Thread: The Epistle 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=024901

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :
 
How do you do the Epistle? There are, as far as I know, six ways ways of doing this, to whit:

1. The traditional (Roman) way: chanted by the subdeacon, facing the altar.

2. The quasi-traditional Roman way: chanted by the subdeacon, facing the people.

3. The quasi-modern way: said by the subdeacon from a lectern or ambo, facing the people.

4. The totally modern way: read by an unvested layperson.

5. The Sarum way: chanted from the rood.

6. The old fashioned low-church CofE way: read from a lectern by a cleric vested in cassock and surplice (possibly with tippet and hood).

We do number 4. I wish we did either no. 1 or no. 2. Perhaps the former is a bit too foreign for modern tastes (I can only think of one place in the UK where the Epistle is chanted to the altar, and even there only on weekday feasts and not on Sundays).

No. 5 must, I think, be rarer than hen's teeth, and no. 6 seems to be dying. I suspect that no. 4 is now the most common way, and has been ever since the CofE, or at least portions thereof, adopted three lessons at the principle Sunday mass.
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
Number 4. It is almost universally used in ELCA Lutheran churches.

There may be a literal handful of churches with liturgically-obsessed pastors who do number 3, but of course the ELCA does not have an official subdiaconate. It would be a vested layperson fulfilling the duty.

Even calling it the "Epistle" is passé. It is the Second Reading, or for those who cling to the 70s, the Second Lesson.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
7. None of the above.

At St Hardup's it is read from the subdeacon's step by a lay reader in cassock and surplice, or, when we have three scared monsters, 'subdeacon' in the proper vestments.

PD
 
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :
 
I realized that I've slandered my current parish! We in fact do no. 3, not no. 4 (we're not so far gone into modernism yet!). My last parish did no. 3, though (although curiously laypeople very rarely read the lessons at the office, which they do at my current parish).
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
4, of course. Like most CofE churches.

If there is a reading distinction between higher and lower CofE places these days its how much special ceremony surrounds the Gospel reading, or whether that is reserved to clergy, not the Epistle.
 
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :
 
The option closest to our practice is number 1. In Byzantine practice, the Epistle is chanted by the "first deacon" (that's the deacon subordinate to the "senior deacon/protodeacon").

In reality, most parishes would consider it a rare blessing to have one deacon serving, and could only imagine having two. So a reader (or subdeacon) usually chants the Epistle. There appear to be at least two practices. In one, the reader stands in the midst of the have; in the other, he stands at the foot of the ambo. The former seems more prevalent in ROCOR. In both cases, he faces towards the Holy Doors. In many parishes, lay people fulfil this role in much the same way.

[ 01. September 2012, 21:11: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]
 
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
quote:
The traditional (Roman) way: chanted by the subdeacon, facing the altar.
The diversity of who reads the Epistle (or any of the lessons, for that matter) and from where is understandable, but I cannot fathom why it would be desirable to read any of them with one's back to the congregation. Aren't the lessons read to us for our edification?

eta: Cross-posted with The Scrumpmeister. I'm sorry to appear critical. To do/chant the reading from the midst of the people changes my reaction somewhat. I was picturing someone up at the altar, with back turned. I'm still uncomfortable with that.

[ 01. September 2012, 21:12: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
 
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
Aren't the lessons read to us for our edification?

No, they aren't. They, like the rest of the mass, are for the worship of God, not the intellectual edification of the congregation. That, at least, is the traditional understanding of the matter. The edification of the people (who can, after all, follow along in their hand missals) is a desirable side effect. Frankly, and without meaning to be insulting to you, I do wonder whether misunderstandings like that aren't an argument in favour of chanting the epistle toward the altar.
 
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
quote:
The traditional (Roman) way: chanted by the subdeacon, facing the altar.
The diversity of who reads the Epistle (or any of the lessons, for that matter) and from where is understandable, but I cannot fathom why it would be desirable to read any of them with one's back to the congregation. Aren't the lessons read to us for our edification?

eta: Cross-posted with The Scrumpmeister. I'm sorry to appear critical. To do/chant the reading from the midst of the people changes my reaction somewhat. I was picturing someone up at the altar, with back turned. I'm still uncomfortable with that.

That's OK. No criticism was understood. [Smile]

Nonetheless, when a Byzantine deacon reads the Gospel, it is from the front, facing east, as is the case of the Roman subdeacon when reading the Epistle.

I think it was Trisagion who gave a good explanation when we discussed the Roman custom reading the Gospel facing north not very long ago but doing a search on the device I'm currently using would be very tedious. Perhaps someone better able could look for our benefit.

In addition to what he said, in the Byzantine rite, the readings all have a directional relationship to the Holy Doors as the entry to the Kingdom.
 
Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
quote:
The traditional (Roman) way: chanted by the subdeacon, facing the altar.
The diversity of who reads the Epistle (or any of the lessons, for that matter) and from where is understandable, but I cannot fathom why it would be desirable to read any of them with one's back to the congregation. Aren't the lessons read to us for our edification?

eta: Cross-posted with The Scrumpmeister. I'm sorry to appear critical. To do/chant the reading from the midst of the people changes my reaction somewhat. I was picturing someone up at the altar, with back turned. I'm still uncomfortable with that.

(S)PC's no. 1, if really really traditional, would suggest that the subdeacon would have been like as not chanting the epistle in Latin. Given that the average congregation would have been unlikely to be unfamiliar with the entire oeuvre of SS Paul, Peter &c in that tongue, it wouldn't have made a great deal of difference whether the folk could hear it or not, so the direction in which the chanter was facing would have been immaterial.
 
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
Aren't the lessons read to us for our edification?

No, they aren't. They, like the rest of the mass, are for the worship of God, not the intellectual edification of the congregation. That, at least, is the traditional understanding of the matter. The edification of the people (who can, after all, follow along in their hand missals) is a desirable side effect. Frankly, and without meaning to be insulting to you, I do wonder whether misunderstandings like that aren't an argument in favour of chanting the epistle toward the altar.
Recognizing that that might have sounded rather snippy — let me elaborate. I am worried that, in many churches, there is a tacit understanding that the 'liturgy of the word' is a 'teaching moment', for the congregation to sit back and learn something about religion. This I think is deadly to the idea of liturgy. Of course, the people should learn something in worship, but in a much deeper sense that does not come from passively sitting and listening, but from active worship of the living God. The liturgy, of course, contains numerous reference to scripture, of which the epistle and gospel constitute only a small part.

In times past, there was no sermon during the liturgy. Sermons were, of course preached — and some of the best have been preserved — but they were preached in a different context. The faithful were encouraged to listen to these, but the only requirement was that they should attend mass (and arguably the offices of Lauds/Morning Prayer and Vespers/Evensong as well) on Holy Days of Obligation. This is because we are not saved by an intellectual understanding of Christian doctrine. There is no strict requirement to be a theologian, although the study of theology has is naturally held to be a very good thing). The obligation is to worship God and to partake in Church's life of prayer and sacraments.
 
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
quote:
Recognizing that that might have sounded rather snippy — let me elaborate.
It did sound rather snippy, so thank you for posting that.

I believe you are drawing too fine a line on this, perhaps to the point of a false dichotomy. Of course the primary purpose is the worship of God. But our worship comes from some place inside us. For some of us, it comes as a response to the Word. For some of us, it is drawn out by the beauty of traditional worship. Whatever. But we don't worship God in a vacuum.
 
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
(S)PC's no. 1, if really really traditional, would suggest that the subdeacon would have been like as not chanting the epistle in Latin. Given that the average congregation would have been unlikely to be unfamiliar with the entire oeuvre of SS Paul, Peter &c in that tongue, it wouldn't have made a great deal of difference whether the folk could hear it or not, so the direction in which the chanter was facing would have been immaterial.

I take your point; that explains the tradition. Should we look at the rubric differently once the liturgy is conducted in a tongue understanded by the people?
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
The obligation is to worship God and to partake in Church's life of prayer and sacraments.

This is somewhat like the east/west altar situation, though. Without refuting prior practice, the church in recent decades has clarified and perhaps even redirected the understanding of the faithful when it comes to orientation. Many attitudes surrounding the faithful's "attendance"* at Mass have taken on a different light. Even John Paul 2 went to great lengths to emphasize the nature of the homily in the instruction of the faithful.

quote:
Dei Verbum:
The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures just as she venerates the body of the Lord, since, especially in the sacred liturgy, she unceasingly receives and offers to the faithful the bread of life from the table both of God's word and of Christ's body.

Yes, I realize quoting Vatican 2 may not be to your taste!


*which, in my opinion, is sometimes mistranslated in terms of "paying attention" versus "being present"
 
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
(S)PC's no. 1, if really really traditional, would suggest that the subdeacon would have been like as not chanting the epistle in Latin. Given that the average congregation would have been unlikely to be unfamiliar with the entire oeuvre of SS Paul, Peter &c in that tongue, it wouldn't have made a great deal of difference whether the folk could hear it or not, so the direction in which the chanter was facing would have been immaterial.

I take your point; that explains the tradition. Should we look at the rubric differently once the liturgy is conducted in a tongue understanded by the people?
Which is why, apropos what I said earlier, sermons have been preached in the vernacular since the time of Charlemagne, whilst (in the West) the epistle (and gospel) remained in Latin until relatively recently. Just how recently, of course, depends on which branch of the Western Church we are talking about.

Part of me does feel that it's not unreasonable to chant the epistle facing the congregation, but part of me is very uncomfortable with the part of me that thinks that (should we really alter the liturgy just because of something I, or anyone else, should happen to feel?). I've discussed the matter with a friend of mine and he felt much the same way. In his parish, which is vastly more traditional than my own, they usually chant the epistle facing the people, because the acoustics of their building really do obscure anything sung in the opposite direction from the front of the chancel.
 
