That would be a liturgical matter - miscellaneous questions

1232426282932

Comments

  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    I stand to be corrected, but I think Cranmer prescribed a sermon to be preached at every celebration of the Lord's Supper, as far back as the original 1549 BCP.

    At Our Place, we have a brief (very brief - 2 minutes max) at each weekday Mass, usually (but not invariably) focussing on the Gospel. At Sunday Mass, we have the 3 readings + Psalm as per the C of E version of the lectionary.

    Much the same at ours. Sometimes on weekdays the brief homily is incorporated into the greeting to give the folks something to focus on during the readings. Seems to work.
  • I am always, or nearly always, pleased to have an exposition of the Word at any service which I attend. I thought ,however, that the movement at the Reformation was supposed to encourage people to read the Bible for themselves and decide for themselves what it means without the intervention of any priest. As several people have said an Anglican eucharist, just like a Catholic eucharist, or indeed an Orthodox eucharist or a Lutheran eucharist has an inbuilt section of readings from scripture, culminating in a passage taken from one of the Gospels. If these passages are in a language understood by the people do they absolutely need any further commentary ?
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Forthview wrote: »
    I am always, or nearly always, pleased to have an exposition of the Word at any service which I attend. I thought ,however, that the movement at the Reformation was supposed to encourage people to read the Bible for themselves and decide for themselves what it means without the intervention of any priest. As several people have said an Anglican eucharist, just like a Catholic eucharist, or indeed an Orthodox eucharist or a Lutheran eucharist has an inbuilt section of readings from scripture, culminating in a passage taken from one of the Gospels. If these passages are in a language understood by the people do they absolutely need any further commentary ?
    Certainly there was an expectation that having the Bible in the vulgar tongue would enable people to see for themselves what it meant, but it was not intended to do away with preaching.

    And no they don’t ‘absolutely’ need further commentary, but preaching is more than commentary, and it is highly desirable that it should be provided if at all possible.
  • Well, one might think not, but, if so, why did Cranmer insist on a sermon at every Communion service (which was intended to be THE main service each Sunday, and Holyday)?

    As @Alan29 says, a very brief homily can help focus otherwise busy/distracted people on the Word of God.

    YMMV, of course!
  • I would have thought having the Bible available to all was not intended to remove the need for sound preaching but to help guard preachers against error by giving their flock the means to challenge them.
  • Ah now, that is a good point !
  • The Book of Common Prayer is perfectly clear on the matter. The sermon or homily comes after the notices:
    Then shall follow the Sermon, or one of the Homilies already set forth, or hereafter to be set forth, by authority.

    Then shall the Priest return to the Lord's Table, and begin the Offertory, saying one or more of these Sentences following, as he thinketh most convenient in his discretion.

    Nothing confusing or unclear about that.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    PDR wrote: »
    The whole thing sounds as odd as a nine bob note! The sermon goes either before the Creed or after the Creed most of the time.

    Very true, very true indeed. The lucky days are when there's no sermon.

    I vaguely recall being taught that in public worship one should not break the bread without also breaking the word first. Is that not a common idea?

    There are the 3 standard readings - OT, NT and Gospel - and 4 if you count the Psalm. That well and truly breaks open the word and in the best possible way

    "Breaks open"? If you believe that the you also seem to think that interpretation is a personal rather than a shared matter. In the Reformed the local congregation is a hermenuetical community and the Sunday sermon is supposed to be based as much on the pastoral engagement of the preacher with the community as on the text of the Bible. Ideally there should also be space for debate but that is difficult to produce.
  • ZappaZappa Ecclesiantics Host
    I must say I get sick of constant whinging about "the sermon." For 35 years I've put a shitload of hard work into research and preparation, as well as delivery, of these components of liturgy. They not only break open the word, but engage word and world in a manner that offers hope, and a myriad other gospel components, in a world somewhat short of light-in-darkness.

    Are sermons perfect? No. They are not a particularly good pedagogical form. But they are a liturgical component, essential to the liturgical drama in most circumstances.

    Are all preachers good? No. But that is the responsibility of trainers to rectify ... these days I work in that field too so I know how much effort is being made. Not enough. But that's my job, to up-game that.

