That would be a liturgical matter - miscellaneous questions

145791034

Comments

  • This is what the Canterbury diocesan handbook for Churchwardens (for example) says:
    "Churchwardens are chosen to be officers of the Bishop. If he or his (sic) representative,
    the archdeacon, visits the parish to attend a service, the wardens are expected to
    be present to greet, and to precede them in procession carrying their staves".
  • My experience is in less exalted dioceses!
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    A priest of our acquaintance says that as rector, he is the Abp's deputy, while the regional bishops are his curate (Albertus - note that still no shes in Sydney)
  • Our late Archdemon (now elevated to the Episcopate) always preferred to be treated as a simple(!) priest, as angloid says.

    You really can have too much of this Ritchool Stuff.....
  • Carys wrote: »
    This is a miscellaneous question which is sort of liturgical. Does anyone else get stricken with the yawns when saying the psalms alternately?

    Carys

    I yawn whenever saying things that ought to be sung. It always seems so talky and tedious.
  • Qoheleth wrote: »
    When the Archdemon visits a moderately high CofE parish during a vacancy to preside and preach, is (s)he preceded in procession by churchwardens with staves, as the Bishop's delegate? It's also our Patronal Festival, so a big figure-of-eight procession is part of the plotline.

    I would only give the Archdolphin any special treatment if they be there on a visitation or presiding at an archdiaconal court, or there formally in the place of the diocesan bishop (as in, the Archdeacon of Barshetshire representing the Lord Bishop of Barsetshire, who is unable to be present). Otherwise they will just have their normal place in precedence over any canons in the procession and under any bishops.

  • I am expecting nobody to really know. I have mentioned a rumour I heard that Congregationalist in Liverpool used to do devotion to the Sacred Heart before. I now have another intriguing bit of information. Apparently, there was Puritan divine who developed a devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus at I think the time of Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque (1647–1690). I may be misremembering. However, if anyone does have a clue I am intrigued by this.
  • It has always struck me as very strange that devotion to the Sacred Heart should be seen as an exotic Roman Catholic practice best avoided by sound protestants. I'd have thought the Wesleys along with many others of that era could almost have invented the feast.
  • john holdingjohn holding Ecclesiantics & MW Host
    At a guess it's because in some parts, the Sacred Heart in question is that of Mary, not Jesus.
  • GalilitGalilit Shipmate
    edited November 2018
    Mary has an Immaculate Heart, Jesus has a Sacred Heart ...mine just beats fairly averagely
  • My experience would suggest that it in its current form would fit neatly within Protestantism. Some of the early stuff mentioned on Wikipedia is less compatible. What I am asking is if anyone can shed some light on what appears to be a separate Protestant devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
  • Yes, as Gallit says, only Jesus has a Sacred Heart, Mary has an Immaculate Heart (and Joseph has a Chaste Heart although depictions of it are rather rarer).
  • Jengie Jon wrote: »
    My experience would suggest that it in its current form would fit neatly within Protestantism. Some of the early stuff mentioned on Wikipedia is less compatible. What I am asking is if anyone can shed some light on what appears to be a separate Protestant devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

    Are there any other examples of Protestants (not including more-Catholic Anglicans or Lutherans) having a devotion to a particular aspect of Jesus - ie, praying specifically to it, making shrines to it? Many Protestants go on and on about the cross, blood, stripes, etc., of Jesus, but Roman Catholics often talk about the Sacred Heart, Precious Blood, Holy Name, etc., of Jesus as if they were, like the Saints, completely separate entities to the person of Jesus Himself (although they obviously don't believe that). It seems as if they are claiming that praying to a certain part of Jesus will gain one spiritual benefits that one would not obtain by praying generically to Jesus Himself. I would think Protestants would not like that and would think of it as superstitious.
  • But, as you say, some Protestants do focus on "the blood" almost as if it were a stand-alone entity. Some charismatics in particular seem to take an almost superstitious view of "the power of the blood". We might say that it is merely a shorthand description for Christ's Passion - but I'm not entirely sure.
  • Jengie JonJengie Jon Shipmate
    edited November 2018
    I think Protestants would come in from a different direction, the heart being seen as the seat of love. When you have verses like
    O Love, that wilt not let me go,
    I rest my weary soul in Thee;
    I give Thee back the life I owe,
    That in Thine ocean depths its flow
    May richer, fuller be.

    and
    Forbid it, Lord, that I should boast,
    Save in the Death of Christ my God:
    All the vain Things that charm me most,
    I sacrifice them to his Blood.

    it is quite easy to see how people will have got further. The second is Isaac Watts whose Protestant credentials are excellent.

