Thread: MW 2723: St Magnus the Martyr, London 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=028701
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Nice account but what is a 'cardinal rector?'
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
Cardinal Rector
(It took me less time to type that into Google than it did to type this reply)
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
Trust St. Magnus to have one of the few Anglican Cardinals. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I was amused by the comments about the order of service. Attending St. Magnus, in my lunch hour, back in the early naughties taught me to learn the congregational responses off by heart!
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
I went to a lunch-time Ascension Day Sung Mass at St. Magnus (back in the late 70s/early 80s, IIRC), and remember being astounded at the quality of the music - a Mass setting by young Mr. Mozart, no less, sung by a choir of 4 voices!
(There was also a great deal of incense, and a congregation of around 30!).
A beautiful church, well worth a visit at any time.
Ian J.
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on
:
Is his dress cassock red? ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
A very good report - St. Magnus London Bridge is a church I know well, but I neglect to make a habit of going there.
From the time of Fr. Henry Joy Fynes-Clinton (I name from memory) who was Rector there for many a long year until 1959, the Church has a reputation for being Anglo-Papalist. The present Rector, Fr. Philip Warner, seems to be making the most of his resources in his plans for his church. He seems to value the spirituality of old-fashioned ceremonial and is liable to have the three sacred ministers with the sub-deacon wearing the humeral veil as he holds the paten at High Mass. But I have not been to the church often enough to know how varied he makes his ceremonial.
Fr. Philip Warner took the bold step some years ago of having a ringing peal of 12-bells installed and of course, these things cost money.
The previous ring of 10-bells was destroyed by enemy action in 1940 during WW2 and it has taken 60 years, or so, to have bells reinsted in the tower. I understand that Sunday ringing takes place following the Solemn Mass, to fit in with the band of ringers ringing at another church in the neighbourhood earlier in the morning. As a bellringer myself, I have yet to 'grab' that tower to experience ringing the bells.
[ 28. July 2014, 13:10: Message edited by: Ecclesiastical Flip-flop ]
Posted by Divine Praises (# 11955) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
A very good report - St. Magnus London Bridge is a church I know well, but I neglect to make a habit of going there.
From the time of Fr. Henry Joy Fynes-Clinton (I name from memory) who was Rector there for many a long year until 1959, the Church has a reputation for being Anglo-Papalist. The present Rector, Fr. Philip Warner, seems to be making the most of his resources in his plans for his church. He seems to value the spirituality of old-fashioned ceremonial and is liable to have the three sacred ministers with the sub-deacon wearing the humeral veil as he holds the paten at High Mass. But I have not been to the church often enough to know how varied he makes his ceremonial.
Fr. Philip Warner took the bold step some years ago of having a ringing peal of 12-bells installed and of course, these things cost money.
The previous ring of 10-bells was destroyed by enemy action in 1940 during WW2 and it has taken 60 years, or so, to have bells reinsted in the tower. I understand that Sunday ringing takes place following the Solemn Mass, to fit in with the band of ringers ringing at another church in the neighbourhood earlier in the morning. As a bellringer myself, I have yet to 'grab' that tower to experience ringing the bells.
[ 29. July 2014, 21:12: Message edited by: Divine Praises ]
Posted by Divine Praises (# 11955) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
A very good report - St. Magnus London Bridge is a church I know well, but I neglect to make a habit of going there.
From the time of Fr. Henry Joy Fynes-Clinton (I name from memory) who was Rector there for many a long year until 1959, the Church has a reputation for being Anglo-Papalist. The present Rector, Fr. Philip Warner, seems to be making the most of his resources in his plans for his church. He seems to value the spirituality of old-fashioned ceremonial and is liable to have the three sacred ministers with the sub-deacon wearing the humeral veil as he holds the paten at High Mass. But I have not been to the church often enough to know how varied he makes his ceremonial.
Fr. Philip Warner took the bold step some years ago of having a ringing peal of 12-bells installed and of course, these things cost money.
The previous ring of 10-bells was destroyed by enemy action in 1940 during WW2 and it has taken 60 years, or so, to have bells reinsted in the tower. I understand that Sunday ringing takes place following the Solemn Mass, to fit in with the band of ringers ringing at another church in the neighbourhood earlier in the morning. As a bellringer myself, I have yet to 'grab' that tower to experience ringing the bells.
Right, here goes my second attempt to reply ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Many years ago, there was an anecdote about Father Fynes-Clinton showing a visitor around the church. Arriving at the monument to Myles Coverdale, Father Fynes-Clinton announced to the visitor "We've just had a service in the language out of which he translated the Bible". I hope the account is true.
Another story concerns Father F-C's interest in legal processes and minutiae. During the mid 1920s, he was taken through the ecclesiastical courts by the Protestant Truth Society and was forced to remove many of the ornaments from the church. Undeterred, Father Fynes went to a hardware store and a grocer's shop and bought a number of items.
As a result, when members of the Protestant Truth Society came to the church to ensure that the court's orders had been carried out, they were dismayed to see that the holy water stoups had been removed but had been replaced by jam jars filled with holy water. The magnificent baroque altar candlesticks had gone but, in their place, stood six candlesticks fashioned from dowelling of the kind normally used for broom handles.
The protestants were (understandably) dismayed but they cheered up when Father Fynes told them they could remove the offending items themselves as long as they signed a document attesting to the fact. Once the transaction was completed, Father Fynes then replaced the original items and the whole process had to begin again.
At this point, the irresistible force of the Protestant Truth Society realised it had been overcome by the immovable object that was Father Fynes-Clinton and took its fight elsewhere.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
It sounds like Mr Kensit and Fr F-C were well matched as opponents!
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
The anecdote above about Fr. Fynes-Clinton's encounter with the Protestant Truth Society makes sense and makes interesting reading.
I first became acquainted with St. Magnus' Church in 1960, and so, I just missed Fr. F-C, so it was in the time of Fr. Colin Gill, the Rector who succeeded him that I first became acquainted with that church. Fr. Gill also stayed a great many years and I forget how long he was there, but he was still there when advancing years made him need assistance from a server in climbing up and down the high altar steps.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Dunno why, but I have a picture in my mind of Father Fynes-Clinton disguised as Ronnie Barker and asking for four candles...........
Ian J.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
I think there's a whole thread waiting to be started on disguised religious/ ecclesisatical messages in classic comedy sketches.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Indeed, but it might well be completely incomprehensible to anyone other than the English.....(having just watched the Four Candles sketch again.....) ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Ian J.
Posted by Jel (# 9755) on
:
My one visit many moons ago (the church being dedicated to the founder of my family) caught Father Warner engaged in loving contemplation of a drawer full of chasubles. I did not return.
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jel:
My one visit many moons ago (the church being dedicated to the founder of my family) caught Father Warner engaged in loving contemplation of a drawer full of chasubles. I did not return.
Fr. Warner is that sort of person - making the most of his resources, including his ample supply of chasubles and other vestments. He will have six of everything if only one will do! I have already mentioned the ambitious rehang of his ringing peal of bells, embarked upon after many decades, which his predecessors, since Fr. Clynes-Finton's time, had all singularly failed to do - no mean project! This is typical of the man; for the same reason he has made good his bells, he has also made good his supply of vestments.
If you feel that Fr. Warner is not 'your man', then you are entitled to your opinions and you don't have to darken the doors of that church again.
