There is an expectation that people know what to do, or that they are able to look around and do what others are doing.
Kneel and pray is a good example of liturgical divergence between churches. At ecumenical services "Let us pray" would cause RCs to leap to their feet and everyone else to drop to their knees.
There is an expectation that people know what to do, or that they are able to look around and do what others are doing.
Kneel and pray is a good example of liturgical divergence between churches. At ecumenical services "Let us pray" would cause RCs to leap to their feet and everyone else to drop to their knees.
There is an expectation that people know what to do, or that they are able to look around and do what others are doing.
Kneel and pray is a good example of liturgical divergence between churches. At ecumenical services "Let us pray" would cause RCs to leap to their feet and everyone else to drop to their knees.
Most people who regularly attend a church will be aware that other churches sometimes do things differently. They may even know what these differences are. However it doesn't stop one being surprised if someone actually does these things like standing up when you yourself might be used to sitting down.
It is not only in religion but in other parts of daily life. When, for example, Italians visit the UK they find it hard to adapt to the fact that British shops are usually open at lunchtime and close in the early evening, even although they may have read about this before.
British meal times are also strange, even although tourists may have been informed about this beforehand.
One time I was in Iceland ( the country, not the shop !) at Christmas time and I simply could not accept that it didn't get light until 11 a.m. even although I knew theoretically that this was the case.
There is an expectation that people know what to do, or that they are able to look around and do what others are doing.
In the case of some people with anxiety, ADHD and autistic spectrum disorders, those expectations would in fact be wrong.
I'm not defending it, just stating it.
Oh I know - that's sort of my point though - we're (and I include myself in this) much better at dealing with what we can see. It's only since my diagnosis - which explained a lot of things frankly - that I've realised that instead of it being a 'me' problem I'm not alone, and therefore we need to think carefully about the implications for how we deal with unseen things.
Because frankly we're not very good at it. And for people like me (which is, again, NOT all people with ASD but there is a subset) it's about being clear and open in advance about what is going to happen and what the expectations are.
That does tend to drive me towards highly structured and regimented (priest/servers and people) to be honest - not because of prissiness or tat worship (both of which as an Anglo Catholic I recognise as issues), but because of predictability.
I don't want to stop the services that aren't like that - I just want to know which aren't like that so I can avoid them.
As a rule of thumb I'm ok with BCP, or most Common Worship (though given the variety in that it's more than possible to concoct a service that would have me running for the hills), and anything that's put on by a Forward in Faith or Society parish - not because these days I'm particularly of that party but I did come to faith in it so I recognise if all else fails I know what I'm going to get.
But I struggle with anything where I don't have the above cues - Morning Worship, family service, family communion, messy church, cafe church, etc - because who knows (other than the habitue of that church) what you're going to actually get?
Essentially therefore in a strange place it's usually either 8am BCP or don't go to church at all - because life is too short (for me and them) to be ringing priests in advance for a chat about their format of Sunday worship.
I don't want the world to change to accommodate me or any people like me, but I would like small adjustments to language and description of forthcoming services that might help me to make a decision and feel less distressed. I have exited churches during a service too many times - not to make a point, or because I *dislike* something they're doing/not doing, but because I'm distressed and don't know how to continue.
There is an expectation that people know what to do, or that they are able to look around and do what others are doing.
Kneel and pray is a good example of liturgical divergence between churches. At ecumenical services "Let us pray" would cause RCs to leap to their feet and everyone else to drop to their knees.
Except Presbyterians, who would remain seated.
They are vanishing rare in these parts.
They are all but completely vanished in my State. In the discussions which followed when the Uniting Church was formed, there was a major reallocation of assets. In the suburb next to us, the Presbyterians had a magnificent church by a well-known architect, while the Methodists' church was non-descript .On merger, the new Uniting Church was allocated the former Presbyterian church, leaving the Presbyterians with the old Methodist building. Much wailing and gnashing of teeth, but that was that.
betjemaniac Are you able to go to a film or a theatrical performance even if you do not know exactly what is going to happen ?
I would think that’s a very different thing. At a movie or theatrical performance, you’re simply in the audience, watching things unfold. All that is expected is to sit there and react.
At church, the expectation, and the desire, is to participate, and for some people, not knowing how to participate or what is expected can be very stressful.
betjemaniac Are you able to go to a film or a theatrical performance even if you do not know exactly what is going to happen ?
I would think that’s a very different thing. At a movie or theatrical performance, you’re simply in the audience, watching things unfold. All that is expected is to sit there and react.
At church, the expectation, and the desire, is to participate, and for some people, not knowing how to participate or what is expected can be very stressful.
This - ‘can you sit quietly and watch something?’ is a massively different question to ‘how are you at going to interactive things and interacting?’ Surely?
A bit confused though - if I was in wheelchair I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t get ‘are you able to do xyz irrelevant other things?’ if I asked for a wheelchair ramp to enter a building….
I understand the anxiety that people may feel if they are attending a religious service the format of which they are not familiar with ,but surely, if they don't understand it then they are better just to sit and watch rather than feel that they have to participate in exactly the way the others do.
When we go to the theatre there are times when some people wish to participate by clapping, by laughing, by shouting out 'bravo', ,by standing up, by jeering or just by sitting in stony silence.
Some people, when they go to the theatre , do participate 'interactively' others don't but rather follow politely what others do.
Why can it not be the same in a church, particularly if it is a community where the religious service is structured like a play, an opera or a concert ?
I understand the anxiety that people may feel if they are attending a religious service the format of which they are not familiar with ,but surely, if they don't understand it then they are better just to sit and watch rather than feel that they have to participate in exactly the way the others do.
When we go to the theatre there are times when some people wish to participate by clapping, by laughing, by shouting out 'bravo', ,by standing up, by jeering or just by sitting in stony silence.
Some people, when they go to the theatre , do participate 'interactively' others don't but rather follow politely what others do.
Why can it not be the same in a church, particularly if it is a community where the religious service is structured like a play, an opera or a concert ?
Again ‘but surely…?’ Isn’t something that gets said much to wheelchair users.
There is a whole level of anxiety caused by genuine diagnosed medical conditions when put into situations where you feel you should be doing something because everyone else is. Which is not lessened by feeling free not to do it? Does that make sense?
Honestly, I’m not sitting here making all this up. This is lived experience.
I’m literally repeating over and over again what the problem is for me and some others, and getting ‘but surely…?’ and a million other reasons why everything’s broadly fine because there’s some quick fix that those of us affected are just refusing to do/see.
I understand the anxiety that people may feel if they are attending a religious service the format of which they are not familiar with ,but surely, if they don't understand it then they are better just to sit and watch rather than feel that they have to participate in exactly the way the others do.
Speaking only for myself, the answer is no, I am not better off, not if I’ve gone for the purpose of worshipping. If that works for you, great. But please don’t assume that because it works for you, it surely works for everyone.
I’m literally repeating over and over again what the problem is for me and some others, and getting ‘but surely…?’ and a million other reasons why everything’s broadly fine because there’s some quick fix that those of us affected are just refusing to do/see.
So much for Epiphanies guidelines.
To be fair I think we are trying to understand something that is beyond our experience.
For what it's worth I prefer to stick with the Liturgy I know and am comfortable with. I know what's coming, usually the precise words. And I know when to stand/sit etc. And I know to steer clear of services where I may be expected to behave in a way that I would be uncomfortable with, be it kissing an icon or shouting out "Yes Lord!"
