homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » The Epistle (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: The Epistle
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199

 - Posted      Profile for (S)pike couchant     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
How do you do the Epistle? There are, as far as I know, six ways ways of doing this, to whit:

1. The traditional (Roman) way: chanted by the subdeacon, facing the altar.

2. The quasi-traditional Roman way: chanted by the subdeacon, facing the people.

3. The quasi-modern way: said by the subdeacon from a lectern or ambo, facing the people.

4. The totally modern way: read by an unvested layperson.

5. The Sarum way: chanted from the rood.

6. The old fashioned low-church CofE way: read from a lectern by a cleric vested in cassock and surplice (possibly with tippet and hood).

We do number 4. I wish we did either no. 1 or no. 2. Perhaps the former is a bit too foreign for modern tastes (I can only think of one place in the UK where the Epistle is chanted to the altar, and even there only on weekday feasts and not on Sundays).

No. 5 must, I think, be rarer than hen's teeth, and no. 6 seems to be dying. I suspect that no. 4 is now the most common way, and has been ever since the CofE, or at least portions thereof, adopted three lessons at the principle Sunday mass.

--------------------
'Still the towers of Trebizond, the fabled city, shimmer on the far horizon, gated and walled' but Bize her yer Trabzon.

Posts: 308 | From: West of Eden, East of England | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804

 - Posted      Profile for Olaf     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Number 4. It is almost universally used in ELCA Lutheran churches.

There may be a literal handful of churches with liturgically-obsessed pastors who do number 3, but of course the ELCA does not have an official subdiaconate. It would be a vested layperson fulfilling the duty.

Even calling it the "Epistle" is passé. It is the Second Reading, or for those who cling to the 70s, the Second Lesson.

Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
PD
Shipmate
# 12436

 - Posted      Profile for PD   Author's homepage   Email PD   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
7. None of the above.

At St Hardup's it is read from the subdeacon's step by a lay reader in cassock and surplice, or, when we have three scared monsters, 'subdeacon' in the proper vestments.

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
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199

 - Posted      Profile for (S)pike couchant     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I realized that I've slandered my current parish! We in fact do no. 3, not no. 4 (we're not so far gone into modernism yet!). My last parish did no. 3, though (although curiously laypeople very rarely read the lessons at the office, which they do at my current parish).

--------------------
'Still the towers of Trebizond, the fabled city, shimmer on the far horizon, gated and walled' but Bize her yer Trabzon.

Posts: 308 | From: West of Eden, East of England | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
4, of course. Like most CofE churches.

If there is a reading distinction between higher and lower CofE places these days its how much special ceremony surrounds the Gospel reading, or whether that is reserved to clergy, not the Epistle.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638

 - Posted      Profile for The Scrumpmeister   Author's homepage   Email The Scrumpmeister   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The option closest to our practice is number 1. In Byzantine practice, the Epistle is chanted by the "first deacon" (that's the deacon subordinate to the "senior deacon/protodeacon").

In reality, most parishes would consider it a rare blessing to have one deacon serving, and could only imagine having two. So a reader (or subdeacon) usually chants the Epistle. There appear to be at least two practices. In one, the reader stands in the midst of the have; in the other, he stands at the foot of the ambo. The former seems more prevalent in ROCOR. In both cases, he faces towards the Holy Doors. In many parishes, lay people fulfil this role in much the same way.

[ 01. September 2012, 21:11: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]

--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis

Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mamacita

Lakefront liberal
# 3659

 - Posted      Profile for Mamacita   Email Mamacita   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
The traditional (Roman) way: chanted by the subdeacon, facing the altar.
The diversity of who reads the Epistle (or any of the lessons, for that matter) and from where is understandable, but I cannot fathom why it would be desirable to read any of them with one's back to the congregation. Aren't the lessons read to us for our edification?

eta: Cross-posted with The Scrumpmeister. I'm sorry to appear critical. To do/chant the reading from the midst of the people changes my reaction somewhat. I was picturing someone up at the altar, with back turned. I'm still uncomfortable with that.

[ 01. September 2012, 21:12: 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
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199

 - Posted      Profile for (S)pike couchant     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
Aren't the lessons read to us for our edification?

No, they aren't. They, like the rest of the mass, are for the worship of God, not the intellectual edification of the congregation. That, at least, is the traditional understanding of the matter. The edification of the people (who can, after all, follow along in their hand missals) is a desirable side effect. Frankly, and without meaning to be insulting to you, I do wonder whether misunderstandings like that aren't an argument in favour of chanting the epistle toward the altar.

--------------------
'Still the towers of Trebizond, the fabled city, shimmer on the far horizon, gated and walled' but Bize her yer Trabzon.

