@PDR what does LEM stand for in your part of the world? Is it the local term for an Ordained Local Minister (a non-stipendiary priest licensed just to their home parish), for Lay Reader/Licensed Lay Minister (the same thing here but different dioceses will prefer one or the other), or for cup-bearer.
I've commented before but in the way the CofE functions, unless you've got a particular hang up about orders and clerical/lay as such, I can't really see what the point is in letting someone be a permanent deacon. The only things a deacon can do which a Lay Reader/Licensed Lay Minister can't are to baptise and to take weddings. However, because they can't pronounce blessings, the diocese here doesn't encourage them to do weddings. Talking about 'works of service' and 'reaching out into the world' as specifically diaconal roles is more than a bit of a nonsense because not only can everybody do all of those but they should be doing them.
Having somebody whose been trained, probably expects to be paid by the diocese, but who has permanently excluded themselves from celebrating Holy Communion strikes me as a waste of time and a nuisance. It would also make them unavailable to be deployed to multi-parish benefices.
I don't know about other dioceses, but both a Reader and a Deacon automatically has authorisation to preach, to lead a non-eucharistic service, to assist in leading a eucharistic one, to administer Holy Communion (already properly consecrated) by extension and to be a cupbearer. Deacons can automatically take funerals, but Readers can only take them if they've done a special course first on how to do so.
There's an important practical difference between sick communion by extension and a Sunday service which includes distribution by extension, in that the former is normal but the latter has to be specifically authorised by the diocese, usually as a one-off and very reluctantly.
Until recently parishes had to send the diocese a list of the people they would like to have authorised as cup-bearers and wait for it to come back. It also had to be renewed each year. However, this has now been delegated to parishes.
Cupbearers can only do precisely that. They cannot take out sick communions for example.
Also, people in training for ordination automatically have the same authorisations as a Reader. This is important here as the local theological college likes to get as many parishes as possible to take on at least one student and get them involved in church life as part of their training.
@BabyWombat I agree with what you said about the value of transitional diaconate. It's like a sort of apprenticeship. I'd also be very hostile to anyone who suggested that once a person was a priest they were above 'works of service', 'reaching out into the world' etc.
Enoch, what do you mean by 'cupbearer'? Do you mean what PDR calls LEMs (which I assume stands for Local Eucharistic Minister)? I don't think the C of E uses either such term officially, but what people are authorised to do is actually the latter. I've never heard of people being given permission to administer the chalice and not the Bread: if you are authorised (not usually licensed, it's done by a fairly informal letter from the Bishop or archdeacon) to administer the (consecrated, of course) Sacrament it must involve both kinds. Similarly, unless diocesan regulations vary, the same people are authorised to take communion to the sick, subject of course to safeguarding checks. Things may have tightened up in the latter respect since I was last in full-time ministry, but I don't think the basic principles have.
LEM - Lay Eucharist Minister in this neck of the woods, they can administer the Cup and also take Communion to the sick. Cup-bearers are more widespread, are usually the same folks as your Readers, and have no authorization to administer communion to the sick. One of these days we need to sort out the incoherent pile of lay ministries into something that makes sense*, and make the set-up a bit more welcoming for permanent deacons.
While Deacons and LEMs can indeed being communion to the sick and shut in, our local bishop is very, very clear that they may not lead nor distribute communion as part of MP or any other service, Sunday, week day or any other day. They may only lead MP or EP, no distribution of the Sacrament in a public service.
Now..... one parish I know of got around that one Christmas Eve when they could not get a priest. They celebrated Lessons and Carols, lead by a LEM, and then invited any members of the congregation who might have wished home communion on the feast to please come to the parish library, where communion was distributed from the Reserved Sacrament and recorded in the service book as a rather long series of one line entries noting "Home Communion" done by a LEM. Yes, at Bishop's Vistation the service book is supposed to be reviewed, but said bishop seldom did.
Naughty? Yes. Did it meet a need? Maybe, but IMO it was a sort of "Need a shot of Jesus" spirituality.
WE have a minute silver chalice, paten and flagon (hallmarked for London 1882) and a similarly minute corporal and pall that were presented to a departing locum in 1882. After having passed through many clerical hands the set was returned to us in 2016 by the daughter of its most recent recipient.
The chalice in the sick communion kit in my old parish was fairly small. I doubt it would have held more than the two tablespoons of wine mentioned above. I actually found it almost too small for the stated purpose, but got used to it in the end.
Recently I was going through some of our things and came across an ancient sick communion kit that was impossibly small. I doubt it would hold more than one tablespoon.
We do the Kyrie during Advent and Lent, and the Gloria the rest of the year. (When I took Liturgics, I was the head of one of the student teams working up a communion service. We did it using Rite I and both the Kyrie and the Gloria. One of the older and more irascible priests (fortunately one without grading powers for that course) was furious. It apparently "takes too long".
Me, being the High Chief Musician where I work, have this argument thrown at me all the time. At no time during my tenure have both Kyrie and Gloria been used back to back. This is so unwise. A recent new rector was on a "streamlining" pathway, and applied it to hymns too. Too many verses, too slowly played/sung- deleting everything deletable. Using a 'hymn of praise' instead seems wrong. The present rector is more reasonable, but under the Vestry insisting the 10 AM service be done with NO LATER than precisely 11:00.