    Get trained in preaching skills if you think you (no finger pointing here ... any of us who whinge) you can do better. You may be the next Wesley. Or not.

    But if you don't want a sermon* have a cup of (really bad) instant coffee and sit down and watch Songs of Praise or something.

    As it happens I'm heading off - ninety minutes each way - to preach a sermon now. It's a fundamental part of presiding and hopefully bringing a word of light life justice compassion hope comfort et cetera to a tiny atom of the Body of Christ faced with an overheating planet and disintegrating international leadership. Perhaps I should omit it and tell them to watch whatever the fuck is the latest fluffy escapism so-called reality TV schmaltz instead. Here - have some bread and wine and piss off.

    After all I could have spent those several hours of prep doing something useful. Playing golf or something.

    *Since I'm a host here I have restrained myself from what I really want to say. But it could be expressed in the acronym STFU. Then I would have issued myself a warning. And probably ignored it.
  • Forthview wrote: »
    In an Anglican eucharist is there not always a reading from the scriptures - including the Gospels ? . Is that not a liturgy of the Word ? Does there absolutely need to be a further elucidation of the Word in the form of a sermon ?

    I believe Richard Hooker argued that preaching is not absolutely needed, but that the Word can speak for itself (in his Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity).
  • But surely you never just give them bread and wine and tell them to piss off. If you are following a standard Anglican eucharist the first part of that will have been a Liturgy of the Word. I appreciate as much as anyone else a good sermon and a thought provoking elucidation of the Word,but it is the Word itself which is the more important.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Equally you don’t just consecrate the bread and wine and leave them on the altar. Rather you administer them to the communicants which is what the sermon does (should do) for the word.
  • Forthview wrote: »
    I am always, or nearly always, pleased to have an exposition of the Word at any service which I attend. I thought ,however, that the movement at the Reformation was supposed to encourage people to read the Bible for themselves and decide for themselves what it means without the intervention of any priest. As several people have said an Anglican eucharist, just like a Catholic eucharist, or indeed an Orthodox eucharist or a Lutheran eucharist has an inbuilt section of readings from scripture, culminating in a passage taken from one of the Gospels. If these passages are in a language understood by the people do they absolutely need any further commentary ?
    This is ground that has been trod here many times over the years, but as @Jengie Jon notes, from a Reformed perspective, the sermon/homily is not “further commentary” on the readings. It is perhaps better described as active engagement with one or more of the readings to explore and discern what the Spirit might be saying to the gathered community in this time at this place. And there is an expectation that the Spirit is at work in that exploration, making Christ present.

  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Forthview wrote: »
    I am always, or nearly always, pleased to have an exposition of the Word at any service which I attend. I thought ,however, that the movement at the Reformation was supposed to encourage people to read the Bible for themselves and decide for themselves what it means without the intervention of any priest. As several people have said an Anglican eucharist, just like a Catholic eucharist, or indeed an Orthodox eucharist or a Lutheran eucharist has an inbuilt section of readings from scripture, culminating in a passage taken from one of the Gospels. If these passages are in a language understood by the people do they absolutely need any further commentary ?
    This is ground that has been trod here many times over the years, but as @Jengie Jon notes, from a Reformed perspective, the sermon/homily is not “further commentary” on the readings. It is perhaps better described as active engagement with one or more of the readings to explore and discern what the Spirit might be saying to the gathered community in this time at this place. And there is an expectation that the Spirit is at work in that exploration, making Christ present.

    I'm beginning to wonder whether after nearly 8 years the Presbyterianism is starting to affect me as I would certainly concur with that perspective.

    @Zappa: I do preach when I'm asked to. If you'd like to tell me how badly I'm doing I'll gladly send you my script from last Sunday.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Forthview wrote: »
    I am always, or nearly always, pleased to have an exposition of the Word at any service which I attend. I thought ,however, that the movement at the Reformation was supposed to encourage people to read the Bible for themselves and decide for themselves what it means without the intervention of any priest. As several people have said an Anglican eucharist, just like a Catholic eucharist, or indeed an Orthodox eucharist or a Lutheran eucharist has an inbuilt section of readings from scripture, culminating in a passage taken from one of the Gospels. If these passages are in a language understood by the people do they absolutely need any further commentary ?
    This is ground that has been trod here many times over the years, but as @Jengie Jon notes, from a Reformed perspective, the sermon/homily is not “further commentary” on the readings. It is perhaps better described as active engagement with one or more of the readings to explore and discern what the Spirit might be saying to the gathered community in this time at this place. And there is an expectation that the Spirit is at work in that exploration, making Christ present.
    I'm beginning to wonder whether after nearly 8 years the Presbyterianism is starting to affect me as I would certainly concur with that perspective.
    :smile:

    Forthview wrote: »
    I appreciate as much as anyone else a good sermon and a thought provoking elucidation of the Word, but it is the Word itself which is the more important.
    Somehow I missed this earlier, but fwiw, and in case this isn’t implicit in what I said earlier, from a Reformed perspective this is a something of a false distinction. The preaching of the Word is inextricably linked to the reading of the Word. Separating them, at least in the context of worship, is alien to our understanding.

  • I'm puzzled by evangelical Anglican churches that have no reading at all. There will be a sermon, that probably mentions 19 different texts, but there may be no Bible passage at all.
  • If they miss out the Bible reading(s), they are not being True Anglicans™, and the Archdeacon should be informed as soon as possible, so that correction may be made of this foul practice.
    :worried: :wink:
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Going back to @Qoheleth's weird service, an explanation has just occurred to me. @Qoheleth mentioned that this was in the church's printed booklet.

    You don't think, do you, that whoever prepared the booklet for printing or did the actual printing did not know anything about CofE services and simply didn't follow their instructions? So they got some of the material in the wrong order. Once it's printed on the page wrong, possibly everyone since who has had the misfortune to have to use the booklets has felt obliged to follow the booklet because it's too complicated to try to get the congregation to do anything other than follow what's on the page.

    Is that any more improbable as an explanation than any of the others?


    On preaching at a Eucharist, back in the days when all services were 1662 and the usual Sunday practice was 8 am Holy Communion, 11 am Morning Prayer, 6.30 pm Evening Prayer, it wasn't at all infrequent for there to be no sermon at the 8 am service. The readings then were two, epistle and gospel.

    The most recent 8 am BCP Holy Communion I attended (within the last few weeks) did include a short address on the gospel, which even without any breakfast inside me, I can say was excellent.


    Whether the principal service on a Sunday is a Eucharist or Service of the Word, it is expected, though, that not only will there be at least two readings but that there will be sermon or something corresponding closely to a sermon. Practice varies as to how long this should be. However much congregations may joke or grumble about overlong or boring sermons, though, they really do tend to feel short-changed if they get no sermon or less than they expect or are used to.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    BroJames wrote: »
    I would say it presents the word, but doesn’t break it open.

    Not too many sermons break it open.
  • MrsBeakyMrsBeaky Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    If they miss out the Bible reading(s), they are not being True Anglicans™, and the Archdeacon should be informed as soon as possible, so that correction may be made of this foul practice.
    :worried: :wink:

    My son in law here in NZ reached an agreement with the Bishop and Archdeacon that it is Lectionary during distinct seasons but that in Ordinary time they could choose to explore other passages/ topics which are relevant to the very distinct demographic that the church here is serving.
    I am Lectionary all the way but I really like this idea for this particular community 😊
  • CyprianCyprian Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    Robertus L wrote: »
    Perhaps this is some strange monastic adaptation? In the Dominican Rite the offertory and lavabo either take place at the beginning of mass, in low masses, or between the reading of the epistle and gospel at high mass. I think was also the case in the Sarum use. Definitely before the creed and sermon, but not quite as Qoheleth describes.

    I can't speak for the Dominican rite, but this isn't the case in the Sarum Use. My understanding is that there is a rite of Preparation of the Gifts in the places you state but that the Offertory is in the same place as at other western rites.
  • If they miss out the Bible reading(s), they are not being True Anglicans™, and the Archdeacon should be informed as soon as possible, so that correction may be made of this foul practice.
    :worried: :wink:

    I've known several evangelical Anglican churches which have no reading. The only other church that does this, in my experience, are the Brethren, but there may be others.

