quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:
The new vicar has a degree of freedom, but there are also limits which are set out in the Canons of the Church of England. Section B pertains to worship, and make it clear that in some things the PCC also has a say. One omission appears to be in relation to the time of services.

---

quote:

---

Decisions as to which of the forms of service authorized by Canon B 1, other than the services known as occasional offices, are to be used in any church in a parish or in any guild church shall be taken jointly by the minister and the parochial church council or, as the case may be, by the vicar of the guild church and the guild church council. In this Canon 'church' includes any building or part of a building licensed by the bishop for public worship according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Puzzler:
Greetings! and newbie alert.

Recently a new vicar has been appointed to our church ( C of E ). He was quick to tell both the PCC and the ( paid ) Director of Music that he could do whatever he wanted in services as long as it is in accordance with canon law. Fairly drastic changes rapidly followed.

Aside from the point that this is not very courteous, can anybody tell me if he is actually correct?

---

A couple of background questions

1. Was he interviewed for the appointment?
2. If so, what was said then about worship?
 

---

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
That's a fair point.

The Parish Profile, or advert for the job, should not only describe the current services, but also indicate whether the congregation is willing to consider changes (e.g. the introduction of less formal worship, different times to fit in with another church etc.).

IOW, there should be ample opportunity for both prospective incumbent and PCC to discuss their respective views on this important issue.

IJ
 

---

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :
 
I suppose parishioners can always vote with their feet.
 

---

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Alas, that's what often happens in such cases...



IJ
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
What BF said upthread (not about voting with their feet).

It seems both sad and silly for any incoming clergyperson to radically alter worship right at the start of their ministry in a church, unless they've been explicitly invited to.

1. It just seems high-handed, especially if he appears to be changing things on a whim, without prper explanation. While leadership isn't about trying to satisfy everyone, nor is it simply saying, "We're going to do things my way". If new Vicar wants to "take people along with him", this isn't the way to do it. After all, it's their church (and, of course, Christ's!), not his.

2. Has said Vicar done any research into the community in which the church is set? Does he know if, or if not, the present format of worship is culturally relevant? Can he be sure that the new format will be more "attractive"? Has he asked any questions at all or is he simply of the opinion that the old way is bad and his way is better?

Of course there is a reverse to this coin: churches can be stick-in-the-mud and may need someone to press through much-needed changes!

[ 26. January 2018, 14:10: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
If a vicar around here said they wanted to do things in accordance with canon law, I would welcome them with open arms ...



More seriously, yes, we've got an instance locally of a vicar who has tried to move things in a different direction to what the congregation were used to - in this particular instance by ramping things up in terms of adherence to the rubrics - and they've lost a heck of a lot of people and are now themselves falling on their own sword ...
 

---

Posted by Puzzler (# 18908) on :
 
Many thanks for replies so far.

In the advert/ profile we stated we are Eucharistic-based, central churchmanship (though to be more accurate there are some of higher and some of lower persuasion.)
We asked for someone who would respect and welcome the choral traditions, yet also have the skills to transform patterns of worship for future needs.
We expressed an openness to varied forms of worship.

On the PCC we know we need to change in order to grow and to reach younger families.

So the new incumbent, in less than two months, has dismissed the RSCM choir from two of the morning main services which are also to become non Eucharistic. ( one was occasionally, it included canticles and psalms)
The 10.00 am services will now be shortened to about 40 mins, with no musical input other than traditional hymns, to be more accessible to families ( who don’t come at 10.00 am anyway).

Needless to say the choir and DoM are not happy.
And that is just for starters.

The PCC has agreed the new pattern of services, subject to a review in due course. But actually other changes, not listed above, are in a way far more striking than those lmentioned.

I suspect we have shot ourselves in the foot by agreeing to the new pattern of services.

So much for making changes sensitively and collaboratively.
 

---

Posted by Puzzler (# 18908) on :
 
And yes, he was interviewed, but the interregnum was already extremely lengthy.
 

---

Posted by Puzzler (# 18908) on :
 
He has not disclosed any other plans to gather new families.
 

---

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Puzzler:
Many thanks for replies so far.

In the advert/ profile we stated we are Eucharistic-based, central churchmanship (though to be more accurate there are some of higher and some of lower persuasion.)
We asked for someone who would respect and welcome the choral traditions, yet also have the skills to transform patterns of worship for future needs.
We expressed an openness to varied forms of worship.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Puzzler:
And yes, he was interviewed, but the interregnum was already extremely lengthy.

---

quote:

---

An openness to varied forms of worship doesn't sit easily with a fixed tradition but you seem to be singularly unfortunate in your choice of Vicar who, on the evidence we have here (which may or may no reflect reality by any factor lesser or greater than 100%), lacks team building and change management skills.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
unless there is a pressing reason, do NOT make any changes to patterns or styles of services for the first 12 months

Let me make some highly prejudiced guesses about the new vicar:
a) He is evangelical - far more so than previous vicars.
b) He is in his 30s or possibly 40s.
c) He spoke earnestly at the interview about how he wanted to work WITH the church and move forward together.
d) This is his first incumbency after a curacy or he has just come from being a team vicar.

Sorry for being so cynical, but I've seen this kind of scenario too many times before.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Puzzler:
Some people are happy with the changes. Most of us are reserving judgement. Yes, there are very specific reasons for the long interregnum, which I prefer not to divulge, to avoid identification.

I personally feel that he shows a lack of respect for our traditions by dictating what must go. A stronger word, used by some, is contempt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Puzzler:
I don’t think the choir have any answers to how things should change. Certainly not a proliferation of worship songs.

The point that concerns me is that at the moment there is no immediate prospect of new people coming in who will appreciate the shorter, dumbed down services, yet quite a few core people who feel they are being ignored, who may well decide to leave.
It is the core congregation who give financially.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I know I come from a congregational tradition but this is where our ecclesiology scores: reflection, consultation, prayer and listening has to be built in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Everyone would welcome change but no one has any suggestions on what this looks like.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I know I come from a congregational tradition but this is where our ecclesiology scores: reflection, consultation, prayer and listening has to be built in.

---

Theoretically you're absolutely right. But what may actually happen, sadly, are rows and political battles at Church Meeting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
unless there is a pressing reason, do NOT make any changes to patterns or styles of services for the first 12 months

Let me make some highly prejudiced guesses about the new vicar:
a) He is evangelical - far more so than previous vicars.
b) He is in his 30s or possibly 40s.
c) He spoke earnestly at the interview about how he wanted to work WITH the church and move forward together.
d) This is his first incumbency after a curacy or he has just come from being a team vicar.

Sorry for being so cynical, but I've seen this kind of scenario too many times before.

---

12 months is way too long. You have become part of the furniture by then. No term can be given but don't do it too quick or leave it too long.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
In this diocese, new incumbents work with a 'transmission manager' to avoid this sort of thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
unless there is a pressing reason, do NOT make any changes to patterns or styles of services for the first 12 months

---

12 months is way too long. You have become part of the furniture by then. No term can be given but don't do it too quick or leave it too long.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
Buy your new rector copies of Bob Jackson's books - and get the bishop to present them with strong advice to read and follow them. A prime lesson from Jackson is that you don't upset your existing congregations by changing the regular pattern of services, but that you have new services at different times for the new congregations you're hoping to attract.

