Before the Oxford Movement Anglicans and Reformed would have been on much the same page about the need for preaching at the Eucharist. The fact we are even having this discussion is a tribute to the way in which Oxford Movement and the Ritualists changed the views of High and MOTR Anglicans as to the relative importance of the ministries of Word and Sacrament.
And some Anglicans still are on the same page - that there shouldn’t be a breaking of bread without some sort of breaking of the word also. This is not confined to the evangelical end of the spectrum.
I think I've also noted before on the Ship that I think perhaps the most distinctive Reformed liturgical element as compared to other traditions might be the Prayer for Illumination, which is said just prior to the reading of Scripture, and which asks in some way or another for God to be present in the ministry of the Word (Scripture and preaching). These prayers are typically short, similar to a collect. One I often use when I am the reader in church is "Overwhelm us with your Spirit, O God, that the words we hear may speak to our hearts as your Word, made known to us in Jesus Christ the Lord." I've never known the Prayer for Illumination to be omitted in a Presbyterian service, and I don't think I've ever encountered one in a non-Reformed church.
In the Divine Liturgy used by the Orthodox Church we have this prayer said before the reading of the Gospel:
"Master, Lover of mankind, make the pure light of your divine knowledge shine in our hearts, and open the eyes of our mind to understand the message of your Gospel. Implant in us the fear of your blessed commandments, so that, having trampled down all carnal desires, we may change to a spiritual way of life, thinking and doing all things that are pleasing to you. For you are the illumination of our souls and bodies, Christ God, and to you we give glory, together with your Father who is without beginning, and your all-holy, good and life-giving Spirit, now and for ever, and to the ages of ages. Amen."
Many thanks, @Ex_Organist! I’m happy to learn that. I will readily confess to the deficiencies in my knowledge of and familiarity with Orthodox liturgy. That is something I need to, and would like to, correct.
The Anglican church claim to be Reformed and yet for the Reformed the sermon and not the Bible readings are the important part of the proclamation of the Word of God. The Reformed would question whether Christ is present in the Eucharist if he is not first heard in the proclamation of the Word. The Eucharist is insubstantial without the proclamation of the Word and the Word is desiccated without the Eucharist.
Why is it necessary to have the sermon to proclaim the Word please? To put it another way, why are the readings insufficient? As I read it, that makes the sermon of greater worth than the words themselves, and the preacher greater than the author.
The readings are insufficient because we do not believe in God's Word a something static but something dynamic that needs to be broken open or at least attempted to be within the current context. The sermon is thus the culmination of the pastoral visiting and Biblical engagement of the preacher in which he leads the congregation into a communal discernment of the Word.
Thanks to both you and Nick Tamen. I can see great value in having a sermon, based on at least on of the readings to clarify difficulties in comprehension, to give us a lesson for daily living, or both. But what I'm having trouble with is the idea that it's necessary before moving to the eucharist. Probably because I'm Anglican and you're both Reformed
I think there are a couple of related answers to what you're having trouble understanding, Gee D.
First—and this probably does play into "because I'm Anglican and you're both Reformed"—from a Reformed perspective, a sermon that clarified difficulties in comprehension and gave us a lesson for daily living would generally, at least in my experience, be considered a fairly "meh" sermon, and a preacher who regularly preached such sermons would probably be considered a fairly "meh" preacher. Not that there's anything wrong with either of those two things, and not that it's not good when a sermon can include those things, but that's not what we typically expect from a sermon. (NB: I'm not in any way criticizing those traditions where these things are the expectation for the sermon, or those traditions where there really isn't any expectation of a sermon at all. I simply trying to explain how our expectations are different, and how that difference plays into the relationship we see between sermon and Eucharist. No claim at all of superior or inferior.)
I'm struggling a bit to come up with how to express this. I've said on the Ship before that I think the Reformed understanding of Scripture and preaching in worship could be described as quasi-sacramental. That is to say, our understanding is that the point of preaching is to proclaim the activity of Jesus in the church and in the world, and our understanding is that Jesus is present in the community in the proclamation of the Word. To put it another way, we expect the sermon to be an encounter with the divine, an opportunity for God to speak to us (sometimes in spite of the preacher) and to call forth a response from us. As Jengie Jon, noted, it is for us the difference between the words of Scripture being static words on a page and something dynamic in this community in this moment. It doesn't always have to be a 15 or 20+ minute sermon (nor does it have to be a sermon at all), but it does need to be something more than just the reading of Scripture, something that proclaims the gospel in this place at this time.
I think I've also noted before on the Ship that I think perhaps the most distinctive Reformed liturgical element as compared to other traditions might be the Prayer for Illumination, which is said just prior to the reading of Scripture, and which asks in some way or another for God to be present in the ministry of the Word (Scripture and preaching). These prayers are typically short, similar to a collect. One I often use when I am the reader in church is "Overwhelm us with your Spirit, O God, that the words we hear may speak to our hearts as your Word, made known to us in Jesus Christ the Lord." I've never known the Prayer for Illumination to be omitted in a Presbyterian service, and I don't think I've ever encountered one in a non-Reformed church.
Contrariwise, the only such prayers I've heard in the Church of Scotland are paraphrases of the psalm "May the words of my mouth..." and that is a prayer I've commonly encountered in Anglican circles too. For myself I tend to begin with "May I speak in the name of God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit".
That or versions of it. Though I tend to pray extempore (briefly) before preaching. And that is when you will hear such a prayer in the CofS, typically, before the sermon, not before the Scripture readings. (Though since the CofS is such a varied bunch I wouldn't like to claim that you will never hear prayer for illumination before Scripture. In my experience we are far more of a mixed bag, liurgically, than our Presbyterian brethren across the Pond.)
Yes, the norm here—and maybe I’d be wise to limit what I’ve said about this particular bit of liturgy to my particular Reformed tribe, though my understanding and experience is that a similar pattern would be encountered in other American Presbyterian bodies and in Reformed Church in America and Christian Reformed churches—is the Prayer for Illumination, Scripture readings, then the sermon, which will often be preceded by “May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts . . . ,” or something similar. The psalm of the day, or a hymn or anthem, may happen between readings. Our Directory for Worship, which is governs worship in the PC(USA), specifically provides that the Prayer for Illumination is to precede the Scripture readings as well as the sermon.
