Of course, to make it 40 days you have to exclude Sundays. Does anyone give themselves a weekly break from their Lenten discipline in this way? I understand the logic behind it, but it feels odd.
Of course, to make it 40 days you have to exclude Sundays. Does anyone give themselves a weekly break from their Lenten discipline in this way? I understand the logic behind it, but it feels odd.
We do (Western Orthodox).
It's written into our fasting rule. The fast is not kept on Sunday as this is always a celebration of the Resurrection. Therefore, it's a feast day and never a fast day. Those intending to receive Holy Communion still keep the customary fast, of course, but only up to the point of receiving. Otherwise, Sundays are not kept as a day of fasting.
The rule of abstinence is also slightly relaxed on the Sundays of Lent. So fish and wine may be taken. Otherwise, meat, poultry, and dairy are still avoided.
That way, the lenten discipline isn't abandoned altogether but neither is the weekly celebration of the Resurrection of the Lord disregarded. It's all about balance.
St Quacks is having an evening service. (Full sung Mass). Fr Duck has cancelled the usual Wednesday morning low Mass, to get people to come out, and tbh the core congregation tend to do so. For me though evening services are rather awkward because I'm normally on bedtime duty.
A nearby Baptist church prepared Ash Wednesday “kits” for families with younger children who might have trouble getting to church on Ash Wednesday evening. (Bear in mind that Wednesday night church activities, often including supper and prayer meeting, have long been the norm for Baptist churches in these parts.)
As I understand it, the kits include ashes and age-appropriate activities and prayers.
And @Robert Armin, yes, depending on the particular discipline I’ve chosen some years, I have given myself a break on Sundays. But not all years.
Lent begins for some of us tomorrow (Ash Wednesday). How many of you will be having a (possibly Eucharistic) service with Ashing during the day?
We won't be as we don't have our own building and are rather restricted by concerns other than liturgical correctness at the moment.
So we didn't do Vespers this evening. Instead, we incorporated some elements of this evenings propers into Vespers last Saturday evening for Quinquagesima, most notably, the mournful Ecclesiastical Psalm bidding farewell to the alleluia:
Alleluia! Alleluia!
By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down and wept, when we remembered Zion.
Alleluia!
On the willows in the midst of it we hung up our instruments.
Alleluia!
For there those who captured us asked us for songs and those who led us away called for a tune.
Alleluia!
'Sing us some of the songs of Zion', they say, but how shall we sing the Lord’s song in a foreign land?
Alleluia!
If I forget you, O Jerusalem, may my right hand be forgotten. May my tongue stick to my throat if I do not remember you.
Alleluia!
If I do not set Jerusalem foremost, as in the beginning of my happiness.
Alleluia!
The use of Psalm 136 in this way sung to znamenny chant is astoundingly moving. I can happily send it to anyone who'd like it.
Then, we closed with:
Deacon: Alleluia! Close and seal up this word!
Alleluia! May it rest in the secret place of your heart until the appointed time,
and when the day is come, you will say with great joy:
People: Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!
This coming Saturday evening, we'll have Vespers for the First Sunday of Lent, followed by the rite of Mutual Forgiveness and the imposition of Ashes. Then, after a lenten supper together, we'll close with Compline.
As for breaking your fast on Sundays, if I've given up something like chocolate or alcohol, having a bit makes it harder to go back on the wagon, as it were. But maybe that's only me.
@Nick Tamen ...echo Jesus' time of prayer and temptation and the 40 years of wandering of the Hebrew people after the Passover and flight from Egypt....But, IMHO it takes well prepared preaching and careful education to make that resonance really sing in the life of the congregation.
Even if someone in the congregation doesn't realize the 40-day connection, there are two other symbols that IMHO would be distorted by having the start of Lent on Sunday:
1. The nature of Sunday as a celebration of the Resurrection. It seems "off" to me that we would start a period of self-reflection & penance on the day of the week that should be the least self-focused & the most joyous. Sunday is about thinking of what Jesus' victory over death did for us despite our failings, not fretting over those failings (as much as that has its place for a conscientious person).
2. Part of Lent is about getting out of any "ruts" of sin or complacency that we tend to naturally fall into in our lives. Starting that journey by going to church on a day that is not the "typical church day" is a good way to start that "snapping out of it." Offering a service on Not-Sunday also gives parishioners the chance to make any inconvenience they might suffer as a result of the irregular time their first ascetic offering of the season.
Today I expect will:
1) be taking part in Ashes to Go
2) be at an informal Eucharist where I may well be ashed
3) be at a sung mass where I will be ashed.
The 'Ashes to Go' is an experiment by the Chaplaincy to see whether taking Ashing in the public space engages us with people who probably would otherwise not even guess that the Chaplaincy existed.