That’s so interesting. My cathedral routinely does the Kyrie and Gloria back to back. The Gloria is rarely removed, and normally for a darn good reason, although it’s often left out if we’re doing a baptism. Our services clock in at about an hour and twenty, hour and thirty if the Dean is feeling talkative. Of course, Palm Sunday etc. is a two hour plus affair.
I have a bit of an attitude when it comes to folks protesting about the length of the service. In previous parish we had one or two people who would regularly give you brain damage if you went over sixty minutes, so I went on a hymn pruning exercise. The first victim was the sermon hymn, then I used to restrict the gradual and communion hymns to one or two verses, went on a campaign against waffling in the Prayer for the Church, and lastly decreed that notices had to be given in writing to the officiating minister. This saved about fifteen minutes without having to do any violence to the liturgy getting us back down to about hour to an hour and five which is about right for a MOTR small town church.
Yes, I very much dislike complaints about the length of the service. The Mass will last as long as it’s going to last, damnit.
Last year we modified the offertory procession because the Bishop decided that the money should be visibly blessed. Simply enough. Somehow, people then got up in arms and said that if we want to speed up the service, how about cut out the sermon? Mind you, of course, our priest was on this email kerfuffle and never said anything.
I’ve not seen the fellow who made the kerfuffle since then.
The more reasonable, more liturgically minded people at my place-most of the choir people- have said (essentially) "how irreverent and self centered to limit the worship of God, once a week, to 60 minutes, no matter what." I agree.
Also, "silence" is ignored during the service, except for some visiting priests filling in. You can almost hear the dissatisfaction with not galloping onward with the next item. What's UP with people nowadays?
Me, being the High Chief Musician where I work, have this argument thrown at me all the time. At no time during my tenure have both Kyrie and Gloria been used back to back. This is so unwise. A recent new rector was on a "streamlining" pathway, and applied it to hymns too. Too many verses, too slowly played/sung- deleting everything deletable. Using a 'hymn of praise' instead seems wrong. The present rector is more reasonable, but under the Vestry insisting the 10 AM service be done with NO LATER than precisely 11:00.
The APBA 2nd Order, which is the Eucharist you'll find in the vast majority of non-Sydney services, has the Kyrie, confession and pronouncement of the absolution, and then the Gloria - except of course in Lent and Advent when the Trisagion follows the Great Commandments and confession is moved to the alternative position after humble access.
As to length of service: the main complaint is not that simpliciter but rather the length of the sermon. A good sermon can be given in under 15 minutes with an excellent one in under 10. Beyond that, a sermon gets waffly and any message gets lost.
As to length of service: the main complaint is not that simpliciter but rather the length of the sermon. A good sermon can be given in under 15 minutes with an excellent one in under 10. Beyond that, a sermon gets waffly and any message gets lost.
As has been noted many times on the Ship, this isn’t necessarily true. Much depends on what the congregation—and the particular tradition of the congregation—expects out of a sermon. And expectations, of course, are directly related to willingness to listen attentively for more than 15 minutes and willingness to shorten the sermon rather than other parts of the service.
In my experience, for example, Anglican/Episcopal expectations of the sermon (or homily) are not the same as Reformed/Presbyterian expectations. I am not saying either tradition’s expectations are better. Just different. Nor am I saying that I haven’t heard Episcopal preachers give excellent 20+ minute sermons, and Presbyterian preachers give excellent 10 minute sermons.
I’m just saying simple statements like “a sermon gets waffly and any message gets lost” after 15 minutes aren’t helpful in my estimation. Much better, I think, to discard any ideas that there are uniformly “right” or “wrong” lengths of sermons, and instead ask “what does this congregation expect from the sermon, and how does that expectation fit into expectations for the service as a whole?”
Meanwhile, at our place we came to an understanding some years ago that if all the congregation’s expectations are to be met, we should assume an hour and fifteen minutes for a typical service.
On occasion I’ll go to the Roman Catholic cathedral across the way. They have an old battle-axe of a priest they roll out for the Sunday 5pm Mass. Man, his sermon is something else. It includes long quotes, citations, numbered arguments, and plenty of Aquinas. I think the sermon must clock in at 25 minutes, on average. He’s also stone deaf. What a hoot.
On occasion I’ll go to the Roman Catholic cathedral across the way. They have an old battle-axe of a priest they roll out for the Sunday 5pm Mass. Man, his sermon is something else. It includes long quotes, citations, numbered arguments, and plenty of Aquinas. I think the sermon must clock in at 25 minutes, on average. He’s also stone deaf. What a hoot.
Have you ever heard any of the homilies in the daily Masses on EWTN Network? Oy! Painful.
Tagging on to what I said above, knowing how long the sermon should be is only half the equation. The other half is knowing how to use that time most effectively, be it less than 10 minutes, more than 20, or something in between.
I have not heard any of the homilies. If it’s like what I described then I believe I’ll continue avoiding it.
I agree that knowing how long and how to use that time is critically important. Of course, I’ve never delivered a sermon, so what do I know. It just looks hard to me.
