Ship of Fools: Giving up Jesus for Lent

Thread: Giving up Jesus for Lent Board: Ecclesiantics / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=008456

Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on :

Our local Methodist church will observe Lent by giving up communion services until Easter Sunday. Seems a bit odd to me on a number of levels. Sunday is not a fast day, What can be gained by removing yourself from our Lord's grace? On the other hand not celebrating communion during the end of holy week is something I can understand as it reminds us that our Lord was killed. Is this a common practice that I have not seen before or just a local idea? If a common practice for you, do you find it useful?

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

We celebrate the Eucharist throughout Lent but not on Good Friday and then not again until Easter Sunday.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Youch.

I could give up chocolate, but this... [Eek!]

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

I gave up Lent for Lent one year...no church, no Ship, bought all sorts of fripperies, ate chockies ... Every day was the same as the rest of the year ...it was awful. Never again

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by bib:
We celebrate the Eucharist throughout Lent but not on Good Friday and then not again until Easter Sunday.

We have the Liturgy of the Reserved Sacrament on Good Friday, but no music.

As for Graven Image's Methodist church - perhaps the intention is good, but the Sundays between Ash Wednesday and Easter Sunday are not in Lent.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Does this particular Methodist Church usually celebrate Holy Communion every Sunday, or are they perhaps just giving up one or two services?

Either way, it does seem a bit odd.

As with many Anglican/Roman (also Lutheran?) churches, we have Communion from the Reserved Sacrament on Good Friday (yes, I know a lot of Anglican churches don't do this), and no Celebration at all on Easter Eve until the Vigil.

IJ

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by bib:
We celebrate the Eucharist throughout Lent but not on Good Friday and then not again until Easter Sunday.
We have the Liturgy of the Reserved Sacrament on Good Friday, but no music.

As for Graven Image's Methodist church - perhaps the intention is good, but the Sundays between Ash Wednesday and Easter Sunday are not in Lent.

The forty days of Lent are from Ash Wedesday until Holy Saturday, inclusive, not counting the Sundays. (Which is how the total of 40 days is arrived at.) But that is not to say that the Sundays during that time are outside of Lent. What it does signify is that the rigours of Lent on those six Sundays, may be relaxed or disregarded, particularly on the FOURTH Sunday in Lent.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Just so (and Lent 4 is when we give our beautiful rose-pink chasuble one of its biennial outings!).

IJ

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Just so (and Lent 4 is when we give our beautiful rose-pink chasuble one of its biennial outings!).

IJ

I didn't say it all and I like the mention of the rose-pink vestments for Lent IV. Biennial, or biannual?

Another mention is that the "A" word - Allelluia is suppressed for the duration of Lent and uttered with all-force as soon as Lent gives way to Easter.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Yes, a careless slip of the mind - I meant biannual, of course, the other occasion being Advent 3.

We, too, eschew the A-word, the Gloria, and flowers during Lent.

IJ

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Yes, a careless slip of the mind - I meant biannual, of course, the other occasion being Advent 3.

So semiannual, then?

Or, perhaps most clearly, twice a year.

[Cool]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

[Razz]

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

A priest I've known was not a fan of Lent. Every year he'd remind me of the real first line of the familiar hymn:

"Lord, who threw out these forty days?"

[Paranoid]

Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on :

Bishops finger asked.

quote:
Does this particular Methodist Church usually celebrate Holy Communion every Sunday, or are they perhaps just giving up one or two services?

Yes every Sunday.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Ecclesiastical Flip-flop, our understanding is that the Sundays are not in Lent, but are sandwiched by Lent. But still no Alleluias. no Gloria, Lenten purple for vestments, frontal etc (we don't run to pink for Lent 4 or Advent 3). Also the other reminders of the penitential season with the general confession moved to the later position, use of the Trisagion, kneeling for the Great Thanksgiving.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I don't suppose most Methodists are bothered about the details of the calculation of Lent.

I'm surprised at Methodists having a communion as their main Sunday service, despite Mr Wesley's clear preference.

But surely there is a long established Protestant tradition of infrequent communion, precisely because it is taken so seriously it can only be after extensive preparation? (I'm thinking of Scots Presbyterians, but the mentality was surely widespread?)

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
Another mention is that the "A" word - Allelluia is suppressed for the duration of Lent and uttered with all-force as soon as Lent gives way to Easter.

Whereas the Orthodoxen add them in!

[edit: can't even get 6 words right!]

[ 21. February 2017, 07:25: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

venbede

The Methodists mentioned by Graven Image above are presumably United Methodists in the USA. I don't know what their normal practices are for Lent or for communion.

In British Methodism communion typically occurs once a month during the main service, although I do know of one Methodist church that also has a separate holy communion service every Sunday at 8.30am. I doubt that this is very common in British Methodism.

IME Lent has become more prominent in British Methodism over the years. When I was growing up in the Methodist church in the 70s and 80s little was made of it, and there was no talk of 'giving things up'. Then there began to be initiatives to get Methodists to use it as a time of reflection, or self-sacrifice, etc.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Yes, a careless slip of the mind - I meant biannual, of course, the other occasion being Advent 3.
So semiannual, then?

Or, perhaps most clearly, twice a year.

Biennial = Every two years.
Biannual = Twice a year.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
venbede

The Methodists mentioned by Graven Image above are presumably United Methodists in the USA. I don't know what their normal practices are for Lent or for communion.

In British Methodism communion typically occurs once a month during the main service, although I do know of one Methodist church that also has a separate holy communion service every Sunday at 8.30am. I doubt that this is very common in British Methodism.

IME Lent has become more prominent in British Methodism over the years. When I was growing up in the Methodist church in the 70s and 80s little was made of it, and there was no talk of 'giving things up'. Then there began to be initiatives to get Methodists to use it as a time of reflection, or self-sacrifice, etc.

Hinde St (West London Mission) has, or had when i worshipped there in the late 90s/ early 2000s, at least one Communion service every Sunday ('Lord Soper's service'- 1936 Order) and quite often (more often than not?) two. But then I understand that Hinde St is, or was, very High Church by Methodist standards.

Posted by BulldogSacristan (# 11239) on :

The Episcopal Church (US) lists Lenten Sundays as "X Sunday in Lent," as opposed to "of Lent." The other seasons all designate Sundays as "after" something or "of" something: 43rd Sunday After Penetecost, 2nd Sunday of Easter, etc. It's a fine distinction, but it makes sense.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
Biennial = Every two years.
Biannual = Twice a year.

My dictionary explains it helpfully:

adjective
1. occurring twice a year; semiannual.
2. occurring every two years; biennial.

[Confused]

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
Biennial = Every two years.
Biannual = Twice a year.
My dictionary explains it helpfully:

adjective
1. occurring twice a year; semiannual.
2. occurring every two years; biennial.

Yep! I wouldn't argue with that; I was being a bit brief. I am 100% certain, without reference to a dictionary, which way round it is and I was able to post without looking it up.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I don't suppose most Methodists are bothered about the details of the calculation of Lent.
widespread?)

venbede - A bit dismissive of how the forty days of Lent are allocated, but as I see it, it bears some relevence to this discussion.

