Thinking allowed

Additional liturgical materials for baptism: texts

The bap­tis­mal texts to be con­sidered by the Gen­er­al Syn­od next month are now avail­able on the Church of Eng­land web­site. This mater­i­al is sched­uled to be con­sidered on the after­noon of Sunday 13 July.

Fol­low­ing the peri­od of exper­i­ment­al use, vari­ous changes were made by the Litur­gic­al Com­mis­sion and sent for con­sid­er­a­tion by the House of Bish­ops. The text agreed by the Bish­ops is now pub­lished as GS 1958 and includes an Intro­duc­tion, the pro­posed texts them­selves, and a pro­posed timetable for author­iz­a­tion. The timetable is:

2014
July — Novem­ber: Revi­sion Com­mit­tee meets

2015
Feb­ru­ary: Revi­sion stage at the Gen­er­al Synod
May: House of Bish­ops (if no fur­ther revi­sion stage)
July: Ref­er­ence to Con­voc­a­tions and House of Laity (if required)
July: Final approv­al at Gen­er­al Syn­od (if no fur­ther revi­sion stage)

0 Comments

Thanksgiving for the institution of Holy Communion

Today is appoin­ted in the cal­en­dar as a day of thanks­giv­ing for the insti­tu­tion of Holy Com­mu­nion. Appen­ded to that descrip­tion are the Lat­in words by which the Thursday after Trin­ity Sunday is more com­monly known among those who actu­ally cel­eb­rate it — Cor­pus Christi, the Body of Christ.

The fest­iv­al day has been over­laid with all sorts of rite and cere­mo­ni­al that emphas­ise a par­tic­u­lar aspect of some beliefs, namely that the ele­ments of bread and wine, after the priestly pray­er of con­sec­ra­tion really are the body and blood of Christ, and there­fore are to be adored in the same way that we might adore Christ or a rel­ic of Christ. For Anglic­ans this kind of beha­viour has to con­tend with Art­icle 28 which con­tains these words

The Sac­ra­ment of the Lord’s Sup­per was not by Christ’s ordin­ance reserved, car­ried about, lif­ted up, or worshipped.

The his­tory of this day is that it com­mem­or­ates the Last Sup­per. Maun­dy Thursday also com­mem­or­ates the Sup­per, but com­ing in Holy Week and begin­ning the great Three Days of the paschal feast, there are oth­er things that rightly take pri­or­ity. So with the three paschal days com­plete, and the fifty days of East­er­tide com­plete, and the old week (or octave) of Pente­cost com­plete, this is the first Thursday avail­able for the com­mem­or­a­tion. Pente­cost no longer has an octave of its own, being regarded as the last day of East­er­tide rather than primar­ily a feast in its own right, but the Thursday after Trin­ity Sunday is too well-estab­lished to move the com­mem­or­a­tion a week earlier.

After the Reform­a­tion the feast ceased to be cel­eb­rated in the Church of Eng­land. Not until New­man wrote Tract 90 of the Oxford Movement’s Tracts for the Times was a ser­i­ous argu­ment made against the inter­pret­a­tion of Art­icle 28. New­man argued that the Art­icle did not for­bid the reser­va­tion of the Sac­ra­ment, it just said that it was not cre­ated by ‘Christ’s ordin­ance’. This argu­ment led many Anglo-Cath­ol­ic par­ishes to restore Reser­va­tion of the Sac­ra­ment, and to intro­duce Cor­pus Christi pro­ces­sions and adoration.

So what, as Anglic­ans, should we cel­eb­rate this day? 

The clue is in the title giv­en the day in Com­mon Wor­ship: a day of thanks­giv­ing for the insti­tu­tion of Holy Com­mu­nion. We give thanks for the exist­ence of Holy Com­mu­nion. In his book Din­ing in the King­dom of God (Arch­diocese of Chica­go, 1994), Roman Cath­ol­ic priest Eugene LaVerdiere argues that rather than focus­ing on the Last Sup­per as the insti­tu­tion of the euchar­ist, we would do bet­ter to remem­ber that the ori­gins of the euchar­ist lie in a long and com­plex series of events that has the Last Sup­per … as their cli­max. LaVerdiere recog­nises that we may not con­sider all the meals in the gos­pel to neces­sar­ily be cel­eb­ra­tions of the euchar­ist, but ‘they all have some­thing to say about the eucharist’.

