Ship of Fools: The collect - who should say/sing it?

Thread: The collect - who should say/sing it? 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=025882

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I was at church away from yesterday and the whole congregation joined in the collect (the 'special prayer for today') They also said the post-communion together as well as 'Father of all...'

I have only ever encountered this once before and it seems to me to be naff and bad liturgy.

Am I right or am I being too picky?

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

It strikes me as very naff. It is the celebrant/president's role to gather up the prayers of the people in the Collect. It is, to my mind, akin to having the whole assembly reading each of the lections.

Thurible

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

Within the shape of standard Western liturgy, it does indeed seem to result from a lack of understanding of what the collect's for. Its purpose is, as Thurifer just said, to gather up the prayers of the people. The people's job is the have prayers to be gathered up. A better way to affirm the vocation of all the baptized to approach God in prayer would be:

Presider: "let us pray"
[substantial moment of silence in which the people actually have a chance to pray]
Presider prays collect
All affirm: "Amen."

This respects the differing vocations of all present.

That said, the practice you've seen seems about equally bad as what I see at many churches where there's nary a breath in between "Lettuce pray... Oh God, you are so very, very big..." This denies the people any role, whereas what Leo saw just gives them the wrong one.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

In Western liturgy that's even got a vague passing resemblance to something catholic, it's part of the presidential role. I wouldn't attend a church where it was anything other. I would assume that they were so lacking in liturgical sense, I might also get served with cola and birthday cake at Communion.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I agree with everybody here so far. Strangely, last year I had a stint looking after a parish in vacancy which the previous incumbent had pushed up the candle as far as using the Roman Missal (more or less) before he left for Rome himself, but there too the congregation insisted on joining in with both the Collect and post-communion. Nothing I could do about it except confiscate the service leaflets beforehand!

In an Anglican context, saying the post-communion prayer together is more understandable if no more liturgically proper, because congregations got used to saying the fixed prayers in this way long before CW (re)introduced variable collects.

Fortunately neither of these are common practice in any church I regularly have anything to do with.

Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :

I've never been to a church at which there is a meaningful pause before the collect for the congregation to pray, or where there's any meaningful indication that the congregation should be praying their own prayers. Saying 'let us pray' is insufficient if the congregation have been lead to believe that 'let us pray' means 'please sit down'.

Have I been to particularly liturgically inept churches or has everyone else here been to particularly liturgically sophisticated churches?

Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
I've never been to a church at which there is a meaningful pause before the collect for the congregation to pray, or where there's any meaningful indication that the congregation should be praying their own prayers. Saying 'let us pray' is insufficient if the congregation have been lead to believe that 'let us pray' means 'please sit down'.

Have I been to particularly liturgically inept churches or has everyone else here been to particularly liturgically sophisticated churches?

Far too many places (and for that matter, priests who should know better...) who claim liturgical sophistry have failed to appreciate that the line 'let us pray' is a cue to do just that.

It certainly shouldn't be a cue to sit down - the Church traditionally stands to pray together!

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

When I was a curate, in the late 80s, I served my title in a church where the vicar encouraged everyone to join in the Collect and the Proper Preface, so that there was much turning of pages in the ASB. I always felt uncomfortable with it, but could not articulate why (and wouldn't have been listened to anyway); 25 years on I think I can.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

We regularly say the post-communion prayer together, but never the collect.

Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :

We do the same as Chorister's place.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
We regularly say the post-communion prayer together, but never the collect.

Do you mean the 'souls and bodies' or 'when we were still far off' (invariable) prayers or the optional proper post-communions?

Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :

Leaping in before Chorister, to whom the question was really addressed:

When everyone has received, and a hymn sung during communion, we say the proper post communion prayer (whatever it is that week) immediately before the dismissal (which in our case includes the notices), which ends with the blessing.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
In Western liturgy that's even got a vague passing resemblance to something catholic, it's part of the presidential role. I wouldn't attend a church where it was anything other. I would assume that they were so lacking in liturgical sense, I might also get served with cola and birthday cake at Communion.

No way did they not fall outside the parameters of canon - though the weine didn't taste very alcoholic and i did wonder about fruit juice. I had several qualms about the way did their liturgy but it had a long-standing catholic tradition which got lost somewhere along the way.
I am quite exercised by this issue because i may buy a bungalow in that village when my arthritis gets worse and was checking the place out. Having no transport, I'd have to attend there.

At least it has a parish communion 3 Sundays out of 4 - unlike many/most villages.

The Sunday attendance increased 7 fold over 5 years so they must be doing something right. I suspect the saying of the 'special prayer together' was something that a well-meaning member of a worship committee suggested and everyone said 'how lovely!'

Most clergy get little or no training in liturgy, especially if they don't come from A/c colleges. The local college here has a course on 'Worship' and it seems to be all about praise bands.

The previous vicar got very high preferment after as very short time in ministry and that church is held up by its diocese as a model of good practice.

My colleagues tell me I am being an anglo-nit-picker.

Anyway, I've done a MW Report - when/if it gets published.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

My colleagues tell me I am being an anglo-nit-picker.

Keep up the good work, leo!

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

In my parish (Anglican Church of Canada) we say the collect, the Our Father & the prayer after communion as a group. It seems much more inclusive . In the long run does it make
that much difference ? I think not.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

The Collect is the celebrant/presider's and believe that there was a note to that effect in the ASB, and it is probably still somewhere in CW though it would take me a month of wet Wednesdays to find it. IIRC it gave the Greeting, the Collect, the Absolution, the EP and Fraction, and the Blessing as the irreducable minimum of the presider's part in the Mass.

It strikes me as being very naff (or *cute* in the worst possible way) to override a positive instruction in the liturgical books and 1500 years of liturgical custom in the west and do something different. However, I am a mod. catholic in churchmanship terms so I do get a bit anal when a modern liturgy actually has a rubric saying 'you shall' as they are such a rarity that it means they are serious about this!

I was taught back in ASB days that the fixed post-comunions could go either way. When CW came in, the consensus was that it is 'easier' if the variable ones are read by the celebrant. I suspect that the motivation behind this was part symmetry between the Collect and the Post-Communion, and partly to remove another excuse for unneccessary tree slaughtering.