Of course people respond differently. How that is treated and developed is important. One understanding does not invalidate another. God's Word is always heteroglossial but the discernment comes in the building up of the a complex and cohesive understanding.
That makes much more sense than your previous post, which I fear I took as being far too dismissive.
Before the Oxford Movement Anglicans and Reformed would have been on much the same page about the need for preaching at the Eucharist. The fact we are even having this discussion is a tribute to the way in which Oxford Movement and the Ritualists changed the views of High and MOTR Anglicans as to the relative importance of the ministries of Word and Sacrament.
And some Anglicans still are on the same page - that there shouldn’t be a breaking of bread without some sort of breaking of the word also. This is not confined to the evangelical end of the spectrum.
Personally, it is very, very rare that I do not 'break the word' in association with the Eucharist, though on some occasions it may migrate to the Bible Study afterwards. I am not definitely a party man in the sense of being High or Evangelical; I owe a bit to both sides. I am very uncomfortable with the idea of the Eucharist without some sort of exposition of the Word along with it, even if it is just a few sentences bring out a key concept in one of the lessons that might otherwise be missed.
Nick Tamen, Thank you for your long, detailed and thoughtful exposition. I had not been aware of the Prayer for Illumination, rather different to the prayer before the sermon to which others refer.. Indeed, in our service we do not have any such prayer at all, going straight into the first 3 readings; then of course the Gospel Acclamation. On a personal level, I like the concept of it.
I was not wanting to belittle the position of either by noting that the difference is probably due to the differing traditions from which we come. In many ways I welcome the existence of those differences, and that welcoming is a major part of our ecumenism. It's a recognition that none of us can know the full majesty of God. Madame and I shall dwell on your post as we walk this morning. A quick response, such as this, can't do it justice.
I was not wanting to belittle the position of either by noting that the difference is probably due to the differing traditions from which we come. In many ways I welcome the existence of those differences, and that welcoming is a major part of our ecumenism. It's a recognition that none of us can know the full majesty of God.
No worries—that’s exactly how I understood you, and why I wanted to be clear that had no intention of belittling other traditions. We seem to be very much on the same page when it comes the value of different approaches and understandings.
Yes, the norm here—and maybe I’d be wise to limit what I’ve said about this particular bit of liturgy to my particular Reformed tribe, though my understanding and experience is that a similar pattern would be encountered in other American Presbyterian bodies and in Reformed Church in America and Christian Reformed churches—is the Prayer for Illumination, Scripture readings, then the sermon, which will often be preceded by “May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts . . . ,” or something similar. The psalm of the day, or a hymn or anthem, may happen between readings. Our Directory for Worship, which is governs worship in the PC(USA), specifically provides that the Prayer for Illumination is to precede the Scripture readings as well as the sermon.
Funnily enough, the Collect for Purity at the beginning of the BCP Eucharistic liturgy may have been retained as a sort of Prayer for Illumination. Cranmer was familiar with Bucer's work in Strasburg, and his work with Melanchthon in Köln on behalf of Hermann von Weid. On a related point, it may have been Bucer who suggested the insertion of the Decalogue into the 1552/1559/1662 form of the Lord's Supper. On the other hand, when Bucer suggested modification of the Epiclesis in 1551, Cranmer went for deletion instead. Otherwise the 1552 would have retained an Epiclesis similar to Datheen's in the Dutch Reformed Liturgy...
Yes, the norm here—and maybe I’d be wise to limit what I’ve said about this particular bit of liturgy to my particular Reformed tribe, though my understanding and experience is that a similar pattern would be encountered in other American Presbyterian bodies and in Reformed Church in America and Christian Reformed churches—is the Prayer for Illumination, Scripture readings, then the sermon, which will often be preceded by “May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts . . . ,” or something similar. The psalm of the day, or a hymn or anthem, may happen between readings. Our Directory for Worship, which is governs worship in the PC(USA), specifically provides that the Prayer for Illumination is to precede the Scripture readings as well as the sermon.
The Book of Common Order in the Church of Scotland is suggestive rather than prescriptive, the conduct of worship being the responsibility of the parish minister. The Church of Scotland has Views about forms of worship being set centrally.
Yes, the norm here—and maybe I’d be wise to limit what I’ve said about this particular bit of liturgy to my particular Reformed tribe, though my understanding and experience is that a similar pattern would be encountered in other American Presbyterian bodies and in Reformed Church in America and Christian Reformed churches—is the Prayer for Illumination, Scripture readings, then the sermon, which will often be preceded by “May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts . . . ,” or something similar. The psalm of the day, or a hymn or anthem, may happen between readings. Our Directory for Worship, which is governs worship in the PC(USA), specifically provides that the Prayer for Illumination is to precede the Scripture readings as well as the sermon.
The Book of Common Order in the Church of Scotland is suggestive rather than prescriptive, the conduct of worship being the responsibility of the parish minister. The Church of Scotland has Views about forms of worship being set centrally.
And having trained in both the Church of Scotland and the PC(USA) I would say that the latter is far more consciously reformed than the former. For many in the CofS we are the Church of SCOTLAND primarily - held together by geography and a territorial ministry more than by conscious theology. And so when people see "nice bits" in other traditions, they often try to find ways to incorporate them. Also, again in my experience (urban and suburban Chicago and rural Oregon and New York) ecumenism is far more of a living thing in these parts than in the States, where often the denominations are so large that it is easy to ignore the church of another denomination across the road, unless you are doing something with an ecumenical label attached.
Of course people respond differently. How that is treated and developed is important. One understanding does not invalidate another. God's Word is always heteroglossial but the discernment comes in the building up of the a complex and cohesive understanding.
That makes much more sense than your previous post, which I fear I took as being far too dismissive.
