Please see Styx thread on the Registered Shipmates consultation for the main discussion forums - your views are important, continues until April 4th.

Ecclesiantics 2018-23: That would be a liturgical matter - miscellaneous questions

1246738

Comments

  • Albertus wrote: »
    Brandreth and Anson, I imagine? But yes, that seems to be pretty much it, at least as the scene was then.

    Yes, Brandreth it is (Anson? Who he?), and I also have Fr. Brandreth's biography of Father Lee of Lambeth (another fascinating 19thC Anglo-Catholic-ish figure!).

    IJ

  • CyprianCyprian Shipmate
    Albertus wrote: »
    Brandreth and Anson, I imagine? But yes, that seems to be pretty much it, at least as the scene was then.

    Yes, Brandreth it is (Anson? Who he?), and I also have Fr. Brandreth's biography of Father Lee of Lambeth (another fascinating 19thC Anglo-Catholic-ish figure!).

    IJ

    Anson is the author of Bishops at Large.
  • Jengie JonJengie Jon Shipmate
    Bishops Finger just because I think you will enjoy that such an individual existed; do you know the story of W. E. Orchard?

    Jengie
  • Thank you, both.

    Yes, I have indeed heard of William Orchard, and his King's Weigh House chapel - yet another colourful personality!

    I'll have to see if I can find a copy of Bishops at Large...

    IJ
  • Thanks again - not a bad price, either! My little book by Brandreth came from the same US publisher.

    IJ
  • Interesting. Other than the use of the Western Rite, are there any other differences or distinctives?
  • AlbertusAlbertus Shipmate
    edited May 2018
    No, thank you, Cyprian, that was very informative and helpful. I think the message that one takes away from this story- and I'm sure there are people who'd say the same about e.g. the separation of the CofE from Rome- is that whatever oddities and pickles the Church or bits of it get into because of what its members do, the Holy Spirit keeps on getting through. One can almost imagine God thinking 'they're doing *what* now?! Oh well, better keep on and get to them where they are'. Rather humbling and wonderful really.
  • Jengie JonJengie Jon Shipmate
    Thank you, both.

    Yes, I have indeed heard of William Orchard, and his King's Weigh House chapel - yet another colourful personality!


    IJ

    Well as a URC person and also a bit of a liturgical scholar that better be "his time at Kings Weigh Chapel" as his predecessors in that role include Thomas Binney and John Hunter who were Nonconformist liturgical leaders of their day.

    Jengie

  • I stand corrected again! Thanks for that.

    Interesting characters, all.
    :wink:

    IJ
  • CyprianCyprian Shipmate
    edited May 2018
    Interesting. Other than the use of the Western Rite, are there any other differences or distinctives?

    To be honest, there aren't a great many.

    Probably the big one is that, along with the Oriental Orthodox, our churches only accept the first three of the great councils as having truly Ecumenical status. We affirm all of the doctrinal teachings of the remaining four councils, as well as the Palamite councils, but we don't accept the condemnations of individuals, churches, and practices pronounced by those councils as authoritative, as it is now generally accepted (even if not by all) that those pronouncements were in some cases politically motivated, and in others based on misunderstandings due to the different ways that theological terms had been used within and without the empire.

    Basically, we accept both Oriental and Eastern Orthodox as legitimate heirs of the Orthodox Tradition, and find it sad that there has been so little movement on this in over a quarter of a century.

    We have our own saints from within our communities, and we follow the Eastern Orthodox precedent of recognising the sanctity of those outside of the Orthodox fold, where their sanctity is universally attested (ref: St Isaac the Syrian), although we might cast the net a little wider. So you'll see some of our people have icons of St Therese of Lisieux or be named Francis after St Francis of Assisi.

    We currently follow the Gregorian calendar for all feasts to reduce potential cultural hurdles as part of our missionary effort to western peoples, but it has been decided that, if and when it gains wider acceptance, we will adopt the paschalion proposed by the WCC, as it is faithful to the spirit of Nicaea while avoiding the inaccuracies present in all paschalia currently in use.

    As far as liturgics go, the Orthodox Church of the Gauls and the French Orthodox Church use the form of the Gallican Mass (The Divine Liturgy According to St Germanus) as restored by St John of Saint-Denis (Eugraph Kovalevsky). This is also used in ECOF, in ROCOR, and is also permitted a handful of times a year in those parishes that left ECOF to join the Serbian Church in the early 2000s. The Celtic Church uses its own rite which I haven't examined in any great detail but I understand it to draw from ancient sources such as the Lorrha missal. I actually have a copy on order so I can do so later.