Needless to say, I have a thing about not printing the liturgy in a booklet every week. It tends to give the impression that the liturgy is disposable, not something to be treasured and taken seriously. However, given that there are some pretty big seasonal variation permitted in CW, and not everyone has a PhD in finding their way around CW, I would have though that the logical course was to print a series of seasonal booklets. Said seasonal booklets, could then be collected and stored until needed again. A good hymnal should be able to supply the rest, reducing the slaughter of trees to just the weekly notices with the scripture readings in invisible to the middle aged eye 8-point type!

PD

[ 05. August 2013, 18:27: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

My colleagues tell me I am being an anglo-nit-picker.

Keep up the good work, leo!

OMG - I can just see them rolling their eyebrows at the next ministry team meeting.

It's a question of what is worth arguing to defend and what isn't.

The collect isn't. Proper elements and eucharistic prayer are.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

It won't surprise Angloid and leo that we usually say the Collect as a whole congregation. [Biased]

If it is meant to collect up or summarise or postface the prayers of the whole congregation then maybe it ought to be placed after teh intercessions, not where it is, where in practice it often follows sirectly after a hymn. And if it doesn't it comes after Confession, and the Celebrant has already responded to the Confession by pronouncing the Absiolution.

Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :

When we still said the Collect for Purity aloud, we said that together. Now we're encouraged to pray it silently before the service. We still say the invariable thanksgiving after communion together, after the priest says the one proper to the day.

Saying the collect of the day together seems a bit barmy, though.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
It won't surprise Angloid and leo that we usually say the Collect as a whole congregation.

quote:
If it is meant to collect up or summarise or postface the prayers of the whole congregation then maybe it ought to be placed after teh intercessions, not where it is, where in practice it often follows sirectly after a hymn. And if it doesn't it comes after Confession, and the Celebrant has already responded to the Confession by pronouncing the Absiolution.

I don't think it's meant to summarise the 'prayers of the whole congregation' if by that is meant the intercession. I think it is more like a focussing of attention; we come to church (many of us arriving late or at the last minute) with many distractions on our mind. A bidding to 'let us pray' and a moment's silence gives us the chance to set these to one side and begin to focus on the liturgy. If we have to focus our minds and tongues on saying unfamiliar (and often gramatically or theologically complex) words it rather defeats the object.

A collect to conclude the intercessions is always an option and in some rites it is mandatory.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

Saying the collect of the day together is something I encounter frequently when visiting Lutheran churches. I only have enountered it once in a TEC place.

That said, the BCP79 of TEC appoints the postcommunion prayer be said by 'celebrant and people' (see here and scroll down) in the modern-language rite, and suggests it in the old-language rite.

My only issue with it is when the leader actually believes that comprehension improves with cold oral recitation of an unfamiliar text, spoken only once.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

In the antipodes it is horrendously common to say the collect together. As I wrote on a diocesan website recently (it's always so noble to quote oneself [Disappointed]

) "that's not a collect, it's a scatter".

All liturgies I have used (except 1662) have a conversational post-communion prayer where single voice (not necessarily the presiding priest though I often tend to) gives voice to thanks and the congregants respond with self-offering.

I try always to introduce the Collect with "let us pray that ...[summary of theme of day]" then short silence - several seconds ... then set collect. Occasionally flurrification rulz and I simply voice the collect, but always with a silence between the invitation to pray and the prayer-summation.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
Within the shape of standard Western liturgy, it does indeed seem to result from a lack of understanding of what the collect's for. Its purpose is, as Thurifer just said, to gather up the prayers of the people. The people's job is the have prayers to be gathered up.

Well, that's assuming an etymology which is still being debated. Some sources contend that "collecta" refers to the gathering together of the people, and suggest that the collect may have been said at the door of the church before the procession.

Bear in mind, of course, that I think liturgy by etymology misses the point to begin with...

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

This might be a tangent, but one of my friends was given 25c as a boy every Sunday if he were able to learn by heart and recite the day's collect before the family set off to service. He told me that he kept up the practice even during his post-confirmation atheist phase as a useful source of adolescent revenue. He told me that they came back to him, in order of the liturgical year, when he was recuperating from an unpleasant operation, and needed a focus away from his discomfort.

Preparing this post, I took the occasion to flip through the propers and reviewing the collects, found them really interesting and useful. Perhaps, rather than wonder about who should say them (I prefer the priest, rather than having them recited by all), it might not be a bad idea to learn the texts.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

At our formal communion I encourage the practice of 1) Let us pray, 2) Silence, 3) President reads collect. The president says the post communion prayer.

At our informal communion the whole congregation often says the Alternative Collect together. We often don't have a post communion prayer.

[ 05. August 2013, 22:39: Message edited by: daronmedway ]

Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on :

I confess our congregation, by long custom, says both the collect and post communion proper.

Although this Sunday the archdeacon, who is a better liturgist, stymied them by singing the collect. [Yipee]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Mixed for us. We all say the Collect for Purity after the processional hymn and opening. The celebrant chants the Collect for the day after the Gloria, having first invited us all to pray. The post-communion thanks is conversational, in the course of which we offer ourselves.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

Here's a thought: in these churches where the people "crash" the president's texts, does the president crash the people's? Does the president, for example, say the people's "Amen"s at the end of the eucharistic prayer and the collect, or responses such as "thanks be to God" or "Lord have mercy", which properly belong to the people?

And does the president assertively lead parts of the Mass that should be said equally by everyone (or delegated to a lay choir) such as the creed, gloria, Lord's Prayer and sanctus?

This "who should say it" business has to work both ways.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
We regularly say the post-communion prayer together, but never the collect.
Do you mean the 'souls and bodies' or 'when we were still far off' (invariable) prayers or the optional proper post-communions?

The latter. The collect of the day is printed in the service leaflet for people to follow, and pray along silently if they wish.

Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I was at church away from yesterday and the whole congregation joined in the collect (the 'special prayer for today') They also said the post-communion together as well as 'Father of all...'

I have only ever encountered this once before and it seems to me to be naff and bad liturgy.

Am I right or am I being too picky?

The church I attend says the collect together. My former church didn't.

It may well be bad liturgy, but as long as the heart of the church is in the right place, as I think it is, I am not sure I mind all that much. I probably won't join in, but I tend not to join in with much as it is; just the amens. At the moment I prefer to float through a service and let it carry me, unless my contribution is absolutely necessary to counter huge washes of silence.