The difference is that I would say the Reformed see it as what you bring to the proclamation of the Word while what I was seeing here seemed to be what you took away.
And having trained in both the Church of Scotland and the PC(USA) I would say that the latter is far more consciously reformed than the former. For many in the CofS we are the Church of SCOTLAND primarily - held together by geography and a territorial ministry more than by conscious theology. And so when people see "nice bits" in other traditions, they often try to find ways to incorporate them. ...
It's the difference between the default church of the place where you are, and being a 'something distinctive' because you've chosen to be or that's what your family has always been. A default church is what you are if you're Christian but aren't a specific variety of one, Church of Scotland in Scotland, Church of England in England, Catholic in France, Italy or Spain, Orthodox in Greece or Russia etc.
It's the same difference that there is between being Church of England and either 'Anglican' or 'Episcopalian'.
This may be a bit incomprehensible for shipmates who live in a country where there is so much variety that there isn't a default church.
In a default church, even your sense of tradition is different. If you're an Episcopalian, the tradition is 'because that's what's being an Episcopalian is about, what makes it distinctive'. In a default church tradition is, 'that's how we've always done it; it's implicit in our way of looking at things'.
I’ve been asked, as diocesan clergy, to contribute to a fund for the making of a new cozier for our new diocesan bishop. I will do so, but it raises a question: who ‘owns’ the crozier, the diocese or the person in the role of bishop?
I know the crozier is a sign of the bishop’s authority in his/her diocese, and the giving of the crozier in the installation ceremony is a sign of the diocese accepting that authority. Similarly the seating in the cathedra is a sign of the diocese acknowledging the bishop’s teaching authority. It is easy to assume that the cathedra belongs to the diocese. What about the crozier? I’d rather assumed that any diocese has one or perhaps several croziers in its closets, and brings one forth for the bishop to use. And I’ve assumed that once a diocesan bishop retires, they no longer have need of a crozier, since they no longer have authority over a defined group of parishes, and whatever crozier they carried goes back into the store room.
Based on that thinking I could better understand the funding of new vestments, since those are more-or-less personal. But a crozier? Thoughts? Clarifications? Am I just being a cranky and fussy high-up-the-candle pedant? (I've been called worse.)
Yes, the norm here—and maybe I’d be wise to limit what I’ve said about this particular bit of liturgy to my particular Reformed tribe, though my understanding and experience is that a similar pattern would be encountered in other American Presbyterian bodies and in Reformed Church in America and Christian Reformed churches—is the Prayer for Illumination, Scripture readings, then the sermon, which will often be preceded by “May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts . . . ,” or something similar. The psalm of the day, or a hymn or anthem, may happen between readings. Our Directory for Worship, which is governs worship in the PC(USA), specifically provides that the Prayer for Illumination is to precede the Scripture readings as well as the sermon.
The Book of Common Order in the Church of Scotland is suggestive rather than prescriptive, the conduct of worship being the responsibility of the parish minister. The Church of Scotland has Views about forms of worship being set centrally.
Yes, the norm here—and maybe I’d be wise to limit what I’ve said about this particular bit of liturgy to my particular Reformed tribe, though my understanding and experience is that a similar pattern would be encountered in other American Presbyterian bodies and in Reformed Church in America and Christian Reformed churches—is the Prayer for Illumination, Scripture readings, then the sermon, which will often be preceded by “May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts . . . ,” or something similar. The psalm of the day, or a hymn or anthem, may happen between readings. Our Directory for Worship, which is governs worship in the PC(USA), specifically provides that the Prayer for Illumination is to precede the Scripture readings as well as the sermon.
The Book of Common Order in the Church of Scotland is suggestive rather than prescriptive, the conduct of worship being the responsibility of the parish minister. The Church of Scotland has Views about forms of worship being set centrally.
Same here, actually, where the Book of Common Worship would be analogous to the Book of Common Order. (Which, btw, I checked last night. Common Order does indeed have the Prayer for Illumination before the sermon rather than the readings.)
The difference between us and the Kirk, it seems, is that we also have a Book of Order, which is, at is were, church law. It is descended from the Westminster Assembly’s Form of Presbyterian Government, Directories for Public and Private Worship, etc. It has sometimes been described as a liturgy of rubrics only; it describes what must be done, what should be done, what may be done and what may not be done. The only time specific words are prescribed are the baptismal formula, the words of institution, and ordination vows. As described by the Wiki, “[t]he Directory for Worship includes the theological guidelines for worship within PC(USA) churches. In order to allow for a diversity of expression in worship, the Directory does not provide set orders for worship, but instead suggests the boundaries of worship that is in line with Reformed Christianity and the Scriptural warrants for worship. It is concerned more with standards and norms than any particular way or formulation of a liturgy or order of worship.” It does, however, set forth a pattern that is followed by most churches.
My hunch, unless canon law says something else, would be that the donor chooses rather to give it as a gift to a "the Rt. Rev'd ..." personally or as a donation to the diocese.
I have certainly known bishops who owned their (very simple and wooden) crosiers. One actually went to a farm-supply shop and bought a real working shepherd's crook. The other had his made from a largish fall tree branch. These were their personal property. One of them is now dead, and his widow gave his wooden crosier to one of his successors at her consecration, but as a personal gift rather than an intrinsic sign of the office.
@ECraigR
That's my thought as well! The crozier and the cathdra go with the role in the diocese, not with the person in the role -- the authority comes from the role, so the signs of that authority goes with the role as well, and pass to the next person in the role. I wonder if such an approach might just help bishops stay somewhat humble by being reminded they are just one in a line of shepherds.
My hunch, unless canon law says something else, would be that the donor chooses rather to give it as a gift to a "the Rt. Rev'd ..." personally or as a donation to the diocese. ...
Aren't those two options, separated by the 'or', precisely the question @BabyWombat was asking, 'which?' and hoping to get an answer to! Or have I missed the point?
'Obviously' a retired bishop can still wear a mitre, can wear a purple shirt and still gets called out to do confirmations etc. So is a retired bishop still entitled to carry a crozier or not? The answer to that question may provide the answer to @BabyWombat's.
