Liturgy

[scotsdoc54]

IMO, that's the beauty of low church ANGLICAN services (as opposed to what you called "low church Protestant" (?) services, by which I am guessing you meant the services of other denominations). With the historic BCP, you still have the liturgy, you have ritual, but you do not have sermon-only or human-centered services as in non-liturgical churches. The optional postures and vestments, that some parishes go in for etc. are de-emphasized so that the service is NOT human centered.

I was talking about non-Anglican services, as there are some (including myself) who would argue that Anglicanism is not truly Protestantism in its truest form (but that's another debate). All of the Anglican (Episcopal) churches I have been to celebrate the Eucharist every Sunday. Thus my irritation would only apply to those TEC churches who celebrate only monthly Eucharist (and obviously only those who choose to do that, not those who do it out of necessity). As I said though, however people want to worship is fine with me. Everyone has there own path to God.

I would argue that the postures and vestments are certainly not human centered as you emphasized but are truly God-centered worship. What better way to connect with the Communion of Saints than to worship with the same mannerisms and postures as those of the past. It's worship with the entire body.

 

[Timothy]

Definitely prefer a structured, traditional liturgy. While I definitely feel that people should worship however they feel is the best way to connect with God, I do get a bit irritated sometimes at "low church" Protestant services that I sometimes attend with my friends. Personal opinion, but it seems very human centered when all the focus is on the sermon and not on the Eucharist. But, to each his own I suppose.

Of course, traditional anglicanism wouldn't focus on the Eucharist either. The Anglo-Catholic focus grows out of the Oxford movement in the 18th century. It's not historic Anglicanism as found in the Book of Common Prayer.

 

[scotsdoc54]

Of course, traditional anglicanism wouldn't focus on the Eucharist either. The Anglo-Catholic focus grows out of the Oxford movement in the 18th century. It's not historic Anglicanism as found in the Book of Common Prayer.

That might depend on how far back we go. Are considering historic Anglicanism only that which developed after the institution of the prayer book? Or are we considering it from England's schism with Rome? The Mass was very much alive and well in the earliest years after the schism I believe.

 

[Timothy]

That might depend on how far back we go. Are considering historic Anglicanism only that which developed after the institution of the prayer book? Or are we considering it from England's schism with Rome? The Mass was very much alive and well in the earliest years after the schism I believe.

I'm always amused when people point to something which happened for less than 20 years, if that rather than the history of over three hundred years. 18 years to develop the very protestant liturgy of 1552 which remained in place for over a hundred years is hardly worth considering when compared to a liturgy from 1662 which remained the historic Anglican liturgy and standard liturgy in the Church of England until 1980.

 

[Albion]

I was talking about non-Anglican services, as there are some (including myself) who would argue that Anglicanism is not truly Protestantism in its truest form (but that's another debate).

That's what I thought you had in mind, and the only reason I paused was not because of the use of the word Protestant, but because of the use of the term "low church." In my experience, "high church" and "low church" are not normally used with reference to Baptists, Pentecostals, etc. who have no liturgical services.

I would argue that the postures and vestments are certainly not human centered as you emphasized but are truly God-centered worship. What better way to connect with the Communion of Saints than to worship with the same mannerisms and postures as those of the past. It's worship with the entire body.

As you said, this is all very personal. However, I would side with those who feel that elaborate posturing and the wearing of excessive vestments puts the focus on the officiant and makes his actions (and those of the acolytes) a "show" that detracts from the prayers, petitions, and, to be sure, the Lord's Supper. None of it is required by the rubrics, as I'm sure you know. Still, I appreciate that reasonable people can have differening views of the matter, which is why some parishes are one way and others the opposite.

 

[ebia]

There are certainly some terrible language constructions in some of them. I have been told that the Canadian BCP was framed by poets - which makes me less confused about the lack of popular Canadian poetry.

Some of the Prayer Praise and Proclamation stuff in APBA makes me cringe on that score. It's just so un-poetic.

Mind you, the RCC daily offices are awful on that score too.

 

[ebia]

I was talking about non-Anglican services, as there are some (including myself) who would argue that Anglicanism is not truly Protestantism in its truest form (but that's another debate). All of the Anglican (Episcopal) churches I have been to celebrate the Eucharist every Sunday. Thus my irritation would only apply to those TEC churches who celebrate only monthly Eucharist (and obviously only those who choose to do that, not those who do it out of necessity).

We fall half way - we celebrate the Eucharist every other sunday (and every wed FWIW).

I would argue that the postures and vestments are certainly not human centered as you emphasized but are truly God-centered worship. What better way to connect with the Communion of Saints than to worship with the same mannerisms and postures as those of the past. It's worship with the entire body.

IMO either form can become human centred and either form can be God centred. We all tend to put the best spin on "our" form and the worst spin on the other.

