Originally posted by ken:
"nobody is allowed to say this"?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
People have been saying it all over the place. What's controversial about it?
quote:In some online fora I frequent, there are folks who pop up like that John 3:16 guy at sporting events with the rainbow wig on, as soon as anyone prays that souls may "rest in peace." "And rise in glory!"
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
So I know we discussed the matter of "resting in peace and rising in glory" a while back, but just quickly:
When did the departed begin to "Rise in Glory" ?
When I was a young Anglican - they merely Rested in Peace as far as I remember... but of late one never hears one without the other.
quote:I think we pinned it down to when Robert Runcie was Principal of Cuddesdon, although I am told they don't rise in glory there anymore.
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
. . .
When did the departed begin to "Rise in Glory" ?
When I was a young Anglican - they merely Rested in Peace as far as I remember... but of late one never hears one without the other.
quote:The earlier discussion was about the use of 'and rise in glory' as a response to "May the souls of the faithful departed rest in peace" - popular in vestry prayers.
Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:
DFoing a little bit of research, may I draw honourable shipmates attention to this discussion, especially the contributions of one Derek Jay of Bristol (who acnknwoledged in 2009 the contribution of the Ship):
http://www.gssonline.org.uk/forum_rise_in_glory.htm
quote:Thank you - that was me!!!
Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:
DFoing a little bit of research, may I draw honourable shipmates attention to this discussion, especially the contributions of one Derek Jay of Bristol (who acnknwoledged in 2009 the contribution of the Ship):
http://www.gssonline.org.uk/forum_rise_in_glory.htm
quote:But I didn't start this thread!
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Not an answer but
In 2007 there was this thread, in 2009 you started this thread Corvo and the most recent thread arguing about whether souls rose from 2012.
As you asked here and did not start a new thread, I presume that these threads would hold the answer you want.
Jengie
quote:In the epiphany prayers in CWDP the following petition is included:
Originally posted by Corvo:
quote:I think we pinned it down to when Robert Runcie was Principal of Cuddesdon, although I am told they don't rise in glory there anymore.
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
. . .
When did the departed begin to "Rise in Glory" ?
When I was a young Anglican - they merely Rested in Peace as far as I remember... but of late one never hears one without the other.
I don't think they rise in glory in any official Liturgical text.
quote:But it doesn't say souls, does it? That seems to be the point of contention.
Originally posted by Carys:
In the epiphany prayers in CWDP the following petition is included:
That all who with Christ have entered the shadow of death
Many rest in peace and rise in glory
Not the traditional vestry prayer, but rest in peace and rise in glory
quote:The BCP 1662 absolution at Evensong:
Originally posted by Carys:
My random liturgical question is, is it just me or is the absolution in BCP evensong impossible to parse satisfactorily? There is no main clause!
quote:But we've switched persons. It starts with a vocative so second person, but then switches to third. Compare
Originally posted by Oblatus:
quote:The BCP 1662 absolution at Evensong:
Originally posted by Carys:
My random liturgical question is, is it just me or is the absolution in BCP evensong impossible to parse satisfactorily? There is no main clause!
ALMIGHTY God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who desireth not the death of a sinner, but rather that he may turn from his wickedness and live; and hath given power and commandment to his Ministers, to declare and pronounce to his people, being penitent, the Absolution and Remission of their sins: He pardoneth and absolveth all them that truly repent and unfeignedly believe his holy Gospel. Wherefore let us beseech him to grant us true repentance and his Holy Spirit, that those things may please him which we do at this present, and that the rest of our life hereafter may be pure and holy; so that at the last we may come to his eternal joy; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
My take on this: Everything before the colon is a definition of "He" that immediately follows the colon. So the main clause starts with "He pardoneth and absolveth..."
Reduced to essentials, the prayer says "God absolves all who truly repent and believe the Gospel. So let us ask him to give us this true repentance and the Holy Spirit, etc."
quote:Vocative + relative clause describing God
Almighty God, unto whom all hearts are open, all desires known, and from whom no secrets are hid cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of thy holy spirit that we may perfectly love thee and worthily magnify thy holy name through Jesus Christ our Lord
quote:And even that is not as clear as some Lutherans desire. The Missouri Synod and conservative offshoot bodies often go in for a very clear "I forgive you all your sins" sort of thing. Of course, the offshoots typically like a mention that one isn't forgiven if yadda yadda.
Originally posted by Oblatus:
The Lutherans leave no doubts in their absolutions that say, "As a called and ordained minister of God and by his authority, I declare to you the entire forgiveness of all your sins, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen!"
quote:That's also how I read it.
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
No, it's not vocative, and it's not second person. The verb endings ("desireth," "hath given") are clearly third-person. "Almighty God" is not an address to God himself, but the subject of those two verbs, as well as "pardoneth and absolveth". I don't see a single second-person verb in the entire absolution.
quote:Carys
Almighty God, ..., who desireth not the death of a sinner... and hast given to his ministers...., pardon and absolve you and grant you true repentance...
quote:Souls may not rise in glory according to the Bible, but bodies do!
Originally posted by Oblatus:
quote:In some online fora I frequent, there are folks who pop up like that John 3:16 guy at sporting events with the rainbow wig on, as soon as anyone prays that souls may "rest in peace." "And rise in glory!"
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
So I know we discussed the matter of "resting in peace and rising in glory" a while back, but just quickly:
When did the departed begin to "Rise in Glory" ?
When I was a young Anglican - they merely Rested in Peace as far as I remember... but of late one never hears one without the other.
I've heard of a priest rebutting that with, "Souls don't rise." But that leaves me behind theologically, as I don't know enough to agree or disagree with that.
quote:Are the italicized sentences declarative or imperative? Are we asking God to have mercy, or stating that God has mercy? (Would it be "thou, O Lord, hast..."?)
Almighty and most merciful Father,
we have erred and strayed from thy ways like lost sheep,
we have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts,
we have offended against thy holy laws,
we have left undone those things which we ought to have done,
and we have done those things which we ought not to have done.
But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us,
spare thou those who confess their faults,
restore thou those who are penitent,
according to thy promises declared unto mankind
in Christ Jesus our Lord;
and grant, O most merciful Father, for his sake,
that we may hereafter live a godly, righteous, and sober life,
to the glory of thy holy Name. Amen.
quote:I don't see how this could be declarative. What we have here is a series of examples of one of the few instances where the forms of the verb in indicative and subjunctive moods are distinct. To be declarative the verbs would have to be indicative - i.e. hast, sparest and restorest. They are subjunctive and so could be jussive (in effect imperative) or optative (wishing). The latter would look to be more in keeping.
Originally posted by Bostonman:
A similar question of syntax and Elizabethan grammar...
The 1979 TEC BCP Rite I MP/EP confession reads:
quote:Are the italicized sentences declarative or imperative? Are we asking God to have mercy, or stating that God has mercy? (Would it be "thou, O Lord, hast..."?)
Almighty and most merciful Father,
we have erred and strayed from thy ways like lost sheep,
we have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts,
we have offended against thy holy laws,
we have left undone those things which we ought to have done,
and we have done those things which we ought not to have done.
But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us,
spare thou those who confess their faults,
restore thou those who are penitent,
according to thy promises declared unto mankind
in Christ Jesus our Lord;
and grant, O most merciful Father, for his sake,
that we may hereafter live a godly, righteous, and sober life,
to the glory of thy holy Name. Amen.
quote:I agree with Ken, except that it does not seem to be used by pukka Anglo-Catholics even today.
Originally posted by ken:
It looks as if the phrase came into use in English after the Reformation, and was used as a grave inscription. And then became a liturgical response among marked Anglo-Catholics maybe in the late 19th century, but only escaped into general use in the Church of England in the last twenty years or so.
quote:The translation is Cranmer's, from the introduction to the Communion service. It appears in the 1549 BCP with the Lord's Prayer at the very beginning of the service.
Originally posted by Percy B:
Carys mentioned a few posts back the Collect for purity of the BCP.
.....to whom all hearts are open, and from whom no secrets are hid, cleanse the... Etc.
What's the origin of this prayer, please?
quote:That is my experience, hence my query, but I do find it very much the response in (Roman) Catholic circles and that of Anglicans in the UK.
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
I've been worshipping in A-C parishes (and some rather less than A-C) in the US since 1957 (doesn't seem that long, somehow), and I have never heard 'rise in glory.' The response to 'May the souls … rest in peace.' has invariably been 'Amen.'
quote:Cranmer indeed included the collect for purity and the opening Lord's Prayer to be said by the priest alone. They were still a priestly preparation for the Communion.
....This was then adopted by Cranmer as the opening to his order for Communion. (This is based on conversations with my tutors at theological college, not on any written resource.) [/QB]
quote:A source at last! Could you give me a reference for that, or even expand a little? Why does the biographer think this worthy of a mention?
Originally posted by Cornish High:
The expression does not appear in my copy of the Cuddesdon office book. Bishop Fison of Salisbury was inclined to use the expression according to his biographer, and he was not particularly AC. Do evangelicals approve of the term as a matter of interest?
quote:I have that book (he confirmed me and was a great evangelical) but don't believe it - will look at it when I get time.
Originally posted by Cornish High:
I cannot lay my hand on my copy of the Fison, but it is called "Afire for God" by F.W. Dillistone. I recall that on the last page the sentence in question went something like, "... the little term Joe taught people to use at the end of the traditional prayer 'may the souls ... rest in peace' and rise in glory." Perhaps someone with a copy of the book can verify? Bp Joe was at Salisbury in the 1960s as was Runcie at Cuddesdon but I don't know if there was any connection in this matter.
quote:Please do; you might finally put this one to rest.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:I have that book (he confirmed me and was a great evangelical) but don't believe it - will look at it when I get time.
Originally posted by Cornish High:
I cannot lay my hand on my copy of the Fison, but it is called "Afire for God" by F.W. Dillistone. I recall that on the last page the sentence in question went something like, "... the little term Joe taught people to use at the end of the traditional prayer 'may the souls ... rest in peace' and rise in glory." Perhaps someone with a copy of the book can verify? Bp Joe was at Salisbury in the 1960s as was Runcie at Cuddesdon but I don't know if there was any connection in this matter.
quote:Can't find it - drat.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:I have that book (he confirmed me and was a great evangelical) but don't believe it - will look at it when I get time.
Originally posted by Cornish High:
I cannot lay my hand on my copy of the Fison, but it is called "Afire for God" by F.W. Dillistone. I recall that on the last page the sentence in question went something like, "... the little term Joe taught people to use at the end of the traditional prayer 'may the souls ... rest in peace' and rise in glory." Perhaps someone with a copy of the book can verify? Bp Joe was at Salisbury in the 1960s as was Runcie at Cuddesdon but I don't know if there was any connection in this matter.
quote:It varies according to the rite used, number of communicants, solemnity of the service, &c.
Originally posted by Ultracrepidarian:
I'm not sure if this is even a liturgical question, but it's definitely miscellaneous!
Approximately how long does a Pontifical Liturgy of the Orthodox Western Rite take?
quote:I'd agree with Angloid about the beginning and end of mass, but I would add that when facing east I would also be inclined to reverence the reserved sacrament. But when the celebrant was on the west side I would not struggle to do so assuming it is a rather tight space.
Originally posted by KevinL:
Reverences: when the setup has the altar pulled away from the wall for a versus populum celebration of the Eucharist, but the East wall directly behind the altar has the tabernacle set into it (like a vault, not like an aumbry)
Thoughts, suggestions, references, best practices on how to reverence the Blessed Sacrament and/or altar upon entering the church, crossing before the altar/tabernacle in general, approaching at the beginning of mass, and the most awkward of awkwards, passing between the tabernacle and the altar? This is an Episcopal church but I'd be interested to know how RC cope with this set-up as well.
Thanks in advance for replies.
quote:Sorry - I am an idiot. What I meant was when he is on the east side facing west... Our custom is to genuflect.
Originally posted by KevinL:
Thanks Angloid and Comper's Child. It is pulled away, in that is is probably only a meter from the East Wall (though free standing).
Comper's Child, when you say "when the celebrant is at the west side" do you mean when he is facing west? I'm a bit confused as to the scenario, since at the west side he would have more space and be able to reverence both.
Also, are we talking genuflections here, or profound bows? I assume because it is the BS, we mean genuflections at the beginning and end, but bows otherwise?
Thanks!
quote:That's the practice I'm used to as well. The EWTN practice JitN describes sounds well-intentioned but rather distracting to me.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Growing up in a Catholic parish, it was our custom to reverence the tabernacle only upon entering and leaving the sanctuary, not while puttering about setting things up/tearing things down. We didn't think we were being disrespectful, but others may disagree.
quote:There is no provision in the BCP for a Sermon at Evensong, so in some places it was (and apparently still is) the custom to extinguish the candles after the Grace to signify the end of the office. The sermon that follows is not then considered to be part of the service, but a separate event.
Originally posted by flags_fiend:
I visited a different anglican church last Sunday evening for evensong, which I enjoyed (it is quite different to what I am used to). I was confused as to why, in the hymn just before the sermon, a man who was sat with the choir, although obviously not a member of the choir (he was dressed differently, the choir were robed, he was dressed in black), got up, went up to where the altar was and put out two candles that were on sticks in front of and to either side of the altar.
So my questions are;
1). Why were the candles put out before the sermon?
2). Was a missing something important about this man's role? He seemed to be praying through most of the rest of the service.
Thanks, flags x
quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
. . .
When did the departed begin to "Rise in Glory" ?
When I was a young Anglican - they merely Rested in Peace as far as I remember... but of late one never hears one without the other.
quote:I have a copy in front of me and its does indeed conclude "Joe's own last word might have been the phrase which he taught others to add to the traditional prayer: 'May the souls of the departed rest in peace:' And rise in Glory."
Originally posted by Cornish High:
I cannot lay my hand on my copy of the Fison, but it is called "Afire for God" by F.W. Dillistone. I recall that on the last page the sentence in question went something like, "... the little term Joe taught people to use at the end of the traditional prayer 'may the souls ... rest in peace' and rise in glory." Perhaps someone with a copy of the book can verify? . . .
quote:The 'proper' time to extinguish the office candles is after the collects - though it always seemed off to pray 'lighten our darkness' and then put the candles out.
Originally posted by Corvo:
quote:There is no provision in the BCP for a Sermon at Evensong, so in some places it was (and apparently still is) the custom to extinguish the candles after the Grace to signify the end of the office. The sermon that follows is not then considered to be part of the service, but a separate event.
Originally posted by flags_fiend:
I visited a different anglican church last Sunday evening for evensong, which I enjoyed (it is quite different to what I am used to). I was confused as to why, in the hymn just before the sermon, a man who was sat with the choir, although obviously not a member of the choir (he was dressed differently, the choir were robed, he was dressed in black), got up, went up to where the altar was and put out two candles that were on sticks in front of and to either side of the altar.
So my questions are;
1). Why were the candles put out before the sermon?
2). Was a missing something important about this man's role? He seemed to be praying through most of the rest of the service.
Thanks, flags x
quote:Thanks for info. It has been bugging me ever since I failed to find my copy.
Originally posted by Corvo:
quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
. . .
When did the departed begin to "Rise in Glory" ?
When I was a young Anglican - they merely Rested in Peace as far as I remember... but of late one never hears one without the other.quote:I have a copy in front of me and its does indeed conclude "Joe's own last word might have been the phrase which he taught others to add to the traditional prayer: 'May the souls of the departed rest in peace:' And rise in Glory."
Originally posted by Cornish High:
I cannot lay my hand on my copy of the Fison, but it is called "Afire for God" by F.W. Dillistone. I recall that on the last page the sentence in question went something like, "... the little term Joe taught people to use at the end of the traditional prayer 'may the souls ... rest in peace' and rise in glory." Perhaps someone with a copy of the book can verify? . . .
Joe Fison began as an Evangelical, both studying and teaching at Wycliffe Hall, but was strongly impressed by his early experience of the Ethiopian Church, and later by the thinking of Berdyaev, Buber and Tillich. Through his ministry, particularly in Cambridge and Salisbury, he influenced generations of Anglican ordinands.
I think it is very likely that he is responsible for the popularity of the "rise in glory" response in MOTR parishes which in the 1960s were probably just beginning to regularly use the 'rest in peace' formula.
The Christian Hope: the presence of the Parousia (1954) was his most substantial work, and it is likely that it explains what he understood by it.
quote:In our parish, the first ring of the bell is a brief one just before the celebrant starts the Words of Institution.
Originally posted by Hart:
Was it just after the words of Institution? ("This is my body... this is my blood"). This is to draw people's attention to that moment (dating from a time when the words of the Eucharistic Prayer were said quietly by a priest whose face the people couldn't see).
quote:I was taught it was also from when the service was in latin so that people also knew when the Holy Sopirit was being invoked.
Originally posted by Hart:
Was it just after the words of Institution? ("This is my body... this is my blood"). This is to draw people's attention to that moment (dating from a time when the words of the Eucharistic Prayer were said quietly by a priest whose face the people couldn't see).
PS. The preparation is the rite of preparing the altar. The Eucharistic Prayer is the long prayer that the priest says after that before communion is given out. Do you mean the latter?
quote:Is this due to the particular setting that you use?
Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:
Our servers are trained to ring the sanctuary bells at the Sanctus (3x3, one for each 'Holy')...
quote:In our parish it is three rings at the end of the preface, but before the choir commences the Sanctus. Three rings at both of the elevations and one ring immediately after the celebrant has communicated, which signals the servers, choir and congregation to begin queuing up for communion.
Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:
Our servers are trained to ring the sanctuary bells at the Sanctus (3x3, one for each 'Holy'), the elevation of the bread and wine (3x3 each), and during the benedictus.
quote:My instinct is to say a definite 'no'. I'd need to check chapter and verse but a priest has no right to vary the set texts without express permission. I don't recall seeing any such permission.
Originally posted by Hart:
When the Lectionary has a longer and a shorter version of a gospel, does anyone know if it's OK to do something intermediate? Ie. all of the shorter, and some but not all of the verses it skips that are in the longer? [You can take 'OK' in various senses, but the one I'm particularly interested in is for Roman Catholics at Mass.]
quote:I usually have good luck with the rubrics and frontmatter of RC liturgical books, and so far I have found no evidence that one can use a hybrid of the short and long readings. It would probably be easier to come up with a reason to use a different set of lectionary texts altogether, such as those for a votive Mass or a feast.
Originally posted by Stranger in a strange land:
quote:My instinct is to say a definite 'no'. I'd need to check chapter and verse but a priest has no right to vary the set texts without express permission. I don't recall seeing any such permission.
Originally posted by Hart:
When the Lectionary has a longer and a shorter version of a gospel, does anyone know if it's OK to do something intermediate? Ie. all of the shorter, and some but not all of the verses it skips that are in the longer? [You can take 'OK' in various senses, but the one I'm particularly interested in is for Roman Catholics at Mass.]
(Would have been nice for last Sundays second lesson).
quote:Unfortunately, the author of that whodunit is wrong, or that Anglo-Catholic church was doing it wrong. Adrian Fortescue, THE authority in his famed Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described,
Originally posted by Percy B:
I am reading a whodunit set in an Anglo Catholic Church, where the priest gets murdered.
Before the murder he is robing for High Mass. The author comments that it was a liturgically precise church in which the deacon and subdeacon had to wait until the priest put on the chasubles before they put on dalmatics and tunicle.
Was that the custom?
quote:Unless the Solemn Mass in question is on a Sunday (as most are), in which case the maniples for all three are on their respective sedilia. Maniples are not donned until after the Asperges, when the celebrant changes from cope to chasuble.
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
quote:Unfortunately, the author of that whodunit is wrong, or that Anglo-Catholic church was doing it wrong. Adrian Fortescue, THE authority in his famed Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described,
Originally posted by Percy B:
I am reading a whodunit set in an Anglo Catholic Church, where the priest gets murdered.
Before the murder he is robing for High Mass. The author comments that it was a liturgically precise church in which the deacon and subdeacon had to wait until the priest put on the chasubles before they put on dalmatics and tunicle.
Was that the custom?
says that the deacon and sudeacon vest, with the exception of their maniples, before the arrival of the celebrant, so as to be in readiness for him. The deacon and subdeacon then assist the celebrant to vest. Previous to that, the first and second acolytes have assisted the deacon and subdeacon to vest, At the conclusion of vesting, the deacon offers the maniple to the celebrant, then he and the subdeacon don their own maniples.
That's how High Mass vesting is done by the book, but not apparently by the book you are reading.
*.
quote:All the time. Sometime over a cassock only, and sometimes over a cassock and surplice.
Originally posted by Percy B:
Do Anglicans ever sport mozzettas?
quote:Yes, certainly. On Sundays when the rite of Asperges (or another) is celebrated before the High Mass of the day. However the question raised by the story in the whodunit did not refer to the ceremonies before Mass, or to use of the maniples for them, but in what sequence the three sacred ministers would, in fact, vest beforehand.
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
quote:Unless the Solemn Mass in question is on a Sunday (as most are), in which case the maniples for all three are on their respective sedilia. Maniples are not donned until after the Asperges, when the celebrant changes from cope to chasuble.
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
quote:Unfortunately, the author of that whodunit is wrong, or that Anglo-Catholic church was doing it wrong. Adrian Fortescue, THE authority in his famed Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described,
Originally posted by Percy B:
I am reading a whodunit set in an Anglo Catholic Church, where the priest gets murdered.
Before the murder he is robing for High Mass. The author comments that it was a liturgically precise church in which the deacon and subdeacon had to wait until the priest put on the chasubles before they put on dalmatics and tunicle.
Was that the custom?
says that the deacon and sudeacon vest, with the exception of their maniples, before the arrival of the celebrant, so as to be in readiness for him. The deacon and subdeacon then assist the celebrant to vest. Previous to that, the first and second acolytes have assisted the deacon and subdeacon to vest, At the conclusion of vesting, the deacon offers the maniple to the celebrant, then he and the subdeacon don their own maniples.
That's how High Mass vesting is done by the book, but not apparently by the book you are reading.
*.
quote:Indeed: the pellegrina is common among a certain breed of Anglican (I have one, though I don't often wear it). The mozzetta I have never seen in an Anglican context: choir dress tends to mean surplice and scarf or cotta and stole (and perhaps cope with the latter).
Originally posted by Percy B:
I am talking of the Mozzetta, just to be clear, not the pellegrina.
quote:That ought to go in the 'guotes file' if i knew how to do it.
Originally posted by Percy B:
I am talking of the Mozzetta, just to be clear, not the pellegrina.
quote:Oh dear, Leo, you are so serious. Can't you see tongue in cheek comments?
Originally posted by leo:
quote:That ought to go in the 'guotes file' if i knew how to do it.
Originally posted by Percy B:
I am talking of the Mozzetta, just to be clear, not the pellegrina.
A priceless example of some of the exotica and tatporn that happens on this board.
Having moved in anglo-catholic circles for 48 years, i haven't a clue what a pellegrina' is, nor the slightest interest in finding out - maybe it should be worn by women bishops when we finally, please God, get them.
quote:In the f**kin' ziti.
Originally posted by ken:
But where do you put the Mozzarella?
quote:I have been well aware of these things for many years without knowing their names. I have heard them described as tit-warmers, or more politely and prosaically as shoulder capes.
Originally posted by Basilica:
quote:Indeed: the pellegrina is common among a certain breed of Anglican (I have one, though I don't often wear it). The mozzetta I have never seen in an Anglican context: choir dress tends to mean surplice and scarf or cotta and stole (and perhaps cope with the latter).
Originally posted by Percy B:
I am talking of the Mozzetta, just to be clear, not the pellegrina.
quote:The previous edition of the GIRM did not require reservation of the Blessed Sacrament in a separate chapel. I once had to check on that myself.
Originally posted by venbede:
I think the GIRM used to require reservation should be in a separate chapel, but I note in para 315 at present it is also possible on a separate place within the sanctuary.
quote:I'll have to dig through materials when I get home, but I can definitely say they are rare.
Originally posted by Pancho:
It's not unusual to see 4-part hymns for the congregation in hymnals* but is there such a thing as a 4-part congregational setting of the Eucharist? I mean, one meant to be sung in harmony by the people rather than (just) by the choir?
quote:
People are more drawn to and impressed by a church that is not filled with flaring light, though often they do not know the reason; and the present craving for a fussy crowd of candles on the altar is in great measure caused by the want of a reasonable proportion of light and shade in the rest of the church.
quote:All I have found so far with a congregational 4 part harmony are paraphrases, whether in English or not. (The "Peruvian" Gloria, for instance...I'm sure you are familiar with its "Alleluia Amen" portions.
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:I'll have to dig through materials when I get home, but I can definitely say they are rare.
Originally posted by Pancho:
It's not unusual to see 4-part hymns for the congregation in hymnals* but is there such a thing as a 4-part congregational setting of the Eucharist? I mean, one meant to be sung in harmony by the people rather than (just) by the choir?
There are settings that have four part sections, but are not totally four part. I've only ever encountered them in choral use, though. There is a very nice setting of theGloria from A New Mass for.Congregations. Also, some Proulx settings feature parts as well. The Schubert/Proulx Deutsche Messe setting is an example that has parts most if not the whole way through.
quote:It keeps the elite pure by setting a trap for any low-church oiks who might turn up and accidentally say it because no-one ever told them the silly made-up rule. Reason enough.
Originally posted by fabula rasa:
I'm wondering whether any Ecclesianticists (is that what you are???) know of any traditions or liturgical resources for burying the Alleluia.
quote:I am not sure either would do the full text for the eucharist but Iona do, do the Gloria (page 13) and I suspect Church hymnary 4 have other responses in four part harmony (Rejoice and Sing does so I think they would with the number of liturgical texts John Bell has set to music).
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:All I have found so far with a congregational 4 part harmony are paraphrases, whether in English or not. (The "Peruvian" Gloria, for instance...I'm sure you are familiar with its "Alleluia Amen" portions.
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:I'll have to dig through materials when I get home, but I can definitely say they are rare.
Originally posted by Pancho:
It's not unusual to see 4-part hymns for the congregation in hymnals* but is there such a thing as a 4-part congregational setting of the Eucharist? I mean, one meant to be sung in harmony by the people rather than (just) by the choir?
There are settings that have four part sections, but are not totally four part. I've only ever encountered them in choral use, though. There is a very nice setting of theGloria from A New Mass for.Congregations. Also, some Proulx settings feature parts as well. The Schubert/Proulx Deutsche Messe setting is an example that has parts most if not the whole way through.
On second thought, another proverbial tree to bark up would be that of Taize, or perhaps Iona. If I recall correctly, the works from those places tend to be designed for all gathered to sing in parts.
quote:This is very common and, I think, rather odd. If they're going to go through the training to be a reader and then do a deacon's liturgical role, why not be ordained as a deacon?
Originally posted by *Leon*:
The rubrics in Common Worship say that readers can act as 'liturgical deacons', i.e. doing all the deacon's bits of the eucharist. I can't remember seeing this happen before 2000. Was this an existing practice that I'd never encountered in ASB days or is it a CW innovation?
quote:They can baptise and can do all of the wedding service apart from the blessing (although I think that's a bit theoretical). They can always do funerals (while some readers can't). And do the really obvious things that I've forgotten about.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Display of horrible ignorance alert
I appreciate that the position may well be different in Wales, but what actually is there that a deacon can do in England which a Reader can't, part from put Rev in front of their name?
quote:New I think - but then I never heard of liturgical deacons or "deacons" until I read about them on this website. I'd been to some high-churchmanship spalces that has two or three robed ministers at the table, but I'd never heard anyone call them "deacons". So if I had come across a lay person doing it I might well have assumed they were ordained.
Originally posted by *Leon*:
The rubrics in Common Worship say that readers can act as 'liturgical deacons', i.e. doing all the deacon's bits of the eucharist. I can't remember seeing this happen before 2000. Was this an existing practice that I'd never encountered in ASB days or is it a CW innovation?
quote:I'm pretty sure that's true. Liturgical deacons in the Church of England, in those parishes that have such things are almost never actually ordained deacons unless the place is lucky enough to have a training curate in their first year. It is in fact, if not in theory, a largely lay role.
Originally posted by *Leon*:
I asked the question as I suspect we have an odd situation that's been drifted into by accident...
quote:There were no Church of England rubrics about "liturgical deacons" at all before this century. Its not a practice known to the Prayerbook! That paragraph in the notes to Common Worship was the first official recognition of the practice since the Reformation. We had a thread about liturgical deacons before but it seems to have been deleted somehow & doesn't show up in Google. If you want to find out about them you need to read the GIRM not the BCP!
Originally posted by *Leon*:
There is a case for making readers into deacons, but the way to do that is to ordain them, not to change rubrics until we can't tell the difference)
quote:If we'd wanted to be ordained we''d have tried to get ourselves ordained, not become Readers!
Originally posted by Basilica:
If they're going to go through the training to be a reader and then do a deacon's liturgical role, why not be ordained as a deacon?
quote:My point precisely. You were chosen and appointed and licensed as a reader. If you wanted and were called to do a deacon's job, presumably you would have tried to become a deacon, rather than a reader.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:If we'd wanted to be ordained we''d have tried to get ourselves ordained, not become Readers!
Originally posted by Basilica:
If they're going to go through the training to be a reader and then do a deacon's liturgical role, why not be ordained as a deacon?
quote:The one exception to your first sentence I can think of is reading the intentions of the Prayers of the Faithful at Mass. This is the deacon's job, but unlike everything else a deacon does, when there is no deacon it's done by a laic rather than by a priest.
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
In the RCC there is no such thing as a layman acting as a deacon. A deacon may be transitional (he will soon be ordained as a priest), or permamant (is probably married and has a day job), but either way he is an ordained cleric with seminary-level training.
quote:Round here, people go on and on about the significance of the diaconate. We used to have a bishop who complained that there is no permanent one.
Originally posted by ken:
"nobody is allowed to say this"?
People have been saying it all over the place. What's controversial about it?
quote:I don't think it is that critical. It's that as hardly anywhere has a deacon for more than the occasional 12 month block, if your liturgical theology has roles you think they ought to do, somebody else has to be able to do them. If you have a reader, they are the obvious choice unless it needs someone who can "consecrate, absolve/shrive, bless, anoint"
Originally posted by *Leon*:
But I've yet to track down the origin of the specific idea that being a liturgical deacon is an important part of a reader's ministry (apart from the fact that it happened in the late '90s). I suspect it might have been an accident, but I'm still not sure.
quote:The principal liturgical role of the deacon is proclaiming the Gospel at the Eucharist. If there is no ordained deacon present, then that can/should be read by the ordained priest who undoubtedly is present.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:I don't think it is that critical. It's that as hardly anywhere has a deacon for more than the occasional 12 month block, if your liturgical theology has roles you think they ought to do, somebody else has to be able to do them. If you have a reader, they are the obvious choice unless it needs someone who can "consecrate, absolve/shrive, bless, anoint"
Originally posted by *Leon*:
But I've yet to track down the origin of the specific idea that being a liturgical deacon is an important part of a reader's ministry (apart from the fact that it happened in the late '90s). I suspect it might have been an accident, but I'm still not sure.
quote:Never heard of the "Gospel has no ending" thing. Is that a point that needs to be made? Normally the subdeacon takes the Gospel book directly to the celebrant and points out the beginning of the Gospel of the day for the celebrant to kiss. Then the subdeacon gives the book to the MC.
Originally posted by Crucifer:
We are about 6 months into an interregnum (after a 35 year incumbency) and the interim priest has instituted a few changes to the liturgy, leading me to ask a couple of miscellaneous questions of the denizens of this august board.
1) After the gospel has been sung by the deacon (or assistant priest), the subdeacon (or layreader) carries the gospel book back into the sanctuary and hands it to the celebrant who then opens it and holds it while the thurifer censes it with three doubles. (Note - This does not appear to be a censing of the celebrant, which is the traditional norm at a high mass). This is, he explained, to symbolise that the gospel has no ending. I have never heard of, or seen, this practise before. Is this something with which anyone here is familiar, and if so, where does this custom originate? In any event, wouldn't it make more sense for the person singing the gospel to do the 'post-gospel' censing, similar to the deacon censing the celebrant?
2) Beginning with Ash Wednesday, the sanctus bells have been retired and the crotalus has been put into use. (Previously the bells were retired after the Gloria in Excelsis on Maundy Thursday). Again, from where is this practise derived?
I realise that there is no one standard ceremonial within Anglo-Catholicism (or any branch of Chrisianity) so my questions are more out of curiosity than as an implied criticism...
Thanks for any clarification or explanations!
quote:That's the RC position as I understand it, but in Anglican circles a lay person can read the Gosepl can't they? I have been to more than one Anglican Church where all sit - except the reader - for all Bible readings including the Gospel.
Originally posted by Basilica:
quote:The principal liturgical role of the deacon is proclaiming the Gospel at the Eucharist. If there is no ordained deacon present, then that can/should be read by the ordained priest who undoubtedly is present.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:I don't think it is that critical. It's that as hardly anywhere has a deacon for more than the occasional 12 month block, if your liturgical theology has roles you think they ought to do, somebody else has to be able to do them. If you have a reader, they are the obvious choice unless it needs someone who can "consecrate, absolve/shrive, bless, anoint"
Originally posted by *Leon*:
But I've yet to track down the origin of the specific idea that being a liturgical deacon is an important part of a reader's ministry (apart from the fact that it happened in the late '90s). I suspect it might have been an accident, but I'm still not sure.
quote:Somewhat old fashioed.
Originally posted by Crucifer:
1) After the gospel has been sung by the deacon (or assistant priest), the subdeacon (or layreader) carries the gospel book back into the sanctuary and hands it to the celebrant who then opens it and holds it while the thurifer censes it with three doubles.....2) Beginning with Ash Wednesday, the sanctus bells have been retired and the crotalus has been put into use.
quote:I have been at many anglican churches where the Gospel has been read by a lay person. However I have never been at an anglican Eucharist where they congregation sat for the Gospel, morning prayer and other services yes but Eucharist no.
Originally posted by Percy B:
quote:That's the RC position as I understand it, but in Anglican circles a lay person can read the Gosepl can't they? I have been to more than one Anglican Church where all sit - except the reader - for all Bible readings including the Gospel.
Originally posted by Basilica:
quote:The principal liturgical role of the deacon is proclaiming the Gospel at the Eucharist. If there is no ordained deacon present, then that can/should be read by the ordained priest who undoubtedly is present.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:I don't think it is that critical. It's that as hardly anywhere has a deacon for more than the occasional 12 month block, if your liturgical theology has roles you think they ought to do, somebody else has to be able to do them. If you have a reader, they are the obvious choice unless it needs someone who can "consecrate, absolve/shrive, bless, anoint"
Originally posted by *Leon*:
But I've yet to track down the origin of the specific idea that being a liturgical deacon is an important part of a reader's ministry (apart from the fact that it happened in the late '90s). I suspect it might have been an accident, but I'm still not sure.
quote:It's a device, usually wooden, that makes a loud clacking noise. Ours has a handle with an attached wooden bit mounted on a little fulcrum. With a flip of the wrist, the acolyte makes the moving bit clack back and forth (just once).
Originally posted by Enoch:
Second post
Sorry, I forgot to ask. What's a crotalus? When I looked it up, it seems to be a rattlesnake.
quote:It sounds like the sort of thing people twirl at football matches. Here's a selection of pictures. Not quite as liturgically exotic as snake-handling, but very nearly. Are they widespread in Rupert's Land or Chicago?
