It's remarkably clear here, from the beautiful and perceptive way in which the Rev. Dr. Newman reads the service, how smoothly, naturally, and logically the sursum corda flows directly from Comfortable Words. The common custom of inserting the salutation Dominus vobiscum here (on the [incorrect] assumption that Cranmer has simply made a mistake in leaving it out at this point) completely obscures this connection.
I have eagerly awaited this video and was not disappointed in the great sense of 'corporatism' it conveys. Thank you many times for this precious testament of a tradition that is all but lost in many places, or at most a fond memory from childhood. It is a wonderful example of the point that the Liturgy can be dignified and still preserve a note of relaxed familiarity, freedom and warmth.
I am Vicar of the Anglican Reformed Community in Salvador and I celebrate Holy Communion in exactly this old way. Our Anglican confessionality is unique.
I know the words here by heart, they are engraven on my heart. In a world of change and chaos, they are anchors. It is truly lovely to have some things, that in a span of a lifetime, do not change. Thank you for sharing this.
It took a while but the PB Society has uploaded a "low church" or evangelical liturgy of the Holy Communion. As noted in the comments this was the standard practice everywhere, including the Episcopal Church in the USA before the Oxford Movement of the 1840's. Today on my side of the pond (USA) this low church is seen in a minority of churches except in the Bible Belt. Even there they often drop the heavy vestments seen here for alb and colored stole of the liturgical season in older non-air conditioned churches. My understanding is that in some cathedrals before the Oxford Movement copes were allowed at the communion liturgy.
As per 1662, copes are allowed only in collegiate cathedrals where everyone wears the choir robes haha. The cope is to identify who is the minister/ celebrant
In English Cathedrals copes were worn in my younger days, and I wasn't born before the Oxford Movement, by the principal celebrant and the Gospeller and Epistler (however you spell them) over surplices and stoles.
The 1662 BCP mentions copes in its rubrics. There is also the Ornaments Rubric, referring to any vestments in use in Edward VI's second year as being valid for Anglican use. An investigation of the practices prevailing in 1549 shows that these included copes, chasubles, stoles (instead of tippets), and other things that we nowadays think of only as Oxford Movement or RC.
Some good Cranmerian materials right there! Dr. Cranmer would have approved methinketh. Refreshing to watch and listen. We get nothing like this on the west side of the pond with the 1979 BCP. Thank you PBS (again).
@@puremercury --none in the eastern slice of NC, at all. I could live with Rite 1 of the 79 BCP, largely, but we get Rite 11 in our area. Do the 1928 MP and EP daily at home. A just and polite thumbing of the nose, if I may, to the TEC leaders. It's not prudent to take the old BCP from a retired military Chaplain (USN/USMC). They stole it and they can take the push-back. So, a daily push-back is lawful, just and right...every day. No need for a spinal transplant here. And no apology for being tough about it. Am a combat veteran. Bring back Rite 1 or the 1928 BCP nationwide. Regards and thanks Michael for the goodly note.
@@donaldveitch2158 There apparently is one in Princeton, NC. Don't know how close that is to you. It is a Continuing Anglican congregation under the UECNA.
As I see, it is no so different to the high-church service. The vestements, les kneelings, but the texts and prayer are the same, aren't they? Thanks from a roman catholic from Spain.
@@prudencedailey4144 Thank you for your awnsers. And sorry for my ignorance. As I have understood, Are there in the Anglican Communion communities that cellebrate Eucharist with other ritual different to the BCP? In fact, I watched a Holy Communion in tv last Sunday, an it was quite different to the BCP one. Thank you again. And sorry for my bad English.
@@albertocarnicero That is true. In England, the majority of services are from a new series of books called Common Worship instead. The different provinces have their own prayer books: the US has one updated in 1979, which has been modernized, and in Canada there is a traditional Book of Common Prayer as well as the more common Book of Alternative Services, which is more similar to the US book. The purpose of the Prayer Book Society, who held the service in the video here, is to promote the use of the traditional Book of Common Prayer as opposed to these more modern liturgies.
Simple, dignified, containing all the elements of the early liturgies, in an English fashion. Never witnessed such a service in the US, although I hear they were common in the Southeast 50 years ago.
@@vngelicath1580 it’s the guy above me who has problem, guess it’s just “too papist” for him never mind that such practice has existed from very early on in the church, it’s hardly some medieval accretion.
