Thread: Where and how can the gospel be read at the eucharist? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=022389
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
This came up on the Random Liturgical Questions thread and I thought it had mileage.

St Paul's Cathedral, London (C of E) has a large brass bird on top of a narrow plinth at the west side of the dome (ie opposite the altar). The foot of the lectern is well above head height.

At the gospel, the gospeller takes the gospel book in procession there, mounts the narrow stairs and proclaims the gospel to the congregation, who will have to turn round in their places to hear it. Acolytes and crucifer stand at the foot of the lectern.

Afterwards, the gospel book was taken to the president/celebrant (at least when he was in bishop's orders as the previous dean was) to be kissed.

Graham Knowles (the previous dean) may not have had the political nous to deal with the protestors, but he certainly had liturgical courage.
 
Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :
 
In the Byzantine Rite, the place of the reading of the Gospel always has some physical relationship to the Holy Doors. This is because of the rich meaning of the altar as the Kingdom, and the doors as the entry to the Kingdom. Their opening and closing throughout the Liturgy at certain times reinforces this. They will often bear images of the Four Evangelists in addition to the Annunciation.

At the end of the Epistle, a lectern is set up just outside the Holy Doors, facing east, towards the doors. During the Alleluia, servers with lights and fans move to stand on either side of the lectern, then the deacon comes out of the altar through the Holy Doors, carrying the Gospel Book. He places it on the lectern. After the priestly blessing, "Peace be unto all", the fans are held over the Gospel book, and the Gospel is read. At the end, the fans are raised, and the servers with fans and lights return to the altar. The priest moves to the doors, kisses the passage that has been read, receives the book from the deacon, and blesses the people with it.

If it is an Episcopal Liturgy, the Gospel may be read from the bishop's platform in the middle of the nave. If so, things are done as above (save for ceremonial variations to do with the episcopal rite), but a procession is made to and from the place of proclamation with the Gospel Book preceded by lights and flanked by the fans. On the original thread, I linked to this video, where such a procession may be seen at about 7.00.

(In the absence of a deacon, the bishop or priest reads the Gospel himself, standing just outside the Holy doors, but facing west rather than east.)
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
We sing the Gospel acclamation as the Priest holds up the Bible and processes to half way down the nave, with acolytes leading the way. A server will then hold the book while the priest or deacon reads. The Gospel fanfare is played as they all return to the chancel.

I have seen this similar pattern in many CofE churches, although they tend to be the ones higher up the candle.
 
Posted by Jante (# 9163) on :
 
Here at college we do as Chorister said [Big Grin]
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
That's interesting. That arrangement is very common now in the C of E.

I never had experience of English Missal liturgy but I was at that sort of service on Sunday and they did the same (middle of the nave stuff).

However I came to catholic worship after Vatican 2, and I was used to all the readings being read from the same place - the procession with light and incense was to the lectern.

Trisagion has told me elsewhere that the centre-of-the-nave stuff is rare as dragon's teeth in RC churches now.

This seems to be a case where MOTR Anglicans have adopted something when Rome has dropped it. (I'm usually wary of that sort of things - burse and veil on the altar and not the credence from the start, priests dressed up as deacons, turning East for the creed, etc - but here it seems appropriate.)
 
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :
 
I wonder whether things are happening for technical reasons to do with the PA system rather than deep theological ones. If you either have no PA (e.g. because it hasn't been invented yet) or a modern one with clip on radio mikes, reading in the middle of the congregation is an option. If you use wired microphones, you need to read from a fixed location.

Of course, due to an inherent conservatism, some churches may be doing things because of limitations of their previous PA system.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
We sing the Gospel acclamation as the Priest holds up the Bible and processes to half way down the nave, with acolytes leading the way. A server will then hold the book while the priest or deacon reads. The Gospel fanfare is played as they all return to the chancel.

I have seen this similar pattern in many CofE churches, although they tend to be the ones higher up the candle.
Very similar to us, except that we sing the last verse or so of the Gradual Hymn during the procession to the middle of the nave. The Gospel Acclamation is then said by the Deacon (Sung Eucharists) or chanted by the choir with the congregation singing the Alleluias with them(Choral Eucharists) and the Gospel is announced. All turn during the procession to follow the Gospel.

We find it strangely moving. The good news is brought to the people.
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

Trisagion has told me elsewhere that the centre-of-the-nave stuff is rare as dragon's teeth in RC churches now.

This seems to be a case where MOTR Anglicans have adopted something when Rome has dropped it.
Except that this was never RC custom. Those RC places which do have such a procession and proclamation of the Gospel from the centre of the nave are copying the Anglicans, not vice versa.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
And the people have to turn in their places - the are involved in the action. (Although at St Paul's the congregation could be very reluctant to turn all the way round to face in the opposite direction - the gospel lectern faces the altar.)
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

Trisagion has told me elsewhere that the centre-of-the-nave stuff is rare as dragon's teeth in RC churches now.

