All right one I am hoping sacristany people have the answer to, what gloves are suitable for protecting hands while brass cleaning? I need a pair by orders of our Sacristan.
You can get white cotton-jersey gloves, but I do t know where from. The sort of lightweight fabric gardening gloves (that seem to me to be no use for actual gardening) would probably do.
I used cotton gloves which also stopped me putting marks back on anything which had just been cleaned. The first pair I had were workshop gloves (cheap) and the second came from a chemist (pharmacy) (expensive).
At least down here, Sunday Schools were originally started to give children some education in basic reading, arithmetic, etc which they were too poor to otherwise gain.
I was at neighbouring parish on Sunday (moderately catholic -- incense but no clouds, gong at elevations, but only one scared minister at the Table, despite there being 3 more including a deacon in the Chancel). Anyway, two oddities. At the opening acclamation 'The Lord is risen indeed. Allelujah' the choir all produced little bells and rang them with vigour. I've encountered the bells (saucepans, etc) at East Vigil, but not on a Low Sunday morning. Is this a new trend? (I don't get out much). The Canon of the Mass sent me flipping in the books as I didn't recognise it. Turned out to be Eucharistic Prayer B from Rite II of the 1979 book, but rendered in Olde Language. I thought it was not permitted to correct the language in the Rite II forms?
The Canon of the Mass sent me flipping in the books as I didn't recognise it. Turned out to be Eucharistic Prayer B from Rite II of the 1979 book, but rendered in Olde Language. I thought it was not permitted to correct the language in the Rite II forms?
I'm thinking they were using the Anglican Service Book, which Rite I-izes all the Rite II texts in addition to providing the Rite I ones and a lot of traditional (and optional) enhancements. The rubric allowing this runs: "In any of the Proper Liturgies for Special Days, and in other services contained in this Book celebrated in the context of a Rite One service, the contemporary idiom may be conformed to traditional language." (BCP 1979, p. 14)
You can get white cotton-jersey gloves, but I do t know where from.
At least in the States, I'd suggest checking if you have a local military-surplus store. Those white cotton gloves are part of some groups' dress uniforms, and when I needed new ones for either marching band in high school or for doing handbell-related things, the ones in the surplus stores were cheaper and nicer than the ones the band/bell choir had on hand.
Though if they don't need to be pretty, but just need to keep fingerprints off of recently-polished metalwork, the cotton gardening gloves are going to probably be the better choice. They launder much better and last longer than the dress uniform gloves.
Primarily they need to keep polish off my hands, although keeping them off the objects would be an advantage. My hands got very dry from brass cleaning and after being caught while shutting the altar gate decided to bleed. Getting blood on a corporal is not a good idea!
The Canon of the Mass sent me flipping in the books as I didn't recognise it. Turned out to be Eucharistic Prayer B from Rite II of the 1979 book, but rendered in Olde Language. I thought it was not permitted to correct the language in the Rite II forms?
I'm thinking they were using the Anglican Service Book, which Rite I-izes all the Rite II texts in addition to providing the Rite I ones and a lot of traditional (and optional) enhancements. The rubric allowing this runs: "In any of the Proper Liturgies for Special Days, and in other services contained in this Book celebrated in the context of a Rite One service, the contemporary idiom may be conformed to traditional language." (BCP 1979, p. 14)
The Canon of the Mass sent me flipping in the books as I didn't recognise it. Turned out to be Eucharistic Prayer B from Rite II of the 1979 book, but rendered in Olde Language. I thought it was not permitted to correct the language in the Rite II forms?
I'm thinking they were using the Anglican Service Book, which Rite I-izes all the Rite II texts in addition to providing the Rite I ones and a lot of traditional (and optional) enhancements. The rubric allowing this runs: "In any of the Proper Liturgies for Special Days, and in other services contained in this Book celebrated in the context of a Rite One service, the contemporary idiom may be conformed to traditional language." (BCP 1979, p. 14)
What's the point of that?
Consistency in the style of language used in a given service.
In the ‘79 BCP, only Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer, Holy Eucharist and Burial of the Dead are provided in both Rite I and Rite II forms—the primary (but not only) difference being Rite I uses traditional Cranmerian language, while Rite II uses contemporary English. All other services in the ‘79 BCP, including Holy Baptism, Marriage, Confirmation, the ordination liturgies and the “Proper Liturgies for Special Days” (i.e., the liturgies for Ash Wednesday, Palm Sunday, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, Holy Saturday and the Easter Vigil) are in contemporary (Rite II) language only. While many of these liturgies are typically celebrated in the context of a Eucharist, the full Eucharistic liturgy isn’t set out; instead, there’s just a rubric along the lines of if the Eucharist follows, the service continues with the offertory.
So, if for example the desire is to celebrate a baptism or wedding or observe Ash Wednesday in the context of a Rite I Eucharist, this rubric enables the priest to make the style of language consistent throughout.
Ha! My apologies then for providing an unnecessary explanation.