Originally posted by Oblatus:
It's a device, usually wooden, that makes a loud clacking noise. Ours has a handle with an attached wooden bit mounted on a little fulcrum. With a flip of the wrist, the acolyte makes the moving bit clack back and forth (just once).
quote:Ours looks more like this one and makes a clack rather than a rattle sound.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:It sounds like the sort of thing people twirl at football matches. Here's a selection of pictures. Not quite as liturgically exotic as snake-handling, but very nearly. Are they widespread in Rupert's Land or Chicago?
Originally posted by Oblatus:
It's a device, usually wooden, that makes a loud clacking noise. Ours has a handle with an attached wooden bit mounted on a little fulcrum. With a flip of the wrist, the acolyte makes the moving bit clack back and forth (just once).
quote:Thanks for the replies so far.
Originally posted by Oblatus:
Never heard of the "Gospel has no ending" thing. Is that a point that needs to be made? Normally the subdeacon takes the Gospel book directly to the celebrant and points out the beginning of the Gospel of the day for the celebrant to kiss. Then the subdeacon gives the book to the MC.
The crotalus business happens in the Triduum, methinks. I believe we use it exactly once, on Good Friday...at the point where a bell would normally be rung to indicate that the communicants may come forward (right after Domine non sum dignus).
quote:I don't authoritatively know the answer, but I imagine the answer, at least in large part, to be some version of that--in Latin, "Laus tibi, Domine, Rex aeternae gloriae."
Originally posted by Percy B:
What replaces 'Al.e.u.a' in the traditional language English rite? In modern circles we have 'praise to you O Christ King for Eternal glory' or similar. What used to be used.
quote:Except when the bishop is celebrating Mass, in which case the deacon takes the book to the bishop for him to kiss and bless the people with.
Originally posted by leo:
Since 1967, the deacon kisses the Book of the Gospels at the end of the Gospel.
quote:Yes, this does happen, though it's pretty rare. I've been unable to find much that documents its use, but the American GIRM says this:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
FCB: I've seen bishops kiss the Gospel but never bless with it. You've seen bishops bless the people after kissing the Gospel?
quote:So far as I can tell, it's not an instruction given in Fortescue, so I presume it has come in with the Mass of Paul VI. I'd be interested if anyone knows any more about this.
In more solemn celebrations, if appropriate, the Bishop may impart a blessing to the people with the Book of
the Gospels.
quote:Almost every Spanish bishop who celebrates the Sunday Mass broadcast weekly by RTVE blesses the people with the gospel book after he's kissed it.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
FCB: I've seen bishops kiss the Gospel but never bless with it. You've seen bishops bless the people after kissing the Gospel?
quote:This is weird. According to Ritual Notes, the book is censed before the Gospel is read/sung, but not afterward. Despite your priest's elaborate explanation, I suspect his practice has its origins in a conflation of the pre-Gospel censing of the book and the post-Gospel censing of the celebrant.
Originally posted by Crucifer:
After the gospel has been sung by the deacon (or assistant priest), the subdeacon (or layreader) carries the gospel book back into the sanctuary and hands it to the celebrant who then opens it and holds it while the thurifer censes it with three doubles.
quote:Thanks. Is the English Missal available online, then? If so it would give the answer to my question about the requiem in Lent tract - or whatever it's called!
Originally posted by Bos Loquax:
quote:I don't authoritatively know the answer, but I imagine the answer, at least in large part, to be some version of that--in Latin, "Laus tibi, Domine, Rex aeternae gloriae."
Originally posted by Percy B:
What replaces 'Al.e.u.a' in the traditional language English rite? In modern circles we have 'praise to you O Christ King for Eternal glory' or similar. What used to be used.
For instance, I have a book that has "To thee, O Lord, all honour be, King of endless majesty," and I find the more literal "Praise be to Thee, O Lord, King of everlasting glory" in various sources online (including old English-language prayer books now available through Google Books).
quote:I am not exactly sure what is being asked, but in the Roman, Anglican and English Missals, during Septuagesima and Lent, after the gradual on Sundays (and also every Mon/Wed/Fri of Lent) there is a tract, which is a text that replaces the A-verse. Each Sunday tract is different, and most are fairly lengthy. (Last Sunday's was extremely long!) The Mon/Wed/Fri daily tract is always a repeat of the tract said on Ash Wednesday:
Originally posted by Percy B:
quote:Thanks. Is the English Missal available online, then? If so it would give the answer to my question about the requiem in Lent tract - or whatever it's called!
Originally posted by Bos Loquax:
quote:I don't authoritatively know the answer, but I imagine the answer, at least in large part, to be some version of that--in Latin, "Laus tibi, Domine, Rex aeternae gloriae."
Originally posted by Percy B:
What replaces 'Al.e.u.a' in the traditional language English rite? In modern circles we have 'praise to you O Christ King for Eternal glory' or similar. What used to be used.
For instance, I have a book that has "To thee, O Lord, all honour be, King of endless majesty," and I find the more literal "Praise be to Thee, O Lord, King of everlasting glory" in various sources online (including old English-language prayer books now available through Google Books).
quote:How? Does he biff them on the head with it?
Originally quoted by Basilica:
"In more solemn celebrations, if appropriate, the Bishop may impart a blessing to the people with the Book of the Gospels."
quote:On the occasions that I've seen it (which have been in an Anglican context) the bishop has lifted the book of the Gospels high made the sign of the cross over the congregation with it. No words were spoken.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:How? Does he biff them on the head with it?
Originally quoted by Basilica:
"In more solemn celebrations, if appropriate, the Bishop may impart a blessing to the people with the Book of the Gospels."
quote:Not quite, although mentioning a Pope is apposite. Blessing the people with the Book of the Gospels used to be a prerogative of the Holy Father. It was JPII who extended this to all bishops. I remember being quite shocked, as recently as about 10 years ago, seeing a bishop at Lourdes do so. I made a snarky comment to someone afterwards about pretentious bishops - only the Pope blesses the people with the Book of the Gospels! But I was put right and told the Pope had recently commended the custom to all bishops. And sure enough, the new GIRM in 2002 included the rubric about the bishop doing so "on more solemn occasions". Of course, some bishops think every occasion at which they preside is a solemn occasion!
Originally posted by Basilica:
So far as I can tell, it's not an instruction given in Fortescue, so I presume it has come in with the Mass of Paul VI. I'd be interested if anyone knows any more about this.
quote:Here - about the 28minute mark - all your questions answered
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
Interesting.. Have you a video? How do they do it? Where's the crosier? Used to be liturgical books were faced down, the open side facing left, IIRC, so front or back of the Gospel book towards the people? With both hands, I presume? Never heard of it before today..
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:On Sundays a proper antiphon is given in the Proper of the Season (Temporale). I think the last of the antiphons given is the one for 148-149-150. On other days there should be a "Throughout the Year" antiphon without Alleluia given in the Psalter.
Originally posted by venbede:
I'd like to ask about Alleluia in the office during Lent. A triple Alleluia was the antiphon for the three praise psalms at the end of Lauds (ie 148, 149, 150.)
What was the antiphon during Lent?
quote:Sorry for the lack of context...I was writing here about traditional breviaries, or at least the traditional Benedictine one.
Originally posted by Oblatus:
quote:On Sundays a proper antiphon is given in the Proper of the Season (Temporale). I think the last of the antiphons given is the one for 148-149-150. On other days there should be a "Throughout the Year" antiphon without Alleluia given in the Psalter.
Originally posted by venbede:
I'd like to ask about Alleluia in the office during Lent. A triple Alleluia was the antiphon for the three praise psalms at the end of Lauds (ie 148, 149, 150.)
What was the antiphon during Lent?
quote:I presume you mean that when an Anglican bishop does it it's an affectation. When a Catholic bishop does it he's simply following the rubric.
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
I saw an Anglican bishop do it once. It is clearly an affectation, but it seems harmless enough to me.
quote:Quite so, HT.
I presume you mean that when an Anglican bishop does it it's an affectation. When a Catholic bishop does it he's simply following the rubric.
quote:Believe it or not, I'm not familiar with it at all. I had to do a google search to find out what it is. I don't think it's included in any of the U.S. Catholic hymnals and I've never come across it at a Spanish mass north or south of the border.
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:All I have found so far with a congregational 4 part harmony are paraphrases, whether in English or not. (The "Peruvian" Gloria, for instance...I'm sure you are familiar with its "Alleluia Amen" portions.
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:I'll have to dig through materials when I get home, but I can definitely say they are rare.
Originally posted by Pancho:
It's not unusual to see 4-part hymns for the congregation in hymnals* but is there such a thing as a 4-part congregational setting of the Eucharist? I mean, one meant to be sung in harmony by the people rather than (just) by the choir?
There are settings that have four part sections, but are not totally four part. I've only ever encountered them in choral use, though. There is a very nice setting of theGloria from A New Mass for.Congregations. Also, some Proulx settings feature parts as well. The Schubert/Proulx Deutsche Messe setting is an example that has parts most if not the whole way through.
quote:Thanks. I like Taizé music and I do like the Taizé mass. Now that I think about it, I wonder if the music of André Gouzes would also fit the bill, but I again I don't know if the harmonies are meant for the brothers/sisters/choir or the the congregation, too.
On second thought, another proverbial tree to bark up would be that of Taize, or perhaps Iona. If I recall correctly, the works from those places tend to be designed for all gathered to sing in parts.
quote:Thanks for that link.
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I am not sure either would do the full text for the eucharist but Iona do, do the Gloria (page 13) and I suspect Church hymnary 4 have other responses in four part harmony (Rejoice and Sing does so I think they would with the number of liturgical texts John Bell has set to music).
quote:I wonder what happened to the original source because the weird thing is, when I did a search on YouTube none of the examples were from actual Peruvians. Maybe I didn't search long enough.
By the way whi do you think introduced the Peruvian Gloria outside Peru?
quote:I always thought the "Peruvian" Gloria in the Kevin Mayhew books was like the "Caribbean" Our Father in the same books, i.e. composed by Europeans who threw in a few syncopations so that it could pass as reminiscent of the music of another culture. The only time I heard the "Caribbean" Our Father in St Kitts was in a church that had imported Hymns Old and New along with its English priest. It is also where I learnt the "Peruvian" Gloria.
Originally posted by venbede:
Within the last ten years we had some Peruvians attend our church on an occasion when we had the Peruvian Gloria. I asked them about it, and they didn't seem to have heard of it before.
I remember it from the 70s in a basically BCP mass. Is it rather dated?
quote:I know we've been told to be careful what we say about the works of the Blessed Kevin, but to my uninformed ear it does rather sound like this might be the case.
]I always thought the "Peruvian" Gloria in the Kevin Mayhew books was like the "Caribbean" Our Father in the same books, i.e. composed by Europeans who threw in a few syncopations so that it could pass as reminiscent of the music of another culture. [/QB]
quote:It seems rather an unkind thing to saddle Peru with, somehow, after they were so kind as to give us Paddington Bear...
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:I know we've been told to be careful what we say about the works of the Blessed Kevin, but to my uninformed ear it does rather sound like this might be the case.
]I always thought the "Peruvian" Gloria in the Kevin Mayhew books was like the "Caribbean" Our Father in the same books, i.e. composed by Europeans who threw in a few syncopations so that it could pass as reminiscent of the music of another culture.
It's particularly a pity that this gets the label of 'Peruvian Gloria' when you think of all that really cracking baroque church music from Peru and thereabouts that has been rediscovered in recent years. [/QB]
quote:The retired (Anglican) Bishop of Salisbury, David Stancliffe, when he came to visit us, did this very thing. I asked him later to explain to me why the celebrant blesses the deacon before s/he goes out to proclaim the Gospel, and here's what he said (as I recall it):
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
It is done with the front of the book (which is generally an icon of Christ, or at least a cross or christogram) facing the people. Usually the bishop will take the book from the deacon, kiss the page, close the book, and make the blessing in the shape of a cross. Think of movement of the monstrance at benediction, and you have the same basic idea. Once, at St. Peter's in Cincinnati, the deacon who had just read the gospel handed the book to the bishop, took the thurible from an acolyte, and censed the book while the bishop was making the blessing. I've never seen that anywhere else.
I am surprised more people haven't seen this; every time I have seen a Catholic bishop celebrate in the Ordinary Form, it has happened. I saw an Anglican bishop do it once. It is clearly an affectation, but it seems harmless enough to me.
quote:I think the Peruvian Gloria would elicit a particularly strong Paddington Hard Stare.
Originally posted by Manipled Mutineer:
quote:It seems rather an unkind thing to saddle Peru with, somehow, after they were so kind as to give us Paddington Bear... [/QB]
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:I know we've been told to be careful what we say about the works of the Blessed Kevin, but to my uninformed ear it does rather sound like this might be the case.
]I always thought the "Peruvian" Gloria in the Kevin Mayhew books was like the "Caribbean" Our Father in the same books, i.e. composed by Europeans who threw in a few syncopations so that it could pass as reminiscent of the music of another culture.
It's particularly a pity that this gets the label of 'Peruvian Gloria' when you think of all that really cracking baroque church music from Peru and thereabouts that has been rediscovered in recent years.
quote:David is a great bloke but take some of his ideas with a pinch of salt.
Originally posted by churchgeek:
The retired (Anglican) Bishop of Salisbury, David Stancliffe
quote:In the Extraordinary Form of the Latin Mass, which is the pre-Vatican II rite, the cross is made at the words et vitam venturam saeculi--the life of the world to come. That is what we do in our EF parish. In the Ordinary Form, which is the post-Vatican II Roman Rite, there is no sign of the cross made at all during the creed.
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
Question: Does anyone know where the fashion of making the sign of the cross at the word "resurrection" in the creeds came from? It used to be at "life everlasting" and now everybody wants to do it at this new place.
quote:Yes, I grew up AC and we also did all of the crossings in our 1928 BCP and Anglican Missal ceremonies. When I relocated to another state, I went to an AC parish that used rite II of the 1979 BCP, but interestingly, they still did all of the same crossings.
Originally posted by leo:
We anglo-catholics copied RC practice and crossed ourselves at the end of the creed (and at the end of the gloia and the start of the Benedictus.)
When Vatican 2 reforms happened, those of us in anglo-catholic churches were 'instructed' not to do so any more. We were told that these things were 'out.'
However, these customs spread to MOTR parishes among some people. Not thus instructed, they continue to do it 40 years later. There are many in my parish.
quote:Possibly the signing has been re- (or mis-) interpreted as an expression of the hope of resurrection, rather than a seal of the entire Creed.
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
Question: Does anyone know where the fashion of making the sign of the cross at the word "resurrection" in the creeds came from? It used to be at "life everlasting" and now everybody wants to do it at this new place.
quote:It was, however, part of pre-Reformation Compline--and Evening Prayer is a telescoping of those two evening offices.
Originally posted by venbede:
Thank you. I'd still be interested where the custom came from - since the Apostle's Creed was not part of pre-Reformation Vespers.
quote:I thought the crossing at the end of the creed was a reminder of our baptism - when we or our godparents were asked whether they believed in it.
Originally posted by venbede:
Years ago I seem to remember reading in some high church Anglican manual crossing ourselves at "the resurrection of the body" in the Apostle's Creed is to remind us that this body is to rise again.
I've never done it.
And where did turning east for the Apostle's creed come in? It is almost universal non-evangelical Anglican practice, but I'm not aware of any pre-Victorian precedent.
quote:I agree it can look odd, but we aren't turning towards the altar, we are turning in the direction of our heavenly home, and the direction from which Christ will come in glory. You wouldn't want to have your back to him when that happens, especially if you are professing your faith in him at that moment.
Originally posted by leo:
Turning east, in the choir, for creed, glorias and doxologies looks silly when there is a nave altar. They are turning AWAY from the altar in use.
quote:So is the parousia going to happen, literally, at the Golden Gate?
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:I agree it can look odd, but we aren't turning towards the altar, we are turning in the direction of our heavenly home, and the direction from which Christ will come in glory. You wouldn't want to have your back to him when that happens, especially if you are professing your faith in him at that moment.
Originally posted by leo:
Turning east, in the choir, for creed, glorias and doxologies looks silly when there is a nave altar. They are turning AWAY from the altar in use.
quote:There are two items: the rope and the sash-like thing.
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
Another thread reminded me of a question that confuses me.
I call the rope-like Eucharistic vestment around the alb the "girdle" and the sash-like thing around the cassock the cincture.
Others call the rope-like thing the cincture, and I don't know what they call the sash-like thing.
Is this an Anglican/RC divide or pond thing? Or simply age of the speakers?
quote:The garment worn over a cassock with an amice and a girdle-cincture is an alb. The other garment you mention is known properly as a cassock-alb, because it is essentially a hybrid of the two. This is frequently shortened to "alb" because the two garments would rarely be used in the same church, so there's no ambiguity.
I've always called the ancient white Eucharistic vestment traditionally worn over an amice which is on the shoulders over a cassock the "alb," and upon which is girded a girdle, etc.
Others use the word "alb" for the confection invented in recent decades which is worn over street clothes and upon which is hung a very wide, uncrossed stole.
So we have the same words in use for very different items.
Am I the only one who is confused?
quote:San Francisco? I doubt it.
Originally posted by leo:
So is the parousia going to happen, literally, at the Golden Gate?
quote:Well, it's unfortunate that many churches nowadays are not orientated towards the east, yet it is one of the most practices of the Church to face east during prayer, even private prayer. Even in those churches where the building could not be orientated towards the east, everyone turned east for the prayers even if that meant the priest and altar ended up being behind the people eg. St. Peter's Basilica.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:I thought the crossing at the end of the creed was a reminder of our baptism - when we or our godparents were asked whether they believed in it.
Originally posted by venbede:
Years ago I seem to remember reading in some high church Anglican manual crossing ourselves at "the resurrection of the body" in the Apostle's Creed is to remind us that this body is to rise again.
I've never done it.
And where did turning east for the Apostle's creed come in? It is almost universal non-evangelical Anglican practice, but I'm not aware of any pre-Victorian precedent.
Turning east, in the choir, for creed, glorias and doxologies looks silly when there is a nave altar. They are turning AWAY from the altar in use.
quote:The whole idea of having places where you are required to cross yourself, marked with a little x in the service book, and places where you aren't supposed to, or where you used to but are told you may do so no longer, marks a big and fairly profound difference between RC and CofE culture.
Originally posted by leo:
We anglo-catholics copied RC practice and crossed ourselves at the end of the creed (and at the end of the gloria and the start of the Benedictus.)
When Vatican 2 reforms happened, those of us in anglo-catholic churches were 'instructed' not to do so any more. We were told that these things were 'out.'
However, these customs spread to MOTR parishes among some people. Not thus instructed, they continue to do it 40 years later. There are many in my parish.
quote:Yes, I suspect that that is often the spirit in which it is now done.
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:Possibly the signing has been re- (or mis-) interpreted as an expression of the hope of resurrection, rather than a seal of the entire Creed.
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
Question: Does anyone know where the fashion of making the sign of the cross at the word "resurrection" in the creeds came from? It used to be at "life everlasting" and now everybody wants to do it at this new place.
quote:You hope, of course, that it might be both!
Originally posted by venbede:
Ritual gestures by the laity can be:
A an expression of personal devotion
B participation in a communual action.
If it's B, then guidance is helpful.
quote:According to Ezekiel 44:1–3) the 2wnd coming/Messiah will enter Jerusalem by the golden gate.
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:San Francisco? I doubt it.
Originally posted by leo:
So is the parousia going to happen, literally, at the Golden Gate?
Nor the other Golden Gate - that isn't in the east, it's in Jerusalem.
quote:Which he quite probably did on Palm Sunday, the Golden Gate being on the east side of Jerusalem and Bethany, whence he came, also being east of the city.
Originally posted by leo:
According to Ezekiel 44:1–3) the 2wnd coming/Messiah will enter Jerusalem by the golden gate.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:Personally, all that signing to me marks a certain type of ANGLICAN spirituality. These types want to make it where it has been done by Christians in the West for centuries, and most would probably want it to be done in the customary places. Though they might me slightly annoyed that others do it in the "wrong" place, they know it's not prescribed.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:The whole idea of having places where you are required to cross yourself, marked with a little x in the service book, and places where you aren't supposed to, or where you used to but are told you may do so no longer, marks a big and fairly profound difference between RC and CofE culture.
Originally posted by leo:
We anglo-catholics copied RC practice and crossed ourselves at the end of the creed (and at the end of the gloria and the start of the Benedictus.)
When Vatican 2 reforms happened, those of us in anglo-catholic churches were 'instructed' not to do so any more. We were told that these things were 'out.'
However, these customs spread to MOTR parishes among some people. Not thus instructed, they continue to do it 40 years later. There are many in my parish.
Crossing oneself was quite rare in the CofE until well within my lifetime, but now it's not that unusual, the concept that somebody should prescribe for you when, to me, is contrary to our way of doing things, or why a person should do so.
quote:The two style are used in mine. The dear servers/chalice bearers (and previous priests in the last 20 years) have never known any other vestment but the "alb" -- replete with seasonal girdled (I.e. "ropes" I kid you not).
Originally posted by Basilica:
quote:There are two items: the rope and the sash-like thing.
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
Another thread reminded me of a question that confuses me.
I call the rope-like Eucharistic vestment around the alb the "girdle" and the sash-like thing around the cassock the cincture.
Others call the rope-like thing the cincture, and I don't know what they call the
Is this an Anglican/RC divide or pond thing? Or simply age of the speakers?
There are two naming schemes. The first is the traditionally Anglican one, where the rope is a girdle and the sash-like thing is a cincture. There is also what I believe is the traditional Roman Catholic scheme where the rope is a cincture and the sash-like thing is a fascia.
Many Anglican churches, however, use the Roman Catholic scheme. I'm not sure about other denominations.
quote:The garment worn over a cassock with an amice and a girdle-cincture is an alb. The other garment you mention is known properly as a cassock-alb, because it is essentially a hybrid of the two. This is frequently shortened to "alb" because the two garments would rarely be used in the same church, so there's no ambiguity.
I've always called the ancient white Eucharistic vestment traditionally worn over an amice which is on the shoulders over a cassock the "alb," and upon which is girded a girdle, etc.
Others use the word "alb" for the confection invented in recent decades which is worn over street clothes and upon which is hung a very wide, uncrossed stole.
So we have the same words in use for very different items.
Am I the only one who is confused?
The style of stole is coincidental!
quote:When I serve as subdeacon, such as this coming Sunday, I start by donning a cassock and then putting on an amice over my head, then a thin long alb, then a cincture tied to have loops for a stole (but there's no stole as I'm not a priest), then a tunicle (this week a splendid rose one with tassels, sometimes called "the bishop's draperies"), out of the top of which the amice is pulled down off my head to form a hood behind my neck. I think this set also has a maniple, which I will put on my left arm if it's put out for me with the other items.
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
I've always called the ancient white Eucharistic vestment traditionally worn over an amice which is on the shoulders over a cassock the "alb," and upon which is girded a girdle, etc.
Others use the word "alb" for the confection invented in recent decades which is worn over street clothes and upon which is hung a very wide, uncrossed stole.
quote:Traditionally, a straw subdeacon does not wwear a maniple. That is how we geeks know that he is atraw.
Originally posted by Oblatus:
quote:When I serve as subdeacon, such as this coming Sunday, I start by donning a cassock and then putting on an amice over my head, then a thin long alb, then a cincture tied to have loops for a stole (but there's no stole as I'm not a priest), then a tunicle (this week a splendid rose one with tassels, sometimes called "the bishop's draperies"), out of the top of which the amice is pulled down off my head to form a hood behind my neck. I think this set also has a maniple, which I will put on my left arm if it's put out for me with the other items.
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
I've always called the ancient white Eucharistic vestment traditionally worn over an amice which is on the shoulders over a cassock the "alb," and upon which is girded a girdle, etc.
Others use the word "alb" for the confection invented in recent decades which is worn over street clothes and upon which is hung a very wide, uncrossed stole.
I'm what some call a "straw subdeacon," which to me means I am not a subdeacon but serve as one sometimes. Works for me.
quote:Hey, if they give me a maniple, I wear the maniple. One does not second-guess the sacristan!
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Traditionally, a straw subdeacon does not wwear a maniple. That is how we geeks know that he is atraw.
quote:True. In the Byzantine Rite the typikon (the rubrical book analogous to the Catholic General Instruction) does not specify a particular color to be worn, only that it be "light" or "dark". It has become traditional to have certain colors on certain categories of days, but it is not a hard rule and the color scheme differs between the Slavic and Greek churches.
It is my understanding that the Orthodox are not as strict with liturgical colors as Catholics are.
quote:Thanks Emendator, that's an excellent suggestion. I'm going to try an oasis candle holder in the flower stand in the first instance (the church does have a couple of those), and if that doesn't work then I'll be trying to avoid squashing my thumb.
Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:
Arethosemyfeet, I had the same issue with my first parish, though in this case it was the case that they could not afford it, rather than being unwilling to open their sporan for it.
The first year I modified a flower stand that was in the church by placing some nails in a circle, the diameter of which meant that the candle fitted nicely inside. When the stand was decorated in flowers and greenery - hey presto, a simple, functional but also beautiful pashcal candle stand.
Such flower stands are so often to be found in little bric-a-brac and antique shops for not much money - definitely better than expensive stands made just for the purpose.
quote:Quite so. It is his mantle, which is part of his monastic attire. As patriarch, his is green, metropolitans wear light blue, archbishops and bishops wear purple, and simpler monastics wear black.
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
Also, in the third photo, the green mantle being worn by the patriarch is not a Eucharistic vestment, but is part of the choir dress that is appropriate to a Slavic patriarch.
quote:The English Missal is essentially the old Roman Missal translated into Cranmerian English.
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
What are the differences in the English Missal, American Missal, and Anglican Missals. I've never heard any satisfactory answer that was laid out in a coherent way.
quote:My parish uses the American Missal - I am told it is less fussy to use (ie better laid out) than the Anglican Missal.
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
What are the differences in the English Missal, American Missal, and Anglican Missals. I've never heard any satisfactory answer that was laid out in a coherent way.
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Is this combination [Common Worship + BCP lectionary] allowed? I know 'allowed' is a funny question in the Church of England when some parishes feel they have the authority (or perhaps they do have it?) to dispense with the liturgy and do whatever they like, but is it permissible to use the 1662 Communion Lectionary with Common Worship Order One in Traditional Language?
I ask because the new lectionary is a bit useless when it comes to teaching doctrine, and seems to just be ordered to et as much of the Bible in over the three years as possible. The old lectionary is much better in this regard.
Would this require episcopal authorization? Also, the instructions state that only one Collect is to be said ordinarily, does this mean that the Collect for the Sovereign is not permitted?
quote:What, no giant puppets?
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
First Bendy Poles. Now, Fish Sticks.
What's next?
quote:I have no problem with them either, liturgical or otherwise.
Originally posted by Mamacita:
Aside from the ridiculous name, they're just colorful banners that are reminiscent of the garments that were strewn in Jesus' path. This is in a cathedral, hence a large space that can probably handle a fair bit of visual "noise." I don't see it as liturgically problematic.
quote:On what grounds is the new lectionary (i.e. the Revised Common Lectionary) less useful for teaching doctrine than the older BCP lectionary (especially since the older lectionary pretty much ignores the Old Testament)? How does covering more of the Bible make it less useful for teaching doctrine? And comparing the 2 lectionaries, specifically in Ordinary Time/Sundays after Trinity, ISTM that the RCL is clearly more helpful than the random portions in the older lectionary.
Originally posted by seasick:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Is this combination [Common Worship + BCP lectionary] allowed? I know 'allowed' is a funny question in the Church of England when some parishes feel they have the authority (or perhaps they do have it?) to dispense with the liturgy and do whatever they like, but is it permissible to use the 1662 Communion Lectionary with Common Worship Order One in Traditional Language?
I ask because the new lectionary is a bit useless when it comes to teaching doctrine, and seems to just be ordered to et as much of the Bible in over the three years as possible. The old lectionary is much better in this regard.
Would this require episcopal authorization? Also, the instructions state that only one Collect is to be said ordinarily, does this mean that the Collect for the Sovereign is not permitted?
quote:By sheer coincidence I stumbled across this PDF breakdown of the four-week Psalter (morning and evening) from England and Wales. Perhaps not exactly what you're looking for, but may be a start.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Does anyone know of a list of which Psalms are used in the current Catholic Liturgy of the Hours and which ones are not?
quote:Service cards or no, I think you are stuck with having to buy Common Worship Daily Prayer. It has the psalter and all the canticles, even those that one suspects nobody uses and are not going to catch on. I'm fairly sure that these have not been published separately.
Originally posted by Percy B:
Yes Geoff, but we want a psalter book to use. A published book, not a PDF file.
Are there other suitable psalter books we could use as an alternative? Criterion is, - modern language, inclusive, without pointing. Books that wear ok would help.
quote:For Personal Prayer I use [url= http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=St+Helena%27s+Psalter]St Helena's Psalter[/url]. It is not perfect, but it is in modern language, all the psalms and takes into consideration modern concerns about exclusive language but with some balance. It is also designed for prayer.
Originally posted by Percy B:
Anyone know if the Common worship psalter is printed separate?
We were looking for a good modern psalter for daily office.
You see we have our own service cards but need a psalter.
But we can't find a psalter book to use.
quote:It's something I've seen occasionally, mainly where there are large numbers of communicants. In such situations it seems a sensible way to do things.
Originally posted by mrs whibley:
I don't think I've come across this before, the wine always having come to me, as it were. I suppose that makes sense if the communicants are kneeling, when you can't very well expect them to move between the elements, and less so if they are standing. I can't see a theological or liturgical reason for any preference, although you lot may beg to differ!
What does the panel think?
quote:I've only been to 4 RC Masses over the last 30 years (one of these in Italy), and obviously didn't receive, but this rings a bell (no pun intended, well maybe a little one). Maybe the Pisky place was higher up the candle than it otherwise appeared!
Originally posted by Hart:
It's how it's done in almost all RC Masses (except for all the exceptions people are now sure to mention). We're in procession, the elements aren't.
quote:Considerably better laid out as it happens. When I was a seminarian we learned quite a bit about Fr Gavin's Gotcha's from priests used to the American Missal who would be as confused as a Jesuit in Holy Week when confronted with the Anglican Missal in the American Edition (aka the Gavin Missal). The English (5th ed) and American Missals have nice clear layouts. The Gavin Missal does nasty things like introduce a double page turn when you sing the proper preface, and the less said about the borrowing of lessons between Masses the better. We used have a seminary joke about finding a Mass Propers in the Gavin Missal which consisted entirely of references to seven other sets of propers!
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
quote:My parish uses the American Missal - I am told it is less fussy to use (ie better laid out) than the Anglican Missal.
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
What are the differences in the English Missal, American Missal, and Anglican Missals. I've never heard any satisfactory answer that was laid out in a coherent way.
quote:Our (TEC) shack does this for heavily-attended services, when having everyone kneel at the altar rail would make communion take too long, but not at a normally-attended service. Our priest will make an announcement when this happens, otherwise everyone gets all flustered when a pair of EMs turn up at the back of the Nave and the ushers start to send some people "backwards".
Originally posted by mrs whibley:
However, after I had taken the bread I stood like an idiot for what felt like half an hour, but was actually probably about 4 seconds waiting for the wine, before the priest motioned with his head for me to go over to the server with the chalice.
quote:Thank you venbede, on behalf of any embarrassable Mrs Ws you may encounter. Thankfully I am pretty unembarrassable myself, or I would not have allowed myself to be put in that position. It is a pitfall awaiting the unwarier!
Originally posted by venbede:
Receiving in the line is the practice at St Paul's Cathedral, or at least it was a few years back, both at the main Sunday do and the 12.30 weekday.
Since I knew the ropes I would considerately get in the (vertical rather than horizontal) row first on weekdays to prevent any Mrs Ws being embarrassed at not knowing what was about to happen.
There's nothing to prevent a communicant kneeling when they come up to the priest/minister of communion.
quote:In England by convention retired Archbishops (in fact any Bishop who sat in the House of Lords as a Lord Spiritual) is made a Lord Temporal, so a retired Archbishop would correctly be addressed as My Lord.
Originally posted by Boadicea Trott:
What would be the appropriate way to greet a retired Anglican Archbishop(after a service, for instance)? Your Grace or My Lord ?
quote:The New Testament seems to be OK using kyrios sometimes as a divine title, sometimes as a human term of respect, and sometimes just to denote someone in a leadership role.
Originally posted by Angloid:
I would never address anyone - peer of the realm or father in God - as My Lord. Close to blasphemy as far as I'm concerned.
quote:Your Grace is correct by courtesy (being the appropriate address for an Archbishop or a Duke). "My Lord" is correct in fact (being the appropriate address for a Bishop, or a lesser peer.)
Originally posted by Boadicea Trott:
What would be the appropriate way to greet a retired Anglican Archbishop(after a service, for instance)? Your Grace or My Lord ?
quote:I'm sure you are right. But being a democrat and a republican (in the British sense of course!) I am uneasy using any titles which suggest that another human being has power over my life, or owns any part of it.
Originally posted by Hart:
quote:The New Testament seems to be OK using kyrios sometimes as a divine title, sometimes as a human term of respect, and sometimes just to denote someone in a leadership role.
Originally posted by Angloid:
I would never address anyone - peer of the realm or father in God - as My Lord. Close to blasphemy as far as I'm concerned.
quote:It's only archbishops who regularly get made lords temporal on retirement. Richard Harries, the former Bishop of Oxford, was made a life peer when he retired, but he was very much the exception.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
In England by convention retired Archbishops (in fact any Bishop who sat in the House of Lords as a Lord Spiritual) is made a Lord Temporal, so a retired Archbishop would correctly be addressed as My Lord.
quote:I can see how some can feel like that.
Originally posted by Angloid:
I am uneasy using any titles which suggest that another human being has power over my life, or owns any part of it.
quote:Printed CofE lectionary we use has an option for first EP of Annunciation I noticed earlier in the week.
Originally posted by malik3000:
OK Eccles Crew, i have a question re the Daily Office tomorrow (Western rites - Anglican or Roman) re Evening Prayer/Evensong/Vespers. Tomorrow is the 2nd Sunday of Easter (a/k/a Low Sunday or Divine Mercy Sunday). Monday will be the date of the transferred Feast of the Annunciation.
Will Sunday evening's EP be of the Sunday (i.e. the last EP of the Easter Octave) or will it be 1st Vespers/EP of the Feast of the Annunciation?
I suspect there may be variant uses, though both universalis.com (Roman Rite LoH) and the CofE daily office site at oremus.org both have it as the 2nd vespers/EP of the Sunday.
quote:A formal title can also bring a form of equality. If all the congregants call their minister 'pastor Horace' or 'father Horace' then there isn't the inn group who call him Horace.
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:I can see how some can feel like that.
Originally posted by Angloid:
I am uneasy using any titles which suggest that another human being has power over my life, or owns any part of it.
However it may be if someone with status says "Don't call me vicar/Father Smith/Chairman/Captain. Call me Mike" it could be relaxing, but it could also be manipulative
Using a formal title can be a way of gaining social power over the title holder or even just maintaining the personal dignity of the other party (I'm not here because we're best mates: I'm here because you have a specific role.)
quote:Archbishops yes, other bishops no. It was noted as unusual when Lord Herries (formerly Oxon) was made a peer. There are indeed some former diocesans, but not by any means all or most.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:In England by convention retired Archbishops (in fact any Bishop who sat in the House of Lords as a Lord Spiritual) is made a Lord Temporal, so a retired Archbishop would correctly be addressed as My Lord.
Originally posted by Boadicea Trott:
What would be the appropriate way to greet a retired Anglican Archbishop(after a service, for instance)? Your Grace or My Lord ?
