Because Nonconformists would want to focus on the moment of Incarnation - i.e. the Birth; leaving the Consummation of that story - i.e. the Crucifixion - for (in particular but not exclusively) Easter-tide. To put it more simply, we don't want to celebrate "his dying love" at the moment he's born - it's the wrong moment, even though the birth obviously looks forward to the Passion.
Because Nonconformists would want to focus on the moment of Incarnation - i.e. the Birth; leaving the Consummation of that story - i.e. the Crucifixion - for (in particular but not exclusively) Easter-tide. To put it more simply, we don't want to celebrate "his dying love" at the moment he's born - it's the wrong moment, even though the birth obviously looks forward to the Passion.
And yet it seems to be non-conformists of an evangelical bent who can't go 10 minutes without mentioning the cross or being "washed in the blood of the lamb".
I have mentioned on the ship before the practice of the church of most of my childhood and teens of breaking for coffee between the ministry of the word and ministry of the sacrament, partly to allow those not (yet?) comfortable with communion, often baptismal parties, to slip out without fuss, and partly to encourage the congregation to take the time to get to know each other rather than rushing off to cook dinner.
That wouldn't work for the Orthodox, as we must take the Eucharist fasting.
Years ago I often went to an RC church. It puzzled me that a lot of people arrived late, and left early en masse. Eventually I got the explanation that, while it was an obligation to attend Mass, there were two points in the service that defined attending.
If one ever needed an example to explain the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law....
The 'spirit' needs only the law of love. Many people, including Orthodox, find it easier to adapt themselves to the 'letter' of the law rather than the spirit. Those of us who are not perfect doers of the law of love have to be encouraged and cajoled. occasionally even threatened. Some people used to say that the task of the Church is 'to get the maximum to do the minimum for their salvation'
Because Nonconformists would want to focus on the moment of Incarnation - i.e. the Birth; leaving the Consummation of that story - i.e. the Crucifixion - for (in particular but not exclusively) Easter-tide. To put it more simply, we don't want to celebrate "his dying love" at the moment he's born - it's the wrong moment, even though the birth obviously looks forward to the Passion.
As Arethosemyfeet observes, in my experience it's the non-conformists of more evangelical persuasions who seem in a perverse hurry to dash away from the Nativity and Incarnation to, 'three crosses on a hill outside Jerusalem ...'
You're in South Wales now. You'll have heard the same sermons I have.
Fast forward across Christ's boyhood and the silent years, across the three years of itinerant ministry, the miracles, the parables, the Sermon on The Mount ... fast forward to Calvary and penal substitutionary atonement.
Oh, and the Resurrection and Ascension is almost a bolt on after thought ...
Come on, Baptist Trainfan, you can do better than this. If we want to carp at Anglican liturgical practices we can do do better than cite a book about Colditz.
You're in South Wales now. You'll have heard the same sermons I have.
Well, no. Mostly because, being a Minister, I don't hear many sermons. And also because, on Sundays off, we worship with the Anglicans ...
More seriously, and while I hear what you say, I think there has been a huge shift in Evangelicalism over the last 20/30 years, quite probably due to the influence of the Charismatic Movement - with the result that (except among the most conservative groups) there is far less emphasis or even mention of the blood of Jesus and the atonement.
You're in South Wales now. You'll have heard the same sermons I have.
Well, no. Mostly because, being a Minister, I don't hear many sermons. And also because, on Sundays off, we worship with the Anglicans ...
More seriously, and while I hear what you say, I think there has been a huge shift in Evangelicalism over the last 20/30 years, quite probably due to the influence of the Charismatic Movement - with the result that (except among the most conservative groups) there is far less emphasis or even mention of the blood of Jesus and the atonement.
Can you send our local Baptists some of these evangelicals?
And if you can tell the Faith Mission about these developments in evangelical thinking that'd be great too.
As a teenager I spent one Easter in Germany with a pen pal and his family. Going to their Lutheran church I was puzzled when we celebrated Communion on Good Friday but not on Easter Sunday. I remember thinking it wasn't what I was used to, but I wasn't sure so didn't ask.
You're in South Wales now. You'll have heard the same sermons I have.
Well, no. Mostly because, being a Minister, I don't hear many sermons. And also because, on Sundays off, we worship with the Anglicans ...
More seriously, and while I hear what you say, I think there has been a huge shift in Evangelicalism over the last 20/30 years, quite probably due to the influence of the Charismatic Movement - with the result that (except among the most conservative groups) there is far less emphasis or even mention of the blood of Jesus and the atonement.
Yes, I think that is the case, but it hardly supports your somewhat blanket contention that non-conformists per se are more keen on celebrating the Incarnation at Christmas than Anglicans are ...
Politely, that is complete bollocks.
More politely, there is, of course, a very broad range of viewpoints and positions to be found across non-conformity in all its guises just as there is within Anglicanism.
I'm sorry, but I find your assertion that it's the non-conformists who somehow maintain a more calendarly-correct approach to celebrating the Incarnation at Christmas to be unconvincing. The ancestors of the non-conformists banned Christmas during the Commonwealth for goodness sake.
I don't think anyone can proclaim 'we non-conformists' about anything. Some non-conformists aren't Trinitarian. Are you speaking for them?
The only thing that non-conformists have in common is that they don't conform.
Any presumption to somehow speak on their behalf as if they are a single, homogenised unit is way wide of any mark.
Yes, I think that is the case, but it hardly supports your somewhat blanket contention that non-conformists per se are more keen on celebrating the Incarnation at Christmas than Anglicans are ...
