|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Preserving English Missal and traditional liturgy?
|
Magic Wand
Shipmate
# 4227
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
There are oblique references to St Clements, Philadelphia, but they are puzzling to me who knows not the story.
Can anyone tell us what's going on, 613-898-9653or has gone on, or point to a link about it.
It does connect with the OP insofar as it could be thought of as a museum piece worth preserving - but what tensions then arise?
There is no link to which I could refer you that is at all objective or even fully reality-based. I will not comment on this board outside the subject of strictly liturgical issues , unless there is a need to refute patent untruths. As to liturgical history, researching the parish archives will reveal that until the late C20 the structure of the liturgy was basically conservative American BCP, including such features as the Collect for Purity, Summary of the Law, and so forth -- not an English language Tridentime Mass at all. Late in the previous century a small group of enthusiasts pushed a particular liturgical programme based on a very rigid use of the English Missal. The subsequent situation is very complex and goes far beyond merely liturgical matters. This is,however, IMO what happens with museum liturgy: if you don't adhere to the most purist version of the particular museum piece, you are considered a revisionist and malefactor. Liturgy becomes the end all, be all, whilst the actual Sacrament being celebrated and the meaning of feasts and fasts being commemorated gets lost in the obsession over liturgical perfectionism. There are, of course, those who will disagree, but I don't think Our Lord and Saviout is among that group.
What mistaken ideas about the history of S. Clement's, liturgically at least, some people seem to have! The use of the English Missal in its fullness started with Fr Joiner in the 1920's, and continued until 2011, save for a brief experimental period in the 1970's. And it was the recent abrupt changes to the liturgy which occasioned my mentioning it in the context of the OP, so I'm not sure what sense there is in defending them on the part of some people.
Should anyone wish to seriously contend that the English Missal is still in use there, perhaps they could let me know which edition was used for the Holy Week rites? I've looked through several, of various vintages, and can find nothing that describes the services that I saw last week. And if someone does know, perhaps they can clue me in on what the curate of S. Clement's has against young Jewish people?
I suppose that, in any case, we're fortunate to have people who can tell us what Our Lord and Saviour's position would be. Clearly a different Lord and Saviour than the one who was so exacting in his prescription of the rites and ceremonies of the temple. Is Marcionism making a comeback in ECUSA these days?
Posts: 371 | From: Princeton, NJ | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
And that ladies and gentlemen is the mind-set and mendacity of the whited sepulchres with whom we are dealing at St Clement's Philadelphia -- an Anglican version of the SSPX and the denizens of the Rorate Caeli website.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
[QUOTE] I'd sooner a congregation where the minister only remembered his dog collar half the time and made half the liturgy up as he went along but where all comers were made to feel welcome and the really important things that Jesus banged on about when he was talking about sheep and goats were actually done,
I couldn't agree more - and you're welcome to join me any Sunday to experience it. Unfortunately I am no longer a worshipping anglican for the very reasons you mention but find all the freedom I (and perhaps you) desire in a baptist church.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
And that ladies and gentlemen is the mind-set and mendacity of the whited sepulchres with whom we are dealing at St Clement's Philadelphia -- an Anglican version of the SSPX and the denizens of the Rorate Caeli website.
It's these kinds of silly arguments that led me leaving the anglican church to embrace the freedom and openness of faith through a baptist church. The longer the arguments go on (esp in the UK in the established church), the weaker the church's witness becomes.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
EM, Pharisaism exists in every tradition and denomination. Some Baptist churches are so opposed to "reading prayers from a book" that they even avoid the Lord's Prayer. And though I can't name any Baptist congregations offhand that have split over liturgical matters, I know of at least a couple that never recovered from a disagreement over what color the sanctuary carpet was to be.
As far as transubstantiation goes, I'm not particularly upset by it (though I don't think I'd go so far as to espouse it); but if you hold the opinion that the prayer book tradition and the XXXIX are important, then transubstantiation is a no-go, and from what I can tell Indifferently is a prayer book catholic. The 1662 is patient of more than one eucharistic theory, but it really seems to be pushing a kind of epiclectic virtualism.