To be honest, I would say that the point in 1976 and 1979—when General Convention voted on the prayerbook—was to get approval and acceptance of the new book. That rubric addressed concerns of enough Traditionalists to get the book approved and to help with acceptance in the pews. Thinking of it in pastoral terms, it allowed the old language to remain available while people got used to the new language.
I don’t know if there are any statistics, but I’d be interested to know, now that we’re 40 years on from the approval of the ‘79 BCP, just how common Rite I liturgies, including services adapted to Rite I language, are in the TEC. My admittedly limited experience suggests they are not that common, especially on Sundays.
I don’t know if there are any statistics, but I’d be interested to know, now that we’re 40 years on from the approval of the ‘79 BCP, just how common Rite I liturgies, including services adapted to Rite I language, are in the TEC. My admittedly limited experience suggests they are not that common, especially on Sundays.
Here in the USA, at least, Rite I (traditional language) seems to be practically mandatory in many East Coach churches, but even traditional-style parishes in the Midwest stick with Rite II (contemporary). Ours is Rite II except the early Mass on Sundays and Choral Evensong monthly. And we do sing Rite I-language congregational settings of the Mass even in a Rite II Mass (which the rubrics specifically permit).
Anyway, the question might be similar to "Why Latin in an English-speaking Roman Catholic parish?"
I don’t know if there are any statistics, but I’d be interested to know..... just how common Rite I liturgies .....are in the TEC. My admittedly limited experience suggests they are not that common, especially on Sundays.
From 2015 to 2017 I served weekly in a small New England parish. The early Sunday service was always Rite I, no music, seldom more than 9 attending; the later service was Rite II with music, 20 - 26 attending then. For combined services -- Easter, Christmas Eve -- the Rite I folk gave way to Rite II, sweetly but somewhat grudgingly.
The parish I now serve as supply clergy (so I have no authority) thinks they would dearly like Rite I from time to time, I'd be willing if it meets their spiritual needs. But the bishop has been clear with them that he expects Rite II as the norm or use of one of the newer inclusive language texts.
.....
I’d be interested to know, now that we’re 40 years on from the approval of the ‘79 BCP, just how common Rite I liturgies, including services adapted to Rite I language, are in the TEC. My admittedly limited experience suggests they are not that common, especially on Sundays.
Our shack does Rite I at the early (8:00) service on Sunday. Organist and hymns, no choir or service music. A normal Sunday has 30-50 attending. Our 10:30 service has choir, anthems etc., and is Rite II. Normal Sunday is 120-150 people.
We're in the Midwest, if it helps.
The early morning Rite I service usually has a few tourists from the later service (people who have some other engagement and so need to do Church early); they are usually identifiable by their attempt to recite the Rite II responses.
Well, first, it's not "faux-Elizabethan." It's genuine Tudor.
My Midwestern parish does Rite I at 8 every other week, alternating with Rite II. I have always thought we were too slavish in following the RCC in that liturgy ("And also with you" - could we get any more cludgy?), and I'm planning to have Rite I for my funeral. "And with thy spirit" is far more graceful than what we've got now.
Ah, but the RCC has sort of Seen The Light, and now says 'And with your spirit' - which I find cludgy (lovely word! We might say 'clunky' on this side of the Pond).
It sounds better in other languages e.g. French which use the 'tu/thou/du' etc. forms (IIRC, the French verb for this is tutoyer ), but not in everyday English. YMMV, of course.
Presumably so that one can both have the Olde Language but also the variety of the optional Eucharistic prayers, which are all in modern lingo in the 1979 BCP. Trad Language only offers two options for the Canon: 1928-lite and 1928-liter.
Doesn't Common Worship allow either Order to be celebrated in either language?
Here in the USA, at least, Rite I (traditional language) seems to be practically mandatory in many East Coach churches, but even traditional-style parishes in the Midwest stick with Rite II (contemporary).
Last time I was in Chicago I was unable to find a Rite I service, of any churchmanship.
East Coast is indeed a different beast. Of the three largest parishes in this diocese, two of them use Rite I at the main service. As do two of the most prominent Anglo-Catholic places.
Last time I was in Chicago I was unable to find a Rite I service, of any churchmanship.
Ascension, near LaSalle & Division, did Rite 1 at 8am last time I was nearby. Their website says they still do. I suspect that they are not the only Chicago church offering 8am rite 1. If you venture into the suburbs, there are certainly others there.
...Doesn't Common Worship allow either Order to be celebrated in either language?...
This discussion has been a bit confusing to us over here because BCP here means the 1662 Book and that's it. To us, that's the real BCP. Nothing else is called any sort of BCP. So BCP in this post = 1662 and no other.
@Hookers_Trick I've taken up the challenge to check and try to answer your question. With Common Worship (CW) in front of me, the position appears to be as follows. It's slightly complicated to follow. If anyone disagrees with me, please say so, but if so, explain why.
