|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Miscellaneous questions of a liturgical nature
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
Lock 'em away in a cupboard? Feeling suicidal are we, Vicar? Trifle with those war pennants at the peril of your incumbency.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
since we moved into the present building, the flags have been at the back.
By which I understand you to mean, right at the entrance. Back, front, east end, west end, narthex, head of the nave. Sigh, there just isn't a good place for 'em, is there?
Right at the back of the nave where the unobservant might miss the national flag, as it is on the left just inside the door. The church flag on the otherside by the robing room door and is a little more noticeable. Next move is out into the narthex. I am using the Athena principle...
I sometimes feel like sticking the Manx flag or that of Leinster there to see if anone would notice...
PD
[ 23. June 2013, 05:21: Message edited by: PD ]
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Qoheleth.
Semi-Sagacious One
# 9265
|
Posted
A little local debate. This is a stained glass window in the Church of Reconciliation at Taize. It is captioned on the postcard as l'Ascension, but ISTM to be either the Assumption, or more likely a pregnant Mary.
Can anyone point us towards parallel iconography which might help settle the matter?
--------------------
The Benedictine Community at Alton Abbey offers a friendly, personal service for the exclusive supply of Rosa Mystica incense.
Posts: 2532 | From: the radiator of life | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
A little local debate. This is a stained glass window in the Church of Reconciliation at Taize. It is captioned on the postcard as l'Ascension, but ISTM to be either the Assumption, or more likely a pregnant Mary.
Can anyone point us towards parallel iconography which might help settle the matter?
Well, the color could certainly indicate Mary. The stars, perhaps too, as either Mary Queen of the Universe or Stella Maris.
Here is a similar statue.
Then again, this could simply be Our Lord Jesus Christ, King of the Universe, holding the world.
Or perhaps the ambiguity is meant to make one think! At the very least, calling it the Ascension doesn't seem to fit.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
... July 4th is poorly attended, but if I don't do it I hear about it, I mean really hear about it. So we do a revolutionary war/early republic era service that day - either 1662 with adaptions ...
So you do 1662 Morning Prayer and when you get to the prayers for the Royal Family a gang of Republican Methodists bursts in waving muskets?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
This is a stained glass window in the Church of Reconciliation at Taize. It is captioned on the postcard as l'Ascension, but ISTM to be either the Assumption, or more likely a pregnant Mary.
Well, the color could certainly indicate Mary. The stars, perhaps too, as either Mary Queen of the Universe or Stella Maris. Then again, this could simply be Our Lord Jesus Christ, King of the Universe, holding the world.
I would vote for the latter interpretation, as the head does not look especially Marian or even feminine.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
... July 4th is poorly attended, but if I don't do it I hear about it, I mean really hear about it. So we do a revolutionary war/early republic era service that day - either 1662 with adaptions ...
So you do 1662 Morning Prayer and when you get to the prayers for the Royal Family a gang of Republican Methodists bursts in waving muskets?
There is a fairly well preserved copy of a 1662 BCP from either Richmond or Bruton with the neccessary changes to the State Prayers, so I follow those. If any group carrying muskets broke into our church they might find the greeter is better prepared than they expected. The expression don't take a knife a gunfight still applies around here.
PD
[ 24. June 2013, 07:06: Message edited by: PD ]
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
This is a stained glass window in the Church of Reconciliation at Taize. It is captioned on the postcard as l'Ascension, but ISTM to be either the Assumption, or more likely a pregnant Mary.
Well, the color could certainly indicate Mary. The stars, perhaps too, as either Mary Queen of the Universe or Stella Maris. Then again, this could simply be Our Lord Jesus Christ, King of the Universe, holding the world.
I would vote for the latter interpretation, as the head does not look especially Marian or even feminine.
It's definitely Christ, holding the world surmounted by a cross. I suppose it might better be called a Christus Pantocrator than an ascension, but the former is the result of the latter, so who's to quibble. It is certainly not the BVM.
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
Today is the feast of the Nativity of St. John Baptist. We have High Mass tonight, followed by a light reception. Last night the Knights of Columbus sponsored the traditional bonfire and burning of sacramentals, and a gathering of the men of the parish.