 

[Yardstick]

I'm always amused when people point to something which happened for less than 20 years, if that rather than the history of over three hundred years. 18 years to develop the very protestant liturgy of 1552 which remained in place for over a hundred years is hardly worth considering when compared to a liturgy from 1662 which remained the historic Anglican liturgy and standard liturgy in the Church of England until 1980.

Either way, Anglicanism came out of the Roman Catholic Church which certainly did not worship in a protestant liturgy. So at the end of the day it is accurate to refer to a high church liturgy as the historical form of worship.

 

[Timothy]

Either way, Anglicanism came out of the Roman Catholic Church which certainly did not worship in a protestant liturgy. So at the end of the day it is accurate to refer to a high church liturgy as the historical form of worship.

Only if you believe Catholicism to be correct. You're an Anglican. Therefore you don't.

 

[Yardstick]

Because I'm an Anglican doesn't mean that I believe the RCC has an incorrect form of liturgy or that they worship incorrectly.

My disagreements with the RCC have much more to do with politics, and a portion of theology.

Either way that's irrelevant when discussing what is a historical mode of worship.

 

[Albion]

Either way, Anglicanism came out of the Roman Catholic Church which certainly did not worship in a protestant liturgy. So at the end of the day it is accurate to refer to a high church liturgy as the historical form of worship.

Not exactly. While you have a valid point about the Church of England having "come out of" the Medieval Church, it's also valid to point out that the affectations and liturgical excesses that were characteristic of the high and late Medieval (i.e. Roman Catholic) church, were NOT always the style of worship.

Much of the liturgical changes that came during the Reformation amounted to going back to an even more genuine--or "historical"-- way of worship that was earlier (is that more historical, then?) than that of the Middle Ages.

Even the Roman Cathoic Church has acknowledged this in its liturgical reforms of the 1960s which adopted many of the Protestant changes--without crediting the Protestants, of course, but because this was the worship style of the Early Church!

 

[AngCath]

Even the Roman Cathoic Church has acknowledged this in its liturgical reforms of the 1960s which adopted many of the Protestant changes--without crediting the Protestants, of course, but because this was the worship style of the Early Church!

The 1979 BCP made similar changes - yet it gets slammed for not being "traditional."

 

[Albion]

The 1979 BCP made similar changes - yet it gets slammed for not being "traditional."

I think that's inaccurate to say, Dunstan. The criticisms of the 1979 changes were overwhelmingly these: that it

1) changed its theology,
2) became something other than "Common" Prayer thanks to the many different rites, settings, and alternative prayers provided, and
3) oversimplified the language so that it lost much of its renowed power and elegance.

In other words, it's not for returning to the style of an earlier period in Church history that the 1979 book was and is criticicized.

It is ironic that those who feel that the more ceremony you can jam into a service the more awe-inspiring or devout the worship thereby becomes, yet they defend with equal enthusiasm the use of matter-of-fact or prosaic language when doing it.

 

[AngCath]

I think that's inaccurate to say, Dunstan. The criticisms of the 1979 changes were overwhelmingly these: that it

1) changed its theology,
2) became something other than "Common" Prayer thanks to the many different rites, settings, and alternative prayers provided, and
3) oversimplified the language so that it lost much of its renowed power and elegance.

In other words, it's not for returning to the style of an earlier period in Church history that the 1979 book was and is criticicized.

It is ironic that those who feel that the more ceremony you can jam into a service the more awe-inspiring or devout the worship thereby becomes, yet they defend with equal enthusiasm the use of matter-of-fact or prosaic language when doing it.

1. It changed it's theology, as you say, in light of the Liturgical Movement which was an effort to restore worship in the vain of the early church. This meant restoring the Holy Eucharist as the principle service of the church, altering initiation by restoring the primacy of Baptism (with major progress to a truly unified rite as existed in the Early Church and retained in the East), further restored prayers for the departed, use of oils, and altered the calendar to emphasize the Easter season (the great 50 days).

2. The charge that the quality of 'commonness' was undermined is convenient, though ignores that by even the beginning of the 20th century liturgists (such as Percy Dearmer) were already charting the evolution of prayer book liturgies around the world and noting that sameness is not the same as commonness (note also the words of Article 34 of the Articles of Religion please).

3. You are aware that not only is a Rite I provided, but that the rubrics on p. 14 of the BCP allow that "the contemporary idiom may be conformed to traditional language" in the rest of the book?

If your final charge is directed at me, please be specific. Otherwise, I say it has no place in responding to me.

 

[Albion]

1. It changed it's theology, as you say, in light of the Liturgical Movement which was an effort to restore worship in the vain of the early church. This meant restoring the Holy Eucharist as the principle service of the church, altering initiation by restoring the primacy of Baptism (with major progress to a truly unified rite as existed in the Early Church and retained in the East), further restored prayers for the departed, use of oils, and altered the calendar to emphasize the Easter season (the great 50 days).

