The readings are insufficient because we do not believe in God's Word a something static but something dynamic that needs to be broken open or at least attempted to be within the current context. The sermon is thus the culmination of the pastoral visiting and Biblical engagement of the preacher in which he leads the congregation into a communal discernment of the Word.
You (i.e. Christians of the Reformed tradition) may well believe that. But, as I tried to say above, this is not everyone's tradition.
I don't think anyone suggested it's part of everyone's tradition. Jengie Jon's initial statement was specifically aimed at those Anglicans who claim to be Reformed:
The Anglican church claim to be Reformed and yet for the Reformed the sermon and not the Bible readings are the important part of the proclamation of the Word of God.
Yes, the way it was phrased may have been overstated to the extent it says "the Anglican Church" claims to be Reformed, especially if "Anglican Church" is read to mean "churches of the Anglican Communion" rather than the Church of England. And as BroJames noted, even within the CofE, there may well be a difference between "reformed" and "Reformed."
But I think it was clear that the comment was not trying to make a statement for all Christian traditions, but rather was talking only about those who claim to be Reformed but don't act like it. If the "claim to be Reformed" shoe doesn't fit to start with, then there's no need to worry about whether the wearer of the shoe is acting Reformed.
Yes, the way it was phrased may have been overstated to the extent it says "the Anglican Church" claims to be Reformed, especially if "Anglican Church" is read to mean "churches of the Anglican Communion" rather than the Church of England. And as BroJames noted, even within the CofE, there may well be a difference between "reformed" and "Reformed."
The difference between "reformed" and "Reformed" is one that has often tested my extremely limited peace making skills. I can get quite sour with what I think of as "Westminster Anglicans" who think that the 39 Articles are simply the warm up match for the real thing - the Westminster Confession of Faith, or Dortian Anglicans who think that the 39As have to be interpreted through the lens of the Canons of Dort.
Personally, I would tend to think of myself as being as much Reformed as reformed, and the Reformed theologians that float my boat are folks like Bucer and Bullinger rather than Beza and Perkins. I once got rather fed-up with a "Westminster Anglican" layman bashing the concept of baptismal regeneration, so I sent him Bullinger's sermon on Baptism, and then sat back and listened to the squawking. Not the most pastoral of responses, but the poor dear had obviously read only a limited number of cornflake packets. I am glad I did not enlighten him on the views of Bullinger on the Assumption - his might head have exploded completely...
The Anglican church claim to be Reformed and yet for the Reformed the sermon and not the Bible readings are the important part of the proclamation of the Word of God. The Reformed would question whether Christ is present in the Eucharist if he is not first heard in the proclamation of the Word. The Eucharist is insubstantial without the proclamation of the Word and the Word is desiccated without the Eucharist.
Why is it necessary to have the sermon to proclaim the Word please? To put it another way, why are the readings insufficient? As I read it, that makes the sermon of greater worth than the words themselves, and the preacher greater than the author.
The readings are insufficient because we do not believe in God's Word a something static but something dynamic that needs to be broken open or at least attempted to be within the current context. The sermon is thus the culmination of the pastoral visiting and Biblical engagement of the preacher in which he leads the congregation into a communal discernment of the Word.
For me this is clearly a YMMV question. I have found the readings themselves, even when they use rather cryptic passages, very useful and even fascinating, but am challenged to think of more than 3 or 4 sermons (out of-- quick math-- over 1,500) which I can remember or which had any impact. Now, I have primarily heard sermons in Anglican, Presbie, UCC, or RC settings (I except the Orthodox from this list as sermons in Arabic etc...) rather than from evangelical or Holiness churches, but as often as not they do not address the readings and frequently seem to be "Reader's Digest" excerpts of one sort or the other. As an over-generalization, Presbyterian ones are the meatiest and some of the UCC ones appear to have been composed with seriousness.
This has had the perhaps unfortunate effect that I no longer really pay attention to sermons unless my attention is twigged by an attempt to explain or comment on the text.
FWIW, I can think of just 3 sermons - over a period of 50 years! - which I can recall, and which have stayed in my mind. Two of them are relatively recent - within the past 5 years - but the other dates from a good 40 years ago...
Not that that's important, or significant. Sermons (especially at a Sunday Mass) are for the specific time, and place. If they affect, positively, the lives of the Faithful Few during the subsequent week, they've done their job.
<snip>challenged to think of more than 3 or 4 sermons (out of-- quick math-- over 1,500) which I can remember or which had any impact.<snip>
I know there are plenty of bad sermons around I have sat through some, and probably delivered some too, but I wonder how many meals you can remember or which had any impact. That doesn’t mean that you weren’t nourished by those meals.
Certainly, if sermons do not address or flow from the readings then their value is different. To me failing to preach on or from the text of the read scripture would be like consecrating the elements and then going along the rail and administering Pringles.
FWIW, I can think of just 3 sermons - over a period of 50 years! - which I can recall, and which have stayed in my mind. Two of them are relatively recent - within the past 5 years - but the other dates from a good 40 years ago...
Not that that's important, or significant. Sermons (especially at a Sunday Mass) are for the specific time, and place. If they affect, positively, the lives of the Faithful Few during the subsequent week, they've done their job.
This. In the "Bizarre preaching" thread, @Cathscats said this last month, which makes much the same point:
A sermon should be of the moment, for its time and place. Doesn't mean that it should necessarily be forgettable afterwards, of course, but it has met its situation, it has done its job. They preacher doesn't want you to remember his or her words, but to get the message that was behind them and act on it or let it act on you.
Bad sermons don't do this,and so they are things in themselves and also we always remember what makes us cringe.
I responded that
I liken it to a good meal with family or friends. Yes, there may be a few really good where later on details about the food can be remembered. And you often remember the bad ones. But a good meal has done its work if you are fed and nourished, and if you’re drawn closer at least for a time to friends and family.
ETA: And I see that while I was composing this post, @BroJames made very much the same point with the same metaphor. Great minds and all . . . .
Given the general quality of preaching today, it may very well be that the shorter the better. But, say, the theological and festal orations of St Gregory of Nazianzen show what a stunning work of art a good homily can be. It also requires a good training in rhetoric, poetics, etc., something which I gather is pretty absent in most clergy training today.
The Anglican church claim to be Reformed and yet for the Reformed the sermon and not the Bible readings are the important part of the proclamation of the Word of God. The Reformed would question whether Christ is present in the Eucharist if he is not first heard in the proclamation of the Word. The Eucharist is insubstantial without the proclamation of the Word and the Word is desiccated without the Eucharist.
