Thread: Of the Eucharistic Prayer 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=025736
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on
:
It seems odd to me that churches which are in Communion with each other do not always allow one another's Eucharistic Prayers to be used.
I think the C of E only allows its own EPs to be used and not those of other churches, not even those of other Anglican Communion churches.
Similarly I personally can't see why greater interchangeability is not allowed within churches. For example, our dear friend Wilipedia says that the Vatican examined the E.P. of Adai and Mari and said actually its not as bad as people were saying and its OK as a Eucharistic prayer. However, although the Vatican allows loads of E.Ps only a small number are permitted in the Roman Missal.
So what's the problem?
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
I am under the impression that EPs from any Church in communion with the CofE can be used but only with episcopal permission - it seems to be related to a desire to maintain some structure and uniformity rather than about whether other such prayers are valid or not...
Has anyone encountered any such interpolations, eg for use with expat congregations from other parts of the world? I think some mention was made of some materials from the Episcopal New Zealand BCP being used in the course of a previous thread on a related topic...
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
The Covenanting Churches in Wales (Cytun) have a shared form of Eucharist though to me it seems overwhelmingly Anglican and bears little resemblance to some of the Baptist communion services I have been in attendance at in the past...
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
It matches the unity proposals that came from that same body... ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
It matches the unity proposals that came from that same body...
Unity which has a very Anglican flavour - not that I'm complaining, just pointing out it seems to me that some of the other denominations seem to be selling out a little on how they do things... but then if they couldn't accept it they wouldn't be doing it...
Anyhow, nice to see non-conformists beginning to conform again!
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
Quite! I'm afraid I wouldn't rate its chances in our Synod...
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
Percy B, I think, at least where Catholicism is concerned, your question arises because you are confusing two things: whether a particular Eucharistic prayer/anaphora is sufficient for sacramental validity, on the one and, and the integrity of the rite on the other.
In the case of the Chaldeans and the Assyrians of the East, what the Holy See was saying in this notification is that the anaphora of Addai and Mari, despite its form, is valid form of Eucharistic Prayer from a Catholic perspective. It is not, however, a prayer of the Roman Rite and therefore cannot be used in that rite, anymore than a Byzantine anaphora might. Each rite is an integral whole. It is not simply a collection of prayers which might be replaced by another prayer from another source simply because the replacement prayer contains the necessary bits.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I dunno Sergius-Melli, some Baptist churches I know would shamelessly pinch elements of Anglican eucharistic practice - even down to the 'Prayer of Humble Access' - although these are used in a more bolt-on kind of way.
I myself have read a passage from the Roman Missal at a Baptist communion service. Nobody noticed. Well, a few former RCs did ... in fact it was given to me to read by a former RC who once accused me of believing in transubstantiation because (as a closet Anglican?) I'd articulated the Anglican position ...
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Percy B, I think, at least where Catholicism is concerned, your question arises because you are confusing two things: whether a particular Eucharistic prayer/anaphora is sufficient for sacramental validity, on the one and, and the integrity of the rite on the other.
In the case of the Chaldeans and the Assyrians of the East, what the Holy See was saying in this notification is that the anaphora of Addai and Mari, despite its form, is valid form of Eucharistic Prayer from a Catholic perspective. It is not, however, a prayer of the Roman Rite and therefore cannot be used in that rite, anymore than a Byzantine anaphora might. Each rite is an integral whole. It is not simply a collection of prayers which might be replaced by another prayer from another source simply because the replacement prayer contains the necessary bits.
Thanks Trisagion. Would I then be correct in thinking that a (Roman Rite) RC Mass which contrived to incorporate the Canon of Addai and Mari would be illicit but not necessarily invalid, whereas one which used an Anglican or Methodist EP would be of at least doubtful validity?
Posted by sonata3 (# 13653) on
:
Interesting question. I attended an Episcopal Church in the early 1990s where the rector had a real love of the New Zealand Prayerbook, and used one of its Eucharistic Prayers. The bishop found out, and came down on her pretty hard.
It's worth noting that there are subtle differences in the kinds of EP's different churches in the Anglican Communion have - compare the EP's in the Canadian BAS with those in the American '79 book. Typically the oblation and epiclesis will both be stronger in the American prayers.
This is related to the ELCA-TEC situation. In trial use materials which circulated before the 2006 Evangelical Lutheran Worship was approved, one of the TEC EP's was included, given the full communion relationship between the two denominations. But the presence of an oblation in the TEC prayer was too much - it was left out of ELW. None of the EP's in ELW have an oblation, and the epiclesis is invariably of the "weak" variety (although I have known some Lutheran pastors who rewrite the epiclesis to make it stronger -- since ELW is only "commended for use," and does not have the legal status that a BCP has, they can do this).
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Thanks Trisagion. Would I then be correct in thinking that a (Roman Rite) RC Mass which contrived to incorporate the Canon of Addai and Mari would be illicit but not necessarily invalid, whereas one which used an Anglican or Methodist EP would be of at least doubtful validity?
To the former: it would certainly be illicit. It would be a grave abuse. The relevant canon (846.1) reads:
quote:
The liturgical books, approved by the competent authority, are to be faithfully followed in the celebration of the sacraments. Accordingly, no one may on a personal initiative add to or omit or alter anything in those books.
It is unlikely to be invalid, in view of the CDF declaration.
To the latter, it would be similarly illicit. Validity would depend on the Eucharistic prayer. It too would be a grave abuse.
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sonata3:
This is related to the ELCA-TEC situation. ...None of the EP's in ELW have an oblation, and the epiclesis is invariably of the "weak" variety (although I have known some Lutheran pastors who rewrite the epiclesis to make it stronger -- since ELW is only "commended for use," and does not have the legal status that a BCP has, they can do this).
Olaf rocks self gently, chanting: Find a happy place...find a happy place...find a happy place
Yes, I'm afraid the "Thanksgiving at the Table" section in ELW leaves a lot to be desired. Of course, in this region, I rarely encounter a pastor who will use anything but the Verba alone, anyway.
The sad truth is that their reason is simply: "It's shorter."
On the topic of ecumenism, I vaguely recall reading somewhere that the resources of our full communion partners are available to us. The average ELCA Lutheran in the pews wouldn't notice a theological difference, and even if noticed, probably wouldn't mind.
Trinity Church-Wall Street certainly experimented with the ELW prayers last year.
[ 03. January 2013, 22:45: Message edited by: Olaf ]
Posted by Imersge Canfield (# 17431) on
:
I just love this !
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011025_chiesa-caldea-assira_en. html
Now read on ...
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Thanks Trisagion. Would I then be correct in thinking that a (Roman Rite) RC Mass which contrived to incorporate the Canon of Addai and Mari would be illicit but not necessarily invalid, whereas one which used an Anglican or Methodist EP would be of at least doubtful validity?