This seems to be a case where MOTR Anglicans have adopted something when Rome has dropped it.
Except that this was never RC custom. Those RC places which do have such a procession and proclamation of the Gospel from the centre of the nave are copying the Anglicans, not vice versa.
Except, of course, that was decidedly what I did not post, as FrTT knows, having seen the other thread. Delete the word 'now' and I can confirm that it accords with what I said. There was never, to my knowledge, a procession to the middle of the church in the Roman Rite - or in its Sarum Use. In some places, but by no means all, the Gospel was sung from a station on the liturgical North of the church outside the sanctuary but it was more common (if a Solemn Mass could ever be called common) for that to take place within the choir.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Life's much easier for us. In our Church of England parish the gospel is usually read from the lectern, just like all the other readings. There is no propcession (though recently the vicar has been sneaking some "Alleluias" in occasionally) and the reader is whoever is on the rota to do the readings that day.

The lectern is one of those nice wooden eagles with brass trimmings. On the liturgical south side of the chancel, between the choir stalls and the top of the two low steps we have there.

Of course these days that means it is also, from the congregations point of view, just behind the piano and in front of that horrible big projection screen which is there for about two thirds of the services. And I wish it wasn't. Its ugly, ugly, ugly. Yet another example of the declining standards of the church, along with the recent deplorable move to wafers instead of real bread. [Disappointed]
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
Here's how one R.C. place does it!
 
Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Here's how one R.C. place does it!
My phone doesn't have the necessary plug-in to play that video. Knowing what it is, though, having been subjected to it in the past, I can tell you that the joy this brings to my heart is surpassed only by my recent discovery that one of our dioceses has a Department for Service Rubrics. Interestingly, the envy that followed that joy on that occasion seems remarkably absent on this one. [Biased]
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Life's much easier for us. In our Church of England parish the gospel is usually read from the lectern, just like all the other readings.
Ken - that's what RCs do. As they said above. They just have a few servers at the lectern to add dignity and shed a bit of light and make it smell nice.
 
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 
As has been posted, the Roman rite traditionally processed to a point and faced north. If the church had fairly large sanctuary, this point would be inside the rails (as is done in my FSSP parish); otherwise, it would be done just outside. It was never down into the nave.

My understanding has always been that the center of the nave position was a post-WII practice that originated within the Anglican liturgical movement. An AC priest once told me that in fact, it originated with high-on-the-candle parishes that had no space large enough for the traditional gospel processsion to reach and face north; by default they ended up in the center of the nave, and then only later (in the 1960s) did the explanation that the intent was to proclaim the gospel from the midst of the people take hold. Early editions of Ritual Notes mention the northward position only, never the nave. I believe the final edition may mention the nave as an option, but I am not at home now and cannot look it up in my copy.

Post Vatican II practice in the OF has been use the lectern for all readings, including the gospel--with lights and incense added for the gospel, where desired.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Post Vatican II practice in the OF has been use the lectern for all readings, including the gospel--with lights and incense added for the gospel, where desired.
Could I just say this shows up what an unhelpful phrase "higher up the candle" is?

Ken's church is following paragraph 272 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, and chorister's is not. So in that sense, ken's church is "higher up the candle".
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Can some liturgist please explain to me why anyone would turn and read the gospel pointing away at right angles to the congregation so that they cannot hear it?
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
Or standing at the short north end of the holy table to start the order of Holy Communion?

People were used to projecting their voices, and the gospel would have been chanted, so it would have been audible. After all, opera singers are used to looking sideways at one another in dramatic situations and not just facing the audience.
 
Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Can some liturgist please explain to me why anyone would turn and read the gospel pointing away at right angles to the congregation so that they cannot hear it?
Well, two theories of why the practice of reading the Gospel towards the north came about have been suggested already. One is symbolic and the other is practical. If the catechumens were indeed customarily placed to the north prior to their dismissal, then reading the Gospel in their direction seems quite sensible. This is, after all, the culmination of the Mass of the Catechumens.

The congregation's not being able to hear doesn't compute for me. Unless the building is vast, I don't see how the Gospel will be inaudible to any but those with the most severe of hearing difficulties, which, in modern times, would be easily rectified by electronic means. In former times, I suppose this would not have been perceived as such a pressing concern.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Them of us what lives up north tend to be a bit hard of hearing. Hence the tradition.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
The usual drill here is from the north side of the altar. i.e. the Gospel side of the top step facing the congregation. However, sometimes I revert to the habit of reading it from the pulpit, which is what the MOTR-High church of my yoof did most of the time.

The Gospel procession in that shack came down to the chancel step in those pre-microphone days. On the rare occasions we have a Gospel procession it goes to the north side just inside the Communion rails which are at the "west" end of the quire area of our church. The alleys between the pews in our place are a bit tight, so we could not go out into the nave even if we wanted to.

