Ship of Fools: Anglican Eucharist--final blessing

Thread: Anglican Eucharist--final blessing 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=024967

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

My question is this: I can see that there are alternative blessings to conclude the entire Eucharist service, but those given on the C of E website here all seem to imply that they should conclude with "…and the blessing of God almighty, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, be among you and remain with you always". Is it a requirement of the presiding priest to say this? The reason I ask is that I have seen one local vicar repeatedly end the Anglican service with a final blessing that makes no mention whatsoever of the Holy Trinity.

Any ideas?

Thanks,

K.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Maybe he's hailing a taxi or a bus. I've seen that in a few places with priests sticking the hand in the air as if they want to answer a question. I've personally never understood why you wouldn't give a blessing invoking the Trinity. Seems fairly fundamental to Christianity.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

I don't think there's anything wrong with using a blessing which isn't explicitly Trinitarian sometimes, for example the Aaronic blessing, but certainly my normal practice is something ending "and the blessing of God Almighty, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit be upon you and remain with you always."

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

It is clearly intended that the Blessing ought to be explicitly Trinitarian although the use of the dreaded formula '... or other suitable words' would suggest some wiggle-room if one thought that a non-Trinitarian formula was equally suitable.

I would have be willing to tolerate such things from time to time, but if I ran into a priest such as the one referenced in the OP who made a point of never doing so, I think I'd be a bit concerned.

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

I always use a Trinitarian formula, which of late has been:

"Go in peace. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you now and always. Amen."

That's mainly because that is what is prescribed in UM liturgy. I have used other blessings, including one attributed to St. Patrick and the one mentioned in the OP.

[ 11. November 2012, 13:36: Message edited by: Barefoot Friar ]

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
I always use a Trinitarian formula, which of late has been:

"Go in peace. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you now and always. Amen."

. . .

Is that Trinitarian? Where is the mention of the Father?

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:

quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
I always use a Trinitarian formula, which of late has been:

"Go in peace. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you now and always. Amen."

. . .
Is that Trinitarian? Where is the mention of the Father?

This is known as the Apostolic Blessing and is most certainly trinitarian.

"God" here is understood as a reference to the Father, insofar as the divine nature originates in the Father. The word is used in the same way in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and the Cappadocian fathers. Byzantine practice makes this more explicit by wording it as "God the Father" but the intention is the same even when not explicitly defined.

I agree with seasick. There is plenty of precedent in the western liturgical tradition for no final blessing at all, and for non-trinitarian blessings. If Common Worship allows for flexibility at this point, then there seems nothing wrong with using something that doesn't end with "and the blessing...".

[ 11. November 2012, 16:17: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:

quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
I always use a Trinitarian formula, which of late has been:

"Go in peace. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you now and always. Amen."

. . .
Is that Trinitarian? Where is the mention of the Father?
This is known as the Apostolic Blessing and is most certainly trinitarian.

"God" here is understood as a reference to the Father, insofar as the divine nature originates in the Father. The word is used in the same way in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and the Cappadocian fathers. Byzantine practice makes this more explicit by wording it as "God the Father" but the intention is the same even when not explicitly defined.

. . . .

Yes, I suppose so, but I don't think it is permitted in Common Worship as a final blessing. It's used as a greeting in the Roman Rite. I have never heard it called the Apostolic Blessing. I would call it 'the Grace'

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Historically, I was told that the final blessing originated in a period when the majority of the congregation would not receive communion. The blessing was there so that the majority who did not receive the sacramental graces of communion, nevertheless received something .

Because of this, some in the liturgical movement have urged priests to do away with the final blessing altogether. The reasoning is that there is no higher blessing than to partake in the Lord's body and blood, therefore a separate blessing seems unnecessary after communion.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:

quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
I always use a Trinitarian formula, which of late has been:

"Go in peace. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you now and always. Amen."

. . .
Is that Trinitarian? Where is the mention of the Father?
This is known as the Apostolic Blessing and is most certainly trinitarian.

