|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Random Liturgical Questions (answers on a postcard, please)
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I am a big advocate of using hosts in the Eucharist, but a reoccurring question hereabouts is how to handle Eucharistic adoration with leavened bread. You can't put a muffin in a monstrance, but how about the asterisk?
When is this adoration taking place? I wouldn't have thought it was terribly practical to reserve leavened bread as it would go dry and not be able to be consumed afterwards. If adoration is taking place as part of the Eucharist, or immediately after it, I don't see why you couldn't simply expose the consecrated bread on the paten.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
In the Roman rite, leavened bread is not permitted for eucharistic use.
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
I don't have my resources handy, so some quick questions:
Can RC deacons or laypeople ever sprinkle holy water? Can they bless the water?
I think I know the answers, but am wary enough to ask for confirmation.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Anyone can splash holy water about. Laypeople cannot but Deacons can bless the water (The Book of Blessings 1390: "But when the blessing of water takes place outside Mass, the rite given here may be used by a priest or deacon.")
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
Thanks, Triple. Chalk it up to a blond moment.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
While it is obvious that Jesus probably used some form of Matzo when he gave us the Eucharist, it is very interesting that all references to the bread that is used in the New Testament is the Greek word for leavened or ordinary bread.
Seems that the writers realized not everyone is going to have unleavened bread available.
That said, if there is any unleavened bread left over from the Eucharist, it should either be consumed by the congregants or spread out for birds to eat it since it will likely go stale or get moldy if it is adored.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
It won't go stale or moldy in a day or two. If left for weeks, yes. And surely not set out for the birds. Why am I reminded of the fate of poor Prometheus whenever I hear of this custom?
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
That said, if there is any unleavened bread left over from the Eucharist, it should either be consumed by the congregants or spread out for birds to eat it since it will likely go stale or get moldy if it is adored.
What a fascinating thought - that the consecrated bread will go mouldy if it is adored. I wonder, though, why no Catholic Church has ever had this problem.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Where did the bird idea come from?
I sort of assumed that RC rules say it is to be reserved until eaten. Anglicans have traditionally eaten all the consecrated bread there and then, until reservation came in in the late 19th century - and many, I'd guess most, CofE churches don't reserve.
So who thought up the birds?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I think it started with the idea of spreading the leftover host on consecrated ground. I don't understand it m'self. If you're going to be High Church in the same church as Low-Churchers, you're going to have to pretend to not see things from time to time.
--------------------
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
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I think it started with the idea of spreading the leftover host on consecrated ground.
I was recently told that this is allowed under the rubrics/canons of the Church of England. I have been unable to find anywhere that says this is so: the BCP and CW both seem to me to say that the remaining elements are to be consumed.
Can anyone confirm this?
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
teddybear
Shipmate
# 7842
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I am a big advocate of using hosts in the Eucharist, but a reoccurring question hereabouts is how to handle Eucharistic adoration with leavened bread. You can't put a muffin in a monstrance, but how about the asterisk?
In the days before the Second Vatican Council, up to the short time afterward, the Eastern Catholic Churches that used leavened bread would do Benediction using a special monstrance that was made to hold the square Lamb. I tried to find a picture of one, but couldn't find one. I'm sure they are very hard to find now, except maybe in Ukraine.
Posts: 480 | From: Topeka, Kansas USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
. I have been unable to find anywhere that says this is so: the BCP and CW both seem to me to say that the remaining elements are to be consumed.
CofE rule is to consume all the elements, always has been. How that squares with "communion by extension" is beyond me. If I didn't know better I'd suspect that the rules were deliberatly vague and self-contradictory in order to allow people to argue that whatever it is they happen to do is legal. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
CofE rule is to consume all the elements, always has been. How that squares with "communion by extension" is beyond me. If I didn't know better I'd suspect that the rules were deliberatly vague and self-contradictory in order to allow people to argue that whatever it is they happen to do is legal.
CW rubric (page 182): 'Any consecrated bread and wine which is not required for purposes of communion is consumed at the end of the distribution or after the service.' [my italics] That answers your question surely. Whether 'communion by extension' , let alone Benediction, should ever become a norm is a different question, but most people have no objection to taking the sacrament thus consecrated to the sick.
--------------------
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
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
It won't go stale or moldy in a day or two. If left for weeks, yes. And surely not set out for the birds. Why am I reminded of the fate of poor Prometheus whenever I hear of this custom?
