a recent movement in Judaism which endeavors to reinvigorate modern Judaism with Kabbalistic, Hasidic, and musical practices. Specifically, it seeks to reintroduce the "ancient Judaic traditions of mysticism and meditation, gender equality and ecstatic prayer" to synagogue services.
As to your other point, there is actually a history in this part of the world of Jews meeting in churches, as well as Christians meeting in synagogues. I can think of examples going back as long as 125+ years and as recently as 10 years ago. I think on both sides it has been viewed as a matter of hospitality. There's also, of course, a convenience factor, since the days of worship are generally different.
Typically, though, it has been a temporary arrangement—a synagogue or church making its space available while a new congregation organizes and raises money for a building, or while a congregation is temporarily homeless. That was the case in the early 1900s for the church of my youth. The old building was sold to another church and moved, and while the new building was being built, the local synagogue offered use of their building. I've also known it to happen on the High Holy Days, when a Jewish congregation will use the facilities of a much larger church to accommodate the extra crowd. Sometimes in those instances, crosses or other prominent Christian symbols may be removed or discretely covered, sometimes not.
What makes this particular arrangement different is that the Jewish Renewal congregation made a conscious decision not to add yet another building to the landscape. Instead, they meet in a church as a way of strengthening relationships between Jews and Christians. I think their original plan was to move to a different church every 3 or 4 years, so as to create a network of sorts, but they've been at the Episcopal church in question for around 6 years now.
Oh, and as for stained glass, lots of churches in these parts, including this particular Episcopal church, have clear glass windows. Of those that have stained glass, the stained glass is often in this style or, in newer building, abstract.
And this particular church is modern in design; I think the only cross in the church is the processional cross, which is perhaps removed for Jewish services.
Wow. How do they cope with the standard furnishings of your average Christian church? The mind is slowly starting to boggle.
As suggested above, what you think of as the "standard" furnishings in an "average" Christian church may be pretty different in England from those in the American South.
But my experience is that what is seen in a church made available to them is welcome and hospitality, as well as opportunity for better relationships and understanding.
Wow. How do they cope with the standard furnishings of your average Christian church? The mind is slowly starting to boggle.
I know of a progressive Jewish congregation that meets in a Christian church. I think it helps if the church is from a denomination or tradition that is light on the explicitly Christian artwork in Church. But this church, albeit Presbyterian, does have some stained glass with Christian imagery. I think how bothered a Jewish person would be by having this in their worship space depends on different factors such as age, how traditional/Orthodox they are, whether they are recent immigrants or not (and if immigrants, where from), etc.
I know of a progressive Jewish congregation that meets in a Christian church. I think it helps if the church is from a denomination or tradition that is light on the explicitly Christian artwork in Church. But this church, albeit Presbyterian, does have some stained glass with Christian imagery. I think how bothered a Jewish person would be by having this in their worship space depends on different factors such as age, how traditional/Orthodox they are, whether they are recent immigrants or not (and if immigrants, where from), etc.
It probably also helps if the "host" congregation does what it can to tone things down, as it were. Everybody understands that you can't do anything about something like windows, but if the Jewish congregation can tell that things that can easily be temporarily removed or hidden are, that the host congregation is doing what they can to make the space more comfortable, that goes a long way, I'd think.
@Nick Tamen When you say 'Jewish Renewal congregation' do you mean that the church is borrowed by a synagogue, or by what I think are usually called round here Messianic Jews?
Reform Judaism is one of the three major streams of mainline Judaism (the others are Conservative and Orthodox - orthodox probably subsuming hasidism). REform synagogues depart from traditional observance in matters such as female rabbis, role of women in worship and, possibly, separation of men and women in worship, It is as far removed from "Messianic Judaism" as the other streams -- no Reform Jew would for a moment consider that Jesus was the Messiah.
Jewish Renewal, which calls itself as a “trans-denominational movement” in Judaism, isn’t the same thing as Reform Judaism. I’d say, though, that it is equally far removed from Messianic Judaism.
....in churches that broke for coffee between the Ministry of the Word and the Ministry of the Sacrament.
This is new to me. Then again, I don't get out much.
Which churches? When? Do any still do this?
Was it any link to the communal meal of the New Testament? Or something else?
My thanks.