As for other Bishops elsewhere I don't know, and retired Bishops I've met I know them in a personal capacity so it's different...
quote:"Glad you could be with us, I'm sure you're just dying for a nice sit-down and a cup of coffee".
Originally posted by Boadicea Trott:
What would be the appropriate way to greet a retired Anglican Archbishop(after a service, for instance)?
quote:PCs are PCs until they die (usual) or are expelled from the Privy COuncil (very rare). No title of honour attaches to being a member of the Privy COuncil.
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
'Your grace' almost always flies pretty well for Anglican prelates. Some prefer to be called 'Bishop X' in more casual conversation, but its always best to be more formal at first.
The only big exception would be if this archbishop were a Privy Counsellor, in which case I think 'My lord' might be appropriate. I don't know if former PCs continue to be addressed as such; not being from the UK, I am open to correction on this or any related matter.
quote:So then, being a Privy Counsellor has no effect on the style of address? I suppose I didn't realise that. Thanks for the clarification.
PCs are PCs until they die (usual) or are expelled from the Privy COuncil (very rare). No title of honour attaches to being a member of the Privy COuncil.
quote:Privy Counsellors are styled Rt Hon (hence The Rt Revd and Rt Hon The Lord Williams of Oystermouth, for example), but this does not affect their address.)
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
So then, being a Privy Counsellor has no effect on the style of address? I suppose I didn't realise that. Thanks for the clarification.
quote:Well, yes and no. 'Cause technically he's not an Archbishop any more, so styling him Most Revd is a courtesy rather than a right.
Originally posted by L'organist:
... actually that should read The Most Revd and Rt Hon Dr The Lord Williams of Oystermouth...
quote:It's for those Anglicans bound for Rome via the Ordinariate. Board the train at St Pancras with a stop at Ebbsfleet.
Originally posted by Carys:
On the aka's for today, one that came up on Twitter was 'with a station at St Pancras' or something like that. What's the origin of that title and are there other such titles?
Carys
quote:GIN if they're high church.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:"Glad you could be with us, I'm sure you're just dying for a nice sit-down and a cup of coffee".
Originally posted by Boadicea Trott:
What would be the appropriate way to greet a retired Anglican Archbishop(after a service, for instance)?
We're not Anglicans, you see.
quote:No! Champagne if they're really high, Gin if they only think they are.
Originally quoted by Leo
GIN if they're high church.
quote:In the Cathedral's chapter house.
Originally posted by Angloid:
Was that at the Cathedral? Or did you come home for it?
Can't imagine Liverpool Cathedral being so hospitable. They even make us bring our own oils to be blessed.
quote:Way back when the Bishop of Rome's Mass used to move around the principal churches of the city. The Roman Missal therefore came to contain the location of the 'bishop's mass' St Mary Major, St John Lateran, St Peter's, etc.. A quaint old custom, to be sure.
Originally posted by Carys:
quote:Printed CofE lectionary we use has an option for first EP of Annunciation I noticed earlier in the week.
Originally posted by malik3000:
OK Eccles Crew, i have a question re the Daily Office tomorrow (Western rites - Anglican or Roman) re Evening Prayer/Evensong/Vespers. Tomorrow is the 2nd Sunday of Easter (a/k/a Low Sunday or Divine Mercy Sunday). Monday will be the date of the transferred Feast of the Annunciation.
Will Sunday evening's EP be of the Sunday (i.e. the last EP of the Easter Octave) or will it be 1st Vespers/EP of the Feast of the Annunciation?
I suspect there may be variant uses, though both universalis.com (Roman Rite LoH) and the CofE daily office site at oremus.org both have it as the 2nd vespers/EP of the Sunday.
On the aka's for today, one that came up on Twitter was 'with a station at St Pancras' or something like that. What's the origin of that title and are there other such titles?
Carys
quote:The American Missal propers for one of the Lenten ferias (can't remember which one at the moment) refer to Sts Cosmas & Damien, which is a relic of one of these Station Masses. I remember that day being very confusing for a seminarian who asked me why we were using violet if it was their feast day.
Originally posted by PD:
Way back when the Bishop of Rome's Mass used to move around the principal churches of the city. The Roman Missal therefore came to contain the location of the 'bishop's mass' St Mary Major, St John Lateran, St Peter's, etc.. A quaint old custom, to be sure.
+PD
quote:That's the one exactly. The American Missal adds to the BCP propers for Sundays (and the holy days retained by the Episcopal Church) propers for additional days not in the Episcopal kalendar. Thus the ferias in Lent, feast days of numerous saints, and a selection of votive Masses are provided, translated from the Latin into Cranmerian English. And minor propers from the Roman Rite are added to the BCP collects, epistles & gospels as well. Not used as much as it was 50-60 years ago, but the continuing Anglicans and Western Rite Orthodox are keeping it going.
Originally posted by Forthview:
If this Missal is a copy of the Roman Missal then it is Feria quinta post Dominicam III Quadragesimae Statio ad Ss Cosmam et Damianum (Thursday after 3rd Sunday of Lent.An old Missal explains : The 'Station' on this thursday is at the church of Ss Cosmas and Damian,hence the reference to these saints in the proper of the Mass.Since this is Mid Lent day there is somewhat of the character of a Saint's feast day celebration.The Gospel to be read reminds us of the tradition that Cosmas and Damian were physicians.
quote:Have at ye!
Is there any past history (prior to the 1960's) of a dome or nave altar at St. Paul's? Obviously there was originally a choir screen, which would have been rather formidable barrier.
quote:In the Roman Rite it is just at the beginning of the liturgy.
Originally posted by Percy B:
Bishops say
Peace be with you
In the liturgy, instead of
The Lord be with you
Is this just once at the start or throughout the Eucharist?
quote:You refer to accentus ecclesiasticus, of which, according to the Wikipedia entry, there are seven types. Each is used to indicate a specific punctuation in the text being chanted.
Originally posted by Panda:
Inflecting the last word or two of phrases of a collect, usually by going down by a note or two - how common is this?
quote:I always inflect except during Advent and Lent.
Originally posted by Panda:
Inflecting the last word or two of phrases of a collect, usually by going down by a note or two - how common is this? The last time I took morning prayer and did this, someone said they hadn't heard that done for years. Was he out of date or am I?
FWIW, I like doing it, because it adds interest, or else it would just be a flat monotone throughout, and some collects are quite long. I appreciate that it can be overdone, but you can always strike a balance.
quote:In the Common Worship liturgy linked to that happens whichever option is chosen. The whole marriage ceremony takes place before Communion in either case.
Originally posted by venbede:
Maybe the idea here is to avoid the idea that the eucharist is an offering on behalf of someone, but it is bonkers. Why bother with a eucharist otherwise? And communion together by the couple is the obvious climax of the church service (and the bit that is appropriate for same sex couples as well).
quote:Good gracious. I should have known it would all be very carefully categorised! I didn't see one of the most usual - dropping by a third and then rising a second at a full stop, I think it would be. Perhaps this is a later mutation...
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:You refer to accentus ecclesiasticus, of which, according to the Wikipedia entry, there are seven types. Each is used to indicate a specific punctuation in the text being chanted.
Originally posted by Panda:
Inflecting the last word or two of phrases of a collect, usually by going down by a note or two - how common is this?
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Why do some Roman Catholic priests hold both the paten and the chalice at the same time at the offertory? Instead of saying (silently or out loud) "Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation, for through your goodness we have received this bread we offer you..." with the paten and then "Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation for through your goodness we have received this wine we offer you..." with the chalice after pouring the wine and water into it, they hold up both at the same time, saying (when I have heard it), "Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation, for through your goodness we have received this bread and wine we offer you..."
The only justification I think these priests can be offerring is that it saves time. It is such a small difference in time that I can hardly think that it matters, and it is no reason to not use the (very simple) prescribed liturgical text. Even in the Jewish prayers of blessing that the post-Vatican II offertory prayers are based on, there are separate prayers for the bread and for the wine.
(I know you all know this, but I am talking about the offertory that preceded the Eucharistic Prayer, not the words of consecration.)
quote:There are certain parts of the Mass where choice is permissible, and there are others--such as here--where it is not.
Originally posted by stonespring:
Several of the priests I know who do the holding of the paten and chalice at the same time at the offertory are relatively young and, unlike some older priests that are set in their ways and often choose to do whatever seems practical and easy to them, seem deliberate and reflective in their liturgical choices (even when they are wrong). Why then do you think they do this?
quote:I am wondering whether this is really at 'the offertory' if is a mistake and is actually referring to the lesser elevation at the end of the eucharistic prayer, which is a sort of offering of the eucharistic sacrifice.
Originally posted by stonespring:
Several of the priests I know who do the holding of the paten and chalice at the same time at the offertory are relatively young and, unlike some older priests that are set in their ways and often choose to do whatever seems practical and easy to them, seem deliberate and reflective in their liturgical choices (even when they are wrong). Why then do you think they do this?
quote:Probably illicit, not invalid. It's a simple mistake, perhaps a rookie error. Whenever the bishop is present, he will celebrate. Thus, bishops rarely get to take a firsthand peek at what a priest is doing, and errors such as this remain undetected.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Is this a procedural error which causes the offering not to 'work', the bread and wine not to become the body and blood?
quote:And this from Vatican 2! This sentence makes it clear that priests shouldn't be tinkering with that which is not lawful to be changed. Should this situation keep a faithful Catholic up at night? Undoubtedly not.
From Sacrosanctum Concilium:
Therefore no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.
quote:This is where it is in the Roman Rite. I don't know for sure, but perhaps the placing of the nuptial blessing at the end of the Eucharistic prayer (actually, at the end of the Our Father) reflects the ancient Roman practice fo blessing gifts other than the bread and wine at the end of the Eucharistic prayer. This is where the oil of the sick is blessed at the Chrism Mass (though in my experience the option of blessing all the oils earlier, in the Liturgy of the Word, is usually used). I rather like the practice of "consecrating" the bride and groom after consecrating the Eucharistic gifts. To me, it doesn't seem like an interruption at all.
Originally posted by Basilica:
I've just been casting an eye over the Church of England's wedding liturgy, specifically the order for marriage within a celebration of Holy Communion. There is a rather curious alternative provision, which I find somewhat bizarre: the blessing of the marriage can take place either after the proclamation (the obvious place) or after the Lord's Prayer. This seems odd to me: why on earth would you want to break up the Eucharistic liturgy in this way? What theological point is it making?
quote:That's really interesting: thank you. My doubt about its continuity with the rest of the service comes from the fact that, presumably, the priest will consecrate the elements, pray the Our Father, and then leave the altar and go to bless the couple. I can't really work out how the choreography would work coherently.
Originally posted by FCB:
quote:This is where it is in the Roman Rite. I don't know for sure, but perhaps the placing of the nuptial blessing at the end of the Eucharistic prayer (actually, at the end of the Our Father) reflects the ancient Roman practice fo blessing gifts other than the bread and wine at the end of the Eucharistic prayer. This is where the oil of the sick is blessed at the Chrism Mass (though in my experience the option of blessing all the oils earlier, in the Liturgy of the Word, is usually used). I rather like the practice of "consecrating" the bride and groom after consecrating the Eucharistic gifts. To me, it doesn't seem like an interruption at all.
Originally posted by Basilica:
I've just been casting an eye over the Church of England's wedding liturgy, specifically the order for marriage within a celebration of Holy Communion. There is a rather curious alternative provision, which I find somewhat bizarre: the blessing of the marriage can take place either after the proclamation (the obvious place) or after the Lord's Prayer. This seems odd to me: why on earth would you want to break up the Eucharistic liturgy in this way? What theological point is it making?
quote:Cross-tradition room for confusion here: in the Catholic and Anglican traditions the offertory is the preparation of the bread and wine. The collection of money, aka the offerings of the people, are suitably presented at the same time, but the 'offertory' proper is that of the bread and wine.
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Guessing here but very occasionally in a URC service you can see the bread and wine brought up with the offertory.
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
I am asking if I am correctly understanding the historical development of altar rails from the rood screen.quote:Probably true, so far as it goes.
Originally posted by Laud-able:
This extract from English Church Fittings, Furniture and Accessories, published in 1923, claims that altar rails were adopted in the early Elizabethan period in place of the rood screens.
quote:Try telling that to the clergy in our parish who think of "offertory" as liturgical jargon for a collection of money.
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:Cross-tradition room for confusion here: in the Catholic and Anglican traditions the offertory is the preparation of the bread and wine. The collection of money, aka the offerings of the people, are suitably presented at the same time, but the 'offertory' proper is that of the bread and wine.
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Guessing here but very occasionally in a URC service you can see the bread and wine brought up with the offertory.
quote:Yes. Interesting to hear the feedback from two Wiccan friends who came to see our Solemn High Mass one Sunday out of curiosity and genuine interest. All was positive except the moment when an acolyte closes the Communion gate before the people approach for Communion. To them it looked like a safeguard against riff-raff going too far: "Come no closer!" When really it just increased the available rail space for kneeling and receiving.
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Then again, altar rails making kneeling for communion much easier, don't they?
quote:If by "Catholic tradition" you mean the procession of representatives from the parish with the elements, then yes, possibly.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Try telling that to the clergy in our parish who think of "offertory" as liturgical jargon for a collection of money.
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:Cross-tradition room for confusion here: in the Catholic and Anglican traditions the offertory is the preparation of the bread and wine. The collection of money, aka the offerings of the people, are suitably presented at the same time, but the 'offertory' proper is that of the bread and wine.
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Guessing here but very occasionally in a URC service you can see the bread and wine brought up with the offertory.
There have been times when I've produced a service sheet for a non-Eucharistic service and used a word like "collection" or "offering" and a previous vicar corrected it to "offertory".
And doesn't this Catholic tradition go all the way back to Dix?
quote:Yes - and he is now discredited and there are books like 'The end of the offertory'.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Try telling that to the clergy in our parish who think of "offertory" as liturgical jargon for a collection of money.
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:Cross-tradition room for confusion here: in the Catholic and Anglican traditions the offertory is the preparation of the bread and wine. The collection of money, aka the offerings of the people, are suitably presented at the same time, but the 'offertory' proper is that of the bread and wine.
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Guessing here but very occasionally in a URC service you can see the bread and wine brought up with the offertory.
There have been times when I've produced a service sheet for a non-Eucharistic service and used a word like "collection" or "offering" and a previous vicar corrected it to "offertory".
And doesn't this Catholic tradition go all the way back to Dix?
quote:I'm not sure they are Pelagian, though they are certainly vulnerable to that interpretation. The idea that the bread and wine are offerings from the people to God is not Dixian: it is plainly present in the Roman Canon of the Mass. They are only justifiable insofar as we recognise that they only have value because they are a participation (though an inadequate and unworthy one) in the one offering of Jesus Christ on the Cross made present in the Eucharist.
Originally posted by leo:
offertory processions are Pelagian.
The ancient tradition of people bringing gifts to the altar wasn't for communion. It was food for distribution to the poor.
quote:Pastoral councils in each parish are only mandatory if the diocesan bishops says they are (can. 536). In my experience, most do. Finance councils are mandatory (537).
Originally posted by scuffleball:
Do Roman Catholic churches have PCCs?
quote:That's odd. Wouldn't a real pagan accept it as given that a real god or goddess was dangerous?
Originally posted by Oblatus:
quote:Yes. Interesting to hear the feedback from two Wiccan friends who came to see our Solemn High Mass one Sunday out of curiosity and genuine interest. All was positive except the moment when an acolyte closes the Communion gate before the people approach for Communion. To them it looked like a safeguard against riff-raff going too far: "Come no closer!" When really it just increased the available rail space for kneeling and receiving.
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Then again, altar rails making kneeling for communion much easier, don't they?
quote:I think I read that the bishop/presider chose the best bread from that which was brought in. Presumably wine too.
Originally posted by stonespring:
Ooh this is interesting. So in early Chrisitan Eucharists, if the offertory procession was bringing food for the poor and not for te Eucharist as you claim, where did the bread and wine for the Eucharist come from? Did the priest process with it to the altar at the beginning of the liturgy or did it start on a side table?
quote:Interesting!
Originally posted by Oblatus:
quote:Yes. Interesting to hear the feedback from two Wiccan friends who came to see our Solemn High Mass one Sunday out of curiosity and genuine interest. All was positive except the moment when an acolyte closes the Communion gate before the people approach for Communion. To them it looked like a safeguard against riff-raff going too far: "Come no closer!" When really it just increased the available rail space for kneeling and receiving.
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Then again, altar rails making kneeling for communion much easier, don't they?
quote:I think the first verse or so was given just to remind the one(s) praying of the Gospel of the day (read in full at Mass) just before going on to the commentary excerpt. So, "<Opening sentence of Gospel>, and so on, and that which followeth. A reading from a Commentary on John by St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo..." Sort of an incorporation by reference.
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Does anyone know why the Monastic Breviary printed out the Gospel for the day in full at Matins, while the secular Roman Breviary only had the first verse or so there? It this simply because monks presumably had more time to pray? Was it a way to ensure that the Gospel would still be read should no priest be available to say Mass? Or is there some more arcane meaning?
quote:I resemble that remark.
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
The Romans are cheap bastards, saving paper by printing only the incipit?
quote:Sorry, not the done thing, Old Chap!
Originally posted by jlav12:
Can acolytes wear an academic hood with their surplice?
quote:Radical inclusiveness, of course.
Originally posted by PD:
Why the hell would you have someone robed up who wasn't actually doing something?
PD
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
quote:If (at Morning or Evening Prayer) a cassock and cotta are acceptable, would not cassock and surplice be equally acceptable. Isn't a cotta just a variation on a surplice.
Originally posted by L'organist:
Never mind the hood, what on earth is an acolyte doing wearing a surplice?
An acolyte is a member of the serving team, so if they are at a eucharist they should be in alb and amice; if its either Morning or Evening Prayer then they wear cassock and cotta.
quote:There are surplices and surplices of course. The full Dearmer-style flowing ones are beautiful, but rather impractical, and expensive. The skimpy can't-afford-Wippells-best sort look, IMHO, rather less stylish than a good cotta. Of course, a skimpy cotta is the worst sort of aberration.
Originally posted by malik3000:
(Having asked the above question for information purposes, I will have to confess that I much prefer surplices to cottas. In my own personal humble aesthetic opinion -- surplices are much more graceful and cottas are just plain ugly. Just my opinion)
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
quote:You mean like the one I've been wearing for the last 20 years?
Originally posted by L'organist:
one of those ghastly cassock-albs with the oh-so-punk zip up the centre
quote:Its a YMMV thing. The cassock and surplice thing came about because servers generally cannot be bother to mess around with amice and alb sufficiently for them to look half decent. For a long while in the Middle Ages albs were worn at the High Mass, and Cassock and Surplice at Low Mass.
Originally posted by L'organist:
Never mind the hood, what on earth is an acolyte doing wearing a surplice?
An acolyte is a member of the serving team, so if they are at a eucharist they should be in alb and amice; if its either Morning or Evening Prayer then they wear cassock and cotta.
If this acolyte is not on duty - in other words, not carrying a candle - then they should sit in the congregation.
quote:Surely this wasn't always the case? There is that famous print of the eucharist at the Margaret Street Chapel when all three clergy are in surplices and hoods.
Originally posted by PD:
quote:Sorry, not the done thing, Old Chap!
Originally posted by jlav12:
Can acolytes wear an academic hood with their surplice?
General rule is that hoods are worn at the Office not at the Eucharist, though I find choirs - and the odd rampant Low Church parson - fudge that one. Never acolytes, servers and what-have-you.
PD
quote:Surely this wasn't always the case? There is that famous print of the eucharist at the Margaret Street Chapel when all three clergy are in surplices and hoods.
Originally posted by PD:
quote:Sorry, not the done thing, Old Chap!
Originally posted by jlav12:
Can acolytes wear an academic hood with their surplice?
General rule is that hoods are worn at the Office not at the Eucharist, though I find choirs - and the odd rampant Low Church parson - fudge that one. Never acolytes, servers and what-have-you.
PD
quote:Except when they are eight inches too short and therefore failing to cover the frayed hem of the jeans and the dirty white trainers underneath. I've come across this often in moderate-ish sorts of CoE parishes, and it is far worse than just wearing street clothes.
Originally posted by PD:
OTOH, a cassock-alb is about as elegant potato sack with a zip anyway, but like decent jeans and a clean, hole-free, baggy t-shirt it covers a multitude of sins. It also does not matter how little effort they put in, they are going to look pretty much passable.
PD
quote:There's nothing quite like the effects of low ceiling lights to emphasize blinking red lights on trainers.
Originally posted by Basilica:
Except when they are eight inches too short and therefore failing to cover the frayed hem of the jeans and the dirty white trainers underneath. I've come across this often in moderate-ish sorts of CoE parishes, and it is far worse than just wearing street clothes.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I'm still waiting for a server in those shoes with the wheels.
quote:The Church of Ireland Canons of yesteryear are usually a pretty good guide to the process of sneaking stuff in. The old Canon was 'the accustomed black scarf' which was usually read as including a black stole, which shows that even in the relatively cautious C of I, the clergy of the 1860s were making their 'scarves' narrower, adding a fringe to the ends, and maybe crosses on the ends and one at the neck... making them black stoles in fact.
Originally posted by sebby:
I have seen any number of photographs of early 20thC clergy wearing the stole with hood (although it would upset Dearmer); one such person was a priest to whom Dearmer had been tutor.
I suspect that when the stole was being sneaked in, it started as a scarf with a cross on either end, became coloured etc., so early 20thC Tractarians wore it with hood.
quote:I'm not a lawyer but...
Originally posted by Codepoet:
In the Church of England, is a faculty required to move a free standing east facing altar so that it be used west-facing?
quote:Almost certainly if it is a permanent fixture. Like certainly certainly.
Originally posted by Codepoet:
In the Church of England, is a faculty required to move a free standing east facing altar so that it be used west-facing?
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Codepoet:
In the Church of England, is a faculty required to move a free standing east facing altar so that it be used west-facing?
quote:Yes, surely the anti-ritualists were firmly opposed to stone altars (or indeed altars of any kind). By definition a communion table is a table which is capable of being moved. So it would seem a bit perverse of the lawyers to argue that it should not be.
Originally posted by otyetsfoma:
The Church lawyers love money-making decisions - I am sure that their 19th century counterparts found wealth in arguing that the holy table because of the BCP rubric MUST be moveable.
quote:That sounds like a curse....
Originally posted by ken:
quote:I suspect that there are archdeacons in your future.
Originally posted by Codepoet:
In the Church of England, is a faculty required to move a free standing east facing altar so that it be used west-facing?
quote:May you live in archdiaconal times?
Originally posted by Carys:
That sounds like a curse....
quote:Oh, they do exist!
Originally posted by jlav12:
In a service of Morning or Evening Prayer with a lay officiant - probably equivalent to a C of E Lay Reader but PECUSA doesn't seem to have those.
quote:Depends a little on your precise candle-notch, and what exactly you mean by 'acting as deacon', but I should think cassock, amice + alb, & dalmatic, sans stole or maniple.
Originally posted by Laxton's Superba:
As a member of the laity, what - if anything - should I wear, in addition to my normal clothes, when I am preaching and acting as deacon at a Eucharist?
quote:Well if that is what you'll be doing, and given that you are a layman, and in the absence of an High Mass, &c &c it does make sense to be albed rather than dalmaticked [sic]. Not wearing amices makes the baby Jesus and whoever does the laundry cry though.
Originally posted by Laxton's Superba:
Thanks. I am "doing the deacon's bit" according to PP which at our shack means leading into the Confession, introducing hymns, inviting people to share the Peace, etc. Think it will be alb and cincture then, nary an amice or dalmatic to be seen in our place, more's the pity.
quote:This talk of a layman "acting as a deacon" is foreign to me--including the notion of wearing a dalmatic.
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:Depends a little on your precise candle-notch, and what exactly you mean by 'acting as deacon', but I should think cassock, amice + alb, & dalmatic, sans stole or maniple.
Originally posted by Laxton's Superba:
As a member of the laity, what - if anything - should I wear, in addition to my normal clothes, when I am preaching and acting as deacon at a Eucharist?
If your church is of a more Reformed bent, then perhaps cassock and surplice.
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
quote:Ah, you Londoners! The last time I wore an amice was when I was a server in 1983.
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Not wearing amices makes the baby Jesus and whoever does the laundry cry though.
quote:Well, from what Laxton's Superba says, it isn't so much a diaconal role as server-with-knobs on (stop tittering at the back; and no offence meant), so in principle it isn't much different from a tunicled crucifer.
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
This talk of a layman "acting as a deacon" is foreign to me--including the notion of wearing a dalmatic.
quote:We like to keep things nice.
Originally posted by Zappa:
Ah, you Londoners! The last time I wore an amice was when I was a server in 1983.
quote:This practice is still followed in the Extraordinary Form, and it is/was only for Solemn Pontifical Masses, not other Masses. There is no deacon's stole worn, and the priest's stole is worn over the alb and under the tunicle. The dalmatic and tunicle are special vestments designed to be worn under a chasuble; they are quite thin, almost tissue-like. Otherwise you seem to have a pretty good grasp of the practice.
Originally posted by stonespring:
Can someone explain the old Roman practice of a bishop vesting in something like a tunicle, Dalmatic, and chasuble, one on top of the other, to reflect all the orders he had been ordained to (I will set aside the question of whether institution to the subdiaconate constitutes ordination)? Did it have to be done at all Masses he celebrated or just Pontifical High Masses (I know bishops rarely celebrated Masses back then and often pontificated in cope from his throne, but that is a different matter)? Did they wear a deacon's stole under the Dalmatic and a priest's stole above the Dalmatic and under the chasuble, just a priest's stole above the Dalmatic but under the chasuble (how would you cross and tie it with a cincture then?), or just a pries's stole above the alb and under the Dalmatic. Is there a layer of "torso" clothing in traditional Roman pontifical Eucharistic vestments that I am missing? (Cassock too, of course. That is to say, he would not be naked under his Eucharistic vestments.)
quote:No, you are perfectly correct. Hoods were worn for everthing - if they were worn at all - in the 18th century, and up to about 1860. At that point some folks got a bit skittish about wearing academic dress for the sacraments, forgetting that there is a bit overlap between clerical dress and academic dress. I have certainly celebrated Communion more than once in rochet, chimere, tippet and hood, and many times in surplice, tippet and hood.
Originally posted by sebby:
quote:Surely this wasn't always the case? There is that famous print of the eucharist at the Margaret Street Chapel when all three clergy are in surplices and hoods.
Originally posted by PD:
quote:Sorry, not the done thing, Old Chap!
Originally posted by jlav12:
Can acolytes wear an academic hood with their surplice?
General rule is that hoods are worn at the Office not at the Eucharist, though I find choirs - and the odd rampant Low Church parson - fudge that one. Never acolytes, servers and what-have-you.
PD
Historically (say 18thC), clergy would have worn surplices with hoods for things liturgical (although there is evidence that sometimes the gown was worn even for things liturgical - like burial when the service was at the graveside). The hoods would not have been removed for the sacrament on those rare occasions when it was celebrated.
There were those parishes that rarely saw gowns; those that rarely saw surplices. And the length varied greatly with surplices (not gowns). The 'parish surplice' might hang on a rusty nail and be used by successive incumbents, or those doing duty, of varying heights.
A comment from the Burgon Society (which specialises in researching acadademic dress) pointed to the removal of the hood for saramental services as an affectaion with no historical Anglican precedence.
quote:It's encouraged in Common Worship if there isn't a real deacon present. I often do it and wear it.
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
quote:This talk of a layman "acting as a deacon" is foreign to me--including the notion of wearing a dalmatic.
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:Depends a little on your precise candle-notch, and what exactly you mean by 'acting as deacon', but I should think cassock, amice + alb, & dalmatic, sans stole or maniple.
Originally posted by Laxton's Superba:
As a member of the laity, what - if anything - should I wear, in addition to my normal clothes, when I am preaching and acting as deacon at a Eucharist?
If your church is of a more Reformed bent, then perhaps cassock and surplice.
quote:Am I correct in assuming that this "faculty requirement" business, for whether or not a church may move its altar around, is a CofE thing with no equivalent in the ECUSA of a need for administrative higher-up approval?
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Almost certainly if it is a permanent fixture. Like certainly certainly.
Originally posted by Codepoet:
In the Church of England, is a faculty required to move a free standing east facing altar so that it be used west-facing?
I suppose if anyone objected you could say its a movable table that just happens not to have been moved for a few years. But this is exactly the sort of thing that people you have never met or herd of suddenly turn up and complain about, so its worth doing it by the book.
I suspect that there are archdeacons in your future.
quote:Same happens here with lay Dn and S-Dn if insufficient priests/deacons are available.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:It's encouraged in Common Worship if there isn't a real deacon present. I often do it and wear it.
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
quote:This talk of a layman "acting as a deacon" is foreign to me--including the notion of wearing a dalmatic.
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:Depends a little on your precise candle-notch, and what exactly you mean by 'acting as deacon', but I should think cassock, amice + alb, & dalmatic, sans stole or maniple.
Originally posted by Laxton's Superba:
[qb] As a member of the laity, what - if anything - should I wear, in addition to my normal clothes, when I am preaching and acting as deacon at a Eucharist?
If your church is of a more Reformed bent, then perhaps cassock and surplice.
quote:Correct. In the USA the congregation represented by the vestry are the owners or trustees of the Episcopal or Anglican parish church. As a result they have a much freer hand. The grey area is when the building is registered as a site of historical interest at either local, state, or national level. When the place is registered then a variety of non-parish bodies have a vested interest in what the rector and vestry get up to, and this can be a bit of a headache. Far nastier in fact than the English quirk of one needing a faculty, as Archdeacons and their advisors tend to be a bit more reasonable than historical societies.
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:Am I correct in assuming that this "faculty requirement" business, for whether or not a church may move its altar around, is a CofE thing with no equivalent in the ECUSA of a need for administrative higher-up approval?
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Almost certainly if it is a permanent fixture. Like certainly certainly.
Originally posted by Codepoet:
In the Church of England, is a faculty required to move a free standing east facing altar so that it be used west-facing?
I suppose if anyone objected you could say its a movable table that just happens not to have been moved for a few years. But this is exactly the sort of thing that people you have never met or herd of suddenly turn up and complain about, so its worth doing it by the book.
I suspect that there are archdeacons in your future.
quote:We have no priest-monks (unsurprisingly), so our, lay, choir wears cassock and surplice.
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Why would a layman wear a dalmatic and act as a deacon? If there is no priest, does a layman wear a chasuble? Not getting it.
quote:No. A priest is essential for a eucharist, a deacon isn't.
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Why would a layman wear a dalmatic and act as a deacon? If there is no priest, does a layman wear a chasuble? Not getting it.
quote:This is rather like the case in Quebec, where since the Quiet Revolution there are more churches of historical worth than can be sustained by their denominations alone. There is a kind of Diyanet, the government's religious patrimony office, which provides assistance and in in turn has a say in maintenance. When I was a stagiaire, there was some business about the roof needing attention, but in a manner consonant with its original architecture, and the patrimony money helped to bridge the difference in cost between a simple fix, and the (naturally more expensive) period-authentic reconstruction.
Originally posted by PD:
Far nastier in fact than the English quirk of one needing a faculty, as Archdeacons and their advisors tend to be a bit more reasonable than historical societies.
quote:Agreed, but I don't see how a layman can vest and function (as in reading the gospel) as someone in major orders, when he is not.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:No. A priest is essential for a eucharist, a deacon isn't.
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Why would a layman wear a dalmatic and act as a deacon? If there is no priest, does a layman wear a chasuble? Not getting it.
quote:Do you have a reference for this?
Originally posted by leo:
It's encouraged in Common Worship if there isn't a real deacon present. I often do it and wear it.
quote:From the General Notes to the order for the Holy Communion in Common Worship: Principal Services:
Originally posted by seasick:
quote:Do you have a reference for this?
Originally posted by leo:
It's encouraged in Common Worship if there isn't a real deacon present. I often do it and wear it.
quote:
In some traditions the ministry of the deacon at Holy Communion has included some of the following elements: the bringing in of the Book of the Gospels, the invitation to confession, the reading of the Gospel, the preaching of the sermon when licensed to do so, a part in the prayers of intercession, the preparation of the table and the gifts, a part in the distribution, the ablutions and the dismissal.
The deacon's liturgical ministry provides an appropriate model for the ministry of an assisting priest, a Reader, or another episcopally authorized minister in a leadership ministry that complements that of the president.
quote:Presumably without the stole?
Originally posted by seasick:
quote:Do you have a reference for this?
Originally posted by leo:
It's encouraged in Common Worship if there isn't a real deacon present. I often do it and wear it.
quote:They always left us alone. The Victorians had done a thorough, and it has to be said, rather crappy, job on both our churches. In my time English Heritage got really heavy when it comes to structural stuff, but were pretty easy going when it came to sorting out ill-advised changes less than 100 years old. However, I do understand they are more of a PITA when it comes to removing pews etc. these days. However, this is a different regimen than the one that was operative when I left the UK in 1999.
Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:
PD - obviously you have never had to encounter British Heritage, or the List Monuments Board - from what I have been told by friends in the UK these encounters are often horrendous affairs!
quote:I've seen Anglican Franciscans wear a hood-shaped amice over the hood of their habit. Not recently though: I don't know how they manage with cassock-albs.
Originally posted by Hezekiah:
Hmm, I was at a Carthusian Rite Mass yesterday (in the Extern Chapel of St Hugh's Charterhouse, Parkminster) and when the monk saying Mass removed his vestments at the end of mass I noticed that the hood of his alb, into which the hood of his habit fitted, was separate and had strings like an amice.
Has anyone ever seen this sort of thing before?
quote:Indeed Cosin's Come Holy Ghost has both in the same prayer ending as it does with Spirit to rhyme with merit.
Originally posted by Oferyas:
Both 'Ghost' and 'Spirit' (more of the former than the latter though) have appeared in the Books of Common Prayer since 1549. I think the balance tipped in favour of 'Spirit' from Series 2 (1967)onwards,presumably because the word 'Ghost' has come to be linked in the popular mind with unholy hauntings.
quote:Imagine a church built in Georgian times, added to by the Victorians, and sited in Bath. Grade II listed. You have potential for conflict with the Georgian Society, the Victorian Society, the Bath Preservation Trust...
Originally posted by PD:
quote:They always left us alone. The Victorians had done a thorough, and it has to be said, rather crappy, job on both our churches. In my time English Heritage got really heavy when it comes to structural stuff, but were pretty easy going when it came to sorting out ill-advised changes less than 100 years old. However, I do understand they are more of a PITA when it comes to removing pews etc. these days. However, this is a different regimen than the one that was operative when I left the UK in 1999.
Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:
PD - obviously you have never had to encounter British Heritage, or the List Monuments Board - from what I have been told by friends in the UK these encounters are often horrendous affairs!
PD
quote:I have a dim feeling I would favour the Georgian Society's claims over those of the Victorian Society. The simple reason for this is that the Victorians messed-up an awful lot of perfectly workable Georgian Churches by trying to shove them into the Ecclesiological Society mould.
Originally posted by Carys:
I gather that St Martin's in the Fields had a conflict between the Georgian Society and the Victorian Society over their restoration...
Carys
quote:You should read what William Morris had to say about those "restorers"! One of the reasons he founded the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings was to save old churches from cackhanded restoration - more of a danger than demolition in those days.
Originally posted by PD:
quote:I have a dim feeling I would favour the Georgian Society's claims over those of the Victorian Society. The simple reason for this is that the Victorians messed-up an awful lot of perfectly workable Georgian Churches by trying to shove them into the Ecclesiological Society mould.