Some of the best "sermons" I've ever heard were the little meditations at daily mass given by the Abbot of Mount St. Bernard in Leicestershire, or sometimes by another monk -- none of them more than a minute or two long. At that length of course, there was, of course, no time to begin with a "humorous" anecdote, nor to go through the readings in detail (remember that this a Trappist monastery -- between the mass and the offices, they read a lot of scripture), and certainly not to retell the readings that the congregation had just heard (which is my particular pet peeve). Nor was there any room for a great show of erudition (although the abbot has two doctorates). Just a wise word that shone light on the relevance of the liturgy and its readings. One fine example stands out to me so well that I can remember it almost verbatim. I was there for Epiphany, and after the gospel the monk said:
"We live in age of anxiety and dissatisfaction. But we must remember that even these can be gifts from the Holy Spirit. For, without them, what cause would the Wise Men have had to look to the sky for a star?"
Those three sentences remain, by some measure, the best Epiphany sermon I've ever heard. Perhaps only a Trappist could have preached it, though. I found that the emphasis they place on silence makes them acutely aware of not only what needs to be said, but of precisely how much needs to be said. This is not a gift that I, for one, share.
Certainly, a good sermon can be long, and I have heard some of those as well. But sometimes the best are very short indeed. Austin Farrer's Weekly Paragraphs for the Holy Sacrament are another great example of this, being the published form of his homilies for Sunday low masses. He deliberately restricted his length so that no homily had more words than the gospel for the day (often, they have far fewer).
As for the total length of services, I don't mind it when the service is prolonged because of lengthy music or a lengthy sermon (provided both are good). And I will never complain that the ceremonial of a rite takes too long (at least in the Western Rite!). But I hate it when the peace lasts forever and turns into a social hour, or when a person doing the notices decides to turn it into a self-indulgent soporific soliloquy. Unfortunately, both are far too common. And, what's worse is when people then argue that, "oh, we can't do 'x,' it would make the service too long!" (Where "x" is invariably some essential or at least normative part of the liturgy).
On occasion I’ll go to the Roman Catholic cathedral across the way. They have an old battle-axe of a priest they roll out for the Sunday 5pm Mass. Man, his sermon is something else. It includes long quotes, citations, numbered arguments, and plenty of Aquinas. I think the sermon must clock in at 25 minutes, on average. He’s also stone deaf. What a hoot.
I wish more Catholic priests would give homilies like this (aside from the deafness) rather than the Reader's Digest type homilies you usually hear. I almost never hear RC priests cite any work of theology, any papal or conciliar teaching, or any devotional or mystical text written between the Bible and the 20th Century in their homilies. The problem is that those priests that I have heard make use of the richness of Catholic tradition in their preaching tend to be pretty reactionary. It doesn't have to be this way! The tradition of the Church needs to be liberated from arch-conservatives.
Nick Tamen, in many respects you are right and I was both far too general and far too Anglican in my comments. It depends on what you want from the sermon. For us, the sermon is a step along the path to the Eucharist. We'd rather have the preacher pick one of the readings for the day, clarify some of the difficulties in it and then give a lesson on how the message (a message) from it can guide us in our daily life. What it should not be is an opportunity for the preacher to demonstrate superior knowledge by turning the sermon into an exercise in biblical scholarship over 25 minutes.
@stonespring Truth be told, I tend to like preachers who can easily quote something besides the Bible. My current priest is able to do that, and I find it to be quite edifying.
I also agree that the ridiculous Reader’s Digest, pre-chewed gook that most Roman Catholic preachers put out is horrifying. At this same cathedral, the gentleman who used to be the main priest could not go a single sermon without talking about his mother. Evidently, she did everything worthy for every Sunday’s lesson. Incredible. He also delivered his sermon in the most peculiar way, almost slouching on the lectern. I didn’t care for him.
What [the sermon] should not be is an opportunity for the preacher to demonstrate superior knowledge by turning the sermon into an exercise in biblical scholarship over 25 minutes.
On service length, I used to strap myself in for the 3 hour or so Orthodox ones. My mind did wander at times, but at the end I always felt sad they were ending and wished there was more. Then again, I was there for about 2.5 hours each Sunday for Matins and Liturgy, so not sure why 3 hours instilled such trepidation.
I had a period of the "let me show you how much Greek I know and let me teach you some too" sermon variety. I was glad when that ended.
At my Anglican Cathedral we have the Kyrie and Gloria back to back, chanted almost always to Merbecke (occasionally McNeil-Robinson).
On the question of the homily, the Cathedral's rotating cast, while different stylistically, are all very good. This past Sunday was just over 15 minutes on Mary and Martha, and very engaging.
My local shack OTOH has, it seems, dropped the Kyrie during my prolonged absence. I consider it and the Gloria integral to communion. Without asking for mercy, how can we then eventually make our confession? There will be a conversation in September. I assure you.
My local shack OTOH has, it seems, dropped the Kyrie during my prolonged absence. I consider it and the Gloria integral to communion. Without asking for mercy, how can we then eventually make our confession? There will be a conversation in September. I assure you.