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :
 
There was a discussion on the direction of the readings (specifically the Gospel, in this instance, but pertinent nonetheless), here.
 
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
There was a discussion on the direction of the readings (specifically the Gospel, in this instance, but pertinent nonetheless), here.

Thank you. That is extremely helpful (dare I say "edifying?").
 
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
There was a discussion on the direction of the readings (specifically the Gospel, in this instance, but pertinent nonetheless), here.

Thank you. That is extremely helpful (dare I say "edifying?").
Glad to be of service. [Smile]

Yes, it was a helpful exchange. I particularly appreciated Trisagion's contribution.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
(S)pike couchant: after agreeing with you about architecture I'm back to normal I'm afraid. You do realise that your idiosyncratic and antediluvian slant on anglo-catholicism is neither Catholic nor Anglican, don't you? And certainly not your insistence that reading the scriptures within the liturgy is not for the edification of the faithful.

Of course it's about the worship of God. And of course truth comes to us in more subtle and more profound ways than superficial 'instruction'. But it is that as well. Perhaps 'both/and' is too Anglican a concept for you to grasp. But few churches these days are populated by illiterate peasants clutching their rosary beads and lighting candles; most of us are educated and literate people who worship not just with our hearts and actions but with our minds.

Maybe the pendulum has swung too far in favour of cerebral, word-based instruction rather than worship as traditionally understood. But you can't swing it back by trying to revert to a pre-reformation (or pre-Vatican 2) age when the Bible was a forbidden text.

And - relevant tangent - the norm for the Sunday eucharist is now two readings before the Gospel, which are (or should be?) treated alike in the way they are read. Though there is unfortunately a significant number of (C of E) churches where only two of the three readings are heard.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Trisagion had a less black-and-white way of making (S)c's point in that earlier thread:
quote:
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.
In other words, it seems that the instructional aspect was increasingly overtaken by the laudatory one, but both are still elements of the reading of scripture in the liturgy.
 
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
(S)pike couchant: after agreeing with you about architecture I'm back to normal I'm afraid. You do realise that your idiosyncratic and antediluvian slant on anglo-catholicism is neither Catholic nor Anglican, don't you?

Why, you sure know how to flatter a boy! [Axe murder]


quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

Maybe the pendulum has swung too far in favour of cerebral, word-based instruction rather than worship as traditionally understood. But you can't swing it back by trying to revert to a pre-reformation (or pre-Vatican 2) age when the Bible was a forbidden text.

What do you think of the S. Clement's, Philadelphia, solution, wherein the epistle is chanted facing east but both the epistle and the gospel are printed in full in the service sheets? It seems to me that this, along with most everything about S. Clement's, strikes a good balance between tradition and pastoral necessity.

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:


And - relevant tangent - the norm for the Sunday eucharist is now two readings before the Gospel, which are (or should be?) treated alike in the way they are read. Though there is unfortunately a significant number of (C of E) churches where only two of the three readings are heard.

I don't know. I find that reserving the Old Testament lessons for the office works better and gives the mass a better flow. After all, the faithful can read, mark, and inwardly digest the (usually very long) lessons at Mattins and Evensong. There's no need to burden the Mass with additional texts.
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
I don't know. I find that reserving the Old Testament lessons for the office works better and gives the mass a better flow. After all, the faithful can read, mark, and inwardly digest the (usually very long) lessons at Mattins and Evensong. There's no need to burden the Mass with additional texts.

I complete possibly disagree more. The fact that the OT has been brought back into use as a valued component of the Mass was one of the most unmitigated goods of the changes of the second half of the twentieth century.
 
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :
 
I've noticed that fewer and fewer people are calling the lesson before the Gospel "the Epistle." In most 20th century liturgies it's the "second reading," and can be from the non-epistles though I suspect I've been too down candle for too long.
 
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
I find that reserving the Old Testament lessons for the office works better and gives the mass a better flow.

I agree. This is still the way of things in the east and it works well as a progression through the litirgical day, with the Old Testament readings at Vespers the night before, then the Epistle and Gospel at the Eucharist.

However, benefitting from this assumes something like a monastic setting, in which the community will take part in the full liturgical celebration of the day. In parish life, the fact of the matter is that people often tend not to go to these services, and the sad truth is that many places, for one reason or another, do not even have services for people to go to, which means that they never develop a sense of the celebration of the Eucharist as but one part (although the culmination) of the celebration of a liturgical day. The result is that these readings will simply be missed.

I think that the solution that is adopted will depend on how the balance is struck between Trisagion's laudatory and pedagogical understandings of worship. If more weight is given to the former, the result might be that the services are done regardless of the fact that only a handful of people turn up for them. "God has been worshipped", as I once said when the only people physically present at Vespers one evening were my parish priest, a visiting reader, and me. My approach is to go to these things and then later rave about how lovely and edifying they are so that those who were not there are aware that they have missed something worthwhile without being made to feel that somebody is accusing them of being backsliders. If a more pedagogical understanding forms the basis for the ordering of worship, then I can see how a different approach might be taken, perhaps arranging the readings so that as many of them as possible take place during the service when the greatest number of people are likely to be present.

The clash of understandings manifested itself in my first year back in the UK, when I first properly ran up against middle-of-the-road Anglicanism. I expressed excitement about the upcoming Easter Vigil - a staple of my Anglican childhood in the West Indies - only for my parish priest to explain that there wouldn't be one. I asked why. Came the response, 'It would just be you and me there'. 'And?' I thought. People can't take part in the worship of God in a particular service and themselves receive the benefits of so doing if there is no service for them to attend. Bring back Vespers, Matins, and Lauds in the parishes, at least for Sundays, instead of multiple masses or the "one service" mentality.

Not all parishes will have the resources to do this but many do and yet don't do it. Mini explanation of personal growth on this front to be found here, for those interested.

[Code fix.]

[ 01. September 2012, 23:22: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
Aren't the lessons read to us for our edification?

No, they aren't. They, like the rest of the mass, are for the worship of God, not the intellectual edification of the congregation. That, at least, is the traditional understanding of the matter. The edification of the people (who can, after all, follow along in their hand missals) is a desirable side effect. Frankly, and without meaning to be insulting to you, I do wonder whether misunderstandings like that aren't an argument in favour of chanting the epistle toward the altar.
Recognizing that that might have sounded rather snippy — let me elaborate. I am worried that, in many churches, there is a tacit understanding that the 'liturgy of the word' is a 'teaching moment', for the congregation to sit back and learn something about religion. This I think is deadly to the idea of liturgy. Of course, the people should learn something in worship, but in a much deeper sense that does not come from passively sitting and listening, but from active worship of the living God. The liturgy, of course, contains numerous reference to scripture, of which the epistle and gospel constitute only a small part.

In times past, there was no sermon during the liturgy. Sermons were, of course preached — and some of the best have been preserved — but they were preached in a different context. The faithful were encouraged to listen to these, but the only requirement was that they should attend mass (and arguably the offices of Lauds/Morning Prayer and Vespers/Evensong as well) on Holy Days of Obligation. This is because we are not saved by an intellectual understanding of Christian doctrine. There is no strict requirement to be a theologian, although the study of theology has is naturally held to be a very good thing). The obligation is to worship God and to partake in Church's life of prayer and sacraments.

(S)pike Couchant I hesitate to disagree with someone who I am sure knows far more about these things than me, but are you sure you are right on this? From Justin Martyr, Apology I.67 it is quite clear that there are readings, then the president speaks 'admonishing us and exhorting us to imitate these excellent examples', then there are prayers and then the bread and wine are brought.

This is among the most ancient authorities available. The modern division in western forms of service, whether Protestant or Catholic, between Liturgy of Word then Sacrament is clearly based on it.

We, like Ken and virtually everywhere else, follow 4. I don't think 6 is technically different. It is merely that if a vested person, be they clergy, reader or whatever, reads, they aren't going to unvest just to do so.

There is a difference between England and Wales when it comes to the gospel. I've mentioned it elsewhere. Under Common Worship, the gospel may be, and frequently is, read by anyone, whereas in the Welsh books, it must be read by the celebrant or another ordained person, who may be a deacon. But you were asking about the epistle.
 
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
Aren't the lessons read to us for our edification?

No, they aren't. They, like the rest of the mass, are for the worship of God, not the intellectual edification of the congregation. That, at least, is the traditional understanding of the matter. The edification of the people (who can, after all, follow along in their hand missals) is a desirable side effect. Frankly, and without meaning to be insulting to you, I do wonder whether misunderstandings like that aren't an argument in favour of chanting the epistle toward the altar.
Recognizing that that might have sounded rather snippy — let me elaborate. I am worried that, in many churches, there is a tacit understanding that the 'liturgy of the word' is a 'teaching moment', for the congregation to sit back and learn something about religion. This I think is deadly to the idea of liturgy. Of course, the people should learn something in worship, but in a much deeper sense that does not come from passively sitting and listening, but from active worship of the living God. The liturgy, of course, contains numerous reference to scripture, of which the epistle and gospel constitute only a small part.

In times past, there was no sermon during the liturgy. Sermons were, of course preached — and some of the best have been preserved — but they were preached in a different context. The faithful were encouraged to listen to these, but the only requirement was that they should attend mass (and arguably the offices of Lauds/Morning Prayer and Vespers/Evensong as well) on Holy Days of Obligation. This is because we are not saved by an intellectual understanding of Christian doctrine. There is no strict requirement to be a theologian, although the study of theology has is naturally held to be a very good thing). The obligation is to worship God and to partake in Church's life of prayer and sacraments.