Regarding S. Clement's, I have very little concrete data about what's going on there. Like CL, I've heard some disturbing things about Canon Reid, though from a source I can't completely trust. The few people I know personally who went there have decamped for continuing jurisdictions or the Ordinariate, so their information is second- or third-hand. Objectively, it appears as though Reid+ is bringing liturgical practice there ever so slightly more in line with the rest of TEC, and of course many people in the parish are going to see that as the thin end of the wedge. Them's the breaks.
[ 06. April 2013, 06:44: Message edited by: Fr Weber ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
EM, Pharisaism exists in every tradition and denomination. Some Baptist churches are so opposed to "reading prayers from a book" that they even avoid the Lord's Prayer. And though I can't name any Baptist congregations offhand that have split over liturgical matters, I know of at least a couple that never recovered from a disagreement over what color the sanctuary carpet was to be.
I have never denied that pharisaism exists in the baptist churches. I rather suspect that in baptist churches it's down to individuals' weakness - in mnay anglican circles it's a structural issue. Doesn't make it better only more obvious to the outsiders.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Magic Wand
Shipmate
# 4227
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
And that ladies and gentlemen is the mind-set and mendacity of the whited sepulchres with whom we are dealing at St Clement's Philadelphia -- an Anglican version of the SSPX and the denizens of the Rorate Caeli website.
Wow, what a content-free response! No wonder the parish is doing so well, with such people leading it these days!
Posts: 371 | From: Princeton, NJ | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Magic Wand:
Wow, what a content-free response! No wonder the parish is doing so well, with such people leading it these days!
I would hazard to guess that L.S.K.'s (sorry for the shortening) response is in response to your own posts. If you have an issue with Father Ethan then I suggest that you take it up with him, I do believe he keeps a blog and twitter account, rather than pose questions that others on here cannot answer.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
...the "deposited" 1928 book...
I'm in the grateful possession of this curiosity through the kind generosity of a Shipmate.
Can anyone offer me also why the book is said to be "deposited"?
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
ENough is enough. This thread is not about St. Clements and the obviously strong opinions held about events and people there is outside the remit of this board.
Personal attack will end now -- and more than one poster is guilty -- or the posters will be reported at once to the Admins for suitable action.
John Holding
Ecclesiantics Host
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Devils Advocate
Shipmate
# 16484
|
Posted
"The 1928 Book would not have superseded the 1662 one. It would merely have provided some alternatives."
As far as I remember from my studies, the 1928 Prayerbook( English Version) was mainly brought in to being to control some of the perceived excesses of the Anglo Catholics at that time. ie reservation of the blessed sacrament and services associated with it ( ie. Benediction) It had one or two "sops" thrown into the mix for Anglo Catholics ( The Introductory Prayers " I will go unto the Altar of God and the use of a bowdlerised Roman "Confiteor"
These are the two parts of it which I remember thoughI seem to recall the Gloria was still at the end of the communion service and the Sanctus,Benedictus and Agnus Dei were re installed in the liturgy ( I cant find my copy to verify these facts) From my reading I believe that these "Concessions" so offended parliament that they were removed, so what was to be a sop to the A/C's became more protestant in intent than the 1662 prayerbook and became even less acceptable
--------------------
"Oh I have wrought much evil with my spells"
Posts: 97 | From: Lincs | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
Brief look at 1928. 1662 Holy Communion is intact followed by an Alternative Holy Communion, with Gloria at the end, kyries or 10 commandments and eucharistic prayer with words of institution in the middle.
--------------------
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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Brief look at 1928. 1662 Holy Communion is intact followed by an Alternative Holy Communion, with Gloria at the end, kyries or 10 commandments and eucharistic prayer with words of institution in the middle.
It would also have allowed a shorter version of Morning and Evening Prayer during the week.
One could say, 'why should Protestants mind if the Anglo-Catholic version was only allowed as an alternative?' but, in part, they were arguing for a protestant equivalent of the sacramental assurance we hear so much about these days.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Offeiriad
Ship's Arboriculturalist
# 14031
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
...the "deposited" 1928 book...