"God" here is understood as a reference to the Father, insofar as the divine nature originates in the Father. The word is used in the same way in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and the Cappadocian fathers. Byzantine practice makes this more explicit by wording it as "God the Father" but the intention is the same even when not explicitly defined.

. . . .
Yes, I suppose so, but I don't think it is permitted in Common Worship as a final blessing. It's used as a greeting in the Roman Rite. I have never heard it called the Apostolic Blessing. I would call it 'the Grace'

It is indeed what is usually referred to as 'the Grace'... and as it is given in the place of the blessing at the end of the BCP Offices I would be surprised if anyone tried to claim that it wasn't permitted!

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Because of this, some in the liturgical movement have urged priests to do away with the final blessing altogether. The reasoning is that there is no higher blessing than to partake in the Lord's body and blood, therefore a separate blessing seems unnecessary after communion.

Which was the case in the Series 2 Holy Communion.

Seems a bit unduly austere to my mind. And I'd rather a standard ending to the blessing rather than chop around. (For the same reason I don't care for ending "In the name of Christ. Amen." or starting the eucharistic prayer "The Lord is here".)

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

I never find the minimalist argument very convincing... what's wrong with being blessed by God more than once?

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:

quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
I always use a Trinitarian formula, which of late has been:

"Go in peace. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you now and always. Amen."

. . .
Is that Trinitarian? Where is the mention of the Father?
This is known as the Apostolic Blessing and is most certainly trinitarian.

"God" here is understood as a reference to the Father, insofar as the divine nature originates in the Father. The word is used in the same way in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and the Cappadocian fathers. Byzantine practice makes this more explicit by wording it as "God the Father" but the intention is the same even when not explicitly defined.

. . . .
Yes, I suppose so, but I don't think it is permitted in Common Worship as a final blessing. It's used as a greeting in the Roman Rite. I have never heard it called the Apostolic Blessing. I would call it 'the Grace'
It is indeed what is usually referred to as 'the Grace'... and as it is given in the place of the blessing at the end of the BCP Offices I would be surprised if anyone tried to claim that it wasn't permitted!

In place of the blessing is one thing, as a blessing is surely another. Would baptism in the name of "God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit" be permitted or even valid?

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
(For the same reason I don't care for ending "In the name of Christ. Amen." or starting the eucharistic prayer "The Lord is here".)

What does one end "In the name of Christ. Amen."?

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

There's a dismissal which goes:

Go in peace to love and serve the Lord.
In the name of Christ. Amen.

I assumed that was to what venbede was referring.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Historically, I was told that the final blessing originated in a period when the majority of the congregation would not receive communion. The blessing was there so that the majority who did not receive the sacramental graces of communion, nevertheless received something .

Well, this is erroneous and a made up reason. The formal blessing did not become part of the Roman Rite until 1607, which was after the Council of Trent had encouraged the frequent reception of Communion. The blessing has nothing whatsoever to do with everyone getting "something" even if they had not received Communion.

The blessing crept in, as so many things in the Roman Rite did, from the Pontifical Mass in Rome. It originates from the normal custom of the Pontiff blessing people as he passes in procession - this was done, as it still is, in any procession with the Pope. From that came the custom of stopping at three places for a Solemn Blessing (which is why Bishops still bless with 3 signs of the cross). Rather like the Last Gospel, which was originally part of the priest's thanksgiving on the way out, but ended up being done at the altar, so with the blessing.

In the modern Roman Rite there is the option of a threefold "Solemn Blessing", which is a modern interpretation of the three stops during the procession for blessings.

This was, as I say, part of the Pontifical Rite, but eventually priests started doing it as well. The "final blessing" was only inserted into the Roman Rite by Pope Clement's reforms in the seventeenth century. There it has remained, although its position has shifted slightly: in Pope Clement's Missal and subsequent revisions up to 1962, it actually came after the dismissal Ite, Missa est - an element which is of course absent from earlier Anglican Rites, until recent revisions. This positioning was connected with the fact that it was originally a post-Mass action, not part of the Mass itself.

Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
There's a dismissal which goes:

Go in peace to love and serve the Lord.
In the name of Christ. Amen.

I assumed that was to what venbede was referring.

There are several dismissals like that, but they are not blessings. Such dismissals are to be used by the deacon or a priest acting in place of the deacon, according to the rite employed, before, after or in place of a proper Trinitarian blessing.
*

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

I think seasick was replying to the question immediately above his post. He is fairly savvy when it comes to liturgy!

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

Triple Tiara is, of course, correct. [Big Grin]

You may rest easily in your bed tonight, Mr Rob, knowing that this morning I blessed the congregation with a Trinitarian formula (God grant to the living grace... and the blessing...) and then told them to go in the peace of Christ.

TT: That's a very interesting history of the place of the blessing in the Roman Rite. I note that there is a blessing at the end of the 1549 BCP service of Holy Communion - would you say that was then a Cranmerian invention not imported from earlier (Catholic) rites?

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Mmm I think saying it was an invention is perhaps a bit strong. I think it might be similar to the "Collect for Purity" - Cranmer formally inserting into the Rite itself what was a preparatory prayer. The blessing had been "creeping in" to the Roman Rite, but was only formally added to it in 1607, codifying what was an "organic development", to use a phrase beloved of our more trad brethren. Cranmer might have done earlier what Pope Clement did later

[ 11. November 2012, 21:07: Message edited by: Triple Tiara ]

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

Although the form of blessing was fixed in Pope Clement's edition of the missal, Jungmann points out that the blessing was in monastic Orders of Mass in the Middle Ages, and the Roman Ordo in the 1400s and 1500s, including printed Roman Missals in 1530 and 1540. So a blessing at the end of Mass was already known by the time of he first BCP.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Yes, as I said, it was making a kind of stealth inclusion. The first instance of it appearing in a Missal was, I think, as early as the tenth century - but that was as a kind of local custom rather than formally in the Roman Rite itself.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

Cranmer combined the Placebo and the Blessing given before Communion by the bishop in Sarum Rite to produce the final blessing in the 1549 BCP. I tend to think that Anglican rites should have either a blessing or a dismissal, but that having both is a relatively modern duplication.

PD

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
In place of the blessing is one thing, as a blessing is surely another. Would baptism in the name of "God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit" be permitted or even valid?

No, but the requirement for baptism is not simply that the formula is trinitarian but that it is explicitly "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." I think you'd have a hard time arguing that "in the name of the most Holy and Indivisible Trinity" wasn't trinitarian but it would be a baptism which was dubious at best. Certainly for British Methodists, our standing orders require the first formula, which I think is in common with most other traditions.

As a scriptural text (2 Corinthians 13:13), I think it's hard to argue that the Grace is somehow inappropriate.

[ 12. November 2012, 06:55: Message edited by: seasick ]

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

There has of course also been the thirty year in-creeping of non gender-specific formulae such as the enduring Creator, Redeemer and Giver of Life, or the more trendified Earth-maker, Pain-bearer, Hope-bringer. But to allocate defined roles to the persons of the Trinity can be fraught with modalist implications ...

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
In place of the blessing is one thing, as a blessing is surely another. Would baptism in the name of "God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit" be permitted or even valid?
No, but the requirement for baptism is not simply that the formula is trinitarian but that it is explicitly "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." I think you'd have a hard time arguing that "in the name of the most Holy and Indivisible Trinity" wasn't trinitarian but it would be a baptism which was dubious at best. Certainly for British Methodists, our standing orders require the first formula, which I think is in common with most other traditions.

As a scriptural text (2 Corinthians 13:13), I think it's hard to argue that the Grace is somehow inappropriate.

It's certainly not 'inappropriate', but I think it's only implicitly Trinitarian. That's why it's not really an 'appropriate' liturgical blessing or baptismal formula (which are occasions to be explicit).

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

Not exactly on topic, but related to this part of the Eucharist...

I have come across 'last gospels' in Common Worship Eucharists, from time to time. Not like the old fashioned last gospel of the roman rite.