Posts: 308 | From: West of Eden, East of England | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638

 - Posted      Profile for The Scrumpmeister   Author's homepage   Email The Scrumpmeister   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
quote:
The traditional (Roman) way: chanted by the subdeacon, facing the altar.
The diversity of who reads the Epistle (or any of the lessons, for that matter) and from where is understandable, but I cannot fathom why it would be desirable to read any of them with one's back to the congregation. Aren't the lessons read to us for our edification?

eta: Cross-posted with The Scrumpmeister. I'm sorry to appear critical. To do/chant the reading from the midst of the people changes my reaction somewhat. I was picturing someone up at the altar, with back turned. I'm still uncomfortable with that.

That's OK. No criticism was understood. [Smile]

Nonetheless, when a Byzantine deacon reads the Gospel, it is from the front, facing east, as is the case of the Roman subdeacon when reading the Epistle.

I think it was Trisagion who gave a good explanation when we discussed the Roman custom reading the Gospel facing north not very long ago but doing a search on the device I'm currently using would be very tedious. Perhaps someone better able could look for our benefit.

In addition to what he said, in the Byzantine rite, the readings all have a directional relationship to the Holy Doors as the entry to the Kingdom.

--------------------
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
Metapelagius
Shipmate
# 9453

 - Posted      Profile for Metapelagius   Email Metapelagius   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
quote:
The traditional (Roman) way: chanted by the subdeacon, facing the altar.
The diversity of who reads the Epistle (or any of the lessons, for that matter) and from where is understandable, but I cannot fathom why it would be desirable to read any of them with one's back to the congregation. Aren't the lessons read to us for our edification?

eta: Cross-posted with The Scrumpmeister. I'm sorry to appear critical. To do/chant the reading from the midst of the people changes my reaction somewhat. I was picturing someone up at the altar, with back turned. I'm still uncomfortable with that.

(S)PC's no. 1, if really really traditional, would suggest that the subdeacon would have been like as not chanting the epistle in Latin. Given that the average congregation would have been unlikely to be unfamiliar with the entire oeuvre of SS Paul, Peter &c in that tongue, it wouldn't have made a great deal of difference whether the folk could hear it or not, so the direction in which the chanter was facing would have been immaterial.

--------------------
Rec a archaw e nim naccer.
y rof a duv. dagnouet.
Am bo forth. y porth riet.
Crist ny buv e trist yth orsset.

Posts: 1032 | From: Hereabouts | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199

 - Posted      Profile for (S)pike couchant     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
Aren't the lessons read to us for our edification?

No, they aren't. They, like the rest of the mass, are for the worship of God, not the intellectual edification of the congregation. That, at least, is the traditional understanding of the matter. The edification of the people (who can, after all, follow along in their hand missals) is a desirable side effect. Frankly, and without meaning to be insulting to you, I do wonder whether misunderstandings like that aren't an argument in favour of chanting the epistle toward the altar.
Recognizing that that might have sounded rather snippy — let me elaborate. I am worried that, in many churches, there is a tacit understanding that the 'liturgy of the word' is a 'teaching moment', for the congregation to sit back and learn something about religion. This I think is deadly to the idea of liturgy. Of course, the people should learn something in worship, but in a much deeper sense that does not come from passively sitting and listening, but from active worship of the living God. The liturgy, of course, contains numerous reference to scripture, of which the epistle and gospel constitute only a small part.

In times past, there was no sermon during the liturgy. Sermons were, of course preached — and some of the best have been preserved — but they were preached in a different context. The faithful were encouraged to listen to these, but the only requirement was that they should attend mass (and arguably the offices of Lauds/Morning Prayer and Vespers/Evensong as well) on Holy Days of Obligation. This is because we are not saved by an intellectual understanding of Christian doctrine. There is no strict requirement to be a theologian, although the study of theology has is naturally held to be a very good thing). The obligation is to worship God and to partake in Church's life of prayer and sacraments.

--------------------
'Still the towers of Trebizond, the fabled city, shimmer on the far horizon, gated and walled' but Bize her yer Trabzon.

Posts: 308 | From: West of Eden, East of England | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged
Mamacita

Lakefront liberal
# 3659

 - Posted      Profile for Mamacita   Email Mamacita   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Recognizing that that might have sounded rather snippy — let me elaborate.
It did sound rather snippy, so thank you for posting that.

I believe you are drawing too fine a line on this, perhaps to the point of a false dichotomy. Of course the primary purpose is the worship of God. But our worship comes from some place inside us. For some of us, it comes as a response to the Word. For some of us, it is drawn out by the beauty of traditional worship. Whatever. But we don't worship God in a vacuum.