Originally posted by Carys:
I gather that St Martin's in the Fields had a conflict between the Georgian Society and the Victorian Society over their restoration...
Carys
quote:Cassock/Clericals. Choir dress only if actually sitting in quire/choir. Where wearers of habits are not required to wear them at all times, the choice would be theirs, though I'd plump for rather than against.
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
If a clergyperson were going to an ordination service as a member of the congregation, what would be the preferred appropriate dress? Let's assume an Anglican context. Choir dress? Habit of the religious order of which he/she is a member? Clergy collar with either black suit or cassock?
quote:It is certainly my experience that the Georgian Society is more helpful and sensible than the Victorian Society (whom seem to labour under the belief that Victorian churches exsist solely for the purpose of visiting and pontificating over and heaven forbid if the congregation want to make a change that might benefit an actual user of the building).
Originally posted by PD:
quote:I have a dim feeling I would favour the Georgian Society's claims over those of the Victorian Society. The simple reason for this is that the Victorians messed-up an awful lot of perfectly workable Georgian Churches by trying to shove them into the Ecclesiological Society mould.
Originally posted by Carys:
I gather that St Martin's in the Fields had a conflict between the Georgian Society and the Victorian Society over their restoration...
Carys
PD
quote:I did see a photo of a female Anglican priest sitting in the congregation at a Catholic ordination wearing cotta and stole. I did wonder if the ordinand had suggested it, though, as said priest is going out with his brother - a sort of "you're almost family but I can't iinvite you to robe formally - perhaps you could do this instead!"
Originally posted by venbede:
Wearing choir dress in the congregation would be ridiculous. For a church do, it would be appropriate to wear clericals, ie dog collar. We had a member of the Society of St Margaret regularly attending our services. She didn't wear a habit there, nor when in her house.
quote:What incredibly bad form, even if the Ordinand did invite her to do so (and why on earth would he do that?)
Originally posted by Thurible:
I did see a photo of a female Anglican priest sitting in the congregation at a Catholic ordination wearing cotta and stole. I did wonder if the ordinand had suggested it, though, as said priest is going out with his brother - a sort of "you're almost family but I can't iinvite you to robe formally - perhaps you could do this instead!"
Thurible
quote:If a pope with obvious traditionalist leanings were to have no problem with it, then a new ordinand certainly has no reason to worry.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
What do you mean by "...even Pope Benedict..."?
quote:Ah, crass caricature.
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:If a pope with obvious traditionalist leanings were to have no problem with it, then a new ordinand certainly has no reason to worry.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
What do you mean by "...even Pope Benedict..."?
quote:The way some people have been banging on about Francis, I'd assume Benedict was mentioned so nobody would pop up and say "Oh, Francis, sure, he'd let a Muslim woman do it, so a Lutheran wouldn't be much trouble."
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Met any Popes without obvious traditionalist leanings?
quote:Why use Francis as an example? He hasn't given much to go on yet, unless one is up on the news from his days in Argentina. Benedict has been at the Vatican for decades in high-profile positions.
Originally posted by Bostonman:
quote:The way some people have been banging on about Francis, I'd assume Benedict was mentioned so nobody would pop up and say "Oh, Francis, sure, he'd let a Muslim woman do it, so a Lutheran wouldn't be much trouble."
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Met any Popes without obvious traditionalist leanings?
quote:You say "traditionalist" like it could be a good thing.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Met any Popes without obvious traditionalist leanings?
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
You say "traditionalist" like it could be a good thing.
quote:I am also surprised that St. Mary Magdalene and St. Barnabas are not feasts. They were, however, both third-class feasts in the 1962 missal, which is what we now call memorials. Prior to that, the kalendar's ranking system was quite complex. Both were doubles, and St. Barnabas was a double major.
Originally posted by Percy B:
In RC Calendar:
Why is so much made of Birth of John the Baptist (Solemnity)
and so little of Mary Magdalene (Memorial)?
I'm not actually, tho it seems I am (!) contrasting the two. Its meant as two questions.
quote:This is, of course, why St John is the only saint whose main feast is his Nativity, rather than his death (or Conception, in the case of Mary).
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
As for St. John the Baptist, his Nativity has always been of the highest liturgical rank. He is, after all, second only to Our Lady (even ahead of St. Joseph), because he was sinless. He was not conceived without sin, as was she, but was sanctified in the womb at the Visitation, which is why he leapt. At that moment he was sanctified and the Church has always understood that he was without sin from that moment. This is why in lists of the saints in liturgy and devotions (litany, Confiteor, the Libera Nos and Suscipe, Sancta Trinitas in the EF Mass, etc.) always place him immediately after Our Lady. The Church has not solemnly defined his sinlessness, but it has been commonly held belief since the ancient Church Fathers. This explains it very succinctly: http://catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/p/Who-Was-Born-Without-Original-Sin.htm
quote:Which delights in the traditional title "The Decollation of S John Baptist", which I've always liked.
Originally posted by malik3000:
Then, continuing that line of thinking, John's "own" feast is that of the day he died a martyr's death -- i.e., the feast of the Beheading of John the Baptist on August 29.
quote:In the same vein I find it odd that S. Lawrence has a higher rank than Mary Magdalene. Presumably because of the 'Roman' connection.
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
quote:I am also surprised that St. Mary Magdalene and St. Barnabas are not feasts. They were, however, both third-class feasts in the 1962 missal, which is what we now call memorials. Prior to that, the kalendar's ranking system was quite complex. Both were doubles, and St. Barnabas was a double major....
Originally posted by Percy B:
[qb] In RC Calendar:
Why is so much made of Birth of John the Baptist (Solemnity)
and so little of Mary Magdalene (Memorial)?
I'm not actually, tho it seems I am (!) contrasting the two. Its meant as two questions.
quote:Or because the latter is a woman.
Originally posted by Percy B:
In the same vein I find it odd that S. Lawrence has a higher rank than Mary Magdalene. Presumably because of the 'Roman' connection.
quote:Hardly. He is the protomartyr of Rome.
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:Or because the latter is a woman.
Originally posted by Percy B:
In the same vein I find it odd that S. Lawrence has a higher rank than Mary Magdalene. Presumably because of the 'Roman' connection.
quote:Yes, they do: ἰσαπόστολος. At one of their cathedrals hereabouts, she is joined with Thecla, Nino of Georgia, Nicholas of Japan, and Cosmos of Aitolas.
Originally posted by seasick:
Don't the Orthodox esteem her as equal to the apostles?
quote:It's more a question of register: The Reverend X is the official style of all priests, many of whom happen to prefer to be called Fr X in person. Letters should most properly be addressed to the Rev'd X, for example, rather than Fr. X. 'Fathering' priests (as it were) is indeed a relatively late development - well into the C18th clergymen were still called Rev'd Mr (master) X, &c.
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I am not sure if this is an appropriate place for a miscellaneous question about the names of priests but if not let me know.
The Roman Catholic church closest to where I live has on its website and noticeboard that its priests are Father Derek McGuire and Father Kim Addison, and this is how I have seen Catholic priests names written before.
But following a post by Triple Tiara I looked at the website of the church St James Spanish Place, whose priests are The Reverend Christopher Colven, The Reverend Nicholas Kavanagh, and The Reverend David Irwin. Is the difference personal preference or does it mean something ?
quote:And
Originally posted by LostinChelsea:
This doesn't answer Percy's question, but it's in the general neighborhood. This might have been linked elsewhere, but here is a count of all Episcopal (US variety) churches with a breakdown of dedications.Sixteen to Mary Magdalene, I see. It's from the always-interesting Haligweorc blog: Maketh thy click be here.
quote:Her feast is odd though. In the modern office, even though her feast is only ranked as a memorial, it's celebrated as if it were a feast.
Originally posted by Percy B:
In RC Calendar:
Why is so much made of Birth of John the Baptist (Solemnity)
and so little of Mary Magdalene (Memorial)?
I'm not actually, tho it seems I am (!) contrasting the two. Its meant as two questions.
quote:This conjures up visions of a German version of Dad's Army. What is German for 'Really, Mr Yeatman...'
Originally posted by Forthview:
... In Austria and presumably also in Germany they are addressed as 'Hochwuerden' (your reverence) ...
quote:Oooh thank you!
Originally posted by Percy B:
quote:And
Originally posted by LostinChelsea:
This doesn't answer Percy's question, but it's in the general neighborhood. This might have been linked elsewhere, but here is a count of all Episcopal (US variety) churches with a breakdown of dedications.Sixteen to Mary Magdalene, I see. It's from the always-interesting Haligweorc blog: Maketh thy click be here.
here is a link to an equivalent list for England. A bit dated but interesting nonetheless.
quote:I guess you didn't get the postcard from the parish drama guild announcing auditions for the musical "Springtime for Hitler"?
Originally posted by PD:
Trouble is that a Nazi organisation clomping about in a Lutheran Church Hall would probably be lacking in comedic potential...
especially if they were Prussians...
PD
quote:Very helpful!
Originally posted by Percy B:
quote:And
Originally posted by LostinChelsea:
This doesn't answer Percy's question, but it's in the general neighborhood. This might have been linked elsewhere, but here is a count of all Episcopal (US variety) churches with a breakdown of dedications.Sixteen to Mary Magdalene, I see. It's from the always-interesting Haligweorc blog: Maketh thy click be here.
here is a link to an equivalent list for England. A bit dated but interesting nonetheless.
quote:Down our way, we had a longtime U.S. senator who was often referred to as "Judge" by folks who'd known him as a jurist back home. I think of this phenomenon as an affectionate and perhaps proud "I knew you when."
PD spoke (ex cathedra?):
I have a little smile at the whole titles thing as folks tend to refer to me by the title I had when they first got to know me.
quote:The list I pointed to above was used by Lowther Clarke (ed) in 'Liturgy and Worship' a seminal work on the Prayer Book and proposals for its revision.
Originally posted by the Ænglican:
quote:Very helpful!
Originally posted by Percy B:
quote:And
Originally posted by LostinChelsea:
This doesn't answer Percy's question, but it's in the general neighborhood. This might have been linked elsewhere, but here is a count of all Episcopal (US variety) churches with a breakdown of dedications.Sixteen to Mary Magdalene, I see. It's from the always-interesting Haligweorc blog: Maketh thy click be here.
here is a link to an equivalent list for England. A bit dated but interesting nonetheless.
Actually, Walter H. Frere put together/used a list of this sort when he put out his proposals for what a revised prayer book sanctoral Calendar ought to look like in his influential thoughts on prayer book revision. Since his thoughts on the subject became central to most other discussions of the topic they still bear revisiting.
This initial analysis of the list only looked at saints. A full breakdown of the complete list, looking also at names related to Persons of the Trinity, temporal feasts, doctrines, and locations should be forthcoming as time allows.
quote:I would say that a close companion of Jesus and the first witness of the resurrection rates higher than the protomartyr of Rome.
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
quote:Hardly. He is the protomartyr of Rome.
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:Or because the latter is a woman.
Originally posted by Percy B:
In the same vein I find it odd that S. Lawrence has a higher rank than Mary Magdalene. Presumably because of the 'Roman' connection.
quote:But that isn't the (sole) principle on which the rank of feasts has historically been based: rather, the rank of the feast depended on the extent of an already extant cultus to that saint. Unsurprisingly, S Lawrence had a large cult at Rome when the kalendar was drawn up.
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:I would say that a close companion of Jesus and the first witness of the resurrection rates higher than the protomartyr of Rome.
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
quote:Hardly. He is the protomartyr of Rome.
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:Or because the latter is a woman.
Originally posted by Percy B:
In the same vein I find it odd that S. Lawrence has a higher rank than Mary Magdalene. Presumably because of the 'Roman' connection.
quote:Indispensible? Aiiiyah! You're right. That's just the way we spell ethnophyletism around these parts.
Originally posted by PD:
the two black letter, but just about indispensible, Independence Day and Thanksgiving.
quote:I've just looked them up-- to me, they seem fairly progressive and challenging.
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
The 1928 BCP propers for Independence Day are actually anti-jingoistic, as I read them. Almost enough to tempt me to celebrate Mass on that day...
quote:Revd Mr was frequently used of RC clerics, both in Ireland and in Canada during Victorian days (cf. the Lt Governor's letter to "The Reverend Michael Power" on learning of his election to the See of Toronto), and at least until the accession of Edward VII. When at Trinity College Dublin, a slightly precious undergraduate (pince nez and pocket watch etc) now a canon of a place I will keep to myself, would carefully distinguish between RC diocesan clergy, whom he addressed as Mr, and members of religious orders, who got Fr.
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:It's more a question of register: The Reverend X is the official style of all priests, many of whom happen to prefer to be called Fr X in person. Letters should most properly be addressed to the Rev'd X, for example, rather than Fr. X. 'Fathering' priests (as it were) is indeed a relatively late development - well into the C18th clergymen were still called Rev'd Mr (master) X, &c.
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I am not sure if this is an appropriate place for a miscellaneous question about the names of priests but if not let me know.
The Roman Catholic church closest to where I live has on its website and noticeboard that its priests are Father Derek McGuire and Father Kim Addison, and this is how I have seen Catholic priests names written before.
But following a post by Triple Tiara I looked at the website of the church St James Spanish Place, whose priests are The Reverend Christopher Colven, The Reverend Nicholas Kavanagh, and The Reverend David Irwin. Is the difference personal preference or does it mean something ?
quote:By which I understand you to mean, right at the entrance. Back, front, east end, west end, narthex, head of the nave. Sigh, there just isn't a good place for 'em, is there?
Originally posted by PD:
since we moved into the present building, the flags have been at the back.
quote:The under-stairs cupboard would be my choice. :/
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:By which I understand you to mean, right at the entrance. Back, front, east end, west end, narthex, head of the nave. Sigh, there just isn't a good place for 'em, is there?
Originally posted by PD:
since we moved into the present building, the flags have been at the back.
quote:Right at the back of the nave where the unobservant might miss the national flag, as it is on the left just inside the door. The church flag on the otherside by the robing room door and is a little more noticeable. Next move is out into the narthex. I am using the Athena principle...
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:By which I understand you to mean, right at the entrance. Back, front, east end, west end, narthex, head of the nave. Sigh, there just isn't a good place for 'em, is there?
Originally posted by PD:
since we moved into the present building, the flags have been at the back.
quote:Well, the color could certainly indicate Mary. The stars, perhaps too, as either Mary Queen of the Universe or Stella Maris.
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
A little local debate. This is a stained glass window in the Church of Reconciliation at Taize. It is captioned on the postcard as l'Ascension, but ISTM to be either the Assumption, or more likely a pregnant Mary.
Can anyone point us towards parallel iconography which might help settle the matter?
quote:So you do 1662 Morning Prayer and when you get to the prayers for the Royal Family a gang of Republican Methodists bursts in waving muskets?
Originally posted by PD:
... July 4th is poorly attended, but if I don't do it I hear about it, I mean really hear about it. So we do a revolutionary war/early republic era service that day - either 1662 with adaptions ...
quote:I would vote for the latter interpretation, as the head does not look especially Marian or even feminine.
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:Well, the color could certainly indicate Mary. The stars, perhaps too, as either Mary Queen of the Universe or Stella Maris. Then again, this could simply be Our Lord Jesus Christ, King of the Universe, holding the world.
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
This is a stained glass window in the Church of Reconciliation at Taize. It is captioned on the postcard as l'Ascension, but ISTM to be either the Assumption, or more likely a pregnant Mary.
quote:There is a fairly well preserved copy of a 1662 BCP from either Richmond or Bruton with the neccessary changes to the State Prayers, so I follow those. If any group carrying muskets broke into our church they might find the greeter is better prepared than they expected. The expression don't take a knife a gunfight still applies around here.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:So you do 1662 Morning Prayer and when you get to the prayers for the Royal Family a gang of Republican Methodists bursts in waving muskets?
Originally posted by PD:
... July 4th is poorly attended, but if I don't do it I hear about it, I mean really hear about it. So we do a revolutionary war/early republic era service that day - either 1662 with adaptions ...
quote:It's definitely Christ, holding the world surmounted by a cross. I suppose it might better be called a Christus Pantocrator than an ascension, but the former is the result of the latter, so who's to quibble. It is certainly not the BVM.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:I would vote for the latter interpretation, as the head does not look especially Marian or even feminine.
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:Well, the color could certainly indicate Mary. The stars, perhaps too, as either Mary Queen of the Universe or Stella Maris. Then again, this could simply be Our Lord Jesus Christ, King of the Universe, holding the world.
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
This is a stained glass window in the Church of Reconciliation at Taize. It is captioned on the postcard as l'Ascension, but ISTM to be either the Assumption, or more likely a pregnant Mary.
quote:Do say more!
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
the traditional bonfire and burning of sacramentals
quote:I've been there. Father ain't just talkin' through his hat.
Originally posted by PD:
If any group carrying muskets broke into our church they might find the greeter is better prepared than they expected.
quote:Alas, we were only Sung (what Ritual Notes calls "Simple High"), though in the past the Mass has been Solemn and bilingual. This year, only the prophecy (Isaiah) was partially in French
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Today is the feast of the Nativity of St. John Baptist. We have High Mass tonight, followed by a light reception. Last night the Knights of Columbus sponsored the traditional bonfire and burning of sacramentals, and a gathering of the men of the parish.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:It means that Lambeth is not his see: he is a Bishop who will be based at Lambeth Palace. It always was 'Bishop at Lambeth' in the past.
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Bishop at Lambeth? What does being Bishop at a place mean? Is there any sense to it at all, especially given that the person concerned seems to think that he is going to be Bishop of Lambeth?
quote:Suffragans, yes. But FWIW there are, or used to be, in the CofE a few full-time Assistant Bishops who didn't have a suffragan see as such. In the CinW we've never had suffragans, except once, in the 30s and 40s, when there was a Bishop of Maenan: but we do have one (used to have two) full-time Assistant Bishops without suffragan sees.
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Fairy nuff, although I thought even the suffragan to the Bishop of Barchester got to be Bishop of Stogpingum or Crabtree Canonicorum or somesuch, even though it isn't a 'see'.
quote:I seem to recall that the position was at one point filled by a deacon (as anciently understood qua adjunct to the bishop, but then the role suffered from prestige inflation (like the college of cardinals). It is however eminently possible that I am thinking if someone else at Lambeth.
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:Suffragans, yes. But FWIW there are, or used to be, in the CofE a few full-time Assistant Bishops who didn't have a suffragan see as such. In the CinW we've never had suffragans, except once, in the 30s and 40s, when there was a Bishop of Maenan: but we do have one (used to have two) full-time Assistant Bishops without suffragan sees.
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Fairy nuff, although I thought even the suffragan to the Bishop of Barchester got to be Bishop of Stogpingum or Crabtree Canonicorum or somesuch, even though it isn't a 'see'.
Bp at Lambeth is AIUI a very senior staff officcer rather than a pastoral Bishop.
quote:I didn't think Anglicans went in for the legal fiction that every bishop had to have a notional see in the back garden of a Turkish milliner's shop: we're not shy about naming someone "assistant bishop" for whatever see. The current Anglican Bishop to the Canadian Forces was formerly also the Lord Bishop of Ottawa, but this was not of necessity and is no longer the case.
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:Suffragans, yes. But FWIW there are, or used to be, in the CofE a few full-time Assistant Bishops who didn't have a suffragan see as such. In the CinW we've never had suffragans, except once, in the 30s and 40s, when there was a Bishop of Maenan: but we do have one (used to have two) full-time Assistant Bishops without suffragan sees.
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Fairy nuff, although I thought even the suffragan to the Bishop of Barchester got to be Bishop of Stogpingum or Crabtree Canonicorum or somesuch, even though it isn't a 'see'.
Bp at Lambeth is AIUI a very senior staff officcer rather than a pastoral Bishop.
quote:Erm, no - but an Act of Parliament of 1534 designated certain English towns as the see towns of certain suffragans to cover against the loss of thise titular sees located in the back of Turkish barber's shops. The list was basically a laundry list of the important English towns of the time, and included Hull, Dover, Grantham, and about a dozen others.
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:I didn't think Anglicans went in for the legal fiction that every bishop had to have a notional see in the back garden of a Turkish milliner's shop: we're not shy about naming someone "assistant bishop" for whatever see. The current Anglican Bishop to the Canadian Forces was formerly also the Lord Bishop of Ottawa, but this was not of necessity and is no longer the case.
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:Suffragans, yes. But FWIW there are, or used to be, in the CofE a few full-time Assistant Bishops who didn't have a suffragan see as such. In the CinW we've never had suffragans, except once, in the 30s and 40s, when there was a Bishop of Maenan: but we do have one (used to have two) full-time Assistant Bishops without suffragan sees.
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Fairy nuff, although I thought even the suffragan to the Bishop of Barchester got to be Bishop of Stogpingum or Crabtree Canonicorum or somesuch, even though it isn't a 'see'.
Bp at Lambeth is AIUI a very senior staff officcer rather than a pastoral Bishop.
) those did occur to me, but St Germans, Bedford, and Colchester are all examples of 1534 suffragan sees that diocesan boundaries have shifted around ( a couple of times in the former two cases).
quote:I may be extraordinarily wrong, but I think it was a provision when Bishop Kenneth Gill came to the diocese. I believe he had been ordained in the Church of South India, and there were some reservations to do with its being a united Methodist/Anglican Church. So rather than being a "Bishop of..." he became "Assistant Bishop".
Originally posted by Albertus:
Just out of interest, and not that it matters, does anyone happen to know why Newcastle (England) has a stipendiary Assistant Bishop rather than a Bishop of Berwick (which is provided for in the 1534 Act)?
quote:I may be wrong, but whilst that is the case for most Assistant Bishops, I don't believe it is for the Assistant Bishop of Newcastle (or for that matter of Leicester). IIRC both are stipendary posts.
Originally posted by PD:
It probably comes down to money. A suffragan bishopric is usually a full-time stipendary post in the C of E, whereas an assistant bishop is usually technically retired and paid expenses only. Thus the Bishop of Berwick issue is a bit of a red herring. When I lived in the diocese of Lincoln we had two suffagans - Grantham and Grimsby - and an assistant bishop who was the retired Bishop of Argentina in the Church of the Southern Cone.
PD
quote:I believe that it is the same way in ECUSA (TEC).
Originally posted by PD:
It probably comes down to money. A suffragan bishopric is usually a full-time stipendary post in the C of E, whereas an assistant bishop is usually technically retired and paid expenses only.
quote:For a while, we went with the lovely fiction of notional sees; e.g., The suffragan of Huron was Bishop of St Clair. I have found it useful to personally ascribe titles to suffragan sees when synods and bishops forgot to do so, and I recommend this course of action to other shipmates. Imagine how much better it would be to be Bishop of Mississauga than Area Bishop of York-Credit Valley or Bishop of Tantramar and Annapolis rather than Suffragan Bishop of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. It is more keeping with the idea that it is not simply a promotion grade with purple socks attached. Most of the time in Canada, assistant bishops were retired bishops who got their expenses as they helped out with confirmations.
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:I didn't think Anglicans went in for the legal fiction that every bishop had to have a notional see in the back garden of a Turkish milliner's shop: we're not shy about naming someone "assistant bishop" for whatever see. The current Anglican Bishop to the Canadian Forces was formerly also the Lord Bishop of Ottawa, but this was not of necessity and is no longer the case.
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:Suffragans, yes. But FWIW there are, or used to be, in the CofE a few full-time Assistant Bishops who didn't have a suffragan see as such. In the CinW we've never had suffragans, except once, in the 30s and 40s, when there was a Bishop of Maenan: but we do have one (used to have two) full-time Assistant Bishops without suffragan sees.
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Fairy nuff, although I thought even the suffragan to the Bishop of Barchester got to be Bishop of Stogpingum or Crabtree Canonicorum or somesuch, even though it isn't a 'see'.
Bp at Lambeth is AIUI a very senior staff officcer rather than a pastoral Bishop.
quote:I see (no pun intended) that the incumbent is known as the Bishop of Norfolk. Mississauga has less romantic evocations for me, perhaps because I've been there, but naming a see for a highway town would certainly preserve the spirit of the Turkish shop!
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
For a while, we went with the lovely fiction of notional sees; e.g., The suffragan of Huron was Bishop of St Clair.
quote:Interesting - the last British North American diocese (IIRC - possibly save Newfoundland and Bermuda?) to join the Church of England in Canada.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
The Armed Forces bishopric was originally handed over to a diocesan bishop with expertise in the area-- it was once attached to Caledonia, IIRC.
quote:This exactly describes the way our ECUSA parish does it. I look forward to it (not that I am usually doing any cooking that I need to take a break from) -- to me, it nicely sets the tone for what is, after all, Thanksgiving Day
Originally posted by Hart:
Most RC parishes I know get out of mixing Thanksgiving into Sunday worship by having a mass on the day itself. People like a little cooking break mid-morning. I'm accustomed to having music for this, but no choir (so kind of halfway in between a regular daily mass and a Sunday mass). Turnout is normally also about halfway between a daily mass and a single Sunday mass. There are optional propers for it, including a selection of readings.
quote:IMHO, anything that isn't just plain frankincense.
Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
Incense: any brands/styles/flavours to avoid?
quote:IMHO, avoid everything except Frankincense. I have had fewer complaints about it than any other type.
Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
Incense: any brands/styles/flavours to avoid?
quote:Fortunately or unfortunately, I am not in the loop on that one.
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
Anyone know where one can get a copy of the Eucharistic liturgy used at the most recent ACNA College of Bishops gathering? As I understand it, it is a non-finalized version of what will be in the new ACNA BCP. PD, you usually know such things... any leads?
quote:Never seen it used in the English BCP or the TEC one (only ever having been to one TEC service) but IIRC I have seen it done in an ASB communion service. Quietly done with no fuss, at the point where it became clear that the elements were going to run out- I think the priest handed over the bread to someone else to distribute (the wine being distributed by someone else already) while he consecrated more, but it was years ago and I didn't have a very good view of it.
Originally posted by malik3000:
In most of the various editions of the Book of Common Prayer there is, at the end of the Communion/Eucharist liturgy a brief form for consecration if either the consecrated Bread or Wine runs out. Has anyone ever seen this actually used? I know I haven't.
quote:Yes. It regularly happened in the church I attended, which followed the ASB Rite B and did not have reservation.
Originally posted by malik3000:
In most of the various editions of the Book of Common Prayer there is, at the end of the Communion/Eucharist liturgy a brief form for consecration if either the consecrated Bread or Wine runs out. Has anyone ever seen this actually used? I know I haven't.
quote:I used it myself just a week ago. It was at a service on the last night of summer camp. I had enough bread, but I misjudged the amount of wine that was needed. It was quiet and sort of behind the scenes; I doubt anyone but the servers noticed.
Originally posted by malik3000:
In most of the various editions of the Book of Common Prayer there is, at the end of the Communion/Eucharist liturgy a brief form for consecration if either the consecrated Bread or Wine runs out. Has anyone ever seen this actually used? I know I haven't.
quote:I've seen it used wrongly on many occasions. In our BCP, at least (USA 1979), the rubrics call for the Celebrant to do this at the altar. Seems like those are important words, and for a good reason, but I'd say more often than not it's been any handy priest at the credence table or some non-altar location. I should add that the wrongdoing was all at a parish other than the one I now belong to.
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
quote:I used it myself just a week ago. It was at a service on the last night of summer camp. I had enough bread, but I misjudged the amount of wine that was needed. It was quiet and sort of behind the scenes; I doubt anyone but the servers noticed.
Originally posted by malik3000:
In most of the various editions of the Book of Common Prayer there is, at the end of the Communion/Eucharist liturgy a brief form for consecration if either the consecrated Bread or Wine runs out. Has anyone ever seen this actually used? I know I haven't.
quote:Yes - many times.
Originally posted by malik3000:
In most of the various editions of the Book of Common Prayer there is, at the end of the Communion/Eucharist liturgy a brief form for consecration if either the consecrated Bread or Wine runs out. Has anyone ever seen this actually used? I know I haven't.
quote:I was the celebrant, and it took place at the altar. What I meant about "behind the scenes" was that the servers were taking care of, well, serving, and I quietly stepped behind the altar, refilled the chalice, prayed the prayer, and went back to serving. Very unobtrusive, reverent, and to the point.
Originally posted by Oblatus:
quote:I've seen it used wrongly on many occasions. In our BCP, at least (USA 1979), the rubrics call for the Celebrant to do this at the altar. Seems like those are important words, and for a good reason, but I'd say more often than not it's been any handy priest at the credence table or some non-altar location. I should add that the wrongdoing was all at a parish other than the one I now belong to.
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
quote:I used it myself just a week ago. It was at a service on the last night of summer camp. I had enough bread, but I misjudged the amount of wine that was needed. It was quiet and sort of behind the scenes; I doubt anyone but the servers noticed.
Originally posted by malik3000:
In most of the various editions of the Book of Common Prayer there is, at the end of the Communion/Eucharist liturgy a brief form for consecration if either the consecrated Bread or Wine runs out. Has anyone ever seen this actually used? I know I haven't.
Seems basic to me that since the original consecration was done by the celebrant at the altar, so should any supplemental consecration be done by the celebrant at the altar. As per the rubrics.
quote:Well done. Sorry to go on about how it's been done wrong in my experience, and I didn't mean to insinuate that you did it wrong as well! My bad.
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
I was the celebrant, and it took place at the altar. What I meant about "behind the scenes" was that the servers were taking care of, well, serving, and I quietly stepped behind the altar, refilled the chalice, prayed the prayer, and went back to serving. Very unobtrusive, reverent, and to the point.
quote:I think the reason one runs out of wine less often is that it's much easier to control how much anyone 'gets' - I've been told (via the unobtrusive liturgical whisper™) to be sparing with it when there are more than expected. Even so, I suspect were we to run out, we'd simply communicate the remainder in one kind: I have never seen a supplementary consecration.
Originally posted by PD:
I have occasionally slipped up and consecrated too little of the elements. I was taught to consecrate both kinds when one slips up, so it is either a single host and sufficient wine, and sufficient hosts and the tiniest bit of wine in a spare chalice. I suspect this is old-fashioned High Church practice, as that was the stripe of the priests who trained me. The second consecration is done very unobstrusively at the altar.
In a lot of High Anglican parishes, the reserved sacrament is used as a back up for the host, or they communicate everyone from the Tabernacle, though that has technically been discouraged since the 1960s. For some reason, they do not seem to have any problem consecrating sufficient wine, though I have screwed up a couple of times.
When I have been working in Evangelical parishes, when we have seemed to be running short of bread we just make the bits of bread a bit smaller. I find folks tend to adjust how much of the Wine they take when they see one is running a little low.
PD
quote:In the RC Code of Canon Law, canon 927 says, "It is absolutely forbidden, even in extreme urgent necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other or even both outside the eucharistic celebration."
Originally posted by PD:
I have occasionally slipped up and consecrated too little of the elements. I was taught to consecrate both kinds when one slips up, so it is either a single host and sufficient wine, and sufficient hosts and the tiniest bit of wine in a spare chalice. I suspect this is old-fashioned High Church practice, as that was the stripe of the priests who trained me.
quote:Here's a link that injects a little humor into the above discussion.
Originally posted by FCB:
So, in practice, if the cup runs out (a not uncommon occurrence), people simply receive in one kind. If the hosts run out, more are fetched from the tabernacle. If the reserved sacrament runs out, people would be encouraged to make a spiritual communion.
quote:I would go further and suggest that such an event--which in my many years of witnessing RC liturgical aberrations, I have never heard of, let alone witnessed--would not only be illicit, but invalid. Such a move would not just be irregular; it falls outside the pale of RC theology.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Originally posted by FCB:
But, alas, I have also been at RC masses where additional bread was consecrated -- illicitly, it would seem.
quote:Fascinating. Could you cite a source for this?
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
Apparently consecration of further supplies of the sacrament by contact was accepted practice by the 10th century, and was only outlawed in the Western Church in yhe 13th century before its re-introducton - this time using a formula - in the Scottish 1637 book, and 1662.
quote:IME it's one which belongs to the servers possibly with help from the sidesfolk. Vergers guess in advance...
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Besides which, I imagine most priests are quite good at eyeing up the congregation (as it were) and estimating numbers. Must be a special charism.
quote:Sorry, my second paragraph somehow got chopped. The source is Paul Bradshaw's A Companion to Common Worship (2001). He also explains that the 1968 Liturgical Commission considered this matter and agreed that the supplementary consecration could take place before the exhaustion of the original supplies on the basis that these elements belong to the same context as the original ones.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:Fascinating. Could you cite a source for this?
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
Apparently consecration of further supplies of the sacrament by contact was accepted practice by the 10th century, and was only outlawed in the Western Church in yhe 13th century before its re-introducton - this time using a formula - in the Scottish 1637 book, and 1662.
quote:Enoch the tone of this paragraph is rather unnecessarily rebarbative. I asked for a source because I'd not heard of such a practice that early and was (and remain) interested. Furthermore, this isn't an Anglican thread and so those of us outside your communion who are interested in your peculiar practices are quite within our rights to ask questions about them.
Originally posted by Enoch:
That other ecclesial communities might have different practices, or even that our ancestors might have done in the C10, is interesting, but has no bearing on whether we should or should not follow our own disciplines.
quote:Does this utraquist position reject the doctrine of concomitance outight or merely favour the position of reception under both kinds? If, during the swine 'flu panic, people were only able to receive under one kind, was there a widespread feeling that they weren't receiving 'the whole Christ', that their communion was, in some way, impaired? It was certainly an attitude expressed by a number of our people, who had so grown accustomed to communion under both kinds that they expressed the view that they didn't feel they'd received communion fully.
The notion of just administering one element because the other had run out, would seem to this member of the CofE very odd. Since the Reformation, the CofE has been resolutely utraquist. There was a lot of grumbling when this was temporarily suspended during the threatened but fortunately illusory swine 'flu epidemic.
quote:It is the notion that if, for some reason, one may be unable to receive Holy Communion, one should, nevertheless, make a conscious mental effort to unite oneself to Christ in the Blessèd Sacrament. Typically it is accompanied by a prayerful expression of intent, such as this:
What is a 'spiritual communion'? I've not encountered that phrase, and suspect it may be alien to our theology.
quote:
My Jesus, I believe that You are present in the Most Holy Sacrament.
I love You above all things, and I desire to receive You into my soul.
Since I cannot at this moment receive You sacramentally,
come at least spiritually into my heart.
I embrace You as if You were already there and unite myself wholly to You.
Never permit me to be separated from You.
quote:Nope. Rubric to BCP Communion of the Sick:
Originally posted by Enoch:
...
What is a 'spiritual communion'? I've not encountered that phrase, and suspect it may be alien to our theology.
quote:
But if a man, either by reason of extremity of sickness, or for want of warning in due time to the Curate, or for lack of company to receive with him, or by any other just impediment, do not receive the Sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood: the Curate shall instruct him that if he do truly repent him of his sins, and stedfastly believe that Jesus Christ hath suffered death upon the Cross for him, and shed his Blood for his redemption, earnestly remembering the benefits he hath thereby, and giving him hearty thanks therefore; he doth eat and drink the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ profitably to his soul's health, although he do not receive the Sacrament with his mouth.
quote:Trisagion - You may be interested to read the description that Paul Bradshaw gives about this practice. I quote "Further supplies of the sacrament could be consecrated by contact, unconsecrated wine being added to consecrated wine, and unconsecrated bread being sprinkled with consecrated wine." I too was fascinated when I first read this.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
I asked for a source because I'd not heard of such a practice that early and was (and remain) interested.