    Moving away from the sort of thing that can be formally identified, there are also differences I think resulting from the faith being expressed in a different cultural setting, and which I have only gleaned from the experience of getting to know some of our people - laity and clergy alike. These for me were the biggest changes and what took the greatest amount of adjustment, even though I welcome most of them.

    For instance, I have not encountered the sort of rigid approach of the laity to worship and personal piety that I sometimes found in Eastern Orthodoxy. Nobody asks if they are permitted to leave the service at a specific point because they have been taught that it is sinful to go before the dismissal, or asks how much they have to pay the priest to pray for their departed loved ones because this is the expectation in their home countries. Nobody will bark at you if you cross your legs in church (which Slavs often see as dishonour to the Cross) or if you stand with arms folded (which is normal in Greece but frowned on in some other places). There seems a gentleness to the interactions, and also the degree to which canonical stipulations are applied to certain pastoral situations. For instance, while we disapprove of cremation, we will not deny an Orthodox funeral to someone who is to be cremated, especially if it is not the decision of the deceased but rather of the survivors. There also seems to be an understanding that people's lives can be complicated and that economia can be extended almost to breaking point for the sake of people's salvation.

    In other words, things that are often thought of as Orthodox but which are actually the result of Mediterranean or Eastern European historical cultural intertwining with Orthodoxy aren't as much in evidence, and I think that is just as important a part of western missionary outreach and the identity of a Western Orthodox church as is western liturgical and spiritual practice.

    Besides those things, there isn't much that makes us stand out from the other Orthodox communions.
  • All of which helps to show, perhaps, what a wonderful rainbow-coloured mixture the People of God are (or is)....
    :grin:

    IJ
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    Interesting. Other than the use of the Western Rite, are there any other differences or distinctives?
    Well, the liturgy is the core of theology……
  • Interesting. Thanks Cyprian. And yes, kmann, the liturgy is the core of the theology, which is a good incentive for me to mug up on what the actual liturgical differences are between the Western and Eastern Rites.

    I've never understand why there's such a fuss.

    Perhaps I'm naive but I always thought that the Western Rite only differed in so far as it permits some Western forms/hymns - not that the theology differed ...

    Hmmm ...

    Curiouser and curiouser ...

    Meanwhile, a further question for Cyprian. My exposure to Orthodoxy has tended to be via the Antiochians and the clever men in Oxford who run the Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius. From what I've seen, they don't seem quite so bound by cultural norms and forms in the way you describe. People seem to leave their services at any time and from what I can see tend to be fairly strong on 'ekkonomeia' although I'm sure the mileage varies. It's difficult to judge as an outsider of course.
  • Whoops ... my question was whether it is the case that the Antiochians are less bound up with some of the cultural accretions we might find among the Russians and Greeks?
  • Jengie JonJengie Jon Shipmate
    edited May 2018
    I've never understand why there's such a fuss.

    Perhaps I'm naive but I always thought that the Western Rite only differed in so far as it permits some Western forms/hymns - not that the theology differed ...

    Hmmm ...

    Curiouser and curiouser ...

    It is reputed that R.W. Dale did not mind who wrote the churches theology as long as he wrote the hymns.

    Jengie
  • CyprianCyprian Shipmate
    Perhaps I'm naive but I always thought that the Western Rite only differed in so far as it permits some Western forms/hymns - not that the theology differed ...

    Hmmm ...

    Curiouser and curiouser ...

    No, that's right.

    Within the Eastern Orthodox Church, those who use the Byzantine Rite and those who use the various Western rites will subscribe to the same beliefs. The same is true of those Old Calendarist or "Genuine/True" Orthodox churches that have communities of more than one rite: the Eastern and Western rite people within the same church will hold to the same theological and ecclesiological positions. Similarly, in our Western Orthodox Communion, we are predominantly Western Rite but we do have one parish of the West Syriac rite - we subscribe to the same beliefs. The rite used does not indicate a difference in faith. I'm sure that the same has been true of the Oriental Orthodox at the times when they have had Western Rite communities.
    Meanwhile, a further question for Cyprian. My exposure to Orthodoxy has tended to be via the Antiochians and the clever men in Oxford who run the Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius. From what I've seen, they don't seem quite so bound by cultural norms and forms in the way you describe. People seem to leave their services at any time and from what I can see tend to be fairly strong on 'ekkonomeia' although I'm sure the mileage varies. It's difficult to judge as an outsider of course.

