|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Miscellaneous questions of a liturgical nature
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Turning east, in the choir, for creed, glorias and doxologies looks silly when there is a nave altar. They are turning AWAY from the altar in use.
I agree it can look odd, but we aren't turning towards the altar, we are turning in the direction of our heavenly home, and the direction from which Christ will come in glory. You wouldn't want to have your back to him when that happens, especially if you are professing your faith in him at that moment.
So is the parousia going to happen, literally, at the Golden Gate?
--------------------
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
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
Another thread reminded me of a question that confuses me.
I call the rope-like Eucharistic vestment around the alb the "girdle" and the sash-like thing around the cassock the cincture.
Others call the rope-like thing the cincture, and I don't know what they call the sash-like thing.
Is this an Anglican/RC divide or pond thing? Or simply age of the speakers?
There are two items: the rope and the sash-like thing.
There are two naming schemes. The first is the traditionally Anglican one, where the rope is a girdle and the sash-like thing is a cincture. There is also what I believe is the traditional Roman Catholic scheme where the rope is a cincture and the sash-like thing is a fascia.
Many Anglican churches, however, use the Roman Catholic scheme. I'm not sure about other denominations.
quote:
I've always called the ancient white Eucharistic vestment traditionally worn over an amice which is on the shoulders over a cassock the "alb," and upon which is girded a girdle, etc.
Others use the word "alb" for the confection invented in recent decades which is worn over street clothes and upon which is hung a very wide, uncrossed stole.
So we have the same words in use for very different items.
Am I the only one who is confused?
The garment worn over a cassock with an amice and a girdle-cincture is an alb. The other garment you mention is known properly as a cassock-alb, because it is essentially a hybrid of the two. This is frequently shortened to "alb" because the two garments would rarely be used in the same church, so there's no ambiguity.
The style of stole is coincidental!
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Years ago I seem to remember reading in some high church Anglican manual crossing ourselves at "the resurrection of the body" in the Apostle's Creed is to remind us that this body is to rise again.
I've never done it.
And where did turning east for the Apostle's creed come in? It is almost universal non-evangelical Anglican practice, but I'm not aware of any pre-Victorian precedent.
I thought the crossing at the end of the creed was a reminder of our baptism - when we or our godparents were asked whether they believed in it.
Turning east, in the choir, for creed, glorias and doxologies looks silly when there is a nave altar. They are turning AWAY from the altar in use.
Well, it's unfortunate that many churches nowadays are not orientated towards the east, yet it is one of the most practices of the Church to face east during prayer, even private prayer. Even in those churches where the building could not be orientated towards the east, everyone turned east for the prayers even if that meant the priest and altar ended up being behind the people eg. St. Peter's Basilica.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
We anglo-catholics copied RC practice and crossed ourselves at the end of the creed (and at the end of the gloria and the start of the Benedictus.)
When Vatican 2 reforms happened, those of us in anglo-catholic churches were 'instructed' not to do so any more. We were told that these things were 'out.'
However, these customs spread to MOTR parishes among some people. Not thus instructed, they continue to do it 40 years later. There are many in my parish.
The whole idea of having places where you are required to cross yourself, marked with a little x in the service book, and places where you aren't supposed to, or where you used to but are told you may do so no longer, marks a big and fairly profound difference between RC and CofE culture.
Crossing oneself was quite rare in the CofE until well within my lifetime, but now it's not that unusual, the concept that somebody should prescribe for you when, to me, is contrary to our way of doing things, or why a person should do so.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Manipled Mutineer
Shipmate
# 11514
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
Question: Does anyone know where the fashion of making the sign of the cross at the word "resurrection" in the creeds came from? It used to be at "life everlasting" and now everybody wants to do it at this new place.
Possibly the signing has been re- (or mis-) interpreted as an expression of the hope of resurrection, rather than a seal of the entire Creed.
Yes, I suspect that that is often the spirit in which it is now done.
--------------------
Collecting Catholic and Anglo-
Catholic books
Posts: 1533 | From: Glamorgan, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
Ritual gestures by the laity can be:
A an expression of personal devotion
B participation in a communual action.
If it's B, then guidance is helpful.
--------------------
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
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Ritual gestures by the laity can be:
A an expression of personal devotion
B participation in a communual action.
If it's B, then guidance is helpful.
You hope, of course, that it might be both!
