|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Eccles: Holy Women Holy Men 2009
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
I've been reading about the new Holy Women Holy Men which is supposed to replace replace Lesser Feasts and Fasts.
I've read a number of comments pro and con about this calendar, but i cannot find the whole calendar list anywhere on the web, only snippets. Can anyone point me in the right direction?
Also, the "con" arguments seem to outnumber the "pro" comments, on the web anyway. What thoughts do shipmates have?
[ 07. June 2010, 13:31: Message edited by: Belisarius ]
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
the Ænglican
Shipmate
# 12496
|
Posted
I don't like it. There's an admittedly wide spectrum of belief towards the holy dead in Anglican circles. I see it heading in the completely opposite direction of where I am and where I'd like to see things move.
In particular, I take issue with what I see as a very low ecclesiology and resulting Christology directing the process.
--------------------
The subject of religious ceremonial is one which has a special faculty for stirring strong feeling. --W. H. Frere
Posts: 177 | From: Baltimore-ish | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
I've read a number of comments pro and con about this calendar, but i cannot find the whole calendar list anywhere on the web, only snippets. Can anyone point me in the right direction?
The whole thing can be found here -- scroll down to page 82.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Swick
Shipmate
# 8773
|
Posted
If you go to the URL below, on pages 87-99 you will find the complete new calender:
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/BlueBook-SCLM.pdf
There are a huge number of new commemorations, and I believe that on some days there is more than one possible commemoration. Some saints that had their own day are now doubled up with others. One welcome change is that Archbishop Cranmer, who formerly shared October 16 with bishops Latimer and Ridley, now has his own date.
I've ordered the new book and will reserve judgement until I've read through and used it.
Posts: 197 | From: Massachusetts, USA | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
Hmm. They seem to have abolished the concept of 'feria'.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the Ænglican:
I don't like it. There's an admittedly wide spectrum of belief towards the holy dead in Anglican circles. I see it heading in the completely opposite direction of where I am and where I'd like to see things move.
In particular, I take issue with what I see as a very low ecclesiology and resulting Christology directing the process.
Could you expand on that?
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
scribbler
Shipmate
# 12268
|
Posted
Setting aside for the moment the choices of additions, there are just too damn many commemorations. The approach seems to be to have so many that it becomes a matter of pick and choose based on one's theological proclivities. I think Cranmer was generally on the right track in pruning the Kalendar to a select number of holy days that everyone can actually observe.
That said, I do like the first edition of "Lesser Feasts and Fasts," which was sensible in providing options for additional commemorations of major figures where they are desired.
[ 01. December 2009, 13:41: Message edited by: scribbler ]
Posts: 309 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
Also, the "con" arguments seem to outnumber the "pro" comments, on the web anyway. What thoughts do shipmates have?
The Internet seems to have more con comments than pro comments on any subject, including if the sky is blue.
You want to know my first gut reaction from learning of it on this thread? Why do we have to go from a fine gender-neutral title to a cisgendered one? Holy Women, Holy Men, and if you don't identify as either you don't get to be holy. Pfui.
Now, on to my other soapbox-- I see a lot more non-whites on the list, which makes me happy. There are also a lot more of the saints dear to Hispanic hearts, even those Hispanic hearts who weren't raised Catholic, it's a deep part of our culture we can't get rid of. I also note a giant gap on December 12th, though...
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
scribbler
Shipmate
# 12268
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
I also note a giant gap on December 12th, though...
I'm embarrassed that I had to look that up. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posts: 309 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
the Ænglican
Shipmate
# 12496
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:
Originally posted by the Ænglican:
I don't like it. There's an admittedly wide spectrum of belief towards the holy dead in Anglican circles. I see it heading in the completely opposite direction of where I am and where I'd like to see things move.
In particular, I take issue with what I see as a very low ecclesiology and resulting Christology directing the process.
Could you expand on that?
Sure.
The central issue for me is why we commemorate people at all. I hold to catholic practice of venerating the Church Triumphant and asking that they pray for us who remain in the Churches Militant and Expectant. Therefore we praise them and thank them because they stand before the throne of God interceding on our behalf. (Just as we thank those in the Church Militant who also intercede God on our behalf...)