---

I agree with Jackson on this ... though it can be a recipe for clergy burnout if the clergy person is hands on with each service ...

But I think (after a few experiences of such matters) Puzzler's vicar is heading for a catastrophe. I've practiced both the "hit 'em before they notice" and the "spend a year getting to know them first" pattern and actually don't think it matters much. What matters is winning the hearts of the people - sadly including at least some of the gate-keepers, though sometimes they need to be disempowered and that's a tough call. In my last gig I think it's fair to say a few of the gate-keepers out-witted me, and I and the majority were gazumped.

When this turns to custard give me a call - I' should be fully registered as a dispute settlement person soon and that looks ripe for bitter stalemate. Or maybe offer me the parish next time - which could be soon ... I'm like totes a nice guy.


 

---

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
(PS ... in my last gig I followed Nick Tamen's preferred pattern. In the end though I hit the "you change a thing and we'll screw you and we give the money" scenario. They won. Or maybe I was just an arsehole ... but that hadn't been considered the case in previous appointments so I shall hang tenaciously to the belief it wasn't all my fault!)

Good luck with your place, Puzzler.
 

---

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Will someone tell him something?
 

---

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zappa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
Buy your new rector copies of Bob Jackson's books - and get the bishop to present them with strong advice to read and follow them. A prime lesson from Jackson is that you don't upset your existing congregations by changing the regular pattern of services, but that you have new services at different times for the new congregations you're hoping to attract.

---

....sadly including at least some of the gate-keepers, though sometimes they need to be disempowered and that's a tough call. In my last gig I think it's fair to say a few of the gate-keepers out-witted me, and I and the majority were gazumped.

---

This is the heart of the issue IME.

The big question is -- who holds the power strings in this church?

The reality is that however hard you try. whatever you might promise, there will be people there who just won't get on with you. They may have been close to dear Father X (same gold club, masonic lodge or something) but that doesn't work for you.

A distancing in one area in their minds represents a distancing in all areas. Since very few people (including Clergy) know how to lay down power with good grace, that's the recipe for disaster. Whatever he does/did/promised will not be good enough unless there's a readiness to work in partnership and to accept that even if nothing different is done, there will be changes simply because a new person is doing them.

OTOH you may well find you will lose people who have bided their time pending a new appointment. They want to see things done differently and may have been promised by the power brokers that it will happen with a new minister. They won't stay around long if it's the same old stuff with no hope of change under a new minister. There's no winning answer -- every new incumbent will pick up a church with all sorts of stuff - good and bad. A transition will always bring the bad stuff to the surface - when it may have been lurking underneath for years waiting to burst.

[Edited because I can and because I think that's what your UBB-management was meant to achieve ]

[ 28. January 2018, 19:37: Message edited by: Zappa ]
 

---

Posted by andras (# 2065) on :
 
Your new vicar sounds exactly like someone I knew a couple of years back, and who moved on to a new parish a few months ago. I do hope for all your sakes that it isn't the same chap...
 

---

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
unless there is a pressing reason, do NOT make any changes to patterns or styles of services for the first 12 months

---

12 months is way too long. You have become part of the furniture by then. No term can be given but don't do it too quick or leave it too long.

---

Twelve months is the length of time I’ve always heard recommended in my tribe that new pastors should wait before making or suggesting any notable changes worship-wise. This is for two reasons. First, it gives the pastor a chance to experience an entire liturgical year to better get a sense of the what works in the congregation, what doesn’t work, and where people's attachments are. Second, and just as importantly if not more so, the new pastor's focus the first year should be on building a good relationship with the congregation, which will in turn lead the congregation to be more willing to trust new directions the pastor might want to lead.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie jon:
For change to stick it needs deep support.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Puzzler:
Just back from a good parish communion, mostly as we have been used to, but there is only one more of these before a dumbed down version replaces it. It seemed to me that the Gloria was sung with gusto. The two retired caretaker clergy were both there, and also some others we don't see very often. I wonder if that was significant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie jon:
For change to stick it needs deep support.

---

Which is always the naysayers or stick in the mud's opportunity to derail it.

I don't believe in change for change's sake but responding to a changing world does mean certain adjustments have to be made in the church's ministry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Puzzler:
Yes, more than meets the eye, of course.
My personal opinion, for what it is worth, is that the new vicar would have done better to consult, maybe set up a small group representing all the services and those who rarely come, and listen before taking action on the style and pattern of services.

Whilst taking steps to get to know people, I would like to see him start to get in touch with less regular attenders and those families who come to Messy Church and recent baptism contacts and see what they want and when they would be able and willing to come. Or what alternative would suit them.

Depending on results, I would have expected any new service to run alongside existing forms of worship for quite a while before considering abandoning either or merging them.
I would have supported the musical tradition in the existing services.
I would not have thrown my weight around by telling people that I can do whatever I want.
Other internal changes eg what he wears, where he stands, what forms of prayer he uses, are less significant.
So that nails my colours to the mast.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Puzzler:
Yes, more than meets the eye, of course.
My personal opinion, for what it is worth, is that the new vicar would have done better to consult, maybe set up a small group representing all the services and those who rarely come, and listen before taking action on the style and pattern of services.

Whilst taking steps to get to know people, I would like to see him start to get in touch with less regular attenders and those families who come to Messy Church and recent baptism contacts and see what they want and when they would be able and willing to come. Or what alternative would suit them.

Depending on results, I would have expected any new service to run alongside existing forms of worship for quite a while before considering abandoning either or merging them.
I would have supported the musical tradition in the existing services.
I would not have thrown my weight around by telling people that I can do whatever I want.
Other internal changes eg what he wears, where he stands, what forms of prayer he uses, are less significant.
So that nails my colours to the mast.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
All this seems perfectly reasonable and what I would call "good practice'. If this is not what people are being taught to do during their training for ordination and subsequent curacy, then what ARE they being taught?

The more I hear such examples of what some new ministers do in their first few months, the more I feel that there is a desperate need for good training to be given (and made mandatory!) on "transitions to a new parish". Good practice in this matter is not hard to find - so why are there still so many examples of ministers blundering in and throwing their supposed weight around?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Puzzler:
Yes, more than meets the eye, of course.
My personal opinion, for what it is worth, is that the new vicar would have done better to consult, maybe set up a small group representing all the services and those who rarely come, and listen before taking action on the style and pattern of services.

Whilst taking steps to get to know people, I would like to see him start to get in touch with less regular attenders and those families who come to Messy Church and recent baptism contacts and see what they want and when they would be able and willing to come. Or what alternative would suit them.