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So is the parousia going to happen, literally, at the Golden Gate?
San Francisco? I doubt it.
Nor the other Golden Gate - that isn't in the east, it's in Jerusalem.
According to Ezekiel 44:1–3) the 2wnd coming/Messiah will enter Jerusalem by the golden gate.
As for the notion that we are supposed to pray facing east: The first Guru of the Sikhs, Nanak went to Mecca and prayed facing away from the Ka'aba. The muslims were offended and rebuked him for praying with his feet towards the ka'aba. He retorted, 'You place my feet towards wherever God is absent.'
Ironically, Sikhs get offended if you sit with your feet facing the Guru Granth Sahib.
--------------------
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
|
|
Chapelhead
I am
# 21
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
According to Ezekiel 44:1–3) the 2wnd coming/Messiah will enter Jerusalem by the golden gate.
Which he quite probably did on Palm Sunday, the Golden Gate being on the east side of Jerusalem and Bethany, whence he came, also being east of the city.
But at the second coming, as the lightning flashes from the east to the west, so shall be the coming of the Son of Man. It's in the Bible, so it must be true.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Many of the early fathers were very insistent that Christians should pray facing east, and not just in church. If your room does not face east then tough, you turn to the east for prayer. The east is where the sun, icon of life-giving God, rises, and where Eden, foretaste of heaven, was planted. I believe it is the custom for Orthodox Christians to have their icon corner in the east of the room.
--------------------
At times like this I find myself thinking, what would the Amish do?
Posts: 9123 | From: Near where I was before. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mama Thomas
Shipmate
# 10170
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
We anglo-catholics copied RC practice and crossed ourselves at the end of the creed (and at the end of the gloria and the start of the Benedictus.)
When Vatican 2 reforms happened, those of us in anglo-catholic churches were 'instructed' not to do so any more. We were told that these things were 'out.'
However, these customs spread to MOTR parishes among some people. Not thus instructed, they continue to do it 40 years later. There are many in my parish.
The whole idea of having places where you are required to cross yourself, marked with a little x in the service book, and places where you aren't supposed to, or where you used to but are told you may do so no longer, marks a big and fairly profound difference between RC and CofE culture.
Crossing oneself was quite rare in the CofE until well within my lifetime, but now it's not that unusual, the concept that somebody should prescribe for you when, to me, is contrary to our way of doing things, or why a person should do so.
Personally, all that signing to me marks a certain type of ANGLICAN spirituality. These types want to make it where it has been done by Christians in the West for centuries, and most would probably want it to be done in the customary places. Though they might me slightly annoyed that others do it in the "wrong" place, they know it's not prescribed.
I can't imagine the vast majority of Roman Catholics knowing or caring about these things.
Once at a big highish Anglican Mass, a Roman Catholic French teacher came up and asked me about why the congregation genuflected during the creed, a custom of which she was unaware. I explained, and then the remembered the rubric in her missalette, to "incline" at those words--and then she said "not that anyone ever does."
But I've see plenty of these physically worshipping Anglican types genuflect during the creed regardless of whether the rest of the congregation does so or not.
--------------------
All hearts are open, all desires known
Posts: 3742 | From: Somewhere far away | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mama Thomas
Shipmate
# 10170
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
Another thread reminded me of a question that confuses me.
I call the rope-like Eucharistic vestment around the alb the "girdle" and the sash-like thing around the cassock the cincture.
Others call the rope-like thing the cincture, and I don't know what they call the
Is this an Anglican/RC divide or pond thing? Or simply age of the speakers?
There are two items: the rope and the sash-like thing.
There are two naming schemes. The first is the traditionally Anglican one, where the rope is a girdle and the sash-like thing is a cincture. There is also what I believe is the traditional Roman Catholic scheme where the rope is a cincture and the sash-like thing is a fascia.
Many Anglican churches, however, use the Roman Catholic scheme. I'm not sure about other denominations.
quote:
I've always called the ancient white Eucharistic vestment traditionally worn over an amice which is on the shoulders over a cassock the "alb," and upon which is girded a girdle, etc.
Others use the word "alb" for the confection invented in recent decades which is worn over street clothes and upon which is hung a very wide, uncrossed stole.
So we have the same words in use for very different items.
Am I the only one who is confused?