I'm in the grateful possession of this curiosity through the kind generosity of a Shipmate.
Can anyone offer me also why the book is said to be "deposited"?
The book is technically an official draft that was deposited before parliament for approval.
There were also a number of other unofficial proposed books around - from memory I seem to recall one of 'Dearmerite' tendancy, and one sponsored by the Modern Churchman's Union. I haven't seen copies of either of these for 40 years - copies are as rare as the proverbial hen's teeth.
Following parliamentary rejection of the 1928 book the bishops declared a state of 'liturgical emergency'(!), and noised that 'during this present emergency' they would take no action against parishes making changes broadly in line with those of the Deposited Book. This, as much as anything, created the demand which kept the 1928 book in print in the following years. A quiet and largely uncontroversial process of development thus began, leading to practices legalised in the 1960s in 'Alternative Services: First Series'.
Elements of 1928 could be found in the pattern of Parish Communion in many parishes during the 1940s and 1950s, but the 1928 Eucharistic Prayer (sadly?) did not find favour. My impression is that 1928 provisions were widely adopted in weddings and funerals during this period, but the baptism and confirmation rites were less favoured. I'm writing this account from memory (of earlier study, not from being around at the time!), and am open to correction. Hope this helps!
Posts: 1426 | From: La France profonde | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oferyas:
... and one sponsored by the Modern Churchman's Union....
Yuk.
Were all the pages blank? Or were the verbs all converted to 'might', 'Almighty God, who might be our heavenly Father, who of thy tender mercy mightest have have given thine only Son ...', 'who might have made there (possibly by his one oblation ...)' etc.?
quote:
... My impression is that 1928 provisions were widely adopted in weddings and funerals during this period, but the baptism and confirmation rites were less favoured. ...
I can remember a Vicar telling me in the early seventies that he didn't do weddings with any 1928 variants because, as the book was not lawful, it was still uncertain whether such a marriage was valid, i.e. whether it took.
A celebrated wedding in 1981 is persuasive that getting names in the wrong order does not affect validity.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oferyas:
Elements of 1928 could be found in the pattern of Parish Communion in many parishes during the 1940s and 1950s, but the 1928 Eucharistic Prayer (sadly?) did not find favour.
In many 'mildly' catholic parishes (the sort that didn't dare use the English Missal*) the so-called 'Interim Rite' was used. This was basically 1662 minus the ten commandments and long exhortations, plus the Kyries, Benedictus and Agnus Dei, and with Cranmer's 'prayer of oblation' tacked on to his prayer of consecration, followed by the Lord's Prayer (before communion, rather than after it as in 1662). Sometimes the 1928 Prayer for the Church would be used, but I don't know of anywhere that used the 1928 Eucharistic prayer (though there were doubtless one or two places).
*or there would be churches where the so-called Minor Propers from the Missal would be inserted into the rite otherwise as the above.
--------------------
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
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
I'm rather fond of 1928, and would quite comfortably have its Eucharistic service replace that of 1662. However, CW Order One with Prayer C, traditional language, with some tweaking, can be made to look almost identical to 1928 (see Notes) what conforming to Canon law.
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
I'm rather fond of 1928, and would quite comfortably have its Eucharistic service replace that of 1662. However, CW Order One with Prayer C, traditional language, with some tweaking, can be made to look almost identical to 1928 (see Notes) what conforming to Canon law.
I have to admit, that apart from using 1662 itself, in all the time since Common Worship was introduced, I don't think I've ever encountered anyone using the traditional language alternatives for anything. I've also never encountered the modern English version of Order 2.
I'm sure there will be those who chirp up and say 'we use them'. But as most people seem to use the 1662 book for 1662 services, I do wonder whether the time has come to save paper and produce a more compact version omitting Order 2 and the traditional language version of the Litany and collects. It should also include a version of the General Thanksgiving and the prayer of St John Chrystostom in modern English.
--------------------
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
Common Worship gives the BCP services as many actually use it (eg, the "Interim Rite" as described by Angloid and the usual minor changes to Morning and Evening Prayer).
