My impression is that the tradional Latin Mass is associated with right-wing politics. Its growth seems to be funded (very well) from that end of the spectrum. Traditional religious orders are being given historically important but crumbling churches in parts of the UK and they seem to have the money to undertake large and costly renovations and repairs. The group I linked to earlier came out of right wing Brazilian politics, for example.
It is interesting that those churches tend not to engage in local social projects with the mainstream RC parishes, and their clergy do not join in any joint worship with other RC parishes. They very much hold themselves apart.
What do traditional catholics themselves say about this ?
That's a really good point @Doublethink but I should have specified that there's a difference between those Traditional Catholics who grieve the loss of the older liturgies and those 'ultra-Trads' who don't recognise the validity of any pope after PiusX (eg the followers of Archbishop Marcel Lefebre who was excommunicated in 1988). Schism is always a grief, the more so as it can take so long to be repaired. Coming from South Africa and the legacy of apartheid, rightwing white-supremacist groups in churches here are not going to enter into any dialogue.
My impression is that at least in Canada there has been a stronger connection between liturgical traditionalism and ideological conservatism in post-V2 Catholicism than in Anglicanism - it may have started out that way in Anglicanism but it did not stay that way. I think it would now be difficult to predict a parish’s politics from its liturgy in any reliable way.
I think for some time in Canada any predilection for older forms of music and liturgy was seen as politically suspect within mainstream Roman Catholicism, and while this may in itself have contributed to further polarization I can’t say that this suspicion was without reason. As I say lately I’ve been hearing more promising things especially about church music in mainstream Catholicism lately though I don’t have familiarity with the details.
What do traditional catholics themselves say about this ?
That's a really good point @Doublethink but I should have specified that there's a difference between those Traditional Catholics who grieve the loss of the older liturgies and those 'ultra-Trads' who don't recognise the validity of any pope after PiusX (eg the followers of Archbishop Marcel Lefebre who was excommunicated in 1988).
Just a quick correction - Followers of Lefebre are the (F)SSPX who have no problems accepting the current Pope as Pope or any of his recent predecessors, in fact the current Pope is always prayed for at mass, and there is a picture of the current Pope in every SSPX Sacristy.
SSPX are not all excommunicated, nor are they fully in schism but they are in an irregular state of communion with the Catholic Church. They have valid orders and sacraments, but they are illicit as they do not have a faculties from their local bishop, nor do they have a mission from the Church. (Although they do have special faculties to hear confessions and grant absolution given directly to them by Pope Francis)
The status of the SSPX could change if only discussions between the Church and the SSPX could get off the ground (both sides were unwilling to accept any compromise in their last attempt)
To go back to the discussion - my experience of an SSPX chapel is that it is like any other parish, there are people who attend because they want the Latin Mass, but there are also people like me who just find it a convenient place to worship for one reason or another. There might be some hard right people there... but that's no different to any other church.
I'll also add that liturgy can have it's sloppy moments in a SSPX Church too! I was at a low mass a while back where the priest stumbled through one of the prayers, stopped, apologised to his altar server, and then started again.
I noticed. Maybe some other people noticed. Nobody really cared.
I think the political conservatism among Trad Latin Mass Catholics isn't a feature in the UK. But it has been a banner of resistance to everything Vat 2 did. I walked out of a Mass celebrated by a member of a Latin Mass religious order when the priest said from the pulpit that clerical child abuse was the direct result of Vat 2 - handily ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of abusing priests were trained and their attitudes formed before the Council was even dreamt of.
SSPX seem not to accept that the Vatican has the right to govern the Catholic Church in ways they don't agree with. So they disobey and have set up a church complete with its own hierarchy that is apart from the Catholic Church no matter what they say.
The churches I am classifying as low in TEC are the sorts that do Morning Prayer instead of communion at least once a month. How common are parishes of that sort in the CoE? To be fair, although I know of several in TEC, they are all in cities. It seems like most rural parishes do communion on Sundays and may be considered fairly "high" by CoE standards; I don't know what the baseline is there.
I haven't encountered one of your "Morning Prayer" TEC places in my travels.
Nor have I, at least since the mid-80s. (Many TEC parishes in my corner of the US transitioned to the Eucharist as the main Sunday service, following the adoption of the 1979 BCP, by celebrating the Eucharist on first, third and fifth Sundays and Morning Prayer on second and fourth Sundays. They followed that pattern for 3-5 years, then moved to the Eucharist as the main service every Sunday.)
Maybe such parishes can be found in traditionally-low Virginia.
I just checked the website of the parish I attended while living in Richmond for a year and they are still alternating between Eucharist and Morning Prayer for their big 11:00 Sunday service.
Thanks for checking and reporting that, @Marsupial. Virginia Episcopalians are historically low-church, and much of Virginia is a place where change, at least of the liturgical kind, can come slowly.