I am certainly not going to risk telling the Vicar that his service is naff. [Big Grin]

[ 06. August 2013, 08:57: Message edited by: Anglo Catholic Relict ]

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

This "who should say it" business has to work both ways.

Indeed. Sometimes, the people just don't know the responses, though. I'm thinking especially of weddings and funerals. Then, the least bad option is generally for the presider to lead those bits too. Also, at daily mass with no choir, the people there who know their parts well couldn't start the Memorial Acclamation on their own as they don't know which is to be used and couldn't start the Agnus Dei on their own as there's no way to cue them. For these, most places have the presider start them off and then the people conclude.

In Mexico, they have an ingenious solution for this: a lay person known as a monitor stands at the ambo whenever there isn't a reading / preaching happening from there and leads all of the congregational responses.

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

We say the collect and the post-communion prayer together.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
Within the shape of standard Western liturgy, it does indeed seem to result from a lack of understanding of what the collect's for. Its purpose is, as Thurifer just said, to gather up the prayers of the people. The people's job is the have prayers to be gathered up.
Well, that's assuming an etymology which is still being debated. Some sources contend that "collecta" refers to the gathering together of the people, and suggest that the collect may have been said at the door of the church before the procession.

Indeed - I think the 'collect' originally was about the people being collected together.

The bishop would arrive at whatever station mass he was doping - the people waited for him. The collect was the end of the various songs and litanies sung by the people as they awaited him.

Before that, in times of persecution, people staggered their arrival so as not to arouse the suspicions of the soldiers that they were going to an illegal gathering. The collect was said when all had finally arrived.

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
In Mexico, they have an ingenious solution for this: a lay person known as a monitor stands at the ambo whenever there isn't a reading / preaching happening from there and leads all of the congregational responses.

We did something like this at one church where I was a layperson. I was actually the one who did it, too. I stood to one side, and led the people's responses to the Psalm and the Eucharistic prayer (Sanctus and Benedictus, mystery of faith, and Lord's Prayer).

As far as the OP, I read the Collect of the Day and the post Communion prayer*, even though the rubrics call for the latter to be said by the people. The reason is that I don't want to have to tell people to turn to page whatever right after the Communion, and then have them shuffle around again for the hymn. It's better, IMO, to just pray the prayer myself and then there's just one shuffle instead of two.

_____
*Eternal God, we give you thanks for this holy mystery in which you
have given yourself to
us. Grant that we may go into the world in the strength of your Spirit, to give ourselves
for others, in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
at daily mass with no choir, the people there who know their parts well couldn't start the Memorial Acclamation on their own as they don't know which is to be used

The C of E gets round this one by having a different introduction to each of the acclamations. Though being the C of E of course people will need to have their heads buried in the book to find it which rather defeats the object.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

The invariable practice at our place (thanks be to God) is for the priest to say the Collect. If our Visiting Priest is presiding, he sings it - which is a jolly good way of making sure that the priest - and only he (or she) - leads at this point. To have the assembly of faith say it is An Abomination Unto The Lord (and probably makes the Baby Jesus cry). Anyway, the C of E collects (at least) are not at all suitable for general recitation in the way that they are written and laid out. You have only to look at the 1662 BCP to see how prayers etc. for general recitation are divided into sentences, phrases, and paragraphs. Cranmer knew what he was about.....

/tangent alert/

Is it just me, or do others think that many modern RC collects are weak and miserable little things? Half the time seems to be taken up with the priest telling us what we ought to pray for....as if we can't think of it for ourselves.

Ian J.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:

Is it just me, or do others think that many modern RC collects are weak and miserable little things?

Yup. The least satisfactory part of the recently-departed Missal. Have they been replaced? If so I don't suppose it is an improvement if they are anything like the rest of the new translation. But the English Missal ones are atrocious too.

I have to admit, Cranmer was a genius.

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:

Is it just me, or do others think that many modern RC collects are weak and miserable little things?
Yup. The least satisfactory part of the recently-departed Missal. Have they been replaced? If so I don't suppose it is an improvement if they are anything like the rest of the new translation.

Oh, they're much worse than the Order of Mass. Far and away the worst part of the new translation.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FCB:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:

Is it just me, or do others think that many modern RC collects are weak and miserable little things?
Yup. The least satisfactory part of the recently-departed Missal. Have they been replaced? If so I don't suppose it is an improvement if they are anything like the rest of the new translation.
Oh, they're much worse than the Order of Mass. Far and away the worst part of the new translation.

I've been quietly hoping that they would start sounding better when priests finally lose the full-stop-between-every-clause pattern of the old 'Opening Prayer.'

Posted by scuffleball (# 16480) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I was at church away from yesterday and the whole congregation joined in the collect (the 'special prayer for today') They also said the post-communion together as well as 'Father of all...'

I have only ever encountered this once before and it seems to me to be naff and bad liturgy.

Am I right or am I being too picky?

Isn't "Father of all, we give you thanks and praise that when you were still far off" meant to be said by all anyway?

Having said that, I hardly ever hear "Father of all..." any more. I hear it less than those other two peculiarly Anglican and decidedly older prayers "We do not presume to come to this your table..." and "Almighty God, to whom all hearts are open..." which I grew up saying every week.

Posted by scuffleball (# 16480) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:

Is it just me, or do others think that many modern RC collects are weak and miserable little things? Half the time seems to be taken up with the priest telling us what we ought to pray for....as if we can't think of it for ourselves.

Ian J.

and 1662 bcp collects aren't? There seem to be innumerable such collects that amount to "May we pray for such things as we ought to pray for"

Posted by scuffleball (# 16480) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hart:

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

This "who should say it" business has to work both ways.
Indeed. Sometimes, the people just don't know the responses, though. I'm thinking especially of weddings and funerals. Then, the least bad option is generally for the presider to lead those bits too. Also, at daily mass with no choir, the people there who know their parts well couldn't start the Memorial Acclamation on their own as they don't know which is to be used and couldn't start the Agnus Dei on their own as there's no way to cue them. For these, most places have the presider start them off and then the people conclude.

In Mexico, they have an ingenious solution for this: a lay person known as a monitor stands at the ambo whenever there isn't a reading / preaching happening from there and leads all of the congregational responses.