To the former: it would certainly be illicit. It would be a grave abuse. The relevant canon (846.1) reads:
quote:
The liturgical books, approved by the competent authority, are to be faithfully followed in the celebration of the sacraments. Accordingly, no one may on a personal initiative add to or omit or alter anything in those books.
It is unlikely to be invalid, in view of the CDF declaration.
To the latter, it would be similarly illicit. Validity would depend on the Eucharistic prayer. It too would be a grave abuse.
Thank you Trisagion and others.
The Anglican Communion tends not to use such heavy terms as illicit and grave abuse, and I suspect is less botched about interchanging Eucharistic Prayers.
I think the Church of England is open to more variety than officially first appears, in this area.
After all we have had bishops using RC Eucharistic prayers, churches which don't bother to use a Eucharistic prayer ... Also, less contentiously, the C of E herself moved a long way in this area with the introduction of Common Worship which began opening the door to all sorts of EPs that had not been heard before in the C of E and whose structure and theology differed from previous EPs.
As I understand it the C of E allows any prefaces, including home made ones.
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Thanks Trisagion. Would I then be correct in thinking that a (Roman Rite) RC Mass which contrived to incorporate the Canon of Addai and Mari would be illicit but not necessarily invalid, whereas one which used an Anglican or Methodist EP would be of at least doubtful validity?
To the former: it would certainly be illicit. It would be a grave abuse. The relevant canon (846.1) reads:
quote:
The liturgical books, approved by the competent authority, are to be faithfully followed in the celebration of the sacraments. Accordingly, no one may on a personal initiative add to or omit or alter anything in those books.
It is unlikely to be invalid, in view of the CDF declaration.
To the latter, it would be similarly illicit. Validity would depend on the Eucharistic prayer. It too would be a grave abuse.
Depends on how Traddy one is I suppose. Many of the Rad Trads regard the Anaphora of Addai and Mari as totally invalid due to the absence of the Institution Narrative. IIRC scholarship points to the Anaphora originally having an IN which was at some early stage removed. Certainly the Chaldeans have reinserted the IN and I believe that at one point it was tacitly agreed by the Assyrians that should communion be restored they will reinsert it too.
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on
:
Am I right in thinking some Anglican EPs have, with small alterations, been declared acceptable to RC authorities.
What is it that had to be altered before being acceptable?
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
The Anglican Communion tends not to use such heavy terms as illicit and grave abuse, and I suspect is less botched about interchanging Eucharistic Prayers.
Didn't you use to arrest clerics for doing benediction?
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
I dislike a couple of the new CW Eucharistic Prayers and a number of my clerical aquaintance describe them as 'virtually un-useable'.
In a church I attend, not particuarly 'High', the presiding priest usually changes the order of a couple of them in order to put the epicleisis before the dominical words. This is only a slight almost unnoticable alteration.
On the rare occasions when the EP has been used that has the congregation continuously butting in, it is her custom to recite it as a complete prayer without the interpolations. I have heard this done in a number of churches, and one Anglican friary.
Some of the Methodist EPs seem better, and in the days of the ASB 1980 described as 'more catholic' by a couple of university chaplains. The Roman Catholic Eucharistic Prayer 3 (Canon of St Hippolytus?) was, I believe, an attempt at something ecumenical - but I can't quote any authority for this. It formed the basis of one of the prayers in the ASB subsequently revised and included in CW.
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
The notes from my last liturgical history class say:
EP I: Ambrosian Roman
II: ~Ap. Trad.
III: Gallican-ish
IV: Cappodocian-ish.
Ap. Trad. is Apostolic Tradition, the work once attributed to Hippolytus.
This document from the Archdiocese of New York might be helpful too.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
If it's unusable (and I think I know the one you mean and I agree) don't jolly well use it.
Messing around with the text of the post-Sanctus seems very silly and unnecessary.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
Yes, Eucharistic Prayer 2 in the Roman Rite. Eucharistic Prayer 3 seems particuarly beautiful and flowing.
I think the priest's changing a little bit around is because she doesn't object to the prayer completely, but in the order in which it appears - therefore she places the epiclesis before the dominical words, in what one presumes is the 'correct' Western position.
Similarly, she has no objection to the words of responsive EP, apart from the fact that it is responsive. I certainly seems to work quite well as a continuous prayer, the responses merely diminishing what is quite good modern poetry with rather banal interpolations. Perhaps an effective liturgy - or English language - teacher would just red pen them.
Also we have one prayer which seems to omit the Benedictus at the end of the Sanctus. That is restored in the congregational booklets. Its absence charitably described by her as 'a printing error'.
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
Am I right in thinking some Anglican EPs have, with small alterations, been declared acceptable to RC authorities.
What is it that had to be altered before being acceptable?
Not to my knowledge. Any approved Anglican Use eucharistic liturgy uses the Coverdale translation of the Roman Canon or other approved EPs from the modern Roman Missal (most of which are uniformly terrible relics of the 60s and 70s).
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
Whatever else Bishop Miles Coverdale translated as well as the psalms, it sure to goodness wasn't the Roman Canon.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
I am not entirely sure that is correct.
In William Oddie's book 'The Roman Option', there is an appendix setting out the Vanon of the Mass which is attributed to Miles Coverdale.
I understand it has been used in trhe USA with Roman approval.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
The Anglican Communion tends not to use such heavy terms as illicit and grave abuse, and I suspect is less botched about interchanging Eucharistic Prayers.
Didn't you use to arrest clerics for doing benediction?
Not just benediction, but lighting candles and wearing stoles. But that was then. Now even evangelical bishops are happy to preside at Benediction.
The 19th century Anglican Liturgical Police would use phrases like Popery and Disloyalty. 'Illicit and grave abuse' might well be what they thought but not a phrase they would use.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Sorry for double post but I've just thought: Hart raises an interesting and serious point. We like to claim the C of E (and anglicanism generally) is very laid back and 'liberal' (except about sex), and doesn't take the same legalistic attitude to things as the RCC. But 150 years ago things were very different, and in liturgical matters we were as legalistic as anybody up to at least 50 years ago. I'm just reading the biography of Bishop Mervyn Stockwood (outspoken leader of the 'liberal' diocese of Southwark), and he forced a priest to resign over using the Roman Missal. Not only that but he issued a decree to all his clergy, in the early 60s, that they should use only the rite of 1662 without alteration, not even the common practice of the so-called 'interim rite'.
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Whatever else Bishop Miles Coverdale translated as well as the psalms, it sure to goodness wasn't the Roman Canon.
He did. It was when he was an Augustinian friar.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
The Church of England is very laid back and 'liberal' (except about sex), and doesn't take the same legalistic attitude to things as the RCC.
The Act of Uniformity? Bunyan in prison? Margaret Clitheroe pressed to death by weights?