In addition to ones that have clearly been bought from agricultural suppliers, I'm fairly sure I seen a bishop with one in 3+ sections so they could be stuck together like a tentpole but carried around in a little case.
Well, I come from a non-episcopal, non-crosier-carrying tradition, so I very well may not know what I’m talking about, and large grains of salt are likely in order. But it has always been my impression from reading that a crosier (or papal ferula) is personal to a bishop, abbot/abbess or pope.
(tangent)
Emperor Zeno gave the Archbishop of the Church of Cyprus the authorisation to use an imperial sceptre instead of the episcopal crosier. (He can also wear purple robes instead of black under vestments and sign his name in a vermilion colour using cinnabar.)
Well, I come from a non-episcopal, non-crosier-carrying tradition, so I very well may not know what I’m talking about, and large grains of salt are likely in order. But it has always been my impression from reading that a crosier (or papal ferula) is personal to a bishop, abbot/abbess or pope.
Originally the Episcopal Office and Jurisdiction were only separated by death or retirement, so what the various bits and pieces symbolized and whether they denoted a bishop or a bishop's jurisdiction was a bit of a moot point. One reason the Romans kept the custom of (titular) Bishops in partibus infidelum (sp?) so long was because it enabled them to at least partly side step the whole question of what ornaments belonged to the bishop as a bishop, and which were jurisdiction specific. The custom of mitred abbots may have helped to resolve the problem eventually in that they were granted the mitre and crozier, but not the other pontificalia. The Romans eventually decided (after Trent 1545-63, I believe) that the crozier was the symbol of jurisdiction whilst the ring and mitre were those of the episcopal office, but then they messed up their own reasoning by continuing to present the crozier at the consecration of a bishop, even though he was not supposed to use it again until he had a jurisdiction of his own.
Anyone who is an expert of Tridentine Roman Catholicism is more than welcome to leap in.
We have one smaller than an egg cup. From memory I’d judge it’d hold little more than 2 teaspoonsfull.
I've seen something similar used for the communion of babies immediately after baptism, if baptism is celebrated apart from, or after (rather than before, or during) the Divine Liturgy.
All of which leads to a question: why don’t dioceses have permanent croziers that the bishop gets to use when they’re installed? Seems reasonable, and a show of consistency and legacy.
The Diocese of Ottawa has got a crozier from John Charles Roper's days, and is in three (or four? it's been years since I've seen it) pieces which screw together. I can't recall if Bishop Heahmund's crozier was one-piece in The Vikings.
There was reputed to have been one of William the Conquerors more plug-ugly Norman bishops who had a ball and chain attached to his crozier so that he could use it as a weapon.
Re croziers: in the Church of England even suffragan bishops, who by definition don’t have a diocese, carry croziers. It appears that bishops do de facto carry croziers as a personal sign of office.
In Western Christianity, the crosier (known as the pastoral staff, from the Latin pastor, shepherd) is shaped like a shepherd's crook. A bishop or church head bears this staff as "shepherd of the flock of God", particularly the community under his canonical jurisdiction, but any bishop, whether or not assigned to a functional diocese, may also use a crosier when conferring sacraments and presiding at liturgies.
There was reputed to have been one of William the Conqueror's more plug-ugly Norman bishops who had a ball and chain attached to his crozier so that he could use it as a weapon.
I have heard the naughty story of a bishop who had an oversized aspergillum that was nicely weighted for military purposes. If he had a bucket of holy water handy he could both bless 'em and bash 'em. I had my former bishop ask me if they were still made after a particularly rough Diocesan Standing Committee meeting!
There was reputed to have been one of William the Conqueror's more plug-ugly Norman bishops who had a ball and chain attached to his crozier so that he could use it as a weapon.
I have heard the naughty story of a bishop who had an oversized aspergillum that was nicely weighted for military purposes. If he had a bucket of holy water handy he could both bless 'em and bash 'em. I had my former bishop ask me if they were still made after a particularly rough Diocesan Standing Committee meeting!
I understand that some of the props from the Game of Thrones costume room are on sale. I am certain that the Bishop's Discretionary Fund runs to such expenses.
Two of our former rectors have been elevated to the purple in recent months within the Anglican Church of Australia. In each case, there is a diocesan crozier, as is the case in our own diocese. The elaborate diocesan crozier is presented during the enthronement, and is laid up at the relinquishment of the see, and may be used at formal diocesan occasions. Otherwise, the bishop has a personal crozier which he or she carries on pastoral visits, it being much simpler in style and lighter in weight.
Re croziers: in the Church of England even suffragan bishops, who by definition don’t have a diocese, carry croziers. It appears that bishops do de facto carry croziers as a personal sign of office.
In Western Christianity, the crosier (known as the pastoral staff, from the Latin pastor, shepherd) is shaped like a shepherd's crook. A bishop or church head bears this staff as "shepherd of the flock of God", particularly the community under his canonical jurisdiction, but any bishop, whether or not assigned to a functional diocese, may also use a crosier when conferring sacraments and presiding at liturgies.
The shepherd's-crook style of bishop's staff is now the most prevalent in the West but that hasn't always been the case, and it certainly isn't the sole form today. Also, the situation in Orthodoxy - among Eastern and Western Orthodox alike (I do not know about the Oriental Orthodox) is the same as you describe in Anglicanism, @BroJames for the staff is a standard part of the episcopal insignia: it is carried because the bearer is a bishop and not because he has jurisdiction in any particular territory.
Catholic bishops can only use the crozier by right within their own diocese. They can use it in other jurusdictions with permission of the local ordinary.
In my cathedral we have one crozier that was our first bishop’s crozier, and is kept safely tucked away in a box. Otherwise, croziers and rings and pectoral crosses etc etc belong to the bishop themselves.
Then, maybe just indicating my diocese does things backwards, we must have twenty mitres and copes, and all other kinds of vestments.
So I assume that means, then, that when a bishop gets a new post (as bishop), he will take his crozier with him, as a sign of his episcopal authority. In other words, it is not connected to the legal authority connected to being a bishop in a given diocese but to that sacramental authority granted to the bishop at his consecration.
