There was reputed to have been one of William the Conqueror's more plug-ugly Norman bishops who had a ball and chain attached to his crozier so that he could use it as a weapon.
I have heard the naughty story of a bishop who had an oversized aspergillum that was nicely weighted for military purposes. If he had a bucket of holy water handy he could both bless 'em and bash 'em. I had my former bishop ask me if they were still made after a particularly rough Diocesan Standing Committee meeting!
I understand that some of the props from the Game of Thrones costume room are on sale. I am certain that the Bishop's Discretionary Fund runs to such expenses.
Two of our former rectors have been elevated to the purple in recent months within the Anglican Church of Australia. In each case, there is a diocesan crozier, as is the case in our own diocese. The elaborate diocesan crozier is presented during the enthronement, and is laid up at the relinquishment of the see, and may be used at formal diocesan occasions. Otherwise, the bishop has a personal crozier which he or she carries on pastoral visits, it being much simpler in style and lighter in weight.
Re croziers: in the Church of England even suffragan bishops, who by definition don’t have a diocese, carry croziers. It appears that bishops do de facto carry croziers as a personal sign of office.
In Western Christianity, the crosier (known as the pastoral staff, from the Latin pastor, shepherd) is shaped like a shepherd's crook. A bishop or church head bears this staff as "shepherd of the flock of God", particularly the community under his canonical jurisdiction, but any bishop, whether or not assigned to a functional diocese, may also use a crosier when conferring sacraments and presiding at liturgies.
The shepherd's-crook style of bishop's staff is now the most prevalent in the West but that hasn't always been the case, and it certainly isn't the sole form today. Also, the situation in Orthodoxy - among Eastern and Western Orthodox alike (I do not know about the Oriental Orthodox) is the same as you describe in Anglicanism, @BroJames for the staff is a standard part of the episcopal insignia: it is carried because the bearer is a bishop and not because he has jurisdiction in any particular territory.
Catholic bishops can only use the crozier by right within their own diocese. They can use it in other jurusdictions with permission of the local ordinary.
In my cathedral we have one crozier that was our first bishop’s crozier, and is kept safely tucked away in a box. Otherwise, croziers and rings and pectoral crosses etc etc belong to the bishop themselves.
Then, maybe just indicating my diocese does things backwards, we must have twenty mitres and copes, and all other kinds of vestments.
So I assume that means, then, that when a bishop gets a new post (as bishop), he will take his crozier with him, as a sign of his episcopal authority. In other words, it is not connected to the legal authority connected to being a bishop in a given diocese but to that sacramental authority granted to the bishop at his consecration.
I guess that's where the disagreement lies. I would say that the authority comes from the bishop's consecration, not his role as the diocesan bishop of a given diocese. Bishops tend to have more than one post and they don't cease to be bishops when they retire.
My understanding is that bishops have powers of the ordinary from the date of their appointment even if they are still priests, but can't ordain until they have been consecrated.
Ordinaries aren't always bishops in the RCC.
I guess that's where the disagreement lies. I would say that the authority comes from the bishop's consecration, not his role as the diocesan bishop of a given diocese. Bishops tend to have more than one post and they don't cease to be bishops when they retire.
The classical position was that a bishop was consecrated to be bishop of X or of Y, and that his authority came from that. There was much consternation in patristic times when it came to be thought that a bishop could be translated from X to Y, and some writers held that it was not possible (whip out your handy Leitzmann if you want precise references). The RCs and Orthodox keep this idea going as their bishops, even if auxiliary or administrative, are still consecrated to titular sees (I had occasion, at a wedding in my home town of Cornwall a few weeks ago, to greet the Bishop of of Melzitanus, suffragan of Carthage). The CoE consecrates its auxiliaries to suffragan sees-- this was also formerly done in the Anglican Church of Canada, but the practice is close to dead as far as I can tell-- as a sign that bishops are consecrated to a particular church and its service, and it is not simply a stepping stone in the promotion stakes.
The titular sees thing has really gotten out of hand, when you have bishops with grand-sounding sees but with no flock, who are essentially bureaucrats. Perhaps even stranger are bishops with sees in cities that no longer exist, but who actually have real flocks in real places, e.g. Metropolitan Gregory of Nyssa, whose cathedral is actually in Johnstown, Pennsylvania.
The English Suffagan thing was Henry VIII's solution to the problem thrown up by leaving the Roman Obedience that the CofE could no longer have bishops consecrated 'in partibus' on a warrant from the Pope. To supply the want a list of then large towns without cathedrals was drawn up so that bishops could be consecrated to supply extra hands. I believe the original list was something like 15 places, but one or two of them became sees between 1540 and 1544. The ones I remember are Hull, Bedford, Dover, and Ipswich - after that I would have to resort to Google. I don't know what it is about modern Suffragan titles but some of them sound pretty convincing - e.g. Whitby; others not so much - Croydon.
The Canons of the jurisdiction I belong to allowed Assistant Bishops before it decided it could cope with the concept of Suffragans or Coadjutors. Even now the resistance to the idea of a suffragan can be smelt when subject is raised.
The titular sees thing has really gotten out of hand, when you have bishops with grand-sounding sees but with no flock, who are essentially bureaucrats. Perhaps even stranger are bishops with sees in cities that no longer exist, but who actually have real flocks in real places, e.g. Metropolitan Gregory of Nyssa, whose cathedral is actually in Johnstown, Pennsylvania.
I put your first point to a now-deceased Irish bishop, who had been an auxiliary in godless Texas when he had been healthier. He made the theoretically valid point that he did have a flock, albeit they were all souls in celestial or infernal spaces, and he did remember them at a monthly mass. A niece of his was an archaeologist and had visited the ruins of his titular see (in Egypt, IIRC) and had taken photographs of it for him. While a wayward lass in her own right, she had sufficient respect for her uncle that she said a rosary on the site. He had also been in contact with his two predecessors and they kept an observation once a year on one of the feasts of the BVM.