The garment worn over a cassock with an amice and a girdle-cincture is an alb. The other garment you mention is known properly as a cassock-alb, because it is essentially a hybrid of the two. This is frequently shortened to "alb" because the two garments would rarely be used in the same church, so there's no ambiguity.
The style of stole is coincidental!
The two style are used in mine. The dear servers/chalice bearers (and previous priests in the last 20 years) have never known any other vestment but the "alb" -- replete with seasonal girdled (I.e. "ropes" I kid you not).
I can't bear myself to wear one of those, so we have two styles of vestments.
Other than a handful of very elderly long time Episcopalians who really don't care, no one cares. (Except me, and I really don't though I wish I did)
--------------------
All hearts are open, all desires known
Posts: 3742 | From: Somewhere far away | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oblatus
Shipmate
# 6278
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
I've always called the ancient white Eucharistic vestment traditionally worn over an amice which is on the shoulders over a cassock the "alb," and upon which is girded a girdle, etc.
Others use the word "alb" for the confection invented in recent decades which is worn over street clothes and upon which is hung a very wide, uncrossed stole.
When I serve as subdeacon, such as this coming Sunday, I start by donning a cassock and then putting on an amice over my head, then a thin long alb, then a cincture tied to have loops for a stole (but there's no stole as I'm not a priest), then a tunicle (this week a splendid rose one with tassels, sometimes called "the bishop's draperies"), out of the top of which the amice is pulled down off my head to form a hood behind my neck. I think this set also has a maniple, which I will put on my left arm if it's put out for me with the other items.
I'm what some call a "straw subdeacon," which to me means I am not a subdeacon but serve as one sometimes. Works for me.
[ 09. March 2013, 04:43: Message edited by: Oblatus ]
Posts: 3823 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mama Thomas
Shipmate
# 10170
|
Posted
Beautiful. I don't think a maniple canbe worn with cassock-albs anyway because of the extra wide sleeves. Real albs not only are traditional but they look Eucharistic. The faux monk look of the Cassock-alb gets my goat with the fake hood and all
--------------------
All hearts are open, all desires known
Posts: 3742 | From: Somewhere far away | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
I've always called the ancient white Eucharistic vestment traditionally worn over an amice which is on the shoulders over a cassock the "alb," and upon which is girded a girdle, etc.
Others use the word "alb" for the confection invented in recent decades which is worn over street clothes and upon which is hung a very wide, uncrossed stole.
When I serve as subdeacon, such as this coming Sunday, I start by donning a cassock and then putting on an amice over my head, then a thin long alb, then a cincture tied to have loops for a stole (but there's no stole as I'm not a priest), then a tunicle (this week a splendid rose one with tassels, sometimes called "the bishop's draperies"), out of the top of which the amice is pulled down off my head to form a hood behind my neck. I think this set also has a maniple, which I will put on my left arm if it's put out for me with the other items.
I'm what some call a "straw subdeacon," which to me means I am not a subdeacon but serve as one sometimes. Works for me.
Traditionally, a straw subdeacon does not wwear a maniple. That is how we geeks know that he is atraw. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
[ 09. March 2013, 15:28: Message edited by: Ceremoniar ]
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oblatus
Shipmate
# 6278
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Traditionally, a straw subdeacon does not wwear a maniple. That is how we geeks know that he is atraw.
Hey, if they give me a maniple, I wear the maniple. One does not second-guess the sacristan! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
But the celebrant might decide against maniples, in which case I shall leave it on the table.
[ 09. March 2013, 16:57: Message edited by: Oblatus ]
Posts: 3823 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
It is my understanding that the Orthodox are not as strict with liturgical colors as Catholics are. That said, I have a few questions about the colors in these three photos.
In the first photo, it appears that all of the clergy are in gold, except for one in deep red in the center with his back to us. In the second photo, all are in gold. In the third photo it appears that the Patriarch is in green.
Is there any significance to the colors gold, deep red, and green? And, why are most of the clergy in gold while one is in deep red and the patricarch is in green?
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
quote:
It is my understanding that the Orthodox are not as strict with liturgical colors as Catholics are.
True. In the Byzantine Rite the typikon (the rubrical book analogous to the Catholic General Instruction) does not specify a particular color to be worn, only that it be "light" or "dark". It has become traditional to have certain colors on certain categories of days, but it is not a hard rule and the color scheme differs between the Slavic and Greek churches.
