liturgical variations from parish to parish

[archer75]

Hi Friends,

I was wondering if anyone could recommend any interesting reading about the liturgical variations that are found from parish to parish. I know some places are known for standing out in certain ways with traditions under certain rectors, and I'd like to learn more about this, but am not even sure what questions to ask. If anyone can point me to anything, I'd be grateful.

Thank you all.

 

[Paidiske]

Hi hengest,

I'm not sure what I'd recommend that you read, to be honest. I can think of works which talk about big trends (evangelicalism, the Oxford movement etc) but in terms of what happens to make one parish different from its neighbour, that's largely going to be related to very local history.

I suspect chatting in here or with other Anglicans, to learn what they know about their own local environments, might be more helpful? Is there something in particular you're curious about that might be a good starting point?

 

[archer75]

Well, I meant more the local stuff. Thanks for the reply, by the way. I'm afraid I don't even know enough to know WHAT to ask about. Maybe if anyone...knows of a page that describes some stuff at their parish? To get the talk started? Or just for me to read...sorry I don't even really know how to formulate the question!

 

[Paidiske]

Okay, so... here's my parish: http://stfaiths.org/ (we know we need to update the website, by the way; that's a work in progress!) Under the "Welcoming You" tab there's some information drafted to be useful to the first time visitor who wants to know a bit about our liturgy. Maybe we could start there?

 

[archer75]

Very cool, thanks!

I'll ask a few questions, and if you feel like fielding any, cool!

Are you limited in what you can use in public worship? Could you set up a variant of the Sarum Rite for special occasions (or do you)?

How aware is the average parishioner of the various liturgical "details"?

 

[Paidiske]

We are limited in some ways but not others. Generally speaking, we need to use rites authorised for use in Australia; so Sarum rite (which is not authorised here) would not be okay. (I've asked permission to use an overseas rite and had it declined, and I gather that's not unusual).

But with the rites we have, have a lot of options and some flexibility built in. So, for example, I can get quite creative and do all sorts of things at the intercessions; because the rubric just says something like "intercessions are offered according to local custom and need."

And there are lots of things about which there are no real rules. So when it comes to things like choice of vestments, use of incense, decorations in the building, and so forth; as long as you're not doing stuff that makes people complain, you can do pretty much whatever you like, none of it is mandated.

Your last question is interesting and speaks more to the kind of local specifics you were originally asking about. In your average parish, the average parishioner is probably not terribly clued in to all the details. But where I am now, the average parishioner is very clued in. So, for example, soon after I got here, I moved the position of the Lord's prayer, from immediately before receiving communion, to immediately after (both are valid options in the rite). And I had several discussions with cluey parishioners who, not only had noticed, but wanted to discuss the different options and why I had made the choice I did.

But the thing is, there is a history here of having some parish priests who were quite accomplished liturgists, involved in drafting new liturgies for the national church, and so forth; and who used the parish as "testing grounds" for new liturgies in development. So this parish has had a much richer experience, and some very good teachers, and is much more engaged in the liturgy as a participatory experience than many places I've been in.

I actually appreciate that; I'd rather have people switched on and engaged, and who care about what we do, than people who are just along for the ride while I drive. But it means if I do something, I'd better be able to explain my good reasons for it!

 

[archer75]

Okay, great post. Thanks for taking the time to explain all that. That's exactly the sort of thing I wanted to ask about.

In the American BCP, we have Rites One and Two - what's the story in Australian usage with "traditional" liturgical English?

By the way, nice avatar.

 

[Paidiske]

In the current prayer book, for Holy Communion, we have four "orders."

First order is basically 1662 in updated English.

Second order is much more of a liturgical-renewal-movement-ecumenical-consensus rite in shape and feel, with various options for great thanksgivings, proper prefaces etc.

Third order is a bit more simplified and (I suspect) intended to be more seeker-friendly (but still quite sound).

The last one (not in the same part of the prayer book, but almost hidden up the back, as if they don't want you to use it very much!) is an "outline order" which isn't meant to be used at your main service, but (for example) might be used for an informal setting or small service at another time, and basically just tells you "Put together a service as you like, and it must have these elements in it."

Of course we can still use 1662, and some parishes do still do that, at least occasionally. I find it almost unusable now; the language is so dated that someone walking in who had never been to church would have no hope at all.

(Oh, thanks about the avatar. I decided it was time for something fresh...)

 

[archer75]

That's so cool! Thank you! I have to look up your prayerbook...this is your BCP?

 

[Paidiske]

A Prayer Book for Australia: https://www.amazon.com/Prayer-Book-...8&sr=1-1&keywords=A+Prayer+Book+for+Australia

To the best of my knowledge, it's not available in an electronic format. Sorry!

 

[everbecoming2007]

In the current prayer book, for Holy Communion, we have four "orders."

First order is basically 1662 in updated English.

Second order is much more of a liturgical-renewal-movement-ecumenical-consensus rite in shape and feel, with various options for great thanksgivings, proper prefaces etc.

Third order is a bit more simplified and (I suspect) intended to be more seeker-friendly (but still quite sound).

