Thread: Miscellaneous questions of a liturgical nature Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027820

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
Here is a brand new thread for all those random queries that are burning for an answer.

Remember that the Ecclesiantics Dictionary is there for vocabulary-related matters and The Tatler is there for queries on vestments, liturgical impedimenta and the like.

seasick, Eccles host
 
Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Dunno the history, but here that response is used during Eastertide to Ascension.
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
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.

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!"

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.
 
Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :
 
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.

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.

I don't think they rise in glory in any official Liturgical text.
 
Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :
 
quote:
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

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.

The nearest liturgical example (quoted by Derek Jay) seems to be from a recent Methodist source.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
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

[ 13. January 2013, 13:07: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
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

Thank you - that was me!!!
 
Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :
 
quote:
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

But I didn't start this thread!
 
Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on :
 
I started it and now regret that I did! Thanks, shipmates for the preferences!
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Something that troubles me every time that yet again I encounter argument about this.

Whether the couplet is traditional or recent, which would you prefer, that you rest in peace and rise in glory, or that you don't?

Assuming that most of us would prefer to receive these blessings rather than to forgo them, wouldn't you likewise rather people pray for them for you than that they don't. In which case, why withhold the same prayer for others?
 
Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

I don't think they rise in glory in any official Liturgical text.

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

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!

Carys
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
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

But it doesn't say souls, does it? That seems to be the point of contention.
It seems sensible to me. Separating soul and body is near to heresy IMHO.
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
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!

The BCP 1662 absolution at Evensong:

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."

The problem I'd have with it is not its grammatical structure but the fact that it's really just telling the congregation what to ask God for. Same problem I have with "For what we are about to receive, may the Lord make us truly thankful." It's not actually being thankful, but a wish that God will make us truly thankful. Similarly, the absolution doesn't really absolve or declare absolution; it just tells us who God absolves and calls us to ask God for the things required to be one of those whom God absolves.

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!"
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
I've never understood the ruling that says this prayer must only be said by an ordained priest. If it was an absolution, yes, but it ain't.
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
I always cross myself at 'pardoneth' just to be on the safe side!
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
MOTR and High Church Anglican priests in my experience make the sign of the cross over the congregation when pronouncing the Office absolution words "pardoneth and absolveth...", suggesting an understanding that they are, in fact, pronouncing a general absolution. The American BCP (both '79 and '28 IIRC) provide an alternative short and direct absolution that may be used instead (indeed, '28 may have a rubric saying that the absolution from Holy Communion may be pronounced instead by a priest or bishop).
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
Indeed. On those rare occasions I've been at a BCP Office that includes the Confession and Absolution (principally, though not quite exclusively, Choral Evensong at Durham Cathedral), that is where the crossing has been done.

Thurible
 
Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
quote:
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!

The BCP 1662 absolution at Evensong:

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."

But we've switched persons. It starts with a vocative so second person, but then switches to third. Compare


quote:
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
Vocative + relative clause describing God
Main clause (cleanse)
How (by)
So that
Through Jesus
Amen.

The BCP absolution starts the same, with vocative + relative clause, but then (I think to avoid pronouncing absolution in a 'Roman' sense) switches to the third person.

People talk about the beauty of the language but this prayer just offends my inner linguist!

Carys

[ 14. January 2013, 21:13: Message edited by: Carys ]
 
Posted by Manipled Mutineer (# 11514) on :
 
Seeing the reference to the Ecclesiantics dictionary upthread has pricked my conscience. Is there any appetite for me to resurrect and update it?
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
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!"

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.
 
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :
 
quote:
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.

That's also how I read it.
 
Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
Interesting. 'Almighty God who' makes me expect vocative and collect form, but you're right, in trad language the second singular verb forms are used in the relative clause (cf Almighty God who makest us glad with the yearly remembrance of the birth of thy Son) so if it were vocative it would be 'who desirest not ... and hast given...'. But, it's not the subject of the 'He pardoneth and absolveth' because you've got a subject pronoun there. So it is left dislocation perhaps with information about the subject fronted, and then a thingy* pronoun in the main clause because the subclauses got so deep. Though in fact it would read the same if the relative clause was turned into a main clause, so we had 'Almighty God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, desireth not the death of a sinner... and hath given to his ministers ... . He pardoneth and absolveth ....

How often though do we use Almighty God non-vocatively at the start of a sentence? I would expect a definite article I think 'The Almighty God ... desireth not...'.

Then, we have the request to us to beseech him for true repentence. And then it ends 'through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen' thus turning it into a prayer which is probably why I've always heard the opening words as a vocative.

I'm happier now. It's been bugging me since I started hearing it regularly, but only while hearing it and asking the question has made me think about it at a point when it's ok to be thinking about the grammar which is distracting when it's being said in a service!

The heart of my problem is that it isn't actually an absolution which would be something like

quote:
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...
Carys

*I really should know the word but it's escaping me at the moment
 
Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on :
 
Hmm. An interesting exercise in parsing. Q/. Who is the subject of the 3sg verbs?

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;
OR
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);

The Father or the Son? Or deliberately ambiguous?
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
The second would be a bit heretical if the implication was that the Father did 'desire the death of a sinner...'
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
quote:
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.

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!"

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.

Souls may not rise in glory according to the Bible, but bodies do!

The thread Leo linked to above was quoted from my post on one of the threads here (he says immodestly) 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.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Well, now I've got egg on my face. Upon checking the TEC 1979 and 1928 BCPs, I have re-discovered that the traditional Absoultion at the Daily Offices has been entirely done away with in favour of a short absolution similar to that provided at the Eucharist; whilst in 1928, the traditional absolution was retained for both Morning and Evening Prayer, however with the rubric at Morning Prayer that the priest might instead use the absolution from the rite for Holy Communion, and at Evening Prayer a second, shorter absolution being provided as an alternative (what became the sole provision in the '79 book).

Nonetheless, a TEC parish just down the road from me claims to do 1662 Choral Evensong (in point of fact they don't do the same suffrages, Prayer for the Queen's Majesty or Prayer for the Royal Family that would characterise a proper 1662 service, but instead do the traditional set of evening Office suffrages from the American BCP). They do, however, use the old, long form of the Absolution found in 1662 and in the American BCPs up through 1928. I suppose they must not be entirely unique in this practice amongst TEC parishes.
 
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :
 
A similar question of syntax and Elizabethan grammar...

The 1979 TEC BCP Rite I MP/EP confession reads:
quote:
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.

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..."?)
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
I had always read those sentences as imperative, not declarative. I'm open to correction, however.

Those used to the 1662 confession for Mattins and Evensong will note that our 1979 BCP general confession for the Daily Offices has lost some bits, notably the, "And there is no health in us". This was cut from the confession not to lighten it up, but rather because the assertion was considered theologically incorrect, tending to suggest a "total depravity" view of the human condition that is not in accord with mainstream, orthodox Anglican theology. However, the omission seems to me to damage the rhythm of the prayer.
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
The absolution we've been discussing appears in the 1979 USA BCP at the end of the Litany of Penitence on Ash Wednesday (p. 269)...

Almighty God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who desires not the death of sinners, but rather that they may turn from their wickedness and live, has given power and commandment to his ministers to declare and pronounce to his people, being penitent, the absolution and remission of their sins. He pardons and absolves all those who truly repent, and with sincere hearts believe his holy Gospel.

Therefore we beseech him to grant us true repentance and his Holy Spirit, that those things may please him which we do on this day, 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.


Doesn't seem to be any more of an actual absolution than the 1662 one at Evensong; it's entirely addressed to the people, although the final paragraph seems obliquely to let God in on the conversation.
 
Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
A similar question of syntax and Elizabethan grammar...

The 1979 TEC BCP Rite I MP/EP confession reads:
quote:
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.

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..."?)
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.
 
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :
 
Thanks Metapelagius! That was exactly my question.
 
Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :
 
quote:
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.

I agree with Ken, except that it does not seem to be used by pukka Anglo-Catholics even today.

I know it seems I keep coming back to this question, but I have been trying to write something on Anglican prayer for the dead.

The "rise in glory" response is so common today that it's puzzling that it cannot be found in any liturgical text or apparently remembered from before the 1970s (at the earliest).

Just to clarify, it is specifically this formula I am enquiring about:

V: "May the souls of the faithful departed . . . rest in peace"

R: "and rise in glory".

We have had a lengthy discussion here, but never, I think, found a satisfactory answer to this question. The nearest seems to be the suggestion that it was introduced at Cuddesdon in Robert Runcie's day and spread from there.

Does anyone know if it appears in the Cuddesdon Office Book?
 
Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :
 
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.'
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

I have a copy of Brian Cummings's excellent compilation and commentary on the BCP. He says that the prayer originates from "the introductory prayers of the celebrant in the Sarum Ordinary". He adds that it was not part of the Roman Missal.

My understanding is that originally it was not part of the service per se, but was part of a preparatory rite that would have been said privately, with the last parts (the Lord's Prayer and this collect) said as the priest approached the altar. 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.)
 
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :
 
Basilica, your understanding matches my own and is corroborated by the Sarum Missal. It survives in this position in Sarum as used in the Orthodox Church.
 
Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on :
 
quote:
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.'

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.
 
Posted by Cornish High (# 17202) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by anon four (# 15938) on :
 
quote:
....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]
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.
 
Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :
 
quote:
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?

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?

Thanks.
 
Posted by Cornish High (# 17202) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
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.

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.
Please do; you might finally put this one to rest.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
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.

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.
Can't find it - drat.
 
Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
It was printed on the service sheet at Evensong at Inverness cathedral tonight, but I don't know whether that's a local custom or from the official liturgy. Similar we had the Orate Fratres this morning.

Carys
 
Posted by Ultracrepidarian (# 9679) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
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?

It varies according to the rite used, number of communicants, solemnity of the service, &c.

The UK group is a fledgling mission with a newly-ordained priest (they had no resident UK priest until a few months ago) so I doubt that it will be a fully-staffed affair with all of the bells and whistles, (assuming that you're asking about the occasion that I'm fairly sure you are). They are good enough to keep me in the loop of their correspondence and I'm fairly sure that I recall that they have opted for what was, until recently, dubbed "the Fraternity Liturgy" for their use here.

My suggestion would be to expect something dignified but low-key, with people who have come together for the occasion but do not usually worship together regularly. I imagine that it will last round about an hour, if not slightly longer.

As it happens, I spoke with their priest only this evening about various things, and to offer my apologies for not being able to honour my standing offer of help to them whenever they need it. I have just started a new job and cannot take any time off, which is very upsetting for me for a number of reasons, not least of which is my long-standing peripheral involvement with the Western Rite effort in the UK.

If you want to know more about it, send me an e-mail or something. I'd love to be in touch with folk who are privileged to go.
 
Posted by KevinL (# 12481) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
'Pulled away from the wall' suggests that the altar is no more than a couple of metres from the tabernacle if that. Is that the case, or is it free-standing in its own space?

In the former case, I would reverence the tabernacle at the beginning and end of mass and ignore it otherwise. In the latter, I would ignore it totally unless approaching it to remove or replenish the MBS. But that is just a subjective aesthetic judgement; I don't know what any official rubrics might say.
 
Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by KevinL (# 12481) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :
 
In his book on the rubrics of Sunday Mass (in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite) Paul Turner says, "The point of Mass is to participate in the miracle that will take place on the altar, not to exercise devotions to the reserved Blessed Sacrament."

There is a slight difference between the GIRM and the IOM. The former says that you should genuflect (or bow the head if carrying something) when entering the sanctuary during the opening procession if the tabernacle is in the sanctuary, the latter if it is behind or near the altar. Whatever you do on the way in, you should do on the way out. Also, I would genuflect before taking hosts out of the tabernacle (a discouraged practice during Mass) and after putting them back in. That would be the only reverence to the tabernacle during Mass: the altar is the focus.
 
Posted by Cruet (# 14586) on :
 
Hart, this is not the case when Mass is
celebrated on EWTN.
 
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :
 
What do they do?
 
Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :
 
Among other things, the servers do not 'ignore' the tabernacle, but rather genuflect every time they pass in front of it (for instance, when setting or clearing the altar), although not when the consecrated sacrament is on the altar.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
My understanding was that in the GIRM, if the sacrament was reserved within sight of the altar, the ministers genuflected on entering and leaving, otherwise ignoring it. The eucharistic presence was that of the eucharist being celebrated.

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.
 
Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on :
 
quote:
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!

Sorry - I am an idiot. What I meant was when he is on the east side facing west... Our custom is to genuflect.
 
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :
 
quote:
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.

That's the practice I'm used to as well. The EWTN practice JitN describes sounds well-intentioned but rather distracting to me.

[ 23. January 2013, 17:16: Message edited by: Hart ]
 
Posted by flags_fiend (# 12211) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :
 
quote:
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

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.
 
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :
 
The person who put the candles out could have been a verger or a lay reader sitting in the choir/chancel but with no particular other role that evening.
 
Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :
 
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:
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? . . .

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."

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.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
quote:
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

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.
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.

Then again, if there is a choir, an anthem is part of the office, as is the state prayers.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
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:
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? . . .

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."

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.

Thanks for info. It has been bugging me ever since I failed to find my copy.
 
Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :
 
Robert Runcie was teaching in Cambridge between 1952 and 1960 when Fison was Vicar of Great St Mary's (1959 to 1963). Maybe Runcie heard the 'rise in glory' then and took it with him to Cuddesdon.
 
Posted by Theophania (# 16647) on :
 
Recently I went to a communion service at a pretty high Anglican church. During the preparation of the bread and wine, a handbell was rung near the altar and the church bell was rung at the same time.

What is the ringing for, please? I've never been a regular at a church that does this and am intrigued.
 
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :
 
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?

[ 26. January 2013, 00:14: Message edited by: Hart ]
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
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).

In our parish, the first ring of the bell is a brief one just before the celebrant starts the Words of Institution.
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
In the Latin rite in my small part of India, the altar boys (all six or seven of them) have their own set of bells.

a) At the beginning of Mass, once, to announce the entry of the priest;

b) Three times each at the Words of Institution

c) Three times each at the Communion of the Priest

I noticed last week that even the Master of Ceremonies who was lurking in the sacristy (behind the altar) was ringing his own set of bells.

Quite different from the discreet little tinkle we are accustomed to hearing in the West.

Not to mention the church bell which is vigorously rung 5 minutes before the service (at 7:25) to summon the laggard faithful to church and once just before the entry of the Priest (and accompanying handbell ringings)

The church bell is rung by one of the boys, and if you look quickly to your left you can plot his progress as he scrambles back in an attempt to join the procession to the altar.
 
Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.
 
Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :
 
Or when attending Mass was more like spending time in church saying your own devotions rather than actively participating in the service (probably couldn't hear or see the celebrant due to distance, rood screen, etc). When the bell rung you knew where the service was up to and joined in at that spot.
 
Posted by Theophania (# 16647) on :
 
Thank you all!
 
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
In the days of the Latin Mass it was customary in France to ring the bell at the beginning of the Offertory (preparation of bread and wine) but I haven't come across this in over 40 years.Other posters have explained when the standard ringing of bells took place in the Roman rite.Different countries had slightly different 'extras'.
I find that anglican churches each adapt to whatever they think is 'right'.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
Also ringing to give a signal for the laity to move up for communion.
 
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:
Our servers are trained to ring the sanctuary bells at the Sanctus (3x3, one for each 'Holy')...

Is this due to the particular setting that you use?
 
Posted by Crucifer (# 523) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :
 
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.]
 
Posted by Stranger in a strange land (# 11922) on :
 
quote:
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.]

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.

(Would have been nice for last Sundays second lesson).
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stranger in a strange land:
quote:
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.]

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.

(Would have been nice for last Sundays second lesson).

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.

In any event, Hart, why not simply use the shorter reading, and then sound very impressive in your homily when you expound upon what comes before and after the appointed reading?! The common pewfolk will think you actually cracked open your Bible, but we in Eccles will know the truth. Don't worry, we'll keep it in pectore.
 
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :
 
This is for preaching class, so I think I'm going to just do it. The reading is either John 4:5-42 or 4:5-15, 19b-26, 39a, 40-42. I want to use some of the bits that are skipped, but 31-38 is kind of an intrusion into the text that I'd like to skip. I guess in the real world, I'd have to read that bit and hope people didn't notice that I didn't say anything about it!
 
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :
 
I'm fairly certain it isn't kosher to pick and choose from the readings but when you're preaching I don't think you're obligated to refer to or mention every single verse in a reading either.

etaYou should just do the whole reading and for the homily if it's specific bits of the reading that jump out at you, give an overview of the reading at the beginning of the homily and then focus on those 2 or 3 (or 4, or 5....) verses that jump out at you.

[ 31. January 2013, 02:14: Message edited by: Pancho ]
 
Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
The short version seems to lose the sense. Missing 16-19a means missing the bit that makes her recognise him as a prophet inn 19b. I can quite see why you want to do what you suggest. Not sure what the rules say though. I have to admit that I'll often read through omitted verses at the office.

Carys
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :
 
In all my years in the church bother here in Oz and in my assistance in CofE parishes, I have never seen nor heard of that one!
 
Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :
 
quote:
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?

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,
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.

*.
 
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
quote:
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?

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,
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.

*.

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.
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
Do Anglicans ever sport mozzettas?
 
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
Do Anglicans ever sport mozzettas?

All the time. Sometime over a cassock only, and sometimes over a cassock and surplice.
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
I am talking of the Mozzetta, just to be clear, not the pellegrina.
 
Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
quote:
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?

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,
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.

*.

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.
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.

*
 
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
I am talking of the Mozzetta, just to be clear, not the pellegrina.

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).
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
I am talking of the Mozzetta, just to be clear, not the pellegrina.

That ought to go in the 'guotes file' if i knew how to do it.

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.
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
leo,

Snark isn't needed - if you're not interested in a particular topic my advice would be not to read that thread/those posts.

Snark and Dead Horse together really doesn't endear you to me and my hostly friends.

seasick, Eccles host
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
I am talking of the Mozzetta, just to be clear, not the pellegrina.

That ought to go in the 'guotes file' if i knew how to do it.

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.

Oh dear, Leo, you are so serious. Can't you see tongue in cheek comments?

We can all have our little hobbies and questions, and, as I understand it here is a place to ask them.

As it happens you will have seen a pellegrina several times, not very exotic, and not porn, unless you get off on that sort of thing!
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
But where do you put the Mozzarella?
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
But where do you put the Mozzarella?

In the f**kin' ziti.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
I am talking of the Mozzetta, just to be clear, not the pellegrina.

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).
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.
 
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :
 
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?


*Well, actually, it is unusual among Catholic hymnals in the U.S. but that's another thread.
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
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?

I'll have to dig through materials when I get home, but I can definitely say they are rare.

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.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
This is more of a miscellaneous comment than a question, but I want to rave about natural light. Last week the power in the church went out a quarter of the way through the service and we had to carry on with natural light and a Capella singing. It was a cloudy day, and the windows have that dingy plastic sheeting on the outside that churches put up in the 80's, but there was enough light to see the hymn sheets, and the candles cast a very mysterious light in the chancel. Why can't we have that every week?

We could pay some sod a farthing a day to pump the organ bellows, and it would be just like olden times. And just so we know it's not just me, according to St Dearmer,

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.

 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:
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?

I'll have to dig through materials when I get home, but I can definitely say they are rare.

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.

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.

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.
 
Posted by fabula rasa (# 11436) on :
 
I'm wondering whether any Ecclesianticists (is that what you are???) know of any traditions or liturgical resources for burying the Alleluia. (And some of you may be horrified that this is being asked post-Quinquagesima, so I apologise to those of delicate sensibility!)
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by fabula rasa (# 11436) on :
 
ken, I thought that was the underlying goal of all liturgy. Have I missed something?
 
Posted by Clavus (# 9427) on :
 
We have an Alleluia banner which the children hold during the Notices and then slowly take out of the church during the third verse of our final hymn, which is 'Alleuia, Song of Sweetness' (AMR 82; not in New English Hymnal).
 
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :
 
We're singing lots of Alleluias at Mass tonight, but no burying. One can have a goodbye without any burying (it's quite the fashion in Rome these days).
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:
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?

I'll have to dig through materials when I get home, but I can definitely say they are rare.

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.

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.

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.

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).

By the way whi do you think introduced the Peruvian Gloria outside Peru?

Jengie
 
Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on :
 
My memory tells me that Gustav Holst, when organist of Thaxted (Essex),taught the congregation to sing Byrd's Three Part Mass.
 
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :
 
quote:
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?

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?

I'm an ordinand, and I'm also frequently asked to do a deacon's role. I wish I weren't.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Yes, I've seen ordinands/ potential ordinands and people of similar standing do deacon back in the 90s. In fact, I think I may have done it myself once- I certainly used to do subdeacon from time to time.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
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?

I seem to remember that in theory they can marry people but only civilly and not ecclesiastically?
 
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

I asked the question as I suspect we have an odd situation that's been drifted into by accident, but I'd like to understand the history first. (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)
 
Posted by Poppy (# 2000) on :
 
In this part of the world (UK) readers are not allowed to do baptisms other than the emergency ones that any lay person could do. Readers and deacons are not allowed to do weddings either. That is a priestly function although I think that has more to do with the legality of being a registrar than anything ontological. As a deacon I haven't been on that training course yet and hope to be enlightened before my first wedding in August!

[ 13. February 2013, 15:44: Message edited by: Poppy ]
 
Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on :
 
Although it is not now encouraged, a deacon is legally permitted to conduct a wedding in the C of E (and I'm pretty sure in Wales as well), and is allowed to pronounce any blessing associated with it. The (secular) legal requirement is for a Clerk in Holy Orders, rather than for a priest, to conduct ceremony and registration.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:

I asked the question as I suspect we have an odd situation that's been drifted into by accident...

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.

I suspect that it sometimes happens that a parish gets an incumbent who thinks every main worship service should be Holy Communion, and also that the minister who celebrates at Holy Communion should be the minister who preaches at Holy Communion. Which means no lay preaching, and no lay-led services, so no real job for a Reader. So if there is a licensed Reader in the parish, and the incumbent gets on OK with them, they might want to give them some other liturgical role to make up for it, and "deaconing" fits the bill.


quote:
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)

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!

And most CofE parishes don't have them anyway - my guess would be about a third do (or would if they could), though obviously I haven't counted. Most parishes - and almost all evangelical and charismatic ones - will have lay people leading non-eucharistic liturgy, and many will have lay people preaching, but I think only the more markedly Anglo-Catholic ones will talk about them as "deacons" or give them specific liturgical roles at Communion.

quote:
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?

If we'd wanted to be ordained we''d have tried to get ourselves ordained, not become Readers!
 
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
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?

If we'd wanted to be ordained we''d have tried to get ourselves ordained, not become Readers!
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.

In fact, I rather think it diminishes the reader's distinctive role to give them functions appointed to an ordained minister.
 
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Whatever the theory is, and although this analysis will make all the experts squeal, if one evaluates the underlying truth by what actually happens, it looks as though:-

A deacon is an apprentice priest, who is ordained, commissioned to serve, but until they've done their apprenticeship can't actually do any of the things that are normally exclusive to being ordained - i.e. consecrate, absolve/shrive, bless, anoint. Until 2001 they were disqualified from being MPs.

