Thread: The Word of the Lord - Hear what the Spirit is saying to the Church 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=030506
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Something other than the gospel is read. The reader says at the end "The Word of the Lord", the response is "Thanks be to God". But sometimes I hear "Hear what the Spirit is saying the Church", including yesterday.
Is there any history to "Hear what the Spirit is saying to the Church"? What about it?
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
The phrase, of course, is from the first chapters of Revelation. My memory is that as a response to a reading (or as an introduction, which is how we sometimes use it), it started with the New Zealand Prayerbook.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
Revelation 2:7 is presumably the source. (I had to Google that, good Episcopalian that I am.)
I can't remember when I first heard it, but I've heard it before.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
Yuck.
At our place, it's "Here endeth the Epistle [or Lesson]."
People taking it upon themselves to alter liturgical texts is a pet peeve of mine.
Posted by BabyWombat (# 18552) on
:
In my current shack this is the accepted statement after each non-gospel reading, a practice introduced by a previous Rector. I think it was suggested as an alternate ending in one of TEC's supplemental liturgical texts issued in the early 2000's. (Sorry, don't have those texts handy-by at the moment, so cannot verify that.)
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
Yes, Baby Wombat, Enriching Our Worship 1 does use this response as the standard response.
I tend to be a "stick to what I know" kind of guy, like most folks, I suppose. I get a little flustered whenever I actually have to pick up my program to find a response.
That said, I don't think this is a bad one. And generally, I have found that TEC does a good job of sticking to the model of drawing from scripture in the composition of its new liturgies. When I said "Episcopalian that I am" above, I was referring to the fact that I actually know a huge number of Bible verses by heart, I just can't tell you exactly where they come from beyond "we use that as a response in Morning Prayer." So the more scripture I am exposed to through this method, I suppose, the better.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Yuck.
At our place, it's "Here endeth the Epistle [or Lesson]."
People taking it upon themselves to alter liturgical texts is a pet peeve of mine.
It would not be unreasonable to regard the notion that God can only be addressed or spoken of in cod C16 language as a pet peeve. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Yuck.
At our place, it's "Here endeth the Epistle [or Lesson]."
People taking it upon themselves to alter liturgical texts is a pet peeve of mine.
It would not be unreasonable to regard the notion that God can only be addressed or spoken of in cod C16 language as a pet peeve.
In which case, it's easy enough to find a church that doesn't use an older version of the Prayer Book, no?
At any rate, I wasn't aware that the response came from an authorized supplement to the BCP. So while I still don't like it, it's not (as I originally thought) the result of some loose cannon altering liturgical texts on the fly.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It would not be unreasonable to regard the notion that God can only be addressed or spoken of in cod C16 language as a pet peeve.
Setting aside my pet peeve of having to decipher unintelligible abbreviations and acronyms (what is a cod C16?) ... ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
I don't think that's the point. The point is that the Church, presumably under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, has prescribed certain language and responses to be used in the liturgy, yet individuals take it upon themselves (probably *not* under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) to substitute their own preferred utterances in place of same.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
The point is that the Church, presumably under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, has prescribed certain language and responses to be used in the liturgy, yet individuals take it upon themselves (probably *not* under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) to substitute their own preferred utterances in place of same.
But that doesn't seem to be the case here. If the Church has authorized "Hear what the Spirit is saying to the church" as an approved alternative response to the reading of scripture, then can readers (presumably with approval from those in charge) who avail themselves of that approved alternative be properly described as "people taking it upon themselves to alter liturgical texts"?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Yuck.
At our place, it's "Here endeth the Epistle [or Lesson]."
People taking it upon themselves to alter liturgical texts is a pet peeve of mine.
It would not be unreasonable to regard the notion that God can only be addressed or spoken of in cod C16 language as a pet peeve.
Cod C16 language, certainly not. Real C16 (/C17) language, on the other hand...
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Hear what the fish are saying to the church? Define "cod c16". anyone? anyone?
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
C16 is 16th Century, I assume. No clue about "cod."
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
"Cod" means fake or ersatz. In this case, though, I believe the 1662 BCP prescribes that conclusion for the Epistle at the Eucharist. So it's echt 17th century.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Echt? goodle says 'lawful, genuine'
Hear what the dialect is saying to the church, but doesn't understand. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
I Rather like the exhortation to listen to Spirit.
I prefer that to assuming that a passage of scripture assigned by a lectionary is the appropriate Word that speaks to the particular circumstance of a Christian community.
