One very peculiar anomaly for me is the position of the Sermon. After the Creed, an offertory sentence is read, the 'collection' of alms taken in silence, the elements placed upon the Holy Table, the chalice filled and the Lavabo performed. Then the Sermon is preached, and hands are not washed further . The rubric says "A homily (sermon) may be given here or after the Offertory".
Is this a common practice within the BCP tradition?
That is not the official rite. Rite 2 (and 1662) indeed has the Creed immediately after the Gospel. But that is then followed by the Sermon and only then comes the offertory. I don't know where the rubric that you quote comes from but it's not from any official source afaik.
Perhaps this is some strange monastic adaptation? In the Dominican Rite the offertory and lavabo either take place at the beginning of mass, in low masses, or between the reading of the epistle and gospel at high mass. I think was also the case in the Sarum use. Definitely before the creed and sermon, but not quite as Qoheleth describes.
I wonder if a previous Vicar at Qoheleth's church one morning - in the dim and distant past - simply forgot to preach the sermon after the Creed, and proceeded with the Offertory sentence?
Recollecting himself (it's an early morning service, and he may have had a late night the evening beforeIYSWIM), he preached his sermon in the place as described.
If only more clergy would forget to preach 😀 - but a plausible explanation.
I recall a priest who once forget to consecrate the special host necessary for benediction of the MBS - we were treated to the rare experience of 'low' benediction. Though this rite does appear in various liturgical manuals, that was the only time I witnessed it.
The whole thing sounds as odd as a nine bob note! The sermon goes either before the Creed or after the Creed most of the time. My old bishop used to joke that having the sermon after the Creed was to remind the preacher not to preach heresy, and having it before was to correct any heresies that had been preached. However, sermon after the offertory is a new one on me, and muddies the division between the liturgy of the Word, and that of the Table.
Yes, do ask. If you put the question nicely (as I'm sure you will!), the priest should have no reason to object.
I doubt if it's a reference to a monastic rite, but you never know. As it's in the printed service booklet, someone must have established it, at some time.
In Reformed circles, yes it is a common idea. Among Anglicans on this board, no nearly so much.
I got it from my Anglican priest father, if memory serves, but he is a classic broad church Anglican and not fussy about where he takes his theology and practice from.
In an Anglican eucharist is there not always a reading from the scriptures - including the Gospels ? . Is that not a liturgy of the Word ? Does there absolutely need to be a further elucidation of the Word in the form of a sermon ?
The whole thing sounds as odd as a nine bob note! The sermon goes either before the Creed or after the Creed most of the time.
Very true, very true indeed. The lucky days are when there's no sermon.
I vaguely recall being taught that in public worship one should not break the bread without also breaking the word first. Is that not a common idea?
There are the 3 standard readings - OT, NT and Gospel - and 4 if you count the Psalm. That well and truly breaks open the word and in the best possible way
In an Anglican eucharist is there not always a reading from the scriptures - including the Gospels ? . Is that not a liturgy of the Word ? Does there absolutely need to be a further elucidation of the Word in the form of a sermon ?
I seem to recall that in something like "Comic Washup" there is a rubric along the lines of "there shall be at least two readings at the Eucharist of which one shall be taken from the Gospel." There is probably another rubric further on that allows one to get out of that requirement in certain circumstances, but that reflects the general understanding.
Although I am an Anglican I am at the Reformed end of the spectrum (it hasn't always been that way, but I was uncomfortable with Anglo-Catholicism, so I stopped playing along in the end) so I would be uncomfortable with the Sunday Eucharist being celebrated without an adequate ministry of the word - which would include two lessons from Scripture and a sermon.
On the other hand, I am somewhat alarmed by Anglicans of a similar theological stripe to me who reduce the liturgy to the bare minimum. That sort of approach is a hangover from the Enlightenment, and really isn't native to the Reformed tradition where the approach was more in the loosely liturgical camp - i.e. the service had the same shape each week, but things like the General Prayer might be variations on a theme, not precise the same each week. Baptism and the Lord's Supper were fully liturgical in the Dutch and German traditions. I don't know much about the Swiss.