HWHM does not--it appears to me--make any theological distinction between the Churches Expectant and Triumphant. Instead, the selections and, more importantly, the collects themselves show a different pattern. Most run along these lines: "Lord, today we remember your servant X who was a great Y. Pour out your grace upon us so that we may be good Ys and good Christians too. Amen."
As a generic prayer form, there's nothing wrong with this.
In fact, it's more in keeping with Article 22 of the 39 and with Article 21 of the Augsburg Confession than my view. (Article 21 is one of the reasons I'm no longer Lutheran...)
I think that it's an insufficient prayer form if we're talking about the saints, though. There seems to be no sense that these people are seriously "in Christ" and are present, participating members of the Church based on what the church is by virtue of who Christ is.
Further, there's the question of what is an acceptable Y and who gets to pick which Xs are the best Ys. Some of the additions seem to make the list because they're the first "something". I see that as an historical criterion rather than a theological one. I'm not saying these particular people *shouldn't* be honored, I just question the criteria.
The question I'd prefer to begin with is, did these people in their mortal life and beyond exhibit the eschatological power of God to the praise and glory of Christ?
--------------------
The subject of religious ceremonial is one which has a special faculty for stirring strong feeling. --W. H. Frere
Posts: 177 | From: Baltimore-ish | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Do you know, I shouldn't admit it, but when I saw the title of this thread I genuinely thought it was about another kind of calendar (and wondered where I could order one from)
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by scribbler:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
I also note a giant gap on December 12th, though...
I'm embarrassed that I had to look that up.
Don't be embarrassed, it's not like I can recite the date of St. Joseph or St. David off the top of my head. Bad me, I should have clarified what's so important for Mexicans on Dec. 12th.
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by scribbler:
Setting aside for the moment the choices of additions, there are just too damn many commemorations. The approach seems to be to have so many that it becomes a matter of pick and choose based on one's theological proclivities.
Well, but in practice it has always been this way. Maybe I'd replace "theological proclivities" with "locale", though. The Roman calendar groans under the weight of a number of saints for each day of the year, yet many of these are local commemorations which aren't enjoined on the larger church.
In theory, Cranmer's pruning of the calendar could have worked the same way, with the entire church being obliged to keep the basic BCP calendar and local communities being permitted latitude as to which other feasts they would keep. In practice, it seems to have become more a denial that any sainthood worthy of celebration occurred after the New Testament was written.
Our Lady of Guadalupe isn't marked on our Ordo Kalendar. I think that's just a function of the ethnic makeup of our particular jurisdiction--i.e., not very many Latinos. I would have much less objection to celebrating that feast than I might to celebrating St Charles Borromeo or St Francis Xavier, both of whom appear there.
But no matter how silly or inconsistent our calendar might be, at least there's no danger of Bucky Fuller, Malcolm X, or Gandhi appearing on it...
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
the Aenglican: quote:
HWHM does not--it appears to me--make any theological distinction between the Churches Expectant and Triumphant. Instead, the selections and, more importantly, the collects themselves show a different pattern. Most run along these lines: "Lord, today we remember your servant X who was a great Y. Pour out your grace upon us so that we may be good Ys and good Christians too. Amen."
As a generic prayer form, there's nothing wrong with this.
In fact, it's more in keeping with Article 22 of the 39 and with Article 21 of the Augsburg Confession than my view. (Article 21 is one of the reasons I'm no longer Lutheran...)
I think that it's an insufficient prayer form if we're talking about the saints, though. There seems to be no sense that these people are seriously "in Christ" and are present, participating members of the Church based on what the church is by virtue of who Christ is.
Thanks for replying.
I think that I rather agree with you on this. As I've gotten older I've become more catholic, and take comfort in belief in the host of saints who are still actively in our corner. I don't think we should just be memorializing them; I think we should be engaging with them.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
Hmm. They seem to have abolished the concept of 'feria'.