I am shy and uncomfortable with people but find comfort in being in a social setting which is highly regulated like at Mass. It gives me the contact with others that I might otherwise lack.
Very good points, Alan29. I am uncomfortable with too much extraversion, I like to be left alone. I found the standard Mass a good fit. God, I'm so English.
I understand the anxiety that people may feel if they are attending a religious service the format of which they are not familiar with ,but surely, if they don't understand it then they are better just to sit and watch rather than feel that they have to participate in exactly the way the others do.
But you see, the problem is that when other people are doing something, there's an implied expectation that you should be doing something too. If you're watching a film, everyone is (supposed to be) sitting in their seats with their mouths shut, so if that's what you're doing, you're doing the "right thing".
If you're watching a play, or a ballet, or a concert, then you sit down and shut up except at a very limited number of times when it's appropriate to applaud, and joining in with applause is easy.
If, on the other hand, you roll up to a church for worship, and people around you are spontaneously doing things you don't expect at times you don't expect, there's a social pressure that you ought to be doing something too. You can say "but there shouldn't be - you're allowed to do things or not as you like" until the cows come home, and that won't make the slightest difference to many people with anxiety-containing conditions such as @betjemaniac describes.
I might also offer the difference between ballroom dancing of various kinds, country dancing, line dancing and so on, where there are fairly clear instructions for how to execute a particular dance, and what happens in a contemporary nightclub, where one is expected to respond spontaneously to the music, except that there are a set of unclear and unspoken rules about what kind of spontaneous responses are acceptable.
I might also offer the difference between ballroom dancing of various kinds, country dancing, line dancing and so on, where there are fairly clear instructions for how to execute a particular dance, and what happens in a contemporary nightclub, where one is expected to respond spontaneously to the music, except that there are a set of unclear and unspoken rules about what kind of spontaneous responses are acceptable.
I am a very good Scottish dancer/reeler*. I am useless, and tend to want to leave, in a nightclub.
*I don't think I'd get many points from the purists, but I'm safe at balls to be in charge of people who've never done it before and throw them where they're supposed to be/get them through a dance without injury.
Why? There are rules, I have learned and practiced those rules, and I know what I'm doing.
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.
What Enoch says. Every church has to compromise between what its ideal style of liturgy is, and the expectations of many varied worshippers. I can only speak first hand of the Church of England, but as everyone knows they come in all shapes and sizes and in urban areas there is usually a choice available. Some people will gravitate to churches with ultra-formal liturgy, and others to the opposite. But many – maybe most – worshippers will be reasonably happy with their local church or one they have chosen for other reasons ( is it LGBT+ friendly, does it have facilities for children/ older people, is it a friendly community, is the preaching good - or, in rural areas, it is the only church for miles around- ...etc).
I would be totally freaked out by free-for-all 'informal' worship, especially if it was non eucharistic. The C of E has basic norms and expectations, one of which is that the eucharist should be celebrated at least weekly. As Enoch implies, the liturgy should be celebrated as the book (BCP or Common Worship) directs, but the way this is done will vary considerably from place to place.
But none of this should assume a draconian code of behaviour is imposed on anyone. Our church's liturgy is basically traditional, follows a consistent pattern and incorporates many ceremonial gestures, symbols and movement. Some people will bow, make the sign of the cross, light candles; others will simply sit and observe. Some people arrive early and sit in silcnce before the mass; many others arrive at the last minute or late. All are equally welcome. There is one family where the father and two children are all on the autistic spectrum – the children's behaviour can be challenging and none of them participate in the service in a conventional way – and I am pretty sure that they are able to behave as they do because of the formal structure going on around them.
So as I see it, 'free for all' is fine – indeed vital – if it means people should be free to behave as they wish (provided it is not anti-social nor upsetting to others); but if it means there should be no structured liturgy or accepted norms, it is not helpful.
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.
What Enoch says. Every church has to compromise between what its ideal style of liturgy is, and the expectations of many varied worshippers. I can only speak first hand of the Church of England, but as everyone knows they come in all shapes and sizes and in urban areas there is usually a choice available. Some people will gravitate to churches with ultra-formal liturgy, and others to the opposite. But many – maybe most – worshippers will be reasonably happy with their local church or one they have chosen for other reasons ( is it LGBT+ friendly, does it have facilities for children/ older people, is it a friendly community, is the preaching good - or, in rural areas, it is the only church for miles around- ...etc).
I would be totally freaked out by free-for-all 'informal' worship, especially if it was non eucharistic. The C of E has basic norms and expectations, one of which is that the eucharist should be celebrated at least weekly. As Enoch implies, the liturgy should be celebrated as the book (BCP or Common Worship) directs, but the way this is done will vary considerably from place to place.
But none of this should assume a draconian code of behaviour is imposed on anyone. Our church's liturgy is basically traditional, follows a consistent pattern and incorporates many ceremonial gestures, symbols and movement. Some people will bow, make the sign of the cross, light candles; others will simply sit and observe. Some people arrive early and sit in silcnce before the mass; many others arrive at the last minute or late. All are equally welcome. There is one family where the father and two children are all on the autistic spectrum – the children's behaviour can be challenging and none of them participate in the service in a conventional way – and I am pretty sure that they are able to behave as they do because of the formal structure going on around them.
So as I see it, 'free for all' is fine – indeed vital – if it means people should be free to behave as they wish (provided it is not anti-social nor upsetting to others); but if it means there should be no structured liturgy or accepted norms, it is not helpful.
I totally agree - but the current argument seems to be about how much of that is telegraphed in advance of the service (and how it is telegraphed). There’s a lot of defensive ‘we do it like this and it’s fine’ on this thread, which is lovely, but I’m not saying any church should change what it does.
I’m saying it should own and shout about what it does such that people can decide in advance whether or not to come. And every church should be aware of who what it does excludes. Because what it does *will* exclude someone - whether nosebleed high, low, all points in between. Too formal, too informal, all the dead horses, praise bands, organs whatever.
Especially if it can’t do more than one service a week.
My own church manages three services a month (mostly, sometimes fewer) - I run one of them, the second is Eucharistic, and the third I hide from.
That’s fine - everyone gets at least something of what they want.
The difficulty is when you’re not at home and you’ve got no idea what the nearest church does.
The internet helps, but only if the church bothers to keep its profile up to date.
I don’t want any church to change. I do want it to be aware of who it is excluding and including, and be clear and open about that.