The Church Kalendar has other periods of forty days throughout the year, including Christmas to Candlemass; Easter to Ascension; Feast of the Transfiguration to Holy Cross Day.

I notice that unlike the 40 days of Lent (where Sundays are not counted), these 40-day seasons are defined, including Sundays.

If there is a reason for this subtle difference, of whether or not to count the Sundays, I don't know what it is. Any offers?

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
We have the Liturgy of the Reserved Sacrament on Good Friday, but no music.

Good Friday with no music- now there is a sacrifice that I would feel. We turn off the organ after the Eucharist on Thursday night, and keep it off until the Easter proclamation at the Vigil. But there is enough great a capella music for use in that window that it is hardly a fast. In fact, Easter music becomes a bit of a let-down.

TEC's prayer book contains several Eucharistic prayers. We do Rite II, and rotate between the four Rite II prayers, based on season. Lent is when we (meaning my church- beware anyone who says "all Episcopalians do x") use the much-maligned Prayer C, which, despite its hokey 70s-era creation narrative, emphasizes God calling us throughout history, and our continued ignorance of that call, all leading up to the crucifixion. So we would definitely fall into the school of thought that the Eucharist is a particularly appropriate Lenten practice.

[ 21. February 2017, 16:58: Message edited by: Og, King of Bashan ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
If there is a reason for this subtle difference, of whether or not to count the Sundays, I don't know what it is. Any offers?

Sunday is always a feast of the resurrection - so gloomy litaniies in procession and such like are inappopriate.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

The only music we have on Good Friday consists of two congregational hymns (Faithful Cross and When I survey), with perhaps a short motet or modern song during Communion.

Re 'High Church' Methodists, Wesley's Chapel in London has Communion every Sunday at 945am (except on Easter Day and the first Sunday each month, when it is part of the regular 11am service). They also have a regular Wednesday lunch-time Communion.

One cannot help feeling that this (like Hinde Street) is very much in the spirit of Father Wesley himself...

[Overused]

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
If there is a reason for this subtle difference, of whether or not to count the Sundays, I don't know what it is. Any offers?
Sunday is always a feast of the resurrection - so gloomy litaniies in procession and such like are inappopriate.

The reference to litanies in procession, does not answer my question as to whether or not to count Sundays during seasons of 40 days.

Apart from that, I appreciate Lent for what it is, when it comes round each year, including litanies in procession (gloomy or otherwise). If such litanies (which do not have to been in procession) don't take place Sundays, it is difficult to plan them when most people can be there.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

I ought to add that Sundays in Lent have place for elements of joyfulness, to give recognition to the weekly feast of the Resurrection.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
If there is a reason for this subtle difference, of whether or not to count the Sundays, I don't know what it is. Any offers?
Sunday is always a feast of the resurrection - so gloomy litaniies in procession and such like are inappopriate.

I fail to see anything gloomy about the honest recognition of human need. Quite the reverse.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
....
Re 'High Church' Methodists, Wesley's Chapel in London has Communion every Sunday at 945am (except on Easter Day and the first Sunday each month, when it is part of the regular 11am service). They also have a regular Wednesday lunch-time Communion.

One cannot help feeling that this (like Hinde Street) is very much in the spirit of Father Wesley himself...

IJ

Yes. Just for interest, the Hinde St worship list is here. Communion twice most Sundays and thrice on Covenant Sunday and Easter Day. A splendid place. If we'd stayed in London I'd still be worshipping there, solid Anglican that I am.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Hinde St (West London Mission) has, or had when i worshipped there in the late 90s/ early 2000s, at least one Communion service every Sunday ('Lord Soper's service'- 1936 Order) and quite often (more often than not?) two. But then I understand that Hinde St is, or was, very High Church by Methodist standards.

I used to attend this church myself, once upon a time. It still offers a communion service, according to the website.

Putting to one side the issue of High Church influences, I imagine that more Methodist churches don't hold special communion service because the take-up would be poor. Most congregations simply don't have the manpower or the resources to maintain early morning or evening services that hardly anyone would attend.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Yes. Hinde St has a big congregation- well, two or three congregations, and a lot of staff.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Thinking of sacramental Methodists, I haven't seen seasick around here for a long time.

I hope he is all right. I miss him.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by bib:
We celebrate the Eucharist throughout Lent but not on Good Friday and then not again until Easter Sunday.

Yebbut. That is normal. It isn't remotely comparable to no Eucharist/Mass/Holy Communion/Holy Liturgy/Lord's Supper/Breaking of Bread/Holy Qurbana (choose preferred term) for the whole of Forty days and Forty nights.

As a fast, I agree with Graven Image. That's weird.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

No Mass/Eucharist (or by whatever name) on Good Friday, does not rule out communion from the presanctified and reserved sacrament consecrated on Maundy Thursday.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
If there is a reason for this subtle difference, of whether or not to count the Sundays, I don't know what it is. Any offers?

As I understand it, the reason for the difference is that originally the essence of Lent was a period of strict fasting, and fasting is not permitted on Sunday.

That said, how to count the 40 days of Lent is anything but straightforward

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
If there is a reason for this subtle difference, of whether or not to count the Sundays, I don't know what it is. Any offers?
As I understand it, the reason for the difference is that originally the essence of Lent was a period of strict fasting, and fasting is not permitted on Sunday.

That said, how to count the 40 days of Lent is anything but straightforward

Thank you for that Nick Tamen and I thought my consideration about whether or not to count the Sundays, had been overlooked.

Anything but straightforward for counting the 40 days of Lent - I disagree entirely! All you have to do is to consider that there are six weeks of six days each (not counting Sundays) in Lent (6x6=36 days); there are four more days to add on from Ash Wednesday to the Saturday {the day before the first Sunday in Lent, inclusive) (36+4=40 days).

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

The Orthodox have a different calculation. Lent starts on White Monday and does not include Holy Week.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
The Orthodox have a different calculation. Lent starts on White Monday and does not include Holy Week.

Our date of Easter sometimes coincides with the Eastern Orthodox and sometimes not. I will have to check this out in order to appreciate what you say about the differences between 'us' and 'them'.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Lent in the Ambrosian Rite begins on the first Sunday (there is no Ash Wednesday). Whether or not Sundays are counted as part of the 40 days I don't know, or if they don't worry about the number.

On Fridays in Lent there is no celebration of the eucharist.

Interessante, as they say in Milan.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
The Orthodox have a different calculation. Lent starts on White Monday and does not include Holy Week.
Our date of Easter sometimes coincides with the Eastern Orthodox and sometimes not.

The date of the Orthodox Easter is irrelevant. I was talking about how they calculate the previous forty days.

As Nick Tamen rightly said, the question is complex. The examples Angloid and I have given show that is the case from the varying ways it is calculated in different traditions.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

But the original question wasn't about how different ecclesial communities calculate Lent. It was on the idea of giving up Eucharist/Mass/Holy Communion/Holy Liturgy/Lord's Supper/Breaking of Bread/Holy Qurbana (choose preferred term) as one's discipline, one's way of keeping the fast for the whole period, however calculated.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Just so. It does seem a little odd for a church (such as the one in the OP) which has a tradition of weekly Eucharistic worship, to give that up for Lent.