FWIW the practice seems to me to be a perfectly natural development in a community that has, historically, stressed the memorialist nature of the Eucharistic action and the centrality of the act of Holy Communion. I will ask Paul Bradshaw for his source of the C10 praxis, however.
quote:Not IME, or at least the PTB tried their best to assuage it. My parish was one where a zealous priest-in-charge suspended the cup, but language about concomitance is often part of the standard communion spiel in service leaflets here, and the indivisibility of the sacrament is stressed esp. for the comfort of those with the trials of alcoholism or coeliac disease.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
If, during the swine 'flu panic, people were only able to receive under one kind, was there a widespread feeling that they weren't receiving 'the whole Christ', that their communion was, in some way, impaired?
quote:I'm guessing the mixing of similar liquids gives rise to the principle for the wine, while the operation on the bread by the consecrated bread is more by analogy than physical principle.
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
quote:Trisagion - You may be interested to read the description that Paul Bradshaw gives about this practice. I quote "Further supplies of the sacrament could be consecrated by contact, unconsecrated wine being added to consecrated wine, and unconsecrated bread being sprinkled with consecrated wine." I too was fascinated when I first read this.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
I asked for a source because I'd not heard of such a practice that early and was (and remain) interested.
FWIW the practice seems to me to be a perfectly natural development in a community that has, historically, stressed the memorialist nature of the Eucharistic action and the centrality of the act of Holy Communion. I will ask Paul Bradshaw for his source of the C10 praxis, however.
quote:I have encountered this in a "Spirit of Vatican II" Anglican parish - though, actually, they added wine rather than water.
Originally posted by Albertus:
If you use the mixed cup, is it permissible simply to further dilute the wine if it's running short?
quote:Yeah, but he had a get out - c.f wedding at Cana; feeding of five thousand.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
I'm beginning to wonder what Jesus would have done at the Last Supper if the Apostles had been hungrier than he had planned for.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Dunno - but blues are prots.
Mustard are fundy prots with bad taste.
Stripes are mad, fundy prots.
quote:Yes. When receiving communion one puts their hands underneath the cloth.
Originally posted by Stephen:
Has anyone come across white linen cloths being put on the Communion rail? I noticed it on a visit to Wimborne Minster some time back
quote:I've seen it in St. John Cantius (Roman Catholic) here in Chicago, for an Extraordinary Form Mass. It's a "houseling cloth."
Originally posted by Stephen:
Has anyone come across white linen cloths being put on the Communion rail? I noticed it on a visit to Wimborne Minster some time back
quote:I too noticed them at St Silas: which I found amusing, because the subdeacon was going about holding the paten under one's chin anyway...
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I've encountered a houseling cloth at the altar rail on at least one occasion - possibly more - at St Silas Kentish Town. Only time I've ever seen one outside of liturgical books and old illustrations.
quote:I am reliably informed that the practice continued at Windsor Place in Cardiff until about seven years ago when the lady who had been laundering and starching the things for many years decided that she had had enough. There were no volunteers to take the task on from her, alas. I think of it as a Presbyterian custom (like communion tokens) - as far as the other bit of the URC is concerned, was it ever to be found in any (ex-)congregationalist chapels?
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
How very Presbyterian of them!
The covering with white cloth of where the people receive communion is quite a traditional practice among Presbyterians, see Crown Court. It could be at the communion table which extends down the church or as in the Crown Court along the pews. There may well still be URCs that practice it, there were in the mid 1990s.
Jengie
quote:...Per Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum Filium tuum, qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitate Spiritus Sancti, Deus: per omnia saecula saeculorum.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
There's something that's puzzled me for a long time, and which for some reason now is really bugging me.
Many of the Common Worship Collects end with the formula, "through Jesus Christ our Lord, who is alive and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit ...".
Now, I may be a mile off here, but surely in orthodox theology it's primarily the Father, not the Spirit, who is the ground of unity within the Trinity. And I know also the phrase appears in the 1662 Book and in virtually every book since, but what does it mean?
I must admit, I'm so convinced it's actually theologically incorrect, if I'm presiding and the people don't have the text in front of them, I usually elide it to "who is alive and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God ...".
But what does it mean, and why is it there? (Acknowledging that this one might have to go to Purgatory!)
quote:Here:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
quote:...Per Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum Filium tuum, qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitate Spiritus Sancti, Deus: per omnia saecula saeculorum.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
There's something that's puzzled me for a long time, and which for some reason now is really bugging me.
Many of the Common Worship Collects end with the formula, "through Jesus Christ our Lord, who is alive and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit ...".
Now, I may be a mile off here, but surely in orthodox theology it's primarily the Father, not the Spirit, who is the ground of unity within the Trinity. And I know also the phrase appears in the 1662 Book and in virtually every book since, but what does it mean?
I must admit, I'm so convinced it's actually theologically incorrect, if I'm presiding and the people don't have the text in front of them, I usually elide it to "who is alive and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God ...".
But what does it mean, and why is it there? (Acknowledging that this one might have to go to Purgatory!)
Indeed it is in the unity of the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Ghost is the Love of the Father and the Son. Also, the formula places the Mediation of Christ in the context of the Holy Trinity: the Church offers the prayers to the Father through Christ, in the Holy Ghost. The ancient doxologies do have : Glory to the Father through Christ in the Holy Ghost. Basil, unless I am mistaken, refers to that ancient, even primitive, formulation, in the first chapters of his treatise on the Holy Ghost.
quote:I dunno, but it has been around since at least the fourth century. I also think you may be confusing the mainly EO idea that the Godhead is focussed (for want of a better word) on the Father*, and the property of the Holy Spirit to unify and bring into all truth. However, there are a lot better theologians on here so I will shut up.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
There's something that's puzzled me for a long time, and which for some reason now is really bugging me.
Many of the Common Worship Collects end with the formula, "through Jesus Christ our Lord, who is alive and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit ...".
Now, I may be a mile off here, but surely in orthodox theology it's primarily the Father, not the Spirit, who is the ground of unity within the Trinity. And I know also the phrase appears in the 1662 Book and in virtually every book since, but what does it mean?
I must admit, I'm so convinced it's actually theologically incorrect, if I'm presiding and the people don't have the text in front of them, I usually elide it to "who is alive and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God ...".
But what does it mean, and why is it there? (Acknowledging that this one might have to go to Purgatory!)
quote:Cardiff was not the one I was thinking of, I think Basingstoke. No I have not heard of any ex-Cong doing it, that of course is no guarantee they don't exist or did not exist at some time.
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
quote:I am reliably informed that the practice continued at Windsor Place in Cardiff until about seven years ago when the lady who had been laundering and starching the things for many years decided that she had had enough. There were no volunteers to take the task on from her, alas. I think of it as a Presbyterian custom (like communion tokens) - as far as the other bit of the URC is concerned, was it ever to be found in any (ex-)congregationalist chapels?
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
How very Presbyterian of them!
The covering with white cloth of where the people receive communion is quite a traditional practice among Presbyterians, see Crown Court. It could be at the communion table which extends down the church or as in the Crown Court along the pews. There may well still be URCs that practice it, there were in the mid 1990s.
Jengie
quote:Sixteen cope vespers in the presence of a prelate, with censing of all the altars in the church during the Magnifcat, followed by procession of a relic of St Simeon and/or Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament.
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
How might I appropriately mark First Evensong and Compline of our Patronal Festival?
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:Sixteen cope vespers in the presence of a prelate, with censing of all the altars in the church during the Magnifcat, followed by procession of a relic of St Simeon and/or Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament.
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
How might I appropriately mark First Evensong and Compline of our Patronal Festival?
Compline sung in almost complete darkness.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:...in Shanghai! At that big Roman Catholic joint in town.
Originally posted by PD:
Houselling cloths were a hangover from the middle ages, and seem to have remained in use...
quote:I think that concept of the Holy Spirit's role in the Trinity comes from St Augustine.
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
...Indeed it is in the unity of the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Ghost is the Love of the Father and the Son. ...
quote:And also after him, Richard of St Victor. Of course, it is not an absolute statement. Let all mortal flesh keep silent.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:I think that concept of the Holy Spirit's role in the Trinity comes from St Augustine.
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
...Indeed it is in the unity of the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Ghost is the Love of the Father and the Son. ...
This is getting into the territory of mysteries to great to utter, but taken as a dogmatic statement complete in itself, rather than a partial and useful stab at the truth, it has limitations. It could imply that the Holy Spirit is less of a Person than the other two Persons of the Trinity. It also underplays His role as the dynamic action of God (Triune, not just the Father) in the world and all creation now and throughout time.
quote:Try never to wear a stole over a surplice. It's hideous. And it flaps about everywhere.
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
I'm confused about when to wear a stole over cassock and surplice, and when to wear a tippet. Any pointers?
quote:I think you should be grateful the CofE doesn't ordain in undergarments!
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
alas that the CofE seems to have moved to surplice and stole for ordinations, rather than alb, stole and girdle...
quote:So if the alb is an undergarment, what is the cassock?
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:I think you should be grateful the CofE doesn't ordain in undergarments!
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
alas that the CofE seems to have moved to surplice and stole for ordinations, rather than alb, stole and girdle...
Thurible
quote:Um, do you have something other than Baptism in mind? Because 'christening' is usually a metonym for that...
Originally posted by Pearl B4 Swine:
I see this on BBC News today (regarding the Royal Birth, in progress):
The Archbishop of Canterbury, who is likely to carry out any christening, has sent his best wishes to the couple.
Does the CofE offer christening anymore? I only know the US Episco-church, which to my local knowledge doesn't do christening. So, is it still a regular thing, or not?
Pearlie
quote:Intriguing as the pressure is if anything the other way on this side of the pond.
Originally posted by Pearl B4 Swine:
On this side of the pond, in years past this was a common thing. Sometimes done at the parents' home, or grand-parents'. There was no pouring or dipping or sprinkling. Nowadays clergy persuade new parents that Baptism is the thing to do.
quote:A style of coat popular in the 15th century.
Originally posted by Spike:
So if the alb is an undergarment, what is the cassock?
quote:Wiccan child dedication rituals are sometimes similarly known as a "wiccaning."
Originally posted by Enoch:
In English usage, christening = baptism. It ≠ anything else.
I doubt it's got anything to do with chrismation. I suspect that PD is right that it derives from something like 'making Christian'.
quote:Away from baptism and toward churching? If the latter is indeed alive and well over there I'm impressed.
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
quote:Intriguing as the pressure is if anything the other way on this side of the pond.
Originally posted by Pearl B4 Swine:
On this side of the pond, in years past this was a common thing. Sometimes done at the parents' home, or grand-parents'. There was no pouring or dipping or sprinkling. Nowadays clergy persuade new parents that Baptism is the thing to do.
quote:Away from Baptism and towards a thanksgiving/dedication for a child. Baptism being either for the children of the committed parents who can honestly make the vows or adult only. Unlike a Churching which concentrates on the woman this concentrates on the child.
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:Away from baptism and toward churching? If the latter is indeed alive and well over there I'm impressed. [/QB]
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
quote:Intriguing as the pressure is if anything the other way on this side of the pond.
Originally posted by Pearl B4 Swine:
On this side of the pond, in years past this was a common thing. Sometimes done at the parents' home, or grand-parents'. There was no pouring or dipping or sprinkling. Nowadays clergy persuade new parents that Baptism is the thing to do.
quote:I must have mentioned previously a priest I know who stopped offering Thanksgivings-for-the-Unchurched when he overheard two mothers chatting in the post office.
Originally posted by Oferyas:
In terms of 'infant pastoral events'(!) Thanksgivings have increased slightly in number over the years, while infant baptisms have decreased significantly. Thanksgivings represent quite a small proportion of such pastoral events, with baptisms still being by far the larger group.
quote:Largely dead. My mother got the impression that it was a form of repentance for the sin of getting pregnant and being generally morally grubby enough to procreate; if this understanding was in any way current amongst the population it's not entirely surprising it's mostly gone.
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:Wiccan child dedication rituals are sometimes similarly known as a "wiccaning."
Originally posted by Enoch:
In English usage, christening = baptism. It ≠ anything else.
I doubt it's got anything to do with chrismation. I suspect that PD is right that it derives from something like 'making Christian'.
quote:Away from baptism and toward churching? If the latter is indeed alive and well over there I'm impressed.
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
quote:Intriguing as the pressure is if anything the other way on this side of the pond.
Originally posted by Pearl B4 Swine:
On this side of the pond, in years past this was a common thing. Sometimes done at the parents' home, or grand-parents'. There was no pouring or dipping or sprinkling. Nowadays clergy persuade new parents that Baptism is the thing to do.
quote:Entirely false understanding tho. The 1662 Churching of Women liturgy is a thanksgiving for the mother surviving the dangers of childbirth. No hint of ritual purity in it at all.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
My mother got the impression that it was a form of repentance for the sin of getting pregnant and being generally morally grubby enough to procreate; if this understanding was in any way current amongst the population it's not entirely surprising it's mostly gone.
quote:As opposed to a "Whickerning", in which the child is ceremonially robed in a blazer and nose-moustache-and-glasses set, and sent forth to wander the world.
Originally posted by LQ:
Wiccan child dedication rituals are sometimes similarly known as a "wiccaning."
quote:Or, in more poetic language, "a rose by any other name..."
Originally posted by Arch Anglo Catholic:
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck no matter what you call it!
quote:I've come round to liking a cincture band with my cassock, but that's with a verger's gown, I suspect that with an albs and girdle it would be unnecessary. An amice would probably save ironing
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
Two questions:
Should I wear a cincture band on my cassock beneath either surplice or alb? I wear a rope cincture on my alb.
Should I purchase and wear an amice?
quote:A cincture is unnecessary when the alb is girdled (which it ought always to be), so it's your choice. I find that many priests find it uncomfortable to wear both at once, since they seldom sit in the same position.
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
Two questions:
Should I wear a cincture band on my cassock beneath either surplice or alb? I wear a rope cincture on my alb.
Should I purchase and wear an amice?
quote:But you need one for Pontifical Solemn High Mass at the Throne. Ours is used that way (on a platform on the north side of the sanctuary, facing the sedilia on the south side) but sits just outside one of the nave entrances otherwise. It could use a reupholstering...quite lumpy. Not that I would dare try to sit on it, mind you...
Originally posted by TheMightyMartyr:
In many Anglican parish churches there is the "Bishop's Chair" usually slightly more ornate or at least larger and sits empty most of the time... is there a point to having one? Can anyone else use it?
I'm guessing it is a mini cathedra... but seems redundant, a symbolic chair in place of a symbolic chair...
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
quote:The throne is for the diocesan (or area, if you have such) bishop, during Pontifical functions (masses, vespers, benediction). Prelates outside of their jurisdiction use the faldstool (like a curule chair sans back) when presiding, or sit in choir if not.
Originally posted by TheMightyMartyr:
In many Anglican parish churches there is the "Bishop's Chair" usually slightly more ornate or at least larger and sits empty most of the time... is there a point to having one? Can anyone else use it?
I'm guessing it is a mini cathedra... but seems redundant, a symbolic chair in place of a symbolic chair...
quote:It can be a powerful teaching medium, both in terms of Anglican (and other episcopal) ecclesiology and mission and symbolism, and in terms of missiology and Christology, as we learn to be the hands and feet and mouth of the Christ-shepherd who also is not visible to us, but who works on and out through us.
Originally posted by TheMightyMartyr:
In many Anglican parish churches there is the "Bishop's Chair" usually slightly more ornate or at least larger and sits empty most of the time... is there a point to having one? Can anyone else use it?
I'm guessing it is a mini cathedra... but seems redundant, a symbolic chair in place of a symbolic chair...
quote:With nothing else to add to this answer except to say, my parish clergy do my nerve in when they seem to make a point of sitting in it for every possible service going... I'm not sure what justification they use but it drives me mad none the less...
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:The throne is for the diocesan (or area, if you have such) bishop, during Pontifical functions (masses, vespers, benediction). Prelates outside of their jurisdiction use the faldstool (like a curule chair sans back) when presiding, or sit in choir if not.
Originally posted by TheMightyMartyr:
In many Anglican parish churches there is the "Bishop's Chair" usually slightly more ornate or at least larger and sits empty most of the time... is there a point to having one? Can anyone else use it?
I'm guessing it is a mini cathedra... but seems redundant, a symbolic chair in place of a symbolic chair...
The 'correct' position for this is, as Oblatus says, the North side of the sanctuary, upon three steps which should nevertheless be lower than the steps to the altar; though parishes using Nervous Odor or similar often have it in place of the priest's sedilia, before/behind the altar or slightly to the south.
Nobody else should ever sit in it (unless you are a monastery church which happens to have an abbot with special privileges. Though I must confess: I have sat in ours, which is large and comfortable and horrendously baroque.
The 'point' is to remind people that Eucharistic unity comes from communion with the bishop, as the fons et origo of the Church in the place, and as the Ordinary of the diocese/diocesan area. It is, in a number of senses, His parish, and his church and his congregation. And so that he can use it when he visits, of course.
quote:Maybe they've taken the word 'vicar' a little too literally...
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
With nothing else to add to this answer except to say, my parish clergy do my nerve in when they seem to make a point of sitting in it for every possible service going... I'm not sure what justification they use but it drives me mad none the less...
quote:No, I did raise the question a couple of years back, about a year into my tenure as Sacristan (as my old Church used to rope it of except when the Bishop was present - I asked if they would like me to source a mice piece of ascetic rope for it...) and didn't get a real answer as to why the practice exists in this Church and have since left it, especially since I have been busy with just putting small things right (like a veil for our aumbry etc.) and have since pissed of the MU so am now in the bad books and can't dare raise any contentious issues...
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:Maybe they've taken the word 'vicar' a little too literally...
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
With nothing else to add to this answer except to say, my parish clergy do my nerve in when they seem to make a point of sitting in it for every possible service going... I'm not sure what justification they use but it drives me mad none the less...
Have you asked the why?
quote:Bad idea. Bad, bad, bad idea. Do let us know when your funeral will be and we will all turn out (or perhaps there won't be one because you will just find yourself at the bottom of a reservoir with your feet weighted down with heavy-duty fruit cake).
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
... and have since pissed of the MU so am now in the bad books and can't dare raise any contentious issues...
quote:I would keep September free:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:Bad idea. Bad, bad, bad idea. Do let us know when your funeral will be and we will all turn out (or perhaps there won't be one because you will just find yourself at the bottom of a reservoir with your feet weighted down with heavy-duty fruit cake).
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
... and have since pissed of the MU so am now in the bad books and can't dare raise any contentious issues...
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
No-one beats the MU at their own game. All priests are scared of the MU and so should everybody else be.
I speak as one who once found himself wedged at the back of a bus which had filled up with African bishops' wives, all large ladies in clothing liberally patterned with pictures of Mary Sumner. That was 25 years ago and I have never been the same since.
quote:Or maybe not. Regardless of the obsolete connection of the term 'vicar' with tithes, the truth is that the parish priest is the bishops' deputy ('vicar' in a general sense) in presiding at the Eucharist in the parish church in the bishop's absence. A parish church does not possess a cathedra, only a president's chair - for the bishop if he is present, or his deputy if he is not. A baroque throne-like 'bishop's chair' in a parish church which can only be used for a (rare) pontifical vespers obscures this truth, and should probably be hidden away when not in use rather than left on display and empty.
Maybe they've taken the word 'vicar' a little too literally...
quote:I think it is meant to symbolise the bishop and the fact that the parish clergy function as his agent. It follows that normally, no one else should sit in it, and that if the bishop visits, he should. If it is movable, it should be moved for the occasion into the middle to provide a dignified position for the episcopal situpon.
Originally posted by TheMightyMartyr:
In many Anglican parish churches there is the "Bishop's Chair" usually slightly more ornate or at least larger and sits empty most of the time... is there a point to having one? Can anyone else use it?
I'm guessing it is a mini cathedra... but seems redundant, a symbolic chair in place of a symbolic chair...
quote:Last year about half a dozen times (if not one or two more times)...
Originally posted by Angloid:
After all, how often does the average parish get a visit from its bishop? Once a year would be nice but in my experience that's more than we can expect.
quote:St. David's has an Assistant Bishop as well (I've never met him, but he wrote an article for the last edition of Pobl Dewi and appeared in our intercessions since he's taken ill...) I'm not sure whether +John Saxbee's position is official (per se) or what his dutie are, but he exists and is titled Assistant Bishop...
Originally posted by Albertus:
Yes, that was one of the first things that I noticed when I moved to Wales. It's a flatter structure, too- no suffragans (and only one Assistant Bishop, in Llandaff) and no full-time archdeacons.
quote:The late Bodley and Garner church I am familiar with has not got a fixed bishop's chair - it was built between 1887 and 1907/9* - so around the same dates as the example you give above. There is a carved chair with arms that's called the Bishop's Chair, which usually lives at the back of the Lady Chapel. It gets used for the 8am Sunday and midweek services in that position by the congregation and/or sidesman. It is moved out into the crossing before the sanctuary for Choral Evensong and comes out for some visits by the Bishop (not all of them). This church doesn't have fixed chairs or pews, never has had. Bodley designed it as a flexible space.
Originally posted by Quam Dilecta: In North America, Anglican chancels designed by the architect Ralph Adams Cram usually include a permanent bishop's seat,
<snip> [e.g] All Saints' Church in Dorchester, Massachusetts. The church was completed in 1893; the sanctuary paneling, in which the bishop's chair is incorporated, was installed a few years later.
Are any shipmates aware of English precedents for fixed bishops' seats in parish churches? Cram's architectural lineage can be traced to George Frederick Bodley via Bodley's pupil Henry Vaughn, but I do not recall seeing such seats in illustrations of Bodley's churches.
quote:When the Book of Epistles and the Book of Gospels are on the credence table during Solemn Mass, they're placed upright, leaning against the east wall, with their spines to the south, so the books will not have their "backs" to the Blessed Sacrament.
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
Which way to books lie? Decades ago, I was taught that liturgical books in the chancel, especially on the altar, were turned back up and face down "to recall the Hebrew."
I've seen it in various churches, but nowadays everything seems to be set with books facing up.
What is common in your shack?
quote:The way I learned about not letting the books rudely turn their backs to the Blessed Sacrament was by finding out days later that the celebrant had been annoyed that the books were facing the wrong way. I had wondered why he'd been glancing strangely at the credence table. I don't think this "rule" had ever come up before.
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
My rule of thumb is that if Lamburn or Fortescue don't address it, it's way too fussy for even me to care about.
As with the direction books ought to face when closed, so with the order in which altar candles are supposed to be lit.
quote:But that is simply not the case. The Real Presence of the Blessed Sacrament is a unique Thing, and St. Thomas teaches us that one cannot get any closer to the Beatific Vision than the Blessed Sacrament. Pontiffs have essentially said the same thing, and there is absolutely no authority in the RCC for such an illicit practice.
Originally posted by Angloid:
It's a common sight in many French churches (and elsewhere) for the Bible (or at least the lectionary, open at the Gospel of the day) to be on display, and sometimes a light burning besides it to show that Christ is present in the scriptures as much as in the sacrament.
quote:I have to support the lady on this one, as she is demonstrating a proper Catholic understanding of the Real Presence and an historic liturgical practice regarding the sanctuary lamp. (I have never heard it called a Presence Light. Even ACs have always called it a sanctuary lamp.)
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
One of my Altar Guild ladies is very particular about the Presence Light. She becomes agitated if the light has gone out between Wednesday evening (normally the last time someone is in the chapel during the week) and Sunday morning. I have explained to her that the function of the light is to alert worshippers that the MBS is in the Tabernacle, and that if there are no people in the church it doesn't really matter that the light has gone out--but to no avail.
quote:Surprisingly, when reading around the history of the Sanctuary Lamp (arming myself for PCC) I came across a reference to the fact that it is the veil rather than the lamp which is the important thing... I apologise that I cannot provide a reference, I read a lot and didn't take referenced notes, just wondering if anyone can validate this with a reference?
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
A veiled tabernacle can also be considered evidence of the Real Presence.
quote:Fortescue and O'Connell speak of it, as dos Msgr. Harold E. Collins (1935). 1962 ed. The Church Edifice and its Appointmenets. The Newman Press, Westminster, MD. pp. 95-99.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:Surprisingly, when reading around the history of the Sanctuary Lamp (arming myself for PCC) I came across a reference to the fact that it is the veil rather than the lamp which is the important thing... I apologise that I cannot provide a reference, I read a lot and didn't take referenced notes, just wondering if anyone can validate this with a reference?
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
A veiled tabernacle can also be considered evidence of the Real Presence.
Whilst I would prefer a lamp to be there, in the MOTR shack that I try to keep to the proper way it is comforting to have a veil for our Aumbry so that tourists who visit us may kneel in prayer and respect the Presence of Christ.
quote:This sounds suspiciously like saying, No maniple, no mass, when discussing chasubles.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
...it is the veil rather than the lamp which is the important thing...
quote:Ours sits in the confessional when the Bishop's not around. Makes it more comfortable for Father when the whole parish queues up to make their Confession. Ha.
Originally posted by Angloid:
Far better to have it in regular use by the person who is the bishop's official representative in the parish.
quote:Is your church not open during the day for visitors? Or for the saying of morning and evening prayer?
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
One of my Altar Guild ladies is very particular about the Presence Light. She becomes agitated if the light has gone out between Wednesday evening (normally the last time someone is in the chapel during the week) and Sunday morning. I have explained to her that the function of the light is to alert worshippers that the MBS is in the Tabernacle, and that if there are no people in the church it doesn't really matter that the light has gone out--but to no avail.
quote:Which law does this break? I am aware of no law restricting where one can put a lit candle.
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
quote:But that is simply not the case. The Real Presence of the Blessed Sacrament is a unique Thing, and St. Thomas teaches us that one cannot get any closer to the Beatific Vision than the Blessed Sacrament. Pontiffs have essentially said the same thing, and there is absolutely no authority in the RCC for such an illicit practice.
Originally posted by Angloid:
It's a common sight in many French churches (and elsewhere) for the Bible (or at least the lectionary, open at the Gospel of the day) to be on display, and sometimes a light burning besides it to show that Christ is present in the scriptures as much as in the sacrament.
quote:But they DO address the order in which candles are to be lit!
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
My rule of thumb is that if Lamburn or Fortescue don't address it, it's way too fussy for even me to care about.
As with the direction books ought to face when closed, so with the order in which altar candles are supposed to be lit.
quote:"Evangeliary"? I can guess what you mean by it (a Gospel book?) but I don't remember ever hearing or seeing that word before!
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
We leave the Evangeliary open at the gospel of the day too...
quote:I misunderstood. I thought that you meant during the Mass. I still find it a questionable practice outside of Mass, if its rationale is taught the way that you described it, because it implies that the presence is equivalent to the Blessed Sacrament Itself, which is not the case.
Originally posted by Hart:
The Gospel procession is, when most fully celebrated, accompanied by candles and incense. Why not keep a candle burning outside of the celebration of Mass? Which law does this break? I am aware of no law restricting where one can put a lit candle.
quote:Who said anything about a closed book?
Originally posted by venbede:
Making a closed book stand in for the other means of grace is missing the point.
quote:But the altar is bowed to as the site of the sacrifice of calvary, rather than as an sign of Christ. Unless the tabernacle is on the altar, in which case a genuflexion is made on account of His Real Presence, rather than a Sign of Him.
Originally posted by Angloid:
(Slightly tangential thought: I have often wondered why the ministers bow to the altar-table at the beginning of the liturgy, but not to the congregation. Both are signs of Christ in the midst of his people, so surely both should be reverenced?)
quote:Citation? (Seriously, I'd be surprised if Thomas said this, but he's surprised me before).
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
St. Thomas teaches us that one cannot get any closer to the Beatific Vision than the Blessed Sacrament.
quote:I stand corrected! That'll teach me to skip the boring bits about church furnishings...
Originally posted by leo:
quote:But they DO address the order in which candles are to be lit!
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
My rule of thumb is that if Lamburn or Fortescue don't address it, it's way too fussy for even me to care about.
As with the direction books ought to face when closed, so with the order in which altar candles are supposed to be lit.
quote:Certainly there must be some good joke for this:
Originally posted by Thurible:
One church I was on placement at had one candle on the altar. "Father," I said to the SSC parish priest, "why do you only have one candle?"
"Yeah, I nearly went for three - but thought one looked smarter."
He's a wonderful man but, well, ...
Thurible
quote:A friend of mine once used the phrase "a chasuble short of a vestry" to describe a particularly idiosyncratic sacristan.
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:Certainly there must be some good joke for this:
Originally posted by Thurible:
One church I was on placement at had one candle on the altar. "Father," I said to the SSC parish priest, "why do you only have one candle?"
"Yeah, I nearly went for three - but thought one looked smarter."
He's a wonderful man but, well, ...
Thurible
"Yeah, that priest is a few candles short..."
Okay, maybe that's not it, but there has to be something.
quote:The old line here is that someone is a few sandwiches short of a picnic if they have a few roos loose in the top paddock.
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:Certainly there must be some good joke for this:
Originally posted by Thurible:
One church I was on placement at had one candle on the altar. "Father," I said to the SSC parish priest, "why do you only have one candle?"
"Yeah, I nearly went for three - but thought one looked smarter."
He's a wonderful man but, well, ...
Thurible
"Yeah, that priest is a few candles short..."
Okay, maybe that's not it, but there has to be something.
quote:A maniple short of a Mass, surely?
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:Certainly there must be some good joke for this:
Originally posted by Thurible:
One church I was on placement at had one candle on the altar. "Father," I said to the SSC parish priest, "why do you only have one candle?"
"Yeah, I nearly went for three - but thought one looked smarter."
He's a wonderful man but, well, ...
Thurible
"Yeah, that priest is a few candles short..."
Okay, maybe that's not it, but there has to be something.
quote:No, actually. One candle at Mass was often the the norm at many places throughout the Middle Ages, and even later. There are Trappist Cistercians who use one candle for what used to be called a Low Mass, now more a private one. I've seen the one candle, placed behind the book on the Gospel side in more than one Trappist monastery. They usually use a shortish, fat, stubby candle and low artificial lighting. It's quite beautiful to see Mass celebrated in that way.
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:A maniple short of a Mass, surely?
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:Certainly there must be some good joke for this:
Originally posted by Thurible:
One church I was on placement at had one candle on the altar. "Father," I said to the SSC parish priest, "why do you only have one candle?"
"Yeah, I nearly went for three - but thought one looked smarter."
He's a wonderful man but, well, ...
Thurible
"Yeah, that priest is a few candles short..."
Okay, maybe that's not it, but there has to be something.
quote:Hey, at least they weren't mispronouncing "gentiles". Yes, it's been done, no it wasn't the first syllable that they got wrong.
Originally posted by leo:
Why do lectors misread names?
This morning, we had 'Abraham' when it should be 'Abram'. I think we had it 3 years ago too.
Names are significant, especially changes of name.
quote:Lack of practice, lack of supporting resources to help. I'm afraid it is not limited to the laity alone.
Originally posted by leo:
Why do lectors misread names?
This morning, we had 'Abraham' when it should be 'Abram'. I think we had it 3 years ago too.
Names are significant, especially changes of name.
quote:In this day and age, why even say the word "epistle" at all? Modern language liturgical resources certainly avoid it.
Barefoot Friar:
And one dear lady pronounces the "t" in "epistle". I don't know how to tell her...
quote:Guess it goes with 'the uncircumcised'.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:Hey, at least they weren't mispronouncing "gentiles". Yes, it's been done, no it wasn't the first syllable that they got wrong.
Originally posted by leo:
Why do lectors misread names?
This morning, we had 'Abraham' when it should be 'Abram'. I think we had it 3 years ago too.
Names are significant, especially changes of name.
quote:The reader in question might even have thought it was a misprint and decided to correct the original......
Originally posted by Carys:
Insufficient familiarity. I once heard the passage about the name change read with Abraham throughout. That was odd.
Carys
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:I've actually switched us away from "The reading from the Epistle is Romans..." to "A reading from St. Paul's letter to the Romans." But she didn't quite pick up on that this morning, so she pulled out her bulletin and looked to see what the reading was, then went ahead with the old way.
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:In this day and age, why even say the word "epistle" at all? Modern language liturgical resources certainly avoid it.
Barefoot Friar:
And one dear lady pronounces the "t" in "epistle". I don't know how to tell her...
quote:Thought that was the incumbent's job - but he likes to be nice to everyone.
Originally posted by venbede:
Leo - I got the impression you are on the staff at your church as a lay reader.
In which case you are corporately responsible for the readers in your church.
And it is silly of the reader to mispronounce the name, in which case the staff have the responsibility to ensure that someone gently and pastorally points this out to the reader in question.
quote:Or they might even have read the passage as printed in the lectionary.
Originally posted by venbede:
Actually I've just noticed something odd about the OT text. My NRSV bible at 15.5 says "he (ie God) brought him (ie Abram) outside.."
Now my copy of the Lectionary at that point says: "He brought Abraham outside". However it is only later in Genesis at 17.5 we have "your name shall be Abraham..."
So leo's reader seems to have made the same mistake as the C of E in publishing the Lectionary, and then made the uses of the name earlier in the passage consistent.
quote:I have a velcro fascia from Almy, which I have owned for about one year. I have had to replace the velcro once and will likely have to do it again before this year is over. I wear it on an almost daily basis, however, and I'm not sure Almy had that in mind when making it. Have you had any issues with needing to replace velcro?
Originally posted by Arch Anglo Catholic:
@ Barefoot Friar
I have a similar problem, in that I expand and contract with the seasons. To clarify, I tend to eat more in the Winter months and my girth increases commensurately.
Watts & Co of Westminster very sensibly made for me a fine black fascia closed with Velcro, that great friend of the changeable dimensions! It works and cannot be seen from the outside. It is entirely secure and always fits snugly, no matter whether I am Lenten skinny (ish) or Christmas goose portly.
Problem solved!
quote:I've seen both buttons, and hook & eye, in museums.
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
In my admittedly limited experience, Velcro™ brand fasteners work a lot better, and last a lot longer, than the off-brand hook-and-loop closures. They all give way eventually, though.
My big question is how were band cinctures closed before Velcro was invented? It's only been in production since the late 50s/early 60s. I'm guessing buttons?
quote:The Rector in my parish has snaps on his. Probably a variety of ways.
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
In my admittedly limited experience, Velcro™ brand fasteners work a lot better, and last a lot longer, than the off-brand hook-and-loop closures. They all give way eventually, though.
My big question is how were band cinctures closed before Velcro was invented? It's only been in production since the late 50s/early 60s. I'm guessing buttons?
quote:Yes, in pre-velcro days, snaps were most commonly used on the belly band and a hidden by the fall of the outer drop band. Sometimes, hooks & eyes were used for the purpose.. Normally, such cinctures were made with three or more rows of aligned snaps or hooks & eyes for variable girth adjustment.
Originally posted by 21stcenturyAnglican:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
My big question is how were band cinctures closed before Velcro was invented? It's only been in production since the late 50s/early 60s. I'm guessing buttons?
quote:Or as a priest I knew was asked when buying one at a Certain Shop in Rome 'Is Father intending to expand or contract?' Most pastoral!
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
quote:Yes, in pre-velcro days, snaps were most commonly used on the belly band and a hidden by the fall of the outer drop band. Sometimes, hooks & eyes were used for the purpose.. Normally, such cinctures were made with three or more rows of aligned snaps or hooks & eyes for variable girth adjustment.
Originally posted by 21stcenturyAnglican:
Before the Machine Age and snaps or the hooks and eyes, three separate ribbon ties were sewn on the belly band and hidden under the outer cincture drop to serve the purpose and hold the thing together. Of course, all these methods of fastening had the built in advantage of girth flexibility.
*
quote:Yes you have.
