of Communion. I've never been an MC, so I can only say what I observe them doing.
Outside the liturgy, we vergers (where I work, anyway) generally tend to the space, set up for services (marking and setting out books, laying out vestments, moving furniture into place if needed, and, for weekday HE, setting the credence table), assist with weddings (in particular, running the rehearsal, taking care of the paperwork, and getting everyone in place on time for the service), that sort of thing. Lots of little odds & ends, including filling in the Register of Services and tallying up the numbers, doing small mending jobs, doing the laundry and ironing that the Altar Guild doesn't do, and so forth. We take on stuff that we see needs doing sometimes, if it's something we can do - for instance, I did some stop-gap staining and varnishing in the sacristy a few summers ago. Oh, and we serve as lay assistant during weekday masses, and officiate at Evening Prayer if no one else is rota'd. (It used to completely fall to us but our current dean changed that, so there's a rota M-F. We still take Saturday. The head verger does Morning Prayer on Saturday and I do Evening Prayer, generally.) We tend to candles, including the votive candles all around the church, and we polish candlesticks, processional crosses, and other metalware when necessary. We're kinda like the butlers in God's house. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barefoot Friar
Ship's Shoeless Brother
# 13100
|
Posted
I'm about to begin looking for a new suit. I wear a grey clergy shirt (tab collar), with no plans to switch to black anytime soon. The ones I have are a rather dark grey for a shirt. What color suit do I need to look for? I would think black or charcoal, and my personal preference would be charcoal. Are there other suit colors I should look at?
--------------------
Do your little bit of good where you are; its those little bits of good put together that overwhelm the world. -- Desmond Tutu
Posts: 1621 | From: Warrior Mountains | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
Our lot don't have such things as MCs. At episcopal services, the bishops deacon (often an archdeacon) will be the one responsible for keeping clergy and servers in order. It seems a natural part of the diaconal role of maintaining the practical orderliness of worship. It is he who gives all of the practical directions both to celebrant and people: "Master, bless the holy bread", "Let us attend", "Let us depart in peace", "Stand upright", "Let us pray to the Lord", "Let us stand well, let us stand in awe, let us attend that we may offer the Holy Oblation in peace". These are all just codified elements of that role but it is not limited to them.
--------------------
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
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
Our lot don't have such things as MCs.
That's probably a good thing, considering the proximity of the ripidion, and the MC's instinct to "correct."
[ 09. September 2012, 15:53: Message edited by: Olaf ]
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
Our lot don't have such things as MCs.
That's probably a good thing, considering the proximity of the ripidion, and the MC's instinct to "correct."
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I very nearly had to use ours for its intended purpose today. We had a wasp in the altar for most of the Liturgy.
[ 09. September 2012, 16:16: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]
--------------------
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
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
I have never researched this, but I have a suspicion based on chasing up the skinny a lot of liturgical alterations that happened to come from that period that the MC, like lace, makes a widespread appearence some time after Burchard - say, during the revision of the liturgy that occured after the Council (that's Trent for you Modernists ![[Biased]](wink.gif) )
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
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
I have never researched this, but I have a suspicion based on chasing up the skinny a lot of liturgical alterations that happened to come from that period that the MC, like lace, makes a widespread appearence some time after Burchard - say, during the revision of the liturgy that occured after the Council (that's Trent for you Modernists )
PD
Is this when the Roman Mass became very heavily choreographed? If so, I can certainly understand the introduction of a role for someone able to hold it all together.
It would be interesting to know to what degree Russian practice was influenced by this. Our services are similarly choreographed, which I took for granted until I heard clergy from other Orthodox churches comment on how alien this seemed when they concelebrated in Russian churches.
--------------------
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
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
Sort of, though reading mediaeval texts it was clear that things were quite complex even in 1350. I think the immediate post-Trent period is when they became obsessional about not making cock-ups in the Mass and produced the very precise rubric driven version of the Mass that to a large degree obtained in most places from the 1570s to the 1960s.
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
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
On bells:
At a celebration of the Eucharist I attended recently bells were rung in the Eucharistic Prayer at the words of consecration.