These have been proclaimed like the first gospel, and just before the blessing. I found it difficult to see the point and simply extended the ending.

Have they historical precedent? Can anyone persuade me that they are a good thing!

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
Not exactly on topic, but related to this part of the Eucharist...

I have come across 'last gospels' in Common Worship Eucharists, from time to time. Not like the old fashioned last gospel of the roman rite.

These have been proclaimed like the first gospel, and just before the blessing. I found it difficult to see the point and simply extended the ending.

Have they historical precedent? Can anyone persuade me that they are a good thing!

Under Canon B5, the minister has discretion to make variations not of "substantial importance" so long as they are reverent, seemly and not contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter. I think you can happily read this to take the provision for a dismissal gospel to be permission for a Last Gospel exactly after the form of the Roman Rite (with John 1 every week, even!).

If a church is doing a Last Gospel with the same ceremony as the principal Gospel reading (e.g. with lights and incense in the middle of the nave), they're Getting It Wrong, I think.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

Percy - That's not remotely on topic!

Corvo - I'd say it was rather more than implicitly Trinitarian for the reasons given by Scrumpmeister. I'd argue that St Paul is using it in a quasi-liturgical way by ending that letter with it and its long use in the Christian liturgy gives it considerable precedent. For Anglicans, I would have thought, its use in that way in the BCP offices as dj_ordinaire pointed out, would be quite significant as to its appropriateness.

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:

Corvo - I'd say it was rather more than implicitly Trinitarian for the reasons given by Scrumpmeister. I'd argue that St Paul is using it in a quasi-liturgical way by ending that letter with it and its long use in the Christian liturgy gives it considerable precedent. For Anglicans, I would have thought, its use in that way in the BCP offices as dj_ordinaire pointed out, would be quite significant as to its appropriateness.

I have no particular axe to grind here. I'm really just observing that the Grace appears in the BCP and CW office when it could be said by a lay person and is not blessing, and does not appear at the end of the Eucharist as a blessing to be given by a priest - or as a baptismal formula. I think it is not strictly speaking an explicit Trinitarian formula and should not be equated with one. I think it has its place, but a liturgical blessing is not one of them.

[ 12. November 2012, 08:14: Message edited by: Corvo ]

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

Interesting--but I'm still not clear as to whether or not it is a requirement in the C of E to deliver the Trinitarian blessing as part of the final blessing. It seems to be the case, but then, I'm never sure that anything is really mandated that clearly in the C of E.

Thanks,

K.

Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:

... You may rest easily in your bed tonight, Mr Rob, knowing that this morning I blessed the congregation with a Trinitarian formula (God grant to the living grace... and the blessing...) and then told them to go in the peace of Christ ...

Well that sounds OK, and I got good rest, but I think you might misunderstand me about the matter of the dismissal and/or blessing to conclude the Eucharist.

Use of one of the several appropriate dismissals by a priest or deacon alone, without a blessing, at a "Low" Mass, or even at a sung Mass, is most ancient and appropriate. The dismissal does not, and usually is not, "Trinitarian." The presence of the bishop when presider should normally determine when or require his/her Trinitarian blessing is apropriate, with the dismissal by the deacon or priest to follow.

We now have the rubrical flexibility we need to use to get rid of the constant use of the weary old and time worn Cranmerian blessing ...

" The peace of God, which passeth aaall understanding ... "

invariably alone and unchanging at the end of the Eucharist. We now can use an appropriate dismissal, a blessing and dismissal, or a seasonal prayer over the people and blessing, followed by the dismissal, or even the full works of the pontifical blessing followed by a dismissal when the bishop is present and presides.

Anglican Eucharistic liturgy options available from the various national provinces and in England itself, now give us a greatly enriched selection of components that can be adapted and used and for the celebration of Mass according to the permissive rubrics in our particular national prayer books.

*

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
I have never heard it called the Apostolic Blessing. I would call it 'the Grace'

In my experience, it is usually referred to as "the Apostolic Blessing" in texts discussing liturgics but I'm aware that in some traditions it is commonly referred to by its incipit. This is true of many texts which have a proper name and a common incipit.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

How long has the blessing at the beginning and the end been part of Orthodox liturgy? I note that the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom has it.