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
the traditional bonfire and burning of sacramentals
Do say more! ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
There is an old tradition of having a bonfire on the eve of St. John the Baptist, which is also called the "Summer Christmas." The fire symbolizes the light of John the Baptist, the lesser light who had to burn out so that the Great Light could shine. These fires took the place of the summer solstice fires used by pagans to celebrate, much the way the date of Christmas was used to overcome the winter solstice celebrations. The Roman Ritual has a blessing for the St. John's fire.
There are many traditions associated with St. John's fires, many of which continue today. One of these is to place broken rosaries, medallions, holy cards, images, palms that will not be burned for ashes, scapulars, etc. into the fire, for reverent disposal.
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
If any group carrying muskets broke into our church they might find the greeter is better prepared than they expected.
I've been there. Father ain't just talkin' through his hat.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Today is the feast of the Nativity of St. John Baptist. We have High Mass tonight, followed by a light reception. Last night the Knights of Columbus sponsored the traditional bonfire and burning of sacramentals, and a gathering of the men of the parish.
Alas, we were only Sung (what Ritual Notes calls "Simple High"), though in the past the Mass has been Solemn and bilingual. This year, only the prophecy (Isaiah) was partially in French ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Bishop at Lambeth? What does being Bishop at a place mean? Is there any sense to it at all, especially given that the person concerned seems to think that he is going to be Bishop of Lambeth?
It means that Lambeth is not his see: he is a Bishop who will be based at Lambeth Palace. It always was 'Bishop at Lambeth' in the past.
[ 25. June 2013, 15:34: Message edited by: Albertus ]
--------------------
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
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
At one time there was also an Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem. I seem to think that this was placate both the Orthodoxy auhorities in the Holy Land and the Spikes back home. The 'in' phraseology indicated that he was resident but did not choose to claim jurisdiction. He was simply there as a sort of episcopal chaplain to the Anglican and Episcopal Communities.
PD
ed 4 silly tripe-o
[ 25. June 2013, 17:54: Message edited by: PD ]
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
As is the Bishop in Europe (or is it 'of Gibraltar in Europe'?)
--------------------
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
It's a suffragan see, you see. The Bishop of Lambeth (if he - or eventually she - existed) would have to be a suffragan to the Bishop of Southwark. I suppose Lambeth Palace is de facto part of the diocese of Canterbury but the rest of South London definitely ain't. Croydon used to be a disconnected part of Canterbury but has been part of Southwark for some time.
--------------------
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
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Fairy nuff, although I thought even the suffragan to the Bishop of Barchester got to be Bishop of Stogpingum or Crabtree Canonicorum or somesuch, even though it isn't a 'see'.
Suffragans, yes. But FWIW there are, or used to be, in the CofE a few full-time Assistant Bishops who didn't have a suffragan see as such. In the CinW we've never had suffragans, except once, in the 30s and 40s, when there was a Bishop of Maenan: but we do have one (used to have two) full-time Assistant Bishops without suffragan sees.
Bp at Lambeth is AIUI a very senior staff officcer rather than a pastoral Bishop.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Fairy nuff, although I thought even the suffragan to the Bishop of Barchester got to be Bishop of Stogpingum or Crabtree Canonicorum or somesuch, even though it isn't a 'see'.
Suffragans, yes. But FWIW there are, or used to be, in the CofE a few full-time Assistant Bishops who didn't have a suffragan see as such. In the CinW we've never had suffragans, except once, in the 30s and 40s, when there was a Bishop of Maenan: but we do have one (used to have two) full-time Assistant Bishops without suffragan sees.
Bp at Lambeth is AIUI a very senior staff officcer rather than a pastoral Bishop.
I seem to recall that the position was at one point filled by a deacon (as anciently understood qua adjunct to the bishop, but then the role suffered from prestige inflation (like the college of cardinals). It is however eminently possible that I am thinking if someone else at Lambeth.
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Fairy nuff, although I thought even the suffragan to the Bishop of Barchester got to be Bishop of Stogpingum or Crabtree Canonicorum or somesuch, even though it isn't a 'see'.
Suffragans, yes. But FWIW there are, or used to be, in the CofE a few full-time Assistant Bishops who didn't have a suffragan see as such. In the CinW we've never had suffragans, except once, in the 30s and 40s, when there was a Bishop of Maenan: but we do have one (used to have two) full-time Assistant Bishops without suffragan sees.