They were also rung at the end of the Eucharistic prayer.
I seem to remember having come across this extra ringing before, but I'm not sure.
Is it common, and what is it 'saying'?
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
Try this... for some initial ideas.
Or any of the other pages that came up under it on the first page of a Google search.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
First, Paul Turner is The Commentator for me whenever I talk about non-official books about liturgy. This is my beloved commentator, listen to him.
Second, I've never heard bells at the Great Amen, but it's called Great for a reason -- why not emphasize that with some bells?
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
I don't think the bell-ringing is meant to suggest that the "magic words" are consecratory; the bell-ringing is meant to call attention to the elevations after the Words of Institution. The bells were rung so that people would look up from their rosaries and see the elements elevated, which was (most of the time) as close as they would come to receiving them.
Of course, the elevations themselves suggest that the Words of Institution are consecratory, and the bell-ringing would tend to support that. But then again, the bells are also rung during the Sanctus (hence the name "Sanctus bells"), and during the priest's Non sum dignus as well.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
Thanks for helpful replies, and so quickly too.
I like the emphasis on the whole prayer as being significant and the great Amen with bells could emphasise this. I'd not quite thought of it that way before.
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
Quick tangent?
Has there been a discussion on whether all or a specific part of the Eucharistic Prayer actually confects the Eucharist?
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oblatus
Shipmate
# 6278
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
On bells:
At a celebration of the Eucharist I attended recently bells were rung in the Eucharistic Prayer at the words of consecration.
They were also rung at the end of the Eucharistic prayer.
I seem to remember having come across this extra ringing before, but I'm not sure.
Is it common, and what is it 'saying'?
My interpretation is that it means "This is a special moment." Doesn't necessarily mean this is the moment of [consecration/transubstantiation/confection], but is at least a moment to pay extra attention, give a moment to contemplation, etc. We do a short ring before the words of institution, ring during each elevation, and a short ring as the celebrant receives the Sacrament (which completes the cycle of actions; it also lets the people know it's time to come forward and receive). We do three short rings at the beginning of the Sanctus as well.
Posts: 3823 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
On bells:
At a celebration of the Eucharist I attended recently bells were rung in the Eucharistic Prayer at the words of consecration.
They were also rung at the end of the Eucharistic prayer.
I seem to remember having come across this extra ringing before, but I'm not sure.
Is it common, and what is it 'saying'?
My interpretation is that it means "This is a special moment." Doesn't necessarily mean this is the moment of [consecration/transubstantiation/confection], but is at least a moment to pay extra attention, give a moment to contemplation, etc. We do a short ring before the words of institution, ring during each elevation, and a short ring as the celebrant receives the Sacrament (which completes the cycle of actions; it also lets the people know it's time to come forward and receive). We do three short rings at the beginning of the Sanctus as well.
That's more or less what we do as well, except that a short ring is done at each of the celebrant's "Lord, I am not worthy"s.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Of course, the elevations themselves suggest that the Words of Institution are consecratory, and the bell-ringing would tend to support that. But then again, the bells are also rung during the Sanctus (hence the name "Sanctus bells"), and during the priest's Non sum dignus as well.
Actually, in the modern Roman Rite, they're not elevations but expositions. The only elevation is during the doxology, leading into the Great Amen.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
As far as I'm aware, we don't have the little bells in church in the Russian tradition. During the Anaphora, there is a ringing of a bell (in the belfry, although in many parishes an indoor bell is rung) twelve times during the hymn to the Mother of God, which follows the epiklesis. During this hymn, the priest continues praying, commemorating the whole communion of the Church: the patron saint of the parish, the saints of the day, and all the saints. Meanwhile, the deacon, who is censing within the altar, commemorates the departed. Immediately, after this, the bishop, the living, and all mankind are commemorated. When the bishop himself is serving, this is the point at which his candles are extinguished. There is very much a feel of climax at that moment, of the whole Church being gathered in communion with each other and the Holy Trinity, and all of the events of our salvation in Christ made present.
