Ship of Fools: This is the Word of St Paul

Thread: This is the Word of St Paul Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024881

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

Might it not be argued that in those traditions where it is routine to say 'This is the Word of the Lord' after a reading - including Pauline epistles - the phrase 'This is the Word of St Paul' might be substituted instead?

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

Not a good idea! Not established as standard normal practice; also, the reader may be slow to recall that the passage is attributed to St. Paul. Consistancy would then be needed to name similarly books of the Bible not attributed to St. Paul.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

Following that "logic," one would never say, "The Word of the Lord," but always, "The Word of St. ______," "the Word of Holy Moses," "the Word of Holy Daniel," etc., as every book of scripture is historically attributed to a human author. (And even the identity of said human author may not be completely that of the named individual, but that is another story...) The result is chaos and confusion.

To me it sounds like an attempt to downgrade the status of scripture to merely human authority--particularly portions of scripture that one finds inconvenient or uncomfortable to apply.

Posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic (# 12722) on :

In a liturgical gathering, what is relevant is not a quasi-archeological concern for the identification of the human author of the verses read, but that God speaks through them. If these words are being read in the company of the baptised as part of the liturgical celebration, they cease to be simply the words of S. Paul (or whoever), but are, for us, the word of God – however much we may find ourselves recoiling from the words themselves!

Is this not the normal understanding, or am I being naïf again?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
... as every book of scripture is historically attributed to a human author...

Is it? Who wrote Hebrews, Ruth or 2 Kings?

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Might it not be argued ... to say [rather] 'This is the Word of St Paul'...?

One could and one would be wrong.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

The Latin of the Roman rite says 'Verbum Dei' (or Domini?); I believe the latest English version simply says 'The Word of the Lord' without the 'This is.' It is a very subtle change but it somehow (to my mind anyway) takes the focus away from those particular words we have just heard, to the whole Bible in the context of which they need to be understood. Hence an improvement.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Operating under the documentary hypothesis, would we have to say "This is the Word of P" when reading the first chapter of Genesis?

I guess the congregation would get puzzled looks while thinking "Who the heck is P"?

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
The Latin of the Roman rite says 'Verbum Dei' (or Domini?); I believe the latest English version simply says 'The Word of the Lord' without the 'This is.' It is a very subtle change but it somehow (to my mind anyway) takes the focus away from those particular words we have just heard, to the whole Bible in the context of which they need to be understood. Hence an improvement.

I gather some denominations use the words "For the word of the Lord ..."

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
The Latin of the Roman rite says 'Verbum Dei' (or Domini?); I believe the latest English version simply says 'The Word of the Lord' without the 'This is.' It is a very subtle change but it somehow (to my mind anyway) takes the focus away from those particular words we have just heard, to the whole Bible in the context of which they need to be understood. Hence an improvement.

Correct, though saying only "The Word of the Lord" is not a result of the recent new translation; it came into effect in 1994.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
... as every book of scripture is historically attributed to a human author...
Is it? Who wrote Hebrews, Ruth or 2 Kings?

Well, Hebrews was St. Paul's epistle to that group. Ruth has traditionally been attributed to the prophet Samuel, and 2 Kings to the prophet Jeremiah. We realize that these may not be completely that, but these are the traditional authors. [Angel]

Posted by Miss Madrigal (# 15528) on :

I have heard, 'This is the Word of St. Paul', used after a reading, but only when the the reader is female and has been landed with I Timothy 2:11-15.

I may have been that reader.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Is that in the lectionary?

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

quote:
Well, Hebrews was St. Paul's epistle to that group.

Er, debatable?

Posted by Miss Madrigal (# 15528) on :

quote:
Is that in the lectionary?

I did wonder when it was given to me, but my then vicar did have a very individual sense of humour.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I've regularly heard "For the word of the Lord ... Thanks be to God" at one Anglican church with a liturgically minded priest and member of the Fed of Cath Priests.

I'm not sure what I think about it.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
... as every book of scripture is historically attributed to a human author...
Is it? Who wrote Hebrews, Ruth or 2 Kings?

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Whatever happened to "Here end(s) the lesson."?

The Prayerbook has much to recommend for the sake of simplicity. When the reader ends the reading, I don't think it is absolutely necessary to make an emphatic statement about the authority/lack of authority of a given text. All that is needed is a signal that the reading has concluded.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I've regularly heard "For the word of the Lord ... Thanks be to God" at one Anglican church with a liturgically minded priest and member of the Fed of Cath Priests.

I'm not sure what I think about it.

That's wrong.

What I've heard is "For the gift of the Word ... Thanks be to God"

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
All that is needed is a signal that the reading has concluded.

Which can just as easily be given by the reader stopping reading and walking away from the lectern.

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Whatever happened to "Here end(s) the lesson."?

I'm not sure whether all non-Gospel books are lessons.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

I am trying at our place to inculcate the practice of a brief pause at the end of the readings, i.e. before the reader says 'This is the Word of the Lord'.

I am also trying (subtly) to introduce brief periods of silence elsewhere in the Mass, but that's another story.......blame my reading of The Blessed Richard Giles' various books..... [Devil]

Ian J.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
All that is needed is a signal that the reading has concluded.
Which can just as easily be given by the reader stopping reading and walking away from the lectern.