OTOH, I can understand someone giving up Communion as a personal discipline - though that might be rather noticeable to others, and therefore not quite chiming in with Our Lord's instructions to keep one's fast secretly.

IJ

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
The Orthodox have a different calculation. Lent starts on White Monday and does not include Holy Week.
Our date of Easter sometimes coincides with the Eastern Orthodox and sometimes not.
The date of the Orthodox Easter is irrelevant. I was talking about how they calculate the previous forty days.

As Nick Tamen rightly said, the question is complex. The examples Angloid and I have given show that is the case from the varying ways it is calculated in different traditions.

venbede I take exception to the tone of your post and I won't be drawn. In any case, no junior hosting please.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
Anything but straightforward for counting the 40 days of Lent - I disagree entirely! All you have to do is to consider that there are six weeks of six days each (not counting Sundays) in Lent (6x6=36 days); there are four more days to add on from Ash Wednesday to the Saturday {the day before the first Sunday in Lent, inclusive) (36+4=40 days).

It's pretty straightforward for Anglicans and Protestants to count as you describe. But in the Roman Rite, Lent ends on the evening of Maundy/Holy Thursday, prior to the Mass of the Last Supper. The Triduum are not part of Lent. And relevant Roman rite documents are, as I understand it, inconsistent as to whether whether Lent formally starts on Ash Wednesday or, as in the Ambrosian Rite, the Sunday after.

Either way, it's hard to get a clean forty days. And the considerations of fasting on Sunday, and therefore considerations of whether Sunday's count in the forty days, predate the Reformation. Hence my statement that how to count the days is not straightforward. Indeed, one could wonder whether the Anglican/Protestant method of counting the days is a post hoc attempt to make the 40-day count fit.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
I take exception to the tone of your post and I won't be drawn. In any case, no junior hosting please.

In which case I do apologise, but I thought I was responding to your points.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
I take exception to the tone of your post and I won't be drawn. In any case, no junior hosting please.
In which case I do apologise, but I thought I was responding to your points.

Apology accepted. It was the way it came over rather than what was said.

The Orthodox method of calculating Lent and Easter, my interest is stimulated, but I have something new to learn here and I would welcome the opportunity to look into it more deeply.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
Anything but straightforward for counting the 40 days of Lent - I disagree entirely! All you have to do is to consider that there are six weeks of six days each (not counting Sundays) in Lent (6x6=36 days); there are four more days to add on from Ash Wednesday to the Saturday {the day before the first Sunday in Lent, inclusive) (36+4=40 days).
It's pretty straightforward for Anglicans and Protestants to count as you describe. But in the Roman Rite, Lent ends on the evening of Maundy/Holy Thursday, prior to the Mass of the Last Supper. The Triduum are not part of Lent. And relevant Roman rite documents are, as I understand it, inconsistent as to whether whether Lent formally starts on Ash Wednesday or, as in the Ambrosian Rite, the Sunday after.

Either way, it's hard to get a clean forty days. And the considerations of fasting on Sunday, and therefore considerations of whether Sunday's count in the forty days, predate the Reformation. Hence my statement that how to count the days is not straightforward. Indeed, one could wonder whether the Anglican/Protestant method of counting the days is a post hoc attempt to make the 40-day count fit.

I understood that Passiontide was part of Lent, and so, the triduum would seem to be part of Passiontide. I am open to correction here, if I need to be corrected.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
I understood that Passiontide was part of Lent, and so, the triduum would seem to be part of Passiontide. I am open to correction here, if I need to be corrected.

Per Universal Norms on the Liturgical Year and the General Roman Calendar (promulgated February 1969), ¶ 28: "The forty days of Lent run from Ash Wednesday up to but excluding the Mass of the Lord’s Supper exclusive."

Paschalis Sollemnitatis, ¶ 27: "The Lenten season lasts until the Thursday of this [Holy] week. The Easter Triduum begins with the evening Mass of the Lord's Supper, is continued through Good Friday with the celebration of the passion of the Lord and Holy Saturday, reaches its summit in the Easter Vigil, and concludes with Vespers of Easter Sunday."

Some sources will say that while the Triduum is not part of Lent, Friday and Saturday still count as two of the forty days of fasting.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

I cannot speak for rites apart from the Roman rite,but in these 1969 documents 'Passiontide' as such was suppressed.The Sunday before Easter,popularly called Palm Sunday was renamed as Passion Sunday.
The Easter Triduum begins with the Evening Mass of the Lord's Supper on Holy Thursday, reaches its high point at the Easter vigil on Holy Saturday and closes formally with Evening Prayer on Easter Sunday - 1.Thursday evening to Friday evenig 2.Friday evening to Saturday evening. 3.Saturday evening to Sunday evening.

Generally in the Roman rite Lent begins on Ash Wednesday.However Ash Wednesday is not a Holy day of Obligation and so one can say that Lent begins formally on the first Sunday in Lent.

(in Lent leaves it open as to whether it is 'of Lent')
Certainly Lent has been understood in many ways over the centuries.While based on the 40 days of fasting of Jesus,it can be understood in a number of different ways. Even the forty days can be seen as symbolic so I wouldn't bother too much about how or exactly why or indeed if there are exactly 40 days.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

Thanks Nick Tamen and Forthview for the information you supply. There is a lot to look through and I will have to leave it and come back to it.

For now, I am tempted to ask, When does Easter begin? I thought I knew the answer - at the Easter Vigil.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Although it is generally clear in the Roman rite that preparations for Easter should have been completed BEFORE the Evening Mass of the Lord's Supper e.g. confessions made if wanted or needed,as the Paschal Triduum should be seen as three parts of the one action,namely the commemoration of the Passion,the Death and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Liturgically the faithful leave the church after the Holy Thursday liturgy IN SILENCE and return the next day for the second act of the drama in silence.The same again after the Good Friday liturgy and the beginning of the Holy Saturday liturgy.
The liturgy of Holy Saturday has now from the very beginning a festal character BUT it is a restrained festal character until the Gloria of the first Mass of the Resurrection.

We may say,if we wish ,that the period of Lent finishes before the beginning of the Paschal Triduum,but Good Friday remains still a day of fasting and abstinence.

The liturgy post Vatican 2 tries to remind us that everything is actually interconnected and every individual liturgical act is part of a whole.

Easter is a time of new life - resurrection,baptism,confirmation ,communion ,thanksgiving for the wonderful mystery of the eucharist and not arguing about the precise meaning of transubstantiation.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Although it is generally clear in the Roman rite that preparations for Easter should have been completed BEFORE the Evening Mass of the Lord's Supper e.g. confessions made if wanted or needed,as the Paschal Triduum should be seen as three parts of the one action,namely the commemoration of the Passion,the Death and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Liturgically the faithful leave the church after the Holy Thursday liturgy IN SILENCE and return the next day for the second act of the drama in silence.The same again after the Good Friday liturgy and the beginning of the Holy Saturday liturgy.

The silence is very necessary. The Maundy Thursday service does not end with a procession but with the stripping of the altar and the removal of any unnecessary items from the sanctuary - cushions, loose chairs, hassocks, paraments and so forth. As the Good Friday Eucharist is a continuation of that of Maundy Thursday evening, the bell is not rung at the commencment of the service, and there is no procession at the beginning - the clergy simply come in, almost casually, from the vestry door.