I'm wondering if they are going to include the Daily Eucharistic Lectionary and the supplemental daily collects for Lent and Easter, as they did with Lesser Feasts and Fasts.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
georgiaboy
Shipmate
# 11294
|
Posted
HWHM seems to me to be a VERY mixed bag. Some of the changes are good, some are nit-picky, and some of the additions boggle the mind (at least MY mind). I mean, really, Fanny Crosby?? and Lottie Moon?? If we're trying to even up the gender scale there are heaps more worthy women than those two. (Besides, the music of Aunt Fanny was one of the many things that drove me away from my protestant upbringing. Being blind and paralysed and afflicted with drippy sentimentality does not, IMO, seem to qualify one for kalendric commemoration. And Lottie Moon, IIRC, was a Southern Baptist, which seems a bit far afield, for a wanna-be Anglican list.
Your views, of course, may vary.
--------------------
You can't retire from a calling.
Posts: 1675 | From: saint meinrad, IN | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Do you know, I shouldn't admit it, but when I saw the title of this thread I genuinely thought it was about another kind of calendar (and wondered where I could order one from)
Maybe a way to raise money for the Floating Fund? A calendar of Shippies?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Quam Dilecta
Shipmate
# 12541
|
Posted
Outside of religious houses and the relatively few parishes which can offer a daily mass, there has long been a practical need to choose which commemorations to observe on those weekdays when sevices are held. A much-expanded list of worthies will only complicate the choice.
I agree that the recent "canonizations" seem to be based more on identity politics than any loftier principles. I also agree with Aenglican that there are many people (most of whom ought to know better) who persist of glossing over the distinction among Christians on Earth, in Pugatory (or whatever other term one wants to use), and in Heaven.
Lesser Feasts and Fasts is already overloaded with namby-pamby collects that ever-so-carefully avoid asking for a saint to pray for us. I can't speak for God, but I am certainly not looking forward to hearing more such prayers, and I pity those who were charged with drafting them.
--------------------
Blessd are they that dwell in thy house
Posts: 406 | From: Boston, Massachusetts, USA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
I mean, really, Fanny Crosby?? and Lottie Moon??
I've never heard of Lottie Moon. But if its right to remember Christian hymnwriters, then Fanny Crosby surely has to be there. (Here in England we even sneaked an allusion to her into a Eucharistic Prayer ![[Smile]](smile.gif) )
Why do you object to putting Baptists in the list?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Why, oh WHY does spelling "Calendar" with a "K" make it holier?
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I like that we're adding Bishop George Berkeley, Jan Hus, John Wycliff, and John Bunyan. A commemoration of "The Righteous Gentiles" is interesting. Does it mean Old Testament ones or the modern Holocaust ones?
I am thrilled that we're commemorating Soren Kierkegaard-- I consider myself something of a Kierkegaard scholar. Though certainly he would have thought the very idea completely absurd on more levels than I can imagine.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Why do you object to putting Baptists in the list?
A couple of reasons come to mind.
1) Who are we to tell the Baptists who their saints are?
2) By Anglican lights, Baptists are heterodox. Isn't it problematic to insist that paedobaptism is normative on the one hand and then to elevate to sainthood a person who denied it and (if she was in agreement with her church) thought that baptizing infants was at best silly and at worst sinful?
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Who are we to tell the Baptists who their saints are?
Who are we to say who is a saint at all?
We're all Christians.
quote:
Isn't it problematic to insist that paedobaptism is normative on the one hand and then to elevate to sainthood a person who denied it and (if she was in agreement with her church) thought that baptizing infants was at best silly and at worst sinful?
No. It isn't. Its hard to see why you think it would be.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the Ænglican
Shipmate
# 12496
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Why, oh WHY does spelling "Calendar" with a "K" make it holier?
Zach
It doesn't make it holier, it makes it more precise. A "kalendar" is a technical term for the liturgical item; it identifies the item and context for the discussion in a way that "calendar" does not.
In other words, the same reason why we refer to a paten rather than "the little platey looking thing".
--------------------
The subject of religious ceremonial is one which has a special faculty for stirring strong feeling. --W. H. Frere
Posts: 177 | From: Baltimore-ish | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I like that we're adding Bishop George Berkeley, Jan Hus, John Wycliff, and John Bunyan.
We beat you to that one - we've had three out of four of them in our list for years!
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Quam Dilecta:
Outside of religious houses and the relatively few parishes which can offer a daily mass, there has long been a practical need to choose which commemorations to observe on those weekdays when sevices are held. A much-expanded list of worthies will only complicate the choice.
