Ship of Fools: 'Souls don't rise'

Thread: 'Souls don't rise' 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=024893

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

During the vestry prayers after tonight's mass for S. Bartholomew's Day, most of the servers responded to the petition 'May the souls of the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace' with the response 'and rise in glory!'. Our celebrant, a young priest visiting from London, gently corrected them, saying 'souls don't rise'. This is, of course, theologically correct and of no small importance.

How, I wonder, did this 'custom get started'. Was the response originally added to the petition 'may they rest in peace', where it fits more accurately, and only later extended to this less opportune place? Perhaps more interestingly, how did a response that is — as far as I know — sanctioned by no authority find its way into the collective vernacular of so many parishes?

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
During the vestry prayers after tonight's mass for S. Bartholomew's Day, most of the servers responded to the petition 'May the souls of the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace' with the response 'and rise in glory!'. Our celebrant, a young priest visiting from London, gently corrected them, saying 'souls don't rise'. This is, of course, theologically correct and of no small importance.

How, I wonder, did this 'custom get started'. Was the response originally added to the petition 'may they rest in peace', where it fits more accurately, and only later extended to this less opportune place? Perhaps more interestingly, how did a response that is — as far as I know — sanctioned by no authority find its way into the collective vernacular of so many parishes?

Here's a thread about it from Oblivion.

I wonder the same things about it. But I hadn't heard the counter-statement, "Souls don't rise." I'll have to think about that...
[Angel]

[ 24. August 2012, 22:26: Message edited by: Oblatus ]

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

I'd like to rest in peace and then rise in glory, and I'd like people to pray for me when I die that this may happen. [Smile]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I have a recollection that Bishop Tom Wright has suggested that it is the reference to 'souls' that is misleading and should be dropped from this exchange, i.e.
'May the faithful departed/Granny/X, through the mercy of God, rest in peace' with the response 'and rise in glory!'

I'd certainly be very happy that when the time comes, people should pray both those prayers for me.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

The prayer is not about the resurrection of the body but an entreaty for the rest of the soul until the resurrection. Simples.

I suspect the rather stupid "and rise in glory" is more to do with being uncomfortable with the notion of an intermediate state.

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

I've heard it too. Often from the same folks who add "alleluia, alleluia" after every dismissal throughout the year. Many people don't think about what they say.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
Our celebrant, a young priest visiting from London, gently corrected them, saying 'souls don't rise'.

He was trained under Robin Ward at St Stephen's House.

Thurible

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
Our celebrant, a young priest visiting from London, gently corrected them, saying 'souls don't rise'.
He was trained under Robin Ward at St Stephen's House.

Thurible

Nice guess, but no. This particular priest didn't go to Staggers (nor was he ever a regular at Pusey House, which is more unusual!)

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

As I did not join SoF until the year after the discussion now in oblivion took place, I had never heard of this "rise in glory" bit until reading this thread. In my Anglican days, all I ever heard was:

Eternal rest grant to them, O Lord
And may perpetual light shine upon them
May the rest in peace
Amen.

This, or similar, is also what I have always heard as an RC over the last several decades.

Most of my Anglican involvement was in Anglo-Catholic settings. But in my experience, TEC parishes of whatever churchmanship either prayed for the dead using the above, or they did not say anything, at all.

I agree that souls do not rise, and wording that suggests otherwise is theologically inaccurate. However, if the prayer or ejaculation does not specifically refer to souls, then the "rise in glory" bit is perfectly acceptable.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

I'm sure my more erudite Shipmates are all very accurate in this point. But if 'souls don't rise' I'd rather remain bodily unrisen; for a body without a soul seems rather redundant. Though a great plot for a horror movie.

I've always liked the Hebrew idea of humans being embodied souls, but maybe that doesn't work for the purists.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I too like that idea. I think Bishop Tom Wright's point is that 'we' rest, not part of us, and 'we' who hope to rise bodily in glory.