    I'm not saying that they are universal, but to take one example, yes, you are right that there is a culture within many parts of Eastern Orthodoxy of people coming and going, often with little regard to the significance of the liturgical action taking place, to the point where it is almost a characterising feature of Orthodoxy in the minds of many non-Orthodox people. That doesn't mean it is right, and there are moves in some places to counter this, to the point where some people have been taught that it is a sin requiring confession for them to arrive late or to leave before the dismissal, resulting in people being afraid to go, pulling subdeacons and servers aside to ask if they are allowed to leave, and explaining their jusitification.

    Some, due to monastic strictness and as a safeguard against the effects of the historical and current lack of proper catechesis of the laity in some places, are told that it is sinful to receive unless they have confessed before each communion, abstained from the usual foods for three days prior to receiving, and attended the Vigil on the previous evening.
    The result of setting the bar so high is people attending the Liturgy every Sunday but only receiving Communion once or twice a year, and scolding converts who receive more frequently for bringing their past customs with them. It also results in many Liturgies at which the priest comes out onto the solea, intones the invitation to Communion and, without stopping, continues on his circular motion back into the altar with nobody having received. Some Orthodox people will swear that Communion is for children only and see nothing wrong with any of the above.

    And there are certainly some quarters where an Orthodox funeral will be denied to someone if the priest or bishop discovers there is to be a cremation. I once had to deliver this news to a grieving family because my parish priest was on holiday and that was the instruction of my then bishop.

    These are the sorts of elements of cultural and historical influence on Eastern Orthodox praxis that are perhaps not experienced on occasional visits to a small number of parishes - particularly not those served largely by western converts as in the case of the Antiochians here in the UK (to answer your question) - or special events but rather are observed through regular life with communities and seeing how these things have coloured people's thought and practice.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Cyprian wrote: »
    ... Within the Eastern Orthodox Church, those who use the Byzantine Rite and those who use the various Western rites will subscribe to the same beliefs. The same is true of those Old Calendarist or "Genuine/True" Orthodox churches that have communities of more than one rite: the Eastern and Western rite people within the same church will hold to the same theological and ecclesiological positions . ...
    Cyprian, you've got me really puzzled there. A few posts back you said
    Probably the big one is that, along with the Oriental Orthodox, our churches only accept the first three of the great councils as having truly Ecumenical status. We affirm all of the doctrinal teachings of the remaining four councils, as well as the Palamite councils, but we don't accept the condemnations of individuals, churches, and practices pronounced by those councils as authoritative, as it is now generally accepted (even if not by all) that those pronouncements were in some cases politically motivated, and in others based on misunderstandings due to the different ways that theological terms had been used within and without the empire.
    I have been under the impression that fundamental to being Orthodox in the conventional sense was being 'a church of the first Seven Councils'. But if you only accept the first three as truly authoritative, doesn't that mean 'not subscribing to the same beliefs' as Constantinople or Moscow.

  • CyprianCyprian Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    Cyprian wrote: »
    ... Within the Eastern Orthodox Church, those who use the Byzantine Rite and those who use the various Western rites will subscribe to the same beliefs. The same is true of those Old Calendarist or "Genuine/True" Orthodox churches that have communities of more than one rite: the Eastern and Western rite people within the same church will hold to the same theological and ecclesiological positions . ...
    Cyprian, you've got me really puzzled there. A few posts back you said
    Probably the big one is that, along with the Oriental Orthodox, our churches only accept the first three of the great councils as having truly Ecumenical status. We affirm all of the doctrinal teachings of the remaining four councils, as well as the Palamite councils, but we don't accept the condemnations of individuals, churches, and practices pronounced by those councils as authoritative, as it is now generally accepted (even if not by all) that those pronouncements were in some cases politically motivated, and in others based on misunderstandings due to the different ways that theological terms had been used within and without the empire.
    I have been under the impression that fundamental to being Orthodox in the conventional sense was being 'a church of the first Seven Councils'. But if you only accept the first three as truly authoritative, doesn't that mean 'not subscribing to the same beliefs' as Constantinople or Moscow.