@Nick Tamen ...echo Jesus' time of prayer and temptation and the 40 years of wandering of the Hebrew people after the Passover and flight from Egypt....But, IMHO it takes well prepared preaching and careful education to make that resonance really sing in the life of the congregation.
Even if someone in the congregation doesn't realize the 40-day connection, there are two other symbols that IMHO would be distorted by having the start of Lent on Sunday:
1. The nature of Sunday as a celebration of the Resurrection. It seems "off" to me that we would start a period of self-reflection & penance on the day of the week that should be the least self-focused & the most joyous. Sunday is about thinking of what Jesus' victory over death did for us despite our failings, not fretting over those failings (as much as that has its place for a conscientious person).
2. Part of Lent is about getting out of any "ruts" of sin or complacency that we tend to naturally fall into in our lives. Starting that journey by going to church on a day that is not the "typical church day" is a good way to start that "snapping out of it." Offering a service on Not-Sunday also gives parishioners the chance to make any inconvenience they might suffer as a result of the irregular time their first ascetic offering of the season.
The most "enjoyable" thing about Ash Wednesday for me is the rather amusing discord between the modern (post-mediaeval) way of doing ashes and the traditional Gospel of the day (Matthew 6: 16ff.)
The most "enjoyable" thing about Ash Wednesday for me is the rather amusing discord between the modern (post-mediaeval) way of doing ashes and the traditional Gospel of the day (Matthew 6: 16ff.)
Our ashes are sprinkled on the head, in keeping with the rubrics. (I understand anecdotally this is the majority practice in most of the non-anglophone world too, although I'm happy to be corrected.) It's in the act of receiving the ash that we have our minds moved to penitence. The ash then simply falls off or blows away, which serves as a further reminder of our mortality, in keeping with the words used at the imposition.
Where does the practice come from of leaving a lasting mark on the face, and moreover of mixing the ash with oil or some other substance in order to facilitate this?
The most "enjoyable" thing about Ash Wednesday for me is the rather amusing discord between the modern (post-mediaeval) way of doing ashes and the traditional Gospel of the day (Matthew 6: 16ff.)
Which is one reason I always wipe the ashes off immediately after the service.
I like the idea of sprinkling the ashes on the head, which I too understand to be the practice in most of the world.
The most "enjoyable" thing about Ash Wednesday for me is the rather amusing discord between the modern (post-mediaeval) way of doing ashes and the traditional Gospel of the day (Matthew 6: 16ff.)
Which is one reason I always wipe the ashes off immediately after the service.
I like the idea of sprinkling the ashes on the head, which I too understand to be the practice in most of the world.
Yes, the paradox mentioned by @PDR struck me too! I wipe the oily ash off asap, although today I waited until I got home, having put on my Cap in the meantime. The oily ash is now on the inside of my Cap.
It sometimes strikes people as odd, too, that the Ash Wednesday Gospel is NOT the bit about Our Lord's sojourn in the wilderness...
A straightforward said Eucharist with Ashing at the Cathedral today, with about 30 present (which may sound a bit thin, but filled the Lady Chapel nicely). It was quite refreshing, in a way, to attend a service where I didn't have to do anything, except receive what Our Lord was giving me.
I have been known to put tissues/wet wipes by the door with a notices saying
when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, so that your fasting may be seen not by others but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. (Matt 6.17, 18)
Had the Cathedral been so minded as to provide such facilities, I would not now have an oily patch in my Cap...
FatherInCharge does take the trouble to ask people to keep any Lenten discipline they may decide upon between themselves and God, in line with Our Lord's instructions.
One or two people will, I know, nevertheless go out of their way to proclaim that they have given up CHOCOLATE (or whatever). If asked what I'm giving up for Lent, I put on a serious expression, and piously reply that I have given up asking people what they're giving up for Lent...
@Nick Tamen ...echo Jesus' time of prayer and temptation and the 40 years of wandering of the Hebrew people after the Passover and flight from Egypt....But, IMHO it takes well prepared preaching and careful education to make that resonance really sing in the life of the congregation.
Even if someone in the congregation doesn't realize the 40-day connection, there are two other symbols that IMHO would be distorted by having the start of Lent on Sunday:
1. The nature of Sunday as a celebration of the Resurrection. It seems "off" to me that we would start a period of self-reflection & penance on the day of the week that should be the least self-focused & the most joyous. Sunday is about thinking of what Jesus' victory over death did for us despite our failings, not fretting over those failings (as much as that has its place for a conscientious person).
2. Part of Lent is about getting out of any "ruts" of sin or complacency that we tend to naturally fall into in our lives. Starting that journey by going to church on a day that is not the "typical church day" is a good way to start that "snapping out of it." Offering a service on Not-Sunday also gives parishioners the chance to make any inconvenience they might suffer as a result of the irregular time their first ascetic offering of the season.