Yet, despite this, there are particular moments when the local presence of the risen and glorified body and Blood of the Saviour is emphasised and given due reverence. Among them are the dominical words and, explicitly, the epiklesis, when we all prostrate to the ground. There is a bell rung at the epiklesis in the Serbian tradition, and in some parts of the Russian church, the option is followed of moving the twelve bells from the hymn to the Mother of God to somewhat earlier, at the Creed.
I suppose that all this goes to show is that there is reverence given to the Holy Gifts at various points, even from prior to the Anaphora, and that the whole eucharistic action is seen as something of a whole, although there is consensus that, by the epiklesis, the Body and Blood of the Saviour are present.
--------------------
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
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Of course, the elevations themselves suggest that the Words of Institution are consecratory, and the bell-ringing would tend to support that. But then again, the bells are also rung during the Sanctus (hence the name "Sanctus bells"), and during the priest's Non sum dignus as well.
Actually, in the modern Roman Rite, they're not elevations but expositions. The only elevation is during the doxology, leading into the Great Amen.
Yes I can see that bells could suggest the words of institution are consecratory.
However, from another point of view could it not be argued they draw attention to the words as Dominical, that is to say they draw attention to the definitive moment, as opposed to the consecrative (I doubt there is such a word!).
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
Consecratory, but your meaning was clear. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I also agree with your point that bells needn't necessarily imply a moment of consecration.
--------------------
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
|
|
Mr. Rob
Shipmate
# 5823
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
... the bell-ringing is meant to call attention to the elevations after the Words of Institution. The bells were rung so that people would look up from their rosaries and see the elements elevated, which was (most of the time) as close as they would come to receiving them ...
Quite so. Jingle or Sanctus bells became part of the Mass, especially after the development of the Low Mass, when the words of the liturgy where not only in Latin, but were recited sotto voce in a way that could not be heard by those in church. The practice was thought to be part of the "mystery of the Mass." The people attending had no way of knowing what was happening at the altar unless bell signals called their attention to the important bits.
Fr. Weber mentions the people in church during Mass with their rosaries. Most of those people were illiterate. There were no handy, printed Latin-vernacular missals for them. So that meant the Mass was all visual movement and those bells. There certainly wasn't the participation of Holy Communion for them in the context of the Mass.
All of this means that bells should be a thing of the past for Roman Catholics and Anglicans alike, but the innate conservatism of religion often retains practices, particularly liturgical practices, that have lost usefulness. When that happens, as in the case of Sanctus bells, new meanings must be discovered or conjured for their retention. Hence, the aesthetic and devotional rationales, some of which are posted here.
Actually, Santusbells are long past any usefulness, except perhaps in the mission fields among the semi-literate populations. But of course the bells are still to be heard at Mass in many other places where the only real reason for them is a very traditionalist mind set.
*
Posts: 862 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Actually, Santusbells are long past any usefulness, except perhaps in the mission fields among the semi-literate populations. But of course the bells are still to be heard at Mass in many other places where the only real reason for them is a very traditionalist mind set.
The "Beauty of holiness" isn't useful anymore?
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
I don't think beauty is useful, no. Or if it is, that's never its purpose.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I dunno. I think beauty can communicate the grace of God in its own way. We don't have to console ourselves with theology alone.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
'Beauty is truth, truth beauty' - John Keats.
--------------------
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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
Actually, Santusbells are long past any usefulness, except perhaps in the mission fields among the semi-literate populations. But of course the bells are still to be heard at Mass in many other places where the only real reason for them is a very traditionalist mind set.
*
We are affcath but use bells with our smells. My mind wanders quite a lot so the bells call me back to the matter in hand.
Also, it's a teaching point with the kids.
--------------------
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
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I think beauty can communicate the grace of God in its own way.
Of course it can! My problem was a utilitarianism that assesses parts of worship based on whether or not they're useful.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Seems this is as good a place to answer the closing questions of MW Report 2440 as any, since it's so short and all:
quote:
2 – I enjoyed the style of service, and can imagine coming back again. However, I don't see how one can get involved. There was no announcement as to which liturgy was being used. There was no attempt to make conversation or draw our attention to any other church activities. There is no current information on any activities during the week or even wider social work available on the web. Where would one start?