1. CW provides two Communion Rites, Order One and Order Two.
2. Both Orders exist in modern and traditional language forms, subject to the caveat in 6 below.
3. In addition, 1662 remains lawful, both of itself, and via Order Two, see 8 below. When used, though, it's much more likely to be used in its original from, which is still in print and available.
4. Doubtless there will be Shipmates who will leap in and say their experience is different, but round here, virtually all churches use some version of Order One in modern English. Apart from actual 1662 itself, I can't remember when I last encountered any other CW form.
5. Order One is fairly flexible, and includes eight authorised Eucharistic Prayers (A to H). In addition, there is a lot of seasonal material that can be combined with some but not all of the Eucharistic Prayers. Some is in CW. There is further material in a book which is part of the CW suite and is called Times and Seasons. There are also various other authorised forms of services, such as some for use with children that came out in 2012.
6. However, only two of the Eucharistic Prayers are available and authorised in Order One using traditional language.
7. Also, only some of the seasonal material exists in traditional language.
8. The basic Order 2 is BCP + a few small variants which had been very widely adopted back when all services were BCP. These are therefore now 'authorised'. This also has the effect of authorising the current lectionary and collects for use at a BCP service as an alternative to the 1662 ones.
9. The alternative Order 2 is BCP rendered into modern English.
10. Order 2, especially its modern language variant, is really provided for traditional and rather old fashioned parishes at the Protestant end of the ecclesiastical spectrum. It does not include the changes that would have been authorised had the 1928 Prayer Book ever been passed. Those that are old fashioned but wish to follow that tradition or those of the various interim books, Series 2, 3 the ASB etc are expected to compile their services from Order One.
11. Individual parishes tend to produce their own booklets or cards containing the permutations they usually use. Quite often, there will be different sets for different seasons. If they produce booklets, it's not unusual for the covers to be colour coded green for ordinary, etc.
12. Whatever anyone else may claim, neither the Roman Canon, nor the Eucharistic Prayers of the Church in Wales, yet alone any other provinces of the Anglican Communion, are authorised for use in the CofE.
By the way, I agree with those who talk about cod Tudor English. Unless you actually spoke it, or really know what you're doing, you're likely to get it wrong. It isn't just a question of shoving in the odd 'thee', 'thou' and 'thinketh', where they sound right. Even the diminishing number of people who still use the second person singular don't necessarily speak with C16 grammar.
...Doesn't Common Worship allow either Order to be celebrated in either language?...
This discussion has been a bit confusing to us over here because BCP here means the 1662 Book and that's it. To us, that's the real BCP.
That’s one reason I’ve tried to be careful to say the ‘79 BCP.
Many thanks to @Oblatus, @BabyWombat, @Rossweisse, @Leorning Cniht and @Hookers_Trick. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that things are different in different parts of the US, and as I said, my experience is limited. Where I am (the Southeast), it seems to be fairly common that Rite I is mainly found at the early (7:30 or 8:00) Sunday service, and maybe sometime midweek. Rite II generally seems to be the norm at the “main” Sunday service.
That said, two of the largest parishes around here have 3 or 4 services on Sunday. I checked, and for them, the pattern seems to be early morning=Rite I, mid-morning=Rite II, late morning=Rite I, and in one parish, late afternoon=Rite II.
@Enoch. Is the situation similar with Evening prayer to that of the Eucharist? I ask as I am in the position of being asked to contribute to an order of evening prayer that reflects current practice and is easier to follow than the actual layout in the BCP. Basically its BCP with the options that are usually chosen. We are finding however for those from an informal liturgical tradition that they find the navigation of the BCP difficult and off-putting.
Common Worship doesn't provide much in evening services. When I was involved in running evening services, to augment the monthly BCP Choral Evensong I regularly used Celebrating Common Prayer (in all its glory), Compline from somewhere else, or we set up a labyrinth. Less regularly we had Taize services, I ran a prayer walk or we'd experiment with different forms.
@Jengie Jon CW has Orders of Morning and Evening Prayer for Sundays in modern form. They aren't BCP Morning and Evening Prayer translated into modern English. The Evening one starts at page 38. They're actually rather attractive but I get the impression they've never really caught on. What one tends to find is BCP Evening Prayer, sometimes slightly shortened in accordance with the "permitted variations" on page 80.
Just to muddle things further for those not sad enough to have noticed, the Orders of Morning and Evening Prayer for Sundays in modern form are not the same as the Morning and Evening Offices for Sunday in Ordinary Time in Daily Prayer.
CW also has a complete psalter in modern English + Canticles including several additional ones to those in the BCP. They are used quite a lot in contexts where psalms are being said. However, although one would suppose that any prose text could be pointed and chanted, musicians and choirs seem to have stuck entirely to the BCP ones of c1535. I've even heard the erroneous claim that the English of the BCP psalter was written so as to be specially suitable for being chanted to Anglican chant.