Depending on results, I would have expected any new service to run alongside existing forms of worship for quite a while before considering abandoning either or merging them.
I would have supported the musical tradition in the existing services.
I would not have thrown my weight around by telling people that I can do whatever I want.
Other internal changes eg what he wears, where he stands, what forms of prayer he uses, are less significant.
So that nails my colours to the mast.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
At the moment, the tide is moving in an evangelical direction. So evangelicals are presented to MoR congregations, and some of them feel that it is their duty to turn their congregations into what they see as bastions of the truth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andras:
Your new vicar sounds exactly like someone I knew a couple of years back, and who moved on to a new parish a few months ago. I do hope for all your sakes that it isn't the same chap...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

Slightly difficult slant, but Dearmer's Parson's Handbook encourages the same sort of thing. It sees the Parson's job as to know what is right - or tasteful - and impose it on 'his' congregation, whether they like not or not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aggie:
At the church I often attend, the new Vicar always uses modern Roman Catholic liturgy rather than C of E liturgy. Several members of the congregation are unhappy about this and have complained, but the Vicar always challenges anyone who complains.

---

This really needs the Bishop to take a stand and, if necessary, start disciplinary proceedings for using an unauthorised liturgy. But what are the chances of that in the modern CofE? .
 

---

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Just so. A neighbouring parish uses the Roman rite exclusively, having taken the decision (priest, PCC, and people, AFAIK) to do so when the most recent revision of the rite was made (2011?).

At least that has the benefit of consistency, unlike the wretched mish-mash bequeathed to us at Our Place by our now retired (and not much missed) Father Fu**wit...

+Chartres, late of London, had the right idea, IIRC. Use Common Worship unless there is no suitable provision, in which case you can borrow from Rome.

IJ
 

---

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
Just a general reminder (in a quasi-official capacity I suppose) that we cannot really make judgements about the circumstances in any given church simply on the basis of an Internet discussion.

This thread seems like it could serve a valuable purpose for discussing how changes can and should come about, but please, keep gossip to a minimum!
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Isn't using the Roman rite a blatant and intentional breach of the incumbent's Declaration of Assent,
“in public prayer and administration of the sacraments, I will use only the forms of service which are authorized or allowed by Canon”.

I'd understand that as meaning, 'in accordance with either Common Worship or the 1662 BCP'.

I also can't see any reason other than cussedness why a person wants to do that. Except that it sometimes tends to be a bit wordy, Common Worship is fairly flexible but the instructions can be confusing. I can see reasons why a person might select shorter options and simplify a bit more than they are meant to.

I know there are people who insist on using the Roman rite, but I can't see what their excuse is. If they think that somehow makes the elements more consecrated than if they use the rites they are supposed to, then I'd suggest that,

a. they are in the wrong ecclesial community, and
b. their Eucharistic theology is awry.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Whilst I have a lot of time for individual Anglo-Catholics, I find the full-on Anglo-Papalist upper reaches of it very baffling.

They seem to want their cake and eat it.

I've seen RC priests tear their hair out.
'What more do these people want? We've got the Ordinariate, they can bring their wives ...'
 

---

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Mention of the Ordinariate must bring to mind the delayed departure of the bishops until after the Christmas holiday period. The "having their cake and eating it" reminds us that they undertook few if any of the sorts of duties a bishop would normally undertake in that period.

In general terms, I much prefer the language of the APBA to the latest Catholic translation. It's much less clunky, and is language well understood across a modern community without losing dignity or reverence. I do like the Catholic general confession to God and the others in the congregation, and then seeking forgiveness both from God an "you, my brothers and sisters". But if you want to use the Missal, then you go to Rome.

[ 01. February 2018, 01:36: Message edited by: Gee D ]
 

---

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
I assumed the Anglo-Papalists who haven't already departed either can't handle the pay cut or can't handle the idea of being expected to obey their oath of obedience to their ordinary. I may be being uncharitable.
 

---

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
You may be, but I'm not sure just how many would say that now.
 

---

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I think Enoch may be right, insofar as a Certain Priest I know is concerned.

He seems to think that, if it's Roman, it must (by definition) be more Holy. Yes, he could join the Ordinariate, and take his Lovely Wife with him, but there is no convenient local group.

A former Shipmate used to have as his sig 'Why can't we just do what it says in the book?'.



IJ
 

---

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
How do you classify a church that Mass is Catholic and Office is BCP?

Jengie
 

---

Posted by Aggie (# 4385) on :
 
I am really not sure why our Vicar isn't a Roman Catholic priest as he uses modern Roman Catholic liturgy all the time and during the prayers of Intercession and in the Eucharistic prayer mentions "Francis our Pope" first before + Justin, our Archbishop and our diocesan bishop.
 

---

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Jengie jon asks:

quote:

---

How do you classify a church that Mass is Catholic and Office is BCP?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aggie:
I am really not sure why our Vicar isn't a Roman Catholic priest as he uses modern Roman Catholic liturgy all the time and during the prayers of Intercession and in the Eucharistic prayer mentions "Francis our Pope" first before + Justin, our Archbishop and our diocesan bishop.

---

To keep hold of his Pension?
 

---

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Together with his House, and his Wife (should he possess such a useful Appendage)!



IJ
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Not necessarily the latter - I knew a married Anglican who became an RC priest. The process took about 4 years and required a special dispensation from His Holiness. Both he and Mrs. Priest were popular in their church.

BTW I seriously considered moving from the Baptists to the URC a few years ago, and my pension arrangements were certainly an important aspect of my decision to stay (though by no means the only one).

[ 01. February 2018, 17:36: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 

---

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Fair point - I was being slightly ironic!

At the risk of resurrecting bits of Dead Horse, the fact that the RCC now has a number of married priests exercising their ministry within it, may make it a bit easier for that Church as a whole to accept yet more married priests, in the future, who are not refugees from elsewhere..



IJ
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I get accused of equivocation and hedging my bets all the time, yet even I can't understand why an Anglican cleric would have prayers for the Pope before those for Welby and the rest of the Anglican clergy ...



Pension may have something to do with it but I suspect it's not as simple as that.

The issue Baptist Trainfan has highlighted, whether to move from one form of congregational church to another - ie Baptist to URC - seems a completely different kettle of fish.

I'm not trying to underestimate the disruption it might cause but crossing the Tiber from Canterbury does seem a bigger deal.

Perhaps it isn't?

Perhaps I'm making it a bigger issue in my own mind than it actually is.

But I don't quite understand how full-on Anglo-Papalists who have reached the stratospheric heights of spikiness can balance away up there without toppling down the other side and landing in Rome.
 

---

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Now that being married ('I should have gone last Tuesday week, had not my wife objected' -EL Mascall's Ultracatholic) is no longer an insurmountable obstacle,I'd go with pension. And status. And perhaps most of all - I'm guessing- not wanting to serve under Bishops who actually expect to be obeyed and can move you around.
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Gamaliel, I don't understand either.
 

---

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
I imagine, too, that some of the more twiddly spiky practices would not be well received in the (mainstream) contemporary RCC, however common they might have been in the pre-V2 Church from which they were borrowed.
 

---

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
n the (mainstream) contemporary RCC, however common they might have been in the pre-V2 Church from which they were borrowed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I get accused of equivocation and hedging my bets all the time, yet even I can't understand why an Anglican cleric would have prayers for the Pope before those for Welby and the rest of the Anglican clergy ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Indeed. We often pray for 'the leaders of our sister churches' in the Intercessions, though not usually by name, IYSWIM.