Form the RCC Code of Canon Law On Sundays and Holydays of Obligation there is to be a Homily at every Mass that is celebrated with the people attending, and it may not be omitted without a grave reason. On other days it is recommended, especially on the weekdays of Advent, Lent, and Easter Time, as well as on other festive days and occasions when the people come to church in greater numbers.
I stand to be corrected, but I think Cranmer prescribed a sermon to be preached at every celebration of the Lord's Supper, as far back as the original 1549 BCP.
At Our Place, we have a brief (very brief - 2 minutes max) at each weekday Mass, usually (but not invariably) focussing on the Gospel. At Sunday Mass, we have the 3 readings + Psalm as per the C of E version of the lectionary.
I stand to be corrected, but I think Cranmer prescribed a sermon to be preached at every celebration of the Lord's Supper, as far back as the original 1549 BCP.
At Our Place, we have a brief (very brief - 2 minutes max) at each weekday Mass, usually (but not invariably) focussing on the Gospel. At Sunday Mass, we have the 3 readings + Psalm as per the C of E version of the lectionary.
Much the same at ours. Sometimes on weekdays the brief homily is incorporated into the greeting to give the folks something to focus on during the readings. Seems to work.
I am always, or nearly always, pleased to have an exposition of the Word at any service which I attend. I thought ,however, that the movement at the Reformation was supposed to encourage people to read the Bible for themselves and decide for themselves what it means without the intervention of any priest. As several people have said an Anglican eucharist, just like a Catholic eucharist, or indeed an Orthodox eucharist or a Lutheran eucharist has an inbuilt section of readings from scripture, culminating in a passage taken from one of the Gospels. If these passages are in a language understood by the people do they absolutely need any further commentary ?
I am always, or nearly always, pleased to have an exposition of the Word at any service which I attend. I thought ,however, that the movement at the Reformation was supposed to encourage people to read the Bible for themselves and decide for themselves what it means without the intervention of any priest. As several people have said an Anglican eucharist, just like a Catholic eucharist, or indeed an Orthodox eucharist or a Lutheran eucharist has an inbuilt section of readings from scripture, culminating in a passage taken from one of the Gospels. If these passages are in a language understood by the people do they absolutely need any further commentary ?
Certainly there was an expectation that having the Bible in the vulgar tongue would enable people to see for themselves what it meant, but it was not intended to do away with preaching.
And no they don’t ‘absolutely’ need further commentary, but preaching is more than commentary, and it is highly desirable that it should be provided if at all possible.
Well, one might think not, but, if so, why did Cranmer insist on a sermon at every Communion service (which was intended to be THE main service each Sunday, and Holyday)?
As @Alan29 says, a very brief homily can help focus otherwise busy/distracted people on the Word of God.
I would have thought having the Bible available to all was not intended to remove the need for sound preaching but to help guard preachers against error by giving their flock the means to challenge them.
The Book of Common Prayer is perfectly clear on the matter. The sermon or homily comes after the notices:
Then shall follow the Sermon, or one of the Homilies already set forth, or hereafter to be set forth, by authority.
Then shall the Priest return to the Lord's Table, and begin the Offertory, saying one or more of these Sentences following, as he thinketh most convenient in his discretion.
The whole thing sounds as odd as a nine bob note! The sermon goes either before the Creed or after the Creed most of the time.
Very true, very true indeed. The lucky days are when there's no sermon.
I vaguely recall being taught that in public worship one should not break the bread without also breaking the word first. Is that not a common idea?
There are the 3 standard readings - OT, NT and Gospel - and 4 if you count the Psalm. That well and truly breaks open the word and in the best possible way
"Breaks open"? If you believe that the you also seem to think that interpretation is a personal rather than a shared matter. In the Reformed the local congregation is a hermenuetical community and the Sunday sermon is supposed to be based as much on the pastoral engagement of the preacher with the community as on the text of the Bible. Ideally there should also be space for debate but that is difficult to produce.
