People who believe that we should use contemporary English instead of traditional Prayer Book English in the liturgy: Why were people in the 1700s and 1800s and the first half of the 1900s able to understand the services despite the archaic language, while people today cannot?

Or, conversely, do you believe the average churchgoer of today has a substantially better understanding of the liturgy and the Bible than did the average churchgoer back then?

reddit.com
u/Globus_Cruciger — 5 days ago

Do old-style Provincial Councils presided over by the local metropolitan archbishop still exist in the post-Vatican II world? Or have they been entirely superseded by national Bishops' Conferences?

reddit.com
u/Globus_Cruciger — 11 days ago

In systems with trams/streetcars/trolleys sharing the road with car traffic, what are the pros and cons of running the line on the side lane vs. a center lane? Why might a given city pick one layout over the other?

reddit.com
u/Globus_Cruciger — 20 days ago

It's 1500, and I’m the Duke of X-burg in the Holy Roman Empire. I also control the town of Y-stadt, which is surrounded by the territory of the Prince of Z-burg. I want to march a few hundred troops over to Y-stadt to reinforce its garrison. Will the Prince of Z-burg allow me to do so?

reddit.com
u/Globus_Cruciger — 2 months ago

Has anyone ever used the English folk ballad "Dives and Lazarus" (Child 56) as a hymn or anthem for the First Sunday after Trinity?

Some might consider it too rustic for proper ecclesiastical use, but I find its very quaintness hard to resist.

There is of course no official text. Here's how Child sets it down:

>As it fell out upon a day,

>Rich Dives he made a feast,

>And he invited all his friends,

>And gentry of the best.

>Then Lazarus laid him down and down,

>And down at Dives' door:

>"Some meat, some drink, brother Dives,

>Bestow upon the poor."

>"Thou art none of my brother, Lazarus,

>That lies begging at my door;

>No meat nor drink will I give thee,

>Nor bestow upon the poor."

>Then Lazarus laid him down and down,

>And down at Dives' wall:

>"Some meat, some drink, brother Dives,

>Or with hunger starve I shall."

>"Thou art none of my brother, Lazarus,

>That lies begging at my wall;

>No meat nor drink will I give thee,

>But with hunger starve you shall."

>Then Lazarus laid him down and down,

>And down at Dives' gate:

>"Some meat, some drink, brother Dives,

>For Jesus Christ sake."

>"Thou art none of my brother, Lazarus,

>That lies begging at my gate;

>No meat nor drink will I give thee,

>For Jesus Christ his sake."

>Then Dives sent out his merry men,

>To whip poor Lazarus away;

>They had no power to strike a stroke,

>But flung their whips away.

>Then Dives sent out his hungry dogs,

>To bite him as he lay;

>They had no power to bite at all,

>But licked his sores away.

>As it fell out upon a day,

>Poor Lazarus sickened and died;

>Then came two angels out of heaven

>His soul therein to guide.

>"Rise up, rise up, brother Lazarus,

>And go along with me;

>For you've a place prepared in heaven,

>To sit on an angel's knee."

>As it fell out upon a day,

>Rich Dives sickened and died;

>Then came two serpents out of hell,

>His soul therein to guide.

>"Rise up, rise up, brother Dives,

>And go with us to see

>A dismal place, prepared in hell,

>From which thou canst not flee."

>Then Dives looked up with his eyes,

>And saw poor Lazarus blest:

>"Give me one drop of water, brother Lazarus,

>To quench my flaming thirst.

>"Oh had I as many years to abide

>As there are blades of grass,

>Then there would be an end, but now

>Hell's pains will ne'er be past.

>"Oh was I now but alive again,

>The space of one half hour!

>Oh that I had my peace secure!

>Then the devil should have no power."

And here is good old Maddy Prior singing a somewhat different version.

u/Globus_Cruciger — 2 months ago

What are the practical implications of a two-sacrament view vs. a seven-sacrament view?

I find it a little strange that despite the vast amount of debate between Catholics and Protestants on this question, and of course the similarly vast amount of debate between Anglicans leaning towards the former and the latter, there doesn't seem to be a lot of ink spilled about why the argument even matters. Certainly I can understand the Protestant view, as put forth by the Articles, that sacraments (or at least, "sacraments of the Gospel") must have some "visible sign or ceremony ordained of God." And I can also understand the Catholic view, with a more expansive rubric for determining what counts as an appointed sign. But why does any of this matter?

I don't want to get distracted by discussions about Penance and Unction, since two-sacramenters will often have very different takes on these compared to seven-sacramenters, but it seems to me that the distinction becomes a lot finer when we come to the remaining three. Regarding these, I think we can find no shortage of High Church writers who would regard themselves as being staunchly Protestant, and would staunchly insist that there are only two sacraments and that Confirmation, Matrimony, and Orders are merely "ordinances," but would also agree with Rome on pretty much all the important points about them. In fact they would arguably have an even higher view of Confirmation than Rome does, as they would insist it can only ever be performed by a bishop.

reddit.com
u/Globus_Cruciger — 3 months ago

The Right Rev. Hugh Miller Thompson is indeed titled as such in the printing of his address to the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in St. Paul's Cathedral. And curiously enough, within his speech the bishop makes mention of how the quest for a resident American episcopate was never accomplished in colonial times, because:

>Politicians were in the way—wouldn't give us bishops, because bishops, they thought, must be "lords."

I wonder how he felt when he found out he had been lorded himself.

u/Globus_Cruciger — 4 months ago