While I have been in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, and I have never been in Cappodocia, some googling would suggest that Nyssa is a preferable retirement location, so perhaps Metropolitan Gregory is looking forward to a little cottage with olive trees in his garden.
I'm fairly sure I seen a bishop with one in 3+ sections so they could be stuck together like a tentpole but carried around in a little case.
Here you go - a bit over 18 quid incl. VAT (you might get a...err...used one for a bit less on ebay).
I was going to suggest 10 minutes with a hacksaw and blowlamp to make the spiral 'prong' look more like a crook, but perhaps the object retains its power as a metaphor more, when used in its form 'as found'...
I quite like the English benedictine practice of assigning retired abbots to medieval abbeys. Being called the abbott of Glastonbury must be pretty cool.
I quite like the English benedictine practice of assigning retired abbots to medieval abbeys. Being called the abbott of Glastonbury must be pretty cool.
Can't believe I gave abbot the extra "t."
That would have earned a slapped thigh from the dreaded Miss Blunt back in the day.
My usual Anglo-Catholic worship space is getting a new floor in the nave, and so is closed for the summer. We’ve been holding joint worship sessions with the nearby Episcopal church which is only an extra 8 minute walk away. They are decidedly low, and still do Morning Prayer two Sundays a month. I hadn’t been able to make it yet, but today I was required as a Eucharistic Minister, and so went.
Naturally, it was all odd to me. But what struck me most was that although the altar was fixed, the celebrant didn’t raise any of the elements during the consecration. Just a small bow, and then on to the next. The Father seemed a bit off, since he was just getting back from a month long vacation, but I was wondering if there’s some theology or such behind not elevating during consecration?
The Father seemed a bit off, since he was just getting back from a month long vacation, but I was wondering if there’s some theology or such behind not elevating during consecration?
There sure is, and many conflicts have happened over this. Some have had to do with elevating being a symbol of sacrifice, and those objecting have wanted to avoid any appearance of seeming to believe Christ's sacrifice was being re-presented or redone. Also, those who simply want to keep to the letter of the BCP will probably not elevate anything, as the rubrics just say the celebrant should hold the elements or lay a hand on them, with nothing about lifting them up. Also there's one of the 39 Articles that argues against lifting up (as in Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, or elevating during Holy Communion). Others will know more than I, but it's been a Big Issue in various Anglican circles over the centuries.
Ah yes, the rubrics. I forgot about that bit. Strangely enough, I used to attend a solidly low church and although the priest didn’t genuflect, elevate, genuflect, she did elevate. Of course, everything else was cassock-albs and rite two. Thanks for the information!
Ah yes, the rubrics. I forgot about that bit. Strangely enough, I used to attend a solidly low church and although the priest didn’t genuflect, elevate, genuflect, she did elevate. Of course, everything else was cassock-albs and rite two. Thanks for the information!
The first BCP of 1549 forbade elevation as that ceremony was specifically linked with transubstantiation. Transub. as a doctrine developed between the 11th century and 1214 when it made official by the Fourth Lateran Council, elevation at the Words of Institution appears during the 12th century (about 1170, IIRC) and rapidly becomes universal. Please note, it is only the host at first, the cup came later.
Lutherans with their sacramental union understanding of a localized real presence in the elements tended to retain elevation, but the Reformed with their non-localising concept of the real presence abolished it. Cranmer was a good Bucerian, and gave elevation the old heave-ho in 1549. For the next three hundred years no Anglican/Episcopal elevated in the Roman manner, but it reappeared about 1855 with the Ritualists.
Another issue is the American Prayer of Consecration tends to hover uncertainly between the Eastern and Western forms. It places the Epiclesis after the Words of Institution, and if you are using an Eucharistic Prayer based on the old 1789 form then one then has to make your mind up whether the Invocation is calling the Holy Spirit down to make the bread and wine the effectual signs of Christ's presence, or not. If so, the major elevations at the words of Institution are somewhat misplaced, and if an elevation occurs in the Canon, then the earliest it should occur is the end of the invocation when the consecration is finished, but usually one waits for the so-called minor elevation at the end of the Eucharistic Prayer.
I am not really a Low Churchman, but with the American rite my preference is not to make any elevation until the end of the Prayer, as that seems to fit its structure best. In the UK I would usually elevate at the Words of Institution, unless I was in a definitely Low Church parish, but there the Epiclesis is before, not after, the Verba. N.B. - this does not apply to 1662 where my first instinct is not to elevate - period.
At least for American ACs around here, the genuflect, elevate, genuflect occurs at the end of the consecration prayer for each element.
Being someone raised on the Alcuin Club 'Directory' and 'The Parson's Handbook' my usual practice is to take the paten in right hand and the chalice in the left, and elevate them to about shoulder height at "by whom, and with whom... world without end. Amen." After the Amen put them back on the altar and make a profound bow before continuing with the Lord's Prayer.
Ah yes, the rubrics. I forgot about that bit. Strangely enough, I used to attend a solidly low church and although the priest didn’t genuflect, elevate, genuflect, she did elevate. Of course, everything else was cassock-albs and rite two. Thanks for the information!
The first BCP of 1549 forbade elevation as that ceremony was specifically linked with transubstantiation. Transub. as a doctrine developed between the 11th century and 1214 when it made official by the Fourth Lateran Council, elevation at the Words of Institution appears during the 12th century (about 1170, IIRC) and rapidly becomes universal. Please note, it is only the host at first, the cup came later.