I can’t speak to the positions of Nonconformists (a category that doesn’t exist per se outside the UK), but I have trouble getting around the idea that the Eucharist—which involves the body and blood of Christ—isn’t about the Incarnation. I think it’s about the whole “Christ-event,” Annunciation/Incarnation through Ascension, and I think it’s a mistake to make it just about remembering the Crucifixion.
The 'spirit' needs only the law of love. Many people, including Orthodox, find it easier to adapt themselves to the 'letter' of the law rather than the spirit.
Boy doesn't this look like a bit of a tu quoque given the context.
Yes, I think that is the case, but it hardly supports your somewhat blanket contention that non-conformists per se are more keen on celebrating the Incarnation at Christmas than Anglicans are ...
I can’t speak to the positions of Nonconformists (a category that doesn’t exist per se outside the UK), but I have trouble getting around the idea that the Eucharist—which involves the body and blood of Christ—isn’t about the Incarnation. I think it’s about the whole “Christ-event,” Annunciation/Incarnation through Ascension, and I think it’s a mistake to make it just about remembering the Crucifixion.
But I think we’ve had this discussion before.
Sure, and I agree with you entirely. The proof text for those who would reduce it all to the Crucifixion would be the Pauline one about proclaiming Christ's death until he comes.
That, of course, introduces an eschatological dimension. I would argue that the Eucharist, or communion or The Lord's Supper or whatever we want to fall it is so rich precisely because it presents us with so much of the 'Christ Event' - with Christ himself.
I'm not saying that 'non-conformist' practice in the UK sense - reveals a lack of what might be called eucharistic theology. That's certainly there. It's just that it takes a different form and is expressed differently than it is in more 'realised' sacramental settings.
I think it can be the case that some forms of uber-Protestant approaches can seem to reinforce a sense of divine absence - rather than divine presence. Generally, though, there does seem to be a sense that what they are doing goes beyond what we might call 'mere memorialism' - for want of a better term. Even if it isn't articulated as such, I suspect that there can be more 'going on' as it were than the insistence that it is simply some kind of plain memorial action.
I'm struggling to articulate what I mean here.
Some outwardly plain and simple groups such as The Brethren do have a strong sense of solemnity and significance in the 'breaking of bread'. It can carry a sense of weight in Baptist circles too. There can be something very profound about a simple sharing of communion in a small group setting of whatever stripe.
The mileage, as is often said on these boards, varies.
Yes, I think that is the case, but it hardly supports your somewhat blanket contention that non-conformists per se are more keen on celebrating the Incarnation at Christmas than Anglicans are ...
I can’t speak to the positions of Nonconformists (a category that doesn’t exist per se outside the UK), but I have trouble getting around the idea that the Eucharist—which involves the body and blood of Christ—isn’t about the Incarnation. I think it’s about the whole “Christ-event,” Annunciation/Incarnation through Ascension, and I think it’s a mistake to make it just about remembering the Crucifixion.
But I think we’ve had this discussion before.
Sure, and I agree with you entirely. The proof text for those who would reduce it all to the Crucifixion would be the Pauline one about proclaiming Christ's death until he comes.
Except it’s not a proof text for reducing it all to the Crucifixion, because “until he comes again” brings in the Resurrection, Ascension and Second Coming. And as you note:
That, of course, introduces an eschatological dimension. I would argue that the Eucharist, or communion or The Lord's Supper or whatever we want to fall it is so rich precisely because it presents us with so much of the 'Christ Event' - with Christ himself.
Meanwhile, I would ask those who think the Eucharist isn’t appropriate when the Incarnation is marked how Christ has body and blood to offer us if not the Incarnation?
At my Orthodox church we are able to have a priest to serve Liturgy only about once a month. On the other Sundays we have the service that a monastery without a priest would do, which has much more variation than the Liturgy. Because we are one of the very few places in this capital city where Orthodox services are entirely in English, we attract quite a few enquirers, and it is good that on those Sundays without a Liturgy there is no part from which they are excluded, and the shorter service leaves longer for questions and discussion over the meal afterwards, from which we all benefit. So I can appreciate that churches that offer nothing but the Eucharist tend to exclude the uncertain and non-participant.
Sure. And that understanding is not in conflict with what we might call a more 'realised' sacramental approach with all the trimmings. It's one of these both / and things ...
Good to see you are still around Exclamation Mark!
@Nick Tamen - you expressed what I was trying to say far better than I did.
Ok Nonconformist history lesson. Nonconformists did not celebrate Christmas until the middle of the 20th Century and then it was the more liberal ones. I think Easter came into general acceptance earlier. This shaped Christmas to some extent for Nonconformity. It is for many still primarily a family time. There are visitors in the congregation during Easter but these are largely seen as extended family of members. The extra numbers are not so prevalent at Easter. The question is therefore how do you treat these extend family? If you think that this is time to make them feel welcome and a part of the extended family then you tend to focus on Christmas and an often overly romanticized version at that. This is particularly prevalent when said family members were once the youth of the church. However, if you focus on the fact that this might be your only chance to share with them the gospel then you tend to rush towards Easter.
Sure. I know that and appreciate the reasons for the 'rush towards Easter' but it contradicts Baptist Trainfan's assertion that he is speaking for non-conformity in general - as if such a thing were even possible given its diversity - with his carp about Anglicans at Colditz or communion services on Christmas Day.
Heck, Nick Tamen gets that and as a Presbyterian he would qualify as 'non-conformist' in UK - or at least English - terms.
...with his carp about Anglicans at Colditz or communion services on Christmas Day.
It wasn't actually my carp but that of the Methodist Padre there, who just couldn't see why the Anglicans thought that every Feast and High Day had to be marked by a Eucharist instead of in some other way.
[I think that is the case, but it hardly supports your somewhat blanket contention that non-conformists per se are more keen on celebrating the Incarnation at Christmas than Anglicans are ...