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
I went to a lunch-time Ascension Day Sung Mass at St. Magnus (back in the late 70s/early 80s, IIRC), and remember being astounded at the quality of the music - a Mass setting by young Mr. Mozart, no less, sung by a choir of 4 voices!
Was he present?
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
It's all very puzzling and other worldly compared to us poor old non conformists.
We'd struggle with the morality of having 6 chasubles when the time and money could be put to better use elsewhere.
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It's all very puzzling and other worldly compared to us poor old non conformists.
We'd struggle with the morality of having 6 chasubles when the time and money could be put to better use elsewhere.
Could it? What better use of money (a fairly paltry sum, even for the lush contents of the vestry at S. MM) is there than the salvation of souls, the revelation of Christ in His Glory, and the feeding of the lost with the Body of Our Lord? Cheap at twice the price, I should have thought.
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It's all very puzzling and other worldly compared to us poor old non conformists.
We'd struggle with the morality of having 6 chasubles when the time and money could be put to better use elsewhere.
There is a good scriptural Apostolic precedent for saying that something expensive, given in honour of Our Lord, could be sold and the money given to the poor. Now what was the chaps name...
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It's all very puzzling and other worldly compared to us poor old non conformists.
We'd struggle with the morality of having 6 chasubles when the time and money could be put to better use elsewhere.
Could it? What better use of money (a fairly paltry sum, even for the lush contents of the vestry at S. MM) is there than the salvation of souls, the revelation of Christ in His Glory, and the feeding of the lost with the Body of Our Lord? Cheap at twice the price, I should have thought.
Quite: But, one of that needs special gear
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It's all very puzzling and other worldly compared to us poor old non conformists.
We'd struggle with the morality of having 6 chasubles when the time and money could be put to better use elsewhere.
There is a good scriptural Apostolic precedent for saying that something expensive, given in honour of Our Lord, could be sold and the money given to the poor. Now what was the chaps name...
And that is prescriptive for all times and circumstances?
The church accounts for 2013 show a total income of £139K and charitable giving of £1.25K (excluding Diocescan Precept). For 2012 income was £125k and giving £2000 with a catering and entertainment bill of £2887. For 2011 charitable giving was £550
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Zappa - I'm not quite that old.....but, given the quality of the singing, I'm sure young Mr. Mozart was present in spirit!
Ian J.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Exclamation Mark - to respond to your comments about charitable giving: CofE charitable giving is often off the books. Here the thousands collected for Christian Aid goes straight to Christian Aid without being added into the church accounts. The collection at the Remembrance Service goes straight into collection tins for the Royal British Legion, the collection for Water Aid goes directly to them. It's a huge can of worms that doesn't fairly reflect the giving. There are additional receptacles of squirming objects around charities giving to charities and what the Charity Commission says about that.
[ 06. August 2014, 13:09: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
For what it's worth, six chasubles of one colour is likely to be accumulated over some time. And a green chasuble is going to get used thirty odd times in the year on Sundays, apart from weekdays.
Do you wear the same clothes every Sunday, Mark?
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
My reference to 6 (as in 6 chasubles) is my arbitrary choice as a number, which does not have to be taken literally. But you know what I mean!
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Do you wear the same clothes every Sunday, Mark?
Yes until they wear out from use then I buy something to replace them.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Exclamation Mark - to respond to your comments about charitable giving: CofE charitable giving is often off the books. Here the thousands collected for Christian Aid goes straight to Christian Aid without being added into the church accounts. The collection at the Remembrance Service goes straight into collection tins for the Royal British Legion, the collection for Water Aid goes directly to them. It's a huge can of worms that doesn't fairly reflect the giving. There are additional receptacles of squirming objects around charities giving to charities and what the Charity Commission says about that.
Thanks - I wasn't aware of that.
Tbh I am surprised given my understanding of Charity Commission guidelines: our practice here is that everything goes through the books even though the entries will cancel each other out. It also helps to demonstrate that we meet the charitable objectives required by the said Commission.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
<tangent continued>Well, it's complicated by the Christian Aid collection here being a joint churches initiative so it's carried out under that umbrella. The main CofE church collects well over half the final take, but is only one of five or six denominations collecting (it's why I used that one as an example).
The last time I was on the PCC we were discussing how to reflect charitable giving correctly so I'm not sure how some of the other collections are now put through.
In addition we had to insist that retirement collections for charities weren't taken at church funerals because the funeral directors blithely organised them for a number of charities which weren't in line with the charitable aims of the church. And charities cannot donate to other charities if those charitable aims are not in alignment. In those cases we asked that the funeral directors arranged the collection somewhere else. </tangent>
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It's all very puzzling and other worldly compared to us poor old non conformists.
We'd struggle with the morality of having 6 chasubles when the time and money could be put to better use elsewhere.
Could it? What better use of money (a fairly paltry sum, even for the lush contents of the vestry at S. MM) is there than the salvation of souls, the revelation of Christ in His Glory, and the feeding of the lost with the Body of Our Lord? Cheap at twice the price, I should have thought.
Quite: But, one of that needs special gear
Count this A-C (not that I count as one to everyone here) in on the bafflement. Bling is not a requirement for those things. On the contrary - the salvation of souls happens at a blood-soaked execution at the local rubbish dump. Christ in His Glory is revealed in a dirty stable full of animals and their attendant messes, and on a dusty road to a tired, crying woman. The feeding of the lost with the Body of Our Lord needs only a cup, and a dish, and the promise to feed on Him in our hearts by faith with thanksgiving. Methinks some A-C establishments need a bit more of the dust and dirt of the Incarnation.
EM, I'm sure you're aware, but Anglican monasticism is just as A-C as tat palaces. Simplicity is not just for Nonconformists ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
Good on you, Jade.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Churches do tend to accumulate tat over the years. Regular audits and clearouts should happen: valuable but rarely used vestments could be sold; others could be given to less well-off churches. But beautiful objects should be cherished and used for the purpose for which they have been designed, and a church like St M the M is going to use them.
I prefer simplicity myself and would probably hate most of their tat, but it is a matter of taste, not morals. There is not only the example of our Lord and the ointment, there is the principle of the state supporting art galleries. Only a thoroughgoing philistine (or a wealthy Tory, which IMHO often amounts to the same thing) would object to that.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]EM, I'm sure you're aware, but Anglican monasticism is just as A-C as tat palaces. Simplicity is not just for Nonconformists
No - I'd never make that claim. I find great reverence and space in a simple A-C offering and expression of faith. I can even reconcile the view of the real presence with my non conformist views of the same
IME I've benefitted greatly from retreats etc in the kind of environment you mention. Having seen it in action, I'm surprised like you seem to be too at the explanations so often given for low charitable giving but high expenditure on stuff and maintenance.
Like you .... I see an incarnate God dying on a rubbish heap amongst broken humanity: that's my glimpse of heaven - one who identifies with people like me and who is with people like me
[ 07. August 2014, 05:22: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
<tangent continued>Well, it's complicated by the Christian Aid collection here being a joint churches initiative so it's carried out under that umbrella. The main CofE church collects well over half the final take, but is only one of five or six denominations collecting (it's why I used that one as an example).
The last time I was on the PCC we were discussing how to reflect charitable giving correctly so I'm not sure how some of the other collections are now put through.