But all Anglican churches, surely, observe the Daily Office. Even at mass, there is no need to use the proper readings; the weekday lectionary is fine. It's good to be reminded of the 'whole company of heaven' when we pray and to have the chance of hearing their story as well as asking for their prayers. As for which, let's be bold about that and get shut of namby-pamby collects.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Extol
Shipmate
# 11865
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Isn't it problematic to insist that paedobaptism is normative on the one hand and then to elevate to sainthood a person who denied it and (if she was in agreement with her church) thought that baptizing infants was at best silly and at worst sinful?
No. It isn't. Its hard to see why you think it would be.
I'd be rather interested in hearing why you think it wouldn't be, Ken. It seems fairly plain to me: ECUSA is commemorating a woman who considers paedobaptism to be heterodox, which would seem to make her heterodox in ECUSA's own eyes.
[ 02. December 2009, 13:51: Message edited by: Extol ]
Posts: 1287 | From: New Jersey | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
So? I honestly don't see the problem.
Do you really need complete doctrinal agreement before you would recognise someone as Christian? Maybe there are some atavistic Russian Orthodox who look for that, but I'd doubt if its a popular view in ECUSA.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the Ænglican
Shipmate
# 12496
|
Posted
I'd agree with Ken, here.
The issue is whether the people were true servants of God who are to be emulated and who are asked to pray for us. In fact...I'd say including these people would want to make you move towards a "pray for us" notion rather than solely emulation lest we emulate, say, John Henry Cardinal Newman too closely!
(I'm still wrapping my head around that one...)
--------------------
The subject of religious ceremonial is one which has a special faculty for stirring strong feeling. --W. H. Frere
Posts: 177 | From: Baltimore-ish | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Quam Dilecta:
Outside of religious houses and the relatively few parishes which can offer a daily mass, there has long been a practical need to choose which commemorations to observe on those weekdays when sevices are held. A much-expanded list of worthies will only complicate the choice.
But all Anglican churches, surely, observe the Daily Office.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Dude, my parish is lucky if we get a service on Sunday. The rest of the week, the doors to the sanctuary are locked tight. I think the only place in the entire diocese where you can get a daily Daily Office is the Cathedral, and even then it's just Evening Prayer.
(Now, I've been arguing for a couple years that my poor, cranky, losing-members-like-wild parish should institute a DO, and I've even offered to show my happy hippy behind up and do it 6 days a week, but I've been basically told to sit down and shut up so many times on this and other matters that I'm seriously contemplating shaking the dust from my feeties and bailing.)
[ 02. December 2009, 14:43: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Extol:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Isn't it problematic to insist that paedobaptism is normative on the one hand and then to elevate to sainthood a person who denied it and (if she was in agreement with her church) thought that baptizing infants was at best silly and at worst sinful?
No. It isn't. Its hard to see why you think it would be.
I'd be rather interested in hearing why you think it wouldn't be, Ken. It seems fairly plain to me: ECUSA is commemorating a woman who considers paedobaptism to be heterodox, which would seem to make her heterodox in ECUSA's own eyes.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
So? I honestly don't see the problem.
Do you really need complete doctrinal agreement before you would recognise someone as Christian? Maybe there are some atavistic Russian Orthodox who look for that, but I'd doubt if its a popular view in ECUSA.
Doctrinal agreement is hardly a requirement for entry into the ECUSA calendar of saints (and no, "kalendar" isn't meaningful the way "paten" is -- it's the same damn word just spelled funny). If it were, we wouldn't have kept all those pre-Reformation Catholics who believed in the primacy of Peter's see. georgiaboy is perhaps unaware that Martin Luther King, Jr., a Southern Baptist, is already in the calendar. So is Dietrich Bonhoeffer, just a few days later in April, though maybe that's okay with those who are squeamish about non-Episcopal saints now that we've got the concordat with the ELCA.
The Liturgical Commission clearly doesn't think doctrinal agreement is at all an issue, or they wouldn't have put in the Dorchester chaplains; none of them were Episcopalians, and one was Jewish.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Do you really need complete doctrinal agreement before you would recognise someone as Christian?