PD

[ 19. April 2012, 16:31: Message edited by: PD ]
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Can some liturgist please explain to me why anyone would turn and read the gospel pointing away at right angles to the congregation so that they cannot hear it?
Michael Astley's is helpful and there is another element that needs to be considered. In the Roman Rite - at least by the time of the Carolignian reforms in the ninth century - the readings at Mass and especially the Gospel had not only a pedagogical character but also (and increasingly so) a laudatory one: I.e. they were there not only, and eventually not even primarily, for the instruction of the faithful but as a liturgical act of the praise and worship of the Father by the proclamation of his Word/word.
 
Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
In the Roman Rite - at least by the time of the Carolignian reforms in the ninth century - the readings at Mass and especially the Gospel had not only a pedagogical character but also (and increasingly so) a laudatory one: I.e. they were there not only, and eventually not even primarily, for the instruction of the faithful but as a liturgical act of the praise and worship of the Father by the proclamation of his Word/word.
Thank you for this, Trisagion. I think that this was perhaps not limited to the Roman Rite and I actually find this explanation quite helpful.

My parish has no deacon so it was quite some time after becoming Orthodox that I first saw the Gospel proclaimed by a deacon in the manner described in my first post to this thread. I know about prayers towards the east but to my mind the Gospel, read to the people, ought to be read facing them. Yes, other readings were done facing east but at least the reader was among the people and not in front of them. It was only when I came to understand the significance of the doors that this began to make sense.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Turning to face where the catechumens used to be or where the infidels were in the fourth century strikes me as like having a guru's cat that one can tie up.

Besides, for those of us who can hear, but not brilliantly, it's much easier to hear someone who's facing towards you, and whose lips and facial expression you can see.

As for
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion
the readings at Mass and especially the Gospel had not only a pedagogical character but also (and increasingly so) a laudatory one: I.e. they were there not only, and eventually not even primarily, for the instruction of the faithful but as a liturgical act of the praise and worship of the Father by the proclamation of his Word/word.
I appreciate that I have a bit of a blind spot when it comes to symbolism, but I really don't get that one. If one is proclaiming the Word/word, it is hobbling its power if one makes it harder for people to hear it.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Turning to face where the catechumens used to be or where the infidels were in the fourth century strikes me as like having a guru's cat that one can tie up.

Besides, for those of us who can hear, but not brilliantly, it's much easier to hear someone who's facing towards you, and whose lips and facial expression you can see.

As for
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion
the readings at Mass and especially the Gospel had not only a pedagogical character but also (and increasingly so) a laudatory one: I.e. they were there not only, and eventually not even primarily, for the instruction of the faithful but as a liturgical act of the praise and worship of the Father by the proclamation of his Word/word.
I appreciate that I have a bit of a blind spot when it comes to symbolism, but I really don't get that one. If one is proclaiming the Word/word, it is hobbling its power if one makes it harder for people to hear it.
Yes, I can see that. It is why one of the first manifestations of the Liturgical Movement was to have Missals in the vernacular so that people could follow and why, typically, before the revision of the Roman Rite in the late 20th century, the priest would read the Epistle and Gospel in the vernacular after they had been ritually proclaimed and before he preached.

What you are running up against is a very strong strand in the liturgy of both the West and the East, which developed really very early, which didn't see the liturgy in terms of the understandable or comprehensible but in terms of a ritual to be done, (ex opere operato so to speak. It was not a church service in any sense that is familiar to us from the sixteenth century onwards. It is part of the reason why, in Roman Rite Catholicism the practice of devotional prayer (both privately and privately during the Mass, and public services of devotion such as benediction, rosary etc.) grew up.

The theological understanding went something like this: the Liturgy and pre-eminently the Mass is about the worship of God the Father by His Son in the power of the Holy Spirit. In the liturgy the Son - the Eternal Word - is made present, not simply through the transformation of bread and wine but in the very ritual itself. When the Gospel is read, sung, proclaimed, in a mystical sense Christ is present, whether we understand all, some or none of what is being read, sung, proclaimed. All this is good and beautiful and true but it is not the whole of the picture and, since one of the principles of the constant reform of the Catholic liturgy, inspired by the Liturgical Movement, first enunciated in the formal teaching of the Church by Pope St Pius X in 1903, and taken up by the Second Vatican Council in 1962, was that the liturgy should encourage 'full, conscious and active/actual*' participation of all the faithful, moving to a proclamation which encompassed the notion of comprehension alongside the laudatory was an obvious and very welcome development. The former notion held sway for a very long time and was, in no small measure, part of the pattern of Catholic life that contributed to a lack of knowledge of and engagement with Sacred Scripture among the lay faithful (and the clergy!). As the pendulum has swung to correct this, particularly following the post-Vatican II revisions to the liturgy, this has begun to be corrected. A countervaling problem has, however, arisen: in many places now, hanging on to the laudatory component has proved very difficult with the Liturgy of the Word being particularly susceptible to an overweening pedagogical approach.