ISTM that the Revelation passage could be seen as asking a church to look at itself and see if any of the messages to the seven churches are pertinent to itself.
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on
:
I like "Wort des lebendigen Gottes" (Word of the living God), to which the response is "Dank sei Gott" (Thanks be to God). In the current German-language Roman Missal, that is.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I was actually being snide not about using C16 language so much as the innate fondness that most of us have for various versions of I disapprove, therefore I am.
All the same, if one is using the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, that is written in a form of English which was a bit out of date even then, but which one is stuck with. However, once it appears in a liturgy written in the C20 or C21, 'hear endeth' is linguistically cod whatever the ecclesiastical level of the person on whose authority it was issued.
This is thoroughly tangential. Nevertheless, there's quite a good example of the sort of thing I'm getting at in this week's Collect from Common Worship. It reads,
quote:
O God, forasmuch as without you we are not able to please you; mercifully grant that your Holy Spirit may in all things direct and rule our hearts .... .
It is trying to sound liturgical. But even without any 'thee' or 'eth' it still manages to end up mangled and linguistically derivative, a half-hearted modernisation of its C16 original. Unless one is using the 1662 book, in which case one has to stick to the original version, that would be better if it had been properly rewritten into a dignified register version of clear modern English.
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on
:
I quite like "The Word of the Lord" and "Hear what the Spirit is saying to the Church" because at least they contain some theological point. By contrast, "Here endeth the lesson" seems rather like a text seeking a purpose.
In my jurisdiction the people know that the reading has ended when the reader stops reading. There is no perceived need for the reader to say 'I've stopped reading now' or words to that effect.
Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
At our place, it's "Here endeth the Epistle [or Lesson]."
One of my pet peeves is people saying "Here endeth the Epistle" when it's not. It makes me want to heckle.
"Here endeth the Epistle."
"No it doesn't; there's another four chapters!"
I have never heard, "Hear what the Spirit is saying to the Church" but I don't like it (mainly on the purely irrational grounds that I'm not familiar with it, but partly because it sounds a bit pi and wordy.)
quote:
...God can only be addressed or spoken of in cod C16 language...
It is, of course, not "cod C16 language" - it's real C16 language!
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
I don't need an exhortation at the end of the reading. If anything needs saying then it should be just an announcement that it is the end of the reading.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
C16 is 16th Century, I assume. No clue about "cod."
C16 has been a standard way here of writing 16th century for well over the half century of which I can speak. "Cod" in this usage means "fake". So the date half of the assertion is correct, the description otherwise is wrong.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I think the deckchairs would look better over there, near that big lump of ice.
Posted by Marama (# 330) on
:
I met this usage (Hear what the Spirit is saying to the church) in Fiji (part of the NZ Anglican province) and I always thought it particularly appropriate after a more obscure or bloodthirsty OT reading. Perhaps the Holy Spirit could show us why this piece of iron age wisdom was in the lectionary for 21st century Christians, even if it was not at first apparent!
[ 04. October 2016, 11:01: Message edited by: Marama ]
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
Yes, Marama, that's, I think, what a lot of people like about it.
We used to have a developmentally disabled individual who attended our church. He obviously spent a lot of time at home listening to Christian radio, and subscribed to a much sterner, more literal version of the faith than the rest of us. He was a monthly reader, and when he read, he would allow the spirit to take hold of him, and deliver the epistle from memory as an oratory from Paul. He would always end by saying, "My brothers and sisters, this ... IS ... the word of the Lord."
There would always be a longish pause before the congregational response, I think because members of the congregation forgot that saying "thanks be to God" could just be a response to keep things moving, and not a voice of ascent to the assertion about scripture implicit in the voicing.
I personally can just say "thanks be to God" as a response without reading too much into the implications, but I can get why someone might want a gentler ending to the reading.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
At our place, it's "Here endeth the Epistle [or Lesson]."
One of my pet peeves is people saying "Here endeth the Epistle" when it's not. It makes me want to heckle.
"Here endeth the Epistle."
"No it doesn't; there's another four chapters!"
Well, yes; but "Epistle" can refer to either the entire NT book, or to the liturgical reading which is usually taken from one of those books. In this case, "Here endeth the Epistle" refers to the latter.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think the deckchairs would look better over there, near that big lump of ice.
"Won't somebody think of the CHILDREN?!"