There is more western influence generally in the Slavic churches than in the Greek and Levant churches, and the development of a more set scheme for vestments is one of those influences.
Also, in the third photo, the green mantle being worn by the patriarch is not a Eucharistic vestment, but is part of the choir dress that is appropriate to a Slavic patriarch.
[ 13. March 2013, 17:21: Message edited by: Jon in the Nati ]
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
Thanks, Jon. Any idea why, in the first photo, all the clergy are in gold except the one in dull red?
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
Not offhand, NYer.
It is Patriarch Kyrill who is in red. It is a little hard to speculate because I am not certain what exactly they are celebrating. Is it Tsar Nicholas II, who is a considered a martyr by the Russian church? If so, it would make sense that red would be worn, but why not by everyone? Dark red would make sense in Lent, but it is not yet Lent for the Eastern churches. Sometimes, if several priests or especially bishops are concelebrating (as happens regularly in the Byzantine Rite) the primary celebrant will be vested in a different color, or more precious vestments than the others. That is about the best answer I can think of.
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I worship with a Church of Scotland congregation and the minister is keen, with a little support and encouragement, to permit practices more common in the wider church than in the CoS. To this end I have ordered a Paschal Candle, but I fear that the parish probably does not possess a suitable holder, nor will be willing to pay for one. Can anyone suggest there I might procure a 2nd hand one?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emendator Liturgia
Shipmate
# 17245
|
Posted
Arethosemyfeet, I had the same issue with my first parish, though in this case it was the case that they could not afford it, rather than being unwilling to open their sporan for it.
The first year I modified a flower stand that was in the church by placing some nails in a circle, the diameter of which meant that the candle fitted nicely inside. When the stand was decorated in flowers and greenery - hey presto, a simple, functional but also beautiful pashcal candle stand.
Such flower stands are so often to be found in little bric-a-brac and antique shops for not much money - definitely better than expensive stands made just for the purpose.
--------------------
Don't judge all Anglicans in Sydney by prevailing Diocesan standards!
Posts: 401 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
Totally random question, and a long-shot I know, but Eccles is a fountain of knowledge about churchly music.
Would anybody here be willing to share any knowledge/experience in connecting an organ (MIDI connections) to a computer and using Hauptwerk or another interface to make a church organ sound a little better?
I'd be interested in any wisdom at all about the topic. I'm dealing with an Allen organ with MIDI expander that just needs something more.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:
Arethosemyfeet, I had the same issue with my first parish, though in this case it was the case that they could not afford it, rather than being unwilling to open their sporan for it.
The first year I modified a flower stand that was in the church by placing some nails in a circle, the diameter of which meant that the candle fitted nicely inside. When the stand was decorated in flowers and greenery - hey presto, a simple, functional but also beautiful pashcal candle stand.
Such flower stands are so often to be found in little bric-a-brac and antique shops for not much money - definitely better than expensive stands made just for the purpose.
Thanks Emendator, that's an excellent suggestion. I'm going to try an oasis candle holder in the flower stand in the first instance (the church does have a couple of those), and if that doesn't work then I'll be trying to avoid squashing my thumb.
I am beginning to think that the 36" x 3" candle was a little ambitious for a first attempt, but we shall see...
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
Also, in the third photo, the green mantle being worn by the patriarch is not a Eucharistic vestment, but is part of the choir dress that is appropriate to a Slavic patriarch.
Quite so. It is his mantle, which is part of his monastic attire. As patriarch, his is green, metropolitans wear light blue, archbishops and bishops wear purple, and simpler monastics wear black.
--------------------
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
|
|
BulldogSacristan
Shipmate
# 11239
|
Posted
What are the differences in the English Missal, American Missal, and Anglican Missals. I've never heard any satisfactory answer that was laid out in a coherent way.
Posts: 197 | From: Boston, Massachusetts | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
What are the differences in the English Missal, American Missal, and Anglican Missals. I've never heard any satisfactory answer that was laid out in a coherent way.
The English Missal is essentially the old Roman Missal translated into Cranmerian English.
The Anglican and American Missals take the BCP service of Holy Communion and interlard it with texts and ceremonial from the Roman Rite, again translated into Cranmerian English. The Anglican and American Missals differ in that the translations from Latin were done by different people and published by different religious orders. The first edition of the American Missal took rather more care not to contradict the XXXIX than subsequent editions, or indeed other Missals, did.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
What are the differences in the English Missal, American Missal, and Anglican Missals. I've never heard any satisfactory answer that was laid out in a coherent way.