Lutherans with their sacramental union understanding of a localized real presence in the elements tended to retain elevation, but the Reformed with their non-localising concept of the real presence abolished it. Cranmer was a good Bucerian, and gave elevation the old heave-ho in 1549. For the next three hundred years no Anglican/Episcopal elevated in the Roman manner, but it reappeared about 1855 with the Ritualists.
Another issue is the American Prayer of Consecration tends to hover uncertainly between the Eastern and Western forms. It places the Epiclesis after the Words of Institution, and if you are using an Eucharistic Prayer based on the old 1789 form then one then has to make your mind up whether the Invocation is calling the Holy Spirit down to make the bread and wine the effectual signs of Christ's presence, or not. If so, the major elevations at the words of Institution are somewhat misplaced, and if an elevation occurs in the Canon, then the earliest it should occur is the end of the invocation when the consecration is finished, but usually one waits for the so-called minor elevation at the end of the Eucharistic Prayer.
I am not really a Low Churchman, but with the American rite my preference is not to make any elevation until the end of the Prayer, as that seems to fit its structure best. In the UK I would usually elevate at the Words of Institution, unless I was in a definitely Low Church parish, but there the Epiclesis is before, not after, the Verba. N.B. - this does not apply to 1662 where my first instinct is not to elevate - period.
Do not confuse England and Wales with the UK. The American 1789 draws directly from the 1637 Scottish rite, which has the explicit epiclesis you describe. This remains part of the tradition of the Scottish Episcopal Church.
Actually in Common Worship the epiclesis occurs at different points in the different eucharistic prayers.
There was/is a fashion dating from the liturgically-conscious late-60s which discourages the priest from touching the elements at the words of institution, let alone elevating them. The theory being that the whole prayer effects the consccration, so the elevation should accompany the final doxology. There seems to have been a swing back to more traditional practice in recent years, even when mass is celebrated facing the people (which you could argue makes the elevations unnecessary).
I am not that familiar with CW, mainly because I live in the USA, and have done for about the last 20 years. My familiarity with the CofE Alternative Services is more from ASB days. I have run into CW a time or two, but I cannot say I have been horribly impressed by it one way or the other, though I did pick up a fairly favourable impression of the Daily Office, but though the Eucharistic rite was a bit polyester with too many flaming alternatives to navigate.
I was taught (when - confirmation classes or seminary) that the whole prayer is consecratory, so I have always tended to favour elevating just at the doxology at the end, but when in A-C parish it was always a case of when almost in Rome, do what the Romans do, and it became a habit. I have changed a lot over the years, but I cannot say I have gotten any more enthusiastic about any of the three extremes either in liturgy or theology.
I am fairly unusual among my Baptist colleagues in both leading all the Communion service myself (it is often the practice for a serving deacon to lead extempore prayers before the bread and wine are shared) and in tending to use fairly formal liturgical settings of the service. However my practice would be fairly normative in a URC and probably a Methodist setting, though the latter in particular may be more tied to a particular pattern of liturgy than I am.
Our theology is, of course, more "memorialist" than that of Catholics or many Anglicans, hence our Epiclesis has more to do with focusing our minds on the bread and wine and calling God's Spirit down upon the worshippers than with any specific act of consecration. However I do lift the bread and wine before the congregation, either at this point or slightly later when we prepare to serve: this latter however would more be an "invitation to partake" than anything else. (Or perhaps that elevation is little more than a nod to my Anglican upbringing!)
The first time I led a communion service was as a Baptist church member in a Baptist context. I followed the practice I had seen which was (after the thanksgiving prayer(s)) to take the bread and wine into my hands for the 1 Corinthians 11 words of institution. This was paralleled by what I later observed as a regular worshipper in a very MOTR Church of England setting.
I too was taught (by the late great Michael Vasey in the very early 90s) that the consecration was effected by the whole eucharistic prayer voiced by the priest, but intended to be the prayer of the whole gathering. The ‘problem’ with manual actions was their tendency to suggest a moment of consecration and to overemphasise the role of the priest.
Once I was priested I found IME that there was something that felt artificial about not touching the elements at all during the prayer, and subsequently meeting Michael Vasey had a conversation with him about it. He accepted the point, and suggested simply taking the elements in my hands at the relevant point in the words of institution. I have found that to be a good practice.
I seem to go through periods when I elevate at the Institution narrative, and periods when I do not. I am sort of between at the moment, which, as we do not use Sanctus bells, bothers no-one except me, I suspect. Liturgically I have seen pretty much seen (and very often had to do) the whole gamut from North end in choir habit to the full Ritual Notes deal in fiddleback chasuble via versus pop. in a polyester chasuble.
When I was thinking about it last night I remembered that home parish was very minimalist - as I recall it, single sign of the cross at the epiclesis, take the bread and then the cup into the hands at the Institution narrative, then elevation of both bread and cup at the 'dog's holiday.' Theol. Coll. was modern Roman in its ceremonial preferences, and my training incumbent was Ritual Notes (9th edition) - which is where I learned how to do that dinosaur. Mind you, the in-joke about my training incumbent was that he was the world's only sede-vacantist Anglo-Papalist!
My own preferences are conservative MOTR, but I am capable of going up or down the candle as needed - which is useful for getting along with small town parishes, which may well appreciate, even want, a high liturgy on Christmas and Easter, but on ordinary Sundays (if there are such things!) would prefer something straight by the book with simple ceremonial.
Elevator here ... though, er, I too go up and down the candle (think I've slaughtered my metaphors there somewhere) as appropriate in a diocesan role. I too was influenced by the Vasey school of thought, though indirectly I suspect as I've never heard of him, me being antipodean and all that. And very ALCUIN.