For the most part, German churches don't do the sort of lay involvement one finds in English speaking countries. Churches are more or less considered to be a service the State provides its citizens like schools or hospitals. The buildings are maintained by the State, and priests are considered to be public employees.
To be fair, coffee hour and bible studies and the like are a fairly new thing in English speaking countries too. After confirmation, one didn't usually hang around church too much outside of services unless one was a vestryman. The wave of "education wing" constructions in the 90's was necessary because most church never needed a space for such at thing before.
[ 18. September 2012, 18:09: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Quick tangent?
Has there been a discussion on whether all or a specific part of the Eucharistic Prayer actually confects the Eucharist?
I don't recall any such thread. It's a lengthy discussion, since there are differing views within and between different Christian traditions. There have been at least three views within Anglicanism alone: the Dominical Words of Institution; the Epiklesis; the entire Eucharistic prayer and action. To my knowledge, classical Lutheranism has the most straightforward view that it is explicitly the Dominical Words - Our Lord's "Word of Promise" - through which the Real Presence is effected within the celebration of Eucharist.
Why don't you start a new thread on the subject?
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Rob
Shipmate
# 5823
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
... coffee hour and bible studies and the like are a fairly new thing in English speaking countries too. After confirmation, one didn't usually hang around church too much outside of services unless one was a vestryman. The wave of "education wing" constructions in the 90's was necessary because most church never needed a space for such at thing before.
I do remember the 1950s when perpetual, every Sunday coffee hours were introduced as a new thing following the main service.
I'm sure you're right about the education wing constructions of the 90s, but that has also been a perennial thing, mostly initiated during the periodic financial booms of the late 19th cen until the present day. No boom, no money for additions. The 1950s saw a boom in new church construction.
The 1920s had a huge boom in church building and in additions constructed for Christian education, with space for the works of the social gospel. In the 1920s we find the general advent of the parish house. as distinct from many an old rectory or church basement.
Further, the first half of the 20th cen saw large parishes such as New York City's St. Georges, Styvesant Sq, St. Bartholomew's, Park Ave, Trinity Wall St; in Boston, Emmanuel, Newbury St and Trinity, Copley Sq; and in Pittsburgh, Calvary Church, that were able to raise big money to build large and complex plants, super parish houses, for multi-purpose use.
Now they have to pay the utility and maintenance bills for a lot of that building still standing and in use. That's a point of course, if possible, to remember in planning.
*
Posts: 862 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
I think there is potentially rather more to the discussion about the MW report than can be appropriately handled on this thread which is intended for quick questions. I've created a new thread for discussion of the MW report and all further contributions regarding that should now be made on that thread.
Thank you for your cooperation.
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
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
Why is a Catholic crucifix more likely to have Jesus' body on it than a protestant one that is usually empty?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emendator Liturgia
Shipmate
# 17245
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Why is a Catholic crucifix more likely to have Jesus' body on it than a protestant one that is usually empty?
Evensong, the more punctilious of us would say that the question to be asked is: Why do Catholics use a crucifix and Protestants an empty cross in their churches etc.
The cross is often shown in different shapes and sizes, in many different styles. As you have pointed out in your question, the two main variants of it are:
a)crucifix form, that is, with a figure of Christ, often referred to as the corpus (Latin for "body"), affixed to it. Roman Catholic, A-C Anglican and Lutheran depictions of the cross are often crucifixes, in order to emphasize that it is Jesus and his sacrifice that is important, rather than the cross in isolation
b) the cross without the corpus, which in Protestant churches and views reflects that the resurrection is primary rather than as representing the interval between the death and the resurrection of Jesus.
Christians in the first three centuries used crosses for private devotions. But once Christianity was not longer a persecuted religion, the cross became its most visible symbol. The crucifix became more prominent in the fifth century. Scholars suspect that part of the delay was out of sensitivity to Christians who had had relatives executed by crucifixion.
Over the centuries, artists depicted Jesus' death in countless ways. During the Middle Ages, crosses were studded with heavy jewels. Irish crosses were intricately geometrical. Baroque art showed Christ suffering, his head cast back, his mouth open in agony.