RJRPaice We were guests in someone else’s chapel. If memory serves correctly, there would have been quite a lot of junk to remove had that been done! The candles were removed from table. I would not have chosen a grand piano at the north side either.
David Siow A fair question. It was the 8am Communion Service at the conference and breakfast stops being served at 9am. At least the Commandments were said, not the Summary of the Law.
An illustration, as with so many said services, of a muddled start. I do wish priests would begin with a “let us pray “rather than simply launching into the Lord’s prayer. Also, the celebrant appears to have arrived in Office vestments?
Prior to the to the Oxford Movement and the normalization of ritualism, cassock, surplice, tippet, hood, and bands were the vesture of all Anglican clergy at times of ministration.
This is an example of a traditional Evangelical/Low-Church use of the Communion service in the Church of England. As the previous commenter has noted, this form of vesture would have been the norm everywhere prior to the Oxford Movement (and still is in many places). We also have a more High-Church version of the Communion service, with vestments, elsewhere on this channel. The service as written does not envisage any introduction (such as 'let us pray'), as the opening words of the service are addressed directly to God (and not to the congregation). In addition, 'Let us pray' in the BCP is usually an invitation to keel, and often the people will already be kneeling as the clergy enter (although that was not the case in this video). There are, of course, many variations in practice as to how the service is opened.
There is no bidding “Let us pray” in the Prayer Book for very good reason-the congregation is not being invited to pray at this point. It is for the minister to say alone. Hence “Amen” is also not printed in italics. It is the conclusion of the minister’s preparation to administer the sacrament.
@@danielnewman8525 you're quite right, of course, about there being no bidding "let us pray" at this point. But, there also isn't an oremus before the Lord's Prayer at the beginning of Mattins or following Communion. So your explanation of why there isn't a bidding doesn't as easily hold true for all of these -- particularly at the beginning of Mattins, when the rubric specifies the people should join in. The rubric before the first Lord's Prayer in Mattins says: "Then the Minister shall kneel, and say the Lord's Prayer with an audible voice; the people also kneeling, and repeating it with him, both here, and wheresoever else it is used in Divine Service." This seems to indicate that the people are expected to join into the Lord's Prayer whenever it is said. Moreover, your explanation of why the Amen is not not italicized at this point contradicts what Wheatley says about this: "at the end of the Lord's Prayer, Confessions, Creeds, &c., and wheresoever the people are to join aloud with the minister.... there [the Amen] is printed in Roman, i.e.,in the same character with the Confessions and Creeds themselves."
I have never seen "north end" done. Dignified and beautiful however, and the Eucharist is the Eucharist even if this is not the way I am used to seeing. What is interesting about Cranmer is that his rite draws the whole act of worship together by placing the conclusion (oblation) aspect of the Consecration at the end, also the Gloria.
At the end of the service you hear the priest read the Prayer of oblation which asks god to accept this "our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving," presumably in union with Christ, but such a Prayer belongs in the Prayer of Consecration where the sacrifice had been for 1400 years before Cranmer moved it!! there is another thanksgiving prayer as an option which does not mention sacrifice.
Holy Communion, according to the rubric in the historic BCP, was celebrated at the “north side” of the table. The reason for this is not entirely known. The Anglican Reformers opposed the ad orientem (eastward) position, with the minister’s back to the people because of the implication that he is an intermediary between the congregation and the Divine. John Jewel advocated ad populi, where the minister faces the people, but it didn’t catch on. I’ve been told the reason the Reformers chose to have the priest at the north-side was to de-emphasize the priest, and encourage the people to see Christ as the one spiritually presiding over the sacrament.
As for the vestments. these are adiaphora, indifferent matters. the words, the text incarnated by the worshipers are the important matter. Imagine this service done i Westminster Abbey the way Elizabeth I a non-ideological and moderate Protestant who firmly believed in the Real Presence and kneeling to receive (which remained custom in reverence): Unmarried clergy (she detested married clerics), dressed in Mass vestments, celebrated at a Holy Table with 2 candlesticks and crucifix, a throw and fair linen on it, against the back wall with priests back to the congregation, deep bows from the waist, and music, and perhaps incense at the Gospel. or even in Latin (the Prayer Book in Latin was issued in 1565 for use at Oxford and Cambridge and Cathedrals).
