|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Random Liturgical Questions (answers on a postcard, please)
|
georgiaboy
Shipmate
# 11294
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by maleveque:
Oh, georgiaboy, have you ever tried to train acolytes? I'm amazed yours go exactly halfway every time! They've probably been told to go as far as a particular pew, and by golly, that's where they'll go!
- Anne L.
quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I frankly think the Gospel Procession out into the midst of the congregation is more apt symbolism in the present context and is now very widespread amongst Anglicans, Lutherans and even other mainline Reformation churches.
Everybody loves a parade.
This 'parade' into the nave has become quite a 'thing' in TEC congregations. The one which I attend has become so wedded to it that even when there are no congregants in the rear half of the nave the parade still goes exactly halfway down the aisle!
Yes, I've tried to train 'em. It greatly increased my consumption of gin!
--------------------
You can't retire from a calling.
Posts: 1675 | From: saint meinrad, IN | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
In the "Tridentine" rite, the Epistle was read on the liturgical south side of the altar. To the congregation and the priest facing the altar, this would be the right side. The Gospel was read on the liturgical north side of the altar, the left side from the congregation's and priest's standpoint.
It is still that way in the Tridentine rite. See 18:00 of this.
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
In the "Tridentine" rite, the Epistle was read on the liturgical south side of the altar. To the congregation and the priest facing the altar, this would be the right side. The Gospel was read on the liturgical north side of the altar, the left side from the congregation's and priest's standpoint.
It is still that way in the Tridentine rite. See 18:00 of this.
Still the way we do it 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
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
I can't off hand think of any RC churches with an ambo on the South/right-as-you-look-at-it.
I realise the Vatican 2 insistence that all the readings take place from the same position is a fine theory, and in accordance with early Roman practice. (I have known it work impressively.)
As a result, no gospel procession and no need for a seperate pulpit. (RCs will correct me if necessary.)
Gospel processions are no pretty much de rigeur in C of E churches, who wouldn't have done so in the past.
On the other hand, C of E churches following Rome who used to have gospel processions, not have everything read from the lectern/ambo/legillium.
--------------------
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
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I can't off hand think of any RC churches with an ambo on the South/right-as-you-look-at-it.
Too many to number but the three that I serve most frequently (St John's Cathedral, Portsmouth; St Anne's, Brockenhurst; and Our Lady of Mercy and St Joseph, Lymington) all have South/right ambones. The pulpit at Westminster Cathedral is also on the liturgical South.
quote:
I realise the Vatican 2 insistence that all the readings take place from the same position is a fine theory, and in accordance with early Roman practice. (I have known it work impressively.)
Lazy. The Council had nothing to say on the subject anymore than it uttered a word on altars arranged to facilitate versus populum celebration. Furthermore, early Roman practice seems to have been far from univocal. There is certainly evidence of two places being used quite early.
quote:
As a result, no gospel procession and no need for a seperate pulpit. (RCs will correct me if necessary.)
Pleased to oblige. Again, it happens at Westminster Cathedral.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Pleased to oblige. Again, it happens at Westminster Cathedral.
Thank you.
We may be at cross purposes. I've seen a procession at Westminster Cathedral (and what a wonderful building it is) from the sanctuary to the ambo on our left, where the previous readings have taken place.
What I meant by "gospel procession" is a walk to the middle of the nave where the book is held by a server with two acolytes either side, whereas the non-gospel readings have been read from a lectern at the front.
By "Vatican 2" I meant the GIRM issued subsequently, on which I am rusty.
[ 18. April 2012, 16:54: Message edited by: venbede ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
We may be at cross purposes. I've seen a procession at Westminster Cathedral (and what a wonderful building it is) from the sanctuary to the ambo on our left, where the previous readings have taken place.
What I meant by "gospel procession" is a walk to the middle of the nave where the book is held by a server with two acolytes either side, whereas the non-gospel readings have been read from a lectern at the front.
That is, I think, as rare as hens teeth this side of the Tiber. What I have seen regularly at Westminster Cathedral is a procession - thurifer, acolytes, deacon - to the pulpit on the right hand side of the nave, the other readings having taken place at the Ambo on the left hand side of the sanctuary.
quote:
By "Vatican 2" I meant the GIRM issued subsequently, on which I am rusty.
Yes, I thought you did.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
What I meant by "gospel procession" is a walk to the middle of the nave where the book is held by a server with two acolytes either side, whereas the non-gospel readings have been read from a lectern at the front.