Recognizing someone as Christian and canonizing them are not exactly the same thing, at least as I see it! Of course there are issues of veneration & intercession of saints where you & I would disagree, and obviously that's informing our respective reactions to this--canonizing Fanny Crosby suggests to me that we can ask her to intercede for us, which seems ironic to me considering that her religious tradition sees that as idolatrous.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
I thought we Episcopalians didn't canonise, which is how we get away with having, you know, Innocent of Alaska sitting on our calendar rubbing elbows with John Muir.
I mean, if you look at the calendar, the only ones with Saint in front of their name are the Usual Suspects, like St. Paul and St. Peter.
And all the prayers in Lesser Feasts and Fasts that I've ever read don't directly ask the commemorated folks to pray for us, they're more along the lines of, "Dude, they were awesome, help us to be awesome, too*".
*Please note that this is the Revised Mary Sue Translation. And for those of you who missed the whole thing in Hell re: names, hi, I'm Mary Sue. Nice to meetcha.
[ 02. December 2009, 16:26: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Doctrinal agreement is hardly a requirement for entry into the ECUSA calendar of saints (and no, "kalendar" isn't meaningful the way "paten" is -- it's the same damn word just spelled funny). If it were, we wouldn't have kept all those pre-Reformation Catholics who believed in the primacy of Peter's see.
There's a difference between what "the primacy of Peter's see" might have meant to St Ignatius of Antioch, what it might have meant to St Thomas Aquinas, and what it might have meant to St Charles Borromeo.
I have no problem with pre-Reformation saints at all. I find it very curious that many Anglo-Catholic calendars include saints like the aforementioned St Charles, St Robert Bellarmine, St Ignatius Loyola et al. I find it strange that TEC canonizes people who would have thought it a nest of heresy, but I'm not sure that it matters, since I'm not a member of TEC.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
I thought we Episcopalians didn't canonise, which is how we get away with having, you know, Innocent of Alaska sitting on our calendar rubbing elbows with John Muir.
I mean, if you look at the calendar, the only ones with Saint in front of their name are the Usual Suspects, like St. Paul and St. Peter.
And all the prayers in Lesser Feasts and Fasts that I've ever read don't directly ask the commemorated folks to pray for us, they're more along the lines of, "Dude, they were awesome, help us to be awesome, too*".
Good point. But to canonize someone simply means that you enter them into the canon. Putting them on a calendar and commemorating them on a specific day is declaring sainthood, even if the church is fudging it in order to have it both ways.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
uffda
Shipmate
# 14310
|
Posted
I've been following the discussion and noted the AEnglican's comment on Article 21 of the Augsburg Confession.
Could someone pin down for me the range of viewpoint on the intercession of the saints in the Episcopal Church? Do their views on this issue coincide with the general views of Anglicans globally?
Like the AEnglican, as I read through HWHM I thought most Lutherans would be comfortable praying them, and I wondered, in light of our ecumenical agreements, if the prayers may have been crafted with that in mind.
FWIW Lutherans see the value in keeping the Feast days of the Saints, and we have our own kalendar of commemorations, but Article 21 of the Augsburg Confession teaches that we should imitate the saints in their example, but not to pray to them, for that is scripturally unsound.
[ 02. December 2009, 17:10: Message edited by: uffda ]
--------------------
Invincibly ignorant and planning to stay that way!
Posts: 1031 | From: Buffalo, NY | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
georgiaboy
Shipmate
# 11294
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Extol:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Isn't it problematic to insist that paedobaptism is normative on the one hand and then to elevate to sainthood a person who denied it and (if she was in agreement with her church) thought that baptizing infants was at best silly and at worst sinful?
No. It isn't. Its hard to see why you think it would be.
I'd be rather interested in hearing why you think it wouldn't be, Ken. It seems fairly plain to me: ECUSA is commemorating a woman who considers paedobaptism to be heterodox, which would seem to make her heterodox in ECUSA's own eyes.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
So? I honestly don't see the problem.
Do you really need complete doctrinal agreement before you would recognise someone as Christian? Maybe there are some atavistic Russian Orthodox who look for that, but I'd doubt if its a popular view in ECUSA.