[ 24. February 2017, 05:11: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
As the Good Friday Eucharist is a continuation of that of Maundy Thursday evening, the bell is not rung at the commencment of the service, and there is no procession at the beginning - the clergy simply come in, almost casually, from the vestry door.

In their black cassocks -- no vestments -- and prostrate themselves on the floor. The Good Friday liturgy is the most moving of the entire year, when it's done properly, including the chanting of the Passion including the "weeping tone.". [Too many YouTube links to pick one.]

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

I am well versed in the Easter Triduum liturgical practices you mention and for Easter Sunday itself.

But what I cannot get my head round is the idea that there is a "neutral" part of Holy Week, neither Lent or Easter.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
As the Good Friday Eucharist is a continuation of that of Maundy Thursday evening, the bell is not rung at the commencment of the service, and there is no procession at the beginning - the clergy simply come in, almost casually, from the vestry door.
In their black cassocks -- no vestments -- and prostrate themselves on the floor. The Good Friday liturgy is the most moving of the entire year, when it's done properly, including the chanting of the Passion including the "weeping tone.". [Too many YouTube links to pick one.]

THE Liturgy of Good Friday has red vestments.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Although it is generally clear in the Roman rite that preparations for Easter should have been completed BEFORE the Evening Mass of the Lord's Supper e.g. confessions made if wanted or needed,as the Paschal Triduum should be seen as three parts of the one action,namely the commemoration of the Passion,the Death and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Liturgically the faithful leave the church after the Holy Thursday liturgy IN SILENCE and return the next day for the second act of the drama in silence.The same again after the Good Friday liturgy and the beginning of the Holy Saturday liturgy.
The silence is very necessary. The Maundy Thursday service does not end with a procession but with the stripping of the altar and the removal of any unnecessary items from the sanctuary - cushions, loose chairs, hassocks, paraments and so forth.

Stripping ceased to be part of the liturgy in 1967

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
But what I cannot get my head round is the idea that there is a "neutral" part of Holy Week, neither Lent or Easter.

I'm not sure I'd call the Triduum "neutral." Under the Lent-ends-on-Thursday model, there's Lent (preparation), and the Triduum (what the preparation has been for), with the Easter Vigil being the climax of the Triduum. The Triduum is, as illustrated by the posts above, properly thought of as a single commemoration that spans three days, each of which has its own focus and mood.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Stripping ceased to be part of the liturgy in 1967

Normally Leo, I'd defer to your greater knowledge of these things, but, having experienced it much more recently, I was fairly sure that was wrong. I've checked and indeed it is provided for as an optional ('may') on page 303 of Times and Seasons. So that cannot be the case.

Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Stripping ceased to be part of the liturgy in 1967
Normally Leo, I'd defer to your greater knowledge of these things, but, having experienced it much more recently, I was fairly sure that was wrong. I've checked and indeed it is provided for as an optional ('may') on page 303 of Times and Seasons. So that cannot be the case.

It's still expected in the Roman Missal too.

(In the copy I have to hand...) At the end of the Liturgy of Mass of the Lord's Supper, under the heading 'The Transfer of the Most Blessed Sacrament', one of the instructions is 'the altar is stripped and, if possible, the crosses are removed from the church'.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Liturgically the faithful leave the church after the Holy Thursday liturgy IN SILENCE and return the next day for the second act of the drama in silence.The same again after the Good Friday liturgy and the beginning of the Holy Saturday liturgy.

I have always loved the space between Holy Thursday and Good Friday, and I think that the absence of a dismissal is key. Even as I drive home from church, wake up the next morning, and go to work for a few hours, I am keenly aware that I am in the middle of something really important.

The space between Good Friday and Holy Saturday? Not so much. High stress choir rehearsal in the morning with lots of "Alleluias," rush to get everything ready for the next day in the afternoon, it's easy to lose track of where you are.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Stripping ceased to be part of the liturgy in 1967
Normally Leo, I'd defer to your greater knowledge of these things, but, having experienced it much more recently, I was fairly sure that was wrong. I've checked and indeed it is provided for as an optional ('may') on page 303 of Times and Seasons. So that cannot be the case.

That may be the case in the C of E, but it remains a common practice here outside of Sydney.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

The forty days of Lent do not include the Sundays that are in Lent. Sundays are each considered a "little Easter." As such, it is right and proper to have communion on Sunday.

[ 24. February 2017, 23:31: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Lent does begin on Ash Wednesday and it also goes to Maunday Thursday. Not counting the Sundays in Lent, that gives you forty days.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Lent does begin on Ash Wednesday and it also goes to Maunday Thursday. Not counting the Sundays in Lent, that gives you forty days.

No, I'm afraid it doesn't. Ash Wednesday to Maundy Thursday is 44 days. Remove the six Sundays and you have 38 days. To get exactly 40 days, you have to (1) exclude Sundays and (2) include Good Friday and Holy Saturday.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

You are right, I was misinformed. Black (Good) Friday and Holy Saturday (Easter Vigil) should also be included.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Stripping ceased to be part of the liturgy in 1967

Indeed in the Roman rite, but all the C of E seasonal additions suggest the stripping of the altar in view of the congregation.

It sounded a lovely idea to me until I’d experienced it. All that furniture removal is very noisy and distracting particularly when accompanied by Psalm 22 being belted out to amateur Anglican chant.

I’d far rather the service ended with silent prayer before the reserved sacrament.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

I have experienced that stripping of the altar done well and it's really moving.

The church where I've seen it does a certain amount of preparation to minimise the stripping to the candles, altar cloths and closing the reredos doors. Above the altar there's a triptych of scenes of the life of Christ, the outer two panels becoming the doors with plain backs.

Part of the preparation for the stripping is removing a few bits from the triptych before it can be closed safely. But that's done during the day on Maundy Thursday at the same time that the Garden of Repose is built in the Lady Chapel, where the vigil is held, with Compline at midnight.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

We do the stripping and furniture removal as quietly as possible during the first part of the Watch, but it's difficult to maintain complete silence.

IMHO, given the small numbers we have attending on Maundy Thursday (less than a dozen last year!), it would be better to have a short, silent Watch before the Blessed Sacrament, and to clear the decks the next morning in good time for the Liturgy of the Cross.

IJ

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
But what I cannot get my head round is the idea that there is a "neutral" part of Holy Week, neither Lent or Easter.
I'm not sure I'd call the Triduum "neutral." Under the Lent-ends-on-Thursday model, there's Lent (preparation), and the Triduum (what the preparation has been for), with the Easter Vigil being the climax of the Triduum. The Triduum is, as illustrated by the posts above, properly thought of as a single commemoration that spans three days, each of which has its own focus and mood.

Neither would I call the Triduum "neutral"; hence the inverted commas. My problem based on the information supplied on this thread, is that if Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and Holy Saturday are not that part of Lent within Holy Week; and Easter has not yet begun, then in what season of the Church's year, are those three days? I was not brought up that way. But I appreciate the different significances for each of those three days.