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think the deckchairs would look better over there, near that big lump of ice.
"Won't somebody think of the CHILDREN?!"
I'm not sure what relevance you think that has to my comment.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
At our place, it's "Here endeth the Epistle [or Lesson]."
We have: "Here ends the lesson. Blessed are those who hear the Word of God and keep it."
The purpose is that it is an assertion that what has just been read is the Word of God.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
A typical but slightly old-fashioned postscript used in Baptist churches is "May the Lord add his blessing to the reading of his Word". Of course we have no liturgical protocol to follow.
I knew a URC minister who simply said, "Word of the Lord" - he had his reasons but it sounded a bit odd to my ears!
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think the deckchairs would look better over there, near that big lump of ice.
"Won't somebody think of the CHILDREN?!"
I'm not sure what relevance you think that has to my comment.
This section of SoF is devoted to discussing liturgical matters, which involves a certain amount of talking about things which evidently appear trivial to you. You're entitled to think so, but I wonder why you think we need to be periodically reminded of that.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
Dear all,
Please keep things respectful and polite. People's traditions may vary and all are entitled to their opinions.
dj_ordinaire, Eccles host
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
How about "Holy wisdom, Holy Word"?
The liturgy (non-binding, of course) in the PC(USA) hymnal offers it as an alternative to "The Word of the Lord" following a reading. The response is still "Thanks be to God." (Both in that liturgy and in The Book of Common Worship, "Hear what the Spirit is saying to the church" is given as an option to be used before the reading. The other before-reading option is "Hear the Word of the Lord," though I often hear "Listen for the Word of the Lord.") I think it came to us from the Lutherans and the Episcopalians, but I don't know much more than that about its history. It does seem to echo just a little the Orthodox "Wisdom! Let us attend!"
Anyone else encounter it?
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
A typical but slightly old-fashioned postscript used in Baptist churches is "May the Lord add his blessing to the reading of his Word". Of course we have no liturgical protocol to follow.
I knew a URC minister who simply said, "Word of the Lord" - he had his reasons but it sounded a bit odd to my ears!
We use "May the Lord add His blessing to the reading of His Word" also.
I think I remember the readers at the famous "Festival of Nine Lessons and Carols" from King's College, Cambridge saying simply "the Word of the Lord" when finished reading. I've also heard them say "Thanks be to God."
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:
...God can only be addressed or spoken of in cod C16 language...
It is, of course, not "cod C16 language" - it's real C16 language! [/QB]
But I don't speak C16 language. Only a C16 person would have spoken C16 language (though I think something similar is spoken in parts of Yorkshire, or was when I were a lad). Of course, I can translate, but why not use everyday language? Does it seem more "religious" to use antiquated phraseology? That ISTM is on the spectrum where keeping to Latin is at one extreme (assuming that no-one wants to back to patristic Greek, or even further).
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I think I remember the readers at the famous "Festival of Nine Lessons and Carols" from King's College, Cambridge saying simply "the Word of the Lord" when finished reading. I've also heard them say "Thanks be to God."
Right. They start with a one-sentence synopsis ("Adam and Eve disobey God in the Garden of Eden," or some such), read the lesson, and say "Thanks be to God" at the end. The congregation doesn't respond.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Of course, I can translate, but why not use everyday language? Does it seem more "religious" to use antiquated phraseology?
Even liturgies written in contemporary language tend to be quite a bit different from the way I speak to friends or acquaintances, or even to the judge in court. Liturgical language has its own phrasing, vocabulary, and pace.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
I loathe This is the word of the Lord in a service on the simple grounds that is isn't true: it is the word of whoever wrote the epistle or whatever. IMHO some of the problems the church faces with those who wish to see and use the Bible as a religious Haynes manual stem from this inaccuracy.
In any case, why do we have This is the word of the Lord after an OT lesson or epistle reading, yet the Gospel reading is Gospel according to St ...?
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Does it seem more "religious" to use antiquated phraseology? That ISTM is on the spectrum where keeping to Latin is at one extreme (assuming that no-one wants to back to patristic Greek, or even further).
A good reason for using Latin is to link us, the church today, with the church in earlier times. The same reason why Kyrie eleison is often said in Greek. So to use a prayer or other text from Cranmer's liturgy in Cranmer's language is to continue in that tradition. That doesn't imply using one language/ idiom for the entire liturgy.. it may be appropriate, but in most contexts these days probably not.