--------------------
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
Mamacita

Lakefront liberal
# 3659

 - Posted      Profile for Mamacita   Email Mamacita   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
(S)PC's no. 1, if really really traditional, would suggest that the subdeacon would have been like as not chanting the epistle in Latin. Given that the average congregation would have been unlikely to be unfamiliar with the entire oeuvre of SS Paul, Peter &c in that tongue, it wouldn't have made a great deal of difference whether the folk could hear it or not, so the direction in which the chanter was facing would have been immaterial.

I take your point; that explains the tradition. Should we look at the rubric differently once the liturgy is conducted in a tongue understanded by the people?

--------------------
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
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804

 - Posted      Profile for Olaf     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
The obligation is to worship God and to partake in Church's life of prayer and sacraments.

This is somewhat like the east/west altar situation, though. Without refuting prior practice, the church in recent decades has clarified and perhaps even redirected the understanding of the faithful when it comes to orientation. Many attitudes surrounding the faithful's "attendance"* at Mass have taken on a different light. Even John Paul 2 went to great lengths to emphasize the nature of the homily in the instruction of the faithful.

quote:
Dei Verbum:
The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures just as she venerates the body of the Lord, since, especially in the sacred liturgy, she unceasingly receives and offers to the faithful the bread of life from the table both of God's word and of Christ's body.

Yes, I realize quoting Vatican 2 may not be to your taste!


*which, in my opinion, is sometimes mistranslated in terms of "paying attention" versus "being present"

Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199

 - Posted      Profile for (S)pike couchant     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
(S)PC's no. 1, if really really traditional, would suggest that the subdeacon would have been like as not chanting the epistle in Latin. Given that the average congregation would have been unlikely to be unfamiliar with the entire oeuvre of SS Paul, Peter &c in that tongue, it wouldn't have made a great deal of difference whether the folk could hear it or not, so the direction in which the chanter was facing would have been immaterial.

I take your point; that explains the tradition. Should we look at the rubric differently once the liturgy is conducted in a tongue understanded by the people?
Which is why, apropos what I said earlier, sermons have been preached in the vernacular since the time of Charlemagne, whilst (in the West) the epistle (and gospel) remained in Latin until relatively recently. Just how recently, of course, depends on which branch of the Western Church we are talking about.

Part of me does feel that it's not unreasonable to chant the epistle facing the congregation, but part of me is very uncomfortable with the part of me that thinks that (should we really alter the liturgy just because of something I, or anyone else, should happen to feel?). I've discussed the matter with a friend of mine and he felt much the same way. In his parish, which is vastly more traditional than my own, they usually chant the epistle facing the people, because the acoustics of their building really do obscure anything sung in the opposite direction from the front of the chancel.

--------------------
'Still the towers of Trebizond, the fabled city, shimmer on the far horizon, gated and walled' but Bize her yer Trabzon.

Posts: 308 | From: West of Eden, East of England | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638

 - Posted      Profile for The Scrumpmeister   Author's homepage   Email The Scrumpmeister   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There was a discussion on the direction of the readings (specifically the Gospel, in this instance, but pertinent nonetheless), here.

--------------------
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
Mamacita

Lakefront liberal
# 3659

 - Posted      Profile for Mamacita   Email Mamacita   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
There was a discussion on the direction of the readings (specifically the Gospel, in this instance, but pertinent nonetheless), here.

Thank you. That is extremely helpful (dare I say "edifying?").

--------------------
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
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638

 - Posted      Profile for The Scrumpmeister   Author's homepage   Email The Scrumpmeister   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
There was a discussion on the direction of the readings (specifically the Gospel, in this instance, but pertinent nonetheless), here.

Thank you. That is extremely helpful (dare I say "edifying?").
Glad to be of service. [Smile]

Yes, it was a helpful exchange. I particularly appreciated Trisagion's contribution.

--------------------
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
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
(S)pike couchant: after agreeing with you about architecture I'm back to normal I'm afraid. You do realise that your idiosyncratic and antediluvian slant on anglo-catholicism is neither Catholic nor Anglican, don't you? And certainly not your insistence that reading the scriptures within the liturgy is not for the edification of the faithful.

Of course it's about the worship of God. And of course truth comes to us in more subtle and more profound ways than superficial 'instruction'. But it is that as well. Perhaps 'both/and' is too Anglican a concept for you to grasp. But few churches these days are populated by illiterate peasants clutching their rosary beads and lighting candles; most of us are educated and literate people who worship not just with our hearts and actions but with our minds.

Maybe the pendulum has swung too far in favour of cerebral, word-based instruction rather than worship as traditionally understood. But you can't swing it back by trying to revert to a pre-reformation (or pre-Vatican 2) age when the Bible was a forbidden text.

And - relevant tangent - the norm for the Sunday eucharist is now two readings before the Gospel, which are (or should be?) treated alike in the way they are read. Though there is unfortunately a significant number of (C of E) churches where only two of the three readings are heard.