I don't know that I'd even call such changes "theological," Dunstan. I suppose the word is sufficiently broad that anything that deals with God--which the position of the altar could, I guess, be said to be--is "theological." What I was referring to, however, was not about the so-called Liturgical Renewal Movement, but actual changes in doctrine. That's what the critics charged, that beliefs concerning the ministry and the atonement, etc. were altered. And, BTW, there is nothing in either the historic BCP or in the 1979 book that instructs anyone on which Sundays are to see a service of Holy Communion. I say that because I think part of your response here doesn't deal with the BCP at all, but of the mood of the times that possibly played some part in the desire to have a new edition.

2. The charge that the quality of 'commonness' was undermined is convenient, though ignores that by even the beginning of the 20th century liturgists (such as Percy Dearmer) were already charting the evolution of prayer book liturgies around the world and noting that sameness is not the same as commonness (note also the words of Article 34 of the Articles of Religion please).

I don't see how that has anything to do with the reality of the change. The changes are whatever they are. The historic books, 1549-1928, had few settings and only one appointed service for Holy Communion. The new one broke ground by having two rites and a number of different choices for parts of the service within each.

These are the real criticisms made by the critics of the 1979 book, whether or not anyone else sympathizes with them. I offer them only to correct the charge that the 1979 book is "slammed" siimply because it's a new edition.

 

[scotsdoc54]

I'm always amused when people point to something which happened for less than 20 years, if that rather than the history of over three hundred years. 18 years to develop the very protestant liturgy of 1552 which remained in place for over a hundred years is hardly worth considering when compared to a liturgy from 1662 which remained the historic Anglican liturgy and standard liturgy in the Church of England until 1980.

And I'm amused when people choose to forget that Anglicanism has always had a party that maintained the Catholic identity of the Church of England and its associates. While people like Cranmer did try to do away with things like icons, etc., he also maintained a belief in the centrality of the Eucharist. In the midst of the CoE's infatuation with deism and the rise of 18th century rationalism, you're right. Many parishes transitioned to infrequent communion, low-church liturgy, etc. Yet there were also CoE parishes across the land that reverently celebrated the Eucharist every week and followed the form of the traditional liturgy. People like Thomas Ken and John Wesley (yeah, that evangelical guy) continued to follow the high sacramental theology that came along with the traditional liturgy.

Also, it could easily be argued that the definition of "traditional" liturgy need not begin with the English Reformation. The CoE has a history much longer than that - to the 6th century. And I promise, the liturgy of that time was much more like the one celebrated today than that of the low-church services celebrated in the past.

 

[scotsdoc54]

That's what I thought you had in mind, and the only reason I paused was not because of the use of the word Protestant, but because of the use of the term "low church." In my experience, "high church" and "low church" are not normally used with reference to Baptists, Pentecostals, etc. who have no liturgical services.


As you said, this is all very personal. However, I would side with those who feel that elaborate posturing and the wearing of excessive vestments puts the focus on the officiant and makes his actions (and those of the acolytes) a "show" that detracts from the prayers, petitions, and, to be sure, the Lord's Supper. None of it is required by the rubrics, as I'm sure you know. Still, I appreciate that reasonable people can have differening views of the matter, which is why some parishes are one way and others the opposite.

I've heard the word low church and high church used to describe Lutheran churches as well, so that's why I used it. They are certainly the original Protestants.

I agree, it's all very personal. Again, I think anything is capable of abuse. The rejection of "posturing" to prove that one is not human-centered is honestly just as human-centered as the opposite end. We're focused on what we're doing as important rather than worshipping. So there's danger in any extreme.

I also agree about appreciating different opinions. Don't we do that best as Anglicans?

 

[Healed_IHS]

Myself, I prefer a quiet, contemplative service with a'capella singing. I would love if the Fr. said "During the passing of the peace extend your welcome to your immediate neighbor". This would cut down the amount of bustling going on and provide more time to prepare for the eucharist.

To be honest, a service modeled on the quaker concept would work for me, plenty of time to just sit in God's presence.

 

[Albion]

I've heard the word low church and high church used to describe Lutheran churches as well, so that's why I used it. They are certainly the original Protestants.

Sure. There are some other churches that occasionally have those terms used in connection with them. Lutherans would be the most likely. I've even heard it used--very rarely--about Presbyterian churches. But you said, "I do get a bit irritated sometimes at "low church" Protestant services." Am I wrong to think that the word Lutheran doesn't appear there and that you might have been referring to Protestant churches generally? I don't think so, but I'll spare you the emoticon.

 

[Albion]

Myself, I prefer a quiet, contemplative service with a'capella singing. I would love if the Fr. said "During the passing of the peace extend your welcome to your immediate neighbor". This would cut down the amount of bustling going on and provide more time to prepare for the eucharist.

To be honest, a service modeled on the quaker concept would work for me, plenty of time to just sit in God's presence.

Although I love the BCP, I have a lot of empathy for those feelings. I also wonder why other people can't appreciate them.