MOTR to high CofE in the 90s. Done for a series of pastoral reasons. Firstly to encourage the building of community by removing the temptation to dash off and get Sunday lunch on, skipping the coffee. Secondly to ensure that the main Sunday service was Eucharistic while, thirdly, allowing those dipping their toe in the water to slip out during the break and skip the Eucharist as that can be intimidating for a newcomer. It also lengthened the period of time between the start of the service (10:45) and the last moment the celebrant needed to arrive from the next parish in the benefice (so that they could actually speak to folk in the other parish after their 9:30 service), allowing a reader to begin the service safe in the knowledge that they wouldn't be caught waiting at the peace. I know it will cause conniptions among the liturgical purists but it served its purpose, and care was taken to make it clear that it was a break in the service, not two services.
Where the innovation came from I couldn't say. I don't think it long outlasted the then incumbent; I understand the parish contracted a nasty bout of evangelicalism and is only now starting to recover.
Actually, classic English Nonconformity up to about the 1950s only the coffee was tea. On communion Sundays the practice was to have the normal service, fellowship and then only the keenies would stay on for communion afterwards. The Churches of Christ kept this pattern in the UK up to 1983 when they joined with the URC although they had communion weekly. Some congregations from that strand persisted to the 1990s to my knowledge although by then it was long abandoned by Congregational churches.
Very interesting...thank you all 3 for sharing. I admit I was a bit jolted on first reading it, but I can see how it could work and bring a church community together.
The predominately Chinese-Australian Anglican church I went to in SW Sydney (Cabramatta) in my early 20s used to put a huge lunch on after the services concluded to encourage mingling between the 4 language (English plus 3 Chinese languages) congregations. Us English speakers, including those of various Asian descent, tended to keep together, but I did get to know members from the 3 other congregations. Food being rather central in Chinese culture it worked very well.
Almighty God,
who through your only-begotten Son Jesus Christ have overcome death and opened to us the gate of everlasting life:
..... Amen.
I've given above the CofE's collect for this week. In all the versions that I've found, it uses the plural have (or elides it) rather than the more usual has. The BCP urtext employs the ambiguous hast.
What's going on here? Is there a confusion of Persons?
Almighty God,
who through your only-begotten Son Jesus Christ have overcome death and opened to us the gate of everlasting life:
..... Amen.
I've given above the CofE's collect for this week. In all the versions that I've found, it uses the plural have (or elides it) rather than the more usual has. The BCP urtext employs the ambiguous hast.
What's going on here? Is there a confusion of Persons?
"have" in this context is the grammatically correct (if pedantic) second person singular.
The problem though is half-baked modernisation; wasn't one of the early versions of the English RC rite dubbed the 'yoo-hoo' mass for a similar reason? In modern English the second person is not usually followed by a relative pronoun (who). While liturgical English is formal and 'literary', it is designed to be spoken and hence should flow naturally without jarring. A less awkward phrasing of the above would be 'Almighty God, through your only-begotten Son Jesus Christ you have overcome death...'
There's a prayer in the Byzantine liturgy, "O Lord who blessest those who bless Thee..." and most contemporary English renditions make it, "O Lord who blesses those who bless you" *groan*.
There's a prayer in the Byzantine liturgy, "O Lord who blessest those who bless Thee..." and most contemporary English renditions make it, "O Lord who blesses those who bless you" *groan*.
I’m curious—what do you think would make a better rendition into modern English? Or do you think it’s better to retain the older forms?
It’s tricky, the most obvious thing is to go for “you who bless”, but used too often it gets risible. Another route would be to say something like “O Lord, the blesser of those who bless you…”
‘Who’ unqualified is now generally heard/read as a third person pronoun, and to ally it to other forms looks odd.
“Lord who bless those who bless you...” would be grammatically correct (“blessest” being second person singular). No, I am not one of those who thinks archaism is a necessary feature of elevated liturgical English.
“Lord who bless those who bless you...” would be grammatically correct (“blessest” being second person singular).
Hmmm. I get that it’s correct (though I had to think through it), but to my ear “Lord who bless those” sounds really strange, I’m afraid—the kind of thing that might distract me by trying to work it out grammatically while the prayer goes on. Maybe “Lord, you bless those” is the way to go after all?
The problem though is half-baked modernisation; wasn't one of the early versions of the English RC rite dubbed the 'yoo-hoo' mass for a similar reason? In modern English the second person is not usually followed by a relative pronoun (who).
I don't really know if this is a problem. "You, who ..." is a fairly literary construction but not an unnatural one. In contemporary English, it is most of found in religious texts, but not exclusively so.