Does any of that help?
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Yes it does. Thanks.

I'm definitely though with St Pius X and Vatican II on this.
 
Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Besides, for those of us who can hear, but not brilliantly, it's much easier to hear someone who's facing towards you, and whose lips and facial expression you can see.
I think that is true of anybody, Enoch. My hearing is quite good but I still find being able to see the movement of the mouth to be helpful. However, I still struggle to imagine someone chanting aloud with the purpose of making himself heard not being heard by any but those with severe hearing difficulties, whom I would imagine would have devices for assisting them in any case.

An experienced reader (which clergy with such a role ought to be), will know how to assess the resonance of his chanting in the liturgical space and modify the diction, pitch, and speed of his reading accordingly. I have heard loud readers with no clarity, and quieter readers with perfect clarity. Demonstrating a bit of both seems better. This is what I was taught to do when I was ordained a reader and I still try to do this when I read in church.

Perhaps our experiences are just very different.
 
Posted by Patrick (# 305) on :
 
Christ is risen!
I was told that the Gospel was read facing north because that was where evangelization was going on or needed at the time: the lands of the heathen.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
The only people north of us are the Scots, the Faroese and the Icelanders, all of whom were first evangelised a millenium ago. Most of the infidels these days are to the east or at home. So it does look as though this explanation is firmly in guru's cat territory.

I've always assumed the practice of chanting prose as well as music goes back to more recent restraints. In the days before PA systems, unless a church has been designed with the care of a Greek amphitheatre, chanting in such a way as catches the resonant frequencies of the liturgical space may be the only way of being heard.

The style of some old time preachers seems to have been a bit similar.
 
Posted by Patrick (# 305) on :
 
Christ is risen!
Of course, the use goes back perhaps at least a millenium: folks like the Northmen come to mind. What to do, though, when at present the heathen might live down the block?
 
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :
 
Being a member of a cathedral (where I became Episcopalian) and working in another cathedral now, I'm used to a Gospel procession that usually happens during a hymn (because it takes some time), in which a deacon (or priest in the role of deacon) carries the Gospel book into the center aisle among the congregation, accompanied by acolytes with torches, the subdeacon/lay assistant who will hold the book while the Gospel is proclaimed, and either a crucifer or beadle/verger to lead the way. In my home church, there isn't an Alleluia; where I am now, there is (it happens after the hymn). On feasts especially, or even every Sunday, the Gospel book is also censed (which means the thurifer also comes along in the procession, usually immediately preceding the deacon).

What I like about all this is that people will turn to face the Gospel as it travels, and will normally bow to the book when it passes them (if it does). It took me a while to understand this, but it's an embodied way of knowing that we read the Scriptures through the lens of the Gospel (I grew up in a tradition where all Scripture held equal weight and the Gospel was no more a lens for reading, e.g., Jeremiah than Leviticus was!).

I also attend Mass at a RC seminary where I'm affiliated (the Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley, part of the Graduate Theological Union). There, a deacon (if there's one in the liturgy) or the priest will move from the presider's seat to the lectern during the Alleluia and read the Gospel from the lectern. (It's usually just in the same lectionary that the other readings were in). This is also what we do at the cathedral where I work during our daily Masses - except there's no alleluia. I know some prefer this as it keeps the whole liturgy of the Word - from the readings to the Gospel to the homily, or "response to the Gospel" as it's sometimes called - in the same place.

I see merit in both ways of doing it. I also understand in some places the readings (OT & Epistle) are read from a lectern opposite the pulpit and the Gospel is read from the pulpit. To my mind, this creates a sort of call-and-response which demonstrates that the Gospel and all Scriptures are in conversation, that they echo one another.

I think it's very useful to reflect on the aesthetic experience of however you choose to do your liturgy, including the Gospel proclamation, and avoid anything that sends aesthetic signals that might contradict the message you want to be sending. For example, for a while in one liturgy I was involved in, the readings were all printed in the leaflet, and the clergy started proclaiming the Gospel by reading it from the leaflet. I successfully protested that this was much too casual, and the Gospel should be proclaimed from something more permanent than a leaflet which was going to be tossed in the recycle bin right after the service. Everyone understood that point and adopted it immediately. Whether the "permanence" is represented by a bound book, or a binder that's always used at the service, or a lectern, or even by using the same rituals around the reading week after week, the aesthetic experience of solidity and permanence is important.
 
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick:
Christ is risen!
I was told that the Gospel was read facing north because that was where evangelization was going on or needed at the time: the lands of the heathen.
I'm not familiar with that practice, but I do know from other sources that the cardinal direction North can be associated with darkness (at least for those living in the Northern hemisphere! - and South is associated with light and warmth). Symbolically that could represent the unevangelized regardless of which literal direction actually needs evangelizing. I would suspect it's similar to "liturgical west."