Absolutely. These days, when I'm not in parish ministry but an " 'ead office" job, I find it even more powerful to change the routine, take myself off to an ir- or less regular liturgical event, to have no control over the liturgy, and to be touched by God in whatever eventuates. My eccentric local church was attended by the normal tiny gaggle of people, not many wise, not many noble (not many at all - we are a dozen or so most Sundays and were about 2/3rds of that) we were ashed, made eucharist, and my heart was strangely warmed.
[edited to add: and yes, I have long believed the ashes should be removed as we go out into the world. I have never added oil - dunno if they did last night. But I removed them. And by telling you that I have already broken the spirit of Jesus' saying, for I have advertised my spiritual practices ]
on an entirely nother but not unrelated matter ... just occasionally I see priests wear their stoles outside their chazziez. What the actual? Is this a thing? I think Fr Whatisname in Ballykisangel did, in fact. ¿Qué?
Giving up something for Lent is common among many non church goers, who often gossip about it. I have sometimes caused offence by refusing to say what I was giving up.
I have been known to put tissues/wet wipes by the door with a notices saying
when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, so that your fasting may be seen not by others but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. (Matt 6.17, 18)
The rather clear quotation from Matthew notwithstanding, I know of people who strongly believe in wearing their ashes out into the city as a "witness" or perhaps small act of evangelism. If it does prompt helpful spiritual conversations, I guess that's good, but I remain one who wipes the ashes off after Mass, not out of embarrassment but in line with what the quotation above says.
As for breaking your fast on Sundays, if I've given up something like chocolate or alcohol, having a bit makes it harder to go back on the wagon, as it were. But maybe that's only me.
Hmm. Chocolate and alcohol for Sunday breakfast? Sounds good to me...
15 at Our Place for this evening's Mass, so my spies tell me. Not too bad, considering a number of people were missing (including me), so maybe Father will hold an earlier said Mass as well next year.
As Mr Dragon went and supported St Quack's mission at the station this morning I did actually get to go to the service this evening. We had 20 plus 3 clergy, with Fr Mandarin in charge, so a fair chunk of the Sunday congregation. It was quite a good service. (Music will be posted in the appropriate place, but it was all NEH.)
I went for the 'witnessing' option of not wiping them off before getting the tram home. As it's a fairly large, dark and neat cross it's quite noticeable, so it also needs cleaning off properly or it'll leave a weird mark.
Apparently Dragonlet 1 got done at school, but it had come off by the time I picked him up. (He's at the local RC one, and today was a 'reflection day'.) We also had parents evening for him, and his teacher was quite impressed that he took himself off after the discussion about today being Ash Wednesday to paint crosses on purple paper!
We are basically being seasonal pescatarians so Sundays not technically being fast days is useful if we go out for lunch.
So many thoughtful and discreet options about Ash Wednesday!
The resident priest thumbed a big black cross on my forehead while saying, "Remember that you are dust, and to dust you shall return," and after leaving church I went to the library, queued at the ATM for the bank, took sandwiches to a fellow editor for a working lunch, came home and only noticed as I was making supper and saw my reflection in the kitchen window. Hopefully most of those who saw me thought 'she is so absent-minded' rather than assuming I was virtue-signalling.
I have been known to put tissues/wet wipes by the door with a notices saying
when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, so that your fasting may be seen not by others but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. (Matt 6.17, 18)
Yep I with you on this. There is a small but growing cohort who use Ash Wednesday in a "look at me" manner which is presumably not what it's about.
As for Ashes on the move, why not communion on the move?
How old is the custom of having an ash cross on your forehead? It does seem odd, given the Gospel teaching. Then again, so do several other church customs!
@Cyprian asked much the same question earlier, but also said:
Our [Orthodox] ashes are sprinkled on the head, in keeping with the rubrics. (I understand anecdotally this is the majority practice in most of the non-anglophone world too, although I'm happy to be corrected.) It's in the act of receiving the ash that we have our minds moved to penitence. The ash then simply falls off or blows away, which serves as a further reminder of our mortality, in keeping with the words used at the imposition.
As for Ashes on the move, why not communion on the move?
I think it has been done, and I think it’s been discussed here before.
To me, it’s a terrible idea, as it makes Communion a totally individual, unconnected-to-anyone-else act rather than a community meal. In terms of communion, communion-on-the-go seems like an oxymoron.
I agree with Nick on this. There are, however, times when 'on the go' is the only way to provide Communion to a sick person. I know from personal experience both from distributing and also receiving Communion in a more personal way on a sick bed or in hospital that it is a wonderful gift.
But that is a different thing from offering communion to commuters at railway stations etc. This latter is I think what people mean by “on the go” in this context. Taking the elements to the sick is a way of extending the community of the church to those who can’t attend.