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Where did the bird idea come from?
I sort of assumed that RC rules say it is to be reserved until eaten. Anglicans have traditionally eaten all the consecrated bread there and then, until reservation came in in the late 19th century - and many, I'd guess most, CofE churches don't reserve.
So who thought up the birds?
Obviously based in a different attitude toward the nature of the elements, especially after the conclusion of the Eucharist, but setting the left-over bread out for birds is, in my experience, a common Presbyterian practice. I always found it quite reverent, in a something of Franciscan sort of way.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Obviously based in a different attitude toward the nature of the elements, especially after the conclusion of the Eucharist, but setting the left-over bread out for birds is, in my experience, a common Presbyterian practice. I always found it quite reverent, in a something of Franciscan sort of way.
John Knox would, I am sure, find it all to be ridiculous sentimentality and would take the leftovers home for lunch.
--------------------
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
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
John Knox would, I am sure, find it all to be ridiculous sentimentality and would take the leftovers home for lunch.
No doubt he would find it overly sentimental, though I would hope he'd give the leftovers to the poor for lunch. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Though now I'm curious what the historic practice in the Kirk was.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
The clerk would take it home for lunch.
--------------------
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
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
Perhaps arising from the practice, if I recall correctly, that the clerk was responsible for providing the elements.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
until reservation came in in the late 19th century - and many, I'd guess most, CofE churches don't reserve.
I think most C of E churches reserve, even some evangelical ones.
The predominance of Lay Ministers/Readers and delegation, by presbyters, to them of home communions means that a presbyter celebrating a mini-eucharist in people's homes happens less often these days.
--------------------
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
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
until reservation came in in the late 19th century - and many, I'd guess most, CofE churches don't reserve.
I think most C of E churches reserve, even some evangelical ones.
Most 'active' ones perhaps, but statistically Ken is probably right. Think of all those country churches with only occasional services.
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
If you exclude reserving for purposes of HC by extension (and Good Friday, and so on), I'd be very surprised if most active C of E churches reserve the sacrament.
I guess that shows that our experience of different bits of the C of E in different bits of the country is different!
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
until reservation came in in the late 19th century - and many, I'd guess most, CofE churches don't reserve.
I think most C of E churches reserve, even some evangelical ones.
Most 'active' ones perhaps, but statistically Ken is probably right. Think of all those country churches with only occasional services.
Yes - OK - but those churches are likely to be grouped into a united benefice where ONE, probably the one nearest the vicarage, reserves 'on behalf of' the rest.
[ 22. October 2012, 17:23: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
until reservation came in in the late 19th century - and many, I'd guess most, CofE churches don't reserve.
I think most C of E churches reserve, even some evangelical ones.
Most 'active' ones perhaps, but statistically Ken is probably right. Think of all those country churches with only occasional services.
Yes - OK - but those churches are likely to be grouped into a united benefice where ONE, probably the one nearest the vicarage, reserves 'on behalf of' the rest.
Maybe most benefices; probably not most churches.
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I'm sure a lot more churches reserve than used to even 10 or 20 years ago. And apart from Bradford (? ) I'm pretty sure that all cathedrals do. I wonder if there are any statistics available? (still talking C of E of course: apologies to others)
--------------------
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
|
|
Emendator Liturgia
Shipmate
# 17245
|
Posted
In all of the churches I have served over the past 25 years, the sacrament has been reserved; whether for home communions of for extended communion services in the absence of the priest/s.
--------------------
Don't judge all Anglicans in Sydney by prevailing Diocesan standards!
Posts: 401 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
KevinL
Apprentice
# 12481
|
Posted
Thurification Question: three triple swings for the Body and Blood, from whence does this custom come? Modern RC practice, at least in the U.S., is three doubles (ductus). But three triples is persistent in the memory and instinct of many. I'm interested in opinions from various traditions. Thanks!
Posts: 35 | From: Los Angeles | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by KevinL:
Thurification Question: three triple swings for the Body and Blood, from whence does this custom come? Modern RC practice, at least in the U.S., is three doubles (ductus). But three triples is persistent in the memory and instinct of many. I'm interested in opinions from various traditions. Thanks!
I'm not sure where it comes from, but the instruction in the current version of Fortescue, O'Connell and Reid's Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described, which describes the Tridentine rite and its associated ceremonies, requires three double swings. One presumes, therefore, that this is the old custom.