It's certainly misleading for an Anglican to pray for 'our' Pope in the Eucharistic Prayer, but we do have one occasional Visiting Priest who includes 'Pope Francis, Bartholomew the Ecumenical Patriarch, Archbishops Justin and John etc. etc.' in Eucharistic Prayer B.

Which seems fair enough, given what Angloid has said.

IJ

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
I meant 'misleading' inasmuch as reference to 'our' Pope might confuse a newcomer as to which denomination's church he or she had entered...

I wish Bishops and Archdeacons would uphold Canon law, though.

IJ

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Forthview:
... I cannot understand,how a priest who sees in the CofE an integral part of the Catholic Churc,h is unable to use the rites which are proposed for use by that same CofE.
'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Puzzler:
Back to the new vicar.
First Baptism since he arrived,
in the main 10.00 am eucharist, and when it came to the Peace, he announced that the friends and family of the baptism party would be leaving now.
I know that they are not a church-going family.
Is this done elsewhere? I have never come across this before anywhere.

---

I think it's the sheer bad manners of this that appals me, though whether on the part of the members of the baptismal party or the vicar I'm not quite sure.

And no, I've never seen such a thing, though I do remember with horror the days when it wasn't unusual for almost half the congregation at a Eucharist to slip out more-or-less quietly during the offertory hymn.
 

---

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Sounds like a throw-back to the early days of the Church when the catechumens had to leave at the Offertory (do the Orthodox still do that?).

AIUI, it was also the practice during early post-Reformation days in England (as reflected in more recent times by what andras has mentioned!).

Perhaps the Vicar had arranged it beforehand with the baptismal party, in case they were exposed to too much religion?



Whatever - it does sound very odd indeed.

IJ
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Yes. That's odd. It's also conveying a very odd message. Did this happen before or after the Peace? Were the baptism party included in the Peace? If they weren't it sounds a bit inconsistent with,

quote:

---

we are children of the same heavenly Father; we welcome you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Puzzler:

Not sure I like the idea of a coffee break in the middle, after the peace and before communion, as the whole thing will end up taking all morning

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
Have I followed this correctly? The main service at a CofE church is going to be non-eucharistic? How does the new vicar justify this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bib:
I have noticed there are great difficulties when a new minister comes from a different type of church background, We have a new minister who would have our church services become places of fun and entertainment whereas we have more traditional reflective services with time for silences. It is obvious that he was used to more upbeat services and music and can't understand that his new congregation prefers not to go down that route. I don't think he will change his mind, but nor will we which will prove interesting as the year develops.

---

quote:

---

Have I followed this correctly? The main service at a CofE church is going to be non-eucharistic?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Puzzler:
I have just heard via the grapevine that one lady who is a regular at the early HC (BCP) says the new vicar does not seem to know what to do . I have also seen evidence of this in other services.
If he truly doesn’t know, he should
A) study the service carefully and give it some careful preparation
B) ask someone eg lay reader, retired clergy or those who assist regularly.
To my mind there is no excuse for being unprepared.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Puzzler:
As to what “mission” is all about...?
I don’t expect that changing services in itself is magically going to fill the pews. Granted, we now have an evangelistic address at almost every service, but it is mostly, literally preaching to the converted.
I have not yet heard of any strategy for mission.

---

quote:

---

I have just heard via the grapevine that one lady who is a regular at the early HC (BCP) says the new vicar does not seem to know what to do. I have also seen evidence of this in other services.
If he truly doesn’t know, he should
A) study the service carefully and give it some careful preparation
B) ask someone eg lay reader, retired clergy or those who assist regularly.
To my mind there is no excuse for being unprepared.

---

I wish I could say I'm surprised but not now - maybe 30 years ago but not now.

When our PP was suddenly taken ill we were loaned the curate from a church in the nearest large town. Priested for 12 months, they were completely flummoxed by a said BCP HC service, even though we have a large print altar copy of the whole thing so they don't have to plough through it and think for themselves. The sidesperson on duty was treated to a 15 minute harangue afterwards about how "backward" it was for us to be using the BCP and how any church that wished to survive in the modern world should stop using same forthwith. They had no interest in a "dead" book and looked forward to the day when it disappeared.

However, the 10am CW Parish Communion fared no better: again, large print altar copy with everything laid out, rubrics in red, etc. The result was still chaos with the chap standing there saying "I don't know what you expect next" - frankly, it was shameful.

Now yes, this person had been thrust into the breach at fairly short (24 hours) notice but all the information was to hand and they'd had hand-delivered to their home hard copy the afternoon before.

The final straw was when they decided to leave as soon as the service finished rather than greeting people at the door, pausing only long enough to deliver themselves of a diatribe to the churchwardens about the fact that we use the NEH - they found the music "ghastly" and said the sooner we got rid of the organ and formed a music group the better.

We haven't felt moved to issue an invitation to come back to preach ...
 

---

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Unfamiliarity with the BCP is one thing, and the odd glitch could be forgiven, but what a lack of grace!

IJ
 

---

Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on :
 
I was astonished to read that HTB, does not celebrate Holy Communion/ every Sunday.Is this really true ?
I know quite well that St.Helens Bishopsgate,observes this
Sacrament sadly once a month.
A few years ago,I approached one of the clergy at St.Helen's why do you not have H.C. every Sunday ?
I was replied that it is not found in the Bible.
Very strange reaction and I strongly disagree with this vision.The Lord's Service on the Lord's Day is of course the Holy Eucharist/Holy Communion
Are C.of E. Bishops today so obsessed with money,that they allow practises that are not truly Anglican?
Even the great Reformers Luther and Calvin have Always been in favour of the celebration of the
Lord's Supper every Sunday
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Utrecht Catholic, in principle I agree with you. If that is correct and there is no 8am service, that is also contrary to the present canons. However, before judging another communion by the assumptions of your own, you need to be aware of a little bit of history.

The Reformers wanted to bring in weekly communion. However, they never persuaded a churchgoing community to agree. People had been taught before the Reformation that although there was Mass weekly, virtually nobody received, or if they did, it was at the most, once a year at Easter. It was just something the priest did. The congregation watched. Out in the parishes, the requirement in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer public that people should receive at least three times a year of which one should be at Easter, was a step up, not a step down, in the standard expected of the laity.

That standard was fairly widely known, and I think fairly widely observed.

In contrast with the Catholics, both Roman, and possibly, though I do not know, your own communion, the Church of England has not historically allowed Holy Communion to be celebrated unless there are a minimum of three people present to communicate with the priest. The expectation has been that most people present will receive.

The normal practice in many churches from the Reformation until the mid/late C19 would have been for the main Sunday morning service to have been Morning Prayer, followed by the Litany, followed by Holy Communion, but only what is described as Ante-Communion ending with the Prayer for the Church Militant, unless it was a Communion Sunday, when the service was completed. How many Communion Sundays there were in the year might vary. In some churches this might be every week but typical might be four times a year or once a month.