I was a member of an Anglo Catholic congregation of the Anglican Church of Canada in Montreal in the 1970s. It featured east-facing high masses with chasubles, dalmatics, tunicles, maniples etc, Sarum-y ceremonial but the liturgy was straight out of the 1962 Canadian BCP (but with the Gloria at the beginning of the service instead of after communion) and the music was Merbecke. It was a wholly Percy Dearmer parish: the ceremonial was based on his Parson's Handbook and hymns were sung out of his green English Hymnal. Smells and bells of course. Similar congregations existed in Toronto, Ottawa and other cities in Canada as well. On my first solo trip to the UK in the 70s I attended Sunday mass at some AC parishes in London and Oxford and was surprised to find fiddle back chasubles and Vatican II liturgy seeming to be the norm. It was a bit of a shock as I suppose I expected C of E services to be more "English" somehow than in Anglophile Canada. At that time, broad church congregations had Choral Mattins on the 2nd and 4th Sundays with surplice and tippet and Sung Eucharist with surplice and stole. Then in 1983 the Church brought out the Book of Alternative Services. This book was adopted quickly by most congregations across the country and became the de facto liturgy of the ACC with the Prayer Book relegated to minority sort of "crank" status. One of the unfortunate by-products of this change was to basically kill sung Mattins and Evensong as the new modern-language Psalter and versions of Morning and Evening Prayer couldn't be sung using the traditional familiar music settings. So the main Sunday service across the ACC became the Holy Eucharist, with the modern liturgy more closely resembling the Roman rite, along with the Revised Common Lectionary, and the go-to Sunday kit for celebrants becoming alb and stole, and chasubles more widespread, to where the generic Anglican service in Canada became a sort of low catholic sort of thing. Low Church, which had been surplice and scarf BCP with Holy Communion once a month disappeared completely. We have never had, as far as I can tell, anything like the C of E Holy Trinity Brompton style of Low Church in the ACC. I've moved on since to the Presbyterian Church in Canada which is very much like the Church of Scotland or the liberal Presbyterian Church USA (although I'm a secret Swedenborgian heretic lol), but I really miss the old broad church Anglican style mixture of BCP Mattins, Evensong and Holy Communion which was what I grew up with as a child before the Anglo Catholic thing. Does that sort of worship exist anywhere in the C of E today?
There is an expectation that people know what to do, or that they are able to look around and do what others are doing.
Kneel and pray is a good example of liturgical divergence between churches. At ecumenical services "Let us pray" would cause RCs to leap to their feet and everyone else to drop to their knees.
Except Presbyterians, who would remain seated.
I preach monthly at a community church that is made up of Lutherans and Presbyterians. After one year, I still cannot figure out when they stand or sit.
I was a member of an Anglo Catholic congregation of the Anglican Church of Canada in Montreal in the 1970s. It featured east-facing high masses with chasubles, dalmatics, tunicles, maniples etc, Sarum-y ceremonial but the liturgy was straight out of the 1962 Canadian BCP (but with the Gloria at the beginning of the service instead of after communion) and the music was Merbecke. It was a wholly Percy Dearmer parish: the ceremonial was based on his Parson's Handbook and hymns were sung out of his green English Hymnal. Smells and bells of course. Similar congregations existed in Toronto, Ottawa and other cities in Canada as well. On my first solo trip to the UK in the 70s I attended Sunday mass at some AC parishes in London and Oxford and was surprised to find fiddle back chasubles and Vatican II liturgy seeming to be the norm. It was a bit of a shock as I suppose I expected C of E services to be more "English" somehow than in Anglophile Canada. At that time, broad church congregations had Choral Mattins on the 2nd and 4th Sundays with surplice and tippet and Sung Eucharist with surplice and stole. Then in 1983 the Church brought out the Book of Alternative Services. This book was adopted quickly by most congregations across the country and became the de facto liturgy of the ACC with the Prayer Book relegated to minority sort of "crank" status. One of the unfortunate by-products of this change was to basically kill sung Mattins and Evensong as the new modern-language Psalter and versions of Morning and Evening Prayer couldn't be sung using the traditional familiar music settings. So the main Sunday service across the ACC became the Holy Eucharist, with the modern liturgy more closely resembling the Roman rite, along with the Revised Common Lectionary, and the go-to Sunday kit for celebrants becoming alb and stole, and chasubles more widespread, to where the generic Anglican service in Canada became a sort of low catholic sort of thing. Low Church, which had been surplice and scarf BCP with Holy Communion once a month disappeared completely. We have never had, as far as I can tell, anything like the C of E Holy Trinity Brompton style of Low Church in the ACC. I've moved on since to the Presbyterian Church in Canada which is very much like the Church of Scotland or the liberal Presbyterian Church USA (although I'm a secret Swedenborgian heretic lol), but I really miss the old broad church Anglican style mixture of BCP Mattins, Evensong and Holy Communion which was what I grew up with as a child before the Anglo Catholic thing. Does that sort of worship exist anywhere in the C of E today?
Ish. Especially in rural areas. IME Evensong in many such parishes is basically dead (I genuinely have no idea when we last did it) but some sort of combination of Mattins and HC trundles on
By random coincidence last week I happened to find out about a parish in Toronto that sounds very much like what you describe, at least in terms of morning services:
I was a member of an Anglo Catholic congregation of the Anglican Church of Canada in Montreal in the 1970s. It featured east-facing high masses with chasubles, dalmatics, tunicles, maniples etc, Sarum-y ceremonial but the liturgy was straight out of the 1962 Canadian BCP (but with the Gloria at the beginning of the service instead of after communion) and the music was Merbecke. It was a wholly Percy Dearmer parish: the ceremonial was based on his Parson's Handbook and hymns were sung out of his green English Hymnal. Smells and bells of course. Similar congregations existed in Toronto, Ottawa and other cities in Canada as well. On my first solo trip to the UK in the 70s I attended Sunday mass at some AC parishes in London and Oxford and was surprised to find fiddle back chasubles and Vatican II liturgy seeming to be the norm. It was a bit of a shock as I suppose I expected C of E services to be more "English" somehow than in Anglophile Canada. At that time, broad church congregations had Choral Mattins on the 2nd and 4th Sundays with surplice and tippet and Sung Eucharist with surplice and stole. Then in 1983 the Church brought out the Book of Alternative Services. This book was adopted quickly by most congregations across the country and became the de facto liturgy of the ACC with the Prayer Book relegated to minority sort of "crank" status. One of the unfortunate by-products of this change was to basically kill sung Mattins and Evensong as the new modern-language Psalter and versions of Morning and Evening Prayer couldn't be sung using the traditional familiar music settings. So the main Sunday service across the ACC became the Holy Eucharist, with the modern liturgy more closely resembling the Roman rite, along with the Revised Common Lectionary, and the go-to Sunday kit for celebrants becoming alb and stole, and chasubles more widespread, to where the generic Anglican service in Canada became a sort of low catholic sort of thing. Low Church, which had been surplice and scarf BCP with Holy Communion once a month disappeared completely. We have never had, as far as I can tell, anything like the C of E Holy Trinity Brompton style of Low Church in the ACC. I've moved on since to the Presbyterian Church in Canada which is very much like the Church of Scotland or the liberal Presbyterian Church USA (although I'm a secret Swedenborgian heretic lol), but I really miss the old broad church Anglican style mixture of BCP Mattins, Evensong and Holy Communion which was what I grew up with as a child before the Anglo Catholic thing. Does that sort of worship exist anywhere in the C of E today?
Ish. Especially in rural areas. IME Evensong in many such parishes is basically dead (I genuinely have no idea when we last did it) but some sort of combination of Mattins and HC trundles on
Interesting. From an urban C of E perspective I was going to say Mattins as a main service was dead. It's usually Eucharist except in the (increasingly numerous) evangelical churches which tend to the charismatic, informal and unstructured. But I'd forgotten that many village congregations will stick to the old ways because they have no enthusiasm for the latter style, and their priest is probably shared with half a dozen other churches making a weekly eucharist impossible.
I think sung (or choral) Mattins is still a thing in a few cathedrals however. Mostly playing second fiddle to Choral Eucharist.
On my first solo trip to the UK in the 70s I attended Sunday mass at some AC parishes in London and Oxford and was surprised to find fiddle back chasubles and Vatican II liturgy seeming to be the norm. It was a bit of a shock as I suppose I expected C of E services to be more "English" somehow than in Anglophile Canada.