Apart from a BCP service, what one is probably more likely to encounter is a Morning and Evening Service of the Word, constructed (one hopes) in accordance with the instructions on pp 21-28. That is designed, for example, to help put together a non-Eucharistic Family Services. However, as the modern language Morning and Evening Orders and the BCP Orders already comply with pp 21-28, this gives the flexibility to provide a Morning or and Evening service 'inspired' by the full provision but sitting more loosely with formal compliance.
My impression is that in some respects the orders for Morning and Evening Prayer on Sundays which can be found in the CW main volume, were something of a stop-gap derived from the ASB provision as something was needed before CW Daily Prayer was ready.
CW Daily Prayer is a much fuller adoption of the shape established in Celebrating Common Prayer.
The CW Psalter and the Canticles too, I believe, have all been pointed for Anglican chant, but I think few places if any have invested in them. They are not cheap, and it is a field in which any two Directors of Music have three of four different opinions about whether any scheme of pointing is (a) any good, or (b) well implemented.
Certainly, both the 1662 BCP and Common Worship are used for the said daily office regularly. I grew quite used to both. But I've never been to a choral service of Common Worship Morning or Evening Prayer in England. I think I'm right in saying that, overwhelmingly, choral Evensong in England is 1662. I have to admit I was a bit taken aback when I attended a service of Choral Evensong according to Rite II ("contemporary language") in the 1979 American BCP. Even there, though, the canticles were in the forms familiar from 1662.
I suppose there probably must be some choral settings of the evening canticles in "contemporary language," but I'm not sure I've heard any. And I have heard the canticles sung in Anglican services in Latin, Church Slavonic, German, and Finnish.
Well, first, it's not "faux-Elizabethan." It's genuine Tudor.
I understand people who prefer Cranmer's prose as it appears in 1549/1662. But unless archaeologists have unearthed some texts by Cranmer for the distinctive services of Holy Week or various blessings and other rites that weren't provided for in Cranmer's prayer books, it's clear that churches that are going to use them will have to either accept the versions in modern English that are available, or 'back-translate' into 'faux-Elizabethan'. It can't be genuine Tudor unless you unearth the nearest Catholic contemporary equivalents and then you might have genuine Tudor Latin. Otherwise you're stuck with the linguistic equivalent of sticking false timber beams on a modern house.
CW also has a complete psalter in modern English + Canticles including several additional ones to those in the BCP. They are used quite a lot in contexts where psalms are being said. However, although one would suppose that any prose text could be pointed and chanted, musicians and choirs seem to have stuck entirely to the BCP ones of c1535. I've even heard the erroneous claim that the English of the BCP psalter was written so as to be specially suitable for being chanted to Anglican chant.
I'd seriously question that: much of the CW psalter is clunky and bears absolutely no relation to any kind of speech pattern or usage one might encounter in day-to-day life. For example, in Psalm 128verses 2-4 the BCP's For thou shalt eat the labours of thine hands : O well is thee, and happy shalt thou be.
Thy wife shall be as the fruitful vine : upon the walls of thine house.
Thy children like the olive-branches : round about thy table.
is "modernised" into CW's two verse offering You shall eat the fruit of the toil of your hands; it shall go well with you, and happy shall you be.
Your wife within your house shall be like a fruitful vine; your children round your table, like fresh olive branches.
The CW Nunc dimittis is worse.
And you're right, there are very few settings of the canticles in modern language, similar to the dearth of decent settings of the ordinary in modern language for communion services. Why? Well, after struggling with Series II and III most modern composers of standing gave up trying to (a) compose to a text that had a better than fair chance of being altered/ banned within a few years; and (b) was clunky and didn't lend itself to being set. There is also the fact that the modern clergyperson prefers settings that can be sung by the congregation, which is very limiting.
There is also the fact that the modern clergyperson prefers settings that can be sung by the congregation, which is very limiting.
Which modern clergyperson in particular? It's not usually a question of preference, but possibility. Few churches these days have the resources, or either professional or at least competent singers, to perform elaborate musical settings and so you need simple, singable music for the mass. Unless you simply settle for the boring and liturgically inept practice of speaking the whole of the liturgy and just interposing hymns.
Our Place uses the Common Worship Sunday readings sheet, provided by the (RC) Redemptorist Fathers, and this always includes a responsorial psalm. The melody for the response is provided, but nowt for the verses.
Our cantor makes them up, or adapts them from the RC equivalent, but leads us competently in the set response.
There's a gap in the market here, I think, for the CofE to fill by providing suitable chants to go with the responses. As angloid says, simple, singable, music is what's needed today for the average CofE congregation of 30 or so.....
For the princely sum of £3.85 (plus p + p, I suspect) you (or your cantor) can get Redemptorist’s Music for the Responsorial Psalms which says it matches what is on the pew sheets.
As I've mentioned before, it's possible on the web to access the entire psalter in metre + a lot of the CofE Canticles for free, with music, all of it out of copyright.
I appreciate that if you're Anglo-Catholic, you're likely to look down your nose at singing psalms in metre, but when it comes to the traditions of the CofE, singing metrical versions has a much longer history than trying to sing prose and singing it badly.