    I think we might have a few crossed wires here, Enoch. I apologise for any lack of clarity on my part. Was it something I said about different rites in response to Gamma Gamaliel that triggered the confusion? It seems that way from the quotations but I'm struggling to see the link.

    Regarding the councils after Ephesus, I didn't mean to suggest that we don't accept them as authoritative. I only said that we do not accept them as having Ecumenical status. There are plenty of councils that Orthodox Christians accept as genuine councils of the Church, ratifying true theology authoritatively. They don't need to be Ecumenical Councils for that to be the case. Even if the discussion were to be limited to the Eastern Orthodox, some Eastern Orthodox accept seven Ecumenical Councils while others accept nine. They all agree on the teachings of the councils but just don't give them the same status.

    On the point of being a church of the first Seven Councils, if this were a litmus test for Orthodoxy, then the entire Oriental Orthodox communion would not be Orthodox. I realise that this is the traditional position of the Eastern Orthodox towards the Oriental Orthodox but the latter have never agreed with this, and conversations since the 20th century have shown that the two communions hold to the same Faith, which is accepted by many Eastern Orthodox theologians and likely some hierarchs today.

    My own church essentially takes the position of the Oriental Orthodox on the councils after Ephesus.
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    In a sentence, what is the main difference between the 'Oriental' Orthodox and the 'Eastern' Orthodox ?
  • Forthview wrote: »
    In a sentence, what is the main difference between the 'Oriental' Orthodox and the 'Eastern' Orthodox ?

    Location, language, ethnicity, and position on the Council of Chalcedon.
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    Thank you.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    I thought it was on whether Christ has two natures, or one combined nature.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    I thought it was on whether Christ has two natures, or one combined nature.

    Perhaps that's it - certainly something involved and technical. In any event, many of the pre-Chalcedonian churches now say that they weren't differing from the Eastern Orthodox or Western Churches on the substance of the matter, but it's all be a problem of translation.
  • CyprianCyprian Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    Enoch wrote: »
    I thought it was on whether Christ has two natures, or one combined nature.

    Perhaps that's it - certainly something involved and technical. In any event, many of the pre-Chalcedonian churches now say that they weren't differing from the Eastern Orthodox or Western Churches on the substance of the matter, but it's all be a problem of translation.

    Essentially, this.

    Theological language without and without the empire developed differently. Same beliefs were expressed using different terms and similar terms were a used to mean very different things. Hence confusion over terminology and anathemas being pronounced.

    This is now understood but there has been a 1500-year history of persecutions and all manner of unpleasantness in the meanwhile. One side's villains and heretics were the other side's heroes and saints. And these memories don't fade easily.

    Agreement was reached in the 20th century but very little formal movement has taken place. Among the Eastern Orthodox, the Antiochian church seems to have made the most progress.
  • CyprianCyprian Shipmate
    Cyprian wrote: »
    Theological language without and without the empire...

    Of course, I meant "within and without". I was posting from my phone and the autocorrect demon struck.
  • LeoLeo Shipmate
    Jengie Jon wrote: »
    I've never understand why there's such a fuss.

    Perhaps I'm naive but I always thought that the Western Rite only differed in so far as it permits some Western forms/hymns - not that the theology differed ...

    Hmmm ...

    Curiouser and curiouser ...

    It is reputed that R.W. Dale did not mind who wrote the churches theology as long as he wrote the hymns.

    Jengie

    But he was an excellent theologian. I still remember his work on atonement - read it over 40 years ago
  • Jengie JonJengie Jon Shipmate
    Yes, not really arguing about how good he was theologically, just him pointing out what forms the congregations theology more.

    Jengie
  • StephenStephen Shipmate
    So fess up then - anyone have the Athanasian Creed today? We had it at Choral Evensong......
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Stephen wrote: »
    So fess up then - anyone have the Athanasian Creed today? We had it at Choral Evensong......
    Slightly envious in a funny sort of way. I've never encountered it actually being used, even 60+ years ago. Whatever the rules might have said, I suspect it's been pretty rare since at least 1939.

