The best known of these settings is Schubert's German Mass. The Sanctus started 'Heilig,heilig,heilig,Heilig ist der Herr,Heilig,heilig,heilig,Heilig ist nur Er' (Holy,holy,holy, Holy is the Lord.Holy,holy,holy is is alone He)
A favorite of mine. The Heilig, heilig, heilig from Schubert’s German Mass was a standard of the choir at the church of my youth, something that could easily be pulled out at the last minute if need be.
Some decades ago, Richard Proulx did a very nice adaptation of the German Mass that can be used liturgically. (He did update it to accommodate the 2010 translation.)
And still in use in the German RCC as a congregational setting.
One thing about these 'German' Masses is that the texts were not allowed to be a direct translation of the Latin text as that might be construed as celebrating the Mass in German.
I suppose it might seem strange nowadays but in the 1930s the German bishops obtained special permission from the Vatican to use what was called 'ein deutsches Hochamt' This was that at High Mass the choir was allowed to sing a direct translation of the Kyrie,Gloria etc. After the Second World War this became not uncommon all over the German speaking world although certainly in Austria the texts used were generally the pastiches as in Schubert's German Mass.
the Agnus Dei of this Mass is as follows in English translation
My Saviour,Lord and Master
Your mouth in blessing spoke words of peace
Oh Lamb that by your sacrifice
Took away the sins of mankind
Send us your peace,mercy and grace.
Whatever the clergy might have thought, that was also at the bottom of the quite widespread congregational dislike of 'ad orientem', celebration - turn your back on everyone, huddle over the altar and mumble. Likewise, chanting the readings may be clever, but it makes them much harder to follow.
Ad orientem celebration is still relatively common in the SEC, but I've never noticed mumbling. I suspect the latter is an artefact of the RC emphasis on the substance at the expense of the form - it's enough that the Mass be celebrated and to heck with how it's done. Ad orientem does benefit from a little education in the symbolism of the priest worshipping with and as part of the people, with Christ himself as host.
Whatever the clergy might have thought, that was also at the bottom of the quite widespread congregational dislike of 'ad orientem', celebration - turn your back on everyone, huddle over the altar and mumble. Likewise, chanting the readings may be clever, but it makes them much harder to follow.
Ad orientem celebration is still relatively common in the SEC, but I've never noticed mumbling. I suspect the latter is an artefact of the RC emphasis on the substance at the expense of the form - it's enough that the Mass be celebrated and to heck with how it's done. Ad orientem does benefit from a little education in the symbolism of the priest worshipping with and as part of the people, with Christ himself as host.
Yes, and it does help if the people are fairly close to the altar, so that they really are with the priest.
Some decades ago, Richard Proulx did a very nice adaptation of the German Mass that can be used liturgically. (He did update it to accommodate the 2010 translation.)
And still in use in the German RCC as a congregational setting.
It is called by some 'Gaudete' Sunday because the Introit Antiphon for the Mass of the Third Sunday of Advent (in the Roman rite) begins with the words
'Gaudete in Domino semper,iterum dico vobis gaudete' (Rejoice in the Lord always,again I say rejoice)
In the Gallican Rite, this is the 5th Sunday of Advent. We don't have the custom of rose vestments but the Praelegendum is, I believe, the same as the Introit of the Roman rite.
Whatever the clergy might have thought, that was also at the bottom of the quite widespread congregational dislike of 'ad orientem', celebration - turn your back on everyone, huddle over the altar and mumble. Likewise, chanting the readings may be clever, but it makes them much harder to follow.
Ad orientem celebration is still relatively common in the SEC, but I've never noticed mumbling. I suspect the latter is an artefact of the RC emphasis on the substance at the expense of the form - it's enough that the Mass be celebrated and to heck with how it's done. Ad orientem does benefit from a little education in the symbolism of the priest worshipping with and as part of the people, with Christ himself as host.
A priest muttering Latin facing away from the people who are doing their own things (my own experience pre Vat 2)is a long way from my understanding of "with the people." Indeed it eas the very epitome of clericalism.
I do not understand versus populum, and I don't recall ever having heard an explanation of it that didn't sound like clericalism.
While ad orientem would unquestionable be seen as clericalism in my tradition, with a heavy dose of “nothing going on here for you to worry yourself about.” In my tradition, you could say until you were blue in the face that ad orientem is the presider worshipping with the people, but few if any worshippers would actually experience it that way. Worshipping with the people would mean gathering around the table with them, not standing between them and the table.
Different traditions bring with them different expectations and assumptions.
I do not understand versus populum, and I don't recall ever having heard an explanation of it that didn't sound like clericalism.