So, whether or not that is their real reason, if they do not celebrate Holy Communion all that frequently, very Protestant parishes can claim to have a tradition on their side . It is difficult to argue that such a practice is "not truly Anglican". Nor, though I personally would like to see more frequent Communion, can I follow your slur that this is somehow because our bishops are obsessed with money. I think that is unfair, a non sequitur and defamatory of our episcopate.

In the late C19 and much of the C20 until it became more difficult to ordain (and pay) enough people to priestly orders, the more usual practice became to have a separate said Holy Communion at 8 am, and Morning Prayer as a stand-alone service mid-morning. The latter was the main service and had the sermon. The faithful were recommended that once a month was an appropriate commitment for communicating.

There would be a separate Evening Prayer, which until the mid C19 was usually in the afternoon, and thereafter 6-6.30 pm.
 

---

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
Canon law says that each parish should have Holy Communion service every Sunday.

However in this day of large teams and multi-church parishes, that Communion service can be at 8:00am at St Nowhere in the back of beyond and still be legal.

And with the diminishing numbers of clergy – more and more it is becoming impossible to hold a communion service every week not withstandinng canon law.
 

---

Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
L'organiste, as to my living in the past, I'm accused of it so frequently that if a week goes by and I'm not accused of that, I start to think that my game is slipping.

That said, what you describe in your second point seems not be the case in Canada, or, at least, not predominantly the case. When I was first hunting around for a parish (visiting eight or ten), the only time that the main service (i.e., 10:30 or 11:00) did not have communion was if they were doing Matins in lieu of (which I don't agree with, but is not something I can get too worked up over). And that was regardless of their position on the candle and whether it was BCP or BAS (=CW).
 

---

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
To underline Pangolin's point, I only know of 2 parishes (both in Toronto) which do not have a Eucharist or sung Matins as their principal service, and I've attended services in half of Anglican Canada's dioceses over the years (my fairly high score due to travels for Our Glorious Sovereign's bureaucracy). My acquaintance with TEC, south of the world's longest undefended border, suggests the same pattern of practice.

Some multi-point parishes (which normally extend for 30-50km) will have churches where they rotate priestly services and so some points may only have Matins for their Sunday service, but there'll be a priest around in a Sunday or two.

Canonical discipline for services seems to be stricter here, and there are perhaps only a handful of Canadian churches which do not use the BCP or BAS and, even then (as at Saint Onoforio's where I occasionally grace a pew), the changes are minimal. While travelling, I incline mkyself to places with a snort of incense, but even there I think I have only heard once or twice prayers for the Pope. It is not unknown to have the ruling bishops of a city included (e.g., John our Bishop, Terence the Archbishop of this city, and Irenée the Bishop, Colin our Metropolitan and Frederick our Primate).

When my former parish went through some travails (details available for a bottle of Lagavulin 16-year old), one of the arguments used was that temporary clergy would not be able to make their way around the BCP and an ad orientem altar. I did not make myself popular with the rector by suggesting that we simply not engage clergy who were too dim to follow the rubrics.
 

---

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
While interesting, what happens in Canada is largely irrelevant to what happens in England. As has been pointed out, it was the parish communion movement which set the expectation of receiving weekly *in England* (notwithstanding the efforts of sundry Anglo Catholics in earlier years) as late as the mid 20th century.

My own current parish church has *never* had a weekly communion. The most it has ever got to is the current twice monthly - and that's as part of a benefice of 7. When it had its own vicar it was monthly. The default setting out here in the sticks has always been mattins, with some parishioners *even now* only receiving on Easter Sunday (let alone 3 times a year).
 

---

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:

they allow practises that are not truly Anglican?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:

they allow practises that are not truly Anglican?

---

Well personally I think anything outside the 39 Articles and BCP is a bit outre... There is no expectation in the 1662 variant that communion will be weekly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:
While interesting, what happens in Canada is largely irrelevant to what happens in England.
*snip*.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
Maybe it is not stated in so many words. But the rubrics that at that service the sermon will be preached, and that banns and other notices given out, strongly imply that is the expectation. Plus the fact that the liturgy is printed in the middle of the book, so that it will naturally open at the most-used service.

---

quote:

---

When the Minister giveth warning for the celebration of the holy Communion, (which he shall always do upon the Sunday, or some Holy-day, immediately preceding,) after the Sermon or Homily ended, he shall read this Exhortation following.

Dearly beloved, on ---day next I purpose, through God's assistance, to administer to all such as shall be religiously and devoutly disposed the most comfortable Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ;...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
It is protestant extremists who are non-adherents of the Oxford Movement and the fruits thereof, who take a literal and fundamentalist view of the 39 Articles, as thogh these are divinely inspired and fell-down straight from Heaven. These are not articles of faith, but statements of how Anglicans felt about doctrinal tenets, during one period in history now long past. Some of these are a tall order to us living in the 21st century.

To give just two examples - "The Bishop of Rome hath no juridiction in this Realm of England." (I quote from memory.) But in modern times, two popes have made pastoral visits to UK and warmly welcomed. Capital punishment is condoned, but at that time, capital punishment was not only for murder.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
Betjemaniac, I thought that it was clear that I was responding to L'Organiste's jab that I was living in the past.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
My description of what happens on the ground here in The Dominion was to explain that what was described as "the past" is, here, very much the present.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
That you sniffily dismiss what happens in another part of our global communion as "irrelevant" is condescending, and I would have thought, beneath you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
Betjemaniac, I thought that "sniffily" was being very generous to you. I can't speak for others on the Ship though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
It is interesting to note that worldwide, these articles are left out of local equivalents of the Book of Common Prayer, such as in the USA . . . .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
It is interesting to note that worldwide, these articles are left out of local equivalents of the Book of Common Prayer, such as in the USA . . . .

---

The XXXIX Articles are in the 1979 American BCP.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Page 867. The section is entitled “Historical Documents of the Church.” That section follows the Catechism and includes the Definition of Chalcedon (451), the Athanasian Creed, the Preface to the 1549 BCP, the Articles and the Chicago–Lambeth Quadrilateral (1886, 1888).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:

I am slightly amused at the suggestion that I may not like them, for in the 16th century when they were devised, there was clearly a need for them at that time. But today, they are not there to be liked or disliked, but remain as for historical reference.

---

quote:

---

The Church of England is part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church worshipping the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds, which faith the Church is called upon to proclaim afresh in each generation. Led by the Holy Spirit, it has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons. In the declaration you are about to make will you affirm your loyalty to this inheritance of faith as your inspiration and guidance under God in bringing the grace and truth of Christ to this generation and making him known to those in your care?

---

quote:

---

I, A B, do so affirm, and accordingly declare my belief in the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear witness; and in public prayer and administration of the sacraments, I will use only the forms of service which are authorized or allowed by Canon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
It is protestant extremists who are non-adherents of the Oxford Movement and the fruits thereof, who take a literal and fundamentalist view of the 39 Articles, as thogh these are divinely inspired and fell-down straight from Heaven. These are not articles of faith, but statements of how Anglicans felt about doctrinal tenets, during one period in history now long past. Some of these are a tall order to us living in the 21st century.