There is a very extensive freely downloadable and copyable resource for singing the Psalms and Canticles etc. from the English Anglican Franciscans here. In the introduction they say
The Psalms and Canticles, from Common Worship Daily Prayer and from The Daily Office SSF are pointed here with congregations and small groups of worshippers, without the resources needed for Anglican chant, in mind.
The basic principle of chanting is that each section or half-verse of Psalm or Canticle is sung on a reciting note with an inflection, or change of note, on the last accented syllable, as in Ps. 23.1: The Lord is my shépherd; * therefore can I lack nóthing. Here the accent marks the last stressed syllable and the change of note.
... Unless you simply settle for the boring and liturgically inept practice of speaking the whole of the liturgy and just interposing hymns.
It's also not regarding the hymns as part of the liturgy. It's an obverse version of the horrible practice and heresy of describing the person in charge of the music as the "worship leader".
... Unless you simply settle for the boring and liturgically inept practice of speaking the whole of the liturgy and just interposing hymns.
It's also not regarding the hymns as part of the liturgy. It's an obverse version of the horrible practice and heresy of describing the person in charge of the music as the "worship leader".
No hymns should be "interposed": they should fit seamlessly into the liturgy, having been chosen for either containing the words of the text they replace (responsorial Psalm, etc) or to comment/ expand on the reading before or after.
Likewise, anything chosen for the distribution of communion should not be so loud and jarring as to prevent people from prayerful prepartion before receiving or being able to says a private prayer afterwards.
"Worship leader" is up there is my personal gallery of horror-titles, alongside "funeral director" when the person concerned is actually just the undertaker.
... the boring and liturgically inept practice of speaking the whole of the liturgy and just interposing hymns.
Perhaps a little rough - it's been about 60-70% of my experience in 30+ years of ordained ministry
A lot of mine too. But where I have had any responsibility in these matters I would give priority to ensuring that things like the Gloria and Sanctus are sung (albeit maybe to metrical hymn-type settings). Other hymns I would put in the 'nice-to-have but not essential' category. I agree that when they are used they are, and should be seen as, an integral part of the liturgy and hence be chosen to reflect not just the theme of the scriptures but their function in the service.
All these Questions are about the US Episcopal Church.
Sorry if this has been addressed upthread, but (even if there is no demand to do so), is there any permitted way to use the Rite I Gloria in a Rite II Liturgy - but with the Thee's and Thou's changed to You's and modern verb endings? I know you can use a Rite I Gloria if it is sung, but that has the old pronouns and verb endings. Also, can you only use the Rite I Gloria if it is sung?
What about doing all of Rite I, but with "You" instead of "Thou" and modern verb endings?
And what using the Prayer for Humble Access and/or a Rite I Eucharistic Prayer in an otherwise Rite II Liturgy - and can you change into "You's" and change the verb endings?
Is there a permitted way to have both a Kyrie and a Gloria on all non-Lent, non-Advent Sundays in a Rite II liturgy?
Are US Episcopal Churches allowed to rent out their churches to other Christian groups that want a worship space on a Sunday (at a different time than the worship time of the Episcopalian congregation), if the Bishop approves? Does it depend on the diocese?
Are US Episcopal Churches allowed to rent out their churches to other Christian groups that want a worship space on a Sunday (at a different time than the worship time of the Episcopalian congregation), if the Bishop approves? Does it depend on the diocese?
Not quite the question you asked, but there is a Jewish Renewal congregation that meets in the church of a local Episcopal parish. Don’t know what, if any, permission was required.
Not owning a building is part of the ethos of this particular congregation. They met at our church for a few years before moving to the Episcopal church where they now meet.
Are US Episcopal Churches allowed to rent out their churches to other Christian groups that want a worship space on a Sunday (at a different time than the worship time of the Episcopalian congregation), if the Bishop approves? Does it depend on the diocese?
I know of churches (US Episcopal) that have done this. I believe it is up to the Rector and Vestry and subject to the Bishop's approval.
St Sanity does not rent out the church itself on Sunday, but does rent to the local Saekwang Church (spelling?) a large hall that would otherwise not be used. I'm aware of a small Anglican parish that has its one and only service reasonably early, and as it has no other use for it rents it to another Korean group later in the day.
@Nick Tamen When you say 'Jewish Renewal congregation' do you mean that the church is borrowed by a synagogue, or by what I think are usually called round here Messianic Jews? The idea of a synagogue meeting in a Christian building, probably with crosses and stained glass windows of New Testament scenes scattered around the place,. does sound a bit surprising.
@Nick Tamen When you say 'Jewish Renewal congregation' do you mean that the church is borrowed by a synagogue, or by what I think are usually called round here Messianic Jews? The idea of a synagogue meeting in a Christian building, probably with crosses and stained glass windows of New Testament scenes scattered around the place,. does sound a bit surprising.