As many will know, I’m just south of Virginia, in North Carolina, and I’m a Presbyterian, not an Episcopalian. But I’ve had Episcopal connections, as it were, throughout my life, and am, I think, more familiar with TEC here than the average non-Episcopalian. North Carolina isn’t historically as low church as Virginia, and in the early days of what is now the Diocese of Western North Carolina, there was a pretty strong Oxford Movement influence. But these days I think the number of parishes that would self-identify as Anglo-Catholic can probably be counted on one hand.
The days of RCs being bothered about not being perceived as English are long gone. In most cities the congregations are multi national. In our place there are more Indians and continental Europeans than Irish. Its a big part of what we are - not being a church based on nationality.
You could say almost the same about our church (Anglo-catholic inheritance though very relaxed).
I think the political conservatism among Trad Latin Mass Catholics isn't a feature in the UK. But it has been a banner of resistance to everything Vat 2 did. I walked out of a Mass celebrated by a member of a Latin Mass religious order when the priest said from the pulpit that clerical child abuse was the direct result of Vat 2 - handily ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of abusing priests were trained and their attitudes formed before the Council was even dreamt of.
SSPX seem not to accept that the Vatican has the right to govern the Catholic Church in ways they don't agree with. So they disobey and have set up a church complete with its own hierarchy that is apart from the Catholic Church no matter what they say.
I think there is indeed truth in that. The story of how the SSPX came into fruition does not paint a pretty picture of Lefebvre at all. There is certainly a ‘schismatic’ spirit among many SSPX clergy (but not all). But remember, it is a clerical order, not a lay order. It is impossible for a layperson to actually join the SSPX, and as long as a lay person receives the sacraments from a SSPX chapel without intending to commit a schismatic act, then they may do so validly, but illicitly and would not be placing themselves at odds with the Church.
Thanks for the corrections and background on SSPX, @Catholic Max and @Alan29. My impression (and I have no firsthand knowledge here of these movements) is that there is a strongly schismatic attitude and blurred lines around local FSSPX, SSPX, SSPV, Una Voce and the Portuguese ex-Mozambican settler movements of the TFP founded here during apartheid. The southern African Catholic bishops don't pay much attention because Traditional Catholicism is such a negligible presence. And not a source of liturgical renewal or restoration.
I can certainly recommend listening to the podcast “Pints with Aquinas” on this particular topic. They come to a slightly different conclusion to me on some matters but it’s rather good if you want to understand the history behind the development of the SSPX
I can certainly recommend listening to the podcast “Pints with Aquinas” on this particular topic. They come to a slightly different conclusion to me on some matters but it’s rather good if you want to understand the history behind the development of the SSPX
And there are several Wiki articles about that organisation.
All that said, I'm quite sure Anglo-Catholics can be far more accommodating of young children and people who don't know the ropes than some hot Prot traditions can be.
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn’t see Doublethink’s post about this thread following Epiphanies guidelines, but please avoid using derogatory terms about other traditions.
Although English people are by nature rather conformist, most of them would take the line that they're blowed if they're going to stand up, kneel, genuflect or cross themselves - or for that matter not do so - or when - just because the vicar tells them to.
The TEC experience described is probably a matter of seeing many participants doing these gestures and feeling like one is going to get it wrong; I can't imagine the vicar telling anyone to do any of these things. And if asked about it, their answer is most likely, "Oh, those things are traditional customs of personal piety, and you can do them or not, so don't worry about getting one wrong."
I can't imagine any vicar, no matter how liturgically obsessive, telling his or her congregation what they 'must' do in the way of devotional gestures and the like. Maybe they might drill the serving team to some extent, because they are on show. But they would effectively ensure the gradual death of that Christian community because any newcomer would be quickly sent packing.
I said 'I can't imagine' that, but the C of E being the bizarre collection of oddities that it is, it is not beyond possibility that some clergy person somewhere has decided that their church is their playground and they will make sure that everyone plays in the approved way.
I can't imagine any vicar, no matter how liturgically obsessive, telling his or her congregation what they 'must' do in the way of devotional gestures and the like. Maybe they might drill the serving team to some extent, because they are on show. But they would effectively ensure the gradual death of that Christian community because any newcomer would be quickly sent packing.
I said 'I can't imagine' that, but the C of E being the bizarre collection of oddities that it is, it is not beyond possibility that some clergy person somewhere has decided that their church is their playground and they will make sure that everyone plays in the approved way.
We had a churchwarden some years ago who was also Head Server, and he, I'm sorry to say, did drive a few people away by being uber-critical and generally hostile to anyone who tried to help out. The egregious Fr F***wit, of course, did nothing to stop this from happening...
I can't imagine any vicar, no matter how liturgically obsessive, telling his or her congregation what they 'must' do in the way of devotional gestures and the like. Maybe they might drill the serving team to some extent, because they are on show. But they would effectively ensure the gradual death of that Christian community because any newcomer would be quickly sent packing.
I said 'I can't imagine' that, but the C of E being the bizarre collection of oddities that it is, it is not beyond possibility that some clergy person somewhere has decided that their church is their playground and they will make sure that everyone plays in the approved way.
