|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Black Gowns in the Church of England
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
He needs to read more Luther. Particularly the bits about a properly called and ordained ministry of Word and Sacrament. Fudging on that point is decidedly against the teaching of the magisterial Reformers and again points out that the Jensenites are not quite Pukka Evangelicals.
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
|
|
Emendator Liturgia
Shipmate
# 17245
|
Posted
Given the direction in Diocesan developments of a new ecclesiology since the 1950s, based on the works of local numeries as Broughton Knox, Donald Robinson, and Peter O'Brien (which defines church as being an heavenly gathering - I can provide you with more detail of that if you like), the indentification of 'church' with the individual is being consistenly played out. One can read this into their views on lay presidency.
(Mind you, Broughton Knox believed that Christ's baptism was merely a metaphor and hence there was no need for the sacramental washing of sins).
--------------------
Don't judge all Anglicans in Sydney by prevailing Diocesan standards!
Posts: 401 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by emendator liturgia:
.... the identification of 'church' with the individual is being consistently played out. One can read this into their views on lay presidency....
Emendator, can you explain this please? Are you saying they identify the 'church' which most of us think is some interpretation of 'the body of Christ' or 'the visible assembly of the faithful' with 'me, me, me', each of us our own church? That would be not just heretical but weird. Or are you criticising them for not identifying 'the church' with the ordained ministry or a building, neither of which would be controversial.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
I think that discussions about the ecclesiology of the Jensens belongs on another thread, and accusations of bad faith and heresy on their part are not suitable for Ecclesiantics.
Back to your scheduled thread!
dj_ordinaire, Eccles host
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
WearyPilgrim
Shipmate
# 14593
|
Posted
The black gown was worn by clergy of the Reformed Episcopal Church here in the States as late as the 1970s. I think the tippet may have been worn as well. That has all changed in recent years as the REC has climbed the candle. Cassock, surplice and tippet are the norm for choir offices; stole for Holy Communion. I'm not aware that anyone wears the chasuble, though I may be wrong. The denomination is still on the "low" side liturgically.
Posts: 383 | From: Sedgwick, Maine USA | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oblatus
Shipmate
# 6278
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by WearyPilgrim:
The black gown was worn by clergy of the Reformed Episcopal Church here in the States as late as the 1970s. I think the tippet may have been worn as well. That has all changed in recent years as the REC has climbed the candle. Cassock, surplice and tippet are the norm for choir offices; stole for Holy Communion. I'm not aware that anyone wears the chasuble, though I may be wrong. The denomination is still on the "low" side liturgically.
A while back, I looked at a bunch of websites of REC parishes, and a lot of the ones with photos seemed to have a prie-dieu and big chair at each end of the altar (er, table?), which might be a hint at north-ending. I could be wrong.
Posts: 3823 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
WearyPilgrim
Shipmate
# 14593
|
Posted
I know the REC through personal contacts, but I'm not an Episcopalian, so I don't know the term "north-ending". Fill me in.
Posts: 383 | From: Sedgwick, Maine USA | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oblatus
Shipmate
# 6278
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by WearyPilgrim:
I know the REC through personal contacts, but I'm not an Episcopalian, so I don't know the term "north-ending". Fill me in.
Some Books of Common Prayer instruct the Minister to stand at the "north side" of the Holy Table. There have been various interpretations of this; one has been that the Minister is not to stand in the center like a Roman Catholic priest would but at the narrow north (left) end. One reason for this was an avoidance of appearing to offer a sacrifice at an altar. Another feature of this style was an avoidance of manual acts beyond touching the bread and chalice.
Here's an excellent description of north-ending by our PD.
Posts: 3823 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by WearyPilgrim:
The black gown was worn by clergy of the Reformed Episcopal Church here in the States as late as the 1970s. I think the tippet may have been worn as well. That has all changed in recent years as the REC has climbed the candle. Cassock, surplice and tippet are the norm for choir offices; stole for Holy Communion. I'm not aware that anyone wears the chasuble, though I may be wrong. The denomination is still on the "low" side liturgically.