This happens in France and Italy too, where this person is usually a chorister (the choirmaster?) and sort-of conducts the congregation during the Gradual psalm and at other points where the congregation is singing something. This is probably related to the fact that in France and Italy, most churches do not have service booklets. Nice to know this role has a name.

IIRC Enoch described Anglican churches as having had a similar person called the clerk between the reformation and industrial revolution, presumably because many people would have been illiterate then. Also, "lining out" actually originated in Britain, even in Anglican churches! It is still preserved on a remote Scottish island iirc -

I remember reading an explicit mapping of anamnesises ("anamneses"?) to different liturgical seasons. We alternated between "Salvator mundi salva nos" and "Nous proclamons ta mort" in Taizé, though, so the aforementioned mapping may be non-standard or peculiarly Anglican.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

Parish Clerks survived widely until the 1870s and 80s, and longer in conservative places. Their origin is pre-reformation - probably around he 14th century.

Lining out is still done in the Reformed Baptist tradition in the USA back in the hollers in KY and TN, and by the Wee Frees in Scotland, especially in Gaelic speaking areas.

Lining out lasted in the Church of England from 1560-ish until the late 1700s when parish bands, and organs began to civilize the singing of metrical psalms. Some remote places where still lining out in the 1810s and 20s.

PD

Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Here's a thought: in these churches where the people "crash" the president's texts, does the president crash the people's? Does the president, for example, say the people's "Amen"s at the end of the eucharistic prayer and the collect, or responses such as "thanks be to God" or "Lord have mercy", which properly belong to the people?

I say them (rather than assertively lead) simply because that way people who are dependent on the hearing loop know what's being said when.

Oh, and just because I've been ordained priest doesn't mean I cease to be one of the congregation...

[ 07. August 2013, 07:00: Message edited by: Custard ]

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
We regularly say the post-communion prayer together, but never the collect.
Do you mean the 'souls and bodies' or 'when we were still far off' (invariable) prayers or the optional proper post-communions?
The latter. The collect of the day is printed in the service leaflet for people to follow, and pray along silently if they wish.

My understanding is that the reason this prayer wasn't intended for congregational use was purely and simply because the compilers of the ASB considered it too long and wordy for the congregation to say together. There's certainly no theological or doctrinal reason for it. I've attended quite a number churches, including a few cathedrals, where this prayer is said by the congregation.

[ 07. August 2013, 07:55: Message edited by: Spike ]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Custard:

Oh, and just because I've been ordained priest doesn't mean I cease to be one of the congregation...

You certainly don't cease to be a member of the laity. But when you are presiding you have a distinctive role which is different from that of the 'congregation'. Though I take your practical point about hearing loops.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
My understanding is that the reason this prayer wasn't intended for congregational use was purely and simply because the compilers of the ASB considered it too long and wordy for the congregation to say together. There's certainly no theological or doctrinal reason for it. I've attended quite a number churches, including a few cathedrals, where this prayer is said by the congregation.

Your reference to 'this prayer' is a bit ambiguous, do you mean the 'Father of all...' prayer? It is actually printed for congregational recitation in CW, maybe because people are now more familiar with it and so are less likely to stumble over the words. I think that is the real objection to congregational recitation of the collect of the day, because it is difficult to [a] get one's tongue around the words and phrasing; [b] think about the meaning, and [c] to pray them, at the same time. If the words are familiar that problem is minimised, though the simpler and fewer the words we all have to say, the better, IMHO.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Yes, IIRC we took to saying it congregationally at the Church Of My Yoof sometime in the 1980s.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Your reference to 'this prayer' is a bit ambiguous, do you mean the 'Father of all...' prayer?

Sorry, I was responding to Chorister's "the latter" so, yes, I meant the "Father of all ..." prayer

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

We say "Almighty God, we thank thee for feeding us..." congregationally through the year after the celebrant has sung the post-communion prayer. We say "Father of all..." in Eastertide and I'd guess that maybe 10% bother to join in. (Which drives me absolutely potty, for the record.)

Thurible

[ 07. August 2013, 11:21: Message edited by: Thurible ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I think that is the real objection to congregational recitation of the collect of the day, because it is difficult to (a) get one's tongue around the words and phrasing; (b) think about the meaning, and (c) to pray them, at the same time.

Hang about! This sounds exactly wrong! Reading something aloud is a great help to understanding the meaning. Much better than just listening to someone else reading. It sort of forces you to engage with the words on a broader front. Opens up more channels into the brain. Absorbs more of your attention. Sitting back and listening works best for familiar texts, not unfamiliar ones - though even then I think its usually better to join in. Having the written words in front of you helps as well. Using eyes and ears and motuhs together reinforces the words, makes you think about them more.

Especially with mildly unfamiliar words like modern collects (in 1662 days I think most regulat worshippers started to recognise the Collects of the Day after a few years but the newer ones are both more varied and less rythmic and seem to make less impression.) Listening to completely unfamiliar words, where you don't know what to expect is one thing, you just have to listen (though even then reading at the same time helps) and if you don;t listen you know you haven't heard. Very familar texts are another thing, you can join in with your eyes shut ("Lighten our darkness we beseech thee...") But mildly unfamiliar ones (or mildly familiar, it comes to the same thing) can be traps because you think you knwo what you are hearing or saying and let it glide over you but actually you don't. Same works for a lot of Bible readings, especially the synoptic Gospels. There is stuff we know best from Matthew, or sometimes Luke, and then we read it from another book and think we've just heard what we thought we knew rather than what was actually read. Yet another reason for pew Bibles!

Also at least some of the liturgy is poetry (sort-of, kind-of) and the sound and rythmn of the words is part of the meaning of them and that is by far best appreciated by speaking or singing them yourself, not by hearing them.

So let the people read the words. And sing them!

[ 07. August 2013, 13:16: Message edited by: ken ]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

OK then. I find it difficult. I admit it is equally difficult to obey the invitation 'let us pray' if immediately I have to listen to, never mind join in, a spoken prayer. But there is nothing to stop you joining in silently or sotto voce if you have the text in front of you. What is a problem is ensuring that a group, reading words cold, will all speak at the same time or get the phrasing right. (If you saw Count Arthur Strong* last night, "It is beyond my area of expertise. I'm afraid!") A problem minimised with well-known texts designed to be recited communally.

