Musical Disconnect

Well, the chanting of the introit went well, and the solemn high mass according to the American Missal went well (for Christmas Eve). Other parts are chanted in Gregorian Chant as well, such as the collects, sursum corda, Lord's Prayer, etc. And in addition to chanting those parts - some of which were chanted to an organ accompaniment - we sang your standard Christmas hymns. Personally, though, I do not like the way Gregorian Chant sounds next to 18th century Anglican hymnody. They are both very beautiful in and of themselves, but together they do not quite mesh so well. If we sing the gorgeous hymns, then the rest of the liturgy should be spoken in my opinion. If we do not sing the hymns, and there are enough people, then the liturgy may as well be chanted. It is not a a question of tradition, or theology, though that does play a role in this, but more a question of taste and asthetics.

Chanting the Introit

Tonight at midnight solemn high mass I get to chant the introit from the American Missal, which is what we use for our liturgy. We do not have a choir, and the priest cannot chant so well, or at least is preoccupied, and asked me if I wanted to give it a try. The missal basically adds an extra "slice" on top of the liturgy. It includes the introit, gradual, offeratory, secret, and post-communion prayers. All of those can be chanted in Gregorian chant. The book that has the settings is called the "English Gradual" which may be found online or in used bookstores. Besides chanting the introit, I get to serve as subdeacon, which is always an honor. Traditionally, the subdeacon holds the priest's cope during the first censing of the altar, which is done at the introit - the choir tradiationally chants the introit during a solemn high mass. Because I am chanting the introit, we have to separate the two, which is no big deal, but not "correct", strictly speaking. One often has to make little changes like that, though, to get things done in a small Anglican parish. If changes like that must be made for a good reason, it is best to make them look completely dignified and "planned" so that the liturgy goes smoothly and reverently, which is fitting for the worship of Our Lord.

Seminary

I am often asked if my continuing church has a seminary, and the answer is no, even though we are one of the biggest ones out there. This is a problem in the small Anglican denominations known as the "continuum". The REC has three seminaries, but I do not know much about them. And strictly speaking, they predate the continuum. APCK has one, but I don't know if it is just a seminary on paper with a nice building out in Berkeley. There is not much information about it on the web. So yes, it is problem. How is one supposed to learn what he needs to learn to become a priest? I will explore this later on.

But suffice it to say that many churches do not have seminaries, such as those big black "denominations". They send their pastors wherever it is convenient for them to go. The large non-denominational megachurches do not have seminaries. The Episcopal Church has only two seminaries from a conservative perspective. The PCA/OPC have more seminaries than you can shake a stick at, but they are never good enough. Even Greg Bahsen suggested that a person study under a pastor like they did in the olden days instead of going through a formal seminary education. So you see that the whole question of seminary is very complex. It does not necessarily make a church or denomination, but it is still a problem not to have one.

Again, there will be more on this later.

Studying for Holy Orders

A friend was considering applying to the priesthood for the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland, but his rector has dissuaded him, at least for the short term. I think that this is probably a good thing. Personally, I hope that he comes over to a continuing church. He is theologically orthodox and so will not have much of a place in this diocese, which is very liberal. But one of the other reasons why I would hope that he would consider us is that most continuing jurisdictions are very anglo-catholic, which is what he is. Most episcopal parishes here in Maryland are really low, so I don't know how much he would enjoy it if he were stuck at one that was very low and staffed by some metapausal old lady "priest" still harping about the 60's, Martin Luther King, and social justice. The discernment process here in Maryland involves attending a parish other than your own home parish in order to see what other parishes in the diocese are like, so he'd be told to go somewhere other than his parish during the process. The continuing churches offer lots of possibilities for people who want to serve the Lord. It may not always be financially lucrative, but that is not the point of going into fulltime ministry. And there is plenty of new work to be done - missions need to be started, older parishes need to be reinvigorated, and ecumenical work needs to be done. Yes indeed, there is still a lot of work out there for orthdox anglican clerics! Thanks be to God.

1940 Hymnal

At my parish we use the 1940 Hymnal of the Epsicopal Church. It is an absolutely magnificent work, full of beautiful hymns and chants. It has the famous "4th Communion Service", the Willan mass, and gorgeous hymns with obscure words that you have to look up when you go home. It follows the Church year, and then has a supplemental section of general hymns. And it has suggested hymns for all of the services of the year. I love the settings of the music that it has too. It contains the "Rockingham" tune of "When I Survery the Wonderous Cross.", and it still contains the "Amens" at the end of the hymns. For a hymnal to be truly good it has to contain the full message of the Christian faith. It has to have the bright happy stuff as well as the dark dreary stuff. It has to talk about the precious blood, and the history of salvation. This is one of the best hymnals I have ever seen.