...
Different traditions bring with them different expectations and assumptions.
This is very true. In the traditional local eucharistic rites (Alexandrian, Roman, Gallican, East & West Syric, &c.), despite them having developed differently in different parts of the world, one of many things they hold in common is the different orders within the Church all having their roles to play liturgically: laity, choir, readers, acolytes, subdeacons, deacons, and priests. At times, those roles converge and we are all singing the same thing or performing the same action together; at other times there is a dialogue between priest/deacon and the faithful or between the priest and deacon; at other times one person or group is reading or chanting something and the others listen intently; and at other times, the roles diverge completely: the deacon could be performing a censing of the church with the acolytes carrying candles, while the choir and laity are singing a responsory, while the priest is saying a prayer.
However, it is just known and understood that we all have our part to play, and sometimes we can see and hear each other and sometimes we can't, depending on what is going on, but that is of no real significance because there is an interplay of roles, and they are all taken up in the communal offering of worship to God.
Coming from this tradition, the suggestion that the prayerful offering of the faithful is somehow diminished, or that they have somehow not fully participated if the priest has done or said something that they have not seen or heard does sound like clericalism. It makes the value placed on the participation of the faithful excessively dependent on the person of the priest in a way that has never been known in the traditional rites.
Coming from this tradition, the suggestion that the prayerful offering of the faithful is somehow diminished, or that they have somehow not fully participated if the priest has done or said something that they have not seen or heard does sound like clericalism. It makes the value placed on the participation of the faithful excessively dependent on the person of the priest in a way that has never been known in the traditional rites.
Well, bear in mind that in my tradition, the person presiding at the Eucharist is considered a “priest” only in the sense that all worshippers are considered priests. The priest/faithful distinction doesn’t exist.
I do not understand versus populum, and I don't recall ever having heard an explanation of it that didn't sound like clericalism.
While ad orientem would unquestionable be seen as clericalism in my tradition, with a heavy dose of “nothing going on here for you to worry yourself about.” In my tradition, you could say until you were blue in the face that ad orientem is the presider worshipping with the people, but few if any worshippers would actually experience it that way. Worshipping with the people would mean gathering around the table with them, not standing between them and the table.
Different traditions bring with them different expectations and assumptions.
And yet my experience of Presbyterian communion celebrations is that it is highly clericalist - it places the minister (in something very much resembling a throne, no less) as the host at the table, seated at it with the elders like Christ with his disciples while the lay people are seated in the pews and have the elements brought to them, being deemed (if I were feeling mischievous) unworthy through their absence of ordination to approach the Lord's table themselves. "New presbyter is but old priest writ large" indeed.
I do not understand versus populum, and I don't recall ever having heard an explanation of it that didn't sound like clericalism.
While ad orientem would unquestionable be seen as clericalism in my tradition, with a heavy dose of “nothing going on here for you to worry yourself about.” In my tradition, you could say until you were blue in the face that ad orientem is the presider worshipping with the people, but few if any worshippers would actually experience it that way. Worshipping with the people would mean gathering around the table with them, not standing between them and the table.
Different traditions bring with them different expectations and assumptions.
And yet my experience of Presbyterian communion celebrations is that it is highly clericalist - it places the minister (in something very much resembling a throne, no less) as the host at the table, seated at it with the elders like Christ with his disciples while the lay people are seated in the pews and have the elements brought to them, being deemed (if I were feeling mischievous) unworthy through their absence of ordination to approach the Lord's table themselves. "New presbyter is but old priest writ large" indeed.
I can see that. As I said, perception depends heavily on underlying expectations and assumptions. What you (with some basis) see as
the lay people are seated in the pews and have the elements brought to them, being deemed (if I were feeling mischievous) unworthy through their absence of ordination to approach the Lord's table themselves
my grandmother would describe to me as everyone seated around the table, and as a sign that God comes to us.
(FWIW, what you describe, at least in terms of how the ministers and elders are seated, is rarely seen in American Presbyterian churches, at least in my experience. And pew communion is becoming less common here.)
The only place where I have refused to partake of communion because of clericalism on display was in a Presbyterian setting. The minister received first, then the table elders, then the elders and finally only when this was finished the congregation. You could reseverse the order and it would still display clericalism.
I at the moment belong to an Anglo Catholic church where the Sunday morning mass is always Ad Orientam and while it is rich in ritual, the hierarchy is not so enshrined as in that Presbyterian Church. This last week we have had an Ad Orientam masses where the chalice bearer and thus receiving second has had to walk out of the congregation to do so as they were not serving at that mass. It is not a requirement that the Eucharistic minister is a server. Some are, some are not.