*If you didn't, that makes no sense at all. I'm afraid,

Posted by Quam Dilecta (# 12541) on :

The collect of of the day should be read by the celebrant and not be mumbled by all present for one simple reason: it is a variable element in the rite, and anyone who reads it must be looking at a book or a service leaflet. The congregation's spoken parts should be limited to those which can be done from memory.

The cost of books and less-than-universal literacy formerly made this liturgical principle self enforcing, but it has been undermined, first by the cheapness of printing and paper and more recently by the proliferation of projection screens.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I find it very helpful to have the words of the (variable) collects and also the readings written out. Sometimes the reader is softly spoken, other times you are just plain tired and find it hard to concentrate. So having the printed words there really helps me to focus.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Quam Dilecta:
The collect of of the day should be read by the celebrant and not be mumbled by all present for one simple reason: it is a variable element in the rite, and anyone who reads it must be looking at a book or a service leaflet. The congregation's spoken parts should be limited to those which can be done from memory.

The cost of books and less-than-universal literacy formerly made this liturgical principle self enforcing, but it has been undermined, first by the cheapness of printing and paper and more recently by the proliferation of projection screens.

See, this is my line of thinking, too: liturgy isn't, or shouldn't be, about spending an hour on Sunday morning with your nose buried in a book. It should be seen as a good thing that the people's texts are simple enough to be known by heart - and, I think, there's a reason the word heart appears in that expression.

But when I give this opinion, people usually berate me or ignore me. On the plus side, they hardly ever throw rocks at me, because that's difficult on the internet.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I won't throw rocks at you, Adeodatus, even metaphorical ones. I agree with you. WholeHEARTedly.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

This was one of the principle points (yours, Adeodatus) that was drilled into me when I was studying liturgy. It's also why I hate it when people reading the lesson add 'You will find it on page whatever of your pew bible.'

[ 08. August 2013, 11:27: Message edited by: Amos ]

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

HEARTfelt thanks Adeodatus. Yes, liturgy should set you free from the book, so that you can worship.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
This was one of the principle points (yours, Adeodatus) that was drilled into me when I was studying liturgy. It's also why I hate it when people reading the lesson add 'You will find it on page whatever of your pew bible.'

That's one reason why I'm a stickler about following the Prayer Book's rubrics when announcing lessons. "The Epistle is written in the [nth] chapter of [X book], beginning at the [yth] verse." No additions, please.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Adeodatus has said it all.

I was on the consultation group for the new CW services at the right on incense fog bank that is pine marten's church, so I was a party to having the post communion prayer said by all.

It was a compromise. We (or at any rate the vicar with our support) considered one post communion prayer was quite enough. If we were going to choose one,it might as well be the variable one as more interesting. So the congregation no longer had a prayer at that point, so we thought we'd try them joining in. I'm not sure how many of them do though.

The collect, of course, was SUNG by the presiding priest.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
HEARTfelt thanks Adeodatus. Yes, liturgy should set you free from the book, so that you can worship.

But we worship with and in and through the words, and having the book in your had frees your mind to use the words.

And it makes it much easier to concentrate in the words. Helps stop the mind wander. Pretty much all the tiem your "inner voice" is saying something. If you are singing, or reading aloud, its usually saying the words you are saying or singing (not always, but usually). Similarly your eyes are going to be looking somewhere. if they are looking at a written copy of the words yiou are erding or saying they are less likely to be looking out of the window at the sky, or at the attractive young persons in the pew in front. Reading and singing at the same time is sort of "firing on both barrells".

If I'm reading a poem on a train (as I was earlier today) I'll keep my mouth shut for the benefit of the other passengers. But if I'm reading it alone at home I'll often read it out loud. And poetry works better out loud and the better the poetry the better it works. Also you get to see the structure of the text and the laguage better if you are saying it yourself than if you are reading it silently, and better if you are reading it yourself then if you are listenign to it being read.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Leaving that little virtual dead liturgical horse to one side (at an opera just because you follow the score, you don't have to sing along with the singers,) my pet peeve is priests who do not introduce the collect with "Let us pray" but saying "The collect for the Twelfth Sunday after Trinity".

Those of us who know what a collect and what the 12th Sunday after Trinity mean don't need to be told.

Those who don't know are going to be further confused.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

I generally prefer not to get a running commentary from the Minister when I am in the pews. However, it is helpful to visitors to announce - at least in a 1928 PECUSA BCP service - the first page of the liturgy, where the Psalm(s) or Collect Epistle and Gospel are to be found, and how to get back to the first Canticle, or Creed.

In my old parish we had what was intended to be a user-friendly service booklet for the Eucharist, and the lessons went on the back of the noticesheet. To avoid having to give out page numbers, we used to give several members of the congregation the job of helping out any visitors who needed help following along. We usually found that folks who stick with it for a few weeks soon start joining in the liturgy provided one does not bugger around with the ordinary from week to week. My present parish is absolutely adverse to booklets thanks to a priest who played with the liturgy a lot, so it is a little tougher getting new folks into the swing of things.

PD

[ 13. August 2013, 20:46: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

I've recently moved and encountered this practice. I'm not too bothered by it personally, although I would rather they used the space on the dead tree sheet for the hymn numbers and telling us what will be read at Evensong (rather than relying on people having downloaded the lectionary to their smart-phones, one presumes...).

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
reducing the slaughter of trees to just the weekly notices with the scripture readings in invisible to the middle aged eye 8-point type!

What's wrong with providing pew Bibles? The only reasons I can see for printing the readings on a sheet of paper are:
1) that people are so Bible-illiterate that they can't find the table of contents;
2) that the main service lectionary butchers some lessons so badly (usually in a misguided attempt at brevity, rather than being content-based censorship) that it is fairly hard-going on the reader to identify where his reading next begins to skip; or:
3) that the place is being run as a tourist attraction, rather than a house of worship, and the powers that be are so paranoid about visitors helping themselves to souvenirs that they would rather break with the situation that has existed since the time of Elizabeth I that every church should have a copy of the Bible in English (cough, Canterbury Cathedral, cough).