But that isn't the only thing it can mean. What I usually hear it referred to by this title is the following (and doing this is pretty much de rigeur at Sunday Mass in most parishes around here): The Gospel book, having been brought in my a reader in the opening procession and displayed on the altar, is picked up by the gospeller and carried to the ambo, accompanied by candle bearers.* Some parishes go by the most direct route, some by a more circuitous path.
--
* Except without candle bearers in the Easter season, as the paschal candle is then the only candle by the ambo.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
That is, I think, as rare as hens teeth this side of the Tiber. What I have seen regularly at Westminster Cathedral is a procession - thurifer, acolytes, deacon - to the pulpit on the right hand side of the nave, the other readings having taken place at the Ambo on the left hand side of the sanctuary.
Almost correct ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
The Cathedral practice for Solemn occasions is for all the readings to be from the pulpit, with a Gospel Procession from the sanctuary at the appropriate moment.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Almost correct
The Cathedral practice for Solemn occasions is for all the readings to be from the pulpit, with a Gospel Procession from the sanctuary at the appropriate moment.
I thank you.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
I think everyone who has posted on the topic has seen this but if not, there's now a dedicated thread for it, so if you would like to continue the conversation, it has moved over here: Where can the Gospel be read? Many thanks!
Mamacita, Eccles Host
[ 19. April 2012, 13:20: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barefoot Friar
Ship's Shoeless Brother
# 13100
|
Posted
Does anyone know anything about the Anglican Province of Christ the King? Their website is here.
Looks like they're an offshoot of TEC in 1977, and there is a congregation here in north Alabama ( St. Charles Anglican Church). They use the 1928 BCP.
That may well be more info than anyone else has, but I wanted to see what else I could learn about them. Why didn't they join one of the other offshoots, such as the UECNA? Do they have any dealings at all with other offshoot Anglican provinces?
--------------------
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
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Padre Joshua:
Does anyone know anything about the Anglican Province of Christ the King? Their website is here.
Looks like they're an offshoot of TEC in 1977, and there is a congregation here in north Alabama ( St. Charles Anglican Church). They use the 1928 BCP.
That may well be more info than anyone else has, but I wanted to see what else I could learn about them. Why didn't they join one of the other offshoots, such as the UECNA? Do they have any dealings at all with other offshoot Anglican provinces?
I think that the APCK would ask the reverse question, i.e., why another Continuing Anglican province does not join with them? The labrynith of Continuing Anglican jurisdictions is a complex tale, indeed. I can say that the APCK is extremely Anglo-Catholic (not uncommon to see rosary beads hanging from their fuschias and cinctures). They were originally the Diocese of Christ the King, one of the dioceses originally set up after TEC began ordaining women in 1977, but then they ultimately did not ratify the constitution of the newly-formed group, and went off on their own. Part of their group joined the Anglican Catholic Church, another high continuing jurisdiction.
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Padre Joshua:
Does anyone know anything about the Anglican Province of Christ the King? Their website is here.
Looks like they're an offshoot of TEC in 1977, and there is a congregation here in north Alabama ( St. Charles Anglican Church). They use the 1928 BCP.
That may well be more info than anyone else has, but I wanted to see what else I could learn about them. Why didn't they join one of the other offshoots, such as the UECNA? Do they have any dealings at all with other offshoot Anglican provinces?
The APCK is one of three in the Chambers succession. Albert Chambers, a retired Episcopal bishop, consecrated 4 bishops to head what was then known as the Anglican Church in North America (yes, really)--Robert Morse, James Mote, Charles Doren, and Francis Watterson. There were squabbles over churchmanship and canons, following which Morse founded the Diocese (later Province) of Christ the King, Mote and Watterson the Anglican Catholic Church, and Doren the UECNA. Watterson left the continuing Anglican movement soon after to become a RC priest.
Currently the three jurisdictions are in communion with each other (this is a fairly recent development), and I expect organic unity is not too far off. The APCK's website is
here .
It's fair to say that the APCK is generally Anglo-Catholic, but parishes run the gamut from Prayer Book Catholicism to full-on Fortescue. PM me if you'd like more information; this post is probably already too long for this thread!
--------------------
"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
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Padre Joshua:
Does anyone know anything about the Anglican Province of Christ the King? Their website is here.