Elizabeth’s bishops fretted over her insistence for having the “silver cross” in her chapel. Jewel went so far as to preach against it to her face. While Elizabeth’s chapel (like all royal chapels) was an anomaly, we oughtn’t speculate too much. Remember that, by far, the long of the official homilies authorized by her was the Homily against the Peril of Idolatry and the Superfluous Decking of Churches. And from her own Injunctions of 1559: “XXIII. Also, that they shall take away, utterly extinct, and destroy all shrines, coverings of shrines, all tables, candlesticks, trindals, and rolls of wax, pictures, paintings, and all other monuments of feigned miracles, pilgrimages, idolatry, and superstition, so that there remain no memory of the same in walls, glass windows, or elsewhere within their churches and houses; preserving nevertheless, or repairing both the walls and glass windows; and they shall exhort all their parishioners to do the like within their several houses.”
@@harpsichordkid what’s your point here? What’s amusing is how such attitudes sound similar to atheist scoffing at the Christian faith in general. The fact even a bare cross would cause scandal really shows almost an inverted form of superstition to me. The funny thing is that the puritans were still not satisfied. I guess a bare room with one colour is the only way not to be distracted by “frivolous” things, maybe you should worship in the dark just to be sure
@@l21n18 Friend, study your history - and use primary sources. Read the Homilies. These were the bishops of our church; they were not puritans. The bronze serpent was originally given as a sign, specifically commanded to be made, so that any who looked to it would be miraculously healed. Yet, what happened when men began to pay devotion to it? Do you know the story of Josiah? It is not primarily an issue of being distracted by frivolous things, it is the difference between offering to God worship as he has requested or offering to him the vain rituals thought uo by men. “Man from his first falling from God’s commandements hath ever been ready to do the like, and doeth devise works of his own fantasy to please God withall.” - the Homily on Good Works. If you are going to give someone you love a gift, do you give them something you want, or do you try to give them what they want? Then why when it comes to worship, mankind always thinks it is okay to give God the things that please human sensualities rather than what he has asked and commanded of us?
Many clergy objected to an excess of hymns in the 18th C. They could incite "enthusiam," by which meant fanaticism. Psalms and canticles, and a few ancient or well known hymns were it. Then started the West Gallery Music movement, where country folk would sing and play band instruments to folk hymns (often to tavern tunes). And then came the Methodists..
@@michaelkingsbury4305 I wouldn't complain too much about what the Methodists brought. Anglican choir tradition is almost instantly recognizable to any person of Christian faith.
Hello I am from India. Can someone tell if there are any videos added in this channel please? I want to know if the new videos added are only for UK subscribers! Please let me know!
I should have added that the service videos are primarily intended for the training of the clergy in how to conduct worship according to the BCP, so it’s unlikely that we’ll be uploading more services unless they’re distinctive or different in some way from those already posted. There will, however, be further informational videos, conference talks etc.
If you want to see more videos of traditional BCP services, I would recommend going to our website at www.pbs.org.uk , where we have links to services being streamed online from churches all around the country while they are currently closed to the public during the pandemic. The majority of these are also available for watching after the event.
AS you will note the priest is standing at the 'north end' of the altar so the action can be seen by all. but the rubrics from the 16th century clearly indicate that a rather small table set against the wall, not this immovable altar, was to be taken down into the nave and turned lengthwise to face the congregation in the manner of early christian churches where the altar was actually a table in wood, stone or marble. See Wikipedia article templon, and descriptions of this. Indeed in Orthodox churches the Holy Table is always freestanding though the celebrant has his back to the congregation. The 1662 communion service is based on Cranmer's mishmash of the Mass very written to exclude the notion that the Holy Eucharist was the Church's offering in union with Christ using the very sacrifice he offered once for all given to us as a gift, the Sacrifice of Praise and thanksgiving for his Prefect Offering for us. this had been the theology since the mid-2nd century AD. Cranmer well knew this but by conviction and outside pressure deleted it. It was restored by the Scottish Episcopalians and the Americans who adopted the Scottish Canon. The relevant words are and here we do celebrate and make before thee with these thy holy gifts WHICH WE OFFER UNTO THEE, the memorial thy Son hath commanded us to make." That was the end of Cranmer's doctrine. Even so in the mangled semi- Catholic Prayer books the Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving shows up in the Prayer of Oblation after communion. Had the C of E wanted it could have taken this Prayer and put it immediately after the Words of Institution and voila, we have a Mass again! By the way had Lizzie the First had her way the Protestant Holy Communion would have looked like a mass with all the vestments and trimmings. But alas she did have here way. In the 17th century and after Anglican Divines tried to get around the defects of the liturgy by introducing sacrifice even though the words did not support it. Nice try. I don't even know why they bother with the old Prayer books. the 1929 English Prayer book remedies the defect.