The most usual English translation of Primo Levi's poem at the beginning of "Se questo è un uomo" begins thus:
"You who live safe
In your warm houses,
You who find, returning in the evening,
Hot food and friendly faces:
Consider if this is a man"
There are some constructions that sound so literary in contemporary English as to immediately draw attention to themselves. Leonard Cohen's use of the all-but-extinct subjunctive form in "If it be your will" is a good example. But I don't think "you, who" is one of those forms.
[
There are some constructions that sound so literary in contemporary English as to immediately draw attention to themselves. Leonard Cohen's use of the all-but-extinct subjunctive form in "If it be your will" is a good example. But I don't think "you, who" is one of those forms.
No it's not pompously literary. It's just that we instinctively hear it as Yoo-hoo!
Wow. How do they cope with the standard furnishings of your average Christian church? The mind is slowly starting to boggle.
I know of a progressive Jewish congregation that meets in a Christian church. I think it helps if the church is from a denomination or tradition that is light on the explicitly Christian artwork in Church. But this church, albeit Presbyterian, does have some stained glass with Christian imagery. I think how bothered a Jewish person would be by having this in their worship space depends on different factors such as age, how traditional/Orthodox they are, whether they are recent immigrants or not (and if immigrants, where from), etc.
Sorry - late to the party.
There is in Toronto a conservative synagogue - lovely neo-byzantine structure from ca. 1920 - which has its original non-representational stained glass, as well as a mural of the signs of the zodiac (painted by, IIRC, a daughter of a previous rabbi) giving it a vaguely kabbalistic whiff. I think that a Jewish congregation using a Christian space would depend on its tastes and flexibility.
I expect this is the best place to ask - is there anyone studying liturgical/churchmanship streams within the Church of England and their history? Anyone keeping count of the number/types?
Has anyone noticed some Anglican shacks dropping the Kyrie? If so, to what good end? Make us feel better by not asking for mercy? Would not the dropping be evidence of pride?
Has anyone noticed some Anglican shacks dropping the Kyrie? If so, to what good end? Make us feel better by not asking for mercy? Would not the dropping be evidence of pride?
When I was growing up we used the Kyrie in Lent and Advent, leaving out the Gloria, then vice versa the rest of the year. Its presence or absence is not something I'm particularly aware of.
Has anyone noticed some Anglican shacks dropping the Kyrie? If so, to what good end? Make us feel better by not asking for mercy? Would not the dropping be evidence of pride?
When I was growing up we used the Kyrie in Lent and Advent, leaving out the Gloria, then vice versa the rest of the year. Its presence or absence is not something I'm particularly aware of.
We (at both the local and the Cathedral) normally do both the Kyrie and the Gloria, Sunday and midweek, but during my extended absence my local seems to have dropped it. I don't see the K and G as an either/or proposition; quite the opposite - as complementary.
Has anyone noticed some Anglican shacks dropping the Kyrie? If so, to what good end? Make us feel better by not asking for mercy? Would not the dropping be evidence of pride?
The 1979 BCP (USA) encourages the use of one or the other by printing the Gloria in excelsis first and then the Kyrie and Trisagion as options, and permitting a "hymn of praise" instead of these.
Our parish generally uses Kyrie at every Mass except our Sunday 9 a.m. one, when after the opening versicles we go right into Gloria in excelsis (but Kyrie in Advent/Lent). Low Masses have the spoken ninefold Greek Kyrie and then the Gloria if appropriate.
Has anyone noticed some Anglican shacks dropping the Kyrie? If so, to what good end? Make us feel better by not asking for mercy? Would not the dropping be evidence of pride?
The 1979 BCP (USA) encourages the use of one or the other by printing the Gloria in excelsis first and then the Kyrie and Trisagion as options, and permitting a "hymn of praise" instead of these.
Our parish generally uses Kyrie at every Mass except our Sunday 9 a.m. one, when after the opening versicles we go right into Gloria in excelsis (but Kyrie in Advent/Lent). Low Masses have the spoken ninefold Greek Kyrie and then the Gloria if appropriate.
My current parish (TEC) uses the Kyrie during Advent and Lent, and either the Gloria or another "song of praise" during other seasons. I love my current parish, but this is not my preferred praxis.
My previous parish (CofE), was very strict and correct: the Kyrie was always said (low masses) or sung (sung or solemn masses), and the Gloria on Sundays (outwith Lent and Advent) and solemnities and major feasts. This is my preferred pattern.