(S)pike Couchant I hesitate to disagree with someone who I am sure knows far more about these things than me, but are you sure you are right on this? From Justin Martyr, Apology I.67 it is quite clear that there are readings, then the president speaks 'admonishing us and exhorting us to imitate these excellent examples', then there are prayers and then the bread and wine are brought.

This is among the most ancient authorities available. The modern division in western forms of service, whether Protestant or Catholic, between Liturgy of Word then Sacrament is clearly based on it.

The earliest liturgies of the Church seems to have been quite fluid. I was thinking more of the Middle Ages, when they settled down a bit. I realize that, in the Twentieth Century, much effort has been made to attempt to 'recover' the liturgies of the early Church, but I've always been suspicious of this: liturgical archaeology should not, I feel trump living tradition.
 
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
The earliest liturgies of the Church seems to have been quite fluid. I was thinking more of the Middle Ages, when they settled down a bit. I realize that, in the Twentieth Century, much effort has been made to attempt to 'recover' the liturgies of the early Church, but I've always been suspicious of this: liturgical archaeology should not, I feel trump living tradition.

I generally agree but think that our inherited practice must be constantly checked against its original purpose, not necessarily with the intention of making it conform to earlier forms and discarding everything that doesn't fit, but rather to ensure that we are best expressing what the liturgy is supposed to express. In that, I think that a balance must be struck between the catechetical element of the Synaxis and its worship element as well. I think that this is done quite adequately by a subdeacon, facing east, yet chanting for the hearing of all.

The fact is that we have moved on from those early days. The Synaxis (Mass of the caechumens) did not include prayers and hymns initially, because it was for the teaching primarily of the catechumens, who, being unbaptised and not part of the Church, were not allowed to join in the common prayers of the Church. Then they were dismissed from the assembly before the Eucharist was offered. Quite early on the constitution of this part of the Eucharist changed, and for many centuries now the Mass/Liturgy of the Catechumens has contained prayers and hymns. It is no longer just about giving instruction and has taken on a very definite element of prayer and worship, and within this "new" context, the scriptural readings have taken on an additional significance.

I think that it is very much about keeping the balance.
 
Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :
 
I am introducing the Epistle reading tomorrow. [Biased] I have a rotation of the laity lined up so that every week someone is the reader, someone leads prayers, and on Sundays we celebrate the Eucharist, someone is the server. The reader will read the OT, lead the Psalm as a responsive reading, and then read the Epistle. I will read the Gospel.

At the moment the pulpit is in the center, so that is the place where they will read, facing the people. Later we may see about dividing the chancel area, in which case they will read from the lectern, which will probably have to go on the north side, due to architectural constraints.

[ 02. September 2012, 04:36: Message edited by: Barefoot Friar ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
I am worried that, in many churches, there is a tacit understanding that the 'liturgy of the word' is a 'teaching moment', for the congregation to sit back and learn something about religion. This I think is deadly to the idea of liturgy.

It is, of course, deadly to liturgy for the congregation to just sit back passively and receive at any point in the service. If there is any part of the service when the congregation is not participating there is a problem - that could be the sermon, or listening to the choir sing a hymn, or listening to the readings (and, probably every other part of the service is a potential problem).

When I lead worship, I don't consider that I'm up front doing something for the congregation. I'm there helping the congregation together (myself included) do something - worship God. When I preach I would consider it presumptious to aim to teach the congregation something new, the majority of them have over 60 years experience of faithfully following Christ, there's little chance I'll say anything new. My aim is to guide the congregation we they reflect on the Scriptures that have been read, and together this reflection leads to renewed thankfulness for all that God has done and renewed commitment to worship him, offering our whole lives as living sacrifices.

Like the sermon, the reading of Scripture is a liturgical moment within an extended liturgy. It is not a performance. It should be something the congregation can participate in. Therefore, IMO, the Scriptures should be read as clearly as possible so that all may hear them. It doesn't really bother me who does the reading, although having a member of the congregation come to the front to read (or, perform other liturgical functions) does symbolise the involvement of the whole congregation in the different aspects of the worship.
 
Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

And - relevant tangent - the norm for the Sunday eucharist is now two readings before the Gospel, which are (or should be?) treated alike in the way they are read. Though there is unfortunately a significant number of (C of E) churches where only two of the three readings are heard.

When in the UK and US I certainly found this to be true for the churches in which I worshipped at the time - but then in finding it the case, I was somewhat perplexed , bemused and concerned (all at the same time). Why, you might ask? The simple answer is - what about the Psalms? They seems to have disaapeared from many eucharists. Mybe because people weant to be out in an hour. Maybe because linking OT, NT and Gospel with the right Psalm is often beyond the grasp of the framers of the RCL. Mind you, they got it very right this morning (tomorrow for those in the UK), with Pslam 45 linked with the Song of Solomon and Epistle of James readings.

Back to the OP: our practice is for one reader (sometimes the sub-deacon, sometimes not) to read the OT from the ambo (facing the people) and then lead the psalm; the Epistle is sometimes read by the sub-deacon or by an unvested layperson, again from the ambo and facing the people. Inconsistent, yes; messy, no; appreciated, yes.

Trying to be too dogmatic about what is the correct way of doing things (and often inferring, even silently, that other ways are wrong), is not the way to illustrate that "though we are many (and do things differently) we are one body in Christ, because we all share in the one bread". Anyway, we have enough thundering dog-matics already, don't we?
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
A bugbear of mine. People don't sing psalms because the only way of singing them that anyone is likely to be able to remember, is almost unsingable except by a fully trained choir. And reading one means you end up with four readings.
 
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
A bugbear of mine. People don't sing psalms because the only way of singing them that anyone is likely to be able to remember, is almost unsingable except by a fully trained choir.

Really? I can see that if Anglican chant is used but the western plainsong psalm tones are probably among the simplest pieces of church music in existence. With one competent person to give a lead (or two, if you wish to sing the psalms antiphonally), even a small, musically untrained congregation can very easily pick them up and apply them to pointed words with full voice. I say this from experience. It isn't for nothing that these things are still in use after many centuries. They have survived because over a millennium of experience shows them to work both in the grandest of monasteries and in the smallest of mission parishes.

The Gregory Murray method is also employed in many places that want to foster congregational psalm singing, although the sung response in these settings may prove difficult for some congregations if there is no choir.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
I have been known to use the Scottish Version, or Tate asnd Brady to solve the Psalm problem with really musically illiterate congregations.

PD
 
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :
 
Again, though, there are so many psalms in the office (which, if one uses the Breviary, is little but psalms) that including on at the mass seems a bit unnecessary, particularly as it comes at the expense of the traditional graduals, which are beautiful and more obviously follow the liturgical year (and are, of course, very often taken from the psalms).

I really do think that a lot of the reforms to the mass were based on the assumption that lay people would have no involvement with the daily office. This seems to have been something of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

There's certainly nothing to be said against reading more of the Old Testament, but anyone who's ever been to an English Missal service will realize how wonderfully it flows from the (chanted) introit to the (sung) kyrie and gloria to the (chanted) collect(s) to the (chanted) epistle to the (chanted) gradual and tract to the (chanted) gospel. More recently-designed liturgies never seem to match that sense of flow.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
We do "4. The totally modern way: read by an unvested layperson." - though it isn't that 'modern' as it started in the 1970s - 40 years ago.

I agree that the readings are part of 'worship' but most laypeople rarely pick up a Bible and read during the week so it is all they are going to get, lamentably.

Chanted epistles and gospels (and OT) are nice for special occasions and we occasionally do this e.g. for a liturgical performance of a particular composer's mass setting, for a first mass etc.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
Generally, we only have one reading; the one that is to be expounded by the preacher, who might be 'ordained' but is just as likely to be an unlicensed member of the church.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
At the eucharist, isn't that illegal?
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
I've come across having the gospel as the only reading, at main Sunday eucharists on "children's" Sundays, and at one very well known evangelical church.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
So have I. It's still illegal! And I suspect daronmedway isn't fussed about it being the gospel either.
 
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
Sorry... for the ignoramus at the back: it's illegal to only have one reading at church services? [Confused]
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
At the Eucharist, yes. There must be a Gospel reading and (at least) one other.

And technically, it's illegal for an unlicenced person to be preaching.

[ 02. September 2012, 16:26: Message edited by: Spike ]
 
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
So if someone who hasn't been licenced is invited to preach, is that breaking the law? Or have they been licenced by being invited?

(If it's the former I've attended several illegal gatherings and I don't go that often to Anglican churches... Or is it different if they're specifically said to be ecumenical? How ecumenical do they have to be?)
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
So have I. It's still illegal! And I suspect daronmedway isn't fussed about it being the gospel either.

Oh, it's always the gospel, but not necessarily from 'the pen' of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.

And you're right, I'm not really worried about it being canonically illegal. However, I do think that the demise of public reading of scripture is a very sad thing because I think the Holy Spirit very much likes to speak to God's people in that way.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
At the eucharist, isn't that illegal?

I don't preach at Eucharistic services, so it's always a lay person, and we have no licensed Readers. The reading was from Matthew today though, so we at least ticked that box!

[ 02. September 2012, 16:43: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
 
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
Aren't the lessons read to us for our edification?