I guess that's where the disagreement lies. I would say that the authority comes from the bishop's consecration, not his role as the diocesan bishop of a given diocese. Bishops tend to have more than one post and they don't cease to be bishops when they retire.
My understanding is that bishops have powers of the ordinary from the date of their appointment even if they are still priests, but can't ordain until they have been consecrated.
Ordinaries aren't always bishops in the RCC.
I guess that's where the disagreement lies. I would say that the authority comes from the bishop's consecration, not his role as the diocesan bishop of a given diocese. Bishops tend to have more than one post and they don't cease to be bishops when they retire.
The classical position was that a bishop was consecrated to be bishop of X or of Y, and that his authority came from that. There was much consternation in patristic times when it came to be thought that a bishop could be translated from X to Y, and some writers held that it was not possible (whip out your handy Leitzmann if you want precise references). The RCs and Orthodox keep this idea going as their bishops, even if auxiliary or administrative, are still consecrated to titular sees (I had occasion, at a wedding in my home town of Cornwall a few weeks ago, to greet the Bishop of of Melzitanus, suffragan of Carthage). The CoE consecrates its auxiliaries to suffragan sees-- this was also formerly done in the Anglican Church of Canada, but the practice is close to dead as far as I can tell-- as a sign that bishops are consecrated to a particular church and its service, and it is not simply a stepping stone in the promotion stakes.
The titular sees thing has really gotten out of hand, when you have bishops with grand-sounding sees but with no flock, who are essentially bureaucrats. Perhaps even stranger are bishops with sees in cities that no longer exist, but who actually have real flocks in real places, e.g. Metropolitan Gregory of Nyssa, whose cathedral is actually in Johnstown, Pennsylvania.
The English Suffagan thing was Henry VIII's solution to the problem thrown up by leaving the Roman Obedience that the CofE could no longer have bishops consecrated 'in partibus' on a warrant from the Pope. To supply the want a list of then large towns without cathedrals was drawn up so that bishops could be consecrated to supply extra hands. I believe the original list was something like 15 places, but one or two of them became sees between 1540 and 1544. The ones I remember are Hull, Bedford, Dover, and Ipswich - after that I would have to resort to Google. I don't know what it is about modern Suffragan titles but some of them sound pretty convincing - e.g. Whitby; others not so much - Croydon.
The Canons of the jurisdiction I belong to allowed Assistant Bishops before it decided it could cope with the concept of Suffragans or Coadjutors. Even now the resistance to the idea of a suffragan can be smelt when subject is raised.
The titular sees thing has really gotten out of hand, when you have bishops with grand-sounding sees but with no flock, who are essentially bureaucrats. Perhaps even stranger are bishops with sees in cities that no longer exist, but who actually have real flocks in real places, e.g. Metropolitan Gregory of Nyssa, whose cathedral is actually in Johnstown, Pennsylvania.
I put your first point to a now-deceased Irish bishop, who had been an auxiliary in godless Texas when he had been healthier. He made the theoretically valid point that he did have a flock, albeit they were all souls in celestial or infernal spaces, and he did remember them at a monthly mass. A niece of his was an archaeologist and had visited the ruins of his titular see (in Egypt, IIRC) and had taken photographs of it for him. While a wayward lass in her own right, she had sufficient respect for her uncle that she said a rosary on the site. He had also been in contact with his two predecessors and they kept an observation once a year on one of the feasts of the BVM.
While I have been in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, and I have never been in Cappodocia, some googling would suggest that Nyssa is a preferable retirement location, so perhaps Metropolitan Gregory is looking forward to a little cottage with olive trees in his garden.
I'm fairly sure I seen a bishop with one in 3+ sections so they could be stuck together like a tentpole but carried around in a little case.
Here you go - a bit over 18 quid incl. VAT (you might get a...err...used one for a bit less on ebay).
I was going to suggest 10 minutes with a hacksaw and blowlamp to make the spiral 'prong' look more like a crook, but perhaps the object retains its power as a metaphor more, when used in its form 'as found'...
I quite like the English benedictine practice of assigning retired abbots to medieval abbeys. Being called the abbott of Glastonbury must be pretty cool.
I quite like the English benedictine practice of assigning retired abbots to medieval abbeys. Being called the abbott of Glastonbury must be pretty cool.
Can't believe I gave abbot the extra "t."
That would have earned a slapped thigh from the dreaded Miss Blunt back in the day.
The Father seemed a bit off, since he was just getting back from a month long vacation, but I was wondering if there’s some theology or such behind not elevating during consecration?
There sure is, and many conflicts have happened over this. Some have had to do with elevating being a symbol of sacrifice, and those objecting have wanted to avoid any appearance of seeming to believe Christ's sacrifice was being re-presented or redone. Also, those who simply want to keep to the letter of the BCP will probably not elevate anything, as the rubrics just say the celebrant should hold the elements or lay a hand on them, with nothing about lifting them up. Also there's one of the 39 Articles that argues against lifting up (as in Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, or elevating during Holy Communion). Others will know more than I, but it's been a Big Issue in various Anglican circles over the centuries.
Ah yes, the rubrics. I forgot about that bit. Strangely enough, I used to attend a solidly low church and although the priest didn’t genuflect, elevate, genuflect, she did elevate. Of course, everything else was cassock-albs and rite two. Thanks for the information!
The first BCP of 1549 forbade elevation as that ceremony was specifically linked with transubstantiation. Transub. as a doctrine developed between the 11th century and 1214 when it made official by the Fourth Lateran Council, elevation at the Words of Institution appears during the 12th century (about 1170, IIRC) and rapidly becomes universal. Please note, it is only the host at first, the cup came later.
Lutherans with their sacramental union understanding of a localized real presence in the elements tended to retain elevation, but the Reformed with their non-localising concept of the real presence abolished it. Cranmer was a good Bucerian, and gave elevation the old heave-ho in 1549. For the next three hundred years no Anglican/Episcopal elevated in the Roman manner, but it reappeared about 1855 with the Ritualists.