The issue of crucifix or cross can be often contentious. Catholics say they prefer crucifixes to remind them of the depth of God's love. Protestants prefer crosses without a body to emphasize the Resurrection. Orthodox have icons that depict the crucifixion but prefer plain crosses to wear as jewelry.
As a personal prefernce, my choice is for a Christus Rex: we have a very fine example mounted behind the altar in our worship centre, and I wear one during many times of the year. For the penitential seasons, however, I prefer the symbolism associated with a crucifix.
--------------------
Don't judge all Anglicans in Sydney by prevailing Diocesan standards!
Posts: 401 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
Presumably one issue is that strict protestants would argue that a crucifix with carved figure is a graven image and so against the Ten Commandments.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emendator Liturgia
Shipmate
# 17245
|
Posted
In 1956, the then Arhcbishop of Sydney, Howard Mowll, asked the principal of Moore Theological College, Broughton Knox, how he should respond to the request of a number of churches seeking permission to place large crosses (plain, protestant crosses, mind you) on or above their altars. This was not the first time that an Arhcbishop seemed to need the direction or guidance (permission?) of the principal of Moore College in matters liturgical.
Knox replied that such crosses were likely to be used for superstitious worship because idolatry is not he worship of a statue instead of God as much as worship even of the true God by means of materialistic presentations. "If we persistently worship God with the aid of material things, or religious life will be confined to the lowest elements of our soul, the sensuous, and we will never truly know God."
Mamkes one wonder whether the 1950s was an extension of Cromwell's Commonwealth rather than the Anglican Church in the twenith century!
--------------------
Don't judge all Anglicans in Sydney by prevailing Diocesan standards!
Posts: 401 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
So not exactly attuned to, er, the Incarnation, then? Sounds like Gnosticism or Manicheeism to me.
--------------------
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
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:
The issue of crucifix or cross can be often contentious. Catholics say they prefer crucifixes to remind them of the depth of God's love. Protestants prefer crosses without a body to emphasize the Resurrection. Orthodox have icons that depict the crucifixion but prefer plain crosses to wear as jewelry.
Thank you Emendator Liturgia. I was aware of the theological differences in the expressions but not really sure how they came about historically...?
I spent some weeks in Austria some years ago and was quite taken aback at the gruesomeness of some of the crucifixes!
Interesting you say it's to emphasize God's love. I got the impression it was about emphasizing Jesus' suffering - which (at the time) seemed to me to be a kind of penal substitution atonement theology that was prevalent amongst some protestants.
So needless to say I was a bit confused!.
So the orthodox emphasis in a church would be a cross with a corpus too?
And why would a protestant emphasize the resurrection more than a catholic?? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Too many questions perhaps.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
So the orthodox emphasis in a church would be a cross with a corpus too?
Most of the Orthodox crucifixes I've seen have a painted but flat figure of Christ, rather like the Franciscan one, except that the figure is often raised in the form of a flat cut-out of the body with the figure of Christ painted onto it. This needs input from Orthodox shipmates, but I'm under the impression that Orthodoxy is more comfortable with two dimensional paintings than three dimensional statues.
It sounds as though Broughton Knox was a very appropriate name. Was he any relation?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
So the orthodox emphasis in a church would be a cross with a corpus too?
Most of the Orthodox crucifixes I've seen have a painted but flat figure of Christ, rather like the Franciscan one, except that the figure is often raised in the form of a flat cut-out of the body with the figure of Christ painted onto it.
Responding firstly to Evensong'a question: I'm not sure that I would call it an emphasis. We depict the Saviour on the Cross in our icons because He was on the Cross. This is unrelated to any difference that may exist between Catholics and Protestants in the reasons for their preferences for a Cross with our without corpus.
On the point of the raised corpus, most Orthodox churches will have a large Cross somewhere in the church. In some places it will be permanently available for veneration by the faithful somewhere in the church, perhaps off to the side somewhere, and in some places it will be stored away.
Its actual liturgical use is on Holy and Great Friday. At Matins on that day (actually served on the Thursday evening) twelve Passion Gospels are read, interspersed with various hymns and antiphons of the Passion. At the point in the readings where they come to Golgotha, the Cross is brought out ceremoniously during the singing of the beautiful fifteenth antiphon, and placed in the middle of the nave for the meditation and veneration of the purple during the rest of the readings and hymns.
