|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Eucharistic prayers authorised by canons (C of E)
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
It is frequently asserted that we shouldn't use RC eucharistic prayers.
Also that we shouldn't write our own.
I have belonged to two churches, one of which always did the former, the other often did the latter.
I looked at Canon B2 but that says nothing specifically relevant.
Which canon specifies that the EP must be one of the choice of 8 which we have in Common Worship?
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
Doesn't the ordination oath cover it?
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It is frequently asserted that we shouldn't use RC eucharistic prayers.
Also that we shouldn't write our own.
I have belonged to two churches, one of which always did the former, the other often did the latter.
I looked at Canon B2 but that says nothing specifically relevant.
Which canon specifies that the EP must be one of the choice of 8 which we have in Common Worship?
None. They are illicit, presumably, because those in CW/BCP are the only ones authorised, we are forbidden from using unauthorised forms of service (B1 et al), and they do constitute a 'substantial' change, thus making Canon B5 moot.
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I am sure there is more to it than that - there are rubrics which allow us to leave out 2 or the 3 readings, for example. 'Patterns of worship' even allowed a skeleton plan with considerable freedom.
Yeah, but readings from scripture (however many or few there are) are by definition not going to be contrary to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England. I'm sure the concern is that any unauthorized Eucharistic prayers would be contrary to said doctrine and discipline.
There are one or two Eucharistic prayers from other sources (mostly other Anglican provinces) that I quite like and wouldn't mind seeing, but given that Common Worship authorizes no fewer than 10 Eucharistic prayers (or 12 if you take into account the fact that A and C have 'contemporary' and 'traditional' versions), I don't think it's too much to ask that priests stick to one of the authorized ones.
--------------------
'It's not that simple. I won't have it to be that simple'.
Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I am sure there is more to it than that - there are rubrics which allow us to leave out 2 or the 3 readings, for example. 'Patterns of worship' even allowed a skeleton plan with considerable freedom.
CW's Service of the Word (the only flexible form of service permitted under Canon, I think?), specifically says that the EP "must follow an authorized [sic] text". Presuming that, being authorised, and that only authorised services are permitted by Canon, then CW's rubric is surely binding?
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ahleal V
Shipmate
# 8404
|
Posted
In the old versions of the Order for the Eucharist (Tufton Books), edited by John Hunwicke (of Liturgical Notes fame) used to have a very convoluted reading of the Canons and recent documents of the House of Bishops which suggested in principle that one could use the Roman Rite, especially when considering the antiquity of the use of that prayer in England.
It's worth a read if you like a legally-minded chuckle. (However, I don't know if it's in the more recent editions, post-Ordinariate. I think the version I checked was 2008.)
x
AV
[ 24. September 2013, 14:10: Message edited by: Ahleal V ]
Posts: 499 | From: English Spires | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
I don't object to a Roman EP in principle (although I think it unnecessary). What does concern me are "experimental" EPs which can downplay significant elements of Christian tradition.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ahleal V:
In the old versions of the Order for the Eucharist (Tufton Books), edited by John Hunwicke (of Liturgical Notes fame) used to have a very convoluted reading of the Canons and recent documents of the House of Bishops which suggested in principle that one could use the Roman Rite, especially when considering the antiquity of the use of that prayer in England.
It's worth a read if you like a legally-minded chuckle. (However, I don't know if it's in the more recent editions, post-Ordinariate. I think the version I checked was 2008.)
x
AV
In similar vein: Hunwicke on Eucharistic Prayers
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Quite. I think there is room for more leeway at informal celebrations or even weekday masses. By definition these are not the Sunday assembly of the Lord's people, in which we are united with our fellow Christians in the same basic liturgy; and with our fellow-Anglicans in using it in the form approved by our church and not someone else's. By analogy, those of us who are English speakers should feel at ease in an anglophone culture, but most at home when we use our own national or regional 'dialect.'
Also, if we claim to be an 'inclusive' church we should not use prayers which exclude (as some of the RC prayers might do) those of other theological traditions within our own church. Even less should the vicar's bright ideas or obsessions dictate how we pray.