Originally posted by TheMightyMartyr:
I picked up Behind Rite and Ceremony by ECR Lamburn. I'm rather familiar with Ritual Notes but have never encountered this one before!! Have I found a rare gem?
quote:Correct - before they got the wall painting above the high altar.
Originally posted by Antiphon:
PS I think the picture on the cover of Behind Rite and Ceremony is of a mass at the high altar of St Alban, Holborn, the interior of which is also pictured in the 1964 edition of Ritual Notes.
quote:I prefer them. A good compromise, IMHO, between convenience and symbolism (they look and taste more like bread but shed fewer crumbs and can be reserved).
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
Whole wheat hosts: An abomination or the preferred item? I've only ever seen white hosts at the TEC places I've visited, but I see that all the big suppliers are offering whole wheat now.
quote:Ah - I did wonder. Nice combination of gothic chazzie and 'big six'.
Originally posted by Antiphon:
PS I think the picture on the cover of Behind Rite and Ceremony is of a mass at the high altar of St Alban, Holborn, the interior of which is also pictured in the 1964 edition of Ritual Notes.
quote:I agree. My pet peeve is "Happy are we who are called to his supper." "We" rather than "they," even though the book says "they" and means "all those who are called to his supper," a much more inclusive group than "we," which I'm sure most attendees hear as "we who are here in this local church right now."
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
(This kind of ad-libbing drives me nuts as well, btw. When I was younger we had a parish priest who would give blessing as "And may Almighty God bless ALL OF US..."--hey buddy, YOU'RE the priest, man up and give the blessing or take the damn collar off!)
quote:Yes, I have encountered it in Spain (though I rather wish I hadn't...)
Originally posted by Antiphon:
I do remember reading in the book about Canon Brian Brindley, formerly of Holy Trinity, Reading, entitled "Loose Canon" that after his reception into the RC church he had come across this practice in RC churches either Spain or Portugal, I forget which.
quote:Seems fine to me. Especially when using real bread, as is the True Anglican Way, and not those little wafers.
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
Whole wheat hosts: An abomination or the preferred item?
quote:What is this modernity of which you speak?
Originally posted by Olaf:
In this day and age, why even say the word "epistle" at all? Modern <something or other>
quote:where your <x> can the be addressee any one of the seven certain Pauline epistles—or should I say letters?
A reading from the Epistle of Blessed Paul the Apostle to the <x>
quote:It doesn't invalidate the mass.... but what's wrong with a bit of silence? The silence is one of the reasons I like midweek services...
Originally posted by Antiphon:
Another one of my pet hates is of CDs of modern religious music being played during communion at Mass, which also happens at my RC parish. Once again, this doesn't invalidate the Mass and I'm sure some people like, but I'm not sure if the GIRM endorses this...I suspect not!!!!!
quote:Nowt wrong with a bit of silence. But that is easier to achieve in a small midweek mass. On a Sunday, there is going to be the distraction of much shuffling of feet, movement of things and people, not to mention the probably inevitable whispering etc. Some churches try to cover it up by singing a hymn or two, but as most of the congregation will be en route to or from, or at, the altar that could be a bit pathetic. If you have a choir, and it's capable of performing an anthem, that partly solves the problem, but then you have to sort the logistics of how they will receive communion. All in all, playing some appropriate recorded music (Taizé chants are good) seems a sensible idea. I can't understand the objections.
Originally posted by 21stcenturyAnglican:
what's wrong with a bit of silence? The silence is one of the reasons I like midweek services...
quote:Define 'real bread', ken. Go into any supermarket and there will be dozens of different types of bread. Who is to say that wafers are any less 'real' than any other sort?
Originally posted by ken:
Especially when using real bread, as is the True Anglican Way, and not those little wafers.
quote:Unleavened bread (in this case, hosts) are certainly real bread. It is well nigh impossible to break a large altar Host into hundreds of Pieces (or even thousands, at some Masses). Additionally, for those of us who believe in the Real Presence in the Sacrament, there are many concerns about fragments of the Body being scattered about.
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:Define 'real bread', ken. Go into any supermarket and there will be dozens of different types of bread. Who is to say that wafers are any less 'real' than any other sort?
Originally posted by ken:
Especially when using real bread, as is the True Anglican Way, and not those little wafers.
I agree with you about the 'little' wafers though. Sheer individualism. As are the pre-cut cubes of Mother's Pride beloved of old-fashioned evangelical churches. One large wafer, or one bread roll, to be broken and shared: that's what makes most sense.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:Fixed.
Originally posted by John Holding:
As someone wiser than I once said on the Ship:
Why do you have trouble with the concept of transubstantion if you can believe that Hovis is real bread?
John
quote:OK, when really large numbers are involved individual hosts might be a reasonable compromise. I have seen hosts big enough for about 70 people, but the most commonly available large ones serve 24; ISTM better to use a few of these than just one plus lots of small ones. Unless one expects the president to break up the whole lot personally, usually for large congregations there are several ministers who each could do this. Fragments or crumbs are not a serious problem in my experience, provided a large enough paten is used.
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
It is well nigh impossible to break a large altar Host into hundreds of Pieces (or even thousands, at some Masses). Additionally, for those of us who believe in the Real Presence in the Sacrament, there are many concerns about fragments of the Body being scattered about.
quote:Most of the stuff in British supermarkets is not real bread. It's a high-sugar, high-fat, bland-tasting mass-produced chemical concoction that is used to rescue inferior wheat that would otherwise be destined for animal feed. It's a national disease that the Brits put up with a bread substitute that is virtually unmarketable in the USA.
Originally posted by Angloid:
Define 'real bread', ken. Go into any supermarket and there will be dozens of different types of bread. Who is to say that wafers are any less 'real' than any other sort?
quote:It has been the practice in every parish I've been in that had a choir that the choir received before the rest of the congregation to allow them to return to their pews and sing while everyone else was receiving.
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:Nowt wrong with a bit of silence. But that is easier to achieve in a small midweek mass. On a Sunday, there is going to be the distraction of much shuffling of feet, movement of things and people, not to mention the probably inevitable whispering etc. Some churches try to cover it up by singing a hymn or two, but as most of the congregation will be en route to or from, or at, the altar that could be a bit pathetic. If you have a choir, and it's capable of performing an anthem, that partly solves the problem, but then you have to sort the logistics of how they will receive communion.
Originally posted by 21stcenturyAnglican:
what's wrong with a bit of silence? The silence is one of the reasons I like midweek services...
quote:I like the last one, it sounds very Rastafarian. (I have a Lion of Judah flag in my living room)
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Many churches are dedicated to some event or title in the life of Christ. For events we have the Church of the Nativity, the Church of the Transfiguration, the Church of the Ascension, and so on. And for titles we see stuff like the Church of Christ the King or the Church of the Redeemer. Does anyone know of churches dedicated to some more obscure Dominical mystery or title?
The Church of the Circumcision?
The Church of the Descent into Hell?
The Church of the Lion of Judah?
quote:I like that. Not 'not my will, but thine be done', but 'whaffor? do I have to? I suppose you think you're God!' (to which last the answer comes 'yes, actually').
Originally posted by Clavus:
The Salesian School in Nazareth has the Church of Jesus Adolescent.
quote:Clearly.
Originally posted by pererin:
quote:Most of the stuff in British supermarkets is not real bread.
Originally posted by Angloid:
Define 'real bread', ken. Go into any supermarket and there will be dozens of different types of bread. Who is to say that wafers are any less 'real' than any other sort?
quote:You might care to change supermarket, if that is what you are buying.
It's a high-sugar, high-fat, bland-tasting mass-produced chemical concoction that is used to rescue inferior wheat that would otherwise be destined for animal feed. It's a national disease that the Brits put up with a bread substitute that is virtually unmarketable in the USA.
quote:Antiphon is the objection one to having music, or more 'keep music live'. It has long been a very widespread CofE practice for the choir to sing during distribution. This is generally very much appreciated. As others have said, the choir usually receive first so as to enable them to do this.
Originally posted by Antiphon:
Another one of my pet hates is of CDs of modern religious music being played during communion at Mass, which also happens at my RC parish. Once again, this doesn't invalidate the Mass and I'm sure some people like, but I'm not sure if the GIRM endorses this...I suspect not!!!!!
I've never seen or heard of this being done in an Anglican church of any degree of churchmanship, or in a reformed church such as a Presbyterian or Methodist church. However, perhaps others know differently!!!!!
I do remember reading in the book about Canon Brian Brindley, formerly of Holy Trinity, Reading, entitled "Loose Canon" that after his reception into the RC church he had come across this practice in RC churches either Spain or Portugal, I forget which.
quote:It is not always easy to communicate this to organists. Their function is to fill the church with noise, and very often the moment they return from the altar rail that noise begins again. Sometimes musical, sometimes less so.
Originally posted by Antiphon:
Yes, I think that the best idea for music during communion is :- when in doubt, silence!!!!!!
quote:1. The function of an organist is NOT to fill the church with noise - it is to accompany those parts of the liturgy that require it, to provide appropriate music before a service and afterwards.
posted by Anglo Catholic Relict
... organists. Their function is to fill the church with noise, and very often the moment they return from the altar rail that noise begins again. Sometimes musical, sometimes less so.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
). My personal preference would have been no hymns, no music, just the racous sound of Top End birdlife, but most people present found his gentle picking during the communion extremely edifying, and edifying is what the good Paul sees as a litmus test for Christian behaviour. quote:It's not the sort of thing the CofE has rules about.
Originally posted by Antiphon:
... On the other hand, I don't know if for example the C of E has any specific regulations concerning this, so possibly there is nothing to forbid an Anglican priest from playing CDs at mass and other services if he or she wished to do so. ...
quote:Don't tell me. I am not an organist.
Originally posted by L'organist:
quote:1. The function of an organist is NOT to fill the church with noise - it is to accompany those parts of the liturgy that require it, to provide appropriate music before a service and afterwards.
posted by Anglo Catholic Relict
... organists. Their function is to fill the church with noise, and very often the moment they return from the altar rail that noise begins again. Sometimes musical, sometimes less so.
quote:I agree.
2. Any organist who gives you "noise" would be guilty of playing inappropriate music to the place in the liturgy.
quote:Possibly. But I would not call the same music noise either before or after the service. Only at communion.
3. When you say "noise" are you in fact expressing your own musical prejudice rather than giving an accurate description?
quote:Those pieces of music would be lovely. I am personally not keen on the congregation singing during or just after communion, because a lot of people are trying to pray.
If there is to be singing during the administration of communion it should either be by the choir alone of a suitable motet (an Ave verum corpus, O sacrum convivium, Tantum ergo or similar) or if it is a hymn it should be possible for at least 50% of the congregation to join in.
In places where the number of communicants is small, a brief communion hymn can be sung during the ablutions at the end of communion.
quote:YMMV but those need not be mutually exclusive. I find that the low singing of a carefully chosen hymn can be very conducive to prayer during communion.
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
Those pieces of music would be lovely. I am personally not keen on the congregation singing during or just after communion, because a lot of people are trying to pray.
quote:Quite. But with 'suitable' in bold italics and underlined twice.
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Therefore,the choosing of well known suitable hymns to be played during communion, may be seen not as a hindrance to prayer but an encouragement of it.
Jengie
quote:Agreed.
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:Quite. But with 'suitable' in bold italics and underlined twice.
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Therefore,the choosing of well known suitable hymns to be played during communion, may be seen not as a hindrance to prayer but an encouragement of it.
Jengie
quote:Indeed so. But he who prays doesn't always want noise to go with it.
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Right, I think it is time for the unreliably attributed to Augustine quote "He who sings prays twice"
quote:Not always.
The singing and meditation of hymns is a regular spiritual tradition in the English speaking world. There is quite a history of this as a devotional practice. In other words,hymn singing and praying are not mutually exclusive actions but actually very closely tied.
quote:I think it might help if the organist and choir remember that not everyone has communicated.
Therefore,the choosing of well known suitable hymns to be played during communion, may be seen not as a hindrance to prayer but an encouragement of it.
Jengie
quote:Given that the eucharist is a prolepsis of the eschatological banquet, and I'm lookin' to that being one hooley of a dooley, I'm thinkin' this is not altogether inappropriate (at all times).
Originally posted by Albertus:
most of the Chapel people roared them out as if they were in the Arms Park, their tradition presumably being that the more you the meant the words, the louder you sang them.
quote:That strange occasion... I always think that it would be far more appropriate to have the ecumenical service on Maundy Thursday, and then have an Adoration of the Cross service on the Friday. But things seem to be very set in their ways when it comes to that service.
Originally posted by Albertus:
But of course it does depend how it's done. I rememeber a an ecumenical Good Friday service a few years ago at the Welsh-medium CinW church I attended then.
quote:Isn't the (possibly) Augustinian quote actually 'He who sings well prays twice'? (At least that was the way I was taught way back when in music school.)
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Right, I think it is time for the unreliably attributed to Augustine quote "He who sings prays twice"
Jengie
quote:Agreed. In fact, we ELCA Lutherans have a lot of those songs in our new-ish hymnal, but IME very few Lutheran churches understand what to do with them. Also, we unfortunately lost a lot of good older-style communion hymns.
Originally posted by Hart:
If I can make a rare boast about post-conciliar Catholic music, it's our communion songs. A great repetoire has developed of songs about communion with simple refrains and more developed verses. This allows people to sing the refrains without books in their hands and appreciate listening during the verses which can be sung by choir or cantor. A decent number of churches with a general preference for more traditional hymnody go modern for communion. A recognition, I think, that we've really worked out well recently how to do music for that moment.
quote:Actually if I believe the people who have investigated it, there is no evidence he said anything like it. What he does seem to have said is "He who loves, sings praises". If you want more you can see here
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
quote:Isn't the (possibly) Augustinian quote actually 'He who sings well prays twice'? (At least that was the way I was taught way back when in music school.)
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Right, I think it is time for the unreliably attributed to Augustine quote "He who sings prays twice"
Jengie
quote:Hmm. I'm not sure to which songs you are referring. I would not boast over the communion songs I've endured over the past 20 years. Maybe it's a matter of taste? What's wrong with the choir singing the communion verse and a few other things giving the people time to pray?
Originally posted by Hart:
If I can make a rare boast about post-conciliar Catholic music, it's our communion songs. A great repetoire has developed of songs about communion with simple refrains and more developed verses.
quote:This sort of makes it sound as if when they're singing they're not praying.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
What's wrong with the choir singing the communion verse and a few other things giving the people time to pray?
quote:Whilst I fully accept that I'm praying as I sing (I'm a chorister), I also need space and silence for prayer as well and that's usually in short supply.
posted by FCB
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
What's wrong with the choir singing the communion verse and a few other things giving the people time to pray?
This sort of makes it sound as if when they're singing they're not praying.
quote:Agreed. I really dislike being ordered to sing as I march up to the rail. I much prefer to hear a soft organ piece/improvisation, a fitting motet, or silence.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:Hmm. I'm not sure to which songs you are referring. I would not boast over the communion songs I've endured over the past 20 years. Maybe it's a matter of taste? What's wrong with the choir singing the communion verse and a few other things giving the people time to pray?
Originally posted by Hart:
If I can make a rare boast about post-conciliar Catholic music, it's our communion songs. A great repetoire has developed of songs about communion with simple refrains and more developed verses.
quote:Silly Fr Weber! Catholics don't sing.
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I really dislike being ordered to sing as I march up to the rail.
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
quote:I don't know what you're talking about
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:Silly Fr Weber! Catholics don't sing.
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I really dislike being ordered to sing as I march up to the rail.
quote:What's a 'liturgical destination' church? I've not encountered that term before.
Originally posted by Olaf:
Oh, I can name Catholic churches where people sing. Every single one of them is a 'liturgical destination' church. Drop into your rank-and-file parish church or cathedral, and it's cantica nada.
quote:It's pretty much what it sounds like--a church that draws a crowd because of the liturgy they offer. People tend to travel farther to go there, or to venture into neighborhoods into which they would not normally venture.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:What's a 'liturgical destination' church? I've not encountered that term before.
Originally posted by Olaf:
Oh, I can name Catholic churches where people sing. Every single one of them is a 'liturgical destination' church. Drop into your rank-and-file parish church or cathedral, and it's cantica nada.
quote:Sorry. For us thicko foreigners, what does EWTN stand for?
Originally posted by Olaf:
It's pretty much what it sounds like--a church that draws a crowd because of the liturgy they offer. People tend to travel farther to go there, or to venture into neighborhoods into which they would not normally venture.
In Chicago, Church of the Ascension would be an example. Saint Clement's in Philadelphia would be another. In Catholic terms, the televised EWTN chapel would be yet another, drawing visitors from all over the world. My own little city has one church designated for the 1962 missal, and draws a crowd of people who eschew their more convenient parish churches for liturgical reasons.
Because these churches draw people who are more concerned than the average person about liturgics, there is naturally going to be more congregational participation when it is called for, and this includes hymn-singing.
quote:Hopefully it makes sense now!
It's pretty much what it sounds like--a church that draws a crowd because of the liturgy they offer. People tend to travel farther to go there, or to venture into neighborhoods into which they would not normally venture.
St. Mary's Bourne Street would be an example. All Saints Margaret Street would be another. In Catholic terms, Brompton Oratory would be yet another. My own little city has one church designated for the 1962 missal, and draws a crowd of people who eschew their more convenient parish churches for liturgical reasons.
Because these churches draw people who are more concerned than the average person about liturgics, there is naturally going to be more congregational participation when it is called for, and this includes hymn-singing.
quote:Sorry to go back a couple of pages.
Originally posted by Quam Dilecta:
Are any shipmates aware of English precedents for fixed bishops' seats in parish churches? Cram's architectural lineage can be traced to George Frederick Bodley via Bodley's pupil Henry Vaughn, but I do not recall seeing such seats in illustrations of Bodley's churches.
quote:AFAIK, the diocesan Bishop has the authority to authorize such use, and would need to do so.
Originally posted by jlav12:
I think I've asked a similar question but I don't remember a clear answer...
What is TEC's position on using other Anglican (Communion) liturgies? Would it be acceptable to use a "Service of the Word" (from either CW or the C of I's BCP) sort of liturgy for an evening service geared towards the younger crowd?
quote:Can you please explain this?
Originally posted by scuffleball:
Also, it seems to be to do with the Christian life, but it seems to put an unhealthy emphasis on process, which can cause stagnation.
quote:No, a stole worn over a scarlet chimere is quite commonly seen on bishops throughout the Anglican Communion. Such a rig can also be used as a kind of low church substitute for a cope/chasuble and mitre.
Originally posted by Albertus:
Just come across a picture of + Eric Treacy after a wedding wearing a white stole over choir dress. Am I right in thinking that this is rather odd? I suppose it'd the equivalent of a priest's cassock, surplice, and stole, but I think it's the stole being worn over the chimere that makes it look strange.
quote:And a fairly direct reflection of Br. Lawrence's 'The Practice of the Presence of God'.
Originally posted by L'organist:
However menial, boring, repetitive or banal something may seem, if we do it for God, then it is well done - in other words, it has meaning by virtue of being for something larger.
quote:I would hope that Herbert took the opportunity to provide employment, insofar as it lay within his power, for his parishoners who migth otherwise lack it. But here's a passage from Walton's life of him (in the public domain), on the subject of his attituide towards getting his hands dirty:
Originally posted by venbede:
I would be even more fond of the hymn if I thought that George Herbert himself ever swept any rooms. I imagine he got a girl in from the village to do so.
quote:
In another walk to Salisbury, he saw a poor man with a poorer horse, that was fallen under his load: they were both in distress, and needed present help; which Mr. Herbert perceiving, put off his canonical coat, and helped the poor man to unload, and after to load, his horse. The poor man blessed him for it, and he blessed the poor man; and was so like the Good Samaritan, that he gave him money to refresh both himself and his horse; and told him, "That if he loved himself he should be merciful to his beast." Thus he left the poor man; and at his coming to his musical friends at Salisbury, they began to wonder that Mr. George Herbert, which used to be so trim and clean, came into that company so soiled and discomposed: but he told them the occasion. And when one of the company told him, "He had disparaged himself by so dirty an employment," his answer was, "That the thought of what he had done would prove music to him at midnight; and that the omission of it would have upbraided and made discord in his conscience, whensoever he should pass by that place: for if I be bound to pray for all that be in distress, I am sure that I am bound, so far as it is in my power, to practice what I pray for. And though I do not wish for the like occasion every day, yet let me tell you, I wou1d not willingly pass one day of my life without comforting a sad soul, or shewing mercy; and I praise God for this occasion. And now let’s tune our instruments."
quote:Thanks! The crucifix does detach from the candlestick. Incidentally, this looks like a very similar model to the one I got, though it doesn't have the bottle or linens.
Originally posted by Olaf:
Zach, I've been reading up on the "old" last rites, and the answer is surprisingly unclear. It seems the crucifix should be removable, so that it can be handed to the bedridden to be reverenced with a kiss at the beginning of the rite. The brush is for sprinkling with holy water, and the scooper thing seems to be for stowing water, mostly for the lavabo. The two patens are a mystery. I did find reference to the priest cleansing his fingers after touching the host by wiping them on unconsecrated bread. Perhaps that bread goes on the other paten. Now, if you visit the infirm on horseback, you must take care that the holy sacrament is securely fastened around your neck in a burse.
I'm on my cell now, which doesn't link too well, but this info comes from the Sancta Missa website, which offers a ton of information on 1962 missal matters.
quote:In the late 1990s, I visited a friend in NYC, who belonged to St. Michael's Episcopal Church at 99th and Amsterdam Avenue. On Michaelmas Eve they had a solemn procession around the neighborhood, followed by Evensong in the church. I got to serve as a torchbearer. Part of our route was on Broadway between 99th and 96th, I think. We passed eye-rolling outdoor-seating diners and made a station in front of a cinema that was showing Warlock starring Julian Sands. A few people joined the procession and followed us into the church for Evensong. Celebrant for all this (as you need Celebrant, Deacon, and Subdeacon to make something solemn), was the Rev. Mary Michael Simpson, OSH, of the Order of St. Helena; she was their interim rector before Fr. George Brandt became rector.
Originally posted by Prester John:
This afternoon while perusing YouTube I stumbled across some videos of the 2012 Palm Sunday procession for St. James Anglican Church in Vancouver, B.C.. It made me wonder, have any of you been part of a procession in which bystanders spontaneously joined in and followed along into the church building? Just curious.
quote:Yes. When i was in Leeds, lots of the kids and some mothers followed on behind our Mary procession in May and the one held the Sunday after Corpus Christi. I remember an old lady at the back of church telling them to kneel doe 'in front of Jesus' as Solemn Benediction began at the end.
Originally posted by Prester John:
This afternoon while perusing YouTube I stumbled across some videos of the 2012 Palm Sunday procession for St. James Anglican Church in Vancouver, B.C.. It made me wonder, have any of you been part of a procession in which bystanders spontaneously joined in and followed along into the church building? Just curious.
quote:It's possible, assuming the holy sacrament was carried in a pix and placed on a corporal, as in the "old" mass.
Originally posted by Forthview:
I think that the two 'patens' could be for balls of cotton wool which would be used for the anointing of the sick,one for those unused and one for those already used.
quote:I don't know so, but I don't think the two plates are patens in the strict sense, but one is for the cotton balls and one is for the bread the priest uses to clean his fingers. At least that is how it is shown
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Thanks! The crucifix does detach from the candlestick. Incidentally, this looks like a very similar model to the one I got, though it doesn't have the bottle or linens.
Originally posted by Olaf:
Zach, I've been reading up on the "old" last rites, and the answer is surprisingly unclear. It seems the crucifix should be removable, so that it can be handed to the bedridden to be reverenced with a kiss at the beginning of the rite. The brush is for sprinkling with holy water, and the scooper thing seems to be for stowing water, mostly for the lavabo. The two patens are a mystery. I did find reference to the priest cleansing his fingers after touching the host by wiping them on unconsecrated bread. Perhaps that bread goes on the other paten. Now, if you visit the infirm on horseback, you must take care that the holy sacrament is securely fastened around your neck in a burse.
I'm on my cell now, which doesn't link too well, but this info comes from the Sancta Missa website, which offers a ton of information on 1962 missal matters.
Here's another one-- seems to have been a common make!
quote:brush is definitely for holy water. I remember an episode of Cadfael in which various people in attendance sprinkle a body with holy water using a brush. it would seem that the shell-like bowl at the base of the cross could be for holy water, and the other for rinsing the fingers. fisheaters has this rite for extreme unction.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Ah, very useful, Kevin! That explains the two plates. If we assume that the little basin attached to the candlestick was for the holy water, what's the handled cup for?
Holy water makes more sense for the brush. I had imagined it was for applying the holy oil, but it doesn't feel oily, as it probably would if it has been used as such even after decades of storage I suppose.
quote:this ad for a "sick call cup" includes a portion of the text from the accompanying instructions that seems to indicate that the cup was used for ablutions or to give the dying person the ablution water (ick if it is for the holy oil, and why? if it is from purifying the communion vessels). I also remember reading somewhere that if the person was very sick, a drop of the MPB or a tiny particle of the Body could be placed in their mouth and "chased" with a sip/spoonfull of water to help them swallow.
Originally posted by KevinL:
quote:brush is definitely for holy water. I remember an episode of Cadfael in which various people in attendance sprinkle a body with holy water using a brush. it would seem that the shell-like bowl at the base of the cross could be for holy water, and the other for rinsing the fingers. fisheaters has this rite for extreme unction.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Ah, very useful, Kevin! That explains the two plates. If we assume that the little basin attached to the candlestick was for the holy water, what's the handled cup for?
Holy water makes more sense for the brush. I had imagined it was for applying the holy oil, but it doesn't feel oily, as it probably would if it has been used as such even after decades of storage I suppose.
quote:Correct - whether surplice, albe or cotta.
Originally posted by Choirboi:
When serving mass, I was taught years ago that the server sets up the altar in cassock and dons the surplice just before lighting the candles. He then does not remove it until after putting out the candles.thereof.
quote:Thanks, Leo, but do you know of anywhere this is actually written? Or the exact reason?
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Correct - whether surplice, albe or cotta.
Originally posted by Choirboi:
When serving mass, I was taught years ago that the server sets up the altar in cassock and dons the surplice just before lighting the candles. He then does not remove it until after putting out the candles.thereof.
quote:But no reason is given.
ACOLYTES
Some little time before Mass is due to begin they vest in cassock and surplice, and light the altar candles and their own, They then assist the deacon and subdeacon to vest.
quote:We arrange it so that their candles are not lit until they stop milling around, and they are not expected to move again until their candles have been blown out.
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
I have always thought Christingle services have the potential to be a health and safety nighmare. Children milling round with lighted candles precariously stuck in an orange and surrounded by four sharp sticks.
quote:There is also the idea to move everyone to gluten-free, "one bread, one body".
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
I have recently become aware of the need in my parish for gluten-free hosts. I have some idea of how to handle them (i.e., if the faintest crumb of gluten falls on them, they are no longer gluten-free, etc.). I want to make sure my paten, which is gold-plated, is properly clean. How best to go about this?
quote:Thurible
2. The bread, whether leavened or unleavened, shall be of the best and purest wheat flour that conveniently may be gotten, and the wine the fermented juice of the grape, good and wholesome.
quote:So are crackers, cookies and beer—none of which are bread. Wafers much more resemble (and taste like) styrofoam than what any person would expect when offered "bread."
Originally posted by Thurible:
They're made of wheat.
quote:Do you disagree with the doctrine of concomitance?
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
...which is one of several grains that can be used to make bread. Rice, I would say, is not, but barley, rye, and spelt are all used to make bread.
We have had a similar issue with a gent at our church who is a lifelong teetotal. Under our previous vicar he had his own mini chalice with non-alcoholic wine that he would receive. Shortly after commencing, our new priest-in-charge sought the bishop's advice on this arrangement and was told that the practice should be discontinued. Is it really preferable for this gent to receive under one kind only, rather than to receive non alcoholic wine?
quote:All this says is that use of non-wheat bread is, in the CofE, a breach of the Canons; that is, I suppose, it is illegal. It doesn't say that use of non-wheat bread is invalid, in the sense that only wheaten bread is capable of undergoing whatever change the bread undergoes when it is used eucharistically.
Originally posted by Thurible:
Canon B17.2 of the Church of England:quote:Thurible
2. The bread, whether leavened or unleavened, shall be of the best and purest wheat flour that conveniently may be gotten, and the wine the fermented juice of the grape, good and wholesome.
quote:Wafers are really no different than a soft wheat tortilla or a chapati, which are flatbreads. They and the Near Eastern flatbreads resemble hosts and each other more than they do the supermarket brands of leavened bread.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:So are crackers, cookies and beer—none of which are bread. Wafers much more resemble (and taste like) styrofoam than what any person would expect when offered "bread."
Originally posted by Thurible:
They're made of wheat.
quote:Well, should the canons be viewed as laws that can be altered when convenient without any reference to other considerations? Or should they be viewed in the light of continuity with the Church's practice over centuries?
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:All this says is that use of non-wheat bread is, in the CofE, a breach of the Canons; that is, I suppose, it is illegal. It doesn't say that use of non-wheat bread is invalid, in the sense that only wheaten bread is capable of undergoing whatever change the bread undergoes when it is used eucharistically.
Originally posted by Thurible:
Canon B17.2 of the Church of England:quote:Thurible
2. The bread, whether leavened or unleavened, shall be of the best and purest wheat flour that conveniently may be gotten, and the wine the fermented juice of the grape, good and wholesome.
I would not regard any breach of the Canons lightly. But Canons can be changed.
quote:So are some kinds of wallpaper paste
Originally posted by Thurible:
They're made of wheat.
Thurible
quote:That's simply untrue, unless you guys have very different ideas of what a chapati is from us. Or maybe what a wafer is.
Originally posted by Pancho:
Wafers are really no different than a soft wheat tortilla or a chapati, which are flatbreads. They and the Near Eastern flatbreads resemble hosts and each other more than they do the supermarket brands of leavened bread.
Don't be limited by 21st century First World, Northern European culturally and historically limited preconceptions of what is "bread".
quote:Oh, I'm not at all limited by 21st Century First World, Northern European culturally and historically limited preconceptions of what is "bread." Given my choice, it'd be flatbreads like chapati or naan for Communion. (And I'd admit that matzos is very much like crackers, which I gave as a non-bread example.)
Originally posted by Pancho:
Wafers are really no different than a soft wheat tortilla or a chapati, which are flatbreads. They and the Near Eastern flatbreads resemble hosts and each other more than they do the supermarket brands of leavened bread.
Don't be limited by 21st century First World, Northern European culturally and historically limited preconceptions of what is "bread".
quote:Note that, while naan are indeed flatbreads, they are not unleavened bread. (Nor are pitta breads, for that matter.) They are made with yeast
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Oh, I'm not at all limited by 21st Century First World, Northern European culturally and historically limited preconceptions of what is "bread." Given my choice, it'd be flatbreads like chapati or naan for Communion. (And I'd admit that matzos is very much like crackers, which I gave as a non-bread example.)
quote:The Western tradition historically insisted on unleavened bread in order to recall the Passover sacrifice. Individual wafers came about for practical reasons, yes.
Originally posted by Albertus:
But in what way do wafers promote the sense of sharing in the sacrifice of Christ? I assume that they originally came in for practical reasons of portability, keepability (and suitability for resrevation), not crumbling, and so on. Or am I wrong about that?
quote:Rice flour is used to make bread, although usually in addition to other flours - see Vietnamese baguettes for example. Mmmm banh mi.
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
...which is one of several grains that can be used to make bread. Rice, I would say, is not, but barley, rye, and spelt are all used to make bread.
We have had a similar issue with a gent at our church who is a lifelong teetotal. Under our previous vicar he had his own mini chalice with non-alcoholic wine that he would receive. Shortly after commencing, our new priest-in-charge sought the bishop's advice on this arrangement and was told that the practice should be discontinued. Is it really preferable for this gent to receive under one kind only, rather than to receive non alcoholic wine?
quote:It would quite probably been made out of barley, and so not wheaten anyway (John 6:9 anyone?). Bread made of wheat was for the wealthy in Roman-occupied territories. Kamut, emmer and spelt flour was also used in the area at that time. I do think that since wheat bread was unlikely to have been the bread used at the Last Supper, the CoE canons regarding it (and non-alcoholic Communion wine) should be changed.
Originally posted by John Holding:
Does anyone know what "unleavened bread" would have looked like at the time of Jesus? That might provide some guidance.
Surely not anything even vaguely resembling either a standard communion wafer or modern matzohs. But what then?
John
quote:Right, but I'm Presbyterian—either leavened or leavened is permissible for us. Leavened, though, is much more common.
Originally posted by Basilica:
Note that, while naan are indeed flatbreads, they are not unleavened bread. (Nor are pitta breads, for that matter.) They are made with yeast.
quote:I've made matzot at times (including for the Eucharist), following what I think are fairly authentic recipes.
Originally posted by John Holding:
Does anyone know what "unleavened bread" would have looked like at the time of Jesus? That might provide some guidance.
Surely not anything even vaguely resembling either a standard communion wafer or modern matzohs. But what then?
John
quote:I don't have anything to hand on the contemporary Roman Catholic rules but I imagine that given that the use of violet or white as the colour seems more common the question may not arise.
At Mass for the Dead certain special rules are observed. The vestments are black. The altar frontal should also be black. If the Sanctissimum is reserved on the altar, it is better that it should be removed. If this cannot be done, the tabernacle veil must be violet. It is never allowed to hang a black tabernacle veil in front of the Blessed Sacrament. The frontal may be either black or violet.
quote:There are gluten-free breads that are commonly eaten in parts of India. The jowar (or jolada) roti is made of jowar/jolad/sorghum flour. Indeed, it's technically unleavened bread too...
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
ARE gluten-free hosts valid? In what sense are they bread?
quote:If it's the recent photo I'm thinking of, the frontal is allegedly purple too.
Originally posted by Dies Irae:
a recent picture would suggest otherwise. Any thoughts...?
quote:The colour for All Souls is purple or black according to my diocesan Ordo; I have always used black. Likewise purple or black are options for masses for the dead while white is permitted (in England and Wales) as an exception.
Originally posted by Forthview:
Few Catholic churches will have altar frontals now,so the question,as you say, hardly arises.Whilst the colour for funeral Masses is now often white as a sign of hope,the colour on All Souls Day is purple,for the tabernacle veil,if there be one,for the celebrant's vestments and for the antependium,if there be one.
quote:Your generalization about other grains has exceptions. Which are used to make perfectly normal recognizable bread "that is usual to be eaten" in certain parts of the world. Making a fuss about botany is pointless: on the fussy botanist's view, our Lord was wrong about the mustard seed. If botanical inexactidute was good enough for Jesus, it should be good enough for us.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
As an aside to the bread discussion, rye, barley, spelt and other grains also contain gluten, so are irrelevant to any discussion of gluten-free bread.
quote:The RCC's big problem with gluten-free wafers is that they aren't bread as defined in their canons.
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Unfortunately as a rule normal grain used for bread making contains gluten. That is because gluten plays a significant role in the texture and form of bread. Gluten free bread flours have to have a substitute for the gluten to allow them to make bread. Hence the Roman Catholic Church's big problem with gluten free wafers.
Jengie
quote:I have a friend on the program who cannot be anywhere near alcohol; she takes the bread and then returns to her seat. She told me that it is no bother to her. She further said that there is no such thing as non-alcoholic wine but there is grape juice-- she tells me that it brings back too many memories of wine to be a possibility for her.
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
...which is one of several grains that can be used to make bread. Rice, I would say, is not, but barley, rye, and spelt are all used to make bread.