Looks like they're an offshoot of TEC in 1977, and there is a congregation here in north Alabama ( St. Charles Anglican Church). They use the 1928 BCP.
That may well be more info than anyone else has, but I wanted to see what else I could learn about them. Why didn't they join one of the other offshoots, such as the UECNA? Do they have any dealings at all with other offshoot Anglican provinces?
I think that the APCK would ask the reverse question, i.e., why another Continuing Anglican province does not join with them? The labrynith of Continuing Anglican jurisdictions is a complex tale, indeed. I can say that the APCK is extremely Anglo-Catholic (not uncommon to see rosary beads hanging from their fuschias and cinctures). They were originally the Diocese of Christ the King, one of the dioceses originally set up after TEC began ordaining women in 1977, but then they ultimately did not ratify the constitution of the newly-formed group, and went off on their own. Part of their group joined the Anglican Catholic Church, another high continuing jurisdiction.
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fabula rasa
Shipmate
# 11436
|
Posted
I know that Eccles is more about tat/GIRM than alternative liturgy(!), but hope that someone here might have suggestions about incinerating one's sins. (A cliche, I know, but my congregations's never done it...). So, what is the best way of doing this indoors? What kind of paper will burn quickly, without flying up in a flaming mass, and without producing black smoke? If I'd like a big, quick, dramatic whoosh of flame (the Christmas pudding effect), how can I do this in a way that's spectacular but safe?
All suggestions gratefully received!
Posts: 465 | From: scepter'd isle | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Offeiriad
Ship's Arboriculturalist
# 14031
|
Posted
Incense charcoal burning well, in a metal pan at the bottom of a really solid terracotta plant pot. Not on carpet, please: stone step in front of altar works fine. Any paper will do!
Posts: 1426 | From: La France profonde | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Offeiriad
Ship's Arboriculturalist
# 14031
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
I can say that the APCK is extremely Anglo-Catholic (not uncommon to see rosary beads hanging from their fuschias and cinctures).
Sorry to double post, but I've just see this, and it has aroused my horticultural curiosity. I can imagine a rosary hanging from a cincture, but why would hanging a rosary from a late summer flowering semi-hardy bush be a sign of advanced churchmanship? Please enlighten me!
Posts: 1426 | From: La France profonde | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oferyas:
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
I can say that the APCK is extremely Anglo-Catholic (not uncommon to see rosary beads hanging from their fuschias and cinctures).
Sorry to double post, but I've just see this, and it has aroused my horticultural curiosity. I can imagine a rosary hanging from a cincture, but why would hanging a rosary from a late summer flowering semi-hardy bush be a sign of advanced churchmanship? Please enlighten me!
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
My guess is that Ceremoniar's post fell victim to "corrective" text, which tends not to recognise church-related terminology.
It isn't for nothing that so many of my posts end up being edited. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
[ 01. May 2012, 18:26: Message edited by: Michael Astley ]
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
My guess is that Ceremoniar's post fell victim to "corrective" text, which tends not to recognise church-related terminology.
Yes, that is what happened, thanks. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Padre Joshua:
Does anyone know anything about the Anglican Province of Christ the King? Their website is here.
Looks like they're an offshoot of TEC in 1977, and there is a congregation here in north Alabama ( St. Charles Anglican Church). They use the 1928 BCP.
That may well be more info than anyone else has, but I wanted to see what else I could learn about them. Why didn't they join one of the other offshoots, such as the UECNA? Do they have any dealings at all with other offshoot Anglican provinces?
Huntsville was a particularly bloody mess. St Charles was a moderate parish in the old DSE under +Watterson in ACNA(E) days but was eventually Missalized with the consequence that a large group departed and started Christ Episcopal Church (UECNA) as a Low Church alternative. The ACC poked their oar in at some point, but their little group eventually merger with the UECNA parish. Twenty-five years later there is some talk of merging Christchurch with St Charles, but I am not at all sure how that will turn out.
Of the three churches that came directly out of St Louis, the Anglican Catholic Church is the largest and tends to be middle to high in churchmanship. It has what the rest of us call 'the Cons and Cans from hell' which the Diocese of Christ the King, and Bishop Doren did not, in the end, sign off on.
APCK is the old Diocese of Christ the King writ large and tends to be Anglo-catholic in churchmanship, but APCK Spikes tend to be less exotic than the ACC type. They use a modeified version of the 1964 PECUSA Cons and Cans.