I cross myself at the epiclesis (and not the consecration) but that's just my personal devotion. Whether presiding or, er, passengering. The first NZ Order epiclesis is of the elements and the people, the second and third orders (each NZ Order has some some poncy ridiculous name/intention and various changes of style and content as a result) are of the people only, as far as I can see, grammatically speaking.
But I find the elevation at consecration to be a useful punctuation amidst the benevolent torrent of words. It is a dramatic emphasis not to deprive the role of all the gathered people in consecration, which is surely implicit in the rubric that there must be at least one other present when the Eucharist is celebrated, and which at that stage still awaits the "amen" of the people, but to emphasize the holiness of the rite and the sacred, mysterious nature of Christ's words, repeated throughout time and space with strange efficacy despite myriad interpretations.
At the core, though, whether you're the man or woman at the altar, or one of the ones in the pews, is do you believe that if the celebrant doesn't get the 'magic' right, says the words in the 'right' order, or waves their hands around in the wrong way or at the wrong time, then the bread and wine don't become the body and blood or only become so in some sort of half-hearted way?
Unless you have such a view, then I'd have thought how somebody else celebrates is their business. Your job is to receive thankfully. And if it's your privilege to celebrate, the details are up to you, 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.
Absolutely, Enoch. As long as the 'practice of [our] own ecclesiastical household' is upheld, because otherwise how Fr X or the Rev Y prefers to do things becomes a distraction.
Up to a point @Enoch, but while (to take another example) you may not like Pastor Y’s hymn/sing/chorus choices, when she goes for ‘My way’ or ‘Bat out of hell’ you may feel it’s gone beyond what can be tolerated as Christian worship.
The question with less clear cut issues is where and why you consider the line has been crossed.
@BroJames , even if they don't publish an official one, neither ‘My way’ nor ‘Bat out of hell’ are in most ecclesiastical households' recognised hymn books. So in addition to disedifying the faithful, distracting them, getting up their noses and drawing attention to oneself, they aren't 'in accordance with the practice of your own ecclesiastical household'.
I've said before on these boards that I personally don't like the turning one's back on the congregation, huddling over the altar and mumbling position. I can't hear the words properly and I find it easier to engage if I can see what's happening. I also don't like altars that are kitted out with little curtains round three sides of them so as to impose that choice on the celebrant whether he or she likes it or not. But I'm content to attend and receive at services where this is done. It doesn't make the sacred bread and wine become either less, or for that matter more, the body and blood of Christ.
A lot of the chuntering about ceremonial is really down to house style - which is churchmanship dependent - and not making a spectacle of yourself or being a pillock at the altar, or reading desk. My general rule for celebrants is 'thou shalt not be a distraction' - though there are odd congregations that could do to take that piece of advice on board. Personally speaking I seem to like everything that drives you a little crazy, but at the end of the day the actual requirements for the sacrament to be valid are pretty minimal - minister, subject, form, intention. Provided those basics are honoured ceremony does not make any real difference except as a matter of style - which is not to say that style is unimportant, but simply that it does not affect validity. A friend of mine is a traditionally minded RC who usually attends the Extraordinary Form Mass, but every now and again he has to go to the Ordinary Form instead. His comment is 'no need to get precious - it is still a valid Mass!' All of which seem sound advice to me.
I agree, but people draw the lines in different places. The minister is not truly a minister because they are not episcopally ordained within the Apostolic Succession, or because they are the wrong sex for that to be possible. The intention is defective because they intend to commemorate the death of Christ but not to offer the sacrifice of the Mass. It’s not a proper communion because it’s wafers and not real bread, or because it’s leavened not unleavened, or because the gluten has been removed, or because the wine is not fermented juice of the grape, but unfermented, or the fermented juice of something else.
While ‘minister, subject, form, intention’ may in the end be what it boils down to for everyone that is a very Catholic way of expressing it, and may not command instant universal agreement.
@BroJames I take your point. That's how there are different denominations which don't recognise each others liturgical activities. However, within one's own ecclesiastical household, this does not apply, or should not. If for an individual it does, he or she should be asking themselves either 'am I in the wrong household?' or much more probably 'am I being too precise/liturgically smug (choose adjective to fit)?'.
What none of us should be doing is 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.
Those in the pews have no control over what the person celebrating does, yet alone his or her state of mind. IMHO, it's good theology and any alternative is not, that the only 'intention' that matters is an intention to celebrate the Eucharist/Holy Communion/Lord's Supper/Mass/Divine Liturgy/Breaking of Bread Service, not any particular interpretation as to its nature.
Besides, for those of us that are CofE, I take this as wrapped up in Article 26.
While ‘minister, subject, form, intention’ may in the end be what it boils down to for everyone that is a very Catholic way of expressing it, and may not command instant universal agreement.
I was trained in an Anglo-Catholic environment, so I tend to express theological concepts in a Catholic manner. To this day I don't quite know why I plumped for an Anglo-Catholic Theol. Coll. but it may have had something to do with the fact I felt like I needed my rather too MOTR norms gently shaking up.
A new question. I hope this doesn't shock Catholic shipmates.
Last Thursday, 15th August, is now in the CofE calendar as "The Blessed Virgin Mary". This is a recent innovation. It isn't in the old 1662 calendar even as an unprovided for event.
'Obviously' it's been added to accommodate Anglo-Catholics who want to celebrate the Assumption. Walsingham makes a big thing of it. However, since the Reformation neither the Assumption nor the Dormitian have been part of the more general CofE tradition. Not only is no view prescribed but it hasn't been part of popular tradition either. It may well have been a feature of late medieval piety, but if it was, it seems to have been forgotten about fairly quickly. It's also something scripture is completely silent about. The current version of RC teaching didn't become official until 1950.