--------------------
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
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Trisagion had a less black-and-white way of making (S)c's point in that earlier thread:
quote:
In the Roman Rite - at least by the time of the Carolignian reforms in the ninth century - the readings at Mass and especially the Gospel had not only a pedagogical character but also (and increasingly so) a laudatory one: I.e. they were there not only, and eventually not even primarily, for the instruction of the faithful but as a liturgical act of the praise and worship of the Father by the proclamation of his Word/word.
In other words, it seems that the instructional aspect was increasingly overtaken by the laudatory one, but both are still elements of the reading of scripture in the liturgy.

--------------------
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
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199

 - Posted      Profile for (S)pike couchant     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
(S)pike couchant: after agreeing with you about architecture I'm back to normal I'm afraid. You do realise that your idiosyncratic and antediluvian slant on anglo-catholicism is neither Catholic nor Anglican, don't you?

Why, you sure know how to flatter a boy! [Axe murder]


quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

Maybe the pendulum has swung too far in favour of cerebral, word-based instruction rather than worship as traditionally understood. But you can't swing it back by trying to revert to a pre-reformation (or pre-Vatican 2) age when the Bible was a forbidden text.

What do you think of the S. Clement's, Philadelphia, solution, wherein the epistle is chanted facing east but both the epistle and the gospel are printed in full in the service sheets? It seems to me that this, along with most everything about S. Clement's, strikes a good balance between tradition and pastoral necessity.

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:


And - relevant tangent - the norm for the Sunday eucharist is now two readings before the Gospel, which are (or should be?) treated alike in the way they are read. Though there is unfortunately a significant number of (C of E) churches where only two of the three readings are heard.

I don't know. I find that reserving the Old Testament lessons for the office works better and gives the mass a better flow. After all, the faithful can read, mark, and inwardly digest the (usually very long) lessons at Mattins and Evensong. There's no need to burden the Mass with additional texts.

--------------------
'Still the towers of Trebizond, the fabled city, shimmer on the far horizon, gated and walled' but Bize her yer Trabzon.

Posts: 308 | From: West of Eden, East of England | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643

 - Posted      Profile for dj_ordinaire   Author's homepage   Email dj_ordinaire   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
I don't know. I find that reserving the Old Testament lessons for the office works better and gives the mass a better flow. After all, the faithful can read, mark, and inwardly digest the (usually very long) lessons at Mattins and Evensong. There's no need to burden the Mass with additional texts.

I complete possibly disagree more. The fact that the OT has been brought back into use as a valued component of the Mass was one of the most unmitigated goods of the changes of the second half of the twentieth century.

--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...

Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mama Thomas
Shipmate
# 10170

 - Posted      Profile for Mama Thomas   Email Mama Thomas   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've noticed that fewer and fewer people are calling the lesson before the Gospel "the Epistle." In most 20th century liturgies it's the "second reading," and can be from the non-epistles though I suspect I've been too down candle for too long.

--------------------
All hearts are open, all desires known

Posts: 3742 | From: Somewhere far away | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638

 - Posted      Profile for The Scrumpmeister   Author's homepage   Email The Scrumpmeister   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
I find that reserving the Old Testament lessons for the office works better and gives the mass a better flow.

I agree. This is still the way of things in the east and it works well as a progression through the litirgical day, with the Old Testament readings at Vespers the night before, then the Epistle and Gospel at the Eucharist.

However, benefitting from this assumes something like a monastic setting, in which the community will take part in the full liturgical celebration of the day. In parish life, the fact of the matter is that people often tend not to go to these services, and the sad truth is that many places, for one reason or another, do not even have services for people to go to, which means that they never develop a sense of the celebration of the Eucharist as but one part (although the culmination) of the celebration of a liturgical day. The result is that these readings will simply be missed.

I think that the solution that is adopted will depend on how the balance is struck between Trisagion's laudatory and pedagogical understandings of worship. If more weight is given to the former, the result might be that the services are done regardless of the fact that only a handful of people turn up for them. "God has been worshipped", as I once said when the only people physically present at Vespers one evening were my parish priest, a visiting reader, and me. My approach is to go to these things and then later rave about how lovely and edifying they are so that those who were not there are aware that they have missed something worthwhile without being made to feel that somebody is accusing them of being backsliders. If a more pedagogical understanding forms the basis for the ordering of worship, then I can see how a different approach might be taken, perhaps arranging the readings so that as many of them as possible take place during the service when the greatest number of people are likely to be present.

The clash of understandings manifested itself in my first year back in the UK, when I first properly ran up against middle-of-the-road Anglicanism. I expressed excitement about the upcoming Easter Vigil - a staple of my Anglican childhood in the West Indies - only for my parish priest to explain that there wouldn't be one. I asked why. Came the response, 'It would just be you and me there'. 'And?' I thought. People can't take part in the worship of God in a particular service and themselves receive the benefits of so doing if there is no service for them to attend. Bring back Vespers, Matins, and Lauds in the parishes, at least for Sundays, instead of multiple masses or the "one service" mentality.