I've always been fascinated by the use of the (modern) Roman Missal in C of E parishes, because I think this has been done in close to zero Anglican parishes in the USA and (I'm guessing) Canada. A fellow parishioner once claimed it had been used in a (now defunct) parish here in Chicago, but I think he might have meant the Anglican Missal or one of the other "illegal" ones in the 1928 BCP era.
I've always been fascinated by the use of the (modern) Roman Missal in C of E parishes, because I think this has been done in close to zero Anglican parishes in the USA and (I'm guessing) Canada. A fellow parishioner once claimed it had been used in a (now defunct) parish here in Chicago, but I think he might have meant the Anglican Missal or one of the other "illegal" ones in the 1928 BCP era.[/b
"Fascinated", how or why? Personally I find it completely incomprehensible. It strikes me as a prissy conceit, 'Oh look we're breaking the rules, but we know better than the ecclesiastical hoi polloi, and aren't we so clever'. Richard Chartres, the previous and now retired Bishop of London, tried to stamp it out in his diocese.
Common Worship provides clergy with a huge amount of flexibility in how they put together their services. There really is no excuse for going outside its range.
I was a member of an Anglo Catholic congregation of the Anglican Church of Canada in Montreal in the 1970s. It featured east-facing high masses with chasubles, dalmatics, tunicles, maniples etc, Sarum-y ceremonial but the liturgy was straight out of the 1962 Canadian BCP (but with the Gloria at the beginning of the service instead of after communion) and the music was Merbecke. It was a wholly Percy Dearmer parish: the ceremonial was based on his Parson's Handbook and hymns were sung out of his green English Hymnal. Smells and bells of course. Similar congregations existed in Toronto, Ottawa and other cities in Canada as well. On my first solo trip to the UK in the 70s I attended Sunday mass at some AC parishes in London and Oxford and was surprised to find fiddle back chasubles and Vatican II liturgy seeming to be the norm. It was a bit of a shock as I suppose I expected C of E services to be more "English" somehow than in Anglophile Canada. At that time, broad church congregations had Choral Mattins on the 2nd and 4th Sundays with surplice and tippet and Sung Eucharist with surplice and stole. Then in 1983 the Church brought out the Book of Alternative Services. This book was adopted quickly by most congregations across the country and became the de facto liturgy of the ACC with the Prayer Book relegated to minority sort of "crank" status. One of the unfortunate by-products of this change was to basically kill sung Mattins and Evensong as the new modern-language Psalter and versions of Morning and Evening Prayer couldn't be sung using the traditional familiar music settings. So the main Sunday service across the ACC became the Holy Eucharist, with the modern liturgy more closely resembling the Roman rite, along with the Revised Common Lectionary, and the go-to Sunday kit for celebrants becoming alb and stole, and chasubles more widespread, to where the generic Anglican service in Canada became a sort of low catholic sort of thing. Low Church, which had been surplice and scarf BCP with Holy Communion once a month disappeared completely. We have never had, as far as I can tell, anything like the C of E Holy Trinity Brompton style of Low Church in the ACC. I've moved on since to the Presbyterian Church in Canada which is very much like the Church of Scotland or the liberal Presbyterian Church USA (although I'm a secret Swedenborgian heretic lol), but I really miss the old broad church Anglican style mixture of BCP Mattins, Evensong and Holy Communion which was what I grew up with as a child before the Anglo Catholic thing. Does that sort of worship exist anywhere in the C of E today?
Ish. Especially in rural areas. IME Evensong in many such parishes is basically dead (I genuinely have no idea when we last did it) but some sort of combination of Mattins and HC trundles on
Interesting. From an urban C of E perspective I was going to say Mattins as a main service was dead. It's usually Eucharist except in the (increasingly numerous) evangelical churches which tend to the charismatic, informal and unstructured. But I'd forgotten that many village congregations will stick to the old ways because they have no enthusiasm for the latter style, and their priest is probably shared with half a dozen other churches making a weekly eucharist impossible.
I think sung (or choral) Mattins is still a thing in a few cathedrals however. Mostly playing second fiddle to Choral Eucharist.
Our pattern per month of Sundays is HC, Mattins, Cafe church, blank - priest for HC, lay reader for cafe church, me for Mattins.
similar in other churches in surrounding villages.
I was a member of an Anglo Catholic congregation of the Anglican Church of Canada in Montreal in the 1970s. It featured east-facing high masses with chasubles, dalmatics, tunicles, maniples etc, Sarum-y ceremonial but the liturgy was straight out of the 1962 Canadian BCP (but with the Gloria at the beginning of the service instead of after communion) and the music was Merbecke. It was a wholly Percy Dearmer parish: the ceremonial was based on his Parson's Handbook and hymns were sung out of his green English Hymnal. Smells and bells of course. Similar congregations existed in Toronto, Ottawa and other cities in Canada as well. On my first solo trip to the UK in the 70s I attended Sunday mass at some AC parishes in London and Oxford and was surprised to find fiddle back chasubles and Vatican II liturgy seeming to be the norm. It was a bit of a shock as I suppose I expected C of E services to be more "English" somehow than in Anglophile Canada. At that time, broad church congregations had Choral Mattins on the 2nd and 4th Sundays with surplice and tippet and Sung Eucharist with surplice and stole. Then in 1983 the Church brought out the Book of Alternative Services. This book was adopted quickly by most congregations across the country and became the de facto liturgy of the ACC with the Prayer Book relegated to minority sort of "crank" status. One of the unfortunate by-products of this change was to basically kill sung Mattins and Evensong as the new modern-language Psalter and versions of Morning and Evening Prayer couldn't be sung using the traditional familiar music settings. So the main Sunday service across the ACC became the Holy Eucharist, with the modern liturgy more closely resembling the Roman rite, along with the Revised Common Lectionary, and the go-to Sunday kit for celebrants becoming alb and stole, and chasubles more widespread, to where the generic Anglican service in Canada became a sort of low catholic sort of thing. Low Church, which had been surplice and scarf BCP with Holy Communion once a month disappeared completely. We have never had, as far as I can tell, anything like the C of E Holy Trinity Brompton style of Low Church in the ACC. I've moved on since to the Presbyterian Church in Canada which is very much like the Church of Scotland or the liberal Presbyterian Church USA (although I'm a secret Swedenborgian heretic lol), but I really miss the old broad church Anglican style mixture of BCP Mattins, Evensong and Holy Communion which was what I grew up with as a child before the Anglo Catholic thing. Does that sort of worship exist anywhere in the C of E today?
Ish. Especially in rural areas. IME Evensong in many such parishes is basically dead (I genuinely have no idea when we last did it) but some sort of combination of Mattins and HC trundles on
Interesting. From an urban C of E perspective I was going to say Mattins as a main service was dead. It's usually Eucharist except in the (increasingly numerous) evangelical churches which tend to the charismatic, informal and unstructured. But I'd forgotten that many village congregations will stick to the old ways because they have no enthusiasm for the latter style, and their priest is probably shared with half a dozen other churches making a weekly eucharist impossible.
I think sung (or choral) Mattins is still a thing in a few cathedrals however. Mostly playing second fiddle to Choral Eucharist.
The charismatic services are very structured. If you went for a month and made notes you'd see very clear patterns.