There’s no defect. Those dissatisfied with the theology and liturgy of our English Reformation have plenty of options beside. One can be Presbyterian or one can go back to Rome. 100s of people, some as young as 14 gave up their lives for the sake of this theology. The Ritualists ought not be so dismissive even if they have been the ones in power for so long.
this was how Anglican services were until the 1800s Oxford movement. At a cathedral would see the celebrant wear a cope, as to identify him as the celebrant amongst the variety of choir and clergy and others present. actually during the 1600s this would be considered a bit "high church" as there are both 'vestments' in the form of surplices and kneeling - though during archbishop laud it was encouraged to face east as the altars are built for instead the north side. a puritan would be foaming at the mouth if they were in this service. when they tried doing this in scotland it led to a riot, which in turn built up rage that became a war.
That’s a really ignorant comment for a number of reasons, whether you like them or not high Church elements are hardly Just weird medieval Roman things
@@ericaandzacbauer Ah right, I'm church of ireland and as far as I know it's a big no no to wear hoods at communion. We had a service recently for the consecration of a new bishop with Eucharist. There was literally only a handfull of clergy wearing stoles. Alot of them were wearing preaching scarfs with academic hoots which your not suppose to wear to communion. One cleric mentioned to me thst they probable are trying to prove a point.
@@BobSmith-to5sl I have never come across the rule that hoods should not be worn at Holy Communion. I cannot fathom why it should be "a big no no". Nor am I keen on invented rules.
the "north side" celebration is a "happy accident" of history. The Prayer Book envisions the the Altar (or Table) being placed in the choir, on the east-west parallel, with the people seated in the choir. In this setup, the people would be seated around the Table, with the Vicar in the north. However, this setup was later abandoned, the churches reverted back to the old Ad Orientem setup. But the Prayer Book remained unchanged, so some still celebrated from the north side of the Table. While "north side" originated as a misinterpretation of the Prayer Book, it did provide some benefits: (1) with the people in the choir, the Vicar also faces the same way as the people, giving a sense of him joining the people in prayer; and (2) it makes it so that the people can see the bread and wine on the Table, without drawing attention to the Vicar, as can happen with a Versus Populum celebration.
I was very pleased to observe for the first time ever a "north side" celebration. Quite instructive.
It's remarkably clear here, from the beautiful and perceptive way in which the Rev. Dr. Newman reads the service, how smoothly, naturally, and logically the sursum corda flows directly from Comfortable Words. The common custom of inserting the salutation Dominus vobiscum here (on the [incorrect] assumption that Cranmer has simply made a mistake in leaving it out at this point) completely obscures this connection.
It's amazing just how hard it is to find a full BCP communion service i think this is one of three of these types of services I've come across
I have eagerly awaited this video and was not disappointed in the great sense of 'corporatism' it conveys. Thank you many times for this precious testament of a tradition that is all but lost in many places, or at most a fond memory from childhood. It is a wonderful example of the point that the Liturgy can be dignified and still preserve a note of relaxed familiarity, freedom and warmth.
I am Vicar of the Anglican Reformed Community in Salvador and I celebrate Holy Communion in exactly this old way.
Our Anglican confessionality is unique.
Old?
@@l21n18 Yes
@@natancastro16 how?
We respect the rubrics of the common prayer book of 1662.
We here in India have the exact same order of service and the and oreientem alter in our church!
Thank you so much for your videos!
What church?
I know the words here by heart, they are engraven on my heart. In a world of change and chaos, they are anchors. It is truly lovely to have some things, that in a span of a lifetime, do not change. Thank you for sharing this.
I prefer the high church service as it was given to us by the Oxford Movement. However, this is done with dignity. Thank you!
