Church Music

13

Comments

  • PDR wrote: »
    The volume also goes up when they have a English/Latin Mass where the old hands get to sing the Missa De Angelis instead of the usual Nervous Order Ordinary Form pap.

    What is Nervous about the Novus Ordo? Are you just joking that Novus and Nervous are pronounced similarly in England? As an American, I'm confused.
  • PigwidgeonPigwidgeon Shipmate
    Oblatus wrote: »
    I once saw this song done to a stonefaced woman on her birthday; once the waitstaff left the table, she turned red and wished her well-meaning table-mates an eternity in the nether world.
    Good for her! I do not understand why "friends" and family think it's fun to humiliate the birthday (or whatever) celebrant. My Rector mentioned recently that when he was quite young (early teens IIRC), his parents took him to dinner on his birthday, and he told them that if they sang, he would walk out. They did... and he did. Then they accused him of being a "bad sport."
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    PDR wrote: »
    The volume also goes up when they have a English/Latin Mass where the old hands get to sing the Missa De Angelis instead of the usual Nervous Order Ordinary Form pap.

    What is Nervous about the Novus Ordo? Are you just joking that Novus and Nervous are pronounced similarly in England? As an American, I'm confused.

    Yes, it is mainly a little bit of word play. However there was very choppy and jumpy sound to the former English translation which sounded "nervous" to some of us. There was also a lot of fidgeting around with the ceremonial at one time. The new translation is not as jarring on the nerves as the polyester version that preceded it, no matter how much the Spirit of Vatican II brigade may dislike it.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    PDR wrote: »
    The new translation is not as jarring on the nerves as the polyester version that preceded it, no matter how much the Spirit of Vatican II brigade may dislike it.
    I would have to disagree with that; I find it quite jarring in places. There are parts of the new translation that sound to me like they were translated by people who don't actually speak English all that often.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure "Praise to the Lord..." was penned by some German Calvinist . . . .
    Yes, Joachim Neander, for whom a valley (German thal) near Düsseldorf was named: Neanderthal. A significant discovery was, of course, made in that valley and bears its, and Neander's, name. :wink:

    Thanks for that - I'd automatically thought it was the other way around with Joachim being named after the valley in which he lived.
  • angloidangloid Shipmate
    Taizé is of course an international community with a deliberately multilingual policy, but I love the way their chants are set to be sung in any or all of three or more languages, with additional versions in other languages which don't fit the metre but are there for explanation.
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    PDR wrote: »
    The new translation is not as jarring on the nerves as the polyester version that preceded it, no matter how much the Spirit of Vatican II brigade may dislike it.
    I would have to disagree with that; I find it quite jarring in places. There are parts of the new translation that sound to me like they were translated by people who don't actually speak English all that often.

    Funny thing is that is what I used to say about the old version, and yes, it is true about the new one as well. One thing I certainly do not miss is:

    The Lord be with you.
    And also with you

    which just did not work. I seem to recall the guidelines this time around expected the translation committee to be a bit more faithful to the Latin text this time around, which is probably a good thing, as some of the old translation was at best no closer than a country mile to the original. Mind you translation is an art and I certainly would not want to be responsible for translating a liturgical text even if my Latin were still up to snuff.
  • Neither the old nor the new translation produce particularly good English, although I will say that at least the new translation tends to produce bad English from bad Latin, whereas the older one produced really terrible English from perfectly decent Latin. There is still no excuse for translating the beginning of the "Te Deum" as "You are God: We Praise You."
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure "Praise to the Lord..." was penned by some German Calvinist . . . .
    Yes, Joachim Neander, for whom a valley (German thal) near Düsseldorf was named: Neanderthal. A significant discovery was, of course, made in that valley and bears its, and Neander's, name. :wink:

    Thanks for that - I'd automatically thought it was the other way around with Joachim being named after the valley in which he lived.
    He didn’t, as I understand it, actually live there—probably. Rather, he liked to go there for rest, relaxation and inspiration for his writing. The story was that he particularly liked to retreat to a cave (Neandershöhle) in that valley; there was one story that he lived in that cave while suspended from duties at the school in Düsseldorf, but that is probably legend. Neander died in 1680. The valley wasn’t called Neanderthal until the 1800s.

