Blogs on the Liturgy and Church Year

I just came across these blogs on the liturgy and the church year. It is done from a Lutheran perspective, but I think they are enlightening for others too.

Comments

  • I enjoy https://www.praytellblog.com/
    Although it is RC based there are contributions from other backgrounds.
  • Alan29 wrote: »
    I enjoy https://www.praytellblog.com/
    Although it is RC based there are contributions from other backgrounds.
    You beat me to it. I’m a big fan of praytell.

    Adding to the Lutheran perspective, I really like Pastor Paul Bosch’s Worship Workbench.

    Going to the Anglican perspective, and expanding to podcasts, there’s All Things Rite and Musical, which I really enjoy.

    Unfortunately, I haven’t yet discovered a good blog on liturgy from a Presbyterian perspective. Pity.

  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Unfortunately, I haven’t yet discovered a good blog on liturgy from a Presbyterian perspective. Pity.

    Soooo many jokes springing to mind.

    I have to say, despite living in Darkest Presbyland for over a decade, I don't know much about Presbyterian liturgy and suspect the stuff from Wild Goose, while I find much of value in it, isn't quite what most Presbyterians would consider normative.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Alan29 wrote: »
    I enjoy https://www.praytellblog.com/
    Although it is RC based there are contributions from other backgrounds.
    You beat me to it. I’m a big fan of praytell.

    Adding to the Lutheran perspective, I really like Pastor Paul Bosch’s Worship Workbench.

    Going to the Anglican perspective, and expanding to podcasts, there’s All Things Rite and Musical, which I really enjoy.

    Unfortunately, I haven’t yet discovered a good blog on liturgy from a Presbyterian perspective. Pity.

    Would you think that is because the Reformed movement de-emphasized the catholic mass for some time? I understand there are also a high church and low church approach to worship among Presbyterians, but it seems to me it was not until around 1970 that the Presbyterians came up with a more formal service--this service is not unlike the General Protestant Service authorized by the US military.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Unfortunately, I haven’t yet discovered a good blog on liturgy from a Presbyterian perspective. Pity.

    Soooo many jokes springing to mind.

    I have to say, despite living in Darkest Presbyland for over a decade, I don't know much about Presbyterian liturgy and suspect the stuff from Wild Goose, while I find much of value in it, isn't quite what most Presbyterians would consider normative.
    Oh yes, so many jokes. :lol:

    My sense is that the American Presbyterian liturgical landscape differs from the landscape of our Scottish counterparts. I think comparing the Kirk’s 1994 Common Order to the PC(USA)’s 1993 or 2018 Book of Common Worship bears that out, as might looking at the PC(USA)’s current Directory for Worship. It’s also the sense I get from discussions on the Ship.

    As I said a while back on the “High versus Low” thread:
    I think by the 1980s, American Presbyterianism (in the PC(USA), at least) moved past the liturgical movement of earlier decades and began to settle into comfort with worship that could be described as more liturgical but that at the same time “feels” Presbyterian, if that makes sense.

    Wild Goose stuff is popular here, btw.

  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Alan29 wrote: »
    I enjoy https://www.praytellblog.com/
    Although it is RC based there are contributions from other backgrounds.
    You beat me to it. I’m a big fan of praytell.

    Adding to the Lutheran perspective, I really like Pastor Paul Bosch’s Worship Workbench.

    Going to the Anglican perspective, and expanding to podcasts, there’s All Things Rite and Musical, which I really enjoy.

    Unfortunately, I haven’t yet discovered a good blog on liturgy from a Presbyterian perspective. Pity.

    Would you think that is because the Reformed movement de-emphasized the catholic mass for some time? I understand there are also a high church and low church approach to worship among Presbyterians, but it seems to me it was not until around 1970 that the Presbyterians came up with a more formal service--this service is not unlike the General Protestant Service authorized by the US military.
    If we’re going to get technical, I’d say we still de-emphasize the Catholic Mass. :wink:

    I suspect what you're referring to is that (despite Calvin’s position to the contrary) we de-emphasized frequency of Communion and long expected a service that culminated in the sermon, except the four times a year or so when there was Communion. (But on those infrequent occasions, it was A Big Deal.)

