That would be a liturgical matter - miscellaneous questions

1181921232432

Comments

  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    kmann wrote: »
    My point is nonetheless that Scripture cannot record anything that happened after it was last written. The historical text - the Acts of the Apostles - stopped in the late 50s or early 60s. Mary could have been alive at that point. Whether or not she was assumed is, then, not a Biblical question but an historical one.

    If it were a purely historical question then we’d have to employ an understanding of history to investigate. The Ancients thought much differently about history than many do today, so I’m not sure how far we’d get with that.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    So it doesnt mean we assume Jesus had a mum?
  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    That is established by the text.
  • CruntCrunt Shipmate
    I thought the 'official Anglican' view was that she died, and we assume she went to heaven (that's what I learned on the Ship, at least).
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    BroJames wrote: »
    Fair enough, although within the Biblical period, Biblical material is part of the historical evidence.

    So what is the historical evidence for her assumption?

    By and large, the Protoevangelium of James. Grossly flawed as it is.

    One point that has to be made is that both Elijah and Enoch were assumed into heaven, so why not Our Lady?
  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    Crunt wrote: »
    I thought the 'official Anglican' view was that she died, and we assume she went to heaven (that's what I learned on the Ship, at least).

    I’ve not heard that one, but I don’t know what the Episcopal Church’s official teaching is on the Assumption of Mary. At my cathedral we celebrate it and talk about it as the full blown assumption, but we’re all very Anglo-Catholic.

  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    PDR wrote: »
    ... One point that has to be made is that both Elijah and Enoch were assumed into heaven, so why not Our Lady?
    The point I've been trying to make is that as scripture is silent on what happened to her at the end of her earthly journey. That may have happened. It may not. And what happened to Elijah is a lot clearer than what happened to my namesake.

    So
    • (a.) no specific belief about this is prescribed,
    • (b.) people can make up their own minds,
    • (c.) people are entitled not to make up their minds at all,
    • (d.) nobody can insist that they are right and everyone else must conform to their own take on this, and
    • (e.) this is an adiaphora.

    Is that shocking?

    I still think there is an Ecclesiantic question as to what in the CofE one is celebrating on the 15th August, how one marks it other than reading the passages for the day, or in what way it is different from the last Sunday of Advent.
  • Point of accuracy. The doctrine of the assumption of Mary into heaven is akin to the doctrine of the assumption of Moses in that both the individual is believed to have died but their body is assumed into Heaven. The assumption of Moses is based on a paragraph from Deuteronomy:
    5 And Moses the servant of the Lord died there in Moab, as the Lord had said. 6 He buried him in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but to this day no one knows where his grave is. 7 Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died, yet his eyes were not weak nor his strength gone. 8 The Israelites grieved for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days, until the time of weeping and mourning was over.

    Well that and an oblique quote in Jude but you will get more about that from this article.
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    PDR wrote: »
    ... One point that has to be made is that both Elijah and Enoch were assumed into heaven, so why not Our Lady?
    The point I've been trying to make is that as scripture is silent on what happened to her at the end of her earthly journey. That may have happened. It may not. And what happened to Elijah is a lot clearer than what happened to my namesake.

    So
    • (a.) no specific belief about this is prescribed,
    • (b.) people can make up their own minds,
    • (c.) people are entitled not to make up their minds at all,
    • (d.) nobody can insist that they are right and everyone else must conform to their own take on this, and
    • (e.) this is an adiaphora.

    Is that shocking?

    I still think there is an Ecclesiantic question as to what in the CofE one is celebrating on the 15th August, how one marks it other than reading the passages for the day, or in what way it is different from the last Sunday of Advent.

    Absolutely not shocking from my point of view, even though I am inclined to accept the Assumption as being an historical event, but Article 6 applies and it cannot be required doctrine, or dogma for Anglican because of the lack of Biblical evidence.
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    Without wishing to be irreverent, even if the Most Blessed Theotokos was, say, only 18 in 0 AD or 4 BC, by the early 60s either she would either be in her early 80s or mean the event which scripture does not cover had already happened.
    She was more likely 13 or 14, but yes, she would be in her 70s.
  • TheOrganistTheOrganist Shipmate
    edited August 2019
    Enoch wrote: »
    I still think there is an Ecclesiantic question as to what in the CofE one is celebrating on the 15th August, how one marks it other than reading the passages for the day, or in what way it is different from the last Sunday of Advent.
    I was brought up, both by the revered ordained parent and by the chaplain at school, to believe that if there was any feast on 15th August it was The Falling Asleep of the Blessed Virgin Mary. So, similar to the orthodox but without the bodily assumption bit.