I was a member of an Anglo Catholic congregation of the Anglican Church of Canada in Montreal in the 1970s. It featured east-facing high masses with chasubles, dalmatics, tunicles, maniples etc, Sarum-y ceremonial but the liturgy was straight out of the 1962 Canadian BCP (but with the Gloria at the beginning of the service instead of after communion) and the music was Merbecke. It was a wholly Percy Dearmer parish: the ceremonial was based on his Parson's Handbook and hymns were sung out of his green English Hymnal. Smells and bells of course. Similar congregations existed in Toronto, Ottawa and other cities in Canada as well. On my first solo trip to the UK in the 70s I attended Sunday mass at some AC parishes in London and Oxford and was surprised to find fiddle back chasubles and Vatican II liturgy seeming to be the norm. It was a bit of a shock as I suppose I expected C of E services to be more "English" somehow than in Anglophile Canada. At that time, broad church congregations had Choral Mattins on the 2nd and 4th Sundays with surplice and tippet and Sung Eucharist with surplice and stole. Then in 1983 the Church brought out the Book of Alternative Services. This book was adopted quickly by most congregations across the country and became the de facto liturgy of the ACC with the Prayer Book relegated to minority sort of "crank" status. One of the unfortunate by-products of this change was to basically kill sung Mattins and Evensong as the new modern-language Psalter and versions of Morning and Evening Prayer couldn't be sung using the traditional familiar music settings. So the main Sunday service across the ACC became the Holy Eucharist, with the modern liturgy more closely resembling the Roman rite, along with the Revised Common Lectionary, and the go-to Sunday kit for celebrants becoming alb and stole, and chasubles more widespread, to where the generic Anglican service in Canada became a sort of low catholic sort of thing. Low Church, which had been surplice and scarf BCP with Holy Communion once a month disappeared completely. We have never had, as far as I can tell, anything like the C of E Holy Trinity Brompton style of Low Church in the ACC. I've moved on since to the Presbyterian Church in Canada which is very much like the Church of Scotland or the liberal Presbyterian Church USA (although I'm a secret Swedenborgian heretic lol), but I really miss the old broad church Anglican style mixture of BCP Mattins, Evensong and Holy Communion which was what I grew up with as a child before the Anglo Catholic thing. Does that sort of worship exist anywhere in the C of E today?
Ish. Especially in rural areas. IME Evensong in many such parishes is basically dead (I genuinely have no idea when we last did it) but some sort of combination of Mattins and HC trundles on
Interesting. From an urban C of E perspective I was going to say Mattins as a main service was dead. It's usually Eucharist except in the (increasingly numerous) evangelical churches which tend to the charismatic, informal and unstructured. But I'd forgotten that many village congregations will stick to the old ways because they have no enthusiasm for the latter style, and their priest is probably shared with half a dozen other churches making a weekly eucharist impossible.
I think sung (or choral) Mattins is still a thing in a few cathedrals however. Mostly playing second fiddle to Choral Eucharist.
The charismatic services are very structured. If you went for a month and made notes you'd see very clear patterns.
In fact, I found charismatic services and even evangelical services much more rigid than liturgical services.
I was a member of an Anglo Catholic congregation of the Anglican Church of Canada in Montreal in the 1970s. It featured east-facing high masses with chasubles, dalmatics, tunicles, maniples etc, Sarum-y ceremonial but the liturgy was straight out of the 1962 Canadian BCP (but with the Gloria at the beginning of the service instead of after communion) and the music was Merbecke. It was a wholly Percy Dearmer parish: the ceremonial was based on his Parson's Handbook and hymns were sung out of his green English Hymnal. Smells and bells of course. Similar congregations existed in Toronto, Ottawa and other cities in Canada as well. On my first solo trip to the UK in the 70s I attended Sunday mass at some AC parishes in London and Oxford and was surprised to find fiddle back chasubles and Vatican II liturgy seeming to be the norm. It was a bit of a shock as I suppose I expected C of E services to be more "English" somehow than in Anglophile Canada. At that time, broad church congregations had Choral Mattins on the 2nd and 4th Sundays with surplice and tippet and Sung Eucharist with surplice and stole. Then in 1983 the Church brought out the Book of Alternative Services. This book was adopted quickly by most congregations across the country and became the de facto liturgy of the ACC with the Prayer Book relegated to minority sort of "crank" status. One of the unfortunate by-products of this change was to basically kill sung Mattins and Evensong as the new modern-language Psalter and versions of Morning and Evening Prayer couldn't be sung using the traditional familiar music settings. So the main Sunday service across the ACC became the Holy Eucharist, with the modern liturgy more closely resembling the Roman rite, along with the Revised Common Lectionary, and the go-to Sunday kit for celebrants becoming alb and stole, and chasubles more widespread, to where the generic Anglican service in Canada became a sort of low catholic sort of thing. Low Church, which had been surplice and scarf BCP with Holy Communion once a month disappeared completely. We have never had, as far as I can tell, anything like the C of E Holy Trinity Brompton style of Low Church in the ACC. I've moved on since to the Presbyterian Church in Canada which is very much like the Church of Scotland or the liberal Presbyterian Church USA (although I'm a secret Swedenborgian heretic lol), but I really miss the old broad church Anglican style mixture of BCP Mattins, Evensong and Holy Communion which was what I grew up with as a child before the Anglo Catholic thing. Does that sort of worship exist anywhere in the C of E today?
Ish. Especially in rural areas. IME Evensong in many such parishes is basically dead (I genuinely have no idea when we last did it) but some sort of combination of Mattins and HC trundles on
Interesting. From an urban C of E perspective I was going to say Mattins as a main service was dead. It's usually Eucharist except in the (increasingly numerous) evangelical churches which tend to the charismatic, informal and unstructured. But I'd forgotten that many village congregations will stick to the old ways because they have no enthusiasm for the latter style, and their priest is probably shared with half a dozen other churches making a weekly eucharist impossible.
I think sung (or choral) Mattins is still a thing in a few cathedrals however. Mostly playing second fiddle to Choral Eucharist.
The charismatic services are very structured. If you went for a month and made notes you'd see very clear patterns.
Right, but to the earlier post, it's to what extent this is actually telegraphed in advance (and in this case it won't be, because these churches tend to make a virtue out of being spontaneous).
On my first solo trip to the UK in the 70s I attended Sunday mass at some AC parishes in London and Oxford and was surprised to find fiddle back chasubles and Vatican II liturgy seeming to be the norm. It was a bit of a shock as I suppose I expected C of E services to be more "English" somehow than in Anglophile Canada.
I've always been fascinated by the use of the (modern) Roman Missal in C of E parishes, because I think this has been done in close to zero Anglican parishes in the USA and (I'm guessing) Canada. A fellow parishioner once claimed it had been used in a (now defunct) parish here in Chicago, but I think he might have meant the Anglican Missal or one of the other "illegal" ones in the 1928 BCP era.
It is bizarre. One church I know used to keep within the letter of the law by using an authorised C of E eucharistic prayer within a liturgy which was otherwise word for word from the Roman Missal. It was arguably OK because none of the (then minor) variations were 'of substantial importance'. But perverse, and signalling that 'we are not really part of the same church as our fellow-Anglicans'.
Since the anglophone parts of the RCC now use substantially different texts those variations are no longer minor (though theologically insignificant). It seems to be mostly the 'Society' churches which now do this – those who have signed up to 'alternative episcopal oversight' and hence are semi-detached from the C of E. Ironically if they cut themselves completely loose and joined the Ordinariate they would be using a much more recognisably Anglican liturgy.
That is all very different from the 'English Missal' parishes in the past which used the 1662 rite and surrounded it with many additional prayers and chants from the then Roman rite.