Jewish Renewal, as I understand it, is not what is usually (if somewhat inaccurately) termed Messianic Judaism. It's more of what happened when progressive Jews became interested in neo-Hassidic practices.
And, as to the issue of shared buildings, stranger things have happened....
Comments
I'm thinking they were using the Anglican Service Book, which Rite I-izes all the Rite II texts in addition to providing the Rite I ones and a lot of traditional (and optional) enhancements. The rubric allowing this runs: "In any of the Proper Liturgies for Special Days, and in other services contained in this Book celebrated in the context of a Rite One service, the contemporary idiom may be conformed to traditional language." (BCP 1979, p. 14)
At least in the States, I'd suggest checking if you have a local military-surplus store. Those white cotton gloves are part of some groups' dress uniforms, and when I needed new ones for either marching band in high school or for doing handbell-related things, the ones in the surplus stores were cheaper and nicer than the ones the band/bell choir had on hand.
Though if they don't need to be pretty, but just need to keep fingerprints off of recently-polished metalwork, the cotton gardening gloves are going to probably be the better choice. They launder much better and last longer than the dress uniform gloves.
In the ‘79 BCP, only Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer, Holy Eucharist and Burial of the Dead are provided in both Rite I and Rite II forms—the primary (but not only) difference being Rite I uses traditional Cranmerian language, while Rite II uses contemporary English. All other services in the ‘79 BCP, including Holy Baptism, Marriage, Confirmation, the ordination liturgies and the “Proper Liturgies for Special Days” (i.e., the liturgies for Ash Wednesday, Palm Sunday, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, Holy Saturday and the Easter Vigil) are in contemporary (Rite II) language only. While many of these liturgies are typically celebrated in the context of a Eucharist, the full Eucharistic liturgy isn’t set out; instead, there’s just a rubric along the lines of if the Eucharist follows, the service continues with the offertory.
So, if for example the desire is to celebrate a baptism or wedding or observe Ash Wednesday in the context of a Rite I Eucharist, this rubric enables the priest to make the style of language consistent throughout.
To be honest, I would say that the point in 1976 and 1979—when General Convention voted on the prayerbook—was to get approval and acceptance of the new book. That rubric addressed concerns of enough Traditionalists to get the book approved and to help with acceptance in the pews. Thinking of it in pastoral terms, it allowed the old language to remain available while people got used to the new language.
I don’t know if there are any statistics, but I’d be interested to know, now that we’re 40 years on from the approval of the ‘79 BCP, just how common Rite I liturgies, including services adapted to Rite I language, are in the TEC. My admittedly limited experience suggests they are not that common, especially on Sundays.
Here in the USA, at least, Rite I (traditional language) seems to be practically mandatory in many East Coach churches, but even traditional-style parishes in the Midwest stick with Rite II (contemporary). Ours is Rite II except the early Mass on Sundays and Choral Evensong monthly. And we do sing Rite I-language congregational settings of the Mass even in a Rite II Mass (which the rubrics specifically permit).
Anyway, the question might be similar to "Why Latin in an English-speaking Roman Catholic parish?"
From 2015 to 2017 I served weekly in a small New England parish. The early Sunday service was always Rite I, no music, seldom more than 9 attending; the later service was Rite II with music, 20 - 26 attending then. For combined services -- Easter, Christmas Eve -- the Rite I folk gave way to Rite II, sweetly but somewhat grudgingly.
The parish I now serve as supply clergy (so I have no authority) thinks they would dearly like Rite I from time to time, I'd be willing if it meets their spiritual needs. But the bishop has been clear with them that he expects Rite II as the norm or use of one of the newer inclusive language texts.
.....
Our shack does Rite I at the early (8:00) service on Sunday. Organist and hymns, no choir or service music. A normal Sunday has 30-50 attending. Our 10:30 service has choir, anthems etc., and is Rite II. Normal Sunday is 120-150 people.
We're in the Midwest, if it helps.
The early morning Rite I service usually has a few tourists from the later service (people who have some other engagement and so need to do Church early); they are usually identifiable by their attempt to recite the Rite II responses.
My Midwestern parish does Rite I at 8 every other week, alternating with Rite II. I have always thought we were too slavish in following the RCC in that liturgy ("And also with you" - could we get any more cludgy?), and I'm planning to have Rite I for my funeral. "And with thy spirit" is far more graceful than what we've got now.
It sounds better in other languages e.g. French which use the 'tu/thou/du' etc. forms (IIRC, the French verb for this is tutoyer ), but not in everyday English. YMMV, of course.
Presumably so that one can both have the Olde Language but also the variety of the optional Eucharistic prayers, which are all in modern lingo in the 1979 BCP. Trad Language only offers two options for the Canon: 1928-lite and 1928-liter.
Doesn't Common Worship allow either Order to be celebrated in either language?
Last time I was in Chicago I was unable to find a Rite I service, of any churchmanship.
East Coast is indeed a different beast. Of the three largest parishes in this diocese, two of them use Rite I at the main service. As do two of the most prominent Anglo-Catholic places.