Unlike other saints, there are no relics of Mary, and no tomb. Quite a few Protestant theologians over the last 450+ years seem to have thought that either after she died or just before, as Jesus loved his mother, he may well have taken her into heaven. But they don't seem to have been very bothered about the point, or even that interested.
My question is this. If you're CofE or Anglican from somewhere else, but MOTR, evangelical, or even perhaps AffCath, on the 15th August what are you celebrating/remembering? Is it in your calendar at all? If you have a role that authorises you to preach, what would you speak about? And what is there that's different about what this date is about from 25th March or the last Sunday before Christmas?
As advice, the readings aren't that helpful. The gospel of the day is the Magnificat. That's great, but we have it every evening of the year.
The CW Gospel for Our Lady in August is a bit of a mystery of the what were they thinking variety. We get Genesis 3: 9 - 15 and then either Luke 1: 41-50, or John 19. 25 -27, which is a local thang! The former is the 1950 RC Gospel I would think as it tallies with my English Missal.
My question is this. If you're CofE or Anglican from somewhere else, but MOTR, evangelical, or even perhaps AffCath, on the 15th August what are you celebrating/remembering? Is it in your calendar at all? If you have a role that authorises you to preach, what would you speak about? And what is there that's different about what this date is about from 25th March or the last Sunday before Christmas?
The 1979 USA BCP has Aug. 15 as St. Mary the Virgin, a major feast, and also one of those with a provision for a 1st Evensong on the eve, as the Daily Office Lectionary gives two sets of psalms and lessons for Evening Prayer of the feast. Sort of an embedded eve for those who want to elevate the feast, and a simple choice of options for those who don't. This is done for St. Michael and All Angels as well.
One fine sermon I read pointed to a passage from Galatians 4 as a key to understanding Mary's role aright: "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children."
The Assumption/Falling Asleep of the BVM is one of the catholic bits I do not have a problem with, but would not define it as dogma. However, let me be quite clear that I believe that the BVM died and was assumed into heaven without having to wait for the general resurrection like the rest of us. As such I would have availed myself of swapping my annual commemoration of Our Lady from 8th September to 15th August as soon as CW allowed had I still been living in Blighty.
The BCP seemed to expect that the Annunciation would be celebrated as the major feast of Our Lady. That is odd because it is really a feast of Our Lord (in which Mary plays a major role of course). The evangelicals in General Synod succeeded at first in resisting the pressure to reinstate 15 August, and the ASB compromised with her Nativity on 8 September. It was only in 2000 with Common Worship that the C of E came into line with the majority of Christendom (TEC and other Anglicans as well as the RCs and Orthodox) and her major feast was celebrated on 15 August. Though I think many churches use the excuse of summer holidays to ignore it or keep a very lack-lustre festival.
I do think it is important that we are in line with the wider church in this. Specific doctrinal details are irrelevant, but as the cockney said, 'if our Lidy ain't in 'eaven, where the 'ell is she?'
Well, officially it was a celebration of Mary and her relationship with our Lord. As far as anything I can recall from the service being specifically about the assumption, the connection seems to have been that because Mary's physical body had born Christ, it was not allowed to corrupt in the grave but on her death taken immediately up into heaven. Unofficially it was a good excuse to have a splendid sung mass and a barbecue mainly for ourselves in the middle of the quiet holiday season.
Annunciation can be a bit problematic given that it drops in Holy Week from time to time, and the newer Tables of Occurance and Concurance boot it to April some time. Sarum would at least allow it to be anticipated if it fell in the first four days of H.W.. The 1879 table made provision to keep say Tuesday in Holy Week and commemorate the Annunciation if they fell together. Also, the Easter Octave was open, so you would only have to transfer to Easter-Wednesday in those days if it dropped in the Triduum. As case of, IMHO,
They can improve things as much as they like; but they won't make them any better! Tom Sharp "Porterhouse Blue."
My question is this. If you're CofE or Anglican from somewhere else, but MOTR, evangelical, or even perhaps AffCath, on the 15th August what are you celebrating/remembering? Is it in your calendar at all? If you have a role that authorises you to preach, what would you speak about? And what is there that's different about what this date is about from 25th March or the last Sunday before Christmas?
As advice, the readings aren't that helpful. The gospel of the day is the Magnificat. That's great, but we have it every evening of the year.
And that's what our sermon was on. Just as we remember other saints on their day, 15 august is Mary's and there's a lot to remember her for. But there's nothing scriptural to say that either she was assumed into heaven in any sense, nor that she simply fell asleep. This from a good, solid, highish, but basically MOTR priest.
I remember a discussion I had some years ago with a Presbyterian minister from the continuing church. He simply denied that Mary was assumed, and questioned how anyone could think so. My response was that if Elijah could be assumed by a fiery chariot rathe than suffer death, would not Christ wish to save the Theotokos from death.
Though I think many churches use the excuse of summer holidays to ignore it or keep a very lack-lustre festival.
In my Anglican teenage days, having returned to the C of E from the CPWI, I would travel to another parish for mass for the Assumption and other things that didn't feature in the liturgical life of my family parish, (which didn't even really bother with Holy Week, so expecting the Assumption to be celebrated would have been a delusion). This was at the time of the introduction of Common Worship, although it had been part of the tradition of this particular parish for as long as anybody could remember.
In one year, I remember the priest joking that he thought that placing the primary feast of the Mother of God in the middle of August was a Protestant plot to ensure that services would be poorly attended.
It didn't prevent a solemn mass being offered each year with at least 30 people present.
I heard a sermon where the explanation that what Mary got we will all get.