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I'm sure my more erudite Shipmates are all very accurate in this point. But if 'souls don't rise' I'd rather remain bodily unrisen; for a body without a soul seems rather redundant. Though a great plot for a horror movie.

As I understand it, the idea is that souls don't need to rise because they have, in a sense, never fallen, whereas the body does fall (in death) and does (according to Christian domga) rise again in glory.

I suspect that part of the confusion is the result of the sheer popularity of this prayer, which extends well beyond those Anglo-Catholic parishes that have a clearly defined view of a Christian's journey after death. The prayer really does assume some concept of Purgatory, and I think that there may be some attempt to rid of it of that assumption, resulting a general muddle.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

That is nonsense, for souls not to have fallen they have to not be created. So you are arguing that souls don't exist.

Jengie

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
As I understand it, the idea is that souls don't need to rise because they have, in a sense, never fallen, whereas the body does fall (in death) and does (according to Christian domga) rise again in glory.

Ah, Manichean dualism. How I love a Sunday lunchtime heresy.

quote:
I suspect that part of the confusion is the result of the sheer popularity of this prayer, which extends well beyond those Anglo-Catholic parishes that have a clearly defined view of a Christian's journey after death. The prayer really does assume some concept of Purgatory, and I think that there may be some attempt to rid of it of that assumption, resulting a general muddle.

I reckon that's probably spot-on.

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
That is nonsense, for souls not to have fallen they have to not be created. So you are arguing that souls don't exist.

Jengie

I wasn't talking about 'the Fall', I was using 'fall' as the opposite of rise.

The body dies. It descends into the grave. Death is not an illusion. It is simply that Christ has conquered death. The body is, eventually, resurrected, but this does not happen immediately — even Our Lord's body was in the tomb for three days.

The soul does not, cannot, die. In death, body and soul are separated as the body decays and soul continues its journey. In the Resurrection, the soul is reunified with the glorified body. I'm not a trained theologian, and it may be that I'm not expressing myself well, but I am confident that this is not heresy, it's Catholic doctrine (e.g. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 996).

[ 26. August 2012, 13:01: Message edited by: (S)pike couchant ]

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

Thank you for the clarification. Indeed, I think you are correct.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Except if they fell in the Fall then they surely can rise? The language is metaphorical but to rise is towards God and to fall is away from God.

Jengie

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Actually what is wrong with that statement is not that souls don't rise but the implication that they do in the absence of the body.

Jengie

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
I wasn't talking about 'the Fall', I was using 'fall' as the opposite of rise.

The body dies. It descends into the grave. Death is not an illusion. It is simply that Christ has conquered death. The body is, eventually, resurrected, but this does not happen immediately — even Our Lord's body was in the tomb for three days.

The soul does not, cannot, die. In death, body and soul are separated as the body decays and soul continues its journey. In the Resurrection, the soul is reunified with the glorified body.

I'm certainly happy to go with this as a theological explanation of the non-rising-ability of souls. But there'll always be a part of me that feels it's all a bit literal. I mean, my body rises every morning without dying (though not without a great deal of reluctance). Surely, a soul may 'rise' to its new stature in the resurrection life?

As I say, it all seems a bit too literal to be useful. To me the phrase of souls rising in glory is more poetry than an attempt at doctrine.

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Actually what is wrong with that statement is not that souls don't rise but the implication that they do in the absence of the body.

Jengie

Ah! What an excellent point, hadn't looked at it like that. Thanks Jengie.

Is there a good modern ending to use instead - or is it best just to miss out the word 'souls' as has been suggested.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

Percy B, the best ending to the prayer, I would suggest, is the original ending: Amen.

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

Ho no Trisagion!

I actually meant, and sorry if I wasn't clear, is there a better traditional end of Mass prayer that avoids the contentiousness of this prayer.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

The version I am most familiar with is:

V: May the souls of the faithful departed, in the mercy of God, rest in peace.
R: Amen

When I was growing up the local Spikes were Kelham (or Mirfield) men, which might be of some relevance.