Doctrinal agreement is hardly a requirement for entry into the ECUSA calendar of saints (and no, "kalendar" isn't meaningful the way "paten" is -- it's the same damn word just spelled funny). If it were, we wouldn't have kept all those pre-Reformation Catholics who believed in the primacy of Peter's see. georgiaboy is perhaps unaware that Martin Luther King, Jr., a Southern Baptist, is already in the calendar. So is Dietrich Bonhoeffer, just a few days later in April, though maybe that's okay with those who are squeamish about non-Episcopal saints now that we've got the concordat with the ELCA.
The Liturgical Commission clearly doesn't think doctrinal agreement is at all an issue, or they wouldn't have put in the Dorchester chaplains; none of them were Episcopalians, and one was Jewish.
Chiming back in to say that I certainly AM aware a) that Martin Luther King, Jr. is already in LF&F and that b) he was a Baptist. It is, however, just my own opinion that his contributions to the 'whole body of the church' are perhaps more significant than the 2 ladies I cited. Others may perhaps differ.
--------------------
You can't retire from a calling.
Posts: 1675 | From: saint meinrad, IN | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
the Ænglican
Shipmate
# 12496
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by uffda:
FWIW Lutherans see the value in keeping the Feast days of the Saints, and we have our own kalendar of commemorations, but Article 21 of the Augsburg Confession teaches that we should imitate the saints in their example, but not to pray to them, for that is scripturally unsound.
The church catholic has never taught that we pray to the saints. This is an example of Luther's disagreement not with catholic teaching or practice but the abuses thereof. The phrase "seek their help" from CA 21, however, does contradict catholic teaching and, I'd suggest, also contradicts St Paul's directions that we pray for one another. That Christ is our sole intercessor and mediator is precisely the point--the saints (and all Christians) intercede by virtue of their inclusion within the Body of Christ.
quote:
Originally posted by uffda:
Could someone pin down for me the range of viewpoint on the intercession of the saints in the Episcopal Church? Do their views on this issue coincide with the general views of Anglicans globally?
I'd say it literally runs the whole gamut from the Anglo-Catholics who go so far as to join in the above mentioned abuses and who do "pray to the saints" down to the Calvinists who think such things an abomination unto the Lord. I think your average Episcopalian would probably fall in the "imitate, not intercede" area. Anglicans worldwide tend to be more Evangelical and thus a bit less tolerant. A lot depends, though, on the churchmanship of the dominant missionary organization in the area.
quote:
Originally posted by uffda:
... I wondered, in light of our ecumenical agreements, if the prayers may have been crafted with that in mind.
Maybe, but I doubt it. Cynically, I'd respond that it's more likely because the drafters were predominantly Liberal Protestants.
--------------------
The subject of religious ceremonial is one which has a special faculty for stirring strong feeling. --W. H. Frere
Posts: 177 | From: Baltimore-ish | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
I've read a number of comments pro and con about this calendar, but i cannot find the whole calendar list anywhere on the web, only snippets. Can anyone point me in the right direction?
The whole thing can be found here -- scroll down to page 82.
Thanks for the link. Without wishing to start a tangent, I was very pleased to find liturgies for people after they've had an abortion. There is a big need for these.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
[QUOTE] But all Anglican churches, surely, observe the Daily Office.
Dude, my parish is lucky if we get a service on Sunday. The rest of the week, the doors to the sanctuary are locked tight. I think the only place in the entire diocese where you can get a daily Daily Office is the Cathedral, and even then it's just Evening Prayer.
Pond difference I suppose. Not that all English churches have public M & E prayer, by any means, but it is more common.
That's not what I was getting at, though: even when the office is not said publicly it is usually said somehow; and if not the formal office, most people have some regular pattern of prayer. Just because a saint's day isn't celebrated in church shouldn't mean they are forgotten.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
canonizing Fanny Crosby suggests to me that we can ask her to intercede for us, which seems ironic to me considering that her religious tradition sees that as idolatrous.
Aye, but she kens better the noo. Presumably.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Do you really need complete doctrinal agreement before you would recognise someone as Christian?