    BTW, the family name was originally Neumann (“new man”). Joachim Neander’s grandfather, who was a musician, Hellenized the name to Neander. Interesting that Homo neanderthalensis should be found in a place that basically means “new man’s valley.”
  • PDR wrote: »
    Funny thing is that is what I used to say about the old version, and yes, it is true about the new one as well. One thing I certainly do not miss is:

    The Lord be with you.
    And also with you

    which just did not work. I seem to recall the guidelines this time around expected the translation committee to be a bit more faithful to the Latin text this time around, which is probably a good thing, as some of the old translation was at best no closer than a country mile to the original. Mind you translation is an art and I certainly would not want to be responsible for translating a liturgical text even if my Latin were still up to snuff.

    "And also with you" is still the norm for most Episcopalians in the US who use Rite II, which is most Episcopalians, as well as for Lutherans in the ELCA and elsewhere. It's commonly used as a "call to order" at gatherings outside worship and it seems to be a marker of Episcopal identity (enough that it is put on t-shirts and bumper stickers), so I doubt anyone could convince people to switch to "and with your/thy spirit" outside Rite I worship.

    I can't stand "and also with you." It is the clearest example of the translators inserting their own theology into the translation that I can think of.
  • I forgot to add that "and also with you" has been pretty influential outside these denominations, too. In the movie Kingdom of Heaven, set during the crusades, "and also with you" was used by the main character to respond to As-salamu alaykum as a way of saying "see, all our religions say the same thing in our own languages!" I don't think any Christian would have said that in the Middle Ages. Am I wrong?
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure "Praise to the Lord..." was penned by some German Calvinist . . . .
    Yes, Joachim Neander, for whom a valley (German thal) near Düsseldorf was named: Neanderthal. A significant discovery was, of course, made in that valley and bears its, and Neander's, name. :wink:

    Thanks for that - I'd automatically thought it was the other way around with Joachim being named after the valley in which he lived.
    He didn’t, as I understand it, actually live there—probably. Rather, he liked to go there for rest, relaxation and inspiration for his writing. The story was that he particularly liked to retreat to a cave (Neandershöhle) in that valley; there was one story that he lived in that cave while suspended from duties at the school in Düsseldorf, but that is probably legend. Neander died in 1680. The valley wasn’t called Neanderthal until the 1800s.

    BTW, the family name was originally Neumann (“new man”). Joachim Neander’s grandfather, who was a musician, Hellenized the name to Neander. Interesting that Homo neanderthalensis should be found in a place that basically means “new man’s valley.”

    And at one stage it would have been - or perhaps "new beings' valley".
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    PDR wrote: »
    Funny thing is that is what I used to say about the old version, and yes, it is true about the new one as well. One thing I certainly do not miss is:

    The Lord be with you.
    And also with you

    which just did not work. I seem to recall the guidelines this time around expected the translation committee to be a bit more faithful to the Latin text this time around, which is probably a good thing, as some of the old translation was at best no closer than a country mile to the original. Mind you translation is an art and I certainly would not want to be responsible for translating a liturgical text even if my Latin were still up to snuff.

    "And also with you" is still the norm for most Episcopalians in the US who use Rite II, which is most Episcopalians, as well as for Lutherans in the ELCA and elsewhere.
    It’s common among Presbyterians as well.

    I get completely that “And also with you” isn’t a particularly accurate word-for-word translation of et cum spiritu tuo. But to be perfectly honest, I’ve never heard an explanation of why the response should be “with your spirit” instead of “with you” that made the former seem worth keeping, the imprimatur of tradition notwithstanding. Every explanation I have heard appears to rely on or reinforce a view of the priesthood that makes sense in a Catholic context, or in some Anglican contexts, but that make no sense in (American) Lutheran, Presbyterian or similar contexts.
  • ZappaZappa Ecclesiantics Host
    On an almost totally nother tack, I have sadly come to a diocese in which Hymns For Today's Church is the Lingua Franca/currency of worship. If I believed in a hellish eternity it would involve immersion in a nether region in which that book were [i think the conditional tense can apply there] the sole diet of song. Ye gods, when I am Supreme Dictator of the World anyone who uses that degenerate volume of vomited bowdlerism will be strung to the steeple and forced to listen to Barry Manilow (or, alternatively, Cannibal Corpse) for the remainder of their days.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    edited August 6
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    PDR wrote: »
    Funny thing is that is what I used to say about the old version, and yes, it is true about the new one as well. One thing I certainly do not miss is:

    The Lord be with you.
    And also with you

    which just did not work. I seem to recall the guidelines this time around expected the translation committee to be a bit more faithful to the Latin text this time around, which is probably a good thing, as some of the old translation was at best no closer than a country mile to the original. Mind you translation is an art and I certainly would not want to be responsible for translating a liturgical text even if my Latin were still up to snuff.