You can of course argue that the Kyrie is effectively included in the Gloria (or at least the Agnus Dei, with similar sentiments). But I'm not convinced by the 'either/or' practice either.
john holdingEcclesiantics Host, Mystery Worshipper Host
On the other hand, a general confession (it seems to me) provides adequate asking for mercy. Especially if using the 1662 confession ("have mercy on us, have mercy on us...").
re Length of Service: One summer in my former parish we did this: Organ prelude as usual, choir and altar party in place at back of church. Prelude ended priest did the opening greeting and then full congregation shared in saying the Collect for Purity. Procession singing a hymn of praise in place of the Gloria. Once priest in place in chancel s/he said Collect of the Day and we went right on to the first lesson. With careful trimming of the sermon, and noting that announcements were already in the bulletin, we could be done in under an hour. Yes, the service should take what time it needs to be complete and reverent. But there is the commendment Thou Shalt Not Weary the People......
The Anglican church claim to be Reformed and yet for the Reformed the sermon and not the Bible readings are the important part of the proclamation of the Word of God. The Reformed would question whether Christ is present in the Eucharist if he is not first heard in the proclamation of the Word. The Eucharist is insubstantial without the proclamation of the Word and the Word is desiccated without the Eucharist.
The Anglican church claim to be Reformed and yet for the Reformed the sermon and not the Bible readings are the important part of the proclamation of the Word of God. The Reformed would question whether Christ is present in the Eucharist if he is not first heard in the proclamation of the Word. The Eucharist is insubstantial without the proclamation of the Word and the Word is desiccated without the Eucharist.
That's certainly not this Anglican's understanding. But I, for one, have never claimed to be "Reformed."
On occasion I’ll go to the Roman Catholic cathedral across the way. They have an old battle-axe of a priest they roll out for the Sunday 5pm Mass. Man, his sermon is something else. It includes long quotes, citations, numbered arguments, and plenty of Aquinas. I think the sermon must clock in at 25 minutes, on average. He’s also stone deaf. What a hoot.
The sort of preacher I enjoy listening to, and, to be honest, the sort of sermon I enjoy preaching when I have a congregation that will put up with it. Most of the time I aim for 12 minutes and come out between 10 and 15. I tend not to be long on anecdotes and filler which enables me to get through a decent amount of material in a normal length of time. The main danger for me seems to be that I can come over as a bit of an intellectual snob/lacking the common touch.
Having one foot planted firmly in the Protestant side of Anglicanism I rarely celebrate HC without preaching, though, at 7:30am on a winter's morning you are probably going to get me trying to achieve something close to @Columba_in_a_Currach's ideal of Trappist brevity and concentration. One reason for this is the handful of people that you get a midweek communions and offices seem to have a higher proportion of those who subconsciously think of themselves as part of "a religious community" than "consumers of religious services."
Historically it is clear that the Church of England is reformed (albeit not ReformedTM). It is not true for all Anglicans to say
For us, the sermon is a step along the path to the Eucharist.
For some (maybe many) Anglicans (not just in the evangelical wing), opening up the Scriptures is as important an element in worship as breaking the bread at communion - it is the means by which everyone is enabled to share in receiving God’s grace through the Scriptures. Obviously it has to go along with the public reading of Scripture as well. It would be very odd to expound something which had not first been read.
It would be very odd to expound something which had not first been read.
And yet I have heard it done—fortunately, not in an Anglican/Episcopal church nor a Reformed/Presbyterian church, but rather in a denomination that prides itself on its fidelity to Scripture.
I understand not overly taxing the patience of the congregation, but aiming at<60 min. strikes me as an unseemly sprint, especially if that requires trimming the liturgy. It raises the question, if one is so impatient in the presence of, or reaching out to, the Divine, why would one even bother to show up. If our Saviour could endure crucifixion, surely we can endure a service >60 minutes.
Yes, the service should take what time it needs to be complete and reverent. But there is the commendment Thou Shalt Not Weary the People......
It can be important to remember that sometimes it’s about more than wearying the people. For example, we have long-time members who now live in retirement communities. If we run more than a little bit longer than usual, they may not be able to get back in time for the lunch they’ve already paid for as part of their monthly fees.
I understand not overly taxing the patience of the congregation, but aiming at<60 min. strikes me as an unseemly sprint, especially if that requires trimming the liturgy. It raises the question, if one is so impatient in the presence of, or reaching out to, the Divine, why would one even bother to show up. If our Saviour could endure crucifixion, surely we can endure a service >60 minutes.
I do not worry about the one hour rule, but I do worry about keeping it tight. By tight I mean avoiding waste of time through poor liturgical practice. In many cases, liturgy is improved by a hefty dose of humility - i.e. just let the liturgy do the work, and do not let your stupid ego get in the way.
The Anglican church claim to be Reformed and yet for the Reformed the sermon and not the Bible readings are the important part of the proclamation of the Word of God. The Reformed would question whether Christ is present in the Eucharist if he is not first heard in the proclamation of the Word. The Eucharist is insubstantial without the proclamation of the Word and the Word is desiccated without the Eucharist.
Why is it necessary to have the sermon to proclaim the Word please? To put it another way, why are the readings insufficient? As I read it, that makes the sermon of greater worth than the words themselves, and the preacher greater than the author.
The Anglican church claim to be Reformed and yet for the Reformed the sermon and not the Bible readings are the important part of the proclamation of the Word of God. The Reformed would question whether Christ is present in the Eucharist if he is not first heard in the proclamation of the Word. The Eucharist is insubstantial without the proclamation of the Word and the Word is desiccated without the Eucharist.