In addition we had to insist that retirement collections for charities weren't taken at church funerals because the funeral directors blithely organised them for a number of charities which weren't in line with the charitable aims of the church. And charities cannot donate to other charities if those charitable aims are not in alignment. In those cases we asked that the funeral directors arranged the collection somewhere else. </tangent>
The Christian Aid bit I understand to an extent - but even then I'd put it through the accounts as an extraordinary item with a note appended. Good accounting practice IMO as I can see the possibility of fraud/misreporting if it's all done without going through any books.
I can't quite see how you send the money off to CA given you don't send cash so it must be banked somewhere. It would then show up on a bank statement which would have to be explained if asked by HMRC and CC. If it's there best to record it anyway.
There's always the possibility of "losing" cash if not recorded.
As for recording giving correctly my view has always been that you count, bank and record anything and everything you receive. That's transparent, under control and means you have a trail. It also protects the church against accusations of we put "£200 in the bag for XX Charity but you only banked £100."
The funeral collections bit is easy: if the funeral directors arrange them, then it's their responsibility to collect it, count the cash and send it off. If you're doing that too, I'd stop it pretty sharp if I were you. In any event most FD's I know have some kind of donation box that they leave at the church/crem. That way you're also not obliged to deal with charities you'd rather not deal with ... you may wish to have a policy at PCC level on how you approach this but I'd honestly recommend that you don't deal with any such cash whatever the cause.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Good on you, Jade.
Chucking away your vestments then venbede?
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
There is not only the example of our Lord and the ointment, there is the principle of the state supporting art galleries. Only a thoroughgoing philistine (or a wealthy Tory, which IMHO often amounts to the same thing) would object to that.
As I said above, is the example of the Lord and the oils to be prescriptive for all time?
The example of art galleries is a helpful one and I see your point. I'd argue though that for galleries supported by the public purse accessibility should be greater, and more should be on display. It should be easy to research and reflect but it's usually so hard if not impossible to get beyond the gallery unless you're part of that world. I object for example paying for galleries when some are funded by endowments and government money.
Like churches sometimes there's a lot of questions to be asked but not so many coherent answers forthcoming.
In terms of church tat - what is likely to draw people to the gospel? is it the "right" way of doing things inside a building with all the supporting cast or is it doing things in the open outside the same building amongst ordinary people?
Case in point: Monday's service at Westminster Abbey was wonderful. But it's about as close to everyday life in St Puddles as the moon. It either raises unrealistic expectations of what church might be like or reinforces prejudices about ceremony and pageantry (that's what we do for times of national reflection). It's not everyday life just as a disproportionate amount of money spent on maintaining church ceremonies is not everyday life.
The one argument in favour is I suppose that churches aren't Government bodies and we use our cash as we think fit. Whether it's right to focus on specific things is between us and God. Art Galleries if they use Govt money (aka ours) should be much more accountable.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I can't quite see how you send the money off to CA given you don't send cash so it must be banked somewhere. It would then show up on a bank statement which would have to be explained if asked by HMRC and CC. If it's there best to record it anyway.
Money raised for CA week in all the local churches here is counted and verified in each church and then paid directly (in cash) into a special "local area" CA account. The CA treasurer then sends a sheet to all the churches showing all the payments made. We append a note in our annual financial report, for the benefit of the Charity Commission; I presume other churches do the same. So it never goes through the individual churches' books, but there is a strict checking procedure.
Money we raise for CA at other times (and for other charities) does go through our church books in the way you describe, and then sent off by us to CA but not via the "local area" account.
[ 07. August 2014, 05:56: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I can't quite see how you send the money off to CA given you don't send cash so it must be banked somewhere. It would then show up on a bank statement which would have to be explained if asked by HMRC and CC. If it's there best to record it anyway.
Money raised for CA week in all the local churches here is counted and verified in each church and then paid directly (in cash) into a special "local area" CA account. The CA treasurer then sends a sheet to all the churches showing all the payments made. We append a note in our annual financial report, for the benefit of the Charity Commission; I presume other churches do the same. So it never goes through the individual churches' books, but there is a strict checking procedure.
Money we raise for CA at other times (and for other charities) does go through our church books in the way you describe, and then sent off by us to CA but not via the "local area" account.
Looks good to me BT and would satisfy the small bit of me that is still finance! You're doubly correct there IMHO - accounted and noted individually to support the accounted and noted communal group.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
In terms of church tat - what is likely to draw people to the gospel? is it the "right" way of doing things inside a building with all the supporting cast or is it doing things in the open outside the same building amongst ordinary people?
The answer is that it depends on the people, but you know that.
The one thing I wouldn't do is dress down when you leave the building. If you "do" tat, and you have an outdoor sunrise service for Easter, or a procession through the town, a service in your local park or whatever, take your tat with you. Don't dress in mufti just because you're going out in public - that's as fake as the kind of people who put on jeans to go and work at the homeless shelter because they think that will make the homeless people feel more comfortable.
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The church accounts for 2013 show a total income of £139K and charitable giving of £1.25K (excluding Diocescan Precept). For 2012 income was £125k and giving £2000 with a catering and entertainment bill of £2887. For 2011 charitable giving was £550
To continue this tangent, I spent about 10 seconds googling but couldn't find the accounts. I'd be interested to know where the income comes from.
The charitable giving in those accounts is on the low side for an average anglican church (By this I mean the charitable giving that I'd expect to show up in the accounts, which, as noted, tends to exclude major items like Christian Aid). However, I suspect this church isn't average, and may have quite unusual sources of income. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of its money comes from charities (including livery companies). Presumably a livery company would want to make its own decisions about charitable giving to help the poor, so would expect any money given to a church to be spent on worship, music and so on.
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The church accounts for 2013 show a total income of £139K and charitable giving of £1.25K (excluding Diocescan Precept). For 2012 income was £125k and giving £2000 with a catering and entertainment bill of £2887. For 2011 charitable giving was £550
To continue this tangent, I spent about 10 seconds googling but couldn't find the accounts. I'd be interested to know where the income comes from.
The charitable giving in those accounts is on the low side for an average anglican church (By this I mean the charitable giving that I'd expect to show up in the accounts, which, as noted, tends to exclude major items like Christian Aid). However, I suspect this church isn't average, and may have quite unusual sources of income. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of its money comes from charities (including livery companies). Presumably a livery company would want to make its own decisions about charitable giving to help the poor, so would expect any money given to a church to be spent on worship, music and so on.
And I've since found the accounts and my guess was wrong. The accounts look like a typical parish church.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
In terms of church tat - what is likely to draw people to the gospel? is it the "right" way of doing things inside a building with all the supporting cast or is it doing things in the open outside the same building amongst ordinary people?
Speaking for myself, I was drawn to the Gospel by the experience of worshipping in a MOTR village church at early communion, celebrated with formality, dignity but minimal 'tat' (simple eucharistic vestments and one server). That experience of God's presence has stayed with me for over 50 years (most of them in ordained ministry). I recognise that most people don't have that experience, or if they did would react differently, and that evangelism needs to take many different forms. But traditional liturgical worship still attracts many.
Having said that, the point of worship, and 'tat', is to honour and worship God. And if we do this without self-consciously looking over our shoulders at who if any is being attracted to it, then it is more, not less, likely to have evangelistic power.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]EM, I'm sure you're aware, but Anglican monasticism is just as A-C as tat palaces. Simplicity is not just for Nonconformists
No - I'd never make that claim. I find great reverence and space in a simple A-C offering and expression of faith. I can even reconcile the view of the real presence with my non conformist views of the same
IME I've benefitted greatly from retreats etc in the kind of environment you mention. Having seen it in action, I'm surprised like you seem to be too at the explanations so often given for low charitable giving but high expenditure on stuff and maintenance.