Not all parishes will have the resources to do this but many do and yet don't do it. Mini explanation of personal growth on this front to be found here, for those interested.

[Code fix.]

[ 01. September 2012, 23:22: Message edited by: Mamacita ]

--------------------
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
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
Aren't the lessons read to us for our edification?

No, they aren't. They, like the rest of the mass, are for the worship of God, not the intellectual edification of the congregation. That, at least, is the traditional understanding of the matter. The edification of the people (who can, after all, follow along in their hand missals) is a desirable side effect. Frankly, and without meaning to be insulting to you, I do wonder whether misunderstandings like that aren't an argument in favour of chanting the epistle toward the altar.
Recognizing that that might have sounded rather snippy — let me elaborate. I am worried that, in many churches, there is a tacit understanding that the 'liturgy of the word' is a 'teaching moment', for the congregation to sit back and learn something about religion. This I think is deadly to the idea of liturgy. Of course, the people should learn something in worship, but in a much deeper sense that does not come from passively sitting and listening, but from active worship of the living God. The liturgy, of course, contains numerous reference to scripture, of which the epistle and gospel constitute only a small part.

In times past, there was no sermon during the liturgy. Sermons were, of course preached — and some of the best have been preserved — but they were preached in a different context. The faithful were encouraged to listen to these, but the only requirement was that they should attend mass (and arguably the offices of Lauds/Morning Prayer and Vespers/Evensong as well) on Holy Days of Obligation. This is because we are not saved by an intellectual understanding of Christian doctrine. There is no strict requirement to be a theologian, although the study of theology has is naturally held to be a very good thing). The obligation is to worship God and to partake in Church's life of prayer and sacraments.

(S)pike Couchant I hesitate to disagree with someone who I am sure knows far more about these things than me, but are you sure you are right on this? From Justin Martyr, Apology I.67 it is quite clear that there are readings, then the president speaks 'admonishing us and exhorting us to imitate these excellent examples', then there are prayers and then the bread and wine are brought.

This is among the most ancient authorities available. The modern division in western forms of service, whether Protestant or Catholic, between Liturgy of Word then Sacrament is clearly based on it.

We, like Ken and virtually everywhere else, follow 4. I don't think 6 is technically different. It is merely that if a vested person, be they clergy, reader or whatever, reads, they aren't going to unvest just to do so.

There is a difference between England and Wales when it comes to the gospel. I've mentioned it elsewhere. Under Common Worship, the gospel may be, and frequently is, read by anyone, whereas in the Welsh books, it must be read by the celebrant or another ordained person, who may be a deacon. But you were asking about the epistle.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199

 - Posted      Profile for (S)pike couchant     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
Aren't the lessons read to us for our edification?

No, they aren't. They, like the rest of the mass, are for the worship of God, not the intellectual edification of the congregation. That, at least, is the traditional understanding of the matter. The edification of the people (who can, after all, follow along in their hand missals) is a desirable side effect. Frankly, and without meaning to be insulting to you, I do wonder whether misunderstandings like that aren't an argument in favour of chanting the epistle toward the altar.
Recognizing that that might have sounded rather snippy — let me elaborate. I am worried that, in many churches, there is a tacit understanding that the 'liturgy of the word' is a 'teaching moment', for the congregation to sit back and learn something about religion. This I think is deadly to the idea of liturgy. Of course, the people should learn something in worship, but in a much deeper sense that does not come from passively sitting and listening, but from active worship of the living God. The liturgy, of course, contains numerous reference to scripture, of which the epistle and gospel constitute only a small part.

In times past, there was no sermon during the liturgy. Sermons were, of course preached — and some of the best have been preserved — but they were preached in a different context. The faithful were encouraged to listen to these, but the only requirement was that they should attend mass (and arguably the offices of Lauds/Morning Prayer and Vespers/Evensong as well) on Holy Days of Obligation. This is because we are not saved by an intellectual understanding of Christian doctrine. There is no strict requirement to be a theologian, although the study of theology has is naturally held to be a very good thing). The obligation is to worship God and to partake in Church's life of prayer and sacraments.

(S)pike Couchant I hesitate to disagree with someone who I am sure knows far more about these things than me, but are you sure you are right on this? From Justin Martyr, Apology I.67 it is quite clear that there are readings, then the president speaks 'admonishing us and exhorting us to imitate these excellent examples', then there are prayers and then the bread and wine are brought.

This is among the most ancient authorities available. The modern division in western forms of service, whether Protestant or Catholic, between Liturgy of Word then Sacrament is clearly based on it.