    The church I know best that acts like this: the vicar that made the change went on to be an Archdeacon! :(
  • Was Outrage!
    :flushed:
  • If they miss out the Bible reading(s), they are not being True Anglicans™, and the Archdeacon should be informed as soon as possible, so that correction may be made of this foul practice.
    :worried: :wink:

    I've known several evangelical Anglican churches which have no reading. The only other church that does this, in my experience, are the Brethren, but there may be others.
    I’ve encountered it in Southern Baptist churches in the US.
  • Jengie Jon wrote: »
    In Reformed circles, yes it is a common idea. Among Anglicans on this board, no nearly so much.

    It should be then. As I understand it is equally part of (Roman) Catholic liturgical theology: no sacrament (including Reconciliation/Penance) should be celebrated without at least the reading of Scripture if not its exposition. The priest is the normal preacher at mass because he (sic) who breaks the bread should be the one who breaks the Word too.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    I am amazed that there are reformed churches that substitute the Word of God with the word of the preacher. Sola scriptura and all that.
    Its as though they have replaced the "magic hands" of the priest with the "magic mouth" of the preacher.
  • Alan29 wrote: »
    I am amazed that there are reformed churches that substitute the Word of God with the word of the preacher. Sola scriptura and all that.
    Its as though they have replaced the "magic hands" of the priest with the "magic mouth" of the preacher.

    "new presbyter is but old priest writ large" :naughty:
  • If I were being a pedant I would point out that the five Solas are Lutheran in origin though adopted widely in Reformed. However, classical Reformed never saw the Word of God as static in meaning and hence the requirement of a hermeneutical community which is always being reformed by the Word of God. It is within this dialogue where the Word is discerned or the the Word in that particular context.
  • Alan29 wrote: »
    I am amazed that there are reformed churches that substitute the Word of God with the word of the preacher. Sola scriptura and all that.
    Its as though they have replaced the "magic hands" of the priest with the "magic mouth" of the preacher.
    But again, that’s misunderstanding the Reformed (not reformed) approach. The preacher is hardly infallible or possessing a magic mouth. I couldn’t begin to estimate how often in my life a reasonable chunk of conversation at Sunday lunch was spent on the sermon—agreement, disagreement, what had resonated with different people, what challenged, what agitated, what comforted, what was questioned, etc.

    Anyone who stops at “preacher said so” doesn’t really get the Reformed understanding of preaching. As @Jengie Jon says, it’s a communal activity, though certainly one in which the preacher plays a specific and unique role. But what the preacher says is the start of conversation, not the end of it.

  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Fine. But there must be a wee bit in the preachers mind where he/she decides that what they have to say is more important than the Word of God.
  • Enoch wrote: »
    Going back to @Qoheleth's weird service, an explanation has just occurred to me. @Qoheleth mentioned that this was in the church's printed booklet.

    You don't think, do you, that whoever prepared the booklet for printing or did the actual printing did not know anything about CofE services and simply didn't follow their instructions? So they got some of the material in the wrong order. Once it's printed on the page wrong, possibly everyone since who has had the misfortune to have to use the booklets has felt obliged to follow the booklet because it's too complicated to try to get the congregation to do anything other than follow what's on the page.

    Is that any more improbable as an explanation than any of the others?

    The incumbent was away this morning, so I couldn't ask. The retired priest who was covering followed their customary practice. The incumbent is a senior and highly experienced priest, so I can't think that it's inadvertent.

    My hunch as I'm getting to know the community is that we have here an Ancient Local Usage, whose genesis has been lost in the mists of time, and its rectification is a battle not (yet) worth having - hence the two options in the rubric. The 8am quasi-BCP has only comparatively recently moved to using the CW Lectionary, thereby avoiding the preparation of two sermons.
  • Alan29 wrote: »
    Fine. But there must be a wee bit in the preachers mind where he/she decides that what they have to say is more important than the Word of God.

    Nope! That would be like a priest supposing their role in the Eucharist was more important than Christ's.
  • Alan29 wrote: »
    Fine. But there must be a wee bit in the preachers mind where he/she decides that what they have to say is more important than the Word of God.
    Why “must” there be? Why do you think Reformed ministers would be more prone to that than, say, Catholic priests?

    That’s certainly not the attitude, even a wee bit, of ministers I’ve encountered, and I’ve encountered lots of ministers.

