Indeed. I don't think things are quite as polarised as @Twangist's post suggests unless you head towards the more highly sacramental end of the spectrum or slide down to the snake-belly end.
Although I suspect the middle-ground is getting squeezed in both Anglican and non-conformist/Free Church settings here in the UK.
Just to say that I don't think there's a clear divide. I'd say that we are "semi-formal" - more formal than most Baptist churches (we even use some responsive liturgy) but not as formal as your average CofE parish church.
Our worship service is more balanced. As we have been receiving more people who have never been in a Lutheran setting, we have adjusted a bit to help them feel more included.
I can see that @Gramps49 and suspect it's something that is fairly common in Lutheran, Episcopalian and other historic churches in the US, Australasia and here in the UK.
The degree of adjustment will vary according to circumstances or inclination.
I can see that @Gramps49 and suspect it's something that is fairly common in Lutheran, Episcopalian and other historic churches in the US, Australasia and here in the UK.
The degree of adjustment will vary according to circumstances or inclination.
Not too common in American Episcopal churches, at least in my experience. Episcopal churches tend to stick closely to the (1979 American) Book of Common Prayer, or to other authorized liturgies. What Episcopal churches do do is look for ways to educate newcomers about how to follow the liturgy, and perhaps provide a more complete bulletin, to avoid the “Episcopal juggle” of prayer book, hymnal and (maybe) Bible.
I can see that @Gramps49 and suspect it's something that is fairly common in Lutheran, Episcopalian and other historic churches in the US, Australasia and here in the UK.
The degree of adjustment will vary according to circumstances or inclination.
Not too common in American Episcopal churches, at least in my experience. Episcopal churches tend to stick closely to the (1979 American) Book of Common Prayer, or to other authorized liturgies. What Episcopal churches do do is look for ways to educate newcomers about how to follow the liturgy, and perhaps provide a more complete bulletin, to avoid the “Episcopal juggle” of prayer book, hymnal and (maybe) Bible.
Can confirm...most churches stick to Rite I or II, or perhaps include some bits from Enriching Our Worship, the main liturgical supplement, and most even stick to one of a handful of musical settings, with a far narrower spread than Lutheran churches, in my experience. The all-in-one, or mostly all-in-one bulletin is becoming more and more common, too, to avoid the juggle. Our parish has had everything in the bulletin for a few years and it definitely makes the liturgy less intimidating for newcomers. Every once in a while, though, we'll do a service with the hymnals for nostalgia's sake.
The all-in-one, or mostly all-in-one bulletin is becoming more and more common, too, to avoid the juggle. Our parish has had everything in the bulletin for a few years and it definitely makes the liturgy less intimidating for newcomers. Every once in a while, though, we'll do a service with the hymnals for nostalgia's sake.
The all-in-one bulletin is pretty horrible for the environment though - disposing of all that single-use paper every week is hardly being a good steward of God's earth. I'm increasingly thinking that printing up re-usable orders of service that contain only the subset of the BCP that you actually use is the best compromise between care for the environment and the needs of the people. Have different orders of service for each Eucharistic Prayer that you commonly use, and swap them out as necessary.
I should have known really, as all US Episcopalian clergy I've met have been very liturgically conservative even if they are theologically liberal.
Interesting, though, that they try yo 'educate' people into the liturgy. That strikes me as a rather more principled way to go than the kind of hybrid services that many Anglican parishes attempt- both at the very High and very low ends of the spectrum.
The all-in-one bulletin is pretty horrible for the environment though - disposing of all that single-use paper every week is hardly being a good steward of God's earth. I'm increasingly thinking that printing up re-usable orders of service that contain only the subset of the BCP that you actually use is the best compromise between care for the environment and the needs of the people. Have different orders of service for each Eucharistic Prayer that you commonly use, and swap them out as necessary.
Yes, I do think about this pretty frequently, with our rather sizeable leaflets...It's on The List Of Things To Bring Up, for sure.
I should have known really, as all US Episcopalian clergy I've met have been very liturgically conservative even if they are theologically liberal.