No, they aren't. They, like the rest of the mass, are for the worship of God, not the intellectual edification of the congregation. That, at least, is the traditional understanding of the matter. The edification of the people (who can, after all, follow along in their hand missals) is a desirable side effect. Frankly, and without meaning to be insulting to you, I do wonder whether misunderstandings like that aren't an argument in favour of chanting the epistle toward the altar.
The Angelic Doctor thinks otherwise:
quote:
There precedes, in the second place, the instruction of the faithful, because this sacrament is "a mystery of faith," as stated above (78, 3, ad 5). Now this instruction is given "dispositively," when the Lectors and Sub-deacons read aloud in the church the teachings of the prophets and apostles: after this "lesson," the choir sing the "Gradual," which signifies progress in life; then the "Alleluia" is intoned, and this denotes spiritual joy; or in mournful offices the "Tract", expressive of spiritual sighing; for all these things ought to result from the aforesaid teaching. But the people are instructed "perfectly" by Christ's teaching contained in the Gospel, which is read by the higher ministers, that is, by the Deacons. And because we believe Christ as the Divine truth, according to John 8:46, "If I tell you the truth, why do you not believe Me?" after the Gospel has been read, the "Creed" is sung in which the people show that they assent by faith to Christ's doctrine. And it is sung on those festivals of which mention is made therein, as on the festivals of Christ, of the Blessed Virgin, and of the apostles, who laid the foundations of this faith, and on other such days.
(Summa Theologiae 3.83.4)

I'm sorry, but reading lessons with your back to the people is a historical accident, and invented reasons why it is a good thing seem silly.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
FCB, in view of the fact that the epistle and gospel were read, or intoned in Latin, which manifestly the people did not, by and large, understand, do you not think that St Thomas might have noticed the dissonance between his words and his experience of the liturgy?
 
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
If one has to stand for the reading of the gospel, why doesn't one stand for a reading from Acts, considering it is part two of Luke?
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
If one has to stand for the reading of the gospel, why doesn't one stand for a reading from Acts, considering it is part two of Luke?

There are places where one does. In the Norwegian-American church tradition in which I grew up, we did not stand until the Dominus Vobiscum before the Collect of the Day, and then remained standing for all the scriptures, until the end of the Creed immediately after the readings. I believe this is the traditional practice in Norway, but I could be mistaken.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:


I really do think that a lot of the reforms to the mass were based on the assumption that lay people would have no involvement with the daily office. This seems to have been something of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I doubt if many lay people ever had much involvement with the daily office at all. In the Church of England most worshippers were familiar with weekly offices on Sundays, but in most parishes that has been displaced by Communion as the main Sunday service. Only clergy and a handful of laity are ever likely to have regularly participated in both kinds of liturgy.

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

And technically, it's illegal for an unlicenced person to be preaching.

No its not. Not in the CofE. The incumbent can ask anyone to preach. Canon b18:
quote:

At the invitation of the minister having the cure of souls another person may preach with the permission of the bishop of the diocese given either in relation to the particular occasion or in accordance with diocesan directions.


 
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
If one has to stand for the reading of the gospel, why doesn't one stand for a reading from Acts, considering it is part two of Luke?

There are places where one does. In the Norwegian-American church tradition in which I grew up, we did not stand until the Dominus Vobiscum before the Collect of the Day, and then remained standing for all the scriptures, until the end of the Creed immediately after the readings. I believe this is the traditional practice in Norway, but I could be mistaken.
A little research has shown that yours may be the more ancient custom. It is possible that at some stage a dispensation was given to sit for all the readings except for the gospel.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

And technically, it's illegal for an unlicenced person to be preaching.

No its not. Not in the CofE. The incumbent can ask anyone to preach. Canon b18:
quote:

At the invitation of the minister having the cure of souls another person may preach with the permission of the bishop of the diocese given either in relation to the particular occasion or in accordance with diocesan directions.


OK, fair enough, but the words "with the permission of the bishop of the diocese" are very important in that Canon.

[ 02. September 2012, 17:45: Message edited by: Spike ]
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
If one has to stand for the reading of the gospel, why doesn't one stand for a reading from Acts, considering it is part two of Luke?

There are places where one does. In the Norwegian-American church tradition in which I grew up, we did not stand until the Dominus Vobiscum before the Collect of the Day, and then remained standing for all the scriptures, until the end of the Creed immediately after the readings. I believe this is the traditional practice in Norway, but I could be mistaken.
A little research has shown that yours may be the more ancient custom. It is possible that at some stage a dispensation was given to sit for all the readings except for the gospel.
I'm pretty certain that that is the case and I seem to remember reading it somewhere. I'll see if I can find it again.
 
Posted by Edgeman (# 12867) on :
 
It depends on us. For most daily masses, whoever is celebrating it reads the readings at the ambo. On Saturdays, the order who runs my parish has a special community mass, and the reader is always one of the brothers. Some of them are instituted lectors.

On Sundays at the novus ordo masses, it's usually an unvested layperson. Sometimes one of the brothers will fill in if they're late or can't make it. At the extraordinary form missa cantata, the celebrant chants it at the altar.I know before the 1962 missal, the MC chanted it, which I would personally prefer. (And we could probably manage it- all of the MCs at my parish are former choir boys, I expect they could sing!)

Of course at solemn high mass, the subdeacon chants it facing the altar at the epistle side. I would personally prefer 2 or 3 from the list in the OP.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
FCB, in view of the fact that the epistle and gospel were read, or intoned in Latin, which manifestly the people did not, by and large, understand, do you not think that St Thomas might have noticed the dissonance between his words and his experience of the liturgy?

Not entirely. Since the Angelic Doctor was in Italy, not England, it's possible more ordinary people could get something of the gist of what a reading in Latin was about than would have been the case in Stratford atte Bow. Even there, when Latin was still used as lingua franca, some educated people would have been able to understand it, rather like second language English.
I still don't think that was a good case for carrying on using it down until the 1960s.
 
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Generally, we only have one reading; the one that is to be expounded by the preacher, who might be 'ordained' but is just as likely to be an unlicensed member of the church.

And to think that people have accused me of being a 'wind up'. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
Aren't the lessons read to us for our edification?

No, they aren't. They, like the rest of the mass, are for the worship of God, not the intellectual edification of the congregation. That, at least, is the traditional understanding of the matter. The edification of the people (who can, after all, follow along in their hand missals) is a desirable side effect. Frankly, and without meaning to be insulting to you, I do wonder whether misunderstandings like that aren't an argument in favour of chanting the epistle toward the altar.
The Angelic Doctor thinks otherwise:
quote:
There precedes, in the second place, the instruction of the faithful, because this sacrament is "a mystery of faith," as stated above (78, 3, ad 5). Now this instruction is given "dispositively," when the Lectors and Sub-deacons read aloud in the church the teachings of the prophets and apostles: after this "lesson," the choir sing the "Gradual," which signifies progress in life; then the "Alleluia" is intoned, and this denotes spiritual joy; or in mournful offices the "Tract", expressive of spiritual sighing; for all these things ought to result from the aforesaid teaching. But the people are instructed "perfectly" by Christ's teaching contained in the Gospel, which is read by the higher ministers, that is, by the Deacons. And because we believe Christ as the Divine truth, according to John 8:46, "If I tell you the truth, why do you not believe Me?" after the Gospel has been read, the "Creed" is sung in which the people show that they assent by faith to Christ's doctrine. And it is sung on those festivals of which mention is made therein, as on the festivals of Christ, of the Blessed Virgin, and of the apostles, who laid the foundations of this faith, and on other such days.
(Summa Theologiae 3.83.4)

I'm sorry, but reading lessons with your back to the people is a historical accident, and invented reasons why it is a good thing seem silly.

I have a dim recollection of hearing that it was the custom for the Epistle to be chanted from an ambo facing the congregation in the Roman Basilicas long before Vatican II. The same also applied in Abbeys and Cathedrals where a high proportion of those present knew Latin.

However, in parish churches that would not apply and the Congregation of Rites ruled accordingly, hence the habit of singing it facing East. It also had the added advantage that you did not have to heft the Missal! The sucker we have weighs about 12lbs and can get a bit heavy when the Epistle or Gospel is on the long side!

PD
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
If one has to stand for the reading of the gospel, why doesn't one stand for a reading from Acts, considering it is part two of Luke?

There are places where one does. In the Norwegian-American church tradition in which I grew up, we did not stand until the Dominus Vobiscum before the Collect of the Day, and then remained standing for all the scriptures, until the end of the Creed immediately after the readings. I believe this is the traditional practice in Norway, but I could be mistaken.
A little research has shown that yours may be the more ancient custom. It is possible that at some stage a dispensation was given to sit for all the readings except for the gospel.
I'm pretty certain that that is the case and I seem to remember reading it somewhere. I'll see if I can find it again.
In terms of Catholicism, I have a vague recollection that the general practice in the "Extraordinary Form" (in bygone years, if not now) was to be kneeling until the Gospel? In any event, I think sitting for the Epistle is a relatively recent phenomenon.
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:


There is a difference between England and Wales when it comes to the gospel. I've mentioned it elsewhere. Under Common Worship, the gospel may be, and frequently is, read by anyone, whereas in the Welsh books, it must be read by the celebrant or another ordained person, who may be a deacon. But you were asking about the epistle.

Not quite correct. In both 1984 and 2004, there is statement to the effect that a Reader may take the ministry of the Word excluding the absolution, so this would include the Gospel
Otherwise it should be a deacon or a priest ( as a priest is still a deacon or at least is considered to be)

We use 4 and yes we have 3 readings one of which is the Gospel

I think it's a good idea to have an OT lesson as well as the epistle as - as Leo says - all too few people read their Bibles and the Eucharist is probably the only place they'll ever hear the OT, which as the 39 Articles say 'is not contrary to the new'

Everything in our worship should I would have thought be done 'to the greater glory of God' but I would have thought that the role of the epistle was to teach people as well - after all wasn't that the motive of writers like St.Paul

Psalms should always be chanted. To Anglican chant. And I don't sing in a church choir. And I don't find them any more difficult than hymns........
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
A bugbear of mine. People don't sing psalms because the only way of singing them that anyone is likely to be able to remember, is almost unsingable except by a fully trained choir. And reading one means you end up with four readings.