    This probably isn’t the thread to detail the history in, but yes, the beginnings of that change happened between the 1950s and the 1970s. For what it’s worth, I (and others) talked some about that history in this thread. In particular, this post and the one immediately following it may be particularly relevant.

    Meanwhile, and as a short response, @Gramps49, the PC(USA) and its predecessor bodies have had service books for over 100 years. The current order—formally called “The Service for the Lord’s Day”—is pretty much the Presbyterian take on the historic Western liturgy. With some differences, it’s comparable to the Lutheran order found in Evangelical Lutheran Worship, or, for that matter, the order for the Mass.

  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Alan29 wrote: »
    I enjoy https://www.praytellblog.com/
    Although it is RC based there are contributions from other backgrounds.
    You beat me to it. I’m a big fan of praytell.

    Adding to the Lutheran perspective, I really like Pastor Paul Bosch’s Worship Workbench.

    Going to the Anglican perspective, and expanding to podcasts, there’s All Things Rite and Musical, which I really enjoy.

    Unfortunately, I haven’t yet discovered a good blog on liturgy from a Presbyterian perspective. Pity.

    Would you think that is because the Reformed movement de-emphasized the catholic mass for some time? I understand there are also a high church and low church approach to worship among Presbyterians, but it seems to me it was not until around 1970 that the Presbyterians came up with a more formal service--this service is not unlike the General Protestant Service authorized by the US military.
    If we’re going to get technical, I’d say we still de-emphasize the Catholic Mass. :wink:

    I suspect what you're referring to is that (despite Calvin’s position to the contrary) we de-emphasized frequency of Communion and long expected a service that culminated in the sermon, except the four times a year or so when there was Communion. (But on those infrequent occasions, it was A Big Deal.)

    This probably isn’t the thread to detail the history in, but yes, the beginnings of that change happened between the 1950s and the 1970s. For what it’s worth, I (and others) talked some about that history in this thread. In particular, this post and the one immediately following it may be particularly relevant.

    Meanwhile, and as a short response, @Gramps49, the PC(USA) and its predecessor bodies have had service books for over 100 years. The current order—formally called “The Service for the Lord’s Day”—is pretty much the Presbyterian take on the historic Western liturgy. With some differences, it’s comparable to the Lutheran order found in Evangelical Lutheran Worship, or, for that matter, the order for the Mass.

    Going to get technical here, regardless. not I mentioned the "catholic" mass. The word, "catholic" with a small "c" refers to the universal mass. In this case, the Western liturgy, because there is a substantial difference in the Eastern rite. I seldom worship in a a high Presbyterian service around here.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Going to get technical here, regardless. not I mentioned the "catholic" mass. The word, "catholic" with a small "c" refers to the universal mass. In this case, the Western liturgy, because there is a substantial difference in the Eastern rite. I seldom worship in a a high Presbyterian service around here.
    The word ‘mass’ is very widely perceived in Britain as [Roman] Catholic with a large ‘C’, although it is also used by Anglican churches which are in the Catholic tradition within the Church of England.

  • BroJames wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Going to get technical here, regardless. not I mentioned the "catholic" mass. The word, "catholic" with a small "c" refers to the universal mass. In this case, the Western liturgy, because there is a substantial difference in the Eastern rite. I seldom worship in a a high Presbyterian service around here.
    The word ‘mass’ is very widely perceived in Britain as [Roman] Catholic with a large ‘C’, although it is also used by Anglican churches which are in the Catholic tradition within the Church of England.

    It is, unsurprisingly, pretty widespread in the SEC. But even in not consciously catholic environments the "mass setting" is still accepted as a descriptor for a set of music.