Bp at Lambeth is AIUI a very senior staff officcer rather than a pastoral Bishop.
I didn't think Anglicans went in for the legal fiction that every bishop had to have a notional see in the back garden of a Turkish milliner's shop: we're not shy about naming someone "assistant bishop" for whatever see. The current Anglican Bishop to the Canadian Forces was formerly also the Lord Bishop of Ottawa, but this was not of necessity and is no longer the case.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Fairy nuff, although I thought even the suffragan to the Bishop of Barchester got to be Bishop of Stogpingum or Crabtree Canonicorum or somesuch, even though it isn't a 'see'.
Suffragans, yes. But FWIW there are, or used to be, in the CofE a few full-time Assistant Bishops who didn't have a suffragan see as such. In the CinW we've never had suffragans, except once, in the 30s and 40s, when there was a Bishop of Maenan: but we do have one (used to have two) full-time Assistant Bishops without suffragan sees.
Bp at Lambeth is AIUI a very senior staff officcer rather than a pastoral Bishop.
I didn't think Anglicans went in for the legal fiction that every bishop had to have a notional see in the back garden of a Turkish milliner's shop: we're not shy about naming someone "assistant bishop" for whatever see. The current Anglican Bishop to the Canadian Forces was formerly also the Lord Bishop of Ottawa, but this was not of necessity and is no longer the case.
Erm, no - but an Act of Parliament of 1534 designated certain English towns as the see towns of certain suffragans to cover against the loss of thise titular sees located in the back of Turkish barber's shops. The list was basically a laundry list of the important English towns of the time, and included Hull, Dover, Grantham, and about a dozen others.
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
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Just out of interest, and not that it matters, does anyone happen to know why Newcastle (England) has a stipendiary Assistant Bishop rather than a Bishop of Berwick (which is provided for in the 1534 Act)?
--------------------
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
|
|
AndyB
Shipmate
# 10186
|
Posted
I would guess that is for several reasons:
1. It was a titular see held by a suffragan Bishop of Durham
2. Presumably its recycling wasn't considered when the Diocese of Newcastle was created in 1882 (and besides, Newcastle has only had an Assistant Bishop since 1980) - and probably it would require UK Parliamentary legislation to bring out of abeyance into a new diocese
3. By the time that Durham required a suffragan, Berwick was no longer in the diocese
4. So as not to wind up the Scottish since the first and only incumbent died in 1572
Posts: 149 | From: Belfast | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Well, apart from the last reason (and why wouldn't you want to wind up the Scots? ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ) those did occur to me, but St Germans, Bedford, and Colchester are all examples of 1534 suffragan sees that diocesan boundaries have shifted around ( a couple of times in the former two cases).
--------------------
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
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Just out of interest, and not that it matters, does anyone happen to know why Newcastle (England) has a stipendiary Assistant Bishop rather than a Bishop of Berwick (which is provided for in the 1534 Act)?
I may be extraordinarily wrong, but I think it was a provision when Bishop Kenneth Gill came to the diocese. I believe he had been ordained in the Church of South India, and there were some reservations to do with its being a united Methodist/Anglican Church. So rather than being a "Bishop of..." he became "Assistant Bishop".
That was the story I heard 20 years ago in Newcastle diocese. Personally, I can't see how the different title would have solved any problem, even in the event of there being a problem to solve, which I also don't see.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Aren't there one or two dioceses which are too small (in population if not in area - Northumberland is vast!) to justify a permanent suffragan? Bradford is one, and I think Portsmouth is another. Hence I would guess that, rather than go through the legal hoops of trying to set up a suffragan see and maybe have it refused, Newcastle just decided on the easier course.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
It probably comes down to money. A suffragan bishopric is usually a full-time stipendary post in the C of E, whereas an assistant bishop is usually technically retired and paid expenses only. Thus the Bishop of Berwick issue is a bit of a red herring. When I lived in the diocese of Lincoln we had two suffagans - Grantham and Grimsby - and an assistant bishop who was the retired Bishop of Argentina in the Church of the Southern Cone.