Ascension, near LaSalle & Division, did Rite 1 at 8am last time I was nearby. Their website says they still do. I suspect that they are not the only Chicago church offering 8am rite 1. If you venture into the suburbs, there are certainly others there.
@Hookers_Trick I've taken up the challenge to check and try to answer your question. With Common Worship (CW) in front of me, the position appears to be as follows. It's slightly complicated to follow. If anyone disagrees with me, please say so, but if so, explain why.
1. CW provides two Communion Rites, Order One and Order Two.
2. Both Orders exist in modern and traditional language forms, subject to the caveat in 6 below.
3. In addition, 1662 remains lawful, both of itself, and via Order Two, see 8 below. When used, though, it's much more likely to be used in its original from, which is still in print and available.
4. Doubtless there will be Shipmates who will leap in and say their experience is different, but round here, virtually all churches use some version of Order One in modern English. Apart from actual 1662 itself, I can't remember when I last encountered any other CW form.
5. Order One is fairly flexible, and includes eight authorised Eucharistic Prayers (A to H). In addition, there is a lot of seasonal material that can be combined with some but not all of the Eucharistic Prayers. Some is in CW. There is further material in a book which is part of the CW suite and is called Times and Seasons. There are also various other authorised forms of services, such as some for use with children that came out in 2012.
6. However, only two of the Eucharistic Prayers are available and authorised in Order One using traditional language.
7. Also, only some of the seasonal material exists in traditional language.
8. The basic Order 2 is BCP + a few small variants which had been very widely adopted back when all services were BCP. These are therefore now 'authorised'. This also has the effect of authorising the current lectionary and collects for use at a BCP service as an alternative to the 1662 ones.
9. The alternative Order 2 is BCP rendered into modern English.
10. Order 2, especially its modern language variant, is really provided for traditional and rather old fashioned parishes at the Protestant end of the ecclesiastical spectrum. It does not include the changes that would have been authorised had the 1928 Prayer Book ever been passed. Those that are old fashioned but wish to follow that tradition or those of the various interim books, Series 2, 3 the ASB etc are expected to compile their services from Order One.
11. Individual parishes tend to produce their own booklets or cards containing the permutations they usually use. Quite often, there will be different sets for different seasons. If they produce booklets, it's not unusual for the covers to be colour coded green for ordinary, etc.
12. Whatever anyone else may claim, neither the Roman Canon, nor the Eucharistic Prayers of the Church in Wales, yet alone any other provinces of the Anglican Communion, are authorised for use in the CofE.
By the way, I agree with those who talk about cod Tudor English. Unless you actually spoke it, or really know what you're doing, you're likely to get it wrong. It isn't just a question of shoving in the odd 'thee', 'thou' and 'thinketh', where they sound right. Even the diminishing number of people who still use the second person singular don't necessarily speak with C16 grammar.
Many thanks to @Oblatus, @BabyWombat, @Rossweisse, @Leorning Cniht and @Hookers_Trick. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that things are different in different parts of the US, and as I said, my experience is limited. Where I am (the Southeast), it seems to be fairly common that Rite I is mainly found at the early (7:30 or 8:00) Sunday service, and maybe sometime midweek. Rite II generally seems to be the norm at the “main” Sunday service.
That said, two of the largest parishes around here have 3 or 4 services on Sunday. I checked, and for them, the pattern seems to be early morning=Rite I, mid-morning=Rite II, late morning=Rite I, and in one parish, late afternoon=Rite II.
Just to muddle things further for those not sad enough to have noticed, the Orders of Morning and Evening Prayer for Sundays in modern form are not the same as the Morning and Evening Offices for Sunday in Ordinary Time in Daily Prayer.
CW also has a complete psalter in modern English + Canticles including several additional ones to those in the BCP. They are used quite a lot in contexts where psalms are being said. However, although one would suppose that any prose text could be pointed and chanted, musicians and choirs seem to have stuck entirely to the BCP ones of c1535. I've even heard the erroneous claim that the English of the BCP psalter was written so as to be specially suitable for being chanted to Anglican chant.
Apart from a BCP service, what one is probably more likely to encounter is a Morning and Evening Service of the Word, constructed (one hopes) in accordance with the instructions on pp 21-28. That is designed, for example, to help put together a non-Eucharistic Family Services. However, as the modern language Morning and Evening Orders and the BCP Orders already comply with pp 21-28, this gives the flexibility to provide a Morning or and Evening service 'inspired' by the full provision but sitting more loosely with formal compliance.
Is that any help?
CW Daily Prayer is a much fuller adoption of the shape established in Celebrating Common Prayer.
The CW Psalter and the Canticles too, I believe, have all been pointed for Anglican chant, but I think few places if any have invested in them. They are not cheap, and it is a field in which any two Directors of Music have three of four different opinions about whether any scheme of pointing is (a) any good, or (b) well implemented.