Why is it necessary to have the sermon to proclaim the Word please? To put it another way, why are the readings insufficient? As I read it, that makes the sermon of greater worth than the words themselves, and the preacher greater than the author.
I agree. Both with the idea that the Eucharist is less than effective (albeit not, presumably, 'invalid') without the Word, and that the proclamation of the Word does not necessarily involve a sermon. As for preaching the Word in a sermon without having proclaimed it by reading the scripture as part of the liturgy, that seems to me much more corrupt than anything in medieval or pre-Vatican 2 practice.
The Anglican church claim to be Reformed and yet for the Reformed the sermon and not the Bible readings are the important part of the proclamation of the Word of God. The Reformed would question whether Christ is present in the Eucharist if he is not first heard in the proclamation of the Word. The Eucharist is insubstantial without the proclamation of the Word and the Word is desiccated without the Eucharist.
Why is it necessary to have the sermon to proclaim the Word please? To put it another way, why are the readings insufficient? As I read it, that makes the sermon of greater worth than the words themselves, and the preacher greater than the author.
From an Anglican perspective, it may not be necessary, and the readings may be sufficient. From a Reformed perspective, it generally is necessary to have more than the readings, at least in some form.
It’s a different expectation of the role of the sermon, and for that matter, possibly of the listening congregation. But I think we’ve been through all this before. (There was another thread on the topic, but I can’t find it right now.)
The Anglican church claim to be Reformed and yet for the Reformed the sermon and not the Bible readings are the important part of the proclamation of the Word of God. The Reformed would question whether Christ is present in the Eucharist if he is not first heard in the proclamation of the Word. The Eucharist is insubstantial without the proclamation of the Word and the Word is desiccated without the Eucharist.
Why is it necessary to have the sermon to proclaim the Word please? To put it another way, why are the readings insufficient? As I read it, that makes the sermon of greater worth than the words themselves, and the preacher greater than the author.
The readings are insufficient because we do not believe in God's Word a something static but something dynamic that needs to be broken open or at least attempted to be within the current context. The sermon is thus the culmination of the pastoral visiting and Biblical engagement of the preacher in which he leads the congregation into a communal discernment of the Word.
@angloid - One thing you have to remember is that the Reformed rarely celebrate the Lord's Supper except as part of the main Sunday service, though in times past it could be an adjunct rather than the main service. For the most part, though, this custom of having a 'stay behind' service has faded now that the tide of Pietism and Rationalism has gone out, and there is a better perspective on worship.
Anglicanism, at least in its 16th and 17th century origins, was Reformed in its perspective in that it expects that the proper place for the sermon as indicated by the BCP is as part of the Eucharistic liturgy. It seemed strange to the Reformers to read scripture, and not also explain its meaning via preaching at the main services because at that time the Bible was an unknown book.* We have all seen the harm that can be done by folks misunderstanding Scripture and running away with strange ideas. Some of them even come knocking on the door!
The old BCP had a bit of a hierarchy going on with teaching because, as Mattins was seen as preparatory for the Lord's Supper, there was no official order to preach. That became common custom in the 19th century when the old Morning Service of Mattins, Litany, and Ante-Communion began to be broken up. Evening Prayer was though to be the appropriate time to catechize because that was the service servants, apprentices, and so on were like to attend. A sermon with a catechetical focus was often substituted for the catechism later on, but that doesn't invalidate the point. Evening catechesis was also pretty common in Reformed circles, so Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, Parker, Grindal, etc., were not thinking outside of the Reformed box when making these provisions. The odd thing, from the Reformed perspective was the retention of the quire office, but that's a whole other issue.
* - some 21st Christians are not that familiar with it either. Same goes for some of their preachers...
@angloid - One thing you have to remember is that the Reformed rarely celebrate the Lord's Supper except as part of the main Sunday service, though in times past it could be an adjunct rather than the main service.
I'm not sure what this has to do with my comments. And I am sure traditional Reformed practice is very different from that of some modern evangelicals (Anglican ones anyway) who seem quite happy to have 'worship services' with very little scriptural content. I agree that preaching is important, but it doesn't seem to make much sense to expound the scriptures without first reading them.
Anglican custom has tended to err in the opposite direction by being happy to celebrate the Eucharist without a sermon. This should never happen at a main Sunday service, but at a short midweek mass I think it is forgivable; often the Gospel reading does speak for itself but a few words of contextualisation are usually helpful.
The readings are insufficient because we do not believe in God's Word a something static but something dynamic that needs to be broken open or at least attempted to be within the current context. The sermon is thus the culmination of the pastoral visiting and Biblical engagement of the preacher in which he leads the congregation into a communal discernment of the Word.
You (i.e. Christians of the Reformed tradition) may well believe that. But, as I tried to say above, this is not everyone's tradition. Or, rather, I suspect most Christians would agree with the portion I've quoted. But, for many of us, the idea that a Eucharist without a sermon is incomplete -- let alone invalid, as you seem to suggest -- is utterly alien to our sacramental theology. For us, Christ is present in the Eucharist not because the word is preached, but because the Word was made flesh and assured us that he would continue to present in the bread and wine offered on the altar.