On my first solo trip to the UK in the 70s I attended Sunday mass at some AC parishes in London and Oxford and was surprised to find fiddle back chasubles and Vatican II liturgy seeming to be the norm. It was a bit of a shock as I suppose I expected C of E services to be more "English" somehow than in Anglophile Canada.
I've always been fascinated by the use of the (modern) Roman Missal in C of E parishes, because I think this has been done in close to zero Anglican parishes in the USA and (I'm guessing) Canada. A fellow parishioner once claimed it had been used in a (now defunct) parish here in Chicago, but I think he might have meant the Anglican Missal or one of the other "illegal" ones in the 1928 BCP era.
It is bizarre. One church I know used to keep within the letter of the law by using an authorised C of E eucharistic prayer within a liturgy which was otherwise word for word from the Roman Missal. It was arguably OK because none of the (then minor) variations were 'of substantial importance'. But perverse, and signalling that 'we are not really part of the same church as our fellow-Anglicans'.
Since the anglophone parts of the RCC now use substantially different texts those variations are no longer minor (though theologically insignificant). It seems to be mostly the 'Society' churches which now do this – those who have signed up to 'alternative episcopal oversight' and hence are semi-detached from the C of E. Ironically if they cut themselves completely loose and joined the Ordinariate they would be using a much more recognisably Anglican liturgy.
That is all very different from the 'English Missal' parishes in the past which used the 1662 rite and surrounded it with many additional prayers and chants from the then Roman rite.
Funnily enough IME in the past 10 years ‘English Missal’ parishes as you describe them seem to be a discernible direction of travel for ‘Society’ churches.
On my first solo trip to the UK in the 70s I attended Sunday mass at some AC parishes in London and Oxford and was surprised to find fiddle back chasubles and Vatican II liturgy seeming to be the norm. It was a bit of a shock as I suppose I expected C of E services to be more "English" somehow than in Anglophile Canada.
I've always been fascinated by the use of the (modern) Roman Missal in C of E parishes, because I think this has been done in close to zero Anglican parishes in the USA and (I'm guessing) Canada. A fellow parishioner once claimed it had been used in a (now defunct) parish here in Chicago, but I think he might have meant the Anglican Missal or one of the other "illegal" ones in the 1928 BCP era.
It is bizarre. One church I know used to keep within the letter of the law by using an authorised C of E eucharistic prayer within a liturgy which was otherwise word for word from the Roman Missal. It was arguably OK because none of the (then minor) variations were 'of substantial importance'. But perverse, and signalling that 'we are not really part of the same church as our fellow-Anglicans'.
Since the anglophone parts of the RCC now use substantially different texts those variations are no longer minor (though theologically insignificant). It seems to be mostly the 'Society' churches which now do this – those who have signed up to 'alternative episcopal oversight' and hence are semi-detached from the C of E. Ironically if they cut themselves completely loose and joined the Ordinariate they would be using a much more recognisably Anglican liturgy.
That is all very different from the 'English Missal' parishes in the past which used the 1662 rite and surrounded it with many additional prayers and chants from the then Roman rite.
Funnily enough IME in the past 10 years ‘English Missal’ parishes as you describe them seem to be a discernible direction of travel for ‘Society’ churches.
Maybe you are right. I think many still prefer the 'modern' Roman rite, but there is a discernible conservative backlash.
I think there has been a bit of an unintended consequences thing going on - many of the Forward in Faith party leaders pre-Ordinariate were keen on the Roman Rite and have had to adopt something much more BCP by going to the Ordinariate. On this bank the departure of the harder liners has actually freed a lot of people to be a bit more Anglican, hence a discernible move back to BCP with additions in places.
That’s my observation anyway which, FWIW I think (again this side of the Tiber) is a healthy thing where it has happened.
This individual on the Roman side of the Tiber is finding it difficult to comment within Epiphany guidelines. Sufficient to say I have the distinct impression that people who use our Roman liturgies without permission from our side are deeply disrespectful. It feels like they are claiming a heritage that isn't theirs to claim.
Why not use the Sarum rite where there is a historical connection?
Our Place used to employ the Roman Rite, with an authorised C of E Eucharistic Prayer, as @angloid mentioned earlier. However, when the *new* Roman Catholic liturgy was introduced (2011?), we decided to carry on using the C of E provision for readings, collect, psalm etc., along with the C of E Eucharistic Prayer. We also decided to carry on using the musical settings provided in our hymnbook, rather than introduce any new settings to fit the revised RCC words (we'd only just bought a whole new lot of hymnbooks, of which even the words-only copies have the musical settings for the Eucharist!).
We therefore continued to use the existing Mass booklets (an in-house production from about 1998), though most copies were getting very tired and tatty.
All clear so far, I hope?
Father Fu**wit, in his wisdom, then decided - more-or-less unilaterally - to produce a revised Mass booklet, using the new Roman version of the Nicene Creed and one or two other bits...result? Father Fuc**wit's Mish-Mash Mass™ - neither one thing nor the other.
This individual on the Roman side of the Tiber is finding it difficult to comment within Epiphany guidelines. Sufficient to say I have the distinct impression that people who use our Roman liturgies without permission from our side are deeply disrespectful. It feels like they are claiming a heritage that isn't theirs to claim.
Why not use the Sarum rite where there is a historical connection?
This individual on the Roman side of the Tiber is finding it difficult to comment within Epiphany guidelines. Sufficient to say I have the distinct impression that people who use our Roman liturgies without permission from our side are deeply disrespectful. It feels like they are claiming a heritage that isn't theirs to claim.
Why not use the Sarum rite where there is a historical connection?
I sympathise. It does seem like disrespect. However, there has been a convergence ecumenically in liturgy. The official C of E Common Worship incorporates many texts from the Roman Rite. I don't know if any formal permission was obtained from the RC authorities. It can be argued that the C of E (and other churches such as the Methodists) are regaining our common inheritance.
I find the analogy of languages/dialects helpful. Speakers of English (for example) share the same language with many different communities and nations world-wide. But English-English is different from Scottish-English, Irish-English, not to mention American-English, or the huge number of dialects within England alone. It's good that we can more or less understand each other, but equally good that we can express our particular local character in the way we speak. If we go too far in the direction of dialect we run the risk of not being understood.
You could say that Cranmer (for his own theological reasons) produced an extremely idiosyncratic liturgical dialect. More recent Anglican liturgy (notwithstanding the contra-tendency of 'unliturgical' evangelical worship) goes lightly on the dialect in order to increase mutual understanding. But that is not to say that we should abandon our own dialect completely and adopt another church's dialect.
Anglicans using the RC mass are a bit like English people who adopt a foreign accent when speaking to foreigners. They may think they are being friendly but of course they are being rude.
@angloid. I like that analogy. Indeed scholarship in the early 20thC has brought this convergence about. And it is a good thing as all are enriched together. However when people decide to use the Liturgy of another Church verbatim, rather than their own, it looks a bit like disowning your own family and nicking next door's family silver.
@angloid. I like that analogy. Indeed scholarship in the early 20thC has brought this convergence about. And it is a good thing as all are enriched together. However when people decide to use the Liturgy of another Church verbatim, rather than their own, it looks a bit like disowning your own family and nicking next door's family silver.
Is it a bit like people putting on an accent? Mick jaggers mockney for instance?
I suppose a lots depends on what is intended to be signified by the liturgical borrowing in terms of ecclesiology and spiritual identity.
This individual on the Roman side of the Tiber is finding it difficult to comment within Epiphany guidelines. Sufficient to say I have the distinct impression that people who use our Roman liturgies without permission from our side are deeply disrespectful. It feels like they are claiming a heritage that isn't theirs to claim.