[Confused] Dunfermline? The Old Hundredth? The Old 124th? Did they somehow cease being psalms?

Second, (S)pike Couchant's posit that the purpose of the readings is not to educate the people is just wrong, from a Protestant POV. Completely and Utterly Wrong, from a Reformed POV. So central is the Word of God that traditional Presbyterian churches have a high pulpit that looks rather like a mound, so that the Word of God may descend upon the people and they be thereby edified and increase in faith. It also helps the sound carry, more practically.

We have a member of the Congregation read the responsive Psalm and the Minister reads the Epistle and Gospel. We sit for the Lessons, after the saying "Presby, Presby they'll no' bend, sittin' there perched on Man's Chief End."
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:


4. The totally modern way: read by an unvested layperson.

Well, that's how we do it at my shack, but while I am unvested* and a layperson, I have been commissioned by my congregation to serve as a Lector.

Which today was Song of Solomon. Which I managed to get through without giggling.

*Okay, except when I am vested as MC and the person who's supposed to read doesn't turn up, I will do the reading in my cassock and surplice.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
At the Russian Orthodox cathedral in Ennismore Gardens, London, the epistle is indeed intoned facing the Holy Doors.

From the choir loft at the back of church, so it comes over loud and clear to the congregation in front (with their backs to the invisible reader).

O, and it's intoned by a woman in my experience.

[ 03. September 2012, 07:11: Message edited by: venbede ]
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Generally, we only have one reading; the one that is to be expounded by the preacher, who might be 'ordained' but is just as likely to be an unlicensed member of the church.

And to think that people have accused me of being a 'wind up'. [Roll Eyes]
OK, you've had three warnings about this. That sort of thing is not allowed outside Hell. You've just earned yourself 2 weeks shore leave..

Spike
SoF Admin
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
A bugbear of mine. People don't sing psalms because the only way of singing them that anyone is likely to be able to remember, is almost unsingable except by a fully trained choir. And reading one means you end up with four readings.

[Confused] Dunfermline? The Old Hundredth? The Old 124th? Did they somehow cease being psalms?
.....
We have a member of the Congregation read the responsive Psalm and the Minister reads the Epistle and Gospel. We sit for the Lessons, after the saying "Presby, Presby they'll no' bend, sittin' there perched on Man's Chief End."

I agree with you, though a responsive psalm isn't a metrical one and the whole congregation isn't joining in.

Our diocese has a complete library of metrical psalms here on its website, with a selection of Canticles as well, but I suspect that not many people use them.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
In terms of Catholicism, I have a vague recollection that the general practice in the "Extraordinary Form" (in bygone years, if not now) was to be kneeling until the Gospel? In any event, I think sitting for the Epistle is a relatively recent phenomenon.

And in terms of MOTR Anglicanism too - that was how i remember 'weekday communion services' when i was a teenager.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Generally, we only have one reading; the one that is to be expounded by the preacher

We would have three readings. The preacher usually preaches from one, with reference to the other two. But, of course, the service is more than just the sermon. When I'm leading worship I try to thread the Scriptures for the day (including the Psalm, although we rarely explicitely read it) throughout the whole service - in my choice of hymns, the prayers, the 'childrens address' (which, in my case is more of an informal introduction to the theme of the service in simpler language, with often a question and answer format), the liturgy I prepare for Communion. So, even if I don't mention one of the readings in the sermon it is linked into the service. Besides, there's value in reading Scripture even if it isn't expounded.
 
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
Indeed in the pre Vatican 2 form of Mass,nowadays the 'Extraordinary form', the people,in the UK anyway, would kneel from the beginning of the Prayers before the altar (Intoibo ad altare Dei etc.)right through to the Gospel.

An added extra which I remember was a little genuflection by the faithful after they signed themselves at the beginning of the Gospel.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Generally, we only have one reading; the one that is to be expounded by the preacher

[E]ven if I don't mention one of the readings in the sermon it is linked into the service. Besides, there's value in reading Scripture even if it isn't expounded.
I agree. The main reason we don't have more readings is a pragmatic one really. The Ministry of the Word (reading/s & sermon) is usually about 30 minutes. Extra readings would either make it too long or require the the sermon to be too short. For an evangelical, asking for the sermon to be shortened in order to save time would be like asking an Anglo-Catholic to use wee cuppies to speed up the Liturgy of the Sacrament.
 
Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PD:

... I have a dim recollection of hearing that it was the custom for the Epistle to be chanted from an ambo facing the congregation in the Roman Basilicas long before Vatican II. The same also applied in Abbeys and Cathedrals where a high proportion of those present knew Latin ...

Quite so. Your memory serves you well, PD.

M. Couchant's 1-6 ways to read or chant the Epistle seems restricted to local, parish uses of his experience. The history of liturgy in all its varied forms provides many other examples. In addition, Couchant, as usual, fails to note the influence of the 1979 American prayer book, providing for three lessons, last being the Holy Gospel. I that sense there is no more Epistle as such, but merely the first and second lessons preceding the Gospel and Sermon.

To view all of this through the rose colored glasses of what Angloid has called Spike Couchant's
quote:
... diosyncratic and antediluvian slant on anglo-catholicism ...
is somewhat hopeless, because we have come to know his ingrained preferences.

In that sense this thread is, once again, something of a wind-up because Couchant must well know that 99.9% of American liturgical churches these days read the Epistle or lessons from a lectern or ambo facing the people. The Orthodox and other eastern churches, no.

Since Spike Couchant already knew the Epistoraly ceremonial practice of St. Clement's, Philadephia, that's about the end of the story for the USA, except for the RC traditionalists and perhaps St. John's Church Newport, Rhode Island, which is a maybe.
*

[ 03. September 2012, 10:28: Message edited by: Mr. Rob ]
 
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
FCB, in view of the fact that the epistle and gospel were read, or intoned in Latin, which manifestly the people did not, by and large, understand, do you not think that St Thomas might have noticed the dissonance between his words and his experience of the liturgy?

Apparently Thomas was often unaware of what was going on around him, so it is possible he didn't notice.

More seriously, I suspect he is here laying out the ideal, not the actual practice. Also, much of his experience of liturgy would have been in the friary, where Latin was the lingua franca.

[ 03. September 2012, 10:55: Message edited by: FCB ]
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
In addition, Couchant, as usual, fails to note the influence of the 1979 American prayer book, providing for three lessons, last being the Holy Gospel.
*

And Mr Rob, in his Americo-centricism, fails to note that it was the Roman Lectionary of the post-Vatican 2 era, and the world-wide and ecumenical Liturgical Movement, that inspired the lectionary of the 1979 Prayer Book and subsequent versions such as RCL. [Razz]
 
Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
At the Eucharist, yes. There must be a Gospel reading and (at least) one other.

Not sure about other denominations, but this isn't true in the C of E. There's nothing in Canon Law requiring a gospel reading, the Lectionary doesn't have canonical force, and the Service of the Word with a Celebration of Holy Communion (Black CW, p.25) doesn't require a gospel reading.

quote:
And technically, it's illegal for an unlicenced person to be preaching.
Depends on the bishop. Canon B18.2 says
quote:
2. The sermon shall be preached by a minister, deaconess, reader or lay
worker duly authorized in accordance with Canon Law. At the invitation
of the minister having the cure of souls another person may preach with
the permission of the bishop of the diocese given either in relation to the
particular occasion or in accordance with diocesan directions.

The bishop of a previous diocese was clear that he was fine with the minister allowing any member of the congregation to preach as long as it was not more than once per term. Hence no need to license them.

One could of course argue that only one sermon per Sunday is required to meet Canon B18.2 in the light of Canon B18.1.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
At the Eucharist, yes. There must be a Gospel reading and (at least) one other.

Not sure about other denominations, but this isn't true in the C of E. There's nothing in Canon Law requiring a gospel reading, the Lectionary doesn't have canonical force, and the Service of the Word with a Celebration of Holy Communion (Black CW, p.25) doesn't require a gospel reading.

More important than the letter of the law is the spirit. The implication of the Lectionary, which provides a gospel reading for the 'second' service when it is a eucharist, is that the Gospel should be read. Canon Law (or at least the declaration of assent made by a minister at licensing) stipulates that the order of service should be 'authorized or allowed by Canon.' Maybe a circular argument, but the liturgies authorised by Canon consist AIUI of the BCP 1662 and Common Worship. Hence any rubrics therein are surely by implication part of Canon Law.

I'd be very unhappy to take part in a celebration of the Eucharist without a proper Liturgy of the Word. I'm surprised that evangelicals are so laid back about this. At a pinch I would accept there might be circumstances when only the Gospel is read, but I would have thought that would be essential.
 
Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
More important than the letter of the law is the spirit. The implication of the Lectionary, which provides a gospel reading for the 'second' service when it is a eucharist, is that the Gospel should be read.

I agree that the Lectionary implies it, but I don't see anywhere external to the lectionary which requires the following of the lectionary. It certainly isn't in Canon Law or the declaration of assent.

quote:
Canon Law (or at least the declaration of assent made by a minister at licensing) stipulates that the order of service should be 'authorized or allowed by Canon.' Maybe a circular argument, but the liturgies authorised by Canon consist AIUI of the BCP 1662 and Common Worship. Hence any rubrics therein are surely by implication part of Canon Law.
Agreed. However, CW doesn't require the use of the lectionary. It describes it as a provision but not a requirement.