I must say I get sick of constant whinging about "the sermon." For 35 years I've put a shitload of hard work into research and preparation, as well as delivery, of these components of liturgy. They not only break open the word, but engage word and world in a manner that offers hope, and a myriad other gospel components, in a world somewhat short of light-in-darkness.
Are sermons perfect? No. They are not a particularly good pedagogical form. But they are a liturgical component, essential to the liturgical drama in most circumstances.
Are all preachers good? No. But that is the responsibility of trainers to rectify ... these days I work in that field too so I know how much effort is being made. Not enough. But that's my job, to up-game that.
Get trained in preaching skills if you think you (no finger pointing here ... any of us who whinge) you can do better. You may be the next Wesley. Or not.
But if you don't want a sermon* have a cup of (really bad) instant coffee and sit down and watch Songs of Praise or something.
As it happens I'm heading off - ninety minutes each way - to preach a sermon now. It's a fundamental part of presiding and hopefully bringing a word of light life justice compassion hope comfort et cetera to a tiny atom of the Body of Christ faced with an overheating planet and disintegrating international leadership. Perhaps I should omit it and tell them to watch whatever the fuck is the latest fluffy escapism so-called reality TV schmaltz instead. Here - have some bread and wine and piss off.
After all I could have spent those several hours of prep doing something useful. Playing golf or something.
*Since I'm a host here I have restrained myself from what I really want to say. But it could be expressed in the acronym STFU. Then I would have issued myself a warning. And probably ignored it.
In an Anglican eucharist is there not always a reading from the scriptures - including the Gospels ? . Is that not a liturgy of the Word ? Does there absolutely need to be a further elucidation of the Word in the form of a sermon ?
I believe Richard Hooker argued that preaching is not absolutely needed, but that the Word can speak for itself (in his Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity).
But surely you never just give them bread and wine and tell them to piss off. If you are following a standard Anglican eucharist the first part of that will have been a Liturgy of the Word. I appreciate as much as anyone else a good sermon and a thought provoking elucidation of the Word,but it is the Word itself which is the more important.
Equally you don’t just consecrate the bread and wine and leave them on the altar. Rather you administer them to the communicants which is what the sermon does (should do) for the word.
I am always, or nearly always, pleased to have an exposition of the Word at any service which I attend. I thought ,however, that the movement at the Reformation was supposed to encourage people to read the Bible for themselves and decide for themselves what it means without the intervention of any priest. As several people have said an Anglican eucharist, just like a Catholic eucharist, or indeed an Orthodox eucharist or a Lutheran eucharist has an inbuilt section of readings from scripture, culminating in a passage taken from one of the Gospels. If these passages are in a language understood by the people do they absolutely need any further commentary ?
This is ground that has been trod here many times over the years, but as @Jengie Jon notes, from a Reformed perspective, the sermon/homily is not “further commentary” on the readings. It is perhaps better described as active engagement with one or more of the readings to explore and discern what the Spirit might be saying to the gathered community in this time at this place. And there is an expectation that the Spirit is at work in that exploration, making Christ present.
I am always, or nearly always, pleased to have an exposition of the Word at any service which I attend. I thought ,however, that the movement at the Reformation was supposed to encourage people to read the Bible for themselves and decide for themselves what it means without the intervention of any priest. As several people have said an Anglican eucharist, just like a Catholic eucharist, or indeed an Orthodox eucharist or a Lutheran eucharist has an inbuilt section of readings from scripture, culminating in a passage taken from one of the Gospels. If these passages are in a language understood by the people do they absolutely need any further commentary ?
This is ground that has been trod here many times over the years, but as @Jengie Jon notes, from a Reformed perspective, the sermon/homily is not “further commentary” on the readings. It is perhaps better described as active engagement with one or more of the readings to explore and discern what the Spirit might be saying to the gathered community in this time at this place. And there is an expectation that the Spirit is at work in that exploration, making Christ present.