Without checking I'm not sure where in Canon Law or in the rubrics it says this, but I'm pretty sure that whatever freedom there is in shaping the liturgy does not extend to the eucharistic prayer (except possibly the prefaces). The forms of confession and absolution are pretty tightly controlled too, but that is another discussion.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
So nobody has an excuse for using anything else. Unfortunately it has the opposite effect: well, one more (eco or Roman according to taste) won't matter.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Why so many Eucharistic Prayers?
Because at the last minute the committee responsible were nobbled by:
1) a bunch of people with absolutely no liturgical taste whatsoever (Prayer H);
2) a bunch of people who love their mummies oh so much (Prayer G); and:
3) a bunch of people who had such good taste that they wouldn't let them ditch the one the apparatchiks allegedly wanted to ditch because it might have a couple of long theomological words in (Prayer C).
But returning to the OP's question, there is a degree of leeway even on the Eucharistic Prayer. Look at note 2 on p330:
"2 Traditional Texts
In addition to the places where they are printed in the service, traditional versions of texts may be used."
So one could for instance be "traditional" enough to use the Sanctus from the Church Society's An English Prayer Book. And get "and with your spirit" back. And if one changes the last line of the Sursum Corda to be in line with tradition, then the first line of the preface would probably need slight tweaking too...
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
2) a bunch of people who love their mummies oh so much (Prayer G); and:
![[Confused]](confused.gif) What's wrong with prayer G? I love it.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
2) a bunch of people who love their mummies oh so much (Prayer G); and:
What's wrong with prayer G? I love it.
A lot.
"Echo the silent music of your praise" sounds as though it might be profound, but it's actually meaningless. It sounds like a VIth form attempt at poetry.
"From them you raised up Jesus, born of Mary, to be the living bread" is a bit confused, as though it's trying to pack the raising up of the crucifixion and the bread of heaven (which is given from on high) into one metaphor (nice idea) and not quite getting there.
"he came to supper with his friends" is trite and wrong. It implies a sort of suburban dinner party, rather than a ritual chaburah.
Explicitly asking that the elements "may be for us the body and blood &c" after the Dominical Words always gets my hackles up.
Everything from "As we eat and drink these holy things..." is very fine, though, which is a besetting fault of so much of CW: the occasionally beautiful is always overshadowed by the unforgivably trite.
[ 24. September 2013, 18:19: Message edited by: Vade Mecum ]
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ahleal V
Shipmate
# 8404
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
"Echo the silent music of your praise" sounds as though it might be profound, but it's actually meaningless. It sounds like a VIth form attempt at poetry.
It's St John of the Cross, actually - as discussed previously.
But everything else you say, I agree with. Especially, 'supper with his friends.'
x
AV
[ 24. September 2013, 18:51: Message edited by: Ahleal V ]
Posts: 499 | From: English Spires | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
2) a bunch of people who love their mummies oh so much (Prayer G); and:
What's wrong with prayer G? I love it.
1) The way it starts off from the Sursum Corda as if its trying to set off from the Benedictus. Yes, I know it's really aping Offertory Prayers (like the ghastly Welsh Prayer 1), but that does not make matters better.
2) St John of the Cross's New Clothes. Nuff said.
3) "How wonderful the work of your hands, O Lord.
As a mother tenderly gathers her children,
you embraced a people as your own."
Whoa! Epic non-sequitur. The first sentence is a neat way out of the Sanctus (or it least it would be if they hadn't something out ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ), but then it just gets dropped for some wet allusion to Anselm (who surely must be a good candidate for most reprehensible canonization ever).
4) "Friends" is okay for when there are large numbers of junior-school children present, but in something intended for general use, the word is "disciples".
5) What on earth does pleading a sacrifice mean? This just isn't English. Although I do like the vocative "Father" getting it all back on track after those distracting acclamations.
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
Ok, the snark-o-meter is far too far over now! In Ecclesiantics, we strive to maintain an atmosphere of respect for the different traditions represented here. That includes differing traditions within the Anglican Communion as well as beyond it. Various of the comments here fall short of that aim. I would encourage charitable discussion, even when referring to texts you don't like.