We had a churchwarden some years ago who was also Head Server, and he, I'm sorry to say, did drive a few people away by being uber-critical and generally hostile to anyone who tried to help out. The egregious Fr F***wit, of course, did nothing to stop this from happening...
This, in my experience, is fairly common. These sorts of lay people are referred to as "liturgy queens" in certain parts of the AC world within TEC. The last parish I was at has such a person and he has successfully driven away quite a number of people, whole families!, in fact. But yes, I've never come across a priest who has told the parishioners how to behave in a service. I have a hard time imagining they would feel entitled to do such a thing, beyond obvious issues of eucharistic etiquette or the like (i.e. no intincture, no fainting after receiving, the like).
Our Fr F***wit did, one Sunday morning, rail at his congregation of mostly singletons, divorced, gays, and celibates, urging us all to sign some Roman Catholic petition about *preserving the sanctity of Christian marriage*...
...because the C of E couldn't be bothered about it (or so he said).
AFAIK, no-one obliged him, apart from his own Lovely Wife.
Oh yes, that level of derangement isn’t surprising. I was referring to actions of personal piety, genuflecting and crossing and the like. Of course clergy tell you what to believe that’s where they think they have their special holy power.
Well, the very same Fr F***wit announced one day that, as we entered the sanctuary and approached the altar, he would ALWAYS genuflect, probably because it looked more Holy, and wanted us to do the same. A discussion arose because one or two of us (I was Reader, and sometimes acted as server, or as liturgical Deacon) were finding genuflexion difficult, and reckoned that a profound bow was better for us, and rather more in the Anglican tradition.
No, Fr F insisted on genuflexion, so I cheerfully disobeyed, and bowed profoundly. As a result, our approach to the altar was a bit untidy, but I doubt if Our Lord minded...
The day soon came, of course, when Fr F himself had back trouble, but still insisted on genuflexion. We pointed out to him that if he couldn't straighten up again, we would have to stop the service, send the Faithful Few into the Hall, and call an Ambulance, as none of us were willing to risk our own backs in helping a tall and heavy man back onto his feet. We also pointed out to him how annoyed his Lovely Wife would be if this happened (she had enough to contend with at home), and it was that - not concern for us - which clinched the argument.
I've come across Orthodox clergy who stipulate what people should do and not do in terms of gestures, posture and what-not.
In fairness, the same individuals can also be fairly flexible and tolerant of variations too.
I suspect this is because many parishes are multicultural and there are different customs ad practices across the Orthosphere.
So however prescriptive a priest might be there is always someone present who is going to do things differently
I've also known Eastern Europeans openly castigate sub-deacons, other regulars and even visitors for not doing things in the way they are accustomed to in their countries of origin.
I have no idea whether what I do or don't do is 'right'. I just do whatever I do and hope for the best.
I did once visit an Anglo-Catholic parish in South Wales when the priest was on holiday. It was petty evident that he ruled his congregation with a rod of liturgical iron.
I'm now curious about the properties of "liturgical iron". If you make it into a tuning fork does it provide a perfect chant tone? Is it what you make rood screens / iconostasi from?
It is in fact Aaron's staff; every self-identified AC parish gets one from the Lord Himself and on it is inscribed all of the rubrics for Doing Worship Properly.
I'm now curious about the properties of "liturgical iron". If you make it into a tuning fork does it provide a perfect chant tone? Is it what you make rood screens / iconostasi from?
And does that depend on which mode your chant is in?
I can't imagine any vicar, no matter how liturgically obsessive, telling his or her congregation what they 'must' do in the way of devotional gestures and the like. Maybe they might drill the serving team to some extent, because they are on show. But they would effectively ensure the gradual death of that Christian community because any newcomer would be quickly sent packing.
I am odd and in the autism spectrum but I would love it if every church I visited had a handbook that told every congregant exactly what to do at every single moment of the service, beyond just sit, stand, kneel, and make the sign of the cross. How should you hold your hands while praying? How should you enter and exit your pew? Exactly what do you do with your hands while receiving communion? What is a detailed description of the top recommendation what you could be doing with your mind and body in the long time after receiving communion before the service continues? I know I am in a very small minority. But I’d like to know that whatever I am doing at any moment, it is what is encouraged by that specific community, and not some pompous thing that my own OCD-related scrupulosity has imposed on myself.
I can't imagine any vicar, no matter how liturgically obsessive, telling his or her congregation what they 'must' do in the way of devotional gestures and the like. Maybe they might drill the serving team to some extent, because they are on show. But they would effectively ensure the gradual death of that Christian community because any newcomer would be quickly sent packing.
I am odd and in the autism spectrum but I would love it if every church I visited had a handbook that told every congregant exactly what to do at every single moment of the service, beyond just sit, stand, kneel, and make the sign of the cross. How should you hold your hands while praying? How should you enter and exit your pew? Exactly what do you do with your hands while receiving communion? What is a detailed description of the top recommendation what you could be doing with your mind and body in the long time after receiving communion before the service continues? I know I am in a very small minority. But I’d like to know that whatever I am doing at any moment, it is what is encouraged by that specific community, and not some pompous thing that my own OCD-related scrupulosity has imposed on myself.