I didn't say that, not at all. What I did say is that we may feel it is inappropriate to draw our gaze so strongly from the Manger to the Cross at that precise moment - though I freely accept, and usually preach, that the Incarnation only makes sense and reaches its fullness when we get to the Passion story.
Sorry, this is jumping back to things expressed much earlier in the thread, but I find it interesting how many people have said they've found the sense of communion either in the musical elements of the liturgy, or in the person-to-person.
Nothing to me could be more alien. The music in a ceremony always strikes me as, precisely, a performance. Even if I appreciate it or find it beautiful, it's as a performance which I behold rather than a rite of which I am a part. And the person-to-person thing ... well, I have plenty of rich and fulfilling relationships in the rest of my life. What makes the communion of religious ritual different for me is, by and large, the Eucharist, this very direct relationship to Christ that it enacts for all of us. And the fact that it doesn't make much sense if I think about it the same way I consider everything else in my life just makes it all the more powerful and distinctive an experience for me.
I'm not saying my way is correct and the others are wrong. I'm just surprised at the spectrum. No wonder it's so hard to get worship right.
I'm not sure if mousethief is sniping at me with his 'tu quoque' remark or whether he thinks that I am sniping at him. My remarks, which mousethief takes exception to ,are addressed 'o vos omnes' (all of you) or really 'o nos omnes' (all of us).
We know that the law of Christ is at its beginning and at its end and at all points in between a 'law of love' That is the spirit of the law. Without beating our breasts too much, few of us are able to live up fully to that 'spirit of the law of love'
Most followers of Christ find that the authorities of their Christian community, including the Catholic Church, and also the Orthodox Church, have attempted with varying degrees of success to interpret the details of the law of love.
In attempting to impose an obligation of minimum attendance at Mass, the Church is attempting to remind those who claim to be the 'Faithful' that they are part of a community, not just a collection of individuals and that as a very minimum fulfilment of the law of love they should participate in the Christian community celebration on a Sunday.
Just the other day I was impressed to read a detail of Napoleon Bonaparte's attitude to Sunday Mass. After the bloody excesses of the French Revolution Bonaparte realised that organised religion could fulfil a positive role in the life of a state. Once he obtained power for himself he reconverted his bathroom in the Tuileries into a chapel, which it had once been, and from that time on attended Mass every Sunday, insisting that members of his court did the same. However he never received Communion. He explained that 'he was not enough of a believer for it to be of any benefit and yet too much of one coldly to commit sacrilege.'
[I think that is the case, but it hardly supports your somewhat blanket contention that non-conformists per se are more keen on celebrating the Incarnation at Christmas than Anglicans are ...
I didn't say that, not at all. What I did say is that we may feel it is inappropriate to draw our gaze so strongly from the Manger to the Cross at that precise moment - though I freely accept, and usually preach, that the Incarnation only makes sense and reaches its fullness when we get to the Passion story.
I'm sure you do. My point is that you can't claim that as a non-conformist distinctive or standard as you appeared to be doing as many of us can cite instances of attending non-conformist Christmas services where the opposite is the case - 'Let's get through all this crib and Christmas fol-de-rol and get to Calvary as quickly as we can ...'
Jengie Jon has given us the historical reasons why that can - and does - happen.
Equally, Nick Tamen has made a very articulate case that communion isn't just about the Crucifixion but the entire 'Christ Event' - again something I think most of us here would agree with - including, I presume, your good self.
Yet you seem to be undermining that with your comments about dashing from the crib to the Cross as though the Anglican approach to communion is purely about the Crucifixion - which it isn't. It's way wider than that - as indeed, I would suggest - it is wider than that in most non-conformist circles.
I think that's the point I'm making, albeit clumsily.
Just the other day I was impressed to read a detail of Napoleon Bonaparte's attitude to Sunday Mass. After the bloody excesses of the French Revolution Bonaparte realised that organised religion could fulfil a positive role in the life of a state. Once he obtained power for himself he reconverted his bathroom in the Tuileries into a chapel, which it had once been, and from that time on attended Mass every Sunday, insisting that members of his court did the same. However he never received Communion. He explained that 'he was not enough of a believer for it to be of any benefit and yet too much of one coldly to commit sacrilege.'
... This does raise the question of where Little Nappy pooed and wee-ed after he midwifed a chapel ...
Sorry, this is jumping back to things expressed much earlier in the thread, but I find it interesting how many people have said they've found the sense of communion either in the musical elements of the liturgy, or in the person-to-person.
Nothing to me could be more alien. The music in a ceremony always strikes me as, precisely, a performance. Even if I appreciate it or find it beautiful, it's as a performance which I behold rather than a rite of which I am a part. And the person-to-person thing ... well, I have plenty of rich and fulfilling relationships in the rest of my life. What makes the communion of religious ritual different for me is, by and large, the Eucharist, this very direct relationship to Christ that it enacts for all of us. And the fact that it doesn't make much sense if I think about it the same way I consider everything else in my life just makes it all the more powerful and distinctive an experience for me.
I'm not saying my way is correct and the others are wrong. I'm just surprised at the spectrum. No wonder it's so hard to get worship right.
Amen. Having had a fair bit to do with cathedrals in recent years, and having to work with Praise-Band-Centre-Stage-Hillsongesque-Anglicans from time to time, the performance focus of much liturgy is bringing out my inner Wee Free ... I could happily become a Wee-Free-with-Mass, I suspect (which is not to say that I'm not aware that there are more than a few Eucharistic presidents that make it All About Them™, too). One major thrust of my current work is attempting to eradicate performance-based liturgy.