A reader is an ordinary person who is authorised to do some or all the things that are not sacerdotal, but which most people, most of the time are not supposed to do, lead public non-eucharistic services, preach, even take funerals provided they do not include a requiem. A reader has always been able to be an MP unless excluded for as different reason - e.g. holding an office of profit under the Crown.

But nobody is allowed to say this.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
"nobody is allowed to say this"?

[Confused]

People have been saying it all over the place. What's controversial about it?
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
"nobody is allowed to say this"?

[Confused]

People have been saying it all over the place. What's controversial about it?

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.

If you ask, 'what's the point of having Revs who can't do any of the things we expect them to do?' people glare at you as though you had suggested the emperor has no clothes.

Perhaps things are different in London.
 
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :
 
Thanks everyone.
The thread that Ken linked to can be found via the Google cache. this link might work, but I found it by googling for the URL ken gave and looking for the cached page from there. It's a very thorough thread on the role of the deacon in the eucharist, and the history of the role (but not who does it).

I did a bit more digging; it seems that there was a definite craze for increasing the liturgical role of deacons in the CofE between 1987 and 1992, when we had rather a lot of perpetual deacons and had to find jobs for them. Unfortunately a few good ideas came out of this process, which people have tried to keep going, despite the fact that there are now negligible numbers of perpetual deacons.

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.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
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.

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"
 
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
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.

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"
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.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I don't think things are as recent as many think.

Back in 1990, I was asked to read the gospel, prepare the table and elevate the chalice. I'd never seen a lay person sing the gospel or elevate before and i felt very uncomfortable doing it.

As for the liturgical role of deacons, again there is nothing new here. My 'home parish' in the 1960s used to have two curates - so we had a deacon two years out of every three - they always read the gospel.
 
Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :
 
I recall seeing, in 1974--78, laymen officiating as deacons more or less every Sunday at the High Mass in what was then my parish church here. The Vicar claimed to have episcopal permission to celebrate with two "subdeacons". The churchwardens undertook the role. Apart from wearing a stole the right-hand one (we are all looking east) did everything the old books say a deacon at High Mass does.

More bizarrely, in the same church, during an interregnum, the deacon [by then we'd acquired a real one] sang the sursum corda and preface when we had a non-singing celebrant. As we were all facing east very few noticed.
 
Posted by Crucifer (# 523) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
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!

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).
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
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.

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"
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.
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.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
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.

Somewhat old fashioed.

Since 1967, the deacon kisses the Book of the Gospels at the end of the Gospel.

Three doubles is an anglican eccentricity. Nowhere does it appear in the GIRM.

The bells are rung throughout Lent until the start of the Maundy Thursday Gloria and then silenced the the same part of the Easter Vigil.
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
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.

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"
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.
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.
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.
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
Last place I was at where this happened was at St. John's Harborne, Birmingham, where the several hundred present sat during the second Bible reading at the Communion service - which was the Gospel of the day.

I think standing is a (usually followed) option for C of E folk isn't it, rather than a rule. There is that rubric about the standing sitting kneeling rules being guides which local custom may determine otherwise.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
I think I can answer this. There was some discussion about it a year or two ago. A lay person can read the gospel in England, and in many churches regularly does. In Wales they aren't supposed to.

Irrespective of who reads it, as far as I've experienced things, it is generally taken for granted the congregation stands for the gospel.

A New Testament reading at Morning or Evening Prayer that happens to come from a gospel doesn't count as a 'gospel' in the same way, and people do not stand.

My impression is that if the reading of the Gospel at a Communion Service includes a procession, the reader is less likely to be a lay person.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Second post
Sorry, I forgot to ask. What's a crotalus? When I looked it up, it seems to be a rattlesnake.

I've learnt from the Ship about the legend of the crab, but where do rattlesnakes fit into Anglo-Catholicism? I thought they belonged in the wilder religious underbelly of the Appalachians.
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
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.

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).
 
Posted by otyetsfoma (# 12898) on :
 
The rubric in the BCP 1662 regarding the
gospel in the Holy Commuion service says " Then shall he read the Gospel(the people all standing up)".It sweems to be a principle of extreme protestants that all the books of the bible are of equal value and importance therefore they show no special honour to the gospel. Our Lord seems not to have shared this misconception - nor do the Jews who give special honour to the Torah.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
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).

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?
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
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).

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?
Ours looks more like this one and makes a clack rather than a rattle sound.
 
Posted by Crucifer (# 523) on :
 
quote:
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).

Thanks for the replies so far.

Oblatus, I agree with you re: the necessity of making the point that the Gospel has no end. It's already implied by the fact that there is no "Here ends the Gospel" as is the case for the OT and Epistle lessons.

In any case, if the censing is to be done after the singing of the Gospel, it would make more sense to me if the one who sings the Gospel (and censes it before commencing to sing it) were to cense it after the singing of it and cense it in situ (i.e. in the nave, where it is sung, Anglican style), rather than first taking it back to the high altar.

It would seem to me, upon further reflection, that censing the Gospel AFTER it is sung, actually would have the effect of book-ending it(censing before and after) and therefore, implying an end...

Re: Crotali. Ours looks a lot like yours, Oblatus. Ours gets used at two liturgies - from before Sanctus at the Mass of the Institution on Maundy Thursday through the remainder of that mass and again on Good Friday at the Mass of the Pre-sanctified (at Domine non sum dignus).
 
Posted by Crucifer (# 523) on :
 
I forgot to reply to your question, Enoch. I am nearly certain that we have the only crotalus in the Diocese of Rupert's Land. (I am pretty sure we have the only sanctus bells as well).

Rupert's Land is pretty much on the lower side of middle of the road - either more-or-less broad church or evangelical. So far as I know, we are the only Anglo-Catholic parish between southern Ontario and Edmonton, Alberta. (Calgary's Anglo-Catholic parish went over to the Ordinariate a while ago).
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
A quick question, I would be grateful for help.

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.

And, more particularly what is the pre Gospel sentence used at a Requiem in Lent in the traditional language Anglo Catholic rite? (Am I right in thinking I am talking about the Tract, my memory may have failed me on that one).
 
Posted by Bos Loquax (# 16602) on :
 
quote:
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.

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."

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).
 
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Since 1967, the deacon kisses the Book of the Gospels at the end of the Gospel.

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.
 
Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :
 
FCB: I've seen bishops kiss the Gospel but never bless with it. You've seen bishops bless the people after kissing the Gospel?
 
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :
 
quote:
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?

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:

quote:
In more solemn celebrations, if appropriate, the Bishop may impart a blessing to the people with the Book of
the Gospels.

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.
 
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
I've certainly seen the pope do this at
Solemn Masses.He is,like Fortescue,somewhat of an
authority on Catholic liturgy.
 
Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

I'm pretty sure the Holy Father does the same.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bos Loquax:
quote:
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.

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."

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).

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!
 
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
quote:
Originally posted by Bos Loquax:
quote:
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.

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."

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).

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!
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:

V. O Lord, remember not our old sins, but have mercy upon us, and that soon, for we are come to great misery.V. Help us, O God of our salvation for the glory of thy name : O deliver us, and be merciful unto our sins for thy name's sake.

On Tue/Thu/Sat, after the gradual the priest proceeds directly to the Munda cor meum and the gospel.

Hope this helps.
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
Thank you for your kind response Ceremoniar.

More specifically I am asking what the tract is for a requiem in Lent in the form of traditional liturgy you refer to.
 
Posted by Manipled Mutineer (# 11514) on :
 
The Anglican Missal is online but neither it nor the English Missal for the Laity, which I have just consulted, indicate what is said in place of Alleluia. Ritual Notes also appears silent on the matter. You might find that an Anglican breviary is more helpful, and the two I have ready access to, Day Hours of the Church and Hours of Prayer front Lauds to Compline both give "To thee, O Lord, be glory ; King of endless majesty."
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
The tract for a Requiem Mass is usually this :

V. Absolve, O Lord, the souls of the faithful departed : from every bond of sin.
R. And by the help of Thy grace : may they be enabled to escape the avenging judgment.
V. And enjoy the bliss : of everlasting light.
R. Eternal rest give to them, O Lord : and let perpetual light shine upon them.

In some places the psalm De profundis is used instead.

[ 19. February 2013, 18:56: Message edited by: Fr Weber ]
 
Posted by Manipled Mutineer (# 11514) on :
 
Turning to the other question, my reading of EMfL and An Abridged Anglican Missal is that the Tract in Masses of the Dead in Lent is the same as for any other season, viz:

Absolve, O Lord, the souls of all the faithful departed from every bond of sin.
V. And by the help of thy grace may they be worthy to escape the avenging judgement.
V. And enjoy the bliss of everlasting light. [EMfL]

Absolve, O Lord, the souls of all the faithful departed from all the chains of their sins.
V. That by the succour of thy grace they may be found worthy to escape the avenging judgement
[Then as EMfL - AAM]
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
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."

How? Does he biff them on the head with it?
 
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
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."

How? Does he biff them on the head with it?
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.

Biffing sounds much more entertaining, though.
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
quote:
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.

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!
 
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :
 
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..
 
Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :
 
I'm surprised that this is both so recent and so little known. I used to watch the big events on EWTN from various places quite frequently so my experience of seeing this may be unusual, but I'd have thought it so common as to be unremarkable, especially as, as Triple Tiara points out, some bishops have a particularly generous interpretation of "more solemn occasions". Certainly, that Roman Catholic bishops bless with the Gospel book is one of those things that is just part of my consciousness without any specific memory of where I picked it up.

Incidentally, this is a standard part of Byzantine practice, even when a priest serves rather than a bishop.

[cross-posted with Jon in the Nati, whose surprise I share - perhaps this is just less common in some places.]

[ 20. February 2013, 06:15: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
I have seen priests hold up the book of Gospels after reading it, and turn to 'show' it to those around, - this in Anglican churches.

I have not seen a blessing with the book.
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
quote:
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..

Here - about the 28minute mark - all your questions answered [Big Grin]
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
quote:
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?

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.
Sorry for the lack of context...I was writing here about traditional breviaries, or at least the traditional Benedictine one.
 
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :
 
Thank you, Triple Tiara for that link. It was lovely. I've seen plenty of Anglican priest sing the final blessing which in Rome I think only bishops are allowed to do, so--I wonder if any Anglican priest might adopt this custom.

It works both ways. I've seen a couple of RC churches move the Gospel reading to the midst of the congregation a few times (but they were instructed to move it back to the ambo later).
 
Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :
 
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.
Quite so, HT.
 
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:
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?

I'll have to dig through materials when I get home, but I can definitely say they are rare.

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.

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.
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.

quote:
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.

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.

What got me thinking about all of this is that I had seen some complaints online about how none of the major U.S. Catholic hymnals have harmonies in their pew editions and how this was another case of dumbing down music for congregations. It just had me thinking that if you want Catholic congregations to sing in harmony the logical place to begin is with the Ordinary of the Mass rather than hymns so it made me curious to see if anything like that was out there.
quote:
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).

Thanks for that link.

quote:
By the way whi do you think introduced the Peruvian Gloria outside Peru?
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.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.
 
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :
 
When I saw "Peruvian Gloria" at first I thought what was meant was the Gloria from Ramirez's Misa Criolla. The music is based on Argentine folk styles but there are strong Andean influences in northwestern Argentina, making the music sound Peruvian.

Gloria - Misa Criolla

I saw that it didn't match the "Peruvian Gloria" so I did a few more but not too many searches with terms like "gloria peruana" and "gloria andina" (andean gloria) one melody that came up often was this one:

Gloria - Misa Andina

I'm not skeptical that the tune of "Peruvian Gloria" is actually Peruvian, I'm just wondering where they found it.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
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. [/QB]
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.
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.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
I can remember both the Gloria and Carribbean Our Father in the late 60s inserted into Series 2 with BCP propers, so they've been around a bit.

The good thing about them is they shouldn't need the text in front of everyone, but they have been printed out in full when I've come across them.
 
Posted by Manipled Mutineer (# 11514) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
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.

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.
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]

It seems rather an unkind thing to saddle Peru with, somehow, after they were so kind as to give us Paddington Bear...
 
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :
 
quote:
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.

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):

He said the deacon carrying the Gospel out to the people is connected with the Father sending the Son (the Word) out into the world. The blessing of the deacon, then, isn't instilling something they already received at their ordination (which is how it's always looked to me, I must admit), but rather an act of sending. Then, after the Gospel reading, the Book is returned to the celebrant, who then blesses the people with it because God's Word does not return void; it has an effect, which the blessing of the people with the Book represents. I hope I've done his explanation some justice here!

We didn't adopt that practice when he left, but it was interesting to see and to think about. I'd be interested to know if this really is the origin of the practice, or if it's a theological explanation made after-the-fact. Now I can't remember if Dr. Stancliffe was implying any celebrant should/could do this, or just bishops. He tended to switch between saying "bishop" and "celebrant" or "priest," possibly because he's a bishop and was partly explaining his own practice - particularly because I was asking him to explain what I saw him doing. Sometimes he'd say "bishop" but catch himself and quickly add, "or priest," and I didn't pay much attention to when or whether he really made a distinction there.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Manipled Mutineer:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
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.

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.
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.

It seems rather an unkind thing to saddle Peru with, somehow, after they were so kind as to give us Paddington Bear... [/QB]
I think the Peruvian Gloria would elicit a particularly strong Paddington Hard Stare.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
The retired (Anglican) Bishop of Salisbury, David Stancliffe

David is a great bloke but take some of his ideas with a pinch of salt.

I got to know him when we were on AffCath exec. and never ceased to marvel at some of the things he said.
 
Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :
 
So, during the sede vacante all the world skips the petition for the pope in the EP. Does the Diocese of Rome skip the petition for the Bishop of Rome as well? I would think so. And, I've never thought of this before, but when there is a pope do the priests of his diocese pray for the pope, the bishop, or both?
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
The formula for the Roman Church is "N. our Pope and Bishop". So indeed they currently name no-one.
 
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

What you have described, which is, I presume, an Anglican parish, appears to be a localized phenomenon, since neither the BCP and Common Worship do not specify specific crossings at this point, and never did.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :
 
Except nowadays it really has become fashionable among a certain set to make it at the word "resurrection" for obvious reasons. I don't like it, but what can you do? If it isn't in any official rule book, then it's hardly wrong, just ignorantly invincibly affected?
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
The May 2002 (pdf) issue of Ecclesiology Today has an article on liturgical practices in Cambridge college chapels which includes a table (p11) giving information about the chapels where they turned east and for what parts of the liturgy in 1641, so that's something pre-Victorian.

[ 07. March 2013, 07:56: Message edited by: seasick ]
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
Thank you. I'd still be interested where the custom came from - since the Apostle's Creed was not part of pre-Reformation Vespers.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
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.

It was, however, part of pre-Reformation Compline--and Evening Prayer is a telescoping of those two evening offices.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

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.

[ 07. March 2013, 16:41: Message edited by: leo ]
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :
 
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?

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?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
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.

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.
So is the parousia going to happen, literally, at the Golden Gate?
 
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :
 
quote:
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?

There are two items: the rope and the sash-like thing.

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:
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 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.

The style of stole is coincidental!
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So is the parousia going to happen, literally, at the Golden Gate?

San Francisco? I doubt it.

Nor the other Golden Gate - that isn't in the east, it's in Jerusalem.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
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.

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.

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.

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.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

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.
 
Posted by Manipled Mutineer (# 11514) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
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.

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.
Yes, I suspect that that is often the spirit in which it is now done.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :
 
quote:
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.

You hope, of course, that it might be both!
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So is the parousia going to happen, literally, at the Golden Gate?

San Francisco? I doubt it.

Nor the other Golden Gate - that isn't in the east, it's in Jerusalem.

According to Ezekiel 44:1–3) the 2wnd coming/Messiah will enter Jerusalem by the golden gate.

As for the notion that we are supposed to pray facing east: The first Guru of the Sikhs, Nanak went to Mecca and prayed facing away from the Ka'aba. The muslims were offended and rebuked him for praying with his feet towards the ka'aba. He retorted, 'You place my feet towards wherever God is absent.'

Ironically, Sikhs get offended if you sit with your feet facing the Guru Granth Sahib.
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
According to Ezekiel 44:1–3) the 2wnd coming/Messiah will enter Jerusalem by the golden gate.

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.

But at the second coming, as the lightning flashes from the east to the west, so shall be the coming of the Son of Man. It's in the Bible, so it must be true.





[Biased]


Many of the early fathers were very insistent that Christians should pray facing east, and not just in church. If your room does not face east then tough, you turn to the east for prayer. The east is where the sun, icon of life-giving God, rises, and where Eden, foretaste of heaven, was planted. I believe it is the custom for Orthodox Christians to have their icon corner in the east of the room.
 
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
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.

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.

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.

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.

I can't imagine the vast majority of Roman Catholics knowing or caring about these things.

Once at a big highish Anglican Mass, a Roman Catholic French teacher came up and asked me about why the congregation genuflected during the creed, a custom of which she was unaware. I explained, and then the remembered the rubric in her missalette, to "incline" at those words--and then she said "not that anyone ever does."


But I've see plenty of these physically worshipping Anglican types genuflect during the creed regardless of whether the rest of the congregation does so or not.
 
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
quote:
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 items: the rope and the sash-like thing.

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:
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 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.

The style of stole is coincidental!

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).

I can't bear myself to wear one of those, so we have two styles of vestments.

Other than a handful of very elderly long time Episcopalians who really don't care, no one cares. (Except me, and I really don't though I wish I did)
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

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.

[ 09. March 2013, 04:43: Message edited by: Oblatus ]
 
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :
 
Beautiful. I don't think a maniple canbe worn with cassock-albs anyway because of the extra wide sleeves. Real albs not only are traditional but they look Eucharistic. The faux monk look of the Cassock-alb gets my goat with the fake hood and all
 
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
quote:
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.

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.

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.

Traditionally, a straw subdeacon does not wwear a maniple. That is how we geeks know that he is atraw. [Confused]

[ 09. March 2013, 15:28: Message edited by: Ceremoniar ]
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Traditionally, a straw subdeacon does not wwear a maniple. That is how we geeks know that he is atraw. [Confused]

Hey, if they give me a maniple, I wear the maniple. One does not second-guess the sacristan! [Big Grin]

But the celebrant might decide against maniples, in which case I shall leave it on the table.

[ 09. March 2013, 16:57: Message edited by: Oblatus ]
 
Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :
 
It is my understanding that the Orthodox are not as strict with liturgical colors as Catholics are. That said, I have a few questions about the colors in these three photos.

In the first photo, it appears that all of the clergy are in gold, except for one in deep red in the center with his back to us. In the second photo, all are in gold. In the third photo it appears that the Patriarch is in green.

Is there any significance to the colors gold, deep red, and green? And, why are most of the clergy in gold while one is in deep red and the patricarch is in green?
 
Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :
 
quote:
It is my understanding that the Orthodox are not as strict with liturgical colors as Catholics are.
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.

There is more western influence generally in the Slavic churches than in the Greek and Levant churches, and the development of a more set scheme for vestments is one of those influences.

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.

[ 13. March 2013, 17:21: Message edited by: Jon in the Nati ]
 
Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :
 
Thanks, Jon. Any idea why, in the first photo, all the clergy are in gold except the one in dull red?
 
Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :
 
Not offhand, NYer.

It is Patriarch Kyrill who is in red. It is a little hard to speculate because I am not certain what exactly they are celebrating. Is it Tsar Nicholas II, who is a considered a martyr by the Russian church? If so, it would make sense that red would be worn, but why not by everyone? Dark red would make sense in Lent, but it is not yet Lent for the Eastern churches. Sometimes, if several priests or especially bishops are concelebrating (as happens regularly in the Byzantine Rite) the primary celebrant will be vested in a different color, or more precious vestments than the others. That is about the best answer I can think of.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
I worship with a Church of Scotland congregation and the minister is keen, with a little support and encouragement, to permit practices more common in the wider church than in the CoS. To this end I have ordered a Paschal Candle, but I fear that the parish probably does not possess a suitable holder, nor will be willing to pay for one. Can anyone suggest there I might procure a 2nd hand one?
 
Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
Totally random question, and a long-shot I know, but Eccles is a fountain of knowledge about churchly music.

Would anybody here be willing to share any knowledge/experience in connecting an organ (MIDI connections) to a computer and using Hauptwerk or another interface to make a church organ sound a little better?

I'd be interested in any wisdom at all about the topic. I'm dealing with an Allen organ with MIDI expander that just needs something more.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

I am beginning to think that the 36" x 3" candle was a little ambitious for a first attempt, but we shall see...
 
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by BulldogSacristan (# 11239) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
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.

The English Missal is essentially the old Roman Missal translated into Cranmerian English.

The Anglican and American Missals take the BCP service of Holy Communion and interlard it with texts and ceremonial from the Roman Rite, again translated into Cranmerian English. The Anglican and American Missals differ in that the translations from Latin were done by different people and published by different religious orders. The first edition of the American Missal took rather more care not to contradict the XXXIX than subsequent editions, or indeed other Missals, did.
 
Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on :
 
quote:
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.

My parish uses the American Missal - I am told it is less fussy to use (ie better laid out) than the Anglican Missal.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
First Bendy Poles. Now, Fish Sticks.

What's next?
 
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
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?



[ 27. March 2013, 18:43: Message edited by: seasick ]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
First Bendy Poles. Now, Fish Sticks.

What's next?

What, no giant puppets?
 
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :
 
quote:
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.

I have no problem with them either, liturgical or otherwise.
 
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :
 
quote:
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?


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.

While i live in the U.S. and i'm sure have less knowledge of Church of England liturgy than most English eccles folks, I do have a bit of knowledge of it from my eclectic library of liturgical printed matter. I know that Common Worship Order Two Eucharist is the 1662 BCP Communion Service, and that the use of the new lectionary is permitted with it.

Re the prayer for the Sovereign: in the abovementioned order two (i.e. BCP 1662) the collect for the Sovereign in its traditional place is permitted. In order one of Common Worship even if only one collect is prescribed at the conclusion of the introductory rites of the liturgy of the Word (which to me makes good liturgical sense structurally speaking), prayer for the Sovereign is specified as part of the Prayers of Intercession.
 
Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :
 
Does anyone know of a list of which Psalms are used in the current Catholic Liturgy of the Hours and which ones are not?
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

Take a look at this, too.

[ 27. March 2013, 21:35: Message edited by: Olaf ]
 
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :
 
From a quick look i'm pretty sure that Olaf's second link is indeed the whole psalm schema for the contemporary Liturgy of the Hours (Roman Rite)

[ 27. March 2013, 21:58: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
 
Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :
 
Thanks everyone!
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by geroff (# 3882) on :
 
Is it not here?
On the common worship pdf page.
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Jengie
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Don't you like the Grail psalter?
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Sorry should have previewed my earlier post. The link should be.

Jengie

[ 01. April 2013, 10:17: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
 
Posted by mrs whibley (# 4798) on :
 
I had an experience last week which resulted me looking like a numpty in front of a bunch of strangers! Nothing unusual about that, except that it more frequently happens at work and involves Powerpoint.