The earliest liturgies of the Church seems to have been quite fluid. I was thinking more of the Middle Ages, when they settled down a bit. I realize that, in the Twentieth Century, much effort has been made to attempt to 'recover' the liturgies of the early Church, but I've always been suspicious of this: liturgical archaeology should not, I feel trump living tradition.

--------------------
'Still the towers of Trebizond, the fabled city, shimmer on the far horizon, gated and walled' but Bize her yer Trabzon.

Posts: 308 | From: West of Eden, East of England | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638

 - Posted      Profile for The Scrumpmeister   Author's homepage   Email The Scrumpmeister   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
The earliest liturgies of the Church seems to have been quite fluid. I was thinking more of the Middle Ages, when they settled down a bit. I realize that, in the Twentieth Century, much effort has been made to attempt to 'recover' the liturgies of the early Church, but I've always been suspicious of this: liturgical archaeology should not, I feel trump living tradition.

I generally agree but think that our inherited practice must be constantly checked against its original purpose, not necessarily with the intention of making it conform to earlier forms and discarding everything that doesn't fit, but rather to ensure that we are best expressing what the liturgy is supposed to express. In that, I think that a balance must be struck between the catechetical element of the Synaxis and its worship element as well. I think that this is done quite adequately by a subdeacon, facing east, yet chanting for the hearing of all.

The fact is that we have moved on from those early days. The Synaxis (Mass of the caechumens) did not include prayers and hymns initially, because it was for the teaching primarily of the catechumens, who, being unbaptised and not part of the Church, were not allowed to join in the common prayers of the Church. Then they were dismissed from the assembly before the Eucharist was offered. Quite early on the constitution of this part of the Eucharist changed, and for many centuries now the Mass/Liturgy of the Catechumens has contained prayers and hymns. It is no longer just about giving instruction and has taken on a very definite element of prayer and worship, and within this "new" context, the scriptural readings have taken on an additional significance.

I think that it is very much about keeping the balance.

--------------------
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
Barefoot Friar

Ship's Shoeless Brother
# 13100

 - Posted      Profile for Barefoot Friar   Email Barefoot Friar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I am introducing the Epistle reading tomorrow. [Biased] I have a rotation of the laity lined up so that every week someone is the reader, someone leads prayers, and on Sundays we celebrate the Eucharist, someone is the server. The reader will read the OT, lead the Psalm as a responsive reading, and then read the Epistle. I will read the Gospel.

At the moment the pulpit is in the center, so that is the place where they will read, facing the people. Later we may see about dividing the chancel area, in which case they will read from the lectern, which will probably have to go on the north side, due to architectural constraints.

[ 02. September 2012, 04:36: Message edited by: Barefoot Friar ]

--------------------
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
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
I am worried that, in many churches, there is a tacit understanding that the 'liturgy of the word' is a 'teaching moment', for the congregation to sit back and learn something about religion. This I think is deadly to the idea of liturgy.

It is, of course, deadly to liturgy for the congregation to just sit back passively and receive at any point in the service. If there is any part of the service when the congregation is not participating there is a problem - that could be the sermon, or listening to the choir sing a hymn, or listening to the readings (and, probably every other part of the service is a potential problem).

When I lead worship, I don't consider that I'm up front doing something for the congregation. I'm there helping the congregation together (myself included) do something - worship God. When I preach I would consider it presumptious to aim to teach the congregation something new, the majority of them have over 60 years experience of faithfully following Christ, there's little chance I'll say anything new. My aim is to guide the congregation we they reflect on the Scriptures that have been read, and together this reflection leads to renewed thankfulness for all that God has done and renewed commitment to worship him, offering our whole lives as living sacrifices.

Like the sermon, the reading of Scripture is a liturgical moment within an extended liturgy. It is not a performance. It should be something the congregation can participate in. Therefore, IMO, the Scriptures should be read as clearly as possible so that all may hear them. It doesn't really bother me who does the reading, although having a member of the congregation come to the front to read (or, perform other liturgical functions) does symbolise the involvement of the whole congregation in the different aspects of the worship.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Emendator Liturgia
Shipmate
# 17245

 - Posted      Profile for Emendator Liturgia   Author's homepage   Email Emendator Liturgia   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

And - relevant tangent - the norm for the Sunday eucharist is now two readings before the Gospel, which are (or should be?) treated alike in the way they are read. Though there is unfortunately a significant number of (C of E) churches where only two of the three readings are heard.

When in the UK and US I certainly found this to be true for the churches in which I worshipped at the time - but then in finding it the case, I was somewhat perplexed , bemused and concerned (all at the same time). Why, you might ask? The simple answer is - what about the Psalms? They seems to have disaapeared from many eucharists. Mybe because people weant to be out in an hour. Maybe because linking OT, NT and Gospel with the right Psalm is often beyond the grasp of the framers of the RCL. Mind you, they got it very right this morning (tomorrow for those in the UK), with Pslam 45 linked with the Song of Solomon and Epistle of James readings.