I agree, however, that three triples for the sacrament is widely practised...
[ 28. October 2012, 11:57: Message edited by: Basilica ]
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by KevinL:
Thurification Question: three triple swings for the Body and Blood, from whence does this custom come? Modern RC practice, at least in the U.S., is three doubles (ductus). But three triples is persistent in the memory and instinct of many.
Three triples was never the RC custom pre-1970, and the post 1970 books do not specify the precise number of swings.
People's natural instinct is to assume that the Blessed Sacrament must receive more swings than anyone or anything else, so the three triple thing comes naturally from that line of thinking. This is not a new thought, as Fortescue himself says that there is no such thing as a triple swing, which suggests that even in his day, people were doing it erroneously. Since the newer books doe not specify, the triple swing has earned a larger foothold. But three doubles is the Church's tradition in this rehard.
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
KevinL
Apprentice
# 12481
|
Posted
Thanks Basilica and Ceremoniar; was three triples ever the authorized custom anywhere?
Posts: 35 | From: Los Angeles | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by KevinL:
Thanks Basilica and Ceremoniar; was three triples ever the authorized custom anywhere?
Nope. Seen in places, but never authorized.
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
I'm pleased to learn that it isn't just an Anglican affectation. It's still forbidden in my sanctuary, though!
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
I'm pleased to learn that it isn't just an Anglican affectation. It's still forbidden in my sanctuary, though!
Thurible
Same here. One of the things that drives me nuts is the way in which some folks cannot resist juicing up Fortescue-O'Connell or Ritual Notes 11. Both date from a time when some reform and simplication of ceremonies had taken place. Although I am not an Anglo-papalist who perpetually looks over my shoulder at what Rome is doing, I do see the point that if one is going to do the so-called Western ceremonial one should adapt it to the Anglican Rite from a living form - either that of the Liturgical Books of Pope John XXIII's era, or from the present edition of the Novus Ordo.
Just my 0.02
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
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
I know that the US edition of the GIRM has its own rules on when to kneel and stand during the Eucharistic Prayer which are different from the editio typica. I remember the e.t. being followed in Rome (at least on this point... most of the time), but as far as I recall England, Mexico and Haiti all do it the "US way." Can anyone confirm my recollection or have other info on international practice?
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
... Although I am not an Anglo-papalist who perpetually looks over my shoulder at what Rome is doing, I do see the point that if one is going to do the so-called Western ceremonial one should adapt it to the Anglican Rite from a living form - either that of the Liturgical Books of Pope John XXIII's era, or from the present edition of the Novus Ordo.
Why? If you allow that people can adapt things at all, the starting point isn't 'what somebody else might have been doing once' or even 'be doing now' but 'what you're doing at the moment'.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
I know that the US edition of the GIRM has its own rules on when to kneel and stand during the Eucharistic Prayer which are different from the editio typica. I remember the e.t. being followed in Rome (at least on this point... most of the time), but as far as I recall England, Mexico and Haiti all do it the "US way." Can anyone confirm my recollection or have other info on international practice?
That's one of those things that the local Episcopal Conference can decide on. The editio typica says: quote:
the faithful should kneel at the Consecration, except when prevented on occasion by ill health, or for reasons of lack of space, of the large number of people present, or for another reasonable cause.
However, those who do not kneel ought to make a profound bow when the Priest genuflects after the Consecration. Where it is the practice for the people to remain kneeling after the Sanctus (Holy, Holy, Holy) until the end of the Eucharistic Prayer and before Communion when the Priest says
Ecce Agnus Dei (This is the Lamb of God), it is laudable for this practice to be retained.
Many continental countries have people kneel only for the Consecration and then standing again for the rest of the EP as per the editio typica. I think Canada repeats the e.t. passim, but I know England and Wales and Australia say what the US edition says.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
I know that the US edition of the GIRM has its own rules on when to kneel and stand during the Eucharistic Prayer which are different from the editio typica. I remember the e.t. being followed in Rome (at least on this point... most of the time), but as far as I recall England, Mexico and Haiti all do it the "US way." Can anyone confirm my recollection or have other info on international practice?
That's one of those things that the local Episcopal Conference can decide on. The editio typica says: quote:
the faithful should kneel at the Consecration, except when prevented on occasion by ill health, or for reasons of lack of space, of the large number of people present, or for another reasonable cause.