Hearing from Leo that the stripping of the altars (and other church furnishings) on Maundy Thursday, was abolished in 1967; that is not my experience. Where I continue to experience the Maundy Thursday Liturgy, that part of the ceremonial is still very much a feature.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
My problem based on the information supplied on this thread, is that if Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and Holy Saturday are not that part of Lent within Holy Week; and Easter has not yet begun, then in what season of the Church's year, are those three days?

They are part of the Triduum, which is a thing unto itself, and is, as it were, the hinge on which the seasons of Lent and Easter turn. That said, they are also still part of Holy Week, which overlaps Lent and the Triduum.

In the Lent-ends-on-Maundy-Thursday model, most of Maundy Thursday is part of Lent. Lent is understood to end at sundown on Maundy Thursday or just prior to the Mass of the Lord's Supper, take your pick. From Thursday evening on to Sunday evening, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, Holy Saturday and Easter Day make up the Triduum, which are seen as a marking and inviting participation in a single thing—the Paschal Mystery. The Last Supper, the passion, the crucifixion, the burial and the Resurrection are all parts of or stages in that single Paschal Mystery.

In this understanding, Lent is not a time of preparation for Easter, nor are Maundy Thursday and Good Friday seen as part of preparing for Easter. Rather, Lent is a time of preparation for the Triduum, for preparing ourselves to die and to rise with Christ. It is a time of preparation for participation in the Paschal Mystery, of which Easter—and the Easter Vigil, specifically—is the climax, but of which the evening of Maundy Thursday and Good Friday are also part.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I am reading John Wilkinson’s edition of Egeria’s travels and he has a relevant note on the calculation of Lent. Although it was called “The Forty Days” it was calculated differently in different places. Wilkinson says “””The Forty Days” was … therefore only an approximate description of the number of fasting days in the period, or, for that matter, of the days given to catechetical instruction before Lent”.

He also notes that according to Socrates, Rome was only keeping a three week Lent in the early 400s.

Posted by Ondergard (# 9324) on :

Speaking as a Methodist Superintendent minister (for the Anglicans amongst us, who cannot relate to anything but their own polity, a Superintendent looks to be on the same level as a Rural or Area Dean, but I am reliably informed that in actual fact if one were to be accurate in interdenominational equivalence it would be closer to Bishop - although, of course, you don't think we are ordained at all, so that's probably irrelevant) perhaps I ought to remind you that whilst we have our sacramentalists in the Methodist Sacramental Fellowship, and Brother Wesley instructed Methodists to take Holy Communion as often as possible, we also have intertwined with Wesleyanism our United Methodist and Primitive Methodist strands.
Most Methodist lay people hold the sacrament in great reverence, but are very pragmatic about its frequency... in practice, the vast majority of Methodist Churches and congregations find once a month to be quite enough.
When it is celebrated, however, it is done properly and almost always when held in the morning (for the last forty years at any rate) as the main service of worship, not as a separate entity.
Of course, what constitutes "properly" may vary depending on the celebrant. Personally, I always use a properly constructed liturgy which I read (not always from the MWB, but usually) but some of my colleagues prefer a looser, more ad lib - though still structured - liturgy.
To give up Communion for Lent, therefore, is actually no great hardship for the vast majority of Methodists, since most of us are not anything like as sacramental as our Anglican friends... but please do not make the mistake of thinking that situation pertains because we don't care about Communion: quite the reverse, we care very deeply, so deeply in fact that for some to celebrate Communion more frequently would be seen as taking the sacrament for granted, because for some, infrequency denotes more, not less, reverence.
However, it is true to say that for the most part (again, excluding brethren and sisters in the MSF) we are not fussed by what people wear or how the Communion Table or Church is decorated, provide that due decorum abounds and respect is shown to the service.... and most of us give the remaining bread to the birds, with reverence and blessing.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Of course before the C20, infrequent communion after intense preparation was the rule rather than the exception not only for protestants, but –despite frequent non- communicating mass attendance – most lay Roman Catholics and Orthodox.

John Wesley, Calvin, Thérèse of Liséux and I would disagree with the practice.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
[QB
But surely there is a long established Protestant tradition of infrequent communion[/QB]

For the Brethren (in which I was raised) The Lord's Supper is the most important worship assembly of the week and would be foregone on no Sunday.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
For the Brethren (in which I was raised) The Lord's Supper is the most important worship assembly of the week and would be foregone on no Sunday.

I think the Brethren get that one right.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

And good on the Brethren. I think I said "most Protestants".

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

So is the theological preference here that churches should offer communion frequently, or that Christians should take communion frequently? These seem to be two different things.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Again I'm not too sure about the meanings of the words which Svitlana uses.
Certainly in the Roman rite Communion is indeed OFFERED to the intending communicant with the words 'The Body of Christ' to which the communicant gives assent by saying 'Amen'. That is why in the Catholic Church people generally talk about 'receiving' Communion rather than 'taking' Communion.

However Svitlana may be using the word 'communion' to refer to the whole rite of the eucharist. Catholics talk about Mass being OFFERED. In that expression it is meant that the Body and Blood of Christ (under the outward signs of bread and wine) are offered to God re-presenting to us here and now the one
propitiatory sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

Certainly in the past the Catholic Church placed an undue emphasis on the sacrificial element of the eucharist,but this has been slowly remedied over the last 150 years.

Of course I may have completely misunderstood what it was that Svitlana was meaning to say.
I have never heard of 'offering communion' except in the first explanation that I gave earlier.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
So is the theological preference here that churches should offer communion frequently, or that Christians should take communion frequently? These seem to be two different things.

In my tribe, at least, they aren't really two different things. There certainly may be those who refrain on specific occasions for one reason or another (as per some posts above), but the expectation is that people commune at every celebration, and that those celebrations will be frequent. (Every Sunday is presented as the norm, but monthly is in practice the norm in most places.)

[ 26. February 2017, 14:19: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
My problem based on the information supplied on this thread, is that if Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and Holy Saturday are not that part of Lent within Holy Week; and Easter has not yet begun, then in what season of the Church's year, are those three days?
They are part of the Triduum, which is a thing unto itself, and is, as it were, the hinge on which the seasons of Lent and Easter turn. That said, they are also still part of Holy Week, which overlaps Lent and the Triduum.

In the Lent-ends-on-Maundy-Thursday model, most of Maundy Thursday is part of Lent. Lent is understood to end at sundown on Maundy Thursday or just prior to the Mass of the Lord's Supper, take your pick. From Thursday evening on to Sunday evening, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, Holy Saturday and Easter Day make up the Triduum, which are seen as a marking and inviting participation in a single thing—the Paschal Mystery. The Last Supper, the passion, the crucifixion, the burial and the Resurrection are all parts of or stages in that single Paschal Mystery.

In this understanding, Lent is not a time of preparation for Easter, nor are Maundy Thursday and Good Friday seen as part of preparing for Easter. Rather, Lent is a time of preparation for the Triduum, for preparing ourselves to die and to rise with Christ. It is a time of preparation for participation in the Paschal Mystery, of which Easter—and the Easter Vigil, specifically—is the climax, but of which the evening of Maundy Thursday and Good Friday are also part.

Thanks Nick Tamen. As one who was brought up to believe that Lent ends on Holy Saturday, this is of some help.