The readings are insufficient because we do not believe in God's Word a something static but something dynamic that needs to be broken open or at least attempted to be within the current context. The sermon is thus the culmination of the pastoral visiting and Biblical engagement of the preacher in which he leads the congregation into a communal discernment of the Word.
You (i.e. Christians of the Reformed tradition) may well believe that. But, as I tried to say above, this is not everyone's tradition. Or, rather, I suspect most Christians would agree with the portion I've quoted. But, for many of us, the idea that a Eucharist without a sermon is incomplete -- let alone invalid, as you seem to suggest -- is utterly alien to our sacramental theology. For us, Christ is present in the Eucharist not because the word is preached, but because the Word was made flesh and assured us that he would continue to present in the bread and wine offered on the altar.
Yes, but just to be clear, it's plain that sermons, some of them very long, were a part of widespread liturgical practice long, long before the Reformation came about. It was obviously important that scripture not only be read but that it be explained. Volumes after volumes of patristic homilies attest to that. There should be preaching even if its absence does not invalidate the eucharist.
At Our Place, Father NewPriest usually gives us a few words of contextualisation after the Gospel at daily Mass. No more is needed, IMHO.
I, as a Lay Reader, get to preach at Sunday Mass about every other month. I try to limit my homily to one page of A4 text (I'm afraid I need to write it out in full, even if I diverge slightly 'on the day'). 5-8 minutes max.
Similarly, believing that Christ is present in the bread and the wine on the Holy Table is not everyone's tradition either. Some of us hold to the idea that we are fed spiritually with Christ body and blood through the Bread and Wine, but that the elements themselves do not become anything other than effectual signs.
Ideally, both the Word preached and the Bread broken, should be part of the Eucharistic celebration. If you are in tradition which allows frequent midweek celebrations of the Lord's Supper (which I am) then on weekdays then that isn't always possible. However, on Sundays and major Holydays, then yes - the main service should - to be understood as meaning in this context just short MUST - contain both the Word read and preached, and the Sacrament. Of course YMMV, but that was the message I got from both the Evangelical and the Anglo-Catholic who attempted to train me.
Comments
I've commented before but in the way the CofE functions, unless you've got a particular hang up about orders and clerical/lay as such, I can't really see what the point is in letting someone be a permanent deacon. The only things a deacon can do which a Lay Reader/Licensed Lay Minister can't are to baptise and to take weddings. However, because they can't pronounce blessings, the diocese here doesn't encourage them to do weddings. Talking about 'works of service' and 'reaching out into the world' as specifically diaconal roles is more than a bit of a nonsense because not only can everybody do all of those but they should be doing them.
Having somebody whose been trained, probably expects to be paid by the diocese, but who has permanently excluded themselves from celebrating Holy Communion strikes me as a waste of time and a nuisance. It would also make them unavailable to be deployed to multi-parish benefices.
I don't know about other dioceses, but both a Reader and a Deacon automatically has authorisation to preach, to lead a non-eucharistic service, to assist in leading a eucharistic one, to administer Holy Communion (already properly consecrated) by extension and to be a cupbearer. Deacons can automatically take funerals, but Readers can only take them if they've done a special course first on how to do so.
There's an important practical difference between sick communion by extension and a Sunday service which includes distribution by extension, in that the former is normal but the latter has to be specifically authorised by the diocese, usually as a one-off and very reluctantly.
Until recently parishes had to send the diocese a list of the people they would like to have authorised as cup-bearers and wait for it to come back. It also had to be renewed each year. However, this has now been delegated to parishes.
Cupbearers can only do precisely that. They cannot take out sick communions for example.
Also, people in training for ordination automatically have the same authorisations as a Reader. This is important here as the local theological college likes to get as many parishes as possible to take on at least one student and get them involved in church life as part of their training.
@BabyWombat I agree with what you said about the value of transitional diaconate. It's like a sort of apprenticeship. I'd also be very hostile to anyone who suggested that once a person was a priest they were above 'works of service', 'reaching out into the world' etc.
* - scrub that comment - we are Anglicans!
Now..... one parish I know of got around that one Christmas Eve when they could not get a priest. They celebrated Lessons and Carols, lead by a LEM, and then invited any members of the congregation who might have wished home communion on the feast to please come to the parish library, where communion was distributed from the Reserved Sacrament and recorded in the service book as a rather long series of one line entries noting "Home Communion" done by a LEM. Yes, at Bishop's Vistation the service book is supposed to be reviewed, but said bishop seldom did.
Naughty? Yes. Did it meet a need? Maybe, but IMO it was a sort of "Need a shot of Jesus" spirituality.
(This in reference to the Moon Landing thread and the Communion in the Lunar Module by Buzz Aldrin)
They lost their good Religion [sic] Department staff, you see 🙄
Me, being the High Chief Musician where I work, have this argument thrown at me all the time. At no time during my tenure have both Kyrie and Gloria been used back to back. This is so unwise. A recent new rector was on a "streamlining" pathway, and applied it to hymns too. Too many verses, too slowly played/sung- deleting everything deletable. Using a 'hymn of praise' instead seems wrong. The present rector is more reasonable, but under the Vestry insisting the 10 AM service be done with NO LATER than precisely 11:00.