There are plenty of Chasubles in the REC but they would tend to be rarest in the Old NY and Phila Synod, and commonest in the Midwest where some of their parishes transferred in from the Continuum (putting a favourable construction on what happened!)
The old chair at either end of the Altar able thing was pretty typical Episcopalian liturgics in the mid-nineteenth century. IIRC North ending was common in the REC, as it had been in PEUSA whenthey lef in 1873. However, some ministers took to celebrating over the Table quite early on in the Reformed manner.
PD
(ex-FCE aka RECGB&I)
--------------------
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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Oblatus , many thanks for that link. What PD describes was very common throughout Sydney when I was growing up, and for quite some time after that as well.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by WearyPilgrim:
I know the REC through personal contacts, but I'm not an Episcopalian, so I don't know the term "north-ending". Fill me in.
North ending is standing at the north end of the Altar Table to celebrate Communion. It came about under the Laudian regime (1633-45) when the Tables were moved back against the wall and railed off so they could not be moved into the nave for the celebration of the Lord's Supper.
In most parishes they ended up 'altarwise' with the short ends north and south, so in order to obey the rubric to stand at the North side for the Communion service, a lot of priests took to standing at the north end. Previously the Table had been put down the length of the chancel for the Communion with the ends east and west.
The 1662 BCP, but not the 1559 BCP, contains a further rubric just before the consecration that orders the priest to stand before the Table. This suggests to me that following the Savoy Conference of 1661, there was some sort of determination that they would leave the door open for the Eastward facing position for the Prayer of Consecration. This seems to have been dome on a small scale in the reigns of Charles II, James II, and William and Mary, but seems to have died out in the early 18th century.
Wth the exception noted above, North ending was the norm from the 1660s to the early 1900s in the Church of England, and was still pretty common in the 1960s in Low Church and Evangelical parishes. However, it died out more quickly in PECUSA, so by 1928, the revisers decided it was safe to omit all mentions of sides and ends and simply state that the minister shall stand "before" the Altar.
There were still places doing North end when I was a teenager and indeed I did a fair bit of north ending when I was an Assistant Curate in the late 1990s. I still north end from time to time, but mainly when doing historical liturgies such as the 1662 and the 1789 PECUSA BCP. Indeed the last time was July 4th when we did a 1789 celebration for Independence Day.
PD
[ 02. August 2012, 15:44: 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
|
|
otyetsfoma
Shipmate
# 12898
|
Posted
Until the "back to the niddle ages" movement in the 19th century ( Cambridge Camden Society etc.)most holy tables were almost square as can be seen in some city of London churches, so that north end really was north side, The introduction of mediaeval altar style into low church parishes gave us the aesthetically displeasing manual acts we dislike in low-chuch churches.
Posts: 842 | From: Edgware UK | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
North ending is standing at the north end of the Altar Table to celebrate Communion. It came about under the Laudian regime (1633-45) when the Tables were moved back against the wall and railed off so they could not be moved into the nave for the celebration of the Lord's Supper.
What did Laud himself envisage about the position of the priest? Did he intend to restore the eastward position?
The debates about 'north end' vs 'eastward' were particularly vicious in the late 19th century. Thomas Hardy, in Jude the Obscure describes the contrast between the agony of Jude and his partner at the death of their children, with two Oxford dons arguing in the next room: quote:
They are two clergymen of different views, arguing about the eastward position. Good God--the eastward position, and all creation groaning!
Somehow puts it (and Ecclesiantics) into perspective.
For what its worth, the north-end position is still the custom in my local parish church.
--------------------
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
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
One suspects that Laud was moving towards restoring the Eastward position, but maybe not right off. Move the altars first, then altar the ceremonial custom may have been his methodology.
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
|
|
mettabhavana
Apprentice
# 16217
|
Posted
quote:
the aesthetically displeasing manual acts we dislike in low-chuch churches
D'you mean hand-wringing? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
And are we yet alive?