Sadly, the euchar­ist, and our under­stand­ing of it, can be a very divis­ive thing. One does not have to look very far to find some who find it largely unne­ces­sary (or at least, that it is unne­ces­sary to cel­eb­rate it very often), and on the oth­er hand some who think that a priest say­ing par­tic­u­lar words over bread and wine is the essence of the Church. No doubt I para­phrase each pos­i­tion a little unfairly — if so I apo­lo­gise. But my point is that even if this is an unfair rep­res­ent­a­tion of what each believes, it is how the oth­er per­ceives them.

How do we escape from this? The view expressed in this blog is that the euchar­ist is indeed fun­da­ment­al to our life as Chris­ti­ans; that where the euchar­ist is, there the Church is; that the fre­quent cel­eb­ra­tion of the euchar­ist is giv­en us as a means of growth and nur­ture. But it is also our view that this does not neces­sar­ily mean the euchar­ist as we have come to know it; how it exists today as a ritu­al­ized, ves­ti­gi­al meal, almost sep­ar­ated from real food and drink, in danger of sep­ar­a­tion from a real under­stand­ing of the pres­ence of the liv­ing Christ. Our devo­tion to the euchar­ist com­pels us to con­sider a third way, in which we look for a real bible-based sac­ra­ment­al­ity, com­bin­ing it with a tra­di­tion­al focus on its cent­ral­ity (envis­aged of course by that Arch­bish­op whom Anglo-Cath­ol­ics love to hate, Thomas Cran­mer), and bring­ing to bear our God-giv­en reas­on to try and recon­cile these views. 

And as we have said before, our euchar­ist­ic joy com­pels us to go out unto the world and share that joy by help­ing to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and free the oppressed.

That said, I shall, with slightly grit­ted teeth, be swinging a thur­ible later today in a Cor­pus Christi pro­ces­sion, com­plete with rose petals, can­opy et al. Hmmm.

1 Comment

New Chair of the Liturgical Commission

Fol­low­ing the resig­na­tion of the Rt Revd Steph­en Plat­ten as Chair of the Litur­gic­al Com­mis­sion it has been announced that the new Chair is to be Robert Atwell, Bish­op of Exeter. He will take up this pos­i­tion in Janu­ary 2015.

I can find no announce­ment of this from the Church of Eng­land, but the latest issue of Prax­is News of Wor­ship indic­ates that it was announced at a meet­ing of the Litur­gic­al Com­mis­sion in early May, by the act­ing Chair, Robert Pater­son, Bish­op of Sod­or and Man.

Robert Atwell is the author of a num­ber of litur­gic­al books includ­ing Cel­eb­rat­ing the Saints and Cel­eb­rat­ing the Sea­sons as well as the recent The Good Wor­ship Guide. Pre­vi­ously Vicar of Prim­rose Hill, and then Bish­op Suf­frag­an of Stock­port in the dio­cese of Chester, he was con­firmed as Bish­op of Exeter on 30 April, and will be enthroned in Exeter Cathed­ral in July.

1 Comment

Cathedral Evensong

Gerry Lynch writes Why is Cathed­ral Even­song Grow­ing and What Does It Mean? — an art­icle that was pub­lished in the May/June 2014 edi­tion of Salis­bury Cathed­ral News.

He con­cludes:

Even­song is not neces­sar­ily undemand­ing. It gives tre­mend­ous space for daily study of Scrip­ture, and dis­cip­lined pray­er sus­tain­ing a life of Chris­ti­an service.

Maybe Chor­al Even­song needs to grow in depth and geo­graphy. Can we help more par­ish churches provide a week­day Even­song, per­haps weekly in lar­ger towns and monthly in rur­al areas? And can we help people grow in depth and know­ledge of faith when we see them mainly across the choir on Tues­day nights, and nev­er on a Sunday?

2 Comments

Liturgical Basics

There is a whole list of top­ics that I hope to intro­duce into ‘Think­ing Liturgy’. Before doing that I want to sketch out a little litur­gic­al his­tory and a little litur­gic­al inter­pret­a­tion. It will only be a sketch because some of it will be the basis of some of those future art­icles, so the detail will be post­poned until those art­icles are writ­ten. But it’s only fair that read­ers should see a little of one of the key premises.

Let’s start with a little — only a little — history.