I sympathise. But equally, any suggestion that certain practices are 'obligatory', or 'accepted' would exclude a greater number of people. Would a simple 'style guide' for taking part in worship, without suggesting that everyone should conform to it, be helpful to you?
IIRC, I heard once of a priest (maybe it was in a Mystery Worship Report?) who announced at the beginning of the Eucharist she was leading *Your body is your own, so feel free to stand, sit, or kneel, just as you wish* - or words to that effect.
For someone like @stonespring that might have been less than helpful, I appreciate, though I think the priest was on the right track...
I can't imagine any vicar, no matter how liturgically obsessive, telling his or her congregation what they 'must' do in the way of devotional gestures and the like. Maybe they might drill the serving team to some extent, because they are on show. But they would effectively ensure the gradual death of that Christian community because any newcomer would be quickly sent packing.
I am odd and in the autism spectrum but I would love it if every church I visited had a handbook that told every congregant exactly what to do at every single moment of the service, beyond just sit, stand, kneel, and make the sign of the cross. How should you hold your hands while praying? How should you enter and exit your pew? Exactly what do you do with your hands while receiving communion? What is a detailed description of the top recommendation what you could be doing with your mind and body in the long time after receiving communion before the service continues? I know I am in a very small minority. But I’d like to know that whatever I am doing at any moment, it is what is encouraged by that specific community, and not some pompous thing that my own OCD-related scrupulosity has imposed on myself.
I sympathise. But equally, any suggestion that certain practices are 'obligatory', or 'accepted' would exclude a greater number of people. Would a simple 'style guide' for taking part in worship, without suggesting that everyone should conform to it, be helpful to you?
I think so, if it was super-specific and didn’t give too many options, which just give me anxiety. But I think the only people who would be that prescriptivist are either very traditionalist RCs or perhaps socially liberal but liturgically priggish ACs (ACs who are particular about what the ministers and altar servers do are one thing, ones that get into regulating personal piety in the pews are another, as people have commented on upthread). So even if I loved such a book and followed it, I would feel like a pompous hypocritical prick, and if it’s a traditionalist RC book (I am RC), I would feel like I was some of self-hating gay by using it when most the other RCs are put off by it. And if there are Orthodox style guides, even Western rite ones, I would just feel like I was just stealing from another culture, and they would also be likely to be coming from some very very conservative people if they felt the need to publish such a book for the laity and not just the ministers and servers.
When I was younger the service sheets for my home church featured little silhouettes showing someone standing, kneeling or sitting beside the title of each section of the liturgy.
We all have our 'liturgical wars' and to hear some hyper-conservative Orthodox bloviate anyone would think the Western Rite originated in the deepest pit of Hell.
I'd be happy for there to be 'guides' as to what's going on in an Orthodox service. I might actually find out myself ... 😉
Trouble is, many parishes here tend to be multicultural irrespective of 'jurisdiction' so there'll be a range of cultural customs going on at the same time.
I've known Romanian parishioners snap at visitors (and our sub-deacon) for lighting candles in the 'wrong' way when in reality there is no set way of doing it.
People assume that their particular customs are universal.
I do think some kind of short explanatory guide for visitors would be helpful and some parishes have had them. But don't expect anything 'organised' in Orthodoxy. It's all over the place.
I've known Romanian parishioners snap at visitors (and our sub-deacon) for lighting candles in the 'wrong' way when in reality there is no set way of doing it.
We'd love to hear more - surely there's no great mystery in applying a flame to a wick?
Hardly worth a minute’s thought:the Roman tradition has its so share of nitpicking neo con nutjobs. The Romanian nasties need to be told to pull in their collective heads; after all their tradition is barely a century old.
IIRC, I heard once of a priest (maybe it was in a Mystery Worship Report?) who announced at the beginning of the Eucharist she was leading *Your body is your own, so feel free to stand, sit, or kneel, just as you wish* - or words to that effect.
For someone like @stonespring that might have been less than helpful, I appreciate, though I think the priest was on the right track...
I regret to say this @stonespring - and thank you for being so honest about your OCD - but I agree with @Bishops Finger and this priest.
I hope you don't mind my saying this and I hope it is not too distressing. It's a symptom of the fact that 'we are all different'.
I recognise that none of us know how it feels to be anyone else, but for me, and if it was me, actually wanting to be told what to do to the extent you describe would betoken one of two spiritual maladies. One would be that my inner picture of God not as one who loves humankind but as one who was angry, threatening and only to be assuaged by the right sort of liturgical mechanics, meticulously conducted, one who was eager to punish people for not getting it all absolutely right. The other would be that I was so self-conscious that even when worshipping God, I was preoccupied by the thought not of God but that those around me were all looking at me.