I agree that Order 1 and Order 2 in CW both require a gospel reading. But SotW+HC doesn't, and is clearly a form of service authorised or allowed by canon. Hence CW doesn't require a gospel reading at Communion.

Maybe that was a big theological shift with the introduction of CW. Maybe it was accidental, but it is there nevertheless.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I'd be very unhappy to take part in a celebration of the Eucharist without a proper Liturgy of the Word. I'm surprised that evangelicals are so laid back about this. At a pinch I would accept there might be circumstances when only the Gospel is read, but I would have thought that would be essential.

Likewise, IMO Communion is intimately related to the proclaimation of the gospel. I stand there and say "On the night he was betrayed, our Lord took bread ... and said 'do this in remembrance of me'". I don't think I'd be able to honestly do that if I hadn't only a few minutes earlier led the congregation in an act of remembering what the Lord had said and done as I expounded Scripture.

I wouldn't necessarily say that I need to expound the Gospel reading to recall what Christ said and did, but it's certainly easier to do so.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
(S)pike C., as you may know, at St Clement's Philly the Epistle is chanted by the subdeacon (normally) facing eastward. My preference would be for it to be chanted by the subdeacon facing the people. Since it is read for the edificaiton of the faithful, I find it a bit silly to be facing away from the congregation. The celebrant is, of course,simultaneously reading the Epistle up at the altar, sotto voce, flanked by the deacon and the two acolytes behind the deacon.

Every other Anglo-Catholic or High Church shack in the USA that has solemn high mass, in my experience, follows (2), with the subdeacon singing or reading the Epistle facing west. Examples IME have included St Timothy's Fort Worth, St Thomas Fifth Ave, Ascension and St Agnes (DC), and St Mary the Virgin Times Square (although there the subdeacon stands - IIRC - at a lectern on the epistle side of the altar out near the altar rail; amongst others. The use of unvested laymen to read the Epistle seems to be much more common in English Anglo-Catholic practice, whilst in the States it tends to be limited to the Old Testament Lesson only in A-C parishes, though you may alternatively find a vested server reading the OT Lesson from the sanctuary.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:


I agree that Order 1 and Order 2 in CW both require a gospel reading. But SotW+HC doesn't, and is clearly a form of service authorised or allowed by canon. Hence CW doesn't require a gospel reading at Communion.

OK. But what I said about the spirit of the law, not just the letter. And if it is a deliberate innovation to make the Gospel optional, surely that would be spelt out somewhere? I suspect it's either an oversight, or just an assumption that people will use common sense and follow tradition.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
Note 5 in CW Service of the Word says, 'it is recognised that if occasion demands there may only be one reading'. It suggests that the lectionary be followed from Advent 3 through to the Baptism of Christ and from Palm Sunday through to Trinity Sunday. It says that if SoW is combined with HC 'the readings of the day are normally used'.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Correction to my post above: I was obviously misremembering SMV Times Sq, as they do east-facing concelebration for their high masses, rather than the traddie three sacred ministers. So no subdeacon. I can't now recall if I've seen the Epistle read by a vested server or by a concelebrant. I'm also thinking that SMV must at times have an actual deacon in residence, so I may have seen the Epistle read there at one time or another by a creature vested in dalmatic.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Is the apparently common TEC use of vested subdeacons because American a-cs, unlike their British counterparts, are less influenced by contemporary RC practice?

I can understand the special treatment given to the Gospel (deacon, standing, lights and procession), but why should the 'epistle' appear to be more important than the OT, by reserving it to a vested cleric? At least, that is the signal it would give to me.

Where the epistle is chanted, is the OT also chanted? And if not, why not?
 
Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I'd be very unhappy to take part in a celebration of the Eucharist without a proper Liturgy of the Word. I'm surprised that evangelicals are so laid back about this. At a pinch I would accept there might be circumstances when only the Gospel is read, but I would have thought that would be essential.

Likewise, IMO Communion is intimately related to the proclaimation of the gospel. I stand there and say "On the night he was betrayed, our Lord took bread ... and said 'do this in remembrance of me'". I don't think I'd be able to honestly do that if I hadn't only a few minutes earlier led the congregation in an act of remembering what the Lord had said and done as I expounded Scripture.

I wouldn't necessarily say that I need to expound the Gospel reading to recall what Christ said and did, but it's certainly easier to do so.

I completely agree with this. The Liturgy of the Word should include the proclamation of Jesus Christ. If the sermon ain't about Jesus, it ain't a Christian sermon. I wouldn't want to be at a communion service where Christ wasn't proclaimed either.

I happily preach Christ from the whole of Scripture. I don't think there's anything special about the story of Herod killing John the Baptist (Gospel reading) rather than Philippians 2 (non-gospel reading) that makes it more suitable for use in a communion service.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:

I happily preach Christ from the whole of Scripture. I don't think there's anything special about the story of Herod killing John the Baptist (Gospel reading) rather than Philippians 2 (non-gospel reading) that makes it more suitable for use in a communion service.

Basically because the latter is Paul's (admittedly inspired) reflections on the Christ-event; the former, or perhaps more accurately the four gospels as a whole, is a first-hand (or close second-hand) record of the Christ event. Even allowing for the writer's own interpretation and other factors. The Gospel (ie the writings of the four evangelists) has always been recognised as the primary element of the - wider sense - Gospel, surely?
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
Ditto. If we have two readings I'm more inclined to differentiate them according to OT and NT than between gospel account and epistle.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
(S)pike C., as you may know, at St Clement's Philly the Epistle is chanted by the subdeacon (normally) facing eastward. My preference would be for it to be chanted by the subdeacon facing the people. Since it is read for the edificaiton of the faithful, I find it a bit silly to be facing away from the congregation. The celebrant is, of course,simultaneously reading the Epistle up at the altar, sotto voce, flanked by the deacon and the two acolytes behind the deacon.

Have I understood correctly that two people are simultaneously reading the same passage in different parts of the church - or does the "Correction to my post above" correct that as well?
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:

I happily preach Christ from the whole of Scripture. I don't think there's anything special about the story of Herod killing John the Baptist (Gospel reading) rather than Philippians 2 (non-gospel reading) that makes it more suitable for use in a communion service.

Basically because the latter is Paul's (admittedly inspired) reflections on the Christ-event; the former, or perhaps more accurately the four gospels as a whole, is a first-hand (or close second-hand) record of the Christ event. Even allowing for the writer's own interpretation and other factors. The Gospel (ie the writings of the four evangelists) has always been recognised as the primary element of the - wider sense - Gospel, surely?
No. The gospel is no more 'apparent' in the gospel accounts than it is in any other NT text, although their contribution is unique and vital. These texts are not more special than any other biblical text. In fact I think it is a mistake to call these texts 'gospels' - they are biographical accounts of Jesus' earthly ministry according to particular authors which tell us something about the gospel. But they are not the gospel.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Have I understood correctly that two people are simultaneously reading the same passage in different parts of the church
I think so. Unreformed RC practice, unthinkingly copied by some Anglicans who should know better, had come to think that the priest should himself read every word of the liturgy irrespective of what was done by others. This was because the 'low mass', in which the priest necessarily did everything because there were no other ministers present, was seen as the norm, rather than the exception. So that you had the nonsense of the priest reading the words of the Gloria while it was being sung, and then sitting down; or as above, reading the epistle and gospel even though they were read aloud by others. Inability to delegate, they call it in some contexts!

[ 03. September 2012, 16:47: Message edited by: Angloid ]
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
Yes, Enoch, you have understood correctly. Bizarre isn't it? The celebrant says these things privately, that is, audible only to himself.

This is true of the Epistle and Gospel, the minor propers, and the ordinary (Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei), if sung by a cantor or choir.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
The gospel is no more 'apparent' in the gospel accounts than it is in any other NT text, although their contribution is unique and vital.

[my italics]
Enough reason, one would think, why an excerpt should be read at every celebration of the eucharist.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Thanks Angloid and Silent Acolyte. On this board one learns something new and odd every day.
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Is the apparently common TEC use of vested subdeacons because American a-cs, unlike their British counterparts, are less influenced by contemporary RC practice?

I can understand the special treatment given to the Gospel (deacon, standing, lights and procession), but why should the 'epistle' appear to be more important than the OT, by reserving it to a vested cleric? At least, that is the signal it would give to me.

Where the epistle is chanted, is the OT also chanted? And if not, why not?

Is it not simply because at the time the customs developed there was no OT reading at Mass? One might surmise that if the older rites had OT readings then someone (probably a cleric, probably vested) would have been appointed to read them. I suspect it's more a historical accident than a privileging of the Epistle over the OT. Indeed, remembering that the "Epistle" in the older rites was sometimes from the OT it might be argued that both should now be read by the subdeacon, if you happen to have one handy.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
(S)pike C., as you may know, at St Clement's Philly the Epistle is chanted by the subdeacon (normally) facing eastward. My preference would be for it to be chanted by the subdeacon facing the people. Since it is read for the edificaiton of the faithful, I find it a bit silly to be facing away from the congregation. The celebrant is, of course,simultaneously reading the Epistle up at the altar, sotto voce, flanked by the deacon and the two acolytes behind the deacon.

Have I understood correctly that two people are simultaneously reading the same passage in different parts of the church - or does the "Correction to my post above" correct that as well?
In the Tridentine Rite, the celebrant and/or sacred ministers say all the parts of the Mass that are sung by the choir or said by another minister. Thus, the celebrant goes to the gospel side of the altar during the gradual and reads the Gospel in the "silent" or "secret" voice before the deacon sings the Gospel out loud from the north side of the sanctuary. Similarly, the celebrant is reading the Epistle in a low voice during the time that the subdeacon is singing that reading aloud. Likewise, the sacred ministers, joined by servers to the extent feasible, recite the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, and other bits of the Ordinary whilst the musical settings of these texts are being sung by the choir. This is usage followed in the English Missal and thus done at St Clement's.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Yes, Enoch, you have understood correctly. Bizarre isn't it? The celebrant says these things privately, that is, audible only to himself.