I visited a Scottish Episcopal Church, and mr whibley (I'll blame him, as he isn't here) sat us so that I was first up for Communion. There was no rail, so the elements were clearly taken standing. The priest and the server partook first, and both intincted although most of the congregation did not. 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. The rest of the congregation followed us so that the whole thing worked with the priest and server stationary and the communicants moving from bread to wine, which was actually a very smooth way of doing things.
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?
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
It has been the practice in most RC churches I've known where there has been communion in two kinds.

And at a church I knew the congregation didn't kneel but came up in a queue, received the "bread" and moved to the side for the chalice. The ministers stood still and the congregation moved.

I think it would have been more awkward if the ministers of communion had to move.
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

One particular occasion that comes to mind was in the Cathedral of John the Divine in NYC. Not only did the congregation move from bread to wine but, for some reason I have never fathomed out, the chalice-bearer seemed slightly surprised that I went forward for wine - or perhaps he was just momentarily thinking about something else and my presence interrupted his train of thought. For my part the arrangements for taking communion seemed relatively unsurprising compared with the eagle, camel and elephant that had formed part of the precession earlier in the service.
 
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
It was the same when I was at university. It had the bonus that it was possible to have joint services where Catholics and non-Catholics could both communicate (separate lines to receive then go to the other for a blessing), and at the non-Catholic reception point you could choose which side to turn to receive the cup, one side being non-alcoholic as some Methodists were present.
 
Posted by mrs whibley (# 4798) on :
 
quote:
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.

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!
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
quote:
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.

My parish uses the American Missal - I am told it is less fussy to use (ie better laid out) than the Anglican Missal.
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!

PD

[ed 4 speeling]

[ 01. April 2013, 21:27: Message edited by: PD ]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
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.

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".

I've also had communion like this in a couple of C of E places, but those were at weddings, so I don't know whether it was standard practice for those churches.
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
We do a walking continuous distribution of communion. It goes much faster for us than kneeling. It's especially helpful for services with higher-than-usual attendance.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
The words of administration set the pace in our shack, so it makes no difference as to whether we use the rail or do "Drive-thru Communion." As a result we always use the rail as it reduces the traffic chaos.

PD
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mrs whibley (# 4798) on :
 
quote:
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.

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!
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
On the other hand it may be I'm just a hopeless liturgical show-off.
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
Is there a modern language version of the Regina Coeli in common use? I mean anthem and the prayer after it.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Yes - at All Saints Clifton, Bristol.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
There's a modernised version of the anthem in The Daily Office SSF (Franciscan), and I daresay the prayer could be updated easily ad lib.

Ian J.
 
Posted by Boadicea Trott (# 9621) on :
 
What would be the appropriate way to greet a retired Anglican Archbishop(after a service, for instance)? Your Grace or My Lord ?
 
Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :
 
'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.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
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 ?

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.

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...

[ 06. April 2013, 21:10: Message edited by: Sergius-Melli ]
 
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :
 
What is on Universalis is correct, at least according to the table in my 1962 Roman Breviary. When a first class Sunday coincides with a universal first class feast, the Sunday office trumps. The principle, I guess, is that a first class Sunday trumps everything else. Presumably, in the new LOTH, a Sunday trumps a feast, even when both are solemnities.

Thus, indeed, II Vespers of the Sunday would trump I Vespers of the Annunciation.

[ 07. April 2013, 00:14: Message edited by: Jon in the Nati ]
 
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :
 
Thanks for that, Jon in the Nati.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
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 ?

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.)

A retired Archbishop is, in reality, a Bishop (Archbishop is a post, not a higher order to which he has been consecrated.)

So, for example, the new Master of Magdalene College, Cambridge is The Rt Revd and Rt Hon The Lord Williams of Oystermouth, and as a life peer is properly addressed as "My Lord". He is also Bishop Williams, and as such is also addressed "My Lord."

As a courtesy only, "Archbishop Williams" and "Your Grace" are OK.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
quote:
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.

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.
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.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
Titles. A relgious community I know decided not to use the title "Reverend Mother" for the head of the community.

Instead they call her "Leader". I don't have the heart to point out they are using the same title as the National Socialist party of Germany in the 30s.

I regard formal titles as a bit of a piss take.
 
Posted by Peter Owen (# 134) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
quote:
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.

I can see how some can feel like that.

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.)
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Oh, I'm not against formal titles. They have their uses. But they should be appropriate. EG Father for a priest or bishop points to their role in the community.

Of course I might well call a pompous bishop My Lord just as you suggest, as a piss-take. But as part of the lubrication for a functioning church/society, which I take titles to be for, it's just WRONG.
 
Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
quote:
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.

Printed CofE lectionary we use has an option for first EP of Annunciation I noticed earlier in the week.

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
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
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.

I can see how some can feel like that.

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.)

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.
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
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 ?

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.

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...

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.

John

[x-post with Peter Owen]

[ 07. April 2013, 22:48: Message edited by: John Holding ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boadicea Trott:
What would be the appropriate way to greet a retired Anglican Archbishop(after a service, for instance)?

"Glad you could be with us, I'm sure you're just dying for a nice sit-down and a cup of coffee".

We're not Anglicans, you see.

[ 07. April 2013, 22:47: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

The two English Archbishops are PCs, I expect that London and Durham are as well. It would be, I think, unusual for any other bishop to be sworn of the Privy COuncil (which is, remember, a political body) except for some specific reason. But on that, I am subject to correction.

Canadian bishops are never sworn of the (Canadian) Privy COUncil, though just about anyone else seems to be these days, because of a variety of security requirements that the oath is deemed to fulfill.

John
 
Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :
 
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.
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.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.)
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
... actually that should read The Most Revd and Rt Hon Dr The Lord Williams of Oystermouth...
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
... actually that should read The Most Revd and Rt Hon Dr The Lord Williams of Oystermouth...

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.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
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

It's for those Anglicans bound for Rome via the Ordinariate. Board the train at St Pancras with a stop at Ebbsfleet.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
But please note that the special service from St Pancras to Whitby has been cancelled.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Boadicea Trott:
What would be the appropriate way to greet a retired Anglican Archbishop(after a service, for instance)?

"Glad you could be with us, I'm sure you're just dying for a nice sit-down and a cup of coffee".

We're not Anglicans, you see.

GIN if they're high church.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
quote:
Originally quoted by Leo
GIN if they're high church.

No! Champagne if they're really high, Gin if they only think they are.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Guess so - we had champers after the Easter Vigil mass - but only one glass per head.

Can't get pissed on that, can you?
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
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.

In the Cathedral's chapter house.

The dean begged us to come because he couldn't manage to drink it all on his own.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
quote:
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.

Printed CofE lectionary we use has an option for first EP of Annunciation I noticed earlier in the week.

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

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
 
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
During Lent the bishop ofRome used to celebrate Mass in different churches of the city,visiting the people in the various districts.These Masses were called 'Station Masses',as PD says.Until Vatican 2 a Roman Missal would contain for each of the days of Lent the Station church.
If you can find an old Roman Missal and perhaps you will find this in the English Missal,look for example at Ash Wednesday 'Statio ad S.Sabinam' Station at Saint Sabina .It is said that pope John xxiii had his inspiration to call the Second Vatican Council while attending the Ash Wednesday service in this church.
Of course in recent years the pope did not actually attend all the Masses in these churches,but like many other things it remained in the Misaal (perhaps a bit like the prayer for the Holy roman Emperor).
Of late in a good number of Catholic dioceses the custom of Lenten Station Masses has been revived with the bishop leading a Lenten service in different areas of the diocese.Usually a copy of the Creed is given to those seeking baptism or full communion at Easter.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
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

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.
 
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
Copied over from Cantus Firmus on the closed thread on the Dome of St. Paul's:

quote:
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.
Have at ye!
 
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
quote:
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?

In the Roman Rite it is just at the beginning of the liturgy.
 
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
Is it rather like the weird idea at All Souls that the names of the departed commemorated are read out after communion.

In that case it is presumably trying to avoid the idea that the eucharistic prayer/offering/communion are in any way a prayer on behalf of the departed.

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).

It would make more sense to have the vows etc before mass begins, and in a registry office as well.
 
Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
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.

I always inflect except during Advent and Lent.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
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).

In the Common Worship liturgy linked to that happens whichever option is chosen. The whole marriage ceremony takes place before Communion in either case.

The only difference in the option that Basilica finds odd is that one short prayer is delayed till immediatly before Communion.
 
Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
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?

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.
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...
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
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.)


 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
Because, Stonespring, some priests haven't the faintest idea what they are doing. The quality of their liturgical formation was appalling. Others, however....
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
Which could be a good argument for Eastward facing celebration...
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
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?

There are certain parts of the Mass where choice is permissible, and there are others--such as here--where it is not.

Part of becoming a priest of the Roman Rite is accepting the Roman Rite. Why would somebody intentionally do this, only to become a new priest and already buck the system?

[I say this, and yet at the same time practically every Catholic priest I know is far more likely to go off-script than a Lutheran pastor, and definitely more than an Episcopal priest.]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

Older priests sometimes hold the host over the chalice while younger ones in the C of E follow the Roman rite and elevate chalice in one hand and paten in the other.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Is this a procedural error which causes the offering not to 'work', the bread and wine not to become the body and blood?
 
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :
 
No, it's just cutting corners to try to save time (not that it saves more than a few seconds anyway). Not something I'm likely to do, but not something I could muster enough irritation to lose sleep over either.

stonespring: Can I ask whether this was an actual question you wanted an answer to, or did you just want to complain about priests' liturgical pecadillos that annoy you?

(Leo: read ss's post at the top of page 7. It's clearly talking about the offertory and not the elevation at the end of the EP.)
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

quote:
From Sacrosanctum Concilium:
Therefore no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.

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.

[sorry...cross-posted with Hart]

[ 05. May 2013, 19:52: Message edited by: Olaf ]
 
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
FCB - you are perfectly right. I just answered basilica off the top of my head, mainly irritated at the C of E All Souls provision.

After our civil partnership, we were blessed in church at mass and the blessing of the couple (since there was no bride and it wasn't marriage) came after communion.
 
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
quote:
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?

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.
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.

But, as you say in reference to the Chrism mass, there probably is something worthwhile in making the marriage an integral part of the entire mass, not a sort of bolt-on to the Liturgy of the Word.

Thanks again for your insight!
 
Posted by Sacerdote (# 11627) on :
 
The combined offering of chalice & paten may just be yet another fad of a would-be "trendy" celebrant - and God knows we've had enough of those on both sides of the Tiber since Vatican II - or it could be an example of a priest belonging to a religious order trying with or without authorization to restore an element that was proper to his rite or use before the Council. The offering of the Host together with the chalice was mandatory in eg the Carthusian, Carmelite & Dominican rites, as in most(?) of Europe's Romano-Gallican Rites - including, I think, all our medieval British uses. The Carthusians are, I believe still after at least three decades awaiting approval from Rome of their provisionally revised liturgical books, and meanwhile presumably continue to offer the chalice & host together as they did at their foundation, though they do not adapt the modern Roman offertory prayers. I do, however, have a feeling that I may have seen somewhere an authorized adaptation in English of "Blessed are you, Lord God etc" permitting the offering of the chalice & host together. But maybe I'm dreaming...
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
This is definitely at the offertory (ie, before the Orate Fratres) and not the minor elevation at the doxology at the end of the Eucharistic Prayer.

Since it is not part of the Eucharistic Prayer itself it has nothing to do with the validity of the Sacrament.

The reason I am asking is out of sincere curiosity since it seems like such an odd variation. The priests I have sen do it are diocesan and Jesuit so I doubt it has anything to do with the rites used by religious orders. I find it odd since some of the priests I see do it are relatively nitpicky for a Roman Catholic priest about other liturgical matters. It seems to be an idiosyncrasy shared by more than a few priests in more than one parish so that is why I am asking. It doesn't bother me that much but I am a liturgy freak so I want to know what is going through a priest's mind any time he veers from the liturgy we share and love.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Guessing here but very occasionally in a URC service you can see the bread and wine brought up with the offertory. I remember there is some connection with this being the offering of the people. Might that in part be why this happens?

Jengie
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
In the post-Vatican II ordinary form of the Mass it is common for members of the congregation to bring the bread and wine up to the altar. The priest receives them and says the prayers of blessing that I am talking about as he places the paten on the altar and later when he places the chalice on the altar (or ,more specifically, on the corporal) once wine and water have been poured into it. These prayers of blessing are not part of the Eucharistic Prayer and so they do not have to do with the actual changing of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. They still are important, though!
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
What Angloid says is correct, but it is worth pointing out again that at least in Roman Catholic understanding the bringing of the bread and wine to the altar in the post Vatican II offertory is different from the consecration that occurs in the Eucharisitic prayer that follows. My concern here is only with what happens at the offertory and not with the Eucharistic Prayer.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
In Anglican understanding too.
 
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 
Your assistance, please, with a brief history of chancel rails (altar rails).

It's my understanding that they are essentially an abbreviated version of the rood screen, which had been a way of marking off sacred space. I was speaking about various aspects of church architecture and design at my shack. Afterward, I had more than a few parishioners inform me that the original intent of altar rails was to keep out animals who might stray into the chancel.

I cannot find historical evidence to support their assertion. I can, however, find evidence that this was the argument of the Laudians against the Puritans around 1630 or so. It seems to have run something like this:

Laudians: Install altar rails.
Puritans: No way! That's what them Catholics have!
Laudians (thinking fast): They are only practical. Altar rails were originally intended to keep out animals.
Puritans: Oh. Well that's all right, then.

I'm not asking if you love them or hate them; altar rail discussions can be more contentious than the perpetual virginity of Mary. [Two face] I am asking if I am correctly understanding the historical development of altar rails from the rood screen.

Thanking you in advance, your humble servant, etc.
 
Posted by Laud-able (# 9896) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Arch Anglo Catholic (# 15181) on :
 
There are a few parish churches which still possess dog tongs; long, large wooden tongs used for grabbing and removing recalcitrant dogs from the sanctuary.

The use of altar rails seems to be a sensible provision to protect the sacred, although I suspect that the use of dog tongs was much more amusing...
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Possibly also an answer to some of the questions about wandering kids raised a couple of threads down...
 
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 
Then again, altar rails making kneeling for communion much easier, don't they?
 
Posted by BulldogSacristan (# 11239) on :
 
But don't altar rails and rood screens mark off two separate spaces? The rood screen separates the nave from the chancel, which might or might not have a choir. The altar rail separates the sanctuary or immediate altar area from the rest of the chancel.

That being said, there are plenty of churches, especially contemporary ones, where these two demarcations are one and the same.
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
quote:
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.

Probably true, so far as it goes.

But the growing low-church trend led in many places to the total removal of the Table (and presumably of the rails), or to its treatment as nice place for worshippers to put their hats. At any rate, that's what the Laudian reformers claimed. The incident of the dog that came into church, leapt onto the altar an carried off the consecrated loaf was certainly cited.

THing is, whatever happened under Elizabeth or Charles I probabaly doesn't matter. IT was only with the Restoration and Charles II that the CofE was able to insist on altars and altar rails. During the Protectorate, altars, altar rails and any remaining rood screens were (almost?)completely swept away unless they were as solid as those in some of the very largest churches and cathedals.

John
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
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.

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.
Try telling that to the clergy in our parish who think of "offertory" as liturgical jargon for a collection of money.

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?
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Then again, altar rails making kneeling for communion much easier, don't they?

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.
 
Posted by scuffleball (# 16480) on :
 
Do Roman Catholic churches have PCCs?
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
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.

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.
Try telling that to the clergy in our parish who think of "offertory" as liturgical jargon for a collection of money.

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?

If by "Catholic tradition" you mean the procession of representatives from the parish with the elements, then yes, possibly.

If you mean the offering of the elements by the priest, that goes back at least to the Didache.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
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.

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.
Try telling that to the clergy in our parish who think of "offertory" as liturgical jargon for a collection of money.

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?

Yes - and he is now discredited and there are books like 'The end of the offertory'.

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.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

If you don't have a theology of Eucharistic sacrifice, then the idea of an offertory is far more Pelagian.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
There is an offertory antiphon for every mass in the Tridentine missal and graduale.

My (1924?) St Andrew’s missal states after before the offertory antiphon “In some countries the faithful here make their offering of blessed bread. This ceremony recalls the old custom of supplying the Priest with the bread and wine for the Sacrifice.”
 
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scuffleball:
Do Roman Catholic churches have PCCs?

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).
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Then again, altar rails making kneeling for communion much easier, don't they?

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.
That's odd. Wouldn't a real pagan accept it as given that a real god or goddess was dangerous?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
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?

I think I read that the bishop/presider chose the best bread from that which was brought in. Presumably wine too.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Then again, altar rails making kneeling for communion much easier, don't they?

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.
Interesting!

Having balance issues myself, the fact that my church does not have a Communion rail means I have to stand for Communion. My priest has no issue with this and makes it clear that standing or kneeling are both acceptable (some others have to stand too), but I wish I could kneel even so. Not that there's much difference between my height when kneeling and my height when standing!
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Well there you are then. All you need to do is to attach a pair of comedy lower leg/foot combos horizontally to your heels just before you step out of your pew, and you can stand quite comfortably while appearing to kneel. Indeed, more than that- because you'll have to walk up with the said leg/foot combos already attached, other members of the congregation will think that you are approaching the altar on your knees and will be immensely edified by what they think is your great devotion to Our Lord in His sacramental presence.

That's the kind of thing that almost makes me wish I wasn't 6'3".
 
Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
The Romans are cheap bastards, saving paper by printing only the incipit?
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

The Gospel would be read in full in a third nocturn on Sundays and big feasts.

[ 17. May 2013, 17:01: Message edited by: Oblatus ]
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
The Romans are cheap bastards, saving paper by printing only the incipit?

I resemble that remark. [Big Grin]

Actually, what Oblatus said.
 
Posted by jlav12 (# 17148) on :
 
Can acolytes wear an academic hood with their surplice?
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
No hoods for anybody, except at the Office.

No hoods on any acolyte, unless they only sit in choir, not actually serving.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jlav12:
Can acolytes wear an academic hood with their surplice?

Sorry, not the done thing, Old Chap!

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
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
But, ya see, an acolyte not serving, sitting in choir is...sitting in choir, a mute, but sitting in choir. He gets to dress up just like the choristers, who certainly can wear their hoods.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
Why the hell would you have someone robed up who wasn't actually doing something?

PD
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
They can if they don't mind appearing pompous.

They are doing a job and not drawing attention to themselves as individuals. So in any liturgically aware place, they wouldn't. I'm sure it happens in some MOTR places.

(At a right-on church I knew the priest in chasuble and some servers would wear a red ribbon on the Sunday nearest World Aids Day. I sympathized with the sentiment but I thought it a regrettable precedent, for the reasons above.)
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
Why the hell would you have someone robed up who wasn't actually doing something?

PD

Radical inclusiveness, of course. [Devil]
 
Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :
 
Before I give my two pence worth, more clarification needed, especially given the uncertainty of language.

a) At what sort of service are you asking about?
b) By 'acolyte' are you referring to a candle bearer (Anglican tradition, or someone who takes the elements to those inn hospital, etc (RC tradition); or to yet something else?

In general, my view is that if part of a serving team (whether thurifer, crucifer or acolyte) at a service of the word, then no, academic hoods are not appropriate. If for a Eucharist, then again no.

This response is based on my Anglican usage, and I look forward to hearing the views of others.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :
 
I think cassock and surplice is a pretty common form of dress for acolytes, not as common as albs in my experience, but not particularly unusual. I've only rarely seen them wearing amices with their albs, though (at Westminster Cathedral is the one time that comes to mind).

In general, I do agree with the statement that if an acolyte doesn't have anything to do, they should sit with the congregation, but there are other things that one might do except carry a candle.
 
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :
 
quote:
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 (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.

(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)

[ 18. May 2013, 20:37: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
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)

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.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
... just as there are albs and albs.

I was thinking of a proper, flowing from a gathered round neck traditional alb - definitely NOT one of those ghastly cassock-albs with the oh-so-punk zip up the centre [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
one of those ghastly cassock-albs with the oh-so-punk zip up the centre [Ultra confused]

You mean like the one I've been wearing for the last 20 years?
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

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

[ 19. May 2013, 03:07: Message edited by: PD ]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
@ Zappa

Yes.
 
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
quote:
Originally posted by jlav12:
Can acolytes wear an academic hood with their surplice?

Sorry, not the done thing, Old Chap!

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

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.

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.
 
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
quote:
Originally posted by jlav12:
Can acolytes wear an academic hood with their surplice?

Sorry, not the done thing, Old Chap!

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

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.

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 affectation with no historical Anglican precedence.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Isn't it more that you would not wear a hood along with a stole? So when stoles came in for the clergy at sacramental services, they would leave off the hood. No reason why someone in choir dress (priest not officiating, lay member of the choir, etc) should do the same. But no reason IMHO why they should wear them either.
 
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :
 
quote:
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

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.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
I'm trying hard to remember where it was that I saw acolytes with surplices at Evening Prayer-- although this was in the 1990s... I do not know why they could not wear academic hoods when serving at vespers or matins and wearing cassock and surplice. I suppose there is a theoretical discussion to be had on whether or not acolytes could wear academic birettas to which they might be entitled, but there aren't a lot of Anglican acolytes who are graduates of Salamanca or Coimbra to make this a practical issue.
 
Posted by jlav12 (# 17148) on :
 
I suppose the question was vague. An acolyte in cassock and surplice at Holy Communion - I'm not familiar with servers wearing albs, it seems to have always been cassock and surplice/cotta. 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.
 
Posted by ArachnidinElmet (# 17346) on :
 
quote:
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.

There's nothing quite like the effects of low ceiling lights to emphasize blinking red lights on trainers. [Smile] I'm still waiting for a server in those shoes with the wheels.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I am tempted to bribe our youngest server to wear just such a pair of trainers, merely For The Hell Of It (and to see our churchwarden's face......).

[Two face]

Ian J.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

One thing I do remember is that in the Simpson Case (1923-27) it was ruled that coloured stoles were inadmissible. The same happened with standing facing SSE at the north part of the west side of the altar to say the Prayer of Consecration. I know they did not succeed on the latter point as that is precisely what the rector did just under 20 years ago when I was across to Ireland on a regular basis.

PD
 
Posted by Codepoet (# 5964) on :
 
In the Church of England, is a faculty required to move a free standing east facing altar so that it be used west-facing?
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 
quote:
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'm not a lawyer but...

It depends whether the work falls within the de minimis limits set by your diocese, but it probably won't as these tend to cover minor repairs and changes to things in vestries and church halls, rather than moving furniture about in the church itself.

The best course of action may be to ask the Registrar/DAC for your diocese, but I suspect that a faculty would be required. In the place where I live, this guidance (fifth paragraph) says that permanently moving the altar would require a faculty, but the seventh paragraph suggests that a temporary move might be possible by way of a licence, rather than a full faculty. The sixth paragraph may also be relevant.

[ 20. May 2013, 07:38: Message edited by: Chapelhead ]
 
Posted by otyetsfoma (# 12898) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
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?

Almost certainly if it is a permanent fixture. Like certainly certainly.

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.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
quote:
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?

Yes.

+PD
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
It seems suitably ecclesiastical to require a moveable table which must not, under any circumstances, be moved. [Two face]
 
Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
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 suspect that there are archdeacons in your future.
That sounds like a curse....

