Ceremonial, Part II

Last week Rubrics introduced the topic of ceremonial: the actions used in performing a rite. We will continue exploring the topic this Sunday and next.

Before examining some common usages of ceremonial, it is worth exploring the question of why it was so controversial in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. After all, whether or not a person chooses to make the sign of the cross or to bow, why should it cause such tremendous consternation in the life of the church? In our current age of religious diversity and even indifference, it seems disproportionate, even trivial. But in the first century of Anglicanism, it was exceedingly important.

It was important in part because liturgical ceremonial is, at its heart, about theology and ecclesiology: what we understand and believe about God and the church. The Bidding Prayer that was sent out with Elizabeth’s Injunctions in 1559 began, ‘Ye shall pray for Christ’s Holy Catholic Church, that is for the whole congregation of Christian people dispersed throughout the whole world, and especially for the Church of England and Ireland.’ For those shaping the Church of England, they still understood themselves to be part of the catholic church: it had rejected papal jurisdiction, it was reformed in that certain mediaeval practices and ideas had been cut away, but it retained the fundamental doctrines and constitution of the catholic church. The retention of certain liturgical ceremonial practices was thus in keeping with this sense of continuity.

For the Puritans who sought to transform the church, they believed that the church should be truly scriptural: nothing, either in the worship or constitution of the church which could not be justified by scripture should be tolerated, including the episcopacy and the use of ceremonial. From their perspective, the Prayer Book smelt of ‘popery’: it was ‘an imperfect book, culled and picked out of the popish dunghill’. They objected to such ceremonial practices as the use of the sign of the cross in baptism, the ring in marriage, the use of organs and antiphonal singing, and the wearing of vestments: all were deemed unscriptural. It did not help matters that occasionally various bishops, desiring uniformity, would attempt to mandate ceremonial practices.

In helping Anglicanism understand that ceremonial was to be considered ‘things indifferent’, Richard Hooker refuted the Puritan argument that scripture is the only test of what is correct and defended the church’s right to make its own laws provided that they are not contrary to scripture. If scripture did not expressly forbid a practice that had developed through the history of the church, then it was not only to be permitted but could be continued, as the church’s tradition is also authoritative. Though it did not settle the arguments for quite some time, it is Hooker’s definition that Anglicanism eventually embraced. However, old views still persist: more elaborate ceremonial is practiced by Anglo-Catholics while low church Evangelicals tend to use minimal ceremonial.

Much of ceremonial today is simply taken for granted. Most people walking into an Episcopal Church would not be surprised to see candles on the altar or the clergy, acolytes, and choir wearing vestments; virtually none would question the use of an organ to assist in leading congregational singing. While largely accepted by custom, the canons of the church actually state that the rector (or priest-in-charge) of a congregation has the authority to make all decisions regarding worship, including ceremonial, provided they are in keeping with the use of the Book of Common Prayer. Thus, a rector can decide to use incense, sing or say the service, face the congregation or face the east wall during the Liturgy of the Table, etc. The three types of ceremonial which individuals in the congregation do have choices over – making the sign of the cross, bowing (which includes genuflecting), and postures for prayer and receiving communion – will be the topics next week.