That was essentially the crux of my homily at Vespers last night (we transferred). Our path of theosis, and the goal of the Christian life, is life in the presence of God, experienced as oneness with his energies. The Dormition and Assumption of the Mother of God are an example of the promise that God grants to each of us who strive to conform our lives to Him. She is God's "one I prepared earlier". I alluded to the Transfiguration, recently celebrated, in which we see in the brilliance of Christ, the human nature fully deified, which is a possibility for each of us, and how it is possible for each and every one of us to attain to the same.
I also made mention of the various accounts of the Dormition and Assumption which survive. While the dating of the texts as we have them is generally about the 5th-6th centuries, this doesn't negate the fact that, despite being from various parts of the world, they essentially tell the same story (with variations on minor details), which shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody, as it suggests a common received tradition.
Particularly beautiful, I find, is the version in which the holy Apostle Thomas arrives characteristically late, and refuses to believe that the Mother of God has died until he sees her body for himself, causing the tomb to be opened and revealed to be empty. The collect for the day makes mention of this.
During Vespers, we had the procession of the Mother of God to her tomb, and the veneration of the Dormition icon by the people. It was really very beautiful.
I'm not hugely Marian, I guess, though I am a fair way up the candle. However I was asked to preach and preside at a St Mary's this year (translated to yesterday) so I drew (loosely) on Central American and Asian feminist theologies to draw Mary as a focus and impetus of justice and "womanspirit rising" ...
... My response was that if Elijah could be assumed by a fiery chariot rather than suffer death, would not Christ wish to save the Theotokos from death.
That makes sense to me.
@Cyprian do you know if any of those accounts are on the web in English? Do you happen to have any links to them?
Incidentally. what does CPWI stand for? I don't think I've met that one.
Comments
I understand that some of the props from the Game of Thrones costume room are on sale. I am certain that the Bishop's Discretionary Fund runs to such expenses.
The shepherd's-crook style of bishop's staff is now the most prevalent in the West but that hasn't always been the case, and it certainly isn't the sole form today. Also, the situation in Orthodoxy - among Eastern and Western Orthodox alike (I do not know about the Oriental Orthodox) is the same as you describe in Anglicanism, @BroJames for the staff is a standard part of the episcopal insignia: it is carried because the bearer is a bishop and not because he has jurisdiction in any particular territory.
Ordinaries aren't always bishops in the RCC.
The classical position was that a bishop was consecrated to be bishop of X or of Y, and that his authority came from that. There was much consternation in patristic times when it came to be thought that a bishop could be translated from X to Y, and some writers held that it was not possible (whip out your handy Leitzmann if you want precise references). The RCs and Orthodox keep this idea going as their bishops, even if auxiliary or administrative, are still consecrated to titular sees (I had occasion, at a wedding in my home town of Cornwall a few weeks ago, to greet the Bishop of of Melzitanus, suffragan of Carthage). The CoE consecrates its auxiliaries to suffragan sees-- this was also formerly done in the Anglican Church of Canada, but the practice is close to dead as far as I can tell-- as a sign that bishops are consecrated to a particular church and its service, and it is not simply a stepping stone in the promotion stakes.
The Canons of the jurisdiction I belong to allowed Assistant Bishops before it decided it could cope with the concept of Suffragans or Coadjutors. Even now the resistance to the idea of a suffragan can be smelt when subject is raised.
I put your first point to a now-deceased Irish bishop, who had been an auxiliary in godless Texas when he had been healthier. He made the theoretically valid point that he did have a flock, albeit they were all souls in celestial or infernal spaces, and he did remember them at a monthly mass. A niece of his was an archaeologist and had visited the ruins of his titular see (in Egypt, IIRC) and had taken photographs of it for him. While a wayward lass in her own right, she had sufficient respect for her uncle that she said a rosary on the site. He had also been in contact with his two predecessors and they kept an observation once a year on one of the feasts of the BVM.
While I have been in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, and I have never been in Cappodocia, some googling would suggest that Nyssa is a preferable retirement location, so perhaps Metropolitan Gregory is looking forward to a little cottage with olive trees in his garden.
Here you go - a bit over 18 quid incl. VAT (you might get a...err...used one for a bit less on ebay).
I was going to suggest 10 minutes with a hacksaw and blowlamp to make the spiral 'prong' look more like a crook, but perhaps the object retains its power as a metaphor more, when used in its form 'as found'...
Can't believe I gave abbot the extra "t."
That would have earned a slapped thigh from the dreaded Miss Blunt back in the day.
Naturally, it was all odd to me. But what struck me most was that although the altar was fixed, the celebrant didn’t raise any of the elements during the consecration. Just a small bow, and then on to the next. The Father seemed a bit off, since he was just getting back from a month long vacation, but I was wondering if there’s some theology or such behind not elevating during consecration?
There sure is, and many conflicts have happened over this. Some have had to do with elevating being a symbol of sacrifice, and those objecting have wanted to avoid any appearance of seeming to believe Christ's sacrifice was being re-presented or redone. Also, those who simply want to keep to the letter of the BCP will probably not elevate anything, as the rubrics just say the celebrant should hold the elements or lay a hand on them, with nothing about lifting them up. Also there's one of the 39 Articles that argues against lifting up (as in Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, or elevating during Holy Communion). Others will know more than I, but it's been a Big Issue in various Anglican circles over the centuries.
The first BCP of 1549 forbade elevation as that ceremony was specifically linked with transubstantiation. Transub. as a doctrine developed between the 11th century and 1214 when it made official by the Fourth Lateran Council, elevation at the Words of Institution appears during the 12th century (about 1170, IIRC) and rapidly becomes universal. Please note, it is only the host at first, the cup came later.