Carys
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
That sounds like a curse....

May you live in archdiaconal times?
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
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.

Oh, they do exist!
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
Yowza!

Forget the fussing over surplices, cottas, amices, and albs.

Do I see white gloves?
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
white gloves? Like these (see under "which part was like being in... er... the other place?" section
 
Posted by Laxton's Superba (# 228) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.
If your church is of a more Reformed bent, then perhaps cassock and surplice.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
Alb ... with cincture ...
 
Posted by Laxton's Superba (# 228) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
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?

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.
If your church is of a more Reformed bent, then perhaps cassock and surplice.

This talk of a layman "acting as a deacon" is foreign to me--including the notion of wearing a dalmatic. [Help]
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Not wearing amices makes the baby Jesus and whoever does the laundry cry though.

Ah, you Londoners! The last time I wore an amice was when I was a server in 1983.
 
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
This talk of a layman "acting as a deacon" is foreign to me--including the notion of wearing a dalmatic. [Help]

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.

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
Ah, you Londoners! The last time I wore an amice was when I was a server in 1983.

We like to keep things nice. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
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.)

[ 21. May 2013, 20:59: Message edited by: stonespring ]
 
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 
quote:
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.)

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.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
The late +Mervyn Stockwood of Southwark was often to be seen thus attired.
 
Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :
 
So too a former Bishop of Ballarat!
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
quote:
Originally posted by jlav12:
Can acolytes wear an academic hood with their surplice?

Sorry, not the done thing, Old Chap!

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

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.

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.

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.

PD

[ 22. May 2013, 03:17: Message edited by: PD ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
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?

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.
If your church is of a more Reformed bent, then perhaps cassock and surplice.

This talk of a layman "acting as a deacon" is foreign to me--including the notion of wearing a dalmatic. [Help]
It's encouraged in Common Worship if there isn't a real deacon present. I often do it and wear it.
 
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
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?

Almost certainly if it is a permanent fixture. Like certainly certainly.

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.

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?
 
Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
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?

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.
If your church is of a more Reformed bent, then perhaps cassock and surplice.

This talk of a layman "acting as a deacon" is foreign to me--including the notion of wearing a dalmatic. [Help]
It's encouraged in Common Worship if there isn't a real deacon present. I often do it and wear it.
Same happens here with lay Dn and S-Dn if insufficient priests/deacons are available.

[Edit: the a-symmetry was upsetting me]

[ 25. May 2013, 21:51: Message edited by: Zappa ]
 
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 
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. [Confused]
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
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?

Almost certainly if it is a permanent fixture. Like certainly certainly.

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.

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?
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.

PD

[ 26. May 2013, 02:38: Message edited by: PD ]
 
Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on :
 
What colour raiment would traditionally be worn by an [Anglican] priest on Trinity Sunday?
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
That's an easy one. White.
 
Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :
 
quote:
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. [Confused]

We have no priest-monks (unsurprisingly), so our, lay, choir wears cassock and surplice.

[ 26. May 2013, 12:24: Message edited by: Qoheleth. ]
 
Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
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. [Confused]

No. A priest is essential for a eucharist, a deacon isn't.
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
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. [Confused]

No. A priest is essential for a eucharist, a deacon isn't.
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.
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
quote:
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.

Do you have a reference for this?
 
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
quote:
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.

Do you have a reference for this?
From the General Notes to the order for the Holy Communion in Common Worship: Principal Services:

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.


 
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
quote:
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.

Do you have a reference for this?
Presumably without the stole?
 
Posted by scuffleball (# 16480) on :
 
When + why + how (what books) did people stop saying holy ghost (because of ghosts that go woooooo?)

[ 26. May 2013, 21:12: Message edited by: scuffleball ]
 
Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
quote:
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!

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.

PD
 
Posted by Hezekiah (# 17157) on :
 
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?

(Also, if anyone is curious, I believe he removed his vestments there as they stay in the chapel, which is a little walk away from the Priory church and its sacristy. Then again, it's the Carthusian Rite so lots of things are a little different).
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.
 
Posted by Hezekiah (# 17157) on :
 
That's interesting, thanks for pointing it out.

The Carthusian Mass was amazing; only the lay brother serving the Mass said the responses - the congregation stayed completely silent and largely kneeling throughout. Most of the Mass was said silently and after Communion (given kneeling, on the tongue, through the grill with the lay brother holding the paten under the communicant's chin) the Priest sat in silence with his hood up for at least five minutes before the ablutions. Since I only live 15 minutes away I think I might go regularly on Sundays.
 
Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
quote:
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.

Indeed Cosin's Come Holy Ghost has both in the same prayer ending as it does with Spirit to rhyme with merit.

Spirit not Ghost (and you not thou to the priest) is the major linguistic change in the CinW 1984 BCP.

Carys
 
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
quote:
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!

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.

PD

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...
 
Posted by AndyB (# 10186) on :
 
Not quite the same thing, but related as it discusses confusion over what is "original" in relation to conservation and restoration...

My then church needed major refurbishment to its organ, and rather than giving it to a local organ builder, they got Heritage Lottery Funding and it went to NP Mander at four times the cost (and thus not saving a penny!)

Manders did a very fine job of restoring the organ, an 1875 Hill expanded with additional stops (including a pedal 16' Trombone more felt than heard and with many many harmonics) and a small Choir (beautiful 8' Clarinet stop and perfect 8'-4'-2' clear open flutes) in 1906 to its proper post-expansion state, although my dad, the then organist, would rather have had modernisation instead, ie electric action rather than pneumatic, moving the balanced swell pedal to the middle where it had replaced an old kick-pedal, and user-changeable pistons.

However, it took quite some persuasion to get Manders not to restore the previous and rather strange (not to mention unusable) piston settings, even though, as my dad pointed out, they were obviously not original. He did win the argument in the end, but it wasn't easy!

[ 29. May 2013, 12:04: Message edited by: AndyB ]
 
Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
I gather that St Martin's in the Fields had a conflict between the Georgian Society and the Victorian Society over their restoration...

Carys
 
Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
I gather that St Martin's in the Fields had a conflict between the Georgian Society and the Victorian Society over their restoration...

Carys
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
quote:
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

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.

PD
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Georgian churches, like Georgian houses, are very adaptable. Victorian ones less so.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
I have a major dislike of the typical Victorian Church with its narrow chancel and half-acre of choirstalls between the nave and the altar. The less reverently mediaevalist Victorian architects - Butterfield springs to mind - usually designed the more workable churches. ASMS and St Mark's, Dundela, both have short wide chancels and this tends to make the mediaeval arrangement much more workable for the Anglican liturgy which as a high emphasis on both seeing and hearing - unlike that of the high Middle Ages.

However, for really bolloxed up arrangements, cack-handed restorations of mediaeval buildings take some beating. I remember one small14th century church near where I grew up where the architect had perched the altar on so many steps that one dare not bow or genflectfor fear that you would fall backwards off the top step. This was with an altar barely as wide as the corporal!

PD

[ 30. May 2013, 15:34: Message edited by: PD ]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
quote:
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

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.

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.

Morris loved the way that an old and much-modified building like a church is the product of generations of workers each contributing their own thought and skill and work to it. It holds the history of the community it serves. If you try to wipe out all that and return it to some supposed pristine state you will wipe out that history, destroy the community's memory of itself, throw away all that work as if the folk who did it didn't count.

Even worse if the intended end of the restoration is some sort of fake neo-gothic fantasy and not really very much like the original building at all. (Not that Morris and Webb and their friends had anything against neo-gothic - they built their own houses in that sytle - but they didn't destroy the genuinely old to make way for it)

On the other hand, if we now, a century and a half later, want to respect the history of our badly restored churches, we now have to respect the work of the restorers as well because that too has become part of the story of the building and the people who use it!
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Indeed - but these days, in order to render churches more flexible and useable, it really is necessary (IMNSHO) to clear everything out and to start again, with just the basic minimum of furnishings required.......

Yes, I have read (and agree with) Richard Giles!

Ian J.
 
Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :
 
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?

[ 06. June 2013, 12:02: Message edited by: Barefoot Friar ]
 
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
If I, a Methodist minister, were going to an Anglican ordination and sitting in the congregation, I would turn up in black suit, shirt and tonsure collar.
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
Normally when I go to an ordination I vest and process, but this year three of a certain ordinand's best friends are close friends of mine too, and haven't previously attended an ordination. So I'll be sitting with them (in clericals, but not a cassock), having taught them over lunch how to play Londin Bingo.
 
Posted by AngloCatholicGirl (# 16435) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
quote:
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

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.

PD

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).

We recently had to renew the roof of our Georgian church and we found both the Georgian society and English Heritage to be helpful and realistic. ISTM that English Heritage have got a bit more realistic and approachable over the care I'd listed buildings recently and are willing to listen. The use of lead substitutes on the roofs of a couple of churches who had had sustained and habitual lead theft problems springs to mind.
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
I hope this is the right thread...

Just wanting a bit of opinion. Anyone used the Daily Prayer Rosary book?

What thoughts? Good, not so good, not recommended or...
I see its designed to go, somehow, with Common Worship.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
I've been saying the Rosary every day in May in addition to Common Worship Daily Prayer. What else do you need?
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
I think the book integrates the two, and is for more than May Venbede.

But I am interested to know if others have used it.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
quote:
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.

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
 
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 
quote:
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

What incredibly bad form, even if the Ordinand did invite her to do so (and why on earth would he do that?)
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
I know Catholic priests who would not have minded. One typically expects visitors from other churches in the community, and in this case, it was practically family. I certainly hope they did not banish the poor woman into the nave simply because she was a woman. If there were an ecumenical delegation, she belonged with them. I have no doubt that even Pope Benedict wouldn't have raised an eyelid if a Lutheran bishop from Germany had shown up vested as part of an ecumenical delegation.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
What do you mean by "...even Pope Benedict..."?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
I strongly suspect that Pope Benedict has often attended liturgical ceremonies at which German Protestant bishops have been dressed as bishops. Just as he has with English Protestant bishops.
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
What do you mean by "...even Pope Benedict..."?

If a pope with obvious traditionalist leanings were to have no problem with it, then a new ordinand certainly has no reason to worry.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
What do you mean by "...even Pope Benedict..."?

If a pope with obvious traditionalist leanings were to have no problem with it, then a new ordinand certainly has no reason to worry.
Ah, crass caricature.

Met any Popes without obvious traditionalist leanings?
 
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Met any Popes without obvious traditionalist leanings?

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."
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Met any Popes without obvious traditionalist leanings?

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."
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.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Met any Popes without obvious traditionalist leanings?

You say "traditionalist" like it could be a good thing.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
You say "traditionalist" like it could be a good thing.

[Biased]

[ 10. June 2013, 19:33: Message edited by: Trisagion ]
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
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. [Smile]
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
In that vein, I went to Mass in the local Catholic Cathedral on Tuesday and was surprised that St Barnabas the Apostle only merited a memorial.
 
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 
quote:
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. [Smile]

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.

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

[ 12. June 2013, 23:00: Message edited by: Ceremoniar ]
 
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :
 
quote:
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

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).
 
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :
 
I tend to think that the feast of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist is really more a feast of the Lord -- because its focus is on the birth of the Lord's Forerunner as part of the mystery of the Incarnation, hence its celebration 6 months before the feast of the Birth of our Lord.

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.

(This latter feast is in the Canadian BAS and Common Worship, but not in the US BCP.)

[ 15. June 2013, 01:36: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
 
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 
quote:
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.

Which delights in the traditional title "The Decollation of S John Baptist", which I've always liked.
Though, of course, both feasts of S John are apt to recall the one after him being preferred before him, and so act as a salutary reminder that all feast-days of the saints are for the glory of God.
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
quote:
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. [Smile]

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....
In the same vein I find it odd that S. Lawrence has a higher rank than Mary Magdalene. Presumably because of the 'Roman' connection.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
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.

Or because the latter is a woman.
 
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
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.

Or because the latter is a woman.
Hardly. He is the protomartyr of Rome.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
St Mary Magdalene?? I said 'the latter', not 'the former'
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
Don't the Orthodox esteem her as equal to the apostles?
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
And the C of E has graded her up a bit recently too.

The point about women saints is interesting. Has anyone worked out the gender balance in modern church calendars such as Common Worship or modern RC? I for one would be interested, but not interested enough to count it myself.
 
Posted by LostinChelsea (# 5305) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
Don't the Orthodox esteem her as equal to the apostles?

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.
 
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :
 
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 ?
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
Which goes to show that web programmers do not speak authoritatively on matters of style.
 
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 
quote:
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 ?

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.
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
(Although it is possible that the church referenced is served by a religious order, in which case 'Father' might be technically correct as well...).
 
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
This is a common feature in many European countries.In Italy priests are usually called 'Don........ (Don Bosco is well known as an example) They can also be called 'Padre......'
In France priests may be addressed as 'Monsieur le Cure' or Monsieur l'Abbe or indeed as 'mon pere' In Austria and presumably also in Germany they are addressed as 'Hochwuerden' (your reverence) although priests belonging to religious orders may be addressed as 'Pater'
Other titles would be Herr Pfarrer for the pp and Herr Kaplan for a curate.
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
quote:
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.

And
here is a link to an equivalent list for England. A bit dated but interesting nonetheless.
 
Posted by Edgeman (# 12867) on :
 
quote:
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. [Smile]

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.

The office of readings has a proper hymn for her feast day, and lauds and vespers have proper hymns, antiphons, readings, and a responsory.

The Sunday psalms are used at lauds as on feasts and solemnities, and the psalms from the common of holy women are used at vespers. (This is all according to the latin version, I don't know if the English translation kept her proper hymns or not.)

So pretty much the same amount of material, minus the te deum at the office of readings. Why'd they do it this way? I have no idea.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
... In Austria and presumably also in Germany they are addressed as 'Hochwuerden' (your reverence) ...

This conjures up visions of a German version of Dad's Army. What is German for 'Really, Mr Yeatman...' [Smile]
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
Google, I'm sure, will help you!
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Good idea.

Wirklich, Herr Yeatman! (says Google Translate)
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
has a certain something
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Well, yes, that did occur to me too.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
quote:
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.

And
here is a link to an equivalent list for England. A bit dated but interesting nonetheless.

Oooh thank you!
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
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

I guess you didn't get the postcard from the parish drama guild announcing auditions for the musical "Springtime for Hitler"?

[ 18. June 2013, 03:30: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
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.

My long time parishioners tend to call me "Fr P" or Rector. The clergy who got to know me before I got additional duties refer to me as 'Bishop P.' Those who know me only as the Archbishop of the jurisdiction refer to me as 'Your Grace.'

I am coming around to the idea that you can call me anything you like except late for dinner!

PD

[ 18. June 2013, 05:39: Message edited by: PD ]
 
Posted by the Ænglican (# 12496) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
quote:
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.

And
here is a link to an equivalent list for England. A bit dated but interesting nonetheless.

Very helpful!

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.
 
Posted by LostinChelsea (# 5305) on :
 
quote:
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.

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."
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the Ænglican:
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
quote:
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.

And
here is a link to an equivalent list for England. A bit dated but interesting nonetheless.

Very helpful!

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.

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.
 
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
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.

Or because the latter is a woman.
Hardly. He is the protomartyr of Rome.
I would say that a close companion of Jesus and the first witness of the resurrection rates higher than the protomartyr of Rome.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
St Mary Magdalen, and St. James, Brother of Our Lord both get on the red letter list in the 1963 revised lectionary that we use. I have to leave myself a green florescent note about them else I either forget them altogether or observe them as Black Letter Days - i.e. they are kept if there is a service that day, or they drop the day before. In the old days most provinces of the Anglican Communion had much the same list of red letter days apart from a couple of ringers. In Ireland, the ringers were St Patrick and St Columba. In the English 1928 PBCP it was Transfiguration and St Mary Magdalen, and in the USA Transfiguration, plus the two black letter, but just about indispensible, Independence Day and Thanksgiving.

PD
 
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
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.

Or because the latter is a woman.
Hardly. He is the protomartyr of Rome.
I would say that a close companion of Jesus and the first witness of the resurrection rates higher than the protomartyr of Rome.
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.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
the two black letter, but just about indispensible, Independence Day and Thanksgiving.

Indispensible? Aiiiyah! You're right. That's just the way we spell ethnophyletism around these parts.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
Fortunately in The Even Newer World we escape both of those. But woe betide anyone who fails to observe ANZAC Day.
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
We have managed to get our observances of Fourth of July and Thanksgiving down to a blip during the intercessions and a closing hymn.

We have been using:
This is my song for the Fourth
In our day of thanksgiving for Thanksgiving-it's really more of an All Saints hymn, thus good for November

If there is a 'green' Sunday right before Thanksgiving, then we'll slip in Come, Ye Thankful People, Come, (very appropriate text for between All Saints and Christ the King) or Now Thank We All Our God (whose third verse does refer to the Son reigning in Heaven). Thanksgiving does not trump Christ the King or Advent 1 for us. As long as we've acknowledged it musically somewhere in November, it's all good. Thankfully, we Americans are all about the hype before a holiday, anyway. Once the day actually is upon us, then it's practically over.

[ 21. June 2013, 00:25: Message edited by: Olaf ]
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
I have come up with creative solutions for both. 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 or the 1789 BCP service on that day, sing metrical psalms, and a couple of old - Isaac Watts era - hymns.

I treat Thanksgiving as Harvest Festival, so we trot our all the old favourites - Come ye thankful people come; Now thank we all our God; We plough the fields and scatter - etc. The mythic element - both traditional and revisionist gets overlooked.

Also, since we moved into the present building, the flags have been at the back.

PD

[ 21. June 2013, 17:22: Message edited by: PD ]
 
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :
 
I got out of the patriotic service business last year. I told them that patriotic songs were great -- at the proper time and place. This year we're observing the proper Proper for the Sundays surrounding it. We are having a community patriotic hymn sing on Sunday evening, 30 June. It will help them feel as though it has been celebrated, and help me feel as though we didn't spend the main service worshiping the country instead of God.

The Sunday evening before Thanksgiving is a community service that rotates between the three participating churches in our community. It will be at our place this year, and the Church of God pastor will preach. So that takes care of Thanksgiving. That just leaves Mother's Day, Father's Day, Memorial Day, and Veteran's Day, and those I tip my hat to but go on about the normal business.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
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... [Smile]
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
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... [Smile]

I've just looked them up-- to me, they seem fairly progressive and challenging.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
The 'never on a Sunday' rule applies to Independence Day as it is lower in rank than a second class Sunday, which takes a bit of explaining to some of the Broad Church types. In the event of Independence Day occuring on a Sunday the liturgical observance will be Trinity-whatever.

PD
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
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 ?

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.
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.
Currently, in English Canada, Revd Mr is commonly used of perpetual deacons.

Older editions of our bureaucratic publication "The Canadian Style" used The Rev. AB for all clergy of all religions, excepting dignitaries, a long list of which was attached.

Apologies for prolonging tangent.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
I understand that at Ushaw College, Durham (the north-east England seminary for training RC priests), at least in the 1960s and very possibly until its closure only a few years ago, priests on the staff were addressed as 'Sir', not 'Father'. Unlike in the Anglo-catholic seminary only a few miles down the road.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
since we moved into the present building, the flags have been at the back.

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?
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
since we moved into the present building, the flags have been at the back.

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?
The under-stairs cupboard would be my choice. :/
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
Lock 'em away in a cupboard? Feeling suicidal are we, Vicar? Trifle with those war pennants at the peril of your incumbency.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
since we moved into the present building, the flags have been at the back.

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?
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...

I sometimes feel like sticking the Manx flag or that of Leinster there to see if anone would notice...

PD

[ 23. June 2013, 05:21: Message edited by: PD ]
 
Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
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?

Well, the color could certainly indicate Mary. The stars, perhaps too, as either Mary Queen of the Universe or Stella Maris.

Here is a similar statue.

Then again, this could simply be Our Lord Jesus Christ, King of the Universe, holding the world.

Or perhaps the ambiguity is meant to make one think! At the very least, calling it the Ascension doesn't seem to fit.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
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 ...

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?
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:
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.

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.
I would vote for the latter interpretation, as the head does not look especially Marian or even feminine.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
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 ...

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?
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.

PD

[ 24. June 2013, 07:06: Message edited by: PD ]
 
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:
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.

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.
I would vote for the latter interpretation, as the head does not look especially Marian or even feminine.
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.
 
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
the traditional bonfire and burning of sacramentals

Do say more! [Confused]
 
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 
There is an old tradition of having a bonfire on the eve of St. John the Baptist, which is also called the "Summer Christmas." The fire symbolizes the light of John the Baptist, the lesser light who had to burn out so that the Great Light could shine. These fires took the place of the summer solstice fires used by pagans to celebrate, much the way the date of Christmas was used to overcome the winter solstice celebrations. The Roman Ritual has a blessing for the St. John's fire.

There are many traditions associated with St. John's fires, many of which continue today. One of these is to place broken rosaries, medallions, holy cards, images, palms that will not be burned for ashes, scapulars, etc. into the fire, for reverent disposal.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
If any group carrying muskets broke into our church they might find the greeter is better prepared than they expected.

I've been there. Father ain't just talkin' through his hat.
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
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.

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 [Frown]
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by gog (# 15615) on :
 
The font of all knowledge has is as follows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_at_Lambeth

but seems that in the press after a quick search the "of" and "at" get interchanged.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

[ 25. June 2013, 15:34: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
At one time there was also an Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem. I seem to think that this was placate both the Orthodoxy auhorities in the Holy Land and the Spikes back home. The 'in' phraseology indicated that he was resident but did not choose to claim jurisdiction. He was simply there as a sort of episcopal chaplain to the Anglican and Episcopal Communities.

PD

ed 4 silly tripe-o

[ 25. June 2013, 17:54: Message edited by: PD ]
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
As is the Bishop in Europe (or is it 'of Gibraltar in Europe'?)
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 
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'.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
It's a suffragan see, you see. The Bishop of Lambeth (if he - or eventually she - existed) would have to be a suffragan to the Bishop of Southwark. I suppose Lambeth Palace is de facto part of the diocese of Canterbury but the rest of South London definitely ain't. Croydon used to be a disconnected part of Canterbury but has been part of Southwark for some time.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
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'.

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.
Bp at Lambeth is AIUI a very senior staff officcer rather than a pastoral Bishop.
 
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
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'.

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.
Bp at Lambeth is AIUI a very senior staff officcer rather than a pastoral Bishop.

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.
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
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'.

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.
Bp at Lambeth is AIUI a very senior staff officcer rather than a pastoral Bishop.

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.
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
You are missing out on loads of fun. Imagine a bishop of dream sequence introductory harp flourish here...
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
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'.

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.
Bp at Lambeth is AIUI a very senior staff officcer rather than a pastoral Bishop.

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.
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.

PD
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
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)?
 
Posted by AndyB (# 10186) on :
 
I would guess that is for several reasons:

1. It was a titular see held by a suffragan Bishop of Durham

2. Presumably its recycling wasn't considered when the Diocese of Newcastle was created in 1882 (and besides, Newcastle has only had an Assistant Bishop since 1980) - and probably it would require UK Parliamentary legislation to bring out of abeyance into a new diocese

3. By the time that Durham required a suffragan, Berwick was no longer in the diocese

4. So as not to wind up the Scottish since the first and only incumbent died in 1572
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Well, apart from the last reason (and why wouldn't you want to wind up the Scots? [Biased] ) 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).
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
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)?