    Actually, I think I have found it. I was using Google but putting alternative words and almost immediately came up Heart of Christ.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    There are also certain sorts of both Thomists and Calvinists whose understanding of grace gives the impression they think of it as though it were a separate entity, a sort of spiritual fluid or a hypostasis, rathe than one of the characteristics of God's personality.
  • Does anyone know why the US Episcopal Church, in its 1982 Hymnal, uses a different order of the lines for the third verse of "Hark, the Herald Angels Sing" than seems to be the norm everywhere else I know? Here is what is in the Hymnal:

    Mild He lays his glory by,
    born that we no more may die.
    Born to raise us from the earth,
    born to give us second birth.
    Risen with healing in His wings,
    light and life to all He brings.
    Hail, the Sun of righteousness!
    Hail, the heaven-born Prince of Peace!
    (Refrain)

    The gender-neutral language is not what I am asking about. Rather, it is the order of the lines of the verse, which is very different from anything I have sung or heard recorded. Why is this?
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    No idea, but the lines are definitely not in the order in which Charles Wesley wrote them.

    IMHO it's legitimate to alter the words of hymns old enough to be out of copyright in the interests either of clarity or because the language really is out of date, but not just for the sake of novelty and with no obvious reason or justification.

    If the reason is so as to try to put yourself in a position where you can assert a claim to rake off copyright fees for your meddlings, then IMHO there's a special pit in the nether regions specially reserved for you.
  • It makes no sense this way. I think it is a typesetting error! Unless it can be found like this elsewhere, and before that 1982 book was around to influence people. In this version the last 4 lines are the usual first 4 in complete reversal,mwhile the first 4 are the usual last 4. It is very strange, but of course it still scans!
  • john holdingjohn holding Ecclesiantics & MW Host
    Enoch wrote: »
    No idea, but the lines are definitely not in the order in which Charles Wesley wrote them.

    I have a number of recordings of 18th and early 19th century Christmas music which include versions of Hark The Herald Angels.

    Needless to say there are 3-4 tunes in play. And at least 3-4 different sets of verses. I mean, verse in different orders, halves of verses assembled in different orders. Some four line half verses used as refrains. I've no idea as to which version was the CHarles Wesley original. What is clear is that he seems to have written a number of four-line verses which were then assembled almost at random into eight-line verses by different composers and arrangers.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    That's interesting. I'd checked against a printed version from 1846, and the words are more or less the same as now. It wouldn't then yet have been sung to the tune by Mendelssohn which is the usual tune now in the UK if not elsewhere. According to Hymnary.org the hymn version of that tune was not put together until 1856. I've good evidence of its being linked to that tune by 1861.

    What are the other tunes? I've encountered it sung to rather an ebullient earlier tune, I think called Newton St Paul's. Is it usually sung to the Mendelssohn tune in other countries as well, or is it sung to something else?
  • Well, I know it's not quite what you're asking, but there is this mashup of bits of "Hark, the Herald Angels Sing" and "Walk in the Light." I often hear it in these parts around Epiphany. The version in our hymnal also includes "Joyful all you nations rise/Join the triumph of the skies" and "Christ, by highest heaven adored/Christ, the everlasting Lord."

    But yes, the Mendelssohn tune is the standard tune here.

  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Wow. I've never heard that version before.
  • Cathscats wrote: »
    It makes no sense this way. I think it is a typesetting error! Unless it can be found like this elsewhere, and before that 1982 book was around to influence people. In this version the last 4 lines are the usual first 4 in complete reversal,mwhile the first 4 are the usual last 4. It is very strange, but of course it still scans!

    Are there any US Episcopalians here who have any idea why it is this way in their hymnals?
  • ZappaZappa Shipmate
    Cyprian wrote: »
    Carys wrote: »
    This is a miscellaneous question which is sort of liturgical. Does anyone else get stricken with the yawns when saying the psalms alternately?