Interesting, though, that they try yo 'educate' people into the liturgy. That strikes me as a rather more principled way to go than the kind of hybrid services that many Anglican parishes attempt- both at the very High and very low ends of the spectrum.
Yes, I very much agree, and I believe that it is far more effective to make your own liturgical style as accessible as possible, rather than try and create a hybrid that ends up with no one being really happy.
The all-in-one, or mostly all-in-one bulletin is becoming more and more common, too, to avoid the juggle. Our parish has had everything in the bulletin for a few years and it definitely makes the liturgy less intimidating for newcomers. Every once in a while, though, we'll do a service with the hymnals for nostalgia's sake.
The all-in-one bulletin is pretty horrible for the environment though - disposing of all that single-use paper every week is hardly being a good steward of God's earth. I'm increasingly thinking that printing up re-usable orders of service that contain only the subset of the BCP that you actually use is the best compromise between care for the environment and the needs of the people. Have different orders of service for each Eucharistic Prayer that you commonly use, and swap them out as necessary.
We put everything onto the screen but also produce a few paper copies for those who prefer them, or can't read from the screen.
The all-in-one, or mostly all-in-one bulletin is becoming more and more common, too, to avoid the juggle. Our parish has had everything in the bulletin for a few years and it definitely makes the liturgy less intimidating for newcomers. Every once in a while, though, we'll do a service with the hymnals for nostalgia's sake.
The all-in-one bulletin is pretty horrible for the environment though - disposing of all that single-use paper every week is hardly being a good steward of God's earth.
I agree. I mainly see them at Lutheran churches around these parts—they can run twenty or more pages (meaning 10 or more sheets of paper). And it surprises me given the environmental ethos I normally see in those churches otherwise.
The norm in Presbyterian churches in my experience seems to be a bulletin that contains all the text the congregation will need (responses with cues, unison prayers, etc.), but not the texts of readings or that only one person will say, and reference to hymn numbers. At our place, this means a bulletin of eight pages (two sheets).
We are the 'greenest'. 😉 The candle stubs go back to someone's house to be melted down to make more.
Only the choir have the words for the troporia, canons and chants. So they aren't loads of sheets of paper flying about. They are all filed away in a magic chest.
There are some laminated sheets at the back with The Creed for the benefit of those who don't know it or haven't memorised it.
Other than that, everyone who is able to do so stands around watching whatever is going on or wanders around venerating icons and lighting candles.
At the same time, nobody has a clue what's going on and what's scheduled and when, although we do have a FB page and email list.
We're not particularly 'green' in terms of the distances some people travel to get there.
Someone organises a collection of close-to-the-sell-by-date food from a supermarket which would otherwise go to waste and people help themselves to that or drive it round to needy families after the service.
After about 500 years you pick up what's meant to be happening and when.
Can I bring the discussion round to language?
In one of my Facebook groups there is a discussion about how formal language should be in the Mass. It was sparked by an American who is defending the current translation where God is often asked to "graciously deign to grant ....."
I REALLY dislike that language because
a) it sounds like we are addressing a despot who's basic state is one of reluctance, or ennui.
b) In the Lord's prayer we are given a model that we are instructed to follow "give us this day our daily bread," not "graciously deign to grant us ...."
I should say that the current translation replaces one that did not use such obsequious language. It was simple and dignified.
As an aside I find it a bit ironic that an American who lives in a republic should be defending language that is appropriate for a Byzantine despot, while I the subject of a monarch find it wholly inappropriate.
Though not Catholic, I do find myself at a Catholic Mass from time to time, and I’m very interested in and work with liturgy and liturgical language generally. I share your feelings about the current translation of the Mass. I’ll admit the pair of phrases that always strike me as horribly clunky and almost sycophantic are:
On the day before he was to suffer he took bread in his holy and venerable hands, and with eyes raised to heaven to you, O God, his almighty Father, giving you thanks he said the blessing, broke the bread and gave it to his disciples . . .
and
In a similar way, when supper was ended, he took this precious chalice in his holy and venerable hands, and once more giving you thanks, he said the blessing and gave the chalice to his disciples . . . .