A possible reason that you may sometimes see a raised corpus on such a Cross is that, in the Greek tradition, the exists a custom of having a detachable corpus with holes in the hands and feet. The empty Cross is set up at the beginning of Matins, and at the fifteenth antiphon, it is the corpus alone that is brought out. The priest then nails it up to the Cross during the service, with dowels that go into the holes.
According to the rubrics that I have, the Cross is then simply removed prior to Vespers of Holy Friday but a Greek custom seems to involve leaving it up and removing the corpus during Vespers, wrapping it up in a burial shroud, and carrying it around the church in procession.
That said, I know one Greek Orthodox priest who told me this is not Greek custom and that I must be mistaken, while another Greek Orthodox priest told me it most certainly is a Greek custom, and that he strongly disapproved of it because he saw it as a departure from the Orthodox theology of the icon and a reduction of it to mere puppetry. I have seen videos of this in Greek churches but the discrepancy suggests to me that it might be a later custom that never became universal in the Greek church.
The Russian church seems not to know of these customs but simply has the Cross icon as a focus of meditation and veneration. I don't recall having seen the corpus raised on the large Cross in Russian churches as it is generally not detachable. I am sure that variety exists, though.
--------------------
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
|
|
Utrecht Catholic
Shipmate
# 14285
|
Posted
With regard to the use of crucifix or simple cross, I have discovered that Roman-Catholics, the Scandinavian and German Lutherans have always the Crucifix,the Cross with the Body of Christ.
Among Anglicans, some churches have a simple cross on the altar and a crucifix above the pulpit.
With the Anglo-Catholics you will always find the crucifix.
I particularly like the The Christus Rex figure, a beautiful example is found at the high-altar of the Cathedral of St.John the Divine in New-York.
--------------------
Robert Kennedy
Posts: 220 | From: Dordrecht | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
And why would a protestant emphasize the resurrection more than a catholic??
I know that the cross sans corpus is often rationalized by Protestants as being about the resurrection rather than the crucifixion, but I suspect the issue is really iconoclasm. Many (though of course, not all) Protestants are very uncomfortable with images in church.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
and placed in the middle of the nave for the meditation and veneration of the purple during the rest of the readings and hymns.
The Freedom Charter was adopted in South Africa by the ANC and other movements at the Congress of the People in 1955. It's slogan "The People shall govern" was often used during protests in the apartheid era, and would appear as graffiti in all sorts of places.
In 1989, in the dark days of heavy-handed state response to anti-Apartheid protests, in addition to the usual tear-gas, sjamboks, batons etc the South African Police made use of a new weapon: they sprayed the protesters with water-cannons containing purple dye. This made it easy for the police to pick up protesters later on.
Immediately a new slogan was daubed across buildings in Cape Town: The purple shall govern!
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
And why would a protestant emphasize the resurrection more than a catholic??
I know that the cross sans corpus is often rationalized by Protestants as being about the resurrection rather than the crucifixion, but I suspect the issue is really iconoclasm. Many (though of course, not all) Protestants are very uncomfortable with images in church.
I agree - I've heard the argument that the empty Cross symbolizes the fact that Christ is Resurrected but this makes no sense. He got taken down because He was dead, and would still have been had He remained so! Seems to confuse the Cross with the empty tomb, which certainly *could* be interpreted as symbolic in this way.
I agree it is discomfort at making a graven image - a cross is one thing as it 'just' a sign, a depiction of a Divine Person might seem to be inviting of idolatry...
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
and placed in the middle of the nave for the meditation and veneration of the purple during the rest of the readings and hymns.
The Freedom Charter was adopted in South Africa by the ANC and other movements at the Congress of the People in 1955. It's slogan "The People shall govern" was often used during protests in the apartheid era, and would appear as graffiti in all sorts of places.
In 1989, in the dark days of heavy-handed state response to anti-Apartheid protests, in addition to the usual tear-gas, sjamboks, batons etc the South African Police made use of a new weapon: they sprayed the protesters with water-cannons containing purple dye. This made it easy for the police to pick up protesters later on.