Like you .... I see an incarnate God dying on a rubbish heap amongst broken humanity: that's my glimpse of heaven - one who identifies with people like me and who is with people like me
Oh I wasn't thinking of retreats at all - just straight-up convents. Many do have room for hospitality, but all the money goes back into the convent.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
In terms of church tat - what is likely to draw people to the gospel? is it the "right" way of doing things inside a building with all the supporting cast or is it doing things in the open outside the same building amongst ordinary people?
Speaking for myself, I was drawn to the Gospel by the experience of worshipping in a MOTR village church at early communion, celebrated with formality, dignity but minimal 'tat' (simple eucharistic vestments and one server). That experience of God's presence has stayed with me for over 50 years (most of them in ordained ministry). I recognise that most people don't have that experience, or if they did would react differently, and that evangelism needs to take many different forms. But traditional liturgical worship still attracts many.
Having said that, the point of worship, and 'tat', is to honour and worship God. And if we do this without self-consciously looking over our shoulders at who if any is being attracted to it, then it is more, not less, likely to have evangelistic power.
I didn't have the same experience re being drawn to the Gospel, though I have no problem whatsoever with tat. I like tat, to some degree. I just don't like it when it becomes the focus or is seen as absolutely necessary. IMO the benefit of tat comes when it's seen as an extra - to me, symbolising the extravagance and unnecessary-ness of grace.
Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on
:
I must speak in my friend Fr Philip's defence.
It is quite possible that there are 6 chasubles (with matching dalmatics and tunicles) for some seasonal colours (probably rose). However, one of his congregation is particularly talented at repairing and restoring tat that has become, well, tatty and been discarded from elsewhere. I strongly suspect that much of the tat cupboard is of a certain age.
He also has a considerable mission to part of the the flock who are ostracised at the other end of Grace Church Street.If that is aided by tat, so be it.
3F (formally of the PCC of Ct Clement and St Lawrence, East Cheap)
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by 3rdFooter:
I must speak in my friend Fr Philip's defence.
It is quite possible that there are 6 chasubles (with matching dalmatics and tunicles) for some seasonal colours (probably rose). However, one of his congregation is particularly talented at repairing and restoring tat that has become, well, tatty and been discarded from elsewhere. I strongly suspect that much of the tat cupboard is of a certain age.
He also has a considerable mission to part of the the flock who are ostracised at the other end of Grace Church Street.If that is aided by tat, so be it.
3F (formally of the PCC of Ct Clement and St Lawrence, East Cheap)
As far as I am concerned, my comments were intended as fact and no more, with no criticism implied nor intended. If other posters meant their comments adversely, then that is up to them. As I said '6' was my arbitrary choice of a number in referring to vestments including chasubles.
I do go to St. Magnus' from time to time and I feel quite at home there. If I neglect to go along, then it is just the way things work out.
As a bellringer, as I say, I have yet to 'grab' the tower. There was a bellringers' practice announced a couple of weeks ago, but unfortunately, I had something else on and I couldn't make it.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Case in point: Monday's service at Westminster Abbey was wonderful. But it's about as close to everyday life in St Puddles as the moon. It either raises unrealistic expectations of what church might be like
The ceremonial was very simple - MOTR+ - one crucifer, two acolytes.
Many parish churches offer than every week.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
He will have six of everything if only one will do!
You often need 6 chasubles for concelebrations.
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
He will have six of everything if only one will do!
You often need 6 chasubles for concelebrations.
Very true, but it doesn't have to stop at 6.
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
He will have six of everything if only one will do!
You often need 6 chasubles for concelebrations.
Not so much at S. Magnus, I suspect.
Posted by ChippedChalice (# 14057) on
:
Personally, I've always hoped that St. Magnus had 365 chasubles, so there would be no danger of a repeat throughout the year.
But shouldn't we file all of the tsk-tsking firmly in the Dead Horse category? No one's mind is going to be changed, and these arguments have been done to death since Archbishop Laud had his head chopped off.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Case in point: Monday's service at Westminster Abbey was wonderful. But it's about as close to everyday life in St Puddles as the moon. It either raises unrealistic expectations of what church might be like
The ceremonial was very simple - MOTR+ - one crucifer, two acolytes.
Many parish churches offer than every week.
I don't know if Exclamation Mark was referring particularly to ceremonial. However, other comments on that service (and I can't remember whether they were here on the Ship, on Facebook, in the Guardian, the Church Times or wherever) imply that it was very much an Establishment occasion with not even an ordinary soldier or civilian having a walk-on part. But then what do you expect...?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
There were quotations from 'ordinary' soldiers and people from the congregation being interviewed beforehand about fairly ordinary soldiers.
The abbey has become much less 'posh' under its present dean.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Case in point: Monday's service at Westminster Abbey was wonderful. But it's about as close to everyday life in St Puddles as the moon. It either raises unrealistic expectations of what church might be like
The ceremonial was very simple - MOTR+ - one crucifer, two acolytes.
Many parish churches offer than every week.
I was referring to the content of the service. Once again a public occasion limited by invitation only seating and readings from "celebs"
Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
There were quotations from 'ordinary' soldiers and people from the congregation being interviewed beforehand about fairly ordinary soldiers.
The abbey has become much less 'posh' under its present dean.
At the risk of staying off topic, Dean Hall makes a point to make people feel welcome. Most services at the Abbey I've attended, he is at the door greeting people as they leave.
And with the large congregations they have been attracting, that can take a while.
I've also found him to be very approachable. And I could go on and on.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
It does seem as though Westminster Abbey tries its best to cater for 'Establishment' services (and those are part of our British national life, whether we will or we nill), and for 'ordinary' worshippers - whilst also, at the same time, being almost overwhelmed by the tourist hordes............
What's that old adage about pleasing some people some of the time etc..........??
I really don't like it when people try to reduce worship - and the ways in which we worship - to some sort of lowest common denominator. It Does Not Please Our Lord Or His Blessed Mother.
So there.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Ian J.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I was annoyed that the commentator showed his ignorance by talking about the 'Paschal' (pronounced like the French phisopher) candle.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Ian J.
Posted by Clavus (# 9427) on
:
Perhaps the commentator thought that the candle might or might not exist, but that it would be best for him to act as though it did.
Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
It does seem as though Westminster Abbey tries its best to cater for 'Establishment' services (and those are part of our British national life, whether we will or we nill), and for 'ordinary' worshippers - whilst also, at the same time, being almost overwhelmed by the tourist hordes............
What's that old adage about pleasing some people some of the time etc..........??
I really don't like it when people try to reduce worship - and the ways in which we worship - to some sort of lowest common denominator. It Does Not Please Our Lord Or His Blessed Mother.
So there.
Ian J.
If I've attended Westminster Abbey worship in pre-Hall days, I don't remember much about it. Has it changed under Dean Hall?
(Or were you referring to something else?)
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
A definite change with Hall - occasional use of incense makes it have a more catholic feel, as does chasubles instead of copes for the eucharist. It feels like a prayed in, living church.