But historically, I have no idea. I'm just guessing!
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Ken's church is following paragraph 272 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, and chorister's is not. So in that sense, ken's church is "higher up the candle".
No, the RCs are lower...
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
[Big Grin]
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Anyone have the Gospel sung? I've heard that in an Anglo-Catholic church in London, but not anywhere else.
 
Posted by Devils Advocate (# 16484) on :
 
"Anyone have the Gospel sung? I've heard that in an Anglo-Catholic church in London, but not anywhere else."

We have it sung( or should I say intoned) occasionally.
Always, whether Mass is being celebrated at the High Altar or the Nave Altar from the middle of the nave. Usually Thurifer then MC with Acolytes then the Gospel Deacon or if only the Celebrant is present him. We move out during the last verse of the Gradual Hymn and then the Alleluias and sentence is intoned by the cantor then the gospel is announced The book is then censed and the Gospel read with the usual versicles and responses. At the end the Gospel party returns to the Altar, Reverences it and the book is returned to the lectern. then follows the sermon [I][/I]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Anyone have the Gospel sung? I've heard that in an Anglo-Catholic church in London, but not anywhere else.
Edington Festival usually has a sung gospel. My parish church sings the 'top and tail' of it but not the actual text. One of our churches does it on special occasions. years ago, I sang an epistle (nicer tone than the gospel).

If I had my way, the gospel would always be sung.

[ 25. April 2012, 15:03: Message edited by: leo ]
 
Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Anyone have the Gospel sung? I've heard that in an Anglo-Catholic church in London, but not anywhere else.
Just about most places I have regularly or occasionally worshipped for the past six years, just like my childhood. There was a six-year blip when I mostly heard it read but I have certainly heard it chanted more times than not.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:


If I had my way, the gospel would always be sung.
May I ask why? I agree it's a proclamation, not a lesson, but the impact of the gospel is lessened (and tamed, IMHO) if it is treated as a pretty bit of text to be embellished rather than a message to hit home.
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
I'm with Angloid on this one. What ever else you do with the gospel (and the proper preface in the eucharist incidentally), it should be intelligible.

Singing it is wonderfully esoteric, but doesn't help the people "in a tongue understood of the...") It's OK for people whose ears are tuned to listening to music and getting the lyrics (no problem presumably if you're an opera buff), but for most of us, it just makes the Word incarnate (which you presumably want to venerate and celebrate in the reading of the gospel) into the Mysterious Word Obscure.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
[ [Hot and Hormonal] Basking in the warmth of episcopal approbation. [Smile] ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:


If I had my way, the gospel would always be sung.
May I ask why? I agree it's a proclamation, not a lesson, but the impact of the gospel is lessened (and tamed, IMHO) if it is treated as a pretty bit of text to be embellished rather than a message to hit home.
Cause I like it!

More seriously, it's what they do in the synagogue, along with the processing and kissing. Keeps our roots with Judaism.
 
Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :
 
It seems to me that the word 'sung' perhaps gives the wrong impression. 'Chanted' or 'intoned' is a more accurate description.

And to cite a particular instance:
one of our deacons usually reads the gospel, and even with a clip-on mike is difficult to hear/understand. On those occasions when he chants the text, no problem (or at least less of one).

The apparent reason is that chanting takes more effort than speaking, and so he paces and projects more carefully, thus increasing the understanding of the people. YMMV, of course.
 
Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
And to cite a particular instance:
one of our deacons usually reads the gospel, and even with a clip-on mike is difficult to hear/understand. On those occasions when he chants the text, no problem (or at least less of one).

The apparent reason is that chanting takes more effort than speaking, and so he paces and projects more carefully, thus increasing the understanding of the people. YMMV, of course.
Well, this is the reason for my lack of comprehension as well, as expressed further upthread. The chanting makes it audible and deliberate, allowing the meaning of the words to come through more clearly than when simply read in a speaking voice.

If people's experience of hearing the Gospel chanted is that it makes it obscure then I can only surmise that the reason is not the chanting itself but rather lack of competence - something that should really be looked after in the liturgical formation of prospective clergy. The problem is that when theological colleges don't bother so much with liturgical formation (and we have had threads in the past where people have revealed that many do not), and new clergy end up with a training incumbent who is ill-prepared to make up the deficit, then the situation is a case of the one-eyed leading the blind, who are left to do their best to fumble their own way along. Is it any wonder that shambles is the result?

As I re-read some of the above comments, what I'm understanding is:

If (a) we do not train our future deacons to chant the Gospel properly and (b) the result is that the Gospel is often chanted so badly that it renders the words incomprehensible (which we all agree is undesirable), then the solution to the problem is that (c) we should be more guarded about chanting the Gospel.

I'm sure there's a logical fallacy there somewhere.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
As an opera buff, I'd point out that we usually have the words in English on surtitles, even when as at the English National Opera they are singing in English.

Surely it's enthusiasts for rap who are used to following all the words?

(I agree about the synagogue.)
 
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :
 
Chanting definitely sprang from the need to be heard and understood. That was before microphones, of course.

I personally love chanting, anywhere in the liturgy it can be done. Some people just can't chant, no matter how hard they try, and they should be allowed to speak clearly instead, IMO.

If the Gospel is chanted well, it can be intensely moving. There's a woman at a church in the Diocese of California who composes her own chant tunes for the Gospel, and it's amazing to hear. I was surprised when she said it was her own tune. It sounds like it must be some really ancient work. But the point is she sets it to the text in such a way that it really brings out the text. All chant tones have that potential; they just have to be pointed correctly.

I also heard a really moving chant this past Good Friday (done by 3 choirmen) of the Passion, which would've been entirely different if it had (merely) been read. It was the traditional tone, and at the end (I don't know the proper terms here) the plaintive tone was so heart-rending, mostly because it was done so well by the man who chanted it.
 
Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
I personally love chanting, anywhere in the liturgy it can be done. Some people just can't chant, no matter how hard they try, and they should be allowed to speak clearly instead, IMO.
I agree that some people just can't but would take it a step further and, in a statement that might be considered offensive to those from traditions where the ordained ministerial role isn't specifically priestly/liturgical, suggest that the inability to liturgise properly might be reason to consider whether ordination to an order that exists largely for that purpose is entirely proper.

The gifts that the person does have may well flourish in a ministry where they can do so and be of service to the Church.

[ 30. April 2012, 20:28: Message edited by: Michael Astley ]
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
Thank you for that, churchgeek. In England I think people are frightened of chanting texts, as they are frightened by too much physical contact, even if ritually controlled.

For what it's worth here is Archimandritre Ephrem (Lash):

The reason that the Gospel and the other readings from Holy Scripture are always chanted in the Church and never simply read is to make sure that the readers do not impose, by their inflections and emphases, their own interpretations on God’s word.


I don't completely agree but I deeply appreciate his point.
 
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :
 
I've never thought about the gospel or epistle always being chanted in those terms, but it is an interesting idea. I guess I've always figured, in addition to whatever theological underpinnings there are to the practice, having the gospel and epistle chanted sets them apart from normal speech and discourse. You're definitely not hearing the announcements or other normal business being read.

There are no recited or merely spoken divine services I can think of. Perhaps all for those reasons.
 
Posted by Mockingbird (# 5818) on :
 
At my midwestern university chapel in the mid-1980s, the Gospel was chanted on high holy-days.

In the early centuries, the Gospel was read from the ambo. (For example, see Ordo Romanus I.) Since there was no single approach to church architecture then, any more than now, the ambo might in some places be in the middle of the nave. So a Gospel-procession to the middle of the nave has ancient precedent in addition to being an inherently reasonable thing to do.

[ 02. May 2012, 03:56: Message edited by: Mockingbird ]
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
The most satisfactory way I've seen a fixed lectern used for all the readings was in a small City church in which the seats were arranged facing inwards, collegiate style.

The large lectern was at the West end, facing the altar. Lay people read the readings there, and then there was a procession with lights and incense for the gospel.

The next rector didn't like the arrangement and got rid of it.
 
Posted by SFG (# 17081) on :
 
In Church of England or Anglican use is it required that the Gospel be read by a priest or deacon?

I know it often is but is this custom or is it prescribed?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
No, it is not required. And laypeople often read the Gospel.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
The rubrics of the 1662 direct that the priest read both the Epistle and the Gospel. I don't know whether those rubrics have any real force in the C of E or not.

It's generally catholic custom to reserve the reading of the Gospel at Communion to an ordained minister (which would mean at least a deacon). Of course, Anglicanism comprehends a wide range of churchmanship, and not all of that range really cares whether the Gospel is read by a person in or out of orders.

I get the sense that lay readers for the Gospel are more common in England than the US, though--the US in general tending to be higher up the candle.
 
Posted by SFG (# 17081) on :
 
Thank you.

I had not realised that the. Bcp made that rule. Does it similarly require an ordained person to read the lessons at Matins and Evensong?

Has the requirement for a priest to read the Gospel, as found in the BCP survived in any Anglican church?
 
Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :
 
From the preface tothe mass in the current BCP of the Province of the West Indies:

quote:
A Deacon should read the Gospel and may lead The Prayers. Deacons should also serve at the altar, preparing and placing on it the offerings of bread and wine, and assisting in the ministration of the Sacrament to the people. In the absence of a Deacon, these duties may be performed by an assisting priest, or by a lay person licensed by the Bishop to undertake these duties.
In my experience, the reading of the Gospel was not one of the duties for which lay people were ever licensed.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SFG:
Thank you.

I had not realised that the. Bcp made that rule. Does it similarly require an ordained person to read the lessons at Matins and Evensong?

Has the requirement for a priest to read the Gospel, as found in the BCP survived in any Anglican church?
At the churches I go to, the gospel is read by a priest, deacon or lay reader. Certainly that has always been my experience in cathedrals, and I'd be very surprised otherwise.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SFG:
Does it similarly require an ordained person to read the lessons at Matins and Evensong?
No. It just says "the Minister" ot "He that readeth". As Morning and Evening Prayer are specifically commanded to be read by a lay person "if no priest be present" that Minister obviously does not have to be ordained.

The BCP doesn't distinguish between the Gospel and other scriptures at Communion.The rubric is:

quote:

And immediately after the Collect the Priest shall read the Epistle, saying, The Epistle [or, The portion of Scripture appointed for the Epistle] is written in the - Chapter of - beginning at the - Verse. And the Epistle ended, he shall say, Here endeth the Epistle. Then shall he read the Gospel (the people all standing up) saying...
But we hardly ever see BCP Communion services any more. The few places that still use the BCP sometimes mostly use it at Evening Prayer. Most parishes use Common Worship for Communion (and most of the few that don't abandon Anglican liturgy, often for something they derive from the modern Roman Catholic liturgy)

The following is from the General Notes for Common Worship Holy Communion

quote:
In some traditions the ministry of the deacon at Holy Communion has included some of the following elements: the bringing in of the Book of the Gospels, the invitation to confession, the reading of the Gospel, the preaching of the sermon when licensed to do so, a part in the prayers of intercession, the preparation of the table and the gifts, a part in the distribution, the ablutions and the dismissal.
As it says, "In some traditions". Not most of the Church of England though. Most of the CofE moved from a position of "The vicar does everything in the service" to "anybody can do anything in the service except say the magic words" sometime in twentieth century, without passing through a stage of liturgical deaconing.

[reduced excessive quotation and fixed code]

[ 15. May 2012, 20:59: Message edited by: seasick ]
 
Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :
 
In the present BCP of TEC (1979) the pertinent rubric in Holy Eucharist (both Rite I and Rite II) says 'Then, all standing, the Deacon or a Priest reads the Gospel.' 'An Order for Celebrating the Holy Eucharist' (the so-called Rite III) says merely 'A reading from the Gospel is always included.'
In more than 50 years as an Episcopalian, and across dioceses and parishes ranging from nose-bleed high to snake-belly low, I've never heard the gospel proclaimed by a lay person, though I'm sure it happens.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
The one time I've seen the Gospel read by a layperson was at a wedding conducted by the Rev Rick Fabian. Shipmates who recognize that name will not be surprised : Fr Fabian is well-known for treating the liturgy as a set of Tinkertoys.
 
Posted by SFG (# 17081) on :
 
I would find a lay person reading the gospel at the Eucharist strange, if they were in normal clothing.

If they were 'acting' as a deacon and robed then I would feel ok, I think!

Yes, not consistent, I know.

But maybe thee is some consistency after all come to think of it. I am thinking if the person has some position in the church communi and has some form of authorisation, and shows the special nature of the Gospel etc etc then Ok
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
ken,

You have been on the ship for more than long enough to know our policy about quoting material from other sources. That quote was far too long, especially for something which can be linked.

You have also been on the ship for more than long enough to know how to use ubb properly. The UBB practice thread, preview post and even the editing feature are all your friend.

Go and sin no more.

seasick, Eccles host
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
The one time I've seen the Gospel read by a layperson was at a wedding conducted by the Rev Rick Fabian. Shipmates who recognize that name will not be surprised : Fr Fabian is well-known for treating the liturgy as a set of Tinkertoys.
The one I have to stamp is the old Low Church Episcopal custom of having one clergyman read the Ante-Communion and another the Communion proper. This was very common in the UECNA at one time as most of our parishes are Southern Broad Church in outlook. Gentle persuasion has got it down to an occasional aberation among the older clergy.

The more liturgically intelligent way of spliting the service between two priests seems to be as follows. The celebrant should do the opening greeting, Collect of the Day, and then everything from the Absolution onwards. The other clergyman does the rest, and if there is a Lay Reader he can read the Epistle. This probably reflects what MOTR-Low parishes were doing in the Church of England under Series II, III, and ASB. Of course the "Nervous Order" is also an influence there. Concelebration is always a cluster f*** unless the clergy practice it, and when it comes to liturgy most clergy automatically asssume...

I have a suspicion that it is only quite recently that the custom of allowing a lay person to read the Gospel has become acceptable in MOTR circles. In my home parish - which was MOTR - the Gospel at the Eucharist defaulted to the assistant curate or a retired clergyman, then to the celebrant, and that was the custom in 29 out of 33 churches in what was overwhelmingly a MOTR deanery.

PD

[ 15. May 2012, 21:24: Message edited by: PD ]
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
I suppose there are two factors here. One is, the replacement of Morning Prayer with the Eucharist as the main Sunday service in many parishes, and hence the conflation with the practice of laypeople reading the Old and New testament readings (the second of which even at MP was often the Gospel). The other is the evangelical suspicion of clericalism (which doesn't mean that evangelicals are free of clericalism in other ways) together with the their reluctance to give one part of scripture priority over any other.
 
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :
 
In my parish a server will carry the Gospel book in front of sacristant who will read the text from middle of the nave. If we were to have 2 servers 1 would act as crucifer preceeding the Gospel book & reader.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
If I have two servers we get the "Holy hand-grenade of Antioch" (a.k.a. - Ivan the Thurible) out and have incense at the Gospel - and before you ask, the Introit and Offertory as well.

PD
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
I went to a very well known evangelical church once. There was only one scripture reading, the gospel, read from the pulpit by a young teenage girl.

The poor vicar wasn’t allowed to say anything until the peace apart from the absolution – not even the greeting which Common Worship requires him to do.

But although there were a whole lot of articulate laypersons doing things, my impression was that the body of the congregation were totally passive.

When Common Worship says, rightly, “Holy Communion is celebrated by the whole people of God” it means the whole congregation, not just the articulate few who do things. “The ministry of the members of the congregation is expressed through their active participation together in the words and actions of the service.” Quite.
 
Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on :
 
I don't know the answer to the OP question; I just wanted to make the 10,000th post in Ecclesiantics.
 
Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on :
 
Although I find it rather strange to learn that not the vicar reads the Gospel.However that in many Evangelical, Protestant churches only one reading is being used is far worse.
Since Vatican 2,not only the R.C.Church,but other churches like the Anglicans/Episcopalians,Old-Catholics,and many Lutherans and Methodists have adopted three readings for the Sunday Eucharist.
And I have to confess that I am so glad to hear
the Old-Testament,the Epistle and the Gospel on sundays and festivals.
I have to conclude that all these liturgical churches are in fact far more Biblical than the many Evangelical, Protestant Churches which do very poorly by having one reading each Sunday.
 
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :
 
In the UK I went to a liberal catholic Anglican church with a strong emphasis on lay participation in the life of the church and no stipendiary clergy. For a long time the gospel would be read by one of the lay readers or another of those laity who were licensed by the bishop to distribute communion;the same person would be one of those to later administer the chalice. In time this function was opened up to anyone who wished to do it.

That church did not have liturgical deacon or subdeacon roles. We did have a gospel procession accompanied by cross and/or lights (depending on number of servers) to the front of the nave. I liked that preachers (lay or ordained) would stand at the foot of the pulpit steps rather than in the pulpit to hear the gospel.

We did try taking the gospel down the nave (one time partly out of expediency we took it as far as a frail congregant!) but people just didn't get the turning around to face it business.

In the village church in Australia that I formerly attended, the gospel would be read by a (the) priest, with a gospel procession once a month when our style of service cycled to sung/formal. Occasionally there would be two lay liturgical assistants (rather than the usual one) for this service and in that case one of us might be asked to read the gospel.

Now I am attending a bells & smells church where lay people take on the liturgical deacon & subdeacon roles (I presume that they are lay, as I'm getting to recognise the staff) and there is always a gospel procession to the middle of the aisle.

I like the use of a gospel procession to take the gospel among the people. I also like having any (competent) person read it. I'm not used to the three scared monsters and it doesn't fuss me. Preference, of course.
 
Posted by Qupe (# 12388) on :
 
I don't think that intoning the gospel obscures the meaning of the words at all (when it's done well). I think it makes the reading into an act of worship, in which personal interpretation of the text (which comes through in tone of voice, speed, inflection etc) is temporarily put aside to let the words speak for themselves and to be open to the Spirit speaking through them. So the unity of the church is emphasised through the gathering around the word. We can go back to our disagreements later! (Hopefully a little changed by the Eucharist...)

(Of course, when it's not done well, it can be terrible - but the same can be said for reading...)
 
Posted by Adrian1 (# 3994) on :
 
I've encountered a variety of practice in different places. At the main parish church in my local market town the Gospel is processed down and read from the centre of the nave and, given the architectural setting of that building which, lamentably has a nave altar, it works well. In a local cathedral it's processed down to the lectern in the quire whilst a gradual is sung. Organ music is then played afterwards whilst the altar party makes its way back to the sanctuary for the Creed - Merbecke on good days. At home I follow the traditional English practice of reading the Epistle from the south side of the altar and the Gospel from the north.

With regard to 'singing' or intonation of the Gospel, Percy Dearmer's "The English Liturgy" provides the necessary inflections for that. However as with the Collects, intonation of the Gospel should only be attempted by those who can do it gracefully and well, a stipulation which effectively rules me out. Often the impact is greater if the text is read simply and naturally.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0