Another issue is the American Prayer of Consecration tends to hover uncertainly between the Eastern and Western forms. It places the Epiclesis after the Words of Institution, and if you are using an Eucharistic Prayer based on the old 1789 form then one then has to make your mind up whether the Invocation is calling the Holy Spirit down to make the bread and wine the effectual signs of Christ's presence, or not. If so, the major elevations at the words of Institution are somewhat misplaced, and if an elevation occurs in the Canon, then the earliest it should occur is the end of the invocation when the consecration is finished, but usually one waits for the so-called minor elevation at the end of the Eucharistic Prayer.
I am not really a Low Churchman, but with the American rite my preference is not to make any elevation until the end of the Prayer, as that seems to fit its structure best. In the UK I would usually elevate at the Words of Institution, unless I was in a definitely Low Church parish, but there the Epiclesis is before, not after, the Verba. N.B. - this does not apply to 1662 where my first instinct is not to elevate - period.
At least for American ACs around here, the genuflect, elevate, genuflect occurs at the end of the consecration prayer for each element.
Being someone raised on the Alcuin Club 'Directory' and 'The Parson's Handbook' my usual practice is to take the paten in right hand and the chalice in the left, and elevate them to about shoulder height at "by whom, and with whom... world without end. Amen." After the Amen put them back on the altar and make a profound bow before continuing with the Lord's Prayer.
Ah yes, the rubrics. I forgot about that bit. Strangely enough, I used to attend a solidly low church and although the priest didn’t genuflect, elevate, genuflect, she did elevate. Of course, everything else was cassock-albs and rite two. Thanks for the information!
The first BCP of 1549 forbade elevation as that ceremony was specifically linked with transubstantiation. Transub. as a doctrine developed between the 11th century and 1214 when it made official by the Fourth Lateran Council, elevation at the Words of Institution appears during the 12th century (about 1170, IIRC) and rapidly becomes universal. Please note, it is only the host at first, the cup came later.
Lutherans with their sacramental union understanding of a localized real presence in the elements tended to retain elevation, but the Reformed with their non-localising concept of the real presence abolished it. Cranmer was a good Bucerian, and gave elevation the old heave-ho in 1549. For the next three hundred years no Anglican/Episcopal elevated in the Roman manner, but it reappeared about 1855 with the Ritualists.
Another issue is the American Prayer of Consecration tends to hover uncertainly between the Eastern and Western forms. It places the Epiclesis after the Words of Institution, and if you are using an Eucharistic Prayer based on the old 1789 form then one then has to make your mind up whether the Invocation is calling the Holy Spirit down to make the bread and wine the effectual signs of Christ's presence, or not. If so, the major elevations at the words of Institution are somewhat misplaced, and if an elevation occurs in the Canon, then the earliest it should occur is the end of the invocation when the consecration is finished, but usually one waits for the so-called minor elevation at the end of the Eucharistic Prayer.
I am not really a Low Churchman, but with the American rite my preference is not to make any elevation until the end of the Prayer, as that seems to fit its structure best. In the UK I would usually elevate at the Words of Institution, unless I was in a definitely Low Church parish, but there the Epiclesis is before, not after, the Verba. N.B. - this does not apply to 1662 where my first instinct is not to elevate - period.
Do not confuse England and Wales with the UK. The American 1789 draws directly from the 1637 Scottish rite, which has the explicit epiclesis you describe. This remains part of the tradition of the Scottish Episcopal Church.
Comments
In the Divine Liturgy used by the Orthodox Church we have this prayer said before the reading of the Gospel:
"Master, Lover of mankind, make the pure light of your divine knowledge shine in our hearts, and open the eyes of our mind to understand the message of your Gospel. Implant in us the fear of your blessed commandments, so that, having trampled down all carnal desires, we may change to a spiritual way of life, thinking and doing all things that are pleasing to you. For you are the illumination of our souls and bodies, Christ God, and to you we give glory, together with your Father who is without beginning, and your all-holy, good and life-giving Spirit, now and for ever, and to the ages of ages. Amen."
Contrariwise, the only such prayers I've heard in the Church of Scotland are paraphrases of the psalm "May the words of my mouth..." and that is a prayer I've commonly encountered in Anglican circles too. For myself I tend to begin with "May I speak in the name of God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit".
Yes, the norm here—and maybe I’d be wise to limit what I’ve said about this particular bit of liturgy to my particular Reformed tribe, though my understanding and experience is that a similar pattern would be encountered in other American Presbyterian bodies and in Reformed Church in America and Christian Reformed churches—is the Prayer for Illumination, Scripture readings, then the sermon, which will often be preceded by “May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts . . . ,” or something similar. The psalm of the day, or a hymn or anthem, may happen between readings. Our Directory for Worship, which is governs worship in the PC(USA), specifically provides that the Prayer for Illumination is to precede the Scripture readings as well as the sermon.
That makes much more sense than your previous post, which I fear I took as being far too dismissive.
Personally, it is very, very rare that I do not 'break the word' in association with the Eucharist, though on some occasions it may migrate to the Bible Study afterwards. I am not definitely a party man in the sense of being High or Evangelical; I owe a bit to both sides. I am very uncomfortable with the idea of the Eucharist without some sort of exposition of the Word along with it, even if it is just a few sentences bring out a key concept in one of the lessons that might otherwise be missed.
I was not wanting to belittle the position of either by noting that the difference is probably due to the differing traditions from which we come. In many ways I welcome the existence of those differences, and that welcoming is a major part of our ecumenism. It's a recognition that none of us can know the full majesty of God. Madame and I shall dwell on your post as we walk this morning. A quick response, such as this, can't do it justice.
No worries—that’s exactly how I understood you, and why I wanted to be clear that had no intention of belittling other traditions. We seem to be very much on the same page when it comes the value of different approaches and understandings.