Back to the OP: our practice is for one reader (sometimes the sub-deacon, sometimes not) to read the OT from the ambo (facing the people) and then lead the psalm; the Epistle is sometimes read by the sub-deacon or by an unvested layperson, again from the ambo and facing the people. Inconsistent, yes; messy, no; appreciated, yes.

Trying to be too dogmatic about what is the correct way of doing things (and often inferring, even silently, that other ways are wrong), is not the way to illustrate that "though we are many (and do things differently) we are one body in Christ, because we all share in the one bread". Anyway, we have enough thundering dog-matics already, don't we?

--------------------
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      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A bugbear of mine. People don't sing psalms because the only way of singing them that anyone is likely to be able to remember, is almost unsingable except by a fully trained choir. And reading one means you end up with four readings.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638

 - Posted      Profile for The Scrumpmeister   Author's homepage   Email The Scrumpmeister   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
A bugbear of mine. People don't sing psalms because the only way of singing them that anyone is likely to be able to remember, is almost unsingable except by a fully trained choir.

Really? I can see that if Anglican chant is used but the western plainsong psalm tones are probably among the simplest pieces of church music in existence. With one competent person to give a lead (or two, if you wish to sing the psalms antiphonally), even a small, musically untrained congregation can very easily pick them up and apply them to pointed words with full voice. I say this from experience. It isn't for nothing that these things are still in use after many centuries. They have survived because over a millennium of experience shows them to work both in the grandest of monasteries and in the smallest of mission parishes.

The Gregory Murray method is also employed in many places that want to foster congregational psalm singing, although the sung response in these settings may prove difficult for some congregations if there is no choir.

--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis

Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
PD
Shipmate
# 12436

 - Posted      Profile for PD   Author's homepage   Email PD   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have been known to use the Scottish Version, or Tate asnd Brady to solve the Psalm problem with really musically illiterate congregations.

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
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199

 - Posted      Profile for (S)pike couchant     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Again, though, there are so many psalms in the office (which, if one uses the Breviary, is little but psalms) that including on at the mass seems a bit unnecessary, particularly as it comes at the expense of the traditional graduals, which are beautiful and more obviously follow the liturgical year (and are, of course, very often taken from the psalms).

I really do think that a lot of the reforms to the mass were based on the assumption that lay people would have no involvement with the daily office. This seems to have been something of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

There's certainly nothing to be said against reading more of the Old Testament, but anyone who's ever been to an English Missal service will realize how wonderfully it flows from the (chanted) introit to the (sung) kyrie and gloria to the (chanted) collect(s) to the (chanted) epistle to the (chanted) gradual and tract to the (chanted) gospel. More recently-designed liturgies never seem to match that sense of flow.

--------------------
'Still the towers of Trebizond, the fabled city, shimmer on the far horizon, gated and walled' but Bize her yer Trabzon.

Posts: 308 | From: West of Eden, East of England | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
We do "4. The totally modern way: read by an unvested layperson." - though it isn't that 'modern' as it started in the 1970s - 40 years ago.

I agree that the readings are part of 'worship' but most laypeople rarely pick up a Bible and read during the week so it is all they are going to get, lamentably.

Chanted epistles and gospels (and OT) are nice for special occasions and we occasionally do this e.g. for a liturgical performance of a particular composer's mass setting, for a first mass etc.

--------------------
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
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Generally, we only have one reading; the one that is to be expounded by the preacher, who might be 'ordained' but is just as likely to be an unlicensed member of the church.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
At the eucharist, isn't that illegal?

--------------------
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      Profile for venbede   Email venbede   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've come across having the gospel as the only reading, at main Sunday eucharists on "children's" Sundays, and at one very well known evangelical church.

--------------------
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      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So have I. It's still illegal! And I suspect daronmedway isn't fussed about it being the gospel either.

--------------------
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
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152

 - Posted      Profile for Garasu   Email Garasu   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry... for the ignoramus at the back: it's illegal to only have one reading at church services? [Confused]

--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.

Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Spike

Mostly Harmless
# 36

 - Posted      Profile for Spike   Email Spike   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
At the Eucharist, yes. There must be a Gospel reading and (at least) one other.

And technically, it's illegal for an unlicenced person to be preaching.

[ 02. September 2012, 16:26: Message edited by: Spike ]

--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing

Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152

 - Posted      Profile for Garasu   Email Garasu   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So if someone who hasn't been licenced is invited to preach, is that breaking the law? Or have they been licenced by being invited?