Why is it necessary to have the sermon to proclaim the Word please? To put it another way, why are the readings insufficient? As I read it, that makes the sermon of greater worth than the words themselves, and the preacher greater than the author.
The readings are insufficient because we do not believe in God's Word a something static but something dynamic that needs to be broken open or at least attempted to be within the current context. The sermon is thus the culmination of the pastoral visiting and Biblical engagement of the preacher in which he leads the congregation into a communal discernment of the Word.
For me this is clearly a YMMV question. I have found the readings themselves, even when they use rather cryptic passages, very useful and even fascinating, but am challenged to think of more than 3 or 4 sermons (out of-- quick math-- over 1,500) which I can remember or which had any impact. Now, I have primarily heard sermons in Anglican, Presbie, UCC, or RC settings (I except the Orthodox from this list as sermons in Arabic etc...) rather than from evangelical or Holiness churches, but as often as not they do not address the readings and frequently seem to be "Reader's Digest" excerpts of one sort or the other. As an over-generalization, Presbyterian ones are the meatiest and some of the UCC ones appear to have been composed with seriousness.
This has had the perhaps unfortunate effect that I no longer really pay attention to sermons unless my attention is twigged by an attempt to explain or comment on the text.
You missed the keyword 'communal', what you recall at some distance is not relevant, how the community understands and responds is. The congregation is the hermeneutic community within which the Word is sought. If you are claiming to be Reformed this shared task (and sorry, therefore, private thoughts do not count) is the key to understanding the activity of the Word. The Reformed really do not go in for private revelation of the Word.
How does that work when people understand the preacher differently? This is a genuine question - I’m not in the least intending to be snarky. It flows from my experience as a preacher of people’s responses afterwards.
The Anglican church claim to be Reformed and yet for the Reformed the sermon and not the Bible readings are the important part of the proclamation of the Word of God. The Reformed would question whether Christ is present in the Eucharist if he is not first heard in the proclamation of the Word. The Eucharist is insubstantial without the proclamation of the Word and the Word is desiccated without the Eucharist.
Why is it necessary to have the sermon to proclaim the Word please? To put it another way, why are the readings insufficient? As I read it, that makes the sermon of greater worth than the words themselves, and the preacher greater than the author.
The readings are insufficient because we do not believe in God's Word a something static but something dynamic that needs to be broken open or at least attempted to be within the current context. The sermon is thus the culmination of the pastoral visiting and Biblical engagement of the preacher in which he leads the congregation into a communal discernment of the Word.
For me this is clearly a YMMV question. I have found the readings themselves, even when they use rather cryptic passages, very useful and even fascinating, but am challenged to think of more than 3 or 4 sermons (out of-- quick math-- over 1,500) which I can remember or which had any impact. Now, I have primarily heard sermons in Anglican, Presbie, UCC, or RC settings (I except the Orthodox from this list as sermons in Arabic etc...) rather than from evangelical or Holiness churches, but as often as not they do not address the readings and frequently seem to be "Reader's Digest" excerpts of one sort or the other. As an over-generalization, Presbyterian ones are the meatiest and some of the UCC ones appear to have been composed with seriousness.
This has had the perhaps unfortunate effect that I no longer really pay attention to sermons unless my attention is twigged by an attempt to explain or comment on the text.
You missed the keyword 'communal', what you recall at some distance is not relevant, how the community understands and responds is. The congregation is the hermeneutic community within which the Word is sought. If you are claiming to be Reformed this shared task (and sorry, therefore, private thoughts do not count) is the key to understanding the activity of the Word. The Reformed really do not go in for private revelation of the Word.
Hmm. I would have thought, as part of the community, how I understood and responded was relevant, and my recollections (even at a distance) are part of that. But as I am not claiming to be Reformed, perhaps I'm not part of this shared task.
Of course people respond differently. How that is treated and developed is important. One understanding does not invalidate another. God's Word is always heteroglossial but the discernment comes in the building up of the a complex and cohesive understanding.
The Anglican church claim to be Reformed and yet for the Reformed the sermon and not the Bible readings are the important part of the proclamation of the Word of God. The Reformed would question whether Christ is present in the Eucharist if he is not first heard in the proclamation of the Word. The Eucharist is insubstantial without the proclamation of the Word and the Word is desiccated without the Eucharist.
Why is it necessary to have the sermon to proclaim the Word please? To put it another way, why are the readings insufficient? As I read it, that makes the sermon of greater worth than the words themselves, and the preacher greater than the author.
The readings are insufficient because we do not believe in God's Word a something static but something dynamic that needs to be broken open or at least attempted to be within the current context. The sermon is thus the culmination of the pastoral visiting and Biblical engagement of the preacher in which he leads the congregation into a communal discernment of the Word.
Thanks to both you and Nick Tamen. I can see great value in having a sermon, based on at least on of the readings to clarify difficulties in comprehension, to give us a lesson for daily living, or both. But what I'm having trouble with is the idea that it's necessary before moving to the eucharist. Probably because I'm Anglican and you're both Reformed
Before the Oxford Movement Anglicans and Reformed would have been on much the same page about the need for preaching at the Eucharist. The fact we are even having this discussion is a tribute to the way in which Oxford Movement and the Ritualists changed the views of High and MOTR Anglicans as to the relative importance of the ministries of Word and Sacrament.
The Anglican church claim to be Reformed and yet for the Reformed the sermon and not the Bible readings are the important part of the proclamation of the Word of God. The Reformed would question whether Christ is present in the Eucharist if he is not first heard in the proclamation of the Word. The Eucharist is insubstantial without the proclamation of the Word and the Word is desiccated without the Eucharist.
Why is it necessary to have the sermon to proclaim the Word please? To put it another way, why are the readings insufficient? As I read it, that makes the sermon of greater worth than the words themselves, and the preacher greater than the author.
The readings are insufficient because we do not believe in God's Word a something static but something dynamic that needs to be broken open or at least attempted to be within the current context. The sermon is thus the culmination of the pastoral visiting and Biblical engagement of the preacher in which he leads the congregation into a communal discernment of the Word.
Thanks to both you and Nick Tamen. I can see great value in having a sermon, based on at least on of the readings to clarify difficulties in comprehension, to give us a lesson for daily living, or both. But what I'm having trouble with is the idea that it's necessary before moving to the eucharist. Probably because I'm Anglican and you're both Reformed
I think there are a couple of related answers to what you're having trouble understanding, Gee D.