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
Percy - That's not remotely on topic!

Sorry, I connected the two - as part of the dismissal rite, but I see your point
[Smile]

I'll start another thread.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
I have no particular axe to grind here. I'm really just observing that the Grace appears in the BCP and CW office when it could be said by a lay person and is not blessing....

Lay people quite often say quite explicit blessings in Anglican services, and quite often pronounce the dismissal. So that the Grace is used in all sorts of situations where lay people say it. is no proof that Anglicans don;t regard it as a blessing, or a dismissal, or anything else.

Though on the other hand I suspect we mostly don't as its common for the whole congregation to say the Grace together, which doesn't give the impression that its thought of as a blessing.

Though on the third hand there is the mildy irritating habit of asking everyne inthe congregation to say the Grace to the people next to them, which is sort of like everyone blessing everyone else.

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
I have never heard it called the Apostolic Blessing. I would call it 'the Grace'
In my experience, it is usually referred to as "the Apostolic Blessing" in texts discussing liturgics but I'm aware that in some traditions it is commonly referred to by its incipit. This is true of many texts which have a proper name and a common incipit.

But in this case what you are calling its proper name is likely to be unknown to almost everyone. It must be the best-known and most recognisable bit of Christian liturgy after the Lord's Prayer. Pretty much everyone from Baptists on up will be familiar with it, and in English call it "the Grace".

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

I’m not sure it really warrants this much effort, to be honest. Same thing with two names - that's all. The point I was making wasn't that it must be called one thing or another but rather that it is trinitarian, contra what had been implied previously.

As for your question, fletcher christian, I don't really know. Certainly the blessing of the reign of God at the beginning of the Eucharist is mirrored in other rites of the sacraments, and I assume this to be fairly ancient.

As for the dismissal, (which is the name of the closing blessing in Byzantine services), I truly don't know. My reading of the development of our rites hasn't yet extended to the post-communion elements. I do know that it is never trinitarian - at least not in the sense that the usual CofE formula is. They are all Christological instead. They vary by day of the week, feast, and season, and while some may refer to Christ's relationship in eternity or in time to one or other of the other Divine Persons, the blessing is still "May Christ our True God ... have mercy on us and save us...".

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Historically, I was told that the final blessing originated in a period when the majority of the congregation would not receive communion. The blessing was there so that the majority who did not receive the sacramental graces of communion, nevertheless received something .

Because of this, some in the liturgical movement have urged priests to do away with the final blessing altogether. The reasoning is that there is no higher blessing than to partake in the Lord's body and blood, therefore a separate blessing seems unnecessary after communion.

I'm sorry--Hatchett or Galley? I know this theory was trotted around in the 70s--hence no blessing printed in TEC's Rite II, but I don't get it. So after communion, there should be no blessing? Take no holy water at the door then?

I have heard of a few priests trying to omit the blessing at the end, but members of the Congo thren asked for it vocally, "You forgot to bless us!"

I think it is a lovely way to start the end of the Meeting. A blessing kind of rounds things off before announcements, a hymn and a dismissal, waiting for the lights to be put out, a musical postlude of some sort, and a moment or two on one's knees and so on.

And Mass without blessing by a new priest after ordination wouldn't be right!

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Historically, I was told that the final blessing originated in a period when the majority of the congregation would not receive communion. The blessing was there so that the majority who did not receive the sacramental graces of communion, nevertheless received something .

Because of this, some in the liturgical movement have urged priests to do away with the final blessing altogether. The reasoning is that there is no higher blessing than to partake in the Lord's body and blood, therefore a separate blessing seems unnecessary after communion.
I'm sorry--Hatchett or Galley? I know this theory was trotted around in the 70s--hence no blessing printed in TEC's Rite II, but I don't get it. So after communion, there should be no blessing? Take no holy water at the door then?