Lutherans with their sacramental union understanding of a localized real presence in the elements tended to retain elevation, but the Reformed with their non-localising concept of the real presence abolished it. Cranmer was a good Bucerian, and gave elevation the old heave-ho in 1549. For the next three hundred years no Anglican/Episcopal elevated in the Roman manner, but it reappeared about 1855 with the Ritualists.
Another issue is the American Prayer of Consecration tends to hover uncertainly between the Eastern and Western forms. It places the Epiclesis after the Words of Institution, and if you are using an Eucharistic Prayer based on the old 1789 form then one then has to make your mind up whether the Invocation is calling the Holy Spirit down to make the bread and wine the effectual signs of Christ's presence, or not. If so, the major elevations at the words of Institution are somewhat misplaced, and if an elevation occurs in the Canon, then the earliest it should occur is the end of the invocation when the consecration is finished, but usually one waits for the so-called minor elevation at the end of the Eucharistic Prayer.
I am not really a Low Churchman, but with the American rite my preference is not to make any elevation until the end of the Prayer, as that seems to fit its structure best. In the UK I would usually elevate at the Words of Institution, unless I was in a definitely Low Church parish, but there the Epiclesis is before, not after, the Verba. N.B. - this does not apply to 1662 where my first instinct is not to elevate - period.
At least for American ACs around here, the genuflect, elevate, genuflect occurs at the end of the consecration prayer for each element.
Being someone raised on the Alcuin Club 'Directory' and 'The Parson's Handbook' my usual practice is to take the paten in right hand and the chalice in the left, and elevate them to about shoulder height at "by whom, and with whom... world without end. Amen." After the Amen put them back on the altar and make a profound bow before continuing with the Lord's Prayer.
Do not confuse England and Wales with the UK. The American 1789 draws directly from the 1637 Scottish rite, which has the explicit epiclesis you describe. This remains part of the tradition of the Scottish Episcopal Church.
There was/is a fashion dating from the liturgically-conscious late-60s which discourages the priest from touching the elements at the words of institution, let alone elevating them. The theory being that the whole prayer effects the consccration, so the elevation should accompany the final doxology. There seems to have been a swing back to more traditional practice in recent years, even when mass is celebrated facing the people (which you could argue makes the elevations unnecessary).
I was taught (when - confirmation classes or seminary) that the whole prayer is consecratory, so I have always tended to favour elevating just at the doxology at the end, but when in A-C parish it was always a case of when almost in Rome, do what the Romans do, and it became a habit. I have changed a lot over the years, but I cannot say I have gotten any more enthusiastic about any of the three extremes either in liturgy or theology.
Our theology is, of course, more "memorialist" than that of Catholics or many Anglicans, hence our Epiclesis has more to do with focusing our minds on the bread and wine and calling God's Spirit down upon the worshippers than with any specific act of consecration. However I do lift the bread and wine before the congregation, either at this point or slightly later when we prepare to serve: this latter however would more be an "invitation to partake" than anything else. (Or perhaps that elevation is little more than a nod to my Anglican upbringing!)
I too was taught (by the late great Michael Vasey in the very early 90s) that the consecration was effected by the whole eucharistic prayer voiced by the priest, but intended to be the prayer of the whole gathering. The ‘problem’ with manual actions was their tendency to suggest a moment of consecration and to overemphasise the role of the priest.
Once I was priested I found IME that there was something that felt artificial about not touching the elements at all during the prayer, and subsequently meeting Michael Vasey had a conversation with him about it. He accepted the point, and suggested simply taking the elements in my hands at the relevant point in the words of institution. I have found that to be a good practice.
When I was thinking about it last night I remembered that home parish was very minimalist - as I recall it, single sign of the cross at the epiclesis, take the bread and then the cup into the hands at the Institution narrative, then elevation of both bread and cup at the 'dog's holiday.' Theol. Coll. was modern Roman in its ceremonial preferences, and my training incumbent was Ritual Notes (9th edition) - which is where I learned how to do that dinosaur. Mind you, the in-joke about my training incumbent was that he was the world's only sede-vacantist Anglo-Papalist!
My own preferences are conservative MOTR, but I am capable of going up or down the candle as needed - which is useful for getting along with small town parishes, which may well appreciate, even want, a high liturgy on Christmas and Easter, but on ordinary Sundays (if there are such things!) would prefer something straight by the book with simple ceremonial.
I cross myself at the epiclesis (and not the consecration) but that's just my personal devotion. Whether presiding or, er, passengering. The first NZ Order epiclesis is of the elements and the people, the second and third orders (each NZ Order has some some poncy ridiculous name/intention and various changes of style and content as a result) are of the people only, as far as I can see, grammatically speaking.
But I find the elevation at consecration to be a useful punctuation amidst the benevolent torrent of words. It is a dramatic emphasis not to deprive the role of all the gathered people in consecration, which is surely implicit in the rubric that there must be at least one other present when the Eucharist is celebrated, and which at that stage still awaits the "amen" of the people, but to emphasize the holiness of the rite and the sacred, mysterious nature of Christ's words, repeated throughout time and space with strange efficacy despite myriad interpretations.
Or something.
At the core, though, whether you're the man or woman at the altar, or one of the ones in the pews, is do you believe that if the celebrant doesn't get the 'magic' right, says the words in the 'right' order, or waves their hands around in the wrong way or at the wrong time, then the bread and wine don't become the body and blood or only become so in some sort of half-hearted way?
Unless you have such a view, then I'd have thought how somebody else celebrates is their business. Your job is to receive thankfully. And if it's your privilege to celebrate, the details are up to you, 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.
Or have I got that completely wrong?
The question with less clear cut issues is where and why you consider the line has been crossed.