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".

That was the story I heard 20 years ago in Newcastle diocese. Personally, I can't see how the different title would have solved any problem, even in the event of there being a problem to solve, which I also don't see.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Aren't there one or two dioceses which are too small (in population if not in area - Northumberland is vast!) to justify a permanent suffragan? Bradford is one, and I think Portsmouth is another. Hence I would guess that, rather than go through the legal hoops of trying to set up a suffragan see and maybe have it refused, Newcastle just decided on the easier course.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
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
 
Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :
 
quote:
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

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.
 
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 
quote:
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.

I believe that it is the same way in ECUSA (TEC).
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
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'.

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.
Bp at Lambeth is AIUI a very senior staff officcer rather than a pastoral Bishop.

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.
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.

The Armed Forces bishopric was originally handed over to a diocesan bishop with expertise in the area-- it was once attached to Caledonia, IIRC.
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
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.

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!

quote:
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.

Interesting - the last British North American diocese (IIRC - possibly save Newfoundland and Bermuda?) to join the Church of England in Canada.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
And they also had a Bishop of Georgian Bay! Who knew?

My mistake about Caledonia-- it was actually Cariboo (a diocese which went bankrupt under the residential schools affair, and is now reconstituted as the non-diocese of the Anglican Parishes of the Central Interior)'s diocesan, George Wells, who thought that the WWI chaplaincy situation was far too untidy and patronage-ridden, with chaplains often being the most unsuitable possible candidates. At the same time, Cardinal-Primate Roy, well aware of the orangisme of the WWI chaplaincy service, insisted on having a RC bishop handy, and so the Anglicans got one as well. Peter Coffin, as Bishop of Ottawa (and an army brat), took on the Ordinariate, and when he retired from Ottawa, kept on the military jurisdiction. This is likely more information than anybody wanted on the topic.

In any case, I still hold to my isolated position on titular sees for suffragans.
 
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :
 
quote:
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.

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

[ 30. June 2013, 08:46: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
 
Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :
 
I'm having a retired pastor visit us next week and I've asked him to celebrate. Should I ask him to distribute bread, cup, or neither? When I celebrate (it being my parish), I distribute the bread, and a lay server the cup. My instinct is to ask him to distribute the bread, me the cup, and my wonderful lay server will wait 'til next time.

Oh, another question: If he processes in with the acolytes and me, who comes last in line? Me, since I'm the pastor of the church, or him since he's the celebrant?

EDIT: TEC Rite II for all intents and purposes. We're UMC, but Word and Table I is nearly the same thing.

Thanks in advance!

[ 30. June 2013, 20:10: Message edited by: Barefoot Friar ]
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
The celebrant's position at the entrance is the position of greatest dignity, usually last.

The celebrant should administer the Bread, others should administer the Wine.
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
In Protestant churches, for practical reasons, the visitor should always distribute the bread (IMHO). One rarely knows for sure whether the person has experience with a chalice, or whether s/he comes from a place where the people take or don't take the chalice into their own hands. Don't cause yourself trouble!
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
The usual rule is that thumb celebrant comes last in the procession - even if the Bishop is present. IIRC if the diocesan bishop is sitting it out, he usually goes between the deacon and the celebrant.

As to who administers what.

If your parishioners do not receive the cup 14 different ways, then the celebrant should administer the bread, and the visiting pator the cup.

However, if the do receive the chalice 14 different ways then the celebrant should administer Communion to the assistant minister and servers, and then they should swap rolls so the visitor has the Bread, and the regular guy the Cup. This is pure pragmatism and "anathema sit" in all the manuals, but it saves the chalice getting spilled, which is a major pain in the behind - especially if the slop goes down some gal's cleavage!

PD

[ 01. July 2013, 01:25: Message edited by: PD ]
 
Posted by anglicanrascal (# 3412) on :
 
Incense: any brands/styles/flavours to avoid?
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
Incense: any brands/styles/flavours to avoid?

IMHO, anything that isn't just plain frankincense.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
Hunt and hunt and hunt until you find an import house that sells the stuff in 25 kg sacks. The places that make their own mixes and then sell it out at outrageous prices buy it from these import houses.

You want frankincense, pea size or bigger. Plain frankincense is really all you need.

The price was around five or six dollars a pound the last time we bought. The stuff lasts forever.

I can give you the name of a supplier in NYC if you are in the US.

[ 01. July 2013, 13:44: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
MRDA perhaps, but I'd say you can't go wrong with Holy Cross!
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
Incense: any brands/styles/flavours to avoid?

IMHO, avoid everything except Frankincense. I have had fewer complaints about it than any other type.

BTW, the usual problem with incense is someone being a bit too late lighting the charcoal, which results in the punters in the pews getting a good lungful of smoke, and not just the pleasing odour of incense.

PD

[ 01. July 2013, 17:30: Message edited by: PD ]
 
Posted by scuffleball (# 16480) on :
 
The Merbecke-Stainer Setting

I found a paper copy of Stainer's Harmonization of Merbecke's communion service, confusingly labelled Stainer's Mass in Four Voices, here:

http://www3.cpdl.org/wiki/images/sheet/stai-mas.pdf

There is a recording of it here, lacking the kyrie and gloria but including the creed, sursum corda and "organ interludes" in the Agnus:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drOG8mOQ47Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEt8NB0A2EY

Does anyone know where I can find a full version of the Merbecke-Stainer setting with organ parts?
 
Posted by scuffleball (# 16480) on :
 
The Merbecke-Stainer Setting

I found a paper copy of Stainer's Harmonization of Merbecke's communion service, confusingly labelled Stainer's Mass in Four Voices, here:

http://www3.cpdl.org/wiki/images/sheet/stai-mas.pdf

There is a recording of it here, which doesn't mention Stainer but seems to be the same thing, lacking the kyrie and gloria but including the creed, sursum corda and "organ interludes" in the Agnus:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drOG8mOQ47Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEt8NB0A2EY

Does anyone know where I can find a full version of the Merbecke-Stainer setting with organ parts?

ETA That sounds a bit like russian chant, esp the sursum cord

[ 01. July 2013, 23:23: Message edited by: scuffleball ]
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
I think Percy Dearmer had it indexed and all the remaining copies destroyed. H gets quite cranky about Merbeck altered by Stainer
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
Fair enough; I get quite cranky about Merbecke. [Smile]
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
I see what you mean about sounding Russian.
 
Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
quote:
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?

Fortunately or unfortunately, I am not in the loop on that one.

PD
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
quote:
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.

Yes. It regularly happened in the church I attended, which followed the ASB Rite B and did not have reservation.

Writing to the vicar about another issue, I just mentioned that I didn't understand this and it might well be confusing for others. He never mentioned it to me, but it never happened again.
 
Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
quote:
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.

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.
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.

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.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
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.

Yes - many times.
 
Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
quote:
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.

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.
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.

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.

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.

[ 07. July 2013, 18:29: Message edited by: Barefoot Friar ]
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
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

[ 08. July 2013, 03:50: Message edited by: PD ]
 
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 
quote:
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

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.

And as you say, the reserved host is usually sufficient to cover any extra congregants. 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.

More common is having too much of the Precious Blood left over, which sometimes calls for another Unobtrusive Liturgical Whisper to summon a server with a stronger liver than Father's...
 
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
quote:
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.

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."

To my knowledge, supplementary consecration is unknown in an RC context. The first part clearly forbids consecrating only one species without the other, and the clause "outside the eucharistic celebration" is usually interpreted to mean that one could not simply say a consecratory formula over bread and wine but would have to celebrate an entire new Mass.

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.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
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.

Here's a link that injects a little humor into the above discussion.

I have been at RC masses where the wine has run out, and the remaining communicants were merely given bread.

I have also been at RC masses where it was clear that the bread was running short, and so the remaining pieces were divided so that there would be enough.

But, alas, I have also been at RC masses where additional bread was consecrated -- illicitly, it would seem.
 
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

As mentioned above, canon law makes clear that such is expressly forbidden, even in an emergency, but I would also suggest that Church teaching on the sacrificial nature of the Mass renders such a bizarre attempt invalid.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Does anybody know what justification C of E liturgists (and presumably TEC ones etc) give for this practice?
 
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
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.

Fascinating. Could you cite a source for this?
 
Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
quote:
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.

IME it's one which belongs to the servers possibly with help from the sidesfolk. Vergers guess in advance...

Carys
 
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
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.

Fascinating. Could you cite a source for this?
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.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
As far as the CofE is concerned, this is covered by specific instructions in the BCP and on p296 in CW. It is infrequent but not all that unusual.

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.

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.

What is a 'spiritual communion'? I've not encountered that phrase, and suspect it may be alien to our theology.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

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:
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.
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.

quote:
What is a 'spiritual communion'? I've not encountered that phrase, and suspect it may be alien to our theology.
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:

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.



[ 09. July 2013, 08:44: Message edited by: Trisagion ]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
...
What is a 'spiritual communion'? I've not encountered that phrase, and suspect it may be alien to our theology.

Nope. Rubric to BCP Communion of the Sick:
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.


 
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
quote:
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.

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.
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.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
If you use the mixed cup, is it permissible simply to further dilute the wine if it's running short?
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
I don't honestly know, but I do know that the subjectcomes up in the chapter entitled 'Accidents' in one of the ceremonial manuals. My recollection is that if someone accidentally pours the MPB into the bottle one has to treat the lot of consecrated. The one time that happened here there was nothing for it but to put the lot down the piscina and rinse thoroughly!

However, we need to cross reference that with the rules concerning valid matter. I think they may not apply, as the only thing I remember of abut the chalice is that it must be

(1) Grape Wine, or unpasteurize grape juice.
(2) It should not diluted to the point where it ceases o be valid matter - which, IIRC, the mix has to be more than half wine.

In principle Anglicans accept the notion of spiritual communion, and I think belief in concommitence is general given that communion of the sick is widely administered in one kind. However, we are utraquist in the sense that, part from a few Anglo-Papalist eccentrics, we expect Communion to be given in both kinds at Mass, and feel something is not right when it is not.

PD

[ 09. July 2013, 19:55: Message edited by: PD ]
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
If you use the mixed cup, is it permissible simply to further dilute the wine if it's running short?

I have encountered this in a "Spirit of Vatican II" Anglican parish - though, actually, they added wine rather than water.

I've also encountered supplementary consecration once, and only once, in my parish. Had I been MC that day, it would not have happened. Indeed, had the parish priest been in the building on that day it wouldn't have happened.

Dilution, to my mind, strikes me as icky rather than wrong. Supplementary consecration is liturgeogical (what is the actual word?) bullshit.

Thurible

[ 10. July 2013, 09:02: Message edited by: Thurible ]
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
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.

Yeah, but he had a get out - c.f wedding at Cana; feeding of five thousand.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
Hope this is in the right place! Is there any good resource on the general churchmanship of various colours of clerical shirts within Anglicanism? As in, how x colour generally symbolises y churchmanship?

On a related note, is there any similar thing for the churchmanship of Anglican clergy as portrayed on TV and in films? This is all sparked by how Rev Paul Coates in Broadchurch didn't seem quite the type for black clerical shirts and black funeral vestments, at least IMO.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Dunno - but blues are prots.

Mustard are fundy prots with bad taste.

Stripes are mad, fundy prots.
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
jade costable we had a thread on this a few months ago

http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=007772
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Dunno - but blues are prots.

Mustard are fundy prots with bad taste.

Stripes are mad, fundy prots.

[Big Grin]

Our lovely, firmly black-shirts-always parish priest used to be a hospital chaplain and wore blue then, as it was a bit more gentle. One of my friends had a sudden bereavement recently and for the funeral it was requested that people wear blue, white and silver. When said parish priest turned up for the funeral in his blue shirt, there was a bit of a shock!
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
I am of the school that wears black neckband shirts and a 'round collar.' You used to guess the churchmanship from the suit or the lack of the same. I have always been a member of the fannels and tweed jacket brigade, and thus hopelessly middle of the road.

PD
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
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

Yes. When receiving communion one puts their hands underneath the cloth.
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
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

I've seen it in St. John Cantius (Roman Catholic) here in Chicago, for an Extraordinary Form Mass. It's a "houseling cloth."
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
Thanks very much - interesting, especially as I think the Minster inclines to the evangelical side of the CofE.......
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
I think they were in use the first time I visited Walsingham. I didn't know what to do with my hands!
 
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 
quote:
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.

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...
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on :
 
quote:
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

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?
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
Houselling cloths were a hangover from the middle ages, and seem to have remained in use in quite a few places until at least the Commonwealth, and even into Hannoverian times in the Church of England. Then, even in the very traditional places, the dreaded utilitarianism took over and they disappeared. The Anglo-Catholics, and the British Museum Religion tendancies both had a go at reviving them, but it did not take.

I am familiar with the Presbyterian version thereof being spread across the tops of the pews, but I have never heard of them being used in the ex-Congregationalist side of the URC.

PD

[ 20. July 2013, 04:12: Message edited by: PD ]
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
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!)
 
Posted by Gottschalk (# 13175) on :
 
quote:
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!)

...Per Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum Filium tuum, qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitate Spiritus Sancti, Deus: per omnia saecula saeculorum.

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.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
quote:
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!)

...Per Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum Filium tuum, qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitate Spiritus Sancti, Deus: per omnia saecula saeculorum.

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.

Here:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3203.htm
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
quote:
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!)

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.

PD

* - i.e. that is Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father.

[ 20. July 2013, 15:37: Message edited by: PD ]
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
quote:
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

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?
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.


Jengie

[ 20. July 2013, 16:28: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
 
Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :
 
How might I appropriately mark First Evensong and Compline of our Patronal Festival? [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
How might I appropriately mark First Evensong and Compline of our Patronal Festival? [Big Grin]

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.
Compline sung in almost complete darkness.

[Big Grin]
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
How might I appropriately mark First Evensong and Compline of our Patronal Festival? [Big Grin]

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.
Compline sung in almost complete darkness.

[Big Grin]

[Killing me]

If only!
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
Houselling cloths were a hangover from the middle ages, and seem to have remained in use...

...in Shanghai! At that big Roman Catholic joint in town.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
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. ...

I think that concept of the Holy Spirit's role in the Trinity comes from St Augustine.

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.
 
Posted by Gottschalk (# 13175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
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. ...

I think that concept of the Holy Spirit's role in the Trinity comes from St Augustine.

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.

And also after him, Richard of St Victor. Of course, it is not an absolute statement. Let all mortal flesh keep silent.
 
Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :
 
I'm confused about when to wear a stole over cassock and surplice, and when to wear a tippet. Any pointers?
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Tippet for the offices; stole for Holy Communion and for officiating the sacraments of Baptism, Penance,Matrimony, and Unction. Tippet can also be worn at burials.
 
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 
quote:
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?

Try never to wear a stole over a surplice. It's hideous. And it flaps about everywhere.

The English Use choir dress (tippet and hood) is so much nicer than the Roman (cotta and stole): alas that the CofE seems to have moved to surplice and stole for ordinations, rather than alb, stole and girdle...

There may be a possible exception for hearing confession or certain solemn blessings which require (although this is debatable) a stole.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
quote:
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...

I think you should be grateful the CofE doesn't ordain in undergarments!

Thurible
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Oh, but it does (usually)- just with other things worn over the top. Otherwise you would have a lot of- ha!- knickerless parsons !
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
Groan and yet I'm still laughing!

Thurible
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
... Cue the old joke about a lady who likes Nicholas Parsons and a parson who likes knickerless ladies.

Thanks for the advice earlier, all. I'm clearly going to have to go back to Trinitarianism 101. As always in such matters, I'll ask myself "What would +Kallistos say?"
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
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...

I think you should be grateful the CofE doesn't ordain in undergarments!

Thurible

So if the alb is an undergarment, what is the cassock?
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
Not a liturgical garment at all.

Perhaps akin to a necklace.

Thurible
 
Posted by Pearl B4 Swine (# 11451) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 
quote:
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

Um, do you have something other than Baptism in mind? Because 'christening' is usually a metonym for that...
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
All the time. In English English, at least, 'Christening' = '(usually infant) Baptism'. Or are you thinking of Churching (in which case see a very interesting discussion that Thurible started on this board a little while ago)?
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
Because we're awkward, we had "The Parish Mass with the Baptism and Christening of the Boatgirl". Mainly to satisfy our heathen parents ("oh, why don't you call it 'christening' like all sensible people?")

We read that as "the dipping and anointing" but others might not have done.

Thurible
 
Posted by Pearl B4 Swine (# 11451) on :
 
Um, VM, I'm sorry for couching my question in such a confusing way. Actually, I am pretty well sure about what Baptism is. Here it is again:

Is the BBC writer at least semi-in-error by referring to "christening"? Does the CofE offer a ceremony called "christening" (as a separate thing from "baptism") any more?
If the error in asking this is mine, I beg to apologize. We all must have mercy on those who ask questions. Thank you so much.
Pearlie
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
Pearl -- I think what is confusing people is that in the CofE baptism and christening are the same thing. What do you think christening is if you think it isn't the same thing as baptism?

John
 
Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on :
 
I was taught that 'Christening' was a mediaeval corruption of 'Chrismation', referring to the oil of Chrism used to confirm the candidate when initiation was administered by a Bishop (and at other times as well?). In my parishes I therefore eschewed all use of the term in favour of 'Baptism', since even if one does use the (optional) oils (I never did), the water is still the vital element of the sacrament.

I was a regular user of Thanksgiving for the Gift of a Child, and occasionally heard it described by relatives as a 'Christening'. In the preparation sessions I made the difference between the services very clear, and challenged any references to a Thanksgiving as a 'Christening', but I was more relaxed with relatives at the party afterwards.

For many fringers the Thanksgiving had all the elements of a 'lovely Christening Vicar' - a family-focussed gathering to celebrate the life of the child and its family, a blessing by name for the child, a special role for Supporting Friends, and lots of nice pictures before going to the party. They were precious occasions, and I loved doing them.
 
Posted by Pearl B4 Swine (# 11451) on :
 
Yes, what Oferyas said: For many fringers the Thanksgiving had all the elements of a 'lovely Christening Vicar' - a family-focussed gathering to celebrate the life of the child and its family, a blessing by name for the child, a special role for Supporting Friends, and lots of nice pictures before going to the party. They were precious occasions, and I loved doing them.

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.

Thank you all for wrestling with my question. So, the Archbishop will be doing the Baptism. Question posed, question answered.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
To use the BCP formulary Baptism, commonly called Christening! My best guess on the origin of the word is that it is either a shortening of chrismation, as suggested above, or more likely derived from the Old English for 'to make Christ's.'

I tend to accept the old folk ways and words in church provided they are old. The church did plenty to alienate people in the 19th century and the early twentieth by getting rid of harmless, old and genuine folk custms relating to the Church Year in favour of that which is correct (TM).

PD
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
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'.

Those denominations that do not baptise babies have tended to talk of 'dedicating' them.
 
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
I think that it has something to do with the fact that until baptised a person is not really considered to be a Christian.At a baptism the candidate is given a name,a Christian name, often which marks the person as a child of God
The name was considered almost as important as the baptism and this was the 'christening' element of the baptism.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
I've always thought baptism is to christening as a wedding is to marriage. I.e. the initial ceremony followed by the lifelong commitment. But that's just my private understanding and I accept that the terms are interchangeable in common speech.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
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.

Intriguing as the pressure is if anything the other way on this side of the pond.

Jengie
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
So if the alb is an undergarment, what is the cassock?

A style of coat popular in the 15th century.
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
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'.

Wiccan child dedication rituals are sometimes similarly known as a "wiccaning."

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
quote:
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.

Intriguing as the pressure is if anything the other way on this side of the pond.

Away from baptism and toward churching? If the latter is indeed alive and well over there I'm impressed.
 
Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
quote:
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.

Intriguing as the pressure is if anything the other way on this side of the pond.

Away from baptism and toward churching? If the latter is indeed alive and well over there I'm impressed. [/QB]
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.

Jengie

[ 23. July 2013, 08:55: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

"Did you have a wet christening or a dry one?"

"Oh, a dry one - the Vicar makes you go to church if you want a wet one."

Clearly, his attempts at catechesis about the nature of baptism vs thanksgiving had fallen on stony ground.

Thurible
 
Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on :
 
Depressing! Mind you, the certificate we gave was endorsed This was not a service of Christian baptism (in small letters at the bottom!), so the designer of that must have had a pessimistic view of the catechesis in other parishes too!
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
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'.

Wiccan child dedication rituals are sometimes similarly known as a "wiccaning."

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
quote:
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.

Intriguing as the pressure is if anything the other way on this side of the pond.

Away from baptism and toward churching? If the latter is indeed alive and well over there I'm impressed.

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.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
Ahem. Seeing people contribute to threads I've started gives me a little glow on the inside...

Thurible
 
Posted by Arch Anglo Catholic (# 15181) on :
 
As a good friend, who has a deep and disturbing knowledge of middle and early English and Anglo Saxon derivatives, has informed me, Baptism and Christening are the Latinate and English forms of the same word, just as with deceased and dead, inebriated and drunk.

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!
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
Wiccan child dedication rituals are sometimes similarly known as a "wiccaning."

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.
 
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :
 
quote:
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!

Or, in more poetic language, "a rose by any other name..."

This is an interesting point worthy of further (probably Purgatorial) discussion. I personally think the word you use really does matter. "Marriage", for instance, carries enormous significance. You can have something that is in every practical way equivalent to marriage and yet not equal to marriage because the word you use is different.

Though in this specific case I agree that there is no semantic difference.
 
Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
quote:
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?

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

Carys
 
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

Amices are obligatory, and their absence makes the baby Jesus cry. Besides, why waste such a lovely vesting prayer?

"Place upon me, O Lord, the helmet of salvation, that I may overcome the assaults of the devil."
 
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 
Many of our FSSP priests remove the band before putting on the amice, alb and cincture rope.
 
Posted by TheMightyMartyr (# 11162) on :
 
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...
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
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...

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... [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by SyNoddy (# 17009) on :
 
Ours comes in rather handy as a shelf to hold the flower bucket when doing the chancel windows [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 
quote:
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 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.

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. [Hot and Hormonal]

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.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
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...

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.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Zappa, if the Anglican Church ever decides that human cloning is the way to keep clergy numbers up, you have to be first in the line for sampling (with pyx-e and Anselmina just behind).
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
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 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.

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. [Hot and Hormonal]

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.

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...
 
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 
quote:
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...

Maybe they've taken the word 'vicar' a little too literally...

Have you asked the why?
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
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...

Maybe they've taken the word 'vicar' a little too literally...

Have you asked the why?

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...
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
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...

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).
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
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...

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).
I would keep September free:

next PCC is start of September and I'm placing pawns to beat the MU at their own game... if only I can deal with Priest running scared of MU...
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
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.

[Killing me]

That mental picture has put me in such a good mood for the evening shift at work.
 
Posted by Clavus (# 9427) on :
 
quote:
Maybe they've taken the word 'vicar' a little too literally...
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.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
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...