    Both Papa and the chaplain were Mirfield trained, with the chaplain having done further study at St Stephen's House.
  • I'm currently reading a book about the importance
    of keeping your own spiritual life alive if you're a priest. At one point the (Anglican) author talks about the importance of Morning and Evening Prayer, and asserts that this is a unique gift that Anglicanism can offer the rest of the Church. Is this true? Surely other denominations have patterns of daily prayer that their clergy are required/encouraged to follow?
  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    I'm currently reading a book about the importance
    of keeping your own spiritual life alive if you're a priest. At one point the (Anglican) author talks about the importance of Morning and Evening Prayer, and asserts that this is a unique gift that Anglicanism can offer the rest of the Church. Is this true? Surely other denominations have patterns of daily prayer that their clergy are required/encouraged to follow?

    That sounds like an interesting book, and one I’m likely to agree with! May I ask for the title?

    Of course, the Roman Catholics and Orthodox have regular patterns of daily prayer. Unless I’m mistaken, the Anglican version derives from the RC version. I also think there’s a few different unofficial versions of daily prayer in Presbyterianism for the more liturgically minded.

  • Two things the boundary of cleric/lay for being required to do daily prayer is pretty rare. Traditionally the distinction has been religious/secular rather than cleric/lay. In more Protestant circles there is no such distinction.

    Equally, the pattern Morning and Evening is pretty unique. Monastics are traditionally seven times a day while even secular Catholic devotions seem to be several times (e.g. three times if you do the Angelus properly). More Protestant have tended towards a long session once a day.

    I say this as a layperson with a Reformed background who has always been morning and evening prayer.
  • ECR, the book is "Enfolded in Christ" by John-Francis Friendship.
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    Jengie Jon wrote: »
    Two things the boundary of cleric/lay for being required to do daily prayer is pretty rare. Traditionally the distinction has been religious/secular rather than cleric/lay. In more Protestant circles there is no such distinction.

    Equally, the pattern Morning and Evening is pretty unique. Monastics are traditionally seven times a day while even secular Catholic devotions seem to be several times (e.g. three times if you do the Angelus properly). More Protestant have tended towards a long session once a day.

    I say this as a layperson with a Reformed background who has always been morning and evening prayer.

    The BCP picked up on the late mediaeval parish priest habit of accumulating the offices into two groups with Matins, Lauds, Prime and Terce being said as a lump, and likewise Vespers and Compline. Sext and None tended to be hurried through after the daily Mass leaving the middle of the day free for pastoral work, or farm work. On the grader scale, the Old Foundation Cathedrals tended to have a daily round in the 15th century that started with Matins, Lauds and Prime starting a little before dawn, followed by the Lady Mass. Terce and Sext earmuffed the High Mass; None followed a late morning meal, which is how it came to be connected with the English word Noon. Vespers and Compline were sung in the late afternoon.

    Elements of Matins (opening responses, Venite, Te Deum), Lauds (Benedictus and Preces), and Prime (Benedicite, Creed, third collect), find their way into BCP Morning Prayer, and elements of Vespers (Opening Responses. Psalms and Mag) and Compline (Nunc Dimittis, Creed, third collect) into Evensong. Terce, Sext, and None quietly disappeared, as they did in Lutheranism. The Lutherans basically retained Lauds, which they expanded slightly to include the Invitatory Psalm, and Vespers, though this was one of the elements in their tradition that did not fare well in the 18th century, and has only been half heartedly revived.
  • PDR wrote: »
    The Lutherans basically retained Lauds, which they expanded slightly to include the Invitatory Psalm, and Vespers, though this was one of the elements in their tradition that did not fare well in the 18th century, and has only been half heartedly revived.

    Did all the different Lutheran national churches follow a similar pattern in what elements of the Daily Office they retained until the 18th century, or were there differences? Which of them, if any, required clergy to pray its version of the office? And how have the churches (now including the Lutheran churches in North America and elsewhere) differed in their readoption of it?