Recognizing someone as Christian and canonizing them are not exactly the same thing, at least as I see it! Of course there are issues of veneration & intercession of saints where you & I would disagree, and obviously that's informing our respective reactions to this--canonizing Fanny Crosby suggests to me that we can ask her to intercede for us, which seems ironic to me considering that her religious tradition sees that as idolatrous.
But surely you would be happy to ask her to pray for you were she still alive?
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
...to canonize someone simply means that you enter them into the canon. Putting them on a calendar and commemorating them on a specific day is declaring sainthood, even if the church is fudging it in order to have it both ways.
Not sure about that. The CofE specifically calls the days marked for these people "commemorations". There is no neccessary assumption that one lot can pray for us and another lot need our prayers. (Just as with live people of course - prayer goes both ways) Also we include both Wesleys - and though biother Charles remained clearly Anglican till he dies, and was buried in his parish churhcyard, brother John ordained presbyters for America (and was more or less excluded from the CofE for it), a much more un-Anglican thing than not liking infant Baptism. We have both Luther and Calvin - though not Zwingli (which is good...) We have Thomas More, a notorious persecutor of Protestants; and also Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley, martyrs whose sympathies lay with those More persecuted. And we've got Isaac Watts in there - not only a non-conformist but heretical in all sorts of ways. We have Elizabth Fry and George Fox, Quakers (it seems the new US list doesn't have a day for Fox) And we include both John Bunyan and Charles Stuart, who fought on different sides in the Civil Wars and so tried to kill each other in the name of God.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
Why is it that I do not see John Henry Newman on the kalendar? G.K. Chesterton can be there, but not Newman?
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
the Ænglican
Shipmate
# 12496
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Why is it that I do not see John Henry Newman on the kalendar? G.K. Chesterton can be there, but not Newman?
He's there--February 21st.
--------------------
The subject of religious ceremonial is one which has a special faculty for stirring strong feeling. --W. H. Frere
Posts: 177 | From: Baltimore-ish | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the Ænglican:
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Why is it that I do not see John Henry Newman on the kalendar? G.K. Chesterton can be there, but not Newman?
He's there--February 21st.
Ah, thanks. I was looking on 11 August, the date of his death. Another one that annoyed me was the fact that the puritan Richard Baxter was on 8 December, rather than the Conception of Our Lady, which had been in the 1662 BCP.
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
... the puritan Richard Baxter was on 8 December...
Odd, we have him on the 14th June. Well worth remembering, one of the good guys.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
14th June is the date of Baxter's wife Margaret's death.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mama Thomas
Shipmate
# 10170
|
Posted
One thing that worries me is the language of some of the collects. Don't know how to select and copy on that pdf over there, but the collect for Ini Kopuria is just horrible. The added his previous occupation, "police officer" to the prayer when he left the force because he didn't want to be one. Isn't a collect one, single, complex sentence, instead of chopped of phrases?
If you have the time, check it out. This collect still uses the horrible "whose" and other use phrases like "O God whose servant", O God who gave" blah and yada, in the contemporary. Why use a precious Latinism when "your" and "you" would be much more natural.
No, please. There have been complaints for decades about the wording of the collects for LF&F. Many if not most of the new prayers for saints days (don't call them "collects") are far below the literary standard of the Common Worship texts and even the very banal English translation Paul VI's missal.
Isn't there a committee that checks those things before publication?
--------------------
All hearts are open, all desires known
Posts: 3742 | From: Somewhere far away | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The CofE specifically calls the days marked for these people "commemorations". There is no neccessary assumption that one lot can pray for us and another lot need our prayers.
Even among Roman Catholics, there is obviously room for difference of opinion, since a prerequisite to canonization is that people have already "prayed to" the candidate and received a miraculous reply.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
If you have the time, check it out. This collect still uses the horrible "whose" and other use phrases like "O God whose servant", O God who gave" blah and yada, in the contemporary. Why use a precious Latinism when "your" and "you" would be much more natural.
No, please. There have been complaints for decades about the wording of the collects for LF&F. Many if not most of the new prayers for saints days (don't call them "collects") are far below the literary standard of the Common Worship texts and even the very banal English translation Paul VI's missal.
Isn't there a committee that checks those things before publication?
There is a committee that checks them, Mama Thomas, but I don't think there's a committee that prays them.
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