Those are both mindsets I could imagine myself sinking into. The first is a picture that a person could all too easily get from a selective and somewhat dark reading of the Old Testament. The second is something many people absorb from early childhood and have difficulty growing out of.
As far as I know, I don't have OCD and that's probably caused by different things of which I'm not aware. But a church which issued the sort of regimented instructions you mention is one that I'd instinctively avoid. Id see it as a place that would feed temptations I wouldn't want to be led astray by. I don't think I'd be the only one. But thank you for sharing something that is as difficult for me to identify with, as what I say probably is for you.
I don't think I have OCD but I am almost certainly neurodivergent, and yes I can relate to what Stonespring said. In many areas of life I might spend a lot of time and attention trying to observe and deduce what is the 'correct' way to behave in any given situation. If I had a detailed rulebook, as long as it seemed clear and logical, following it would actually free me, to take part in the activity more naturally and wholeheartedly and with better focus.
It's not so much about being unable to stop worrying about what others think, but needing to clear these uncertainties from my own mind, before I can properly concentrate on the task in hand.
Would it be helpful to simply "decide" ahead of time the actions and postures you will adopt, and perhaps annotate a personal copy of the liturgy? If there is not a definitive "correct" choice then once you've written it down you would hopefully remove some of the anxiety of choice.
This discussion highlights the difference between many social situations (formal dinners, high society balls, and the like, right down to pub etiquette) where there is an accepted code of behaviour, dress and deportment, and the church, where there isn't, or shouldn't be. The former are all to a greater or lesser extent exclusive; the church is by definition inclusive. Even, I would argue, of anti-social behaviour, difficult as this is to deal with. At least we should welcome people with behaviour issues which are the result of learning difficulties and the like. People who are being deliberately obnoxious are a different matter, but ultimately we can't turn them away either.
This discussion highlights the difference between many social situations (formal dinners, high society balls, and the like, right down to pub etiquette) where there is an accepted code of behaviour, dress and deportment, and the church, where there isn't, or shouldn't be. The former are all to a greater or lesser extent exclusive; the church is by definition inclusive. Even, I would argue, of anti-social behaviour, difficult as this is to deal with. At least we should welcome people with behaviour issues which are the result of learning difficulties and the like. People who are being deliberately obnoxious are a different matter, but ultimately we can't turn them away either.
Hmm. My (diagnosed) neurodiversity puts me much more at the @stonespring end of things (and ironically @Enoch ‘s description of how that would make them feel nails exactly how their absence makes me feel!
I do think we got fairly close to what I think is the reality a couple of pages back - churches are great at including and welcoming *visible* diversity - and patting themselves on the back for doing so.
But too often in the process they exclude or ignore *invisible* diversity - perhaps because it sits in the ‘too difficult’ box and, being invisible, doesn’t have to be thought about.
I do think we got fairly close to what I think is the reality a couple of pages back - churches are great at including and welcoming *visible* diversity - and patting themselves on the back for doing so.
But too often in the process they exclude or ignore *invisible* diversity - perhaps because it sits in the ‘too difficult’ box and, being invisible, doesn’t have to be thought about.
You make a fair point and one that we should be aware of. But I don't see how that connects with the need for churches to be inclusive of all, by not demanding certain specific liturgical behaviour, dress codes and the like.
Can you make some suggestions of how a church could be a safe and welcoming place for the sorts of invisible diversity you have in mind?
If they are invisible how are churches meant to make adjustments? Should we expect people to divulge? How feasible is that?
This will have to do as a reply to both you and @angloid as in the middle of a very messy infant bedtime!
I think for me it amounts to basic honesty and being up front. If you’re going to be all Sally-free-and-easy embracing fluidity and unpredictability in a service (and I totally get that this is what many people want so I don’t want to stop it) then spell it out in so many words on your advertising.
If I didn’t know that the whole point of neuro diversity is it’s very divergence then I’d be more hung up than I am (as I slink away in tears having made a mistake with a service in an unfamiliar location) about professions of ‘inclusive and welcoming’ which have shaded over for me into ‘exclusive and unwelcoming for people with your brain.’
Basically I actually would advocate all churches dropping ‘inclusive’ and ‘welcoming’ from their notice boards and websites - because they simply cannot possibly be all-embracing, and just list out what their services are like
Ideally it’s for the church to spell out ‘this is exactly who we are, exactly what we do and exactly what our services are like’ and then everyone can make their own mind up.
I won’t cope somewhere that isn’t highly structured, conformist and by the book - no surprises, liturgy as expected, and knowing exactly how to behave.
I have to search that out - essentially defaulting to 8am BCP when visiting somewhere because at least I know how to do that.
But the misery of the unexpected and unprepared for is real.
Completely agree about clear and explicit description, rather than people having to learn “codes” such as - matins means it’s like this, family friendly means action songs, charismatic means etc etc.
In terms of a church actually being inclusive and welcoming - two things I’d suggest: a) have services (clearly described) of several different types if the church has the capacity and b) maybe have a basket of badges in the reception saying “I’m new, happy to chat” or similar and then folk only approach newbies wearing the badges.