Zappa, one of Napoleon's favourite relaxations was to have a hot bath. Nothing like it at the end of a day in the field. It is unlikely that the room which had previously been the private chapel of Marie de Medicis/Maria dei Medici would have been furnished in the early 1800s like a modern bathroom with power shower, bath, bidet, wash hand basin and water closet. there would have been a travelling sitzbad, lots of hot water and nice towels. Easy to return it to its original function.
Participation and Performance, hmmmm interesting. But participation doesn't necessarily have to be the same for everyone in the service. One of the loveliest things I used to observe, when worshipping in London, was the complete unselfconsciousness of people who would walk into the churches while the service was in progression, walk up to the votive stand and light a candle. After waiting for a few minutes, they would then walk out. The congregations were obviously used to such events and just continued with the service. Nobody should say that those people weren't participating just as much, but in their own distinctive way that was meaningful to them, regardless of what else was going on at the time.
Wouldn't it be wonderful to feel able to do the same, sometimes, rather than thinking we have to be there from exactly 10 am to 11am and go through the whole routine exactly together?
Maybe you could consider lay leaders for communion.
Personally, I don't see why it requires an ordained person. Jesus is present where two or three are gathered in his name according to at least one of the gospels.
Technically, all Christians are part of the universal priesthood of all believers, but the church came to realize it could not have everyone going around doing their own private communion so it designated certain leaders to act on behalf of the assembled body.
I find that a rather jaundiced perspective.
To have a non-ordained person leading the communion in a church is not "everyone going around doing their own private communion".
The return to the designated leader(s) does smack of resewing the veil of the temple and only the priests being able to enter the holy of holies.
IIRC, it was a fairly sensible precaution during the Reformation when some newly-un-RC'ed folks were flying to really freaky extremes. The kind of thing that would make Luther clutch his head and cry "Oh HELL no!" (Me too, to be honest. Some pretty wild shit going on.)
Zappa, one of Napoleon's favourite relaxations was to have a hot bath. Nothing like it at the end of a day in the field. It is unlikely that the room which had previously been the private chapel of Marie de Medicis/Maria dei Medici would have been furnished in the early 1800s like a modern bathroom with power shower, bath, bidet, wash hand basin and water closet. there would have been a travelling sitzbad, lots of hot water and nice towels. Easy to return it to its original function.
I wonder if he had to put up with fans of showers going on about how disgusting he was, stewing in his own dirty water.
Zappa, one of Napoleon's favourite relaxations was to have a hot bath. Nothing like it at the end of a day in the field. It is unlikely that the room which had previously been the private chapel of Marie de Medicis/Maria dei Medici would have been furnished in the early 1800s like a modern bathroom with power shower, bath, bidet, wash hand basin and water closet. there would have been a travelling sitzbad, lots of hot water and nice towels. Easy to return it to its original function.
I wonder if he had to put up with fans of showers going on about how disgusting he was, stewing in his own dirty water.
Zappa, one of Napoleon's favourite relaxations was to have a hot bath. Nothing like it at the end of a day in the field. It is unlikely that the room which had previously been the private chapel of Marie de Medicis/Maria dei Medici would have been furnished in the early 1800s like a modern bathroom with power shower, bath, bidet, wash hand basin and water closet. there would have been a travelling sitzbad, lots of hot water and nice towels. Easy to return it to its original function.
I wonder if he had to put up with fans of showers going on about how disgusting he was, stewing in his own dirty water.
Participation and Performance, hmmmm interesting. But participation doesn't necessarily have to be the same for everyone in the service. One of the loveliest things I used to observe, when worshipping in London, was the complete unselfconsciousness of people who would walk into the churches while the service was in progression, walk up to the votive stand and light a candle. After waiting for a few minutes, they would then walk out. The congregations were obviously used to such events and just continued with the service. Nobody should say that those people weren't participating just as much, but in their own distinctive way that was meaningful to them, regardless of what else was going on at the time.
As we have to tackle this issue most weeks I will talk to J & Fr G about this but I think they are not recorded on the register of those who attend.
Just to make quite clear. They have obviously come into church for an act of devotion, it is just understood by the congregation as a separate private devotion and not as participating in corporate worship.
The Orthodox communion service is more obviously in two parts as it were -
It's clear to me that you're referring to the Byzantine Divine Liturgy in particular, but I just feel it worth highlighting for the sake of others that this is not the only Orthodox communion service.
... although the bit with 'The doors! The doors!' and 'Depart ye Catechumens!' seems to serve no practical purpose these days and appears to be retained purely for tradition's sake. Are there any Orthodox parishes which actually herd out any Catechumens present and bolt the doors?
I don't know about the sealing of the doors but the dismissal of the catechumens is definitely still practised. It was the custom of my Russian Orthodox parish when I was a catechumen in 2005/2006, and online discussions over the years suggest anecdotally that, while it is now uncommon, it isn't so uncommon as to be called rare.
The text for the dismissal was one of the byzantinisations in the earlier forms of the Liturgy of St Germanus but I think it was redundant from day one, and has been subsequently removed. It only appears now in some of the mid-20th century published texts of this Liturgy.
Ok, that's interesting, Cyprian. The only Orthodox rites I've experienced are the Byzantine ones. I'll have to visit your parish some time to see what the alternatives are like.
On late 18th and early 19th century French plumbing, Marat was famously stabbed in his bath, not his shower. David's famous depiction would look very different had the latter been the case. Rather like a scene from Psycho ...
On the issue of Napoleon's ablutions and ahem ... personal effects ... I've always found it interesting that Wellington went out of his way to seduce some of Napoleon's mistresses after L'Emporer went to his final exile on St Helena and that someone saw fit to preserve the imperial todger in a pickle jar after his demise.
The schoolboy snigger snigger school of history ...