Why not use the Sarum rite where there is a historical connection?
I sympathise. It does seem like disrespect. However, there has been a convergence ecumenically in liturgy. The official C of E Common Worship incorporates many texts from the Roman Rite. I don't know if any formal permission was obtained from the RC authorities.
(Page 15, emphasis mine.). There are additional provisions I haven’t quoted.
That said, whether any Catholic authority or entity enforces any copyright on RC liturgical texts, I do not know. The Episcopal Church does not with regard to its 1979 BCP; it places those texts in the public domain.
@angloid. I like that analogy. Indeed scholarship in the early 20thC has brought this convergence about. And it is a good thing as all are enriched together. However when people decide to use the Liturgy of another Church verbatim, rather than their own, it looks a bit like disowning your own family and nicking next door's family silver.
It strikes me that there’s a difference between using (preferably with acknowledgment) specific texts from another church, particularly if liturgical resources of one’s own church include those texts, on one hand, and using another church’s full liturgy in place of one’s own church’s liturgy on the other hand.
I've always been fascinated by the use of the (modern) Roman Missal in C of E parishes
"Fascinated", how or why?...
Common Worship provides clergy with a huge amount of flexibility in how they put together their services. There really is no excuse for going outside its range.
Fascinated in a neutral, not fanboy, sense. Observing with interest. Like Common Worship, our 1979 BCP provides options that permit a very RC-like Mass; in fact, in Anglo-Catholic circles the 1979 was regarded as a bit of a triumph.
Comments
Kneel and pray is a good example of liturgical divergence between churches. At ecumenical services "Let us pray" would cause RCs to leap to their feet and everyone else to drop to their knees.
Except Presbyterians, who would remain seated.
They are vanishing rare in these parts.
It is not only in religion but in other parts of daily life. When, for example, Italians visit the UK they find it hard to adapt to the fact that British shops are usually open at lunchtime and close in the early evening, even although they may have read about this before.
British meal times are also strange, even although tourists may have been informed about this beforehand.
One time I was in Iceland ( the country, not the shop !) at Christmas time and I simply could not accept that it didn't get light until 11 a.m. even although I knew theoretically that this was the case.
In the case of some people with anxiety, ADHD and autistic spectrum disorders, those expectations would in fact be wrong.
I'm not defending it, just stating it.
Oh I know - that's sort of my point though - we're (and I include myself in this) much better at dealing with what we can see. It's only since my diagnosis - which explained a lot of things frankly - that I've realised that instead of it being a 'me' problem I'm not alone, and therefore we need to think carefully about the implications for how we deal with unseen things.
Because frankly we're not very good at it. And for people like me (which is, again, NOT all people with ASD but there is a subset) it's about being clear and open in advance about what is going to happen and what the expectations are.
That does tend to drive me towards highly structured and regimented (priest/servers and people) to be honest - not because of prissiness or tat worship (both of which as an Anglo Catholic I recognise as issues), but because of predictability.
I don't want to stop the services that aren't like that - I just want to know which aren't like that so I can avoid them.
As a rule of thumb I'm ok with BCP, or most Common Worship (though given the variety in that it's more than possible to concoct a service that would have me running for the hills), and anything that's put on by a Forward in Faith or Society parish - not because these days I'm particularly of that party but I did come to faith in it so I recognise if all else fails I know what I'm going to get.
But I struggle with anything where I don't have the above cues - Morning Worship, family service, family communion, messy church, cafe church, etc - because who knows (other than the habitue of that church) what you're going to actually get?
Essentially therefore in a strange place it's usually either 8am BCP or don't go to church at all - because life is too short (for me and them) to be ringing priests in advance for a chat about their format of Sunday worship.
I don't want the world to change to accommodate me or any people like me, but I would like small adjustments to language and description of forthcoming services that might help me to make a decision and feel less distressed. I have exited churches during a service too many times - not to make a point, or because I *dislike* something they're doing/not doing, but because I'm distressed and don't know how to continue.
They are all but completely vanished in my State. In the discussions which followed when the Uniting Church was formed, there was a major reallocation of assets. In the suburb next to us, the Presbyterians had a magnificent church by a well-known architect, while the Methodists' church was non-descript .On merger, the new Uniting Church was allocated the former Presbyterian church, leaving the Presbyterians with the old Methodist building. Much wailing and gnashing of teeth, but that was that.
At church, the expectation, and the desire, is to participate, and for some people, not knowing how to participate or what is expected can be very stressful.
This - ‘can you sit quietly and watch something?’ is a massively different question to ‘how are you at going to interactive things and interacting?’ Surely?
When we go to the theatre there are times when some people wish to participate by clapping, by laughing, by shouting out 'bravo', ,by standing up, by jeering or just by sitting in stony silence.
Some people, when they go to the theatre , do participate 'interactively' others don't but rather follow politely what others do.
Why can it not be the same in a church, particularly if it is a community where the religious service is structured like a play, an opera or a concert ?
Again ‘but surely…?’ Isn’t something that gets said much to wheelchair users.
There is a whole level of anxiety caused by genuine diagnosed medical conditions when put into situations where you feel you should be doing something because everyone else is. Which is not lessened by feeling free not to do it? Does that make sense?
Honestly, I’m not sitting here making all this up. This is lived experience.
So much for Epiphanies guidelines.
To be fair I think we are trying to understand something that is beyond our experience.
For what it's worth I prefer to stick with the Liturgy I know and am comfortable with. I know what's coming, usually the precise words. And I know when to stand/sit etc. And I know to steer clear of services where I may be expected to behave in a way that I would be uncomfortable with, be it kissing an icon or shouting out "Yes Lord!"
I am shy and uncomfortable with people but find comfort in being in a social setting which is highly regulated like at Mass. It gives me the contact with others that I might otherwise lack.
But you see, the problem is that when other people are doing something, there's an implied expectation that you should be doing something too. If you're watching a film, everyone is (supposed to be) sitting in their seats with their mouths shut, so if that's what you're doing, you're doing the "right thing".
If you're watching a play, or a ballet, or a concert, then you sit down and shut up except at a very limited number of times when it's appropriate to applaud, and joining in with applause is easy.
If, on the other hand, you roll up to a church for worship, and people around you are spontaneously doing things you don't expect at times you don't expect, there's a social pressure that you ought to be doing something too. You can say "but there shouldn't be - you're allowed to do things or not as you like" until the cows come home, and that won't make the slightest difference to many people with anxiety-containing conditions such as @betjemaniac describes.
I am a very good Scottish dancer/reeler*. I am useless, and tend to want to leave, in a nightclub.
*I don't think I'd get many points from the purists, but I'm safe at balls to be in charge of people who've never done it before and throw them where they're supposed to be/get them through a dance without injury.
Why? There are rules, I have learned and practiced those rules, and I know what I'm doing.
Totally within my comfort zone.
What Enoch says. Every church has to compromise between what its ideal style of liturgy is, and the expectations of many varied worshippers. I can only speak first hand of the Church of England, but as everyone knows they come in all shapes and sizes and in urban areas there is usually a choice available. Some people will gravitate to churches with ultra-formal liturgy, and others to the opposite. But many – maybe most – worshippers will be reasonably happy with their local church or one they have chosen for other reasons ( is it LGBT+ friendly, does it have facilities for children/ older people, is it a friendly community, is the preaching good - or, in rural areas, it is the only church for miles around- ...etc).