    Do any Lutheran churches today require clergy to pray a daily office?
  • The 1928 Prayer Book had an order for Prime (most of which was not included in the 1662 Matins, plus a short Devotion before Holy Communion which contained the set psalm from Terce; it also had an order for Compline.

    Of course, we have the more evangelical of our (then) MPs to thank for the fact that the 1928 proposal, which had been passed by both Convocations and the Church Council, was rejected by Parliament.
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    In the 16th and 17th centuries they tended to be similar, but not the same. The usual structure for Lutheran Matins was

    O Lord, open thou our lips, & c.
    Ps. 95
    1 to 3 Psalms
    Short Lesson
    Te Deum or Benedictus - often in Latin
    (Creed)
    Lord's Prayer
    (Preces)
    Collect of the Day
    Benedicamus

    Vespers lacked Ps.95 and swapped the morning canticles for the Magnificat and Nunc Dimittis. On the whole rural churches used the Offices less than major town churches, as the personnel to offer the Offices often derived from Grammar Schools.

    The revival of Vespers and then Matins tended to see the old 17th century forms being revived, and then tweaked a little. Vespers was a little more popular than Matins, having never been completely dropped. In the USA the Swedish-origin Augustana Synod tended to be the most hospitable to the idea of reviving the Daily Office, whilst the German-origin synods seem to stick it in the Hymnal and then forget about it except on Wednesdays in Lent - maybe.

    Augustana's influence was very noticeable in the 1958 Service Book and Hymnal (Red Book) in that the form provided there was enriched by the addition of optional responsoraries, and the hymnal section included quite a few office hymns. In more recent times they have started messing around with things like the Service of Lights following the same line of development as the 1979 BCP in the USA, and the ASB and CW in the UK.

    AFAIK, the European Lutheran churches all have their versions of Matins and Vespers, and in certain circles this is expanded to include the Day Hours and Compline. Some of these liturgies are official; others are published by para-Church organisations, but meet with widespread acceptance by the PTBs. The revival has been strongest in Sweden, and weakest in Germany as far as I can tell.

    The obligation to read the office did not survive in Lutheranism as it is rather contrary to the spirit of Lutheranism. None of the major Lutheran denominations in the USA requires the clergy to read the office, though it is evident that a minority do. High Church and Evangelical Catholic groups within Lutheranism tend to promote the use of the office.

  • Lutheran Matins followed almost exactly the form of the old Catholic ante communion.
  • I shall probably be burned at the stake for saying this, but I much prefer Lutheran-style, or RCC, Vespers to Anglican Evensong...
    :scream:
    ...especially if Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament is to follow.

    It is, of course, quite easy to shorten Anglican Evensong, so that it becomes 'Vespers'...
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    edited August 2019
    The 1928 Prayer Book had an order for Prime (most of which was not included in the 1662 Matins, plus a short Devotion before Holy Communion which contained the set psalm from Terce; it also had an order for Compline.

    Of course, we have the more evangelical of our (then) MPs to thank for the fact that the 1928 proposal, which had been passed by both Convocations and the Church Council, was rejected by Parliament.

    According to Hensley Henson, who was then Bishop of Durham, it would have passed handily had the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs decided not to vote on a measure that concerned the English Church. He also noted that the extreme Anglo-Catholics also voted against it because they were afraid that the bishops might actually impose some discipline and clamp down on the use of things like the English Missal and Benediction. It has to be said that around these parts quite a few parishes used it anyway when it became clear the Bishop was not going to discipline anyone who used it. Until they fell apart the desk BCPs in my home parish were 1928s.
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    I shall probably be burned at the stake for saying this, but I much prefer Lutheran-style, or RCC, Vespers to Anglican Evensong...
    :scream:
    ...especially if Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament is to follow.

    It is, of course, quite easy to shorten Anglican Evensong, so that it becomes 'Vespers'...

    The American 1928 BCP is quite open (as in you do not have to hunt all over the book to find the rubric) in allowing MP and EP to be shortened by one lesson and one canticle, so I assume that that arrangement enjoyed quite a bit of official favour at one point. On weekdays, if we have the offices in church, I will generally use the shorter version mainly because it hangs together very well, but partially because quite a few of my congregation grew up Lutheran anyway.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    I shall probably be burned at the stake for saying this, but I much prefer Lutheran-style, or RCC, Vespers to Anglican Evensong...
    :scream:
    ...especially if Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament is to follow.