I've never heard the long exhortations at HC, and I doubt if I've been to Evensong that has the full penitential rite, the State Prayers in full and the complete psalmody for the day of the month.
--------------------
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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Common Worship gives the BCP services as many actually use it (eg, the "Interim Rite" as described by Angloid and the usual minor changes to Morning and Evening Prayer).
I've never heard the long exhortations at HC, and I doubt if I've been to Evensong that has the full penitential rite, the State Prayers in full and the complete psalmody for the day of the month.
From time to time, I encounter BCP Evening Prayer and Communion Services. Sadly, Morning Prayer seems now to be much rarer. If you're my age, one has only to hear "Dearly beloved brethren..." for the entire introduction to roll through one's head. It's a pity when people trim it.
I also still think that there is no better classification of sins than,
"We have left undone those things which we ought to have done; and we have done those things which we ought not to have done".
It's a pity that the modernised version of that confession doesn't seem to get used very much. Clergy seem to prefer blander ones.
The prayers for the Queen and the clergy were generally used. The one for the rest of the Royal Family was sometimes left out.
However, what I'm saying is that virtually always when one goes to a BCP service, what is thrust into your hand is a BCP, not a CW.
Even when all services were BCP, the exhortations seem to have tacitly and probably illegally dropped off the radar. About 45 years ago, a vicar told me he'd been so doubtful about the condition of some of the people who had wafted into his midnight service on Christmas Eve, that he'd read the Third Exhortation. Most of them didn't notice, and those that did, did not act on it.
I've never experienced the Quicunque Vult used.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
S Thomas, Huron St, in Toronto used to do the Quicunque Vult at the early morning service on Trinity Sunday. Perhaps a more recent attender could bring us up to date?
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I've never heard the long exhortations at HC, and I doubt if I've been to Evensong that has the full penitential rite, the State Prayers in full and the complete psalmody for the day of the month.
You usually get the latter in cathedrals. Often the penitential rite too, if not the State Prayers.
--------------------
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
Westminster Abbey does the confession and abbreviated State Prayers ( with a prayer for the Noble Order of the Bath) but I've never heard the full State Prayers since my childhood when we used them every morning as part of my prep school assembly.
(The full confession seems to crop up on Sunday evenings, which is when I'm least likely to attend cathedral evensong.)
I'm not sure WA do the psalms of the day: I'm sure nobody does the BCP psalms of the day on Sunday evening.
Which supports my point: the enthusiasts for the BCP actually follow CW, which bends over backwards to accommodate them. A bit of appreciation might well be in order.
--------------------
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
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
I remember years ago going to All Ss Mgt St on a Sunday which was 15th August and boy did the psalmody - for the 15th evening, go on, and on, and....
Don't know when they stopped using BCP.
Nor can I recall the exact psalmody and I have not got my BCP easy to hand.
Back to main thread. All the stuff about St Clem, Philadelphia makes me think my suggestion in OPmay not be a good one. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Or maybe it is... If the bishop oversees preserving ancient or older rites and its not at whims of individual priests.
I understand EM has several differing editions, one may have to specify which to be preserved.
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oferyas:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
...the "deposited" 1928 book...
I'm in the grateful possession of this curiosity through the kind generosity of a Shipmate.
Can anyone offer me also why the book is said to be "deposited"?
The book is technically an official draft that was deposited before parliament for approval.
Thanks Oferyas; that is verging on helpful. But, what is to deposit something before parliament? It is just what is done to a report to be received? Or, is it how a bill, motion, or resolution begins to be considered? Are things deposited before parliament in the year 2013?
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
As I understand it, Parliament had to vote to approve the new Prayer Book (vote failed, I believe).
Somewhat strange, of course, that non-conformist and non-Christian MPs would have any say in what the church's liturgy is going to be.
--------------------
"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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
As I understand it, Parliament had to vote to approve the new Prayer Book (vote failed, I believe).
Somewhat strange, of course, that non-conformist and non-Christian MPs would have any say in what the church's liturgy is going to be.