    Once again, @Jengie Jon has it.

  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Jengie Jon wrote: »
    Alan29 wrote: »
    Fine. But there must be a wee bit in the preachers mind where he/she decides that what they have to say is more important than the Word of God.

    Nope! That would be like a priest supposing their role in the Eucharist was more important than Christ's.

    No that would be like the priest omitting the words of institution and epiklesis because he had something more interesting to say instead.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Well I think @Jengie Jon’s analogy is closer than yours, which may be because we differ about the nature and purpose of preaching.

    To change the analogy, in some respects the preacher is like a group leader preparing a party for a walk. She has studied the map in advance. She points out some likely viewpoints and the presence of a spring where water bottles can be refilled. She suggests a route, and indicates where there is a choice between a rocky scramble or a walk through a forestry road in a fir plantation.

    Nothing she has to say is more important than what the map has to show, but she draws connections between the potentialities of the map and the capacity of the group members.

    She has also noted that one town has a market fair in progress that day, and suggests a different location if the group wants to finish at a quiet pub.

    The group are all capable of reading the map, with greater or lesser degrees of comprehension and fluency. They are quite capable of noticing if she has got her contours back to front and what she has marked out as a likely viewpoint is in fact a small valley, or to venture alternative suggestions about route and destination. But she is the one who has studied and prepared with a view to enabling the group to make best use of the map for the outing they are planning.
  • The correct term for Reformed Ministers are ordained as Ministers of Word and Sacrament. 'Minister' means servant. As someone once said a servant is not greater than his master.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Jengie Jon wrote: »
    The correct term for Reformed Ministers are ordained as Ministers of Word and Sacrament. 'Minister' means servant. As someone once said a servant is not greater than his master.

    The school I went to was then Presbyterian, and after the big merger became Uniting. In Dlet's day, there were 2 new chaplains installed. One was to be Minister of the Table and the Word, but the younger to be Minister of the Word only - in Anglican terms, a deacon. He had decided that that was the ministry he wanted.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    BroJames wrote: »
    Well I think @Jengie Jon’s analogy is closer than yours, which may be because we differ about the nature and purpose of preaching.

    To change the analogy, in some respects the preacher is like a group leader preparing a party for a walk. She has studied the map in advance. She points out some likely viewpoints and the presence of a spring where water bottles can be refilled. She suggests a route, and indicates where there is a choice between a rocky scramble or a walk through a forestry road in a fir plantation.

    Nothing she has to say is more important than what the map has to show, but she draws connections between the potentialities of the map and the capacity of the group members.

    She has also noted that one town has a market fair in progress that day, and suggests a different location if the group wants to finish at a quiet pub.

    The group are all capable of reading the map, with greater or lesser degrees of comprehension and fluency. They are quite capable of noticing if she has got her contours back to front and what she has marked out as a likely viewpoint is in fact a small valley, or to venture alternative suggestions about route and destination. But she is the one who has studied and prepared with a view to enabling the group to make best use of the map for the outing they are planning.

    ....... but while denying the group access to the actual map without the leaders personal interpretation?
  • Alan29 wrote: »
    BroJames wrote: »
    Well I think @Jengie Jon’s analogy is closer than yours, which may be because we differ about the nature and purpose of preaching.

    To change the analogy, in some respects the preacher is like a group leader preparing a party for a walk. She has studied the map in advance. She points out some likely viewpoints and the presence of a spring where water bottles can be refilled. She suggests a route, and indicates where there is a choice between a rocky scramble or a walk through a forestry road in a fir plantation.

    Nothing she has to say is more important than what the map has to show, but she draws connections between the potentialities of the map and the capacity of the group members.

    She has also noted that one town has a market fair in progress that day, and suggests a different location if the group wants to finish at a quiet pub.

    The group are all capable of reading the map, with greater or lesser degrees of comprehension and fluency. They are quite capable of noticing if she has got her contours back to front and what she has marked out as a likely viewpoint is in fact a small valley, or to venture alternative suggestions about route and destination. But she is the one who has studied and prepared with a view to enabling the group to make best use of the map for the outing they are planning.

    ....... but while denying the group access to the actual map without the leaders personal interpretation?

