Modern Catholic
Gamma Gamaliel
Shipmate
In the Mystery Worship report on St Anne's Soho, there's a reference to 'modern catholic' worship style.
I think I know what this means but in the excellent report itself the impression is a somewhat 'apophatic' one - defined by what isn't there - no incense, no procession - rather than what is.
How do we define or recognise 'modern catholic' worship?
How does it differ from middle-ground broad church Anglican worship?
What are the features of it in an RC context, apart from Latin-American style stoles etc? 😉
I think I know what this means but in the excellent report itself the impression is a somewhat 'apophatic' one - defined by what isn't there - no incense, no procession - rather than what is.
How do we define or recognise 'modern catholic' worship?
How does it differ from middle-ground broad church Anglican worship?
What are the features of it in an RC context, apart from Latin-American style stoles etc? 😉
Comments
Sounds like mainstream middle-of-the-road Anglican
Except that women are barred from the sacramental priesthood, but yes, very familiar to me from local Masses.
Sounds like most Catholic services here, on Sundays and saints' days, as well as the remainder of the week. You'll find a few people will only take the Host, though, and not the Cup.
This is convergence is the result of the scholarly studies into the sources of western liturgy that happened in the 20th century. It was almost inevitable.
Good question, and difficult to answer from the perspective of the external appearance of the liturgy. But there is an indefinable subtlety which depends on the presuppositions of the clergy and laity of each particular community. I would suggest that a 'modern catholic' Anglican service would be the liturgical expression of a belief that the church is most truly the church when it meets as a eucharistic community, and that individual preferences of style and even content do not take precedence over the traditions of the wider church. Some more ultramontane Anglicans might define the latter more strictly as the rubrics of the contemporary RC church, but most would be happy to accept Anglican tradition as part of the mainstream.
'Middle of the road' worship used be be recognisable as something like surplice and stole at an early communion, and formal Mattins with scarf and hood at the main service. Since the Parish Communion movement of the mid-20th century (itself part of the ecumenical liturgical movement), the style of most churches has evolved into something superficially similar to 'modern catholic'. Most cathedrals now fall into that category.
Many churches are now feeling the need for so-called 'fresh expressions' of worship which will very often not include the Eucharist. Maybe a 'modern catholic' church would be very reluctant to see these as a substitute for the weekly meeting 'of the Lord's people at the Lord's table'; whereas a more liberal or MoTR one would be happier to see them as part of a varied diet of worship. That is a different issue from the one, common in rural churches, where the shortage of priests makes it impossible to offer the Eucharist each week.
I've attended a few Jesuit led Masses that felt almost 'Anglican' to me. Protestant hymns. A sermon that wouldn't sound out of place anywhere. Just a few clues here and there that it was a Roman Catholic service.
I 'get' the ecumenical thing- 'Now that would be an ecumenical matter ...' and the thing about liturgical reforms but I'm not well up on all that.
Individual C of E churches can see-saw from *high* to *low* via *MOTR* and back again, depending on the priest and/or PCC, with the Archdemon Archdeacon perhaps putting in a not-especially-suitable incumbent now and then...
A Place not far from Our Place has gone - in only a couple of years - from Sarum Use (with incense on major Festivals) to no vestments, no processions (apparently such things are Works Of Satan), no organ or choir, and the whole service apparently a stand-up talk-show routine by the Vicar...
ISTM that Roman Catholic churches are less likely to have to put up with This Sort Of Thing.
I do have a soft-spot for Anglican cathedral worship and middle-ground Anglicanism. Which may sound odd from someone who is now Orthodox with all the smells and flummery and faffing around that this entails.
I do find much nose-bleed High Anglicanism rather arch and off-putting. It seems all very self-conscious to me. Just as much as vicars doing stand-up comedy and talk-show style routines. I knew a vicar who refused to wear a dog-collar and took to wearing one of those conference lapel badges with 'vicar' written on it so that people would know who he was.
The irony was lost on him. He's in an independent setting now. Which is probably where he should have been in the first place.
Given a choice between receiving the Blessed Sacrament and listening to some cleric blathering on about their priceless views on this, that or the other ..... well, frankly it would be no contest.
Quite apart from the fact that we have rules about Liturgy and deep seated views about the sacramental life of the church and its members, and there is always someone who would be burning the phone lines to the bishop.
As with any other group or 'movement' there are shades and gradations and that applies to Anglo-Catholicism as much as to anything else.
I tend to use the term for the ultra-high end. Those parishes where you need a breathing mask to cope with the altitude. Where things are so stratospheric that the oxygen thins. Where your cheeks begin to wobble under the G-force.
There's High and then there's unfeasibly High. The capacity of each individual varies as to the point they might reach before retreating to the foothills. You'd know it when you reach a contour where it becomes all too much and you need some air.
Some have trained their lungs to take it.
The latter two are architectural rather than liturgical terms. Only some of us can multi-geek.
Note: I’m not endorsing thins type of liturgy, parish, or politics!