    It is, of course, quite easy to shorten Anglican Evensong, so that it becomes 'Vespers'...

    This RC thinks Choral Evensong in one of our medieval cathedrals is one of life's sublime experiences. I was in a university chapel choir that sang evensong using the normal cathedral repertoire three times a week. Later I was in a RC cathedral choir (Liverpool) that sang evening prayer (modern vespers) twice a week. Before all that I was in a seminary for 5 years that sang latin vespers daily.
    Of the three, my vote goes to choral evensong every time. It has matchless beauty and calm - providing the choir is top-notch.
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    I prefer the full Anglican Matins or Evensong on Sundays and the shorter version on weekdays when I am at home at St Oddball's. I find folks will come to short simple service on weekdays, but that MP and EP in their full versions are a bit too long for that purpose.

    I will always have a soft spot for choral Evensong (except when force fed Howells) but my wife is not so keen as I lived for four years in a cathedral city, and was able to attend Choral Evensong 3 to 5 times a week.
  • IMHO Howells' best, by far, is his Gloucester Service and the one most popular/commonly sung )"Coll Reg)" is my least favourite.
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    The Gloucester Service is one of the slack handful of Howells' settings that I like. Coll: Reg: on the music sheet was usually taken as an excuse to read EP at home when I lived in Ripon. I think the third time I heard it was one too many.
  • Easy to explain: Gloucester, and its organist, was the way our of a rural backwater for Howells; he loved the city and its cathedral, was inspired by the people he met through the Three Choirs Festival, and it shows in the compositions he wrote for Gloucester.
  • And yet, Howells' CollReg was a not insignificant factor in making me, as a young Roman Catholic, take notice of things Anglican. Different strokes...
  • Love Howells. Have sung lots. Always beautifully written for voices. The superbly bluesy Like as the hart always hits the spot for me. Yes, Coll Gloc has that brilliantly conceived opening to the mag with the intertwining upper voices. But the doxology in the Coll Reg mag and nunc always makes the hairs stand up on my arms - spine-tingling.
  • [pedant alert] Not "Coll" Gloc: the "Coll" in the shorthand for the King's Service (Collegium Regale), but the Gloucester Service was for the cathedral of that city and is only ever known as The Gloucester Service.

    I feel better now!
  • All this talk of Howells has put me in the mood to listen to some of his work. While the cathedral has been closed this summer to get a new floor I’ve been severely deprived of church music, so this reminder of his excellent work is just what I needed.
  • ZappaZappa Ecclesiantics Host
    This board aims to please :blush:
  • [pedant alert] Not "Coll" Gloc: the "Coll" in the shorthand for the King's Service (Collegium Regale), but the Gloucester Service was for the cathedral of that city and is only ever known as The Gloucester Service.

    I feel better now!

    Except in the London university college chapel choir and in the (RC) cathedral choir where I sang and where it was known as Coll Gloc by all.
    Don't mention it.
  • Do tell Gloucester Cathedral that they have been relegated to the status of a college - I'm sure the Dean and Chapter will be delighted.
  • Last Sunday the readings were about the cost of discipleship. I heard a good sermon, which contained a striking comparison: "We charge no fee for baptism. But it costs everything."

    There's a lot to think about there, but I'm asking here about a small point. Why does the CoE not charge for baptisms, when we do for funerals and weddings? The explanation I was given a long time ago is that baptism is a sacrament, so there's no fee, any more than there would be for receiving Communion.

    Is this explanation correct?

    What do other denominations do about fees here? Especially those who believe there are more than two sacraments?
  • Yes, I think that explanation, as regards the C of E, is correct.

    Mainstream thinking (going back to the Reformation, I guess) is that there are two sacraments specifically commanded by Our Lord, to wit, Baptism, and Holy Communion.


  • I’ve never heard of charging for a baptism. We don’t charge for weddings of members, either, except for a fee for the organist and for the sexton/custodian. Nonmembers are charged a fee for use of the church.

    And no charge for funerals either, except possibly again for the organist and/or sexton/custodian.
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    When I was in a seven sacraments corner of Anglicanism the local policy was 'we do not charge for sacraments, but we may charge for the use of the building.' This was a common sense policy based on the fact that cranking up the heating system on a chilly morning in February was going to put a hole in the budget. I seem to recall that we asked for $30 to cover the heat. In the case of nuptial and requiem masses you often got a little white envelope with two or three portraits of General Grant in it, but it was not a formal fee.