I'm beginning to wonder whether after nearly 8 years the Presbyterianism is starting to affect me as I would certainly concur with that perspective.
@Zappa: I do preach when I'm asked to. If you'd like to tell me how badly I'm doing I'll gladly send you my script from last Sunday.
I am always, or nearly always, pleased to have an exposition of the Word at any service which I attend. I thought ,however, that the movement at the Reformation was supposed to encourage people to read the Bible for themselves and decide for themselves what it means without the intervention of any priest. As several people have said an Anglican eucharist, just like a Catholic eucharist, or indeed an Orthodox eucharist or a Lutheran eucharist has an inbuilt section of readings from scripture, culminating in a passage taken from one of the Gospels. If these passages are in a language understood by the people do they absolutely need any further commentary ?
This is ground that has been trod here many times over the years, but as @Jengie Jon notes, from a Reformed perspective, the sermon/homily is not “further commentary” on the readings. It is perhaps better described as active engagement with one or more of the readings to explore and discern what the Spirit might be saying to the gathered community in this time at this place. And there is an expectation that the Spirit is at work in that exploration, making Christ present.
I'm beginning to wonder whether after nearly 8 years the Presbyterianism is starting to affect me as I would certainly concur with that perspective.
I appreciate as much as anyone else a good sermon and a thought provoking elucidation of the Word, but it is the Word itself which is the more important.
Somehow I missed this earlier, but fwiw, and in case this isn’t implicit in what I said earlier, from a Reformed perspective this is a something of a false distinction. The preaching of the Word is inextricably linked to the reading of the Word. Separating them, at least in the context of worship, is alien to our understanding.
I'm puzzled by evangelical Anglican churches that have no reading at all. There will be a sermon, that probably mentions 19 different texts, but there may be no Bible passage at all.
If they miss out the Bible reading(s), they are not being True Anglicans™, and the Archdeacon should be informed as soon as possible, so that correction may be made of this foul practice.
Going back to @Qoheleth's weird service, an explanation has just occurred to me. @Qoheleth mentioned that this was in the church's printed booklet.
You don't think, do you, that whoever prepared the booklet for printing or did the actual printing did not know anything about CofE services and simply didn't follow their instructions? So they got some of the material in the wrong order. Once it's printed on the page wrong, possibly everyone since who has had the misfortune to have to use the booklets has felt obliged to follow the booklet because it's too complicated to try to get the congregation to do anything other than follow what's on the page.
Is that any more improbable as an explanation than any of the others?
On preaching at a Eucharist, back in the days when all services were 1662 and the usual Sunday practice was 8 am Holy Communion, 11 am Morning Prayer, 6.30 pm Evening Prayer, it wasn't at all infrequent for there to be no sermon at the 8 am service. The readings then were two, epistle and gospel.
The most recent 8 am BCP Holy Communion I attended (within the last few weeks) did include a short address on the gospel, which even without any breakfast inside me, I can say was excellent.
Whether the principal service on a Sunday is a Eucharist or Service of the Word, it is expected, though, that not only will there be at least two readings but that there will be sermon or something corresponding closely to a sermon. Practice varies as to how long this should be. However much congregations may joke or grumble about overlong or boring sermons, though, they really do tend to feel short-changed if they get no sermon or less than they expect or are used to.
If they miss out the Bible reading(s), they are not being True Anglicans™, and the Archdeacon should be informed as soon as possible, so that correction may be made of this foul practice.
My son in law here in NZ reached an agreement with the Bishop and Archdeacon that it is Lectionary during distinct seasons but that in Ordinary time they could choose to explore other passages/ topics which are relevant to the very distinct demographic that the church here is serving.
I am Lectionary all the way but I really like this idea for this particular community 😊
Perhaps this is some strange monastic adaptation? In the Dominican Rite the offertory and lavabo either take place at the beginning of mass, in low masses, or between the reading of the epistle and gospel at high mass. I think was also the case in the Sarum use. Definitely before the creed and sermon, but not quite as Qoheleth describes.
