Ship of Fools: Is ecumenical liturgical consistency desirable and if so is it achievable?

Thread: Is ecumenical liturgical consistency desirable and if so is it achievable? 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=024932

Posted by scuffleball (# 16480) on :

I have been hearing vague rumours that the Roman Catholic church no longer uses the Revised Common Lectionary or the ICET translations of the of the canticles and ordinary. Is this true? I can see why some people might not like the way the ICET translation of the Gloria, for instance, reorders a lot of the phrases. This makes it difficult to translate musical settings of the Gloria, but I can see that non-native English speakers might find lots of subordinate clauses confusing e.g. in African countries or Singapore where the lingua franca is English but it's no-one's mother tongue. I have also heard similar complaints on this chatroom about the ICET translation of the Te Deum, although I think Anglicans use the Te Deum far more than other denominations so that might be why.

Has there ever been an attempt at an ecumenical lectionary for the Daily Office (i.e. not just Sundays and feast days)?

Also Bible translations seem to be split denominationally too with Catholics using the New Jerusalem Bible, Liberal Protestants using the NRSV and conservative protestants using the NIV.

How does this work in other languages spoken in lots of countries interdenominationally? I know in French Catholics mainly use the Bible de Jérusalem and protestants the Louis Segond bible, but other than that I have no idea.

If indeed churches are updating their lectionaries and translations of the canticles and ordinary and ignoring the ICET and RCL, might it be a good idea to get a new conference to agree on these things? Or would such an attempt be futile because of conflicting attitudes towards translation and lectionary in different denominations?

Also, I think perhaps denominations have forgotten the ways in which generally everyone's liturgy has become far more interdenominationally consistent than 100 years ago. For catholics, eucharistic vestments and an altar that is more prominent than the pulpit and clearly the "altar" and not the "holy table" is the norm, and no-one would frown on things like candles. For Protestants, VP celebration and vernacular liturgy is now the norm. For what someone (Jengie Jon? Enoch?) called the "new dissent" (i.e. the churches that arose during the revivals of the 18th-19th century like the Methodists and Missionary Baptists), congregations singing hymns other than psalms and canticles are the norm.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

We (RCC) never used the RCL. The RCL is based on the RC Lectionary for Mass which emerged in 1969. As far as I know, this lectionary was almost entirely original, not being a revision of any previously existing lectionary.

The English texts of the missal have recently been translated to be brought into greater structural conformity with the Latin text. Whatever you think of the new translation, the intent was not to depart from ecumenical texts because they were ecumenical. However, that has been the outcome. I certainly sympathize with a Lutheran friend who complained about our switching to "And with your spirit" after they'd switched from that to "And also with you" to seek conformity with us.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Just as an aside, I'm intrigued by the idea the there is a liberal-conservative axis with regard to the use of the NRSV or the NIV. Personally I'd have said it was an evangelical-catholic difference - not least because conservative Anglo-Catholics are going to find a bit of a problem with a translation that doesn't allow access to the Apocrypha. My solidly liberal Church of Scotland minister seems to have a preference for the NIV. Roman Catholics are limited, at least liturgically, by what the Vatican approves.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by scuffleball:

Has there ever been an attempt at an ecumenical lectionary for the Daily Office (i.e. not just Sundays and feast days)?

This would be difficult, and probably rather pointless, because different churches have a different approach to the Daily Office. Apart from the Office of Readings, the RC offices only contain one short reading. Anglican Morning and Evening Prayer, in BCP or later revisions, tends to longer readings, customarily two at each, which are usually read in continuous sequence. Most other denominations have no official office as such.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0