    Carys

    I yawn whenever saying things that ought to be sung. It always seems so talky and tedious.

    I'm afraid that's very much a YMMV thing. On the whole I find sung psalmnody a massive Piss Off, becuase the "tunes" seem to wobble around in vacuous chaos, sliding up or down a bit by dint of some sort of masonic secret, resembling a whale's lament, and leaving this little hitchhiker as happy as a fish on Everest
  • Zappa wrote: »
    On the whole I find sung psalmnody a massive Piss Off, becuase the "tunes" seem to wobble around in vacuous chaos, sliding up or down a bit by dint of some sort of masonic secret, resembling a whale's lament, and leaving this little hitchhiker as happy as a fish on Everest
    That's why God prefers that we sing metrical psalms. :wink:

  • Baptist TrainfanBaptist Trainfan Shipmate
    edited December 2018
    I've certainly run across that arrangement of the words. There seems to be a similar choice in v.2 of "O little town" - do you begin (as I prefer) "O morning stars, together" or "For Christ is born of Mary"?

    PS This CD https://www.hyperion-records.co.uk/dc.asp?dc=D_CDH55325 has some marvellous "old" arrangements.
  • Either makes sense.
    As someone who knows all the words of almost all the Carols I was pleased to find that there were few alterations in the carol sheets used at many carol services. But I still had to keep checking, as “ men” had been superseded by “all” in a few places where it did not upset the rhyme or the rhythm.
    I approved.
  • Zappa wrote: »
    Cyprian wrote: »
    Carys wrote: »
    This is a miscellaneous question which is sort of liturgical. Does anyone else get stricken with the yawns when saying the psalms alternately?

    Carys

    I yawn whenever saying things that ought to be sung. It always seems so talky and tedious.

    I'm afraid that's very much a YMMV thing.

    Quite possibly.

    I use the 8 Gregorian tones and they work beautifully for me. I was joined last Sunday for Lauds by a handful of people who don't read music and had never sung plainsong before. By about the fourth verse of each psalm they were singing along with full voice.

    Perhaps evidence of Gardner's Multiple Intelligences, and something for me to be aware of. I've tried to point the psalms to make it easier for people for whom it might not come naturally.
  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    I considered asking this on the crafty thread or the liturgical thread, but here I am. Our church fell out of making palm crosses for Palm Sunday when the rector at the time didn't like them for some reason. I'm thinking of making them again this year and I found directions for them so that's not a problem. I'm pretty sure our current priest won't mind. But the thing is that I don't want to wait until the last minute to make them. My question is: does anyone know about how long they would stay fresh sealed in a container in a refrigerator? Thanks. :smile:
  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    Hmm. I AM on the liturgical thread. Doh!
  • Stay fresh? :confused:

    I'm used to palm crosses being thoroughly dry, and even if you buy the unfolded leaves they're dry (though still flexible). Are you hacking them off the tree yourself? :D
  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    Yup. There are palms all over the place here. But I'll choose shorter ones than full grown trees. :sunglasses:

    Do you soak your dry ones to weave them into crosses?
  • Dunno about Arethosemyfeet, but AFAIK most churches buy them already woven....
  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    I guess making them is one of those old time California things. Well, I'll just start making them a few weeks into Lent and see how they hold up to refrigeration.
  • kingsfold wrote: »
    Dunno about Arethosemyfeet, but AFAIK most churches buy them already woven....

    Yes, likewise, not that my local church can abide such papist fripperies. :p
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host, Glory
    My parish has a dedicated band of cross-makers, but I have no idea of how they go about accomplishing it.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    kingsfold wrote: »
    Dunno about Arethosemyfeet, but AFAIK most churches buy them already woven....

    We make ours from green leaves in a community activity the afternoon before. It's a great time together. Never tried with dried ones, but I imagine that they'd be very brittle and also difficult to fold.
  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    I like the idea of making crosses with the materials at hand, Gee D.