Where to start? Redundancy? (Giving thanks and saying the blessing are the same thing.) Odd sentence construction? Using “chalice” instead of “cup,” which is what calix means? Laying it on thick with “his holy and venerable hands”?
I mean, I’ll grant I come at this with some different sensibilities that value a degree of simplicity and (hopefully) poetry, but this doesn’t seem to me to be an improvement on Paul’s
. . . that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, saying . . . .
It doesn’t strike me that simple is necessarily any less formal, but I think it can be more graceful.
Can I bring the discussion round to language?
In one of my Facebook groups there is a discussion about how formal language should be in the Mass. It was sparked by an American who is defending the current translation where God is often asked to "graciously deign to grant ....."
I REALLY dislike that language because
a) it sounds like we are addressing a despot who's basic state is one of reluctance, or ennui.
b) In the Lord's prayer we are given a model that we are instructed to follow "give us this day our daily bread," not "graciously deign to grant us ...."
I should say that the current translation replaces one that did not use such obsequious language. It was simple and dignified.
As an aside I find it a bit ironic that an American who lives in a republic should be defending language that is appropriate for a Byzantine despot, while I the subject of a monarch find it wholly inappropriate.
Maybe because we (in the US) don’t have that sense of hierarchy, especially ceremonial hierarchy, in our regular lives, so we feel we need it more?
At my Episcopal church, at least at the Wednesday 5:15 pm service I go to (because I suck at getting up early on Sundays), we have the Rite I service printed on double-sided laminated sheets.
I will also say that to me, “venerable hands,” while I know it means worthy of veneration, makes them sound old and wrinkly.
Yep!
I could have also mentioned that I always get just a little bit thrown by “On the day before he was to suffer,” given that by Jewish reckoning days start at sundown—meaning that from the perspective of the Gospel writers, the Last Supper and the crucifixion happened on the same day. But I also recognize that the Latin says pridie, “the day before,” so that’s not really a matter of translation choices.
I will also say that to me, “venerable hands,” while I know it means worthy of veneration, makes them sound old and wrinkly.
Yep!
I could have also mentioned that I always get just a little bit thrown by “On the day before he was to suffer,” given that by Jewish reckoning days start at sundown—meaning that from the perspective of the Gospel writers, the Last Supper and the crucifixion happened on the same day. But I also recognize that the Latin says pridie, “the day before,” so that’s not really a matter of translation choices.
Oh, the whole three day thing always weirds me out. Good Friday at noon, three days later makes me think it would be Monday…
I will also say that to me, “venerable hands,” while I know it means worthy of veneration, makes them sound old and wrinkly.
Yep!
I could have also mentioned that I always get just a little bit thrown by “On the day before he was to suffer,” given that by Jewish reckoning days start at sundown—meaning that from the perspective of the Gospel writers, the Last Supper and the crucifixion happened on the same day. But I also recognize that the Latin says pridie, “the day before,” so that’s not really a matter of translation choices.
Oh, the whole three day thing always weirds me out. Good Friday at noon, three days later makes me think it would be Monday…
The first day is sundown Thursday to sundown Friday, the second day is sundown Friday to sundown Saturday (i.e., the Sabbath), and the third day is sundown Saturday to sundown Sunday.
I will also say that to me, “venerable hands,” while I know it means worthy of veneration, makes them sound old and wrinkly.
Yep!
I could have also mentioned that I always get just a little bit thrown by “On the day before he was to suffer,” given that by Jewish reckoning days start at sundown—meaning that from the perspective of the Gospel writers, the Last Supper and the crucifixion happened on the same day. But I also recognize that the Latin says pridie, “the day before,” so that’s not really a matter of translation choices.
Oh, the whole three day thing always weirds me out. Good Friday at noon, three days later makes me think it would be Monday…
The first day is sundown Thursday to sundown Friday, the second day is sundown Friday to sundown Saturday (i.e., the Sabbath), and the third day is sundown Saturday to sundown Sunday.