Much obliged.
seasick, Eccles host
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
"he came to supper with his friends" is trite and wrong. It implies a sort of suburban dinner party, rather than a ritual chaburah.
It might, if it were not preceded by 'On the night before he died.' Not many jolly suburban dinner parties are hosted by a man aware of his forthcoming trial and execution. 'Supper' often means cream crackers and cheese before bedtime, but in this context everyone is aware of the notion of the 'Last Supper.' 'Friends,' to my mind, underlines the poignant emotional warmth of that gathering. And for Christians, to suggest a 'ritual meal' is to imply formality and distance from real life; for Jews, surely a ritual meal is also a real family celebration, with warmth and laughter as well as deep spirituality and solemnity.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
I've hardly ever heard Prayer G. If it's inclusion prevents home-made creation based eucharistic prayers omiting the cross and downplaying the Trinity and Incarnation (which I have come across on Sundays) all to the good.
Isn't it meant to be based on St Basil? I bet someone would love to show his sister, Macrina, had a hand in it. Maybe she did.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Doesn't the ordination oath cover it?
When i was concerned with the wording of this oath, having regularly written eucharistic prayers as a group planning experimental liturgies, my sponsoring incumbent replied 'authorised by canon? Canon who?'
This is a common (and not always half-joking) response by people who want to use the Roman prayers. It annoys me. These people know perfectly well what the intention of the oath is, and they're either mocking it, or saying it with their fingers crossed behind their backs.
I think they would do well to remember Thomas More's words in A Man for all Seasons - "What is an oath, then, but words we say to God?"
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
"he came to supper with his friends" is trite and wrong. It implies a sort of suburban dinner party, rather than a ritual chaburah.
It might, if it were not preceded by 'On the night before he died.' Not many jolly suburban dinner parties are hosted by a man aware of his forthcoming trial and execution. 'Supper' often means cream crackers and cheese before bedtime, but in this context everyone is aware of the notion of the 'Last Supper.' 'Friends,' to my mind, underlines the poignant emotional warmth of that gathering. And for Christians, to suggest a 'ritual meal' is to imply formality and distance from real life; for Jews, surely a ritual meal is also a real family celebration, with warmth and laughter as well as deep spirituality and solemnity.
But don't you see that the context makes this line even more bathetic? To go from 'The night before he died' to 'came to supper with his friends' is horribly anticlimactic.
And it's the whole phrase, Angloid: 'Supper' might be excused, but 'came to supper with his friends' implies an humdrum thing, something unimportant. Besides which, 'came' implies that the disciples were having a dinner party to which Christ happened to come along to: when we know he ordered it to be prepared and was the centre of it.
I don't think homeliness and friendliness is a sufficient trade-off for awe and terrible majesty, I'm afraid.
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
None. They are illicit, presumably, because those in CW/BCP are the only ones authorised, we are forbidden from using unauthorised forms of service (B1 et al), and they do constitute a 'substantial' change, thus making Canon B5 moot.
The only time I've heard a coherent argument as to why such things are allowed, it was relying on Canon B5. So I guess the question is: Does either side have proof that 'substantial' has a precise definition in this context?
quote:
CW's Service of the Word (the only flexible form of service permitted under Canon, I think?), specifically says that the EP "must follow an authorized [sic] text". Presuming that, being authorised, and that only authorised services are permitted by Canon, then CW's rubric is surely binding?
But someone who believes that their alternative Eucharistic prayer was permitted under Canon B5 would consider it to be an authorized text for the purpose of this rubric (since canon B5 authorizes it)
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
None. They are illicit, presumably, because those in CW/BCP are the only ones authorised, we are forbidden from using unauthorised forms of service (B1 et al), and they do constitute a 'substantial' change, thus making Canon B5 moot.
The only time I've heard a coherent argument as to why such things are allowed, it was relying on Canon B5. So I guess the question is: Does either side have proof that 'substantial' has a precise definition in this context?