    "And also with you" is still the norm for most Episcopalians in the US who use Rite II, which is most Episcopalians, as well as for Lutherans in the ELCA and elsewhere.
    It’s common among Presbyterians as well.

    I get completely that “And also with you” isn’t a particularly accurate word-for-word translation of et cum spiritu tuo. But to be perfectly honest, I’ve never heard an explanation of why the response should be “with your spirit” instead of “with you” that made the former seem worth keeping, the imprimatur of tradition notwithstanding. Every explanation I have heard appears to rely on or reinforce a view of the priesthood that makes sense in a Catholic context, or in some Anglican contexts, but that make no sense in (American) Lutheran, Presbyterian or similar contexts.

    For me it is dualistic pure and simple. I want the Lord to be with the whole person, not just one bit.
    As a RC practising musician I find the present translation is English, but not as we know it. It reminds me too often of a bin man trying to talk like a duchess. The collects are a mess and the Prefaces worse. Many priests edit them as they go along, trying to put them into English. My wife is a classicist and an ESOL teacher who likes to give them an academic grade as a piece of English translation. They rarely reach a "C."
    As a composer I find the Gloria clunky and devoid of rhythm or balance. A really poor bit of work.
  • Alan29 wrote: »
    For me it is dualistic pure and simple. I want the Lord to be with the whole person, not just one bit.
    As a RC practising musician I find the present translation is English, but not as we know it. It reminds me too often of a bin man trying to talk like a duchess. The collects are a mess and the Prefaces worse. Many priests edit them as they go along, trying to put them into English. My wife is a classicist and an ESOL teacher who likes to give them an academic grade as a piece of English translation. They rarely reach a "C."
    As a composer I find the Gloria clunky and devoid of rhythm or balance. A really poor bit of work.

    The current RC translation is pretty bad. I agree. Vatican bureaucrats threw out a perfectly good draft translation that had been prepared by liturgical experts in accordance with the new, more literal guidelines for translation of liturgical texts and replaced it with something patched together with duct tape by a committee of members who either did not speak English as a first language or had no sense whatsoever of what makes language prayable and singable. At times, the bureaucrats made the new translation less of a literal translation than that drafted by the experts and in the process managed to make it sound worse as well. And now we are stuck with this frankentranslation for at least a couple of decades.

    As for "And also with you/And with your spirit," what peeves me is that the proper way to change that, if you want to change it, is by changing the Latin original, not sneaking your misgivings about dualism into the English translation (or does "et cum spiritu tuo" mean something different than "and with your spirit"?).
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    The snarky comment I heard after a gin or three about the RC translation of the Mass into English was that 'the Cardinal should have taken it down to Tufton Street and let the ECU do it - it would have been a much better job!'
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Does that not assume that it is a translation for English Catholics only?
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    .
    <snip>
    As for "And also with you/And with your spirit," what peeves me is that the proper way to change that, if you want to change it, is by changing the Latin original, not sneaking your misgivings about dualism into the English translation (or does "et cum spiritu tuo" mean something different than "and with your spirit"?).
    I think there may be a deeper translational issue here which is the tension between dynamic and formal equivalence. In French, for example, the formal equivalent in English of the French phrase jeter un coup d'oeil is ‘to throw a blow of the eye’, the dynamic equivalent is ‘to look’ or ‘to glance’ (although in etymology glance is quite metaphorical).

    The question I have about ‘and with your spirit’ as a response to ‘The Lord be with you’ is whether the meaning of the Latin intended to single out the person’s spirit, as that part of their being that the Lord should be with? That’s certainly the impression it gives in English. Why only the spirit of the person who initiated the greeting?
  • SignallerSignaller Shipmate
    Zappa wrote: »
    On an almost totally nother tack, I have sadly come to a diocese in which Hymns For Today's Church is the Lingua Franca/currency of worship. If I believed in a hellish eternity it would involve immersion in a nether region in which that book were [i think the conditional tense can apply there] the sole diet of song. Ye gods, when I am Supreme Dictator of the World anyone who uses that degenerate volume of vomited bowdlerism will be strung to the steeple and forced to listen to Barry Manilow (or, alternatively, Cannibal Corpse) for the remainder of their days.