    I vaguely recall the old ASB Rite A red booklets equivocating and saying something like "Order of Holy Communion also called The Mass or The Lord's Supper" but I might be misremembering.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Alan29 wrote: »
    I enjoy https://www.praytellblog.com/
    Although it is RC based there are contributions from other backgrounds.
    You beat me to it. I’m a big fan of praytell.

    Adding to the Lutheran perspective, I really like Pastor Paul Bosch’s Worship Workbench.

    Going to the Anglican perspective, and expanding to podcasts, there’s All Things Rite and Musical, which I really enjoy.

    Unfortunately, I haven’t yet discovered a good blog on liturgy from a Presbyterian perspective. Pity.

    Would you think that is because the Reformed movement de-emphasized the catholic mass for some time? I understand there are also a high church and low church approach to worship among Presbyterians, but it seems to me it was not until around 1970 that the Presbyterians came up with a more formal service--this service is not unlike the General Protestant Service authorized by the US military.
    If we’re going to get technical, I’d say we still de-emphasize the Catholic Mass. :wink:

    I suspect what you're referring to is that (despite Calvin’s position to the contrary) we de-emphasized frequency of Communion and long expected a service that culminated in the sermon, except the four times a year or so when there was Communion. (But on those infrequent occasions, it was A Big Deal.)

    This probably isn’t the thread to detail the history in, but yes, the beginnings of that change happened between the 1950s and the 1970s. For what it’s worth, I (and others) talked some about that history in this thread. In particular, this post and the one immediately following it may be particularly relevant.

    Meanwhile, and as a short response, @Gramps49, the PC(USA) and its predecessor bodies have had service books for over 100 years. The current order—formally called “The Service for the Lord’s Day”—is pretty much the Presbyterian take on the historic Western liturgy. With some differences, it’s comparable to the Lutheran order found in Evangelical Lutheran Worship, or, for that matter, the order for the Mass.

    Going to get technical here, regardless. not I mentioned the "catholic" mass. The word, "catholic" with a small "c" refers to the universal mass. In this case, the Western liturgy, because there is a substantial difference in the Eastern rite. I seldom worship in a a high Presbyterian service around here.
    While I take the point about Catholic/catholic, as @BroJames suggests, my point was as much about the word “Mass” as about “catholic.” I know that the Lutherans didn’t consign the word “Mass” to the furthest reaches of the galaxy. The Reformed absolutely did, and it’s simply never used with reference to a service in a Reformed church. There’s still an almost allergic reaction to the word. (As an aside, “altar” is in much the same category.)

    As for a “high Presbyterian service,” as I noted in the “High versus Low” thread, there was a time when “high” with reference to American Presbyterians informally meant something like “reminiscent of what one might expect in an Episcopal church.” But I’m not sure that “high” and “low” really map onto the American Presbyterian landscape the way they do in some other liturgical traditions. Use of “high” and “low” seems to me to be importing categories from other traditions and trying to use them in ways that don’t really track.

    That said, it remains the case for Presbyterians that the use of any particular order is voluntary. What is essentially the basic Western liturgy is the pattern commended—but not commanded—in the Directory for Worship (which is part of our Book of Order, our equivalent of canon law) and in our liturgical books, and is very much the norm where I am. It’s pretty much all I’ve encountered since the early 1980s. But I do have the sense that in some parts of the country, older orders might still hold some sway. That may be the case where you are.

    But we wouldn’t describe those older orders as “low,” or following the pattern commended in the Directory for Worship and the Book of Common Worship as “high.”

    Hope that makes some sense.

  • Thank you, Nick. I tend to agree with what you are saying. Maybe you should approach a Presbyterian Dr of Worship and casually suggest publishing a similar blog for your denomination.