BTW, can't resist another comment - Camilla Parker-Bowles grinned at everyone as if she were at some royal garden party rather than at an act of solemn remembrance.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
I think we are getting off track, not just of the original OP, but of the objection to the Abbey commemoration service. It's not about the style of worship, the highbrowness or otherwise of the music, but about how representative it, and the participants, were of the ordinary citizens of this country whose forebears were caught up in or lost their lives in that war. Not having seen it, I can't comment, but having heard some comments to the effect that those involved were overwhelmingly from the ranks of the [ironic quotes] 'great and good' I was hoping that others might confirm or rebut that. In the absence of evidence to the contrary I will continue to believe that Westminster Abbey is an Establishment Shrine and no more.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
I guess we are somewhat off track - the track being, I suppose, the appropriateness of worship at the parish church in the MW report.
The question of the role of 'national monuments' such as Westminster Abbey in an interesting one and deserves a thread of its own!
dj_ordinaire, Eccles host
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
... having said which I've started a new thread thusly. Please direct any further pursuit of this tangent over there!
dj_o.
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on
:
I went up to see the poppies at the Tower of London first thing this morning, and afterwards attended the remembrance day eucharist at St Magnus Martyr, choosing it because it is close by and a lot of the city churches don't have a regular Sunday service.
There were several things I did not understand about what went on, as I am not very familiar with this style of service.
Father Philip Warner and two other priests entered wearing black hats. These were taken off and put back on a few times during proceedings, but I could not determine the principle on which it was determined which parts they should be worn for.
The first two scripture reading were delivered facing the congregation, but the gospel was read facing sideways, to the north, which I have not seen done before. What might be the reason for that ?
While Father Philip was shaking some incense to the altar, the other two priests were on either side of him, and lightly held his sleeve by the elbow, rather as one might guide someone who was unsteady on their feet.
He and the other priests were wearing black chasubles, but immediately after distributing the eucharist to us all, he put on a black cope. I have seen one worn to process in from outside at the start, and then taken off, but never one put on close to the end.
The service ended not with a blessing or dismissal, but with the collect for Lady Day. I was unclear whether that was because it remembrance day or whether they do that every week.
I know there are people here who know this churchmanship well, and am hoping you can enlighten me.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
The black hats were no doubt birettas, which are a form of clerical headwear that one still finds in use amongst many advanced Anglo-Catholics. Roman Catholic clergy have largely abandoned them, and Anglican clergy who are not self-identified Anglo-Catholics have rarely worn them. The biretta is not worn at the altar itself, but is worn in procession, coming and going, and at the sedilla (seats for the clergy in the sanctuary), but is always doffed at the Holy Name of Jesus.
During censing of the altar and the oblations (the latter at the offertory), the deacon and subdeacon hold the back of the celebrant's chasuble, raising it a little off his shoulders, which is meant to make it easier for the celebrant to do the censing. In point of fact, it's usually just traditional these days, but once upon a time chasubles could be very heavy, so holding it off the shoulders was a practical assistance.
In the old Roman rite, the gospel at a high mass was sung to the liturgical north, because the heathen lived in northern Europe and still needed converting -- symbolic evangelism. At a sung or low mass, the gospel is read or intoned on the "gospel side" of the altar, which is again at the liturgical north end. Very few Anglo-Catholics still sing the gospel toward liturgical north at high mass, instead having a gospel procession into the nave, which has become pretty universal Anglican and Lutheran style (but not RC, where everything is to be read/sung and preached at the same ambo).
Did the celebrant put on the cope in order to do the absolution of the dead at the catafalque, or some other liturgical action? I can't cast light on this without knowing more about what the clergy were doing when they left the altar at the end.
The collect for Lady Day, I would think, was the concluding collect of the Angelus, with it's refrains and three Hail Marys.
[ 09. November 2014, 19:22: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
... the gospel was read facing sideways, to the north, which I have not seen done before. What might be the reason for that ?
too much of the sap of the poppy?
Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Did the celebrant put on the cope in order to do the absolution of the dead at the catafalque, or some other liturgical action? I can't cast light on this without knowing more about what the clergy were doing when they left the altar at the end.
I initially misread this bit as "immediately before distributing Communion" and couldn't make head or tail of it. Re-reading it, I am sure, given it's St Magnus, that it must have been the "Absolution" of the Dead as LSvK suggests.
[ 10. November 2014, 02:43: Message edited by: Knopwood ]
Posted by Laud-able (# 9896) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
... the gospel was read facing sideways, to the north, which I have not seen done before. What might be the reason for that?
I would suppose that the practice comes from the Sarum Missal - 'and let the Gospel be always read turning to the north' - by way of Percy Dearmer's The Parson's Handbook.
I last saw the Gospel read that way at the high altar in our place in the 1950s: we have long since had a Gospel procession into the nave.
I was told at the time - I do not vouch for the accuracy of the information - that the Gospel was thus read to enlighten the dark north, which works well in the northern hemisphere, but not so well here.
Posted by Planeta Plicata (# 17543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
In the old Roman rite, the gospel at a high mass was sung to the liturgical north, because the heathen lived in northern Europe and still needed converting -- symbolic evangelism. At a sung or low mass, the gospel is read or intoned on the "gospel side" of the altar, which is again at the liturgical north end.
This is the most common explanation for the practice (and appears to date, as an explanation, to at least the tenth century), but it's not the only one. Fortescue attributes it to the influence of the low mass on the high mass; Jungmann acknowledges that explanation, but thinks it more likely that it had to do with the changing orientations of churches (from having the apse to the west to having it to the east). The relevant explanations are helpfully excerpted here.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
If they were being really old-fashioned, they'd have changed out of black into purple vestments for the distribution.
Posted by Magic Wand (# 4227) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If they were being really old-fashioned, they'd have changed out of black into purple vestments for the distribution.
Would they have? In what rite or use is that ordered?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Magic Wand:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If they were being really old-fashioned, they'd have changed out of black into purple vestments for the distribution.
Would they have? In what rite or use is that ordered?
both Fortescue and Ritual Notes - but as requiems and Good Friday mass of the presanctified - when black would have been worn - were originally non-communicating except for the celebrant, it was a rare occurrence and relegated to footnotes
[ 10. November 2014, 17:57: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on
:
Thanks to everybody for your replies, which are very informative. Having looked up an Angelus on wikipedia, that is indeed what closed the service. Would that be a usual way to finish the eucharist in a church of this type or is it particular to the occasion ?
Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on
:
There's actually no direct connexion to the Mass: the Angelus is traditionally rung thrice daily, at six, noon, and six. Since Sunday Mass in many parishes wraps up around noon, it's often said/sung immediately following. I will note that I have never observed this in an RC church, though.
Posted by Planeta Plicata (# 17543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:
There's actually no direct connexion to the Mass: the Angelus is traditionally rung thrice daily, at six, noon, and six. Since Sunday Mass in many parishes wraps up around noon, it's often said/sung immediately following. I will note that I have never observed this in an RC church, though.
The Papal Angelus in St Peter's Square often immediately follows mass.
Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on
:
Ooh, splendid! Well there you go, we're not making it up after all
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
When I visited St Silas, Kentish Town, the Angelus followed mass.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
The Angelus is recited or sung at many Anglo-Catholic parish following the principal Sunday Eucharist, again following a now fairly defunct Roman Catholic practice. In London, parishes of my acquaintance that do this include St Magnus Martyr, St Mary's Boerne Street, All Saints Margaret Street, and St Silas Kentish Town, though I am sure there are many others in greater London. In the States, my own parish of St Clement's Philadelphia does likewise.