First—and this probably does play into "because I'm Anglican and you're both Reformed"—from a Reformed perspective, a sermon that clarified difficulties in comprehension and gave us a lesson for daily living would generally, at least in my experience, be considered a fairly "meh" sermon, and a preacher who regularly preached such sermons would probably be considered a fairly "meh" preacher. Not that there's anything wrong with either of those two things, and not that it's not good when a sermon can include those things, but that's not what we typically expect from a sermon. (NB: I'm not in any way criticizing those traditions where these things are the expectation for the sermon, or those traditions where there really isn't any expectation of a sermon at all. I simply trying to explain how our expectations are different, and how that difference plays into the relationship we see between sermon and Eucharist. No claim at all of superior or inferior.)
I'm struggling a bit to come up with how to express this. I've said on the Ship before that I think the Reformed understanding of Scripture and preaching in worship could be described as quasi-sacramental. That is to say, our understanding is that the point of preaching is to proclaim the activity of Jesus in the church and in the world, and our understanding is that Jesus is present in the community in the proclamation of the Word. To put it another way, we expect the sermon to be an encounter with the divine, an opportunity for God to speak to us (sometimes in spite of the preacher) and to call forth a response from us. As Jengie Jon, noted, it is for us the difference between the words of Scripture being static words on a page and something dynamic in this community in this moment. It doesn't always have to be a 15 or 20+ minute sermon (nor does it have to be a sermon at all), but it does need to be something more than just the reading of Scripture, something that proclaims the gospel in this place at this time.
I think I've also noted before on the Ship that I think perhaps the most distinctive Reformed liturgical element as compared to other traditions might be the Prayer for Illumination, which is said just prior to the reading of Scripture, and which asks in some way or another for God to be present in the ministry of the Word (Scripture and preaching). These prayers are typically short, similar to a collect. One I often use when I am the reader in church is "Overwhelm us with your Spirit, O God, that the words we hear may speak to our hearts as your Word, made known to us in Jesus Christ the Lord." I've never known the Prayer for Illumination to be omitted in a Presbyterian service, and I don't think I've ever encountered one in a non-Reformed church.
In the Reformed understanding, the Eucharist enacts and "seals" (to use Calvin's term) the gospel that is proclaimed in the ministry of the Word. Word and Sacrament are like the two parts of a hinge, and either is incomplete without the other. Of course, the reality is that historically we have been much better at maintaining that the Eucharist is incomplete without the ministry of the Word, and not nearly as good at maintaining—or at least practicing what we preach—that the ministry of the Word is incomplete without the Eucharist. At least in my corner of the Reformed world, and I think in others, there have been many signs in the recent decades that that is finally changing, and many efforts to bring about that change.
Before the Oxford Movement Anglicans and Reformed would have been on much the same page about the need for preaching at the Eucharist. The fact we are even having this discussion is a tribute to the way in which Oxford Movement and the Ritualists changed the views of High and MOTR Anglicans as to the relative importance of the ministries of Word and Sacrament.
And some Anglicans still are on the same page - that there shouldn’t be a breaking of bread without some sort of breaking of the word also. This is not confined to the evangelical end of the spectrum.
I think I've also noted before on the Ship that I think perhaps the most distinctive Reformed liturgical element as compared to other traditions might be the Prayer for Illumination, which is said just prior to the reading of Scripture, and which asks in some way or another for God to be present in the ministry of the Word (Scripture and preaching). These prayers are typically short, similar to a collect. One I often use when I am the reader in church is "Overwhelm us with your Spirit, O God, that the words we hear may speak to our hearts as your Word, made known to us in Jesus Christ the Lord." I've never known the Prayer for Illumination to be omitted in a Presbyterian service, and I don't think I've ever encountered one in a non-Reformed church.
In the Divine Liturgy used by the Orthodox Church we have this prayer said before the reading of the Gospel:
"Master, Lover of mankind, make the pure light of your divine knowledge shine in our hearts, and open the eyes of our mind to understand the message of your Gospel. Implant in us the fear of your blessed commandments, so that, having trampled down all carnal desires, we may change to a spiritual way of life, thinking and doing all things that are pleasing to you. For you are the illumination of our souls and bodies, Christ God, and to you we give glory, together with your Father who is without beginning, and your all-holy, good and life-giving Spirit, now and for ever, and to the ages of ages. Amen."
Many thanks, @Ex_Organist! I’m happy to learn that. I will readily confess to the deficiencies in my knowledge of and familiarity with Orthodox liturgy. That is something I need to, and would like to, correct.
The Anglican church claim to be Reformed and yet for the Reformed the sermon and not the Bible readings are the important part of the proclamation of the Word of God. The Reformed would question whether Christ is present in the Eucharist if he is not first heard in the proclamation of the Word. The Eucharist is insubstantial without the proclamation of the Word and the Word is desiccated without the Eucharist.
Why is it necessary to have the sermon to proclaim the Word please? To put it another way, why are the readings insufficient? As I read it, that makes the sermon of greater worth than the words themselves, and the preacher greater than the author.
The readings are insufficient because we do not believe in God's Word a something static but something dynamic that needs to be broken open or at least attempted to be within the current context. The sermon is thus the culmination of the pastoral visiting and Biblical engagement of the preacher in which he leads the congregation into a communal discernment of the Word.
Thanks to both you and Nick Tamen. I can see great value in having a sermon, based on at least on of the readings to clarify difficulties in comprehension, to give us a lesson for daily living, or both. But what I'm having trouble with is the idea that it's necessary before moving to the eucharist. Probably because I'm Anglican and you're both Reformed
I think there are a couple of related answers to what you're having trouble understanding, Gee D.
First—and this probably does play into "because I'm Anglican and you're both Reformed"—from a Reformed perspective, a sermon that clarified difficulties in comprehension and gave us a lesson for daily living would generally, at least in my experience, be considered a fairly "meh" sermon, and a preacher who regularly preached such sermons would probably be considered a fairly "meh" preacher. Not that there's anything wrong with either of those two things, and not that it's not good when a sermon can include those things, but that's not what we typically expect from a sermon. (NB: I'm not in any way criticizing those traditions where these things are the expectation for the sermon, or those traditions where there really isn't any expectation of a sermon at all. I simply trying to explain how our expectations are different, and how that difference plays into the relationship we see between sermon and Eucharist. No claim at all of superior or inferior.)