It took a while but the PB Society has uploaded a "low church" or evangelical liturgy of the Holy Communion. As noted in the comments this was the standard practice everywhere, including the Episcopal Church in the USA before the Oxford Movement of the 1840's. Today on my side of the pond (USA) this low church is seen in a minority of churches except in the Bible Belt. Even there they often drop the heavy vestments seen here for alb and colored stole of the liturgical season in older non-air conditioned churches.
My understanding is that in some cathedrals before the Oxford Movement copes were allowed at the communion liturgy.
As per 1662, copes are allowed only in collegiate cathedrals where everyone wears the choir robes haha. The cope is to identify who is the minister/ celebrant
In English Cathedrals copes were worn in my younger days, and I wasn't born before the Oxford Movement, by the principal celebrant and the Gospeller and Epistler (however you spell them) over surplices and stoles.
@@severianmonk7394 I don't think anyone who is born before the Oxford Movement is still alive today XD
The 1662 BCP mentions copes in its rubrics. There is also the Ornaments Rubric, referring to any vestments in use in Edward VI's second year as being valid for Anglican use. An investigation of the practices prevailing in 1549 shows that these included copes, chasubles, stoles (instead of tippets), and other things that we nowadays think of only as Oxford Movement or RC.
“Evangelical”
Some good Cranmerian materials right there! Dr. Cranmer would have approved methinketh. Refreshing to watch and listen. We get nothing like this on the west side of the pond with the 1979 BCP. Thank you PBS (again).
Donald Veitch, a lot of heretics on that side of the pond.
@@acortes7771 --tis very true.
There are 1928 BCP congregations. Those tend to be better.
@@puremercury --none in the eastern slice of NC, at all. I could live with Rite 1 of the 79 BCP, largely, but we get Rite 11 in our area. Do the 1928 MP and EP daily at home. A just and polite thumbing of the nose, if I may, to the TEC leaders. It's not prudent to take the old BCP from a retired military Chaplain (USN/USMC). They stole it and they can take the push-back. So, a daily push-back is lawful, just and right...every day. No need for a spinal transplant here. And no apology for being tough about it. Am a combat veteran. Bring back Rite 1 or the 1928 BCP nationwide. Regards and thanks Michael for the goodly note.
@@donaldveitch2158 There apparently is one in Princeton, NC. Don't know how close that is to you. It is a Continuing Anglican congregation under the UECNA.
Voices and visual hallucinations are hurting me physically. God please help heal.❤
This is how it should be. Feel free to invite along a choir to sing Stanford's Communion Service in C, but never mind if they're not there.
As I see, it is no so different to the high-church service. The vestements, les kneelings, but the texts and prayer are the same, aren't they?
Thanks from a roman catholic from Spain.
Yes: the texts and prayers are identical, because the Book of Common Prayer is used by both low- and high-church clergy and churches alike.
In the Prayer Book Society, we have (and we encourage) people from a very wide spectrum of churchmanship.
@@prudencedailey4144 I understand. Thank you, Prudence.
@@prudencedailey4144 Thank you for your awnsers. And sorry for my ignorance. As I have understood, Are there in the Anglican Communion communities that cellebrate Eucharist with other ritual different to the BCP? In fact, I watched a Holy Communion in tv last Sunday, an it was quite different to the BCP one.
Thank you again. And sorry for my bad English.
@@albertocarnicero That is true. In England, the majority of services are from a new series of books called Common Worship instead. The different provinces have their own prayer books: the US has one updated in 1979, which has been modernized, and in Canada there is a traditional Book of Common Prayer as well as the more common Book of Alternative Services, which is more similar to the US book. The purpose of the Prayer Book Society, who held the service in the video here, is to promote the use of the traditional Book of Common Prayer as opposed to these more modern liturgies.
Simple, dignified, containing all the elements of the early liturgies, in an English fashion. Never witnessed such a service in the US, although I hear they were common in the Southeast 50 years ago.
Last time... only time I saw north end celebration was in a reformed episcopal church in the us
Unfortunately, the REC now encourages ad orientem - some of their bishops even making it mandatory.
@@harpsichordkid then don’t go there
@@l21n18 What's wrong with ad orientem?
@@vngelicath1580 it’s the guy above me who has problem, guess it’s just “too papist” for him never mind that such practice has existed from very early on in the church, it’s hardly some medieval accretion.