Isn't it just the quid pro quo for there being several C of E bishops in the UK House of Lords, solely by virtue of their office? Disestablishment in the UK is the answer... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Ahem. Two of the four nations of the UK have disestablishment already, and of the other two, Scottish establishment is rather different from English. If you mean 'in England', please say so!
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Yes, but another anomaly of the situation is that the English bishops are the only ex officio religious figures in the UK parliament. It should be either all or none. Preferably none.
--------------------
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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Ahem. Two of the four nations of the UK have disestablishment already, and of the other two, Scottish establishment is rather different from English. If you mean 'in England', please say so!
Of course, sorry about that - it is just the Church of England isn't it? And sort of Scotland.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
As for the Absolution, the authentic prayer book requires 'hearty repentance and true faith'. The 1979 US Prayer Book version places no such condition on being absolved of sins.
As usual, your comments are born of ignorance. The formula for absolution in the '79 Prayerbook reads...
"Our Lord Jesus Christ, who has left power to his Church to absolve all sinners who truly repent and believe in him, of his great mercy forgive you all your offenses; and by his authority committed to me, I absolve you from all your sins: In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
Zach82: By all means challenge incorrect assertions but personal attacks are contrary to Commandment 3. Please refrain from them.
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
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
As for the Absolution, the authentic prayer book requires 'hearty repentance and true faith'. The 1979 US Prayer Book version places no such condition on being absolved of sins.
As usual, your comments are born of ignorance. The formula for absolution in the '79 Prayerbook reads...
"Our Lord Jesus Christ, who has left power to his Church to absolve all sinners who truly repent and believe in him, of his great mercy forgive you all your offenses; and by his authority committed to me, I absolve you from all your sins: In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
I was referring to the General Absolution used at the service of Holy Communion. Not that one, which is in any case straight out of the old Visitation of the Sick liturgy. There's nothing ignorant about pointing out that the 1979 "Prayer Book" is not a Prayer Book and forms no continuity with the previous ones (bar an absurd fake Elizabethan 'rite' which makes a mockery of Cranmer).
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
I'm rather fond of 1928, and would quite comfortably have its Eucharistic service replace that of 1662. However, CW Order One with Prayer C, traditional language, with some tweaking, can be made to look almost identical to 1928 (see Notes) what conforming to Canon law.
I have to admit, that apart from using 1662 itself, in all the time since Common Worship was introduced, I don't think I've ever encountered anyone using the traditional language alternatives for anything. I've also never encountered the modern English version of Order 2.
I know 2 parishes which use Order 1 trad language as their principal service. I have also thrice encountered Order 2 contemporary. 1 was a one off in a college chapel, 1 not sure if it was regular & 3rd I think was a regular (monthly?) compromise, when later morning service was not a Eucharist, early one (9 I think) was contemporary but still order 2. I found it very strange, but I'm no fan of BCP communion order* and have slight trad lang preference.
Carys
*Real irony is I can only recall 2 BCP Eucharists that I've attended, so may actually have used order 2 contemporary more often.
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
I was referring to the General Absolution used at the service of Holy Communion. Not that one, which is in any case straight out of the old Visitation of the Sick liturgy. There's nothing ignorant about pointing out that the 1979 "Prayer Book" is not a Prayer Book and forms no continuity with the previous ones (bar an absurd fake Elizabethan 'rite' which makes a mockery of Cranmer).
Oh, in your mind "forms no continuity" means "Is not a verbatim copy" and "does not require" means "Does not repeat a particular formula at every opportunity." Therefore, a book intended to be a book to be the common prayer of an Anglican Church is not the Book of Common Prayer. Fair enough.
[ 09. April 2013, 23:12: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
Individual churches will vary in their use of traditional liturgy through the years. Some years ago it was quite common for a weekday, often Wednesday morning, Communion service to be prayer book in places where modern language was used on a Sunday at the Sunday Eucharist.
Some churches, like the one I mentioned in the OP had a distinctive tradition often a minority and technically illegal one. Nevertheless it was distinctive and part of the greater whole.
