Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, to some degree. Solemn high mass with incense and plainchant-everything in a large ornate classical building can be quite beautiful, but so can a simple read Office with a hymn tossed in towards the end. We've all got access to beautiful liturgy, in our respective Prayer Books and liturgical resources; we just have to use them with dignity and sincerity.
It is considered, well executed and uplifting. Whilst the Solemn High Mass often requires much planning, and has a tendency to be well executed and considered. At the other end of the spectrum the liturgy is sometimes regarded as a hook to hang the preaching on, so whilst the preaching may be good the liturgy is dwarfed and so minimalised. That being said I have seem people in the reformed tradition execute liturgy much more profitably than some of the fussy high church end where all it gets a bit much. Beautiful liturgy points us to God, and not to itself. Beautiful liturgy is engaging, not just participatory. I know one Anglican Parish using nous ordo (I know some of you are cringing) however they do do it well, and it is a delight to worship there. I attended benediction once in Melbourne where the East Window of the Church is across the road from the fire station. At the moment of the great elevation, the stained glass windows started flashing, the alarms went off across the road and I heard someone say, 'wow! in my parish we only ring the bells!'
One thing I find particularly beautiful in my own Byzantine liturgy, is in the absence of pews the children roam around the church, free range, looking at icons. No child can pay attention to a two hour liturgy, and it's heartwarming to see them getting distracted by scenes from the Bible rather than trapped in a pew praying for time to speed up. In terms of ceremonial the loveliest I've seen were the Divine Liturgy at Holy Virgin Cathedral in San Francisco, and the 1928 bcp Holy Communion at St. John's Episcopal in Detroit.
I am going to my first 1928 service tonight. They are part of the same diocese as my home parish but are offering a Christmas Eve service and they are a 1928 only parish. Oh and it is near my wife parents where I am
They have not updated there website. They are now in the 2019 BCP. It was a beautiful service. Their priest has a beautiful voice and they are very high church. The priest even faces away from the people during the prayers of consecration
I think it would be more appropriate and more accurate to say the priest is facing the altar and the liturgical east, from where Christ will return at the Second Coming. I find it both somewhat negative and inaccurate to describe the priest's position as if he were turning his back on and ignoring the people. We need to recall that the priest is leading us in an act of worship; he is not putting on a performance for us. I am not, for one moment, suggesting you meant the priest was turning his back to the people in a negative way. However, I believe it is better and more positive to describe the priest's position ad orientem than saying he's turned his back to the people.
There are three classic positions in Anglican Practice as we know it, and to be clear I am attempting to be descriptive not prescriptive. 1] The Eastward Position - also known as Ad Orientum One of the clear statements of this position is that priest and people are all looking to God, all facing in the same direction, and perhaps it carries something of the Transcendent in our understanding of God. 2] The Westward Position - also known as Ad Populum One of the clear statements of this position is that Priest an People are facing each other, in a sense gathered around the table, and perhaps it carries something of the Transcendent in our understanding of God. 3] The North End Position This position possibly reflect the idea coming from when the altar was in the choir and the few communicants were on each side and the priest at the head, and following the reformed approach and much greater attendance at the Holy Communion the Table was restored to the sanctuary and the priest continued to stand at the North (liturgically North) End position. The position came to be flavoured amongst legalists and evangelicals.
I have never seen the north end position. I wonder if anywhere still does it. I have found among a wide variety of Anglican churchmanship that ad orientem is more common. That pleases me because it meant many Anglican churches were not architecturally vandalised like many Roman Catholic churches were after Vatican II. I recently read a very good post from a learned priest who as Anglican most of his life but has now swum the Tiber. He was explaining there is a lot of good evidence for the position that ad orientem is so the priest faces towards the East from where Our Lord will return. He explained ther is little evidence to support the idea that it is so everyone, priest and people, are all facing the same direction.
In the US one will occasionally see Canon Liturgists and UECNA clergy dabble in North End celebration. I know of no place where it is the regular way of conducting the service. Curiously, the North End celebration has also come to be associated with wearing the cope for the entirety of the service here in the States. You will never see someone don a chasuble when celebrating at the North End.
I forgot to mention this earlier, but I was able to attend my first BCP (unless you count the '79 book as a BCP) Holy Communion service a few weeks ago. The music was lacking - no one knew the tunes but we barreled through five hymns anyway - but the liturgy itself was really beautiful. I have been in churches where: - The priest turned towards the people to celebrate the Eucharist alone while they watch (Lutheran, RC, Episcopalian) - There is a wall between you and the priest (Orthodox) - The priest and people face East together but the priest uses a language I don't know (trad RC) This was my first time in a church where the priest and the congregation face together and celebrate the liturgy in a common language with nothing separating them. The feeling of togetherness was very powerful.
The Diocese of Sydney was predominantly a North End Celebration Diocese. Given that to hold a licence there you must sign an oath not to wear the chasuble, it was predominantly Surplus Tippet and Hood or Plain Clothes. Most places I would go in Sydney (I am rarely there) would be ad populum, I really have no idea of current practices.
Okay, I have to ask (curiosity): what is the reasoning for having a wall between the priest and the people?
It would really be interesting if they were actually wearing surplus (leftover) Tippets but I suspect you meant "Surplice," right?
'The Wall', so called, is the iconostasis, which holds a number of important icons for the orthodox. You will realise that the orthodox understand icons as 'the windows of heaven', for they do not gaze at the icon, but through the icon they perceive the spiritual truth beyond. It was not uncommon in pre-Augustinian England that there was a veil between sanctuary and people, and we some of this referenced in the rood screens in much Anglican Architecture where the rood screen divides the choir from the nave. In light of you response to the 45 potus I thought you would have been an favour of the wall!
My organist has a tendency to experiment with the hymnal a bit when we are in Trinitytide. She'll pick out some ghastly song that no one knows (including her) and it's always a long song. Why is all the filler in the hymnal at least 6 verses?
Dear Shane R and Botolph, I wonder if the North End celebrants did it correctly. Since my last post I have looked into this a little. I had assumed that when at the North End the altar was in its traditional position up against the East Wall. However, this is not the case. When it was intorduced the Altar, or as they preferred to call it, the Communion Table, was placed in the midst of the chancel. What we consider the west front would have faced one side of the choir and the east front the other. The north and south ends would have been pointing to the east wall and the nave. I have been unable to work out whether the North End was closer to the sanctuary or the nave; therefore, I do not know if North End was effectively ad orientem or versus popolum.