To give just two examples - "The Bishop of Rome hath no juridiction in this Realm of England." (I quote from memory.) But in modern times, two popes have made pastoral visits to UK and warmly welcomed. Capital punishment is condoned, but at that time, capital punishment was not only for murder.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:

I am slightly amused at the suggestion that I may not like them, for in the 16th century when they were devised, there was clearly a need for them at that time. But today, they are not there to be liked or disliked, but remain as for historical reference.

---

I think that they are of somewhat greater significance in the CofE than mere historical reference. On ordination, or on induction (etc.), a clerk in holy orders must make the declaration of assent, to which the preface is:

quote:

---

The Church of England is part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church worshipping the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds, which faith the Church is called upon to proclaim afresh in each generation. Led by the Holy Spirit, it has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons. In the declaration you are about to make will you affirm your loyalty to this inheritance of faith as your inspiration and guidance under God in bringing the grace and truth of Christ to this generation and making him known to those in your care?

---

To which the clerk responds with the Declaration of Assent:

quote:

---

I, A B, do so affirm, and accordingly declare my belief in the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear witness; and in public prayer and administration of the sacraments, I will use only the forms of service which are authorized or allowed by Canon.

---

So, the official line is that the 39 articles "bear witness to Christian truth" and a loyalty to them is required of the ordained. It has to be admitted that this is a watering down from the 1662 version.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
It is protestant extremists who are non-adherents of the Oxford Movement and the fruits thereof, who take a literal and fundamentalist view of the 39 Articles, as thogh these are divinely inspired and fell-down straight from Heaven. These are not articles of faith, but statements of how Anglicans felt about doctrinal tenets, during one period in history now long past. Some of these are a tall order to us living in the 21st century.

To give just two examples - "The Bishop of Rome hath no juridiction in this Realm of England." (I quote from memory.) But in modern times, two popes have made pastoral visits to UK and warmly welcomed. Capital punishment is condoned, but at that time, capital punishment was not only for murder.

---

In the 16th Century this was a live issue. The Bishop of Rome, prior to the Reformation did have jurisdiction in this realm of England. That's not quite the same as a state visit which is basically, the Bishop of Rome turning up and saying "Oh Hai!". The Articles of Religion are quite cool with that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
It is protestant extremists who are non-adherents of the Oxford Movement and the fruits thereof, who take a literal and fundamentalist view of the 39 Articles, as thogh these are divinely inspired and fell-down straight from Heaven. These are not articles of faith, but statements of how Anglicans felt about doctrinal tenets, during one period in history now long past. Some of these are a tall order to us living in the 21st century.

To give just two examples - "The Bishop of Rome hath no juridiction in this Realm of England." (I quote from memory.) But in modern times, two popes have made pastoral visits to UK and warmly welcomed. Capital punishment is condoned, but at that time, capital punishment was not only for murder.

---

In the 16th Century this was a live issue. The Bishop of Rome, prior to the Reformation did have jurisdiction in this realm of England. That's not quite the same as a state visit which is basically, the Bishop of Rome turning up and saying "Oh Hai!". The Articles of Religion are quite cool with that.

---

To cut a long story short, the Church has moved on since the 16th century and division like that is a legacy of history. It goes without saying that the Pope/Bishop of Rome before the Reformation, did have Jurisdiction is This Realm of England. You know as well as I do, that being a Roman Catholic in those penal times, was a treasonable offence, punishable by death by being burnt at the stake.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Corvo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
It is protestant extremists who are non-adherents of the Oxford Movement and the fruits thereof, who take a literal and fundamentalist view of the 39 Articles, as thogh these are divinely inspired and fell-down straight from Heaven. These are not articles of faith, but statements of how Anglicans felt about doctrinal tenets, during one period in history now long past. Some of these are a tall order to us living in the 21st century.

To give just two examples - "The Bishop of Rome hath no juridiction in this Realm of England." (I quote from memory.) But in modern times, two popes have made pastoral visits to UK and warmly welcomed. Capital punishment is condoned, but at that time, capital punishment was not only for murder.

---

In the 16th Century this was a live issue. The Bishop of Rome, prior to the Reformation did have jurisdiction in this realm of England. That's not quite the same as a state visit which is basically, the Bishop of Rome turning up and saying "Oh Hai!". The Articles of Religion are quite cool with that.

---

To cut a long story short, the Church has moved on since the 16th century and division like that is a legacy of history. It goes without saying that the Pope/Bishop of Rome before the Reformation, did have Jurisdiction is This Realm of England. You know as well as I do, that being a Roman Catholic in those penal times, was a treasonable offence, punishable by death by being burnt at the stake.

---

It was a bit more complicated than that: https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/penal-laws

For the most part lay people were fined for not attending the C of E; priests ran the risk of execution (by hanging, drawing and quartering).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Corvo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
[qb] It is protestant extremists who are non-adherents of the Oxford Movement and the fruits thereof, who take a literal and fundamentalist view of the 39 Articles, as thogh these are divinely inspired and fell-down straight from Heaven. These are not articles of faith, but statements of how Anglicans felt about doctrinal tenets, during one period in history now long past. Some of these are a tall order to us living in the 21st century.

To give just two examples - "The Bishop of Rome hath no juridiction in this Realm of England." (I quote from memory.) But in modern times, two popes have made pastoral visits to UK and warmly welcomed. Capital punishment is condoned, but at that time, capital punishment was not only for murder.

---

In the 16th Century this was a live issue. The Bishop of Rome, prior to the Reformation did have jurisdiction in this realm of England. That's not quite the same as a state visit which is basically, the Bishop of Rome turning up and saying "Oh Hai!". The Articles of Religion are quite cool with that.

---

To cut a long story short, the Church has moved on since the 16th century and division like that is a legacy of history. It goes without saying that the Pope/Bishop of Rome before the Reformation, did have Jurisdiction is This Realm of England. You know as well as I do, that being a Roman Catholic in those penal times, was a treasonable offence, punishable by death by being burnt at the stake.

---

quote:

---

For the most part lay people were fined for not attending the C of E; priests ran the risk of execution (by hanging, drawing and quartering).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
in 65 years of experience in the CofE I have reached a conclusion on how incoming vicars should proceed in leadership.

My simple adage would be:

(1) If it works, don't even try to fix it.

(2) If by general agreement it does not work, then help the congregation to fix it.

(3) If the vicar's foresight and insight tells him/her that though something is only working tolerably well at present but is becoming less effective and in need of replacement, then share your vision of how the church might move forward together to become even more effective in being Christ's 'church'.

The problem as I see it is that some vicars go straight into (3) without sharing their vision and without bringing as many as possible of the congregation along with it.

They see themselves as a Moses figure leading a difficult and recalcitrant tribe, striding out purposefully but leaving the lame and infants far behind in the wilderness, wondering why they don't know where they are going, why they are 'going' and what all the God damned hurry is about anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
in 65 years of experience in the CofE I have reached a conclusion on how incoming vicars should proceed in leadership.

My simple adage would be:

(1) If it works, don't even try to fix it.