It is both the profit and the peril of symbolic actions that they are polyvalent and can be read by different people in different ways, often shaped by different cultural behaviours, expectations and contexts.
If the prevailing culture is that the most honoured guest is served first, then the symbolised humility of the priest or other Eucharistic minister only worthy to serve through first having received will be interpreted quite differently.
I do not understand versus populum, and I don't recall ever having heard an explanation of it that didn't sound like clericalism.
While ad orientem would unquestionable be seen as clericalism in my tradition, with a heavy dose of “nothing going on here for you to worry yourself about.” In my tradition, you could say until you were blue in the face that ad orientem is the presider worshipping with the people, but few if any worshippers would actually experience it that way. Worshipping with the people would mean gathering around the table with them, not standing between them and the table.
Different traditions bring with them different expectations and assumptions.
Most Lutheran sanctuaries will have a free standing altar on the east side of the sanctuary, much like Roman Catholic and Anglican denominations. However, in the 60s the liturgical renewal movement encouraged people being gathered around the table as you describe. That is why our building has the sanctuary in the round. The altar is in the center with congregational chairs circled around. The pastor will also preach from the center. He usually preaches with no notes. He is very good at it, BTW.
The only place where I have refused to partake of communion because of clericalism on display was in a Presbyterian setting. The minister received first, then the table elders, then the elders and finally only when this was finished the congregation. You could reseverse the order and it would still display clericalism.
I at the moment belong to an Anglo Catholic church where the Sunday morning mass is always Ad Orientam and while it is rich in ritual, the hierarchy is not so enshrined as in that Presbyterian Church. This last week we have had an Ad Orientam masses where the chalice bearer and thus receiving second has had to walk out of the congregation to do so as they were not serving at that mass. It is not a requirement that the Eucharistic minister is a server. Some are, some are not.
In the churches I have mainly attended, the leader of communion and those serving, partake at the end as befits serving others. It is not clericalism at all. In every Anglican setting I've been to, priest and servers are served first which, on some occasions, looks very much like an issue of privilege.
It is not unusual in the churches I've made my home in, to ask a congregation member to give thanks nor for them to serve those at the table. After all, the congregation serve one another anyway.
I think that many of these arguments rehearsed here are circular and differing perceptions and customs which people are used to and feel comfortable (or in some cases uncomfortable) with.
Most Christian communities will have some people who will have been given special roles to fulfil within the community, a task which is make clearer by a ceremony which is generally known as 'ordination' whatever name is given to these people, be it bishop, presbyter(priest or elder) or deacon, these people will still be seen as being in some way members of a more clerical caste. they may or may not be seen as having special spiritual powers, they could in any community certainly be perceived as having more power, even if they claim, like the pope, to be 'the servant of the servants of God.
It is in this sense that I do not agree with Nick Tamen that there is no priest/faithful division within Presbyterianism.
In the discussion about the eucharist being celebrated 'ad orientem' or 'versus populum'
one has to look at the history of the ways of celebrating the eucharist to understand.
From the earliest days of church buildings as we know them today the altar/holy table was free standing with people gathered around it.
In the first eucharistic prayer of the Catholic Church, (the Roman Canon) there is a specific prayer at the beginning 'Memento,Domine,famulorum,famularumque tuarum ET OMNIUM CIRCUMSTANTIUM,quorum tibi fides cognita est' (Remember,Lord, your servants and handmaids and ALL THOSE STANDING AROUND whose faith is known to you)
One can see in the early Roman churches ,like San Clemente, that the altar is in the centre,just as in the earlier and later forms of the major Roman basilicas. We may see regularly in the next few days the interior of the 16th century form of St Peter's which has the altar in the centre and the people gathered around. This was one of the major liturgical preoccupations of the Second Vatican Council to ensure that all principal altars should be freestanding,of course within the limits of any church building.
At least for the Vatican Council the question of the celebrant's position being 'ad orientem' or 'versus populum' was not of great importance.
It is important in an 'ad orientem' celebration not to say that the priest has his back to the faithful but rather to say that he is at the front 'leading the people' towards God.
The idea of gathering around the altar has led quite sensibly,I think, to the practice of having the priest facing the faithful all the time.
Does God 'come to us' in the eucharist,as was,if I have understood,the viewpoint of Nick Tamen's mother when Communion was brought to the faithful in the pews by the elders. or do we 'move towards God' in the procession towards the altar to receive Communion ?
For me both of these ideas have a beautiful symbolism.