Anglican tolerance is only a result of its inability to suppress genuine religious impulses. Thank God.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
The Church of England is very laid back and 'liberal' (except about sex), and doesn't take the same legalistic attitude to things as the RCC.
The Act of Uniformity? Bunyan in prison? Margaret Clitheroe pressed to death by weights?
Anglican tolerance is only a result of its inability to suppress genuine religious impulses. Thank God.
My point exactly (well, what I was implying). You quoted me out of context. I was referring to 150 years ago when things were different; as you suggest, they were even more different 400 years ago.
[ 05. January 2013, 21:37: Message edited by: Angloid ]
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Whatever else Bishop Miles Coverdale translated as well as the psalms, it sure to goodness wasn't the Roman Canon.
He did. It was when he was an Augustinian friar.
I didn't know that, thank you. However I seriously doubt whether his translation was ever authorised for liturgical use. Is it the one Father Kendrick used in English Missal?
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
The Church of England is very laid back and 'liberal' (except about sex), and doesn't take the same legalistic attitude to things as the RCC.
The Act of Uniformity? Bunyan in prison? Margaret Clitheroe pressed to death by weights?
Anglican tolerance is only a result of its inability to suppress genuine religious impulses. Thank God.
I think Angloid refers to the C of E of today rather than of history and in that respect I agree.
I doubt if any priest has got into any serious trouble for using an authorised Eucharistic Prayer. Indeed bishops have been known to use them.
Maybe the time has now come to legalise the irregularities and allow for a free, extempore or very varied EP, rather like TEC has.
Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on
:
No, please don't do that. Please, please, please.
The UMC has that option. You know what the lowest common denominator is? You'd think that most of the clergy follow at least Rite II, which is the minimum, bare-bones Great Thanksgiving. No. Not at all.
Instead you're lucky to get the Words of Institution and Epiclesis. In fact, in a lot of places, it's more or less along the lines of "here it is, come and get it!"
No, don't legalize the irregularities and allow extempore Eucharistic prayers. It won't end well.
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on
:
I am not actually a supporter of extempore prayers but didn't that often quoted liturgical source Hippolytus suggest a Bishop extemporise and if he cannot then use the form Hippolytus wrote.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
It seems odd to me that churches which are in Communion with each other do not always allow one another's Eucharistic Prayers to be used.
I think the C of E only allows its own EPs to be used and not those of other churches, not even those of other Anglican Communion churches.
Similarly I personally can't see why greater interchangeability is not allowed within churches. For example, our dear friend Wilipedia says that the Vatican examined the E.P. of Adai and Mari and said actually its not as bad as people were saying and its OK as a Eucharistic prayer. However, although the Vatican allows loads of E.Ps only a small number are permitted in the Roman Missal.
So what's the problem?
I don't see why this is odd at all, but that might be affected by my location. Twenty miles from here on the other side of the Severn Estuary, related but quite different books are in use. Our clergy can't use theirs. If they can use ours, that is a matter for their bishops. If I go over the water, I expect to attend services using their books and that's how it is. It's what follows from having provinces.
Also, Common Worship provides so much flexibility, so many alternatives to suit seasons or more or less formal occasions, what possible reason is there for anyone to feel they want or need to go outside it. I know people do, but why?
As I've said before, in respect of one particular example of this, I agree with +London.
Posted by Stranger in a strange land (# 11922) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Whatever else Bishop Miles Coverdale translated as well as the psalms, it sure to goodness wasn't the Roman Canon.
He did. It was when he was an Augustinian friar.
I didn't know that, thank you. However I seriously doubt whether his translation was ever authorised for liturgical use. Is it the one Father Kendrick used in English Missal?
I believe there are some differences but only on the basis of hearsay. As I will - apparently - be using it on Thursday perhaps I ought to do some research.
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
Similarly I personally can't see why greater interchangeability is not allowed within churches. For example, our dear friend Wilipedia says that the Vatican examined the E.P. of Adai and Mari and said actually its not as bad as people were saying and its OK as a Eucharistic prayer. However, although the Vatican allows loads of E.Ps only a small number are permitted in the Roman Missal.
So what's the problem?
I don't see why this is odd at all, but that might be affected by my location. Twenty miles from here on the other side of the Severn Estuary, related but quite different books are in use. Our clergy can't use theirs. If they can use ours, that is a matter for their bishops. If I go over the water, I expect to attend services using their books and that's how it is. It's what follows from having provinces.
Also, Common Worship provides so much flexibility, so many alternatives to suit seasons or more or less formal occasions, what possible reason is there for anyone to feel they want or need to go outside it. I know people do, but why?
As I've said before, in respect of one particular example of this, I agree with +London.
Part of the problem is That not all would agree with your statements about how good Common Worship is. If you hold the view - common among Western Catholic minded Christians that the epiclesis should precede the Dominical words then you reduce Common Worship's possible offerings greatly, and you may want to look elsewhere for your variety.
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
Why this search for variety, Percy B. Roman Rite Catholicism survived, thrived and expanded for fourteen or fifteen hundred years with only one Eucharistic Prayer. Is it some form of eclecticism or striving for novelty? What is it?
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
There are eight Eucharistic Prayers in Common Worship of which four have the epiclesis before the dominical words. Given that the ASB had three Eucharistic prayers it would seem that, even if you only use those EPs, there is more choice in Common Worship than there has been at any other time in the life of the Church of England, particularly if we remember that for most of its history the 1662 service (which has no epiclesis at all, or at least only an implicit one) was the only option.
[ 12. January 2013, 08:28: Message edited by: seasick ]
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
The Church of England is very laid back and 'liberal' (except about sex), and doesn't take the same legalistic attitude to things as the RCC.
The Act of Uniformity? Bunyan in prison? Margaret Clitheroe pressed to death by weights?
Anglican tolerance is only a result of its inability to suppress genuine religious impulses. Thank God.
My point exactly (well, what I was implying). You quoted me out of context. I was referring to 150 years ago when things were different; as you suggest, they were even more different 400 years ago.
Anglican tolerance? Really? Witness the mardy-baby like reaction when the House of Laity voted a certain way recently.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Tangent, sebby! But I take your point and IIRC in that discussion I was not defending the C of E's 'liberalism' as such but noting the difference between current Anglican attitudes and the RCC. I entirely agree with your implication that liberal intolerance can be as strong as any other sort.
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
Ahem. This thread is entitled "Of the Eucharistic Prayer."
The recent vote in the House of Laity of the General Synod of the Church of England was on a matter that is a Dead Horse on these boards so I know no one would want to even think of discussing it here in Ecclesiantics.
The more general question of whether tolerance is a (defining) feature of the Anglican tradition would belong on its own thread in Purgatory.