As for Ashes on the move, why not communion on the move?
I think it has been done, and I think it’s been discussed here before.
To me, it’s a terrible idea, as it makes Communion a totally individual, unconnected-to-anyone-else act rather than a community meal. In terms of communion, communion-on-the-go seems like an oxymoron.
Hmm. I think I agree with Nick Tamen, but, as Cathscats and Forthview both point out, home/sick Communion is different, inasmuch as it keeps the recipient 'in the loop' IYSWIM.
Quite often, too, the Sacrament will have been consecrated at the Parish Eucharist or Mass, thus linking the person with the corporate worship of his/her home congregation.
OTOH, who is to say that someone receiving Communion 'on the go' at the station, perhaps only on a special Holy Day, is not also being kept 'in the loop', especially if work or other commitments prevent them from getting to church at an advertised service time?
Many churches only have a Communion service on a Sunday morning, with perhaps one on a weekday morning (yes, I know the RCs are able to hold more frequent Masses, in urban areas, at any rate).
Yes, @Cathscats. In my tribe, there are two ways this can be done. Under one, at least two people take communion to the sick or homebound on the same day as Communion at church, or as soon after as possible. Typically, there is an acknowledgment at church of those to whom Communion is being taken. The short liturgy used at home or hospital (or wherever) begins with reference to the congregation gathered earlier, and includes the readings from church and a brief conversation about the sermon (for which ministers often provide a short synopsis). Others present are usually invited to commune as well.
In the other (used when there hasn’t been a celebration at church from which to “extend the Table”), the minister, accompanied by an elder (representing the congregation), involves essentially a complete, though brief, service, with consecration of the elements on the spot. Again, all present are generally invited to commune.
In both cases, emphasizing that the Communion isn’t private but rather is connected to the wider community is considered important.
Very much what is done (or can be done) here in the C of E, and, I suspect, not too far off what the early church did...
...though churches like Our Place, which reserve the Sacrament all the time, often do the home/sick Communions at convenient times during the week, rather than on Sunday.
We do it both ways. Lay ministers are sent out before the blessing to take communion to people who normally went to that Sunday Mass, so they are consciously included. But other sick or elderly folk have family visitors on Sunday, so they are taken communion at another time. Sometimes this is at a regular weekly time if they are infirm. They are all members of the parish community even if they cant get to church. They are all included and prayed for.
I checked before Ash Wednesday and anyone is allowed to receive ashes, it is performed by the church for those who wish it. This is what makes it possible to do as 'to go' in the public space. Communion has a very different status.
I went for the 'witnessing' option of not wiping them off before getting the tram home. As it's a fairly large, dark and neat cross it's quite noticeable, so it also needs cleaning off properly or it'll leave a weird mark.
I served as subdeacon for our solemn Mass last night. Afterward, I was afraid I'd get ashes on the tunicle as I pulled it over my head, so before doing so, I used a handy freshen-up wipette and a dry facial tissue to clear off the ashes. I then managed to get the tunicle off without it getting even close to my forehead. But I was having a bit of an allergy evening, which the oiled ashes seem to trigger in a mild way, so there was that reason to remove them, too. If the Gospel admonition wasn't enough.
@Cyprian asked much the same question earlier, but also said:
Our [Orthodox] ashes are sprinkled on the head, in keeping with the rubrics. (I understand anecdotally this is the majority practice in most of the non-anglophone world too, although I'm happy to be corrected.) It's in the act of receiving the ash that we have our minds moved to penitence. The ash then simply falls off or blows away, which serves as a further reminder of our mortality, in keeping with the words used at the imposition.
That must be a Western Rite custom. No ashes in "regular" Orthodoxy, but we do have a very moving rite of mutual forgiveness this coming Sunday ("Cheese-farewell", the last day before the Great 40 Day Fast begins). Technically it is "Forgiveness Vespers" and so should be in the evening, but we have it immediately after the morning service and before the trapeza meal to ensure maximum attendance.
We line up as if for communion, and prostrate or bow before person, asking their forgiveness for having offended them in any way. Then take our place beside them as the next person comes to ask our forgiveness, and so on until everyone present has asked forgiveness of everyone else. Tears are often shed and hugs shared.
I checked before Ash Wednesday and anyone is allowed to receive ashes, it is performed by the church for those who wish it. This is what makes it possible to do as 'to go' in the public space. Communion has a very different status.
Can you define the difference in status please? Isn't communion performed by the church for those who wish it?
I checked before Ash Wednesday and anyone is allowed to receive ashes, it is performed by the church for those who wish it. This is what makes it possible to do as 'to go' in the public space. Communion has a very different status.
Yes, in the Western tradition ashes are a sacramental, not a sacrament, so anyone can be ashed at any church. It's the same with laying on of hands. Anyone can anywhere, but annointing is a sacrament and you have to be a Catholic to be annointed by a Catholic priest. The difference from 2 letters.... I don't know of the Eastern or Oriental churches.