    I enjoyed making them when I was younger (thirty years ago!) and I'm looking forward to trying it again. I'll ask around my church to see if anyone wants to give it a shot with me.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    edited February 2019
    That's how ours are made - from the palm branches being used to decorate the church for Palm Sunday. Most need some trimming at the base and it's the trimmings which go to making the crosses. If there aren't enough, then some judicious pruning takes place.
  • Here in the UK palm crosses are made from dry palms.
  • john holdingjohn holding Ecclesiantics & MW Host
    These days I mostly see either pre-made crosses, which are dry and brittle, or an ample supply of green and flexible palm fronds accompanied by instructions as to how to fashion a cross. Usually the latter, as fronds are a lot easier to wave about during the Palm SUnday procession. And they stay green and flexible for a day or two, giving lots of time to make into the cross you put up on your wall until next Ash Wednesday.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host, Glory
    I turned my dried-up palm frond over to the associate rector on Tuesday so that she could help turn it into ashes for next Wednesday.
  • Hookers_TrickHookers_Trick Admin Emeritus
    angloid wrote: »
    I (being a liturgy nerd with a retentive memory for obscure facts) remember a 'notes and queries' comment in the Church Times (back in the 1960s) stating authoritatively that 'incense is used in three cathedrals'. I think I can remember which three but let's have a competition to guess.

    Resurrecting this oldish post because I confess I am curious about which were the three smelly cathedrals in the sixties?
  • QohelethQoheleth Shipmate
    So we don't sing 'Alleluiah' during Lent. However the choir need to practice the Easter music beforehand. I seem to recall from my youth that we used a substitute word as a (lightly humorous) place-holder. Suggestions as to what it might have been,please?
  • 'Eggs and Bacon'.

    It seems to have the right number of Syllabubs, and goes nicely to the music of Mr Handel and others....

    ...but At Your Own Risk.....
    :fearful:
  • Qoheleth wrote: »
    So we don't sing 'Alleluiah' during Lent. However the choir need to practice the Easter music beforehand. I seem to recall from my youth that we used a substitute word as a (lightly humorous) place-holder. Suggestions as to what it might have been,please?

    Rumplestiltskin?

    Perhaps I could offer for your choir a slogan appropriate for French-speaking supporters of Ms Tymoshenko as the next Ukrainian president:

    "Allez, Yulia!"
  • CruntCrunt Shipmate
    Qoheleth wrote: »
    So we don't sing 'Alleluiah' during Lent. However the choir need to practice the Easter music beforehand. I seem to recall from my youth that we used a substitute word as a (lightly humorous) place-holder. Suggestions as to what it might have been,please?

    Hare Krishna?
  • Qoheleth wrote: »
    So we don't sing 'Alleluiah' during Lent. However the choir need to practice the Easter music beforehand. I seem to recall from my youth that we used a substitute word as a (lightly humorous) place-holder. Suggestions as to what it might have been,please?

    This could be dangerous: having several in my choir with, how shall I put it, difficulty in memorising correct notes and words, to attempt to teach them using a substitute word (or words) raises the distinct possibility of the substitute being used on Easter Day: I'm sure the congregation would just love to hear
    Jesus Christ is risen today, Hare Krishna!
    Our triumphant holy day, Hare Krishna!
    Who did once upon the cross, Krishna Krishna!
    Suffer to redeem our loss, Hare Hare!
    :naughty:
  • Qoheleth wrote: »
    So we don't sing 'Alleluiah' during Lent. However the choir need to practice the Easter music beforehand. I seem to recall from my youth that we used a substitute word as a (lightly humorous) place-holder. Suggestions as to what it might have been,please?

    This could be dangerous: having several in my choir with, how shall I put it, difficulty in memorising correct notes and words, to attempt to teach them using a substitute word (or words) raises the distinct possibility of the substitute being used on Easter Day . . . .
    It also seems a little . . . overboard?

    Granted, I come from a tradition that isn't too prescriptive about Alleluias during Lent—some ministers/congregations studiously avoid the word during Lent and some don't—so perhaps my thoughts should be taken with a grain of salt. But surely the prohibition on Alleluias is on Alleluias in the liturgy, not outside the liturgy. Even when I have been in contexts where Alleluias are omitted during Lent (including singing in the choir of an Episcopal parish), the choir has still sung them in practice.

    It seems to me that having the choir refrain from singing Alleluias as it practices Easter music kind of misses the point of why Alleluias are not said or sung in the liturgy during Lent; it risks turning the practice of avoiding the word Alleluia into A Thing Unto Itself.

Sign In or Register to comment.