Write, if you have any answers to the questions listed at the
end of this section, or would like to add to the answers below.
Even though our church
normally has two priests present, our new vicar has replaced the
parish eucharist on the first Sunday of the month with a family
service, and replaced the eucharist on the third Sunday with matins
"to create consumer-choice variety". He refused his NSM's offer to
celebrate a eucharist on those days at an earlier time, "as it will
divide the congregation". Now we have been informed that his
actions are in breach of canon law. Is this correct? . .
.
The vicar and PCC are jointly in
breach of Canon B14(1), which reads: "The Holy Communion shall be
celebrated in every parish church at least on all Sundays. . ." The
situation could be regularised by obtaining the bishop's permission
under B14A(1). It seems to me, however, that the situation as
described does not justify the bishop's assent.
My experience in several churches of
the introduction of non-eucharistic services in place of a weekly
eucharistic tradition is that the "consumer-choice variety" is
appreciated by a few enthusiasts, but merely tolerated by the
majority of those who still attend.
This is more than balanced by those
who avoid the new services: stop attending altogether, change to
the eight-o'clock communion, or move to other churches for the
Sunday with the new format. There can be a reduction of as much as
a quarter.
"Consumer choice" offered in the cases
known to me included simple services with discussion groups;
eucharists rewritten in non-churchy language; all-age
non-eucharistic services with a "gospel" message; and so on. Each
forced more away than it brought in. More parents brought children
to traditional eucharists than to all-age worship.
Each was tried for about a year before
being replaced. But discussion must be based on statistics kept
separately for first and second Sunday, etc., starting from the
introduction of each new thing, averaged out in, say, four-month
periods.
In my view, liturgical variety is
better expressed in different mass settings for festival and
penitential seasons, by making more fuss of patronal and major
festivals, wine and cakes for the vicar's birthday, and so on, all
created around a Common Worship eucharist.
Christopher Haffner (Reader)
East Molesey, Surrey
Why is he doing it? The eucharist is
the church, and "the Lord's own service for the Lord's own people
on the Lord's own day"; but, in any case, substituting various
services is simply playing on numbers rather than commitment.
Substituting matins will keep a few
old people happy. Substituting a non-eucharistic "family service"
will build numbers until all the children move to the "big school",
when they will be gone before they have any contact with the
sacraments and any real commitment.
Many churches that try to get young
people to come to church at almost any price experience a severe
reduction of communicants, first communions, confirmation
candidates, and commitment; yet all they do is count numbers.
(The Revd) Geoffrey Squire SSC
Goodleigh, Barnstaple, Devon
I have heard it said that it
is an offence to impede, delay, or prevent a member of the C of E
clergy from getting to the church to lead worship. Is this factual,
and, if so, where is this law to be found? If factual, does it also
apply to delaying or preventing members of the congregation from
attending an act of public worship? D. S.
Address for answers and more
questions: Out of the Question, Church Times, 108-114
Golden Lane, London EC1Y 0TG.
questions@churchtimes.co.uk
We ask readers not to send us
letters for forwarding, and those giving answers to provide full
name, address, and, if possible, telephone number.