    I'm pretty sure all Reformed churches advocate universal literacy, ready availability of Bibles in local languages and regular private reading of said Bibles.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    edited January 2020
    Alan29 wrote: »
    BroJames wrote: »
    Well I think @Jengie Jon’s analogy is closer than yours, which may be because we differ about the nature and purpose of preaching.

    To change the analogy, in some respects the preacher is like a group leader preparing a party for a walk. She has studied the map in advance. She points out some likely viewpoints and the presence of a spring where water bottles can be refilled. She suggests a route, and indicates where there is a choice between a rocky scramble or a walk through a forestry road in a fir plantation.

    Nothing she has to say is more important than what the map has to show, but she draws connections between the potentialities of the map and the capacity of the group members.

    She has also noted that one town has a market fair in progress that day, and suggests a different location if the group wants to finish at a quiet pub.

    The group are all capable of reading the map, with greater or lesser degrees of comprehension and fluency. They are quite capable of noticing if she has got her contours back to front and what she has marked out as a likely viewpoint is in fact a small valley, or to venture alternative suggestions about route and destination. But she is the one who has studied and prepared with a view to enabling the group to make best use of the map for the outing they are planning.

    ....... but while denying the group access to the actual map without the leaders personal interpretation?
    That comment appears not to have taken account of this part of my analogy
    The group are all capable of reading the map, with greater or lesser degrees of comprehension and fluency. They are quite capable of noticing if she has got her contours back to front and what she has marked out as a likely viewpoint is in fact a small valley, or to venture alternative suggestions about route and destination.
    And, I would add, the greater the extent to which those involved have engaged with the text before they hear it read and preached on, the greater their ability to critique the preacher’s take on it.
  • Jengie Jon wrote: »
    The correct term for Reformed Ministers are ordained as Ministers of Word and Sacrament. 'Minister' means servant. As someone once said a servant is not greater than his master.

    Here, there is a big effort to be sure that there is an "s" on the end of the last word. :)
  • Jengie JonJengie Jon Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    Technically in Reformed terms he was not a Minister/Presbyter but a Doctor which is a different ministry within the five fold Reformed tradition and I would struggle to see how the minister of Word differed from a Lay Preacher/Reader who is also an Elder
    Alan29 wrote: »
    BroJames wrote: »
    Well I think @Jengie Jon’s analogy is closer than yours, which may be because we differ about the nature and purpose of preaching.

    To change the analogy, in some respects the preacher is like a group leader preparing a party for a walk. She has studied the map in advance. She points out some likely viewpoints and the presence of a spring where water bottles can be refilled. She suggests a route, and indicates where there is a choice between a rocky scramble or a walk through a forestry road in a fir plantation.

    Nothing she has to say is more important than what the map has to show, but she draws connections between the potentialities of the map and the capacity of the group members.

    She has also noted that one town has a market fair in progress that day, and suggests a different location if the group wants to finish at a quiet pub.

    The group are all capable of reading the map, with greater or lesser degrees of comprehension and fluency. They are quite capable of noticing if she has got her contours back to front and what she has marked out as a likely viewpoint is in fact a small valley, or to venture alternative suggestions about route and destination. But she is the one who has studied and prepared with a view to enabling the group to make best use of the map for the outing they are planning.

    ....... but while denying the group access to the actual map without the leaders personal interpretation?