I can't speak for the Dominican rite, but this isn't the case in the Sarum Use. My understanding is that there is a rite of Preparation of the Gifts in the places you state but that the Offertory is in the same place as at other western rites.
If they miss out the Bible reading(s), they are not being True Anglicans™, and the Archdeacon should be informed as soon as possible, so that correction may be made of this foul practice.
I've known several evangelical Anglican churches which have no reading. The only other church that does this, in my experience, are the Brethren, but there may be others.
The church I know best that acts like this: the vicar that made the change went on to be an Archdeacon!
If they miss out the Bible reading(s), they are not being True Anglicans™, and the Archdeacon should be informed as soon as possible, so that correction may be made of this foul practice.
I've known several evangelical Anglican churches which have no reading. The only other church that does this, in my experience, are the Brethren, but there may be others.
I’ve encountered it in Southern Baptist churches in the US.
In Reformed circles, yes it is a common idea. Among Anglicans on this board, no nearly so much.
It should be then. As I understand it is equally part of (Roman) Catholic liturgical theology: no sacrament (including Reconciliation/Penance) should be celebrated without at least the reading of Scripture if not its exposition. The priest is the normal preacher at mass because he (sic) who breaks the bread should be the one who breaks the Word too.
I am amazed that there are reformed churches that substitute the Word of God with the word of the preacher. Sola scriptura and all that.
Its as though they have replaced the "magic hands" of the priest with the "magic mouth" of the preacher.
I am amazed that there are reformed churches that substitute the Word of God with the word of the preacher. Sola scriptura and all that.
Its as though they have replaced the "magic hands" of the priest with the "magic mouth" of the preacher.
If I were being a pedant I would point out that the five Solas are Lutheran in origin though adopted widely in Reformed. However, classical Reformed never saw the Word of God as static in meaning and hence the requirement of a hermeneutical community which is always being reformed by the Word of God. It is within this dialogue where the Word is discerned or the the Word in that particular context.
I am amazed that there are reformed churches that substitute the Word of God with the word of the preacher. Sola scriptura and all that.
Its as though they have replaced the "magic hands" of the priest with the "magic mouth" of the preacher.
But again, that’s misunderstanding the Reformed (not reformed) approach. The preacher is hardly infallible or possessing a magic mouth. I couldn’t begin to estimate how often in my life a reasonable chunk of conversation at Sunday lunch was spent on the sermon—agreement, disagreement, what had resonated with different people, what challenged, what agitated, what comforted, what was questioned, etc.
Anyone who stops at “preacher said so” doesn’t really get the Reformed understanding of preaching. As @Jengie Jon says, it’s a communal activity, though certainly one in which the preacher plays a specific and unique role. But what the preacher says is the start of conversation, not the end of it.
Going back to @Qoheleth's weird service, an explanation has just occurred to me. @Qoheleth mentioned that this was in the church's printed booklet.
You don't think, do you, that whoever prepared the booklet for printing or did the actual printing did not know anything about CofE services and simply didn't follow their instructions? So they got some of the material in the wrong order. Once it's printed on the page wrong, possibly everyone since who has had the misfortune to have to use the booklets has felt obliged to follow the booklet because it's too complicated to try to get the congregation to do anything other than follow what's on the page.
Is that any more improbable as an explanation than any of the others?
The incumbent was away this morning, so I couldn't ask. The retired priest who was covering followed their customary practice. The incumbent is a senior and highly experienced priest, so I can't think that it's inadvertent.
My hunch as I'm getting to know the community is that we have here an Ancient Local Usage, whose genesis has been lost in the mists of time, and its rectification is a battle not (yet) worth having - hence the two options in the rubric. The 8am quasi-BCP has only comparatively recently moved to using the CW Lectionary, thereby avoiding the preparation of two sermons.
Comments
That is not the official rite. Rite 2 (and 1662) indeed has the Creed immediately after the Gospel. But that is then followed by the Sermon and only then comes the offertory. I don't know where the rubric that you quote comes from but it's not from any official source afaik.