    Curious thing about the word Mass, it is not directly referring to the eucharist, or the Lord's Supper, but rather the dismissal from the service, the "Go in peace, serve the Lord" part. If your preacher, celebrant, liturgist, worship leader uses that or a similar term, you know where it comes from.
  • Indeed it is from a slightly strange Latin phrase 'Ite,missa est' where 'ite' means 'go'
    and the rest can be interpreted as 'you are dismissed' or as is indicated in the English translation 'Go, and announce the Gospel of the Lord' the 'missa est' can remind us that now we have heard the word of God and tasted the things of Heaven to go on our 'mission' to bring the Word of God to others.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    From the Reformation until the late nineteenth century, the term 'Mass' was regarded in the CofE as exclusively Roman Catholic, in the language of those times 'papist'. Using it is still very much a badge of self-identification as being both Anglo-Catholic and a bit spiky. The normal terms are Holy Communion, Communion or in the last sixty years or so Eucharist.

    On the other hand, despite the Reformation, 'altar' has remained the normal term with using any other term, such as Holy Table as one's normal word being likewise a party badge.

    I've heard somewhere that upper class Roman Catholics pronounce 'Mass' with a long 'a'.

  • Lutherans in Germany used the term "Mass" for their Divine Services even after the Reformation. Lutherans in America got away from it for a while, probably because of American Protestantism which accused us of being "too Catholic". Heck, we got rid of thee alb and chasable as well. There is an old Missouri Synod story that when the Anglo Saxons sailed from Germany they were in three boats. One of the boats had all the high church things in it. It was lost at sea.

    However with the liturgical renewal in the 70s the term began to be used again in American Lutheranism.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Curious thing about the word Mass, it is not directly referring to the eucharist, or the Lord's Supper, but rather the dismissal from the service, the "Go in peace, serve the Lord" part. If your preacher, celebrant, liturgist, worship leader uses that or a similar term, you know where it comes from.
    Forthview wrote: »
    Indeed it is from a slightly strange Latin phrase 'Ite,missa est' where 'ite' means 'go'
    and the rest can be interpreted as 'you are dismissed' or as is indicated in the English translation 'Go, and announce the Gospel of the Lord' the 'missa est' can remind us that now we have heard the word of God and tasted the things of Heaven to go on our 'mission' to bring the Word of God to others.
    Yes, “Mass” comes from the same root as “mission.” The Mass is, in effect, that from which we are sent. That understanding is why I regret that the term became ”unspeakable” in the Reformed tradition.
    But undoing that is way beyond my ability.

  • For @Nick Tamen

    But there is this institute, this magazine and this society in darkest Presbyterian-shire which according to one member is probably the oldest society for the study of liturgy in the world. Other more local include this offering from the URC

    OK I think I have done enough to convince people that there is more out there then people would initially guess.

    Oh other obscure fact Soietas Liturgica was founded by a Dutch Reformed Pastor.
  • Jengie Jon wrote: »
    For @Nick Tamen

    But there is this institute, this magazine and this society in darkest Presbyterian-shire which according to one member is probably the oldest society for the study of liturgy in the world. Other more local include this offering from the URC
    Ah yes. Thanks, @Jengie Jon. I am familiar with those and visit them often, except for the URC site. I’m glad to know about it!

    I should have been a little clearer in my post above. When I said “I haven’t yet discovered a good blog on liturgy from a Presbyterian perspective,” I was thinking of a blog in the strict sense rather than a website or online magazine with articles (like the Calvin Institute or Reformed Worship, though Reformed Worship does have a blog page with various contributors), and I was also thinking specifically PC(USA) rather than broadly Reformed or even broadly Presbyterian. But I realize that other shipmates would have to be mind-readers to know from what I said that that was what I was thinking.

  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Lutherans in Germany used the term "Mass" for their Divine Services even after the Reformation. Lutherans in America got away from it for a while, probably because of American Protestantism which accused us of being "too Catholic". Heck, we got rid of thee alb and chasable as well. There is an old Missouri Synod story that when the Anglo Saxons sailed from Germany they were in three boats. One of the boats had all the high church things in it. It was lost at sea.

    However with the liturgical renewal in the 70s the term began to be used again in American Lutheranism.