I suppose there probably must be some choral settings of the evening canticles in "contemporary language," but I'm not sure I've heard any. And I have heard the canticles sung in Anglican services in Latin, Church Slavonic, German, and Finnish.
I understand people who prefer Cranmer's prose as it appears in 1549/1662. But unless archaeologists have unearthed some texts by Cranmer for the distinctive services of Holy Week or various blessings and other rites that weren't provided for in Cranmer's prayer books, it's clear that churches that are going to use them will have to either accept the versions in modern English that are available, or 'back-translate' into 'faux-Elizabethan'. It can't be genuine Tudor unless you unearth the nearest Catholic contemporary equivalents and then you might have genuine Tudor Latin. Otherwise you're stuck with the linguistic equivalent of sticking false timber beams on a modern house.
To which the obvious retort is - WTF bother?
(Apollo Gees for Bad Langwidge).
I'd seriously question that: much of the CW psalter is clunky and bears absolutely no relation to any kind of speech pattern or usage one might encounter in day-to-day life. For example, in Psalm 128verses 2-4 the BCP's
For thou shalt eat the labours of thine hands : O well is thee, and happy shalt thou be.
Thy wife shall be as the fruitful vine : upon the walls of thine house.
Thy children like the olive-branches : round about thy table.
is "modernised" into CW's two verse offering
You shall eat the fruit of the toil of your hands; it shall go well with you, and happy shall you be.
Your wife within your house shall be like a fruitful vine; your children round your table, like fresh olive branches.
The CW Nunc dimittis is worse.
And you're right, there are very few settings of the canticles in modern language, similar to the dearth of decent settings of the ordinary in modern language for communion services. Why? Well, after struggling with Series II and III most modern composers of standing gave up trying to (a) compose to a text that had a better than fair chance of being altered/ banned within a few years; and (b) was clunky and didn't lend itself to being set. There is also the fact that the modern clergyperson prefers settings that can be sung by the congregation, which is very limiting.
Which modern clergyperson in particular? It's not usually a question of preference, but possibility. Few churches these days have the resources, or either professional or at least competent singers, to perform elaborate musical settings and so you need simple, singable music for the mass. Unless you simply settle for the boring and liturgically inept practice of speaking the whole of the liturgy and just interposing hymns.
Our cantor makes them up, or adapts them from the RC equivalent, but leads us competently in the set response.
There's a gap in the market here, I think, for the CofE to fill by providing suitable chants to go with the responses. As angloid says, simple, singable, music is what's needed today for the average CofE congregation of 30 or so.....
I didn't know they produced music for CW psalms, but perhaps it's a recent development.
I appreciate that if you're Anglo-Catholic, you're likely to look down your nose at singing psalms in metre, but when it comes to the traditions of the CofE, singing metrical versions has a much longer history than trying to sing prose and singing it badly.
Perhaps a little rough - it's been about 60-70% of my experience in 30+ years of ordained ministry
No hymns should be "interposed": they should fit seamlessly into the liturgy, having been chosen for either containing the words of the text they replace (responsorial Psalm, etc) or to comment/ expand on the reading before or after.
Likewise, anything chosen for the distribution of communion should not be so loud and jarring as to prevent people from prayerful prepartion before receiving or being able to says a private prayer afterwards.
"Worship leader" is up there is my personal gallery of horror-titles, alongside "funeral director" when the person concerned is actually just the undertaker.
A lot of mine too. But where I have had any responsibility in these matters I would give priority to ensuring that things like the Gloria and Sanctus are sung (albeit maybe to metrical hymn-type settings). Other hymns I would put in the 'nice-to-have but not essential' category. I agree that when they are used they are, and should be seen as, an integral part of the liturgy and hence be chosen to reflect not just the theme of the scriptures but their function in the service.
Sorry if this has been addressed upthread, but (even if there is no demand to do so), is there any permitted way to use the Rite I Gloria in a Rite II Liturgy - but with the Thee's and Thou's changed to You's and modern verb endings? I know you can use a Rite I Gloria if it is sung, but that has the old pronouns and verb endings. Also, can you only use the Rite I Gloria if it is sung?
What about doing all of Rite I, but with "You" instead of "Thou" and modern verb endings?
And what using the Prayer for Humble Access and/or a Rite I Eucharistic Prayer in an otherwise Rite II Liturgy - and can you change into "You's" and change the verb endings?
Is there a permitted way to have both a Kyrie and a Gloria on all non-Lent, non-Advent Sundays in a Rite II liturgy?
Not owning a building is part of the ethos of this particular congregation. They met at our church for a few years before moving to the Episcopal church where they now meet.
I know of churches (US Episcopal) that have done this. I believe it is up to the Rector and Vestry and subject to the Bishop's approval.
Jewish Renewal, as I understand it, is not what is usually (if somewhat inaccurately) termed Messianic Judaism. It's more of what happened when progressive Jews became interested in neo-Hassidic practices.
And, as to the issue of shared buildings, stranger things have happened....