Much obliged.
seasick, Eccles host
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Thanks for the warning, seasick, and I apologise for prolonging the tangent. I have started a new thread in the Styx to ask the best way of dealing with such tangents which call for a quick, if irrelevant to the thread, response.
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
There are eight Eucharistic Prayers in Common Worship of which four have the epiclesis before the dominical words. Given that the ASB had three Eucharistic prayers it would seem that, even if you only use those EPs, there is more choice in Common Worship than there has been at any other time in the life of the Church of England, particularly if we remember that for most of its history the 1662 service (which has no epiclesis at all, or at least only an implicit one) was the only option.
Indeed, but we have moved into an age which offers more and more variety in liturgy, but seems strangely restrictive, I suggest, when it comes to the Eucharistic prayer.
Some Church of England's obviously find this, and so they choose to use different none CW Eucharistic prayers, or a very simple form over bread and wine.
I can't see why, for myself, using a Eucharistic prayer from elsewhere say in the Anglican communion isn't allowed,say, at a weekday Eucharist.
Of even why, say, in a congregation which may have a significant number of African or Afro Caribbean people a EP from an Anglican Church of their native country can't be used from time to time. Lets not be too imperialist!
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
As a Methodist, I actually think there might be a lot to be said for requiring an authorised Eucharistic prayer given some of the offerings I have seen. Personally, I normally use one of our authorised texts (our authorised texts are exemplars; we are not required to use them) but I have on occasion used EPs from Catholic and Anglican sources as well as ones of my own composition.
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on
:
I agree seasick, its just I think the range of authorised could be extended. I also feel it would be good to allow for ecumenical friends prayers to be used at times - for example in the week of prayer for Christian unity.
I write as an Anglican. It seems your church may have more latitude than I am envisaging.
I also write as one who attends Eucharist each Sunday and during the week and appreciates appropriate variety.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
I can't say I'm bothered about the text of the Eucharistic prayer, as long as it does what it's meant.
For a long time, the text was recited silently in any case.
What is a bad idea to my mind is using a different EP in the C of E each Sunday. It is less confusing to use one text for a period (eg using the BCP based EP with its penitential character in Lent, although that means not using the seasonal preface.)
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on
:
I have to say I am bothered about the text. Some to me seem so unintelligible and so distracting. In their case silence would be better!
I agree that seasonal variety rater than first Sunday so Prayer one mentality is preferable.
It seems to me the CW EPs were written with different churchman ships in mind, or at least to cater for different ones.
Is a silent Canon permitted in any rite nowadays? It would seem a strange meeting point of very traditional and very modern, perhaps!
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
Is a silent Canon permitted in any rite nowadays? It would seem a strange meeting point of very traditional and very modern, perhaps!
Yes. It's still permitted - required - in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.
Percy B, can Itrouble you to answer the question I asked you earlier today: why do you want more choice?
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
What is a bad idea to my mind is using a different EP in the C of E each Sunday. It is less confusing to use one text for a period (eg using the BCP based EP with its penitential character in Lent, although that means not using the seasonal preface.)
If you mean Prayer C, you can still use a short preface with it. Strictly you're not supposed to use the extended prefaces except with A, B and E, but I can't see why not.
There are (or were, in ASB days) churches which rigidly stuck to a pattern like, first Sunday in the month, Eucharistic prayer 1; second Sunday, 2, and so on. An irritating and pointless habit IMHO, ignoring the different 'feel' of the different prayers and the appropriateness for particular seasons.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
I'm sure I've come across the extended preface affixed to Prayer C at St Paul's Cathedral. Good on them.
I meant the extended prefaces: "and now we give you thanks" is one of those quintessentially ASB phrases (like "Go in peace to love and serve the Lord" or "we say together the prayer at the bottom of page 5" which raises my hackles.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I meant the extended prefaces: "and now we give you thanks" is one of those quintessentially ASB phrases (like "Go in peace to love and serve the Lord" or "we say together the prayer at the bottom of page 5" which raises my hackles.
I feel the same about the latter two. But what would you say instead of 'now we give you thanks'?
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
For elegant variation, CW begins the Easter short preface "But chiefly we are bound to praise you".
Why does it always have to be the same formula (Look, folk! There's a special bit coming up! ASB didacticism again) ?
I wish the ASB rang the changes: So we praise you because, Remembering that blah de blah we give thanks, or indeed why bother to point out it's a special day, just get on thanking.
The extended prefaces are great.
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
Speaking of the use of liturgies of specific Anglican liturgies by other Anglican churches, one suburban Atlanta Episcopal Church used to (and may still) use the South African prayer book at its early Sunday morning eucharist. I can't verify for sure at this moment due to being unable to access the website of the church (for whatever technical reason).
Our parish is usually by the book (i.e. the BCP) on this and, with Rite 2, always uses prayers 1 or 2. I don't think i've ever seen prayers 3 or 4 used ever. However, for the last several years, starting on Epiphany and on all the following Sundays until Lent, our place uses a Epiphany-themed eucharistic prayer that is an original composition. (Where it's from or whether it's a local composition i have no idea. My view of it is that it is "interesting". Sometime i might start a thread about a couple of its "interesting" features) Also, a special and i'm almost positive a locally composed eucharistic prayer is used at our 2 "Mass on the Grass" observances at the beginning and the end of summer.
The bishop may very well have given his official okey-dokey in all of the above-mentioned cases.
<tangent>
A brief tangent. On a Purgatory thread about "incarnational" theology, a couple of us noticed on our computers that the word "incarnational" has red dots under it like it was a misspelling or not a real word. Well, lo and behold, my computer thinks that "eucharist" is not a real wod either. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
</tangent>
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
Well, lo and behold, my computer thinks that "eucharist" is not a real wod either. </tangent>
And 'wod' is? ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
To the point(-ish): the Community of the Resurrection at Mirfield in West Yorkshire for many years used the South African BCP as its normative rite. This was authorised by the Bishop of the diocese, presumably on the grounds that as a religious community it was a liturgical 'peculiar'.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I meant the extended prefaces: "and now we give you thanks" is one of those quintessentially ASB phrases (like "Go in peace to love and serve the Lord" or "we say together the prayer at the bottom of page 5" which raises my hackles.
I feel the same about the latter two. But what would you say instead of 'now we give you thanks'?
What about 'this day we give You thanks'? Something of that kind. Though I don't particularly mind any of these and I quite like most of the extended Prefaces. Maybe I'm an oddball there.
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I'm sure I've come across the extended preface affixed to Prayer C at St Paul's Cathedral. Good on them.
We (not St Paul's) do it week by week.
Thurible
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
What about 'this day we give You thanks'? Something of that kind. Though I don't particularly mind any of these and I quite like most of the extended Prefaces. Maybe I'm an oddball there.