    During my two years as a member of the Lutheran Church in America (LCA) in the early 1980s, the pastors of my local church were of the LCA wing that wanted the name of the eventual combined LCA-ALC-AELC church (now the ELCA) to be "The Evangelical Catholic Church." They didn't have a habit of using the term "Mass" but were OK with it.
  • I dont think German Lutherans use the term Messe any more.
  • Enoch wrote: »
    From the Reformation until the late nineteenth century, the term 'Mass' was regarded in the CofE as exclusively Roman Catholic, in the language of those times 'papist'. Using it is still very much a badge of self-identification as being both Anglo-Catholic and a bit spiky. The normal terms are Holy Communion, Communion or in the last sixty years or so Eucharist.

    On the other hand, despite the Reformation, 'altar' has remained the normal term with using any other term, such as Holy Table as one's normal word being likewise a party badge.

    I've heard somewhere that upper class Roman Catholics pronounce 'Mass' with a long 'a'.

    Nope that’s the Irish. First heard that pronunciation in Singapore circa 1960 from the Good Shepherd Sisters ( almost all Irish) wot taught me. They certainly weren’t “upper class”!

    I have not heard that pronunciation among the posh English Catholics ( Brideshead wannabees) who frequent such shacks as the London Oratory and St James Spanish Place.



  • Lutherans in Germany do not normally use the word 'Mass' or 'Messe' for the eucharist,although there may be a few who do. The usual expression is 'Abendmahl' (evening supper).
    However Luther was keen on auricular confession and a number of Lutheran churches in Saxony will still have confessionals,although once again they are not normally used.
    As perhaps at one time happened in CofE churches Abendmahl is or was often tacked on at the end of a normal morning service.
    My experience of Lutheran churches was however mainly in Austria where the Lutheran churches described themselves as AB/HB (Augsburger Bekenntnis/Helvetisches Bekenntnis) which I take to be Lutheran and Calvinist.
  • Is it possible,Gramps,that you are thinking of Scandinavian Lutherans who generally use the word Mass for their divine service ? -not sure if my spelling is correct but the form used is Hoogmis (High Mass). Certainly in many churches the chasuble is worn,often in the preReformation 'fiddleback' form
  • Pedant note 'chasuble' comes from 'casula' (little house) referring to the allcovering garment. The 'c' became 'ch' and the 'b' was added as the word passed through French into English.
  • I am told Lutherans in the Northern part of Germany would use the term "Masse." In Southern Germany, not so much. Usually Divine (Gottlicher) Service. Lutheran Reformers stated they had not changed the mass in Article XXIV of the Augsburg Confession.
  • Gottesdienst?
    Pardon any unintended spelling atrocity.
  • I looked up the list of Hamburger Hauptkirchen (main churches in Hamburg)

    St Petri Sunday at 10.00 Abendmahlsgottesdienst (Communion service)
    Wed. at 18.30 Mittwochsmesse (Wednesday Mass)
    St Nikolai Sunday at 10.00 Hauptgottesdienst (main divine service)
    St Katharinen Sunday at 11.00 Hauptgottesdienst mit Abendmahl (main divine service with Communion)
    St Michaelis Sunday at 10.00 Evangelische Messe (Protestant Mass)

    So indeed two of these main Lutheran churches use the word 'Mass' (in German,of course)
    one for a midweek service and the other St Michaelis which is possibly the best known church in Hamburg uses the word 'Mass' for the main Sunday service.
  • At the same time Hamburg's Catholic cathedral uses the following terms

    Sat. 18.15 Vorabendsmesse (Vigil Mass)
    Sun.8.30 Fruehmesse (Early Mass)
    Sun.10.00 Hochamt (Principal Mass)
    Sun.1815 Abendmesse (Evening Mass)
  • And just to finish with-Berliner Dom (Lutheran Cathedral in Berlin)

    Sun. 10.00 Abendmahlgottesdienst (Communion service)
    Sun. 18.30 Predigtgottesdienst (Preaching service)
    mit Abendmahl einmal im Monat (with Communion once a month)
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Forthview wrote: »
    Pedant note 'chasuble' comes from 'casula' (little house) referring to the allcovering garment. The 'c' became 'ch' and the 'b' was added as the word passed through French into English.