The United Episcopal Church is very similar in terms of organisation to APCK but tends to be Middle to Low in Churchmanship. There is a strong Evangelical streak in UECNA which came in with +Albion Knight. +Gramley and +Rober, Presiding Bishops 1991-1996 and 1996-2010 tried to move the church up the candle. However, the present PB is a BCP and 39 Articles man.
Chances of mergers in the Continuum are pretty high, but probably will not happen along obvious historical lines.
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 Ceremoniar:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
My guess is that Ceremoniar's post fell victim to "corrective" text, which tends not to recognise church-related terminology.
Yes, that is what happened, thanks.
Tis ok. You and I have a common affliction, brother. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Heheh Michael, I just noticed your signature. You do know what Pope St Gregory the Great was going on about, don't you?
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
quote:
Originally posted by Padre Joshua:
Does anyone know anything about the Anglican Province of Christ the King? Their website is here.
Looks like they're an offshoot of TEC in 1977, and there is a congregation here in north Alabama ( St. Charles Anglican Church). They use the 1928 BCP.
That may well be more info than anyone else has, but I wanted to see what else I could learn about them. Why didn't they join one of the other offshoots, such as the UECNA? Do they have any dealings at all with other offshoot Anglican provinces?
Huntsville was a particularly bloody mess. St Charles was a moderate parish in the old DSE under +Watterson in ACNA(E) days but was eventually Missalized with the consequence that a large group departed and started Christ Episcopal Church (UECNA) as a Low Church alternative. The ACC poked their oar in at some point, but their little group eventually merger with the UECNA parish. Twenty-five years later there is some talk of merging Christchurch with St Charles, but I am not at all sure how that will turn out.
Of the three churches that came directly out of St Louis, the Anglican Catholic Church is the largest and tends to be middle to high in churchmanship. It has what the rest of us call 'the Cons and Cans from hell' which the Diocese of Christ the King, and Bishop Doren did not, in the end, sign off on.
APCK is the old Diocese of Christ the King writ large and tends to be Anglo-catholic in churchmanship, but APCK Spikes tend to be less exotic than the ACC type. They use a modeified version of the 1964 PECUSA Cons and Cans.
The United Episcopal Church is very similar in terms of organisation to APCK but tends to be Middle to Low in Churchmanship. There is a strong Evangelical streak in UECNA which came in with +Albion Knight. +Gramley and +Rober, Presiding Bishops 1991-1996 and 1996-2010 tried to move the church up the candle. However, the present PB is a BCP and 39 Articles man.
Chances of mergers in the Continuum are pretty high, but probably will not happen along obvious historical lines.
PD
I knew Bishop Mote and some of the Colorado (Diocese of the Holy Trinity) clergy back in the early days of the ACC. They were good folks and Bishop Mote was a sweet, sincere man, if perhaps over-enthusiastic and a little ingenuous. I think they tried to solve perceived problems in the Con and Cans of TEC with a sledgehammer, when a much smaller instrument would have done fine. The attempt, if you think about it, was a bit like the recent drive for the Covenant across the worldwide Anglican Communion -- bound to be more devisive than unifying. By the time we moved back to Texas from Colorado, the Diocese of the SW, which included Texas, had gone spinning out of the ACC and on a prolonged, bumpy journey. Anyway, there seems to have been a tendency in the early Continuing Church movement to ignore the polity and culture of the Episcopal Church, from which they all had, after all, come. This might have been fine for clergy on a lark, but didn't fly with the laity, and also led to terrible infighting amongst the small episcopate that was already made up of men who were somewhat difficult personalities (i.e. not always inclined to play well with others).
Just some of my reflections on those days. I subsequently returned to TEC and have little sense of Continuing Anglicanism lo these many years.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Sorry, I'm afraid I got a bit side-tracked and failed to make my point that Bp Mote, one of the original four of the Chambers consecrations, stated to me that he was quite keen on the 1979 BCP, and liked its Rite II material and various options. The only real issue for him and those like him was OoW. Maintaining the 1928 BCP only seemed to be a strong issue mostly amongst some lay-folk. This might thus give some insight into the early priorities of the wing of the orignal ACNA that subsequently became the ACC.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
I met +Mote a couple of times when I was at seminary and I would agree with your assessment. He always seemed to be 'pig-in-the-middle' in the ACC House of Bishops in those days between the hawks and the doves. The hawks eventually left in 1996/7, which made the place a whole lot more peaceful, but the general trend in the ACC still seems to be away from historic Anglicanism - or at least towards an assertive sort of Biretta Belt Anglo-Catholicism.