My parish uses the American Missal - I am told it is less fussy to use (ie better laid out) than the Anglican Missal.
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
Aside from the ridiculous name, they're just colorful banners that are reminiscent of the garments that were strewn in Jesus' path. This is in a cathedral, hence a large space that can probably handle a fair bit of visual "noise." I don't see it as liturgically problematic.
--------------------
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
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Is this combination [Common Worship + BCP lectionary] allowed? I know 'allowed' is a funny question in the Church of England when some parishes feel they have the authority (or perhaps they do have it?) to dispense with the liturgy and do whatever they like, but is it permissible to use the 1662 Communion Lectionary with Common Worship Order One in Traditional Language?
I ask because the new lectionary is a bit useless when it comes to teaching doctrine, and seems to just be ordered to et as much of the Bible in over the three years as possible. The old lectionary is much better in this regard.
Would this require episcopal authorization? Also, the instructions state that only one Collect is to be said ordinarily, does this mean that the Collect for the Sovereign is not permitted?
[ 27. March 2013, 18:43: Message edited by: seasick ]
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
First Bendy Poles. Now, Fish Sticks.
What's next?
What, no giant puppets?
--------------------
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
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
Aside from the ridiculous name, they're just colorful banners that are reminiscent of the garments that were strewn in Jesus' path. This is in a cathedral, hence a large space that can probably handle a fair bit of visual "noise." I don't see it as liturgically problematic.
I have no problem with them either, liturgical or otherwise.
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Is this combination [Common Worship + BCP lectionary] allowed? I know 'allowed' is a funny question in the Church of England when some parishes feel they have the authority (or perhaps they do have it?) to dispense with the liturgy and do whatever they like, but is it permissible to use the 1662 Communion Lectionary with Common Worship Order One in Traditional Language?
I ask because the new lectionary is a bit useless when it comes to teaching doctrine, and seems to just be ordered to et as much of the Bible in over the three years as possible. The old lectionary is much better in this regard.
Would this require episcopal authorization? Also, the instructions state that only one Collect is to be said ordinarily, does this mean that the Collect for the Sovereign is not permitted?
On what grounds is the new lectionary (i.e. the Revised Common Lectionary) less useful for teaching doctrine than the older BCP lectionary (especially since the older lectionary pretty much ignores the Old Testament)? How does covering more of the Bible make it less useful for teaching doctrine? And comparing the 2 lectionaries, specifically in Ordinary Time/Sundays after Trinity, ISTM that the RCL is clearly more helpful than the random portions in the older lectionary.
While i live in the U.S. and i'm sure have less knowledge of Church of England liturgy than most English eccles folks, I do have a bit of knowledge of it from my eclectic library of liturgical printed matter. I know that Common Worship Order Two Eucharist is the 1662 BCP Communion Service, and that the use of the new lectionary is permitted with it.
Re the prayer for the Sovereign: in the abovementioned order two (i.e. BCP 1662) the collect for the Sovereign in its traditional place is permitted. In order one of Common Worship even if only one collect is prescribed at the conclusion of the introductory rites of the liturgy of the Word (which to me makes good liturgical sense structurally speaking), prayer for the Sovereign is specified as part of the Prayers of Intercession.
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
Does anyone know of a list of which Psalms are used in the current Catholic Liturgy of the Hours and which ones are not?
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Does anyone know of a list of which Psalms are used in the current Catholic Liturgy of the Hours and which ones are not?
By sheer coincidence I stumbled across this PDF breakdown of the four-week Psalter (morning and evening) from England and Wales. Perhaps not exactly what you're looking for, but may be a start.
Take a look at this, too.
[ 27. March 2013, 21:35: Message edited by: Olaf ]
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
From a quick look i'm pretty sure that Olaf's second link is indeed the whole psalm schema for the contemporary Liturgy of the Hours (Roman Rite)
[ 27. March 2013, 21:58: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
Anyone know if the Common worship psalter is printed separate?
We were looking for a good modern psalter for daily office.
You see we have our own service cards but need a psalter.
But we can't find a psalter book to use.
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
geroff
Shipmate
# 3882
|
Posted
Is it not here?