    Sympathy. It seems likely that my only contribution to the temporary discomfiture of the philistines may yet be getting HTC replaced by the latest A&M at Our Place a couple of years ago, after thirty years of half the congregation defiantly singing the wrong words, and the rest looking confused.
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    Liturgiam authenticam published by the Vatican in the early 2000s said about Dominus vobiscum -Et cum spiritu tuo
    'Certain expressions which belong to the whole or a greater part of the ancient church are to be respected and translated as literally as possible'.
    The use goes back to the very early days of the Church.
    The exchange is always between a priest/deacon and the faithful - a possible, but not necessarily only ,explanation of 'et cum spiritu tuo' ( and with your spirit) is a recognition of the spiritual charisms inherent in the ordained.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Alan29 wrote: »
    For me it is dualistic pure and simple. I want the Lord to be with the whole person, not just one bit.
    As a RC practising musician I find the present translation is English, but not as we know it. It reminds me too often of a bin man trying to talk like a duchess. The collects are a mess and the Prefaces worse. Many priests edit them as they go along, trying to put them into English. My wife is a classicist and an ESOL teacher who likes to give them an academic grade as a piece of English translation. They rarely reach a "C."
    As a composer I find the Gloria clunky and devoid of rhythm or balance. A really poor bit of work.

    The current RC translation is pretty bad. I agree. Vatican bureaucrats threw out a perfectly good draft translation that had been prepared by liturgical experts in accordance with the new, more literal guidelines for translation of liturgical texts and replaced it with something patched together with duct tape by a committee of members who either did not speak English as a first language or had no sense whatsoever of what makes language prayable and singable. At times, the bureaucrats made the new translation less of a literal translation than that drafted by the experts and in the process managed to make it sound worse as well. And now we are stuck with this frankentranslation for at least a couple of decades.

    As for "And also with you/And with your spirit," what peeves me is that the proper way to change that, if you want to change it, is by changing the Latin original, not sneaking your misgivings about dualism into the English translation (or does "et cum spiritu tuo" mean something different than "and with your spirit"?).

    Then theres the bizarre thinking that (in the eucharistic prayer) refers to Jesus's wine vessel at the Last Supper as a chalice and the vessels we use as cups ..... when the opposite is the case.
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    Does that not assume that it is a translation for English Catholics only?

    Well, I was living in the UK at the time and the vicarage Gin supply was getting a pretty good hammering. I would imagine that we were bemoaning the quality (cough!) of the old translation. Most the local A-Cs used to used the Novus Ordo, but there were just enough of us who used the ASB with all the Catholicky bits for this to be a regular discussion over a cup of gin.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    PDR wrote: »
    ... Most the local A-Cs used to used the Novus Ordo, ...
    That doesn't meet the test I posed on the liturgical matter thread,
    "provided you do so reverently, in accordance with the practice of your own ecclesiastical household, and in a way that edifies the faithful rather than distracts them, gets up their noses, or draws attention to you rather than the solemn event you are enabling."
    and in particular the bit I've emboldened in italics.

    I'd also regard it as infected with a pronounced streak of some of the other unpleasant things I've mentioned on that thread,
    " ... thinking 'I know better than the person out in front?' or 'is this valid or not?' or if we're up the front, 'I do it right , but whatever his or her congregation may think, X down the road doesn't and so his/her Eucharists don't take'. There has been a tendency both among very Anglo-Catholic and very Evangelical clergy in the past to say things can encourage people to think that."
    It encourages a certain sort of ecclesiastically 'woke' lay person to think in the way I've mentioned. IMHO the previous Bishop of London was right to take steps to try to stamp it out.
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    PDR wrote: »
    ... Most the local A-Cs used to used the Novus Ordo, ...
    That doesn't meet the test I posed on the liturgical matter thread,
    "provided you do so reverently, in accordance with the practice of your own ecclesiastical household, and in a way that edifies the faithful rather than distracts them, gets up their noses, or draws attention to you rather than the solemn event you are enabling."
    and in particular the bit I've emboldened in italics.