    And still banned in Sydney, with no sign of possible change.
  • And strangely enough, also banned in the Church of Ireland - despite that being a much more progressive church than Sydney (one of the first Anglican churches to ordain women for instance). The Church of Ireland covers the Republic of Ireland and also Northern Ireland, so perhaps that's why?

    I will offer a slight correction to Enoch and point out that there are Anglicans in England who strictly insist on using 'communion table' rather than 'altar'. They also generally prefer 'Lord's Supper' or the Lord's Table' to Holy Communion. They're Reform-aligned Evangelicals and it would not surprise me if this was normal use in Sydney too, @Gee D ?
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    On the occasions we're not at St Sanity (or a similar parish), we've noticed that Lord's Table is used quite a bit, Lord's Supper rather less so.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited November 2022
    In my tribe, “Lord’s Supper” is the term used in “official” contexts, such as the Directory for Worship or the Book of Common Worship. In every day conversation, “Communion” is more common. “Eucharist” can be heard as well.

    Also with us, “Lord’s Supper” and “Lord’s Table” don’t really mean the same thing; the meanings are closely intertwined, but distinct. “Lord’s Supper” refers to the sacrament itself. “Lord’s Table” is used within the context of celebrating the Lord’s Supper as the place of gathering. So in our liturgy, there is normally an “Invitation to the Lord’s Table” (perhaps called the “Invitation to the Table” or just “the Invitation”) prior to the Great Thanksgiving.* We gather at the Lord’s Table to partake of the Lord’s Supper.

    Outside the context of celebrating the sacrament, that piece of furniture is called “the Communion table” or increasingly simply “the table” (sometimes capitalized in writing as “the Table”).


    * For example, the Invitation typically includes language along these lines: “This is the Lord’s table. Our Savior invites those who trust him to share the feast which he has prepared.”

  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Pomona wrote: »
    ... I will offer a slight correction to Enoch and point out that there are Anglicans in England who strictly insist on using 'communion table' rather than 'altar'. They also generally prefer 'Lord's Supper' or the Lord's Table' to Holy Communion. They're Reform-aligned Evangelicals and it would not surprise me if this was normal use in Sydney too, @Gee D ?
    I'm taking that more as confirmation of what I said. In spite of the Reformation, altar has remained the normal word. A standard book, often bound with 1662 prayer books in the eighteenth century was 'a Companion to the Altar'. Consistently using some proddier term just as much a party badge as is using 'mass' as a party term in opposite direction.

  • Apologies @Enoch - I missed the party badge line in your previous post (and I agree). I think 'Holy Table' would be seen as still being a shade too Popish though (the suggestion that mere objects could be holy Is Outrage to said party!), and I've never seen that term used.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Pomona wrote: »
    Apologies @Enoch - I missed the party badge line in your previous post (and I agree). I think 'Holy Table' would be seen as still being a shade too Popish though (the suggestion that mere objects could be holy Is Outrage to said party!), and I've never seen that term used.
    We had someone here who was elderly and low church who used that term!

  • Pomona wrote: »
    And strangely enough, [the chasuble is] also banned in the Church of Ireland - despite that being a much more progressive church than Sydney (one of the first Anglican churches to ordain women for instance). The Church of Ireland covers the Republic of Ireland and also Northern Ireland, so perhaps that's why?

    I'm no expert on the C of I, but if the ban still exists on paper there are several (maybe even many) places where it is disregarded. Any Irish Anglican shipmates willing to confirm that St Finbarre's Cathedral in Cork is one such? I think that hardline protestantism is mainly a Northern Irish phenomenon.

  • angloid wrote: »
    Pomona wrote: »
    And strangely enough, [the chasuble is] also banned in the Church of Ireland - despite that being a much more progressive church than Sydney (one of the first Anglican churches to ordain women for instance). The Church of Ireland covers the Republic of Ireland and also Northern Ireland, so perhaps that's why?