This at least somewhat squares the how to welcome issue in that folk happy to be approached are clear and new folk who don’t want to be singled out won’t put a badge on.
Are we talking about unchurched people not knowing what to expect if they go into say an Orthodox Liturgy or a charismatic praise session? Absolutely beginners? Or something else. Members of churches tend to know how things go in other denominations.
Am I completely on the wrong lines here?
I wasn't referring to churches where it's unpredictable in the services what is going to happen next. I loathe that. For years, I've found it very irritating that some people seem to imagine that anything predictable or structured is quenching the Spirit, that there's something specially spiritual about being spontaneous, and that those of us who aren't must therefore be less spiritual than those who are.
All I was saying is that a church ethos which expects those in the pews to perform in unison like a company doing military drill, is one I'd avoid.
As much as anyone else, I expect those taking the service to do what the liturgy says they are going to do, straightforwardly and in the right order, and preferably without too much prissiness.
Members of churches tend to know how things go in other denominations.
Not in my experience, at least not typically. Members of one church knowing how things go in other denominations, assuming they weren’t themselves once in or have family in that other denomination, are very much the exception in my experience.
But I think what some are talking about can just as easily apply to an Anglican visiting another Anglican church. Ceremonial and parish customaries concerning when (or if) to sit, stand, kneel, bow, make the sign of the cross, etc., can vary a lot, and not knowing how a particular parish does things can be stressful for some visitors.
This discussion highlights the difference between many social situations (formal dinners, high society balls, and the like, right down to pub etiquette) where there is an accepted code of behaviour, dress and deportment, and the church, where there isn't, or shouldn't be.
So if you have a church with a formal liturgy, then there's a clear structure of what people are expected to do. Say this. Don't say that. Sing this. Recite that in unison.
Why is it all fine and proper to have instructions for what people are supposed to say, but not to have instructions for what they are suppose to do? Why is "kneel to pray if you are able" an imposition?
Comments
It is interesting that those churches tend not to engage in local social projects with the mainstream RC parishes, and their clergy do not join in any joint worship with other RC parishes. They very much hold themselves apart.
That's a really good point @Doublethink but I should have specified that there's a difference between those Traditional Catholics who grieve the loss of the older liturgies and those 'ultra-Trads' who don't recognise the validity of any pope after PiusX (eg the followers of Archbishop Marcel Lefebre who was excommunicated in 1988). Schism is always a grief, the more so as it can take so long to be repaired. Coming from South Africa and the legacy of apartheid, rightwing white-supremacist groups in churches here are not going to enter into any dialogue.
I think for some time in Canada any predilection for older forms of music and liturgy was seen as politically suspect within mainstream Roman Catholicism, and while this may in itself have contributed to further polarization I can’t say that this suspicion was without reason. As I say lately I’ve been hearing more promising things especially about church music in mainstream Catholicism lately though I don’t have familiarity with the details.
Just a quick correction - Followers of Lefebre are the (F)SSPX who have no problems accepting the current Pope as Pope or any of his recent predecessors, in fact the current Pope is always prayed for at mass, and there is a picture of the current Pope in every SSPX Sacristy.
SSPX are not all excommunicated, nor are they fully in schism but they are in an irregular state of communion with the Catholic Church. They have valid orders and sacraments, but they are illicit as they do not have a faculties from their local bishop, nor do they have a mission from the Church. (Although they do have special faculties to hear confessions and grant absolution given directly to them by Pope Francis)
The status of the SSPX could change if only discussions between the Church and the SSPX could get off the ground (both sides were unwilling to accept any compromise in their last attempt)
To go back to the discussion - my experience of an SSPX chapel is that it is like any other parish, there are people who attend because they want the Latin Mass, but there are also people like me who just find it a convenient place to worship for one reason or another. There might be some hard right people there... but that's no different to any other church.
I'll also add that liturgy can have it's sloppy moments in a SSPX Church too! I was at a low mass a while back where the priest stumbled through one of the prayers, stopped, apologised to his altar server, and then started again.
I noticed. Maybe some other people noticed. Nobody really cared.
SSPX seem not to accept that the Vatican has the right to govern the Catholic Church in ways they don't agree with. So they disobey and have set up a church complete with its own hierarchy that is apart from the Catholic Church no matter what they say.
As many will know, I’m just south of Virginia, in North Carolina, and I’m a Presbyterian, not an Episcopalian. But I’ve had Episcopal connections, as it were, throughout my life, and am, I think, more familiar with TEC here than the average non-Episcopalian. North Carolina isn’t historically as low church as Virginia, and in the early days of what is now the Diocese of Western North Carolina, there was a pretty strong Oxford Movement influence. But these days I think the number of parishes that would self-identify as Anglo-Catholic can probably be counted on one hand.
You could say almost the same about our church (Anglo-catholic inheritance though very relaxed).