    I would agree with you on that point, and I used to rib the Novus Ordo A-Cs a bit about playing Papist. In the end I parted company on friendly terms with Anglo-Catholicism simply because I often found it to be a weird hybridisation. I have never been able to articulate well, but it is perfectly possible to be an Catholic-minded Anglican interpreting the church as what it historically is, an outgrowth from the Roman Catholic Church, but I have come to resent the unlawful, and often artificial attempts at assimilation.

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    PDR wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    Does that not assume that it is a translation for English Catholics only?

    Well, I was living in the UK at the time and the vicarage Gin supply was getting a pretty good hammering. I would imagine that we were bemoaning the quality (cough!) of the old translation. Most the local A-Cs used to used the Novus Ordo, but there were just enough of us who used the ASB with all the Catholicky bits for this to be a regular discussion over a cup of gin.

    I understood that the current translation which the Catholic Church uses was written for any congregation anywhere using the liturgy in English - not just those in England.
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    I have to agree with Enoch here (as I often do on many other topics) I don't usually feel qualified to comment on other denominations ,but I do find it strange that Anglicans argue sometimes quite vehemently about what is the correct way to do this, that or the other.
    Surely they have a book which tells them what to do and if they are Anglicans they should follow it.

    Why on earth use different bits and pieces from the Tridentine Missal and other Mass texts which have papal approval ? In the RC church the prescribed texts simply have to be followed, on the basis that this is the prayer 'of the Church' ,not of the particular pastor.

    Granted there are a number of options,but they have to be taken within a distinct rite and not just mixed and matched 'ad libitum'.
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    edited August 8
    The trouble is that we have several many books that tell us what to do, and they do not agree with one another, which means the various clans within Anglicanism tend to pick one and argue vehemently in its favour. This situation is usually complicated these days by multiple choice liturgies, the element of consumerism that seems to lurk just below the surface when it comes to public worship, and the fact it is easier to herd cats than Anglicans.

    That said, certain norms do emerge, though in this respect I believe the US is better than the UK, though around where I grew up (Lincolnshire) it used to be the case that there was very little deviation from a mildly catholic way of celebrating the then standard Alternative Liturgy. The main deviations seemed to be whether the celebrant was ad orientem or not, whether the incumbent or parish's funds had run to chasubles, and whether the main Sunday Eucharist was said wi' hymns, or sung.

    FWIW, at that time the few Evangelicals did what was recognizably the same thing, but in their case they were almost sure to celebrate facing the people, to wear surplice and stole/scarf, and be a bit less detail orientated. The ASB did seem to bring a brief coming together of the moderates from all tribes within the CofE.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    There’s no equivalent to the GIRM. Certain words to be said are clearly specified. The actions to go with them (apart from 1662 BCP) rarely so.
  • There is still no excuse for translating the beginning of the "Te Deum" as "You are God: We Praise You."

    If ever forced to do the Te Deum(rite II) which I doubt, because it's 'just too long', we will sing "You are God! In case you forgot who you are]".
    And passing the peace, respond to the first speaker, saying "Back at ya", or "ditto".
  • Forthview wrote: »
    I have to agree with Enoch here (as I often do on many other topics) I don't usually feel qualified to comment on other denominations ,but I do find it strange that Anglicans argue sometimes quite vehemently about what is the correct way to do this, that or the other.
    Surely they have a book which tells them what to do and if they are Anglicans they should follow it.

    Why on earth use different bits and pieces from the Tridentine Missal and other Mass texts which have papal approval ? In the RC church the prescribed texts simply have to be followed, on the basis that this is the prayer 'of the Church' ,not of the particular pastor.

    Granted there are a number of options,but they have to be taken within a distinct rite and not just mixed and matched 'ad libitum'.

    Technically Anglicans have no authority to follow RCC forms of liturgy. One wonders why such churches as do are still members of the CofE
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Forthview wrote: »
    I have to agree with Enoch here (as I often do on many other topics) I don't usually feel qualified to comment on other denominations ,but I do find it strange that Anglicans argue sometimes quite vehemently about what is the correct way to do this, that or the other.
    Surely they have a book which tells them what to do and if they are Anglicans they should follow it.

    Why on earth use different bits and pieces from the Tridentine Missal and other Mass texts which have papal approval ? In the RC church the prescribed texts simply have to be followed, on the basis that this is the prayer 'of the Church' ,not of the particular pastor.