Posted by Planeta Plicata (# 17543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Magic Wand:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If they were being really old-fashioned, they'd have changed out of black into purple vestments for the distribution.
Would they have? In what rite or use is that ordered?
both Fortescue and Ritual Notes - but as requiems and Good Friday mass of the presanctified - when black would have been worn - were originally non-communicating except for the celebrant, it was a rare occurrence and relegated to footnotes
Do you happen to recall where? All I can find in the 1917 Fortescue is the following:
quote:
The rite of distributing Communion out of Mass is this: ...
Communion may be given in this way immediately before or after Mass. In this case the priest wears the Mass vestments. If they are black, he does not give the blessing. Nor, if he says Mass with black vestments in Eastertide, does he add Alleluia after the versicle.
Except in this case, holy Communion is never given with black vestments. If it is to be given on All Souls' Day the priest wears a purple stole.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laud-able:
I was told at the time - I do not vouch for the accuracy of the information - that the Gospel was thus read to enlighten the dark north, which works well in the northern hemisphere, but not so well here.
I'm sure St Magnus the Martyr, being well within the M25, includes in its congregation many who see this ceremony as an illustration of the City of London in its wisdom preaching the gospel of unbridled capitalism to us poor benighted socialist northerners.
[ 10. November 2014, 21:43: Message edited by: Angloid ]
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
The Church of St. Magnus the Martyr is what many would regard as "Nose-bleed high". I don't go there often enough to know how varied the liturgical practices are, but since Fr. Philip Warner took over as (Cardinal) Rector, the repertoire of liturgical practices, includes much of pre-Vatican II.
Every Mass I have been to at St. Magnus, was communicating and in both kinds. However old-fashioned the liturgical practices are, non-communicating Masses are a thing of the past, everywhere, as far as I am aware.
I am disposed to going to St. Magnus, but have got out of the habit of doing so, which is just the way things work out. Lest any misunderstanding should arise, which may have seemed that way on this thread earlier on, I met Fr. Philip Warner away from St. Magnus last week, and he and I greeted each other cordially.
[ 11. November 2014, 16:55: Message edited by: Ecclesiastical Flip-flop ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
The Angelus is recited or sung at many Anglo-Catholic parish following the principal Sunday Eucharist
Because it finishes around noon.
Sop it's because pf the time, not because the mass was the principal one.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Planeta Plicata:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Magic Wand:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If they were being really old-fashioned, they'd have changed out of black into purple vestments for the distribution.
Would they have? In what rite or use is that ordered?
both Fortescue and Ritual Notes - but as requiems and Good Friday mass of the presanctified - when black would have been worn - were originally non-communicating except for the celebrant, it was a rare occurrence and relegated to footnotes
Do you happen to recall where? All I can find in the 1917 Fortescue is the following:
quote:
The rite of distributing Communion out of Mass is this: ...
Communion may be given in this way immediately before or after Mass. In this case the priest wears the Mass vestments. If they are black, he does not give the blessing. Nor, if he says Mass with black vestments in Eastertide, does he add Alleluia after the versicle.
Except in this case, holy Communion is never given with black vestments. If it is to be given on All Souls' Day the priest wears a purple stole.
Ritual Notes 11th edn p. 328 re Good Friday - towards the end of the veneration, the SSM are to take of their black vestments and wear purple. It doesn't mention returning to black for the final prayer.
also p. 38 says that on Good Friday and requiems, black is used except for the communion.
Posted by Sacerdote (# 11627) on
:
Like Ecclesiastical Flip-flop I was first introduced to St Magnus the Martyr in 1960, so never knew it in the glory days of Fr Fynes Clinton's incumbency, when it was said even baptisms were in Latin! I was taken to the church by a friend who remembered the incident of the Kensitites wanting to remove the Catholic furnishings, and had actually seen the famous jam-jar, complete with maker's label, serving as a holy water font.
Another story from Fr Fynes' early days was that when incense was used for the first time at a sung Mass the protestant choir members made a great show of coughing and spluttering from the gallery every time the thurible appeared. After Mass Fr Fynes climbed the stairs, apologized to them for their discomfort, and assured them that they would not be troubled again. The next day they all received notice of their dismissal.
Around 1960 a possibly apocryphal story was doing the rounds that after Fr Fynes Clinton's death the Bishop of London, who was the patron of the living, was at a loss as to whom to appoint to this extraordinary Roman outpost scarcely a mile from his cathedral. He is said to have offered the living to Fr Colin Gill on condition that he did something - ANYTHING! - that would be seen as a token of St Magnus belonging to the Church of England! After due consideration Fr Gill is supposed to have offered to have Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament in English!
No reaction? Oh well, I suppose it just doesn't seem anything like as funny now as it did then.
There may be something in this tale, as in my experience Colin Gill never said or sang a word of Latin aloud at any publicly scheduled service. There were occasional Latin Masses for particular groups or societies, and for some years the Roman Rite continued to be used, with the offertory prayers & Canon (all sotto voce)in Latin, but with everything else in English & with a partially anglicanized calendar (Sundays after Trinity). If I remember rightly even Latin settings of the Mass were sung to BCP translations - crazy when you think that now most Anglican cathedrals happily sing Latin Masses as a norm.
It's true that even as early as 1960 there were no "non-communicating High/Sung Masses" at St Magnus, partly, perhaps, because the congregation had no convenient alternative Mass to attend for Communion, but a fair proportion of the "regulars" were still receiving in one kind in the early 70's. An RC friend from uni came with me to Mass in the post-conciliar 60s & was shocked that I received in one kind. He, of course, received, and in both kinds!
I think it was maybe while I was away in France in the late 60's that things started to change at St Magnus. Certainly by the the early 70's Fr Gill had introduced a curious blend of the old Roman Rite & "series 2". I believe there was considerable unhappiness at St Magnus over this "betrayal".(The last edition of the "English Missal" had Series 2 bound into it - o tempora, o mores ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
)
But then I swam the Tiber & lost touch with most of my Anglican contacts.
BTW, Flip-flop, I see you and I also share a familiarity with 20c French liturgy - a bit different from St Magnus!
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
The Angelus is recited or sung at many Anglo-Catholic parish following the principal Sunday Eucharist
Because it finishes around noon.
Sop it's because pf the time, not because the mass was the principal one.
This is true, though at A-C parishes the Angelus will usually be running late, since an 11:00 Mass won't be finishing until about 12:30, typically (sometimes even later) at these places. However, what the uninitiated should know is that they may encounter the Angelus at an Anglo-Catholic parish most typically following the principal Sunday high or sung Mass.
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sacerdote:
Like Ecclesiastical Flip-flop I was first introduced to St Magnus the Martyr in 1960, so never knew it in the glory days of Fr Fynes Clinton's incumbency, when it was said even baptisms were in Latin!
Around 1960 a possibly apocryphal story was doing the rounds that after Fr Fynes Clinton's death the Bishop of London, who was the patron of the living, was at a loss as to whom to appoint to this extraordinary Roman outpost scarcely a mile from his cathedral. He is said to have offered the living to Fr Colin Gill on condition that he did something - ANYTHING! - that would be seen as a token of St Magnus belonging to the Church of England! After due consideration Fr Gill is supposed to have offered to have Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament in English!