I've said before on these boards that I personally don't like the turning one's back on the congregation, huddling over the altar and mumbling position. I can't hear the words properly and I find it easier to engage if I can see what's happening. I also don't like altars that are kitted out with little curtains round three sides of them so as to impose that choice on the celebrant whether he or she likes it or not. But I'm content to attend and receive at services where this is done. It doesn't make the sacred bread and wine become either less, or for that matter more, the body and blood of Christ.
While ‘minister, subject, form, intention’ may in the end be what it boils down to for everyone that is a very Catholic way of expressing it, and may not command instant universal agreement.
What none of us should be doing is 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.
Those in the pews have no control over what the person celebrating does, yet alone his or her state of mind. IMHO, it's good theology and any alternative is not, that the only 'intention' that matters is an intention to celebrate the Eucharist/Holy Communion/Lord's Supper/Mass/Divine Liturgy/Breaking of Bread Service, not any particular interpretation as to its nature.
Besides, for those of us that are CofE, I take this as wrapped up in Article 26.
I was trained in an Anglo-Catholic environment, so I tend to express theological concepts in a Catholic manner. To this day I don't quite know why I plumped for an Anglo-Catholic Theol. Coll. but it may have had something to do with the fact I felt like I needed my rather too MOTR norms gently shaking up.
Last Thursday, 15th August, is now in the CofE calendar as "The Blessed Virgin Mary". This is a recent innovation. It isn't in the old 1662 calendar even as an unprovided for event.
'Obviously' it's been added to accommodate Anglo-Catholics who want to celebrate the Assumption. Walsingham makes a big thing of it. However, since the Reformation neither the Assumption nor the Dormitian have been part of the more general CofE tradition. Not only is no view prescribed but it hasn't been part of popular tradition either. It may well have been a feature of late medieval piety, but if it was, it seems to have been forgotten about fairly quickly. It's also something scripture is completely silent about. The current version of RC teaching didn't become official until 1950.
Unlike other saints, there are no relics of Mary, and no tomb. Quite a few Protestant theologians over the last 450+ years seem to have thought that either after she died or just before, as Jesus loved his mother, he may well have taken her into heaven. But they don't seem to have been very bothered about the point, or even that interested.
My question is this. If you're CofE or Anglican from somewhere else, but MOTR, evangelical, or even perhaps AffCath, on the 15th August what are you celebrating/remembering? Is it in your calendar at all? If you have a role that authorises you to preach, what would you speak about? And what is there that's different about what this date is about from 25th March or the last Sunday before Christmas?
As advice, the readings aren't that helpful. The gospel of the day is the Magnificat. That's great, but we have it every evening of the year.
The 1979 USA BCP has Aug. 15 as St. Mary the Virgin, a major feast, and also one of those with a provision for a 1st Evensong on the eve, as the Daily Office Lectionary gives two sets of psalms and lessons for Evening Prayer of the feast. Sort of an embedded eve for those who want to elevate the feast, and a simple choice of options for those who don't. This is done for St. Michael and All Angels as well.
One fine sermon I read pointed to a passage from Galatians 4 as a key to understanding Mary's role aright: "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children."
I do think it is important that we are in line with the wider church in this. Specific doctrinal details are irrelevant, but as the cockney said, 'if our Lidy ain't in 'eaven, where the 'ell is she?'
They can improve things as much as they like; but they won't make them any better! Tom Sharp "Porterhouse Blue."
And that's what our sermon was on. Just as we remember other saints on their day, 15 august is Mary's and there's a lot to remember her for. But there's nothing scriptural to say that either she was assumed into heaven in any sense, nor that she simply fell asleep. This from a good, solid, highish, but basically MOTR priest.
I remember a discussion I had some years ago with a Presbyterian minister from the continuing church. He simply denied that Mary was assumed, and questioned how anyone could think so. My response was that if Elijah could be assumed by a fiery chariot rathe than suffer death, would not Christ wish to save the Theotokos from death.
In my Anglican teenage days, having returned to the C of E from the CPWI, I would travel to another parish for mass for the Assumption and other things that didn't feature in the liturgical life of my family parish, (which didn't even really bother with Holy Week, so expecting the Assumption to be celebrated would have been a delusion). This was at the time of the introduction of Common Worship, although it had been part of the tradition of this particular parish for as long as anybody could remember.
In one year, I remember the priest joking that he thought that placing the primary feast of the Mother of God in the middle of August was a Protestant plot to ensure that services would be poorly attended.
It didn't prevent a solemn mass being offered each year with at least 30 people present.
That was essentially the crux of my homily at Vespers last night (we transferred). Our path of theosis, and the goal of the Christian life, is life in the presence of God, experienced as oneness with his energies. The Dormition and Assumption of the Mother of God are an example of the promise that God grants to each of us who strive to conform our lives to Him. She is God's "one I prepared earlier". I alluded to the Transfiguration, recently celebrated, in which we see in the brilliance of Christ, the human nature fully deified, which is a possibility for each of us, and how it is possible for each and every one of us to attain to the same.
I also made mention of the various accounts of the Dormition and Assumption which survive. While the dating of the texts as we have them is generally about the 5th-6th centuries, this doesn't negate the fact that, despite being from various parts of the world, they essentially tell the same story (with variations on minor details), which shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody, as it suggests a common received tradition.
Particularly beautiful, I find, is the version in which the holy Apostle Thomas arrives characteristically late, and refuses to believe that the Mother of God has died until he sees her body for himself, causing the tomb to be opened and revealed to be empty. The collect for the day makes mention of this.
During Vespers, we had the procession of the Mother of God to her tomb, and the veneration of the Dormition icon by the people. It was really very beautiful.
... I managed to get away alive
@Cyprian do you know if any of those accounts are on the web in English? Do you happen to have any links to them?
Incidentally. what does CPWI stand for? I don't think I've met that one.