However, those who do not kneel ought to make a profound bow when the Priest genuflects after the Consecration. Where it is the practice for the people to remain kneeling after the Sanctus (Holy, Holy, Holy) until the end of the Eucharistic Prayer and before Communion when the Priest says
Ecce Agnus Dei (This is the Lamb of God), it is laudable for this practice to be retained.
Many continental countries have people kneel only for the Consecration and then standing again for the rest of the EP as per the editio typica. I think Canada repeats the e.t. passim, but I know England and Wales and Australia say what the US edition says.
Do you have a copy of the Tertia Typica (before the "altera" came into being)?
I could be mistaken, but if I recall correctly, the original GIRM for the Tertia Typica did not have the provision. When it was released in English, there was a bit of a panicked freak-out.
Of course, the Dubium was posed at that time, and the response almost made it seem like those in the CDW were surprised that anybody still knelt at those points, and basically said "go for it." In fact, the response used almost exactly the same text as appears to be included in the new English missal GIRM.
I wouldn't be surprised if this Dubium (driven by Americans, of all people) might have been what prompted the change in the GIRM altera.
Then again, I could be wrong, but I do distinctly recall a version of the "new" GIRM being released about a decade ago and freaking people out about standing during the EP.
(One standing issue that seems to be disappearing is the old pop-up for the Prayer over the Gifts. In the "olden" days...pre 2000ish...people seemed to remain seated for the
Orate Fratres and response, and then popped up immediately thereafter. Now, it seems people stand at the beginning of the Orate Fratres more commonly.)
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
I only know of the one edition of the tertio editio typica of the Roman Missal, no altera. Therein is the GIRM and the relevant instruction as part of it: quote:
Ubi mos est, populum ab acclamatione Sanctus expletausque ad finem Precis eucharisticć et ante Communionem quando sacerdos dicitEcce Agnus Dei genuflexum manere, hic laudabiliter retinetur.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
My apologies, as my Latin obviously stinks. There must have been some reason for the Dubium. Ah,
here it is explained that the part you quoted in the most recent post was added later.
My confusion was the update to the missal about 4 or 5 years ago that added in additional saints. I had thought the "laudably retained" passage was added then, too. Sorry about the mix up.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Ah, different moment. That particular dubium I remember well because of the brouhaha. There were some bishops in the US who issued an instruction that all the faithful should remain standing after receiving communion - that is no kneeling. It was a daft instruction and not part of the GIRM at all. But that's not about kneeling during the Eucharistic Prayer.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Ah, different moment. That particular dubium I remember well because of the brouhaha. There were some bishops in the US who issued an instruction that all the faithful should remain standing after receiving communion - that is no kneeling. It was a daft instruction and not part of the GIRM at all. But that's not about kneeling during the Eucharistic Prayer.
You're right. It's all coming back to me. They also demanded standing for the Ecce, Agnus Dei as well. In any event, the phrasing of the GIRM was similar to the dubium's response, which crossed my brain wires. (Brain wires? Time for bed.)
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
... Although I am not an Anglo-papalist who perpetually looks over my shoulder at what Rome is doing, I do see the point that if one is going to do the so-called Western ceremonial one should adapt it to the Anglican Rite from a living form - either that of the Liturgical Books of Pope John XXIII's era, or from the present edition of the Novus Ordo.
Why? If you allow that people can adapt things at all, the starting point isn't 'what somebody else might have been doing once' or even 'be doing now' but 'what you're doing at the moment'.
The trouble is what you are doing at the moment may be a complete shambles due to several generations of priests and MCs adding their own little bits and pieces. That is usually a really good time to reset the clock so that there is a reasonable chance that someone from outside might be able to follow what you are doing. It has also been my experience that at least in mod.-Catholic circles in the USA there is much less variation than one would find in the UK, or for that matter in the RCC in the US.
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
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Sainted Percy on a now closed thread:
I don't know if I should just add this to my Sarum Use thread, but it is a seperate book and strictly speaking not a part of the Sarum Use - I've found a copy of the 'Altar Book' by a 'Committee of Priests' which apparently contains a heavily Sarum-interpolated Order of Mass with the Gelasian Canon, full rubrics and private prayers. It sounds, forgive me, a Godsend, but the bookseller would like nearly two hundred pounds, which, although liturgical books always run to the expensive; and it's a beautiful book, could be put towards something else out of tight budgets!
