Reimagining Liturgy
Tyler Durden
Shipmate Posts: 5
I am the vicar of a rural village church in the central tradition. For the last few years, in our main Sunday communion, we have had the intercessions immediately *after* the sermon and then said the creed after that, before the peace.
This began after one particular service in which I wanted to keep people in an engaged attitude of prayer/hushed silence with room for the Spirit to move freely and people to respond rather than 'breaking the spell' - or the bubble - by getting them to stand and recite the creed before asking them to sit and try and get *back* into a prayerful space.
It works well and everyone including the most traditional among us are happy or even prefer it.
Given that, I am currently working on a theological reflection on this, commending it to the Church as a whole as a better - or at least, alternative - way of doing things. And obviously there is some precedent for doing this (or at least for not having the creed after the sermon) because in the BCP, the creed is before the sermon. And the sermon is followed by the intercessions albeit with a sentence and the collection inbetween but this is again a quiet time in which people can sit and reflect and being passed the collection bag is significantly less disruptive to that than standing to say the creed.
So:
Is this legal?!
Do people think it's a good idea?
For me, the answer to the second is more important (!) and if that is a clear yes, then surely it would be possible to change the law anyway?
Look forward to hearing your thoughts.
This began after one particular service in which I wanted to keep people in an engaged attitude of prayer/hushed silence with room for the Spirit to move freely and people to respond rather than 'breaking the spell' - or the bubble - by getting them to stand and recite the creed before asking them to sit and try and get *back* into a prayerful space.
It works well and everyone including the most traditional among us are happy or even prefer it.
Given that, I am currently working on a theological reflection on this, commending it to the Church as a whole as a better - or at least, alternative - way of doing things. And obviously there is some precedent for doing this (or at least for not having the creed after the sermon) because in the BCP, the creed is before the sermon. And the sermon is followed by the intercessions albeit with a sentence and the collection inbetween but this is again a quiet time in which people can sit and reflect and being passed the collection bag is significantly less disruptive to that than standing to say the creed.
So:
Is this legal?!
Do people think it's a good idea?
For me, the answer to the second is more important (!) and if that is a clear yes, then surely it would be possible to change the law anyway?
Look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Comments
CofE bishops operate a strict don't-ask-don't-tell policy when it comes to liturgy, don't they?
Some do, certainly. I once raised a point with the Archdeacon about Father Fu**wit using Roman Catholic stuff, only for the Archdemon to tell me that it was a Bishop-shaped matter, and that he'd referred it upstairs.
I heard no more.
As regards what @Tyler Durden is doing, it seems eminently sensible to me, and I take the point about maintaining the flow of the service.
I will admit that in my context—American Presbyterian, specifically of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A) variety—I would find it a little . . . odd? In our order*, the Creed/Affirmation of Faith (which can be one of the historical creeds or drawn from Scripture or from the church’s confessional documents) comes immediately after the sermon as a corporate response to the proclamation of the Word in the readings and the sermon. The community, having responded to the proclamation of the Word together, then moves together to acts of discipleship, including intercessions for the world, the church and others. That, in turn, moves to gathering at the Table for the Eucharist, or if there is no Eucharist, to the offering, which is (hopefully) understood as more than offering of money. (The Peace would normally have happened earlier in the service, following the Confession and Pardon.)
Perhaps I should note that for us, the Creed/Affirmation of Faith is almost always going to be accompanied by a hymn. Most places, in my experience, usually sing the hymn first, then the Creed/Affirmation of Faith. That means sermon, perhaps followed by a few moments of silence, then everyone stands for a hymn, then remains standing for the Creed/Affirmation of Faith, which may be followed by a short sung response. So that’s two or three things to stand up for, not just the one thing.
All of that said, that’s us, and not you. That’s why we do it the way we do it, but that certainly doesn’t mean everyone has to do it that way, or that it’s the only way.
If it makes sense to your congregation in terms of the flow of the liturgy, and if it works for you, and if it’s permitted, then absolutely do what works for you.
* Acknowledging here that our liturgical ordo, while commended and supported by theological considerations that matter to us, is voluntary for the most part, and can generally be altered or ignored as local circumstances may warrant.
The OP specifically asked whether people think the particular change he’s made to the liturgy is “a good idea.” The relevant question, then, is whether that change supports or inhibits that congregation’s worship.
He asked if his changes were legal according to canon law. The very first question was: is this legal.
@Nick Tamen both you and I come from traditions that are not bound by the Book of Common Prayer canon law. Some Anglicans get very touchy about this. Others, not so much. If I were Anglican, I would be in the not so much crowd--at least I would like to think I would. On the other hand, as a lawyer, you might see this differently.
From the description of the congregation's reaction to the change it appears to have enhanced that faith communities experience. Now he is wondering if he should suggest this to other colleagues, but, first, he is concerned if this would get him in hot water with the powers that be.
Or, more importantly, whether this is a breach of his oath to use only authorised forms.