I checked before Ash Wednesday and anyone is allowed to receive ashes, it is performed by the church for those who wish it. This is what makes it possible to do as 'to go' in the public space. Communion has a very different status.
Can you define the difference in status please? Isn't communion performed by the church for those who wish it?
Ye, Eucharist was instituted by Our Lord for the Church, the ashes are simply a useful devotional act created by the Church.
At Communion, the Sacrament is (in the C of E, at any rate) offered to any and all who come to the altar - no questions asked.
If Communion is offered 'on the go', the Host will already have been consecrated, and will only be given to those who request it.
Yes, I realise that there will have been no Liturgy of the Word, or corporate prayers, beforehand, but why might it be unacceptable - in special circumstances, I grant you - to offer the Sacrament to some who might desire it, but otherwise be unable to get to a 'proper' service or church?
Many years ago I went to an RC Ash Wednesday service. I found it poignant that I could share the ashes of repentance, but not the elements of Communion. But that's a different issue, that has been much discussed.
Many years ago I went to an RC Ash Wednesday service. I found it poignant that I could share the ashes of repentance, but not the elements of Communion. But that's a different issue, that has been much discussed.
It is for us also, but on a yearly basis now. We find it hard to get to St Sanity and so go to the local Catholic church, where we're well known. We get ashed, on the basis set out above, but don't take communion.
Slabbinck, the Belgian vestment-maker, used to make plain grey chasubles over which the (coloured) stole would be worn, as a way of providing a more economical approach for parishes. I wonder if that was the origin of this use.
Does any of you know whether the hymn Sancti, venite, Christi Corpus sumite has a surviving ancient chant?
It is commonly sung to various modern tunes in one of the two translations, Draw nigh and take the Body of the Lord and Come, Christ's beloved, feed on his Body true.
The text survives in the Bangor Antiphonary but what of the melody?
Does any of you know whether the hymn Sancti, venite, Christi Corpus sumite has a surviving ancient chant?
It is commonly sung to various modern tunes in one of the two translations, Draw nigh and take the Body of the Lord and Come, Christ's beloved, feed on his Body true.
The text survives in the Bangor Antiphonary but what of the melody?
Does any of you know whether the hymn Sancti, venite, Christi Corpus sumite has a surviving ancient chant?
It is commonly sung to various modern tunes in one of the two translations, Draw nigh and take the Body of the Lord and Come, Christ's beloved, feed on his Body true.
The text survives in the Bangor Antiphonary but what of the melody?
I think that the simple melody here is very lovely and has potential. I know adjusting melodies to triple time is an ancient device but I'm still not sure that melodies really benefit from it (see Corde Natus ex Parentis as an unfortunate example). So l'd likely want to remove the "communon waltz" effect. Perhaps I'm just becoming too much of a purist.
But yes, you're right, the file information offers nothing by way of information of its provenance, and it seems that Konrad Ruhland has now gone to his eternal rest. So I don't know who to ask.
I cannot help but think that if the antiphonary has been preserved in such a way that we have the text, it's highly likely that the notation has also survived. I shall try to find out where it "lives".
Our ANglican parish has for several years distributed grape juice in small cups as well as wine from a chalice at communion. I suspect that if the bishop knew about this he would stop it-- at least the juice part -- but so far as I know he doesn't.
My question arises from the current discipline we are under, which states that for the foreseeable future, communion will be in one kind only (once clergy are able to celebrate, which will not be before 1 September). People are looking ahead to what happens when we are once again able to share wine.
Now most non-Anglican/Lutheran/Roman Catholic western christianity types in North America distribute "wine" only as grape juice in small cups. I'm interested in knowing when either part of that began, and when it became common.
My thinking is that as grape juice only became common/widely available when Mr. Welch did his work on behalf of temperance, something else must have been in use beforehand. And my guess is that small cups are probably also late Victorian. Going further back, I cannot imagine that northern european protestants of whatever flavour had usual access to grape juice, so wine (which would have been available) would have been used. And I suspect, though less strongly, that a common cup or cups (ie, not small individual cups but a number of cups holding wine for a small number of people -- perhaps one for each table) would have been used.
My only experience of Presbyterian communion is now in the distant past, but in a very-aware-of-its-Scottish-heritage church attended by my cousins, an empty chalice was placed on the table for communion, though small cups were actually used. (this was long before any liturgical renewal hit the place)
NE Quine or others with historical knowledge -- have you any light to shed?
My understanding is that grape juice began to replace wine in the late 19th C, when temperance concerns were high and when, as you note, Mr. Welch developed his method of processing grape juice. (And if I recall correctly, he was motivated by a desire to have a non-alcoholic “wine” for Communion.)
