I do understand and appreciate the desire to present the GSS as an organisation within the Church that has something to offer the Church today and tomorrow. I do urge, however, that one does not fall into the trap that yet another embarkation upon liturgical revision will deliver greater “relevance” for the GSS. It may be true that the principles underlying “Common Worship” have a greater claim to legitimacy in terms of faithfulness to the ancient Offices of the Church the reality remains that the endless variations and options (not to mention the simply banal nature of the texts and rubrics) negate that very claim to authenticity! 

Perhaps the publication of the Office in an more presentable type face and format together with some teaching on its origins and purpose (and dare I say it how to actually sing it – speaking as one who can’t!!) would be a more useful service to the Guild and the wider Church.

I am also somewhat wary about a desire to embrace anyone with just a remote or vague notion of what it is to be a server!

Our task in the Guild (lay and ordained) is to be first clear about our calling and purpose, secondly humble enough to acknowledge our failings and finally to actually practice what we preach!

Fr Martin Hislop
Chaplain
Chapter of the Incarnate Word
Southwark

I led a Lenten Quiet Evening on the Office, which was reprinted in 'The Server' about 2 years ago - I love the guild Office and want to keep it, where cantors are capable.

AND our choir (all aged 18-24) love it when I lead BCP Choral Evensong or, wait for it, mattins - we are a university church!

Derek - confused trendy aged 53, S. Brendan's Chapter, Bristol!

I think Ben has made some just and relevant points. I have been thinking about a revised Guild Office and am planning to consult with my (very musical) Parish Priest about a contemporary version thereof. I (and others) who are in favour of such an innovation are, however, keen to look as this as an alternative, rather than a replacement so that those who wish to retain the traditional Office have the option.

I think that the inclusion of seasonal antiphons is a good idea. These would make a useful alternative to the current commemorations which seem to be little used in my experience.

As regards alterations to the National set-up of the Guild, I would suggest that this is a matter that the General Council should discuss.

Craig Aburn
Councillor LG5&6

PAX 

Ah! This old chestnut! I began a draft of a letter in support of the Guild Office to send to the editor of the Server a while ago, but never got around to writing it fully, so here is what I remember of it, with additions to fit the previous posts in this thread.

Firstly, in response to the idea that Common (Comic) Worship Offices are much closer to the early Offices, I would dispute that because a) We have no idea of the Liturgy of the 1st- 3rd Centuries, we only get an idea of it at the 4th century, and it is by then VERY different to anything we have in the West... the idea of the Office was still much under formation then, and is much closer to the Orthodox Office, which I can't see the GSS adopting too happily (You think the Guild Offcie Ceremonial is complex... its nothing compared to Orthodoxy!). The Offices then formed two parts- the Monastic part (which the Monks sang), and the Priestly part, which the Priests turned up for, and sat through, but they could not be bothered to attend the whole office, and the Bishops had to bully them into attending the parts they did (sound familiar?) the first version of the Office we get which resembles the Office we know is in about AD550, when St. Benedict creates the modern Monastic Office, in his rule... the Psalter (arrangement of psalms) is different, but the structure is very much what we have today in the West: Opening verse, Psalms, reading, hymn, response, Kyrie, and Lord's prayer, closing prayer, dismissal. This is the most basic structure, and it varied for Matins, Lauds and Vespers- the major offices. For a fuller treatment see Cheslyn Jones' great work The study of Liturgy, and of course the legendary Dom Gregory Dix's The Shape of the Liturgy

Whilst BCP Mattins and Evensong are not exactly the most faithful to the Original Offices, if you dissect them, you can see the origins, and they do try to maintain something of the early Offices, plus Cranmer's idea that the whole Bible should be heard in Church through the course of the year (Quite an admirable idea, I feel)

Right.. now to the Office itself: First of all, it has no link with Anglican Liturgy whatsoever! It is based on the Roman Breviary (Office Book), as all the Offices of the Catholic Societies were- except the other Societies could draw their Offices directly from the Breviary (ie, the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament- 1st Vespers of Corpus Christi, The Society of Mary- 1st Vespers of Feasts of our Lady, the Guild of All Souls- Vespers from the Office of the dead), but the GSS Office had to be compiled (and was very, very well), as there was no equivalent in the Breviary. But it fitted the format of the other societies. Now, this has given it something of an advantage over the others, because, if we follow the line, and base the Office on the Modern Roman Breviary, we find that The old Roman Office had 5 psalms for vespers, and the Catholic Societies copied this, but the GSS Office had only three, which is the number that the modern Breviary now has... therefore, I can see no reason to change the number of psalms

Next- the use of chant- plainchant is still the Official music of the Roman Liturgy, despite current trends! And the Revised Roman Missal (when it is finally published) is said to encourage this, and to include chant as the music for the prefaces, etc, as opposed to modern notation. Therefore, I see no reason why the chant should not be retained (anyway, can anyone think of anything better?) although, there could be a simplified version of it made available, because whilst the chant we use is very beautiful, it is not necessarily the easiest chant in existence! There are other chants, particularly the psalm tones, which are equally beautiful, but simpler... the choice of which one to use could be left to the chapter... remember, it is not the music to which we sing it that is important, or indeed what we are singing... but Who we are singing it to!

As to the commemorations at the Office... these were in existence in the Roman Office at the time when the Office was compiled, but were phased out during the reforms (1910, 1930s and the various into the 1960s) of the breviary, and so, I can see no reason to retain them in a modern Liturgy. I have never heard them sung anyway, even when they are seemingly most appropriate.