    Did you all say it, or did the choir sing it?
  • StephenStephen Shipmate
    There have been times when we haven't used it to be honest and it's not an easy creed! We used it at 1662 Evensong which I think is technically incorrect as the BCP directs it to be used at Mattins although the Welsh BCP of 1984 directs it to be used at both services. We all said it with alternative verses by the vicar and the rest of us.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Given that it was at Evensong, I hope you had dinner ready in the slow cooker when you got home. We've not said it for about 4 years now.
  • PuzzlerPuzzler Shipmate
    Our priest almost forgot any sort of creed yesterday.
    After the sermon he announced a hymn, instead of Creed and Intercessions. So we had to backtrack. Then when we needed a hymn for the collection, and whilst Communion was being prepared, the best he could do was to get us to sing the previous one again.
    Finally, he forgot the post- communion prayer.
    Our new parish communion liturgy is already so stripped back, that we were left with not much more than a non- conformist hymn sandwich.
  • AlbertusAlbertus Shipmate
    Not just malign but incompetent. Complain to the Archdeacon and keep a record of your complaint. If he does this once he'll do it again and the evidence will build up against him.
  • Jengie JonJengie Jon Shipmate
    Actually strikes me more as cock-up than conspiracy but the priest really needs to fall in love with the liturgy again if it is to improve.

    For Puzzler, in the sense you mean it there is really no such thing as a Non-Conformist hymn sandwich. There is serious liturgical work in what you take to be a 'hymn sandwich' and many Anglicans when asked to lead are puzzled by the task. Hymns are the congregation's response within the worship. In that sense, it is a dialogue between the hymns and what happens at the front; hymns are not interludes between liturgical moments. Given that hymns are complex voices, Baktin's multi-voiced here would be entirely correct. You begin to see the shaping that is going on.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited May 2018
    Jengie Jon wrote: »
    For Puzzler, in the sense you mean it there is really no such thing as a Non-Conformist hymn sandwich. There is serious liturgical work in what you take to be a 'hymn sandwich' and many Anglicans when asked to lead are puzzled by the task. Hymns are the congregation's response within the worship. In that sense, it is a dialogue between the hymns and what happens at the front; hymns are not interludes between liturgical moments. Given that hymns are complex voices, Baktin's multi-voiced here would be entirely correct. You begin to see the shaping that is going on.
    Yes.

    TBH, I’m never quite sure what people mean by “hymn sandwich”—it’s a term I encounter much more on the Ship than in real life, and it mainly seems to mean “not liturgy like we do liturgy.”

  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    My understanding of a hymn sandwich type of service is one like the service in many Presbyterian churches here, namely : a hymn, followed by a prayer, followed by a hymn followed by a reading ,followed by a hymn, followed by another reading ,followed by a hymn ,followed by a sermon, followed by a hymn, followed by prayers and concluded with a hymn.
    As Jengie Jon reminds us ,the hymns in these type of services take the place of the set liturgical texts in Anglican or Catholic services. Certainly in Presbyterian services here in Scotland it is uncommon ,apart from the Lord's prayer, to have any sort of spoken or sung dialogue between the presider and the people. So the hymns,which are often known well by the congregation ,are their particular contribution to the service. They are often known to the congregation as hymn 316 or hymn 291 and are as familiar to them as little parts of the set liturgy like 'Lamb of God,who take away the sins of the world' are to those with a set liturgical text.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Thanks Forthview. That’s helpful. Would I be correct if I summarized that as “a ‘hymn sandwich’ is a service in which hymns constitute the almost exclusive form of congregational participation, and are used in preference to set liturgical texts”? And putting what you’ve said together with what Jengie Jon said, maybe adding that it’s a service where the flow of the parts of the service isn’t necessarily evident to someone used to a more liturgical form of worship?

    Part of the reason I’ve asked is because I’ve occasionally seen Mystery Worship reports describe an American Presbyterian service as “typical hymn sandwich,” though my suspicion is that they don’t fit the description you give. (By contrast, your description would fit the typical Baptist sermon in these parts to a tee.)

    Though there is certainly variety, the typical non-communion Presbyterian service over here (at least in the PC(USA)) is what might be described as a Presbyterian missa sicca—see this outline from the Presbyterian Hymnal (1991) for what I mean. Various parts of the service will almost always either be said responsively (including standard responses to things like “The Lord be with you,” and “The Word of the Lord”) or said by the entire congregation (the confession of sin, the creed and the Lord’s Prayer). The general pattern of the Western Rite is followed, but with our own touches—such as the placement of the Peace or the hymn after their sermon.