Very good, although there is still a frontal, not plain white cloth only as prescribed.
RJRPaice We were guests in someone else’s chapel. If memory serves correctly, there would have been quite a lot of junk to remove had that been done! The candles were removed from table. I would not have chosen a grand piano at the north side either.
@@danielnewman8525 what about mixing water and wine
David Siow It did not happen.
@@danielnewman8525 my mistake sorry, why is the exhortation removed?
David Siow A fair question. It was the 8am Communion Service at the conference and breakfast stops being served at 9am. At least the Commandments were said, not the Summary of the Law.
An illustration, as with so many said services, of a muddled start. I do wish priests would begin with a “let us pray “rather than simply launching into the Lord’s prayer. Also, the celebrant appears to have arrived in Office vestments?
Prior to the to the Oxford Movement and the normalization of ritualism, cassock, surplice, tippet, hood, and bands were the vesture of all Anglican clergy at times of ministration.
This is an example of a traditional Evangelical/Low-Church use of the Communion service in the Church of England. As the previous commenter has noted, this form of vesture would have been the norm everywhere prior to the Oxford Movement (and still is in many places). We also have a more High-Church version of the Communion service, with vestments, elsewhere on this channel.
The service as written does not envisage any introduction (such as 'let us pray'), as the opening words of the service are addressed directly to God (and not to the congregation). In addition, 'Let us pray' in the BCP is usually an invitation to keel, and often the people will already be kneeling as the clergy enter (although that was not the case in this video). There are, of course, many variations in practice as to how the service is opened.
There is no bidding “Let us pray” in the Prayer Book for very good reason-the congregation is not being invited to pray at this point. It is for the minister to say alone. Hence “Amen” is also not printed in italics. It is the conclusion of the minister’s preparation to administer the sacrament.
@@danielnewman8525 you're quite right, of course, about there being no bidding "let us pray" at this point. But, there also isn't an oremus before the Lord's Prayer at the beginning of Mattins or following Communion. So your explanation of why there isn't a bidding doesn't as easily hold true for all of these -- particularly at the beginning of Mattins, when the rubric specifies the people should join in. The rubric before the first Lord's Prayer in Mattins says: "Then the Minister shall kneel, and say the Lord's Prayer with an audible voice; the people also kneeling, and repeating it with him, both here, and wheresoever else it is used in Divine Service." This seems to indicate that the people are expected to join into the Lord's Prayer whenever it is said. Moreover, your explanation of why the Amen is not not italicized at this point contradicts what Wheatley says about this: "at the end of the Lord's Prayer, Confessions, Creeds, &c., and wheresoever the people are to join aloud with the minister.... there [the Amen] is printed in Roman, i.e.,in the same character with the Confessions and Creeds themselves."
I have never seen "north end" done. Dignified and beautiful however, and the Eucharist is the Eucharist even if this is not the way I am used to seeing. What is interesting about Cranmer is that his rite draws the whole act of worship together by placing the conclusion (oblation) aspect of the Consecration at the end, also the Gloria.
How it's to be done
At the end of the service you hear the priest read the Prayer of oblation which asks god to accept this "our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving," presumably in union with Christ, but such a Prayer belongs in the Prayer of Consecration where the sacrifice had been for 1400 years before Cranmer moved it!! there is another thanksgiving prayer as an option which does not mention sacrifice.
Was low mass celebrated on the gospel side of the altar?
Holy Communion, according to the rubric in the historic BCP, was celebrated at the “north side” of the table.
The reason for this is not entirely known. The Anglican Reformers opposed the ad orientem (eastward) position, with the minister’s back to the people because of the implication that he is an intermediary between the congregation and the Divine.
John Jewel advocated ad populi, where the minister faces the people, but it didn’t catch on.
I’ve been told the reason the Reformers chose to have the priest at the north-side was to de-emphasize the priest, and encourage the people to see Christ as the one spiritually presiding over the sacrament.