Without going in to this too deeply it was in the Western Church the tradition of each priest celebrating his own Mass- the traditional Low Mass celebrated for over 1000 years in the Latin church - which led to a profusion of altars in churches and indeed the principal altar being moved more or less against the east wall with heavy candlesticks being placed upon it and most importantly the tabernacle which contained the Blessed Sacrament.
This happened just before the Protestant Reformation. While it wasn't so much the position of the tabernacle which was an important cause of friction at the Reformation it was an important reason for the development of the typical form of a Catholic altar in post Tridentine times. The newer Anglican and Lutheran types of altar kept on the whole that placing of the altar (minus the tabernacle) as was the case prior to the Reformation.
Once again,if you really want to understand you have to attend Byzantine rite churches,Orthodox or Catholic. I really liked Cyprian's phrase about seeing 'an interplay of roles where all are taken up in a communal offering' I am sure ,that all of us,in our various different ways, are trying to do that.
ps on an unrelated topic you may notice that for papal funerals the liturgical colour is not white, not purple,not black,but rather red.
I think that in many of these matters people come to them with certain attitudes which they then "theologise."
Problems arise when people insist that theirs is the only right way.
Does God 'come to us' in the eucharist,as was,if I have understood,the viewpoint of Nick Tamen's mother when Communion was brought to the faithful in the pews by the elders. or do we 'move towards God' in the procession towards the altar to receive Communion ?
For me both of these ideas have a beautiful symbolism.
For me, too; I very much agree. As @BroJames said (much better than I’d been doing), our positive or negative perceptions of a particular way of doing things will vary according to cultural behaviours, expectations and contexts,” as well as our own past experiences.
Does God 'come to us' in the eucharist,as was,if I have understood,the viewpoint of Nick Tamen's mother when Communion was brought to the faithful in the pews by the elders. or do we 'move towards God' in the procession towards the altar to receive Communion ?
For me both of these ideas have a beautiful symbolism.
For me, too; I very much agree. As @BroJames said (much better than I’d been doing), our positive or negative perceptions of a particular way of doing things will vary according to cultural behaviours, expectations and contexts,” as well as our own past experiences.
It's not either/or but both/and. God comes to us and we are lifted up to Him. Mind you, if pushed, I'd say He's always there so can't in one sense come when He's present anyway (Psalm 24:1)
I watched liturgies from Canterbury Cathedral and noticed that it is a custom at their eucharists for three presbyters to vest in three chasubles. I find it strange, because I was taught that only the presiding celebrant should vest in a chasuble while assisting priests must only wear alb/surplice with stole*. Today I watched a liturgy from Washington National Cathedral where they did the same.
Where did this strange custom come from?
*The only exception I can think of is at ordinations, when newly ordained presbyters would vest in chasubles along with the Bishop. However this is a very specific situation.
I watched liturgies from Canterbury Cathedral and noticed that it is a custom at their eucharists for three presbyters to vest in three chasubles. I find it strange, because I was taught that only the presiding celebrant should vest in a chasuble while assisting priests must only wear alb/surplice with stole*. Today I watched a liturgy from Washington National Cathedral where they did the same.
Where did this strange custom come from?
*The only exception I can think of is at ordinations, when newly ordained presbyters would vest in chasubles along with the Bishop. However this is a very specific situation.
If it is any help to Anglican Brat it is common practice at RC eucharists for all concelebrating priests to wear a chasuble, though it is certainly not essential.
Are you sure they were all in chasubles? Whenever I’ve been to Canterbury there have been three sacred ministers at the altar with the deacon wearing a dalmatic and the subdeacon a tunicle, both of which are the same colour as the chasuble worn by the celebrant.
OK, I’ve just watched the YouTube video of the Christmas Eucharist and I see they are definitely wearing chasubles, but as Forthview said, it’s not unusual for concelebrating priests to all wear chasubles
I watched liturgies from Canterbury Cathedral and noticed that it is a custom at their eucharists for three presbyters to vest in three chasubles. I find it strange, because I was taught that only the presiding celebrant should vest in a chasuble while assisting priests must only wear alb/surplice with stole*. Today I watched a liturgy from Washington National Cathedral where they did the same.
Where did this strange custom come from?
*The only exception I can think of is at ordinations, when newly ordained presbyters would vest in chasubles along with the Bishop. However this is a very specific situation.
The Church of England has no rule about the vesture of concelebrants (nor do its rubrics entertain the concept) but in the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches, where concelebration is normal, the expectation is that a concelebrating priest will vest as a priest celebrating the eucharist, chasuble/phelon included. I grew up in the Church in the Province of the West Indies (Anglican), where concelebration was normal, and I don't think I ever witnessed a concelebrating priest half vested in the way you describe.