My understanding is that wee cuppies developed around the same time, as a reaction to more widespread awareness of bacteriology. I don’t know about in Scotland, but in the US, Presbyterian General Assemblies tried in vain to discourage their use. My sense is that use of them is perhaps waning in the PC(USA), with use of multiple chalices becoming more common.
Meanwhile, the Session of each congregation decides whether to use wine or grape juice, but if wine is used, a non-alcoholic choice must be available. I think use of grape juice is mandatory among the United Methodists.
Comments
We do (Western Orthodox).
It's written into our fasting rule. The fast is not kept on Sunday as this is always a celebration of the Resurrection. Therefore, it's a feast day and never a fast day. Those intending to receive Holy Communion still keep the customary fast, of course, but only up to the point of receiving. Otherwise, Sundays are not kept as a day of fasting.
The rule of abstinence is also slightly relaxed on the Sundays of Lent. So fish and wine may be taken. Otherwise, meat, poultry, and dairy are still avoided.
That way, the lenten discipline isn't abandoned altogether but neither is the weekly celebration of the Resurrection of the Lord disregarded. It's all about balance.
As I understand it, the kits include ashes and age-appropriate activities and prayers.
And @Robert Armin, yes, depending on the particular discipline I’ve chosen some years, I have given myself a break on Sundays. But not all years.
We won't be as we don't have our own building and are rather restricted by concerns other than liturgical correctness at the moment.
So we didn't do Vespers this evening. Instead, we incorporated some elements of this evenings propers into Vespers last Saturday evening for Quinquagesima, most notably, the mournful Ecclesiastical Psalm bidding farewell to the alleluia:
The use of Psalm 136 in this way sung to znamenny chant is astoundingly moving. I can happily send it to anyone who'd like it.
Then, we closed with:
This coming Saturday evening, we'll have Vespers for the First Sunday of Lent, followed by the rite of Mutual Forgiveness and the imposition of Ashes. Then, after a lenten supper together, we'll close with Compline.
That's not a facetious question!
As for breaking your fast on Sundays, if I've given up something like chocolate or alcohol, having a bit makes it harder to go back on the wagon, as it were. But maybe that's only me.
Those of us in Byzantine Rite Orthodoxy have a whole week to eat pancakes before the start of Lent.
Even if someone in the congregation doesn't realize the 40-day connection, there are two other symbols that IMHO would be distorted by having the start of Lent on Sunday:
1. The nature of Sunday as a celebration of the Resurrection. It seems "off" to me that we would start a period of self-reflection & penance on the day of the week that should be the least self-focused & the most joyous. Sunday is about thinking of what Jesus' victory over death did for us despite our failings, not fretting over those failings (as much as that has its place for a conscientious person).
2. Part of Lent is about getting out of any "ruts" of sin or complacency that we tend to naturally fall into in our lives. Starting that journey by going to church on a day that is not the "typical church day" is a good way to start that "snapping out of it." Offering a service on Not-Sunday also gives parishioners the chance to make any inconvenience they might suffer as a result of the irregular time their first ascetic offering of the season.
1) be taking part in Ashes to Go
2) be at an informal Eucharist where I may well be ashed
3) be at a sung mass where I will be ashed.
The 'Ashes to Go' is an experiment by the Chaplaincy to see whether taking Ashing in the public space engages us with people who probably would otherwise not even guess that the Chaplaincy existed.
Excellent points, both. Thank you!
Our ashes are sprinkled on the head, in keeping with the rubrics. (I understand anecdotally this is the majority practice in most of the non-anglophone world too, although I'm happy to be corrected.) It's in the act of receiving the ash that we have our minds moved to penitence. The ash then simply falls off or blows away, which serves as a further reminder of our mortality, in keeping with the words used at the imposition.
Where does the practice come from of leaving a lasting mark on the face, and moreover of mixing the ash with oil or some other substance in order to facilitate this?
I like the idea of sprinkling the ashes on the head, which I too understand to be the practice in most of the world.
Yes, the paradox mentioned by @PDR struck me too! I wipe the oily ash off asap, although today I waited until I got home, having put on my Cap in the meantime. The oily ash is now on the inside of my Cap.
It sometimes strikes people as odd, too, that the Ash Wednesday Gospel is NOT the bit about Our Lord's sojourn in the wilderness...
A straightforward said Eucharist with Ashing at the Cathedral today, with about 30 present (which may sound a bit thin, but filled the Lady Chapel nicely). It was quite refreshing, in a way, to attend a service where I didn't have to do anything, except receive what Our Lord was giving me.
Nice one!
Had the Cathedral been so minded as to provide such facilities, I would not now have an oily patch in my Cap...
FatherInCharge does take the trouble to ask people to keep any Lenten discipline they may decide upon between themselves and God, in line with Our Lord's instructions.