Does anyone have a copy and is it suitable? To what extent to the Sarum interpolations run? if it's merely the BCP with a small selection of Prayer Book Catholic propers, well , there are less expensive ones and I will press on with the Sarum Missal, but from the description it sounds far fuller and I'm very, very strongly inclined to buy it, but I can't see it in person.
--------------------
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
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
For your description it sounds a lot like an altar version of the 'People's Missal' which was sort of an English Use version of what Dearmer described as 'the worst sort of liturgical book.' i.e. the sort that included all sorts of interpolations! My pew version is even worse for additions than the English Missal or the Anglican Missak and seems to work o the theory that if there are three ways of doing something, let's include all of them! To my mind this makes it inferior to Dearmer's The English Liturgy and its "Western Use" counterpart The English Missal. It appeared just before World War 1, which probably ensured its obscurity, as that was not a time when liturgical books were on everyone's mind, and the 'back to Baroque' movement after WW1 probabl killed it completely. This was much the same as the original English Missal (1908), and the SSPP version of the Anglican Missal (1921) and it kind of got lost in the shuffle.
Of course, without pix, I could be completely wrong as to the identity of the book.
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 Sainted Percy
Apprentice
# 17388
|
Posted
It's one of the books on this page - try searching for (capitals important) Altar Book.
Hah! Blessed Percy would have loathed it, I'm sure. As you know bodging and patching has always been very Anglo-Catholic!
I agree that the sort of attitude showed by Knott and the Committee of Priests can lead to a bit of a hash (there is a spectacularly strange Missal (The Missal and People's Missal by G.A.L. Clark) of sorts from the Edwardian period with Ambrosian Use and Eastern admixture to a BCP Order!, if I could get a copy of Dearmer's English Liturgy I certainly would, but I can't find one anywhere. Nevertheless, I'm rather fond of this sort of thing and do feel [I know you'll disagree with me] that the Communion (i.e. Mass) Order in the 1662 BCP is rather inadequate in theological terms more for it's omissions than any outright heresy.
Anyway,I'm digressing. Thank you very much - your description sounds pretty good, I think I will buy it, notwithstanding anything more you can tell me about it from there.
[ 04. November 2012, 13:49: Message edited by: The Sainted Percy ]
--------------------
Every working man to have a minimum of four hundred a year and every beastly manufacturer who wanted to pay less to be hung.
High Toryism described by Ford Madox Ford
Posts: 21 | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Sainted Percy
Apprentice
# 17388
|
Posted
Sorry - read Its for It's. Bad grammar is inexcusable. You can get a picture of the book here.
--------------------
Every working man to have a minimum of four hundred a year and every beastly manufacturer who wanted to pay less to be hung.
High Toryism described by Ford Madox Ford
Posts: 21 | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
Well it isn't the altar version of the People's Missal, that would have been printed about 1913 or 1916. However, it seems to be a twentieth century book in the same vein as Directorium Anglicana. That is, basically BCP, but heavily supplemented from Sarum rather than Roman sources. If it floats your boat go for it.
I am actually a bit more of 'a patcher and mender' than you might think. I learned to say Mass using a large 1662 (with notes in the margin), altar cards and the English Hymnal for the Introit and Gradual. If you want a one phrase description think "Interim Rite Plus" and you won't be far off. The thing I was careful to do was to keep it BCP enough that it did not cause a major meltdown in the congregation, so there were quite a few added bits I kept in the 'mystical voice.'
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 Sainted Percy
Apprentice
# 17388
|
Posted
Ah, the Anglo-Catholic 'mystical voice'. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) Thank you - I happened to find Percy Dearmer's English Liturgy last night so I might well buy both.It's a far more coherent liturgy, and I hope the question below will settle it.
If the Hosts would allow me to ask a completely different question on one post (sorry!, it's semi-theological and a bit long, so feel free to move it, I don't know where else to put it.
The great 'problem', the inadequacy I was talking about, with the Common Prayer Book Order of Holy Communion is this passage, the Prayer of Oblation
quote:
Lord and heavenly Father, we thy humble
ſervants entirely deſire thy fatherly
goodneſs, mercifully to accept this our ſacrifice
of praiſe and thankſgiving; moſt humbly beſeeching
thee to grant, that by the merits and
death of thy Son Jeſus Chriſt, and through
faith in his blood, we and all thy whole Church
may obtain remiſſion of our ſins, and all other
benefits of his paſſion. And here we offer and
preſent unto thee, O Lord, ourſelves, our ſouls
and bodies, to be a reaſonable, holy, and lively
ſacrifice unto thee; humbly beſeeching thee,
that all we who are partakers of this holy Communion,
may be fulfilled with thy grace and
heavenly benediction.