If they aren't concelebrating and are in choro that would be a different matter, but there's nothing about the chasuble that limits its use to the principal celebrant.
I have witnessed a great many RC concelebrations both in parishes with a couple of priests and in cathedrals with several hundred. The only rule is that the principal celebrant wears a chasuble. Aesthetics seem to be the main driver of how many others wear one - how many matching sets do they have? So in a parish there might be only one, but a cathedral might have enough for all the canons, so the rest are in albs and stoles.
The Church of England has no rule about the vesture of concelebrants (nor do its rubrics entertain the concept) but in the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches, where concelebration is normal, the expectation is that a concelebrating priest will vest as a priest celebrating the eucharist, chasuble/phelon included. I grew up in the Church in the Province of the West Indies (Anglican), where concelebration was normal, and I don't think I ever witnessed a concelebrating priest half vested in the way you describe.
If they aren't concelebrating and are in choro that would be a different matter, but there's nothing about the chasuble that limits its use to the principal celebrant.
That seems a reasonable approach, and therefore quite likely wrong. At least Anglicans in Sydney don't have to worry about the question - chasubles are completely banned.
I only looked at the entrance procession into the cathedral but it seemed to me that there were three priests vested in choir dress with stole in the usual priestly fashion, three priests vested in chasuble and the archbishop ,who was presumably not the celebrant, vested in cope and mitre.
FWIW, priests who belong to the Society of SS Wilfrid & Hilda/Forward-In-Faith can buy a sort of standard chasuble, to enable them to all look alike when they concelebrate at Big Occasions.
I can't find an online image, but they're cream, with rather subdued red ornamentation fore and aft (just a plain cross on the back, IIRC).
Scroll to about 6 minutes in - no need to watch the whole thing! The church BTW is Borga Cathedral (Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland), in its Swedish-speaking guise - it's Porvoo Cathedral in Finnish, this part of Finland being bi-lingual.
BF that is what is called a Roman chasuble. It has a much wider panel at the back than what is called the fiddleback.This form of the chasuble was used almost everywhere in the RC church until the Second Vatican council.
The material you see there is much simpler than that of a post Tridentine chasuble,but it is same design. Usually there would be some form of sacred design on the back panel which would be seen by the faithful when the priest was celebrating Mass.
I thought that this type of chasuble was still often used by Anglo Catholics - if you look at a video or livestream from St Magnus the Martyr you will see it,albeit in more valuable materials
If you look at a video of a Pontifical Mass in Salzburg the Archbishop will wear such a chasuble (on greater festivals also with dalmatic and tunicle)
From the mid 1950s the Gothic chasuble (the all encompassing poncho) has come back into use in most RC churches and once again made of simpler materials.
The advantage of the Roman chasuble is that it enabled the priest to move his hands more freely.
Thanks @Forthview - yer learn summink new every day on this 'ere Ship!
The Gothic chasuble seems to be most often found in Anglican churches (apart from those which have fiddlebacks!), and many of the Swedish churches I've tuned into lately also appear to favour the Gothic style.
As you say, ornamentation these days is much simpler than of yore, but my minimalist mind is happy with that...
This clip from St Magnus the Martyr shows what you mean, I think:
Hmm. Those which are described as *Roman* chasubles are the sort of thing I think of as *fiddlebacks*, and seem to be shorter than those to which @Forthview and I have previously referred...
Before you ask anyone to rush you a Roman chasuble,I think you should know that a 'fiddleback' ,to be precise , a back panel which is very similar to the front one you see. in the handy pics which Alan29 sent.
the roman chasuble has a wider back panel but is cut away both at the sides and the front.
The length,just as is the case with the Gothic chasuble, can vary. some go almost right down to the ground. Remember that the chasuble was originally an ordinary everyday all encompassing garment, just as the cope was a sort of raincoat with a hood which has over the centuries changed in to the ,well I don't know the word,but it is the design panel on the back of a cope.
(FWIW, what you describe, at least in terms of how the ministers and elders are seated, is rarely seen in American Presbyterian churches, at least in my experience. And pew communion is becoming less common here.)
I've seen a few older Presbyterian churches with the "church as courtroom" arrangement: the ministers on big chairs above the holy table, and the choir above them. Fourth Presbyterian here in Chicago is like that. But I'd imagine most Presbyterian churches are now all on one level, mainly, and not so different from other mainline churches or even Roman Catholic ones.
Scroll to about 6 minutes in - no need to watch the whole thing! The church BTW is Borga Cathedral (Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland), in its Swedish-speaking guise - it's Porvoo Cathedral in Finnish, this part of Finland being bi-lingual.