They do that at a monastery I visit, at least for the readings at the Offices. I like it: the final words of the reading can resonate in the church and in our minds. They do say "The Word of the Lord/Thanks be to God" at Mass as required.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Is that in the lectionary?

Not for mass but it is in the C of E Evensong lessons - I preached on it once and tried to show how Paul was ahead of him time in asking husbands to love their wives and parents to respect their children.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Might it not be argued that in those traditions where it is routine to say 'This is the Word of the Lord' after a reading - including Pauline epistles - the phrase 'This is the Word of St Paul' might be substituted instead?

If calling it the Word of the Lord is too problematic, why not use "Hear what the Spirit is saying to God's people"? IMO, this actually says the same thing: the Word of the Lord is Jesus, but also what God speaks to the assembly through the Holy Spirit when the Scriptures are proclaimed. But if wording it that way ("Hear what the Spirit...") presents less of a stumbling block to a particular congregation, it will help them to open themselves to the text. IMO, Scriptures are like Jacob's angel: we wrestle with them until they bless us, and we walk off with a limp (but also a transformed identity).

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
... as every book of scripture is historically attributed to a human author...
Is it? Who wrote Hebrews, Ruth or 2 Kings?

Even if we don't know who the authors are, we still can safely assume them to have been human, I should think!

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
[qb]They do that at a monastery I visit, at least for the readings at the Offices. I like it: the final words of the reading can resonate in the church and in our minds. They do say "The Word of the Lord/Thanks be to God" at Mass as required.

This is our practice precisely at the cathedral where I work.

It's not clear to me, though, which ending should be used in a wedding or funeral that does not include Communion. Any suggestions?

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
The Latin of the Roman rite says 'Verbum Dei' (or Domini?); I believe the latest English version simply says 'The Word of the Lord' without the 'This is.' It is a very subtle change but it somehow (to my mind anyway) takes the focus away from those particular words we have just heard, to the whole Bible in the context of which they need to be understood. Hence an improvement.

"The Word of the Lord" is a direct translation from the Latin which is what the revised English text in the Roman Rite is all about. It also exactly translates with the French, German, Italian & Spanish texts, etc. Thus (quoted from memory) "Verbum Domini" is the Latin translation.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

To amplify what I have said above, the versions of "The Word of the Lord" in other languages (quoted from memory) are as follows:-

"Parole de Dieu." (Fr.); "Wort Gottes." (Ger.); "Parola di Dio." (It.); "Palabra de Dios." (Sp.).

It will be seen that "This is..." does not occur.

BTW On my travels overseas, I have heard in English-speaking Anglican churches, "Hear the Word of the Lord." as translated locally.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

So is the original Domini (the Lord) or Dei (God/Dieu/Dio etc)?

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

The Latin of the Roman Rite is "Verbum Domini" (Lord). I can't verify the versions in other languages, I'm afraid.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

The revised English-vernacular translation as adopted in the Roman Rite last year, was a "tidying-up" process to get back more accurately to the authorised Latin text. It was felt that the English "free" rather than "literal" English translation had served us well in the decades since Vatican2, but that the time had come for a re-think.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
All that is needed is a signal that the reading has concluded.
Which can just as easily be given by the reader stopping reading and walking away from the lectern.

How about "For cutesy tinkering with the liturgy...Thanks but no thanks."

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
To amplify what I have said above, the versions of "The Word of the Lord" in other languages (quoted from memory) are as follows:-

"Parole de Dieu." (Fr.); "Wort Gottes." (Ger.); "Parola di Dio." (It.); "Palabra de Dios." (Sp.).

It will be seen that "This is..." does not occur.

Of course, these all are "The word of God" (or the necessarily more direct German "God's word), even though all of those languages do indeed have words for "Lord."

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

I am open to correction but so far, no shipmate has done so; though I am virtually certain that these are the correct versions in each of the languages, as far as my information goes.

"God" versus "Lord" - again this is a matter of "free" or "literal" translation in each of the languages.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

I have now done my checking up from my printed versions of the texts in other languages. With otherwise no corrections to make, I see the text in German should read as follows:-

"Wort des lebendigen Gottes" - Word of the living God.

I have never come across that in this context in any other language. This is a new point of consideration if there are any takers.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
I have now done my checking up from my printed versions of the texts in other languages. With otherwise no corrections to make, I see the text in German should read as follows:-

"Wort des lebendigen Gottes" - Word of the living God.

I have never come across that in this context in any other language. This is a new point of consideration if there are any takers.

I've experienced this while watching televised Masses on zdf.de - and I like it. My initial thoughts were that it gives the versicle some length. "The Word of the Lord" by itself would be simply "Wort des Herrn." Might be missed if someone coughs.

But I do like the content of the German version as well.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

The phrasing "this is the word of the lord" strikes me a problematic, just as at communion if it is said "this is the body of Christ". There is something wrong with both in my view, with the "this is". It makes it specific and almost an idolatry, but I don't know how to quite name the problem.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
[QUOTE]"The Word of the Lord" by itself would be simply "Wort des Herrn." Might be missed if someone coughs.

Some of us can't tell the difference between a phrase in German and a cough. [Biased]

Posted by uffda (# 14310) on :

The way I have understood the function of the lessons at worship is as a living address by God to each individual. An address which calls for a response. That's why one person might "hear" something in a reading that someone else doesn't hear.
Kind of along the lines of Hebrews 4:12

"Indeed, the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword."

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0