Funnily enough, the Collect for Purity at the beginning of the BCP Eucharistic liturgy may have been retained as a sort of Prayer for Illumination. Cranmer was familiar with Bucer's work in Strasburg, and his work with Melanchthon in Köln on behalf of Hermann von Weid. On a related point, it may have been Bucer who suggested the insertion of the Decalogue into the 1552/1559/1662 form of the Lord's Supper. On the other hand, when Bucer suggested modification of the Epiclesis in 1551, Cranmer went for deletion instead. Otherwise the 1552 would have retained an Epiclesis similar to Datheen's in the Dutch Reformed Liturgy...
The Book of Common Order in the Church of Scotland is suggestive rather than prescriptive, the conduct of worship being the responsibility of the parish minister. The Church of Scotland has Views about forms of worship being set centrally.
And having trained in both the Church of Scotland and the PC(USA) I would say that the latter is far more consciously reformed than the former. For many in the CofS we are the Church of SCOTLAND primarily - held together by geography and a territorial ministry more than by conscious theology. And so when people see "nice bits" in other traditions, they often try to find ways to incorporate them. Also, again in my experience (urban and suburban Chicago and rural Oregon and New York) ecumenism is far more of a living thing in these parts than in the States, where often the denominations are so large that it is easy to ignore the church of another denomination across the road, unless you are doing something with an ecumenical label attached.
The difference is that I would say the Reformed see it as what you bring to the proclamation of the Word while what I was seeing here seemed to be what you took away.
It's the same difference that there is between being Church of England and either 'Anglican' or 'Episcopalian'.
This may be a bit incomprehensible for shipmates who live in a country where there is so much variety that there isn't a default church.
In a default church, even your sense of tradition is different. If you're an Episcopalian, the tradition is 'because that's what's being an Episcopalian is about, what makes it distinctive'. In a default church tradition is, 'that's how we've always done it; it's implicit in our way of looking at things'.
I’ve been asked, as diocesan clergy, to contribute to a fund for the making of a new cozier for our new diocesan bishop. I will do so, but it raises a question: who ‘owns’ the crozier, the diocese or the person in the role of bishop?
I know the crozier is a sign of the bishop’s authority in his/her diocese, and the giving of the crozier in the installation ceremony is a sign of the diocese accepting that authority. Similarly the seating in the cathedra is a sign of the diocese acknowledging the bishop’s teaching authority. It is easy to assume that the cathedra belongs to the diocese. What about the crozier? I’d rather assumed that any diocese has one or perhaps several croziers in its closets, and brings one forth for the bishop to use. And I’ve assumed that once a diocesan bishop retires, they no longer have need of a crozier, since they no longer have authority over a defined group of parishes, and whatever crozier they carried goes back into the store room.
Based on that thinking I could better understand the funding of new vestments, since those are more-or-less personal. But a crozier? Thoughts? Clarifications? Am I just being a cranky and fussy high-up-the-candle pedant? (I've been called worse.)
The difference between us and the Kirk, it seems, is that we also have a Book of Order, which is, at is were, church law. It is descended from the Westminster Assembly’s Form of Presbyterian Government, Directories for Public and Private Worship, etc. It has sometimes been described as a liturgy of rubrics only; it describes what must be done, what should be done, what may be done and what may not be done. The only time specific words are prescribed are the baptismal formula, the words of institution, and ordination vows. As described by the Wiki, “[t]he Directory for Worship includes the theological guidelines for worship within PC(USA) churches. In order to allow for a diversity of expression in worship, the Directory does not provide set orders for worship, but instead suggests the boundaries of worship that is in line with Reformed Christianity and the Scriptural warrants for worship. It is concerned more with standards and norms than any particular way or formulation of a liturgy or order of worship.” It does, however, set forth a pattern that is followed by most churches.
I have certainly known bishops who owned their (very simple and wooden) crosiers. One actually went to a farm-supply shop and bought a real working shepherd's crook. The other had his made from a largish fall tree branch. These were their personal property. One of them is now dead, and his widow gave his wooden crosier to one of his successors at her consecration, but as a personal gift rather than an intrinsic sign of the office.
That's my thought as well! The crozier and the cathdra go with the role in the diocese, not with the person in the role -- the authority comes from the role, so the signs of that authority goes with the role as well, and pass to the next person in the role. I wonder if such an approach might just help bishops stay somewhat humble by being reminded they are just one in a line of shepherds.
'Obviously' a retired bishop can still wear a mitre, can wear a purple shirt and still gets called out to do confirmations etc. So is a retired bishop still entitled to carry a crozier or not? The answer to that question may provide the answer to @BabyWombat's.
In addition to ones that have clearly been bought from agricultural suppliers, I'm fairly sure I seen a bishop with one in 3+ sections so they could be stuck together like a tentpole but carried around in a little case.
Emperor Zeno gave the Archbishop of the Church of Cyprus the authorisation to use an imperial sceptre instead of the episcopal crosier. (He can also wear purple robes instead of black under vestments and sign his name in a vermilion colour using cinnabar.)
Originally the Episcopal Office and Jurisdiction were only separated by death or retirement, so what the various bits and pieces symbolized and whether they denoted a bishop or a bishop's jurisdiction was a bit of a moot point. One reason the Romans kept the custom of (titular) Bishops in partibus infidelum (sp?) so long was because it enabled them to at least partly side step the whole question of what ornaments belonged to the bishop as a bishop, and which were jurisdiction specific. The custom of mitred abbots may have helped to resolve the problem eventually in that they were granted the mitre and crozier, but not the other pontificalia. The Romans eventually decided (after Trent 1545-63, I believe) that the crozier was the symbol of jurisdiction whilst the ring and mitre were those of the episcopal office, but then they messed up their own reasoning by continuing to present the crozier at the consecration of a bishop, even though he was not supposed to use it again until he had a jurisdiction of his own.
Anyone who is an expert of Tridentine Roman Catholicism is more than welcome to leap in.
I've seen something similar used for the communion of babies immediately after baptism, if baptism is celebrated apart from, or after (rather than before, or during) the Divine Liturgy.