A quick tangent - are Anglicans generally, through some twists and turns, therefore in communion with this congregation?
I have never heard of a Philip Neri chasuble before but it would make sense.
Just as the Greek version of the chasuble cut away most of the front,leaving the priest able to use his hands more freely,the Roman version cut away the sides,giving eventually in late middle ages the 'fiddleback'
It would be probably about the time of St Philip Neri,(second Apostle of Rome and founder of the Oratorians) that the back panel of the chasuble became slightly wider with straight lines up and down.
www.salzburger-deom.at/live/mediathek will show the two versions of the chasuble.
On 24.12 and 25.12 the archbishop is the celebrant,wearing a Roman chasuble and his deacons wearing dalmatics of the same period
On 26.12 and 01.01. the auxiliary bishop is the celebrant and he wears a Gothic chasuble with the deacons in the same style of dalmatic
@Bishops Finger I think the Chasuble shown is a Philip Neri Chasuble.
We had a young ordinand who bought a set of Philip Neri style vestments. He knew he was clumsy and would probably catch a fuller chasuble on the chalices and send them flying.
Scroll to about 6 minutes in - no need to watch the whole thing! The church BTW is Borga Cathedral (Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland), in its Swedish-speaking guise - it's Porvoo Cathedral in Finnish, this part of Finland being bi-lingual.
A quick tangent - are Anglicans generally, through some twists and turns, therefore in communion with this congregation?
Yes, I would think so (given this is from where the Porvoo Communion takes its name).
Comments
And still in use in the German RCC as a congregational setting.
I suppose it might seem strange nowadays but in the 1930s the German bishops obtained special permission from the Vatican to use what was called 'ein deutsches Hochamt' This was that at High Mass the choir was allowed to sing a direct translation of the Kyrie,Gloria etc. After the Second World War this became not uncommon all over the German speaking world although certainly in Austria the texts used were generally the pastiches as in Schubert's German Mass.
the Agnus Dei of this Mass is as follows in English translation
My Saviour,Lord and Master
Your mouth in blessing spoke words of peace
Oh Lamb that by your sacrifice
Took away the sins of mankind
Send us your peace,mercy and grace.
Ad orientem celebration is still relatively common in the SEC, but I've never noticed mumbling. I suspect the latter is an artefact of the RC emphasis on the substance at the expense of the form - it's enough that the Mass be celebrated and to heck with how it's done. Ad orientem does benefit from a little education in the symbolism of the priest worshipping with and as part of the people, with Christ himself as host.
Yes, and it does help if the people are fairly close to the altar, so that they really are with the priest.
Gotteslob, Nr. 388.
In the Gallican Rite, this is the 5th Sunday of Advent. We don't have the custom of rose vestments but the Praelegendum is, I believe, the same as the Introit of the Roman rite.
Indeed.
I do not understand versus populum, and I don't recall ever having heard an explanation of it that didn't sound like clericalism.
A priest muttering Latin facing away from the people who are doing their own things (my own experience pre Vat 2)is a long way from my understanding of "with the people." Indeed it eas the very epitome of clericalism.
Different traditions bring with them different expectations and assumptions.
This is very true. In the traditional local eucharistic rites (Alexandrian, Roman, Gallican, East & West Syric, &c.), despite them having developed differently in different parts of the world, one of many things they hold in common is the different orders within the Church all having their roles to play liturgically: laity, choir, readers, acolytes, subdeacons, deacons, and priests. At times, those roles converge and we are all singing the same thing or performing the same action together; at other times there is a dialogue between priest/deacon and the faithful or between the priest and deacon; at other times one person or group is reading or chanting something and the others listen intently; and at other times, the roles diverge completely: the deacon could be performing a censing of the church with the acolytes carrying candles, while the choir and laity are singing a responsory, while the priest is saying a prayer.
However, it is just known and understood that we all have our part to play, and sometimes we can see and hear each other and sometimes we can't, depending on what is going on, but that is of no real significance because there is an interplay of roles, and they are all taken up in the communal offering of worship to God.
Coming from this tradition, the suggestion that the prayerful offering of the faithful is somehow diminished, or that they have somehow not fully participated if the priest has done or said something that they have not seen or heard does sound like clericalism. It makes the value placed on the participation of the faithful excessively dependent on the person of the priest in a way that has never been known in the traditional rites.
And yet my experience of Presbyterian communion celebrations is that it is highly clericalist - it places the minister (in something very much resembling a throne, no less) as the host at the table, seated at it with the elders like Christ with his disciples while the lay people are seated in the pews and have the elements brought to them, being deemed (if I were feeling mischievous) unworthy through their absence of ordination to approach the Lord's table themselves. "New presbyter is but old priest writ large" indeed.