I think there is indeed truth in that. The story of how the SSPX came into fruition does not paint a pretty picture of Lefebvre at all. There is certainly a ‘schismatic’ spirit among many SSPX clergy (but not all). But remember, it is a clerical order, not a lay order. It is impossible for a layperson to actually join the SSPX, and as long as a lay person receives the sacraments from a SSPX chapel without intending to commit a schismatic act, then they may do so validly, but illicitly and would not be placing themselves at odds with the Church.
And there are several Wiki articles about that organisation.
Whoops!
Apologies.
The TEC experience described is probably a matter of seeing many participants doing these gestures and feeling like one is going to get it wrong; I can't imagine the vicar telling anyone to do any of these things. And if asked about it, their answer is most likely, "Oh, those things are traditional customs of personal piety, and you can do them or not, so don't worry about getting one wrong."
Fixed coding - Nenya, Ecclesiantics Host
I said 'I can't imagine' that, but the C of E being the bizarre collection of oddities that it is, it is not beyond possibility that some clergy person somewhere has decided that their church is their playground and they will make sure that everyone plays in the approved way.
We had a churchwarden some years ago who was also Head Server, and he, I'm sorry to say, did drive a few people away by being uber-critical and generally hostile to anyone who tried to help out. The egregious Fr F***wit, of course, did nothing to stop this from happening...
This, in my experience, is fairly common. These sorts of lay people are referred to as "liturgy queens" in certain parts of the AC world within TEC. The last parish I was at has such a person and he has successfully driven away quite a number of people, whole families!, in fact. But yes, I've never come across a priest who has told the parishioners how to behave in a service. I have a hard time imagining they would feel entitled to do such a thing, beyond obvious issues of eucharistic etiquette or the like (i.e. no intincture, no fainting after receiving, the like).
...because the C of E couldn't be bothered about it (or so he said).
AFAIK, no-one obliged him, apart from his own Lovely Wife.
No, Fr F insisted on genuflexion, so I cheerfully disobeyed, and bowed profoundly. As a result, our approach to the altar was a bit untidy, but I doubt if Our Lord minded...
The day soon came, of course, when Fr F himself had back trouble, but still insisted on genuflexion. We pointed out to him that if he couldn't straighten up again, we would have to stop the service, send the Faithful Few into the Hall, and call an Ambulance, as none of us were willing to risk our own backs in helping a tall and heavy man back onto his feet. We also pointed out to him how annoyed his Lovely Wife would be if this happened (she had enough to contend with at home), and it was that - not concern for us - which clinched the argument.
In fairness, the same individuals can also be fairly flexible and tolerant of variations too.
I suspect this is because many parishes are multicultural and there are different customs ad practices across the Orthosphere.
So however prescriptive a priest might be there is always someone present who is going to do things differently
I've also known Eastern Europeans openly castigate sub-deacons, other regulars and even visitors for not doing things in the way they are accustomed to in their countries of origin.
I have no idea whether what I do or don't do is 'right'. I just do whatever I do and hope for the best.
I did once visit an Anglo-Catholic parish in South Wales when the priest was on holiday. It was petty evident that he ruled his congregation with a rod of liturgical iron.
And does that depend on which mode your chant is in?
I am odd and in the autism spectrum but I would love it if every church I visited had a handbook that told every congregant exactly what to do at every single moment of the service, beyond just sit, stand, kneel, and make the sign of the cross. How should you hold your hands while praying? How should you enter and exit your pew? Exactly what do you do with your hands while receiving communion? What is a detailed description of the top recommendation what you could be doing with your mind and body in the long time after receiving communion before the service continues? I know I am in a very small minority. But I’d like to know that whatever I am doing at any moment, it is what is encouraged by that specific community, and not some pompous thing that my own OCD-related scrupulosity has imposed on myself.
I sympathise. But equally, any suggestion that certain practices are 'obligatory', or 'accepted' would exclude a greater number of people. Would a simple 'style guide' for taking part in worship, without suggesting that everyone should conform to it, be helpful to you?
For someone like @stonespring that might have been less than helpful, I appreciate, though I think the priest was on the right track...
I think so, if it was super-specific and didn’t give too many options, which just give me anxiety. But I think the only people who would be that prescriptivist are either very traditionalist RCs or perhaps socially liberal but liturgically priggish ACs (ACs who are particular about what the ministers and altar servers do are one thing, ones that get into regulating personal piety in the pews are another, as people have commented on upthread). So even if I loved such a book and followed it, I would feel like a pompous hypocritical prick, and if it’s a traditionalist RC book (I am RC), I would feel like I was some of self-hating gay by using it when most the other RCs are put off by it. And if there are Orthodox style guides, even Western rite ones, I would just feel like I was just stealing from another culture, and they would also be likely to be coming from some very very conservative people if they felt the need to publish such a book for the laity and not just the ministers and servers.
I'd be happy for there to be 'guides' as to what's going on in an Orthodox service. I might actually find out myself ... 😉
Trouble is, many parishes here tend to be multicultural irrespective of 'jurisdiction' so there'll be a range of cultural customs going on at the same time.