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
|
|
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
If you put "precursor to the Antichrist" into a Google search the main candidates seem to be Barack Obama, Adolf Hitler, and Ophrah Winfrey. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Add in "Gregory the Great" and most of the high-ranking references are to this Ship.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
"Universal Bishop" is a translation into English of the Latin Patriarcha universalis, which in turn was a translation of the Greek o‘ikoumenikòs patriárches. We now usually render that into English as Ecumenical Patriarch. Pope Gregory was taking issue with the Bishop of Constantinople, John the Faster, for assuming for himself such a title.
Pope Gregory went on to say: "As regards the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See? Why, both our most religious Lord the Emperor and our brother the Bishop of Constantinople continually acknowledge it" and "I know of no bishop who is not subject to the Apostolic See". One of the issue that sparked this was the Bishop of Constantinople convening a Synod to discuss charges against the Patriarch of Antioch. Pope Gregory was reminding the Bishop of Constantinople that he had no right to judge another bishop, for that was the prerogative of Rome.
The quote in Michael's signature has often been employed by Protestant and Orthodox polemicists as a way of suggesting the Bishop of Rome has false pretensions to universal jurisdiction and "Look! even a saintly pope said that was akin to being the Antichrist!" The full story says something quite the opposite, however.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
the Bishop of Constantinople, John the Faster
As opposed to John the Extremely Slow, or John the Glutton? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Heheh Michael, I just noticed your signature. You do know what Pope St Gregory the Great was going on about, don't you?
Oh dear.
I had been aware of the origins.
Indeed, the point wasn't about the specifics of what was actually going on back then but rather about perception and reaction. As this was presented to me, perceiving a bishop to be claiming universal authority, the Pope of Rome found the very idea abhorrent.
Therefore, the point wasn't to attack the present Pope of Rome but rather to suggest that his claim to universal jurisdiction isn't as unequivocally supported by history as some often claim. What seemed important wssn't so much the sentiment alone but also the person who expressed it.
Seeing your excerpts from the remainder of what was said, I shall seek to read it myself rather than relying on the book that claimed not to be a polemical work and with whose author I am acquainted.
Thank you for highlighting 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
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
The quote in Michael's signature has often been employed by Protestant and Orthodox polemicists as a way of suggesting the Bishop of Rome has false pretensions to universal jurisdiction and "Look! even a saintly pope said that was akin to being the Antichrist!" The full story says something quite the opposite, however.
Bless you, Father.
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
On his blog, Fr Z has an article on a discussion by Bishop Sample of Marquette discussing the liturgy. He provides an audio link that I have not had time to listen to yet.
However, in Fr Z's written comments, it appears that Bishop Sample said that the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of the Roman Rite are the same rite. Fr. Z questions this.
Huh?
Why would they not be the same rite? Maybe different uses, but the same rite. Right?
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Pope Gregory went on to say: "As regards the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See? Why, both our most religious Lord the Emperor and our brother the Bishop of Constantinople continually acknowledge it" and "I know of no bishop who is not subject to the Apostolic See".
Clever editing, Triple Tiara.
Having read this, it seems the fuill sentence from which your latter quotation is an excerpt actually reads:
quote:
If any fault is found among bishops, I know not any one who is not subject to it (the Apostolic See); but when no fault requires otherwise, all are equal according to the estimation of humility.
This does seem to qualify Pope St Gregory's understanding of Rome's primacy in a way with which I don't think many Orthodox would have any argument. This is, of course, a separate (but related) issue to the question of universal jurisdiction, which is what is addressed in my signature.
Granted, I should have read the correspondence myself rather than taking someone else's quotation of a single sentence in isolation but I see nothing so far that suggests I misunderstood or used it incorrectly. I remain, of course, open to correction.
--------------------
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
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
It's a purgatorial discussion of course and we are unlikely to resolve it.
I did not intend any clever editing and was not making any exalted papal claims. As I said, the issue was to do with the Bishop of Constantinople trying to decide on a matter relating to the Patriarch of Antioch - a disciplinary matter.
However, the line from Gregory does not lend itself to the way you are arguing it. Use the actual phrase of Gregory and what he was objecting to and it reads rather differently: 'Whoever calls himself ecumenical patriarch, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor to the Antichrist.'