    Here we have a different system, but I still do not ask for a surplice fee except for marriages where I ask for a small fee to cover my time running back and forth to the courthouse. The vestry charges a fee is to cover the heat or A/C in the church - usually $100 with this building, which is fairly large - though in cases of need we forget to mention it.

    When it comes to folks ability to appreciate what it costs to do things I find my wife's observation from when she used to busk in the bars on St Patrick's Day holds true - "The working man appreciates you more." However I always tell her that's because a lot of guys have a soft spot for cute redheads. I will not repeat her response to that one!
  • RCs do charge "stole fees" for public sacraments celebrated in church, and an offering is made if we ask for a mass for our own intention. RC priests are not salaried - I suppose that is the thinking.
  • I think there is more to it than that. Baptism is the entry sacrament that marks our coming to Christ. I suspect that the interpretation of "let the little ones come unto me and do not hinder them" makes charging a fee for the Baptism not something the Church would be willing to consider.
  • PDR wrote: »
    ... In the case of nuptial and requiem masses you often got a little white envelope with two or three portraits of General Grant in it, but it was not a formal fee. ...
    ??????? !!!!!!
    That's clearly a cultural reference that is beyond my experience. Is that the one who was a general in the US Civil War and then president? Or someone else? Either way, why, and what does that mean? Do US$s have a picture of him on them?
  • Jengie Jon wrote: »
    I think there is more to it than that. Baptism is the entry sacrament that marks our coming to Christ. I suspect that the interpretation of "let the little ones come unto me and do not hinder them" makes charging a fee for the Baptism not something the Church would be willing to consider.

    This.

  • Charging for sacraments smacks a little of Simony.
  • Enoch wrote: »
    PDR wrote: »
    ... In the case of nuptial and requiem masses you often got a little white envelope with two or three portraits of General Grant in it, but it was not a formal fee. ...
    ??????? !!!!!!
    That's clearly a cultural reference that is beyond my experience. Is that the one who was a general in the US Civil War and then president? Or someone else? Either way, why, and what does that mean? Do US$s have a picture of him on them?
    Yes, the general and president. His picture is on the $50 bill, so @PDR means he got an honorarium of $100 or $150 in cash.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »

    Yes, the general and president. His picture is on the $50 bill, so @PDR means he got an honorarium of $100 or $150 in cash.
    Thank you.

  • Charging for sacraments smacks a little of Simony.

    Do RC churches charge for weddings and funerals, as Anglicans do?
  • Charging for sacraments smacks a little of Simony.
    Charging for sacraments smacks a little of Simony.

    Do RC churches charge for weddings and funerals, as Anglicans do?

    People pay when they have a wedding etc in Church. They aren't refused if there is no money - so it isn't exactly charging. I don't think there are set fees, its more a case of "an offering towards the cost of opening the building, leccie at would be appreciated" and an envelope is handed over. It would probably better to have set fees as other places do.
    Funeral directors seem to be in charge of funeral finances. I'm an organist and I (and the parish) are paid by the funeral directors. They seem to have set what the rate should be - nobody's ever asked me what I charge. Two envelopes with cheques arrive with the coffin. One for me and one for the parish. Its the only time I ever handle a cheque!
  • The answer is both NO and YES.It is expected but not demanded that people will make an offering to cover lighting,heating etc
    And if there is a Mass offered for a particular intention then there should be a Mass offering but it is not demanded.
  • Enoch wrote: »
    I still think there is an Ecclesiantic question as to what in the CofE one is celebrating on the 15th August, how one marks it other than reading the passages for the day, or in what way it is different from the last Sunday of Advent.
    I was brought up, both by the revered ordained parent and by the chaplain at school, to believe that if there was any feast on 15th August it was The Falling Asleep of the Blessed Virgin Mary. So, similar to the orthodox but without the bodily assumption bit.

    Both Papa and the chaplain were Mirfield trained, with the chaplain having done further study at St Stephen's House.

    The Anglican Church of Canada, in its 1959/1962 BCP, which is still the doctrinal standard, has August 15th as The Falling Asleep of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The BAS has August 15th as a red letter Feast of the Blessed Virgin Mary. I am not entirely certain what rigour is observed.
Sign In or Register to comment.