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.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
I would have thought that Clavus's view is both more theologically and practically sensible. A piece of furniture that does little but gather dust for most of its existence is not much of a living symbol. Far better to have it in regular use by the person who is the bishop's official representative in the parish. 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.
 
Posted by Quam Dilecta (# 12541) on :
 
In North America, Anglican chancels designed by the architect Ralph Adams Cram usually include a permanent bishop's seat, located as previously mentioned and flanked by seats for the bishop's chaplains. He strongly advocates this practice in his book Church Building, published in 1900. As an example, he illustrates the bishop's seat at 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.
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
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.

Last year about half a dozen times (if not one or two more times)...

This year we are looking at about 3 times I think...

Just to add:

Our Bishops Chair is not just some ordinary bit of furniture - it is rather large with the Diocesan Crest and would probably pass as a modern Cathedra if erected in a Basilica style Cathedral.

[ 31. July 2013, 07:15: Message edited by: Sergius-Melli ]
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Yes but in Wales bishops are pastors I believe. We have Managers in the C of E.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
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.

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...

[ 31. July 2013, 11:08: Message edited by: Sergius-Melli ]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Oh yes, of course, I was forgetting about honorary assistants. I was only thinking of stipendiary ones. But I don't think that even in England honorary assistants have any managerial role, do they? They're usually* bishops who have retired and are available to help woth pastoral work and occasional offices.

*Exceptions include: mini-PEVs (+Fulham looking after Resolution C people in Southwark, and so on); bishops who are not retired but have returned to parochial ministry (e.g. ++David Hope in his last job); bishops who have been consecrated overseas and are in non-episcopal work here.

[ 31. July 2013, 12:18: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

* start/end building of the tower, which was the last thing built.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
We have developed a tendancy, after much bitching from me, of not leaving unused furnityure laying around. It keeps the sanctuary a lot tidier.

PD
 
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

When the Missal is on its stand away from the altar, it seems to be face-up (so the Cross on the cover shows) and spine down (better for wear and tear, I think, so the page block isn't being pulled away from the spine by Mr. Gravity).
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
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. [Smile]

As with the direction books ought to face when closed, so with the order in which altar candles are supposed to be lit.

[ 01. August 2013, 16:28: Message edited by: Fr Weber ]
 
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :
 
I've seen it that way too. Also face down and spine down.

(I've seen recently, after the Mass a huge BIBLE of all things opened in the middle and placed in on a missal stand in the center of the altar on top of the dust cover...obviously for decoration by someone who cannot escape their hospital chapel Protestantism)
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Only protestants read the Bible, eh, Mama Thomas?

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.
 
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 
We leave the Evangeliary open at the gospel of the day too, but on its stand, where 'twas placed after 'twas proclaimed. Putting on the altar seems frankly barmy...

It lies face down on the altar, but largely so that when the deacon/celebrant picks it up for the gospel procession, it's the right way round...
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
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. [Smile]

As with the direction books ought to face when closed, so with the order in which altar candles are supposed to be lit.

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.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
That sounds about right!

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.

People pick their "things" to make important, regardless of the things which really ought to be important. As a priest I used to know once said, "I can stand up in that pulpit and say 'Jesus is not God' and no one will bat an eye--but if I move one goddam candle all hell breaks loose!"
 
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.)

One never knows when someone might visit the church unexpectedly, and they should easily be able to tell that the Most Holy is present. A veiled tabernacle can also be considered evidence of the Real Presence. But the sanctuary lamp should be cared for and should not be routinely going out. Normally eight-day candles are used for this purpose.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
We do use eight-day candles, and every effort is made to ensure that there is always a lit candle in the lamp. But sometimes, for whatever reason, the candle goes out with half the wax to go. Or someone should have changed it on Sunday after Mass, but forgot.

I agree that keeping the lamp lit is desirable, but it's nothing to have a cow over if you come in on Wednesday morning and it's gone out.
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
A veiled tabernacle can also be considered evidence of the Real Presence.

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?

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.
 
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
A veiled tabernacle can also be considered evidence of the Real Presence.

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?

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.

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.

Title IV, #6 of The Roman Ritual stats " tabernaculum conopaeo decenter opertum." Collins lists various responses made to dubia by the Sacred Congregation of Rites between 1866-1904, all of which affirm the need for the conopaeum, or tabernacle veil, regardless of the style or materials of which the tabernacle is made.

The veil is no longer mandatory in the current regulations, but is still considered praiseworthy.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
...it is the veil rather than the lamp which is the important thing...

This sounds suspiciously like saying, No maniple, no mass, when discussing chasubles.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Thurible
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
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.

Is your church not open during the day for visitors? Or for the saying of morning and evening prayer?
 
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
quote:
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.

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.
Which law does this break? I am aware of no law restricting where one can put a lit candle.

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?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
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. [Smile]

As with the direction books ought to face when closed, so with the order in which altar candles are supposed to be lit.

But they DO address the order in which candles are to be lit!
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
We leave the Evangeliary open at the gospel of the day too...

"Evangeliary"? I can guess what you mean by it (a Gospel book?) but I don't remember ever hearing or seeing that word before!

Which particular grouping of Christians is likely to use it?
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
I could give you an answer for that but this not being Hell I think I'd better not.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
Is it just a tongue-in-cheek play on 'lectionary'?

Thurible
 
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 
The epistolary is the book of epistles that the subdeacon uses at Solemn Mass to sing the epistle. This is the anglicized version of epistolarium, which is the Latin term used in the rubrics of the Roman Missal. One sees this term in Roman Catholic books pertaining to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, as well as in Anglo-Catholic books of a more traditional bent.

The evangelary (usually no i is the book of gospels that the deacon uses to sing the gospel at Mass, whether in the Extraordinary or Ordinary Form. It is an anglicized form of evangelarium, which the Latin term. In the current liturgical books it is usually translated as book of gospels, but in older rubrical books as evangelary.
 
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
A lamp is usually burning by a statue of our Lady, but that doesn't mean she is personally present.

I'm not impressed by making a Bible a shrine object where there is neither the sacrament reserved nor icons nor statues (as I've often seen in the Church of Scotland). We are embodied visual creatures and God has give us the means to worship through all our senses, not just hearing words. Making a closed book stand in for the other means of grace is missing the point.

But I can see Angloid's point - the gospel book in Orthodox services is treated much as an icon and suitably venerated.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Making a closed book stand in for the other means of grace is missing the point.

Who said anything about a closed book?

Of course the presence of Christ in the Sacrament is of a different nature to his presence in the Scriptures, and in the congregation. Nevertheless we can feel as close to him through the imaginative reading of the Gospels as we do in receiving communion. Not that this means that the bible, or gospel book, needs to be given the same kind of external reverence, of course; but nor is it just a symbol of Christ; in reading the words we have a real encounter with him. So if lighting a candle and making the gospel book a focus outside of the liturgy as well as inside it, is helpful, why not do it?

(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?)
 
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 
quote:
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?)

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.

If we went about bowing to everything which is a sign of Christ in the midst of his people, we'd be at it all day...
 
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
St. Thomas teaches us that one cannot get any closer to the Beatific Vision than the Blessed Sacrament.

Citation? (Seriously, I'd be surprised if Thomas said this, but he's surprised me before).
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
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. [Smile]

As with the direction books ought to face when closed, so with the order in which altar candles are supposed to be lit.

But they DO address the order in which candles are to be lit!
I stand corrected! That'll teach me to skip the boring bits about church furnishings...
 
Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
What is the logic behind having two candles on the altar on the same side (in tonight's case the gospel side)? My reaction that it makes the baby Jesus cry, but I'm assuming those who do it have some reason that escapes me.

Carys
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
So that you have somewhere to put the pot-plant? [Devil]
 
Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
*laughs* but there wasn't a pot plant in tonight's church

Carys
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
You would have done if you'd been in Newport [Biased]
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
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

Certainly there must be some good joke for this:

"Yeah, that priest is a few candles short..."

Okay, maybe that's not it, but there has to be something.
 
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:
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

Certainly there must be some good joke for this:

"Yeah, that priest is a few candles short..."

Okay, maybe that's not it, but there has to be something.

A friend of mine once used the phrase "a chasuble short of a vestry" to describe a particularly idiosyncratic sacristan.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:
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

Certainly there must be some good joke for this:

"Yeah, that priest is a few candles short..."

Okay, maybe that's not it, but there has to be something.

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.
 
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:
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

Certainly there must be some good joke for this:

"Yeah, that priest is a few candles short..."

Okay, maybe that's not it, but there has to be something.

A maniple short of a Mass, surely?
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
'A taco short of the combination plate' is a favourite around here, though there are some other colourful expressions used. Nothing quite on the level of 'a few roos loose in the top paddock' which I think is absolutely bloody marvellous!

My favourite for a priest who is not quite all there is 'he went to Wexford.' According to legend, this is a reference to a long closed RC seminary where less academically gifted candidates who could not get into Maynooth, etc., were trained for the missionary field. A lot of their grads ended up in the USA! I don't know where I got it from - probably one of the "penis converts" in my former diocese.

PD

[ 07. August 2013, 15:28: Message edited by: PD ]
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
Meanwhile, back to a discussion related to the board, not to t he Circus or Heaven...

John Holding
Eccles Host

[ 07. August 2013, 22:47: Message edited by: John Holding ]
 
Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:
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

Certainly there must be some good joke for this:

"Yeah, that priest is a few candles short..."

Okay, maybe that's not it, but there has to be something.

A maniple short of a Mass, surely?
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.

*

[ 08. August 2013, 03:51: Message edited by: Mr. Rob ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
Insufficient familiarity. I once heard the passage about the name change read with Abraham throughout. That was odd.

Carys
 
Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :
 
I think I'm going to have to make all my lectors start practicing more. We were doing okay for a while, and then suddenly no one can pronounce anything.

And one dear lady pronounces the "t" in "epistle". I don't know how to tell her...
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
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.

Hey, at least they weren't mispronouncing "gentiles". Yes, it's been done, no it wasn't the first syllable that they got wrong.
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
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.

Lack of practice, lack of supporting resources to help. I'm afraid it is not limited to the laity alone.

quote:
Barefoot Friar:
And one dear lady pronounces the "t" in "epistle". I don't know how to tell her...

In this day and age, why even say the word "epistle" at all? Modern language liturgical resources certainly avoid it.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Well, our lector this morning did indeed mispronounce 'Abram' as 'Abraham' in the first reading. He then unexpectedly went on to improvise the singing of the psalm in a most accomplished manner, so his time in Purgatory has been suitably reduced......

Ian J.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
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.

Hey, at least they weren't mispronouncing "gentiles". Yes, it's been done, no it wasn't the first syllable that they got wrong.
Guess it goes with 'the uncircumcised'.
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Insufficient familiarity. I once heard the passage about the name change read with Abraham throughout. That was odd.

Carys

The reader in question might even have thought it was a misprint and decided to correct the original...... [Killing me]
 
Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on :
 
I once heard a reader refer repeatedly to a figure pronounced 'Beezle-bub'!
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 
We had a reading from the Epistle to the Philippines once... [Disappointed]

[ 11. August 2013, 21:18: Message edited by: Vade Mecum ]
 
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
Feels good to feel superior, huh?

I got thrown by one of the psalms on one occasion: "Praise him with the [adjective] [noun]; [praise him with the [adjective] [noun]".

It was just a case of "They're not really expecting me to read this sort of drivel are they?"
 
Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:
Barefoot Friar:
And one dear lady pronounces the "t" in "epistle". I don't know how to tell her...

In this day and age, why even say the word "epistle" at all? Modern language liturgical resources certainly avoid it.
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.

I think what makes this so hilarious is that they've never done this type of service, with more than one reader or lesson, before I came along -- it was a good Southern Baptist hymn sandwich. So I taught them this, and now "it's the way we've always done it." [Biased]

I love 'em. They're good people. [Smile]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
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.

Thought that was the incumbent's job - but he likes to be nice to everyone.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :
 
I've been shopping around for a cincture band for my cassock. It appears that they're all pretty much made to size. However, I am in the process of losing weight, and thus my size is slowly shrinking. Given that I can't afford to buy a new one every month or two, what are my options?
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
quote:
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.

Or they might even have read the passage as printed in the lectionary.
 
Posted by Arch Anglo Catholic (# 15181) on :
 
@ 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!
 
Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :
 
Now that is a nifty idea. Thanks!
 
Posted by 21stcenturyAnglican (# 17197) on :
 
quote:
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!

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?
 
Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
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?

I've seen both buttons, and hook & eye, in museums.
 
Posted by 21stcenturyAnglican (# 17197) on :
 
quote:
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?

The Rector in my parish has snaps on his. Probably a variety of ways.
 
Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :
 
quote:
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?


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.

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.

*
 
Posted by TheMightyMartyr (# 11162) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
quote:
Originally posted by 21stcenturyAnglican:


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.

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.

*

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!
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
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?

Yes you have.

I still have my copy from when I was aged 15 and it was like a bible.
 
Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Going back a few posts.......string, rather than Velcro. I've always considered Velcro to be a bit of a rip-off.....

....I'll get me coat.

Ian J.
 
Posted by Antiphon (# 14779) on :
 
Just snapped up the copy of Lamburn's Behind Rite and Ceremony which was on eBay. I'd never heard of this title before. I already have the 1946 and 1964 editions of Ritual Notes and the second edition of Anglican Services.

I think Lamburn also contributed to GAC Whatton's Priest's Companion, of which I have two copies of the final edition.
 
Posted by Antiphon (# 14779) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
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.

Correct - before they got the wall painting above the high altar.

Most of the inside photos come from there too, including a whole set from the Easter Vigil.
 
Posted by Antiphon (# 14779) on :
 
I'd value the opinion of other contributors on this issue.

At my local RC parish church of which I am a member the parish priest has for some time been making certain innovations to the liturgy on an ad hoc basis. Here are some of them:-

1) He alters the texts of the eucharistic prayers and the collects to make them sound more politically collect, for example by substituting "and all who serve your people" for "and all the clergy" in EP2.

2) He interpolates lists of people for whom he wishes to pray within
the text of the EP.

3) He often invites the entire congregation to recite the prayer for peace with him, beginning "Lord Jesus Christ, you said to your apostles..."

4) When giving the absolution he often says something like "May almighty God have mercy on us, forgive us our sins, and bring each one of us gathered here to evelasting life."

I accept that these variations are perhaps not of substantial importance in themselves and do not affect the validity of the mass, but I personally find them rather distracting, although they do not seem to bother other people.

I have not raised this issue with the priest as I would not want to seem uncharitable and cause him extra trouble as he already has a very heavy workload in the parish, but I can't pretend I am comfortable with these interpolations. At the same time, I suspect that this kind of thing is actually practiced pretty widely as I have heard other priests make similar variations.

What do others think?
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
I think courtesy would demand that you confront him in some way--perhaps just by asking why he is making these changes, and by what authority. You need to communicate to him that you would prefer he stick to the texts of the Mass. If he persists, you can then contact the bishop (which may or may not do any good). But don't just go over his head as the first resort; it weakens your position.

(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!)
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
That sort of minor variation is par for the course in the CofE, though many would be reluctant to change the words of the Eucharistic Prayers - not that it matters much as we seem to have a limitless supply of authorised versions anyway.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
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.

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).
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
quote:
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.

Ah - I did wonder. Nice combination of gothic chazzie and 'big six'.
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
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!)

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."

Most liturgical ad-libbing ends up just wordy and redundant.
 
Posted by Antiphon (# 14779) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :
 
We play recorded music during Communion - mind you, it is not modern religious music but rather Palestrina, Byrd or Tallis or the like.
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
quote:
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.

Yes, I have encountered it in Spain (though I rather wish I hadn't...)
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
Whole wheat hosts: An abomination or the preferred item?

Seems fine to me. Especially when using real bread, as is the True Anglican Way, and not those little wafers.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
In this day and age, why even say the word "epistle" at all? Modern <something or other>

What is this modernity of which you speak?

In this day and age the introduction certainly can be:
quote:
A reading from the Epistle of Blessed Paul the Apostle to the <x>
where your <x> can the be addressee any one of the seven certain Pauline epistles—or should I say letters?
 
Posted by 21stcenturyAnglican (# 17197) on :
 
quote:
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!!!!!


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...
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 21stcenturyAnglican:
what's wrong with a bit of silence? The silence is one of the reasons I like midweek services...

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.

What I would do is to play the music until all have received communion, then the priest and assistants sit down and all keep silence for two or more minutes.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Especially when using real bread, as is the True Anglican Way, and not those little wafers.

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?

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.
 
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Especially when using real bread, as is the True Anglican Way, and not those little wafers.

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?

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.

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. [Eek!]
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
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 one of those wafers is real bread?

John
 
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 
quote:
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

Fixed.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
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. [Eek!]

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.
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by 21stcenturyAnglican:
what's wrong with a bit of silence? The silence is one of the reasons I like midweek services...

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.
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.
 
Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :
 
quote:
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?

I like the last one, it sounds very Rastafarian. (I have a Lion of Judah flag in my living room)

[ 23. August 2013, 18:58: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
I've seen plenty of obscure Marian devotions, those to our Lord less so.

The Most Precious Blood turns up of course (Westminster Cathedral, for one). And I've seen Christ the Physician, although which Dominical Mystery it would be dedicated to, or when its Feast of Title would be, I wot not.
 
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :
 
The Catholic Cathedral in Oakland is Christ the Light.

Prince of Peace is a reasonably common dedication.

[ 23. August 2013, 20:53: Message edited by: Hart ]
 
Posted by Clavus (# 9427) on :
 
The Salesian School in Nazareth has the Church of Jesus Adolescent.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
I was once vicar of the Church of Christ the Servant.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Clavus:
The Salesian School in Nazareth has the Church of Jesus Adolescent.

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').
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
quote:
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?

Most of the stuff in British supermarkets is not real bread.
Clearly.

Did you mean 'most of the purported bread'?

quote:

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.

You might care to change supermarket, if that is what you are buying.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
I don't want to start a pond war, but my recollection of American 'bread' is an even sweeter and pappier version of Mother's Pride (or Tesco Value). Maybe I went to the wrong supermarkets.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Otherwise, the organist can play suitable music.
 
Posted by Antiphon (# 14779) on :
 
I think that my objection to CDs being played during Mass is a desire to "keep music live".

As far as I can make out from my research on the web it seems that the basic line of the RC Church is that CDs and other recorded music MAY NOT be played during Mass, but might be tolerated with reservations during children's liturgies. Perhaps another contributor may be able to clarify this?

It is not just a question of the type of music being played; if, for example, a CD of Gregorian Chant by the monks of Solesmes or a recording of an appropriate piece of organ music by JS Bach was played during communion I would be just as doubtful about that as I would be about a recording of, say, Taize chants or songs by the St Louis Jesuits.

It is perhaps the same kind of objection as some people have to "canned" music being played to congregations in funeral parlours. I have also experienced this personally.

It appears that the RC Church normally forbids the use of any kind
of recorded music during Mass, but this doesn't seem stop some priests using it anyway. [Frown]

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.

Perhaps it all boils down to whatever the congregation is willing to tolerate!!!! [Smile]
 
Posted by Antiphon (# 14779) on :
 
PS At my local RC parish church a solo is sometimes sung "live" during communion at the Mass I attend on a Sunday. I certainly have no objection to this. I also used to attend an Anglican church a number of years ago where the choir often would often sing an appropriate piece during communion and would communicate before the rest of the congregation to enable them to do so. I certainly didn't object to this either.

I therefore prefer "live" music, whether vocal or instrumental, at Mass, and this is after all the rule of the church. But then, maybe that's just me being awkward as usual!!!! [Devil]
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
My unease with solos and choir pieces during communion is that they tend to come across as 'performances'. Nothing to my mind should distract from the act of communion; whereas recorded music can be a 'background', secondary to the main event. Some people might find it even more of a distraction than live singers, so in that case, don't use it. Silence, or an anonymous hidden organist twiddling away, might be preferable.
 
Posted by Antiphon (# 14779) on :
 
Yes, I think that the best idea for music during communion is :- when in doubt, silence!!!!!! [Smile]
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
In the 70s at least, rural CoI churches in the Republic would often feature recorded music of the hymns on the board that day, to provide reinforcement (and sometimes replace) the voices of the small congregation. I have encountered U2 in two Anglican churches being played as an aid to pre-service meditation/authorized Xn muzak.

Perhaps I've just been lucky, but I've been spared canned music in Spanish churches-- however, I've generally been in the local version of the backwoods, where they have perhaps not yet advanced to this.
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Antiphon:
Yes, I think that the best idea for music during communion is :- when in doubt, silence!!!!!! [Smile]

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.

I often think it would be nice to have just a few moments more quiet, and then lead into some music which is appropriate to communion, and save the exhibition pieces until the end. But sadly it is often the case that communion seems to be regarded much like the signing the register bit at a wedding; it is the organist's time to shine, regardless of what else is going on.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

2. Any organist who gives you "noise" would be guilty of playing inappropriate music to the place in the liturgy.

3. When you say "noise" are you in fact expressing your own musical prejudice rather than giving an accurate description?

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.

The most inappropriate hymns at communion that I have been asked to play were ALL chosen by clergy - including "Mine eyes have seen the glory ", I kid you not. [Eek!]
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
I wouldn't want to be too sweeping in generalizations ... not all contexts are cathedralesque. Yesterday (Sunday, here) our little pad had a solitary guitar for music - our fourth-string options (not unlike the All Blacks but that's another matter, and the allusion will be wasted here [Roll Eyes] ). 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.

While I'm heading off to another place (no, not that one) soon where I imagine the choirs will pluck the strings of heaven with illustrious post-Reformation European complexities, the gentle notes of a well played instrument can lift the soul to heaven. Even emanating from a digital (or even analogue) source.

Still, thirty years later my favourite communion music was from effectively my (second) "faith community of sending", at which the organist used to play barely discernible improvised variations on a theme, often at the very top register of the small pipe organ, and slowly, ever so slowly as he played this communicant would become aware that the angels were singing.

The worst? My cathedral of ordination, whose director believed all music should rake the fires of a discordant hell until (perhaps) the final amen. That was 25 years ago, too ... but she's only recently retired.

[ 25. August 2013, 20:19: Message edited by: Zappa ]
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
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. ...

It's not the sort of thing the CofE has rules about.

The service books prescribe, with a lot of flexibility, what the services must contain, there is case law about what building alterations can and cannot be authorised, and there used to be legal disputes about what a priest may wear and not wear when conducting particular services, though that is much less rigidly prescribed now than it used to be.
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
quote:
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.

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.
Don't tell me. I am not an organist. [Smile]

quote:

2. Any organist who gives you "noise" would be guilty of playing inappropriate music to the place in the liturgy.

I agree. [Smile]

quote:
3. When you say "noise" are you in fact expressing your own musical prejudice rather than giving an accurate description?
Possibly. But I would not call the same music noise either before or after the service. Only at communion.

Communion is different. It calls for a very careful choice of music, imo. But I think there is sometimes a tendency to use music to fill in the gaps, rather than allowing some of those gaps to act as punctuation to the service.

quote:

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.

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.

Worse still is kneeling at the altar rail beside someone who is cheerfully humming or singing along; that is a real challenge.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Right, I think it is time for the unreliably attributed to Augustine quote "He who sings prays twice"

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.