Oh, I understand, I just imagine three full 24-hour periods, and I know it’s not like that. There’s a part of me that feels weird about the actual dates of the seasons, too. (“How is December 1 not winter??” Etc. Even though I know how it works…)
On the cup/chalice thing in the current translation.
The Latin uses calix for both. But the translation uses chalice for the vessel Jesus used (though it would have been a cup) but uses cup for the vessel we use (even though it is always a chalice.)
That seems to be a perverse use of language.
'The night before he was betrayed he had supper with his friends ...' which occurs in the Anglican Common Worship sounds like he was at a barbecue.
Whereas the thing @Alan29 cites from the RC Mass does indeed sound very Byzantine- says he who is trying to get used to things sounding Byzantine 🤔.
In the Orthosphere there are issues around Church Slavonic and liturgical Greek being 'understanded of the people' - there are stories of Russians and Greeks understanding the Liturgy for the first time when they hear it in English.
The Romanians, I'm told, update the language of the Liturgy quite regularly.
In English, though, the Liturgy tends to be rendered in a rather clumsy pastiche of Elizabethan or Jacobean English which both grates with geeks like me who are familiar with the original and actual 26th and 17th century English, and is off-putting to young people or those for whom English isn't their first language.
Off-putting for those young people that is, who don't see Orthodoxy as some kind of protest against the modern world and some kind of 'anti-woke' crusade.
There must be someone out there who can craft something that sounds poetic and carries some weight without sounding like some kind of Sealed Knot historical re-enactor or someone posting a social media notice about a party round at someone's house.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, my brother-in-law and sister-in-law tried out some large and well-known charismatic evangelical churches in the city where they now live only to grit their teeth at sermons which ran along the following lines: 'Jesus was like hanging out with his mates, right, when this guy comes up to him and he's like, 'Yo dude!' ...
They are now very happy and active members of their local Methodist church which sadly is in sharp decline. But there all the magnificent Wesleyan hymns have been replaced by woeful dirges with lines that don't scan and which continually tell the Almighty how sorry we ought to be for being privileged and middle-class.
Well, maybe, but since when has singing about that made a difference?
Don't get me started on the language... oh no, you already have ...
I quite like the blunt mundanity of the Common Worship text, as a leaping off point and a juxtaposition with the miracle about to occur. Taking the ordinary things and elevating them to the heavenly seems entirely in keeping with the sacrament.
Besides, Jesus liking a good (beach) barbecue is Biblically consistent.
Far too much of the language of "Common Worship" combines the very worst of the Prayer Book Society and a certain kind of Anglo-Catholicism. It was a real opportunity nearly entirely missed. The collects mostly make me shudder. In my humble opinion, the ASB (Alternative Service Book, published in 1980 as the first fully authorised alternative to the Book of Common Prayer since 1662 - see the utter shambles of the 1928 revision) was more successful because it eschewed the Prayer Book Society element and was therefore more self-consistent.
In the Orthosphere there are issues around Church Slavonic and liturgical Greek being 'understanded of the people' - there are stories of Russians and Greeks understanding the Liturgy for the first time when they hear it in English.
I have encountered this in the past. The Russians, Ukrainians, Georgians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Greeks, Arabs, and others who come to our church seem to be happy that we use English. They also see it as important for their children to learn to pray and worship in what is now their first language.
In English, though, the Liturgy tends to be rendered in a rather clumsy pastiche of Elizabethan or Jacobean English which both grates with geeks like me who are familiar with the original and actual 26th and 17th century English, and is off-putting to young people or those for whom English isn't their first language.
Not in our church. Our Archdiocese published a translation of the Divine Liturgy in modern English in 1995. With a few minor emendations and correction of typos that is what we still use.
For the other services we produce translations in the same style, and try to make them rather more accurate and intelligible than many of the published translations.
Off-putting for those young people that is, who don't see Orthodoxy as some kind of protest against the modern world and some kind of 'anti-woke' crusade.
There must be someone out there who can craft something that sounds poetic and carries some weight without sounding like some kind of Sealed Knot historical re-enactor or someone posting a social media notice about a party round at someone's house.