I'm struggling a bit to come up with how to express this. I've said on the Ship before that I think the Reformed understanding of Scripture and preaching in worship could be described as quasi-sacramental. That is to say, our understanding is that the point of preaching is to proclaim the activity of Jesus in the church and in the world, and our understanding is that Jesus is present in the community in the proclamation of the Word. To put it another way, we expect the sermon to be an encounter with the divine, an opportunity for God to speak to us (sometimes in spite of the preacher) and to call forth a response from us. As Jengie Jon, noted, it is for us the difference between the words of Scripture being static words on a page and something dynamic in this community in this moment. It doesn't always have to be a 15 or 20+ minute sermon (nor does it have to be a sermon at all), but it does need to be something more than just the reading of Scripture, something that proclaims the gospel in this place at this time.
I think I've also noted before on the Ship that I think perhaps the most distinctive Reformed liturgical element as compared to other traditions might be the Prayer for Illumination, which is said just prior to the reading of Scripture, and which asks in some way or another for God to be present in the ministry of the Word (Scripture and preaching). These prayers are typically short, similar to a collect. One I often use when I am the reader in church is "Overwhelm us with your Spirit, O God, that the words we hear may speak to our hearts as your Word, made known to us in Jesus Christ the Lord." I've never known the Prayer for Illumination to be omitted in a Presbyterian service, and I don't think I've ever encountered one in a non-Reformed church.
Contrariwise, the only such prayers I've heard in the Church of Scotland are paraphrases of the psalm "May the words of my mouth..." and that is a prayer I've commonly encountered in Anglican circles too. For myself I tend to begin with "May I speak in the name of God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit".
That or versions of it. Though I tend to pray extempore (briefly) before preaching. And that is when you will hear such a prayer in the CofS, typically, before the sermon, not before the Scripture readings. (Though since the CofS is such a varied bunch I wouldn't like to claim that you will never hear prayer for illumination before Scripture. In my experience we are far more of a mixed bag, liurgically, than our Presbyterian brethren across the Pond.)
Yes, the norm here—and maybe I’d be wise to limit what I’ve said about this particular bit of liturgy to my particular Reformed tribe, though my understanding and experience is that a similar pattern would be encountered in other American Presbyterian bodies and in Reformed Church in America and Christian Reformed churches—is the Prayer for Illumination, Scripture readings, then the sermon, which will often be preceded by “May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts . . . ,” or something similar. The psalm of the day, or a hymn or anthem, may happen between readings. Our Directory for Worship, which is governs worship in the PC(USA), specifically provides that the Prayer for Illumination is to precede the Scripture readings as well as the sermon.
Of course people respond differently. How that is treated and developed is important. One understanding does not invalidate another. God's Word is always heteroglossial but the discernment comes in the building up of the a complex and cohesive understanding.
That makes much more sense than your previous post, which I fear I took as being far too dismissive.
Before the Oxford Movement Anglicans and Reformed would have been on much the same page about the need for preaching at the Eucharist. The fact we are even having this discussion is a tribute to the way in which Oxford Movement and the Ritualists changed the views of High and MOTR Anglicans as to the relative importance of the ministries of Word and Sacrament.
And some Anglicans still are on the same page - that there shouldn’t be a breaking of bread without some sort of breaking of the word also. This is not confined to the evangelical end of the spectrum.
Personally, it is very, very rare that I do not 'break the word' in association with the Eucharist, though on some occasions it may migrate to the Bible Study afterwards. I am not definitely a party man in the sense of being High or Evangelical; I owe a bit to both sides. I am very uncomfortable with the idea of the Eucharist without some sort of exposition of the Word along with it, even if it is just a few sentences bring out a key concept in one of the lessons that might otherwise be missed.
Nick Tamen, Thank you for your long, detailed and thoughtful exposition. I had not been aware of the Prayer for Illumination, rather different to the prayer before the sermon to which others refer.. Indeed, in our service we do not have any such prayer at all, going straight into the first 3 readings; then of course the Gospel Acclamation. On a personal level, I like the concept of it.
I was not wanting to belittle the position of either by noting that the difference is probably due to the differing traditions from which we come. In many ways I welcome the existence of those differences, and that welcoming is a major part of our ecumenism. It's a recognition that none of us can know the full majesty of God. Madame and I shall dwell on your post as we walk this morning. A quick response, such as this, can't do it justice.
I was not wanting to belittle the position of either by noting that the difference is probably due to the differing traditions from which we come. In many ways I welcome the existence of those differences, and that welcoming is a major part of our ecumenism. It's a recognition that none of us can know the full majesty of God.
No worries—that’s exactly how I understood you, and why I wanted to be clear that had no intention of belittling other traditions. We seem to be very much on the same page when it comes the value of different approaches and understandings.
Yes, the norm here—and maybe I’d be wise to limit what I’ve said about this particular bit of liturgy to my particular Reformed tribe, though my understanding and experience is that a similar pattern would be encountered in other American Presbyterian bodies and in Reformed Church in America and Christian Reformed churches—is the Prayer for Illumination, Scripture readings, then the sermon, which will often be preceded by “May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts . . . ,” or something similar. The psalm of the day, or a hymn or anthem, may happen between readings. Our Directory for Worship, which is governs worship in the PC(USA), specifically provides that the Prayer for Illumination is to precede the Scripture readings as well as the sermon.
Funnily enough, the Collect for Purity at the beginning of the BCP Eucharistic liturgy may have been retained as a sort of Prayer for Illumination. Cranmer was familiar with Bucer's work in Strasburg, and his work with Melanchthon in Köln on behalf of Hermann von Weid. On a related point, it may have been Bucer who suggested the insertion of the Decalogue into the 1552/1559/1662 form of the Lord's Supper. On the other hand, when Bucer suggested modification of the Epiclesis in 1551, Cranmer went for deletion instead. Otherwise the 1552 would have retained an Epiclesis similar to Datheen's in the Dutch Reformed Liturgy...
Yes, the norm here—and maybe I’d be wise to limit what I’ve said about this particular bit of liturgy to my particular Reformed tribe, though my understanding and experience is that a similar pattern would be encountered in other American Presbyterian bodies and in Reformed Church in America and Christian Reformed churches—is the Prayer for Illumination, Scripture readings, then the sermon, which will often be preceded by “May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts . . . ,” or something similar. The psalm of the day, or a hymn or anthem, may happen between readings. Our Directory for Worship, which is governs worship in the PC(USA), specifically provides that the Prayer for Illumination is to precede the Scripture readings as well as the sermon.