Immediately a new slogan was daubed across buildings in Cape Town: The purple shall govern!
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
I have just begun to use TouchPal and am still getting used to its peculiarities.
[ 19. September 2012, 19:10: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Mr. Rob
Shipmate
# 5823
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
So the orthodox emphasis in a church would be a cross with a corpus too?
Most of the Orthodox crucifixes I've seen have a painted but flat figure of Christ, rather like the Franciscan one, except that the figure is often raised in the form of a flat cut-out of the body with the figure of Christ painted onto it. This needs input from Orthodox shipmates, but I'm under the impression that Orthodoxy is more comfortable with two dimensional paintings than three dimensional statues.
Correct, Orthodox churches and the faithful do not use three dimensional images or statues as objects of devotion. Orthodoxy uses icons instead. And it's not merely a preference or a comfort level for the Orthodox, but statuary is explicitly forbidden. That also includes three dimensional crucifixes which, of course are flat, and the corpus of the crucifix is always painted on the cross. The cross part itself is not counted as a three dimensional object.
*
Posts: 862 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
What Mr. Rob says is generally right. Statuary is used in Orthodoxy but it is a minority usage and is the subject of disagreement touching on both ancient precedent and canonical propriety.
--------------------
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
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
Can Scrumpmeister or another Orthodox clarify, please? I've heard it written by non-Orthodox that icons are not graven images because they are painted and therefore OK without recourse to John of Damascus' arguments for the use of matter.
On the other hand, I seem to recall Orthodox writers (Kalistos of Dioclea?) saying that was not strictly true: there are Orthodox uses of three dimensional images, although rare.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Can Scrumpmeister or another Orthodox clarify, please? I've heard it written by non-Orthodox that icons are not graven images because they are painted and therefore OK without recourse to John of Damascus' arguments for the use of matter.
On the other hand, I seem to recall Orthodox writers (Kalistos of Dioclea?) saying that was not strictly true: there are Orthodox uses of three dimensional images, although rare.
Metropolitan Kallistos is correct. The Greek word icon has come into English with a particular association of "flat, painted picture" because that is what is most commonly seen in churches where icons are in common use. However, the Greek word itself, which is used in the ancient discussions of this matter simply means image, which has a much broader meaning. If you read the decree of the seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicaea II, which condemned the iconoclast heresy), as well as the treatises of St John Damascene and St Theodore the Studite (whose treatise is quite different in tone from those of St John and is well worth the read), on the Holy Images, there is no discussion that focuses in any length specifically on graven images - at least not to my recollection.
Those two fathers affirm the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity - his entering the limited, describable world in the human nature which is contrary to the ulimitable, unfathomable divine nature - and the resultant redemption of matter for holy use, to be put to holy purpose, and to be used as a means of venerating holy people and holy things, and indeed of grace. They distinguish between what is limitable and so can be captured in space/time, represented in matter, and what is unlimitable, and cannot be so represented. They show how a denial of this is, in effect, a denial of the effects of the Incarnation of the Saviour, and thus contrary to the Christian confession of Faith. But they do not seem to focus on graven images as opposed to other types of image. In fact, the fathers of the Council worded it thus:
quote:
We, therefore, following the royal pathway and the divinely inspired authority of our Holy Fathers and the traditions of the Catholic Church (for, as we all know, the Holy Spirit indwells her), define with all certitude and accuracy that just as the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross, so also the venerable and holy images, as well in painting and mosaic as of other fit materials, should be set forth in the holy churches of God, and on the sacred vessels and on the vestments and on hangings and in pictures both in houses and by the wayside, to wit, the figure of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ, of our spotless Lady, the Mother of God, of the honourable Angels, of all Saints and of all pious people. For by so much more frequently as they are seen in artistic representation, by so much more readily are men lifted up to the memory of their prototypes, and to a longing after them; and to these should be given due salutation and honourable reverence (ἀσπασμὸν καὶ τιμητικὴν προσκύνησιν), not indeed that true worship of faith (λατρείαν) which pertains alone to the divine nature; but to these, as to the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross and to the Book of the Gospels and to the other holy objects, incense and lights may be offered according to ancient pious custom. For the honour which is paid to the image passes on to that which the image represents, and he who reveres the image reveres in it the subject represented. For thus the teaching of our holy Fathers, that is the tradition of the Catholic Church, which from one end of the earth to the other has received the Gospel, is strengthened. Thus we follow Paul, who spoke in Christ, and the whole divine Apostolic company and the holy Fathers, holding fast the traditions which we have received. So we sing prophetically the triumphal hymns of the Church, “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Sion; Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem. Rejoice and be glad with all your heart. The Lord has taken away from you the oppression of your adversaries; you are redeemed from the hand of your enemies. The Lord is a King in your midst; you shall not see evil any more, and peace be upon you for ever.”