We do the Kyrie during Advent and Lent, and the Gloria the rest of the year. (When I took Liturgics, I was the head of one of the student teams working up a communion service. We did it using Rite I and both the Kyrie and the Gloria. One of the older and more irascible priests (fortunately one without grading powers for that course) was furious. It apparently "takes too long.")
....in churches that broke for coffee between the Ministry of the Word and the Ministry of the Sacrament.
This is new to me. Then again, I don't get out much.
Which churches? When? Do any still do this?
Was it any link to the communal meal of the New Testament? Or something else?
My thanks.
dropping back to this, it is also my teenage recollection of the Church of Scotland congregation we attended. They only did Communion every so often (every 6 months?) and - as far as I could work out - was a "members only", or at least "adults only" occasion - in the week preceding the Sunday, elders from the church would visit to distribute the communion cards. ( I'm sure, if I had asked, I would be allowed to attend, not sure about participation)
The Communion part was always after the main service, and there was usually a pause for tea - at which point I would head home and wait for Mum to come back for lunch
It is traditional English NonConformity pattern but was largely broken in the 1950s with the Family Church movement. Actually, I would say it was running on borrowed time since the modern Ecumenical Movement started in 1909. However, when the Reformed Churches of Christ joined the URC in 1981 many still followed this pattern despite having communion every week.
[/quote]
The 1979 BCP (USA) encourages the use of one or the other by printing the Gloria in excelsis first and then the Kyrie and Trisagion as options, and permitting a "hymn of praise" instead of these.
[/quote]
Forgive my confusion.... Why print the Gloria first, when litugically it would follow (if both are being used) the Kyrie? I note that you wrote "options", but still...
Forgive my confusion.... Why print the Gloria first, when litugically it would follow (if both are being used) the Kyrie? I note that you wrote "options", but still...
That's the thing: The 1979 BCP commission didn't want both used; just one or the other, or something else. Our binder that the celebrant uses at the chair puts them back in Kyrie-Gloria order, as we use both (except for when the Gloria is omitted).
I tend to revert to my Anglo-Catholic Yoof when faced with the either or approach to the Kyrie and Gloria. It just does not fly with me, as it comes across as a 'let's butcher the service to make it shorter manoeuvre' though they were probably thinking in terms of seasonal variation = Kyrie for Advent and Lent; Gloria otherwise.
I have not come across it when I have headed to England recently, but that may be because I tend to either go to church in the evening, or go to the local 'Prayer Book Catholic' shack that is still hanging on the old rite.
Forgive my confusion.... Why print the Gloria first, when litugically it would follow (if both are being used) the Kyrie? I note that you wrote "options", but still...
My strong impression is that the editors intended for the use of just one or the other, and I do fear it has at least something to do with the lengths of services. We do the Kyrie in Advent and Lent, and the Gloria in other seasons.
Normal Anglo-Catholic practice (as far as I'm aware) in England is the Kyrie always and the Gloria in all times but Lent and Advent. Is the Gloria used on Ember Days?
Normal Anglo-Catholic practice (as far as I'm aware) in England is the Kyrie always and the Gloria in all times but Lent and Advent. Is the Gloria used on Ember Days?
Roman Catholic practice is to use the Gloria only on Sundays (outwith Advent and Lent), Solemnities, and Feasts (with the Creed on the first two). In my experience, Anglo-Catholic churches with daily masses tend to follow that. I've also known Anglo-Catholics to use it every day in the octave of Easter and possibly ferias in Christmastide, although I believe that this is no longer Roman Catholic practice. So no, it would not normally be used on Ember Days.
I suspect that the practice in less markedly Anglo-Catholic settings with non-Sunday eucharists is likely to be more varied. It usually is.
Comments
As to your other point, there is actually a history in this part of the world of Jews meeting in churches, as well as Christians meeting in synagogues. I can think of examples going back as long as 125+ years and as recently as 10 years ago. I think on both sides it has been viewed as a matter of hospitality. There's also, of course, a convenience factor, since the days of worship are generally different.
Typically, though, it has been a temporary arrangement—a synagogue or church making its space available while a new congregation organizes and raises money for a building, or while a congregation is temporarily homeless. That was the case in the early 1900s for the church of my youth. The old building was sold to another church and moved, and while the new building was being built, the local synagogue offered use of their building. I've also known it to happen on the High Holy Days, when a Jewish congregation will use the facilities of a much larger church to accommodate the extra crowd. Sometimes in those instances, crosses or other prominent Christian symbols may be removed or discretely covered, sometimes not.