(FWIW, what you describe, at least in terms of how the ministers and elders are seated, is rarely seen in American Presbyterian churches, at least in my experience. And pew communion is becoming less common here.)
I at the moment belong to an Anglo Catholic church where the Sunday morning mass is always Ad Orientam and while it is rich in ritual, the hierarchy is not so enshrined as in that Presbyterian Church. This last week we have had an Ad Orientam masses where the chalice bearer and thus receiving second has had to walk out of the congregation to do so as they were not serving at that mass. It is not a requirement that the Eucharistic minister is a server. Some are, some are not.
If the prevailing culture is that the most honoured guest is served first, then the symbolised humility of the priest or other Eucharistic minister only worthy to serve through first having received will be interpreted quite differently.
Most Lutheran sanctuaries will have a free standing altar on the east side of the sanctuary, much like Roman Catholic and Anglican denominations. However, in the 60s the liturgical renewal movement encouraged people being gathered around the table as you describe. That is why our building has the sanctuary in the round. The altar is in the center with congregational chairs circled around. The pastor will also preach from the center. He usually preaches with no notes. He is very good at it, BTW.
In the churches I have mainly attended, the leader of communion and those serving, partake at the end as befits serving others. It is not clericalism at all. In every Anglican setting I've been to, priest and servers are served first which, on some occasions, looks very much like an issue of privilege.
It is not unusual in the churches I've made my home in, to ask a congregation member to give thanks nor for them to serve those at the table. After all, the congregation serve one another anyway.
Most Christian communities will have some people who will have been given special roles to fulfil within the community, a task which is make clearer by a ceremony which is generally known as 'ordination' whatever name is given to these people, be it bishop, presbyter(priest or elder) or deacon, these people will still be seen as being in some way members of a more clerical caste. they may or may not be seen as having special spiritual powers, they could in any community certainly be perceived as having more power, even if they claim, like the pope, to be 'the servant of the servants of God.
It is in this sense that I do not agree with Nick Tamen that there is no priest/faithful division within Presbyterianism.
In the discussion about the eucharist being celebrated 'ad orientem' or 'versus populum'
one has to look at the history of the ways of celebrating the eucharist to understand.
From the earliest days of church buildings as we know them today the altar/holy table was free standing with people gathered around it.
In the first eucharistic prayer of the Catholic Church, (the Roman Canon) there is a specific prayer at the beginning 'Memento,Domine,famulorum,famularumque tuarum ET OMNIUM CIRCUMSTANTIUM,quorum tibi fides cognita est' (Remember,Lord, your servants and handmaids and ALL THOSE STANDING AROUND whose faith is known to you)
One can see in the early Roman churches ,like San Clemente, that the altar is in the centre,just as in the earlier and later forms of the major Roman basilicas. We may see regularly in the next few days the interior of the 16th century form of St Peter's which has the altar in the centre and the people gathered around. This was one of the major liturgical preoccupations of the Second Vatican Council to ensure that all principal altars should be freestanding,of course within the limits of any church building.
At least for the Vatican Council the question of the celebrant's position being 'ad orientem' or 'versus populum' was not of great importance.
It is important in an 'ad orientem' celebration not to say that the priest has his back to the faithful but rather to say that he is at the front 'leading the people' towards God.
The idea of gathering around the altar has led quite sensibly,I think, to the practice of having the priest facing the faithful all the time.
Does God 'come to us' in the eucharist,as was,if I have understood,the viewpoint of Nick Tamen's mother when Communion was brought to the faithful in the pews by the elders. or do we 'move towards God' in the procession towards the altar to receive Communion ?
For me both of these ideas have a beautiful symbolism.
Without going in to this too deeply it was in the Western Church the tradition of each priest celebrating his own Mass- the traditional Low Mass celebrated for over 1000 years in the Latin church - which led to a profusion of altars in churches and indeed the principal altar being moved more or less against the east wall with heavy candlesticks being placed upon it and most importantly the tabernacle which contained the Blessed Sacrament.
This happened just before the Protestant Reformation. While it wasn't so much the position of the tabernacle which was an important cause of friction at the Reformation it was an important reason for the development of the typical form of a Catholic altar in post Tridentine times. The newer Anglican and Lutheran types of altar kept on the whole that placing of the altar (minus the tabernacle) as was the case prior to the Reformation.
Once again,if you really want to understand you have to attend Byzantine rite churches,Orthodox or Catholic. I really liked Cyprian's phrase about seeing 'an interplay of roles where all are taken up in a communal offering' I am sure ,that all of us,in our various different ways, are trying to do that.
ps on an unrelated topic you may notice that for papal funerals the liturgical colour is not white, not purple,not black,but rather red.