In the final resort I imagine the decision rests with the Ordinary. Don't have time to look up the Canons on it, though. I imagine that said Ordinary would (privately or officially) take a dim view of someone pretending that Eucharistic prayers could be changed without it being a substantial change. As you say, though, I know of no definite definition thereof.
quote:
quote:
CW's Service of the Word (the only flexible form of service permitted under Canon, I think?), specifically says that the EP "must follow an authorized [sic] text". Presuming that, being authorised, and that only authorised services are permitted by Canon, then CW's rubric is surely binding?
But someone who believes that their alternative Eucharistic prayer was permitted under Canon B5 would consider it to be an authorized text for the purpose of this rubric (since canon B5 authorizes it)
I think I'd want to say that Canon B5 allows certain innovations or interpolations, not authorises them. "Authorised" here has a specific meaning within the Canons, and so one would expect something "authorised" to be available for use by everyone, not ad hoc, subject to the provisions of Canon B5.
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
None. They are illicit, presumably, because those in CW/BCP are the only ones authorised, we are forbidden from using unauthorised forms of service (B1 et al), and they do constitute a 'substantial' change, thus making Canon B5 moot.
The only time I've heard a coherent argument as to why such things are allowed, it was relying on Canon B5. So I guess the question is: Does either side have proof that 'substantial' has a precise definition in this context?
There is no precise definition: words like "substantial" can only really be argued case by case.
So, for example, I'd argue that it's "insubstantial" when, saying the eucharistic prayer, I default to the words of institution that are in my memory, regardless of what might be on the page. I don't like looking at the book at that point, and the words in my memory are those currently in CW Prayer B. Therefore authorised, and I don't think it matters if I use them even when I'm saying Prayer E.
But I'd argue it would be "substantial" if I were to include a prayer for "Francis our Pope" into the eucharistic prayer. For one thing, no CofE eucharistic prayer allows for prayers for named individuals, and for another, Francis is not "our" Pope.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
In fairness to the reviled Prayer G, it does include potential intercessions, albeit bracketed:
Remember, Lord, your Church in every land.
Reveal her unity, guard her faith,
and preserve her in peace...
The dots would seem to allow some possibly specific intercessions. None of the other EPs have anything like intercessions.
Prayer G, like B, D and F, allows for the naming of N and all your saints, which any catholic would made the most of, I hope. For N, read M.
I've just checked Bradshaw. It is F, not G, that is supposed to be based on St Basil. G was based on a discarded RC original.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
I don't think homeliness and friendliness is a sufficient trade-off for awe and terrible majesty, I'm afraid.
That is the eternal paradox between transcendence and immanence. Something the liturgy ought to get right but often doesn't. IMHO some prayers are too chatty but this one isn't. YMMV.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Why so many Eucharistic Prayers?
Because at the last minute the committee responsible were nobbled by:...
I think the simpler explanation is that liturgy designed by Synod is invariably bad liturgy. Far too many people who had peculiar axes to grind and often little real appreciation or understanding of liturgy were able to demand this change or that modification.
In principle, the idea behind Common Worship is good. C of E worship takes place in a multiplicity of contexts - rural, suburban and inner city; evangelical, middle of the road and anglo-catholic; with ageing, conservative congregations and congregations of younger people who may not know much about the nuances of the BCP. Etc etc etc. Therefore, rather than try and provide ONE form of liturgy to cater for all these variations, we have a deep supply of liturgical resources to be used as appropriate. Well - that's the theory.
In reality, too many people (even on General Synod) failed to understand some of the key ideas behind CW. Too many rather random and idiosyncratic additions and amendments were made, making CW overly large and messy. And too many parishes have failed to understand how to use the material wisely - what they should use and what they can simply ignore.
Prayer G is NOT a bad EP. It may not rock your boat, so just don't use it. But for some parishes it will fit well. I really despair of some of the preciousness shown on this thread. The phrase "get a life" comes to mind.
But I DO think that, given the wide range of EPs available within CW and that there is clear instruction given to priests to only use authorised EPs, there is no justification for wheeling in something from the RC or whatever. Certainly not on a regular basis. If you can't find something in CW that meets your needs, then I suspect that the C of E may not be the right place for you.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ButchCassidy
Shipmate
# 11147
|
Posted
Yes. Or, obviously, that he is 'coming to supper with his friends', shortly before he will 'lay down his life' for them.