I don't think that's oddball at all. The reason I liked the Roman Rite many years ago was the long prefaces: I was quite uninterested in the details of the post-Sanctus.
"And now we give you thanks" is just so clunky. Once in a while it would be OK, but to have it every time outside Easter...
The (sparse) proper prefaces in the 1662 BCP all vary the introductory words (and I note CW takes the Easter intro from 1662).
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
Part of the problem is that not all would agree with your statements about how good Common Worship is. If you hold the view - common among Western Catholic minded Christians that the epiclesis should precede the Dominical words then you reduce Common Worship's possible offerings greatly, and you may want to look elsewhere for your variety.
Percy B, three thoughts.
First, I'm sure you don't mean it like that. All the same, it does rather read as though if the priest doesn't get the words in what some particular munshi has said he or she thinks is the right order, the 'magic' doesn't work, that some of the authorised Eucharistic prayers are more 'effective' than others.
Second, I'm no expert on these things, but I rather think the Tridentine Mass did not include an epiclesis. If the 'magic' were dependent on getting the words right, wouldn't that mean no CofE or Roman Catholic Eucharist was a true one for four centuries?
Third, forgive my asking but are you a priest or a lay person? If you are a priest, it is your responsibility (and duty to your congregation) to preside in accordance with either the BCP or CW and your canonical oath to your bishop.
If you are a lay person, you are stuck with what the clergy are willing to provide. None of us can go to either our own incumbent or any other clergy person and say, 'When I was in Llandudno recently (or if one has more money, Barbados), I thought the service was really nice. Could we have their rite next Sunday please?'.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
From his other posts, I imagine Enoch and I have very little in common on our views on most things religious.
However I would completely agree with what he says here.
The Roman canon does not have an epiclesis.
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
The Roman canon does not have an epiclesis.
Well, doesn't have an explicit epiclesis.
Thurible
Posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic (# 12722) on
:
The reason an extended preface may not be used with Eucharistic Prayer C in Common Worship is that the doctrinal material post-Sanctus in Prayer C can end up becoming a repetition of what has already been said in the Preface. In the interests of cleanliness, therefore, only a short Preface may be used.
Moreover, practically, the use of an extended preface with Prayer C makes the canon over-long.
Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on
:
The prayer "Quam oblationem" in the Roman Canon is plainly intended to be an epiclesis.
To be fair, this intention has been strengthened in the Paul VI missal, as the rubrics there direct the priest to extend his hands over the gifts during the prayer. In the John XXIII missal and prior, the priest did not extend his hands (or at least was not directed to), and instead made the sign of the cross several times.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
I get the impression that if the Roman Canon had been devised by the C of E Liturgical Commission, Percy B would have criticized it as inadequately catholic.
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
Well, Dr Cranmer would have agreed...
Thurible
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
Part of the problem is that not all would agree with your statements about how good Common Worship is. If you hold the view - common among Western Catholic minded Christians that the epiclesis should precede the Dominical words then you reduce Common Worship's possible offerings greatly, and you may want to look elsewhere for your variety.
Percy B, three thoughts.
First, I'm sure you don't mean it like that. All the same, it does rather read as though if the priest doesn't get the words in what some particular munshi has said he or she thinks is the right order, the 'magic' doesn't work, that some of the authorised Eucharistic prayers are more 'effective' than others.
Second, I'm no expert on these things, but I rather think the Tridentine Mass did not include an epiclesis. If the 'magic' were dependent on getting the words right, wouldn't that mean no CofE or Roman Catholic Eucharist was a true one for four centuries?
Third, forgive my asking but are you a priest or a lay person? If you are a priest, it is your responsibility (and duty to your congregation) to preside in accordance with either the BCP or CW and your canonical oath to your bishop.
If you are a lay person, you are stuck with what the clergy are willing to provide. None of us can go to either our own incumbent or any other clergy person and say, 'When I was in Llandudno recently (or if one has more money, Barbados), I thought the service was really nice. Could we have their rite next Sunday please?'.
Wait, do you think the Roman Rite pre-Trent had an explicit epiclesis? It never has at any point since at the very least the reign of Gelasius I, and all scholarship points to there never having been one at all. One of the the primary criticism of Western Rite Orthodoxy is that it has mangled the Roman Canon by inserting an epiclesis into it.
Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on
:
In the Church of England, you are required to use an authorised eucharistic prayer and so no you cannot use the Star Trek one from Canada / USA, something from the Northumbria Community, some exotic continental rite or just make one up. The reaaon is that we regard the EP as doctrinally sensitive so requiring authorisation by Synod. Of course, having variable prefaces, including the option of composing your own, does nuance this a bit except that the eucharistic theology which is sensitive comes elsewhere than in the variable preface.
In any case, you cannot muck about with shuffling the paragraphs like a deck of cards. Nor can you terminate the prayer early after the Imstitution Narrative and go straight to the Communion . (I corrected this last abberation when I was regularly presiding at a church in vacancy where the outgoing priest had produced printed service booklets which did just that - easy to correct by not using the booklets and putting the liturgy on PowerPoint!)
Prayer A has optional congregational responses. The responses in e.g. F and H are integral to the Prayer (esp. in H) - if you don't like them, other prayers are available.
Yes some churches do use unauthorised texts - as condemned by +London recently - but breaking the rules does not mean that there are no rules!
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
The responses in e.g. F and H are integral to the Prayer (esp. in H) - if you don't like them, other prayers are available.
Not in F... in my book at any rate they are printed in square brackets.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
I think Charles means Prayer E (This is his/our story), which only really works if the congregation is familiar with the Moody and Sankey hymn which the acclamations quote.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
That's D!
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
I only listen to them, so I'm don't remember the titles.
D is indeed "this is his/our story" and the acclamations are mandatory.
E is jolly good and really requires the extended preface.
F has acclamations in brackets.
H doesn't so much have acclamations, as the congregation having substantial parts of the EP itself to say. Don't like it myself.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
(This is his/our story), which only really works if the congregation is familiar with the Moody and Sankey hymn which the acclamations quote.
No, we are 'liberal' and very few of our people would know the song - and nobody from the under 40s - yet they like this prayer.
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
We sang it at primary school. Are they sure they don't know it?
Thurible
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
OK, I'm sniping a bit. There can be references to Biblical or patristic material which congregations won't pick up on, but still work, as it were.
Posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic (# 12722) on
:
quote:
…very few of our people would know the song - and nobody from the under 40s.
I am under 40. I don't think I'm *that* unusual.
It is in 'Common Praise'. And the heinous Mayhew 'Old and New' books. And 'Mission Praise'.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
It's the sort of earworm that you only need to hear once never to forget. I have never encountered it in a normal church setting, but once went to hear a Billy Graham rally (broadcast link) and heard it then. Hard to shake off.