    Granted there are a number of options,but they have to be taken within a distinct rite and not just mixed and matched 'ad libitum'.
    Technically Anglicans have no authority to follow RCC forms of liturgy. One wonders why such churches as do are still members of the CofE
    Liturgy has to follow the 1662 BCP, Common Worship or additional material formally authorised since. Common Worship is versatile and extremely flexible. It comes with several supporting books covering special occasions etc. Clergy, Readers etc need to understand their way round it, but apart from a few ambiguities, it's not that difficult to follow.

    It can be a bit wordy. I can see why a person might sometimes want to shorten it, or leave bits out. However, there should be no need to look outside it.

    Material from elsewhere, like RCC forms of liturgy, or, for that matter, liturgy from other Anglican provinces and formerly authorised liturgy like the ASB, however authorised it might be where it belongs, or have been in its day, is not authorised.
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    I have never seen the reason why, in modern times, there has been the continuing need to keep importing bits and pieces from Rome, though there used to be a bit of an excuse when the CofE did not have anything close to the Liturgy of the Hours. CW has somewhat fixed that, and I am sure there would be no really problem with priests who so wished reading OOR as a devotion.

    I have a suspicion that my tendency with Common Worship would be to not so much cut back on the wordiness, but limit the number of options that I would use to give the congregation a bit of stability. For example, with the ASB I used to use either Pseudo-Hippolytus (most of the year), or EP4 (Advent and Lent) and leave 1 and 2 alone; I could easily see me doing the same thing with CW.
  • OblatusOblatus Shipmate
    There's a nice video on YouTube that shows a 1662 Holy Communion, without sermon. Almost exactly 30 minutes, without any rushing. But yes, there are lots of fixed texts that are longish and that the rubrics require every time. The only things that change are the collect, the epistle, the Gospel, and possibly a proper preface.

    Here's the link, since I tried to link some text above and the site is not cooperating:
    https://youtu.be/oKLu_ebVyms
  • bigjonbigjon Shipmate
    edited August 11
    Enoch wrote: »
    Material from elsewhere, like RCC forms of liturgy, or, for that matter, liturgy from other Anglican provinces and formerly authorised liturgy like the ASB, however authorised it might be where it belongs, or have been in its day, is not authorised.

    Material from elsewhere IS authorised in the Church Of England, by Canon B5 - B5:1 says that changes which "are not of substantial importance" are OK, and B5:3 defines substantial importance as "contrary to . . . the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter."

    I imagine some RCC material will fall foul of B5:3, but there's plenty of material from other sources which is perfectly consistent with Church Of England doctrine.
  • Given that agreed CofE doctrine is pretty much limited to the Nicene Creed that's a loophole you could race the Grand National through.
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    @bigjon - Canons 5.1 & 5.3 pretty much constitute what I would understand as an off-side rule for liturgy. Even at my most enthusiastically Anglo-Catholic (c.1996, if anyone is keeping score) I would definitely have stopped short of trying to sneak in the Roman Canon - EP1 in the Novus Ordo - but then I was always more of an ASB with all the catholicky bits kind of a guy. Unless the bishop is being out-and-out heretical I tend to think the oath of Canonical Obedience should mean something.

    These days a lot of the things we used to borrow have perfectly decent CW versions, so if you an A-C who is basically loyal to the CofE, and determined not to be the bishop's or the archdeacon's pest, then there should not be so much borrowing going on. That said, I still see quite a few RC three year lectionaries kicking around even if the liturgy booklets are CW on my occasional visits to my old stamping grounds.
  • bigjonbigjon Shipmate
    Given that agreed CofE doctrine is pretty much limited to the Nicene Creed that's a loophole you could race the Grand National through.

    Canon A5 - The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular such doctrine is to be found in the 39 Articles of Religion, Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal...

    So you can use whatever material you like as long as its doctrine is biblical and faithful to the 39 Articles / BCP / Ordinal.
  • bigjon wrote: »
    Given that agreed CofE doctrine is pretty much limited to the Nicene Creed that's a loophole you could race the Grand National through.

    Canon A5 - The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular such doctrine is to be found in the 39 Articles of Religion, Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal...

    So you can use whatever material you like as long as its doctrine is biblical and faithful to the 39 Articles / BCP / Ordinal.