#SocietyForThePromotionOfNorthEndCelebration
#MakeNorthEndCelebrationGreatAgain
#EcclesiaAnglicana
As for the vestments. these are adiaphora, indifferent matters. the words, the text incarnated by the worshipers are the important matter. Imagine this service done i Westminster Abbey the way Elizabeth I a non-ideological and moderate Protestant who firmly believed in the Real Presence and kneeling to receive (which remained custom in reverence): Unmarried clergy (she detested married clerics), dressed in Mass vestments, celebrated at a Holy Table with 2 candlesticks and crucifix, a throw and fair linen on it, against the back wall with priests back to the congregation, deep bows from the waist, and music, and perhaps incense at the Gospel. or even in Latin (the Prayer Book in Latin was issued in 1565 for use at Oxford and Cambridge and Cathedrals).
Elizabeth’s bishops fretted over her insistence for having the “silver cross” in her chapel. Jewel went so far as to preach against it to her face. While Elizabeth’s chapel (like all royal chapels) was an anomaly, we oughtn’t speculate too much. Remember that, by far, the long of the official homilies authorized by her was the Homily against the Peril of Idolatry and the Superfluous Decking of Churches.
And from her own Injunctions of 1559:
“XXIII. Also, that they shall take away, utterly extinct, and destroy all shrines, coverings of shrines, all tables, candlesticks, trindals, and rolls of wax, pictures, paintings, and all other monuments of feigned miracles, pilgrimages, idolatry, and superstition, so that there remain no memory of the same in walls, glass windows, or elsewhere within their churches and houses; preserving nevertheless, or repairing both the walls and glass windows; and they shall exhort all their parishioners to do the like within their several houses.”
@@harpsichordkid what’s your point here? What’s amusing is how such attitudes sound similar to atheist scoffing at the Christian faith in general. The fact even a bare cross would cause scandal really shows almost an inverted form of superstition to me. The funny thing is that the puritans were still not satisfied. I guess a bare room with one colour is the only way not to be distracted by “frivolous” things, maybe you should worship in the dark just to be sure
@@l21n18 Friend, study your history - and use primary sources. Read the Homilies. These were the bishops of our church; they were not puritans.
The bronze serpent was originally given as a sign, specifically commanded to be made, so that any who looked to it would be miraculously healed. Yet, what happened when men began to pay devotion to it? Do you know the story of Josiah? It is not primarily an issue of being distracted by frivolous things, it is the difference between offering to God worship as he has requested or offering to him the vain rituals thought uo by men. “Man from his first falling from God’s commandements hath ever been ready to do the like, and doeth devise works of his own fantasy to please God withall.” - the Homily on Good Works.
If you are going to give someone you love a gift, do you give them something you want, or do you try to give them what they want? Then why when it comes to worship, mankind always thinks it is okay to give God the things that please human sensualities rather than what he has asked and commanded of us?
This is terribly badly filmed by comparison with the "High Church" version by the PBS.
Why?
As an old poem says: "low but lazy, broad but hazy, high but crazy."
Is this what one would expect from a typical church service in the 18th century? Or would it have more hymns?
Many clergy objected to an excess of hymns in the 18th C. They could incite "enthusiam," by which meant fanaticism. Psalms and canticles, and a few ancient or well known hymns were it. Then started the West Gallery Music movement, where country folk would sing and play band instruments to folk hymns (often to tavern tunes). And then came the Methodists..
@@michaelkingsbury4305 I wouldn't complain too much about what the Methodists brought. Anglican choir tradition is almost instantly recognizable to any person of Christian faith.
Hello I am from India.
Can someone tell if there are any videos added in this channel please?
I want to know if the new videos added are only for UK subscribers!
Please let me know!
No-you haven’t missed anything. All the videos here should be accessible to everyone.
Thank you very the information!
I should have added that the service videos are primarily intended for the training of the clergy in how to conduct worship according to the BCP, so it’s unlikely that we’ll be uploading more services unless they’re distinctive or different in some way from those already posted. There will, however, be further informational videos, conference talks etc.
If you want to see more videos of traditional BCP services, I would recommend going to our website at www.pbs.org.uk , where we have links to services being streamed online from churches all around the country while they are currently closed to the public during the pandemic. The majority of these are also available for watching after the event.
The you so much!
Beautiful service. However, I just realized there is no music at all.
Very strange to see a north end celebration these days. But even more strange that the 'table' has a frontal for such a service in such a tradition.
AS you will note the priest is standing at the 'north end' of the altar so the action can be seen by all. but the rubrics from the 16th century clearly indicate that a rather small table set against the wall, not this immovable altar, was to be taken down into the nave and turned lengthwise to face the congregation in the manner of early christian churches where the altar was actually a table in wood, stone or marble. See Wikipedia article templon, and descriptions of this. Indeed in Orthodox churches the Holy Table is always freestanding though the celebrant has his back to the congregation.