The Book of Common Order in the Church of Scotland is suggestive rather than prescriptive, the conduct of worship being the responsibility of the parish minister. The Church of Scotland has Views about forms of worship being set centrally.
Yes, the norm here—and maybe I’d be wise to limit what I’ve said about this particular bit of liturgy to my particular Reformed tribe, though my understanding and experience is that a similar pattern would be encountered in other American Presbyterian bodies and in Reformed Church in America and Christian Reformed churches—is the Prayer for Illumination, Scripture readings, then the sermon, which will often be preceded by “May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts . . . ,” or something similar. The psalm of the day, or a hymn or anthem, may happen between readings. Our Directory for Worship, which is governs worship in the PC(USA), specifically provides that the Prayer for Illumination is to precede the Scripture readings as well as the sermon.
The Book of Common Order in the Church of Scotland is suggestive rather than prescriptive, the conduct of worship being the responsibility of the parish minister. The Church of Scotland has Views about forms of worship being set centrally.
And having trained in both the Church of Scotland and the PC(USA) I would say that the latter is far more consciously reformed than the former. For many in the CofS we are the Church of SCOTLAND primarily - held together by geography and a territorial ministry more than by conscious theology. And so when people see "nice bits" in other traditions, they often try to find ways to incorporate them. Also, again in my experience (urban and suburban Chicago and rural Oregon and New York) ecumenism is far more of a living thing in these parts than in the States, where often the denominations are so large that it is easy to ignore the church of another denomination across the road, unless you are doing something with an ecumenical label attached.
Of course people respond differently. How that is treated and developed is important. One understanding does not invalidate another. God's Word is always heteroglossial but the discernment comes in the building up of the a complex and cohesive understanding.
That makes much more sense than your previous post, which I fear I took as being far too dismissive.
The difference is that I would say the Reformed see it as what you bring to the proclamation of the Word while what I was seeing here seemed to be what you took away.
And having trained in both the Church of Scotland and the PC(USA) I would say that the latter is far more consciously reformed than the former. For many in the CofS we are the Church of SCOTLAND primarily - held together by geography and a territorial ministry more than by conscious theology. And so when people see "nice bits" in other traditions, they often try to find ways to incorporate them. ...
It's the difference between the default church of the place where you are, and being a 'something distinctive' because you've chosen to be or that's what your family has always been. A default church is what you are if you're Christian but aren't a specific variety of one, Church of Scotland in Scotland, Church of England in England, Catholic in France, Italy or Spain, Orthodox in Greece or Russia etc.
It's the same difference that there is between being Church of England and either 'Anglican' or 'Episcopalian'.
This may be a bit incomprehensible for shipmates who live in a country where there is so much variety that there isn't a default church.
In a default church, even your sense of tradition is different. If you're an Episcopalian, the tradition is 'because that's what's being an Episcopalian is about, what makes it distinctive'. In a default church tradition is, 'that's how we've always done it; it's implicit in our way of looking at things'.
I’ve been asked, as diocesan clergy, to contribute to a fund for the making of a new cozier for our new diocesan bishop. I will do so, but it raises a question: who ‘owns’ the crozier, the diocese or the person in the role of bishop?
I know the crozier is a sign of the bishop’s authority in his/her diocese, and the giving of the crozier in the installation ceremony is a sign of the diocese accepting that authority. Similarly the seating in the cathedra is a sign of the diocese acknowledging the bishop’s teaching authority. It is easy to assume that the cathedra belongs to the diocese. What about the crozier? I’d rather assumed that any diocese has one or perhaps several croziers in its closets, and brings one forth for the bishop to use. And I’ve assumed that once a diocesan bishop retires, they no longer have need of a crozier, since they no longer have authority over a defined group of parishes, and whatever crozier they carried goes back into the store room.
Based on that thinking I could better understand the funding of new vestments, since those are more-or-less personal. But a crozier? Thoughts? Clarifications? Am I just being a cranky and fussy high-up-the-candle pedant? (I've been called worse.)
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.
Yes, the norm here—and maybe I’d be wise to limit what I’ve said about this particular bit of liturgy to my particular Reformed tribe, though my understanding and experience is that a similar pattern would be encountered in other American Presbyterian bodies and in Reformed Church in America and Christian Reformed churches—is the Prayer for Illumination, Scripture readings, then the sermon, which will often be preceded by “May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts . . . ,” or something similar. The psalm of the day, or a hymn or anthem, may happen between readings. Our Directory for Worship, which is governs worship in the PC(USA), specifically provides that the Prayer for Illumination is to precede the Scripture readings as well as the sermon.
The Book of Common Order in the Church of Scotland is suggestive rather than prescriptive, the conduct of worship being the responsibility of the parish minister. The Church of Scotland has Views about forms of worship being set centrally.
Yes, the norm here—and maybe I’d be wise to limit what I’ve said about this particular bit of liturgy to my particular Reformed tribe, though my understanding and experience is that a similar pattern would be encountered in other American Presbyterian bodies and in Reformed Church in America and Christian Reformed churches—is the Prayer for Illumination, Scripture readings, then the sermon, which will often be preceded by “May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts . . . ,” or something similar. The psalm of the day, or a hymn or anthem, may happen between readings. Our Directory for Worship, which is governs worship in the PC(USA), specifically provides that the Prayer for Illumination is to precede the Scripture readings as well as the sermon.
The Book of Common Order in the Church of Scotland is suggestive rather than prescriptive, the conduct of worship being the responsibility of the parish minister. The Church of Scotland has Views about forms of worship being set centrally.
Same here, actually, where the Book of Common Worship would be analogous to the Book of Common Order. (Which, btw, I checked last night. Common Order does indeed have the Prayer for Illumination before the sermon rather than the readings.)
The difference between us and the Kirk, it seems, is that we also have a Book of Order, which is, at is were, church law. It is descended from the Westminster Assembly’s Form of Presbyterian Government, Directories for Public and Private Worship, etc. It has sometimes been described as a liturgy of rubrics only; it describes what must be done, what should be done, what may be done and what may not be done. The only time specific words are prescribed are the baptismal formula, the words of institution, and ordination vows. As described by the Wiki, “[t]he Directory for Worship includes the theological guidelines for worship within PC(USA) churches. In order to allow for a diversity of expression in worship, the Directory does not provide set orders for worship, but instead suggests the boundaries of worship that is in line with Reformed Christianity and the Scriptural warrants for worship. It is concerned more with standards and norms than any particular way or formulation of a liturgy or order of worship.” It does, however, set forth a pattern that is followed by most churches.