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
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
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. Lots of Passion hymns of the 'When I survey the Wond'rous Cross' type (in fact, I think that was there, in translation). The CinW 'home team' all sang these rather quietly and meditatively, appropriate to the tone of the occasion as they saw it: but 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.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
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

Quite. But with 'suitable' in bold italics and underlined twice.
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
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

Quite. But with 'suitable' in bold italics and underlined twice.
Agreed.

And I reserve the right to regard anything else as just noise.

I will never be so unAnglican as to say so, but I will think it, and thereby undo more than half the spiritual benefit of being at Communion in the first place. [Smile]
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Right, I think it is time for the unreliably attributed to Augustine quote "He who sings prays twice"

Indeed so. But he who prays doesn't always want noise to go with it.

I think we are in general very intolerant of silence; perhaps even a bit afraid of it. Every minute does not have to be filled with noise.

quote:

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.

Not always. [Smile]

There can be a relationship but there is also a difference.

quote:

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

I think it might help if the organist and choir remember that not everyone has communicated.

The hymn chosen may reflect their own status irt communion, but not that of the congregation as a whole, who may still be maintaining a greater quietness and devotion.

But perhaps it is just me. I find it jarring if I am walking to the altar rail, with the accompaniment of the odd rustle of paper or quiet footsteps, everywhere quiet and reverent, and then the whole place is filled with crashing great chords and the choir launches into Onward Christian Soldiers or somesuch.

[Smile]
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Yeah but I said suitable hymns

Imagine instead if it was Let us break bread together, It is a thing most wonderful or My song is Love unknown.

Jengie
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
If anything, I prefer Taizé chants. Less banal than most repetitive choruses, they don't depend on people knowing a lot of words by heart or carrying books around with them. Hence they can be sung - quietly - by those walking up to or returning from communion as well as by those in the pews. They are by definition prayerful.
 
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
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.

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).

Hmm. Good Friday on the other hand ...

[ 26. August 2013, 20:19: Message edited by: Zappa ]
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Right, I think it is time for the unreliably attributed to Augustine quote "He who sings prays twice"


Jengie

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.)
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Right, I think it is time for the unreliably attributed to Augustine quote "He who sings prays twice"


Jengie

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.)
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

Jengie
 
Posted by AndyB (# 10186) on :
 
Of course, in reality the hymnn has been prayed four or five times by the time the choir practises it and the musical director has explained that the Sops have been singing the melody wrong for decades, the Basses have been shaken out of their ennui and never mind the rest... [Biased]
 
Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :
 
quote:
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.

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?
 
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on :
 
quote:
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.

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 Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Our usual practice FWIW is for our organist, once she's received Communion, to tweedle gently whilst the rest of our little congo come and go to and from the altar. Once all, or most, have received, she begins to play the Communion hymn, which then covers the ablutions - but with which most people are free to join in, if they wish.

If we've no organist e.g. during the summer holidays, and we're using CDs via our laptop PC, we may have no music at all during Communion, or, if I've found summat suitable, some quiet and reflective piece before going to the hymn.

Works for us, any road...

Ian J.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:
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.

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?
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.

And I'm another who doesn't think much of contemporary RC communion songs. A lot of going on about bread and cup, a little bit about Jesus, and usually nothing at all about the eucharistic mystery. Worst offender : Bernadette Farrell's "Bread for the World," which says plenty about her politics but nothing about Communion.

[ 27. August 2013, 17:28: Message edited by: Fr Weber ]
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I really dislike being ordered to sing as I march up to the rail.

Silly Fr Weber! Catholics don't sing. [Snigger]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Ordered to sing? its compulsory?
 
Posted by Edgeman (# 12867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I really dislike being ordered to sing as I march up to the rail.

Silly Fr Weber! Catholics don't sing. [Snigger]
I don't know what you're talking about
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
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.

What's a 'liturgical destination' church? I've not encountered that term before.
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
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.

What's a 'liturgical destination' church? I've not encountered that term before.
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.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
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.

Sorry. For us thicko foreigners, what does EWTN stand for?
 
Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :
 
Eternal Word Television Network -- but most people know it as "that Catholic channel".
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
Sorry! I had thought they took over the world by now. Allow me to Anglicize my prior post:

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.

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.

Hopefully it makes sense now!
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Quite standard gear for a low-church bishop in the 1960s. I don't like the look either, but ++Donald Coggan used to dress like this when he was Bishop of Bradford.

I'll forgive +Eric any number of liturgical solecisms for his railway photography.
 
Posted by ST (# 14600) on :
 
quote:
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.

Sorry to go back a couple of pages.

St Martin's, Liskeard, has a massive vicar's stall complete with a mitre on it (from what I remember), which is clearly a bishop's cathedra in all but name. I'm not aware of any previous vicar having been consecrated.

Also, All Saints Reading has a bishop's seat in the sedilia, on the north side of the chancel, along with two seats for his chaplains (emblems painted above of, if I remember correctly, crossed keys, mitre, and crozier). The south side, as you might expect, has seats for celebrant, deacon, and subdeacon. Apart from the celebrant's seat in the sedilia, they are generally just used by the altar party.
 
Posted by jlav12 (# 17148) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
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?

AFAIK, the diocesan Bishop has the authority to authorize such use, and would need to do so.
 
Posted by scuffleball (# 16480) on :
 
What on earth does the hymn "Teach me, my God and King" by George Herbert mean? Google is not my friend.

Instinctively it sounds like something to do with the Eucharist, but I have heard it sung at Evensong or as a Gradual.

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.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
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.

Can you please explain this?

I don't see the connection with the eucharist, except that all life is connected with it in some way. ISTM that the first verse explains all the rest. 'In all things thee to see'
 
Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

In the TEC/USA, the stole over the red chimere is always seen at the consecration of bishops. These days, the common use is to see three or four co-consecrators in cope and mitre, the ordained new bishop in chasuble and mitre, and all the many assisting bishops in that combination of rochet, scarlet chimere and stole.

*
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
Surely process is the opposite of stagnation? The hymn strikes me as singularly obvious, as Miss Prism would say.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Scuffleball

Problems understanding Teach me, my God and King ? I'm coming over all Victor Meldrew...

Verse 1: - Creation, see God in all of it, and to have at the forefront of one's mind that one should perform any task as if it were for god.

Verse 2: - simply imagery, saying that we can become self-absorbed or, if we choose, look beyond self to see the things of heaven.

Verse 3: - salvation is possible/available to all through the sacrifice of Our Lord - sins can be forgiven and a new beginning made.

Verse 4: - 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.

Verse 5: - Herbert was writing when there was a general obsession with alchemy, particularly with the notion of the philosophers' stone which, it was believed, would be something so magical it would be able to turn base metals to precious (specifically lead to gold). What Herbert is saying is that it is God who is the truly magical since everything touched by God is made precious by Him.

OK, OK - very simplistic, but that is the gist.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
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.

And a fairly direct reflection of Br. Lawrence's 'The Practice of the Presence of God'.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
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.

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:

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."



 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
Thank you, Albertus. I can put my hermeneutic of suspicion at rest. That's a lovely story and I vaguely remember it.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I was given an old-school last rites set for a wedding present by an antiques dealer, and I was wondering how it all works. It includes a candlestick/crucifix combo with a little basin on the front, a scoop like jobber, two patens, and a little brush.

[ 04. October 2013, 20:42: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
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.

[ 05. October 2013, 20:46: Message edited by: Olaf ]
 
Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Here's another one-- seems to have been a common make!

[ 06. October 2013, 02:14: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
At my childhood church we had a Palm Sunday Procession from the far end of the parish to the church, a distance of about a mile-and-a-half. The police stopped the traffic on one side of the road while we processed.

Full works: cross, lights, thurifer & boat-boy, verger with wand, parish priest in cope (and if cold cloak & Canterbury cap), robed choir, parish banner, Sunday School, Mothers' Union banner, congregation, all stewarded by the churchwardens with their wands. And between the parish banner and the Sunday School we had the DONKEY.

As you can imagine, this always attracted a crowd and many, especially younger children, followed us into church. And there were people who became regular members of the congregation through the procession.

In later years the donkey became rather tetchy and eventually we had to give him up - but we were joined instead by the band from the local Salvation Army citadel - which added greatly to the gaiety of life and we marched properly instead of what had up to that point been a rather shambolic ambling.
 
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
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.

It's possible, assuming the holy sacrament was carried in a pix and placed on a corporal, as in the "old" mass.
 
Posted by KevinL (# 12481) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
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.

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.

Here's another one-- seems to have been a common make!

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
here. They are sedevacantists, I believe, but that shouldn't affect the sick call setup.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by KevinL (# 12481) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by KevinL (# 12481) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by KevinL:
quote:
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.

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.
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.
 
Posted by Choirboi (# 9222) on :
 
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.

We do it this way at high mass, but a debate has arisen because the other low mass servers in my present parish don't don the surplice until just before the mass actually starts, and they remove it before putting out the candles. I'm having trouble finding this rule in written form, and also the justification thereof. Please point me in the right direction.
 
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 
As an Anglican youth, I was taught not to put the surplice on until after the candles were lighted, and remove it before extinguishing the candles. Occasionally this rule was bent, which was not a big deal, but most parishes seemed to follow it, except the most advanced Anglo-Catholic ones, which seemed to use the Roman method of always wearing the surplice at all times.

No explanation was ever really provided as a youth, and I suspect that its origin was merely a practical one, such as keeping wax or soot off the pristine surplices. When I became an RC, no one seemed to have heard of the practice, as they seemed surprised when I instinctively continued to do so.
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
We put surplices on before lighting candles. The candle-lighting seems to be the first item in the ritual, even though it's clearly before the liturgy and not a part of the Mass proper.

We have cassocks on for anything before that, such as walking through or rehearsing something out of the ordinary (solemn procession, new deacon, etc.).

On Wednesday evenings, I don't always don a cassock for setting up the sanctuary before I open the church doors. Once there are (or could be) any people in the church besides me, I have cassock on.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
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.

Correct - whether surplice, albe or cotta.
 
Posted by Choirboi (# 9222) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
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.

Correct - whether surplice, albe or cotta.
Thanks, Leo, but do you know of anywhere this is actually written? Or the exact reason?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Ritual Notes p. 153
quote:
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.

But no reason is given.
Far more important, I think, is that candles should be lit well before the service begins so as not to distract the worshippers - I remember last minute problems with small acolytes reaching tall candles or one of the big six going out before some of the other five have been lit.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
How long is "some little time" and "well before". Our usual rule is 10 minutes or so. And servers/acolytes wear alb and all work in the sanctuary is done after vesting. Assistants wear cassock and surplice.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Our candles are lit by a churchwarden (female) usually in a dress, jacket and court shoes.

The servers are all children so "elf 'n' safetee" decree they can't light candles...

They all wear cassock albs (ghastly things) so the smallest two look like monochrome Mickey-Mouse lookalikes from Fantasia.
 
Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
As a person who lit candles as a child/teenager and is now responsible for H&S, I'm sure a risk assessment wouldn't necessarily rule out sensible children lighting candles

Carys
 
Posted by AndyB (# 10186) on :
 
"Elf and safety" is very much abused. Risk Assessments, when done correctly, are intended to mitigate against risk for a particular activity - I think that the presumption is that an activity will take place unless it cannot be done safely, or the precautions are disproportionate.

In the case of "getting children to light candles", I think it ought be enough to identify suitably responsible children and have an adult supervise at an appropriate distance - even across the chancel, although it may be necessary in some cases to supervise from rather close by.

Advent candles are a case in point. When the minister "helps" a child light the candle, often by controlling the taper or match on its way to the candle, that is effectively dynamic risk assessment - the difference now is that a common and predictable risky activity should be assessed on paper in advance.

[ 17. October 2013, 11:09: Message edited by: AndyB ]
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
I speak as URC, my attitude would be, you let children on a rota light candles, three or four at a time, partly to make sure they are adequately supervised. At the first sign of any silliness with fire any child involved with it is given a good telling off and immediately suspended from the rota for the next rotation.

I suspect that within a year or after one or two incidents, which ever takes less time, the children will become self policing and the most careful lighters of candles you could wish for, far better than most adults.

Jengie
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
I speak as URC, my attitude would be, you let children on a rota light candles, three or four at a time, partly to make sure they are adequately supervised. At the first sign of any silliness with fire any child involved with it is given a good telling off and immediately suspended from the rota for the next rotation.

I suspect that within a year or after one or two incidents, which ever takes less time, the children will become self policing and the most careful lighters of candles you could wish for, far better than most adults.

Jengie
 
Posted by Gwalchmai (# 17802) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Some do it using light sticks rather than candles for that reason.

Jengie
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
Our Chnstngle same has its own risk assessment for this reason and uses cocktail sticks with one blunt end. Risk Assessments mean that you're considered potential problems & mitigated them

Carys
 
Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
My parish has a separate paten for the gluten free wafers, so that there is no danger of cross contamination.
 
Posted by LostinChelsea (# 5305) on :
 
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. The Altar Guild knows to fill the Pyx before handling the wheat wafers. We have a chalice and an intinction chalice, so there's no danger of the person receiving from a vessel that has had wheat wafers dipped into it (and yes, the person is that sensitive!).

Note: Episcopal Church, so the rice wafer is possible in this tradition. There are wheaten low-gluten wafers, but some rare people are sensitive to even that level of gluten.
 
Posted by gog (# 15615) on :
 
quote:
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?

There is also the idea to move everyone to gluten-free, "one bread, one body".
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Yes, that would work, and would save an awful lot of faffing about, wouldn't it?
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
It would also make those of who aren't convinced that gluten-free wafers aren't invalid matter decidedly uncomfortable.

Thurible
 
Posted by BulldogSacristan (# 11239) on :
 
ARE gluten-free hosts valid? In what sense are they bread?
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Well, in what sense are wafers per se 'bread'? We use them,sure, but if you showed one to anyone not familiar with its use in a liturgical context and asked what it was, no-one, but no-one, would answer' bread'.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
They're made of wheat.

Thurible
 
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :
 
...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?
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
Canon B17.2 of the Church of England:
quote:
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.
Thurible
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
They're made of wheat.

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."
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
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?

Do you disagree with the doctrine of concomitance?
 
Posted by LostinChelsea (# 5305) on :
 
I knew that this would stir up the "what is bread" and "what is canonical" tempest. Go by your church's canons.

(And don't forget the old punchline, "I can believe it's Jesus, I just can't believe it's bread!")
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Canon B17.2 of the Church of England:
quote:
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.
Thurible
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.
I would not regard any breach of the Canons lightly. But Canons can be changed.

[ 01. November 2013, 16:09: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
They're made of wheat.

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."
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".

[ 01. November 2013, 16:17: Message edited by: Pancho ]
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Canon B17.2 of the Church of England:
quote:
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.
Thurible
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.
I would not regard any breach of the Canons lightly. But Canons can be changed.

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?

Sure, the canons can be changed. The canons regarding the necessity of baptism for partaking in the Eucharist can be changed. But does changing the canons in itself confer validity on a theologically dubious practice?

Complicating the issue, of course, "validity" is not really a value that the canons address; they're laws which determine what is licit and what is not. In this I'd say they reflect the orientation and preoccupations of the C of E (until very recently), which was much more concerned with what was legal and permissible rather than what was valid or sacramentally efficacious.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
They're made of wheat.

Thurible

So are some kinds of wallpaper paste
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
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".

That's simply untrue, unless you guys have very different ideas of what a chapati is from us. Or maybe what a wafer is.

I see lots of chapatis. I bought some just yesterday. And 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). And I often buy and eat pitta breads. And I buy lots of bread in Turkish shops where they have a wide variety of Turkish and Arab and Eastern European styles of food, including plenty of leavened and unleavened flat breads, like khobez.

And they are NOTHING LIKE communion wafers. They are a different colour, a different flavour, a different consistency, just different. In everything. Other than flatness. They are much more like our leavened unflat bread than they are like communion wafers.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
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".

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.)

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.

But I agree completely that one should follow the canons, rules or expectations of one's own church's discipline and tradition. In the case of my tradition, that means bread "common to the culture of the community."

[ 01. November 2013, 16:53: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
 
Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :
 
Thanks, Zach and LostinChelsea. I'll look into something like that.
 
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :
 
quote:
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.)

Note that, while naan are indeed flatbreads, they are not unleavened bread. (Nor are pitta breads, for that matter.) They are made with yeast

In many ways, the choice depends on whether you want to promote the meal aspect of the Eucharist or the participating-in-the-sacrifice-of-Christ aspect.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :
 
In that having to use hosts instead of "real" bread is a sacrifice?

[Biased]

I'll get my coat...

[ 01. November 2013, 20:12: Message edited by: Barefoot Friar ]
 
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :
 
quote:
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?

The Western tradition historically insisted on unleavened bread in order to recall the Passover sacrifice. Individual wafers came about for practical reasons, yes.

In my experience, the churches that want to promote the theological idea of the Eucharist as a communal meal do so with leavened bread (to make the link with everyday food) whereas those who wish to promote the idea of the Eucharist as sacrifice use unleavened bread to participate in the Passover typology.
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
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?

Rice flour is used to make bread, although usually in addition to other flours - see Vietnamese baguettes for example. Mmmm banh mi.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
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

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.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
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.

Right, but I'm Presbyterian—either leavened or leavened is permissible for us. Leavened, though, is much more common.
 
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :
 
quote:
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

I've made matzot at times (including for the Eucharist), following what I think are fairly authentic recipes.

They are simply flour and water (sometimes with salt) mixed into a dough, then rolled into approximately circular shapes and baked. They are brittle and crisp.

They are not a million miles from the large "concelebration" wafers you see sometimes, though they do generally have a bit more flavour.
 
Posted by Dies Irae (# 2804) on :
 
I know that the tabernacle is never veiled in black and must be in purple when a Requiem Mass is celebrated. I was also recently told that the altar frontal on an altar with an occupied tabernacle must also never be black and should be purple. However, I can find little authority for this and a recent picture would suggest otherwise. Any thoughts...?
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
If you dig into Fortescue, it says:
quote:
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.
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.
 
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
ARE gluten-free hosts valid? In what sense are they bread?

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...
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
We do white for funerals and accordingly also for All Souls.

As for bread, none in the range of Indian breads mentioned is made from pure white wheaten* flour, and would seem to fall foul of the canon.

*Unless there's a much wider definition of wheat than I'm aware of. Corn, for example (Corn in Egypt!) used mean any type of grain, rather than the present very restricted usage.

[ 02. November 2013, 19:40: Message edited by: Gee D ]
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dies Irae:
a recent picture would suggest otherwise. Any thoughts...?

If it's the recent photo I'm thinking of, the frontal is allegedly purple too.

Thurible

[deleted duplicate post]

[ 02. November 2013, 23:43: Message edited by: seasick ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Stranger in a strange land (# 11922) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I did specifically mean barley, rye and spelt, and the other generalisation was because I knew I'd forgotten one ~ oats. Yes there are gluten free grains, but the particular grains mentioned aren't them.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
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

The RCC's big problem with gluten-free wafers is that they aren't bread as defined in their canons.

This is the reason why most RCC churches offer low-gluten, but not gluten-free, hosts.
 
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 
Another way of handling communion is to have the gluten-intolerant communicant receive only the Precious Blood.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Did you read the link?

Jengie
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

Folk interested in the RC approach on gluten-free hosts can look at the US bishops' conference
note on the topic.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Another way of handling communion is to have the gluten-intolerant communicant receive only the Precious Blood.

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.
 
Posted by Dies Irae (# 2804) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
This is a slightly different context, but in traditionally low church TEC dioceses, the crosier was typically carried in front of the bishop - as though it were a mace of office - by a server or bishop's chaplain whilst in procession. Awful, antiquated custom. In such instances IME the crook was turned outward (in the case of a bishop in his own diocese), just as though the bishop himself were walking with it.
 
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Another way of handling communion is to have the gluten-intolerant communicant receive only the Precious Blood.

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.
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.
 
Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Another way of handling communion is to have the gluten-intolerant communicant receive only the Precious Blood.

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.
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.
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!
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
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

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.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
<snip> there is no universal idea of bread.

In my childhood, for my Scottish relatives, 'bread' meant what I would have called oatcakes, what I called bread was 'loaf'.
 
Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
<snip> there is no universal idea of bread.

In my childhood, for my Scottish relatives, 'bread' meant what I would have called oatcakes, what I called bread was 'loaf'.
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.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.
 
Posted by Pearl B4 Swine (# 11451) on :
 
I would like to begin using the Alleluia and Verse, during the Advent season. I'm OK with the musical requirements,but need advice about when the Gospel procession gets moving.

We sing a gradual hymn, and then do we move directly into the Alleluia? Does the procession get going at the beginning of the alleluia? Or on the last verse of the grad. hymn, as is our custom?

There's not a very long walk to the stopping place. Thanks for your advice, and if it doesn't matter, please say that too.
Pearlie

P.S. After the Gospel reading I usually play something short- probably reminiscent of the grad. hymn. But I've heard some play fanfares and very energetic improv's. What is most appropriate?
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :
 
quote:
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.

Amen to that.

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.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :
 
quote:
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.

I think part of the source of the practice is a horror of any period of silence when the choir could Do Something.
 
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
quote:
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.

I've seen it done at the Vatican, so apparently it's not just a CofE thing.
 
Posted by Pearl B4 Swine (# 11451) on :
 
Thanks for your good advice, all of you. I will not be providing Music To Walk By any more. Can you give me similar reasoning about when to begin the Alleluia- and how it relates to the action taking place? After all, the Gradual is meant to go with the movement to the place where the Gospel will be read, yes? Thanks in advance.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
At our place, the choir begins the Gradual when the Epistle has ended, during which I pray the Munda cor meum silently at the altar and the server moves the book. The Alleluia follows immediately, and by this point the book has been moved, I have finished the prayer, and I take my place at the Gospel horn ready for the Gospel lesson. Around about the final "Alleluia," I pick up the book, turn toward the server who is standing ready to hold it, and place it in his hands. By this time the Alleluia is finished and I begin to announce the Gospel.

This will obviously need to be re-jigged depending on the settings of the minor propers in use (how long they are and so on), the size of the sanctuary, and the resemblance of the above ceremonial to anything that you do in your place.
 
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 
Traditionally, the gradual is a scriptural verse said or sung immediately after the epistle, which is then followed immediately by the alleluia verse--or during Lent and at requiems, by the tract, which is another scriptural verse. In practice, the gradual leads directly into the alleluia, and especially when they are recited, many people tend to them of them as all one piece. The source of these verses is from the Roman Missal and the chant notes come from the Roman Gradual. Anglican parishes who use a form of the missal have typically used the same verses.

For a much larger portion of Anglicans, the gradual is the hymn that follows the epistle and comes before the gospel, and its source is usually some hymnal or other collection.

After Vatican II, the reforms of the Roman Missal replaced the gradual with a responsorial psalm that came between the old and new testament readings, since an extra reading had been added. The alleluia verse then stood between the epistle and the gospel by itself, and has thus taken on a greater prominence as a sung piece. In most churches, it is started immediately after the epistle ends, as the deacon gets the evangelary (book of gospels) and receives the blessing from the celebrant, or the latter gets the book himself, and proceeds to the ambo, possibly with acolytes with candles and maybe even a thurifer.