We have had a similar issue with a gent at our church who is a lifelong teetotal. Under our previous vicar he had his own mini chalice with non-alcoholic wine that he would receive. Shortly after commencing, our new priest-in-charge sought the bishop's advice on this arrangement and was told that the practice should be discontinued. Is it really preferable for this gent to receive under one kind only, rather than to receive non alcoholic wine?
quote:Not unless they have a separate chalice for coeliacs - a chalice used by everyone will be contaminated. The lack of understanding about contamination (which is a serious problem for coeliacs) makes it a nightmare.
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Another way of handling communion is to have the gluten-intolerant communicant receive only the Precious Blood.
quote:No lack of understanding here. In my FSSP parish, when someone who has celiac notifies the priest, a second chalice is consecrated, from which only that communicant receives. This is unusual in the sense that in a parish that offers the traditional Latin Mass, people receive only the Host as a matter of course. But in this instance, the communicant comes to the rail at the end of communion and receives the special chalice. We do this by special arrangement, just as we do when the priest must bring the Host to a sick person in the pew.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:Not unless they have a separate chalice for coeliacs - a chalice used by everyone will be contaminated. The lack of understanding about contamination (which is a serious problem for coeliacs) makes it a nightmare.
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Another way of handling communion is to have the gluten-intolerant communicant receive only the Precious Blood.
quote:When I first read this I thought that this was over the top. But asking a friend who is a coeliac I learned that even the dust from a previous wafer on the priest's hands could be dangerous. So thanks to those who have contributed to my awareness.
originally posted by LostinChelsea
I only have one person who needs a gluten-free wafer (serious celiac, not just a picky eater). What I do is have the Altar Guild put one gluten-free rice wafer in a Pyx, which I administer by turning the Pyx over into the person's hand.
quote:That is great - my comment wasn't a slight on you, by the way, just the fact that lots of people understand 'gluten-free' but not about contamination, and it causes a lot of problems for coeliacs. Thank you for being so careful!
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
quote:No lack of understanding here. In my FSSP parish, when someone who has celiac notifies the priest, a second chalice is consecrated, from which only that communicant receives. This is unusual in the sense that in a parish that offers the traditional Latin Mass, people receive only the Host as a matter of course. But in this instance, the communicant comes to the rail at the end of communion and receives the special chalice. We do this by special arrangement, just as we do when the priest must bring the Host to a sick person in the pew.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:Not unless they have a separate chalice for coeliacs - a chalice used by everyone will be contaminated. The lack of understanding about contamination (which is a serious problem for coeliacs) makes it a nightmare.
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Another way of handling communion is to have the gluten-intolerant communicant receive only the Precious Blood.
quote:Indian sorghum flatbreads are just sorghum flour and water mixed together, rolled out and fried - no gluten replacement. They are still bread. Gluten-free bread only needs a substitute to make it like our idea of what bread is, which isn't universal at all. As Fr Weber says, the RCC have a problem with gluten-free wafers because they go against what their canons consider to be bread, not because they go against some universal idea of bread - because there is no universal idea of bread.
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Unfortunately as a rule normal grain used for bread making contains gluten. That is because gluten plays a significant role in the texture and form of bread. Gluten free bread flours have to have a substitute for the gluten to allow them to make bread. Hence the Roman Catholic Church's big problem with gluten free wafers.
Jengie
quote:In my childhood, for my Scottish relatives, 'bread' meant what I would have called oatcakes, what I called bread was 'loaf'.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
<snip> there is no universal idea of bread.
quote:And at Culloden oatcake was used in the celebration of the Holy Eucharist (and whisky!) Clearly Bp Forbes saw this as incorrect, but he doesn't seem to have doubted it was the Holy Eucharist.
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:In my childhood, for my Scottish relatives, 'bread' meant what I would have called oatcakes, what I called bread was 'loaf'.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
<snip> there is no universal idea of bread.
quote:I was always given to understand that the crook points away when it is in that bishop's diocese, and inward in all other cases. I suppose for a bishop of a military ordinariate, it would face away when he is in exercise of his jurisdiction.
Originally posted by Dies Irae:
Thurible is indeed correct and the frontal that was observed was, in fact, purple - just very dark purple and a trick of the light/camera.
A further query:
If a bishop presides over a celebration that includes a procession when at least one hand will occupied by carrying something (e.g. a candle Candlemas, a palm on Palm Sunday, the monstrance on Corpus Christi, etc), the crozier is to be carried directly in front of him by a server with a vimpa. However, is the crook of the crozier to face forwards (as if the bishop were holding it himself) or backwards on account of it being carried by another?
quote:Amen to that.
Originally posted by L'organist:
Why play anything at all after the Gospel?
Silence is very under-rated in worship - I'd suggest that a period of silence after the Gospel would enable to digest/think on the reading they've just heard.
As for a fanfare or other musical fireworks at this point - God forbid.
quote:One custom I've encountered is invariably singing the hymn "Diolch i ti, yr Hollalluog Dduw" (words with translation, score). Definitely an eccentricity of certain shacks in Wales; but in any event, putting a hymn there is a better solution than having a gradual hymn immediately followed by an alleluia. At the very least it would be a good compromise if one can't get the vested interests down to a maximum of four hymns.
Originally posted by Basilica:
There is a modern custom (I think it's a CoE thing: I haven't encountered it anywhere else) of having a reprise of the Alleluia as the Gospel returns to the sanctuary.
quote:I think part of the source of the practice is a horror of any period of silence when the choir could Do Something.
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I think the source of that practice is a horror of the procession back to the sanctuary being silent.
I'm betting congregations can deal with the silence for a few seconds; let 'em think about the Gospel before the Creed (or the sermon) begins.
quote:I've seen it done at the Vatican, so apparently it's not just a CofE thing.
Originally posted by Basilica:
There is a modern custom (I think it's a CoE thing: I haven't encountered it anywhere else) of having a reprise of the Alleluia as the Gospel returns to the sanctuary.
I cringe every time.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And they are NOTHING LIKE communion wafers...
quote:What do you guys mean that they’re nothing alike or that you see little similarity? Wafers are flat and round. Tortillas and chapatis are flat and round. Wafers are made of wheat. Flour tortillas and chapatis are made of wheat. Tortillas and chapatis are baked on a flat stove, griddle or iron. Wafers are baked on a flat stove, griddle or iron. Other than the addition of oil or salt or shortening to chapatis and tortillas the preparation is substantially the same: mix flour and water then bake on a flat surface. The color makes no difference: flour tortillas can be as white as any wafer and I’ve had brown, whole-wheat hosts at mass. The smooth consistency of a communion wafer is like that of an undercooked flour tortilla (and I suspect an undercooked chapati) and fully cooked are still more alike than a crusty baguette or an airy, spongy loaf of bread you buy at the supermarket. They are all made without leaven. I think it’s fair to say that in shape, preparation, ingredients and appearance they appear to be and are substantially similar.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I disagree, however, that a traditional communion wafer is at all like a soft wheat tortilla or a chapati. Beyond being generally round and flat, I see little similarity.
quote:I hate that. I see it in the U.S., too. I can’t help but see the renaming of tortillas and burritos as “wraps” as a case of cultural appropriation and what I’d call “de-mexicanification”
Originally posted by ken:
the last time I ate some wheat tortillas was certainly less than a month ago. (Though shops here call them 'wraps" for some arcane reason no doubt related to mildly out-of-date notions about Californian or Australian fast food).
quote:Sure they're similar in shape and appearance. A coaster can be flat and round, too. Yes, they're similar in ingredients. As noted above, so is glue.
Originally posted by Pancho:
What do you guys mean that they’re nothing alike or that you see little similarity? Wafers are flat and round. Tortillas and chapatis are flat and round. Wafers are made of wheat. Flour tortillas and chapatis are made of wheat. Tortillas and chapatis are baked on a flat stove, griddle or iron. Wafers are baked on a flat stove, griddle or iron. . . . I think it’s fair to say that in shape, preparation, ingredients and appearance they appear to be and are substantially similar.
quote:Nick will likely be horrified to learn that they are locally (Ottawa Valley) consumed as real food. Sold in dépanneurs (corner stores) as little boxes of "hosties," they are consumed as snacks by office workers. I have even seen them at gatherings in a little bowl alongside other snacks. If we call potato chips and corn puffs and such like food, the hosties could find a place in that category and at least spare us salt and fat.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:Sure they're similar in shape and appearance. A coaster can be flat and round, too. Yes, they're similar in ingredients. As noted above, so is glue.
Originally posted by Pancho:
What do you guys mean that they’re nothing alike or that you see little similarity? Wafers are flat and round. Tortillas and chapatis are flat and round. Wafers are made of wheat. Flour tortillas and chapatis are made of wheat. Tortillas and chapatis are baked on a flat stove, griddle or iron. Wafers are baked on a flat stove, griddle or iron. . . . I think it’s fair to say that in shape, preparation, ingredients and appearance they appear to be and are substantially similar.
When I say they're not similar, I mean specifically that wafers do not resemble real food. They have no flavor or aroma, the texture is more like styrofoam than bread, and they certainly are incapable of satisfying hunger. Nothing about them says "food" except that fact that they are indeed edible.
quote:LOL! Maybe not so much horrified as puzzled, but still . . . . At least potato chips and corn puffs have flavor.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Nick will likely be horrified to learn that they are locally (Ottawa Valley) consumed as real food. Sold in dépanneurs (corner stores) as little boxes of "hosties," they are consumed as snacks by office workers. I have even seen them at gatherings in a little bowl alongside other snacks. If we call potato chips and corn puffs and such like food, the hosties could find a place in that category and at least spare us salt and fat.
quote:I don't normally condemn whole populations, as the Lord was willing to spare Sodom and Gomorrah for only 10 good men, but surely we should call down the Wrath of God (or at least a number of multi-megaton nuclear weapons) upon the Ottawa Valley for this abomination?
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Nick will likely be horrified to learn that they are locally (Ottawa Valley) consumed as real food. Sold in dépanneurs (corner stores) as little boxes of "hosties," they are consumed as snacks by office workers. I have even seen them at gatherings in a little bowl alongside other snacks. If we call potato chips and corn puffs and such like food, the hosties could find a place in that category and at least spare us salt and fat.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
Grape juice was the growing trend there and while I much liked the Boss I wouldn't say he was particularly proactive in squashing the insidious practice.
quote:You will need to cover Québec and much of New Brunswick as well. I am not really certain how we ended up with hosts as snacks but in my former office, our dieters were big fans of them.
Originally posted by Rev per Minute:
quote:I don't normally condemn whole populations, as the Lord was willing to spare Sodom and Gomorrah for only 10 good men, but surely we should call down the Wrath of God (or at least a number of multi-megaton nuclear weapons) upon the Ottawa Valley for this abomination?
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Nick will likely be horrified to learn that they are locally (Ottawa Valley) consumed as real food. Sold in dépanneurs (corner stores) as little boxes of "hosties," they are consumed as snacks by office workers. I have even seen them at gatherings in a little bowl alongside other snacks. If we call potato chips and corn puffs and such like food, the hosties could find a place in that category and at least spare us salt and fat.
quote:At least with grape juice, a communicant can take a decent and thirst-quenching swig with no fears about driving home afterwards.
Originally posted by Zappa:
Oh, Amen and amen ... But I was sadly losing that battle with my rather more Low™ colleagues before I left the Territory.
quote:Well of course there isn't because the wine as the last supper was plainly alcoholic. However, there isn't a valid argument either that the bread at the last supper was gluten-free. The question is what adjustments for pastoral circumstances are allowable. My own tradition uses non-alcoholic wine at the Eucharist because of our historic engagement with those affected by the problem of alcoholism and its attendant social destruction. We've never sought to argue that we use it because the wine Jesus used was actually non-alcoholic.
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
I can definitely see the argument for allowing gluten-free varieties of bread, even if that does mean using non-wheat flower. Alcohol-free 'wine' is another matter, and one that I think needs to be resisted wheresoever it should rear its hideous head.
There is simply no remotely valid argument that can assume that when Our Lord took wine, he really meant pasteurized grape juice.
quote:But not all in the CoE will believe in concommitance, and priests still need to receive in both kinds - are former alcoholics not deserving of the priesthood, then? Also, there are reasons aside from alcoholism that mean people must avoid alcohol.
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
I can definitely see the argument for allowing gluten-free varieties of bread, even if that does mean using non-wheat flower. Alcohol-free 'wine' is another matter, and one that I think needs to be resisted wheresoever it should rear its hideous head.
There is simply no remotely valid argument that can assume that when Our Lord took wine, he really meant pasteurized grape juice. As for those struggling with severe alcoholism, well — either the Church teaches the doctrine of concomitance or she doesn't. And she does, as I astonishingly had to explain to an RC laywoman who had apparently attended weekly mass for decades without realizing that the Church clearly and unambiguously teaches this doctrine.
quote:To me they taste like rice paper which I was weirdly obsessed with as a child - and which I do still consume if I have flying saucers !
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:Sure they're similar in shape and appearance. A coaster can be flat and round, too. Yes, they're similar in ingredients. As noted above, so is glue.
Originally posted by Pancho:
What do you guys mean that they’re nothing alike or that you see little similarity? Wafers are flat and round. Tortillas and chapatis are flat and round. Wafers are made of wheat. Flour tortillas and chapatis are made of wheat. Tortillas and chapatis are baked on a flat stove, griddle or iron. Wafers are baked on a flat stove, griddle or iron. . . . I think it’s fair to say that in shape, preparation, ingredients and appearance they appear to be and are substantially similar.
When I say they're not similar, I mean specifically that wafers do not resemble real food. They have no flavor or aroma, the texture is more like styrofoam than bread, and they certainly are incapable of satisfying hunger. Nothing about them says "food" except that fact that they are indeed edible.
quote:There are other reasons for people to avoid alcohol completely (medical reasons eg certain medications) where yes, one can't have a sip of wine.
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
Not to stir up a hornets' nest either, but the only people who say that former alcoholics cannot have one drop of wine is AA. Certainly not doctors or medical professionals.
That isn't to say that if some people feel they cannot have any alcohol that the church should make them feel that they should. My problem is this infantilizing notion that they will feel excluded if the church doesn't offer them an option of Welch's. I trust them to know if they should should drink any wine or not. In the end, why is it any less exclusionary for them to simply get up after they take the host than to make them flag down a server to get a cup of grape juice.
quote:And some chalice-bearers want the last person to finish it up, while others of the more obsessive variety want some left over for the ablutions. The ones who want it finished usually give some sort of signal, or just say so.
Originally posted by crunt:
I was taught to merely 'wet my lips' with the wine in the chalice (also, it was the custom for the chalice bearer to keep hold of the cup). As an adult, it has come as something of a revelation to find that people actually drink TMPB!
quote:I am astonished to hear this. Given that this doctrine was defined before the Reformation, and was not disputed by Cranmer or by any of the other reformers, what possible justification is there to deny it? Even memorialists may believe in concommitance, or at least I assume so.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But not all in the CoE will believe in concommitance
quote:Thurible, here , I think,is proof that you are not insane.
Originally posted by Thurible:
Sorry, no; I should have specified Church of England. It provided for three readings (including the two in the BCP) and possibly a psalm too - but all on the same one year cycle.
Thurible
quote:Given that there needs to be Real Presence for Christ to be present in both bread and wine at the same time, I don't think memorialists would look too fondly on concomitance.
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
The problem is that, whilst the semantic range of 'bread' can cover non-wheat based products, that of 'wine' doesn't extend to cover grape juice or anything remotely like it.
The earliest Church Fathers, including Cyprian and Augustine, were absolutely adamant that the Eucharist be celebrated with wine, and not water. And it is with wine that the Church has celebrated it: in the East and in the West, in the Churches of Rome and of England. This is not a matter, such as in azymite controversy where the precept of Scripture may be said to support either interpretation and where the practices of the historic churches differ. Scripture and Tradition clearly require the use of real wine, and there is no serious argument from 'reason' other than a wishy-washy desire to be 'inclusive' that is based more on feelings than on thought, and therefore has no real claim to the title reason.
I seem to remember an American Protestant theologian (I think a Presbyterian) opining that wine was suitable for the Eucharist precisely because it was dangerous and potentially intoxicating and thus a good metaphor for Jesus, whilst grape juice was totally unsuitable by virtue of being the opposite. I'd be grateful to anyone who knows the exact quote; I can't track it down myself.
quote:I am astonished to hear this. Given that this doctrine was defined before the Reformation, and was not disputed by Cranmer or by any of the other reformers, what possible justification is there to deny it? Even memorialists may believe in concommitance, or at least I assume so.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But not all in the CoE will believe in concommitance
quote:I'm afraid I have run into folks who do so argue.
Originally posted by seasick:
My own tradition uses non-alcoholic wine at the Eucharist because of our historic engagement with those affected by the problem of alcoholism and its attendant social destruction. We've never sought to argue that we use it because the wine Jesus used was actually non-alcoholic.
quote:And I'd be most pleased to try them for myself.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
As an aficionado of sea urchins and squid, I admit that what constitutes food is to some extent culturally determined. As well, my nutritionist friends would deny that corn puffs and such are food, and say that we only think that they have flavour as advertisers tell us so, and our neolithic brains crave salt and fat. Should Nick Tamen ever make it here, I will treat him to a little box of hosties so that he might judge for himself.
quote:The BCP & XXXIX both exclude memorialism. I'd think a memorialist in the C of E would be placing himself outside the church at any rate.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Given that there needs to be Real Presence for Christ to be present in both bread and wine at the same time, I don't think memorialists would look too fondly on concomitance.
quote:That last person had better not be me. I'm fine with a tiny sip, but much more than that makes me turn purple and deathly ill (it's that whole Asian flush alcohol lack of alcohol dehydrogenase thing), and since as a result I've never developed a taste for alcohol, I find all alcohol revolting. Our rector has on occasion asked me to help down the chalice when it's particularly full for the ablutions. The first time I acquiesced, but now when she asks (and she should know better) I make a face.
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:And some chalice-bearers want the last person to finish it up, while others of the more obsessive variety want some left over for the ablutions. The ones who want it finished usually give some sort of signal, or just say so.
Originally posted by crunt:
I was taught to merely 'wet my lips' with the wine in the chalice (also, it was the custom for the chalice bearer to keep hold of the cup). As an adult, it has come as something of a revelation to find that people actually drink TMPB!
Olaf
Frequent Back Corner Dweller
quote:That last person had better not be me. I'm fine with a tiny sip, but much more than that makes me turn purple and deathly ill (it's that whole Asian flush alcohol lack of alcohol dehydrogenase thing), and since as a result I've never developed a taste for alcohol, I find all alcohol revolting. Our rector has on occasion asked me to help down the chalice when it's particularly full for the ablutions. The first time I acquiesced, but now when she asks (and she should know better) I make a face.
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:And some chalice-bearers want the last person to finish it up, while others of the more obsessive variety want some left over for the ablutions. The ones who want it finished usually give some sort of signal, or just say so.
Originally posted by crunt:
I was taught to merely 'wet my lips' with the wine in the chalice (also, it was the custom for the chalice bearer to keep hold of the cup). As an adult, it has come as something of a revelation to find that people actually drink TMPB!
Olaf
Frequent Back Corner Dweller
quote:There are quite a lot of memorialists in the CoE and until recently a memorialist bishop.
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:The BCP & XXXIX both exclude memorialism. I'd think a memorialist in the C of E would be placing himself outside the church at any rate.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Given that there needs to be Real Presence for Christ to be present in both bread and wine at the same time, I don't think memorialists would look too fondly on concomitance.
quote:I do it by believing in transubstantiation.
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:The BCP & XXXIX both exclude memorialism. I'd think a memorialist in the C of E would be placing himself outside the church at any rate.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Given that there needs to be Real Presence for Christ to be present in both bread and wine at the same time, I don't think memorialists would look too fondly on concomitance.
quote:We were taught to have a sip. Not a gulp, but enough to swallow.
Originally posted by crunt:
I was taught to merely 'wet my lips' with the wine in the chalice (also, it was the custom for the chalice bearer to keep hold of the cup). As an adult, it has come as something of a revelation to find that people actually drink TMPB!
quote:When I'm the chalice bearer, I administer a gulp, whatever amount the communicant intended to consume. It means I get less drunk at the end of the service.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:We were taught to have a sip. Not a gulp, but enough to swallow.
Originally posted by crunt:
I was taught to merely 'wet my lips' with the wine in the chalice (also, it was the custom for the chalice bearer to keep hold of the cup). As an adult, it has come as something of a revelation to find that people actually drink TMPB!
quote:I was recently administered a forced gulp, and it was very weird. The chalice bearer kept tipping the chalice toward me long after I received a sip, and I had to keep consuming to prevent having a spill. It really felt like aggression from the chalice bearer, and I considered grunting or something to get it to stop. I think the chalice bearer misinterpreted my body language somehow. Or she wanted me to consume a lot of the Precious Blood so there wouldn't be much left over. Normally I just take a sip or even just let the Precious Blood hit my upper lip.
Originally posted by Zach82:
When I'm the chalice bearer, I administer a gulp, whatever amount the communicant intended to consume. It means I get less drunk at the end of the service.
quote:I'm more afraid of cracking their teeth with the rim of the cup when they don't guide it to their lips themselves.
Originally posted by Wilfried:
Our practice is never to let go of the chalice completely, but I loosen my grip enough that the communicant controls the sip. I'm there to prevent a spill, and I suppose pull away if they were to try to down the whole thing, not that that's ever happened. It does get awkward when I get one of the few who refuse to touch the chalice, and I have to pour it down their throat (and not down their chest).
quote:Your guess is as good as mine. I can't really think of another reason than an obsessive mind being set in the idea that everybody is distributed the same amount. I have come across some extremely particular, shall we say, people involved in altar service.
Originally posted by Hart:
Why would you want some left for ablutions? I'm happy to consume before I start purifying vessels, but the point of purifying is to leave no trace of the precious blood in the vessels. Less for me to do if the EMs (or the last communicant) can consume before the cups get to me.
quote:Yes, I was taught to use my arms' full extendo-capabilities, though in a seminary setting I will often relax about "delivering it into the hand." When communicants are standing, it's doubtless easier for us longshanks.
Originally posted by Wilfried:
Our practice is never to let go of the chalice completely, but I loosen my grip enough that the communicant controls the sip.
quote:We were taught to have a sip. Not a gulp, but enough to swallow.
Originally posted by crunt:
I was taught to merely 'wet my lips' with the wine in the chalice (also, it was the custom for the chalice bearer to keep hold of the cup). As an adult, it has come as something of a revelation to find that people actually drink TMPB!
quote:Disobedience to the church's formularies is certainly nothing new.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:There are quite a lot of memorialists in the CoE and until recently a memorialist bishop.
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:The BCP & XXXIX both exclude memorialism. I'd think a memorialist in the C of E would be placing himself outside the church at any rate.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Given that there needs to be Real Presence for Christ to be present in both bread and wine at the same time, I don't think memorialists would look too fondly on concomitance.
quote:By that line of reasoning I would have to question whether pizza is food because it's flat and round like a coaster. I would have to question whether pasta and pancakes are food because they also share ingredients with glue.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:Sure they're similar in shape and appearance. A coaster can be flat and round, too. Yes, they're similar in ingredients. As noted above, so is glue.
Originally posted by Pancho:
What do you guys mean that they’re nothing alike or that you see little similarity? Wafers are flat and round. Tortillas and chapatis are flat and round. Wafers are made of wheat. Flour tortillas and chapatis are made of wheat. Tortillas and chapatis are baked on a flat stove, griddle or iron. Wafers are baked on a flat stove, griddle or iron. . . . I think it’s fair to say that in shape, preparation, ingredients and appearance they appear to be and are substantially similar.
quote:That's pretty close to the definition of food, isn't it?
When I say they're not similar, I mean specifically that wafers do not resemble real food. They have no flavor or aroma, the texture is more like styrofoam than bread, and they certainly are incapable of satisfying hunger. Nothing about them says "food" except that fact that they are indeed edible.
quote:You can also buy them as snacks in Tijuana. A classmate once brought some bags to share at school. The pieces are in different colors, as if they've been dipped in food coloring.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Nick will likely be horrified to learn that they are locally (Ottawa Valley) consumed as real food. Sold in dépanneurs (corner stores) as little boxes of "hosties," they are consumed as snacks by office workers.
quote:Exactly.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I'm willing to grant that maybe I've never encountered a "good" wafer, though they may be out there. And I'll grant that they might be considered "food" in some cultures. Mine is not one of those cultures.
quote:Yes, what Ken says.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:We were taught to have a sip. Not a gulp, but enough to swallow.
Originally posted by crunt:
I was taught to merely 'wet my lips' with the wine in the chalice (also, it was the custom for the chalice bearer to keep hold of the cup). As an adult, it has come as something of a revelation to find that people actually drink TMPB!
quote:There's actually a decent article on food in ancient Israel with a good number of references that is worth reading:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Does anyone know what "unleavened bread" would have looked like at the time of Jesus? That might provide some guidance.
Surely not anything even vaguely resembling either a standard communion wafer or modern matzohs. But what then?
John
quote:So it seems that unleavened flat breads were most common and a thin wafer bread was known at the time.
A variety of breads was produced. Probably most common were unleavened flat loaves called ugah or kikkar. Another type was a thin wafer, known as a rakik. A thicker loaf, known as hallah was made with the best quality flour, usually for ritual purposes.
quote:According to the same article above, barley was the most important grain and bread was made mainly from it during most of the Biblical period but by the Second Temple period, during Jesus' time, it's importance declined and wheat became the main grain crop and widespread in use for bread.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It would quite probably been made out of barley, and so not wheaten anyway (John 6:9 anyone?). Bread made of wheat was for the wealthy in Roman-occupied territories. Kamut, emmer and spelt flour was also used in the area at that time. I do think that since wheat bread was unlikely to have been the bread used at the Last Supper, the CoE canons regarding it (and non-alcoholic Communion wine) should be changed.
quote:From Canon B37 of the Church of England:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Can a priest consecrate anointing oil in the Anglican Church?
Or is that strictly reserved for the Bishop?
And is that a matter of doctrine (Can't be changed) or discipline (can be changed)?
quote:So yes, in the Church of England at least it is possible for a priest to consecrate oil for anointing.
If any such person so desires, the priest may lay hands upon him and may anoint him with oil on the forehead with the sign of the Cross using a form of service authorized by Canon B 1 and using pure olive oil consecrated by the bishop of the diocese or otherwise by the priest himself in accordance with such form of service.
quote:It seems to be a matter of jurisdiction--- in many dioceses, oils are blessed on Maundy Thursday for the year and is one of the symbols of diocesan unity. I think that it's one of these bene esse things.
Originally posted by Oferyas:
Interesting: Canon B37 seems to exclude the use of oil consecrated by other than 'the Bishop of the Diocese', or the local priest. No suffragans then? Is it seen as a privilege related to jurisdiction - or an I reading this in an anachronistic way?
quote:Is the CofE actually making a distinction between chrism and oil for anointing the sick? [Olaf gasps, and yet strangely admires them for it]
Originally posted by LQ:
And the CoE guidelines for admitting new communicants by reception (rather than confirmation) stipulate that candidates must have been confirmed either episcopally or with episcopally consecrated chrism.
quote:Though as I recall the purpose of this regulation is not really about the validity of the consecration of the oils but about the centrality of the bishop to the CoE understanding of confirmation. So a priest can confirm, but they need the episcopally-consecrated oil in order to get a suitable level of episcopality (!) into the rite.
Originally posted by LQ:
And the CoE guidelines for admitting new communicants by reception (rather than confirmation) stipulate that candidates must have been confirmed either episcopally or with episcopally consecrated chrism.
quote:Interesting numbering given British emergency services, but Canon 999 is your friend:
Originally posted by Olaf:
Without looking, I seem to recall that Catholic priests are allowed to do an emergency consecration of oil when they are anointing the sick, if need be, but most definitely not an emergency consecration of chrism.
I guess it depends on what type of anointing is happening.
quote:[ETA] And Canon 880 for that matter
Canon 999 In addition to a bishop, the following can bless the oil to be used in the anointing of the sick:
1/ those equivalent to a diocesan bishop by law;
2/ any presbyter in a case of necessity, but only in the actual celebration of the sacrament.
quote:
Can. 880 §1. The sacrament of confirmation is conferred by the anointing of chrism on the forehead, which is done by the imposition of the hand and through the words prescribed in the approved liturgical books.
§2. The chrism to be used in the sacrament of confirmation must be consecrated by a bishop even if a presbyter administers the sacrament.
quote:Oil of Catechumens (OS, Oleum Sanctum) used in Baptism, the consecration of churches, in the blessing of Altars, in the ordination of priests
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
CofE oil sets tend to come with different letters on the lid for the different oils (I only know this from verging at baptisms and having to get the right oil out), so yes, I guess there is some distinguishing between the different oils.
quote:In my diocese there is likely to be no difference in the oils inside the oil stock. There is one service held each year in our cathederal for the blessing of the oil. Every parish takes it's oil along and it is all blessed together, so yes you could take different oils if you so wished, but most parishes just take one bottle.
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
quote:Oil of Catechumens (OS, Oleum Sanctum) used in Baptism, the consecration of churches, in the blessing of Altars, in the ordination of priests
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
CofE oil sets tend to come with different letters on the lid for the different oils (I only know this from verging at baptisms and having to get the right oil out), so yes, I guess there is some distinguishing between the different oils.
Holy Chrism (SC, Sanctum Chrisma) used in Confirmation, Baptism, in the consecration of a Bishop, the consecration of a various things such as churches, chalices, patens, and bells
Oil of the Sick (OI, Oleum Infirmorum), used in anointing of the sick
quote:This is utterly beyond my comprehension.
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
In my diocese there is likely to be no difference in the oils inside the oil stock. There is one service held each year in our cathederal for the blessing of the oil. Every parish takes it's oil along and it is all blessed together, so yes you could take different oils if you so wished, but most parishes just take one bottle.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
quote:There are some parishes that take their set of oil stocks, to the Maundy Thursday service, so who knows what oil is in them. However many take one bottle of oil and then put it to use back in the parish, so actually I can’t say how they use it but it is only one bottle and not three.
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
quote:This is utterly beyond my comprehension.
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
In my diocese there is likely to be no difference in the oils inside the oil stock. There is one service held each year in our cathederal for the blessing of the oil. Every parish takes it's oil along and it is all blessed together, so yes you could take different oils if you so wished, but most parishes just take one bottle.
Even in my Anglican days, I had never heard of such a thing. Methinks that if one is going to have holy oils and follow the liturgical precept of having the bishop bless them on or near Maundy Thursday, one would use the oils as the prayers intend. Otherwise, why have them at all?
quote:Protestant simplification. Why look it up when you can just make up your own thing? I prefer to be hopeful, though: we have started seeing the reintroduction of oil, and with time, we hopefully will figure out the nuances.
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
quote:This is utterly beyond my comprehension.
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
In my diocese there is likely to be no difference in the oils inside the oil stock. There is one service held each year in our cathederal for the blessing of the oil. Every parish takes it's oil along and it is all blessed together, so yes you could take different oils if you so wished, but most parishes just take one bottle.
Even in my Anglican days, I had never heard of such a thing. Methinks that if one is going to have holy oils and follow the liturgical precept of having the bishop bless them on or near Maundy Thursday, one would use the oils as the prayers intend. Otherwise, why have them at all?
quote:Exactly, and this is how it usually goes in the Protestant world. I know of a very evangelical, conservative church that takes the anointing with oil very seriously, based upon scriptural instructions. That said, they don't even have any bishops, per se, and I guarantee they have no specific rite for blessing the oil.
Originally posted by Hart:
I could see someone rediscovering various prayerful uses of oil straight from the scriptures without seeing any need for the different uses to be differentiated by separate oils.
quote:As one time Deacon of the Oils (Chrism), I can assure you that in London, the oils are separate at the time of blessing. Whether the three oils could be distinguished by mass spectrometry, I couldn't say. Swapping stories with others, it seems typical for the CofE if not universal. I did hear of a cathedral trying to decant into the parishs' flasks/bottles immediately after the service. Things got very slippery, I'm told.
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
quote:There are some parishes that take their set of oil stocks, to the Maundy Thursday service, so who knows what oil is in them. However many take one bottle of oil and then put it to use back in the parish, so actually I can’t say how they use it but it is only one bottle and not three.
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
quote:This is utterly beyond my comprehension.
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
In my diocese there is likely to be no difference in the oils inside the oil stock. There is one service held each year in our cathederal for the blessing of the oil. Every parish takes it's oil along and it is all blessed together, so yes you could take different oils if you so wished, but most parishes just take one bottle.
Even in my Anglican days, I had never heard of such a thing. Methinks that if one is going to have holy oils and follow the liturgical precept of having the bishop bless them on or near Maundy Thursday, one would use the oils as the prayers intend. Otherwise, why have them at all?
quote:
Originally posted by 3rdFooter:
Things got very slippery, I'm told.
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
quote:Is this some kind of metaphor for the Trinity?
There are some parishes that take their set of oil stocks, to the Maundy Thursday service, so who knows what oil is in them. However many take one bottle of oil and then put it to use back in the parish, so actually I can’t say how they use it but it is only one bottle and not three.
quote:no for some parishes there are three separate anoinrting oils - sick, baptisms and confirmation. Some parishes use just one for all, and some don't use it at all.
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
quote:Is this some kind of metaphor for the Trinity?
There are some parishes that take their set of oil stocks, to the Maundy Thursday service, so who knows what oil is in them. However many take one bottle of oil and then put it to use back in the parish, so actually I can’t say how they use it but it is only one bottle and not three.
quote:The variety of practice in the CofE makes me wonder whether the Queen's coronation used the wrong type of oil!
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
quote:no for some parishes there are three separate anoinrting oils - sick, baptisms and confirmation. Some parishes use just one for all, and some don't use it at all.
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
quote:Is this some kind of metaphor for the Trinity?
There are some parishes that take their set of oil stocks, to the Maundy Thursday service, so who knows what oil is in them. However many take one bottle of oil and then put it to use back in the parish, so actually I can’t say how they use it but it is only one bottle and not three.
quote:When I was in Melbourne years ago the tradition was BYO, and I had a beautiful rose oil (no animal cruelty) that lasted for years for chrismation. Most dioceses since have had awful stuff that makes babies smell like cricket bats, though one diocese made the babies smell like a cross between a cricket bat and a mandarin
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
quote:Is this some kind of metaphor for the Trinity?
There are some parishes that take their set of oil stocks, to the Maundy Thursday service, so who knows what oil is in them. However many take one bottle of oil and then put it to use back in the parish, so actually I can’t say how they use it but it is only one bottle and not three.
quote:According to Westminster Abbey:
Originally posted by Olaf:
The variety of practice in the CofE makes me wonder whether the Queen's coronation used the wrong type of oil!
quote:Which rather puts paid to the legend that they eeked out the Papal chrism from previous coronations. Shame - I had thought that was true.
The recipe for the oil is secret but it contains oils of orange flowers, roses, jasmin, cinnamon, musk, civet and ambergris. Under the authority of the Surgeon-Apothecary the oil for the 1953 coronation was made up at Savory and Moore Ltd by J.D.Jamieson, to a formula devised by Peter Squire. The consecration of the oil is arranged by the Dean of Westminster and performed by a bishop. In 1953 the Bishop of Gloucester, a former Canon of Westminster, performed the blessing.
quote:I missed this the last time I went through this thread. As I stated above, the tiny sip I receive on Sunday morning is as much alcohol as I consume, ever. Much more can get ugly. Your approach would be a real problem for me, and I might add, strikes me as a tad unpastoral. You can deal with your potential drunkenness in some way that doesn't involve me drinking what you don't want.