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I think Charles means Prayer E (This is his/our story), which only really works if the congregation is familiar with the Moody and Sankey hymn which the acclamations quote.
Published by Moody and Sankey, but written by Fanny Crosby (Mrs Frances Van Alstyne) and Phoebe Knapp.
Still incredibly widely known and sung, it features in 'Songs of Fellowship' and all my congregations know it (teenagers included).
That being said, the Eucharistic prayer which refers to it was a big, big mistake on the part of the Liturgical Commission. It curls the toes.
[ 17. January 2013, 19:17: Message edited by: Amos ]
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Can someone check source for it please. My recollection of first hearing it is in Methodist Worship which would predate CW, and I suspect that it pre-dates that.
Jengie
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
I seem to think that the Bishop of Liverpool had a lot to do with it.
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Can someone check source for it please. My recollection of first hearing it is in Methodist Worship which would predate CW, and I suspect that it pre-dates that.
Jengie
The "This is our story" EP? Nothing to do with us...
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on
:
I have yet to attend Eucharist where the new EP for when children are used, but I have heard one at least is very good.
In a nearby parish the priest likes to use the EPs of the Scottish Episcopals, especially, he says, because they tune in well to some of the liturgical seasons. This is only done by him at weekday Eucharist. At Sunday Eucharist CW is preferred.
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I seem to think that the Bishop of Liverpool had a lot to do with it.
Oh dear, oh dear. Did you have to tell me that?
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
It's the sort of earworm that you only need to hear once never to forget. I have never encountered it in a normal church setting, but once went to hear a Billy Graham rally (broadcast link) and heard it then. Hard to shake off.
I'm quite fond of it, really. When leading services at the old people's home, I'd often choose it. They seemed to enjoy it too.
Thurible
Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on
:
Sorry for the confusuion - I did mean F and I was wrong - acclamations are indeed optional in F.
In D they are not. This prayer works on a narrative structure rather than by rehearsing propositional theological concepts - at least that is the theory! I am not allowed to disclose the details of who wrote what, though most of this is in the public domain as they only told us (the Steering Committee for the CW EPs) after I'd been teaching ordinands about them....
I think I can say though that, as regards D, the Crosby hymn was not deliberately in mind by the author. Indeed, the chair of the Steering Committee had never heard the hymn and the rest of the group of six taught it to him in a small room in Church House where we were meeting!
We then removed the 'this is his story'response and put in something else which did not work and so went back to 'this is his story' etc..
Back on topic here: CW provides a range of EPs in different styles. Why use the Rioman rite of just read a bit from 1 Corinthiansd unless you are making a point?
(We nearly threw out C but decided not to and we were reluctant to add any more, but G and H did get in due to synodical lobbying!)
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
I am not allowed to disclose the details of who wrote what...
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Did the Steering Committee tell you why? It sends a strange break from ancient tradition. Part of what I love about many of the ancient prayers and hymns of the Byzantine Rite is that they often come with a little note of attribution.
These have often led me to look up who these people were, which has given me an idea of their life, history, and their background which is often reflected in their words. Often they saints whose life or writings are well known. Anglicanism is no stranger to this. For centuries, Cranmer's work was normative, and it customary for hymnals to list the source.
Why the change now?
[ 18. January 2013, 12:10: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
I am not allowed to disclose the details of who wrote what...
Did the Steering Committee tell you why? It sends a strange break from ancient tradition. Part of what I love about many of the ancient prayers and hymns of the Byzantine Rite is that they often come with a little note of attribution.
These have often led me to look up who these people were, which has given me an idea of their life, history, and their background which is often reflected in their words. Often they saints whose life or writings are well known. Anglicanism is no stranger to this. For centuries, Cranmer's work was normative, and it customary for hymnals to list the source.
Why the change now?
It might say something about modern Anglicanism that our liturgy is attributed to committees rather than to great individuals... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
It sends a strange break...
"Seems", of course.
Auto-correct.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
I am not allowed to disclose the details of who wrote what...
Did the Steering Committee tell you why? It sends a strange break from ancient tradition. Part of what I love about many of the ancient prayers and hymns of the Byzantine Rite is that they often come with a little note of attribution.
These have often led me to look up who these people were, which has given me an idea of their life, history, and their background which is often reflected in their words. Often they saints whose life or writings are well known. Anglicanism is no stranger to this. For centuries, Cranmer's work was normative, and it customary for hymnals to list the source.
Why the change now?
It might say something about modern Anglicanism that our liturgy is attributed to committees rather than to great individuals...
Yes, indeed.
'The liturgy of St Basil', the 'liturgy of St John Chrysostom' compared with 'the liturgy of the steering committee' ; how embarrassing.
I imagine those individual clergy in the Church of England who omit the irritating congregational interpolations in some of the CW eucharistic prayers, or place the epiclesis before the words of institution (the Western position), do so on the understandable premise that the CW texts as printed must be misprints, or essays in experimental liturgy yet unmarked and red penned by liturgical scholars of repute.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
I know I’ve lived an exceptionally sheltered life, but I thought I knew a thing or two about liturgy, at least until menaces like Paul Bradshaw or Colin Buchannan came along, which is why I spend so much time on this board. However I’ve never ever heard this thing, shibboleth perhaps, that the epiclesis should come before the words of institution.
St John Chrysostom and St Basil thought the proper place for it was after the words of institution. And as I’ve recently learnt here, whether the Roman Canon has an epiclesis is debateable.
Superficially looking at Jasper and Cumings, the nearest the Mozarabic and Gallician examples there have to an epiclesis comes after the words of institution.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
at least until menaces like Paul Bradshaw or Colin Buchannan came along, ....
St John Chrysostom and St Basil thought the proper place for it was after the words of institution. And as I’ve recently learnt here, whether the Roman Canon has an epiclesis is debateable.
1) Bp. Colin and Paul Bradshaw are a good thing.
2) Can you give a link to Crysostom and Basil where the epiclesis comes after the dominical words?
Please.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
1 Disagree. I got the impression Bradshaw doesn't think the Last Supper happened. Colin B, bless him, is a great enthusiast for all those responses in CW.
2 Just look up Jasper and Cumings or any standard translation. Here's a link to a translation of JC
http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/liturgy/liturgy.html
and for St Basil
http://www.anastasis.org.uk/Basil%20noted%5B3%5D.pdf
I take it the epiclesis is the calling down of the Holy Spirit on the gifts, which Orthodox tradition takes to be the moment of consecration. Orthodox shipmates may well want to correct my imperfect understanding, but the point is the position of the prayer in the structure of the EP. Or have I mistaken what an epiclesis is?
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I take it the epiclesis is the calling down of the Holy Spirit on the gifts, which Orthodox tradition takes to be the moment of consecration. Orthodox shipmates may well want to correct my imperfect understanding, but the point is the position of the prayer in the structure of the EP. Or have I mistaken what an epiclesis is?