This is true of the Epistle and Gospel, the minor propers, and the ordinary (Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei), if sung by a cantor or choir.

Apologies, SA: I missed your post before reiterating the same answer.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
. This is usage followed in the English Missal and thus done at St Clement's.

And people used to criticise the Parson's Handbook as 'British Museum religion'! [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
The English Missal is Vatican Museums religion, surely? Actually I quite like the British Museum religion of St Percy.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
My own impression, as a Brit resident in the USA, is that Anglo-Catholic practice, as opposed to theology, was and is a little more mainstream in PECUSA/ECUSA/TEC than it ever was in the Church of England. As a result there has been less of a tendancy to unthinkingly follow the local RC interpretations of the Vatican II documents on the liturgy, and the Novus Ordo liturgy. The Biretta Belt went a bit more post-Vatican II in its liturgical practice than the Coasts bac in the late-70s, but I think the Coasts are catching up.

I find that St Hardup's is stuck firmly in the mid-1960s. The ceremonial of the main Sung Mass is simplified but still largely Tridentine. However, some of the 'silly stuff' has been eliminated. For example, the celebrant sits and listens whilst the acolyte or subdeacon reads the Epistle facing the people. Also, there is a rule here that unless there is a very, very good reason to do otherwise, the BCP rubrics take precedence over Ritual Notes. The Low Masses are more 'Eastward facing Novus Ordo' in ceremonial.

We have allowed our use to evolve a little, but we still remain rather traditional. Lay people, in the form of licensed lay readers, are permitted to administer the chalice, and lay folks read the lessons at the Offices - if I can get the volunteers. The liturgy is a living thing, and we have to hit a balance between fossilization and revolution, and let things evolve slowly.

PD

[ 03. September 2012, 18:08: Message edited by: PD ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Where the epistle is chanted, is the OT also chanted? And if not, why not?

Yes - I have done each of them in my time when we have a 'high church day' - indeed it is odd that the epistle and OT tones are more complicated that the gospel ones.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Apologies, SA: I missed your post before reiterating the same answer.

Da nada, LSvK. Besides, I fumbled the name of the voice the priest uses, while you got it right. Anyway, Angloid got past the post first as the three of us were rushing to describe this oddness.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Yes, Enoch, you have understood correctly. Bizarre isn't it? The celebrant says these things privately, that is, audible only to himself.

Percy Dearmer in The Parson's Handbook agrees with this in regard to the epistle. The 1662 BCP says the priest reads the epistle, so that is what he must do. The epistle is read or sung audibly at the same time by another minister from "the appointed place" (unspecified in the main text). In a footnote, Dearmer suggests chanting the epistle is probably impractical in most places, although he allow for the possibility.

Dearmer spends some time insisting that the epistle is read facing the people, which is also suggested by Fortescue's buddy, J O'Connell.

However the BCP says the reader should conclude by saying "Here endeth the epistle" so that is what should always be said even when the passage comes from a Biblical book which is not a letter, ie Acts or Revelation.

All perfectly logical of course, but don't go saying Percy cannot be pedantic and fussy at times.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

All perfectly logical of course, but don't go saying Percy cannot be pedantic and fussy at times.

Oh, Percy's the epitome of pedantic. Legalistic even. But there was good reason for this: he was defending ceremonial practices by pointing out their conformity to the rubrics of the BCP, and hence ensuring that everything he did in church was.
 
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Where the epistle is chanted, is the OT also chanted? And if not, why not?

In our case, yes.

In the common Russian chant tradition, the Old Testament and sometimes the apostolic readings are chanted on a single note, perhaps with some inflection, while the Gospel is read to a particular chant. In another Russian tradition, the apostolic readings, and sometimes the Gospel, are done in a "rising from the grave" tone, in which the reader begins very low and goes up by a fraction of a tone for each line, (often increasing in volume as he goes).

My poor convert English ears cannot bear the latter tradition. Therefore, I tend to use a Carpatho-Russian chant, in which a simple chant with three repeating musical phrases is used for the Old Testament, and the Epistle and Gospel are read to a more elaborate form. There's a video of me getting this Epistle chant slightly wrong (and too fast due to nerves) on the day of my ordination here. I learnt the chant from sheet music but have since heard a Ukrainian priest of Carpatho-Russian extraction do the Gospel in this manner, as well as having a recording of me doing it commented on by another priest of similar background so have modified my practice accordingly.
 
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
The Scrumpmeister, you have a very pleasant voice to listen to.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
At one of the cathedrals of my favorite Orthodox bishop, everything is sung. Everything. Well, except for "I believe and I confess," which is said, but everything else is sung.
 
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
The Scrumpmeister, you have a very pleasant voice to listen to.

You're very kind, Mamacita. [Hot and Hormonal] Thank you. My mother's side of the family has been blessed in this way.
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
In the Tridentine Rite, the celebrant and/or sacred ministers say all the parts of the Mass that are sung by the choir or said by another minister. Thus, the celebrant goes to the gospel side of the altar during the gradual and reads the Gospel in the "silent" or "secret" voice before the deacon sings the Gospel out loud from the north side of the sanctuary. Similarly, the celebrant is reading the Epistle in a low voice during the time that the subdeacon is singing that reading aloud. Likewise, the sacred ministers, joined by servers to the extent feasible, recite the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, and other bits of the Ordinary whilst the musical settings of these texts are being sung by the choir. This is usage followed in the English Missal and thus done at St Clement's.

Wow. I guess we know who gets the Redundancy Department of Redundancy Award. [/opinion][/MethodistRoots]
 
Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Generally, we only have one reading; the one that is to be expounded by the preacher, who might be 'ordained' but is just as likely to be an unlicensed member of the church.

And to think that people have accused me of being a 'wind up'. [Roll Eyes]
(S)pike Whoever could possibly have imagined that of you, of all people! [Devil]

[ 04. September 2012, 08:39: Message edited by: Emendator Liturgia ]
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
No more discussion of that tangent, please, Emendator.

dj_ordinaire, Eccles host
 
Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid

... And Mr Rob, in his Americo-centricism, fails to note that it was the Roman Lectionary of the post-Vatican 2 era, and the world-wide and ecumenical Liturgical Movement, that inspired the lectionary of the 1979 Prayer Book and subsequent versions such as RCL ...

"Americo-centrism!" - [Killing me]

Not to stray to far from the OP and the Epistle, let me agree that all the influences mentioned by Angloid did indeed influence the drafting of the 1979 American prayer book. But that is not the point.

My actual point is that the American 1979 BCP achieved adoption and authority as the prayer book of the national church, and it influenced the life of The Episcopal Church accordingly and uniformly. That includes, in 99% of cases, the terminology and practice concerning the lessons and Holy Gospel of the Eucharist.

You can write up as many nifty liturgies and prayer books as you like, but the question is how many of them will gain acceptance and authority as a national standard? All the churches of the Anglican Communion have developed these alternative rites which are options, but some of those churches are still stuck with the "official" book of 1662, notably the Church of England. Hence the OP on the Epistle here because there are so many variants.
*
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:

My actual point is that the American 1979 BCP achieved adoption and authority as the prayer book of the national church, and it influenced the life of The Episcopal Church accordingly and uniformly. That includes, in 99% of cases, the terminology and practice concerning the lessons and Holy Gospel of the Eucharist.

*

Well yes. And I admire, with some envy, TEC for this. But AFAIK (S)pike couchant is not a member of TEC nor an American resident, so your point is irrelevant.
 
Posted by Laurence (# 9135) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

All perfectly logical of course, but don't go saying Percy cannot be pedantic and fussy at times.

Oh, Percy's the epitome of pedantic. Legalistic even. But there was good reason for this: he was defending ceremonial practices by pointing out their conformity to the rubrics of the BCP, and hence ensuring that everything he did in church was.
And I wonder whether at the same time, he was making the more subtle point that a strictly literalistic interpretation of the BCP produced ludicrousnesses like "Here endeth the Epistle" ("No it's not, it's Acts!"). A delicate game to play.
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:

My actual point is that the American 1979 BCP achieved adoption and authority as the prayer book of the national church, and it influenced the life of The Episcopal Church accordingly and uniformly. That includes, in 99% of cases, the terminology and practice concerning the lessons and Holy Gospel of the Eucharist.

*

Well yes. And I admire, with some envy, TEC for this. But AFAIK (S)pike couchant is not a member of TEC nor an American resident, so your point is irrelevant.
I also suspect that it is the tolerated but unofficial use of terminology from the Knott Missal and the Roman Catholic Mass which are of more interest to the OP than a strict adherence to the 1662.
 
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laurence:
And I wonder whether at the same time, he was making the more subtle point that a strictly literalistic interpretation of the BCP produced ludicrousnesses like "Here endeth the Epistle" ("No it's not, it's Acts!").

Which is why we refer to it as the reading from the apostle.
 
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
quote:
Originally posted by Laurence:
And I wonder whether at the same time, he was making the more subtle point that a strictly literalistic interpretation of the BCP produced ludicrousnesses like "Here endeth the Epistle" ("No it's not, it's Acts!").

