Thread: Evensong at Incarnation, Dallas 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=025817
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
An interesting review of Evensong at Church of the Incarnation, Dallas. However, what in the world does the mystery worshipper mean by the assertion that the 1979 BCP was the first to eliminate the service of Evensong (aka "Evening Prayer"). It's right there in the prayerbook, in both traditional Rite I and contemporary Rite II forms. And why wasn't this caught by the knowledgable Episcopalian Mystery Worshipper editor?

[ 27. April 2013, 19:17: Message edited by: Ancient Mariner ]
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
Yes, weird that! I could have taken it as a YMMV comment on the qualities of the 1979 BCP if the reviewer had but said 'screwed up' not 'eliminated.' I am not overly fond of multiple choice liturgy, so the 1979 Office makes me a little buggy, and is a bit screwed up IMHO. I am much happier with the older 1928 Office where I have fewer decisions to make. This is especially true of MP as it takes me a long time to wake up in a morning!

PD

[ 27. April 2013, 14:27: Message edited by: PD ]
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Well, PD, I rather agree about the pitfalls of multiple choice liturgy, though one can get a good Office out of 1979, and there are some antiphons and so forth in '79 that are quite nice and that you don't get with '28, much less with 1662. However, I also agree that 1928 is easier to use when saying the Offices. I think when you do a planned public service of Choral Mattins or Evensong, then the difficulties with the '79 are obviated, as you've already made the necessary choices beforehand and potentially printed them in a pew leaflet for the congregation. When I say the Office as a private devotion, however, I've always stuck to 1928 myself -- it just requires less thought over adiaphora.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
"Eliminated" is definitely too strong of a word, but I can see what the MW is getting at. Even Rite I is slightly different from what you would hear if they were singing one of the classic Responses. So if you are doing Smith, you can't exactly follow in the BCP.

By the way, was the Te Deum in the MW the anthem?
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
quote:
By the way, was the Te Deum in the MW the anthem?
Yes, that's what it says. (A bit unusual but perfectly OK as an anthem, though more suitable fore Matins/MP IMHO)
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
"Simplify" or "substantially modify" would probably have been better choices of words, but we'll let the reporter's choice stand unless he wishes to come forward with further clarification.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
By the way, was the Te Deum in the MW the anthem?
Yes, that's what it says. (A bit unusual but perfectly OK as an anthem, though more suitable fore Matins/MP IMHO)
Why? The Te Deum often ends Evensong on major festivals - or a solemn one after a new bishop, monarch war etc.
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
Here's a 1979 BCP Rite I Choral Evensong from Grace Cathedral, San Francisco, without 1662 borrowings. One of my favorite CDs.

I used to sing in an early-music ensemble that was invited to sing a 1662 Choral Evensong at our diocesan convention. It was very strange because most who attended didn't understand that the choir sings things like the preces and responses themselves, so there was a melange of choral (Smith of Durham) and improvised congregational chant. Better typography on the booklet would have helped.
 
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on :
 
The 1979 alleged 'Evensong' office actually waters down the content of the authentic Evening Prayer from the real Book of Common Prayer to a point that it can't really be described as Evensong at all.
 
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on :
 
I have in the past attempted to tinker with the 1662 offices but these were just a highway to perdition. The offices are simple for a good reason. Oh, and if you think the 1979 American book is difficult to use, try your hand at 'Common Worship Daily Prayer'. It's enough to make me want to become a pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic monk.
 
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
I have in the past attempted to tinker with the 1662 offices but these were just a highway to perdition. The offices are simple for a good reason. Oh, and if you think the 1979 American book is difficult to use, try your hand at 'Common Worship Daily Prayer'. It's enough to make me want to become a pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic monk.
What's complicated about it? You can access a link online that automatically posts the relevant Psalms and readings for the day for each of the Offices. Here is evening prayer for tonight:

http://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-worship/join-us-in-daily-prayer.aspx?url=ep
 
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :
 
What I'm used to for Evensong is a hybrid of the 1979 BCP and other sources. The order in the current prayer book is followed, but the Preces & Responses come from the settings that are performed. So no, they're not '79 BCP.

Where I currently work, we use Rite I, since the language more closely matches those older settings of the Preces/Responses and the Mag/Nunc. We always include two congregational hymns: one taking the place (sadly, IMO) of the Phos Hilaron, and the other at the very end. Since I'm not in the choir here, I appreciate being able to sing a bit. The congregation also chants the Apostle's Creed (on monotone) and the Lord's Prayer (also on monotone). If we didn't get those parts, I might fall asleep!