    Ah, but it doesn't say that the whole of the 39 Articles are doctrinal. Loopholes within loopholes.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Not quite. Common Worship is authoritative. It contains quite a lot of instructions indicating what is obligatory, what is optional, and what the range of options are and are not. Thus, quite often, there will be, say, three options, but you must choose one of them. As an example, there's some flexibility as to which order the elements in a marriage can be taken in, but rather less as to which must be there and which don't have to be.
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    One thing I was highly grateful for when I was ministering on the other side of the pond was the lack of an official hymnal. I have just been having another session of "why can't I find anything decent?" with the 1940 Hymnal, which seems to have a habit of setting well-known hymns to, let us be polite and call them, unusual tunes.

    Although I am not old enough to have experienced it, but I do know the old joke about you can tell the churchmanship of a parish by the hymnal. English Hymnal for Anglo-Catholic; Ancient and Modern for middle of the road; and Hymnal Companion for Evangelical. I have not worked out where the latest crop of hymnals line up, but I assume that the U.K. Common Praise has taken the A&M Revised's slot.
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate
    edited August 12
    New English Hymnal seems common in the SEC. Down south Mission Praise is still surprisingly common in MOTR churches, though those of a more traditional bent hold on to their A&M New Standards. If you can find an evo church with a hymn book I advise taking a photo of the endangered species.
  • Later this year a new Revised English Hymnal is being published, taking the old book of sacred and glorious memory, and bringing it up-to-date.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Where do screens and projectors fit in?
  • Alan29 wrote: »
    Where do screens and projectors fit in?

    Somewhere around the 6th or 7th circle?
  • angloidangloid Shipmate
    PDR wrote: »
    The ASB did seem to bring a brief coming together of the moderates from all tribes within the CofE.

    In most ways I was greatly relieved when Common Worship released us from the turgidity of the ASB. But you have a very good point, and the multiplicity of options in CW has made it far too easy for DiY liturgy (or, increasingly, lack of liturgy) to destroy any sense of common worship and hence contradict its title. ISTM that TEC (and probably most other Anglican churches) preserve liturgical unity much better.
  • angloidangloid Shipmate
    Oblatus wrote: »
    There's a nice video on YouTube that shows a 1662 Holy Communion, without sermon. Almost exactly 30 minutes, without any rushing. But yes, there are lots of fixed texts that are longish and that the rubrics require every time. The only things that change are the collect, the epistle, the Gospel, and possibly a proper preface.

    Here's the link, since I tried to link some text above and the site is not cooperating:
    https://youtu.be/oKLu_ebVyms


    Takes me back! A reminder that impersonal worship can be reverent and holy. Although my proletarian inverted snobbery found the priest's upper-class accent grating.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    angloid wrote: »
    Oblatus wrote: »
    There's a nice video on YouTube that shows a 1662 Holy Communion, without sermon. Almost exactly 30 minutes, without any rushing. But yes, there are lots of fixed texts that are longish and that the rubrics require every time. The only things that change are the collect, the epistle, the Gospel, and possibly a proper preface.

    Here's the link, since I tried to link some text above and the site is not cooperating:
    https://youtu.be/oKLu_ebVyms


    Takes me back! A reminder that impersonal worship can be reverent and holy. Although my proletarian inverted snobbery found the priest's upper-class accent grating.

    I wasn't expecting a chas, or a server in a Roman cotta.
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    edited August 12
    Alan29 wrote: »
    angloid wrote: »
    Oblatus wrote: »
    There's a nice video on YouTube that shows a 1662 Holy Communion, without sermon. Almost exactly 30 minutes, without any rushing. But yes, there are lots of fixed texts that are longish and that the rubrics require every time. The only things that change are the collect, the epistle, the Gospel, and possibly a proper preface.

    Here's the link, since I tried to link some text above and the site is not cooperating:
    https://youtu.be/oKLu_ebVyms


    Takes me back! A reminder that impersonal worship can be reverent and holy. Although my proletarian inverted snobbery found the priest's upper-class accent grating.

    I wasn't expecting a chas, or a server in a Roman cotta.

    I was wondering whether it was that video, and that answers my question. It is nicely done, but I thought the aesthetics were a bit un-1662, but of course the parish where it was made is halfway along the road to Rome ceremonially speaking, so that is their house style. In the days when I did 1662 regularly, one church were I did it was very definitely chasuble and eastward facing; the other preferred the celebrant at North End in choir habit, and as both are licit I played along. I found I got to quite like North ending after a while.
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    Alan29 wrote: »
    Where do screens and projectors fit in?

    Somewhere around the 6th or 7th circle?

    Sounds about right!
Sign In or Register to comment.