Last year we modified the offertory procession because the Bishop decided that the money should be visibly blessed. Simply enough. Somehow, people then got up in arms and said that if we want to speed up the service, how about cut out the sermon? Mind you, of course, our priest was on this email kerfuffle and never said anything.
I’ve not seen the fellow who made the kerfuffle since then.
Also, "silence" is ignored during the service, except for some visiting priests filling in. You can almost hear the dissatisfaction with not galloping onward with the next item. What's UP with people nowadays?
The APBA 2nd Order, which is the Eucharist you'll find in the vast majority of non-Sydney services, has the Kyrie, confession and pronouncement of the absolution, and then the Gloria - except of course in Lent and Advent when the Trisagion follows the Great Commandments and confession is moved to the alternative position after humble access.
As to length of service: the main complaint is not that simpliciter but rather the length of the sermon. A good sermon can be given in under 15 minutes with an excellent one in under 10. Beyond that, a sermon gets waffly and any message gets lost.
In my experience, for example, Anglican/Episcopal expectations of the sermon (or homily) are not the same as Reformed/Presbyterian expectations. I am not saying either tradition’s expectations are better. Just different. Nor am I saying that I haven’t heard Episcopal preachers give excellent 20+ minute sermons, and Presbyterian preachers give excellent 10 minute sermons.
I’m just saying simple statements like “a sermon gets waffly and any message gets lost” after 15 minutes aren’t helpful in my estimation. Much better, I think, to discard any ideas that there are uniformly “right” or “wrong” lengths of sermons, and instead ask “what does this congregation expect from the sermon, and how does that expectation fit into expectations for the service as a whole?”
Meanwhile, at our place we came to an understanding some years ago that if all the congregation’s expectations are to be met, we should assume an hour and fifteen minutes for a typical service.
Tagging on to what I said above, knowing how long the sermon should be is only half the equation. The other half is knowing how to use that time most effectively, be it less than 10 minutes, more than 20, or something in between.
I agree that knowing how long and how to use that time is critically important. Of course, I’ve never delivered a sermon, so what do I know. It just looks hard to me.
"We live in age of anxiety and dissatisfaction. But we must remember that even these can be gifts from the Holy Spirit. For, without them, what cause would the Wise Men have had to look to the sky for a star?"
Those three sentences remain, by some measure, the best Epiphany sermon I've ever heard. Perhaps only a Trappist could have preached it, though. I found that the emphasis they place on silence makes them acutely aware of not only what needs to be said, but of precisely how much needs to be said. This is not a gift that I, for one, share.
Certainly, a good sermon can be long, and I have heard some of those as well. But sometimes the best are very short indeed. Austin Farrer's Weekly Paragraphs for the Holy Sacrament are another great example of this, being the published form of his homilies for Sunday low masses. He deliberately restricted his length so that no homily had more words than the gospel for the day (often, they have far fewer).
As for the total length of services, I don't mind it when the service is prolonged because of lengthy music or a lengthy sermon (provided both are good). And I will never complain that the ceremonial of a rite takes too long (at least in the Western Rite!). But I hate it when the peace lasts forever and turns into a social hour, or when a person doing the notices decides to turn it into a self-indulgent soporific soliloquy. Unfortunately, both are far too common. And, what's worse is when people then argue that, "oh, we can't do 'x,' it would make the service too long!" (Where "x" is invariably some essential or at least normative part of the liturgy).
I wish more Catholic priests would give homilies like this (aside from the deafness) rather than the Reader's Digest type homilies you usually hear. I almost never hear RC priests cite any work of theology, any papal or conciliar teaching, or any devotional or mystical text written between the Bible and the 20th Century in their homilies. The problem is that those priests that I have heard make use of the richness of Catholic tradition in their preaching tend to be pretty reactionary. It doesn't have to be this way! The tradition of the Church needs to be liberated from arch-conservatives.
I also agree that the ridiculous Reader’s Digest, pre-chewed gook that most Roman Catholic preachers put out is horrifying. At this same cathedral, the gentleman who used to be the main priest could not go a single sermon without talking about his mother. Evidently, she did everything worthy for every Sunday’s lesson. Incredible. He also delivered his sermon in the most peculiar way, almost slouching on the lectern. I didn’t care for him.
Completely agree!
I had a period of the "let me show you how much Greek I know and let me teach you some too" sermon variety. I was glad when that ended.
On the question of the homily, the Cathedral's rotating cast, while different stylistically, are all very good. This past Sunday was just over 15 minutes on Mary and Martha, and very engaging.
My local shack OTOH has, it seems, dropped the Kyrie during my prolonged absence. I consider it and the Gloria integral to communion. Without asking for mercy, how can we then eventually make our confession? There will be a conversation in September. I assure you.
You can of course argue that the Kyrie is effectively included in the Gloria (or at least the Agnus Dei, with similar sentiments). But I'm not convinced by the 'either/or' practice either.
That's certainly not this Anglican's understanding. But I, for one, have never claimed to be "Reformed."
The sort of preacher I enjoy listening to, and, to be honest, the sort of sermon I enjoy preaching when I have a congregation that will put up with it. Most of the time I aim for 12 minutes and come out between 10 and 15. I tend not to be long on anecdotes and filler which enables me to get through a decent amount of material in a normal length of time. The main danger for me seems to be that I can come over as a bit of an intellectual snob/lacking the common touch.