    What is consistent with your description is that hymns, or single verses of hymns, might be used rather than, say, tests of the Ordinary. In particular, I’ve rarely heard the Gloria in Excelsis sung in a Presbyterian church. Traditionally, a Gloria Patri was sung instead, though more recently some congregations will replace the Gloria Patri with a verse or two of a hymn appropriate to the day and point in the service.

    Thanks for helping me understand better.
  • Albertus wrote: »
    Not just malign but incompetent. Complain to the Archdeacon and keep a record of your complaint. If he does this once he'll do it again and the evidence will build up against him.

    Definitely incompetent! Although I have known even experienced clergy get so muddled that no-one knows if they are coming or going. But that only tends to happen once if the clergy is serious about the liturgy, and even then, there is usually a mitigating circumstance.

    As Albertus suggests, if this becomes a pattern, then simple incompetence is not enough to explain it. More than once would suggest that he just doesn't give a stuff. Unfortunately, I've known a few such people.

    (Sadly, complaining to the Archdeacon won't get you anywhere, other than on their list of "parishioners of the diocese who are likely to cause trouble". All an Archdeacon is likely to do is offer a few vague words of sympathy and avoid giving any indication that they will actually take any action of any sort.)

  • StephenStephen Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    Given that it was at Evensong, I hope you had dinner ready in the slow cooker when you got home. We've not said it for about 4 years now.

    He-he! Well not a problem as our service is at 4,00pm!
  • While I heartily agree with Jengie, Nick and others who have commented above, I suspect that much Nonconformist worship does not meet these high ideals.

    IME it can indeed by a "hymn sandwich", with the hymns and songs merely chosen to "fill the gaps" and offering little progression in the service. (It's all too easy to choose the right hymn or song but place it at the wrong point within the service).

    Or you can get the typical "charismatic-lite" format, with a greeting, opening song/hymn, prayer, succession of songs, Bible reading, sermon, song, and blessing.

    FWIW our service yesterday went like this:

    Welcome & notices.
    Call to worship.
    Hymn.
    Opening reflection, prayer & Lord’s Prayer.
    Short talk aimed at children.
    Prayer.
    (Children's) song.
    Bible Reading.
    Declaration of faith (said by all).
    Bible Reading.
    Quieter song.
    Message.
    Prayers of confession & intercession.
    Offertory hymn.
    Holy Communion (including some responses).
    Hymn.
    Sharing of the Grace.

    Often we will have a responsive Psalm or Acclamation after the first hymn, but not yesterday.
  • PuzzlerPuzzler Shipmate
    Interesting, thanks all.

    I fully agree that a well prepared nonconformist service can be much more than a hymn sandwich.
    So to me, whilst “hymn sandwich” may be descriptive of an alternation between something spoken ( usually by the leader alone) and singing of a hymn by the congregation, it is also somewhat pejorative, to my way of thinking ( and in the specific service described earlier in this thread) as it suggests
    a) a lack of opportunity for general participation
    b) leadership by one individual - who may be lazy or ill prepared
    c) a potential lack of continuity of thought and flow.
    A good service of whatever denomination should be like a seamless robe.
  • PuzzlerPuzzler Shipmate
    Our priest also favours quoting a few lines from the hymn we have just sung, followed by his own extempore prayer, instead of Anglican liturgy.
    He does it at least once every service and it takes me back to services of my Baptist upbringing. Not particularly happy memories, I should add, with apologies to all Baptists on board.
  • I had a minister who used to do that. Done occasionally, it can provide a good link. Done frequently, it is most annoying.
  • Ours does it but in the case of hymns where a poem has been amended gives the original version - or so he thinks. He tried it with Guide me, O thou great Redeemer till one of my junior choristers pointed out he should be quoting in Welsh :smirk:
  • So does he announce "Hark how all the welkin rings, glory to the king of kings" at Christmas? Bet he doesn't!
  • But he might, though, deliver a short and edifying explanation as to what the 'welkin' actually is....

    :wink:

    IJ
  • AlbertusAlbertus Shipmate
    Welkin'? It's like shrimpin' or cocklin', just for a different shellfish.
    (Taxi for Albertus...)
  • CyprianCyprian Shipmate
    The Welkin is a pub.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited June 2018
    No, no - 'welkin' is Heaven.

    Which (in parts) may well be a pub.

    I hope.....
    :fearful:

    O blimey. What a thought - if there are no pubs in Heaven, please may I have the occasional day trip to the Boilerhouse?

    IJ
Sign In or Register to comment.