Originally posted by Zach82:
When I'm the chalice bearer, I administer a gulp, whatever amount the communicant intended to consume. It means I get less drunk at the end of the service.
quote:This bit of Zach's post stands out: "...whatever amount the communicant intended to consume."
Originally posted by Wilfried:
quote:I missed this the last time I went through this thread. As I stated above, the tiny sip I receive on Sunday morning is as much alcohol as I consume, ever. Much more can get ugly. Your approach would be a real problem for me, and I might add, strikes me as a tad unpastoral. You can deal with your potential drunkenness in some way that doesn't involve me drinking what you don't want.
Originally posted by Zach82:
When I'm the chalice bearer, I administer a gulp, whatever amount the communicant intended to consume. It means I get less drunk at the end of the service.
quote:Good question. I've never observed what our sacristan does with it after a Mass for which I serve. I pour what's in the lavabo bowl down one of the piscinas (the marble one below the credence table or the lockable sink in the sacristy) but leave the water and wine cruets on the sacristy counter for the sacristan. I'm guessing it goes in the piscina because it's been blessed.
Originally posted by Choirboi:
The water that is used at the Offertory, over which the priest makes the sign of the cross -- must it go down the sacrarium/piscina?
I've been at churches where the water cruet is simply left for the next mass, and I've seen others pour it into the sacrarium after each mass (which makes me wonder why they bother to put so much in the cruet in the first place, but that's another issue), because, supposedly it has been blessed and can't be used again, or reblessed, I don't know....
quote:I'm slightly intrigued by this statement. I know it's used in some places as a lamp fuel, but since olive oil is normally used for frying things in, and it doesn't behave like, say, petrol or paraffin (I think petrol is gasoline in the US but I'm not sure what paraffin is), does it burn? It doesn't usually in a frying pan. And chip pan fires, when cooking oil of various sorts suddenly does flash, are notoriously dangerous.
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
One disposes of consecrated oils by burning them. It is customary to dispose of the old oils each year when the new oils are obtained. However, there is no abuse in continuing to use the old oils. If, however, they begin to fade during the following year, it may not be as easy or convenient to get them replenished.
quote:It burns quite nicely when absorbed onto cotton wool, and makes an effective heart for the New Fire. Smells a bit kitchen-y, though, so a few grains of incense help.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:I'm slightly intrigued by this statement. I know it's used in some places as a lamp fuel, but since olive oil is normally used for frying things in, and it doesn't behave like, say, petrol or paraffin (I think petrol is gasoline in the US but I'm not sure what paraffin is), does it burn? It doesn't usually in a frying pan. And chip pan fires, when cooking oil of various sorts suddenly does flash, are notoriously dangerous.
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
One disposes of consecrated oils by burning them. It is customary to dispose of the old oils each year when the new oils are obtained. However, there is no abuse in continuing to use the old oils. If, however, they begin to fade during the following year, it may not be as easy or convenient to get them replenished.
I note the suggestion of soaking cotton wool with it, and then burning the cotton wool, but that isn't the same thing.
?
quote:Good luck. Those oils are infused with all manner of things to make them fragrant. I shouldn't imagine them tasting very nice.
Originally posted by Zappa:
Can it be reverently consumed, instead
quote:One of the many reasons I tend to limit use of this prayer when celebrating, tbh.
Originally posted by Roselyn:
Anyone else find "we do not presume"\..." prayer awkward? It comes over to me as rude. impolite to God. We were glad to go to the House of the Lord, we are halfway through the service, we are responding to God's invitation and we suddenly come over all coy. we stop worrying about what God invites us to do and act as though we want to be begged/invited again, I can see how it went down well in ye olde days when we were peasants and used to cringing socially but it is not a normal reaction to invitation now surely.
quote:That was precisely the attitude that the introduction of the Prayer Book was meant to inculcate in the lower orders, in my opinion, (eg in the General Confession) which is why:
Originally posted by Roselyn:
I can see how it went down well in ye olde days when we were peasants and used to cringing socially but it is not a normal reaction to invitation now surely.
quote:Never cope over chasuble, as has been mentioned already by others. If you're wondering about when to wear a cope at all (over alb and stole, perhaps) then in modern liturgical contexts, processions are the key. In Episcopal churches, one sometimes sees the cope worn until either the Gloria or the offertory, at which time the cope is removed, and the chasuble put on.
Originally posted by sonata3:
Under what circumstances - if any - would a priest wear a cope over a chasuble? Liturgy of the Palms on Palm Sunday? In procession?
quote:I can see where you're coming from, but its core spiritual emotion is very similar to,
Originally posted by Roselyn:
Anyone else find "we do not presume"\..." prayer awkward? It comes over to me as rude. impolite to God. We were glad to go to the House of the Lord, we are halfway through the service, we are responding to God's invitation and we suddenly come over all coy. we stop worrying about what God invites us to do and act as though we want to be begged/invited again, I can see how it went down well in ye olde days when we were peasants and used to cringing socially but it is not a normal reaction to invitation now surely.
quote:which is on the previous page.
"Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word, and I shall be healed"
quote:Oh, now I'm sorry but I find that awful. It has no cadence whatsoever and the whole thing comes across as utterly bland.
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
A modern version of the Prayer of Humble Access reads better:-
Most merciful Lord, your love compels us to come in. Our hands were unclean, our hearts were unprepared; we were not fit even to eat the crumbs from under your table. But you, Lord, are the God of our salvation, and share your bread with sinners. So cleanse and feed us with the precious body and blood of your Son, that he may live in us and we in him; and that we, with the whole company of Christ, may sit and eat in your Kingdom. Amen.
quote:I have to agree with dj. When I see this prayer, I ask myself, "What does 'come in' mean?" Then a sudden change to past tense. What points in time are we now talking about? Then a mixture of words pointedly retained from the Prayer of Humble Access not blending well with new phrases.
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:Oh, now I'm sorry but I find that awful. It has no cadence whatsoever and the whole thing comes across as utterly bland.
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
A modern version of the Prayer of Humble Access reads better:-
Most merciful Lord, your love compels us to come in. Our hands were unclean, our hearts were unprepared; we were not fit even to eat the crumbs from under your table. But you, Lord, are the God of our salvation, and share your bread with sinners. So cleanse and feed us with the precious body and blood of your Son, that he may live in us and we in him; and that we, with the whole company of Christ, may sit and eat in your Kingdom. Amen.
quote:I think its used wrongly these dayse because so many of those who lead or plan liturgy don't understand it. They confuse it with a Confession buit we've already said one of those at the begining(or we ought to have if we have the slightest pretence of being Anglicans). That's a category error as blatant as mistaking the Peace for a social greeting.
Originally posted by Roselyn:
Anyone else find "we do not presume"\..." prayer awkward? It comes over to me as rude. impolite to God.
quote:Yes. I think its because the CW compilers mostly didn't really understand it or like it but didn't dare drop it. It worked much better in the ASB position, in the "hinge" of the service before the Peace.
Originally posted by seasick:
I've always thought that the CW thing of having after the invitation to communion was daft, not least because it makes a nonsense of the practical sense of "Draw near with faith". Liturgical instructions should be able to be heeded!
quote:Only if by "reads better" you mean "fits into the prejudices and preconceptions of theologically liberal anglo-catholics from upper-middle class english families who went to university in the 1950s and have a mental blind spot that makes it impossible for them to think clearly about Reformed worship or doctrine".
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
A modern version of the Prayer of Humble Access reads better:-
Most merciful Lord, your love compels us to come in. Our hands were unclean, our hearts were unprepared; we were not fit even to eat the crumbs from under your table. But you, Lord, are the God of our salvation, and share your bread with sinners. So cleanse and feed us with the precious body and blood of your Son, that he may live in us and we in him; and that we, with the whole company of Christ, may sit and eat in your Kingdom. Amen.
quote:One cannot please all the people all the time. Briefly, I was seeing this modern version as something of an antidote to some of the adverse criticisms of the traditional version.
Originally posted by Oblatus:
quote:I have to agree with dj. When I see this prayer, I ask myself, "What does 'come in' mean?" Then a sudden change to past tense. What points in time are we now talking about? Then a mixture of words pointedly retained from the Prayer of Humble Access not blending well with new phrases.
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:Oh, now I'm sorry but I find that awful. It has no cadence whatsoever and the whole thing comes across as utterly bland.
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
A modern version of the Prayer of Humble Access reads better:-
Most merciful Lord, your love compels us to come in. Our hands were unclean, our hearts were unprepared; we were not fit even to eat the crumbs from under your table. But you, Lord, are the God of our salvation, and share your bread with sinners. So cleanse and feed us with the precious body and blood of your Son, that he may live in us and we in him; and that we, with the whole company of Christ, may sit and eat in your Kingdom. Amen.
I understand the desire to make the "unworthy" bit be in the past tense, as we've been forgiven and absolved already. But the text comes across as one person's poetic reflection, which is fine, but don't make us all say it that way.
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
A modern version of the Prayer of Humble Access reads better:-
Most merciful Lord, your love compels us to come in. Our hands were unclean, our hearts were unprepared; we were not fit even to eat the crumbs from under your table. But you, Lord, are the God of our salvation, and share your bread with sinners. So cleanse and feed us with the precious body and blood of your Son, that he may live in us and we in him; and that we, with the whole company of Christ, may sit and eat in your Kingdom. Amen.
quote:Yes, I can see now that there are two schools of thought in the light of what I have written. I have said much the same thing in a different way in my other response in this discussion.
Only if by "reads better" you mean "fits into the prejudices and preconceptions of theologically liberal anglo-catholics from upper-middle class english families who went to university in the 1950s and have a mental blind spot that makes it impossible for them to think clearly about Reformed worship or doctrine".
To everyone else it just looks like a slightly watered-down version of an old and well-known prayer, presumably for the use of people who aren't quite sure they really want to say it. The BCP version is better theology, better liturgy, and *much* better English.
Resist the Mayhewisation of liturgy!
quote:I beg to differ. I have some theological difficulties with the positioning of the prayer in either form so long after we've heard words of absolution and entered into rites of the eschatological Reign, but in Lent and Advent particularly I am prepared to put theology aside in the interests of a journey into the poetics of preparation. That the newer form lacks some sort of poignancy is I fear no more than a matter of taste, so:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
quote:I have to agree with dj. When I see this prayer, I ask myself, "What does 'come in' mean?" Then a sudden change to past tense. What points in time are we now talking about? Then a mixture of words pointedly retained from the Prayer of Humble Access not blending well with new phrases.
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:Oh, now I'm sorry but I find that awful. It has no cadence whatsoever and the whole thing comes across as utterly bland.
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
A modern version of the Prayer of Humble Access reads better:-
Most merciful Lord, your love compels us to come in. Our hands were unclean, our hearts were unprepared; we were not fit even to eat the crumbs from under your table. But you, Lord, are the God of our salvation, and share your bread with sinners. So cleanse and feed us with the precious body and blood of your Son, that he may live in us and we in him; and that we, with the whole company of Christ, may sit and eat in your Kingdom. Amen.
I understand the desire to make the "unworthy" bit be in the past tense, as we've been forgiven and absolved already. But the text comes across as one person's poetic reflection, which is fine, but don't make us all say it that way.
quote:... a reasonable description of the human state according to the biblical witness ...
Most merciful Lord, your love compels us to come in. Our hands were unclean, our hearts were unprepared; we were not fit even to eat the crumbs from under your table.
quote:a reasonable and timeless statement of the reasonable and timeless action of God-in-Christ
But you, Lord, are the God of our salvation, and share your bread with sinners.
quote:present tense because there is a sense in which the encounter with Christ will always be the moment in which eternity kisses chronology, heaven meets earth, and we taste the enormity, ineffability, immeasurability (etc) of God's salvific acts
So cleanse and feed us with the precious body and blood of your Son, that he may live in us and we in him;
quote:imagery not unknown in the scriptural witness as an expression of eschatological hope.
and that we, with the whole company of Christ, may sit and eat in your Kingdom. Amen.
quote:It's in the Anglican Church of Canada's Book of Alternative Services, downloadable as a PDF from that link.
Originally posted by Olaf:
I am looking for a lectionary book that contains the weekday eucharistic lectionary contained in TEC's Lesser Feasts and Fasts (or Holy Men, Holy Women). I seem to recall that Canada had a similar version, but I'm having trouble finding a product that provides what I seek.
If nothing turns up, I'll probably settle for a Roman Catholic weekday lectionary, which are more readily available.
quote:Yup ...
Originally posted by Gee D:
Zappa, I assume you used APBA 2nd order when you were in NT and other Oz pastures. Did you change to the later position of the general confession for Advent and Lent, as we do?
quote:Thank you! Now a tricky follow-up: is there a book with the full readings, as one would use at the ambo?
Originally posted by Oblatus:
quote:It's in the Anglican Church of Canada's Book of Alternative Services, downloadable as a PDF from that link.
Originally posted by Olaf:
I am looking for a lectionary book that contains the weekday eucharistic lectionary contained in TEC's Lesser Feasts and Fasts (or Holy Men, Holy Women). I seem to recall that Canada had a similar version, but I'm having trouble finding a product that provides what I seek.
If nothing turns up, I'll probably settle for a Roman Catholic weekday lectionary, which are more readily available.
quote:We use the Canadian RC weekday lectionary books, as their readings almost always match our weekday lectionary and use the NRSV translation.
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:Thank you! Now a tricky follow-up: is there a book with the full readings, as one would use at the ambo?
Originally posted by Oblatus:
quote:It's in the Anglican Church of Canada's Book of Alternative Services, downloadable as a PDF from that link.
Originally posted by Olaf:
I am looking for a lectionary book that contains the weekday eucharistic lectionary contained in TEC's Lesser Feasts and Fasts (or Holy Men, Holy Women). I seem to recall that Canada had a similar version, but I'm having trouble finding a product that provides what I seek.
If nothing turns up, I'll probably settle for a Roman Catholic weekday lectionary, which are more readily available.
quote:The scripture readings from Mass are in the Bible? Well, why didn't anybody tell me this before? That does make a whole lot of sense.
Originally posted by L'organist:
The Bible?
quote:Awesome! Thank you. There would be one out of print, wouldn't there? It's like people do it on purpose to mess with the stereotypically, um, particular liturgical crowd.
Oblatus:
We use the Canadian RC weekday lectionary books, as their readings almost always match our weekday lectionary and use the NRSV translation.
I see that one volume is out of print but made available as a PDF.
quote:Here's one I've had pass in front of me in the last few days: http://www.singingthefaithplus.org.uk/?p=9502
Originally posted by Clotilde:
Has anyone come across any liturgical resources to commemorate Nelson Mandela - prayers, or litanies or whatever? Or does anyone have suggestions for this?
quote:I do like the principle of reading directly from the Bible during services. However, my experience is that people often won't read from a lectern Bible, but will use the pewsheet with the printed readings, despite them being in tiny print.
Originally posted by L'organist:
The Bible?
quote:Turns out both weekday volumes are on that site as PDFs! Glad to have that resource so I can peek at the readings ahead of a Wednesday-evening Low Mass. We use just the two readings from there; the psalm is said in unison from the BCP.
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:The scripture readings from Mass are in the Bible? Well, why didn't anybody tell me this before? That does make a whole lot of sense.
Originally posted by L'organist:
The Bible?
quote:Awesome! Thank you. There would be one out of print, wouldn't there? It's like people do it on purpose to mess with the stereotypically, um, particular liturgical crowd.
Oblatus:
We use the Canadian RC weekday lectionary books, as their readings almost always match our weekday lectionary and use the NRSV translation.
I see that one volume is out of print but made available as a PDF.
quote:I've seen Pepto-Bismol pink "rose" vestments, and I've seen ours, which are of a slightly orange salmon-like hue, and the orphreys are a dill-like green. Sounds weird, but as salmon and dill go well together, so do those two colors. Have a look.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Since Gaudete Sunday is coming up - do shades of rose for vestments vary much? It seems that out of the four main liturgical colours, only green vestments vary much in hue.
quote:I'd say red's the most constant. Purple's the hardest to match when you have two people wearing vestments not from a set, as there are so many shades of purple around. White should be simple, but white vestments are rarely pure white, so it's the other colors (including any yellow/gold) that ends up varying. Red tends to just be red though.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Since Gaudete Sunday is coming up - do shades of rose for vestments vary much? It seems that out of the four main liturgical colours, only green vestments vary much in hue.
quote:Hmm, Passion red? Martyr's red? Palm Sunday red? dark red? bright red? Fire engine red? Post boz red? I'd say that red has about as many difficulties in matching as the other colours - maybe black and Lenten array are about the only two 'fixed' - though I'm more than ready to be shown to be wrong (again!)
Originally posted by Hart:
I'd say red's the most constant.
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Went to a wedding on Saturday- lovely service- but slightly surprised to see the Vicar in eucharistic vestments (the usual stuff: cassock-alb, stole, chasuble), although there wasn't a nuptial Mass.
Is this - specifically the chasuble- as unusual as I think it is? We're talking AffCath CinW, btw.
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Perhaps his other vestments were at the cleaners.
(I'm afraid I know nothing about these things).
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Seems a bit strange to me, never come across this before...
quote:She hasn't got one, AFAIK.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
He could at least have gotten out his biretta.
quote:It's very Eccles to describe vestment colours by reference to gin!
Originally posted by L'organist:
Rose colour vestments should have the gentle hue of sloe gin and water 50/50. Ideally Laetare vestments should have purple or mauve orfreys.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:Laughs, indeed. This is what happens when you let a priest dress themself. She was already attired when I entered the vestry and I was in off duty mode and didn't think chasuble for wedding= odd I'm afraid, even when I entered duty mode to sort microphones out.
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:She hasn't got one, AFAIK.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
He could at least have gotten out his biretta.
She's a very good Vicar and I have a lot of time for her but she can be a bit random at times. Still, that's part of what makes her what she is.
quote:Water in sloe gin? Sacrilege!!!
Originally posted by L'organist:
Rose colour vestments should have the gentle hue of sloe gin and water 50/50.
quote:Realised today there is an offertory prayer in that order, but she skipped it.
Originally posted by Carys:
When I'm serving I sometimes find that the priest moves on to the offertory prayers before I've got the lavabo ready, but they've fitted it in after the offertory prayers. Well, the starting on the next bit before the lavabo happened today except in that order there aren't any offertory prayers, so what she started on was the sursum corda, so I put down the lavabo, but she'd noticed me getting ready and so stopped after the sursum corda to do the lavabo. I felt this was odd. What do others think?
Carys
quote:We usually have the lavabo between the incense and the "Suscipe, Sancte Trinitas"--i.e., after the offering of the elements. It kind of makes sense that you'd rinse your hands after handling the thurible.
Originally posted by Carys:
When I'm serving I sometimes find that the priest moves on to the offertory prayers before I've got the lavabo ready, but they've fitted it in after the offertory prayers. Well, the starting on the next bit before the lavabo happened today except in that order there aren't any offertory prayers, so what she started on was the sursum corda, so I put down the lavabo, but she'd noticed me getting ready and so stopped after the sursum corda to do the lavabo. I felt this was odd. What do others think?
Carys
quote:Vox clamantis in deserto!
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
This is one of the reasons why using different orders is such a singularly a bad idea: we spend so much time thinking about how to do it that we forget to remember that we are doing it.
The ritual impedes the myth, when it is supposed to serve it.
Then when we have broken the integrity of the whole, we set off in search of strange forms of meditation to recover the mindfulness we lost by mucking around too much with the rite, one, two, three, and 3A.
quote:Our celebrants' standard practice is to say, "...the ever-blessed Virgin Mary; St. Anne, her mother; St. Michael the Archangel, our patron; and all your saints..." Our parish is served by the sisters of the Order of St. Anne, and the parish cornerstone was laid under the patronage of St. Michael the Archangel. Other saints having to do with the day, such as St. John the Baptist last Sunday, are added at the end. One former priest associate at the parish would always add the saint of the day after St. Anne, thus always ending with St. Michael, possibly for better flow. I do that pattern at Evening Prayer when there's a similar spot (Suffrages B, for instance).
Originally posted by NatDogg:
I have a question about adding saints to the Eucharistic Prayers used in the Episcopal Church. I'm not being too exhaustive here, but I know in Prayer B and D in the Book of Common Prayer and Prayers 1, 2, and 3 in Enriching our Worship allow for this. My question: is there any order, rhyme, or reason, beyond adding the saint whose day is commemorated? In Christmas is it usual to add Mary and Joseph? In Advent, John the Baptist? Also, is there a formula? Must Peter and Paul always be included? Or the patron saint of a church?
quote:French Treasures may be the site you are thinking of. They used to be very much specialized in French RC vestments of the pre-Vatican II era, but they seem to have branched out, so you can now find Gothic as well as Roman chasubles, etc...
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
A friend is to be priested in January and would value an ordination gift with a bit of history, rather than out of M*****s catalogue. I vaguely recall hearing years ago of somewhere that adopted 'pre-loved' mass sets, vestments etc and sold them on to deserving causes.
Ring any bells with anyone?
quote:I would not go so far as to call it a formula - it isn't in the rubrics- but in my experience when specific saints are mentioned in Prayer B the form used is The Blessed Virgin Mary, then the Parish's patron saints, if any, and finally the saint of the day. So in St. John's Church on December 6 the form would be "with the ever Blessed Virgin Mary, the holy saints John, St. Nicholas and all your saints". I can't recall a saint of the day ever being mentioned on a Sunday that was not a patronal festival. Of course, in Prayer D, if you mention any saints at all, you must put the Blessed virgin first, and mention many categories of saints, before you come to any specifics. I suspect that any priest low-church enough to omit the Blessed Virgin is also low-church enough to object to mentioning specific saints at all.
Originally posted by NatDogg:
I have a question about adding saints to the Eucharistic Prayers used in the Episcopal Church. I'm not being too exhaustive here, but I know in Prayer B and D in the Book of Common Prayer and Prayers 1, 2, and 3 in Enriching our Worship allow for this. My question: is there any order, rhyme, or reason, beyond adding the saint whose day is commemorated? In Christmas is it usual to add Mary and Joseph? In Advent, John the Baptist? Also, is there a formula? Must Peter and Paul always be included? Or the patron saint of a church?
quote:Bang on. I'm surprised it's taken all day for someone to spot it. Award yourself six gold candlesticks.
Originally posted by Laud-able:
I noticed that in the church in which the (Church of England) wedding scene was set the altar was placed as for ad populum celebrations - an anachronism.
quote:Even I give a soft spoken amen. When it comes to action with the liturgy, Lutherans tend to be quite soft-spoken, almost apologetic. We are also very hesitant, thus explaining why we do not enthusiastically stand or sit even though we know very well when to do so. Instead we wait for someone else to start it.
Originally posted by Twilight:
Thanks, Lily Pad and Olaf. I usually say "Amen," but never hear anyone else say anything so maybe they're just very soft spoken or "nothing," is the custom in this particular church. I was raised Methodist so Lutheranism is all new to me.
quote:As a general note, that approach would also allow you to commemorate several unrelated saints whose days happen to coincide (e.g. 20 January has two optional memorias - St Fabian and also St Sebastian).
Originally posted by Hart:
We'll use that prayer (the Jan-2 prayer) to conclude the PotF at Mass, thus situating the Memorial within its seasonal context.
quote:Perhaps it allows for transferring the feast day to a Sunday for a patronal festival? Do patronal festivals get transferred in the Catholic Church?
Originally posted by MSHB:
My particular puzzle, though, concerns Morning and Evening Prayer: why do they provide a Concluding Prayer for 2 January in Christmastide when you should always use the Concluding Prayer from the Proper for St B and ST GN on that day (or else the Concluding Prayer from some other celebration, like a saint in a particular calendar or - on a Sunday - the Concluding Prayer from the Second Sunday after Christmas)?
This has me stumped.
quote:That's an interesting thought.
Originally posted by Basilica:
quote:Perhaps it allows for transferring the feast day to a Sunday for a patronal festival? Do patronal festivals get transferred in the Catholic Church?
Originally posted by MSHB:
My particular puzzle, though, concerns Morning and Evening Prayer: why do they provide a Concluding Prayer for 2 January in Christmastide when you should always use the Concluding Prayer from the Proper for St B and ST GN on that day (or else the Concluding Prayer from some other celebration, like a saint in a particular calendar or - on a Sunday - the Concluding Prayer from the Second Sunday after Christmas)?
This has me stumped.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
quote:Nope. Certainly from a Catholic perspective, it cannot be done, as the preface is a priestly prayer. It is part of the action of the anaphora.
Originally posted by Clotilde:
A quick question sparked off in my mind by Forthview's questions about Pope Francis.
Is it 'allowed' for a cantor to sing the Eucharistic preface if a priest can't sing?
I know in Cathedrals of the Church of England lay people sing the priest's part in Evensong if the priest can't. Does that happen at the Eucharist?
quote:BUT it was delegated to another priest who was concelebrating.
Originally posted by Clotilde:
I see. Its interesting that Pope Francis has delegated part of the Eucharistic prayer to someone who is not the celebrant - at the beginning, so it can be sung.
Having said which I don't suppose the church would fall down if a cantor sang the bits the priest couldn't - the priest could mime them!
quote:When and where was this?
Originally posted by Clotilde:
I see. Its interesting that Pope Francis has delegated part of the Eucharistic prayer to someone who is not the celebrant - at the beginning, so it can be sung.
quote:Is a Mass conducted in sign language invalid? Does a deaf and mute priest who is principal celebrant need to have another concelebrating priest say the EP out loud while he signs in order for the Mass to be valid?
Originally posted by leo:
quote:BUT it was delegated to another priest who was concelebrating.
Originally posted by Clotilde:
I see. Its interesting that Pope Francis has delegated part of the Eucharistic prayer to someone who is not the celebrant - at the beginning, so it can be sung.
Having said which I don't suppose the church would fall down if a cantor sang the bits the priest couldn't - the priest could mime them!
As for the other, the church might not fall down but the mass would be invalid.
quote:I can't imagine a mute man being accepted as a candidate for priesthood in the RCC, let alone being ordained. I'd guess that a priest who has lost the ability to speak might be able to say a valid Mass, since all that's really required is that the mouth form the words.
Originally posted by stonespring:
Is a Mass conducted in sign language invalid? Does a deaf and mute priest who is principal celebrant need to have another concelebrating priest say the EP out loud while he signs in order for the Mass to be valid?
quote:Invalid by some church's rules, I suppose.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:BUT it was delegated to another priest who was concelebrating.
Originally posted by Clotilde:
I see. Its interesting that Pope Francis has delegated part of the Eucharistic prayer to someone who is not the celebrant - at the beginning, so it can be sung.
Having said which I don't suppose the church would fall down if a cantor sang the bits the priest couldn't - the priest could mime them!
As for the other, the church might not fall down but the mass would be invalid.
quote:No, not at all. The Chaplaincy to the hard of hearing regularly did a mass in my former church.
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:Is a Mass conducted in sign language invalid? Does a deaf and mute priest who is principal celebrant need to have another concelebrating priest say the EP out loud while he signs in order for the Mass to be valid?
Originally posted by leo:
quote:BUT it was delegated to another priest who was concelebrating.
Originally posted by Clotilde:
I see. Its interesting that Pope Francis has delegated part of the Eucharistic prayer to someone who is not the celebrant - at the beginning, so it can be sung.
Having said which I don't suppose the church would fall down if a cantor sang the bits the priest couldn't - the priest could mime them!
As for the other, the church might not fall down but the mass would be invalid.
quote:Not mere 'rules' - it is about the theology of the Eucharist and RCs, Orthodoxen and Anglicans all insist that only an episcopally ordained priest may confect the eucharist.
Originally posted by Clotilde:
quote:Invalid by some church's rules, I suppose.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:BUT it was delegated to another priest who was concelebrating.
Originally posted by Clotilde:
I see. Its interesting that Pope Francis has delegated part of the Eucharistic prayer to someone who is not the celebrant - at the beginning, so it can be sung.
Having said which I don't suppose the church would fall down if a cantor sang the bits the priest couldn't - the priest could mime them!
As for the other, the church might not fall down but the mass would be invalid.
Irregular by some other churches' rules.
And OK by some others - would be, I suggest, the situation.
quote:Do you have a source for that? I've seen at least one archbishop get part of his office in by reading it without any mouth motion.
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Tangent : many clergy don't realize that the canonical requirement to read the daily office is not fulfilled by merely scanning the book with the eyes. The mouth must move, even if no phonation is involved.
quote:I don't see any reason why a requirement to "carry out" (persolvendi, "render") couldn't be met by silent reading.
Canon 276.3:
Priests, and deacons aspiring to the priesthood, are obliged to carry out the liturgy of the hours daily, in accordance with their own approved liturgical books
quote:Invalid by some church's rules, I suppose. Irregular by some other churches' rules. And OK by some others - would be, I suggest, the situation.
Originally posted by leo:
BUT it was delegated to another priest who was concelebrating.
As for the other, the church might not fall down but the mass would be invalid.
quote:But in certain circumstances I am sure churches would kindly allow for flexibility, Leo.
Not mere 'rules' - it is about the theology of the Eucharist and RCs, Orthodoxen and Anglicans all insist that only an episcopally ordained priest may confect the eucharist.
Regarding saying versus singing - singing is an aesthetic matter and is not very important compared with the necessity of a priest.
quote:Silent reading, yes, but silently gazing at the page without making any effort to comprehend, no.
Originally posted by Hart:
I don't see any reason why a requirement to "carry out" (persolvendi, "render") couldn't be met by silent reading.
quote:But in certain circumstances I am sure churches would kindly allow for flexibility, Leo.
Originally posted by Clotilde:
Regarding saying versus singing - singing is an aesthetic matter and is not very important compared with the necessity of a priest.
quote:It is by virtue of their baptism that "the congregation is part of the wider church throughout history and space." The eucharistic president does not make us Christians. Rather, we choose fellow-Christians for the eucharistic presidency.
Originally posted by venbede:
By virtue of the priest's ordination, the congregation is part of the wider church throughout history and space.
quote:But it is the Mass which makes us part of the Church, for it is the great Sacrament of com-union, and without the ordained priest, there is no Mass.
Originally posted by Mockingbird:
quote:It is by virtue of their baptism that "the congregation is part of the wider church throughout history and space." The eucharistic president does not make us Christians. Rather, we choose fellow-Christians for the eucharistic presidency.
Originally posted by venbede:
By virtue of the priest's ordination, the congregation is part of the wider church throughout history and space.
quote:I give up on this one.
Originally posted by Clotilde:
I beg to differ, Leo. So many churches break Canon law you know. Lots of Anglo Catholic churches do, and evangelical ones too.
Maybe if the priest recited the Eucharist prayer preface very softly in a whisper (moving his or her lips, of course!) while a Cantor sung on top that would satisfy liturgical purists!
quote:Ritual Notes states:
Originally posted by Hart:
I don't see any reason why a requirement to "carry out" (persolvendi, "render") couldn't be met by silent reading.
quote:O, I utterly agree that baptism makes us Christians and part of the High Priestly people of God. But in order for a congregation to be more than local, they need an ordained priest, representing the wider church. (Obviously lots of members here have a different theology of ministry.)
Originally posted by Mockingbird:
quote:It is by virtue of their baptism that "the congregation is part of the wider church throughout history and space." The eucharistic president does not make us Christians. Rather, we choose fellow-Christians for the eucharistic presidency.
Originally posted by venbede:
By virtue of the priest's ordination, the congregation is part of the wider church throughout history and space.
quote:I DO like what you're saying and used to object when asked to dress thus. I still grab a tunicle rather than a dalmatic because 'lay subdeacons' has some precedent.
Originally posted by venbede:
Leo won't like me saying this, but lay readers dressed up in a deacon's vestments when they are not in deacon's order, isn't much different from what is suggested, although comparatively harmless.
quote:Wasn't it somewhat of a traditional Anglican thing at least at one time in some places to have the choir sing "The Lord be with you. / And with thy spirit." - by themselves while the congregation stays quiet? Didn't composers write music for choir for these and other verses that did not envision the congregation or the priest/minister taking part at all?
Originally posted by leo:
quote:I give up on this one.
Originally posted by Clotilde:
I beg to differ, Leo. So many churches break Canon law you know. Lots of Anglo Catholic churches do, and evangelical ones too.
Maybe if the priest recited the Eucharist prayer preface very softly in a whisper (moving his or her lips, of course!) while a Cantor sung on top that would satisfy liturgical purists!
You seem to want liturgy that looks and sounds pretty rather than one which is valid.
The main difference seems to be protestantism with window dressing versus catholicism as praticed by the majority.
If i wanted be a rigid liturgical purist, i could point out objections to a lay cantor singing the priest's part at Choral Evensong, as is increasingly cathedral practice - 'The Lord be with you' isn't some sort of liturgy-speak for 'best wishes' but is a priestly blessing and should not/cannot be imparted by a layman/woman.
quote:Yes...Preces and Responses (or just referred to as Responses, such as "Responses: Smith of Durham."
Wasn't it somewhat of a traditional Anglican thing at least at one time in some places to have the choir sing "The Lord be with you. / And with thy spirit." - by themselves while the congregation stays quiet? Didn't composers write music for choir for these and other verses that did not envision the congregation or the priest/minister taking part at all? [/QB]
It was somewhat surreal.
quote:Yes and no! If you look at the score, it says 'priest' and 'Choir.
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:Wasn't it somewhat of a traditional Anglican thing at least at one time in some places to have the choir sing "The Lord be with you. / And with thy spirit." - by themselves while the congregation stays quiet? Didn't composers write music for choir for these and other verses that did not envision the congregation or the priest/minister taking part at all?
Originally posted by leo:
quote:I give up on this one.
Originally posted by Clotilde:
I beg to differ, Leo. So many churches break Canon law you know. Lots of Anglo Catholic churches do, and evangelical ones too.
Maybe if the priest recited the Eucharist prayer preface very softly in a whisper (moving his or her lips, of course!) while a Cantor sung on top that would satisfy liturgical purists!
You seem to want liturgy that looks and sounds pretty rather than one which is valid.
The main difference seems to be protestantism with window dressing versus catholicism as praticed by the majority.
If i wanted be a rigid liturgical purist, i could point out objections to a lay cantor singing the priest's part at Choral Evensong, as is increasingly cathedral practice - 'The Lord be with you' isn't some sort of liturgy-speak for 'best wishes' but is a priestly blessing and should not/cannot be imparted by a layman/woman.
quote:Why, we're not even up to #1200 yet
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Are we getting a new miscellaneous thread for the new year?
quote:After the 25th of March, naturally.
Originally posted by Carys:
If someone told you they'd be in contact 'in the New Year, when the Advent, Christmas & Epiphany seasons are over', when would you expect to hear from them?
Eccles seemed to be a place where people would have opinions on this!
Carys
quote:That more or less sums up my thoughts on the matter. Vademecum and Albertus made me laugh which was good. In fact the answer was half five today, well yesterday now, so I can stop wondering.
Originally posted by venbede:
If they are RC, Ordinary Time starts the Monday after the Baptism of Christ, but as RCs don't use the term "Epiphany Season" (it's Christmas 2) your friend is likely to be C of E. Strictly speaking the C of E's new Epiphany season ends at the Presenation on 2 February which is a bit late into the secular year. It probably means after 6 January, but it is muddling secular and ecclesiastical usage.
quote:You know, the sad thing about my brain is that when I read a paragraph like that it comes out sounding like this. And that was a simple sentence.
Originally posted by Hart:
They help you identify Sundays. A given year might be an 'e' year, say, which would mean that all the days with a 'e' next to them would be Sundays. (A leap year has two letters, one for Jan/Feb and one for the rest of the year).