Unification Anglicanism

The APA and the REC are on a path towards unity. I believe it is supposed to take place around 2010. Already they cooperate on the grassroots level by sharing clergy, resources, facilities, etc. But they will be one organic unity by the end of the decade. After years of division in the continuum this comes as welcome news. But it is also a bit perplexing as they two churches are so very different in terms of the their churchmanship. The REC is low and the APA is high. And then there are deeper issues on top of that, such as the Declaration of Principles - an REC document that denies many historical Anglican beliefs, the unusual practice of not always requiring convert nonconformist clergy to undergo episcopal ordination when joining, and more.

These divergent beliefs and traditions are not the end of the world.... I mean, I believe that God can impart sacramental grace through a man who does not have episcopal ordination (though it would be highly unusual), but it is just weird. And I know that people ignore historical documents all the time, so maybe the Declarations will just be quietly deep-sixed. But there are more issues than all of that. Unity? I don't know how they expect it to work. I hope it does for unity's sake and for God's glory, but whether or not it actually will is what's questionable. Apparantly they do not even have any canon theologians who hash all of this stuff out (though maybe that's a good thing). So I don't know how they even decide on these issues, who is on what comittee and so on! What a bunch of craziness.

I will have more on this over the coming months.

Church of Ten

I found out today that a friend's sister, who lives a few states away, is Anglican. She's like, "They're not Episcopal but Anglican, and they go to this really small church. I mean, it's really small... there's like ten people." I just had to chuckle. Her sister must be a continuing Anglican. The clue is the parish size, and also that she refers to herself as Anglican - continuers do that to differentiate themselves from the mainline Episcopal Church.

Having been in this tradition for several years, hyper-small parishes come as no shock to me. It's just part of the deal. The downside is that programs can be limited somewhat because of that, but the good side is that the parishes tend to be very friendly, and everyone wants to come and talk to you. There are other advantages and disadvantages as well.

St. Willibrord, Archbishop of Utrecht

That is the guy whose feast we celebrate today according to the kalendar that my denomination uses. The various continuing churches use slightly different kalendars. They differ mostly with regard to these minor saints. This saint, as most of the other ones we commemorate this month (e.g. Hilda of Whitby; John of the Cross; Catherine of Alexandria; etc.) are not found in the 1928 BCP. There are no propers, no prayers, no nothing. So I do not know why they are put on our kalendar. I have never been able to figure that out. I guess a priest could celebrate mass for them, and that the missal has some propers, but what is the layman supposed to do?

I mentioned something along these lines to the parish priest once and he says," They have propers in Lesser Feasts and Fasts.", which is a supplemental book that is authorized for use. The trouble is, however, that the edition that is authorized has been out of print for decades. When you mention that to these parsons they tell you to go and scour the used book stores to find one. Well, call me strange, but that just sounds silly to me - even if you could actually find one.

So, I will not commemorate this archbishop today in my daily prayers as I have no prayers to pray, and no readings to read. He should either be added to the BCP, or included in a supplemental bok that is still in print and could sold/given away at local parishes. Or he should be stricken from our kalendar altogether.

The Crazy, Eccentric, and Beautiful World of Continuing Anglicanism

This blog is dedicated to all things related to being a continuing Anglican/Episcopalian. It will serve as a place to discuss issues such as liturgy, theology, philosophy, ethics, ecumenicism, and more as they relate to "continuing" Anglicanism. It will also serve as a place to discuss these issues as they relate to other christian traditions.

Now, for those of you who do not already know, let me tell you something about continuing Anglicans. We are "continuing" because the idea is that we are "continuing" the orthodox Christian faith that was once delivered to the saints. We are Anglicans because we are descended form the Church of England in terms of our liturgy, ethos, and theology. We are not in sacramental communion with Archbishop of Canterbury or other parts of the mainline Anglican Communion (i.e. the Episcopal Church). We use older liturgies, such as the 1928 American Book of Common Prayer and/or the Missal. We do not ordain women or permit girls to serve as acolytes for various reasons that will be discussed later. We are pro-life, and embrace traditional moral values. We usually use the old 1940 Hymnal of the Episcopal Church, which is full of beautiful and serious hymns. Our congregations are rather small, and the buildings quite modest. There are lots of old people in the pews, but also some younger people depending on your parish. The entire liturgy, save the sermon, is conducted in beautiful Elizabethan English, and we usually say mass facing the altar. Sometimes, depending on where your go, one of the main Sunday liturgies is Morning Prayer instead of the Holy Eucharist... really old people usually favor Morning Prayer. I could go on, but hopefully this gives you some idea of what we are all about. The operative term is "old school". We are "old school" in everything we do... almost to a fault.