I'm sure they've contrived suitable mental gymnastics to say that the same RC rules that say their orders are null and void can authorise them to use the RC liturgy.
I do see it differently, not as a lawyer per se, but as one who thinks oaths should be taken seriously. As @Arethosemyfeet notes, as a priest in the Church of England, @Tyler Durden will have, as I understand it, taken an oath to use only authorized forms. I understand his question about legality to be posed in the context of that oath, that understanding of the Church of England as a church with a common and approved liturgy/liturgies, whose discipline he has submitted himself to.
Some of them say that they are simply following the rite of *the Universal Church*, which leaves out the Orthodox, Lutheran, and other Anglican churches...
This.
(1) The insertion of the Creed into the Eucharistic Liturgy is a late development, and so its position is somewhat arbitrary,
(2) Ancient liturgical practice seems to have followed the sequence: Epistle, Gospel, Sermon, Intercessions. This order is still preserved in Eastern Rite churches.
Interesting. Certainly, the C of E's 1662 Prayer Book has the Creed immediately after the Gospel (*the people still standing*), with notices and the sermon following on from there.
It feels, though I may be wrong, like the latter.
In which case I’d agree it’s probably if not ok then at the very least nothing to worry about as it exists within the wriggle room.
If it’s the former (and I’m no BCP militant) then I think it’s less acceptable, because it’s not what I’d expect to walk into at an advertised BCP service, and I’m not one for second guessing 1662 in those circumstances*
*by which I mean I second guess it all the time, but not when leading or attending a service according to it!
I don't mean this in a patronising or offensive way but I think it's commendable that @Tyler Durden is thinking these things through and taking it seriously and wondering about the effect on his congregation.
Forgive me, but I tend to think that Anglican clergy who use the Roman missal at one end of the spectrum or happy-clappy vicars flouting canon law and Anglican 'norms' at the other are pretty self-indulgent.
With @Nick Tamen's Presbyterian example I think we are looking at something that emerges naturally out of a particular theology and is tailored to reflect and express that. There's a logic to it. Not just a case of someone making things up as they go along for the sake of it.
What Tyler is doing doesn't strike me as that either. It's a response to something that has emerged in his particular parish context and if there is sufficient wriggle-room to accommodate it then fine, although it may sound odd to those of us who are used to doing things differently.
In case you want to cite any ancient western precedent, what you propose is the order found in the Gallican Mass. The Litany follows the Gospel (and homily, if there is one), with the Collect post precem at the end of the litany marking the conclusion of the Mass of the Catechumens. The Mass of the Faithful then begins with the call to silence, the blessing of the faithful, and the Credo.
Last week (Easter Sunday), after the Confession and Absolution, the rector suddenly said, "do you know what, let's not sing the Kyrie, and go straight into the Gloria - we've had absolution, so do we need to ask for mercy, and after all it is Easter!".
Today, we said the Confession and before giving absolution, she decreed that we should sing the Kyrie.
I assume there's a reason for why the Kyrie is where it is, and I'm curious as to whether she had any business moving it.
I'd appreciate the thoughts of those more liturgically-savvy than I am.
I can’t say why the Kyrie comes after the absolution, or whether moving the Kyrie was a permissible option. In my tradition, when the Kyrie is used, it generally comes before the absolution/declaration of pardon. And in the American (TEC) prayerbook, both the Kyrie and the Gloria come early, as part of the entrance rite, while the confession and absolution come later, after the prayers of the people.
Sundays were and are sometimes still called after that entrance Antiphon as in today's Sunday' Quasimodo geniti.' In German Lutheran churches the Sundays after Easter are designated by the pre Reformation Latin Introit for the day.
Kyrie eleison underwent the same process. In really olden days,as in the Greek liturgy now (I think), the prayers for the needs of the faithful came at the start of the divine liturgy with each petition responded to with Kyrie eleison. In time the Roman rite dropped the prayers of the faithful and Kyrie eleison,Christe eleison,Kyrie eleison alone were left.
The Prayers of the faithful were reinstated after Vatican 2 but come at a different part of the Roman rite..
Post Reformation Protestants don't often like to use Latin but the Greek of Kyrie eleison was more generally acceptable.
I wish I could cite chapter and verse for the above reference! It rattles around in my memory but I don't know where the reference came from. I can support it with the following from Evangelical Lutheran Worship, Leaders Desk Edition:
"The service may begin with confession and forgiveness or with thanksgiving for baptism. Neither of these forms is an essential beginning to the service nor a prerequisite for participation in holy communion." page 17
"As an alternative to confession and forgiveness, and particularly appropriate to the Easter season, thanksgiving for baptism may begin the service." page 18
Omitting a penitential rite altogether, and omitting the Kyrie as penitential, would not be problematic in Lutheran worship for the season of Easter. But the combinations of omissions, inclusions, and placement that Piglet noted would be... surprising?
