Ritual Conformity Part 1

Ritual Conformity.

by Unknown.

PREFACE.

At a Conference of some friends interested in the subject of Ritual, held on January 17, 1880, the following propositions were, amongst others, agreed to:

I. That the evil of unnecessary Diversity in Ritual, as practised in various Churches aiming at the maintenance of Catholic doctrine and usage in the Church of England, is real and great.

II. That an effort to moderate it should be attempted, resting mainly on the united opinion of some of those who have given special attention to the theory and practice of Ritual, in their private capacity of Students or Parish Priests.

III. That the effort should take the form of a body of Comments upon the Rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer, and that these Comments should include cautions against practices which are infractions of the law and usage of the Church of England.

With the view of carrying these propositions into effect, it was arranged that a series of meetings should be held; and the Vicar of All Saints, Margaret-street, kindly provided a room at the clergy-house for the meetings of the Conference.

Those who had met in the first instance were duly summoned, and others were invited to join them. The meetings were held at first on two consecutive days in alternate weeks, (since some of the members came from a considerable distance). Latterly, in order to expedite the work, meetings were held on three consecutive days in alternate weeks. In all, forty-eight meetings were held between January 17, 1880, and July 13, 1881.

It was thought possible that by the co-operation of several minds, information might be collected from sources not commonly accessible, and perhaps hardly within the reach of any one individual. Among the members of the Conference also were those who had had experience of parish-work, as well as those who had devoted time and attention to historical enquiry into the origin and meaning of the Rubrics of the Prayer-Book, or who had made ancient Liturgies their special study: some, it may be added, combined these various qualifications.

A hope therefore was entertained, as the second proposition implies, that by considering on very wide grounds (both practical and historical), and not from any one point of view, the various divergencies of ritual practice, some agreement might be arrived at even on the most controverted points.

This hope has been realized. It was found that points which seemed at first to afford no basis on which agreement was at all probable, were settled, after long discussion, almost (if not quite) unanimously; but this involved expenditure of time, and much investigation into matters on which existing text-books were often silent.

With regard to the actual diversities in ritual which came under the attention of the Conference, some appeared to be such direct infractions of the Rubrics that no explanation of the Rubrics could make their irregularity more evident. Others seemed to arise from well-meant attempts to interpret the Rubrics. These last formed the chief subject of the labours of the Conference.

The main line of procedure laid down was a true and loyal adherence to the spirit of the Prayer-Book. A mere literal interpretation of the Rubric was found in many cases to be insufficient. Even if the existing Prayer-Book had been composed for inaugurating some new religious system, it would be scarcely reasonable to depend upon the abstract meaning of the words employed, without any reference to the circ.u.mstances under which the book had been written. But when we remember that the Prayer-Book of 1662 was the last of several revisions of the original English Prayer-Book of 1549, which was itself avowedly based upon the Ancient Liturgies, and carried on the existing and ancient wors.h.i.+p of the Church of England (with such reformation as was considered needful), no mode of interpretation could be more misleading if rigorously insisted on, or so likely to cause error in practice.

The Prayer-Book, however, in spite of the Revision of 1662, retains many vestiges of the foreign Protestant influence, which affected the Revision of 1552. With these the Conference have attempted to deal in a loyal spirit. However much they may be regretted, Churchmen are bound to accept them. For it must be clearly understood that nothing was further from the intention of the Conference, than to attempt Revision. So far from this, it was hoped by some that a careful series of notes explaining the true character of disputed Rubrics might go some way to allay the present agitation for change.

The Conference cannot be blind to the conviction that they have to face much modern prejudice. On the one hand there is still rife in the Church of England the Puritan spirit, which condemns in one and the same category things essentially Roman, and things which are really primitive, but which have been retained by Rome. On the other hand, there undoubtedly exists an occasional reaction from this Puritan spirit, which has produced a prejudice in favour of things--whether primitive or not--simply because they are Roman.

The Conference have felt that to yield either to one or the other prejudice was not the right way of dealing with the Prayer-Book.

They have also been brought face to face with what are called "Legal decisions" on some questions of Ritual. Apart from the fact that the courts have given directly opposite decisions on the same question, and have given reasons in one case inconsistent with the reasons given for their decision in another; apart also from the fact that these are chiefly decisions of secular courts in purely spiritual matters; the Conference have been precluded from entertaining them, as guides or as helps, in consequence of the courts having generally acted upon principles of interpretation entirely different from those which the Conference had adopted.

They have, moreover, found themselves in opposition to much modern practice, originating in carelessness and neglect in the due performance of the Services of the Church during past generations, but alien to the spirit of those Services, though often mistaken for their exponent.