An on-line dictionary defines Triduum "A series of special religious observances over a three-day period, in preparation for a great feast."

I appreciate that the Easter Vigil is the most important service of the year, bringing the Triduum to a climax, ending with Evening Prayer on Easter Day.

We see from above (from Latin 'tri' means 'three'). But by counting Easter Sunday, as well as Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and Holy Saturday, makes it over FOUR days, which would seem to contradict the meaning of TRIDUUM.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
We see from above (from Latin 'tri' means 'three'). But by counting Easter Sunday, as well as Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and Holy Saturday, makes it over FOUR days, which would seem to contradict the meaning of TRIDUUM.

Not if the days are counted in the Jewish manner, as is frequently done in matters liturgical. The Triduum begins at sundown on Maundy Thursday. Sundown Thursday to sundown Friday is one day; sundown Friday to sundown Saturday is two days: and sundown Saturday to sundown Sunday is three days.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Forthview

My faith environment has mostly been a very 'low' one, so I'm unaccustomed to the nuances of terminology and theology that exist in the RCC and other high church sacramentalist settings.

British Methodism, which is what I know best, doesn't often refer to 'the Eucharist', and any distinction between the Eucharist and Communion isn't made very clear. For me, the latter simply refers to the ritual involving the sharing of bread and wine, and the liturgy that accompanies this.

To be clear, then, by 'offering' I referred to a church institution performing this public ritual. By 'taking' I referred to individual Christians choosing to participate in the ritual.

I made the distinction because even the CofE doesn't offer/perform this ritual at every one of its services - Evensong, for example. And the CofE's very vague concept of belonging makes it somewhat inconsistent to emphasise the 'taking' of weekly communion as essential. Even its evangelistic endevours don't seem to emphasise this. Nevertheless, communion is 'offered' every week to those who wish to participate.

[ 26. February 2017, 15:08: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Svitlana, there is no difference between Eucharist and Communion. They are different words used by different traditions and often by different people or even the same people within the same traditions to describe the same thing, as are the Mass, Holy Liturgy, Lord's Supper, Breaking of Bread, Holy Qurbana and doubtless other terms.

I am, though, sure that there will be people who will take offence at my saying this. Some may just glower to themselves. Others may perhaps be happy to explain why they think that is a gross over-simplification and a calumny on their deepest understanding of these things.

Which term a person uses, though, is often a badge which he or she will use to express where they place themselves on various ecclesiastical spectra. Even how a person pronounces the 'a' in Mass can be used as a marker.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Thankyou,Svitlana, for your explanation to me.
As I often say,the one word can mean different things to different people.Sometimes when we disagree or fail to understand what another person is saying,it is because we understand the meaning of a word in a different way from the person who first used it.

I had a salutary lesson once in my loose use of the word 'reformed' in a religious context.Naively I thought that it referred to all Protestants. I learned otherwise.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Baptists in general would be even "lower" than the Methodists and would very rarely use he word "Eucharist". Even "Communion" is perhaps less-used than "the Lord's Table" or "Breaking of Bread" - the latter of course being by far the preferred terminology of the Brethren.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
We see from above (from Latin 'tri' means 'three'). But by counting Easter Sunday, as well as Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and Holy Saturday, makes it over FOUR days, which would seem to contradict the meaning of TRIDUUM.
Not if the days are counted in the Jewish manner, as is frequently done in matters liturgical. The Triduum begins at sundown on Maundy Thursday. Sundown Thursday to sundown Friday is one day; sundown Friday to sundown Saturday is two days: and sundown Saturday to sundown Sunday is three days.

OK I never thought of it like that.

Posted by Hilda of Whitby (# 7341) on :

I have to say that I am absolutely stunned that the OP's church is doing such a thing. I have never heard of this before, anywhere. I really would like to hear the pastor's justification for this--was a justification given to the congregation?

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

A very valid point (and it's good to return to the subject of the OP).

In the C of E, any major change to the regular service pattern would have to be agreed between the incumbent and the Parochial Church Council, and, unless they all had a death-wish, by prior consultation with the congregation. The Methodist Church obviously has a different polity, but it would be interesting to learn of the reaction of the congregation concerned, clearly used to regular Eucharistic worship.

IJ

Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on :

It has not been announced yet, stay tuned until after next Sunday.

[ 28. February 2017, 18:18: Message edited by: Graven Image ]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Without wishing to cast nasturtiums on those concerned, that does seem to be leaving it a bit late...especially if there might be objections to the idea!

[Help]

Posted by Hilda of Whitby (# 7341) on :

Not wishing to come off as "all must do as I would do", but I would vote with my feet (at least for the duration of Lent) if a church I attended implemented or even suggested such a misguided and just plain bizarre Lenten practice.

Graven Image, do let us know what the "rationale" for this is, when you all find out.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

The average British Methodist church would only celebrate communion on at most two occasions during Lent. Of course, even one communion service is important, but I think a Methodist congregation would be less unnerved by postponing the ritual than an Anglican one would, simply because the latter would presumably be used to having it every week. Its absence would be more noticeable.

What I hope is that the congregation mentioned in the OP is engaging in other rituals that promote reflection and prayer, and not plugging the gap caused by the absence of communion with frivolous things.

Also, as much as I love hymns I'd rather not spend that extra time singing more of them (and I think this would be a temptation for the Methodists!). There needs to be more quietness in church, and I appreciate the calming space that communion provides. IMO Lent should generate more of that calming space than usual, not less.

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
As for Graven Image's Methodist church - perhaps the intention is good, but the Sundays between Ash Wednesday and Easter Sunday are not in Lent.

Well, that's not entirely true. While the rules of Lent don't apply on those Sundays, they are still part of Lent. Their names are also First Sunday of Lent, Second Sunday of Lent, etc.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I have to say when I saw the OP I was not struck by leaving off a Sunday eucharist, but at the thought of Methodists having a eucharist as their main service every Sunday.

It's Methodism, Jim, (I thought,) but not Methodism as we know it.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Remember that American Methodism (the United Methodist Church) is a completely separate from the British variety. The most obvious difference is that the former has bishops, while the latter doesn't. Maybe this indicates that the UMC is likely to be a more sacramental institution in general.

It's a shame that, AFAIK, we don't have anyone on the Ship who has experience of both denominations. The grassroots differences (as opposed to the historical ones) would be particularly interesting to hear about.

[ 02. March 2017, 20:06: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
As for Graven Image's Methodist church - perhaps the intention is good, but the Sundays between Ash Wednesday and Easter Sunday are not in Lent.
Well, that's not entirely true. While the rules of Lent don't apply on those Sundays, they are still part of Lent. Their names are also First Sunday of Lent, Second Sunday of Lent, etc.

Yes, they are the Sundays of Lent, not in Lent. You don't get your 40 days and 40 nights if you count the Sundays.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
If there is a reason for this subtle difference, of whether or not to count the Sundays, I don't know what it is. Any offers?
As I understand it, the reason for the difference is that originally the essence of Lent was a period of strict fasting, and fasting is not permitted on Sunday.

That said, how to count the 40 days of Lent is anything but straightforward

That's right. Fasting is canonically forbidden on Sundays (with the exception of the Communion fast being understood).