Ok, that's interesting, Cyprian. The only Orthodox rites I've experienced are the Byzantine ones. I'll have to visit your parish some time to see what the alternatives are like.
Well, I think calling us a parish at this stage is very generous but you'd always be most welcome. It would be good to see you again.
Participation and Performance, hmmmm interesting. But participation doesn't necessarily have to be the same for everyone in the service. One of the loveliest things I used to observe, when worshipping in London, was the complete unselfconsciousness of people who would walk into the churches while the service was in progression, walk up to the votive stand and light a candle. After waiting for a few minutes, they would then walk out. The congregations were obviously used to such events and just continued with the service. Nobody should say that those people weren't participating just as much, but in their own distinctive way that was meaningful to them, regardless of what else was going on at the time.
As we have to tackle this issue most weeks I will talk to J & Fr G about this but I think they are not recorded on the register of those who attend.
Just to make quite clear. They have obviously come into church for an act of devotion, it is just understood by the congregation as a separate private devotion and not as participating in corporate worship.
That has happened occasionally at Our Place during a weekday Mass, but not AFAIK on a Sunday. Some of our folk do indeed make their way to a votive candle stand, usually the one next to the Lady Chapel, but they usually do so immediately after Communion, or after the Blessing/Dismissal/Hymn/Angelus.
For the purposes of reckoning up the numbers of people attending, it's probably wise not to include the 'drop-ins', if I can put it like that, but OTOH it is clearly a Good Thing that such people feel they are welcome to 'drop in'.
Parts of this discussion remind me of a few years ago when we decided to go to a Baptist Church on Christmas morning. Son in Law is a Methodist (of sorts) and rather than go off alone to the RC place we decided to go and worship as a family. The Baptist was the closest nonconformist place.
Not only was there no communion, but there was no Christmas as the minister was part way through an examination of the book of Job. And his thoughts took precedence.
Not a very merry Christmas.
To continue the discussion about performance-based liturgy, raised by Zappa, it's important to remember that some people (I include myself here) find that, through others' performance (liturgical and / or musical) are enabled to participate.
In my observations, there's an introvert / extrovert thing going on here. Extroverts tend to want to do, and therefore don't like sitting quietly meditating, while others 'do'. Introverts are quite happy for others to perform all the action and find great meaning in watching and listening.
If you don't believe me, think about when people sit and listen to a passage of scripture being read. It is not necessary for everyone to be up and reading out loud at once - some will read out loud and others will quietly think about and absorb the message (assuming they are paying attention!) In the same way, sung parts of the service are still offered as worship, even if a small number are doing the singing and others are doing the listening.
The drama of the Eucharist is often performed by one priest, or a small team, up at the altar. I enjoy watching, keeping my eyes open to observe the symbolism, but do not really have a strong wish to actively take part.
Zappa, one of Napoleon's favourite relaxations was to have a hot bath. Nothing like it at the end of a day in the field. It is unlikely that the room which had previously been the private chapel of Marie de Medicis/Maria dei Medici would have been furnished in the early 1800s like a modern bathroom with power shower, bath, bidet, wash hand basin and water closet. there would have been a travelling sitzbad, lots of hot water and nice towels. Easy to return it to its original function.
I wonder if he had to put up with fans of showers going on about how disgusting he was, stewing in his own dirty water.
A lot of showers were there in 1812?
I'm not an expert on 19thC. French plumbing.
The ancient Greeks had communal showers, ditto the Romans.
In western Europe the first patent for a hand-pumped shower was taken out in 1767 by a London plumber.
The Baptist was the closest nonconformist place. Not only was there no communion, but there was no Christmas as the minister was part way through an examination of the book of Job. And his thoughts took precedence.
Not a very merry Christmas.
It would be interesting to know "what kind of Baptist" - i.e. the common-or-garden type or the Strict/Grace type. I doubt if any of them would celebrate Communion on Christmas morning. However "ordinary" Baptist churches would definitely mark Christmas, probably with a Family Service. However there are (or were) some Nonconformists who refuse(d) to celebrate the church calendar at all, believe that "all days are the same" before God. I suppose Oliver Cromwell was of that ilk ...
Zappa, one of Napoleon's favourite relaxations was to have a hot bath. Nothing like it at the end of a day in the field. It is unlikely that the room which had previously been the private chapel of Marie de Medicis/Maria dei Medici would have been furnished in the early 1800s like a modern bathroom with power shower, bath, bidet, wash hand basin and water closet. there would have been a travelling sitzbad, lots of hot water and nice towels. Easy to return it to its original function.
I wonder if he had to put up with fans of showers going on about how disgusting he was, stewing in his own dirty water.
Participation and Performance, hmmmm interesting. But participation doesn't necessarily have to be the same for everyone in the service. One of the loveliest things I used to observe, when worshipping in London, was the complete unselfconsciousness of people who would walk into the churches while the service was in progression, walk up to the votive stand and light a candle. After waiting for a few minutes, they would then walk out. The congregations were obviously used to such events and just continued with the service. Nobody should say that those people weren't participating just as much, but in their own distinctive way that was meaningful to them, regardless of what else was going on at the time.
Wouldn't it be wonderful to feel able to do the same, sometimes, rather than thinking we have to be there from exactly 10 am to 11am and go through the whole routine exactly together?
I think that's a false dichotomy. Or something like that. I have always wanted liturgical services to be open, fluid, and for people to come and go. In fact at the cathedral where I sometimes fill in now there are often busloads of tourists taking photos during liturgies - a few lighting candles. Their cruise schedules wouldn't permit attendance, and while I am not fussed about the photography i'm fine with the fluidity.