What makes this particular arrangement different is that the Jewish Renewal congregation made a conscious decision not to add yet another building to the landscape. Instead, they meet in a church as a way of strengthening relationships between Jews and Christians. I think their original plan was to move to a different church every 3 or 4 years, so as to create a network of sorts, but they've been at the Episcopal church in question for around 6 years now.
Oh, and as for stained glass, lots of churches in these parts, including this particular Episcopal church, have clear glass windows. Of those that have stained glass, the stained glass is often in this style or, in newer building, abstract.
And this particular church is modern in design; I think the only cross in the church is the processional cross, which is perhaps removed for Jewish services.
Hope that helps.
ETA: As suggested above, what you think of as the "standard" furnishings in an "average" Christian church may be pretty different in England from those in the American South.
But my experience is that what is seen in a church made available to them is welcome and hospitality, as well as opportunity for better relationships and understanding.
I know of a progressive Jewish congregation that meets in a Christian church. I think it helps if the church is from a denomination or tradition that is light on the explicitly Christian artwork in Church. But this church, albeit Presbyterian, does have some stained glass with Christian imagery. I think how bothered a Jewish person would be by having this in their worship space depends on different factors such as age, how traditional/Orthodox they are, whether they are recent immigrants or not (and if immigrants, where from), etc.
Reform Judaism is one of the three major streams of mainline Judaism (the others are Conservative and Orthodox - orthodox probably subsuming hasidism). REform synagogues depart from traditional observance in matters such as female rabbis, role of women in worship and, possibly, separation of men and women in worship, It is as far removed from "Messianic Judaism" as the other streams -- no Reform Jew would for a moment consider that Jesus was the Messiah.
Which churches? When? Do any still do this?
Was it any link to the communal meal of the New Testament? Or something else?
My thanks.
MOTR to high CofE in the 90s. Done for a series of pastoral reasons. Firstly to encourage the building of community by removing the temptation to dash off and get Sunday lunch on, skipping the coffee. Secondly to ensure that the main Sunday service was Eucharistic while, thirdly, allowing those dipping their toe in the water to slip out during the break and skip the Eucharist as that can be intimidating for a newcomer. It also lengthened the period of time between the start of the service (10:45) and the last moment the celebrant needed to arrive from the next parish in the benefice (so that they could actually speak to folk in the other parish after their 9:30 service), allowing a reader to begin the service safe in the knowledge that they wouldn't be caught waiting at the peace. I know it will cause conniptions among the liturgical purists but it served its purpose, and care was taken to make it clear that it was a break in the service, not two services.
Where the innovation came from I couldn't say. I don't think it long outlasted the then incumbent; I understand the parish contracted a nasty bout of evangelicalism and is only now starting to recover.
The predominately Chinese-Australian Anglican church I went to in SW Sydney (Cabramatta) in my early 20s used to put a huge lunch on after the services concluded to encourage mingling between the 4 language (English plus 3 Chinese languages) congregations. Us English speakers, including those of various Asian descent, tended to keep together, but I did get to know members from the 3 other congregations. Food being rather central in Chinese culture it worked very well.
who through your only-begotten Son Jesus Christ
have overcome death and opened to us the gate of everlasting life:
..... Amen.
I've given above the CofE's collect for this week. In all the versions that I've found, it uses the plural have (or elides it) rather than the more usual has. The BCP urtext employs the ambiguous hast.
What's going on here? Is there a confusion of Persons?
"have" in this context is the grammatically correct (if pedantic) second person singular.
Almighty God...…………….(thou) hast...……….
Almighty God...……………(you) have...……….
Correct.
"ALMIGHTY God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
Who desireth not [...], has given power, and commandment to His Ministers, to ..." ?
Your earlier example was addressed to God (“your only begotten Son Jesus Christ”), so second person.
If that's what turns you on.
The problem though is half-baked modernisation; wasn't one of the early versions of the English RC rite dubbed the 'yoo-hoo' mass for a similar reason? In modern English the second person is not usually followed by a relative pronoun (who). While liturgical English is formal and 'literary', it is designed to be spoken and hence should flow naturally without jarring. A less awkward phrasing of the above would be 'Almighty God, through your only-begotten Son Jesus Christ you have overcome death...'
I've always disliked prayers that sound as if they're telling God something. Many "contemporary" language re-wordings seem to do this.
‘Who’ unqualified is now generally heard/read as a third person pronoun, and to ally it to other forms looks odd.