You aren't mistaken at all, venbede. That is precisely what the epiclesis is. The Byzantine ones, and likely others, tend to be twofold: the Holy Spirit is called down first on the people and then on the Gifts. (I would only say that Orthodox are more likely to view this point of the anaphora as the moment when the consecration can be said to have been fully completed. I'm not sure that we entertain a specific idea of a particular moment that is the sole moment of consecration.)
I'm intrigued by what you say of the Mozarabic and Gallican Rites, though. My only experience of the Gallican Rite is the form currently used by Orthodox Christians, which is heavily byzantinised. Therefore, I have never been sure whether the position of the epiclesis in that rite is due to it being the original position or due to the Byzantine influence.
If you have any links to texts of the Mozarabic canon or texts about the Gallican one (which I know was immensely variable), I'd be very grateful if you'd be so good as to share them. Your understanding seems similar to my own. The Roman Canon has no explicit epiclesis but I seem to recall that the points which have been understood as implicit epicleses are post-sanctus. (I shall have to check again to make sure.)
As for links to the anaphoras, your links are perfectly fine, but for ease of reference for leo and others, here are links to the anaphoras directly, apart from the entire eucharistic liturgy:
St John Chrysostom
St Basil the Great.
[ 19. January 2013, 19:26: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
The Western postion is prior to the dominical words, and additionally sometimes afterwards as well, but is implicit rather than explicit in the Mass of St Pius V.
In the West presumably the idea is to pray for the descent of the Holy Spirit on the offerings, as it were, and then the recitation of the domincal words effects the change.
One can't help thinking that Anglicans (being predomiantly Western for obvious historical reasons) look a little silly if they try to be like Turkish Delight - full of Eastern promise.
Buchanan has always had his own (broadly) evangelical agenda. It is worth noting that liturgical studies have only been taken seriously in the Church of England comparatively recently; very few theological colleges and universities see it as an essential part of theology; there are very few Anglican liturgical scholars at all .
Although not a RC or even an AC, I have to acknowledge that Rome has the advantage probably times a hundred, or even more. There are entire faculties in pontifical universities given over to liturgy. These may have been a little dusty at some stages in history, but have been there.
Not that long ago Dean Inge came out with his bon mots when asked if he studied liturgy: 'No, neither do I collect butterflies'
One might assume that such an attitude would be unthinkable today - although I am not sure if there is even a single Chair (as in full Professorship) of Liturgy in any English, Welsh or Scottish university. I would be delighted to be proved wrong.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
One can't help thinking that Anglicans (being predomiantly Western for obvious historical reasons) look a little silly if they try to be like Turkish Delight - full of Eastern promise.
And so they ought to ignore Eastern material like the New Testament, the creeds, the Ecumenical Councils?
Come off it. To suggest authentic Christianity only starts West of the Adriatic is as bad as to suggest it only started in 1517.
The C18 Scottish and American Prayer books both have an epiclesis (ie a prayer for the Spirit) after the dominical words.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
And there has long been an interest in Orthodoxy among Anglicans who are pleased to show that catholic practice is not dependent on Rome, Archbishops Laud, Ramsey and Williams among them, not to mention the non-jurors and J W Neale.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
That is to jump to the extreme end of the argument and no-one is advocating ignoring Eastern Christianity. They would be foolish if they did. Similarly, there was indeed an interest in Eastern liturgy - even earlier than you suggest.
However, Anglicanism (to use an unsatisfactory word) is predominantly Western in its heritage; it is still 'Western' in its Christianity. Eastern liturgical use can look somewhat affected when used out of context: the CofE person who is of the Whybrew school, and therefore crosses themselves from right to left, for example.
The western epiclesis is placed before the dominical words and often after as well. As you well know, to western catholic Christians the consecration is the recitation of the dominical words. Once this has happened prayer to the Holy Spirit to come down upon the offerings is superfluous.
I happen to love the Eastern anaphora and respect the Eastern notion of the consecration - which I hold to be correct as well as the western.
Eastern Christianity is extremely hard to understand for a Westerner. Those 'Full of Eastern Promise' are those who often affect to, but don't. Professor Michael Winter when teaching at the Gregorian once remarked that he could see union between Calvinists and Roman Catholics before East and West; he was not referring to politics, but theology and liturgy. It is about vocabulary and emphasis.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
And there has long been an interest in Orthodoxy among Anglicans who are pleased to show that catholic practice is not dependent on Rome, Archbishops Laud, Ramsey and Williams among them, not to mention the non-jurors and J W Neale.
I am no expert on liturgy, but am under the impression that the writers of the modern CofE Eucharistic prayers added an epliclesis, and put it where they have put it, because they concluded the Orthodox tradition was better than the Roman Catholic absence. Better follow the one that you believe is better than choose a less best option just because it is more traditional for the West rather than the East.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
As you well know, to western catholic Christians the consecration is the recitation of the dominical words. Once this has happened prayer to the Holy Spirit to come down upon the offerings is superfluous.
I do indeed and cross myself at that point(and you clarify to me your and Percy's concern). I see what you mean, however...
Paul Bradshaw would disagree and say the whole prayer is consecratory, rather than one formula and indeed you could end up on that basis with the Lutheran and Reformed practice of only reciting the dominical words with no context of a prayer. The dominical words focus what is happening, but only in the context of the whole prayer.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
Yes, I see that. The prayer should be a unity.
However Paul Bradshaw (a western scholar) would stand almost (but probably not quite) alone against a whole raft of other liturgical theologians amongst them members of a number of faculties of Pontifical Universities who really do liturgy and make Anglican attempts appear a little amateurish and solitary. But as an Anglican I might argue that that doesn't necessarily make Bradshaw or Anglican attempts wrong! But we are still in the warly days of even regarding it as a valid theological discipline.
I would still be interssted to hear if there is a Chair of Liturgy in any UK university (unlike foreign counterparts).
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
1 Disagree. I got the impression Bradshaw doesn't think the Last Supper happened. Colin B, bless him, is a great enthusiast for all those responses in CW.
2 Just look up Jasper and Cumings or any standard translation. Here's a link to a translation of JC
http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/liturgy/liturgy.html
and for St Basil
http://www.anastasis.org.uk/Basil%20noted%5B3%5D.pdf
I take it the epiclesis is the calling down of the Holy Spirit on the gifts, which Orthodox tradition takes to be the moment of consecration. Orthodox shipmates may well want to correct my imperfect understanding, but the point is the position of the prayer in the structure of the EP. Or have I mistaken what an epiclesis is?
Thanks for the references.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I got the impression Bradshaw doesn't think the Last Supper happened.
Paul Bradshaw's major expertise is in ordination rites - I have a book in which he compares Eastern and Western examples.