I also argue that communion is an open sacrament - my invitations to the table are usually of the "come if you feel moved" ilk - and the obverse is true, too though I don't state it: don't come if you don't." The choir at my local cathedral obligatorily receive communion in two straight rows, a bit like Ludwig Bemelmans' Madeleine. Ugh. I know many do not believe anything theistic and wish they could be left to choose.
What I can't get into my head, though formally I make allowance for it, is why not? Hymns, songs, lightshows and liturgical dances can be nice, sermons sometimes are inspirational, the liturgy has a fine shape enacting a journey from darkness to light ... and then communion there in the late-midst of it, just before I am dispatched to God's world once more. To receive in that momentary encounter, however good or bad the lightshows, music, liturgical presentation et cetera, to receive in that moment the entire anamnesis * of the saving acts of God-in-Christ-by Spirit ... of dear God, perhaps I can stumble on in my sin-filled, grace-transformed state after all.
* because 'remembrance" is such a week word, unless the "re" is stressed and the whole etymology of "membering again" is unpacked.
To continue the discussion about performance-based liturgy, raised by Zappa, it's important to remember that some people (I include myself here) find that, through others' performance (liturgical and / or musical) are enabled to participate.
In my observations, there's an introvert / extrovert thing going on here. Extroverts tend to want to do, and therefore don't like sitting quietly meditating, while others 'do'. Introverts are quite happy for others to perform all the action and find great meaning in watching and listening.
If you don't believe me, think about when people sit and listen to a passage of scripture being read. It is not necessary for everyone to be up and reading out loud at once - some will read out loud and others will quietly think about and absorb the message (assuming they are paying attention!) In the same way, sung parts of the service are still offered as worship, even if a small number are doing the singing and others are doing the listening.
The drama of the Eucharist is often performed by one priest, or a small team, up at the altar. I enjoy watching, keeping my eyes open to observe the symbolism, but do not really have a strong wish to actively take part.
Quoting again, to continue the discussion with Zappa, as it had rather got lost in the plumbing!
* because 'remembrance" is such a week word, unless the "re" is stressed and the whole etymology of "membering again" is unpacked.
There is a good Iona Communion liturgy we quite often use which begins:
"We come to re-member the body that was broken:
the hands that touched the untouchable,
healed the hurting and did no violence;
the feet that got dusty along city streets and at the lake’s shore ...
This blessèd body that was broken, abused and rejected,
we come to re-member,
for we are called to be the body of Christ".
As a teenager I spent one Easter in Germany with a pen pal and his family. Going to their Lutheran church I was puzzled when we celebrated Communion on Good Friday but not on Easter Sunday. I remember thinking it wasn't what I was used to, but I wasn't sure so didn't ask.
As far as I've been told, that is not uncommon in German Lutheran churches (or at least it wasn't uncommon), but very uncommon in Scandinavian ones. We (speaking here as a Norwegian Lutheran priest ordained in the Church of Norway) often see a celebration of the Eucharist on Good Friday if the parish is very small and the expectation is that they will go to the neighbouring parish on Easter Sunday (which also includes the more realist expectation that many of them will not). But, at least as far as I know (and hope), you will never see a celebration of Easter Sunday without the Eucharist.
Unfortunately some parishes have had a history of not celebrating the Eucharist on Christmas Day, but that is fortunately not the case now (as far as I know).
I do remember a colleague who was a new priest in a rather small parish. When he started, 20-30 years ago, he put a stop to the local tradition of not celebrating the Eucharist on Christmas Day (by celebrating it), and the local newspaper accused him of 'confusing Christmas and Easter' (which, of course, is just poppycock).
The church where I play used to have only one service on Christmas Day - a nativity play by the Sunday School with carols. When the last incumbent introduced a said 8am HC he was seen as eccentric but it used to get 4-6 people.
12 or so years ago I suggested ditching the 8am and substituting a said HC with carols at 11.30 and we get c30 for that. Much appreciated by older parishioners.
Comments
And yet it seems to be non-conformists of an evangelical bent who can't go 10 minutes without mentioning the cross or being "washed in the blood of the lamb".
That wouldn't work for the Orthodox, as we must take the Eucharist fasting.
If one ever needed an example to explain the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law....
As Arethosemyfeet observes, in my experience it's the non-conformists of more evangelical persuasions who seem in a perverse hurry to dash away from the Nativity and Incarnation to, 'three crosses on a hill outside Jerusalem ...'
You're in South Wales now. You'll have heard the same sermons I have.
Fast forward across Christ's boyhood and the silent years, across the three years of itinerant ministry, the miracles, the parables, the Sermon on The Mount ... fast forward to Calvary and penal substitutionary atonement.
Oh, and the Resurrection and Ascension is almost a bolt on after thought ...
Come on, Baptist Trainfan, you can do better than this. If we want to carp at Anglican liturgical practices we can do do better than cite a book about Colditz.
More seriously, and while I hear what you say, I think there has been a huge shift in Evangelicalism over the last 20/30 years, quite probably due to the influence of the Charismatic Movement - with the result that (except among the most conservative groups) there is far less emphasis or even mention of the blood of Jesus and the atonement.
Can you send our local Baptists some of these evangelicals?
And if you can tell the Faith Mission about these developments in evangelical thinking that'd be great too.
Yes, I think that is the case, but it hardly supports your somewhat blanket contention that non-conformists per se are more keen on celebrating the Incarnation at Christmas than Anglicans are ...
Politely, that is complete bollocks.
More politely, there is, of course, a very broad range of viewpoints and positions to be found across non-conformity in all its guises just as there is within Anglicanism.
I'm sorry, but I find your assertion that it's the non-conformists who somehow maintain a more calendarly-correct approach to celebrating the Incarnation at Christmas to be unconvincing. The ancestors of the non-conformists banned Christmas during the Commonwealth for goodness sake.