ELW, and generally the ELCA and the ELCiC, allow an extremely wide latitude for congregations and their clergy in the practice of worship.
* or more likely, been ignored and it would have been sung anyway. 😈
Unlike the Lutherans, for us Presbyterians, omitting the confession and pardon as part of the Gathering rite is generally Not Done, not even on/during Easter.
I think I am right that in Common Worship Order 1 in the Church of England there are two options,
- confession in approved form with absolution, in which case a Kyrie as well is optional. If used it should not include interpolations (see below*). It may come before or after the absolution.
- Kyrie with suitable (i.e. approved) penitential sentences, in lieu of confession. These sentences are largely prescribed and interpolated* into each Kyrie. Some are seasonal. If so there is no confession as well, but the Kyrie is followed by the absolution.
The Gloria follows. It is optional, and quite likely to be omitted on weekdays. You aren't supposed to use it in Lent. If so, though, there should be the Kyrie in stead. If so that is either Confession - absolution - simple Kyrie or Kyrie with interpolations - absolution.
In the old 1662 BCP Holy Communion the confession comes later in the service. That also applies in Common Worship Order 2. There is no stand alone Kyrie but the Gloria comes at the end of the Service and includes the Kyrie.
Is that any help or are you somewhere else, in which case it is irrelevant?
Isn't it marvellous how different we are from each other?
Isn't it marvellous how different we are from each other?
Our congregation will sometimes use a Thanksgiving for Baptism as @Leaf mentions. I am not sure that is in the actual hymnal, but it is often in the Occasional Services manual or the Sundays and Seasons publication--now that might be where the suggestion of dropping the Confession and Absolution during the Easter season may be included--I do not have a direct copy of that publication myself.
I’m not sure why you’re trying to explain the liturgies of LambChopped’s denomination to her.
And yes, @Leaf, it is indeed marvelous.
I'm finding some of this hard to follow, Gramps. I'm not sure whom you're addressing, and some of the terminology you're using is not in ELW.
Evangelical Lutheran Worship is the worship resource most commonly used in ELCiC and ELCA congregations. I'm looking at my copy now. For Holy Communion, Setting One (page 94), under the heading Gathering, the rubric is: "The service may begin with confession and forgiveness OR with thanksgiving for baptism (p.97). Either order may be led at the baptismal font." So yes, it is in the 'actual hymnal', if you turn the page. It says so in the rubric you cited.
ELW doesn't devote a lot of page space to explanations of the rubrics. For that, you need extra resources like the Leaders Desk Edition, Keeping Time, or Sundays and Seasons. I have the first two at hand but, like you, I do not have the current Sundays and Seasons.
We don't have "Divine Service."
We don't have "Confession and Absolution" - we have Confession and Forgiveness.
ELW contains a hymnal, but it includes many more resources such as liturgies and the Small Catechism, so I don't think it's accurate to refer to it as a hymnal.
Much as I appreciate the seasonal variation I must admit I miss the Trisagion prayers between Easter and Pentecost.
Perhaps it's because I'm such a great sinner.
It's none of my business and I have from time to time elided @Leaf's 'How marvellous ...' in favour of the opposite reaction, but like @Nick Tamen I'm a bit taken aback by @Piglet's rector apparently ambushing the congregation with her modification on the hoof as it were.
It's not that I object to it, and it would be none of my business if I did, but the way it was done strikes me as odd.
Thank you for doing that so I didn't have to fish it out, five minutes to bedtime!
And I'm not going to tell anybody they have to follow our pattern either. I explained why we do it, but others will have their own reasoning, and that's not my business.
I don’t know what our theology/ecclesiology differences may be, so I don’t know if I’d consider them “marvelous” or not. I follow what I believe because I believe it’s true. And certainly, especially after struggling with some kind of terrible sin in the past, to go to church and have that absolution and assurance denied was excruciatingly painful. It’s less rough now—this was really bad when I was younger, and before certain things in my life had been resolved, but for me, it was horrible when they’d leave it out, so certainly not “marvelous” from my point of view.
Happily, individual Confession and Forgiveness is always available.
The only way we could know the reason for this is to ask the cleric in question.
Since I've already noted that these particular omissions/alterations would not be problematic as ELCiC liturgical options, I'll add that the way they were done is also surprising to me. Liturgical changes "on the fly" tend* not to work very well for the worshipping assembly, so I'd be interested to know what the clergy's intention or reasoning was.
I'm open to the possibility that there were theological or pastoral reasons for the way these changes happened, but also open to the idea that little or no forethought was given. That in itself can be a theological stance - being open to the spontaneous influence of the Holy Spirit - but we can't know from the information given.
*terms and conditions apply.
If regular confession and absolution in the context of the Eucharist are important to you, then it’s good you have found a place to worship where the liturgical norms meet your needs.
But not everyone has the same needs, or even preferences, that you do. I think it’s pretty marvelous that they too can find places to worship where the liturgical norms meet their needs.