For many read­ers, I expect that litur­gic­al his­tory is neatly encap­su­lated by Gregory Dix’s The Shape of the Liturgy. This pivotal book, first pub­lished in 1945, out­lines Dix’s thes­is that the fun­da­ment­al form of the Euchar­ist was a ‘Four Action’ shape of Offer­tory, Con­sec­ra­tion, Frac­tion, Com­mu­nion — or if you prefer, Tak­ing, Bless­ing, Break­ing, and Shar­ing. Dix sug­ges­ted that all the vari­ous forms of the Euchar­ist could be traced back to this ori­gin­al pat­tern uni­ver­sally used in the earli­est Church, itself deriv­ing dir­ectly from an ini­tial sev­en actions found in the New Test­a­ment accounts. This concept of a Four-Action shape was very influ­en­tial in post-War litur­gic­al revi­sion and it can be seen in the work of the Litur­gic­al Com­mis­sion of the Church of Eng­land from the pub­lic­a­tion of Series 2 in 1966, through Series 3 in 1973 to the Altern­at­ive Ser­vice Book 1980 and on to Com­mon Wor­ship in 2000. In these two later books the concept is mod­i­fied some­what, so that two of the four actions are regarded as more sig­ni­fic­ant and two as less so: ‘tak­ing’ is pre­par­at­ory to ‘bless­ing’ and ‘break­ing’ to ‘shar­ing’.

More recent litur­gic­al schol­ar­ship has ques­tioned Dix’s premise (as did some at the time). There is really no evid­ence that there was a single ori­gin­al euchar­ist­ic struc­ture, let alone that it fol­lows Dix’s Four-Action shape. In par­tic­u­lar, Paul Brad­shaw, in his book Euchar­ist­ic Ori­gins lays out what we have as the earli­est evid­ence of the Euchar­ist. There are essen­tially three points to make, and the first two effect­ively demol­ish Dix’s shape. First, that actu­ally there is very little evid­ence; and secondly that the evid­ence we do have is diverse — in the earli­est sur­viv­ing records dif­fer­ent groups do dif­fer­ent things. Even­tu­ally some of these pat­terns and prac­tices merge or dis­ap­pear under vari­ous influ­ences. But as far back as we can go, prac­tice is even more var­ied than it later became, and there is no reas­on to think that a single mod­el under­lies this.

For our pur­poses, I want to draw out a third point. This is what I like to call the ‘Monty Python got it wrong’ com­ment. Monty Python is not neces­sar­ily renowned for theo­lo­gic­al accur­acy, but in one of their com­edy sketches the Pope sum­mons Michelan­gelo and cas­tig­ates him for his paint­ing of the Last Sup­per which con­tains sev­er­al major inac­curacies; Michelan­gelo, rather than repaint the pic­ture, sug­gests that it be retitled the Pen­ul­tim­ate Sup­per on the grounds that there must have been one, and there is no record of what happened at it; the Pope retorts (in a line that has stuck with me for 35 years) ‘the Last Sup­per is a sig­ni­fic­ant event in the life of our Lord; the Pen­ul­tim­ate Sup­per was not’. Clearly, as John Cleese’s Pope says, the Last Sup­per was a sig­ni­fic­ant event. And it clearly has an impact, a major impact, on our euchar­ist­ic think­ing. But my con­ten­tion is that it isn’t true to say that earli­er sup­pers, earli­er meals, were not significant.

These meals, and the scrip­tur­al record of some of them, are the back­ground to the early Chris­ti­an Euchar­ist. In Jesus’s earthly min­istry, he ate and drank with his dis­ciples and oth­ers; or to put it anoth­er way, when his dis­ciples and oth­ers ate and drank Jesus was present with them. And after his death, his fol­low­ers con­tin­ued to exper­i­ence his pres­ence; most espe­cially they exper­i­enced his pres­ence when they broke bread together.

In this blog, I want to explore what this means for us today. How does this affect what we think we are about when we cel­eb­rate the Euchar­ist, and how does it affect the way that we go about cel­eb­rat­ing the Euchar­ist? What does it mean for our words and actions, for our hos­pit­al­ity, for our teach­ing and mis­sion? What does it mean for our archi­tec­ture and church order­ing even?

Oth­er points of view are of course pos­sible, and we shall explore some of those too.


1 Comment

Additional liturgical materials for baptism

The Agenda for the July meet­ing of the Gen­er­al Syn­od is now avail­able and con­tains the fol­low­ing snippet:

Update (4 June): The Agenda has been revised and the updated agenda is here but it does not yet con­tain the actu­al texts to be intro­duced at the Syn­od. The timetable for Sunday is the same as in the ori­gin­al agenda.

Sunday 13 July

EITHER
(if Art­icle 7 Ref­er­ence Meet­ings are not required)
2.30 pm – 6.15 pm
Arch­bish­ops’ Council’s Annu­al Report 2013
Litur­gic­al Business
    Addi­tion­al texts for Holy Bap­tism – First Consideration 
Churches’ Mutu­al Cred­it Uni­on (CMCU): Presentation

OR
(if Art­icle 7 Ref­er­ence Meet­ings are required)
4.00 pm – 6.15 pm
Litur­gic­al Business
    Addi­tion­al texts for Holy Bap­tism – First Consideration 
Churches’ Mutu­al Cred­it Uni­on (CMCU): Presentation

At the moment the papers per­tain­ing to this litur­gic­al busi­ness are not avail­able. We’ll add details when this is published.