Agree that the tension between warmess and transcendence is difficult to hold in one EP, but then the service isn't only the EP.
Posts: 104 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Responding to the OP, it isn't the Canon which specifies that the EP must be one of the authorized EPs, but rather the liturgical text itself which specifies it in the rubric stating quote:
An authorized Eucharistic Prayer is used.
ISTM that this removes the wiggle room of "or allowed by canon" which is present in the Declaration of Assent.
Within the EPs themselves, there is (AIUI) liberty with those prayers that allow for Proper Prefaces for the prefaces to be drawn from any source or composed for the occasion provided that they are quote:
reverent and seemly and … neither contrary to, nor indicative of any departure from, the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter
The onus then is on the good sense and integrity of the minister.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
The simple point, as I understand it, is that if you are CofE, the 1662 and Common Worship eucharists are authorised and the RC or DIY ones are not. This is a matter for the Catholic hierarchy, but I am strongly under the impression that if you are an RC priest, you are only allowed to use the authorised Catholic mass.
CW allows a lot of alternatives, and that fact is the authority to use them, but not others that one makes up oneself or borrows from somewhere else, even a church that one is in communion with.
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch
But I DO think that, given the wide range of EPs available within CW and that there is clear instruction given to priests to only use authorised EPs, there is no justification for wheeling in something from the RC or whatever. Certainly not on a regular basis. If you can't find something in CW that meets your needs, then I suspect that the C of E may not be the right place for you.
I'd agree. I'd add that it's probably a symptom of missing the point to regard one's personal preference in eucharistic prayers as the key criterion for selecting which ecclesial community to join.
It seems to me that there is only one valid reason for regarding the RC form as having some special status. That is not, that one thinks it is better, but that it is the form prescribed by the Pope. If one believes that, one should become an RC, and should not whittle about the revisions last year.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Responding to the OP, it isn't the Canon which specifies that the EP must be one of the authorized EPs, but rather the liturgical text itself which specifies it in the rubric stating quote:
An authorized Eucharistic Prayer is used.
ISTM that this removes the wiggle room of "or allowed by canon" which is present in the Declaration of Assent.
Thank you - simultaneous, I found that this applies to experimental series too: quote:
One of the authorized forms must always be used. A Eucharistic Prayer, whether it takes the form of extended monologue with acclamations, or a dialogue between president and congregation,
New patterns for Worship
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
Thank you, Oscar.
I don’t understand all this nit picking at the texts of Eucharistic prayers. If I’m so fortunate as to be present at Eucharistic prayer, what I believe is happening and involving me is so awesome that words are inadequate in any case and provided all the classic bits are present in the prayer in a more or less classic order, the details are irrelevant.
1662 as written does in barely adequate to my mind.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Thank you, Oscar.
I don’t understand all this nit picking at the texts of Eucharistic prayers. If I’m so fortunate as to be present at Eucharistic prayer, what I believe is happening and involving me is so awesome that words are inadequate in any case and provided all the classic bits are present in the prayer in a more or less classic order, the details are irrelevant.
1662 as written does in barely adequate to my mind.
Classic reductionism
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
To listen to some of the words spilt on this subject over the years, there are people who if they had been present at a Eucharist presided over by St Peter, St Paul, or the Last Supper itself, would still have felt themselves qualified to explain in detail why the president hadn't celebrated quite as they thought it ought to be done.
To look at another aspect of this. Very often, those who are most picky that they, and only they are dear late Father Wilfred, of St Quiricus and Julietta of Somewhere Vaguely North West of Euston (Confessions by Appointment) really know how the how it should be done, haven't really considered the implications for another doctrine dear to their hearts, and as it happens, critical to their arguments against women at the altar, that is, sacramental assurance.
If you really believe that the elements only truly become the body and blood of Christ using some Eucharistic Prayers, and not others, or if you feel you need to correct them by muttering other words under your breath, or using some other ecclesial household's form rather than your own, some rather disturbing things follow. For example:-
- The Eucharistic Prayer becomes a sort of spell that only works if you get the words right.