Posts: 39 | From: London, England | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
otyetsfoma
Shipmate
# 12898
|
Posted
Since the altar-like holy table is narrow, the priest moves the book-stand or cushion to make room, gooes to the middle ande removes the chalice and paten to the north end, causing a long pause and the appearance of having the elements in danger of falling off the congested end. With a squarer holy table all of this is avoided. There is nothing wrong with north side celebration on an altar table that fits it properly.
Posts: 842 | From: Edgware UK | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I've never understood why north-end churches set out the chalice and paten (usually with burse and veil!) in the centre of the altar. Then move them when they need to use them.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
I have been to Holy Communion at evangelical churches from time to time over the last thirty years, and I can't remember ever seeing the president (sic) standing at the North End. Recently, they've been Westward facing.
I seem to remember reading some High Church clergyman suggesting "the North End" meant on the north end of of the East face, rather than the north side.
I know Wren churches quite well and I have an eye for liturgical detail. Any original Holy Tables are small, but I can't recall any actually square.
The original Holy Table at St Stephen's Walbrook is D shaped, with the straight side against the East wall.
--------------------
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
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I've never understood why north-end churches set out the chalice and paten (usually with burse and veil!) in the centre of the altar. Then move them when they need to use them.
I think it has a lot to do with the human liking for balance. Even in the FCE we tended to put the chalice and paten containing the elements to be consecrated in the middle of the Table. However, the altars in FCE churches tended to be short and wide - 5' by 3' - so the whole operation of uncovering the vessels and moving them a little towards one end went pretty smoothly.
The church I grew up in had an old altar that was set up for north end when it was restored in 1883 and again the 1883 high altar Table was relatively short and wide - 6' by 3' - so there was room to do lion and unicorn without the celebrant and his assistant being absurdly far off to the sides. The newer high altar was much longer and relatively narrow - about 9' by 2'8" - so it occupied about five-twelfths of the length of the east wall of the chancel and only really adapted to the eastward position.
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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I have been to Holy Communion at evangelical churches from time to time over the last thirty years, and I can't remember ever seeing the president (sic) standing at the North End. Recently, they've been Westward facing....
My impression from memory is that once it occurred to someone, about 40 years ago, that you could move the altar/table forward from the wall and celebrate from behind it, most of those who had been resolutely north end until then adopted the new practice almost immediately.
Before then, there was a very strong aversion in many quarters to the 'turn your back on everyone and mumble' position that had become widespread in high church circles by the 1950s/60s. I find it very odd that anyone, even on a vessel of lost causes, should advocate going back to that.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
A friend, who came back to Christianity late in life, told me she liked Eastward facing, as it meant priest and people were all facing the same way.
--------------------
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
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
My impression from memory is that once it occurred to someone, about 40 years ago, that you could move the altar/table forward from the wall and celebrate from behind it, most of those who had been resolutely north end until then adopted the new practice almost immediately.
The church I mentioned where this practice still exists, was MOTR until 30 or so years ago; visually it remains so, with decently furnished altar, cross and candles. Evidently a new-broom evangelical vicar rescued it for the True Faith and began to use the north-end position. His successors, though not AFAIK Reform in theology, have maintained that tradition.
The only reason I can think of is that there is no room to move the Table forward within the narrow sanctuary, so it would have to stand in the chancel and therefore restrict the 'performing space' for the 'all-age' services.
[ 04. August 2012, 12:27: Message edited by: Angloid ]
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
I occasionally run into the opinion that westward facing is the 'bow down and worship the priest' position, so a few of the really crusty sorts stay north end for that reason. Personally I usually celebrate "eastward" facing, but I prefer north end to versus pop.
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
|
|
Oxonian Ecclesiastic
Shipmate
# 12722
|
Posted
I am broadly with PD, although I (marginally) prefer north end, particularly on BCP/Order Two occasions.
Posts: 174 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