I've known Romanian parishioners snap at visitors (and our sub-deacon) for lighting candles in the 'wrong' way when in reality there is no set way of doing it.
People assume that their particular customs are universal.
I do think some kind of short explanatory guide for visitors would be helpful and some parishes have had them. But don't expect anything 'organised' in Orthodoxy. It's all over the place.
I hope you don't mind my saying this and I hope it is not too distressing. It's a symptom of the fact that 'we are all different'.
I recognise that none of us know how it feels to be anyone else, but for me, and if it was me, actually wanting to be told what to do to the extent you describe would betoken one of two spiritual maladies. One would be that my inner picture of God not as one who loves humankind but as one who was angry, threatening and only to be assuaged by the right sort of liturgical mechanics, meticulously conducted, one who was eager to punish people for not getting it all absolutely right. The other would be that I was so self-conscious that even when worshipping God, I was preoccupied by the thought not of God but that those around me were all looking at me.
Those are both mindsets I could imagine myself sinking into. The first is a picture that a person could all too easily get from a selective and somewhat dark reading of the Old Testament. The second is something many people absorb from early childhood and have difficulty growing out of.
As far as I know, I don't have OCD and that's probably caused by different things of which I'm not aware. But a church which issued the sort of regimented instructions you mention is one that I'd instinctively avoid. Id see it as a place that would feed temptations I wouldn't want to be led astray by. I don't think I'd be the only one. But thank you for sharing something that is as difficult for me to identify with, as what I say probably is for you.
It's not so much about being unable to stop worrying about what others think, but needing to clear these uncertainties from my own mind, before I can properly concentrate on the task in hand.
Hmm. My (diagnosed) neurodiversity puts me much more at the @stonespring end of things (and ironically @Enoch ‘s description of how that would make them feel nails exactly how their absence makes me feel!
I do think we got fairly close to what I think is the reality a couple of pages back - churches are great at including and welcoming *visible* diversity - and patting themselves on the back for doing so.
But too often in the process they exclude or ignore *invisible* diversity - perhaps because it sits in the ‘too difficult’ box and, being invisible, doesn’t have to be thought about.
You make a fair point and one that we should be aware of. But I don't see how that connects with the need for churches to be inclusive of all, by not demanding certain specific liturgical behaviour, dress codes and the like.
Can you make some suggestions of how a church could be a safe and welcoming place for the sorts of invisible diversity you have in mind?
This will have to do as a reply to both you and @angloid as in the middle of a very messy infant bedtime!
I think for me it amounts to basic honesty and being up front. If you’re going to be all Sally-free-and-easy embracing fluidity and unpredictability in a service (and I totally get that this is what many people want so I don’t want to stop it) then spell it out in so many words on your advertising.
If I didn’t know that the whole point of neuro diversity is it’s very divergence then I’d be more hung up than I am (as I slink away in tears having made a mistake with a service in an unfamiliar location) about professions of ‘inclusive and welcoming’ which have shaded over for me into ‘exclusive and unwelcoming for people with your brain.’
Basically I actually would advocate all churches dropping ‘inclusive’ and ‘welcoming’ from their notice boards and websites - because they simply cannot possibly be all-embracing, and just list out what their services are like
Ideally it’s for the church to spell out ‘this is exactly who we are, exactly what we do and exactly what our services are like’ and then everyone can make their own mind up.
I won’t cope somewhere that isn’t highly structured, conformist and by the book - no surprises, liturgy as expected, and knowing exactly how to behave.
I have to search that out - essentially defaulting to 8am BCP when visiting somewhere because at least I know how to do that.
But the misery of the unexpected and unprepared for is real.
In terms of a church actually being inclusive and welcoming - two things I’d suggest: a) have services (clearly described) of several different types if the church has the capacity and b) maybe have a basket of badges in the reception saying “I’m new, happy to chat” or similar and then folk only approach newbies wearing the badges.
This at least somewhat squares the how to welcome issue in that folk happy to be approached are clear and new folk who don’t want to be singled out won’t put a badge on.
Am I completely on the wrong lines here?
All I was saying is that a church ethos which expects those in the pews to perform in unison like a company doing military drill, is one I'd avoid.
As much as anyone else, I expect those taking the service to do what the liturgy says they are going to do, straightforwardly and in the right order, and preferably without too much prissiness.
But I think what some are talking about can just as easily apply to an Anglican visiting another Anglican church. Ceremonial and parish customaries concerning when (or if) to sit, stand, kneel, bow, make the sign of the cross, etc., can vary a lot, and not knowing how a particular parish does things can be stressful for some visitors.
So if you have a church with a formal liturgy, then there's a clear structure of what people are expected to do. Say this. Don't say that. Sing this. Recite that in unison.
Why is it all fine and proper to have instructions for what people are supposed to say, but not to have instructions for what they are suppose to do? Why is "kneel to pray if you are able" an imposition?