- Does that mean there is anyone who change the words without causing them to cease to work (the Lefebvre type argument)?
- From at least the end of the Middle Ages until within my lifetime, both Catholics and most (but not all) Protestants omitted an epiclesis. This would mean that north or west of Novi Sad, either all Eucharists before that change, or all after it, didn't 'work'.
- On what basis could a person maintain that it would not 'work' once a president pronounced all the right words, whether the president was a priest, a layman or even (horror of horrors) a lay woman.
- This sort of a theology presents a picture of a God who is not attractive and doesn't IMHO fit the revelation of scripture.
IMHO, the more one looks into this, the more 'sacramental assurance', if that is important to you, derives not from getting the ritual right but from authority. If St Quiricus and Julietta comes under +Richard and +++Justin, sacramental assurance for the congregation means being recognised by them and following the forms and ceremonies they require or permit. If it comes under ++Vincent and +++Francis, then it means being recognised by them and following the forms and ceremonies they permit. If you take your authority from being recognised by +Richard, you can't say 'well for some purposes I really think +++Francis has more authority than my own hierarchy'. To be able to give your congregation sacramental assurance, you owe to them to follow your own bishop's rules, and not think you know better.
There's an encouraging upside to this, which is that even if you disagree with your own communion's views on e.g. ordination of women (either way) or would really like to see everyone adopt the Eucharistic Prayer of the Scottish non-Jurors, the Sarum Use or a westernised form of the Liturgy of St Basil that you happened to have found recently while surfing the web in the small hours, you should have sacramental confidence in the Eucharist celebrated at your own church, however much you might feel you could do it better if the bishop would just see fit to lay hands suddenly upon you.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
To listen to some of the words spilt on this subject over the years, there are people who if they had been present at a Eucharist presided over by St Peter, St Paul, or the Last Supper itself, would still have felt themselves qualified to explain in detail why the president hadn't celebrated quite as they thought it ought to be done.
[snipped several more paras of good stuff]
While all that is true, I think we need to distinguish between theological and literary grounds for criticizing a Eucharistic Prayer. My criticism of Prayer G upthread was on a literary basis: I don't have any interest in the "validity" game (1662's just fine by me, as are all of the prayers in the URC's book). But I do dislike authorized texts that do things such as leaving verbs out of sentences and indulging in allusions that manage to both be sentimental and meaningless at the same time and serve only to show how clever the anonymous author was.
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
From at least the end of the Middle Ages until within my lifetime, both Catholics and most (but not all) Protestants omitted an epiclesis.
It's a bit hard to omit something that never was there in the first place. The traditional Roman Canon never had an epiclesis to begin with, and it existed in differing forms from around 2-300 BC (and was thus 2-300 years older than the start of the Middle Ages). The Roman Canon is, as far as I know, older than most of the Eastern liturgies we have knowledge of.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963
|
Posted
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Why so many Eucharistic Prayers?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because at the last minute the committee responsible were nobbled by:
1) a bunch of people with absolutely no liturgical taste whatsoever (Prayer H);
2) a bunch of people who love their mummies oh so much (Prayer G); and:
3) a bunch of people who had such good taste that they wouldn't let them ditch the one the apparatchiks allegedly wanted to ditch because it might have a couple of long theomological words in (Prayer C).
Without wishing to get back into the debate above too much, you may wish to note that H was written by David Stancliffe and myself in its original form and uses material from Mark Earey and Colin Buchanan in its final form. Some prople may not agree with what we did or even agree with us on anything, but we do, I suggest, have a modicum of liturgical taste between us.(And taste is in the eye of the beholder... er no, wait a minute that's a mixed metaphor.. silent music of his praise..)
G got in due to the lobbying undertaken by the then +Oxford, Richard Harries. He may well love his mother, but he did not tell us that when he came to give evidence to the Revision Committee.