Even in the Byzantine Rite, where fasting is uncommon but the Lenten rule of abstinence is quite severe, the abstinence rule is relaxed on Sundays, (and Saturdays, for that matter).

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's a shame that, AFAIK, we don't have anyone on the Ship who has experience of both denominations. The grassroots differences (as opposed to the historical ones) would be particularly interesting to hear about.

I'm fairly sure that we do. I'll send a PM and see what happens.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

Thanks to the Scrumpmeister for summoning me from the depths [Razz]

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Remember that American Methodism (the United Methodist Church) is a completely separate from the British variety. The most obvious difference is that the former has bishops, while the latter doesn't. Maybe this indicates that the UMC is likely to be a more sacramental institution in general.

It's a shame that, AFAIK, we don't have anyone on the Ship who has experience of both denominations. The grassroots differences (as opposed to the historical ones) would be particularly interesting to hear about.

I'm a British Methodist Minister who spent a year of my training at seminary in the US (in Atlanta, GA). The UMC and the Methodist Church in Britain are certainly very different animals. However, I wouldn't say that the UMC is more sacramental, but it is certainly much more comfortable with the outward trappings of liturgical worship. So in a UMC cassocks and surplices, acolytes with candles, coloured hangings, processions and so on are quite unremarkable whereas in Britain such things would cause comment. As for the frequency of communion, the seminary I was at had a nearly daily Eucharist (Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday - students weren't in at the weekend or on Mondays), while the church I was attached to celebrated it once a month. I think in the UMC a weekly Eucharist as the principal act of worship is still uncommon and would be a mark of being 'high church' and I think it is unheard of in British Methodism. There are a few British Methodist churches that do have a Eucharist every Sunday but they tend to have a pattern of a monthly celebration in the principal service and then an early or late celebration on other Sundays.

HTH. Happy to answer other questions as I'm able.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Thinking of sacramental Methodists, I haven't seen seasick around here for a long time.

I hope he is all right. I miss him.

Glad to see you here, seasick.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

Thanks [Smile]

I still lurk a bit. Doing ok but a lot of Real Life™ to contend with...

Anyway back to your regularly scheduled discussion!

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
As for Graven Image's Methodist church - perhaps the intention is good, but the Sundays between Ash Wednesday and Easter Sunday are not in Lent.
Well, that's not entirely true. While the rules of Lent don't apply on those Sundays, they are still part of Lent. Their names are also First Sunday of Lent, Second Sunday of Lent, etc.
Yes, they are the Sundays of Lent, not in Lent. You don't get your 40 days and 40 nights if you count the Sundays.

And what does 'of Lent' mean that 'in Lent' doesn't? And the fourty days is, and always has been, somewhat flexible. If you remove the sundays, you will end up with 37 or 38 days. The last day of Lent is Wednesday of Holy Week or Maundry Thursday.

[ 03. March 2017, 11:30: Message edited by: k-mann ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I'd have thought the last day of Lent was the Saturday.

6 weeks of 6 days (Monday-Easter Saturday) = 36 plus the extra days between Ash Wednesday and the first Saturday in Lent (does that have a name), which is another 4 days.

The whole point is that Lent is supposed to be a fast, and one doesn't fast on a Sunday.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

seasick

Thank you for your response.

My feeling is that denominations develop to fill the niche that's available to them depending on the context. So perhaps in many American communities the UMC is the liturgical choice for Protestants, especially if TEC or Lutherans are unavailable? In England, by contrast, the CofE is almost always the local denomination that serves this purpose.

The UMC also has to distinguish itself from the many evangelical contemporary worship services that America provides. In more secular England this isn't a concern that most Methodist churches have.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

Absolutely - the UMC is of course much larger than TEC or the Lutheran denominations so I think it has a confidence not found in the Methodist Church in Britain which always seems to be looking over its shoulder at the Church of England.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'd have thought the last day of Lent was the Saturday.

6 weeks of 6 days (Monday-Easter Saturday) = 36 plus the extra days between Ash Wednesday and the first Saturday in Lent (does that have a name), which is another 4 days.

This has already been discussed a fair amount in this thread. Short recap: In some liturgical traditions, including the Roman Rite, Lent ends at sundown on Maundy Thursday. Lent, in those traditions, is not a period of preparation for Easter, but rather a period of preparation for the Triduum, the celebration of the paschal mystery that includes the crucifixion and the resurrection.

As noted in the previous posts on this, adherence to an actual 40 days of Lent isn't always seen as necessary.

[ 03. March 2017, 19:06: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
My feeling is that denominations develop to fill the niche that's available to them depending on the context. So perhaps in many American communities the UMC is the liturgical choice for Protestants, especially if TEC or Lutherans are unavailable?

Not really, at least in my experience. It seems to be more that the UMC is often a middle ground between non-liturgical and more liturgical denominations. I had one Methodist friend who would quip that the UMC was made up of Baptists who never could quite decide if they wanted to be Anglican or not.

Many from the further ends of the liturgical spectrum find the UMC to be a middle ground. For example, my Presbyterian sister and her Baptist husband considered the UMC a compromise. (Yes, I said Presbyterian, not Episcopalian or Lutheran.)

It may also depend on what is meant by "liturgical." Yes, UMC churches (again in my experience) typically do not bat an eye at vestments, candles, acolytes, hangings and use of liturgical colors, etc. In that sense, they may be seen as "liturgical."

But when it comes to the liturgy itself—the actual order and words of the service—UMC congregations may or may not be liturgical. Some are pretty close to Baptists in how they worship, others follow much more formal liturgy. Again in my experience, in this regard UMC congregations often fall between Baptists on one end and Episcopalians, Lutherans and even Presbyterians on the other end. There are notable exceptions, of course.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I did say that it depends on the context. So in a particular community there may well be a niche for a Methodist church that sits between the Baptists and the Presbyterians, but in another, the Methodists might have reason to do things differently.

Indeed, I'd expect the American UMC to be a more diverse institution than the British Methodist Church, since the former exists in a much more diverse national religious environment.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

Yes, you did say context matters, and you're right about that. You're also right about the UMC being diverse. But I'm not sure those things play out in quite the way you seem to be thinking.

I think it's fairly safe to say that the more liturgical UMC churches tend to be in more urban areas or near academic settings—places where there typically are more liturgical alternatives, like Lutherans or Episcopalians.

In more rural areas, where Lutheran or Episcopal options might be harder to come by (though not necessarily), my experience is that UMC churches are usually less liturgical. Again, they may have candles, acolytes, hangings and the like, and they'll follow the liturgical year up to a point, but there's not much fuss about them, and the service itself isn't particularly liturgical.

So it's not really a filling a niche difference, but rather it's often more of an urban-rural difference.

[ 04. March 2017, 00:48: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

FWIW, I imagine that for many ordinary Methodist laymen who would just like a good dose of ceremony in their worship, the intricacies of Presbyterian (etc.) liturgical life and thinking aren't that important. Most of these people have never had extensive experience of Presbyterianism (or of Anglicanism in Britain), so their aim wouldn't be to transfer everything slavishly from one denomination to the other.

More interesting is your idea that some places provide very little niche demand for high church forms of Christian practice. In England too I understand (from the Ship) that in a few areas low evangelical churches are dominant. The odd local person who wants quality high church worship therefore has to travel a considerable distance. I think this will happen more often in future.

Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on :

Nick Taman wrote.

quote:
In more rural areas, where Lutheran or Episcopal options might be harder to come by (though not necessarily), my experience is that UMC churches are usually less liturgical. Again, they may have candles, acolytes, hangings and the like, and they'll follow the liturgical year up to a point, but there's not much fuss about them, and the service itself isn't particularly liturgical.

Right on, The church in question is in a rural area. Communion is every Sunday but with very little fuss. Sermon is based on one verse read from Common Lectionary but not always. No vestments, some times candles sometimes not. Christmas hymns are sung during Advent.

Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on :

The following was announced in church this morning.
" This year during the season of Lent, in memory of Christ's response to temptation, "Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God" Matthew 4:4 we will fast from sharing the bread and cup during worship. We will share communion again on Easter Sunday.

As far as I could tell there was no reaction of any kind to this announcement. The service was about as long as usual with added song, longer sermon, and longer more formal prayers of the people.

As I just started attending this church as an Episcopalian because there is no TEC near by my rural area home and driving has become difficult for me on mountain roads I shall attempt to make the drive several times out of the area to receive at an Episcopal church during Lent.

Posted by Hilda of Whitby (# 7341) on :

Thanks for the update, Graven Image.

I think that is a most unfortunate decision by the pastor and I do not understand the logic one whit. This is the bread of life that you all are being denied. As an Episcopalian myself, in your shoes I too would go elsewhere to receive communion during Lent. I'm sorry that it is difficult for you to get to the closest Episcopal church and I commend your determination to get there. It's really admirable.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

I wonder if the apparent lack of reaction is due to this being an annual 'tradition' at this church, screwy though it seems.

If man is not to live by bread alone, he nevertheless needs to heed the words that proceed from the mouth of God - 'Do this in remembrance of Me'!

IJ

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
I wonder if the apparent lack of reaction is due to this being an annual 'tradition' at this church, screwy though it seems.

If man is not to live by bread alone, he nevertheless needs to heed the words that proceed from the mouth of God - 'Do this in remembrance of Me'!

IJ

I don't think one really needs to be quite as sneering as you are above - the church is not talking about giving up the eucharist altogether, just not as regularly as in ordinary time. You may indeed not like it and given the opportunity you may indeed want to go elsewhere.

But the fact remains that there are traditions where the practice only occurs a few times a year, and this was fairly common 50-100 years ago. Around the reformation, many Roman Catholics only took the Eucharist once a year. I don't think the regular pattern of the Eucharist in Anglican circles goes back particularly far.

Anyway, one can wonder at other people's practice without getting quite so squiffy about it. If you don't like it, don't attend (and/or look at) that church.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

I was not intending to be either 'sneering' or 'squiffy'.

I really think your Irony-o-Meter might need recalibrating.

IJ

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
I was not intending to be either 'sneering' or 'squiffy'.

I really think your Irony-o-Meter might need recalibrating.

IJ

Sorry, but as someone who doesn't feel the need to partake in the Eucharist as often as you do (apparently), I feel it was. Nothing you said could be taken as ironic.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

QED

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I know what irony is, BF.

Pointedly talking about doing something "in remembrance of me" with reference to a church which isn't practicing the Eucharist for 6 weeks during Lent isn't irony.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Well, I'm not going to labour the point, but I'd appreciate it if you would kindly apologise for speculating about how often I receive Communion.

It's none of your business.

Thank you.

IJ

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I didn't speculate on anything. I said apparently because you described someone else's practice as "screwy" and alluded to them not taking seriously the words which proceed from the mouth of God.

I think it is absolutely reasonable to commiserate with someone who feels their church is not meeting their needs. I do not think it is reasonable to use the words that you have.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

'as someone who doesn't feel the need to partake in the Eucharist as often as you do (apparently)' sounds rather to me like speculation....

Once again, QED.

BTW, are you getting me mixed up with Graven Image? I'm not the one attending this church, and who has decided to go elsewhere to receive Communion during Lent. I wholly commiserate with GI, and would probably do the same in their place.

IJ

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Not at all, given that you appear to be concerned about "giving up Jesus" for Lent, it stands to reason that you think it is important to engage with the Eucharist during Lent. Which is more than the church in question is doing, and as it happens more than I'm doing. If you are taking the Eucharist more than zero times you're taking it more than both the church in question and me during Lent.

I have no problem with anyone deciding to take the Eucharist any frequency. And I understand the problems that the OP is having. I'm not objecting to this discussion, just the way you are phrasing your objections.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Well, we shall have to agree to differ.

As it happens, I do think that, for me, it is important to receive Communion weekly, especially after more than a year of illness, during which, at times, I was unable to receive Communion at all.

IJ

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

One does not have to receive communion every time one attends a Communion service (by whatever name).

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

That's true, of course, but the point of this thread AIUI is that, in the case of the OPer's church, no-one is being given the opportunity to receive Communion during Lent.

That's what I find strange, given the church's regular weekly Eucharist-centred worship.

IJ

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'd have thought the last day of Lent was the Saturday.

The Paschal Triduum is not part of Lent, even though you are supposed to fast on Good Friday.

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The whole point is that Lent is supposed to be a fast, and one doesn't fast on a Sunday.

Yes, but the name of the days are still "First Sunday of Lent," "Second Sunday of Lent," "Third Sunday of Lent," etc. In the Roman Catholic Church you are also free from the rules of fasting throughout the whole of Lent, except Ash Wednesday (when you are supposed to fast and abstain from meat), fridays (when you are supposed to abstain from meat), and Good Friday (when you are supposed to fast and abstain from meat). The remaining 37 days (approximately) are still part of Lent.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
That's true, of course, but the point of this thread AIUI is that, in the case of the OPer's church, no-one is being given the opportunity to receive Communion during Lent.

IJ

That's if one confines oneself to the same church place of worship.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Quite so - which is doubtless why the OPer is going elsewhere during Lent.

Am I missing something, somewhere?

IJ [Confused]

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Graven Image:
The following was announced in church this morning.
" This year during the season of Lent, in memory of Christ's response to temptation, "Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God" Matthew 4:4

As an Anglican it is not for me to say how Methodists should worship. I can understand if they delayed communion so they could appreciate it more at Easter.

Instead the Minister seems to exemplify the (typically protestant and Enlightenment) view that words (here the sermon) are more significant than actions (here the eucharist), symbols or images.

I don’t agree with that attitude ( words and ritual go together and words can be very misleading) and insofar as I can understand Jacques Derrida, neither did he.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

I tried to make that point (sort of) quite a few posts ago, but was accused of 'sneering' and being 'squiffy' (which may or may not be true. YMMV.)

I think venbede has said it perhaps rather more felicitously than I!

Agreed, too, that it's not for us Anglicans to comment too much on how Methodists worship, but the OP, by its very existence, does rather put discussion into the public domain.

IJ

Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on :

I want to say that my intent with this post was not to criticize the Methodist worship, but to inquire if others had this experience and how if in any way it helped them spiritually, during Lent. As an Episcopalian I certainly do not expect the Methodists to conform their worship to my wants or needs.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0