    I'm no expert on the C of I, but if the ban still exists on paper there are several (maybe even many) places where it is disregarded. Any Irish Anglican shipmates willing to confirm that St Finbarre's Cathedral in Cork is one such? I think that hardline protestantism is mainly a Northern Irish phenomenon.

    I have always been under the (probably mistaken) impression that in areas where the RCC was strong, the Anglicans tended to be lower in their worship style. "We aren't like that lot" being the guiding principle.
  • angloid wrote: »
    Pomona wrote: »
    And strangely enough, [the chasuble is] also banned in the Church of Ireland - despite that being a much more progressive church than Sydney (one of the first Anglican churches to ordain women for instance). The Church of Ireland covers the Republic of Ireland and also Northern Ireland, so perhaps that's why?

    I'm no expert on the C of I, but if the ban still exists on paper there are several (maybe even many) places where it is disregarded. Any Irish Anglican shipmates willing to confirm that St Finbarre's Cathedral in Cork is one such? I think that hardline protestantism is mainly a Northern Irish phenomenon.

    Well the C of I is not hardline Protestant in Northern Ireland anyway. I suspect that the reasoning is not to provoke sectarian violence from outside of the church.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Pomona wrote: »
    And strangely enough, also banned in the Church of Ireland - despite that being a much more progressive church than Sydney (one of the first Anglican churches to ordain women for instance). ...
    I'd missed this until @angloid quoted it. What is the connection between wearing, allowing or not allowing a chasuble and being 'progressive'? Is there any connection?

    That question looks much the same irrespective of what one means by 'progressive', which collection of views one puts in that envelope. Is there any reason why they are not two unrelated and unconnected tracks?

  • Generally making a fuss about "Catholic" vestments is indicative of a very conscious Protestantism, bordering on sectarianism, and has the associated social conservatism.
  • Enoch wrote: »
    Pomona wrote: »
    And strangely enough, also banned in the Church of Ireland - despite that being a much more progressive church than Sydney (one of the first Anglican churches to ordain women for instance). ...
    I'd missed this until @angloid quoted it. What is the connection between wearing, allowing or not allowing a chasuble and being 'progressive'? Is there any connection?

    That question looks much the same irrespective of what one means by 'progressive', which collection of views one puts in that envelope. Is there any reason why they are not two unrelated and unconnected tracks?

    There isn't, necessarily. But within the C of E (and wider Anglicanism probably) although more formal liturgical styles can go together with traditionalist theology and political views, it's equally true that many radicals are more at home with a structured liturgy, whereas the sort of evangelicals who go for informal worship are often highly conservative in their beliefs. There's probably a PhD thesis in exploring why this is. Maybe someone has already done one.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Generally making a fuss about "Catholic" vestments is indicative of a very conscious Protestantism, bordering on sectarianism, and has the associated social conservatism.
    Yebbut. Making a fuss about "Catholic" vestments is equally indicative of a very conscious Anglo-Catholicism. Being obsessive about vestments either way is a mark of being obsessed about that which is tertiary, not even secondary, to the faith.

  • Enoch wrote: »
    Generally making a fuss about "Catholic" vestments is indicative of a very conscious Protestantism, bordering on sectarianism, and has the associated social conservatism.
    Yebbut. Making a fuss about "Catholic" vestments is equally indicative of a very conscious Anglo-Catholicism. Being obsessive about vestments either way is a mark of being obsessed about that which is tertiary, not even secondary, to the faith.

    Yebbut again. In a Roman Catholic context, for example, the Mass is the Mass no matter what the priest wears, and those who make a fuss about the 'proper' vestments are eccentric indeed. In an Anglican context, perhaps particularly so in Northern Ireland and in the diocese of Sydney, the 'fuss', both from the 'protestant' side and the 'catholic' side, exists because one side denies that Anglican priests can or do offer the Mass, and the other side believes that they can and should. The fuss isn't about what they wear, as such, but because that symbolises deeply held beliefs. That's why priests in the 19th century went to prison: not over trivia but the meaning of their calling.
Sign In or Register to comment.