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
This was one of the principle points (yours, Adeodatus) that was drilled into me when I was studying liturgy. It's also why I hate it when people reading the lesson add 'You will find it on page whatever of your pew bible.'
That's one reason why I'm a stickler about following the Prayer Book's rubrics when announcing lessons. "The Epistle is written in the [nth] chapter of [X book], beginning at the [yth] verse." No additions, please.

I am minded to agree, but I think throwing out page numbers a lesser evil than printing excerpts without any indication of where the lectionary has been leaving bits out.

quote:
Originally posted by 3rdFooter:
Although this Sunday the archdeacon, who is a better liturgist, stymied them by singing the collect.

Doesn't that risk intoning "The Lord be with you" and getting silence in return? (I know one priest who got that when singing the Exultet one Easter Vigil!)

quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
Saying 'let us pray' is insufficient if the congregation have been lead to believe that 'let us pray' means 'please sit down'.

I blame bad kneeling cushions.

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
This might be a tangent, but one of my friends was given 25c as a boy every Sunday if he were able to learn by heart and recite the day's collect before the family set off to service. He told me that he kept up the practice even during his post-confirmation atheist phase as a useful source of adolescent revenue. He told me that they came back to him, in order of the liturgical year, when he was recuperating from an unpleasant operation, and needed a focus away from his discomfort.

I'm sure I'm far from alone in only being able to do that with the Collect for the 21st Sunday after Trinity...

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
at daily mass with no choir, the people there who know their parts well couldn't start the Memorial Acclamation on their own as they don't know which is to be used
The C of E gets round this one by having a different introduction to each of the acclamations. Though being the C of E of course people will need to have their heads buried in the book to find it which rather defeats the object.

Somehow I find these naffer than saying the Collect collectively. The only one that doesn't seem to be double-underline-this-is-the-magic-moment is the one that doesn't say "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come" (and according to Common Worship can't be put into traditional language [Biased]

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
We say "Almighty God, we thank thee for feeding us..." congregationally through the year after the celebrant has sung the post-communion prayer. We say "Father of all..." in Eastertide and I'd guess that maybe 10% bother to join in. (Which drives me absolutely potty, for the record.)

Thurible

I'm actually surprised that in England the priest starting "Almighty and Everlasting God, we thank thee for the spiritual food..." and the congregation joining in at "Wherefore we offer and present unto thee, O Lord..." (it appears to be online here) doesn't seem to be an option.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Adeodatus has said it all.

I was on the consultation group for the new CW services at the right on incense fog bank that is pine marten's church, so I was a party to having the post communion prayer said by all.

It was a compromise. We (or at any rate the vicar with our support) considered one post communion prayer was quite enough. If we were going to choose one,it might as well be the variable one as more interesting. So the congregation no longer had a prayer at that point, so we thought we'd try them joining in. I'm not sure how many of them do though.

The collect, of course, was SUNG by the presiding priest.

In terms of the post-communion prayers from CW, I always say that prayer alone after a good period of silence. I see it as a bit of lottery actually, because I find the theology of some of these prayers slightly objectionable. The congregation then prays one of the two set post communion prayers from CW Order 1.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

You find the theology of some of these collects somewhat objectionable?

Now why doesn't that surprise me? [Big Grin]

Daronmedway knows best.

I don't know why daronmedway doesn't become a Vineyard pastor or an independent evangelical minister, FIEC or something. Then he could be even more of his own Pope ...

[Big Grin]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
... I'm actually surprised that in England the priest starting "Almighty and Everlasting God, we thank thee for the spiritual food..." and the congregation joining in at "Wherefore we offer and present unto thee, O Lord..." (it appears to be online here) doesn't seem to be an option.

Is that a strictly CinW prayer? There are many different permutations in Common Worship, but I don't think that's one of them. It seems to be a conflation of ingredients from the two alternative prayers in the 1662 BCP, and then altered a bit.

Perhaps one of the many experts on the Ship could advise?

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You find the theology of some of these collects somewhat objectionable?

Now why doesn't that surprise me?

daronmedway knows best.

I don't know why daronmedway doesn't become a Vineyard pastor or an independent evangelical minister, FIEC or something. Then he could be even more of his own Pope.

Well, I still read them, Gamaliel, precisely because I trust that they are written the edification of the church. I neither insist nor expect the people I pastor to entirely agree with my personal theological convictions. However, if asked I would happily explain why some of the post communion prayers don't float my boat.

Also I have to say that on this occasion, despite the smileys, I find your tone slightly insulting.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

In the Anglican Church of Canada, I've never been to a church where the collect was not said by everyone, with the priest invariably saying, "the collect for today is printed in the bulletin (leaflet)" or referencing the page in the prayer book. There is a pause, and then a "let us pray", and together we indeed pray.

I do not understand the objection to a corporate prayer being uttered together. The difference between places perhaps merely being local custom.
Reference was made also to the Collect for Purity. This is also always said by all.

One issue I think, is whether liturgy is performance or participatory art. I think it is both. We can approach God through beauty in multiple ways.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Ok - I've been grouchy on the Ship for a few days now and have been grouchy to others too. So point taken and I apologise for the insulting tone, daronmedway.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I do not understand the objection to a corporate prayer being uttered together.

It is not a 'corporate' prayer but a presidential one.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I do not understand the objection to a corporate prayer being uttered together.
It is not a 'corporate' prayer but a presidential one.

I don't have a strong view on this, and it's something I don't think I've ever encountered. However, if it's a presidential function, and the President invites us to join him or her, wouldn't that mean we are obliged to do so?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Well, I still read them, Gamaliel, precisely because I trust that they are written the edification of the church. I neither insist nor expect the people I pastor to entirely agree with my personal theological convictions. However, if asked I would happily explain why some of the post communion prayers don't float my boat.

Respect to daronmedway for subordinating his theological preferences to the wider church. Would that all priests (from every part of the spectrum) would do that. [Overused]

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I do not understand the objection to a corporate prayer being uttered together.
It is not a 'corporate' prayer but a presidential one.
I don't have a strong view on this, and it's something I don't think I've ever encountered. However, if it's a presidential function, and the President invites us to join him or her, wouldn't that mean we are obliged to do so?