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
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
It probably comes down to money. A suffragan bishopric is usually a full-time stipendary post in the C of E, whereas an assistant bishop is usually technically retired and paid expenses only. Thus the Bishop of Berwick issue is a bit of a red herring. When I lived in the diocese of Lincoln we had two suffagans - Grantham and Grimsby - and an assistant bishop who was the retired Bishop of Argentina in the Church of the Southern Cone.
PD
I may be wrong, but whilst that is the case for most Assistant Bishops, I don't believe it is for the Assistant Bishop of Newcastle (or for that matter of Leicester). IIRC both are stipendary posts.
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
It probably comes down to money. A suffragan bishopric is usually a full-time stipendary post in the C of E, whereas an assistant bishop is usually technically retired and paid expenses only.
I believe that it is the same way in ECUSA (TEC).
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Fairy nuff, although I thought even the suffragan to the Bishop of Barchester got to be Bishop of Stogpingum or Crabtree Canonicorum or somesuch, even though it isn't a 'see'.
Suffragans, yes. But FWIW there are, or used to be, in the CofE a few full-time Assistant Bishops who didn't have a suffragan see as such. In the CinW we've never had suffragans, except once, in the 30s and 40s, when there was a Bishop of Maenan: but we do have one (used to have two) full-time Assistant Bishops without suffragan sees.
Bp at Lambeth is AIUI a very senior staff officcer rather than a pastoral Bishop.
I didn't think Anglicans went in for the legal fiction that every bishop had to have a notional see in the back garden of a Turkish milliner's shop: we're not shy about naming someone "assistant bishop" for whatever see. The current Anglican Bishop to the Canadian Forces was formerly also the Lord Bishop of Ottawa, but this was not of necessity and is no longer the case.
For a while, we went with the lovely fiction of notional sees; e.g., The suffragan of Huron was Bishop of St Clair. I have found it useful to personally ascribe titles to suffragan sees when synods and bishops forgot to do so, and I recommend this course of action to other shipmates. Imagine how much better it would be to be Bishop of Mississauga than Area Bishop of York-Credit Valley or Bishop of Tantramar and Annapolis rather than Suffragan Bishop of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. It is more keeping with the idea that it is not simply a promotion grade with purple socks attached. Most of the time in Canada, assistant bishops were retired bishops who got their expenses as they helped out with confirmations.
The Armed Forces bishopric was originally handed over to a diocesan bishop with expertise in the area-- it was once attached to Caledonia, IIRC.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
For a while, we went with the lovely fiction of notional sees; e.g., The suffragan of Huron was Bishop of St Clair.
I see (no pun intended) that the incumbent is known as the Bishop of Norfolk. Mississauga has less romantic evocations for me, perhaps because I've been there, but naming a see for a highway town would certainly preserve the spirit of the Turkish shop!
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
The Armed Forces bishopric was originally handed over to a diocesan bishop with expertise in the area-- it was once attached to Caledonia, IIRC.
Interesting - the last British North American diocese (IIRC - possibly save Newfoundland and Bermuda?) to join the Church of England in Canada.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
And they also had a Bishop of Georgian Bay! Who knew?
My mistake about Caledonia-- it was actually Cariboo (a diocese which went bankrupt under the residential schools affair, and is now reconstituted as the non-diocese of the Anglican Parishes of the Central Interior)'s diocesan, George Wells, who thought that the WWI chaplaincy situation was far too untidy and patronage-ridden, with chaplains often being the most unsuitable possible candidates. At the same time, Cardinal-Primate Roy, well aware of the orangisme of the WWI chaplaincy service, insisted on having a RC bishop handy, and so the Anglicans got one as well. Peter Coffin, as Bishop of Ottawa (and an army brat), took on the Ordinariate, and when he retired from Ottawa, kept on the military jurisdiction. This is likely more information than anybody wanted on the topic.
In any case, I still hold to my isolated position on titular sees for suffragans.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
Most RC parishes I know get out of mixing Thanksgiving into Sunday worship by having a mass on the day itself. People like a little cooking break mid-morning. I'm accustomed to having music for this, but no choir (so kind of halfway in between a regular daily mass and a Sunday mass). Turnout is normally also about halfway between a daily mass and a single Sunday mass. There are optional propers for it, including a selection of readings.