I would like to hear the MW's justification for why they think the '79 rites for Evening Prayer don't count as Evensong. I suspect it's just traditionalist snobbery, that old vice all too often mistaken for a virtue in some circles.

ETA: To modify a saying, If you do as Cranmer did, you're not doing as Cranmer did. [Two face]

[ 29. April 2013, 20:35: Message edited by: churchgeek ]
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
The 1979 alleged 'Evensong' office actually waters down the content of the authentic Evening Prayer from the real Book of Common Prayer to a point that it can't really be described as Evensong at all.
Host hat ON

Indifferently.

As you have been told, Ecclesiantics is a place for polite discourse, in accordance with Commandments 1 and 5. This post is utterly contrary to these commandments.

'Alleged' Evensong? 'Real' BCP? Seriously?

Given how recently you have been warned about this by several Hosts, I also consider this a contravention of commandment 6.

As you were previously notified, this matter will be passed to the Admins.

Host hat OFF
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Eyes peeled.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
By the way, was the Te Deum in the MW the anthem?
Yes, that's what it says. (A bit unusual but perfectly OK as an anthem, though more suitable fore Matins/MP IMHO)
Why? The Te Deum often ends Evensong on major festivals - or a solemn one after a new bishop, monarch war etc.
Just that the "vouchsafe O Lord to keep us this day without sin" bit carries a bit more meaning as part of a morning liturgy, but honestly it's a very minor point. I've certainly sung it myself as an anthem at evensong.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
The 1979 alleged 'Evensong' office actually waters down the content of the authentic Evening Prayer from the real Book of Common Prayer to a point that it can't really be described as Evensong at all.
Hmm. Given that Evensong is simply the English word for the Office of Prayer said in the Evening, whilst it pains me to say it, even the Northumbria Community's offering (or David Adams' Celtic Prayers) would count as Evensong. Whether or not they are faithful to the Cranmerian tradition is, of course, another question.

Thurible
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
Let me add my agreement to Thurible's chorus. While there is much about the 1979 book which I find unfortunate, its evening prayer is definitely within the vespers definition. I am so accustomed to the Canadian BCP's evensong, that it has become the default hardwired version for me, but I acknowledge the existence of other flavours.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
By the way, was the Te Deum in the MW the anthem?
Yes, that's what it says. (A bit unusual but perfectly OK as an anthem, though more suitable fore Matins/MP IMHO)
Why? The Te Deum often ends Evensong on major festivals - or a solemn one after a new bishop, monarch war etc.
Just that the "vouchsafe O Lord to keep us this day without sin" bit carries a bit more meaning as part of a morning liturgy, but honestly it's a very minor point. I've certainly sung it myself as an anthem at evensong.
'Night' is usually substituted for 'day' when the Solemn te Deum concludes Festal/solemn evensong - as also when it is a versicle/response at Compline.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Technically you could also sing "day" then too I guess as sundown marks the start of the day liturgically. I'm really just posting from the choir's perspective where it's unlikely to get changed (or at least I've never heard it changed when sung at evensong). But there are bigger deals I think.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
What are the specific differences between the American Evensong and the real deal?
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
What are the specific differences between the American Evensong and the real deal?

...and that's it. Other things that can be different are optional: text of the Gloria Patri, which can be done the 1662 way via a specific rubric; Phos hilaron need not be added.

And the psalter may be read/sung from Coverdale's translation via another rubric about earlier versions of texts. So even that needn't be a difference.

[ 30. April 2013, 18:47: Message edited by: Oblatus ]
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
By the way, was the Te Deum in the MW the anthem?
Yes, that's what it says. (A bit unusual but perfectly OK as an anthem, though more suitable fore Matins/MP IMHO)
Perhaps it could even have been that thing the reviewer said didn't exist, an occasion to ring bells during evensong! [Cool]
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
This page gives an idea of how to shoehorn the prayer book offices into the BAS rubrics, and Derek Olsen has a pdf on 1662-style offices from the 1979 book, and one for an Anglo-Catholic usage of the same.

[ 01. May 2013, 14:00: Message edited by: LQ ]
 
Posted by LA Dave (# 1397) on :
 
Oh, and it's "God save the State" in the former colonies.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LA Dave:
Oh, and it's "God save the State" in the former colonies.
I once heard an English ex-patriot priest sing "God save the Que- uh- State," which got a good snicker.

My choir mostly does the classic settings of the Preces and Responses, but every once in a while we break out one of a few more recent settings that use (if I remember correctly) the words from the '79 prayer book. One is by our choirmaster, and the other is by John Repulski. I like the Repulski in particular; they aren't an easy sight read, but have a nice modern sound to them. I don't know if they have been published, or if we just got a copy from the source.
 