Having one foot planted firmly in the Protestant side of Anglicanism I rarely celebrate HC without preaching, though, at 7:30am on a winter's morning you are probably going to get me trying to achieve something close to @Columba_in_a_Currach's ideal of Trappist brevity and concentration. One reason for this is the handful of people that you get a midweek communions and offices seem to have a higher proportion of those who subconsciously think of themselves as part of "a religious community" than "consumers of religious services."
For some (maybe many) Anglicans (not just in the evangelical wing), opening up the Scriptures is as important an element in worship as breaking the bread at communion - it is the means by which everyone is enabled to share in receiving God’s grace through the Scriptures. Obviously it has to go along with the public reading of Scripture as well. It would be very odd to expound something which had not first been read.
I do not worry about the one hour rule, but I do worry about keeping it tight. By tight I mean avoiding waste of time through poor liturgical practice. In many cases, liturgy is improved by a hefty dose of humility - i.e. just let the liturgy do the work, and do not let your stupid ego get in the way.
Why is it necessary to have the sermon to proclaim the Word please? To put it another way, why are the readings insufficient? As I read it, that makes the sermon of greater worth than the words themselves, and the preacher greater than the author.
I agree. Both with the idea that the Eucharist is less than effective (albeit not, presumably, 'invalid') without the Word, and that the proclamation of the Word does not necessarily involve a sermon. As for preaching the Word in a sermon without having proclaimed it by reading the scripture as part of the liturgy, that seems to me much more corrupt than anything in medieval or pre-Vatican 2 practice.
It’s a different expectation of the role of the sermon, and for that matter, possibly of the listening congregation. But I think we’ve been through all this before. (There was another thread on the topic, but I can’t find it right now.)
The readings are insufficient because we do not believe in God's Word a something static but something dynamic that needs to be broken open or at least attempted to be within the current context. The sermon is thus the culmination of the pastoral visiting and Biblical engagement of the preacher in which he leads the congregation into a communal discernment of the Word.
Anglicanism, at least in its 16th and 17th century origins, was Reformed in its perspective in that it expects that the proper place for the sermon as indicated by the BCP is as part of the Eucharistic liturgy. It seemed strange to the Reformers to read scripture, and not also explain its meaning via preaching at the main services because at that time the Bible was an unknown book.* We have all seen the harm that can be done by folks misunderstanding Scripture and running away with strange ideas. Some of them even come knocking on the door!
The old BCP had a bit of a hierarchy going on with teaching because, as Mattins was seen as preparatory for the Lord's Supper, there was no official order to preach. That became common custom in the 19th century when the old Morning Service of Mattins, Litany, and Ante-Communion began to be broken up. Evening Prayer was though to be the appropriate time to catechize because that was the service servants, apprentices, and so on were like to attend. A sermon with a catechetical focus was often substituted for the catechism later on, but that doesn't invalidate the point. Evening catechesis was also pretty common in Reformed circles, so Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, Parker, Grindal, etc., were not thinking outside of the Reformed box when making these provisions. The odd thing, from the Reformed perspective was the retention of the quire office, but that's a whole other issue.
* - some 21st Christians are not that familiar with it either. Same goes for some of their preachers...
I'm not sure what this has to do with my comments. And I am sure traditional Reformed practice is very different from that of some modern evangelicals (Anglican ones anyway) who seem quite happy to have 'worship services' with very little scriptural content. I agree that preaching is important, but it doesn't seem to make much sense to expound the scriptures without first reading them.
Anglican custom has tended to err in the opposite direction by being happy to celebrate the Eucharist without a sermon. This should never happen at a main Sunday service, but at a short midweek mass I think it is forgivable; often the Gospel reading does speak for itself but a few words of contextualisation are usually helpful.
You (i.e. Christians of the Reformed tradition) may well believe that. But, as I tried to say above, this is not everyone's tradition. Or, rather, I suspect most Christians would agree with the portion I've quoted. But, for many of us, the idea that a Eucharist without a sermon is incomplete -- let alone invalid, as you seem to suggest -- is utterly alien to our sacramental theology. For us, Christ is present in the Eucharist not because the word is preached, but because the Word was made flesh and assured us that he would continue to present in the bread and wine offered on the altar.
Yes, but just to be clear, it's plain that sermons, some of them very long, were a part of widespread liturgical practice long, long before the Reformation came about. It was obviously important that scripture not only be read but that it be explained. Volumes after volumes of patristic homilies attest to that. There should be preaching even if its absence does not invalidate the eucharist.
I, as a Lay Reader, get to preach at Sunday Mass about every other month. I try to limit my homily to one page of A4 text (I'm afraid I need to write it out in full, even if I diverge slightly 'on the day'). 5-8 minutes max.
Ideally, both the Word preached and the Bread broken, should be part of the Eucharistic celebration. If you are in tradition which allows frequent midweek celebrations of the Lord's Supper (which I am) then on weekdays then that isn't always possible. However, on Sundays and major Holydays, then yes - the main service should - to be understood as meaning in this context just short MUST - contain both the Word read and preached, and the Sacrament. Of course YMMV, but that was the message I got from both the Evangelical and the Anglo-Catholic who attempted to train me.