I don't think anyone can proclaim 'we non-conformists' about anything. Some non-conformists aren't Trinitarian. Are you speaking for them?
The only thing that non-conformists have in common is that they don't conform.
Any presumption to somehow speak on their behalf as if they are a single, homogenised unit is way wide of any mark.
But I think we’ve had this discussion before.
Boy doesn't this look like a bit of a tu quoque given the context.
Sure, and I agree with you entirely. The proof text for those who would reduce it all to the Crucifixion would be the Pauline one about proclaiming Christ's death until he comes.
That, of course, introduces an eschatological dimension. I would argue that the Eucharist, or communion or The Lord's Supper or whatever we want to fall it is so rich precisely because it presents us with so much of the 'Christ Event' - with Christ himself.
I'm not saying that 'non-conformist' practice in the UK sense - reveals a lack of what might be called eucharistic theology. That's certainly there. It's just that it takes a different form and is expressed differently than it is in more 'realised' sacramental settings.
I think it can be the case that some forms of uber-Protestant approaches can seem to reinforce a sense of divine absence - rather than divine presence. Generally, though, there does seem to be a sense that what they are doing goes beyond what we might call 'mere memorialism' - for want of a better term. Even if it isn't articulated as such, I suspect that there can be more 'going on' as it were than the insistence that it is simply some kind of plain memorial action.
I'm struggling to articulate what I mean here.
Some outwardly plain and simple groups such as The Brethren do have a strong sense of solemnity and significance in the 'breaking of bread'. It can carry a sense of weight in Baptist circles too. There can be something very profound about a simple sharing of communion in a small group setting of whatever stripe.
The mileage, as is often said on these boards, varies.
Thank you.
Good to see you are still around Exclamation Mark!
@Nick Tamen - you expressed what I was trying to say far better than I did.
Heck, Nick Tamen gets that and as a Presbyterian he would qualify as 'non-conformist' in UK - or at least English - terms.
Nothing to me could be more alien. The music in a ceremony always strikes me as, precisely, a performance. Even if I appreciate it or find it beautiful, it's as a performance which I behold rather than a rite of which I am a part. And the person-to-person thing ... well, I have plenty of rich and fulfilling relationships in the rest of my life. What makes the communion of religious ritual different for me is, by and large, the Eucharist, this very direct relationship to Christ that it enacts for all of us. And the fact that it doesn't make much sense if I think about it the same way I consider everything else in my life just makes it all the more powerful and distinctive an experience for me.
I'm not saying my way is correct and the others are wrong. I'm just surprised at the spectrum. No wonder it's so hard to get worship right.
We know that the law of Christ is at its beginning and at its end and at all points in between a 'law of love' That is the spirit of the law. Without beating our breasts too much, few of us are able to live up fully to that 'spirit of the law of love'
Most followers of Christ find that the authorities of their Christian community, including the Catholic Church, and also the Orthodox Church, have attempted with varying degrees of success to interpret the details of the law of love.
In attempting to impose an obligation of minimum attendance at Mass, the Church is attempting to remind those who claim to be the 'Faithful' that they are part of a community, not just a collection of individuals and that as a very minimum fulfilment of the law of love they should participate in the Christian community celebration on a Sunday.
Just the other day I was impressed to read a detail of Napoleon Bonaparte's attitude to Sunday Mass. After the bloody excesses of the French Revolution Bonaparte realised that organised religion could fulfil a positive role in the life of a state. Once he obtained power for himself he reconverted his bathroom in the Tuileries into a chapel, which it had once been, and from that time on attended Mass every Sunday, insisting that members of his court did the same. However he never received Communion. He explained that 'he was not enough of a believer for it to be of any benefit and yet too much of one coldly to commit sacrilege.'
I'm sure you do. My point is that you can't claim that as a non-conformist distinctive or standard as you appeared to be doing as many of us can cite instances of attending non-conformist Christmas services where the opposite is the case - 'Let's get through all this crib and Christmas fol-de-rol and get to Calvary as quickly as we can ...'
Jengie Jon has given us the historical reasons why that can - and does - happen.
Equally, Nick Tamen has made a very articulate case that communion isn't just about the Crucifixion but the entire 'Christ Event' - again something I think most of us here would agree with - including, I presume, your good self.
Yet you seem to be undermining that with your comments about dashing from the crib to the Cross as though the Anglican approach to communion is purely about the Crucifixion - which it isn't. It's way wider than that - as indeed, I would suggest - it is wider than that in most non-conformist circles.
I think that's the point I'm making, albeit clumsily.
[I am] not enough of a believer for it to be of any benefit and yet too much of one coldly to commit sacrilege.
... This does raise the question of where Little Nappy pooed and wee-ed after he midwifed a chapel ...
Amen. Having had a fair bit to do with cathedrals in recent years, and having to work with Praise-Band-Centre-Stage-Hillsongesque-Anglicans from time to time, the performance focus of much liturgy is bringing out my inner Wee Free ... I could happily become a Wee-Free-with-Mass, I suspect (which is not to say that I'm not aware that there are more than a few Eucharistic presidents that make it All About Them™, too). One major thrust of my current work is attempting to eradicate performance-based liturgy.
I am of course getting slightly south of nowhere.
Wouldn't it be wonderful to feel able to do the same, sometimes, rather than thinking we have to be there from exactly 10 am to 11am and go through the whole routine exactly together?
Personally, I don't see why it requires an ordained person. Jesus is present where two or three are gathered in his name according to at least one of the gospels. I find that a rather jaundiced perspective.
To have a non-ordained person leading the communion in a church is not "everyone going around doing their own private communion".
The return to the designated leader(s) does smack of resewing the veil of the temple and only the priests being able to enter the holy of holies.