I know the liturgy by memory. So I decided to have a look at the actual text of the BAS (Book of Alternative Services, the prayer book in most common general usage in Canada). The Collect for Purity is to be said by all, with the opening phrase as the into, all together following.

The Collect for the Day indeed is said to only require our "amen". Practice departs from the directive evidently.

The idea of "presidential" or presiding (which is the root I presume?) doing things which the community observes or has limited to no role in, is interesting, as there is a continuing shift in liturgical practice.

We had the altar/table at the front, behind communion rail, with the rail closed up for communion etc. There was a shift to move the table forward, almost to first pews, with the idea that we should do "this' (as in eucharist) in the midst of the people. Similarly, the gospel (and somewhat inconsistently the other readings) have been done by coming down from a lectern and moving between the rows of pews, about 1/4 of the way down. The gospel then being also in the midst.

I don't think we're having directives about this, as I don't recall any to do or not do, but I'm just a lay member. It does signify something I think. Much as the change that had the priest face the congregation rather than the front of the church, which was a directive.

I suspect some of our regional differences have some role. Certainly less than half of our congregation was raised Anglican, and there being a general informality of our society here compared to most other places I've visited.

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

Bosch Peters (who tweets as @liturgy) has blogged on this recently. He does not approve

Carys

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

For which Fr Bosco should be canonized: a voice of sanity amidst the passion for dull collective mumble-thons

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
For which Fr Bosco should be canonized: a voice of sanity amidst the passion for dull collective mumble-thons

He is fortunate not to have experienced the corporate reading of scripture. It was an annoying practice employed by some of my church's lectors in years past, mostly to take the pressure off themselves. It is a practice long since forgotten, and good riddance.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I do not understand the objection to a corporate prayer being uttered together.
It is not a 'corporate' prayer but a presidential one.
I don't have a strong view on this, and it's something I don't think I've ever encountered. However, if it's a presidential function, and the President invites us to join him or her, wouldn't that mean we are obliged to do so?

No. The president's job is to preside, not to govern. The president is a servant of the liturgy, not its director.

The laity have the right to demand the president play his or her part obediently.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Since there is nothing commanding nor forbidding the congregation saying the collect in the Bible, I say why not?

Besides, have you noticed in most contemporary liturgies it is now called the prayer of the day?

I see the prayer of the day as an introduction to the lessons of the day. It focuses the congregation on the theme of the lessons they are about to hear.

Someone upthread claimed that clergy do not get much training in the liturgy. I politely disagree. I remember when we were working through the common mass our instructor told us to wait a half minute before saying the prayer of the day. He said he was told to wait a full minute. Today when I am the liturgist I will usually pause for about fifteen seconds. I will also put other pauses in the liturgy when I can. I find silence is a very important part of the service if done properly.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Since there is nothing commanding nor forbidding the congregation saying the collect in the Bible, I say why not?

There's nothing in the Bible to tell you whether to butter your toast with a knife or a soup spoon, either. But I bet you use a knife, on the grounds that it's a great deal more effective.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

At our place praying the collect used to be the task of the assisting minister, and the post-Communion prayer the task of the presiding minister, but one Sunday I showed up to discover that the congregation was now being directed to pray these as well. Our worship committee relies heavily on our denominational "Sundays and Seasons" resource -- they, and the pastor, don't tinker with the liturgy themselves, as a rule -- so I'll blame the Home Office...which often comes up with really ill-thought liturgical innovations.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

Sundays and Seasons (the book) doesn't specify. ELW assigns the Prayer of the Day to the presiding minister, and the Prayer after Communion to the assisting minister. That said, as you know, every ELCA church is going to do whatever it wants.

As for the use of the term "Prayer of the Day," I'm afraid it doesn't extend very far outside the ELCA. The Catholics have even reverted from their older "Opening Prayer" to "Collect." I certainly don't object to "Prayer of the Day," but it certainly hasn't spread to most contemporary liturgies, especially with denoms that actually use preprinted prayers regularly.

[And if we're relying on the Bible for liturgical rubrics now, then I propose no sermon be allowed that is longer than the Sermon on the Mount. [Snigger]

]

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

It's not so much that I care if the prayer is read collectively, but...they're (the mysterious, anonymous "they're") constantly tinkering with the liturgy without explanation and without obvious cause.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

I feel your pain. It's certainly a reason I became one of "them." [Biased]

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
If I'm reading a poem on a train (as I was earlier today) I'll keep my mouth shut for the benefit of the other passengers. But if I'm reading it alone at home I'll often read it out loud. And poetry works better out loud and the better the poetry the better it works.

But poetry known by heart is better still. Would you expect to see Shakespearean actors reading from the text on stage? Would it be normal (apart from a few avid students) to see the audience reading from the text?

The liturgy is the Gesamtkunstwerk (total work of art) of the Church: text, speech, song, music, movement, costume, light, architecture, design. It's proclamation and celebration. It's proletarian, communitarian, KingdomofGodarian. It's death, judgement, heaven and hell. It's a wedding banquet and manna in the wilderness. It transcends the books it's written in like a great opera performance transcends the printed score that sits on your bookshelf.

And it does not belong to the clergy, to tamper with and tinker with as they please. It is the story and the drama of God's holy people, and it belongs only to them and to Him.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

Surely the story and drama of God's people is the gospel of grace itself? Liturgy is merely a means (albeit an especially effective means) at communicating that gospel among a host of other means of communication.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Bosch Peters (who tweets as @liturgy) has blogged on this recently. He does not approve

Carys

I tried for a second time today to access this blog link. It doesn't load.

quote:
This web page is not available because liturgy.co.nz took too long to respond. The website may be down or you may be experiencing issues with your Internet connection.

No issues with internet connections, regular high speed at home, high speed T2 at work with fixed IP. What does the blog say, and is it reposted elsewhere on the 'net?

The general website and the specific link to the blog post don't load.

[ 19. August 2013, 14:57: Message edited by: no prophet ]

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Surely the story and drama of God's people is the gospel of grace itself? Liturgy is merely a means (albeit an especially effective means) at communicating that gospel among a host of other means of communication.