Which is why we refer to it as the reading from the apostle.
Oh. Didn't know that. I like!
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Wow. I guess we know who gets the Redundancy Department of Redundancy Award. [/opinion][/MethodistRoots]

To be fair, I've been known to do that whilst in the congregation - say the relevant part of the prayers as a supplement to the rather ornate Latin setting being sung at the same time. If one can't easily follow a prayer then it seems to make sense to me...
 
Posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic (# 12722) on :
 
quote:
…a strictly literalistic interpretation of the BCP produced ludicrousnesses like "Here endeth the Epistle" ("No it's not, it's Acts!").
The Book of Common Prayer directs that the Epistle, when not taken from an epistle, be announced "The portion of Scripture appointed for the Epistle". Presumably, therefore, the correct ending on such occasions is "Here endeth the portion of Scripture appointed for the Epistle"? That is what I say when that happens.
 
Posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic (# 12722) on :
 
Apologies for the double post, but I must also respond to the conversation above about whether the Epistle (or a portion of Scripture appointed for it!) will suffice in a Church of England Eucharist. The new 'Additional Eucharistic Prayers' booklet, when giving the 'Structure of a Celebration of Holy Communion', states that 'a Gospel reading must be included'. Moreover, the Notes to 'A Service of the Word with a Celebration of Holy Communion' in the main volume of Common Worship state that 'The notes to the Order for the Celebration of Holy Communion…apply equally to this service.' Those notes clearly assume that the Liturgy of the Word will culminate with the Gospel reading.

What makes me worry is the idea that there are English Anglicans who don't *want* a Gospel reading in a eucharistic celebration. It seems a bizarre desire.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
In the Tridentine Rite, the celebrant and/or sacred ministers say all the parts of the Mass that are sung by the choir or said by another minister. Thus, the celebrant goes to the gospel side of the altar during the gradual and reads the Gospel in the "silent" or "secret" voice before the deacon sings the Gospel out loud from the north side of the sanctuary. Similarly, the celebrant is reading the Epistle in a low voice during the time that the subdeacon is singing that reading aloud. Likewise, the sacred ministers, joined by servers to the extent feasible, recite the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, and other bits of the Ordinary whilst the musical settings of these texts are being sung by the choir. This is usage followed in the English Missal and thus done at St Clement's.

Wow. I guess we know who gets the Redundancy Department of Redundancy Award. [/opinion][/MethodistRoots]
I tend to think that the vain repetitions and excessive notes of text-obscuring polyphonic Mass settings represent the greater redundancy.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic:
quote:
…a strictly literalistic interpretation of the BCP produced ludicrousnesses like "Here endeth the Epistle" ("No it's not, it's Acts!").
The Book of Common Prayer directs that the Epistle, when not taken from an epistle, be announced "The portion of Scripture appointed for the Epistle". Presumably, therefore, the correct ending on such occasions is "Here endeth the portion of Scripture appointed for the Epistle"? That is what I say when that happens.
There are times when I have been heard to exclaim 'Let commonsense and the Proposed BCP be your friend...!' It instructs the reader to conclude "Here endeth the Epistle/Lesson" according to what has been read.

PD
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic:


What makes me worry is the idea that there are English Anglicans who don't *want* a Gospel reading in a eucharistic celebration. It seems a bizarre desire.

Even more bizarre when you consider that most of these people describe themselves as evangelicals.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic:


What makes me worry is the idea that there are English Anglicans who don't *want* a Gospel reading in a eucharistic celebration. It seems a bizarre desire.

Even more bizarre when you consider that most of these people describe themselves as evangelicals.
Its not that they don't want to read from the Gospels, its that they see the readings and the sermon and the hymns and the rest of the worship as all of one piece, connected, supporting each other. So they will preach on what is read, and read what is to be preached. It would not occur to them to add in extra readings that seemed unconnected with the rest of the worship.

Places that do that will often ask a visiting preacher what they intend to preach on and use that as the main Bible reading. Or they might have a programme of readings working through one book, or developing one theme. Churches that are in the habit of preaching through a book over some weeks often find the published lectionaries inadequate - it can seem to them that the readings are too short (especially the OT readings) and selective, they miss out too much, they too often jump over the apparently harder sayings or verses, they encourage the bad habits of skipping through the Bible looking for your favourite topic and of treating a text as a collection of isolated verses rather than a coherent narrative.

I am only the reporter here... I use the lectionary and try to get all the readings in (though our vicar resists sometimes)
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I use the lectionary and try to get all the readings in

You may not like me saying this, ken, but in some ways you're a better catholic than many in the C of E.
 
Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic:
Those notes clearly assume that the Liturgy of the Word will culminate with the Gospel reading.

Simply wrong. The Liturgy of the Word culminates with the proclamation of the gospel in the sermon. (CW p332, note 13).

And ken's right (of course) in terms of the priority of ensuring thematic continuity and the general dissatisfaction with the RCL because of its omissions, lack of systematicity and complete obliviousness to local pastoral need, etc.

It's worth saying that I do straight BCP / CW order 1/2 communion (with multiple readings including a gospel reading, usually from the lectionary) at least three Sundays per month, and there's no plan to change that.

It's also worth saying that more people seem to want to come to the services where we don't do that.

[ 06. September 2012, 08:50: Message edited by: Custard ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
When presiding at Communion, I read the bit from Paul about Communion - "What I learned I passed onto you ... on the night he was betrayed Christ Jesus took bread ...". If, instead of that I read one of the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper would that satisfy the requirement within the CofE for a Gospel reading at a Communion service? Or, does the Gospel have to be read within the context of the preceding Liturgy of the Word and preached on?
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
Alan,

the Gospel has to be read within the context of the Liturgy of the Word at the Eucharist under the C of E's regulations. However, it does not have to be preached on - you can go for the NT or the OT if you like. I usually find more to preach on in the Epistle than I do the Gospel so I imagine I run about 3 to 1 in favour of preaching on the former.

PD

[ 06. September 2012, 15:12: Message edited by: PD ]
 
Posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic (# 12722) on :
 
quote:
Simply wrong. The Liturgy of the Word culminates with the proclamation of the gospel in the sermon. (CW p332, note 13).
Quite how something which is said 'normally' to occur and which may be omitted except on Sundays and Holy Days can be regarded as the culmination of the Liturgy of the Word is beyond me.

I wonder whether the attendance patterns at your liturgically particular Eucharists, when compared with your less rubrically obedient gatherings, might have more to do with the time at which they occur? I certainly can't imagine people saying, "No, I don't think I will go to church today, because they'll be using Common Worship and reading the Gospel"!
 
Posted by Quam Dilecta (# 12541) on :
 
One measure of the importance of the gospel reading in the Eucharist is the long-standing rule that that anyone who does not arrive in time to hear the gospel is not supposed to receive the Sacrament at that service.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
Are they locking the doors at the gospel at your prayer shack, Quam Dilecta?
 
Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Quam Dilecta:
One measure of the importance of the gospel reading in the Eucharist is the long-standing rule that that anyone who does not arrive in time to hear the gospel is not supposed to receive the Sacrament at that service.

Long ago, in a diocese far away, there was a TEC parish whose members attending the 9 am Sunday mass were notorious late-comers.

One of the priests addressed the problem thusly (IIRC in a special announcement) 'The church teaches that one should arrive in time to hear the Gospel if intending to receive the HC; and one should CERTAINLY arrive in time for the General Confession -- BUT I SUPPOSE that if you get here in time to make it up to the rail, we'll give you Communion.' (All said in a very exasperated tone.)
I don't recall whether or not it helped!
 
Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic:
[QUOTE]I wonder whether the attendance patterns at your liturgically particular Eucharists, when compared with your less rubrically obedient gatherings, might have more to do with the time at which they occur? I certainly can't imagine people saying, "No, I don't think I will go to church today, because they'll be using Common Worship and reading the Gospel"!

Less than you'd expect. A previous church had the times almost exactly reversed, and the effect was the same. More people turned up to SotW done well than to CW/BCP HC done well.

I suspect it is because the CW liturgy is generally aimed at middle-class white folk aged 60 and over who have been going to church all their lives.
 
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :
 
In our humble little shack, the epistle is read from the chancel step, by the subdeacon if there is one, or by a lay person: occasionally me. When I am listening to the readings (intoned in the case of gospel, more often than not), I am conscious that this is different from reading the text myself, and I do not follow it. Ever. It is an opportunity for the text to take flight into sound and time, to be part of the offering and experience of the liturgy, and to do this, to my mind, it must take on the provisionality of the moment, rather than being fixed in a written text, available at any point.

When I am reading, when not wondering what comes next - an element relatively easily eradicable by preparation - I am conscious of the effect of my reading on the words, and of the drama that is happening between the text, my reading, and the listening hearts of the congregation. Sounds overblown, I know, but I think that's what's going on.

[ 09. September 2012, 18:33: Message edited by: FooloftheShip ]
 
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
A bugbear of mine. People don't sing psalms because the only way of singing them that anyone is likely to be able to remember, is almost unsingable except by a fully trained choir. And reading one means you end up with four readings.

Not at my place! At the 11:15 eucharist we have all 3 readings, with the psalm chanted using anglican chant, which, while led by the choir, is congregational, and with pretty good congregational response at that.

BTW, at the 9am eucharist, where there are only 2 readings, the 1st is just about always from the OT and not the epistle.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
It is also easy for congregations without choirs to sing responsorial psalms.

There are also metrical; versions to many of the psalms.

Plainsong is also quite easy.

[ 13. September 2012, 14:42: Message edited by: leo ]
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
For a Lutheran church, we have surprisingly few good singers, and yet we still manage to sing the Psalm fairly well each week.

Anglican Chant is 4 note : 6 note
Our tones are 4 note : 4 note
There also exists 2 note : 2 note

It really couldn't get much easier.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0