The Diocese of Ottawa has got a crozier from John Charles Roper's days, and is in three (or four? it's been years since I've seen it) pieces which screw together. I can't recall if Bishop Heahmund's crozier was one-piece in The Vikings.
Re croziers: in the Church of England even suffragan bishops, who by definition don’t have a diocese, carry croziers. It appears that bishops do de facto carry croziers as a personal sign of office.
Wikipedia has this to say
I have heard the naughty story of a bishop who had an oversized aspergillum that was nicely weighted for military purposes. If he had a bucket of holy water handy he could both bless 'em and bash 'em. I had my former bishop ask me if they were still made after a particularly rough Diocesan Standing Committee meeting!
I understand that some of the props from the Game of Thrones costume room are on sale. I am certain that the Bishop's Discretionary Fund runs to such expenses.
The shepherd's-crook style of bishop's staff is now the most prevalent in the West but that hasn't always been the case, and it certainly isn't the sole form today. Also, the situation in Orthodoxy - among Eastern and Western Orthodox alike (I do not know about the Oriental Orthodox) is the same as you describe in Anglicanism, @BroJames for the staff is a standard part of the episcopal insignia: it is carried because the bearer is a bishop and not because he has jurisdiction in any particular territory.
Ordinaries aren't always bishops in the RCC.
The classical position was that a bishop was consecrated to be bishop of X or of Y, and that his authority came from that. There was much consternation in patristic times when it came to be thought that a bishop could be translated from X to Y, and some writers held that it was not possible (whip out your handy Leitzmann if you want precise references). The RCs and Orthodox keep this idea going as their bishops, even if auxiliary or administrative, are still consecrated to titular sees (I had occasion, at a wedding in my home town of Cornwall a few weeks ago, to greet the Bishop of of Melzitanus, suffragan of Carthage). The CoE consecrates its auxiliaries to suffragan sees-- this was also formerly done in the Anglican Church of Canada, but the practice is close to dead as far as I can tell-- as a sign that bishops are consecrated to a particular church and its service, and it is not simply a stepping stone in the promotion stakes.
The Canons of the jurisdiction I belong to allowed Assistant Bishops before it decided it could cope with the concept of Suffragans or Coadjutors. Even now the resistance to the idea of a suffragan can be smelt when subject is raised.
I put your first point to a now-deceased Irish bishop, who had been an auxiliary in godless Texas when he had been healthier. He made the theoretically valid point that he did have a flock, albeit they were all souls in celestial or infernal spaces, and he did remember them at a monthly mass. A niece of his was an archaeologist and had visited the ruins of his titular see (in Egypt, IIRC) and had taken photographs of it for him. While a wayward lass in her own right, she had sufficient respect for her uncle that she said a rosary on the site. He had also been in contact with his two predecessors and they kept an observation once a year on one of the feasts of the BVM.
While I have been in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, and I have never been in Cappodocia, some googling would suggest that Nyssa is a preferable retirement location, so perhaps Metropolitan Gregory is looking forward to a little cottage with olive trees in his garden.
Here you go - a bit over 18 quid incl. VAT (you might get a...err...used one for a bit less on ebay).
I was going to suggest 10 minutes with a hacksaw and blowlamp to make the spiral 'prong' look more like a crook, but perhaps the object retains its power as a metaphor more, when used in its form 'as found'...
Can't believe I gave abbot the extra "t."
That would have earned a slapped thigh from the dreaded Miss Blunt back in the day.
There sure is, and many conflicts have happened over this. Some have had to do with elevating being a symbol of sacrifice, and those objecting have wanted to avoid any appearance of seeming to believe Christ's sacrifice was being re-presented or redone. Also, those who simply want to keep to the letter of the BCP will probably not elevate anything, as the rubrics just say the celebrant should hold the elements or lay a hand on them, with nothing about lifting them up. Also there's one of the 39 Articles that argues against lifting up (as in Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, or elevating during Holy Communion). Others will know more than I, but it's been a Big Issue in various Anglican circles over the centuries.
The first BCP of 1549 forbade elevation as that ceremony was specifically linked with transubstantiation. Transub. as a doctrine developed between the 11th century and 1214 when it made official by the Fourth Lateran Council, elevation at the Words of Institution appears during the 12th century (about 1170, IIRC) and rapidly becomes universal. Please note, it is only the host at first, the cup came later.
Lutherans with their sacramental union understanding of a localized real presence in the elements tended to retain elevation, but the Reformed with their non-localising concept of the real presence abolished it. Cranmer was a good Bucerian, and gave elevation the old heave-ho in 1549. For the next three hundred years no Anglican/Episcopal elevated in the Roman manner, but it reappeared about 1855 with the Ritualists.
Another issue is the American Prayer of Consecration tends to hover uncertainly between the Eastern and Western forms. It places the Epiclesis after the Words of Institution, and if you are using an Eucharistic Prayer based on the old 1789 form then one then has to make your mind up whether the Invocation is calling the Holy Spirit down to make the bread and wine the effectual signs of Christ's presence, or not. If so, the major elevations at the words of Institution are somewhat misplaced, and if an elevation occurs in the Canon, then the earliest it should occur is the end of the invocation when the consecration is finished, but usually one waits for the so-called minor elevation at the end of the Eucharistic Prayer.
I am not really a Low Churchman, but with the American rite my preference is not to make any elevation until the end of the Prayer, as that seems to fit its structure best. In the UK I would usually elevate at the Words of Institution, unless I was in a definitely Low Church parish, but there the Epiclesis is before, not after, the Verba. N.B. - this does not apply to 1662 where my first instinct is not to elevate - period.
Being someone raised on the Alcuin Club 'Directory' and 'The Parson's Handbook' my usual practice is to take the paten in right hand and the chalice in the left, and elevate them to about shoulder height at "by whom, and with whom... world without end. Amen." After the Amen put them back on the altar and make a profound bow before continuing with the Lord's Prayer.
Do not confuse England and Wales with the UK. The American 1789 draws directly from the 1637 Scottish rite, which has the explicit epiclesis you describe. This remains part of the tradition of the Scottish Episcopal Church.