BTW, Flip-flop, I see you and I also share a familiarity with 20c French liturgy - a bit different from St Magnus!
It occurs to me that the Bishop of London referred to above was that of the Rt. Revd. Henry Colville Montgomery Campbell, in post from 1956 until 1961. He was a colourful character, with a dry sense of humour. I do not think he was a particular favourite with anglo-catholics, which would have reflected on his dealings with Fr. Colin Gill (who was previously the parish priest of St. Martin's Brighton). I mention this, because the said Bishop was previously Bishop of Guildford from 1949 until 1956, when he confirmed me in 1955.
Thank you very much for this interesting post, Sacerdote. You say that you see me, but when and where? If it happens again, do please make yourself known. Your notice of my interest in 20c French Liturgy, you must have spotted by reading between the lines.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras quote:
The Angelus is recited or sung at many Anglo-Catholic parish following the principal Sunday Eucharist...
I used to play at an AC Church where it was the first item of every Mass - after the first hymn if sung - and evening services were enlivened with either the Salve Regina or Regina caeli. The diocesan bishop loved the church and the music and used to join in with the best of them when he slipped into a Festal Evensong, just about visible through the clouds of incense.
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on
:
Is it typically done in such a way that they uninitiated like me do not realise that it is two separate things ? If there had been a blessing I probably would have known, as that is what finishes the eucharist in my usual church, but maybe this style of church doesn't do that.
Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on
:
It is usually done pretty seamlessly, though IME there is usually a "final hymn" at the end of mass proper before the altar party's procession to the Lady Shrine. But at an English Missal mass like you would find at St Magnus, the blessing and dismissal would be buried in the final prayers and rather more subdued (and inverted!) and easier for the "uninitiate" to miss.
[ 12. November 2014, 19:52: Message edited by: Knopwood ]
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
A priest of impeccable left wing credentials I know tells me he celebrated mass at St Magnus once. Afterwards a lady in a mantilla came up and said to him “’Allo, Ken. Remember me? You were a curate in Soho and I was a stripper in the Raymond Revuebar”.
Which just shows how symbolic and ritual worship can attract and incorporate those who would typically feel excluded by a purely verbal based service.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
A priest of impeccable left wing credentials
Who shall be nameless ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Of course, you are quite right in your comment. That's what gets me about self-styled 'inclusive' churches: they tend to only include the like-minded (mostly smug middle-class lefties like me).
Posted by Sacerdote (# 11627) on
:
Fear not, Ecclesiastical Flip-flop, your anonymity is safe! I meant "I see THAT you and I" are both familiar with French worship, not that I see YOU. There was a time when it was rare to find a Mass in France that didn't include "Un seul Seigneur, une seule foi ..."
Wasn't it Montgomery Campbell to whom it fell to consecrate the rebuilt St Alban's, Holborn? He was said to have objected to the proposed domed tabernacle on the high altar, and to have insisted that an aumbry be installed before he would perform the consecration. Apparently it wasn't until he arrived for the consecration that he saw how St Alban's had interpreted his requirement - a hugely elaborate tabernacle/sacrament house set in the centre of the east wall, right behind the high altar. The bishop insisted that they knew perfectly well that he had meant a modest safe in the north wall, preferably of a side chapel, but it couldn't be denied that what had been installed was an aumbry, and the congregation was already gathered for the consecration, so the bishop went ahead, though apparently not with a very good grace. As you are doubtless aware, the impressive "aumbry" is still there, though I confess I've always regretted that the original plan for a domed tabernacle - and a gothic baldacchino over the altar - didn't go ahead.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
A priest of impeccable left wing credentials I know tells me he celebrated mass at St Magnus once. Afterwards a lady in a mantilla came up and said to him “’Allo, Ken. Remember me? You were a curate in Soho and I was a stripper in the Raymond Revuebar”.
Which just shows how symbolic and ritual worship can attract and incorporate those who would typically feel excluded by a purely verbal based service.
I would have normally agreed and, in this case, perhaps, but on reflection, I think that it is more complicated than that. Of the three (former) strippers of my acquaintance, only one (now a physician) is a smells-and-bells spike; another a novus ordo franco-ontarian, and the third (now a carpenter, as their union has a better pension fund than her former employer) is United Church of Canada. Of course, it is quite possible that I do not know the entire professional histories of my fellow-worshippers.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Of course, you are quite right in your comment. That's what gets me about self-styled 'inclusive' churches: they tend to only include the like-minded (mostly smug middle-class lefties like me).
We aren't 'self-styled' inasmuch as we join the movement and abide by its statement of belief.
Inclusive Church is currently working of disability and mental health and how our churches can include, welcome and learn from such.
As a middle-class leftie, I am far from 'smug' because i find this issue very challenging.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
We aren't 'self-styled' inasmuch as we join the movement and abide by its statement of belief.
I thought the movement we joined was called the Holy Catholic Church. The problem I see with 'Inclusive Church' is that it implies that the rest of the church is exclusive, and that it buys into the consumerist model that it's OK to have different styles of the church for different people. There is truth in both of those statements, but to push both of them to the extreme is to ghetto-ise the Church. I want to see bog-standard churches everywhere just like bog-standard comprehensive schools.
I need to clarify the above as an outsider to the 'Inclusive Church' network: I've no quibble with its aims, and I don't know much about how it works out in practice. It's just that I find notices proclaiming 'We are an Inclusive Church' as off-putting as 'We are Bible-believing Christians.'
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sacerdote:
Fear not, Ecclesiastical Flip-flop, your anonymity is safe! I meant "I see THAT you and I" are both familiar with French worship, not that I see YOU. There was a time when it was rare to find a Mass in France that didn't include "Un seul Seigneur, une seule foi ..."
Wasn't it Montgomery Campbell to whom it fell to consecrate the rebuilt St Alban's, Holborn? He was said to have objected to the proposed domed tabernacle on the high altar, and to have insisted that an aumbry be installed before he would perform the consecration. Apparently it wasn't until he arrived for the consecration that he saw how St Alban's had interpreted his requirement - a hugely elaborate tabernacle/sacrament house set in the centre of the east wall, right behind the high altar. The bishop insisted that they knew perfectly well that he had meant a modest safe in the north wall, preferably of a side chapel, but it couldn't be denied that what had been installed was an aumbry, and the congregation was already gathered for the consecration, so the bishop went ahead, though apparently not with a very good grace. As you are doubtless aware, the impressive "aumbry" is still there, though I confess I've always regretted that the original plan for a domed tabernacle - and a gothic baldacchino over the altar - didn't go ahead.
It is quite feasible that St. Alban's Holborn was reconsecrated during Bp Montgomery-Campbell's time as Bishop of London, in which case, it would have fallen to him to do so as a matter of course and what you say about him is typical of the man.
If I may indulge in a brief tangent, there is a classic anecdote about him. He was the last Bishop of Guildford to reside in Farnham Castle Palace. One day, he was in the town-centre in Farnham, when there was a retreat going on locally, and he came across a retreatant who had popped out. The Bishop enquired, "What are you doing here?". The retreatant replied, "The Holy Spirit has sent me out to do a bit of shopping". "Well, you are both wrong; it is early closing day!" Replied the Bishop. (End of tangent.)