Going back to the all in one printed bulletin a bit, as a response: We have long bought recycled paper and we put the used bulletins in the recycling bin. We try to do due dilligence.
Going back to the all in one printed bulletin a bit, as a response: We have long bought recycled paper and we put the used bulletins in the recycling bin. We try to do due dilligence.
Reduce. Reuse. Then recycle. Recycling is energy and water intensive and isn't a substitute for using less in the first place.
Comments
Although I suspect the middle-ground is getting squeezed in both Anglican and non-conformist/Free Church settings here in the UK.
Our worship service is more balanced. As we have been receiving more people who have never been in a Lutheran setting, we have adjusted a bit to help them feel more included.
The degree of adjustment will vary according to circumstances or inclination.
Can confirm...most churches stick to Rite I or II, or perhaps include some bits from Enriching Our Worship, the main liturgical supplement, and most even stick to one of a handful of musical settings, with a far narrower spread than Lutheran churches, in my experience. The all-in-one, or mostly all-in-one bulletin is becoming more and more common, too, to avoid the juggle. Our parish has had everything in the bulletin for a few years and it definitely makes the liturgy less intimidating for newcomers. Every once in a while, though, we'll do a service with the hymnals for nostalgia's sake.
The all-in-one bulletin is pretty horrible for the environment though - disposing of all that single-use paper every week is hardly being a good steward of God's earth. I'm increasingly thinking that printing up re-usable orders of service that contain only the subset of the BCP that you actually use is the best compromise between care for the environment and the needs of the people. Have different orders of service for each Eucharistic Prayer that you commonly use, and swap them out as necessary.
I should have known really, as all US Episcopalian clergy I've met have been very liturgically conservative even if they are theologically liberal.
Interesting, though, that they try yo 'educate' people into the liturgy. That strikes me as a rather more principled way to go than the kind of hybrid services that many Anglican parishes attempt- both at the very High and very low ends of the spectrum.
Yes, I do think about this pretty frequently, with our rather sizeable leaflets...It's on The List Of Things To Bring Up, for sure.
Yes, I very much agree, and I believe that it is far more effective to make your own liturgical style as accessible as possible, rather than try and create a hybrid that ends up with no one being really happy.
We put everything onto the screen but also produce a few paper copies for those who prefer them, or can't read from the screen.
The norm in Presbyterian churches in my experience seems to be a bulletin that contains all the text the congregation will need (responses with cues, unison prayers, etc.), but not the texts of readings or that only one person will say, and reference to hymn numbers. At our place, this means a bulletin of eight pages (two sheets).
Only the choir have the words for the troporia, canons and chants. So they aren't loads of sheets of paper flying about. They are all filed away in a magic chest.
There are some laminated sheets at the back with The Creed for the benefit of those who don't know it or haven't memorised it.
Other than that, everyone who is able to do so stands around watching whatever is going on or wanders around venerating icons and lighting candles.
At the same time, nobody has a clue what's going on and what's scheduled and when, although we do have a FB page and email list.
We're not particularly 'green' in terms of the distances some people travel to get there.
Someone organises a collection of close-to-the-sell-by-date food from a supermarket which would otherwise go to waste and people help themselves to that or drive it round to needy families after the service.
After about 500 years you pick up what's meant to be happening and when.
In one of my Facebook groups there is a discussion about how formal language should be in the Mass. It was sparked by an American who is defending the current translation where God is often asked to "graciously deign to grant ....."
I REALLY dislike that language because
a) it sounds like we are addressing a despot who's basic state is one of reluctance, or ennui.
b) In the Lord's prayer we are given a model that we are instructed to follow "give us this day our daily bread," not "graciously deign to grant us ...."
I should say that the current translation replaces one that did not use such obsequious language. It was simple and dignified.
As an aside I find it a bit ironic that an American who lives in a republic should be defending language that is appropriate for a Byzantine despot, while I the subject of a monarch find it wholly inappropriate.