Next, the language: The Official service book of the Church of England is still (according to Canon Law) the Book Of Common Prayer, 1662. All others are supplements. I'm sure that the observant amongst you will have noticed that the BCP still uses Traditional English, and is argued as being the finest English Liturgy (from a linguistic point of view) ever to have been created. Its beauty in Language is unparalleled by anything that has been created since. And would it not make sense, therefore, to retain this beauty, where others have, shall we say, misplaced it? And a further thought, how many of you say the Lord's prayer, and the Hail Mary in modern English without thinking about it, I know I don't!

However, it is possible to modernise the language, if we ask Liturgists who are sensible about such things, and can translate classic to modern well. The translations of the psalms used in the modern breviary are very good, and have something of a natural rhythm to them, and can easily be sung to plainsong.

I think any reforms that are made to the Office could be done without altering it too much: 
1) The chant be simplified 
2) The psalm translation be modernised 
3) To conform to the modern Office, the hymn should be placed at the beginning of the Office 
4) SET intercessions (not ones made up on the spot!) be included, concluding w ith the Our Father. Or, to conform with the way the Office is sung in many Religious communities, the intercessions are omitted, skipping straight to the Our Father 
5) May I suggest, also, since no one knows why it is there, we change the first psalm to one a little more in keeping with the other two- it is an interesting selection of psalm, but could perhaps be improved upon (not that I presume to be a greater Liturgist than Dr. Frere- I'm sure he had his reasons, but we just don't know what they were!) Adding intercessions, concluding with the Our Father, or indeed the older custom of the three Kyries, and then the Our Father?

Right, as to changing the Guild to a more loose knit collection of servers, with a vague notion that they should be bound together because they happen to serve.... I personally feel that that would spell the death of the Guild- somehow the Archconfratenity of St. Stephen has managed to survive, but as I have said before, it doesn't work in the same way we do. It is much more Diocesan linked, with support from the Hierarchy (I mean real support, not just meaning no ill-will, and no active desire to close it completely). To compromise the position of the Guild in that way would mean we are torn between retaining our Catholic Identity, or changing to suit the passing trends of the Church hierarchy, which, as I am sure we are all aware, could cause trouble.

Personally, as I'm sure you have all guessed, I am in complete support of the Guild Office in its current form... it is a big part of our heritage. If we wanted to change it, I could see no reason... the idea of the Guild Office only came about because Evening Masses could not be celebrated under the old fasting laws (fast from midnight to receive) so if one follows the logic, it may as well be abolished altogether. As to appearing to the younger generation, I would point out that I am part of the younger generation (just turned 20), and I much prefer the depth of the Guild Office to the comparative benignity an patronising-ness of Modern Liturgy. Bring back the English Missal, I say! 
Right, I'm sure you're all bored to tears, so I'll stop now! 

Yours in Jesu et Maria, 

Richard Hawker

Thank you to those who have replied to my forum item so far. I may have made a mistake in referring to the role of the GSS and the revision of the Guild Office in the same breath. I wouldn't want to suggest that revising the Guild Office will solve all the GSS's problems. I do think, though, as part of a package of reforms it could help the GSS take on a role of service to the Church. Personally, I would like to see a "Common Worship" style Guild Office and I think that with careful planning we could achieve a contemporary language service that incorporates some (not too much) seasonal material, and without resorting to the banal.

I am quite taken with Fr Martin's suggestion to reprint the existing Office in a fresher format. I think that all our literature could benefit from a revamp. But I have to confess that I don't much care for the sentiment of the long psalm (18). My 14 year old son (a server) having heard what God is going to do the 'heathen' and the 'strange children' wanted to know whether as Christians we should actually be 'singing stuff like this'. This occasioned my daughter to declare that she 'didn't like evensong'; and she's about as pious as an 8 year old can get! These anecdotes serve to amuse but they are not encouraging if we want to be relevant to young servers, for example.

Ben Heffer 

Contrary to the views expressed above, the commemorations ARE properly sung at the St Frideswide Chapter in PG9. The same PG as Br Heffner 

The late Geoff Wright, chapter of The Blessed Sacrament, submitted a modernised Guild Office in the mid 80's when I was the Councillor London Group One, unfortunately it was not generally accepted we found that most of the brethren preferred to keep to the old original. Lets face it Plainchant has been around a long time and that touch of quality that is the church in unison!

Kind regards
Terry Delaney
Suffolk

I think that there would be some merit in having a modern Guild Office, although I do agree with Craig that it should be an alternative, not a replacement. My personal opinion is that a modern Office should then have a different format to the traditional Office, so that it is a real alternative, rather than the same Office with modern wording. You could then have a mix of modern and traditional Offices throughout the year, so that there is ‘something for everyone’ (or at least, the majority).

On the subject of Commemorations, in the Holy Grail Chapter, we do still use them – the Commemoration of the Faithful Departed at our Office and Requiem in November, at the Office in September (Commemoration of Our Blessed Lady) and on some occasions when we have Office and Benediction (Commemoration of the Blessed Sacrament). 

Although I haven't seen a copy of your Guild Office as it stands, I would urge you to retain the traditional language format if that's what you've been used to. Liturgical revision in the Church of England and the adoption of contemporary idiom during the last thirty years have done nothing to stem the decline in attendance and if anything only served to hasten it. Have the courage to use continue using good, robust, traditional liturgical English.

Adrian 

Having read the replies to the idea of a new guild office I can see both sides of the argument. I agree that for many members both young and old the language can seem out dated and difficult to sing. I can see also the beauty of keeping up a sense of tradition. 

l think brother Robert has a point when he says that there could be a modern and, the traditional version used in our guild offices BUT still with Benediction afterwards. Many priests have also said that the office could be brought up to date. Text & music wise

John