    Eh? The readings are read, a good Reformed person has their Bible in front of them, how are they denied access to the map during a sermon? Go through my posts I use words like 'dialogical' and 'hermenueutical community' these are not just meaningless phrases they have specific theological understandings and you would do well to get your head around them before you start critiquing the Reformed understanding of the Word. To use a popular analogy the action of the Word happens somewhere between the speaker's mouth and the listener's ear but there is no saying where.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Glad to hear that the congregation as a body have access to the Word of God without the mediation of a cleric.
  • Jengie JonJengie Jon Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    Alan29 some years ago I was in a Bible quiz on the URC team with a prominent liberal Anglican church and a very much educated middle class Methodist church. The URC is held to be a liberal denomination. This was in a suburb close to a university and a teaching hospital. All right if we had known in advance that the quiz was on Biblical knowledge we would not have fielded the a lecturer in Biblical Studies. That was the Methodists change feeling that it would be home territory for them. However the other team members was an elder and me, neither of which had a biblical or theological qualification at the time nor were we lay preachers. The Methodist Church fielded a team of local preachers. I think the Anglican may have had the vicar but I do not recall. The weakest member on our team was the same level as the top scoring Methodist lay preacher and the Anglican came below the Methodists. I would say that in the normal URC congregation about 10% of members have that level of Biblical literacy. They are not always middle class, and some never ever attend a formal course on Biblical Studies even at lay preaching level. I do not think the URC is exceptional among Reformed churches in this. If that is your congregation/partners-in-the-breaking-of-the-Word you cannot get away with not using the Bible.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Tangent alert
    Jengie Jon wrote: »
    Nope! That would be like a priest supposing their role in the Eucharist was more important than Christ's.
    Or, as was once commented after an opponent of the ordination had being going on and on about the importance of how the priest represented Christ at the Eucharist,

    'Funny. I thought that was what the bread and the wine did.'
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    Qoheleth wrote: »
    I have recently started partaking of the Holy Mysteries at 8am in a MoR CofE establishment. The locally printed service booklet is entitled "Common Worship Order Two - A service of Holy Communion according to the 1662 Book of Common Prayer", presumably in a spirit of comprise and/or camouflage :open_mouth: .

    One very peculiar anomaly for me is the position of the Sermon. After the Creed, an offertory sentence is read, the 'collection' of alms taken in silence, the elements placed upon the Holy Table, the chalice filled and the Lavabo performed. Then the Sermon is preached, and hands are not washed further :confused: . The rubric says "A homily (sermon) may be given here or after the Offertory".

    Is this a common practice within the BCP tradition?
    I have never heard of anything like this, but I wouldn't be surprised that something like this existed. In Norway I've seen some who celebrate the Eucharist before the sermon (so that the children may partake before they are sent to their respective places, i.e. Sunday schools).

    In Common Worship, order two, the sermon is placed just before the Offertory. There are only two rubrics that has a bearing otherwise. No.13 (p.332), which principally applies to order 1, but may be applied to order 2, states that a sermon "should normally be preached at all celebrations on Sundays and Principal Holy Days" (which means that at a midweek mass, it can be removed). No. 26 (p.335, which applies only to order 2) says: "At the discretion of the priest, the sermon may precede the Creed." Nowhere does it say that it can be moved after the Offertory and the Lavabo.
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    Tangent alert
    Jengie Jon wrote: »
    Nope! That would be like a priest supposing their role in the Eucharist was more important than Christ's.
    Or, as was once commented after an opponent of the ordination had being going on and on about the importance of how the priest represented Christ at the Eucharist,

    'Funny. I thought that was what the bread and the wine did.'
    Well, the priest represents Christ. The Eucharistic elements are Christ.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    kmann wrote: »
    Enoch wrote: »
    Tangent alert
    Jengie Jon wrote: »
    Nope! That would be like a priest supposing their role in the Eucharist was more important than Christ's.
    Or, as was once commented after an opponent of the ordination had being going on and on about the importance of how the priest represented Christ at the Eucharist,

    'Funny. I thought that was what the bread and the wine did.'
    Well, the priest represents Christ. The Eucharistic elements are Christ.

    The altar also represents Christ, so does the assembled people (the body of Christ according to Paul) and of course the Bible is the living Word of God.
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    I would have thought having the Bible available to all was not intended to remove the need for sound preaching but to help guard preachers against error by giving their flock the means to challenge them.

    That would be more-or-less my point of view. I also take the view that the various confessions of fait are there to stop clergy and laity getting too far off into the long grass with their interpretations of Scripture. However, I can only really deal with confessional statements if they have a clear Biblical basis.

    I also get a bit frustrated with the moonlight and mystery end of Anglicanism that seems to think their is something magical about priests. Most of us are fairly ordinary chaps and chapesses with our share of problems who have been called to the Ministry of Word and Sacraments. That responsibility is enough to carry without a huge burden of unrealistic expectation being heaped upon it.
  • The Bible is the living Word of God? Surely it's the written word, that points to the living Word?
Sign In or Register to comment.