I have heard of a few priests trying to omit the blessing at the end, but members of the Congo thren asked for it vocally, "You forgot to bless us!"

I think it is a lovely way to start the end of the Meeting. A blessing kind of rounds things off before announcements, a hymn and a dismissal, waiting for the lights to be put out, a musical postlude of some sort, and a moment or two on one's knees and so on.

And Mass without blessing by a new priest after ordination wouldn't be right!

Agreed, Mama Thomas. This is a perfect example of why I get so impatient and annoyed with the rationalizing approach to liturgics--"Oh heavens, dismissing the people and then blessing them makes no sense!" Well, perhaps from a certain point of view it doesn't, but divine service isn't a lecture on formal logic. It has its own shape and makes its own sense, and many people found it perfectly satisfying before the tinkering began.

Of course, I love the baroqueness of the Tridentine Mass, and the overloaded wedding cake that is the Divine Liturgy. I'm aware that others feel different ways--so shoot me. [Smile]

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Of course, I love the baroqueness of the Tridentine Mass,

I don't want to be mischievous and I think it's silly not to have a blessing but...

As our informed Roman Catholic friends have pointed out, the mass as approved by the Council of Trent didn't actually have a concluding blessing.

I've seen Anglicans celebrate the Vatican II style mass in a far more baroque manner than I've seen the Latin Mass Society.

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Agreed, Mama Thomas. This is a perfect example of why I get so impatient and annoyed with the rationalizing approach to liturgics--"Oh heavens, dismissing the people and then blessing them makes no sense!" Well, perhaps from a certain point of view it doesn't, but divine service isn't a lecture on formal logic. It has its own shape and makes its own sense, and many people found it perfectly satisfying before the tinkering began

The Anglican Church of Melanesia concludes its Liturgy with what is called the "Dismissal-Blessing."

GO in peace; love and serve the Lord, be full of joy in the power of the Holy Spirit.
And the Blessing of God Almighty, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, be with you and stay with you for ever. Amen.

Only someone with OCD with balk at its order. [B][/B]

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

Fr Weber,

Agreed--but is a final Trinitarian blessing a requirement in the C of E?

K.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Fr Weber,

Agreed--but is a final Trinitarian blessing a requirement in the C of E?

K.

Yes, in 1662. Common Worship, with (deliberate) ambiguity, says 'the president may use the seasonal blessing, or another suitable blessing'. That could mean, 'says a blessing, which may be seasonal or otherwise', or 'may say a blessing...'

The implication seems to be that it is the norm. All of the seasonal blessings conclude with the trinitarian formula.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Fr Weber,

Agreed--but is a final Trinitarian blessing a requirement in the C of E?

K.
Yes, in 1662. Common Worship, with (deliberate) ambiguity, says 'the president may use the seasonal blessing, or another suitable blessing'. That could mean, 'says a blessing, which may be seasonal or otherwise', or 'may say a blessing...'

The implication seems to be that it is the norm. All of the seasonal blessings conclude with the trinitarian formula.

Merci!

Posted by Snackristan (# 14051) on :

Our* supplemental book called "Enriching Our Worship" contains a few optional blessings that don't include a trinitarian reference. Strangely, several of these have little postscripts that describe their source, which is either simply "Celtic" or "St. Clare of Assisi".

Nobody has ever been able to tell me precisely where they come from, which makes me think that they're in fact completely modern and made up, and have nothing to do with "celtic" anything or with St. Clare.

Anyway, we also have some lovely blessings in our Book of Occasional Services, all of which conclude Trinitarianly.

* The Episcopal Church

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Snackristan:
Our* supplemental book called "Enriching Our Worship" contains a few optional blessings that don't include a trinitarian reference. Strangely, several of these have little postscripts that describe their source, which is either simply "Celtic" or "St. Clare of Assisi".

Ugh. I can't understand for the life of me why people think the blessing needs to be tinkered with; because the clergy are bored? Because the congregation no longer believes in the Trinity? It reminds me of the dismal fad for alternative "creeds" like the one from Colossians 1 or the infamous "Prayer of Belief."

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0