3 Comments

Additional liturgical materials for baptism

As repor­ted on the main TA blog the House of Bish­ops of the Church of Eng­land met at Bish­op­thorpe Palace in York on Monday and Tuesday.

Amongst lots of oth­er busi­ness, the State­ment issued by the House con­tains this paragraph:

The House of Bish­ops received a report from the Litur­gic­al Com­mis­sion on the use of addi­tion­al texts for use in ser­vices of Bap­tism fol­low­ing the pilot­ing of new mater­i­als in par­ishes. The House heard that the feed­back from the par­ishes to the use of the texts had been largely pos­it­ive and wel­com­ing. Fol­low­ing a debate and minor amend­ments to the text the House voted for the new texts to pro­gress to being debated by Gen­er­al Synod.

This is the nor­mal route for any mater­i­al which comes under the terms of the Wor­ship and Doc­trine Meas­ure 1974, i.e., any mater­i­al which is altern­at­ive to text in the 1662 Book of Com­mon Pray­er — any draft is first reviewed by the House of Bish­ops, and only when agreed by that House is it intro­duced into the Gen­er­al Synod.

0 Comments

Alcuin of York, Abbot of Tours, 804

Today the Church of Eng­land com­mem­or­ates the dea­con Alcuin who rose to high office in the court of Char­le­magne, and who is par­tic­u­larly remembered in the Church for his litur­gic­al work. The Alcuin Club was foun­ded in 1897, to pro­mote and pub­lish litur­gic­al scholarship.

Alcuin was des­cen­ded from a noble Northum­bri­an fam­ily. Although the date and place of his birth are not known, he was prob­ably born in the year 735 in or near York. He entered the cathed­ral school there as a child, con­tin­ued as a Schol­ar and became Mas­ter. In 781, he went to Aachen as adviser to Char­le­magne on reli­gious and edu­ca­tion­al mat­ters and as Mas­ter of the Palace School, where he estab­lished an import­ant lib­rary. Although not a monk and in deacon’s orders, in 796 he became Abbot of Tours, where he died in the year 804. Alcuin wrote poetry, revised the lec­tion­ary, com­piled a sac­ra­ment­ary and was involved in oth­er sig­ni­fic­ant litur­gic­al work.

God of Wis­dom, Etern­al Light,
who shone in the heart of your ser­vant Alcuin,
reveal­ing to him your power and pity:
scat­ter the dark­ness of our ignorance
that, with all our heart and mind and strength,
we may seek your face
and be brought with all your saints
to your holy presence;
through Jesus Christ your Son our Lord,
who is alive and reigns with you,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever.
Amen.

0 Comments

Rites of Ordination: Their History and Theology

book cover
Paul F. Brad­shaw Rites of Ordin­a­tion: Their His­tory and Theo­logy Lon­don: SPCK, 2014 ISBN 978–0‑281–07157‑9. pp. ix + 218. £19.99 pbk.

What does it mean to be ordained as a min­is­ter? This ques­tion stands in large print on the back cov­er of Paul Bradshaw’s excel­lent book. If it attracts those hop­ing to find voca­tion­al dir­ec­tion or insight into min­is­teri­al iden­tity, they will be sur­prised by the con­tents. Brad­shaw is not unin­ter­ested in these mat­ters as they are expressed in ordin­a­tion rites, but they are not at the centre of his study. 

With an envi­able com­bin­a­tion of pro­fund­ity and eco­nomy, he has pro­duced a sur­vey of east­ern and west­ern rites of ordin­a­tion that stretches from the prac­tices of the earli­est Chris­ti­an com­munit­ies to the present day. This approach makes it pos­sible to show what ele­ments have been essen­tial, which bib­lic­al images have been sus­tained in the lan­guage and theo­logy of ordin­a­tion, how rela­tion­ships between orders have been under­stood, how the role of the laity has been acknow­ledged or eclipsed, and how can­did­ates have been chosen. The first three chapters, which deal with typo­logy of min­istry, min­istry in the earli­est Chris­ti­an com­munit­ies, and min­istry in the earli­est ordin­a­tion rites are par­tic­u­larly help­ful in set­ting the scene for what is to come.