One or two people will, I know, nevertheless go out of their way to proclaim that they have given up CHOCOLATE (or whatever). If asked what I'm giving up for Lent, I put on a serious expression, and piously reply that I have given up asking people what they're giving up for Lent...
Absolutely. These days, when I'm not in parish ministry but an " 'ead office" job, I find it even more powerful to change the routine, take myself off to an ir- or less regular liturgical event, to have no control over the liturgy, and to be touched by God in whatever eventuates. My eccentric local church was attended by the normal tiny gaggle of people, not many wise, not many noble (not many at all - we are a dozen or so most Sundays and were about 2/3rds of that) we were ashed, made eucharist, and my heart was strangely warmed.
[edited to add: and yes, I have long believed the ashes should be removed as we go out into the world. I have never added oil - dunno if they did last night. But I removed them. And by telling you that I have already broken the spirit of Jesus' saying, for I have advertised my spiritual practices
The rather clear quotation from Matthew notwithstanding, I know of people who strongly believe in wearing their ashes out into the city as a "witness" or perhaps small act of evangelism. If it does prompt helpful spiritual conversations, I guess that's good, but I remain one who wipes the ashes off after Mass, not out of embarrassment but in line with what the quotation above says.
No, not only you
15 at Our Place for this evening's Mass, so my spies tell me. Not too bad, considering a number of people were missing (including me), so maybe Father will hold an earlier said Mass as well next year.
I went for the 'witnessing' option of not wiping them off before getting the tram home. As it's a fairly large, dark and neat cross it's quite noticeable, so it also needs cleaning off properly or it'll leave a weird mark.
Apparently Dragonlet 1 got done at school, but it had come off by the time I picked him up. (He's at the local RC one, and today was a 'reflection day'.) We also had parents evening for him, and his teacher was quite impressed that he took himself off after the discussion about today being Ash Wednesday to paint crosses on purple paper!
We are basically being seasonal pescatarians so Sundays not technically being fast days is useful if we go out for lunch.
The resident priest thumbed a big black cross on my forehead while saying, "Remember that you are dust, and to dust you shall return," and after leaving church I went to the library, queued at the ATM for the bank, took sandwiches to a fellow editor for a working lunch, came home and only noticed as I was making supper and saw my reflection in the kitchen window. Hopefully most of those who saw me thought 'she is so absent-minded' rather than assuming I was virtue-signalling.
Yep I with you on this. There is a small but growing cohort who use Ash Wednesday in a "look at me" manner which is presumably not what it's about.
As for Ashes on the move, why not communion on the move?
Our [Orthodox] ashes are sprinkled on the head, in keeping with the rubrics. (I understand anecdotally this is the majority practice in most of the non-anglophone world too, although I'm happy to be corrected.) It's in the act of receiving the ash that we have our minds moved to penitence. The ash then simply falls off or blows away, which serves as a further reminder of our mortality, in keeping with the words used at the imposition.
To me, it’s a terrible idea, as it makes Communion a totally individual, unconnected-to-anyone-else act rather than a community meal. In terms of communion, communion-on-the-go seems like an oxymoron.
Hmm. I think I agree with Nick Tamen, but, as Cathscats and Forthview both point out, home/sick Communion is different, inasmuch as it keeps the recipient 'in the loop' IYSWIM.
Quite often, too, the Sacrament will have been consecrated at the Parish Eucharist or Mass, thus linking the person with the corporate worship of his/her home congregation.
OTOH, who is to say that someone receiving Communion 'on the go' at the station, perhaps only on a special Holy Day, is not also being kept 'in the loop', especially if work or other commitments prevent them from getting to church at an advertised service time?
Many churches only have a Communion service on a Sunday morning, with perhaps one on a weekday morning (yes, I know the RCs are able to hold more frequent Masses, in urban areas, at any rate).
In the other (used when there hasn’t been a celebration at church from which to “extend the Table”), the minister, accompanied by an elder (representing the congregation), involves essentially a complete, though brief, service, with consecration of the elements on the spot. Again, all present are generally invited to commune.
In both cases, emphasizing that the Communion isn’t private but rather is connected to the wider community is considered important.
...though churches like Our Place, which reserve the Sacrament all the time, often do the home/sick Communions at convenient times during the week, rather than on Sunday.
I served as subdeacon for our solemn Mass last night. Afterward, I was afraid I'd get ashes on the tunicle as I pulled it over my head, so before doing so, I used a handy freshen-up wipette and a dry facial tissue to clear off the ashes. I then managed to get the tunicle off without it getting even close to my forehead. But I was having a bit of an allergy evening, which the oiled ashes seem to trigger in a mild way, so there was that reason to remove them, too. If the Gospel admonition wasn't enough.