Recollecting himself (it's an early morning service, and he may have had a late night the evening beforeIYSWIM), he preached his sermon in the place as described.
Since then, 'We've Always Done It This Way'...
I recall a priest who once forget to consecrate the special host necessary for benediction of the MBS - we were treated to the rare experience of 'low' benediction. Though this rite does appear in various liturgical manuals, that was the only time I witnessed it.
I doubt if it's a reference to a monastic rite, but you never know. As it's in the printed service booklet, someone must have established it, at some time.
Very true, very true indeed. The lucky days are when there's no sermon.
I vaguely recall being taught that in public worship one should not break the bread without also breaking the word first. Is that not a common idea?
I got it from my Anglican priest father, if memory serves, but he is a classic broad church Anglican and not fussy about where he takes his theology and practice from.
There are the 3 standard readings - OT, NT and Gospel - and 4 if you count the Psalm. That well and truly breaks open the word and in the best possible way
As an Anglican I agree completely with this. Word and Sacrament belong together. It's one of the gifts of the Reformation.
I seem to recall that in something like "Comic Washup" there is a rubric along the lines of "there shall be at least two readings at the Eucharist of which one shall be taken from the Gospel." There is probably another rubric further on that allows one to get out of that requirement in certain circumstances, but that reflects the general understanding.
Although I am an Anglican I am at the Reformed end of the spectrum (it hasn't always been that way, but I was uncomfortable with Anglo-Catholicism, so I stopped playing along in the end) so I would be uncomfortable with the Sunday Eucharist being celebrated without an adequate ministry of the word - which would include two lessons from Scripture and a sermon.
On the other hand, I am somewhat alarmed by Anglicans of a similar theological stripe to me who reduce the liturgy to the bare minimum. That sort of approach is a hangover from the Enlightenment, and really isn't native to the Reformed tradition where the approach was more in the loosely liturgical camp - i.e. the service had the same shape each week, but things like the General Prayer might be variations on a theme, not precise the same each week. Baptism and the Lord's Supper were fully liturgical in the Dutch and German traditions. I don't know much about the Swiss.
At Our Place, we have a brief (very brief - 2 minutes max) at each weekday Mass, usually (but not invariably) focussing on the Gospel. At Sunday Mass, we have the 3 readings + Psalm as per the C of E version of the lectionary.
Much the same at ours. Sometimes on weekdays the brief homily is incorporated into the greeting to give the folks something to focus on during the readings. Seems to work.
And no they don’t ‘absolutely’ need further commentary, but preaching is more than commentary, and it is highly desirable that it should be provided if at all possible.
As @Alan29 says, a very brief homily can help focus otherwise busy/distracted people on the Word of God.
YMMV, of course!
Nothing confusing or unclear about that.
"Breaks open"? If you believe that the you also seem to think that interpretation is a personal rather than a shared matter. In the Reformed the local congregation is a hermenuetical community and the Sunday sermon is supposed to be based as much on the pastoral engagement of the preacher with the community as on the text of the Bible. Ideally there should also be space for debate but that is difficult to produce.
Are sermons perfect? No. They are not a particularly good pedagogical form. But they are a liturgical component, essential to the liturgical drama in most circumstances.
Are all preachers good? No. But that is the responsibility of trainers to rectify ... these days I work in that field too so I know how much effort is being made. Not enough. But that's my job, to up-game that.
Get trained in preaching skills if you think you (no finger pointing here ... any of us who whinge) you can do better. You may be the next Wesley. Or not.
But if you don't want a sermon* have a cup of (really bad) instant coffee and sit down and watch Songs of Praise or something.
As it happens I'm heading off - ninety minutes each way - to preach a sermon now. It's a fundamental part of presiding and hopefully bringing a word of light life justice compassion hope comfort et cetera to a tiny atom of the Body of Christ faced with an overheating planet and disintegrating international leadership. Perhaps I should omit it and tell them to watch whatever the fuck is the latest fluffy escapism so-called reality TV schmaltz instead. Here - have some bread and wine and piss off.