My hunch, unless canon law says something else, would be that the donor chooses rather to give it as a gift to a "the Rt. Rev'd ..." personally or as a donation to the diocese.
I have certainly known bishops who owned their (very simple and wooden) crosiers. One actually went to a farm-supply shop and bought a real working shepherd's crook. The other had his made from a largish fall tree branch. These were their personal property. One of them is now dead, and his widow gave his wooden crosier to one of his successors at her consecration, but as a personal gift rather than an intrinsic sign of the office.
All of which leads to a question: why don’t dioceses have permanent croziers that the bishop gets to use when they’re installed? Seems reasonable, and a show of consistency and legacy.
@ECraigR
That's my thought as well! The crozier and the cathdra go with the role in the diocese, not with the person in the role -- the authority comes from the role, so the signs of that authority goes with the role as well, and pass to the next person in the role. I wonder if such an approach might just help bishops stay somewhat humble by being reminded they are just one in a line of shepherds.
My hunch, unless canon law says something else, would be that the donor chooses rather to give it as a gift to a "the Rt. Rev'd ..." personally or as a donation to the diocese. ...
Aren't those two options, separated by the 'or', precisely the question @BabyWombat was asking, 'which?' and hoping to get an answer to! Or have I missed the point?
'Obviously' a retired bishop can still wear a mitre, can wear a purple shirt and still gets called out to do confirmations etc. So is a retired bishop still entitled to carry a crozier or not? The answer to that question may provide the answer to @BabyWombat's.
In addition to ones that have clearly been bought from agricultural suppliers, 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.
Yes, my current bishop’s crozier can be unscrewed. It’s a rather plain wooden one. It’s quite wobbly because of its screws, it seems. On occasion he’ll use the old crozier of our first Bishop, but that’s increasingly rare as the crozier needs a few repairs.
Well, I come from a non-episcopal, non-crosier-carrying tradition, so I very well may not know what I’m talking about, and large grains of salt are likely in order. But it has always been my impression from reading that a crosier (or papal ferula) is personal to a bishop, abbot/abbess or pope.
Right, that’s my understanding as well. But I wonder why that is? It seems like the perfectly symbolic object that could easily be associated with a specific diocese, and thus be passed down. I suppose this may be one of those things where it’s just always been this way, so why change it.
(tangent)
Emperor Zeno gave the Archbishop of the Church of Cyprus the authorisation to use an imperial sceptre instead of the episcopal crosier. (He can also wear purple robes instead of black under vestments and sign his name in a vermilion colour using cinnabar.)
Well, I come from a non-episcopal, non-crosier-carrying tradition, so I very well may not know what I’m talking about, and large grains of salt are likely in order. But it has always been my impression from reading that a crosier (or papal ferula) is personal to a bishop, abbot/abbess or pope.
Originally the Episcopal Office and Jurisdiction were only separated by death or retirement, so what the various bits and pieces symbolized and whether they denoted a bishop or a bishop's jurisdiction was a bit of a moot point. One reason the Romans kept the custom of (titular) Bishops in partibus infidelum (sp?) so long was because it enabled them to at least partly side step the whole question of what ornaments belonged to the bishop as a bishop, and which were jurisdiction specific. The custom of mitred abbots may have helped to resolve the problem eventually in that they were granted the mitre and crozier, but not the other pontificalia. The Romans eventually decided (after Trent 1545-63, I believe) that the crozier was the symbol of jurisdiction whilst the ring and mitre were those of the episcopal office, but then they messed up their own reasoning by continuing to present the crozier at the consecration of a bishop, even though he was not supposed to use it again until he had a jurisdiction of his own.
Anyone who is an expert of Tridentine Roman Catholicism is more than welcome to leap in.
We have one smaller than an egg cup. From memory I’d judge it’d hold little more than 2 teaspoonsfull.
I've seen something similar used for the communion of babies immediately after baptism, if baptism is celebrated apart from, or after (rather than before, or during) the Divine Liturgy.
All of which leads to a question: why don’t dioceses have permanent croziers that the bishop gets to use when they’re installed? Seems reasonable, and a show of consistency and legacy.
The Diocese of Ottawa has got a crozier from John Charles Roper's days, and is in three (or four? it's been years since I've seen it) pieces which screw together. I can't recall if Bishop Heahmund's crozier was one-piece in The Vikings.
There was reputed to have been one of William the Conquerors more plug-ugly Norman bishops who had a ball and chain attached to his crozier so that he could use it as a weapon.
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.
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!
Comments
Yes, the way it was phrased may have been overstated to the extent it says "the Anglican Church" claims to be Reformed, especially if "Anglican Church" is read to mean "churches of the Anglican Communion" rather than the Church of England. And as BroJames noted, even within the CofE, there may well be a difference between "reformed" and "Reformed."
But I think it was clear that the comment was not trying to make a statement for all Christian traditions, but rather was talking only about those who claim to be Reformed but don't act like it. If the "claim to be Reformed" shoe doesn't fit to start with, then there's no need to worry about whether the wearer of the shoe is acting Reformed.
Personally, I would tend to think of myself as being as much Reformed as reformed, and the Reformed theologians that float my boat are folks like Bucer and Bullinger rather than Beza and Perkins. I once got rather fed-up with a "Westminster Anglican" layman bashing the concept of baptismal regeneration, so I sent him Bullinger's sermon on Baptism, and then sat back and listened to the squawking. Not the most pastoral of responses, but the poor dear had obviously read only a limited number of cornflake packets. I am glad I did not enlighten him on the views of Bullinger on the Assumption - his might head have exploded completely...
For me this is clearly a YMMV question. I have found the readings themselves, even when they use rather cryptic passages, very useful and even fascinating, but am challenged to think of more than 3 or 4 sermons (out of-- quick math-- over 1,500) which I can remember or which had any impact. Now, I have primarily heard sermons in Anglican, Presbie, UCC, or RC settings (I except the Orthodox from this list as sermons in Arabic etc...) rather than from evangelical or Holiness churches, but as often as not they do not address the readings and frequently seem to be "Reader's Digest" excerpts of one sort or the other. As an over-generalization, Presbyterian ones are the meatiest and some of the UCC ones appear to have been composed with seriousness.
This has had the perhaps unfortunate effect that I no longer really pay attention to sermons unless my attention is twigged by an attempt to explain or comment on the text.