We had been sent away by Synod with 6 prayers and a hint GS wanted fewer and so we were lothe to return with more. G was going in and Synod also asked for something like H (yes, I know that is inconsistent with Synod hinting it wanted less than 6 to come back). We toyed with dropping C for this reason, not because of any lack of merit in C - we thought it would be the least used. However we quickly decided to keep C as for some people it would be the only prayer that floated their boat. So the apparatchicks who brought you G and H also preserved C.
quote:
But returning to the OP's question, there is a degree of leeway even on the Eucharistic Prayer. Look at note 2 on p330:
"2 Traditional Texts
In addition to the places where they are printed in the service, traditional versions of texts may be used."
This note is meant to refer to using traditional language texts of e.g. the Sanctus in a modern language service. It is not meant to give permission to use Roman texts in the eucharistic prayer. It is to give comfort etc to musicians who want to use traditional texts and settings of these items.
--------------------
"I am a sinful human being - why do you expect me to be consistent?" George Bebawi
"This is just unfocussed wittering." Ian McIntosh
Posts: 701 | From: Norwich | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
... H was written by David Stancliffe and myself in its original form and uses material from Mark Earey and Colin Buchanan in its final form...
Follow me. I know a safe back way out of Ecclesiantics. Keep your head down, pull your Canterbury cap down over your eyes and if anybody says "The Lord be with you", run!
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
... H was written by David Stancliffe and myself in its original form and uses material from Mark Earey and Colin Buchanan in its final form...
Follow me. I know a safe back way out of Ecclesiantics. Keep your head down, pull your Canterbury cap down over your eyes and if anybody says "The Lord be with you", run!
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
FWIW I love prayer G, and always use it if I have a free choice. "The silent music of his love" is, to my mind, a powerful and moving image, as is Christ as a mother which comes a bit later. Your mileage clearly varies!
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
Without wishing to get back into the debate above too much, you may wish to note that H was written by David Stancliffe and myself in its original form and uses material from Mark Earey and Colin Buchanan in its final form. Some prople may not agree with what we did or even agree with us on anything, but we do, I suggest, have a modicum of liturgical taste between us.(And taste is in the eye of the beholder... er no, wait a minute that's a mixed metaphor.. silent music of his praise..)
Of course taste is in the eye of the beholder; that is why I didn't use a stronger word. But totally anecdotally, this prayer seems unrivalled in its tendency to cause upset, and I actually think it fails the test of "individual prayers are not 'party' prayers, and all of them are intended for use across the Church of England" (Bradshaw p122f), as it suits precisely the party that made "strong requests for more 'interactive' material" (Bradshaw p143) to the exclusion of others. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if it were put in New Patterns for Worship instead of the Main Volume.
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
G got in due to the lobbying undertaken by the then +Oxford, Richard Harries. He may well love his mother, but he did not tell us that when he came to give evidence to the Revision Committee.
Presumably the Revision Committee received lots of requests from individuals (at the very least, I imagine something similar to the Welsh prayers for use with children under 7 and 7 to 11 got presented). Why did it privilege Bishop Harries' request above the others? Indeed, a compendium of individually-requested eucharistic prayers, screened only to ensure a baseline of quality and to avoid offence, might be a useful publication, but it seems a very strange inclusion in the Main Volume.
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
We had been sent away by Synod with 6 prayers and a hint GS wanted fewer and so we were lothe to return with more. G was going in and Synod also asked for something like H (yes, I know that is inconsistent with Synod hinting it wanted less than 6 to come back). We toyed with dropping C for this reason, not because of any lack of merit in C - we thought it would be the least used. However we quickly decided to keep C as for some people it would be the only prayer that floated their boat. So the apparatchicks who brought you G and H also preserved C.
Why didn't you consider ditching A, D, or E instead? (Says he demonstrating that his boat is well-and-truly floated by C, and that B and F offer some amount of buoyancy...) As I see it, A is a rehash of quite tired material from the ASB and lacks quite a bit in the way of flow (at the very least, it really deserved to be moved away from the front of the list); D suits the "interactive" crowd without being as jarring to others as H — but if they want H, they should arguably have lost D; and E is perfectly nice, but a bit blink-and-you've-missed-it.
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
A - one person's tired is another person's much-loved, and a conventional prayer with a corporate doxological ending, and the option of acclamations was a good move
D - is a good prayer, interactive and with a potential for fully musical use, in a way that the others are not.