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LA Dave:
Oh, and it's "God save the State" in the former colonies.
Not in all former colonies. I don't think Canada is a colony anymore.
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:
Originally posted by LA Dave:
Oh, and it's "God save the State" in the former colonies.
Not in all former colonies. I don't think Canada is a colony anymore.
Just to amplify, some of the former colonies are monarchies -- 15, I think, at last count. And that doesn't include Malaysia, which is a monarchy but whose monarch is not also the monarch of the United Kingdom.

In all of them, "O Lord, save the Queen" (not, please note, "God save the Queen") is currently what's used -- as it has been for the nearly 60 years I've been exposed to the BCP offices. HOwever,The shorter litany of which it is a part doesn't appear in the modern language office in the BAS -- I obviously don't know about the other countries in question.

John
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:
Originally posted by LA Dave:
Oh, and it's "God save the State" in the former colonies.
Not in all former colonies. I don't think Canada is a colony anymore.
I cringe at 'O Lord, save the State' every time I say it. It has Orwellian overtones to my ears. The Irish - probably J A F Gregg, who was Primate of All Ireland at the time DeValera got his republic - got it right with 'O Lord, guide and defend our rulers.' Of course, these days I am wondering if 'O Lord, save us from the State' might be more appropriate, but then I have never been noted for having the warm fuzzies about politicians, or their antics.

PD

[ 01. May 2013, 23:15: Message edited by: PD ]
 
Posted by LA Dave (# 1397) on :
 
My reference to "former colonies" was to the 13 colonies now constituting the original United States. The thread related to the differences in American Evensong. Obviously, where the Queen serves as monarch of a former colony (e.g. Canada), it is proper to bid her to be saved.
 
Posted by LA Dave (# 1397) on :
 
And yes, it is "Oh Lord, save the State."
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:
Originally posted by LA Dave:
Oh, and it's "God save the State" in the former colonies.
Not in all former colonies. I don't think Canada is a colony anymore.
I cringe at 'O Lord, save the State' every time I say it. It has Orwellian overtones to my ears. The Irish - probably J A F Gregg, who was Primate of All Ireland at the time DeValera got his republic - got it right with 'O Lord, guide and defend our rulers.' Of course, these days I am wondering if 'O Lord, save us from the State' might be more appropriate, but then I have never been noted for having the warm fuzzies about politicians, or their antics.

PD
It might have been de Valera's republic, but might not. The republic dated from 1948 (under President O'Kelly and Taoiseach Costello), but the effectively republican (and de Valera-drafted) constitution from 1937. But PD is quite right in his favourable assessment of Abp Gregg's formulation. It has double advantage of covering not only two heads of statement and other responsible people, but prays for humans rather than an abstraction.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LA Dave:
And yes, it is "Oh Lord, save the State."
Rather, it's the vocative, 'O Lord....'
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
Gregg advised DeValera over the language concerning the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Ireland in the 1937 Constitution. It is actually quite a masterpiece in that he managed not to offend the sensibilities of either community. On the other hand, it is difficult to see the period from partition through to the 1970s as being anything other than a negative one for Protestants in the "South" but very little of that has to do with the government and a good deal to do with the official positions adopted by Rome concerning mixed marriages.

Oddly enough, the priest who inspired and encouraged me to seek Holy Orders when I was a student in the late 1980s had been ordained by Gregg in the mid-1950s towards the end of his time at Armagh. In a strange sort of way ++Gregg sort of represented the sort of environment that I find most congenial - Anglican, Catholic-leaning, intellectually rigorous, somewhat liberal in method, but fairly conservative in its conclusions.

PD
 
Posted by Mockingbird (# 5818) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
And the psalter may be read/sung from Coverdale's translation via another rubric about earlier versions of texts. So even that needn't be a difference.
The rubric in question would be
quote:
When it is desired to use music composed for them, previously authorized liturgical texts may be used in place of the corresponding texts in this Book.
On its face this rubric only applies when the "previously authorized texts" are being sung. The immediately preceding rubric
quote:
Where rubrics indicate that a part of the service is to be "said," it must be understood to include "or sung," and vice versa
cannot be taken to apply to the rubric about "previously authorized texts" since the latter specifically refers to music. So the Coverdale psalms can only now be sung, never recited. A strict reading of the rubric about previously authorized texts would apply it only to through-composed settings of texts. Gregorian and Anglican chant formulae that were not written specifically "for" a given text would not count. [Big Grin]

[ 04. May 2013, 04:59: Message edited by: Mockingbird ]
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
But the provision for traditional texts has its own rubric, which is what makes the Anglican Service Book possible.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0