Not that that's important, or significant. Sermons (especially at a Sunday Mass) are for the specific time, and place. If they affect, positively, the lives of the Faithful Few during the subsequent week, they've done their job.
Certainly, if sermons do not address or flow from the readings then their value is different. To me failing to preach on or from the text of the read scripture would be like consecrating the elements and then going along the rail and administering Pringles.
I responded that
ETA: And I see that while I was composing this post, @BroJames made very much the same point with the same metaphor. Great minds and all . . . .
And something preachers would do well to remember! The days of publishing weighty Sermons, in equally weighty Tomes, are (I hope) over.
You missed the keyword 'communal', what you recall at some distance is not relevant, how the community understands and responds is. The congregation is the hermeneutic community within which the Word is sought. If you are claiming to be Reformed this shared task (and sorry, therefore, private thoughts do not count) is the key to understanding the activity of the Word. The Reformed really do not go in for private revelation of the Word.
Hmm. I would have thought, as part of the community, how I understood and responded was relevant, and my recollections (even at a distance) are part of that. But as I am not claiming to be Reformed, perhaps I'm not part of this shared task.
Thanks to both you and Nick Tamen. I can see great value in having a sermon, based on at least on of the readings to clarify difficulties in comprehension, to give us a lesson for daily living, or both. But what I'm having trouble with is the idea that it's necessary before moving to the eucharist. Probably because I'm Anglican and you're both Reformed
First—and this probably does play into "because I'm Anglican and you're both Reformed"—from a Reformed perspective, a sermon that clarified difficulties in comprehension and gave us a lesson for daily living would generally, at least in my experience, be considered a fairly "meh" sermon, and a preacher who regularly preached such sermons would probably be considered a fairly "meh" preacher. Not that there's anything wrong with either of those two things, and not that it's not good when a sermon can include those things, but that's not what we typically expect from a sermon. (NB: I'm not in any way criticizing those traditions where these things are the expectation for the sermon, or those traditions where there really isn't any expectation of a sermon at all. I simply trying to explain how our expectations are different, and how that difference plays into the relationship we see between sermon and Eucharist. No claim at all of superior or inferior.)
I'm struggling a bit to come up with how to express this. I've said on the Ship before that I think the Reformed understanding of Scripture and preaching in worship could be described as quasi-sacramental. That is to say, our understanding is that the point of preaching is to proclaim the activity of Jesus in the church and in the world, and our understanding is that Jesus is present in the community in the proclamation of the Word. To put it another way, we expect the sermon to be an encounter with the divine, an opportunity for God to speak to us (sometimes in spite of the preacher) and to call forth a response from us. As Jengie Jon, noted, it is for us the difference between the words of Scripture being static words on a page and something dynamic in this community in this moment. It doesn't always have to be a 15 or 20+ minute sermon (nor does it have to be a sermon at all), but it does need to be something more than just the reading of Scripture, something that proclaims the gospel in this place at this time.
I think I've also noted before on the Ship that I think perhaps the most distinctive Reformed liturgical element as compared to other traditions might be the Prayer for Illumination, which is said just prior to the reading of Scripture, and which asks in some way or another for God to be present in the ministry of the Word (Scripture and preaching). These prayers are typically short, similar to a collect. One I often use when I am the reader in church is "Overwhelm us with your Spirit, O God, that the words we hear may speak to our hearts as your Word, made known to us in Jesus Christ the Lord." I've never known the Prayer for Illumination to be omitted in a Presbyterian service, and I don't think I've ever encountered one in a non-Reformed church.
In the Reformed understanding, the Eucharist enacts and "seals" (to use Calvin's term) the gospel that is proclaimed in the ministry of the Word. Word and Sacrament are like the two parts of a hinge, and either is incomplete without the other. Of course, the reality is that historically we have been much better at maintaining that the Eucharist is incomplete without the ministry of the Word, and not nearly as good at maintaining—or at least practicing what we preach—that the ministry of the Word is incomplete without the Eucharist. At least in my corner of the Reformed world, and I think in others, there have been many signs in the recent decades that that is finally changing, and many efforts to bring about that change.
I hope this is at least somewhat helpful.
In the Divine Liturgy used by the Orthodox Church we have this prayer said before the reading of the Gospel:
"Master, Lover of mankind, make the pure light of your divine knowledge shine in our hearts, and open the eyes of our mind to understand the message of your Gospel. Implant in us the fear of your blessed commandments, so that, having trampled down all carnal desires, we may change to a spiritual way of life, thinking and doing all things that are pleasing to you. For you are the illumination of our souls and bodies, Christ God, and to you we give glory, together with your Father who is without beginning, and your all-holy, good and life-giving Spirit, now and for ever, and to the ages of ages. Amen."
Contrariwise, the only such prayers I've heard in the Church of Scotland are paraphrases of the psalm "May the words of my mouth..." and that is a prayer I've commonly encountered in Anglican circles too. For myself I tend to begin with "May I speak in the name of God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit".
Yes, the norm here—and maybe I’d be wise to limit what I’ve said about this particular bit of liturgy to my particular Reformed tribe, though my understanding and experience is that a similar pattern would be encountered in other American Presbyterian bodies and in Reformed Church in America and Christian Reformed churches—is the Prayer for Illumination, Scripture readings, then the sermon, which will often be preceded by “May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts . . . ,” or something similar. The psalm of the day, or a hymn or anthem, may happen between readings. Our Directory for Worship, which is governs worship in the PC(USA), specifically provides that the Prayer for Illumination is to precede the Scripture readings as well as the sermon.
That makes much more sense than your previous post, which I fear I took as being far too dismissive.
Personally, it is very, very rare that I do not 'break the word' in association with the Eucharist, though on some occasions it may migrate to the Bible Study afterwards. I am not definitely a party man in the sense of being High or Evangelical; I owe a bit to both sides. I am very uncomfortable with the idea of the Eucharist without some sort of exposition of the Word along with it, even if it is just a few sentences bring out a key concept in one of the lessons that might otherwise be missed.
I was not wanting to belittle the position of either by noting that the difference is probably due to the differing traditions from which we come. In many ways I welcome the existence of those differences, and that welcoming is a major part of our ecumenism. It's a recognition that none of us can know the full majesty of God. Madame and I shall dwell on your post as we walk this morning. A quick response, such as this, can't do it justice.