The 1662 communion service is based on Cranmer's mishmash of the Mass very written to exclude the notion that the Holy Eucharist was the Church's offering in union with Christ using the very sacrifice he offered once for all given to us as a gift, the Sacrifice of Praise and thanksgiving for his Prefect Offering for us. this had been the theology since the mid-2nd century AD. Cranmer well knew this but by conviction and outside pressure deleted it. It was restored by the Scottish Episcopalians and the Americans who adopted the Scottish Canon. The relevant words are and here we do celebrate and make before thee with these thy holy gifts WHICH WE OFFER UNTO THEE, the memorial thy Son hath commanded us to make." That was the end of Cranmer's doctrine. Even so in the mangled semi- Catholic Prayer books the Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving shows up in the Prayer of Oblation after communion. Had the C of E wanted it could have taken this Prayer and put it immediately after the Words of Institution and voila, we have a Mass again! By the way had Lizzie the First had her way the Protestant Holy Communion would have looked like a mass with all the vestments and trimmings. But alas she did have here way. In the 17th century and after Anglican Divines tried to get around the defects of the liturgy by introducing sacrifice even though the words did not support it. Nice try. I don't even know why they bother with the old Prayer books. the 1929 English Prayer book remedies the defect.
There’s no defect. Those dissatisfied with the theology and liturgy of our English Reformation have plenty of options beside. One can be Presbyterian or one can go back to Rome. 100s of people, some as young as 14 gave up their lives for the sake of this theology. The Ritualists ought not be so dismissive even if they have been the ones in power for so long.
@@harpsichordkid people have given up their lives for every theological view under the sun
I never saw the Eucharist celebrated in these vestments. They are more for the prayer services. Alb and stole, cassock and stole, or Chas and stole.
this was how Anglican services were until the 1800s Oxford movement. At a cathedral would see the celebrant wear a cope, as to identify him as the celebrant amongst the variety of choir and clergy and others present. actually during the 1600s this would be considered a bit "high church" as there are both 'vestments' in the form of surplices and kneeling - though during archbishop laud it was encouraged to face east as the altars are built for instead the north side. a puritan would be foaming at the mouth if they were in this service. when they tried doing this in scotland it led to a riot, which in turn built up rage that became a war.
Thank you - the English Church as it should be, rather than petty Romanism.
That’s a really ignorant comment for a number of reasons, whether you like them or not high Church elements are hardly Just weird medieval Roman things
Your not suppose to wear an academic hood for holy communion or Eucharist
It's in the 1662 rubrics
@@musicforlife64ful But the current prayer book doesn't mention it.
Bob Smith The 1662 is the “current” prayer book in the CoE
@@ericaandzacbauer Ah right, I'm church of ireland and as far as I know it's a big no no to wear hoods at communion. We had a service recently for the consecration of a new bishop with Eucharist. There was literally only a handfull of clergy wearing stoles. Alot of them were wearing preaching scarfs with academic hoots which your not suppose to wear to communion. One cleric mentioned to me thst they probable are trying to prove a point.
@@BobSmith-to5sl I have never come across the rule that hoods should not be worn at Holy Communion. I cannot fathom why it should be "a big no no". Nor am I keen on invented rules.
Academic hoods should not be worn when celebrating Holy Communion. Be it High Church or Low Church.
This is very odd - why face that way? This goes against all early Christian tradition! I think that they made this up!
the "north side" celebration is a "happy accident" of history. The Prayer Book envisions the the Altar (or Table) being placed in the choir, on the east-west parallel, with the people seated in the choir. In this setup, the people would be seated around the Table, with the Vicar in the north. However, this setup was later abandoned, the churches reverted back to the old Ad Orientem setup. But the Prayer Book remained unchanged, so some still celebrated from the north side of the Table.
While "north side" originated as a misinterpretation of the Prayer Book, it did provide some benefits: (1) with the people in the choir, the Vicar also faces the same way as the people, giving a sense of him joining the people in prayer; and (2) it makes it so that the people can see the bread and wine on the Table, without drawing attention to the Vicar, as can happen with a Versus Populum celebration.