Problems arise when people insist that theirs is the only right way.
It's not either/or but both/and. God comes to us and we are lifted up to Him. Mind you, if pushed, I'd say He's always there so can't in one sense come when He's present anyway (Psalm 24:1)
As for coming to us, I think my grandmother might have cited the parable of the lost sheep.
Where did this strange custom come from?
*The only exception I can think of is at ordinations, when newly ordained presbyters would vest in chasubles along with the Bishop. However this is a very specific situation.
Why might it matter?
The Church of England has no rule about the vesture of concelebrants (nor do its rubrics entertain the concept) but in the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches, where concelebration is normal, the expectation is that a concelebrating priest will vest as a priest celebrating the eucharist, chasuble/phelon included. I grew up in the Church in the Province of the West Indies (Anglican), where concelebration was normal, and I don't think I ever witnessed a concelebrating priest half vested in the way you describe.
If they aren't concelebrating and are in choro that would be a different matter, but there's nothing about the chasuble that limits its use to the principal celebrant.
That seems a reasonable approach, and therefore quite likely wrong. At least Anglicans in Sydney don't have to worry about the question - chasubles are completely banned.
I thought so too, but as I posted above, I watched the service on YouTube and they’re definitely wearing chasubles.
I can't find an online image, but they're cream, with rather subdued red ornamentation fore and aft (just a plain cross on the back, IIRC).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNQpKwGU2Ns&t=2389s
Scroll to about 6 minutes in - no need to watch the whole thing! The church BTW is Borga Cathedral (Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland), in its Swedish-speaking guise - it's Porvoo Cathedral in Finnish, this part of Finland being bi-lingual.
The material you see there is much simpler than that of a post Tridentine chasuble,but it is same design. Usually there would be some form of sacred design on the back panel which would be seen by the faithful when the priest was celebrating Mass.
I thought that this type of chasuble was still often used by Anglo Catholics - if you look at a video or livestream from St Magnus the Martyr you will see it,albeit in more valuable materials
If you look at a video of a Pontifical Mass in Salzburg the Archbishop will wear such a chasuble (on greater festivals also with dalmatic and tunicle)
From the mid 1950s the Gothic chasuble (the all encompassing poncho) has come back into use in most RC churches and once again made of simpler materials.
The advantage of the Roman chasuble is that it enabled the priest to move his hands more freely.
The Gothic chasuble seems to be most often found in Anglican churches (apart from those which have fiddlebacks!), and many of the Swedish churches I've tuned into lately also appear to favour the Gothic style.
As you say, ornamentation these days is much simpler than of yore, but my minimalist mind is happy with that...
This clip from St Magnus the Martyr shows what you mean, I think:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH_JT12m3w0
https://vestments24.com/eng_m_All-Products_Chasubles-3870.html
the roman chasuble has a wider back panel but is cut away both at the sides and the front.
The length,just as is the case with the Gothic chasuble, can vary. some go almost right down to the ground. Remember that the chasuble was originally an ordinary everyday all encompassing garment, just as the cope was a sort of raincoat with a hood which has over the centuries changed in to the ,well I don't know the word,but it is the design panel on the back of a cope.
I've seen a few older Presbyterian churches with the "church as courtroom" arrangement: the ministers on big chairs above the holy table, and the choir above them. Fourth Presbyterian here in Chicago is like that. But I'd imagine most Presbyterian churches are now all on one level, mainly, and not so different from other mainline churches or even Roman Catholic ones.
A quick tangent - are Anglicans generally, through some twists and turns, therefore in communion with this congregation?
Just as the Greek version of the chasuble cut away most of the front,leaving the priest able to use his hands more freely,the Roman version cut away the sides,giving eventually in late middle ages the 'fiddleback'
It would be probably about the time of St Philip Neri,(second Apostle of Rome and founder of the Oratorians) that the back panel of the chasuble became slightly wider with straight lines up and down.
www.salzburger-deom.at/live/mediathek will show the two versions of the chasuble.
On 24.12 and 25.12 the archbishop is the celebrant,wearing a Roman chasuble and his deacons wearing dalmatics of the same period
On 26.12 and 01.01. the auxiliary bishop is the celebrant and he wears a Gothic chasuble with the deacons in the same style of dalmatic
We had a young ordinand who bought a set of Philip Neri style vestments. He knew he was clumsy and would probably catch a fuller chasuble on the chalices and send them flying.
Yes, I would think so (given this is from where the Porvoo Communion takes its name).