So even the most ardent defenders of the iconographic tradition in the face of its fiercest opposition did not limit themselves to a discussion of paint on wood. To them, the discussion was about holy images and representations more widely understood.
Whether this included statuary is a matter of some disagreement. I cannot claim to be any expert here. I am not an iconographer or church historian. However, from discussions that I have followed and presentations that I have watched, here are some of the viewpoints that I have encountered, particularly concerning statuary among Western Rite Orthodox:
- Three-dimensional images are not in keeping with the iconographical tradition and are uncanonical.
- The claim that three-dimensional images are uncanonical stems from the departure of the west from Orthodoxy, leaving only the eastern iconographic tradition for many centuries in Orthodoxy, where statues were largely unknown. Therefore, the absence of statues is merely an accident of history and is not set in canonical stone.
- While some western exterior monuments survive from the pre-schism period, where they existed perhaps for decorative or didactic purpose, there is no extant evidence of devotional statuary from the pre-schism western church that was venerated as holy images. However, there are copious examples of flat western imagery from the pre-schism period. Therefore, there is no precedent for western devotional statuary.
- The fact that flat pre-schism images survive while statues generally do not is due to the simple fact that statues were easier for the iconoclasts to destroy than paintings on walls and screens. Their absence says nothing more than that.
The debate goes on but you get the idea.
Forgetting about western statuary, there is a widespread eastern tradition of relief iconography, which is sort of flat but is nonetheless three-dimensional, and examples of which can be found all over the Orthodox world. There are those who produce icons in this style today particularly with blind people in mind, so that they can feel the holy images and offer their veneration.
My own personal view on the matter of statues is perhaps not dissimilar to a view that exists about Western Rite conformity to the Council of Trullo, with its prohibition on weekday celebrations of the Eucharist during Lent. It is clear that this council had an anti-Roman feel about it and many of the things of which it spoke negatively were things that were well established customs of the western church and had been for centuries. The pre-schism western tradition might have legitimately been that these things were permissible, and the Orthodox Church in the west had a legitimate right of protest at the time to defend its local manifestation of the received tradition. However, as the western church departed from Orthodoxy and the Orthodox view has developed over the course of the past millennium to a universal understanding that these things are not permissible, (indeed, the canons of Trullo were affirmed by the Sixth Ecumenical Council and have become very much entrenched in Orthodoxy since then), western converts to Orthodoxy today, wishing to express their Orthodoxy in a western fashion, should conform to this ecumenical Orthodox mindset where western custom differs from it. They have come back to the family, and the family has been happy for them to practise their western customs insofar as they are in keeping with wider Orthodox understanding, but they are still the great, great, great &c. grandchildren of those who stormed out of the family a thousand years ago. The family's view has since developed and become established, so that right of protest has long gone. That is, people should embrace the Orthodoxy that they find and not the Orthodoxy they they want. New converts can be very good at telling the Church how it should be doing things - I can say that from experience of how I was - but that is not what it is to be open to conversion of heart and mind, and to settling into a new home.
Only last month at ROCOR's Western Rite conference, Metropolitan Hilarion told those convert communities that had been celebrating Corpus Christi and keeping Sacred Heart devotions to knock it on the head until such things could properly be assessed for their conformity with Orthodox understandings. I think that there is wisdom in this.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