In cathedrals and larger churches, sometimes a few notes of the alleluia melody are played at first, then the actual alleluia verse sung just as the procession leaves the altar, if the gospel procession takes a longer route. Though I have heard an alleluia refrain sung after the gospel, this practice seems to be be dying out (partly through the influence of Benedict XVI, I suspect, as it does not appear in the Order of Mass.)
 
Posted by Pearl B4 Swine (# 11451) on :
 
Thank you very much Fr Weber and Ceremoniar. I appreciate your explanations.
Pearlie
 
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :
 
Sorry for the late reply but my mind has been occupied with a lot of things.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:

And they are NOTHING LIKE communion wafers...

quote:
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.

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.

Slightly Hellish tangent:
quote:
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).

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”

On a more Heavenly note, below is a video made by Passionist nuns in Kentucky on how they prepare communion bread. It was made for a class of children about to make their First Holy Communion.

The Making of Communion Bread for Holy Communion
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

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.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
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.

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.

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.

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.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
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.

LOL! Maybe not so much horrified as puzzled, but still . . . . At least potato chips and corn puffs have flavor.

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. Here, they would never be encountered except in some churches, and they would only be considered "bread" because we're told it's bread.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
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.

It may be the lack of salt which concerns some, but I have had whole-wheat wafers in some churches which have had more flavour. There are a number of suppliers.
 
Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on :
 
quote:
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.

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?
[Razz]
 
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :
 
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.

[ 10. November 2013, 21:03: Message edited by: S. Bacchus ]
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
Oh, Amen and amen ... But I was sadly losing that battle with my rather more Low™ colleagues before I left the Territory. [Tear] 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.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rev per Minute:
quote:
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.

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?
[Razz]

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.

A minor tangent on the ten good men-- some years ago a friend was exploring Judaism and had to patiently endure the Chabad rabbi rambling on through midrash after midrash. He reached the passage about the ten righteous men and, to his wrath and consternation, a voice said: "Not in Ottawa." Queried, he pointed out that we didn't need ten righteous men, because we had Marion Dewar (a much-loved former mayor, no Rob Ford, and who had been a vocal advocate for refugees and was likely responsible for the succesful resettlement and establishment of thousands of Vietnamese boat people in the late 1970s).

The infuriated rabbi cooled down and said that the interruption was just, and he will now amend the midrash accordingly.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
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. [Tear] 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.

At least with grape juice, a communicant can take a decent and thirst-quenching swig with no fears about driving home afterwards.
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Heaven forbid that we should include everybody at church [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
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.

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.

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.

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 !
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
As far as alcoholic priests are concerned, the RCs recommend for their use a liquid called mustum, which is apparently technically wine, but with a microscopic alcohol content, the fermentation having been stopped. Otherwise, I would suppose that the alcoholic cleric would have worked out with their bishop how to operate under the doctrine of concomitance.
 
Posted by BulldogSacristan (# 11239) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
I have read recently, whether here or elsewhere I cannot remember, about a supplementary lectionary for use with the Prayer Book Epistles and Gospels issued by ?the House of Bishops? in the 1960s.

Can anyone point me to it, please?

Thurible
 
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 
Are you talking about Lesser Feasts and Fasts (1963 ed.)?
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on :
 
Such a supplementary lectionary was indeed published: just a list of references. I daresay I still have a copy buried somewhere, but from memory I seem to remember it was adapted from Church of South India sources. I can't imagine it exists anywhere in the internet!
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by crunt (# 1321) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
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!

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.

Olaf
Frequent Back Corner Dweller
 
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :
 
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:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But not all in the CoE will believe in concommitance

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.
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
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

Thurible, here , I think,is proof that you are not insane.

The C of E website seems to assert that the BCP lectionary they make available online is the one that was released in the 1960s, as you suggest, and based upon that of the CSI. I guess that means these readings here.

Shortly after these were released in the mid 60s, the Joint Liturgical Group released the lectionary that would eventually become part of the ASB, portending the end of one-year lectionaries.

The Church of South India did indeed provide some innovations that spread around the world, this being one of them. We Lutherans in the US borrowed the CSI's Revelation canticle alternate for the Gloria.

Well, that's my attempt at answering the question, anyway. I'd love to see the original document from the 60s. (Oh, how pathetic that sounds.)

[ 11. November 2013, 21:09: Message edited by: Olaf ]
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
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:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But not all in the CoE will believe in concommitance

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.
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.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
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.

I'm afraid I have run into folks who do so argue.


quote:
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.

And I'd be most pleased to try them for myself.
 
Posted by gog (# 15615) on :
 
On the nature of wine question, how about dealcoholized, would that be acceptable? Examples include http://www.halal-wine.com/halal-wine/
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
Thanks, Olaf!

Thurible
 
Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on :
 
Yes, thank you Olaf. I was at least in the right sub-continent with my recalling of the origins! If by any remote chance my copy turns up I'll pm you. Don't get too excited though - the original is only a folded sheet with the readings listed on it!
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Wilfried (# 12277) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:
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!

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.

Olaf
Frequent Back Corner Dweller

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.
 
Posted by Wilfried (# 12277) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:
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!

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.

Olaf
Frequent Back Corner Dweller

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.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
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.

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.
There are quite a lot of memorialists in the CoE and until recently a memorialist bishop.

[ 13. November 2013, 00:24: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]
 
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
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.

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.
I do it by believing in transubstantiation.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
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!

We were taught to have a sip. Not a gulp, but enough to swallow.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
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!

We were taught to have a sip. Not a gulp, but enough to swallow.
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.
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Suffice to say, if the cup is administered so forcefully that there is danger of spilling, the cup bearer is doing it wrong.
 
Posted by Wilfried (# 12277) on :
 
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).
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
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).

I'm more afraid of cracking their teeth with the rim of the cup when they don't guide it to their lips themselves.
 
Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :
 
Since I'm from a Methodist background that has intincted (or wee cuppied) my whole life, I've never quite gotten the hang of what I'm supposed to do with the cup when I visit Episcopal churches. I feel awkward about it, although I'm slowly getting the hang of it. Since I get to visit so few these days, I'm not progressing very fast.
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Either that, or they are concerned about the accidents causing an accident if too much be consumed.

[ 13. November 2013, 21:32: Message edited by: Olaf ]
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
These cup-bearers' anxieties seem to be an excellent reason why it is a better practice to give the cup to the communicant. They then take a sip and give it back. I seem to remember there was a discussion about this a few months ago.
 
Posted by lily pad (# 11456) on :
 
Good thought, Enoch, as long as you know everyone and they know you are going to do that. I've had people hand me the chalice when I was expecting them to keep hold of it and it almost dropped. I'm always the guest and I try to watch what the others do but don't always catch on.
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
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!

We were taught to have a sip. Not a gulp, but enough to swallow.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
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.

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.
There are quite a lot of memorialists in the CoE and until recently a memorialist bishop.
Disobedience to the church's formularies is certainly nothing new.
 
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
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.

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.
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.

quote:
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.

That's pretty close to the definition of food, isn't it?

I don't know what kind communion hosts you've had but the kind I've had are smooth and solid that, like M&Ms, melt in your mouth and not in your hands (I'm serious; I receive on the tongue and follow the old piously and overly devout practice of letting it dissolve on the tongue without chewing). Styrofoam is more like the puffed wheat I've had for breakfast cereal, or like plain rice cakes.

There's lots of stuff we eat and consider food that have little or no flavor or aroma on their own. Plain pasta, mushrooms, rice cakes, puffed wheat, Rice Krispies cereal, gelatin, etc .

Communion wafers don't satisfy physical hunger only because we eat just one small host at a time. It's like saying peanuts aren't food because eating a single peanut still leaves me hungry. If I only ate a single almond or a single saltine cracker for breakfast it wouldn't satisfy my hunger either and a single slice of white supermarket bread would also hardly satisfy me.

quote:
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.

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.

quote:
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.

Exactly.

[ 14. November 2013, 19:47: Message edited by: Pancho ]
 
Posted by Clotilde (# 17600) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
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!

We were taught to have a sip. Not a gulp, but enough to swallow.
Yes, what Ken says.

I have noticed (but I shouldn't notice such things!) one or two people put the chalice to their lips but dont take any of the wione - the act is the gesture of touching lip to chalice.

.............................................


Curious Anglo Catholic ephemera and liturgy on eBay. Click here. Thanks.

[ 14. November 2013, 19:51: Message edited by: Clotilde ]
 
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :
 
quote:
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

There's actually a decent article on food in ancient Israel with a good number of references that is worth reading:

Ancient Israelite cuisine

According to the article:
quote:
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.
So it seems that unleavened flat breads were most common and a thin wafer bread was known at the time.

quote:
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.

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.

I'm guessing that by “kamut” you mean “khorasan” grain? If so, Kamut, emmer and spelt are all species of wheat.

Emmer wheat was initially the the most common kind of wheat but it was hard to husk and was eventually replaced by durum wheat which was preferred for making fine flower. However, durum wheat was hard to grind and the flower required a lot of sifting so common bread was made mainly from barley until the Greek conquest when common or “bread” wheat became the principal grain in Israel and spread in use for making bread.

Its seems to me that by Jesus' time the bread they ate was at least as likely to be made from wheat if not a bit more likely.
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
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)?
 
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :
 
quote:
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)?

From Canon B37 of the Church of England:

quote:
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.
So yes, in the Church of England at least it is possible for a priest to consecrate oil for anointing.

That said, I have never come across a parish where that was done. Perhaps it might be in extremis, but I can't imagine the parish where it would be regular practice.
 
Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.
 
Posted by Clotilde (# 17600) on :
 
But surely the diocesan can delegate on his authority, and so, as indeed happens, a suffragan can consecrate.


Curious Anglo Catholic ephemera and liturgy on eBay.Click here, thanks.
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
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.

Is the CofE actually making a distinction between chrism and oil for anointing the sick? [Olaf gasps, and yet strangely admires them for it]

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.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
I've always known three sorts of oil blessed on Maundy Thursday - chrism, for the sick and for baptism candidates. Whether C of E clergy distinguish between them in use is another matter.
 
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :
 
quote:
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.

Interesting numbering given British emergency services, but Canon 999 is your friend:

quote:

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.

[ETA] And Canon 880 for that matter

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.



[ 16. November 2013, 15:50: Message edited by: Hart ]
 
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 
quote:
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.

Oil of Catechumens (OS, Oleum Sanctum) used in Baptism, the consecration of churches, in the blessing of Altars, in the ordination of priests
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
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
quote:
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.

Oil of Catechumens (OS, Oleum Sanctum) used in Baptism, the consecration of churches, in the blessing of Altars, in the ordination of priests
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

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.
 
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 
quote:
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.

This is utterly beyond my comprehension. [brick wall]

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?
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
quote:
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.

This is utterly beyond my comprehension. [brick wall]

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?

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.
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
quote:
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.

This is utterly beyond my comprehension. [brick wall]

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?

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.
 
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
quote:
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.

This is utterly beyond my comprehension. [brick wall]

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?

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.
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.
 
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 3rdFooter:
Things got very slippery, I'm told.

[Help]

I do believe that this is my 1,000th post. [Angel]
 
Posted by Gwalchmai (# 17802) on :
 
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.
Is this some kind of metaphor for the Trinity?
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
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.
Is this some kind of metaphor for the Trinity?
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.
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
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.
Is this some kind of metaphor for the Trinity?
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.
The variety of practice in the CofE makes me wonder whether the Queen's coronation used the wrong type of oil!
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
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.
Is this some kind of metaphor for the Trinity?
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
 
Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :
 
Give me grace for an ignorant question, but I have oil that I've had for over a year and that smells perfectly fine (i.e., not rancid). Would I dispose of it during Holy Week and replace it with what the bishop consecrates every year, whether it needs it or not? Or do we just get new oil consecrated when it looks like we're running low?

And for that matter, how does one dispose of consecrated oil?
 
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Soak up the remainder with cotton balls and burn it. Providing it's not a cheap olive oil exposed to the air it shouldn't go rancid, although sometimes it reacts to cheap metals and turns a bit quickly, but I presume most cathedrals keep a sealed stash somewhere so that you can go back to it and replenish if needs be.

In the past I have added rose oil to chrism. Not sure if it is canonically correct, but it greatly helps to cover up the smell of a baby well fed before a service.
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
I have seenthe left over oil used to mix with ash, for ash wednesday services.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
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!

According to Westminster Abbey:
quote:
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.
Which rather puts paid to the legend that they eeked out the Papal chrism from previous coronations. Shame - I had thought that was true.
 
Posted by Wilfried (# 12277) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

[ 19. November 2013, 19:34: Message edited by: Wilfried ]
 
Posted by Choirboi (# 9222) on :
 
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....
 
Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wilfried:
quote:
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.

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.
This bit of Zach's post stands out: "...whatever amount the communicant intended to consume."

If you only intend to consume a tiny bit from Zach's chalice, then do that.
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
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....

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.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
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'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.

I note the suggestion of soaking cotton wool with it, and then burning the cotton wool, but that isn't the same thing.
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
If you get it up to 600°F, it will burn. You'll also probably need to call the Fire Brigade...
 
Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
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'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.

I note the suggestion of soaking cotton wool with it, and then burning the cotton wool, but that isn't the same thing.

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.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
Can it be reverently consumed, instead [Biased] ?
 
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
Can it be reverently consumed, instead [Biased] ?

Good luck. Those oils are infused with all manner of things to make them fragrant. I shouldn't imagine them tasting very nice.
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
Can't be worse than retsina...
 
Posted by sonata3 (# 13653) on :
 
Under what circumstances - if any - would a priest wear a cope over a chasuble? Liturgy of the Palms on Palm Sunday? In procession?
 
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 
Under no circumstances, ever.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
A cope over a chasuble: I'm dredging up from somewhere something along the lines of "hiding the cross" - does this make sense?

Don't know the rule but do know I've never seen it.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
A cope over a chasuble? Do they wear their jeans on top of their chinos?

They are alternatives with different significance.
 
Posted by Roselyn (# 17859) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on :
 
quote:
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.

One of the many reasons I tend to limit use of this prayer when celebrating, tbh.

In my last place we included it in our Lent version of Common Worship, but made more sense of it (imho) by reversing the order of the sections at that point. 'We do not presume...' followed the Agnus Dei, then the Invitation 'Draw near...' was said immediately afterwards.

The Prayer of Humble Access thus became a kind of sacrament-focussed confession of penitence and faith, to which the Invitation was a kind of 'declaration of assurance' - 'God knows we aren't worthy, but he still says we should draw near in faith'. This change apparently made sense to quite a lot of the congregation.

[ 01. December 2013, 10:52: Message edited by: Oferyas ]
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
It isn't called the Prayer of Humble Crumble for nothing.
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
quote:
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.

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:

A When the lower orders embraced religion, it wasn't the C of E (catholic in Ireland, Methodist in the industrial areas in the C18, independency during the Civil War...)

B it isn't part of the catholic mass

C I wouldn't go to a church which used it or the BCP Communion service regularly if I had a choice.
 
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :
 
The opposite of Humility is Presumptuousness. It is the latter attitude rather than the former that I would take to be rude.

The Prayer of Humble Access coming from the BCP, was presumably devised by Thomas Cramner, who intended this prayer to be anything but rude. IMHO the wording does have the effect of keeping us in check with regards to receiving the Sacrament duly prepared and in the right frame of mind.

It is a prayer that I have taken for granted all my life, without any thought of there being any controversy. In my younger days, I heard it used at every Communion service, but nowadays with CW in place, its use is optional in contemporary rites. Whether this prayer is said before the Prayer of Consecration, or immediately before receiving communion, does not really seem to matter.
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

[ 01. December 2013, 15:55: Message edited by: Olaf ]
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
Sorry for the double...network trouble during failed edit.

In the "old" Palm Sunday rite, the priest wore a red cope for the palm liturgy, and then changed to violet after the procession, for the liturgy of the passion.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
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.

I can see where you're coming from, but its core spiritual emotion is very similar to,
quote:
"Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word, and I shall be healed"
which is on the previous page.

[ 01. December 2013, 19:16: Message edited by: Enoch ]
 
Posted by Roselyn (# 17859) on :
 
"Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word, and I shall be healed"

does have a similar meabing but a brief concern about one's fitness to be there is a lot different to a long crawling ramble. I have some doubts about it anyway but find it less distracting from the sacrament
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
I think that's more a matter of the difference between C16 and C21 century preferences for how to express oneself in English. 'We do not presume' is a modernised version of a C16 prayer.

[ 01. December 2013, 21:55: Message edited by: Enoch ]
 
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
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.

Oh, now I'm sorry but I find that awful. It has no cadence whatsoever and the whole thing comes across as utterly bland.
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
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.

Oh, now I'm sorry but I find that awful. It has no cadence whatsoever and the whole thing comes across as utterly bland.
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.

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.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Roselyn:
Anyone else find "we do not presume"\..." prayer awkward? It comes over to me as rude. impolite to God.

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.

IN fact PoHA and Peace do the same thing, from different angles, They highlight and expose the scandalously generous reconciliation of the Gospel. In the Peace we declare our fiorgiveness for each other, we agree to accompany each other to the heavenly banquet. In the prayer of Humble access we pause at the doorstep of the eternal temple to realise that we really are not worthy to go in in our own right. If you actually read it it is a prayer of great confidence and faith.

At Communion on Sunday one of our congregation (a man of somewhat disturbed life and mind) loudly refused communion at the table, claiming he wasn't worth of it because he was too great a sinner (he's spent time at her Majesty's pleasure for some of them). Rather than just passing by him quetly the priest tried, to talk him in to recieving, a conversation that ended up invlving a number of other people as well, explaining tht none of us our worthy and that the grace of God is freely given to the unworthy. An odd situation. But it brought the thing home.

(The business about peasants is nonsense. The priest said it as well as the people. The Lord of the Manor said it. The King said it. these are liturgies of tremendoues equality - the supposes lords and masters bow down on their knees and confess their sins in the same words as everybody else. There's plenty about the CofE that functioned to reinforce early modern class structures, but this isn't part of that)


quote:
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!

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.

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.

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!
 
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
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.

Oh, now I'm sorry but I find that awful. It has no cadence whatsoever and the whole thing comes across as utterly bland.
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.

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.

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

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.
 
Posted by Roselyn (# 17859) on :
 
Using "modern" words doesn't help me because it is not the prayer itself I find annoying it's the placement. In fact the mod version has even more concepts in it than the Cranmer? one. Maybe some earlier parts of the service need to be emphasized if lots of people can get this close to the feast and need to divert this way. There will be an individual who does but this is a collective prayer and takes the emphasis off God back to us. (look at me! Look at me!)
 
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 
I would add my agreement to the thoughts of others concerning the modern version of the prayer. The traditional prayer of humble access is far superior, IMHO. But then again, I prefer Domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum, sed tantum dic verbo et sanabitur anima mea more than anything.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
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.

Oh, now I'm sorry but I find that awful. It has no cadence whatsoever and the whole thing comes across as utterly bland.
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.

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.

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:
quote:
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.
... a reasonable description of the human state according to the biblical witness ...

quote:
But you, Lord, are the God of our salvation, and share your bread with sinners.
a reasonable and timeless statement of the reasonable and timeless action of God-in-Christ

quote:
So cleanse and feed us with the precious body and blood of your Son, that he may live in us and we in him;
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

quote:
and that we, with the whole company of Christ, may sit and eat in your Kingdom. Amen.
imagery not unknown in the scriptural witness as an expression of eschatological hope.

And so on. On the whole I think it is a darned good expression of the need to "come in" to the salvific embrace of Christ ... as good as any I know though not necessarily better than the traditional prayer of Humble Access ... which it was never designed to replace.

I use both - but only in Lent and Advent.
 
Posted by Roselyn (# 17859) on :
 
[QB] "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word, and I shall be healed"

and, of course, not everyone in attendance might be receiving communion and this simple statement may express their thoughts but I think the complex issues in "humble access" could be too utterly much
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
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.

It's in the Anglican Church of Canada's Book of Alternative Services, downloadable as a PDF from that link.

[ 08. December 2013, 03:30: Message edited by: Oblatus ]
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
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?

Yup ...
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
That seems to me to cover your first point above - the timing of humble access so long after absolution. It does not cause the same concern to me. In other that the penitential seasons, we confess and are forgiven. We then hear the lessons, and are reminded of our human weaknesses, reminded to the extent that shortly before approaching the table we have a mini-confession that the approach comes not from any virtue on our part, but from His mercy.
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
quote:
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.

It's in the Anglican Church of Canada's Book of Alternative Services, downloadable as a PDF from that link.
Thank you! Now a tricky follow-up: is there a book with the full readings, as one would use at the ambo?
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
The Bible?
 
Posted by Clotilde (# 17600) on :
 
Has anyone come across any liturgical resources to commemorate Nelson Mandela - prayers, or litanies or whatever? Or does anyone have suggestions for this?

I am putting together a quiet act of worship for a house group and would really appreciate thoughts alonmg those lines.

I'm not very knowledgeable on the hymns or christian worship songs black South african christians have seen as part of the apartheid struggle, for example...
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
quote:
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.

It's in the Anglican Church of Canada's Book of Alternative Services, downloadable as a PDF from that link.
Thank you! Now a tricky follow-up: is there a book with the full readings, as one would use at the ambo?
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.
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The Bible?

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.

quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by gog (# 15615) on :
 
quote:
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?

Here's one I've had pass in front of me in the last few days: http://www.singingthefaithplus.org.uk/?p=9502
 
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The Bible?

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.

In my previous place, we would regularly mark up the lectern Bible with the locations of the readings, but only the priest, the donor (of the lectern Bible) and I would regularly use it. If you want to provide a big book with good sized print for reading from, then a lectionary is often the better choice.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Or as we do, where the readings are printed in large font and secured with paperclips in the Bible on the lectern and (with the acclamation for the day) in the Gospel Book.
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The Bible?

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.

quote:
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.

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.

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.

We also have a set of the same books in a much bigger hardcover lectern/pulpit edition, but most celebrants seem not to want to be handed a 20-pound book to proclaim the Gospel from. So we use the fat paperbacks. But if it's any sort of lesser feast day, we use a fairly good-looking thin binder with just the needed pages in, produced some years ago from the Rite Word discs.

[ 10. December 2013, 02:47: Message edited by: Oblatus ]
 
Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
I'd say red's the most constant.

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!)

[ 13. December 2013, 02:19: Message edited by: Emendator Liturgia ]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Oblatus

Those vestments are ORANGE. You can say salmon all you like but the only kind of salmon that colour falls into the category "cheap, smoked". And Dill the colour of those orfrey's would be long past its best.

Rose colour vestments should have the gentle hue of sloe gin and water 50/50. Ideally Laetare vestments should have purple or mauve orfreys.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
I'd say those vestments are coral but certainly treading a fine line between pink and orange. A nice colour but not sure I'd approve of their use for rose vestments.

Has anyone seen a darker rose used?
 
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 
The Roman rubrics and related documents actually use the word violet, rather than purple. Still, I have seen numerous hues of this, including an attempt to say that the violet in Advent should be lighter than it is in Lent. This is not supported by the rubrics or any other document from the Holy See.
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
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. [Devil]

(I'm afraid I know nothing about these things).