That must be a Western Rite custom. No ashes in "regular" Orthodoxy, but we do have a very moving rite of mutual forgiveness this coming Sunday ("Cheese-farewell", the last day before the Great 40 Day Fast begins). Technically it is "Forgiveness Vespers" and so should be in the evening, but we have it immediately after the morning service and before the trapeza meal to ensure maximum attendance.
We line up as if for communion, and prostrate or bow before person, asking their forgiveness for having offended them in any way. Then take our place beside them as the next person comes to ask our forgiveness, and so on until everyone present has asked forgiveness of everyone else. Tears are often shed and hugs shared.
Can you define the difference in status please? Isn't communion performed by the church for those who wish it?
Yes, in the Western tradition ashes are a sacramental, not a sacrament, so anyone can be ashed at any church. It's the same with laying on of hands. Anyone can anywhere, but annointing is a sacrament and you have to be a Catholic to be annointed by a Catholic priest. The difference from 2 letters.... I don't know of the Eastern or Oriental churches.
Ye, Eucharist was instituted by Our Lord for the Church, the ashes are simply a useful devotional act created by the Church.
At Communion, the Sacrament is (in the C of E, at any rate) offered to any and all who come to the altar - no questions asked.
If Communion is offered 'on the go', the Host will already have been consecrated, and will only be given to those who request it.
Yes, I realise that there will have been no Liturgy of the Word, or corporate prayers, beforehand, but why might it be unacceptable - in special circumstances, I grant you - to offer the Sacrament to some who might desire it, but otherwise be unable to get to a 'proper' service or church?
@ExclamationMark , is that what you mean?
It is for us also, but on a yearly basis now. We find it hard to get to St Sanity and so go to the local Catholic church, where we're well known. We get ashed, on the basis set out above, but don't take communion.
It is commonly sung to various modern tunes in one of the two translations, Draw nigh and take the Body of the Lord and Come, Christ's beloved, feed on his Body true.
The text survives in the Bangor Antiphonary but what of the melody?
Theres a discussion here
https://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/9173/sancti-venite-christi-corpus-sumite/p1
It links to this sound snippet, but with no information about its provenance That group love to put chants into triple time - it works brilliantly with Veni sancte Spiritus.)
https://amazon.com/Sancti-venite-Christi-corpus-Thursday/dp/B0013AUH1I
Its a very unusual metre for a Latin hymn.
Thank you for this, @Alan29 .
I think that the simple melody here is very lovely and has potential. I know adjusting melodies to triple time is an ancient device but I'm still not sure that melodies really benefit from it (see Corde Natus ex Parentis as an unfortunate example). So l'd likely want to remove the "communon waltz" effect.
But yes, you're right, the file information offers nothing by way of information of its provenance, and it seems that Konrad Ruhland has now gone to his eternal rest. So I don't know who to ask.
I cannot help but think that if the antiphonary has been preserved in such a way that we have the text, it's highly likely that the notation has also survived. I shall try to find out where it "lives".
Our ANglican parish has for several years distributed grape juice in small cups as well as wine from a chalice at communion. I suspect that if the bishop knew about this he would stop it-- at least the juice part -- but so far as I know he doesn't.
My question arises from the current discipline we are under, which states that for the foreseeable future, communion will be in one kind only (once clergy are able to celebrate, which will not be before 1 September). People are looking ahead to what happens when we are once again able to share wine.
Now most non-Anglican/Lutheran/Roman Catholic western christianity types in North America distribute "wine" only as grape juice in small cups. I'm interested in knowing when either part of that began, and when it became common.
My thinking is that as grape juice only became common/widely available when Mr. Welch did his work on behalf of temperance, something else must have been in use beforehand. And my guess is that small cups are probably also late Victorian. Going further back, I cannot imagine that northern european protestants of whatever flavour had usual access to grape juice, so wine (which would have been available) would have been used. And I suspect, though less strongly, that a common cup or cups (ie, not small individual cups but a number of cups holding wine for a small number of people -- perhaps one for each table) would have been used.
My only experience of Presbyterian communion is now in the distant past, but in a very-aware-of-its-Scottish-heritage church attended by my cousins, an empty chalice was placed on the table for communion, though small cups were actually used. (this was long before any liturgical renewal hit the place)
NE Quine or others with historical knowledge -- have you any light to shed?
Thanks
My understanding is that wee cuppies developed around the same time, as a reaction to more widespread awareness of bacteriology. I don’t know about in Scotland, but in the US, Presbyterian General Assemblies tried in vain to discourage their use. My sense is that use of them is perhaps waning in the PC(USA), with use of multiple chalices becoming more common.
Meanwhile, the Session of each congregation decides whether to use wine or grape juice, but if wine is used, a non-alcoholic choice must be available. I think use of grape juice is mandatory among the United Methodists.