Sacerdote, you noticed my current signature in French and this can change. I will let you into a secret; the publication "Magnificat" I have sent from France and so is published in the French Language. I selected that at random from there, making that my signature for the time-being.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
In the pre Vatican 2 Roman Rite as celebrated in Catholic churches in full communion with the Bishop of Rome the sequence of colours for Good Friday was black. Entering the church the celebrant wore (liturgically) alb and black stole.
After readings and the Passion gospel he put on a black cope in addition. If there was a deacon and subdeacon they assumed dalmatic and tunicle for the Solemn Prayers. For the Veneration of the Cross cope and dalmatic and tunicle were removed.
The celebrant( and his assistants ) then removed the black stole and vested in purple stole and chasuble for the Communion service - no maniples on that day.The celebrant (or deacon) had a white humeral veil also for the transfer of the Blessed Sacrament from the Altar of Repose to the main altar.
Until the later liturgical reforms it was very
common in Catholic churches to have Requiem Masses
in black vestments celebrated during the week on ferial days.On these days the celebrant would NOT change the liturgical colour for the distribution of Communion.Of course as mentioned elsewhere there were special rubrics for a Requiem Mass,the best known being (a) abbreviated prayers at the beginning and (b) no blessing at the end.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
We aren't 'self-styled' inasmuch as we join the movement and abide by its statement of belief.
I thought the movement we joined was called the Holy Catholic Church. The problem I see with 'Inclusive Church' is that it implies that the rest of the church is exclusive, and that it buys into the consumerist model that it's OK to have different styles of the church for different people. There is truth in both of those statements, but to push both of them to the extreme is to ghetto-ise the Church. I want to see bog-standard churches everywhere just like bog-standard comprehensive schools.
I need to clarify the above as an outsider to the 'Inclusive Church' network: I've no quibble with its aims, and I don't know much about how it works out in practice. It's just that I find notices proclaiming 'We are an Inclusive Church' as off-putting as 'We are Bible-believing Christians.'
I sort of agree but when many parts of the 'hole catholic church' exclude some people, they need to know that they will find a welcome elsewhere.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
Revd Father and Mr. Reader, this is neither the time nor the place - as I am sure you both know full well!
djo, Eccles host
Posted by Magic Wand (# 4227) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
In the pre Vatican 2 Roman Rite as celebrated in Catholic churches in full communion with the Bishop of Rome the sequence of colours for Good Friday was black. Entering the church the celebrant wore (liturgically) alb and black stole.
After readings and the Passion gospel he put on a black cope in addition. If there was a deacon and subdeacon they assumed dalmatic and tunicle for the Solemn Prayers. For the Veneration of the Cross cope and dalmatic and tunicle were removed.
The celebrant( and his assistants ) then removed the black stole and vested in purple stole and chasuble for the Communion service - no maniples on that day.The celebrant (or deacon) had a white humeral veil also for the transfer of the Blessed Sacrament from the Altar of Repose to the main altar.
It's perhaps worth noting that this rite dated from 1956. Previously black vestments (maniple, stole, and chasuble) were worn for the entire rite.
Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on
:
And certainly still are at St Magnus.
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
that looks very nice to see lots in it!
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Magic Wand:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
In the pre Vatican 2 Roman Rite as celebrated in Catholic churches in full communion with the Bishop of Rome the sequence of colours for Good Friday was black. Entering the church the celebrant wore (liturgically) alb and black stole.
After readings and the Passion gospel he put on a black cope in addition. If there was a deacon and subdeacon they assumed dalmatic and tunicle for the Solemn Prayers. For the Veneration of the Cross cope and dalmatic and tunicle were removed.
The celebrant( and his assistants ) then removed the black stole and vested in purple stole and chasuble for the Communion service - no maniples on that day.The celebrant (or deacon) had a white humeral veil also for the transfer of the Blessed Sacrament from the Altar of Repose to the main altar.
It's perhaps worth noting that this rite dated from 1956. Previously black vestments (maniple, stole, and chasuble) were worn for the entire rite.
That's because communion was reserved for the priest alone.
Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on
:
I read the report which I thought was interesting and well written. Thank you to Hector for that.
32 present for the main service of the week... That made me think.
How many were clergy / how many choir (are they paid). What age were the people?
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on
:
On the day that I was there, there were slightly more people, possibly because it was Remembrance day, but not I should say more than about 50. That is in the congregation. The choir were out of sight upstairs so their number could not be seen, but I think from the sound of the singing that it was only a handful. Although I am no musician, and would not generally care for a service with no congregational singing, I must say that the choir whatever their number were very good.
3 people were in the clergy party. I thought at the time they were all priests as they all seemed to be dressed in chasubles, but I have found out since that deacons can wear a vestment very similar to the priest's chasuble, which I did not know at the time.
The congregation were mostly 50s and 60s in age but with a few either side.
Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
3 people were in the clergy party. I thought at the time they were all priests as they all seemed to be dressed in chasubles, but I have found out since that deacons can wear a vestment very similar to the priest's chasuble, which I did not know at the time.
It's likely, even at St Magnus, that one was a layman as acting as subdeacon in tunicle (as in the example* I linked).
*(an example of a lay subdeacon, not of a tunicle, since those photos are from Good Friday, when a vestment even more similar to the priest's chasuble is worn).
[ 23. November 2014, 22:50: Message edited by: Knopwood ]
Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on
:
Looking over the posts:
total income over £139,000.
Sunday congregation 30-40.
From what I read hear it seems a bit of a museum piece... But I'd be interested to know if the church people engage in mission and outreach.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Magersfontein Lugg:
Looking over the posts:
total income over £139,000.
Sunday congregation 30-40.
From what I read hear it seems a bit of a museum piece... But I'd be interested to know if the church people engage in mission and outreach.
Looking at their accounts it doesn't as if mission and outreach is high on the agenda based on what is spent. It's very sad that a church with an income of £150K plus gives to little to charitable causes: I wonder with ML whether it's a museum piece fantastic for those who love that kind of expression of "church" but very very irrelevant given the style and content of services to those on the outside.
The figures from the accounts are below - my goodness how sad is it that the church spends more on entertainment than mission? How on earth do they keep their charitable status?
Current balance £247k
Mission (aka "Charitable Giving"
2011 550 2012 2000 2013 1253
Entertainment
2011 1416 2012 2887 2013 2673
In each year more is
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
We have a long-standing principle in Ecclesiantics that we do not discuss the internal affairs of individual churches or parishes. There is a fine line to tread on that in the case of the discussion of an MW report which might properly include wider circumstances relating to how and why a church worships as it does, but in my view, debates as to a church's accounts and spending decisions are clearly over the line. Please confine this thread to the discussion of the report itself.
seasick, Eccles host
Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on
:
I'm sorry if I have crossed a line, I'm afraid I wasn't aware of it, I was simply reflecting on the report and the subsequent comments and how it struck me.
The reports about worship are good, and I did find this one interesting. I do think worship is so often the focus and expression of a christian community and I am intrigued at churches which place so much emphasis on their tradition, and that often leads, I fear, to a decline in congregations.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
IIRC, St. Magnus has an eclectic and 'gathered' congregation, rather than being a local parish community.
The excellent music is a long-standing tradition, as I recall an Ascension Day midday Mass many years ago, at which one of those jolly settings by young Mr. Mozart was beautifully rendered by just four people (there were 25-30 in the congo).
Ian J.
Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on
:
I guess that choir, BF, is a professional one.
Is it - anyone know?
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0