The last one (not in the same part of the prayer book, but almost hidden up the back, as if they don't want you to use it very much!) is an "outline order" which isn't meant to be used at your main service, but (for example) might be used for an informal setting or small service at another time, and basically just tells you "Put together a service as you like, and it must have these elements in it."

Of course we can still use 1662, and some parishes do still do that, at least occasionally. I find it almost unusable now; the language is so dated that someone walking in who had never been to church would have no hope at all.

(Oh, thanks about the avatar. I decided it was time for something fresh...)

Very good explanation. Some things do depend a lot on the rector. My deacon told me that at one time years ago our parish was quite low church. Our 1928 is still low. I am thinking the images were always there: some of the windows date to the 1800s. Others are carved into the pulpit and alter. But I think it was the previous rector which we had for many years who introduced crucifixes, other images, and other high church and Anglo-Catholic ceremonial in the main service. These elements have been part of the parish culture so long now that most of it has remained under our new rector who is not very high church.

Some elements have changed with our new priest. 1928 services are no longer ad orientem (because of Vatican II: odd reasoning), nor are All Souls Day services ad orientem in the main right any longer. And I miss how we used to chant the names of our departed going back to the 1800s in that service. The new priest usually wants to baptize people on that day. I am not sure why.

 

[archer75]

Very good explanation. Some things do depend a lot on the rector. My deacon told me that at one time years ago our parish was quite low church. Our 1928 is still low. I am thinking the images were always there: some of the windows date to the 1800s. Others are carved into the pulpit and alter. But I think it was the previous rector which we had for many years who introduced crucifixes, other images, and other high church and Anglo-Catholic ceremonial in the main service. These elements have been part of the parish culture so long now that most of it has remained under our new rector who is not very high church.

Some elements have changed with our new priest. 1928 services are no longer ad orientem (because of Vatican II: odd reasoning), nor are All Souls Day services ad orientem in the main right any longer. And I miss how we used to chant the names of our departed going back to the 1800s in that service. The new priest usually wants to baptize people on that day. I am not sure why.

You used to chant the names of your departed...going back to the 19th century? That's really cool.

Sorry, what did you mean by "Our 1928 is still low?"

 

[Deegie]

The new priest usually wants to baptize people on that day. I am not sure why.

So saith the BCP:

Holy Baptism is especially appropriate at the Easter Vigil, on the Day of Pentecost, on All Saints' Day or the Sunday after All Saints' Day, and on the Feast of the Baptism of our Lord (the First Sunday
after the Epiphany). It is recommended that, as far as possible, Baptisms be reserved for these occasions or when a bishop is present.

All Saints and All Souls generally get lumped together.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

We have liturgical variation from service to service.

 

[everbecoming2007]

You used to chant the names of your departed...going back to the 19th century? That's really cool.

Sorry, what did you mean by "Our 1928 is still low?"

The 1928 liturgy is low church -- there is not much ceremonial. It is still a beautiful liturgy in my opinion.

 

[everbecoming2007]

So saith the BCP:

Holy Baptism is especially appropriate at the Easter Vigil, on the Day of Pentecost, on All Saints' Day or the Sunday after All Saints' Day, and on the Feast of the Baptism of our Lord (the First Sunday
after the Epiphany). It is recommended that, as far as possible, Baptisms be reserved for these occasions or when a bishop is present.

All Saints and All Souls generally get lumped together.

I did not realize that -- interesting.

I think we lump the two together. Are they even distinct in the prayer book? Will have to check that out.

 

[Deegie]

I think we lump the two together. Are they even distinct in the prayer book? Will have to check that out.

Speaking for the 1979 American BCP, All Saints is a Principle Feast set on November 1st. I don't believe All Souls (of the Commemoration of All Faithful Departed) exists in that prayer book. But by long-standing tradition, it is fixed on November 2nd. I think the Reformation tried to get rid of having two separate observances, but they are coming back into fashion again.

 

[Paidiske]

In Australia All Souls' is considered a minor feast and in fact many churches - especially the more evangelical ones - wouldn't observe it at all.

The lectionary sets different readings for the two, but in my experience most churches that do keep All Souls' (except perhaps those which have a daily Eucharist) lump them together. I suspect because it would be felt too awkward to celebrate them a week apart, and there is a desire to observe them both in some way.

 

[Shane R]

(except perhaps those which have a daily Eucharist)

Just curious: how common is the daily Eucharist in Australia? Here in the States, it is typically only seen in very Anglo-Catholic parishes of large size. Even the near-by ACC church (more Catholic than Rome under the current rector) only holds the Mass twice a week.

 

[Paidiske]

Just curious: how common is the daily Eucharist in Australia?

In my diocese, at least, not very. There's a daily Eucharist in the Cathedral, and the chapel of one of our theological colleges, too, at least during semester. I could probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of parishes which would have it.

Daily morning prayer would be more common.

But I suspect in more uniformly catholic dioceses there might be higher rate? @gordonhooker and @Philip_B might have more of an idea of their dioceses.