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
I think that if the discussion of Gregory the Great's views on the universal primacy or otherwise of the Pope is to continue, it needs to do so on its own thread which belongs in Purgatory.
Much obliged.
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
|
|
crunt
Shipmate
# 1321
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oferyas:
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
I can say that the APCK is extremely Anglo-Catholic (not uncommon to see rosary beads hanging from their fuschias and cinctures).
Sorry to double post, but I've just see this, and it has aroused my horticultural curiosity. I can imagine a rosary hanging from a cincture, but why would hanging a rosary from a late summer flowering semi-hardy bush be a sign of advanced churchmanship? Please enlighten me!
Not only is predictive text crap at ecclisiology, it is rubbish at horticulture, too. That semi-hardy, late flowering bush that gives its name to a reddish-pinkish colour is called a fuchsia
Edited to ask - what was the original term supposed to be; cinctures and ... ?
[ 04. May 2012, 07:43: Message edited by: crunt ]
--------------------
QUIZ: Bible
QUIZ: world religions
LTL Discussion
languagespider.com
Posts: 269 | From: Up country in the middle of Malaysia | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
Fascias was what it was meant to say, I would imagine.
[ 04. May 2012, 08:34: Message edited by: seasick ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
But according to that link, if you're a Patriarch, Archbishop, Bishop, protonotary apostolic, honorary prelate, or chaplain of his holiness you can have a fuchsia fascia.
--------------------
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
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
I'll make a note!
--------------------
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
|
|
Offeiriad
Ship's Arboriculturalist
# 14031
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by crunt:
quote:
Originally posted by Oferyas:
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
I can say that the APCK is extremely Anglo-Catholic (not uncommon to see rosary beads hanging from their fuschias and cinctures).
Sorry to double post, but I've just see this, and it has aroused my horticultural curiosity. I can imagine a rosary hanging from a cincture, but why would hanging a rosary from a late summer flowering semi-hardy bush be a sign of advanced churchmanship? Please enlighten me!
Not only is predictive text crap at ecclisiology, it is rubbish at horticulture, too. That semi-hardy, late flowering bush that gives its name to a reddish-pinkish colour is called a fuchsia
Edited to ask - what was the original term supposed to be; cinctures and ... ?
I stand corrected on the spelling, can only point readers to my sig, and beg to ask 'what is "ecclisiology"?'
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posts: 1426 | From: La France profonde | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
crunt
Shipmate
# 1321
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oferyas:
quote:
Originally posted by crunt:
Edited to ask - what was the original term supposed to be; cinctures and ... ?
I stand corrected on the spelling, can only point readers to my sig, and beg to ask 'what is "ecclisiology"?'
Ha-ha my bad! Can I wriggle out of it by saying my mouse doesn't work and I'm using the finger thingy? No? Thought not.
[fixed code]
[ 04. May 2012, 16:45: Message edited by: seasick ]
--------------------
QUIZ: Bible
QUIZ: world religions
LTL Discussion
languagespider.com
Posts: 269 | From: Up country in the middle of Malaysia | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fabula rasa:
I know that Eccles is more about tat/GIRM than alternative liturgy(!), but hope that someone here might have suggestions about incinerating one's sins. (A cliche, I know, but my congregations's never done it...). So, what is the best way of doing this indoors? What kind of paper will burn quickly, without flying up in a flaming mass, and without producing black smoke? If I'd like a big, quick, dramatic whoosh of flame (the Christmas pudding effect), how can I do this in a way that's spectacular but safe?
All suggestions gratefully received!
The Ecclesiantics board began as a merger between the old Mystery Worshipper discussion board and one called Small Fire which was all about alternative liturgies. Your question is welcome here. One of my friends who is in youth ministry recommends Flying Wish Paper. The ending effect is different from the big conflagration you're thinking of, but the youth at her confirmation retreat are always impressed.
(Sorry for the delay in responding -- I had to chase down the name of the product.)
ETA: An entirely different approach, but I have done a similar type of thing where one's sins are written down on a type of dissolving paper and placed in the baptismal font. Also effective.
[ 04. May 2012, 15:01: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
I thought of 3 questions I wanted to ask here, but right now I can only remember 2. (Typical me.) So here goes:
1. Do you cross yourself at the beginning of the Gloria in Excelsis? I've seen it done (and it fits the rule of crossing yourself at canticles etc. drawn from Gospel text, such as the Benedictus, Magnificat, and Nunc Dimittis), but there are already lots of gestures in that particular hymn. I'm just curious if anyone here has seen it done, or can give a good reason one way or the other.