PD

[ 26. August 2012, 21:12: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

I'm most familiar with it being used this way. When the intentions are being announced (just before the Prayer for the Church Malignant) the priest will request prayers for the sick or afflicted, and if anyone has died in the past week prayers will be asked for the repose of his soul, ending with

V. May his soul, and the souls of all the faithful departed, through the mercy of God rest in peace :
R. And may light perpetual shine upon them.

I've never heard the "rise in glory" bit in our churches.

Posted by BulldogSacristan (# 11239) on :

This is the one we use in my Episcopal Church parish.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

Fr Weber, are you sure. It seems a confusion of the traditional prayer. I may be mistaking Roman practice for the norm but since the prayer comes from the Roman tradition, it might be worth reflecting on how it goes there. It goes as follows:

V/. Requiem aeternum dona eis, Domine
R/. Et lux perpetua luceat eis.
V/. Fidelium animae, per misericordiam Dei, requiescant in pace.
R/. Amen

This is usually translated as:

V/. Eternal rest grant unto him (her), O Lord
R/. And let perpetual light shine upon him (her).
V/. May the souls of the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace.
R/. Amen.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

Absolutely sure. It's certainly a confusion or rearrangement of the prayer you cite, but it seems to have become its own thing.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Trisagion's version (or sometimes just the first V & R) is what I am familiar with as a response to a bidding. But the 'rise in glory' thing seems to have crept in as a semi-private prayer to conclude the liturgy.

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

I've often heard it frequently "may the souls of the faithful" never mentioning the word "departed."

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

The idea of a disembodied soul or spirit surviving death is a little bit dodgy. We are raised as complete people with new bodies.

Souls don't rise, people do.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Is there such a thing as a disembodied soul, my father (in this case as a point of interest) would maintain not and that soul is more than the body, the total of being a person including social and other material realities, not apart from the body.

Jengie

Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
How, I wonder, did this 'custom get started'. Was the response originally added to the petition 'may they rest in peace', where it fits more accurately, and only later extended to this less opportune place? Perhaps more interestingly, how did a response that is — as far as I know — sanctioned by no authority find its way into the collective vernacular of so many parishes?

My memory might be faulty, but I think I recall the response being used at Evening Prayer at Magdalen College, Oxford - possibly also full evensong, but of that I'm less sure. But at the end of Evening Prayer (the shorter of the two services) the minister says "May the souls of the faithful departed rest in peace", and the congregation answers "And rise in glory", that being just about the only contribution made by the latter, apart from 'amens'.

I would therefore hazard a guess that the practice goes back to the days of the founder, William of Waynflete, in the fifteenth century, I believe, hence pre-Reformation.

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:

I would therefore hazard a guess that the practice goes back to the days of the founder, William of Waynflete, in the fifteenth century, I believe, hence pre-Reformation.

I would be very much shocked if that turned out to be true.

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

The phrase is found all over in "high" places, because it sounds a bit Catholic, but it's a bit wrong till corrected. Places where they know what it means don't make the mistake.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:

I would therefore hazard a guess that the practice goes back to the days of the founder, William of Waynflete, in the fifteenth century, I believe, hence pre-Reformation.

I think it probably owes more to Fr Piret than to Old Bill.

Thurible

Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:

quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:

I would therefore hazard a guess that the practice goes back to the days of the founder, William of Waynflete, in the fifteenth century, I believe, hence pre-Reformation.
I think it probably owes more to Fr Piret than to Old Bill.

Quite possibly. [Big Grin]

But it does at least have the feel of Ancient College Tradition, for those of us who don't know any better.

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

There is also a discussion about this on the GSS forum where it is suggested:

'Rest in peace' was traditionally a prayer for the soul in purgatory. The response was simply 'Amen'. Substituting 'rise in glory' (which must refer to the body) turns the prayer into a more general one for the deceased. It's certainly not unsound in itself - if the word 'soul' is omitted - but would appear to represent a step away from traditional catholic teaching.