The Conference have had to investigate the origin and to consider the meaning of many practices, which appear either to be enjoined or implied in the existing Rubrics, and have, in the light of these investigations, set down unflinchingly what they believed to be the true interpretation of these Rubrics. At the same time, they have not shut their eyes to ancient customs, which, though less prominently connected with the Rubrics, appear to have held on concurrently with the Prayer-Book; being consistent with its principles, and not authoritatively condemned either by name or by implication.

The Comments, which have been the result of their discussions, the Conference have printed, in the hope that they will be received by others as suggestions towards the solution of difficulties which must press upon all who desire to obey the spirit as well as the letter of the Prayer-Book.

The entire adherence of any one to all the interpretations here offered is not to be expected. Indeed, those members of the Conference who have had experience in parish-work, are well aware that in comparatively few villages it is possible to carry out the fuller Ritual which the Prayer-Book admits: this can only be successfully adopted in large towns, or where endowments are provided, or other resources are available, for sustaining a high Ritual.

It should be said, in conclusion, that amongst the members of the Conference, some have taken part in the work to a greater extent than others, and are consequently more directly responsible for the Comments, and able to give a fuller a.s.sent to them. It was impossible to consult every member upon each individual point.

All that was done to ensure the expression of the general sense of the Conference, was to determine to insert no comment which was not approved of by two-thirds of the members present. Practically, it was found that in very few cases a formal division was called for, the agreement to the final form of the comments being generally unanimous.

(_Signed_,)

B. COMPTON, _Chairman_.

Wm. Jno. Blew. H. G. Morse.

J. H. Blunt. James Parker.

Wm. Cooke. Thos. W. Perry.

C. L. Courtenay. James Baden Powell.

J. Fuller Russell. R. F. Wilson.

R. F. Littledale. Chr. Wordsworth.

INTERPRETATIONS OF THE RUBRICS OF THE PRAYER-BOOK.

_THE PREFACE_.

1. It hath been the wisdom of the Church of _England_, &c.

It is important to bear in mind, in interpreting the prefaces and rubrics of the Prayer-Book, that they were written at various times, and that their language is not generally the current language of our own day, but the technical language of the times at which they were respectively written.

The first section, headed "The Preface," was added in 1662 to the second, ent.i.tled "Concerning the Service of the Church," which is the original Preface to the Prayer-Book of 1549, with some important additions and slight omissions made in 1552.

The "Order how the Psalter is appointed to be read," dates mainly from 1549.

The "Order how the rest of Holy Scripture is appointed to be read," with the Tables of Proper Psalms, and Lessons, and the Calendar--originally forming part of the book of 1549--was adopted with slight alteration in 1662, but was much varied in 1871.

_CONCERNING THE SERVICE OF THE CHURCH_.

2. There was never any thing by the wit of man so well devised, &c.

It seems that, having regard to the circ.u.mstances under which this rubric was framed, the 'diversity to be appeased,' and the 'doubts to be resolved,' concerned only the manner of saying and singing the Morning and Evening Prayer, not the manner of administration of the Sacraments or other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church. Nor were any 'parties' contemplated as likely to 'doubt, or diversely take anything,' except the clergy. The contemporaneous Latin translation of the English Prayer-Book expressly confines this provision of resort to the Bishop of the diocese to questions arising _inter ministros_. The Bishop of the Diocese was the proper person to resort to, both on account of his sacred office, which gave him authority, and also as being at that time the person likely to be best informed on questions of this kind, as the Epistle, and Gospel for Quinquagesima Sunday (with the addition of the Collect of Ash Wednesday), but the Scotch Prayer-Book directs the use of the Collect, Epistle, and Gospel for Ash Wednesday only; and Bishop Cosin directed the Collect, Epistle, and Gospel for Quinquagesima Sunday to serve only until Ash Wednesday.

When more than one Collect is appointed for the day, by reason of the coincidence of Holy Days, the question arises which Holy Day should take precedence.

Coincidence includes (_a_) occurrence (i.e. the falling on the same day of two occasions having special services), and (_b_) concurrence, when the one falls on the morrow of the other.

By taking precedence is meant, that when two Holy Days occur, the Collect, Epistle, and Gospel, the Proper Psalms and Lessons (if any) of the superior day should be used.

But in certain cases of occurrence, noticed in the following Table, a memorial of the inferior day should be made, by using the Collect appointed for it in addition to, and after, the Collect for the superior day, at all services at which the Collect for the day is to be said.

In other cases, the services of the inferior day must be entirely omitted for that year, or transferred to the morrow, or some subsequent date, in accordance with ancient custom. The Prayer-Book gives no directions for such transference, but the total loss for the year of such Festivals as the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin, or of the Dedication and the t.i.tle of a Church, would be much to be regretted.

The following Table exhibits the precedence of Holy Days:

First Sunday in Advent takes precedence of St. Andrew's Day.

Fourth Sunday in Advent takes precedence of St. Thomas' Day.