2. Recently, I was at a weekday Mass where there were a total of 5 of us present (including the presider). The presider had really bad allergies, and was coughing and blowing his nose all through the service. In a situation like that, should/could the presider slip in some mention of it to the congregation (e.g., at the Peace somewhere, or even before his homily) so they know he's not contagious? If so, when? I know it seems tacky, but the weekday services are kinda informal. To all you priests out there: what would you do, especially if you couldn't get another clergy person to cover for you? Luckily, in this instance, no one refrained from receiving Communion, but it's conceivable someone might.
I'll ask the third question later if I think of it!
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
I can say that the APCK is extremely Anglo-Catholic (not uncommon to see rosary beads hanging from their fuschias and cinctures). They were originally the Diocese of Christ the King, one of the dioceses originally set up after TEC began ordaining women in 1977, but then they ultimately did not ratify the constitution of the newly-formed group, and went off on their own. Part of their group joined the Anglican Catholic Church, another high continuing jurisdiction.
I have never found the APCK to be that extreme. They are Missal orientated for the most part, but they are not "crazy high." In a way I cannot imagine +Morse allowing anyone to get that way, though, as we (Fr Weber and I) were discussing after their Western Diocese's Synod yesterday, they did have more than their share of sanctuary swans in times past (i.e. 1977 until they retired/shuffled off this mortal coil). In my experience, sound Anglo-Catholic theology tends to militate against being "crazy high" because of the pressure to do things correctly - i.e. that the liturgy is the Church's not yours. It is the half trained; half formed types that tend to do the crazy stuff. I have general seen more OTT stuff in upper slopes of middle of the road places than I ever have in "full Faith" parishes.
PD
[ 06. May 2012, 21:17: Message edited by: PD ]
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
I thought of 3 questions I wanted to ask here, but right now I can only remember 2. (Typical me.) So here goes:
1. Do you cross yourself at the beginning of the Gloria in Excelsis? I've seen it done (and it fits the rule of crossing yourself at canticles etc. drawn from Gospel text, such as the Benedictus, Magnificat, and Nunc Dimittis), but there are already lots of gestures in that particular hymn. I'm just curious if anyone here has seen it done, or can give a good reason one way or the other.
2. Recently, I was at a weekday Mass where there were a total of 5 of us present (including the presider). The presider had really bad allergies, and was coughing and blowing his nose all through the service. In a situation like that, should/could the presider slip in some mention of it to the congregation (e.g., at the Peace somewhere, or even before his homily) so they know he's not contagious? If so, when? I know it seems tacky, but the weekday services are kinda informal. To all you priests out there: what would you do, especially if you couldn't get another clergy person to cover for you? Luckily, in this instance, no one refrained from receiving Communion, but it's conceivable someone might.
I'll ask the third question later if I think of it!
Crossing yourself at the Gloria in Exclesis is usually done at the end rather than the beginning. At the 'Gloria Patri' one bows.
If I am having a bad allergy attack I will usually make mention of the fact in the notices. Older/liberal Anglicans can be a bit wonkie on the Real Presence, but they all believe in microbes.
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
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
I can say that the APCK is extremely Anglo-Catholic (not uncommon to see rosary beads hanging from their fuschias and cinctures). They were originally the Diocese of Christ the King, one of the dioceses originally set up after TEC began ordaining women in 1977, but then they ultimately did not ratify the constitution of the newly-formed group, and went off on their own. Part of their group joined the Anglican Catholic Church, another high continuing jurisdiction.
I have never found the APCK to be that extreme. They are Missal orientated for the most part, but they are not "crazy high." In a way I cannot imagine +Morse allowing anyone to get that way, though, as we (Fr Weber and I) were discussing after their Western Diocese's Synod yesterday, they did have more than their share of sanctuary swans in times past (i.e. 1977 until they retired/shuffled off this mortal coil). In my experience, sound Anglo-Catholic theology tends to militate against being "crazy high" because of the pressure to do things correctly - i.e. that the liturgy is the Church's not yours. It is the half trained; half formed types that tend to do the crazy stuff. I have general seen more OTT stuff in upper slopes of middle of the road places than I ever have in "full Faith" parishes.