The 'rise in glory' response seems to be an unusual example of an Anglican 'use' that is creeping into RC worship.

[It possibly] originated out of a pastoral desire to pray for the dead without a commitment to the doctrine of purgatory. The response turns a specific prayer for the soul into a more general one for the 'whole person'. In that sense it could be used more widely - but less precisely - by non-Catholic Christians (as it is for example in the Methodist Service Book).

The new response doesn't seem to appear in any authorized liturgy and is largely unknown in the Roman church. It probably originated in a 'middle of the road' Anglican context which was not unwilling to pray for the dead, but did not want to appear committed to the catholic doctrine of 'where' they are and how they might actually benefit from our prayers.

In an earlier discussion here (which I cannot find) I think the earliest example quoted was at Cuddesdon under Robert Runcie in the 1970s. It's certainly creeping in everywhere. When a lay intercessor used it at our church and the Vicar objected he was told "but it's used at All Saints' Margaret Street".

[ 30. August 2012, 08:46: Message edited by: Corvo ]

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:

In an earlier discussion here (which I cannot find) . . .

Here it is : http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=015360

Posted by recklessrat (# 17243) on :

Used this one in vestry prayers this morning! Sadly didn't get the chance to raise a discussion about it; maybe next week.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

A soul is a whole person, body and spirit, so could it not be that the word soul in this context refers to the psychosomatic unity that constitutes a whole resurrected person?

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
The phrase is found all over in "high" places, because it sounds a bit Catholic, but it's a bit wrong till corrected. Places where they know what it means don't make the mistake.

It has something of a Franciscan ring to it, but I don't know why.

It seems to be more a growing MOTR to moderate to AffCath thing. Very High and Trad seems to say 'Amen' after the 'rest in peace'.

Posted by infoleather (# 17335) on :

I prefer to keep the body unrisen body without a soul seems rather redundant. Although a great horror movie plot.

Posted by Robin Ward (# 13032) on :

There are two problems with this: First, souls don't rise, people do. S. Thomas says 'my soul is not me' in his commentary on I Corinthians, and Dante mentions the souls of the blessed desiring reunion with their bodies, 'The lustre which already swathes us round/Shall be outlustred by the flesh, which long/ Day after day now moulders underground.' Second, prayer for the departed can assuage whatever sufferings they may undergo in preparation for the beatific vision, but cannot affect the ultimate fate of the individual given at the particular judgement immediately after death (the success of Pope S. Gregory the Great in releasing the emperor Trajan from hell is the exception that proves the rule here). So it is redundant to pray that people might rise 'in glory', when that judgement is already settled.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
Our celebrant, a young priest visiting from London, gently corrected them, saying 'souls don't rise'.
He was trained under Robin Ward at St Stephen's House.

See.

Thurible

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robin Ward:
There are two problems with this: First, souls don't rise, people do. S. Thomas says 'my soul is not me' in his commentary on I Corinthians, and Dante mentions the souls of the blessed desiring reunion with their bodies, 'The lustre which already swathes us round/Shall be outlustred by the flesh, which long/ Day after day now moulders underground.' Second, prayer for the departed can assuage whatever sufferings they may undergo in preparation for the beatific vision, but cannot affect the ultimate fate of the individual given at the particular judgement immediately after death (the success of Pope S. Gregory the Great in releasing the emperor Trajan from hell is the exception that proves the rule here). So it is redundant to pray that people might rise 'in glory', when that judgement is already settled.

Brilliant - please post more often if you can find the time. What I have read of yours, elsewhere, has the sort of insight we need here.

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

I would still be interested to know when and how the phrase entered Anglican (liturgical) vocabulary.

In the earlier earlier discussion we found some examples from C18 and C19 gravestones, but no memory of it being used as a vestry prayer (or whatever) until the 1970s.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0