Such as the ICET version of the Te Deum: "You are God; we praise you..."
People: You are God...
God: Why, yes! Yes, I am, aren't I? Thank you very much for noticing. <divine eyeroll>
I don't really know if this is a problem. "You, who ..." is a fairly literary construction but not an unnatural one. In contemporary English, it is most of found in religious texts, but not exclusively so.
The most usual English translation of Primo Levi's poem at the beginning of "Se questo è un uomo" begins thus:
"You who live safe
In your warm houses,
You who find, returning in the evening,
Hot food and friendly faces:
Consider if this is a man"
There are some constructions that sound so literary in contemporary English as to immediately draw attention to themselves. Leonard Cohen's use of the all-but-extinct subjunctive form in "If it be your will" is a good example. But I don't think "you, who" is one of those forms.
I've always thought that was a contender for the worst liturgical translation of the 1970s.
Trevor is a star. Conducted the youngest Miss M's wedding.
Sorry - late to the party.
There is in Toronto a conservative synagogue - lovely neo-byzantine structure from ca. 1920 - which has its original non-representational stained glass, as well as a mural of the signs of the zodiac (painted by, IIRC, a daughter of a previous rabbi) giving it a vaguely kabbalistic whiff. I think that a Jewish congregation using a Christian space would depend on its tastes and flexibility.
Has anyone noticed some Anglican shacks dropping the Kyrie? If so, to what good end? Make us feel better by not asking for mercy? Would not the dropping be evidence of pride?
When I was growing up we used the Kyrie in Lent and Advent, leaving out the Gloria, then vice versa the rest of the year. Its presence or absence is not something I'm particularly aware of.
We (at both the local and the Cathedral) normally do both the Kyrie and the Gloria, Sunday and midweek, but during my extended absence my local seems to have dropped it. I don't see the K and G as an either/or proposition; quite the opposite - as complementary.
The 1979 BCP (USA) encourages the use of one or the other by printing the Gloria in excelsis first and then the Kyrie and Trisagion as options, and permitting a "hymn of praise" instead of these.
Our parish generally uses Kyrie at every Mass except our Sunday 9 a.m. one, when after the opening versicles we go right into Gloria in excelsis (but Kyrie in Advent/Lent). Low Masses have the spoken ninefold Greek Kyrie and then the Gloria if appropriate.
My current parish (TEC) uses the Kyrie during Advent and Lent, and either the Gloria or another "song of praise" during other seasons. I love my current parish, but this is not my preferred praxis.
My previous parish (CofE), was very strict and correct: the Kyrie was always said (low masses) or sung (sung or solemn masses), and the Gloria on Sundays (outwith Lent and Advent) and solemnities and major feasts. This is my preferred pattern.
dropping back to this, it is also my teenage recollection of the Church of Scotland congregation we attended. They only did Communion every so often (every 6 months?) and - as far as I could work out - was a "members only", or at least "adults only" occasion - in the week preceding the Sunday, elders from the church would visit to distribute the communion cards. ( I'm sure, if I had asked, I would be allowed to attend, not sure about participation)
The Communion part was always after the main service, and there was usually a pause for tea - at which point I would head home and wait for Mum to come back for lunch
The 1979 BCP (USA) encourages the use of one or the other by printing the Gloria in excelsis first and then the Kyrie and Trisagion as options, and permitting a "hymn of praise" instead of these.
[/quote]
Forgive my confusion.... Why print the Gloria first, when litugically it would follow (if both are being used) the Kyrie? I note that you wrote "options", but still...
That's the thing: The 1979 BCP commission didn't want both used; just one or the other, or something else. Our binder that the celebrant uses at the chair puts them back in Kyrie-Gloria order, as we use both (except for when the Gloria is omitted).
I have not come across it when I have headed to England recently, but that may be because I tend to either go to church in the evening, or go to the local 'Prayer Book Catholic' shack that is still hanging on the old rite.
Cheers,
PDR
Roman Catholic practice is to use the Gloria only on Sundays (outwith Advent and Lent), Solemnities, and Feasts (with the Creed on the first two). In my experience, Anglo-Catholic churches with daily masses tend to follow that. I've also known Anglo-Catholics to use it every day in the octave of Easter and possibly ferias in Christmastide, although I believe that this is no longer Roman Catholic practice. So no, it would not normally be used on Ember Days.
I suspect that the practice in less markedly Anglo-Catholic settings with non-Sunday eucharists is likely to be more varied. It usually is.