PD
Who said anything about "crazy high"? I do not know why you are saying that. I simply recalled my recollections of them (a bit dated, admittedly, from the eighties). Nothing that I said implied that they were crazy; I rather liked seeing priests with rosaries. I remember when +Tillman Williams left the ACC for the APCK.
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
I thought of 3 questions I wanted to ask here, but right now I can only remember 2. (Typical me.) So here goes:
1. Do you cross yourself at the beginning of the Gloria in Excelsis? I've seen it done (and it fits the rule of crossing yourself at canticles etc. drawn from Gospel text, such as the Benedictus, Magnificat, and Nunc Dimittis), but there are already lots of gestures in that particular hymn. I'm just curious if anyone here has seen it done, or can give a good reason one way or the other.
2. Recently, I was at a weekday Mass where there were a total of 5 of us present (including the presider). The presider had really bad allergies, and was coughing and blowing his nose all through the service. In a situation like that, should/could the presider slip in some mention of it to the congregation (e.g., at the Peace somewhere, or even before his homily) so they know he's not contagious? If so, when? I know it seems tacky, but the weekday services are kinda informal. To all you priests out there: what would you do, especially if you couldn't get another clergy person to cover for you? Luckily, in this instance, no one refrained from receiving Communion, but it's conceivable someone might.
I'll ask the third question later if I think of it!
1. I have never heard of crossing onself at the beginning of the Gloria, only at the end, which is the traditional signing, not typically followed in the contemporary rite.
2. I will admit to being a bit curious as to the use of the words Mass and presider in the same sentence. Why the aversion to the word priest, which goes so perfectly with Mass? That is the word that the liturgical books themselves use, along with celebrant.
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barefoot Friar
Ship's Shoeless Brother
# 13100
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
I can say that the APCK is extremely Anglo-Catholic (not uncommon to see rosary beads hanging from their fuschias and cinctures). They were originally the Diocese of Christ the King, one of the dioceses originally set up after TEC began ordaining women in 1977, but then they ultimately did not ratify the constitution of the newly-formed group, and went off on their own. Part of their group joined the Anglican Catholic Church, another high continuing jurisdiction.
I have never found the APCK to be that extreme. They are Missal orientated for the most part, but they are not "crazy high." In a way I cannot imagine +Morse allowing anyone to get that way, though, as we (Fr Weber and I) were discussing after their Western Diocese's Synod yesterday, they did have more than their share of sanctuary swans in times past (i.e. 1977 until they retired/shuffled off this mortal coil). In my experience, sound Anglo-Catholic theology tends to militate against being "crazy high" because of the pressure to do things correctly - i.e. that the liturgy is the Church's not yours. It is the half trained; half formed types that tend to do the crazy stuff. I have general seen more OTT stuff in upper slopes of middle of the road places than I ever have in "full Faith" parishes.
PD
I don't know if this makes any difference, but I happened by the church in Huntsville today, and I noticed that on the sign board the principle Sunday morning service is billed as "Holy Communion". I seem to have seen around here that HC = low to MOTR, Eucharist = MOTR to high, and Mass = AC.
I may have to just break down and go check them out this week.
--------------------
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
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
Thanks, guys!
I'm used to crossing oneself at the end of the Gloria Patri, because when the Spirit is mentioned, it's now a reference to the Holy Trinity. At least that's what I've always been told - nothing to do with the first lines coming from the Gospels. I'm also used to bowing at "receive our prayer" and of course at the Name of Jesus; I've also seen bowing at "we worship you" - and now that you mention it, I've seen bowing at the beginning.
"Presider" is simply the language we use here. Most people say "Eucharist;" some of us say "Mass," although it's not in any of our printed literature. I have no aversion to saying priest (don't read so much into it!), but in any Eucharist service we generally have several priests vested in the service, doing different tasks (many are paten administrators; another might be the homilist). So saying "priest" seems too vague. I would say "celebrant," and sometimes do, but you get used to the general usage around you, you know?
I've thought of my third question!
3. Why is the deacon sometimes blessed by the...um, celebrant before s/he goes to proclaim the Gospel? Doesn't her or his ordination give him/her everything s/he needs to proclaim the Gospel? No other participant in the service gets the celebrant's blessing before doing their thing. The only reason I can think of is the importance of the Gospel proclamation in the liturgy - and the only other participants in the service doing something so important are Communion administrators, who will have just received the Sacrament - blessing enough.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