Brad­shaw is the sort of his­tor­i­an who makes the evid­ence of his work­ings excit­ing. As his explor­a­tion moves to the rites them­selves, we learn a good deal about how to estab­lish a likely ‘ori­gin­al’ text by com­par­ing ver­sions of it in dif­fer­ent near-con­tem­por­ary doc­u­ments, or by sift­ing out com­mon fea­tures of later rites which must have come from a shared source. The account of the East takes up one chapter to five which might be defined as pre­oc­cu­pied with the West. This does not neces­sar­ily mean that the ori­gins of the East­ern rites of ordin­a­tion are more straight­for­ward: only that they sta­bil­ised where­as pat­terns in the West con­tin­ued to change. Thus it was not too long before bish­ops began to be appoin­ted by the Pope and not by the pop­u­lar acclaim of the loc­al community.

Rites con­verged as the Church grew and spread. The ordin­a­tion ser­vices which res­ult from the meet­ing of Roman and Gal­lican tra­di­tions become far more elab­or­ate than the indi­vidu­al streams which have come togeth­er. At the same time, there was a move away from loc­al acclaim, rela­tion­ship to place (the idea of a title), and the involve­ment in the laity in the choice and ordin­a­tion of min­is­ters. What increased was an emphas­is on the sac­ri­fi­cial priest­hood, to the exclu­sion of oth­er aspects of this order, like shep­herd and proph­et. This attrac­ted the cri­ti­cism of the Reformers, begin­ning with John Wyc­liffe and trenchantly uttered by Luth­er and Calv­in. Once again the ques­tion of what clergy were for, and how they differed from the laity, was at stake.

These are ques­tions that the Churches, includ­ing the Church of Rome, have gone on ask­ing – although it was not until 1990 that Rome had an ordin­a­tion rite sig­ni­fic­antly dif­fer­ent from the first prin­ted pon­ti­fic­al of 1485. There is now con­sid­er­able con­ver­gence on many of the desir­able char­ac­ter­ist­ics named by the World Coun­cil of Churches doc­u­ment, Bap­tism, Euchar­ist and Min­istry (1982). But Brad­shaw gives us a pic­ture of work still very much in pro­gress. Churches con­tin­ue to pon­der how to accom­mod­ate the lay­ing on of hands in the ordin­a­tion pray­er without split­ting it into three. They go on seek­ing ways to allow the voice of the laity to be heard in the rite and to rep­res­ent loc­al com­munit­ies where ordin­a­tion is cel­eb­rated in cent­ral loc­a­tions. They keep try­ing out sec­ond­ary sym­bol­ism to accom­pany the lay­ing on of hands and pray­er for the work of the Holy Spir­it. No Church seems as yet to have got this quite right, and part of Bradshaw’s achieve­ment is in show­ing how cho­reo­graphy can assist in solv­ing cer­tain prob­lems. There is plenty of mater­i­al here to guide prac­tice, and to root it his­tor­ic­ally without allow­ing any irre­spons­ible and badly-informed appeals to the Early Church. It is unlikely that any Church will embark on the revi­sion of its ordin­a­tion rites in future without first study­ing this book. 

Buy this book.

0 Comments

Gregory Dix, Priest, Monk, Scholar, 1952

Gregory DixToday the Church of Eng­land com­mem­or­ates Gregory Dix, whose name was added to the Cal­en­dar in 2010.

Excit­ing Holi­ness con­tains this bio­graph­ic­al information:

Born in 1901, George Dix was edu­cated at West­min­ster School and Mer­ton Col­lege, Oxford. After ordin­a­tion to a Fel­low­ship at Keble Col­lege, Oxford, he taught his­tory before enter­ing the noviti­ate of the Bene­dict­ine com­munity at Per­shore, tak­ing the name Gregory. Shortly after­wards the com­munity moved to Nash­dom in Buck­ing­ham­shire, where Dix even­tu­ally made his life pro­fes­sion and was appoin­ted Pri­or. Dix was one of the most influ­en­tial fig­ures of a gen­er­a­tion of Anglo-Cath­ol­ics who worked enthu­si­ast­ic­ally towards reunion with Rome. A gif­ted and pop­u­lar preach­er and spir­itu­al dir­ect­or, Dix is best remembered as a litur­gic­al schol­ar whose monu­ment­al work, The Shape of the Liturgy, has had an unpar­alleled influ­ence over litur­gic­al study and revi­sion since it was first pub­lished in 1945. He died on this day in 1952.

We plan to include occa­sion­al anniversar­ies of sig­ni­fic­ant litur­gic­al events or people. Text of this entry is from Excit­ing Holi­ness and is repro­duced by per­mis­sion of the editor.

0 Comments