After all I could have spent those several hours of prep doing something useful. Playing golf or something.
*Since I'm a host here I have restrained myself from what I really want to say. But it could be expressed in the acronym STFU. Then I would have issued myself a warning. And probably ignored it.
I believe Richard Hooker argued that preaching is not absolutely needed, but that the Word can speak for itself (in his Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity).
I'm beginning to wonder whether after nearly 8 years the Presbyterianism is starting to affect me as I would certainly concur with that perspective.
@Zappa: I do preach when I'm asked to. If you'd like to tell me how badly I'm doing I'll gladly send you my script from last Sunday.
Somehow I missed this earlier, but fwiw, and in case this isn’t implicit in what I said earlier, from a Reformed perspective this is a something of a false distinction. The preaching of the Word is inextricably linked to the reading of the Word. Separating them, at least in the context of worship, is alien to our understanding.
You don't think, do you, that whoever prepared the booklet for printing or did the actual printing did not know anything about CofE services and simply didn't follow their instructions? So they got some of the material in the wrong order. Once it's printed on the page wrong, possibly everyone since who has had the misfortune to have to use the booklets has felt obliged to follow the booklet because it's too complicated to try to get the congregation to do anything other than follow what's on the page.
Is that any more improbable as an explanation than any of the others?
On preaching at a Eucharist, back in the days when all services were 1662 and the usual Sunday practice was 8 am Holy Communion, 11 am Morning Prayer, 6.30 pm Evening Prayer, it wasn't at all infrequent for there to be no sermon at the 8 am service. The readings then were two, epistle and gospel.
The most recent 8 am BCP Holy Communion I attended (within the last few weeks) did include a short address on the gospel, which even without any breakfast inside me, I can say was excellent.
Whether the principal service on a Sunday is a Eucharist or Service of the Word, it is expected, though, that not only will there be at least two readings but that there will be sermon or something corresponding closely to a sermon. Practice varies as to how long this should be. However much congregations may joke or grumble about overlong or boring sermons, though, they really do tend to feel short-changed if they get no sermon or less than they expect or are used to.
Not too many sermons break it open.
My son in law here in NZ reached an agreement with the Bishop and Archdeacon that it is Lectionary during distinct seasons but that in Ordinary time they could choose to explore other passages/ topics which are relevant to the very distinct demographic that the church here is serving.
I am Lectionary all the way but I really like this idea for this particular community 😊
I can't speak for the Dominican rite, but this isn't the case in the Sarum Use. My understanding is that there is a rite of Preparation of the Gifts in the places you state but that the Offertory is in the same place as at other western rites.
I've known several evangelical Anglican churches which have no reading. The only other church that does this, in my experience, are the Brethren, but there may be others.
The church I know best that acts like this: the vicar that made the change went on to be an Archdeacon!
It should be then. As I understand it is equally part of (Roman) Catholic liturgical theology: no sacrament (including Reconciliation/Penance) should be celebrated without at least the reading of Scripture if not its exposition. The priest is the normal preacher at mass because he (sic) who breaks the bread should be the one who breaks the Word too.
Its as though they have replaced the "magic hands" of the priest with the "magic mouth" of the preacher.
"new presbyter is but old priest writ large"
Anyone who stops at “preacher said so” doesn’t really get the Reformed understanding of preaching. As @Jengie Jon says, it’s a communal activity, though certainly one in which the preacher plays a specific and unique role. But what the preacher says is the start of conversation, not the end of it.
The incumbent was away this morning, so I couldn't ask. The retired priest who was covering followed their customary practice. The incumbent is a senior and highly experienced priest, so I can't think that it's inadvertent.
My hunch as I'm getting to know the community is that we have here an Ancient Local Usage, whose genesis has been lost in the mists of time, and its rectification is a battle not (yet) worth having - hence the two options in the rubric. The 8am quasi-BCP has only comparatively recently moved to using the CW Lectionary, thereby avoiding the preparation of two sermons.