E - offers the option of a short conventional prayer, and we needed something like that for use when consecrating at home communions or in care/nursing homes. It is a workmanlike replacement for the ASBs eucharistic prayer for use with the sick. Personally I wouldn't use it on a Sunday without an extended preface (unless the Church caught fire during the Sursum Corda or something)
H - to my mind this is one which should not have been included, but the mind of the Church (as expressed through General Synod) was that it should be. (Brings to mind Michael Vasey's dictum that taking liturgy through general synod was like doing embroidery with a rugby scrum). I don't actually dislike it, but if one had to go this would be it. People tend to be very liturgically surprised by finishing with the Sanctus, and not quite ready for what follows.
EPs couldn't go in New Patterns because they had to go through a full process that because AIUI the authorised material in New Patterns was all authorised elsewhere, and the other material in New Patterns is only commended by the House of Bishops or material which falls within the discretion allowed under Canon B 5 and by the rubrics or notes in authorised forms of service.
In other words New Patterns as a volume did not require (or get) authorisation in that technical liturgical legal sense from General Synod.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
Thank you Charles for passing through and giving the 'insider' view of things - and hopefully clearing up a few misconceptions while we are about it!
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778
|
Posted
I think that the CW prayers are actually pretty good (except for H, which seems to have been designed for celebrants who were either astonishingly lazy or had such bad emphysema as to be incapable of speaking for more than a minute). Look at the ones in other Provinces: most of those in the 1979 American Prayer Book have weak and/or oddly placed epicleses, which is odd given that the American Prayer Books have always had an epiclesis (I wonder if the fact that it wasn't an issue made them a bit complacent). Again oddly, Eucharistic Prayer C from the American Prayer Book, which is much mocked for its 'Star Trek' imagery, actually conforms more closely to the shape that would be recognized by one familiar with CW or the Novus Ordo.
--------------------
'It's not that simple. I won't have it to be that simple'.
Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
St John's Wood Church uses Eucharistic Prayer H for its 'All Age' Service, which, it seems to me, is a big improvement on the general assumption that 'Family' or 'All Age' services are not Eucharistic. The vicar says, 'At least the epiclesis is in the right place!'
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
It all comes back to the "horses for courses" thing. A lot of churches won't ever use Prayer H. But for some, it will work well. The "interactive" feel is certainly a little strange to begin with but it is "doable".
I think I agree with most (if not all) of what BroJames said.
With regards to A - it would certainly have been disastrous to omit it, being the standard default for so many parishes! I know of a number of parishes where "implementing Common Worship" basically meant doing as little as possible to change from what they knew and were comfortable with. Hence Prayer A remains the default setting for many.
In my present parish, when I arrived I found that they had no idea of any other possibilities. They are now used to a certain amount of variation, but it has been hard work at times!
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963
|
Posted
quote:
Follow me. I know a safe back way out of Ecclesiantics. Keep your head down, pull your Canterbury cap down over your eyes and if anybody says "The Lord be with you", run!
You can run but you cannot hide from the Liturgical Commission and their associates....
And in other news....
A is meant to derive ultimately from the Roman Canon and F is based on Basil, but I think that is debateable when you compare them with those texts. This does not mean they are Bad Prayers.
D is meant to be a different style - narrative rather than propositional. (Hence the refrain, which we altered in revision and then changed back to 'This is his story' etc.)
E was an attempt to rescue something from the 1996 'defeated' prayers.
A and B were devised to keep ASB prayers 1 and 2 (=A) and 3 (= B) as we were told (and believed) these ASB prayers to be popular. C of course revises ASB 4.
And i do like prayers from other provinces / churches and wish we could just get on and authorise them. I have used Star Trek (in training contexts of course...) - but find it hard to resiost lapsing into a mis-Atlantic accent. 'fragile earth' is where I can resist it least...
--------------------
"I am a sinful human being - why do you expect me to be consistent?" George Bebawi
"This is just unfocussed wittering." Ian McIntosh
Posts: 701 | From: Norwich | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