It's long been the practice amongst Prayer Book Catholics to restore this to its proper place in the Canon of the Mass (in fact, the Non-Jurors did just that in the 1700s as did certain Caroline Divines. Percy Dearmer makes no mention of this practice; and I cannot but feel he would have disapproved. However, wherever you place the Prayer of Oblation is irrelevant (well, it isn't, but the meaning does not alter even if the Roman Canon position is adopted). The problem is in the words 'sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving' and 'we present unto thee, O Lord, ourselves, our souls and bodies'.
Percy Dearmer assures us that the English Church retained a deep faith in the Real Presence, but how can 'an offering of praise and sacrifice' and 'our souls and bodies' imply a sacrificial Mass?
Let us take the Prayer of Oblation from the Use of Sarum:
quote:
Quam oblationem tu, Deus, in omnibus, quaesumus, benedictam, adscriptam, ratam, rationabilem, acceptabilemque facere digneris: ut nobis Corpus et Sanguis fiat dilectissimi Filii tui, Domini nostri Iesu Christi
The translation (by Warren) runs 'Which oblation, we beseech thee, O almighty God, that thou wouldest vouchsafe in all respects to bless, approve, ratify, and make reasonable and acceptable, that it may become to us the Body and the Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ'
I hope other shipmates can see the problem - the 'oblation' of the Canon of the Mass is quite plainly the spotless, immaculate, sinless Lamb of God, while the 'offering' of the BCP Prayer of Oblation seems to be 'ourselves', the spotted, stained, sinful body and soul of Man.
It seems difficult to defend the Prayer Book Communion Order from this point, even if, as Percy suggests, it might be possible to append the Prayer of Thanksgiving at all times (a suggestion made by the Archbishop of York, although Dearmer questions his authority to disregard the rubrics.
Am I simply heavily misinterpreting the Prayer of Oblation? Can a sacrificial Mass be given, as Percy Dearmer's English Liturgy suggests, from the Prayer Book alone, (for, after all, the English Liturgy leaves the Prayer Book 'Canon' untouched)?
--------------------
Every working man to have a minimum of four hundred a year and every beastly manufacturer who wanted to pay less to be hung.
High Toryism described by Ford Madox Ford
Posts: 21 | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Sainted Percy
Apprentice
# 17388
|
Posted
Sorry, I ran out of time to edit - the practise I am referring to is the Interim Rite, It's long been the practice amongst Prayer Book Catholics to restore this to its proper place in the Canon of the Mass and pray the Lord's Prayer before the distribution of the elements before communion - that is, the Interim Rite - Percy Dearmer makes no mention of this practice; and I cannot but feel he would have disapproved. The Prayer Book of 1549 and the Scottiah [rayer Book of 1929 both retain a sacrifical emphasis, with a Canon, albeit one cunningly constructed so that either a Catholic or a very High protestant opinion can be taken.
--------------------
Every working man to have a minimum of four hundred a year and every beastly manufacturer who wanted to pay less to be hung.
High Toryism described by Ford Madox Ford
Posts: 21 | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
I don't see how acknowledging that the Mass is, at least in one of its facets, a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, changes the basic facts of what is being done, i.e. re-presenting before God the Father Almighty the one,full,perfect and unrepeatable oblation made by Christ, in order that through this anamnoesis we may be united in the one oblation of Christ, thus continually appropriating unto ourselves the merits of Christ's self-oblation, this grace and unity being made most particularly manifest as we take the full and real presence of Christ into ourselves through physical reception of the consecrated elements. The words of the BCP prayer of oblation - restored to the consecratory canon, as it has always been in the American liturgies - convey the presentation of ourselves in union with the oblation of Christ and thus covering ourselves in this "one, true, pure, immortal sacrifice" (as a well-known hynm puts it). IOW, again to quote from the same hymn, "between our sins and their reward, we set the passion of...Our Lord". ISTM that, rightly understood, this is what the words of the BCP prayer of oblation are indicating.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