This exactly describes the way our ECUSA parish does it. I look forward to it (not that I am usually doing any cooking that I need to take a break from) -- to me, it nicely sets the tone for what is, after all, Thanksgiving Day
[ 30. June 2013, 08:46: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barefoot Friar
Ship's Shoeless Brother
# 13100
|
Posted
I'm having a retired pastor visit us next week and I've asked him to celebrate. Should I ask him to distribute bread, cup, or neither? When I celebrate (it being my parish), I distribute the bread, and a lay server the cup. My instinct is to ask him to distribute the bread, me the cup, and my wonderful lay server will wait 'til next time.
Oh, another question: If he processes in with the acolytes and me, who comes last in line? Me, since I'm the pastor of the church, or him since he's the celebrant?
EDIT: TEC Rite II for all intents and purposes. We're UMC, but Word and Table I is nearly the same thing.
Thanks in advance!
[ 30. June 2013, 20:10: 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
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
The celebrant's position at the entrance is the position of greatest dignity, usually last.
The celebrant should administer the Bread, others should administer the Wine.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
In Protestant churches, for practical reasons, the visitor should always distribute the bread (IMHO). One rarely knows for sure whether the person has experience with a chalice, or whether s/he comes from a place where the people take or don't take the chalice into their own hands. Don't cause yourself trouble!
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
The usual rule is that thumb celebrant comes last in the procession - even if the Bishop is present. IIRC if the diocesan bishop is sitting it out, he usually goes between the deacon and the celebrant.
As to who administers what.
If your parishioners do not receive the cup 14 different ways, then the celebrant should administer the bread, and the visiting pator the cup.
However, if the do receive the chalice 14 different ways then the celebrant should administer Communion to the assistant minister and servers, and then they should swap rolls so the visitor has the Bread, and the regular guy the Cup. This is pure pragmatism and "anathema sit" in all the manuals, but it saves the chalice getting spilled, which is a major pain in the behind - especially if the slop goes down some gal's cleavage!
PD
[ 01. July 2013, 01:25: Message edited by: PD ]
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412
|
Posted
Incense: any brands/styles/flavours to avoid?
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oblatus
Shipmate
# 6278
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
Incense: any brands/styles/flavours to avoid?
IMHO, anything that isn't just plain frankincense.
Posts: 3823 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
Hunt and hunt and hunt until you find an import house that sells the stuff in 25 kg sacks. The places that make their own mixes and then sell it out at outrageous prices buy it from these import houses.
You want frankincense, pea size or bigger. Plain frankincense is really all you need.
The price was around five or six dollars a pound the last time we bought. The stuff lasts forever.
I can give you the name of a supplier in NYC if you are in the US.
[ 01. July 2013, 13:44: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
Incense: any brands/styles/flavours to avoid?
IMHO, avoid everything except Frankincense. I have had fewer complaints about it than any other type.
BTW, the usual problem with incense is someone being a bit too late lighting the charcoal, which results in the punters in the pews getting a good lungful of smoke, and not just the pleasing odour of incense.
PD
[ 01. July 2013, 17:30: Message edited by: PD ]
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
scuffleball
Shipmate
# 16480
|
Posted
The Merbecke-Stainer Setting
I found a paper copy of Stainer's Harmonization of Merbecke's communion service, confusingly labelled Stainer's Mass in Four Voices, here:
http://www3.cpdl.org/wiki/images/sheet/stai-mas.pdf
There is a recording of it here, which doesn't mention Stainer but seems to be the same thing, lacking the kyrie and gloria but including the creed, sursum corda and "organ interludes" in the Agnus:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drOG8mOQ47Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEt8NB0A2EY
Does anyone know where I can find a full version of the Merbecke-Stainer setting with organ parts?
ETA That sounds a bit like russian chant, esp the sursum cord
[ 01. July 2013, 23:23: Message edited by: scuffleball ]
--------------------
SPK: I also plan to create ... a Calvinist Ordinariate
ken: I thought it was called Taize?
Posts: 272 | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
I think Percy Dearmer had it indexed and all the remaining copies destroyed. H gets quite cranky about Merbeck altered by Stainer
--------------------
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
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
Fair enough; I get quite cranky about Merbecke. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"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
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