I would be totally freaked out by free-for-all 'informal' worship, especially if it was non eucharistic. The C of E has basic norms and expectations, one of which is that the eucharist should be celebrated at least weekly. As Enoch implies, the liturgy should be celebrated as the book (BCP or Common Worship) directs, but the way this is done will vary considerably from place to place.
But none of this should assume a draconian code of behaviour is imposed on anyone. Our church's liturgy is basically traditional, follows a consistent pattern and incorporates many ceremonial gestures, symbols and movement. Some people will bow, make the sign of the cross, light candles; others will simply sit and observe. Some people arrive early and sit in silcnce before the mass; many others arrive at the last minute or late. All are equally welcome. There is one family where the father and two children are all on the autistic spectrum – the children's behaviour can be challenging and none of them participate in the service in a conventional way – and I am pretty sure that they are able to behave as they do because of the formal structure going on around them.
So as I see it, 'free for all' is fine – indeed vital – if it means people should be free to behave as they wish (provided it is not anti-social nor upsetting to others); but if it means there should be no structured liturgy or accepted norms, it is not helpful.
I totally agree - but the current argument seems to be about how much of that is telegraphed in advance of the service (and how it is telegraphed). There’s a lot of defensive ‘we do it like this and it’s fine’ on this thread, which is lovely, but I’m not saying any church should change what it does.
I’m saying it should own and shout about what it does such that people can decide in advance whether or not to come. And every church should be aware of who what it does excludes. Because what it does *will* exclude someone - whether nosebleed high, low, all points in between. Too formal, too informal, all the dead horses, praise bands, organs whatever.
Especially if it can’t do more than one service a week.
My own church manages three services a month (mostly, sometimes fewer) - I run one of them, the second is Eucharistic, and the third I hide from.
That’s fine - everyone gets at least something of what they want.
The difficulty is when you’re not at home and you’ve got no idea what the nearest church does.
The internet helps, but only if the church bothers to keep its profile up to date.
I don’t want any church to change. I do want it to be aware of who it is excluding and including, and be clear and open about that.
No idea what happened to that text!
I preach monthly at a community church that is made up of Lutherans and Presbyterians. After one year, I still cannot figure out when they stand or sit.
Ish. Especially in rural areas. IME Evensong in many such parishes is basically dead (I genuinely have no idea when we last did it) but some sort of combination of Mattins and HC trundles on
https://stolaves.ca/
I’ve never been there so I don’t really know what they are like in practice.
Interesting. From an urban C of E perspective I was going to say Mattins as a main service was dead. It's usually Eucharist except in the (increasingly numerous) evangelical churches which tend to the charismatic, informal and unstructured. But I'd forgotten that many village congregations will stick to the old ways because they have no enthusiasm for the latter style, and their priest is probably shared with half a dozen other churches making a weekly eucharist impossible.
I think sung (or choral) Mattins is still a thing in a few cathedrals however. Mostly playing second fiddle to Choral Eucharist.
I've always been fascinated by the use of the (modern) Roman Missal in C of E parishes, because I think this has been done in close to zero Anglican parishes in the USA and (I'm guessing) Canada. A fellow parishioner once claimed it had been used in a (now defunct) parish here in Chicago, but I think he might have meant the Anglican Missal or one of the other "illegal" ones in the 1928 BCP era.
Common Worship provides clergy with a huge amount of flexibility in how they put together their services. There really is no excuse for going outside its range.
Our pattern per month of Sundays is HC, Mattins, Cafe church, blank - priest for HC, lay reader for cafe church, me for Mattins.
similar in other churches in surrounding villages.
The charismatic services are very structured. If you went for a month and made notes you'd see very clear patterns.
In fact, I found charismatic services and even evangelical services much more rigid than liturgical services.
Right, but to the earlier post, it's to what extent this is actually telegraphed in advance (and in this case it won't be, because these churches tend to make a virtue out of being spontaneous).
It is bizarre. One church I know used to keep within the letter of the law by using an authorised C of E eucharistic prayer within a liturgy which was otherwise word for word from the Roman Missal. It was arguably OK because none of the (then minor) variations were 'of substantial importance'. But perverse, and signalling that 'we are not really part of the same church as our fellow-Anglicans'.
Since the anglophone parts of the RCC now use substantially different texts those variations are no longer minor (though theologically insignificant). It seems to be mostly the 'Society' churches which now do this – those who have signed up to 'alternative episcopal oversight' and hence are semi-detached from the C of E. Ironically if they cut themselves completely loose and joined the Ordinariate they would be using a much more recognisably Anglican liturgy.
That is all very different from the 'English Missal' parishes in the past which used the 1662 rite and surrounded it with many additional prayers and chants from the then Roman rite.
Funnily enough IME in the past 10 years ‘English Missal’ parishes as you describe them seem to be a discernible direction of travel for ‘Society’ churches.
Maybe you are right. I think many still prefer the 'modern' Roman rite, but there is a discernible conservative backlash.
That’s my observation anyway which, FWIW I think (again this side of the Tiber) is a healthy thing where it has happened.
Why not use the Sarum rite where there is a historical connection?
We therefore continued to use the existing Mass booklets (an in-house production from about 1998), though most copies were getting very tired and tatty.
All clear so far, I hope?
Father Fu**wit, in his wisdom, then decided - more-or-less unilaterally - to produce a revised Mass booklet, using the new Roman version of the Nicene Creed and one or two other bits...result? Father Fuc**wit's Mish-Mash Mass™ - neither one thing nor the other.
I sympathise. It does seem like disrespect. However, there has been a convergence ecumenically in liturgy. The official C of E Common Worship incorporates many texts from the Roman Rite. I don't know if any formal permission was obtained from the RC authorities. It can be argued that the C of E (and other churches such as the Methodists) are regaining our common inheritance.
I find the analogy of languages/dialects helpful. Speakers of English (for example) share the same language with many different communities and nations world-wide. But English-English is different from Scottish-English, Irish-English, not to mention American-English, or the huge number of dialects within England alone. It's good that we can more or less understand each other, but equally good that we can express our particular local character in the way we speak. If we go too far in the direction of dialect we run the risk of not being understood.
You could say that Cranmer (for his own theological reasons) produced an extremely idiosyncratic liturgical dialect. More recent Anglican liturgy (notwithstanding the contra-tendency of 'unliturgical' evangelical worship) goes lightly on the dialect in order to increase mutual understanding. But that is not to say that we should abandon our own dialect completely and adopt another church's dialect.
Anglicans using the RC mass are a bit like English people who adopt a foreign accent when speaking to foreigners. They may think they are being friendly but of course they are being rude.
Is it a bit like people putting on an accent? Mick jaggers mockney for instance?
I suppose a lots depends on what is intended to be signified by the liturgical borrowing in terms of ecclesiology and spiritual identity.
That said, whether any Catholic authority or entity enforces any copyright on RC liturgical texts, I do not know. The Episcopal Church does not with regard to its 1979 BCP; it places those texts in the public domain.
It strikes me that there’s a difference between using (preferably with acknowledgment) specific texts from another church, particularly if liturgical resources of one’s own church include those texts, on one hand, and using another church’s full liturgy in place of one’s own church’s liturgy on the other hand.
Fascinated in a neutral, not fanboy, sense. Observing with interest. Like Common Worship, our 1979 BCP provides options that permit a very RC-like Mass; in fact, in Anglo-Catholic circles the 1979 was regarded as a bit of a triumph.