He also wrote an essay on the daily office throughout history in a compilation leading up to the introduction of Common Worship.
I get the impression that he is quite 'sound'.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
And in his Reconstructing Early Christian Worship, he has a whole section on the Last Supper.
In his Eucharistic Origins he suggests that the eucharist was not always linked to the Last Supper - some communities recalled Jesus's table-fellowship with sinners - an agape with no reference to the paschal mystery.
That it was a debatable issue is evident from Paul giving instructions in 1 Corinthians.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
In his Eucharistic Origins he suggests that the eucharist was not always linked to the Last Supper - some communities recalled Jesus's table-fellowship with sinners - an agape with no reference to the paschal mystery.
Which is why I said he was a menace. However, I’ve just been delighted to receive my copy of Father Robert Daly SJ’s Sacrifice Unveiled with a favourable blurb by Bradshaw. I’m sure I’ll be more sympatheitic to Professor Bradshaw (of the prestigious Roman Catholic University of Notre Dame) after I’ve read the book.
Father Daly is Emeritus Professor of Theology, Boston College and comments on page 17:
"What may be most effective in helping Roman Catholicism to break out of its theologically debilitating fixation on the “moment of consecration” and thus move to a more catholic Eucharistic theology, might be the official adaption of a Eucharistic Prayer which has the Epiclesis in the classic Antiochene position the after words of consecration."
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
The only A-C church I've known which has used Prayer G regularly moved the epiclesis to before the dominical words (and added "along with Benedict the Pope, Andrew our Bishop, and all the clergy" to the square bracketed bit.
However, were you to use it as written (obviously, one could still add the Pope/Bishop bits thanks to the ellipse), in a Western Rite Catholic sort of place (and I suppose that begs the questions...), would you still elevate after the dominical words? Would you still ring the bells and make the sign of the Cross over the elements during the epiclesis? ('you' here including priest and server, rather than expecting him to have lots of hands!)
Thurible
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
In his Eucharistic Origins he suggests that the eucharist was not always linked to the Last Supper - some communities recalled Jesus's table-fellowship with sinners - an agape with no reference to the paschal mystery.
Which is why I said he was a menace.
Why would his pointing out a historical fact — that some Christian communities connected the Eucharist to the various table fellowships of Christ, and not to the paschal mystery — make him a menace? There were even some people who, for some reason, used water instead of wine, and who were corrected by St. Cyprian.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
I'll read Daly first before further comment.
However since you ask...
I see him as a menace for undermining the blessed Gregory Dix and in possibly encouraging the view that the eucharist is NOT possibly linked to the paschal mystery, or a communual action in union with Christ's own action.
In any case it sounds like speculation rather than historical fact. And it could derive both from Christ's table fellowship and the last supper.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
The Bl. Gregory may have had many fine qualities, but being infallible was not one of them!
This is surely a matter of scholarship and asking difficult questions doesn't necessarily make one a menace, surely?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I see him as a menace for undermining the blessed Gregory Dix
Virtually all liturgical scholarship has 'undermined' Dix in recent years.
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
The only A-C church I've known which has used Prayer G regularly moved the epiclesis to before the dominical words (and added "along with Benedict the Pope, Andrew our Bishop, and all the clergy" to the square bracketed bit.
However, were you to use it as written (obviously, one could still add the Pope/Bishop bits thanks to the ellipse), in a Western Rite Catholic sort of place (and I suppose that begs the questions...), would you still elevate after the dominical words? Would you still ring the bells and make the sign of the Cross over the elements during the epiclesis? ('you' here including priest and server, rather than expecting him to have lots of hands!)
I don't see why not. The history of the elevations is interesting, and they are quite unnecessary, but a slight elevation at the dominical words wouldn't see out of place.
Certainly, the laity crossing themselves and such like wouldn't seem out of place either. In Byzantine practice, the clergy and people cross themselves and bow low each time at "for the remission of sins", even though the epiklesis comes later.
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I see him as a menace for undermining the blessed Gregory Dix and in possibly encouraging the view that the eucharist is NOT possibly linked to the paschal mystery, or a communual action in union with Christ's own action.
This sounds a bit like you're calling any historian who documents an objectionable view a menace. Is someone a menace for noting that not all early (self-proclaimed) Christians accepted the Hebrew Bible (i.e., Marcion), without endorsing that view? How strange.
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
All the Methodist EPs bar one have the epiclesis after the dominical words but I still elevate after them.
Posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic (# 12722) on
:
When presiding in a church where customary Western ceremonial is expected, I elevate after the dominical words, but make no manual acts at the epiclesis: the elements having been consecrated, the epicletic formula thus becomes a prayer for reception, making such manual acts inappropriate.
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
they are quite unnecessary, but a slight elevation at the dominical words wouldn't see out of place.
Ah, but if you're celebrating eastward, as is the case at our shack, then the priest only elevating slightly (as our former and much loved assistant used to) drives the congregation mad because they still can't see!
Thurible
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic:
When presiding in a church where customary Western ceremonial is expected, I elevate after the dominical words, but make no manual acts at the epiclesis: the elements having been consecrated, the epicletic formula thus becomes a prayer for reception, making such manual acts inappropriate.
I have come to see it more that the EP is the central prayer of Mass and the epiclesis and Dominical words are central within it, and so manual acts act as a kind of showing of this, as do the elevations.
I don't worry too much now about where the epiclesis is or how the manual acts / elevations are done, but do like them done in some form. I can't really feel comfortable with the no touch approach of some Anglican priests. That's a personal preference I add, not that I am able to justify it in any other way!
I do find the approach that the EP end with the Holy Holy unnecesarily innovative and out of touch with what Christians in the West have done for centuries.
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
they are quite unnecessary, but a slight elevation at the dominical words wouldn't see out of place.
Ah, but if you're celebrating eastward, as is the case at our shack, then the priest only elevating slightly (as our former and much loved assistant used to) drives the congregation mad because they still can't see!
Thurible
It's an eastward celebration that I had in mind.
Prior to the development of the ostensations, that is precisely what was done in places where elevations took place. The purpose wasn't to show anything to anybody. Some of our Western Rite folk do just that today.
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
Well, we want our Decent Elevetations. So there.
Thurible
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
[They're similar to Elevations but even higher...)
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
I appreciate the drama which takes place during the Eucharistic prayer very much, but find it hard to understand that many people would not notice if it didn't happen, or even if the priest was Eastward facing throughout, because they have their heads bowed for the whole thing. For one thing, they must miss a lot, for another, my concentration levels wouldn't last out.
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
[They're similar to Elevations but even higher...)
Thank you for the clarification.
Oh, and your earlier post would have been complete with a "ner-ner-ner-ner-ner": something to bear in mind for the future.
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
I'm grateful to you for your feedback.
Thurible
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0