Though not Catholic, I do find myself at a Catholic Mass from time to time, and I’m very interested in and work with liturgy and liturgical language generally. I share your feelings about the current translation of the Mass. I’ll admit the pair of phrases that always strike me as horribly clunky and almost sycophantic are: and Where to start? Redundancy? (Giving thanks and saying the blessing are the same thing.) Odd sentence construction? Using “chalice” instead of “cup,” which is what calix means? Laying it on thick with “his holy and venerable hands”?
I mean, I’ll grant I come at this with some different sensibilities that value a degree of simplicity and (hopefully) poetry, but this doesn’t seem to me to be an improvement on Paul’s
It doesn’t strike me that simple is necessarily any less formal, but I think it can be more graceful.
Maybe because we (in the US) don’t have that sense of hierarchy, especially ceremonial hierarchy, in our regular lives, so we feel we need it more?
I could have also mentioned that I always get just a little bit thrown by “On the day before he was to suffer,” given that by Jewish reckoning days start at sundown—meaning that from the perspective of the Gospel writers, the Last Supper and the crucifixion happened on the same day. But I also recognize that the Latin says pridie, “the day before,” so that’s not really a matter of translation choices.
Oh, the whole three day thing always weirds me out. Good Friday at noon, three days later makes me think it would be Monday…
Oh, I understand, I just imagine three full 24-hour periods, and I know it’s not like that. There’s a part of me that feels weird about the actual dates of the seasons, too. (“How is December 1 not winter??” Etc. Even though I know how it works…)
The Latin uses calix for both. But the translation uses chalice for the vessel Jesus used (though it would have been a cup) but uses cup for the vessel we use (even though it is always a chalice.)
That seems to be a perverse use of language.
'The night before he was betrayed he had supper with his friends ...' which occurs in the Anglican Common Worship sounds like he was at a barbecue.
Whereas the thing @Alan29 cites from the RC Mass does indeed sound very Byzantine- says he who is trying to get used to things sounding Byzantine 🤔.
In the Orthosphere there are issues around Church Slavonic and liturgical Greek being 'understanded of the people' - there are stories of Russians and Greeks understanding the Liturgy for the first time when they hear it in English.
The Romanians, I'm told, update the language of the Liturgy quite regularly.
In English, though, the Liturgy tends to be rendered in a rather clumsy pastiche of Elizabethan or Jacobean English which both grates with geeks like me who are familiar with the original and actual 26th and 17th century English, and is off-putting to young people or those for whom English isn't their first language.
Off-putting for those young people that is, who don't see Orthodoxy as some kind of protest against the modern world and some kind of 'anti-woke' crusade.
There must be someone out there who can craft something that sounds poetic and carries some weight without sounding like some kind of Sealed Knot historical re-enactor or someone posting a social media notice about a party round at someone's house.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, my brother-in-law and sister-in-law tried out some large and well-known charismatic evangelical churches in the city where they now live only to grit their teeth at sermons which ran along the following lines: 'Jesus was like hanging out with his mates, right, when this guy comes up to him and he's like, 'Yo dude!' ...
They are now very happy and active members of their local Methodist church which sadly is in sharp decline. But there all the magnificent Wesleyan hymns have been replaced by woeful dirges with lines that don't scan and which continually tell the Almighty how sorry we ought to be for being privileged and middle-class.
Well, maybe, but since when has singing about that made a difference?
Don't get me started on the language... oh no, you already have ...
Besides, Jesus liking a good (beach) barbecue is Biblically consistent.
Yup; penultimate nail in the proverbial coffin….
I have encountered this in the past. The Russians, Ukrainians, Georgians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Greeks, Arabs, and others who come to our church seem to be happy that we use English. They also see it as important for their children to learn to pray and worship in what is now their first language.
Their translations have been revised several times over the last 200 years or so since they first started using Romanian.
Not in our church. Our Archdiocese published a translation of the Divine Liturgy in modern English in 1995. With a few minor emendations and correction of typos that is what we still use.
For the other services we produce translations in the same style, and try to make them rather more accurate and intelligible than many of the published translations.
We do our best. The work is ongoing.
Reduce. Reuse. Then recycle. Recycling is energy and water intensive and isn't a substitute for using less in the first place.