No worries—that’s exactly how I understood you, and why I wanted to be clear that had no intention of belittling other traditions. We seem to be very much on the same page when it comes the value of different approaches and understandings.
Funnily enough, the Collect for Purity at the beginning of the BCP Eucharistic liturgy may have been retained as a sort of Prayer for Illumination. Cranmer was familiar with Bucer's work in Strasburg, and his work with Melanchthon in Köln on behalf of Hermann von Weid. On a related point, it may have been Bucer who suggested the insertion of the Decalogue into the 1552/1559/1662 form of the Lord's Supper. On the other hand, when Bucer suggested modification of the Epiclesis in 1551, Cranmer went for deletion instead. Otherwise the 1552 would have retained an Epiclesis similar to Datheen's in the Dutch Reformed Liturgy...
The Book of Common Order in the Church of Scotland is suggestive rather than prescriptive, the conduct of worship being the responsibility of the parish minister. The Church of Scotland has Views about forms of worship being set centrally.
And having trained in both the Church of Scotland and the PC(USA) I would say that the latter is far more consciously reformed than the former. For many in the CofS we are the Church of SCOTLAND primarily - held together by geography and a territorial ministry more than by conscious theology. And so when people see "nice bits" in other traditions, they often try to find ways to incorporate them. Also, again in my experience (urban and suburban Chicago and rural Oregon and New York) ecumenism is far more of a living thing in these parts than in the States, where often the denominations are so large that it is easy to ignore the church of another denomination across the road, unless you are doing something with an ecumenical label attached.
The difference is that I would say the Reformed see it as what you bring to the proclamation of the Word while what I was seeing here seemed to be what you took away.
It's the same difference that there is between being Church of England and either 'Anglican' or 'Episcopalian'.
This may be a bit incomprehensible for shipmates who live in a country where there is so much variety that there isn't a default church.
In a default church, even your sense of tradition is different. If you're an Episcopalian, the tradition is 'because that's what's being an Episcopalian is about, what makes it distinctive'. In a default church tradition is, 'that's how we've always done it; it's implicit in our way of looking at things'.
I’ve been asked, as diocesan clergy, to contribute to a fund for the making of a new cozier for our new diocesan bishop. I will do so, but it raises a question: who ‘owns’ the crozier, the diocese or the person in the role of bishop?
I know the crozier is a sign of the bishop’s authority in his/her diocese, and the giving of the crozier in the installation ceremony is a sign of the diocese accepting that authority. Similarly the seating in the cathedra is a sign of the diocese acknowledging the bishop’s teaching authority. It is easy to assume that the cathedra belongs to the diocese. What about the crozier? I’d rather assumed that any diocese has one or perhaps several croziers in its closets, and brings one forth for the bishop to use. And I’ve assumed that once a diocesan bishop retires, they no longer have need of a crozier, since they no longer have authority over a defined group of parishes, and whatever crozier they carried goes back into the store room.
Based on that thinking I could better understand the funding of new vestments, since those are more-or-less personal. But a crozier? Thoughts? Clarifications? Am I just being a cranky and fussy high-up-the-candle pedant? (I've been called worse.)
Then, maybe just indicating my diocese does things backwards, we must have twenty mitres and copes, and all other kinds of vestments.
The difference between us and the Kirk, it seems, is that we also have a Book of Order, which is, at is were, church law. It is descended from the Westminster Assembly’s Form of Presbyterian Government, Directories for Public and Private Worship, etc. It has sometimes been described as a liturgy of rubrics only; it describes what must be done, what should be done, what may be done and what may not be done. The only time specific words are prescribed are the baptismal formula, the words of institution, and ordination vows. As described by the Wiki, “[t]he Directory for Worship includes the theological guidelines for worship within PC(USA) churches. In order to allow for a diversity of expression in worship, the Directory does not provide set orders for worship, but instead suggests the boundaries of worship that is in line with Reformed Christianity and the Scriptural warrants for worship. It is concerned more with standards and norms than any particular way or formulation of a liturgy or order of worship.” It does, however, set forth a pattern that is followed by most churches.
I have certainly known bishops who owned their (very simple and wooden) crosiers. One actually went to a farm-supply shop and bought a real working shepherd's crook. The other had his made from a largish fall tree branch. These were their personal property. One of them is now dead, and his widow gave his wooden crosier to one of his successors at her consecration, but as a personal gift rather than an intrinsic sign of the office.
That's my thought as well! The crozier and the cathdra go with the role in the diocese, not with the person in the role -- the authority comes from the role, so the signs of that authority goes with the role as well, and pass to the next person in the role. I wonder if such an approach might just help bishops stay somewhat humble by being reminded they are just one in a line of shepherds.
'Obviously' a retired bishop can still wear a mitre, can wear a purple shirt and still gets called out to do confirmations etc. So is a retired bishop still entitled to carry a crozier or not? The answer to that question may provide the answer to @BabyWombat's.
In addition to ones that have clearly been bought from agricultural suppliers, 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.
Emperor Zeno gave the Archbishop of the Church of Cyprus the authorisation to use an imperial sceptre instead of the episcopal crosier. (He can also wear purple robes instead of black under vestments and sign his name in a vermilion colour using cinnabar.)
Originally the Episcopal Office and Jurisdiction were only separated by death or retirement, so what the various bits and pieces symbolized and whether they denoted a bishop or a bishop's jurisdiction was a bit of a moot point. One reason the Romans kept the custom of (titular) Bishops in partibus infidelum (sp?) so long was because it enabled them to at least partly side step the whole question of what ornaments belonged to the bishop as a bishop, and which were jurisdiction specific. The custom of mitred abbots may have helped to resolve the problem eventually in that they were granted the mitre and crozier, but not the other pontificalia. The Romans eventually decided (after Trent 1545-63, I believe) that the crozier was the symbol of jurisdiction whilst the ring and mitre were those of the episcopal office, but then they messed up their own reasoning by continuing to present the crozier at the consecration of a bishop, even though he was not supposed to use it again until he had a jurisdiction of his own.
Anyone who is an expert of Tridentine Roman Catholicism is more than welcome to leap in.
I've seen something similar used for the communion of babies immediately after baptism, if baptism is celebrated apart from, or after (rather than before, or during) the Divine Liturgy.
The Diocese of Ottawa has got a crozier from John Charles Roper's days, and is in three (or four? it's been years since I've seen it) pieces which screw together. I can't recall if Bishop Heahmund's crozier was one-piece in The Vikings.
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.
Wikipedia has this to say
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!