It was this distinctiveness I was wondering whether the church should carefully encourage to be preserved, in the same way as some older church furnishings and architectural features are preserved, by church law - faculties are needed to change.
It seems we preserve architectural features for historic and aesthetic reasons. Could not a similar argument apply to another art form - liturgy?
Having said which I have grave doubts having read here about the goings on and tensions in Philadelphia which have been reported
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
Regarding trad language CW Order 1/cont language CW Order 2, Oxford is a very strange place.
Of the central Anglo-Catholic parishes, all of them (by which I mean, St Mary Magdalen, St Barnabas, St Thomas the Martyr) use CW Order 1 in trad language (unless Mags has changed since I last attended on a Sunday).
Of the slightly further out ones, St John's New Hinksey also uses trad language.
Before moving to this part of the world, I'd never encountered trad language A-Cism before. (And still find it a bit odd!)
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Before moving to this part of the world, I'd never encountered trad language A-Cism before. (And still find it a bit odd!)
Thurible
My you are young! When I was a lad there was nothing else but trad language.
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
That's very interesting Thurible.
Are there many churches of the AC mould using traditional language with the English Missal in evidence? After all it has a range of supplementary material in it.
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Before moving to this part of the world, I'd never encountered trad language A-Cism before. (And still find it a bit odd!)
Thurible
My you are young!a When I was a lad there was nothing else but trad language.
True. But Midlands ACism was using the 1970 Missal as soon as it was out, as far as I can work out. (Yes, of course there were exceptions.)
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
Hosting
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
Having said which I have grave doubts having read here about the goings on and tensions in Philadelphia which have been reported
I will repeat what my esteemed fellow host said:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
ENough is enough. This thread is not about St. Clements and the obviously strong opinions held about events and people there is outside the remit of this board.
We take an extremely serious view of posters who ignore clear hostly directions and have drawn this matter to the attention of the admins. Any further infractions will receive a response from them.
seasick, Ecclesiantics host
End hosting
--------------------
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
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
I apologise. If, however, I may explain. I made a suggestion in my OP. subsequent comments made in the discussion have led me to believe this may not actually be a good idea.
I should have simply said that and not referred to a specific.
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
I'm sceptical of the notion of parish churches as living liturgical museums. The situation is perhaps a bit different in England, where so many A-C parishes went over to the Novus Ordo rite, and where therefore the older liturgical styles are rather an exoticism these days that might just possibly attract a viable parish membership and ongoing visitorship. My own view, however, is that an A-C parish like All Saints Margaret Street, which combines liturgical tradition with some modernisations and simplifications has a greater attraction to a wider range of people. Of course, Margaret Street also has a tradition of superlative music and a unique, stunning building, resources with which many parish churches will not be blessed. Yet, having relatively less in the way of musical resources and architectural resources would to my mind argue even more strongly for a liturgy that is not perceived as excessively stuffy, fiddly or arcane by the traditionally minded Anglo-Catholics whom one is presumably hoping to attract (and likewise those non-A-C who would potentially be attracted to a traditionally orientated A-C liturgy, albeit one not grossly out of the liturgical mainstream).
I question whether most places will have the population numbers of those inclined to an exotic liturgy niche parish that would keep such a parish viable and which would advance the catholic Christian mission of propogating the gospel and the sacraments to all sorts and conditions of men. Indeed, ISTM, there is a real danger of getting so tied up in the details of complex liturgy that the gospel and the sacraments themselves get lost amidst all the chancel prancing (and I say this as one who is very much a ritualist).
Actually, within North American A-Cism, there has been organic liturgical development over the past forty years, and this has taken place within a Prayerbook-Missal tradition, as contrasted with a wholesale shift to Novus Ordo liturgy (though Novus Ordo ceremonial has certainly been influential within the American Church). This would not, in fact, be unlike the situation of CofE A-C parishes that use the trad CW rite with a mixture of old and modernised ceremonial.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
As I understand it, Parliament had to vote to approve the new Prayer Book (vote failed, I believe).