(If it's the former I've attended several illegal gatherings and I don't go that often to Anglican churches... Or is it different if they're specifically said to be ecumenical? How ecumenical do they have to be?)

--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.

Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
So have I. It's still illegal! And I suspect daronmedway isn't fussed about it being the gospel either.

Oh, it's always the gospel, but not necessarily from 'the pen' of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.

And you're right, I'm not really worried about it being canonically illegal. However, I do think that the demise of public reading of scripture is a very sad thing because I think the Holy Spirit very much likes to speak to God's people in that way.

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
At the eucharist, isn't that illegal?

I don't preach at Eucharistic services, so it's always a lay person, and we have no licensed Readers. The reading was from Matthew today though, so we at least ticked that box!

[ 02. September 2012, 16:43: Message edited by: daronmedway ]

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
FCB

Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495

 - Posted      Profile for FCB   Author's homepage   Email FCB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
Aren't the lessons read to us for our edification?

No, they aren't. They, like the rest of the mass, are for the worship of God, not the intellectual edification of the congregation. That, at least, is the traditional understanding of the matter. The edification of the people (who can, after all, follow along in their hand missals) is a desirable side effect. Frankly, and without meaning to be insulting to you, I do wonder whether misunderstandings like that aren't an argument in favour of chanting the epistle toward the altar.
The Angelic Doctor thinks otherwise:
quote:
There precedes, in the second place, the instruction of the faithful, because this sacrament is "a mystery of faith," as stated above (78, 3, ad 5). Now this instruction is given "dispositively," when the Lectors and Sub-deacons read aloud in the church the teachings of the prophets and apostles: after this "lesson," the choir sing the "Gradual," which signifies progress in life; then the "Alleluia" is intoned, and this denotes spiritual joy; or in mournful offices the "Tract", expressive of spiritual sighing; for all these things ought to result from the aforesaid teaching. But the people are instructed "perfectly" by Christ's teaching contained in the Gospel, which is read by the higher ministers, that is, by the Deacons. And because we believe Christ as the Divine truth, according to John 8:46, "If I tell you the truth, why do you not believe Me?" after the Gospel has been read, the "Creed" is sung in which the people show that they assent by faith to Christ's doctrine. And it is sung on those festivals of which mention is made therein, as on the festivals of Christ, of the Blessed Virgin, and of the apostles, who laid the foundations of this faith, and on other such days.
(Summa Theologiae 3.83.4)

I'm sorry, but reading lessons with your back to the people is a historical accident, and invented reasons why it is a good thing seem silly.

--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.

Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235

 - Posted      Profile for Trisagion   Email Trisagion   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
FCB, in view of the fact that the epistle and gospel were read, or intoned in Latin, which manifestly the people did not, by and large, understand, do you not think that St Thomas might have noticed the dissonance between his words and his experience of the liturgy?

--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse

Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147

 - Posted      Profile for sebby   Email sebby   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If one has to stand for the reading of the gospel, why doesn't one stand for a reading from Acts, considering it is part two of Luke?

--------------------
sebhyatt

Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804

 - Posted      Profile for Olaf     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
If one has to stand for the reading of the gospel, why doesn't one stand for a reading from Acts, considering it is part two of Luke?

There are places where one does. In the Norwegian-American church tradition in which I grew up, we did not stand until the Dominus Vobiscum before the Collect of the Day, and then remained standing for all the scriptures, until the end of the Creed immediately after the readings. I believe this is the traditional practice in Norway, but I could be mistaken.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:


I really do think that a lot of the reforms to the mass were based on the assumption that lay people would have no involvement with the daily office. This seems to have been something of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I doubt if many lay people ever had much involvement with the daily office at all. In the Church of England most worshippers were familiar with weekly offices on Sundays, but in most parishes that has been displaced by Communion as the main Sunday service. Only clergy and a handful of laity are ever likely to have regularly participated in both kinds of liturgy.

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

And technically, it's illegal for an unlicenced person to be preaching.

No its not. Not in the CofE. The incumbent can ask anyone to preach. Canon b18:
quote:

At the invitation of the minister having the cure of souls another person may preach with the permission of the bishop of the diocese given either in relation to the particular occasion or in accordance with diocesan directions.



--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147

 - Posted      Profile for sebby   Email sebby   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
If one has to stand for the reading of the gospel, why doesn't one stand for a reading from Acts, considering it is part two of Luke?

There are places where one does. In the Norwegian-American church tradition in which I grew up, we did not stand until the Dominus Vobiscum before the Collect of the Day, and then remained standing for all the scriptures, until the end of the Creed immediately after the readings. I believe this is the traditional practice in Norway, but I could be mistaken.
A little research has shown that yours may be the more ancient custom. It is possible that at some stage a dispensation was given to sit for all the readings except for the gospel.

--------------------
sebhyatt

Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools