Ship of Fools: Saints’ days on Sundays or Are you looking forward to St Simon and St Jude?

Thread: Saints’ days on Sundays or Are you looking forward to St Simon and St Jude? 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=024877

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

There’s an issue of what to do when a saint’s day falls on Sunday. Under the Vatican II rules I got to know, Sundays in seasons always took precedence and in ordinary time there were only four universal days which over-rode the Sunday – John the Baptist, Peter and Paul, the Assumption of Mary and All Saints.

The C of E gets a bit in a muddle as it has to allow for all the saint’s days Cranmer allotted a collect and gospel (principally all the apostles plus a few) – the red letter days.

The current C of E rules are Advent, Lent and Eastertide Sundays always take precedence. For the rest of the time the decision as to keep the Sunday or the saint’s day is with the minister.
This means in effect that evangelicals and Anglo Papalists will agree in ignoring, eg, St Bartholomew, but High Church and MOTR parishes are likely to keep him.

Now it seems to me that there are a few red letter days where the gospel of the day conveys something very important about the Christian faith, ie Thomas, Mary Magdalen and Matthew.

On the other hand I can see no didactic or liturgical value in keeping Barnabas, Bartholomew, Luke or Simon and Jude on a Sunday, unless they are parish patrons.

Because I have a soft spot for the liturgically exotic, I’m quite fond of Michael and All Angels and the three day after Christmas, but I’m not sure they are more significant than the resurrection.

What do people think?

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

Actually I think that VERY High churches would ignore saints' days on Sundays, and transfer to the next feria as in the Roman custom.

Old fashioned (rare) AC churches would keep the Feast on the day (or in the octave), and liberally minded churches that got bored with Trinity-tide.

Here they will be kept, not because we are AC or old fashioned, but to relieve the green.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Actually I think that VERY High churches would ignore saints' days on Sundays, and transfer to the next feria as in the Roman custom.

To clarify what I said, Vatican II Anglo Papalists would ignore Red Letter Days. The Roman rule was that feasts (as opposed to solemnities) would be completely ignored for the year.

Feasts of Our Lord are another matter.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Here in Canada, the rubrics strictly state that unless the Saint is the patron, all Saints' Days should be transferred to the next available weekday.

The theological rationale is that all Sundays are Feasts of Our Lord Jesus Christ. As I wrote on another thread, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity trumps the Saints.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

We follow the old BCP Calendar so you will get the feasts of the Apostles displacing 2nd class Sundays. It does serve the useful function of breaking up the Big Green, and it gives me something different to preach on. I probably donot quie fit the stereotype of who keeps the Feasts and who follows Sundays after Trinity in that there is a lot more J.c. Ryle on my book shelves than Eric Mascall!

PD

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The theological rationale is that all Sundays are Feasts of Our Lord Jesus Christ. As I wrote on another thread, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity trumps the Saints.

I'd agree, but John the Baptist and Mary are both saying something important about the Second Person of the Trinity.

And it is good to remind people that Saint's Days do exist.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I strongly oppose keeping saints days on Sundays because:

1. The general rule of thumb is that every Sunday is a feast of the Resurrection, a mini Easter, a ‘solemnity’ and that only other solemnities of equal rank, i.e of Our Lord or of the Blessed Virgin Mary can replace it. In jargon, the Temporale always takes place over the Sanctorale.

Why should the Resurrection of the Lord be pushed aside in favour of a Saint?

It goes against the lectionary rules of Common Worship: All Sundays celebrate the paschal mystery of the death and resurrection of the Lord. Nevertheless, they also reflect the character of the seasons in which they are set….. When a Festival occurs on the First or Second Sunday of Christmas, a Sunday of Epiphany, a Sunday before Lent, a Sunday after Trinity or on the Fourth, Third or Second Sundays before Advent, it is always to be observed but may be celebrated either on the Sunday or on the first available day thereafter. – St. Stephen is not listed as a ‘festival’. Those festivals listed are The Naming and Circumcision of Jesus (1 January) The Baptism of Christ (Epiphany 1 or, when 6 January is a Sunday, Epiphany 2)
The Conversion of Paul (25 January)( p. 526 of the standard copy of Common Worship.)

The commercially printed annual lectionary gives readings for days like St. Stephen’s Day and puts them as an option against a Sunday on the understanding that ‘where the day has a special local significance (e.g. it it's your patronal festival) ……the minister must remember the need not to lose the spirit of the season’ – hence we would keep St. Paul but transfer or omit St. Stephen.

2. It flies in the face of liturgical principles established over 4 centuries and against current ecumenical agreement

It's supposed to be a way of binding the whole church together, so that whatever one's worship style or theology we at least all hear the same scriptures

Cranmer’s Reformation principle was that scripture should be read in a continuous manner and that nothing should break continuity. (There was an epistle and gospel in the Book of Common Prayer for St. Stephen and a few other saints – drastically reduced in number from those in the Roman Kalendar – but these were an ‘extra’ to those of Morning Prayer. People would have attended Morning Prayer and The Litany BEFORE Holy Communion so continuity would have not been broken.)

After Vatican 2, the Roman Catholic Church came to the same conclusion as Cranmer and instituted a Revised Lectionary.

Anglicans, Lutherans and Methodists moved to accept a modified version of this – the Revised Common Lectionary.

The lectionary expects us to celebrate some festivals instead of the ordinary Sunday – by having a 3-year cycle of readings, as opposed to, eg. St. Stephen’s, which has only one set of readings.

Candlemas and All Saints Day can be celebrated on a Sunday because these two feasts are seen as ‘hinges’ to the year. The former changes the mood from Christmas to Lent, the latter from ordinary time to ‘the kingdom season’ forwards to Advent.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I totally agree with the principal and would that churches I knew took the lectionary more seriously.

And Harvest Festival and Remembrance Sunday shouldn't take precedence over the lectionary either, I'd have thought.

Nor Sea Sunday, Hospital Sunday or Prisoners Sunday.

But I've looked up your reference to the rubrics of Common Worship and they seem completely permissive - whether to keep the Sunday or the Saint's Day is up to the minister.

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

I don't think that the feast of SS Simon & Jude is a solemnity and personally, I like to follow the example of the Roman Rite duly to observe the solemnity on a Sunday in ordinary time, but the Sunday occurring (in ordinary time) of feasts not solemnities. If it is desired to keep this feast, it can be transferred from Sunday to the next convenient day.

I had a problem at my church when the Nativity of St. John the Baptist was not kept at all (falling on a Sunday this year);but the Sunday feast of St. Mary Magdalene was kept rather than the Sunday occurring. If one but not the other was going to be kept, it should have been the other way round. This is a Church of England anomaly.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
.... Remembrance Sunday shouldn't take precedence over the lectionary either, I'd have thought.

Doesn't have to. November 11th is St Martin's Day - patron saint of both soldiers and pacifists. Remembrance fits perfectly into it, as long as you don't go overboard on the nationalism.

CofE practice of doing saints on Sundays at least means parishes get to remember each one once every seven years or so - as almost no-one goes to midweek events, if they bounced the saints off Sunday no-one would ever do any of them in church at all.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

What a coincidence - just got new rota and i am asked to preach on Ss.Simon & Jude.

Previous vicar was a member of the liturgical Commission and rightly eschewed saints on Sundays.

New vicar likes saints on Sundays.

BTW - the idea that it is good to keep saints on Sundays because few go on weekdays - depends - we get about ten to weekday mass. I am not convinced that Sunday only attenders are terribly interested in saints. I think the continuous scripture of the lectionary is more edifying to them than one-offs.

[ 08. August 2012, 18:58: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by uffda (# 14310) on :

Lutherans have been kicking this one around for a while now, with a history of keeping some Saints Days similar to the Anglicans. In the 1978 Lutheran Book of Worship, Saints Days which fell on Sunday in the "green seasons" could replace the Sunday lessons. That's tightened up a bit with the newer Evangelical Book of Worship. e.g. we celebrated St. John the Baptist on June 24, but St. Mary Magdalene was bumped to July 23. Of course you have to figure in the Lutheran propensity to dispense with rubrics and do whatever you want to do.
In our parish we will NOT be looking forward to the feast of Sts. Simon and Jude because that will be trumped by Reformation Sunday which is usually celebrated on the last Sunday of October,
though its proper day is October 31st. All Saints will be celebrated on the first Sunday of November.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
and Remembrance Sunday

I would normally agree that the lectionary takes precedence. However to do so on Remembrance Sunday (certainly in the current climate) would be:

(1) Profoundly to misjudge opinion and current mood

(2) Ignore the opportunity in many places of having (unusually) large numbers of comparatively young people present.

The last few years seem to have seen an amazing resurgence of Remembrance Sunday. Once looking a little old hat, the sight of coffins arriving at Brize Norton and the staggering statistics (largely unknown to the public) of the wounded have given it a startling relevance. One battalion (671 persons) in Afghanistan in 2010 had over 120 casulaties - that is an entire Company out of action with horrendous wounds or onset PTSD. And PTSD diagnosis has only just begun for that battalion. They return there in October.

A regiment known to me has been continuously deployed for over nine years. They are still there. Average age? Probably 23. Two guys who lost both legs, one of them an eye, both of them fingers, were 18. They are now 20. When this war is over, I pray that they will not be forgotten by an embarrassed nation - and church.

Last year at home in a village largely of retired people, I was amazed to see that on Remembrance Sunday the average age of the congregation easily halved - and that was discounting Scouts etc. And, I noticed people QUEUING to get in. The two members of the RBL carrying wreaths were aged 32 and 34 - and men.

The 19 year old in the shoe shop who sold me some deck shoes wore a Help-For-Heroes wrist band. I asked him if he had any miltiary connections and his answer was: 'some mates from school, but it is the least I can do.'

I also noticed that in a very large evangelical CofE parish in Sheffield, the usual service was entirely abandoned and something more in tune with Remembrance, done in their own style, was done.

This is not a political statement as many of those who would attend and give money to H4H do not beleive in the war politically, but support the individual soldiers.

There are many young people, especially in the North in places such as Manchester, Preston, Liverpool, Warrington, Carlisle etc who would feel Remembrance Sunday very deeply. The sight of many serving and ex-servicemen and war widows (one known to me: age 19) going to church probably for the first time voluntarily since primary school is very, very striking.

The church must not fuck this one up.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

The Roman rule is that Sundays of Advent, Lent and Easter take precedence. Sundays in Ordinary Time are pre-empted only by a solemnity or a feast of Our Lord.

Solemnities that could, therefore, pre-empt an ordinary Sunday would be:

Corpus Christi (when transferred)
Nativity of St. John Baptist
Sts. Peter and Paul
Assumption
All Saints
A patronal or titular feast of a church/diocese

Feasts of Our Lord that could pre-empt an ordinary Sunday would be:

Presentation, 2 Feb
Triumph of the Holy Cross, 14 Sept
Dedication of St. John Lateran (Archbasilica of Our Savior, therefore a feast of Our Lord), 9 Nov

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

And the Transfiguration (one of the Twelve Great Feasts of the Orthodox Church).

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

Indeed, venbede. Indeed, that particular Great Feast falls on a Sunday this year and the propers of the feast will supersede all those of the Resurrection. In the Byzanti e Rite, only a Great Feast of the Lord has this privilege. Great Feasts of the Mother of God and indeed, commemorations of any other saints, falling on a Sunday, have their propers combined with those of the Resurrection but never replace them.

The Byzantine Rite makes a big deal, though, of the Resurrection in its Sunday prayers and hymnody in a way that was quite a surprise to me as a new convert. Replacing these with those of a saint would be very noticeable indeed and would seem very much out of place in a way that perhaps it would not in the Roman Rite in its various forms.

Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :

In the modern Roman Rite doesn't All Souls also replace a Sunday?

Posted by emendator liturgia (# 17245) on :

To provide a view from down-under, where many of the liturgical celebrations held in common are at the totally wrong time of year for us: I mean, celebrating Christmas with its scenes of bitter cold, raging snow storms etc when it is 35 degress C outside and the candles are drooping; where Candlemas would be in the bright glare of sunshine; and Lent, 'a spring' time festival, is when the ground is the most scorched.

For many years now a succession of churches have kept saints days that fall on a Saturday or Monday on the Sunday. Given that our parishes here are increasingly not even suburb based (let alone small town or village based), and people travel up to an hour each way to worship, weekday celebrations are just not practical. And that is in the city, country areas are even worse; nothing unusual of about finishing a service at one centre, hopping in your car and driving for 45 minutes at 100km/h to get to the next service.

People need to know the rhythm of the church year; after all, they have already lost much of the rhythm of the normal cycle of the year.

Posted by Quam Dilecta (# 12541) on :

The Sunday versus saint's days debate would lose most of its steam if "commemorations" had not disappeared from the newer missals and prayer books. They allowed one to have his liturgical cake and eat it too. When a Sunday and another feast occurred on the same day, the readings at mass were of whichever day which took precedence, but the collect of other feast was read after the collect of the day. Thus Sunday worshipers were reminded, as one shipmate has written, that saint's days do exist.

Posted by Sarum Sleuth (# 162) on :

My current workplace (cathedral) and old parish keep the saint when they occur on Sunday. My preious workplace (collegiate church) transferred to Monday. All three sre liberal catholic so transferring is not necessarily a Papalist option.

SS

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

I think there is much to be said for the custom of commemoration: i.e. using the propers of the Sunday but with the addition of the collect and postcommunion of the saint's day and with the gospel appointed for that read as the last gospel. The Church year is, after all, a multilayered thing, as it must be if it is to reflect life. Those portions of the Western Church that 'modernized' their liturgies after Vatican II have largely forgotten this fact, but it survives amongst the orthodox and amongst a liturgically conservative minority in the Anglican and Roman Catholic Communions.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

I agree that the life of any individual saint is clearly subordinate to the Passion and Resurrection of Christ but at the same time I suspect that downplaying the commemoration of saints entirely is not a wholly wise move. The fact that their live's showed God's Grace - and the fact that traditionally they are also believed to pray for us - are important for our own Salvation, not merely adiaphora.

... or this is how is seems to me anyway!

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I don't really like saints' days interrupting the Sunday lectionary cycle. It was OK in the days of the BCP (or even ASB) when there was no continuity in the readings.

But the argument that Sunday should never be superseded by a Saint's day, because it's the commemoration of the Resurrection, doesn't seem quite right to me. Isn't a saint's day in itself a celebration of the Resurrection? Without the Resurrection we wouldn't have saints and we certainly wouldn't be celebrating their heavenly birthdays.

A major feature of the Easter Vigil in the Roman Rite is the Litany of the Saints. That is just so suited, IMHO, to the celebration of the Resurrection.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
In the modern Roman Rite doesn't All Souls also replace a Sunday?

I don't know the current position, but directly after Vatican II the mass for All Souls would replace the Sunday mass although not the office.

I have certainly been to a church with a requiem on Sunday 2 November.

As I understand the current position in England and Wales is that All Saints (and other holy days of obligation - Peter'n'Paul, Assumption) are transferred to Sunday if they fall on Saturday or Sunday.

If 2 November is a Sunday, then All Saints will have fallen on Saturday. Ergo, All Souls is not celebrated on a Sunday in England and Wales.

[ 09. August 2012, 14:42: Message edited by: venbede ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
I think there is much to be said for the custom of commemoration: i.e. using the propers of the Sunday but with the addition of the collect and postcommunion of the saint's day and with the gospel appointed for that read as the last gospel. The Church year is, after all, a multilayered thing, as it must be if it is to reflect life. Those portions of the Western Church that 'modernized' their liturgies after Vatican II have largely forgotten this fact, but it survives amongst the orthodox and amongst a liturgically conservative minority in the Anglican and Roman Catholic Communions.

Absolutely and utterly not. There is only one collect allowed - having more than one collect defeats the object of having a collect in the first place.

Now you CAN remember saints at the end of the intercessions.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Typo alert.

I said days of obligation are transferred to Sunday if they fall on Saturday or Sunday.

I meant Saturday or Monday. (So those who go to evening mass don't muddle the day up or fail to go to two masses. A rather questionable practice to my mind.)

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I strongly oppose keeping saints days on Sundays because:

1. The general rule of thumb is that every Sunday is a feast of the Resurrection, a mini Easter, a ‘solemnity’ and that only other solemnities of equal rank, i.e of Our Lord or of the Blessed Virgin Mary can replace it. In jargon, the Temporale always takes place over the Sanctorale.

Why should the Resurrection of the Lord be pushed aside in favour of a Saint?

We celebrate the saints only because they point us toward Jesus. The feast of St Matthew is just as much a celebration of the Resurrection as Trinity 19.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I strongly oppose keeping saints days on Sundays because:

1. The general rule of thumb is that every Sunday is a feast of the Resurrection, a mini Easter, a ‘solemnity’ and that only other solemnities of equal rank, i.e of Our Lord or of the Blessed Virgin Mary can replace it. In jargon, the Temporale always takes place over the Sanctorale.

Why should the Resurrection of the Lord be pushed aside in favour of a Saint?
We celebrate the saints only because they point us toward Jesus. The feast of St Matthew is just as much a celebration of the Resurrection as Trinity 19.

The problem with that argument is that it leads to the demise of ordinary time. By that logic, we can find enough saints to displace all 52 Sundays of the year. After the Festal season from Advent to Trinity, the season of Ordinary Time is intended to instruct the faithful about the teachings and miracles of Our Lord for Christian formation.

Again, if churches want to honor the Saints, provide weekday services so that the Saints can be honored on their proper days. As well, people can always honor the Saints at home, in their private devotions. Sunday worship typically should be focused on latria not dulia .

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

Modern Roman practice is for Solemnities and Feasts of the Lord to get observed on Sundays in Ordinary Time. Other saints days get overtaken by the Sunday.

This sort of makes sense. The Sunday cycle, reading through a gospel and celebrating weekly the Lord's resurrection, really shouldn't be frequently interrupted. I think those using CW/ BCP/ whatever else calendars would be well advised to keep Sunday saints to a minimum. Certainly nothing should get in the way of Advent, Lent, and (above all) Eastertide.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I strongly oppose keeping saints days on Sundays because:

1. The general rule of thumb is that every Sunday is a feast of the Resurrection, a mini Easter, a ‘solemnity’ and that only other solemnities of equal rank, i.e of Our Lord or of the Blessed Virgin Mary can replace it. In jargon, the Temporale always takes place over the Sanctorale.

Why should the Resurrection of the Lord be pushed aside in favour of a Saint?
We celebrate the saints only because they point us toward Jesus. The feast of St Matthew is just as much a celebration of the Resurrection as Trinity 19.
The problem with that argument is that it leads to the demise of ordinary time. By that logic, we can find enough saints to displace all 52 Sundays of the year. After the Festal season from Advent to Trinity, the season of Ordinary Time is intended to instruct the faithful about the teachings and miracles of Our Lord for Christian formation.

That's why there are tables of precedence. The 1928 (US) book has a very simple and easy-to-follow table.

Although we are a Missal parish, the rule in our diocese is that the prayer book always takes precedence. So although a Sunday after Trinity might be displaced by Ss Simon & Jude, or St Mark, or the Purification, it won't be displaced by the feast of the Precious Blood or by St Lawrence--non BCP feasts can always be commemorated with their proper collects, secrets, & post-communions.

I have to confess I don't really get the implication that we are not worshiping God when we honor his saints. The saints' merits, after all, are only the merits of Christ, received by grace.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Fr W - I think those C of E parishes that are most enthusiastic about keeping BCP 1662 red letter saints will be those least bothered by the doctrine of the intercession of the saints.

That some saint's days take precedence over Sundays seems quite right. The question is which.

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :

The Catholic practice of using the day's appointed lectionary readings on weekday memorials is, in my opinion, a noteworthy practice. For instance, next Tuesday is the Memorial of St. Maximilian Kolbe, but the readings are simply of Tuesday of the Nineteenth Week in Ordinary Time. The saint can be duly memorialized through mentions in the prayers and homily, but the cycle of the year is not thrown off.

Perhaps this same tactic could be allowed with Ordinary Sundays?

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
The Catholic practice of using the day's appointed lectionary readings on weekday memorials is, in my opinion, a noteworthy practice. For instance, next Tuesday is the Memorial of St. Maximilian Kolbe, but the readings are simply of Tuesday of the Nineteenth Week in Ordinary Time. The saint can be duly memorialized through mentions in the prayers and homily, but the cycle of the year is not thrown off.

Perhaps this same tactic could be allowed with Ordinary Sundays?

I agree with this suggestion. I'm not one of those people who insist that there should only be one collect of the Day at Mass (I mourn the loss of the recitation of the collect of Advent and Lent everyday during their respective seasons in the modern rubrics).

I would be fine if the RCL readings were retained during Ordinary Time and a collect for a Saint recited after the standard collect for the Sunday.

[ 09. August 2012, 19:53: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
In the modern Roman Rite doesn't All Souls also replace a Sunday?

Yes, it does--a practice that I find novel and positively bizarre. [Mad]

In the Extraordinary Form (including my own FSSP parish), when All Souls falls on a Sunday, it is transferred to the next day. [Angel]

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

Having just drained my stein it occurs to me that 10/28 is likely to be a liturgical cluster f*** in my diocese unless I send out a notice stating the rules of engagement. Some will go for Simon and Jude; others for Reformation Sunday; and the balance for Christ the King; and someone is bound to forget and do Trinity-whatever.

Ta for the heads up!

PD

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
Having just drained my stein it occurs to me that 10/28 is likely to be a liturgical cluster f*** in my diocese unless I send out a notice stating the rules of engagement. Some will go for Simon and Jude; others for Reformation Sunday; and the balance for Christ the King; and someone is bound to forget and do Trinity-whatever.

Ta for the heads up!

PD

I doubt that our choice would surprise you, +PD. We can hardly avoid it!

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

Indeed not. In my parish, which tends to be very '28, will go the other way and observe SS. Simon and Jude, then try and work up some energy for doing a decent job on All Saints. Those following the Ordo - a novel thought for some - will do CtK.

PD

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Father Weber's post sent me to have a look at an old RC missal. With all the Doubles of Second Class bumping the green Sundays, and having votive masses every weekday, I wonder if pre-Vaticn II congregations ever saw a green chasuble in use except on half the possible Sundays.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

How old a Roman Missal were you looking at? Pius X's revision of the Calendar (1914) greatly reduced the number of Sundays that get bumped - on the Pius X rules there are five or six Green Sundays that get the bump-da-bump this year. It would have been considerably higher before 1914, and of course, lower after 1955, and again after the 1960/2 revision.

PD

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I didn't do a count - I just realised there were a lot of Doubles of the Second Class in English Missal and a 1920s Daily Missal.

Five in one year is a lot.

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
I think there is much to be said for the custom of commemoration: i.e. using the propers of the Sunday but with the addition of the collect and postcommunion of the saint's day and with the gospel appointed for that read as the last gospel. The Church year is, after all, a multilayered thing, as it must be if it is to reflect life. Those portions of the Western Church that 'modernized' their liturgies after Vatican II have largely forgotten this fact, but it survives amongst the orthodox and amongst a liturgically conservative minority in the Anglican and Roman Catholic Communions.
Absolutely and utterly not. There is only one collect allowed - having more than one collect defeats the object of having a collect in the first place.

For those who slavishly adhere to a set of liturgical norms made up by trendy types in the 1960s, you're right. For those whose liturgical praxis draws on more venerable traditions of the Western Church, as received in a spirit of humility, then there may be up to seven collects. Anglicanism has traditionally had three (for purity, of the day, and for the regnant monarch), with four during Lent and Advent. Certainly, a brief examination of service sheeets from the world's most liturgically correct Anglican parish, and they regularly do what I suggest: e.g. since the Nativity of John the Baptist fell this year on a Sunday, they had:

The minor propers for the feast

The Collect for the feast followed by the collect of the Sunday

The Epistle and Gospel proper to the feast (Isaiah 49.3 and S. Luke 1.57)

The poscommunion for the feast followed by that of the Sunday

The Gospel of the Sunday (S. Luke 15) read as the Last Gospel.

Very seemly and edifying .

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

The C of E Liturgical Commission has been quite enthusiastic about a Last Gospel for festivals, other than John 1.

I'm not aware of any older precedent for varying the Last Gospel from John 1 (other than on Christmas Day). (S)pike's benchmark church would appear to be being highly innovative.

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
The C of E Liturgical Commission has been quite enthusiastic about a Last Gospel for festivals, other than John 1.

I'm not aware of any older precedent for varying the Last Gospel from John 1 (other than on Christmas Day). (S)pike's benchmark church would appear to be being highly innovative.

quote:
The normal last Gospel is John 1:1-14.... Whenever an office is commemorated, whose Gospel is begun in the ninth lesson of Matins, that Gospel is substituted for John 1, at the end of Mass. In this case the Missal must be brought to the north side (at high Mass by the subdeacon). This applies to all Sundays, feriæe, and vigils that are commemorated. At the third Mass on Christmas day (since John 1:1-14 forms the Gospel of the Mass) that of the Epiphany is read at the end; at low Mass on Palm Sunday the Gospel of the blessing of palms is read. Of Eastern Rites the Armenians alone have copied this practice of the last Gospel from the Latins.

— Adrian Fortescue, 'The Gospel in the Liturgy', The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1909.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Live and learn.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
For those who slavishly adhere to a set of liturgical norms made up by trendy types in the 1960s, you're right. For those whose liturgical praxis draws on more venerable traditions of the Western Church, as received in a spirit of humility, then there may be up to seven collects. Anglicanism has traditionally had three (for purity, of the day, and for the regnant monarch), with four during Lent and Advent. Certainly, a brief examination of service sheeets from the world's most liturgically correct Anglican parish, and they regularly do what I suggest: e.g. since the Nativity of John the Baptist fell this year on a Sunday, they had:

The minor propers for the feast

The Collect for the feast followed by the collect of the Sunday

The Epistle and Gospel proper to the feast (Isaiah 49.3 and S. Luke 1.57)

The poscommunion for the feast followed by that of the Sunday

The Gospel of the Sunday (S. Luke 15) read as the Last Gospel.

Very seemly and edifying .

What, no secrets? [Help]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
I think there is much to be said for the custom of commemoration: i.e. using the propers of the Sunday but with the addition of the collect and postcommunion of the saint's day and with the gospel appointed for that read as the last gospel. The Church year is, after all, a multilayered thing, as it must be if it is to reflect life. Those portions of the Western Church that 'modernized' their liturgies after Vatican II have largely forgotten this fact, but it survives amongst the orthodox and amongst a liturgically conservative minority in the Anglican and Roman Catholic Communions.
Absolutely and utterly not. There is only one collect allowed - having more than one collect defeats the object of having a collect in the first place.

For those who slavishly adhere to a set of liturgical norms made up by trendy types in the 1960s, you're right.

Not ;made up' in the 1960s. It was a return to the invariable practice of the early church, where sons went on until the bishop/presider arrived and every one was, thus, 'collected' My Latin is rusty but it was something like 'ad collectum' and was in the singular - i think.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It was a return to the invariable practice of the early church, where sons went on until the bishop/presider arrived

...and daughters, presumably! [Biased]

The practice of gabbling multiple collects is only slightly worse than those priests who say 'Let us pray' and then immediately launch into the prayer. The point of the 'collect' is not just to mark the gathering of the community but to gather their individual prayers together. Hence there needs to be silence between the bidding and the recital of the collect. Of which, as Leo says, there is one only.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

I am always a bit wary of the 1960s revisions because there is a lot of 'archeologicalism.' Unfortunately, there was an iconoclastic element to the implimentation of the Reform that has dislocated liturgical tradition causing a great deal of confusion frustration and dislocation. The worst element was that it made 'change' the new normal, which has tended to cause a disconnect between the liturgy and the laity until the new forms became the normal - only for them to be changed again! Arrgghh!

PD

Posted by Ancilla (# 11037) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
But the argument that Sunday should never be superseded by a Saint's day, because it's the commemoration of the Resurrection, doesn't seem quite right to me. Isn't a saint's day in itself a celebration of the Resurrection? Without the Resurrection we wouldn't have saints and we certainly wouldn't be celebrating their heavenly birthdays.

I agree. I’ve never understood this argument that celebrating a saint would somehow ‘displace’ the Resurrection. Although every Sunday commemorates the Resurrection, the readings and collect for the day won’t necessarily mention the Resurrection any more than the readings for the Saint. In fact I’ve been to plenty of services where you’d have no idea that’s what it was about [Disappointed]

Sundays in Ordinary Time can feel… well, Ordinary. And I’m afraid I can’t generally remember the readings from one week to the next, so the sequence thing was lost on me [Hot and Hormonal]

I think the occasional saint’s day on a Sunday adds to, not detracts from, the festal quality of a Sunday.

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
Great Feasts of the Mother of God and indeed, commemorations of any other saints, falling on a Sunday, have their propers combined with those of the Resurrection but never replace them.

The Byzantine Rite makes a big deal, though, of the Resurrection in its Sunday prayers and hymnody in a way that was quite a surprise to me as a new convert. Replacing these with those of a saint would be very noticeable indeed and would seem very much out of place in a way that perhaps it would not in the Roman Rite in its various forms.

(PS – Scrumpmeister – don’t know why your quote comes with your old name!)

I think that would be two good ideas for any future liturgical commission to consider: that we should sometimes ‘add together’ two things that fall on the same day (rather than selling either of them short) and perhaps that if we say we are celebrating the Resurrection every Sunday we should actually do it!

Oh, and in answer to the OP: I'm looking forward to Simon and Jude very much! They are our patrons here.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

(S)pike - that is an elegant solution - to have the Sunday gospel at the end, and I appreciate there is sort of precedent.

Nonetheless it is an innovation. Like having "Shine Jesus shine" as the gradual.

Posted by Edgeman (# 12867) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
I think there is much to be said for the custom of commemoration: i.e. using the propers of the Sunday but with the addition of the collect and postcommunion of the saint's day and with the gospel appointed for that read as the last gospel. The Church year is, after all, a multilayered thing, as it must be if it is to reflect life. Those portions of the Western Church that 'modernized' their liturgies after Vatican II have largely forgotten this fact, but it survives amongst the orthodox and amongst a liturgically conservative minority in the Anglican and Roman Catholic Communions.

Indeed.And it makes little sense for those who use the modern Roman liturgy to disagree with commemorations when the rite technically still has them, even if only in two seasons a year. I do agree that the use of many, many collects to be less than helpful, I don't see what harm a second or third prayer under one conclusion would do.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

The practice of gabbling multiple collects is only slightly worse than those priests who say 'Let us pray' and then immediately launch into the prayer. The point of the 'collect' is not just to mark the gathering of the community but to gather their individual prayers together. Hence there needs to be silence between the bidding and the recital of the ccollect

I disagree that there's anything wrong with this at all. I think that this places too heavy a burden on the prayer known as the collect. Yes, it was given the name it was for particular reasons and these ought to be borne in mind in how we think about our services but not used as the basis for nuances that place on elements of worship burdens that they were never intended to bear.*

If a priest says, "Let us pray", then he should get on and pray rather than hanging about, causing a distraction as people wonder whether he's lost his place in the book. Yes, the people's prayers and concerns are taken up with that prayer too, and they give their "Amen", but I doubt very much that they went through their lives in the preceding week with all of its stresses, joys and sorrows; got up on the Sunday morning, got ready and went to church, and only when the priest uttered the words "Let us pray" did they have it occur to them that they might be expected to do some praying. When I go to church, getting ready and making the journey there sees many a thought go through my mind about my preparation for entering into the worship. I don't get all the way to church, for the priest to say, "Let us pray to the Lord", and suddenly find myself caught off-guard. "Oh! Pray? What? Oh, I didn't know." I exaggerate but I think I make my point. The idea that this pause is necessary or even helpful just doesn't compute for me.

*The Catholic Encyclopaedia tells us that the collect was, as leo states, given that name as it was prayed at the gathering of the people as the procession made a station, and that this prayer was later repeated during the Mass as an opening prayer. That is, the origin of the name "collect" is entirely unrelated to its use, location, and purpose in the Mass (which is perhaps why the modern Roman mass does not refer to it as a collect, unless this has changed in the new translation). Any extrapolation of a meaning from that name in the context of the Mass is not logical. That does not mean that it cannot be insightful or provide an interesting focus but it certainly cannot be used as the basis for any sort of dogmatic pronunciation about how many prayers there ought to be or that it is somehow wrong for priests not to pause so that the people's prayers can be "collected" in the silence. This is what I mean about placing too heavy a burden on the shoulders of a little prayer.

Yes, there was only one collect at the Mass in antiquity but as this prayer was already borrowed from elsewhere, thus rendering arguments based on its original purpose non-applicable, I see nothing wrong with the now well-established practice of having numerous collects at the Mass.

Something similar exists in Byzantine practice. There is a short hymn that comes at the end of Vespers, just before the dismissal. It reflects the saint, feast, or other observance in the calendar that Vespers that evening commemorates. Its location in the service gives it the name "apolytikion" (dismissal hymn). Yet, this hymn is then repeated at the Divine Liturgy the following morning, at the Entrance. Following your and Leo's logic, this should not be allowed because it is a dismissal hymn. Yet that would be to take the reasoning from the origin of the thing and try to apply it in a different context, with a resulting argument that just doesn't hold together.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Scrumpmeister (I nearly called you Michael out of habit!): it's easy to justify any practice from archaeology, and I agree too much weight was often put on supposed original practice when the liturgy was being revised last century.

I think the only answer is, what works. And for me, a liturgy with no silences, no space for recollection or contemplation, just doesn't. This is true whether I am presiding or (perhaps even more so) a punter in the pews. Obviously other people, yourself no doubt included, can pray through and against the background of words being said or sung. This is partly a matter of personality and partly a matter of liturgical tradition: the Orthodox style AIUI is much more suited to the latter,

As for the congregation wondering if the priest just can't find the right page, well if they were used to the priest not observing a pause it would be confusing when one did. If they were used to it as the norm it wouldn't be a problem.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I think the only answer is, what works. And for me, a liturgy with no silences, no space for recollection or contemplation, just doesn't. This is true whether I am presiding or (perhaps even more so) a punter in the pews. Obviously other people, yourself no doubt included, can pray through and against the background of words being said or sung. This is partly a matter of personality and partly a matter of liturgical tradition...

Now with this I have absolutely no problem. My gripe was really with the quite firm statements that seemed to have something of a shaky foundation.

I can relate very well to different forms of liturgical offering working better for some than for others. Some people love akathists - for me, they are a trial to be patiently endured for other people's benefit. Actually, one of the reasons for that gives me some understanding of your preference for periods of silence. I find that akathists have too much of one thing and leave little room for prayer.

[ 15. August 2012, 09:37: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
The C of E Liturgical Commission has been quite enthusiastic about a Last Gospel for festivals, other than John 1.

I'm not aware of any older precedent for varying the Last Gospel from John 1 (other than on Christmas Day). (S)pike's benchmark church would appear to be being highly innovative.

There used to be proper Last Gospels quite frequently in the old Rite a.k.a. English Missal. For example, when certain Holydays are kept in Lent, then the Last Gospel is proper as the Lenten Ferias are to some degree privileged. Also, a saints day on a Green Sunday leads to the Sunday being commemorated - an so on and so forth. It happened just often enough in the pre-1955 Rite that one learned to keep an eye out for it. This I know because when I was in the ACC the Bishop was keen on the Dinosaur - oops - Anglican Missal.

In the Pius XII revisions the proper last Gospel only occurs on Christmas when at High Mass the Gospel for the Epipany is read in place of John 1,1-14. The Last Gospel was abolished under the 1965 rubrics in the Roman Church, and most Spike followed suit.

PD

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Thank you, PD. I hadn't worked that out - so what (S)pike's place does is English Missal?

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Not ;made up' in the 1960s. It was a return to the invariable practice of the early church, where sons went on until the bishop/presider arrived and every one was, thus, 'collected' My Latin is rusty but it was something like 'ad collectum' and was in the singular - i think.

Holding as you do the invariable practice of the early church in such high regard, may I assume you're also in favor of auricular confession to the entire assembly? [Big Grin]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Well, some anabaptist communities practice that.

But Spike C keeps blaming the 1960s for anything he doesn't like with seemingly little or no knowledge of liturgical history.

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

Robust discussion? Great. Getting personal about another shippie? Not so much. Let's calm it down a tad.

Mamacita, Eccles Host

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Well, some anabaptist communities practice that.

But Spike C keeps blaming the 1960s for anything he doesn't like with seemingly little or no knowledge of liturgical history.

Inspite of the best efforts of both university and seminary I have come to the conclusion that an awful lot of the changes made in the 1950s, 60s and 70s were change for change's sake. I have always found it interesting how few of the big names in the liturgical movement were parish priests. The big names on the Roman side were mainly monastics and academic theologians. One suspects that if they were at all acquainted with the realities of parish life the Reforms would have come at a slower pace. Even a minor change to the Eucharist needs a certain amount of explanation; a complete overhaul of the liturgy probably needs to be introduced over several years with careful catechesis. That was not done or poorly done as the Novus Ordo and the Alternative Service were introduced in the early 70s. I have long had a suspicion that we had it right with Series Two and all that was needed was to provide a modern language version, and the Romans had it right with the "interim rite" of 1967 when - IIRC - the daily Mass lectionary was introduced. Further messing around after those dates just made things worse.

PD

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
I have long had a suspicion that we had it right with Series Two and all that was needed was to provide a modern language version,

Interesting comment, but Series 2 was a very radical break with 1662, whereas what followed was in many ways an attempt to get back to its wordiness and didacticism.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PD:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Well, some anabaptist communities practice that.

But Spike C keeps blaming the 1960s for anything he doesn't like with seemingly little or no knowledge of liturgical history.
Inspite of the best efforts of both university and seminary I have come to the conclusion that an awful lot of the changes made in the 1950s, 60s and 70s were change for change's sake. I have always found it interesting how few of the big names in the liturgical movement were parish priests. The big names on the Roman side were mainly monastics and academic theologians. One suspects that if they were at all acquainted with the realities of parish life the Reforms would have come at a slower pace. Even a minor change to the Eucharist needs a certain amount of explanation; a complete overhaul of the liturgy probably needs to be introduced over several years with careful catechesis. That was not done or poorly done as the Novus Ordo and the Alternative Service were introduced in the early 70s. I have long had a suspicion that we had it right with Series Two and all that was needed was to provide a modern language version, and the Romans had it right with the "interim rite" of 1967 when - IIRC - the daily Mass lectionary was introduced. Further messing around after those dates just made things worse.

PD

Most of these changes seem to have been intended to make the liturgy more logical, to rationalize it by imposing upon it principles drawn from studying early liturgical accounts. It's all very similar to Racine and Corneille "reforming" French drama according to the Aristotelian unities, regardless of the fact that Aristotle was not a playwright and that he was describing general tendencies, not invariable rules.

As a result, we are expected to admire liturgies which have been stripped of all their richness and mystery, because they have been stripped of everything which is not consonant with the latest and greatest in liturgical theory. Blech.

(Sorry if I seemed snippy, leo--it was meant to be a more-or-less friendly, if bratty, needle and not a personal attack)

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I think the biggest mistake that many priests made when introducing the new 'stripped down' liturgies, was to celebrate them in the old way. In other words, to race through the text without allowing for silence; the 'richness' of the old words needs to be replaced by a contemplative silence to allow the starker liturgy to resonate. Otherwise it is indeed impoverished.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
(Sorry if I seemed snippy, leo--it was meant to be a more-or-less friendly, if bratty, needle and not a personal attack)

Apology accepted - maybe we can hear each others' confessions in front of the gathered faithful at some future mass. It might make dumbed-down church more interesting for then.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
I have long had a suspicion that we had it right with Series Two and all that was needed was to provide a modern language version,
Interesting comment, but Series 2 was a very radical break with 1662, whereas what followed was in many ways an attempt to get back to its wordiness and didacticism.

The funny thing about the Series Two Eucharist was that you knew it was different to 1662, so you did not mind so much, but did not differ from it theologically except in being a bit more Patristic in its expression. It also had the advantage of pelting the celebrant to death with 'eithers' and 'ors' in the rubrics, which has been the Achilles heel of everything since 1980. It was also pretty clear where the silences should come. I tend to like a silent offertory and slence after Communion - a relic of the days when my home parish did Series 2. It also does no harm to have a short pause after each of the lessons. The brevity of S2 tended to encourage silences because one was not worrying about finishing on time - that was taken care of!

PD

[ 17. August 2012, 06:28: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

Returning somewhat to the OP, is anybody planning to transfer our Lady's Nativity on to the following Sunday?

When I was back in England, this trumped a Sunday but I never saw it transferred the way some feasts which fell on a Saturday or Monday would be...

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Returning somewhat to the OP, is anybody planning to transfer our Lady's Nativity on to the following Sunday?

Since her feast falls on a Saturday, one of the the normally Low Masses that morning will be a High Mass, followed by breakfast. [Angel]

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Not ;made up' in the 1960s. It was a return to the invariable practice of the early church, where sons went on until the bishop/presider arrived and every one was, thus, 'collected' My Latin is rusty but it was something like 'ad collectum' and was in the singular - i think.

So what shall we do about the (mandatory) Collect for Purity? Part of his point was that we have already, and still, deserted the principle of just one collect. We haven't returned to it, and cannot.

I'm with Ken. There aren't so many red-letter days that the Sunday routine is hopelessly punctured by observing them on Sunday. How often does it happen-- maybe twice a year? Those red vestments are too pretty to hide away. [Smile]

The Episcopal Choirmaster's handbook valiantly gives suggested hymns for all of these days as carefully as for Sundays. One must just skip over them if TEC, unlike CofE, doesn't even give us the option of observing them on Sunday. I'd be pleasantly surprised if there were half-a dozen churches coast-to-coast that could ever pay any attention to these pages and sing the appropriate music. What a waste of paper, not to mention pastoral opportunities for instruction.

The objection that saints' days aren't "of our Lord" is artificial and unconvincing. We'd still read scripture, just different passages. The apostles were totally dedicated to Our Lord, and most died for Him. That's why we remember them.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

Nativity of the BVM will not be moved in our place as we tend not to transfer unless liturgically essential - or it snows on Epiphany [Big Grin]

This year the usual pattern is interrupted twice - by St John Baptist and by SS Simon and Jude. Most years it is just once.

PD

[ 07. September 2012, 14:48: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

Simon's a nice name. Any congregant named Simon should appreciate his exemplar's not being discriminated against by a vicar who thinks he doesn't matter enough.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
So what shall we do about the (mandatory) Collect for Purity?

It might be mandatory in TEC but it isn't in Common Worship. Though congregations tend to like it. One solution I have tried, which also helps to solve the problem of pre-mass chatter, is for all to say the C for P together to introduce a time of silent recollection before the entry hymn. Would that be compatible with TEC rubrics?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Good idea - and stick that awful humble access prayer there as well.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

No! Ditch the Humble Crumble Mumble altogether.....

Ian J.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
No! Ditch the Humble Crumble Mumble altogether.....

Ian J.

Well yes, actually.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

Unfortunately ditching the Collect for Purity and Humble Mumble does tend to torque folks off. At least until they get used to it, which I never did. It was a college chapel thing to drop both to make ASB Rite A seem more Roman...

Also I still think we had it right with Series Two, and whoever pointed out that we have been getting wordier again since Series 3 - you were bang on! I am not the biggest fan of modern liturgy, but I dislike it most when it goes into verbose mode, which seems to be CW's substitute for Cranmer's rhetoric flourishes.

PD

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

Ahem. I'm not sure what this moaning about the collect for purity and the prayer of humble access has to do with Saints' days on Sundays. Kill the tangent, please.

seasick, Eccles host

Posted by Quam Dilecta (# 12541) on :

Since the collects and readings for the "Green" Sundays were so drastically altered, augmented and rearranged in the reforms of the 1960's, I am somewhat surprised to discover how strongly some shipmates have reacted to the possibility that one or two of these might, in some years, be displaced by a fixed feast day. Given that the prayers and readings for these Sundays, with their rather vague theme of sanctification, are largely interchangeable, I see little harm in waiting until next year to re-encounter a particular parable or bit of advice from St. Paul.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

I was very surprised to discover just how old the old Sunday sequence of Epistles and Gospels was that they put through the blender. The multi-year Modernist lectionary fandango has been revised/replaced at least twice in the last 40 years - the Series 3 lectionary which got tweeked for ASB 2-year version, then we hand the option of RCL, and now I think the C of E is on the CW version of RCL. I have long since lost track, and gone back to the BCP, but I encourage folks to use the additional OT lesson and Psalm mentioned in the 1961 English Lectionary. Several of my classmates who also took orders use the Roman Catholic lectionary for both Sundays and Weekdays - part of it is the usual Anglo-Papalist thing, but some of it is frustration with the ASB/RCL/CW lectionaries. Sounds like another stellar success to me...

As for the question of Holydays falling on second class Sundays I think the BCP gets it about right - it happens one to three times a year. At that rate it introduces a bit of variety into the proceedings but does not really get disruptive, but then, of course, I have long since decided that the second phase of the liturgical movements was a case of the lunatics taking over the assylum. The first phase - the general pre-Vatican II and Vatican II era clean up of the liturgy and simplification of the rubrics. It was an example of sound reform in that it removed abuses - like the priest saying the Epistle with his back to the people, or the rather pointless duplication of the Epistle being read silently by the celebrant whilst the subdeacon proclaims it to the people. I think the first phase reform over did it in Holy Week and that in that case 1970 is an improvement in 1955. I have tended to use the Scottish Episopal Holy Week of 1967 and find that it works well apart from the usual probem with the revised rite leaving the Exultet kind of hanging.

Anyway, I am on a tangent again - and one that can wait for March at that!

PD

[ 10. September 2012, 01:27: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
Several of my classmates who also took orders use the Roman Catholic lectionary for both Sundays and Weekdays - part of it is the usual Anglo-Papalist thing, but some of it is frustration with the ASB/RCL/CW lectionaries.

The old BCP/pre Vat.2 lectionaries (if you can call them that: an inherited mishmash more like), are very different from their later successors, but not much different from each other. In the same way, the RCL (and Common Worship tweak thereof) is not much different from the post-Vatican 2 lectionary. Certainly not in principle. The only really significant difference is if you use the 'continuous' and not the 'related' track for the OT in ordinary time.

I can understand anyone losing patience with the ASB two-year thematic lectionary. And it's annoying that the RCL tampered with the original Common lectionary, and the C of E unilaterally messed with it even more . So Anglicans who opt for the Roman version are not necessarily papalists, but possibly a bit nit-picking.

However, I can't understand why it is considered 'modernist' to use a lectionary the principle of which is that scripture should speak for itself. Which is essentially what CL/RCL is.

[ 10. September 2012, 15:01: Message edited by: Angloid ]

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

While I'm not transferring Holy Cross Day to the following Sunday per se, I am going to pick out the theme of the cross from the Gospel reading on the day. Kind of along the lines of "Oh, by the way, Friday was Holy Cross Day, so this fits with that theme..." I may add the collect from Holy Cross Day as well, but I haven't fully decided.

As for Ss Jude and Simon, I'm going with Proper 25. I will probably mention Jude and Simon at MP, although I expect to be the only one praying the office.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
Several of my classmates who also took orders use the Roman Catholic lectionary for both Sundays and Weekdays - part of it is the usual Anglo-Papalist thing, but some of it is frustration with the ASB/RCL/CW lectionaries.
The old BCP/pre Vat.2 lectionaries (if you can call them that: an inherited mishmash more like), are very different from their later successors, but not much different from each other. In the same way, the RCL (and Common Worship tweak thereof) is not much different from the post-Vatican 2 lectionary. Certainly not in principle. The only really significant difference is if you use the 'continuous' and not the 'related' track for the OT in ordinary time.

I can understand anyone losing patience with the ASB two-year thematic lectionary. And it's annoying that the RCL tampered with the original Common lectionary, and the C of E unilaterally messed with it even more . So Anglicans who opt for the Roman version are not necessarily papalists, but possibly a bit nit-picking.

However, I can't understand why it is considered 'modernist' to use a lectionary the principle of which is that scripture should speak for itself. Which is essentially what CL/RCL is.

It is a quirk of mine that I start throwing around the word Modernist every time I see the liturgical experts trying to turn the church into a lecture hall. There tends to be an over emphasis on the didactic function in modern liturges which I think is a product of Rationalism. The only thing that softens the blow a bit is that the rattles around with that other great fault of the Liturgical Movement 'archeologicalism' which means it does not wreck everything as it did with the Lutheran liturgy in late 18th century Germany.

PD

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
There tends to be an over emphasis on the didactic function in modern liturges which I think is a product of Rationalism.

There's nowt more didactic than Cranmer! [Frown]

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
There tends to be an over emphasis on the didactic function in modern liturges which I think is a product of Rationalism.
There's nowt more didactic than Cranmer!

Yes, but hardly anyone has used Cranmer as written for about 175 years (that's probably an under estimate!) and most of the omissions have had official sanction since 1871.

I do not see quite why we keep making the same mistake and expecting a different result. Isn't that one of the many popular definitions of insanity?

The thing that worries about the perpetual tinkering with the lectionary and the calendar of saints, and even the ordinary itself is that it has made change the new normal. That strikes me as being somewhat Orwellian in that we now expect liturgy to be in a state of flux.

The snag comes as for almost all of us lex orandi; lex credendi is in a large measure how our spirituality and theology are formed. This suggests to me that the point behind liturgical revision is to allow the church to perpetually accomodate rather than stand aside from fads and -isms. Dean Inge's famous quote about he who marries the spirit of the age springs to mind.

Unfortunately for rather too much of the church that spirit is the 1970s and the rest seems to be in either the 1950s or the 1870s. Not that I am making a plea for being totally trendy, but for a bit of awareness about the madness behind our methods. If one does not have a cogent and readily understood reason for doing what your doing then there is a high probability that you are flogging the deceased equine trying to reach out to people.

PD

[ 10. September 2012, 16:42: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by Quam Dilecta (# 12541) on :

A rhetorical question in an article which I read recently brought home to me the extent of the fiddling with the lectionary and collects in the 1960's: "Was it really necessary to alter the propers for every Sunday in the church year?"

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Having been miffed at keeping Ss. Simon & Jude instead of the Xth Sunday in Ordinary time, I have now discovered that some are designating it 'Bible Sunday'.

Simon & Jude it is, then.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Quam Dilecta:
A rhetorical question in an article which I read recently brought home to me the extent of the fiddling with the lectionary and collects in the 1960's: "Was it really necessary to alter the propers for every Sunday in the church year?"

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Having been miffed at keeping Ss. Simon & Jude instead of the Xth Sunday in Ordinary time, I have now discovered that some are designating it 'Bible Sunday'.

I'd think that would be Advent II...

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Having been miffed at keeping Ss. Simon & Jude instead of the Xth Sunday in Ordinary time, I have now discovered that some are designating it 'Bible Sunday'.

I'd think that would be Advent II...

Not in Common Worship, which follows the RCL

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Yes. It USED to be Advent 2 because of the collect: "Blessed lord who hast caused all Scriptures to be....."!

For whatever reason, the Bible Society took it upon itself to declare the last Sunday before the run up to Advent to be the new date.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Bible Sunday is moved to that date as it corresponds to Reformation Sunday in the Lutheran tradition: the Sunday nearest the date Luther pinned his theses to the church door in Wittenberg.

Bach wrote a lovely cantata for the occasion with lots of trumpets.

I never saw any particular connection between Advent and Bible reading.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Bible Sunday is moved to that date as it corresponds to Reformation Sunday in the Lutheran tradition: the Sunday nearest the date Luther pinned his theses to the church door in Wittenberg.

Bach wrote a lovely cantata for the occasion with lots of trumpets.

I never saw any particular connection between Advent and Bible reading.

But Reformation Sunday often collides with All Saints Sunday and Bible Sunday is the week before.

Anyway, now i have another reason to dislike bible sunday i don't think the Reformation is something to celebrate.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
But Reformation Sunday often collides with All Saints Sunday and Bible Sunday is the week before.

For what it's worth, the general US practice is that Reformation Sunday is the last Sunday in October and All Saints Sunday is the first in November. They do not collide. Of course, few Episcopalians celebrate Reformation. Whenever I've encountered both celebrations in Lutheran, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches, it has been as I mentioned above.

Bible Sunday? Ssshhh! [Olaf hums loudly to prevent others in the Midwest from hearing about this]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

EDK Lutherans celebrated it on All Saints Sunday quite often. We used to be an LEP with two Bavarian Lutheran pastors and it was a cause of disagreement when we were planning services for October/November

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
EDK Lutherans celebrated it on All Saints Sunday quite often. We used to be an LEP with two Bavarian Lutheran pastors and it was a cause of disagreement when we were planning services for October/November

If I recall correctly, the German practice was to celebrate the last Sunday of the Church Year (the Sunday before Advent 1) as a remembrance of the departed, using that Sunday instead of All Saints/All Souls for the same purpose.

Ah, here's an explanation. It wouldn't surprise me if German pastors still follow this practice. If so, then the first Sunday of November would have been free for them to do what they wanted.

Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :

We're pulling Mike and his Mates all the way back to our monthly evensong on 23 September. We have monthly evensong April to September, normally on the last Sunday, but the following weekend is a long weekend and grand final weekend for two football codes.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

The local Anglican parish uses Michaelmas as an excuse to hold one of their occasional-but-much-admired Evensongs. This is normally held on the Saturday and as such is designated the First Evensong of the Feast (transferred). Not sure whether they will need to bother with this this year, and as I'll be away that weekend I won't be able to check one way or 'tother...

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0