But the gospel is, or should be, embodied in the liturgy, and by no means only in the written text. I think it's arguable that the primary mode in which the gospel can be found in the liturgy is in the sacramental presence of Christ himself.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Surely the story and drama of God's people is the gospel of grace itself? Liturgy is merely a means (albeit an especially effective means) at communicating that gospel among a host of other means of communication.
But the gospel is, or should be, embodied in the liturgy, and by no means only in the written text. I think it's arguable that the primary mode in which the gospel can be found in the liturgy is in the sacramental presence of Christ himself.

I agree, with reservations. I too believe that Christ's presence is vital to true worship. Enjoying the manifest presence of God is, I believe, one of the marks of true worship. However, while agreeing that Christ is particularly and specially present in the sacrament of the table, I would also suggest that his immediate and supernatural presence by his Holy Spirit is prior to his sacramental presence and is not tied to or contingent upon sacramental a element to the worship.

[ 19. August 2013, 17:03: Message edited by: daronmedway ]

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Bosch Peters (who tweets as @liturgy) has blogged on this recently. He does not approve

Carys
I tried for a second time today to access this blog link. It doesn't load.

quote:
This web page is not available because liturgy.co.nz took too long to respond. The website may be down or you may be experiencing issues with your Internet connection.
No issues with internet connections, regular high speed at home, high speed T2 at work with fixed IP. What does the blog say, and is it reposted elsewhere on the 'net?

The general website and the specific link to the blog post don't load.

Interesting a couple of people have reported a similar problem via Twitter, but others say it works for them as it does for me.

Basically don't do it. Unrehearsed choral speaking leads to bland rendition not proclamation.

Carys

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

My previous forays into the Church in Wales have been in Monmouth where all was done decently and in order.

In Swansea & Brecon on Sunday, we were invited to join in the collect and the Canon (after the Mystery of Faith). I joined in the former; I closed my book for the latter (explaining to my younger son as I did so that we didn't say this bit because we're not priests).

The altar was eastward but the priest turned to face the congregation for the dominical words, the per ipsum, and the Lord's Prayer. And preached a dire sermon dismissing the stupidity of the OT Jews for coming up with stupid rules.

And we sang a hymn to the tune of Kum Ba Ya.

Thurible

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
And preached a dire sermon dismissing the stupidity of the OT Jews for coming up with stupid rules.

Oh dear. That's a phenomenal passage for liturgical iconoclasts. Perhaps he should reread the Pauline epistles and see that some sense of contextual order is certainly necessary. Maybe he had better check the source on those OT laws, too!

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Bosch Peters (who tweets as @liturgy) has blogged on this recently. He does not approve

Carys
I tried for a second time today to access this blog link. It doesn't load.

quote:
This web page is not available because liturgy.co.nz took too long to respond. The website may be down or you may be experiencing issues with your Internet connection.
No issues with internet connections, regular high speed at home, high speed T2 at work with fixed IP. What does the blog say, and is it reposted elsewhere on the 'net?

The general website and the specific link to the blog post don't load.
Interesting a couple of people have reported a similar problem via Twitter, but others say it works for them as it does for me.

Basically don't do it. Unrehearsed choral speaking leads to bland rendition not proclamation.

Carys

It loaded tonight. Thanks for the comment. Suspect the link is intermittent as cables go underseas and then to get to me in the north of Canada from his thoughtful bloggerising, through extensive surveillance per Snowden's advice on such things. The NSA being worried about proper prayer and all

I think the weakness in the approach he suggests, viz.,

quote:
Compare this with the presider saying something akin to, “Let us pray (in silence) to follow God’s will”, and then the gathering community having a moment of genuine silent prayer, concluded by the presider prayerfully proclaiming the collect that has been well rehearsed beforehand, while the community makes this prayer their own, many in the gathering with their eyes closed, and all affirming the prayer with a resounding “Amen!” May it be so.

Is that presiding priests may fail in their duty with the Collect, and thus, with their lack of diligence, we all in it together. It is, as I noted, the universal practice in my experience within Canadian Anglicanism, save the faint scattering of the anglo-catholics who don't let the congregation do much of anything. Hard one this: we're damned at both ends.

Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on :

No problems with the Liturgy site but then it's just over a spit of water for me.

And it's Bosco, not Bosch, although that may have been an autocorrect on your part.

Posted by sonata3 (# 13653) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:

I see the prayer of the day as an introduction to the lessons of the day. It focuses the congregation on the theme of the lessons they are about to hear.

Historically, I don't think this is the case. Traditionally there were (still are in the RCC) three collects in the Eucharist, each of which concluded a liturgical act: the collect before the readings, which concluded the entrance rite (and often has nothing to do with the lections); the collect before the preface dialogue, which concluded the ceremonies around preparing the altar; and the final collect, concluding the communion rite. The BCP tradition kept only the first of these, replacing the post-communion with a fixed prayer, and eliminating the collect after the preparation of the altar altogether (I believe the Canadian BAS has restored these, perhaps as an option; ELW has them as well). Since in the traditional BCP's the opening collect was often printed with the lessons (as a part of the propers of the day, rather than the ordinary), it led many to believe that there was a closer relationship between Collect and readings than there in fact was (although some of Cranmer's revisions may have moved the Collect into a closer relationship to the readings).

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

The C of E's Alternative Service Book took the view that the collect was the preparation for the readings and therefore developed a highly 'thematic' approach (with its own idiosyncratic thematic lectionary). The more recent Common Worship has gone the other way, adopting the RCL and linking the collects, not to the readings (which depend more or less on calendar date), but, in Ordinary Time, to the 'Sundays after Trinity' which move about according to the date of Easter.

Obviously on the major feasts (and festival seasons) there is an underlying theme which will be reflected in the prayers as well as the readings. Attempting to fit three readings and two or three prayers into a single theme at other times of the year is artificial at best and impossible at worst.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
My previous forays into the Church in Wales have been in Monmouth where all was done decently and in order.

In Swansea & Brecon on Sunday, we were invited to join in the collect and the Canon (after the Mystery of Faith). I joined in the former; I closed my book for the latter (explaining to my younger son as I did so that we didn't say this bit because we're not priests).

The altar was eastward but the priest turned to face the congregation for the dominical words, the per ipsum, and the Lord's Prayer. And preached a dire sermon dismissing the stupidity of the OT Jews for coming up with stupid rules.

And we sang a hymn to the tune of Kum Ba Ya.

Thurible

That would make a good MW Report - let them know what you think.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0