(2) If by general agreement it does not work, then help the congregation to fix it.

(3) If the vicar's foresight and insight tells him/her that though something is only working tolerably well at present but is becoming less effective and in need of replacement, then share your vision of how the church might move forward together to become even more effective in being Christ's 'church'.

The problem as I see it is that some vicars go straight into (3) without sharing their vision and without bringing as many as possible of the congregation along with it.

They see themselves as a Moses figure leading a difficult and recalcitrant tribe, striding out purposefully but leaving the lame and infants far behind in the wilderness, wondering why they don't know where they are going, why they are 'going' and what all the God damned hurry is about anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Poppy:
It was however profoundly inward focused with a club mentality. For them it was comfortable and safe and I understand that but being a disciple isn't about being safe. Changing culture is hard and can't be done overnight.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Poppy:
When I arrived at my current church I found a lot that was broken. Mostly the congregation didn't notice it as it had been that way for twenty years. As far as some of them were concerned it wasn't broken. It was however profoundly inward focused with a club mentality. For them it was comfortable and safe and I understand that but being a disciple isn't about being safe.

---

quote:

---

[ ! ] 1. What do you mean by "working"?

---

quote:

---

2. The hurry? Well, people are dying without support and without Christ. isn't that enough?

---

quote:

---

A priest at one church told me of the opposition he'd encountered from elderly congregants when he first arrived - they knew the parish was dying but quite openly said that as long as it lasted long enough to see them out that was all they cared about...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Poppy:
When I arrived at my current church I found a lot that was broken. Mostly the congregation didn't notice it as it had been that way for twenty years. As far as some of them were concerned it wasn't broken. It was however profoundly inward focused with a club mentality. For them it was comfortable and safe and I understand that but being a disciple isn't about being safe.

---

In some cases it is worse than this - they *know* that things are broken but would rather stick with it than change.

A priest at one church told me of the opposition he'd encountered from elderly congregants when he first arrived - they knew the parish was dying but quite openly said that as long as it lasted long enough to see them out that was all they cared about...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:

quote:

---

[ ! ] [QUOTE]2. The hurry? Well, people are dying without support and without Christ. isn't that enough?

---

Well yes. BUT 'The poor will always be with you'. Don't make your elderly parishioners give up BCP and replace Matins with a Sally Army style tambourine and saxophone spectacular on a Wednesday morning, because perhaps the 'change' will bring floods of young, enthusiastic percussionists wanting to join the church.

Being church is not about adopting the latest entertainment techniques, it is about discovering its purpose for Christ, in the context of its locality and that could be simply to love and support one another in decline.

The greatest failure of Christ was his greatest victory and conquest. The most unrealistic expectation from congregations, from new vicars is 'success', the kind of success that gets measured by money in the bank and bums on pews.

---

I don't think I've ever said that church is about success. It's about faithfulness as far as I can see: faithfulness to that fellowship's call to minister to its community in a way that is relevant and which is contextually appropriate.

I agree wholeheartedly that wholesale changes in practice aren't likely to bring anything about apart from division. What might be needed - as it is surely for us all - is for our hearts to be transformed by Christ. That's way harder than changing what we do.

No it's not about technique at all - it's about people. Preach the word, build up the saints, reach the lost. Simple isn't it? Trouble is there are a lot of churches around who've missed even these simple points -- reaching the lost being the most likely to be missed. To make a church winsome requires change and often we who are already there, are the least likely to see what change is needed.
 

---

Posted by Puzzler (# 18908) on :
 
Prompted by the thread a
 

---

Posted by Puzzler (# 18908) on :
 
Prompted by the thread about Ash Weds and St Valentine’s Day and discussion of which Collect, can anyone confirm that in BCP Evensong it is mandatory to say all three Collects?
We had just one yesterday.
 

---

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Well, I don't know exactly how mandatory it is, but it's certainly the usual custom to say the Collect of the Day, followed by the Second and Third Collects.

The Third Collect, for Aid against all Perils, must surely be one of the best-known Anglican prayers.

Why on earth would you leave any two out, except to shorten the service by a few seconds?



IJ
 

---

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
How mandatory are the rubrics? The rubrics say three. You only need to check in the BCP to find that out.

Jengie
 

---

Posted by Poppy (# 2000) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Puzzler:
Prompted by the thread about Ash Weds and St Valentine’s Day and discussion of which Collect, can anyone confirm that in BCP Evensong it is mandatory to say all three Collects?
We had just one yesterday.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Poppy:
One of the hardest things about being a new vicar is that the parish assumes that their way of doing things is the only way of doing things. They then get cross when the new vicar doesn't have a psychic moment ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Poppy:
It may be that the new vicar is not familiar with the BCP and doesn't know that it is custom and practice to do all three collects.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
An outgoing Rector, whom I have just said goodbye to, as he was leaving for pastures new, related how one parishioner said to him when he first came, "But we don't have a sermon at the 8 o'clock early Communion service!" "Well, you do now!", replied the then new Rector.

---

Probably the sort of parishioner who said 'we just want the pure and simple Prayer Book service.' To which the answer would have been much the same.
 

---

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I suspect it was also that parishioner who was somewhat surprised to find that the Prayer Book service, pure and simple, contained the full Decalogue, Collect for the Queen, Exhortation, and a homily from the book of homilies...

....but was refused Communion because he had not signified his name to the Curate the day before....



IJ
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
I suspect it was also that parishioner who was somewhat surprised to find that the Prayer Book service, pure and simple, contained the full Decalogue, Collect for the Queen, Exhortation, and a homily from the book of homilies...

....but was refused Communion because he had not signified his name to the Curate the day before....



IJ

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
anecdotal evidence suggests that many of today's clergy are both liturgically and pastorally inept.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
in 65 years of experience in the CofE I have reached a conclusion on how incoming vicars should proceed in leadership.

My simple adage would be:

(1) If it works, don't even try to fix it.

(2) If by general agreement it does not work, then help the congregation to fix it.

(3) If the vicar's foresight and insight tells him/her that though something is only working tolerably well at present but is becoming less effective and in need of replacement, then share your vision of how the church might move forward together to become even more effective in being Christ's 'church'.

The problem as I see it is that some vicars go straight into (3) without sharing their vision and without bringing as many as possible of the congregation along with it.

They see themselves as a Moses figure leading a difficult and recalcitrant tribe, striding out purposefully but leaving the lame and infants far behind in the wilderness, wondering why they don't know where they are going, why they are 'going' and what all the God damned hurry is about anyway.

---

As a new vicar one year in, Amen I say and amen.
 

---

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Well, I don't know exactly how mandatory it is, but it's certainly the usual custom to say the Collect of the Day, followed by the Second and Third Collects.

The Third Collect, for Aid against all Perils, must surely be one of the best-known Anglican prayers.

Why on earth would you leave any two out, except to shorten the service by a few seconds?



IJ

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
The introduction of Common Worship in the C of E was supposed to be an opportunity to encourage clergy to become more liturgically adept and creative. Sadly, all it seems to have done is give clergy the freedom to indulge their own preferences without any regard to even mild levels of good practice and liturgical tradition.