I wonder if he had to put up with fans of showers going on about how disgusting he was, stewing in his own dirty water.
A lot of showers were there in 1812?
I'm not an expert on 19thC. French plumbing.
As we have to tackle this issue most weeks I will talk to J & Fr G about this but I think they are not recorded on the register of those who attend.
Just to make quite clear. They have obviously come into church for an act of devotion, it is just understood by the congregation as a separate private devotion and not as participating in corporate worship.
It's clear to me that you're referring to the Byzantine Divine Liturgy in particular, but I just feel it worth highlighting for the sake of others that this is not the only Orthodox communion service.
I don't know about the sealing of the doors but the dismissal of the catechumens is definitely still practised. It was the custom of my Russian Orthodox parish when I was a catechumen in 2005/2006, and online discussions over the years suggest anecdotally that, while it is now uncommon, it isn't so uncommon as to be called rare.
The text for the dismissal was one of the byzantinisations in the earlier forms of the Liturgy of St Germanus but I think it was redundant from day one, and has been subsequently removed. It only appears now in some of the mid-20th century published texts of this Liturgy.
On late 18th and early 19th century French plumbing, Marat was famously stabbed in his bath, not his shower. David's famous depiction would look very different had the latter been the case. Rather like a scene from Psycho ...
The schoolboy snigger snigger school of history ...
Well, I think calling us a parish at this stage is very generous but you'd always be most welcome. It would be good to see you again.
That has happened occasionally at Our Place during a weekday Mass, but not AFAIK on a Sunday. Some of our folk do indeed make their way to a votive candle stand, usually the one next to the Lady Chapel, but they usually do so immediately after Communion, or after the Blessing/Dismissal/Hymn/Angelus.
For the purposes of reckoning up the numbers of people attending, it's probably wise not to include the 'drop-ins', if I can put it like that, but OTOH it is clearly a Good Thing that such people feel they are welcome to 'drop in'.
Not only was there no communion, but there was no Christmas as the minister was part way through an examination of the book of Job. And his thoughts took precedence.
Not a very merry Christmas.
In my observations, there's an introvert / extrovert thing going on here. Extroverts tend to want to do, and therefore don't like sitting quietly meditating, while others 'do'. Introverts are quite happy for others to perform all the action and find great meaning in watching and listening.
If you don't believe me, think about when people sit and listen to a passage of scripture being read. It is not necessary for everyone to be up and reading out loud at once - some will read out loud and others will quietly think about and absorb the message (assuming they are paying attention!) In the same way, sung parts of the service are still offered as worship, even if a small number are doing the singing and others are doing the listening.
The drama of the Eucharist is often performed by one priest, or a small team, up at the altar. I enjoy watching, keeping my eyes open to observe the symbolism, but do not really have a strong wish to actively take part.
The ancient Greeks had communal showers, ditto the Romans.
In western Europe the first patent for a hand-pumped shower was taken out in 1767 by a London plumber.
Then how do you know there were showers?
I think that's a false dichotomy. Or something like that. I have always wanted liturgical services to be open, fluid, and for people to come and go. In fact at the cathedral where I sometimes fill in now there are often busloads of tourists taking photos during liturgies - a few lighting candles. Their cruise schedules wouldn't permit attendance, and while I am not fussed about the photography i'm fine with the fluidity.
I also argue that communion is an open sacrament - my invitations to the table are usually of the "come if you feel moved" ilk - and the obverse is true, too though I don't state it: don't come if you don't." The choir at my local cathedral obligatorily receive communion in two straight rows, a bit like Ludwig Bemelmans' Madeleine. Ugh. I know many do not believe anything theistic and wish they could be left to choose.
What I can't get into my head, though formally I make allowance for it, is why not? Hymns, songs, lightshows and liturgical dances can be nice, sermons sometimes are inspirational, the liturgy has a fine shape enacting a journey from darkness to light ... and then communion there in the late-midst of it, just before I am dispatched to God's world once more. To receive in that momentary encounter, however good or bad the lightshows, music, liturgical presentation et cetera, to receive in that moment the entire anamnesis * of the saving acts of God-in-Christ-by Spirit ... of dear God, perhaps I can stumble on in my sin-filled, grace-transformed state after all.
* because 'remembrance" is such a week word, unless the "re" is stressed and the whole etymology of "membering again" is unpacked.
Quoting again, to continue the discussion with Zappa, as it had rather got lost in the plumbing!
"We come to re-member the body that was broken:
the hands that touched the untouchable,
healed the hurting and did no violence;
the feet that got dusty along city streets and at the lake’s shore ...
This blessèd body that was broken, abused and rejected,
we come to re-member,
for we are called to be the body of Christ".
(Can't quote more because of copyright)
As far as I've been told, that is not uncommon in German Lutheran churches (or at least it wasn't uncommon), but very uncommon in Scandinavian ones. We (speaking here as a Norwegian Lutheran priest ordained in the Church of Norway) often see a celebration of the Eucharist on Good Friday if the parish is very small and the expectation is that they will go to the neighbouring parish on Easter Sunday (which also includes the more realist expectation that many of them will not). But, at least as far as I know (and hope), you will never see a celebration of Easter Sunday without the Eucharist.
Unfortunately some parishes have had a history of not celebrating the Eucharist on Christmas Day, but that is fortunately not the case now (as far as I know).
I do remember a colleague who was a new priest in a rather small parish. When he started, 20-30 years ago, he put a stop to the local tradition of not celebrating the Eucharist on Christmas Day (by celebrating it), and the local newspaper accused him of 'confusing Christmas and Easter' (which, of course, is just poppycock).
12 or so years ago I suggested ditching the 8am and substituting a said HC with carols at 11.30 and we get c30 for that. Much appreciated by older parishioners.