Somewhat strange, of course, that non-conformist and non-Christian MPs would have any say in what the church's liturgy is going to be.
Isn't it just the quid pro quo for there being several C of E bishops in the UK House of Lords, solely by virtue of their office? Disestablishment in the UK is the answer...
Not wishing to derail the thread with a tangent, but it is not a question of quid pro quo. The presence of bishops is a deemed-to-be-useful hangover from the mediaeval summoning of the powerful into the House of Lords; passage of the BCP through Parliament is a continuance of Tudor regulatory practice-- nobody at the time considered that MPs could be anything but members of the Church.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
As I understand it, Parliament had to vote to approve the new Prayer Book (vote failed, I believe).
Somewhat strange, of course, that non-conformist and non-Christian MPs would have any say in what the church's liturgy is going to be.
Isn't it just the quid pro quo for there being several C of E bishops in the UK House of Lords, solely by virtue of their office? Disestablishment in the UK is the answer...
Not wishing to derail the thread with a tangent, but it is not a question of quid pro quo. The presence of bishops is a deemed-to-be-useful hangover from the mediaeval summoning of the powerful into the House of Lords; passage of the BCP through Parliament is a continuance of Tudor regulatory practice-- nobody at the time considered that MPs could be anything but members of the Church.
As the Established church the Church of England has a duty to all who live in England. Parliament defends this, and so has a right to check the C of E is doing this. MPs do this even if not C of E - as elected representatives.
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
As the Established church the Church of England has a duty to all who live in England. Parliament defends this, and so has a right to check the C of E is doing this. MPs do this even if not C of E - as elected representatives.
And even if not English. As in so many other areas, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs have the right to vote on C of E matters.Some people may think this mish-mash of anomalies that we call the British Constitution (as if) is both effective (possibly) and democratic (no way).
--------------------
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
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
As the Established church the Church of England has a duty to all who live in England. Parliament defends this, and so has a right to check the C of E is doing this. MPs do this even if not C of E - as elected representatives.
I understand the argument, but I'm not sure that people who aren't communicants should have any say in how the C of E prays. If non-communicants aren't eligible to serve on their parochial church council, why should they be setting policies above even the diocesan and provincial levels?
--------------------
"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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
And even if not English. As in so many other areas, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs have the right to vote on C of E matters.Some people may think this mish-mash of anomalies that we call the British Constitution (as if) is both effective (possibly) and democratic (no way).
Since there doesn't seem to be much prospect of getting a devolved assembly for England equivalent to what the other bits of the UK have, when Parliament debates or votes on anything that in the other parts of the UK has been devolved, i.e. relates only to England, the MPs from other parts of the UK should be excluded from either speaking or voting. It would be a simpler snap solution to a serious wrong done to English voters. This may reveal that in the eyes of some liturgists I have serious personal flaws, but to me, this would be a more important subject than the substance of this thread. However, even I can see that as regards the thread, it's about as blatant a tangent as one could imagine.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
However, even I can see that as regards the thread, it's about as blatant a tangent as one could imagine.
Well, perhaps. But the whole business of establishment is bound up with C of E liturgy and you can't discuss one without the other.
--------------------
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
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
As I understand it, Parliament had to vote to approve the new Prayer Book (vote failed, I believe).
Somewhat strange, of course, that non-conformist and non-Christian MPs would have any say in what the church's liturgy is going to be.
Isn't it just the quid pro quo for there being several C of E bishops in the UK House of Lords, solely by virtue of their office? Disestablishment in the UK is the answer...
Not wishing to derail the thread with a tangent, but it is not a question of quid pro quo. The presence of bishops is a deemed-to-be-useful hangover from the mediaeval summoning of the powerful into the House of Lords; passage of the BCP through Parliament is a continuance of Tudor regulatory practice-- nobody at the time considered that MPs could be anything but members of the Church.
As the Established church the Church of England has a duty to all who live in England. Parliament defends this, and so has a right to check the C of E is doing this. MPs do this even if not C of E - as elected representatives.
Or more simply the CofE is Erastian.
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