---

Another step towards Nonconformism, then?
 

---

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The expectation was that liturgy was taught by the training incumbent.

---

 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Well, this particular training incumbent had been a director of ordinands and had an interest in liturgy, so, yes, this curate was trained in liturgy. But I could see that this might not always be the case.

St Mellitus had a lot of input from HTB in setting up this training facility.
 

---

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
anecdotal evidence suggests that many of today's clergy are both liturgically and pastorally inept.

---

Sadly, that is undeniably true. The introduction of Common Worship in the C of E was supposed to be an opportunity to encourage clergy to become more liturgically adept and creative...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Archaic?

Yea, verily, but yet in ye rubricks....

IJ

---

quote:

---

But anecdotal evidence suggests that many of today's clergy are both liturgically and pastorally inept.

---

quote:

---

It is evident that many of today's clergy are inept.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
anecdotal evidence suggests that many of today's clergy are both liturgically and pastorally inept.

---

Sadly, that is undeniably true. The introduction of Common Worship in the C of E was supposed to be an opportunity to encourage clergy to become more liturgically adept and creative...

---

And why the blue blazes would you want the CofE clergy to be 'liturgically creative'? Get some good liturgy (which the CofE has on the whole a tradition of) and then get the clergy to use it without sodding it about. Say the black, do the red. Job done.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
But *why*? Cooking your own liturgy is not the CofE's tradition. ...

---

quote:

---

Isn't it? It strikes me as being very much part of the Anglo-Catholic tradition to claim to know better than the Prayer Book,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
But *why*? Cooking your own liturgy is not the CofE's tradition. ...

---

Isn't it? It strikes me as being very much part of the Anglo-Catholic tradition to claim to know better than the Prayer Book, to change the order in which things happen, and to try to get away with inserting extra bits purloined from either the 1549 prayer book or the Roman Missal depending on taste.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
But *why*? Cooking your own liturgy is not the CofE's tradition. ...

---

Isn't it? It strikes me as being very much part of the Anglo-Catholic tradition to claim to know better than the Prayer Book, to change the order in which things happen, and to try to get away with inserting extra bits purloined from either the 1549 prayer book or the Roman Missal depending on taste.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
ISTM that poor Cranmer became embroiled in the political brouhaha of his time, and was (I suppose) forced, in a sense, to change the 1549 English version of the Mass to the odd concoction of 1552.

One wonders what might have transpired if 1549 had remained the norm.

IJ

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
but that's not 'cooking your own'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by georgiaboy:
... All but the more virulent/violent prods would today, I think, agree that 1549 was much better than 1552. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by georgiaboy:
... All but the more virulent/violent prods would today, I think, agree that 1549 was much better than 1552. ...

---

Terrible though it may seem even to whisper such a thing on this board, but I don't think many regular churchgoers, whether virulent/violent prods, easy-going MotRers, or even quite a lot of affable AffCaths either know or care.

---

And according to Diarmaid McCulloch's bio of Blessèd Thomas, the martyr preferred 1552 over 1549, which he felt made far too many concessions to the unadvanced. The 1549 is closer to the TEC, South African, and Canadian books than the 1552, but that is perhaps for another thread.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I don't think there is any "perhaps" about it!
 

---

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
/slight tangent alert/

IIRC, the 1549 Communion rite is still available for use in the C of E, though I think you need the Bishop's permission. It sometimes gets 're-enacted' liturgically, as part of a training course, for example.

Having said that, the service booklet would need to be rendered in modern spelling!

Here is the first part of the service, rendered as a Low Mass without music - not a particularly high quality film, BTW, but sufficient to give a flavour of this first English-language Mass.

IJ
 

---

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I don't think there is any "perhaps" about it!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
... Here is the first part of the service, rendered as a Low Mass without music - not a particularly high quality film, BTW, but sufficient to give a flavour of this first English-language Mass. ...

---

I accept that the sound quality isn't very good, but as an illustration of what I'm complaining about when I've described on these boards a typical Anglo-Catholic Communion Service of 50 years ago as "turn your back on the congregation, hunch over the altar and mumble" that could hardly be bettered.
 

---

Posted by Puzzler (# 18908) on :
 
To think that our new vicar could have been of that ilk!

When considering what sort of person was wanted, the PCC stated a preference , if forced to one extreme or the other, for low church rather than ultra high, so in that respect we got what we wanted. Just wish he would prepare properly for worship, not have to ask someone half way through.
 

---

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
@Enoch - well, I didn't say I particularly liked the flavour!



@Puzzler - I agree that good preparation is essential, however familiar or unfamiliar the liturgy might be. There's no excuse for sloppiness, which is unworthy of the Lord we are supposed to be worshipping.

IJ
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Equally true for Nonconformists, by the way - I hate sloppy rambling unthoughtout services.
 

---

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I expect the same could apply to RC services - one hears of slap-dash Masses, edifying to neither beast or man.

IJ
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
but that's not 'cooking your own'

---

It is if you're the one who chooses which bits to add or leave out where, and which cupboard you take them from. It is, even more, if you get to choose when you can look down your noses at those who don't make exactly the same selection as you do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
[QUOTE] ...according to Diarmaid McCulloch's bio of Blessèd Thomas, the martyr preferred 1552 over 1549, which he felt made far too many concessions to the unadvanced.

---

quote:

---

[Enoch] I accept that the sound quality isn't very good, but as an illustration of what I'm complaining about when I've described on these boards a typical Anglo-Catholic Communion Service of 50 years ago as "turn your back on the congregation, hunch over the altar and mumble" that could hardly be bettered.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Puzzler:
All- age worship (Morning Prayer) this morning.
Service lasted 44 minutes and that included about 10 minutes of extraneous material ie various additional notices, welcome to a new family, a birthday, with three lots of applause......no psalm, no canticles, no robes, no candles, no choir, piano not organ, no reverence, sermon of dubious theology, lost his place because he swapped the order around.
Can I bear to go again?

---

quote:

---

Cranmer would have had the altar in the nave, with the priest facing North, not East.

---

On the north side of the Lord's Table, facing south, I think you mean.



@Puzzler - sounds pretty dire, but it need not necessarily be so. An All-Age service could well include robes (alb and stole), candles (2 on the altar), piano, and reverence.

It need not include 10 minutes of notices, applause, faffing around because of lack of preparation, or a sermon of dubious theology (though that's perhaps a subjective opinion).

IJ
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Does anyone know enough about the 1549 prayer book to know whether the priest continued to face east with his back to the congregation, as in the previous Latin version and as in the youtube? My impression is that the instruction to be on the north side wouldn't have come in until either 1552 or 1559, but I don't know.
 

---

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Does anyone know enough about the 1549 prayer book to know whether the priest continued to face east with his back to the congregation, as in the previous Latin version and as in the youtube? My impression is that the instruction to be on the north side wouldn't have come in until either 1552 or 1559, but I don't know.

---

quote:

---

Then the Priest, turnyng hym to the Altar, shall saye or syng, playnly and distinctly, this prayer folowyng...

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0