On the common worship pdf page.
--------------------
"The first principle in science is to invent something nice to look at and then decide what it can do." Rowland Emett 1906-1990
Posts: 1172 | From: Montgomeryshire, Wales | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
Yes Geoff, but we want a psalter book to use. A published book, not a PDF file.
Are there other suitable psalter books we could use as an alternative? Criterion is, - modern language, inclusive, without pointing. Books that wear ok would help.
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
Yes Geoff, but we want a psalter book to use. A published book, not a PDF file.
Are there other suitable psalter books we could use as an alternative? Criterion is, - modern language, inclusive, without pointing. Books that wear ok would help.
Service cards or no, I think you are stuck with having to buy Common Worship Daily Prayer. It has the psalter and all the canticles, even those that one suspects nobody uses and are not going to catch on. I'm fairly sure that these have not been published separately.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
Anyone know if the Common worship psalter is printed separate?
We were looking for a good modern psalter for daily office.
You see we have our own service cards but need a psalter.
But we can't find a psalter book to use.
For Personal Prayer I use [url= http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=St+Helena%27s+Psalter]St Helena's Psalter[/url]. It is not perfect, but it is in modern language, all the psalms and takes into consideration modern concerns about exclusive language but with some balance. It is also designed for prayer.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Don't you like the Grail psalter?
--------------------
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
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Sorry should have previewed my earlier post. The link should be.
Jengie
[ 01. April 2013, 10:17: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrs whibley
Shipmate
# 4798
|
Posted
I had an experience last week which resulted me looking like a numpty in front of a bunch of strangers! Nothing unusual about that, except that it more frequently happens at work and involves Powerpoint.
I visited a Scottish Episcopal Church, and mr whibley (I'll blame him, as he isn't here) sat us so that I was first up for Communion. There was no rail, so the elements were clearly taken standing. The priest and the server partook first, and both intincted although most of the congregation did not. However, after I had taken the bread I stood like an idiot for what felt like half an hour, but was actually probably about 4 seconds waiting for the wine, before the priest motioned with his head for me to go over to the server with the chalice. The rest of the congregation followed us so that the whole thing worked with the priest and server stationary and the communicants moving from bread to wine, which was actually a very smooth way of doing things.
I don't think I've come across this before, the wine always having come to me, as it were. I suppose that makes sense if the communicants are kneeling, when you can't very well expect them to move between the elements, and less so if they are standing. I can't see a theological or liturgical reason for any preference, although you lot may beg to differ!
What does the panel think?
--------------------
I long for a faith that is gloriously treacherous - Mike Yaconelli
Posts: 942 | From: North Lincolnshire | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
It has been the practice in most RC churches I've known where there has been communion in two kinds.
And at a church I knew the congregation didn't kneel but came up in a queue, received the "bread" and moved to the side for the chalice. The ministers stood still and the congregation moved.
I think it would have been more awkward if the ministers of communion had to move.
--------------------
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
|
|
Chapelhead
I am
# 21
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrs whibley:
I don't think I've come across this before, the wine always having come to me, as it were. I suppose that makes sense if the communicants are kneeling, when you can't very well expect them to move between the elements, and less so if they are standing. I can't see a theological or liturgical reason for any preference, although you lot may beg to differ!
What does the panel think?
It's something I've seen occasionally, mainly where there are large numbers of communicants. In such situations it seems a sensible way to do things.
One particular occasion that comes to mind was in the Cathedral of John the Divine in NYC. Not only did the congregation move from bread to wine but, for some reason I have never fathomed out, the chalice-bearer seemed slightly surprised that I went forward for wine - or perhaps he was just momentarily thinking about something else and my presence interrupted his train of thought. For my part the arrangements for taking communion seemed relatively unsurprising compared with the eagle, camel and elephant that had formed part of the precession earlier in the service.
--------------------
At times like this I find myself thinking, what would the Amish do?
Posts: 9123 | From: Near where I was before. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
It's how it's done in almost all RC Masses (except for all the exceptions people are now sure to mention). We're in procession, the elements aren't.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
It was the same when I was at university. It had the bonus that it was possible to have joint services where Catholics and non-Catholics could both communicate (separate lines to receive then go to the other for a blessing), and at the non-Catholic reception point you could choose which side to turn to receive the cup, one side being non-alcoholic as some Methodists were present.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