[ 05. October 2016, 22:16: Message edited by: Angloid ]
Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I loathe This is the word of the Lord in a service on the simple grounds that is isn't true: it is the word of whoever wrote the epistle or whatever.
Are we not supposed to believe that whoever wrote the epistle was inspired by God and was, therefore, writing His words? One needn't be a fundamentalist to believe that what was written by St Fred the Ambidextrous was the word of the Lord.
quote:
In any case, why do we have This is the word of the Lord after an OT lesson or epistle reading, yet the Gospel reading is Gospel according to St ...?
Before the Epistle we have "A reading from the Epistle of St..." -
Before the Gospel we have "Hear the the Gospel of oLJC according to St...".
After the Epistle we have "This is the word of the Lord." -
After the Gospel we have "This is the Gospel of the Lord."
There is only a glaring difference between the two if you compare the "before" for one reading with the "after" of the other reading. Why would you want to do that?! ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Does it seem more "religious" to use antiquated phraseology? That ISTM is on the spectrum where keeping to Latin is at one extreme (assuming that no-one wants to back to patristic Greek, or even further).
A good reason for using Latin is to link us, the church today, with the church in earlier times.
Another is to link the Church today to itself, across linguistic barriers.
I'll never forget visiting Lourdes as a teenager and singing the Pater Noster, Gloria Patri, and Ave Maria with Christians from Spain, France, Germany, Malta, Italy, and countless other countries. We might not have been able to have a conversation about how comfortable our hotel beds were but we could pray together in a common language.
The same is true of Slavonic and other liturgical languages. I can go to a Serbian, Russian, Ukrainian, Bulgarian, Belarussian, or other Slavic Orthodox church both in Britain and abroad, and be able to understand a great deal of the words of the hymns and prayers precisely because of exposure to Slavonic in my first Orthodox parish.
Exclusive use of the vernacular can be so very limiting.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I loathe This is the word of the Lord in a service on the simple grounds that is isn't true: it is the word of whoever wrote the epistle or whatever.
Are we not supposed to believe that whoever wrote the epistle was inspired by God and was, therefore, writing His words? One needn't be a fundamentalist to believe that what was written by St Fred the Ambidextrous was the word of the Lord.
Add to that some of us are in a tradition that operates with an understanding that when the canonical writings of St. Fred, or Tim the Prophet, are read when the church is gathered for worship, God is active in the gathered community, speaking in the present through those writings. In that sense, "the word of the Lord" refers not so much to the words on the page as it does to what the congregation experiences in reading those words together.
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I loathe This is the word of the Lord in a service on the simple grounds that is isn't true: it is the word of whoever wrote the epistle or whatever.
Are we not supposed to believe that whoever wrote the epistle was inspired by God and was, therefore, writing His words? One needn't be a fundamentalist to believe that what was written by St Fred the Ambidextrous was the word of the Lord.
Add to that some of us are in a tradition that operates with an understanding that when the canonical writings of St. Fred, or Tim the Prophet, are read when the church is gathered for worship, God is active in the gathered community, speaking in the present through those writings. In that sense, "the word of the Lord" refers not so much to the words on the page as it does to what the congregation experiences in reading those words together.
Which is why I would much prefer something like "May the Word of the Lord come (or speak) to us through this reading".
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
It's de riguer in NZ, after 25+ years, but interestingly it isn't quite what the Book of Revelation says. Go figure.
I prefer the Australian '[Lord], may your word live in us.'
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
(oh - to which the congregational response is 'and bear much fruit to your glory')
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
It's de riguer in NZ
I prefer the Australian '[Lord], may your word live in us.'
I assume that is just for the Anglicans.
And I don't think I have heard that at my local Anglican Church, though I would like to.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Add to that some of us are in a tradition that operates with an understanding that when the canonical writings of St. Fred, or Tim the Prophet, are read when the church is gathered for worship, God is active in the gathered community, speaking in the present through those writings. In that sense, "the word of the Lord" refers not so much to the words on the page as it does to what the congregation experiences in reading those words together.
Which is why I would much prefer something like "May the Word of the Lord come (or speak) to us through this reading".
To me, it makes more sense to say something like that before the reading rather than after it. In the Reformed tradition, the readings would be preceded by the prayer for illumination, which essentially asks just that. The one I typically use when I'm the reader goes "Overwhelm us with your Spirit, O Lord, that the words we hear may speak to us as your Word, made known to us in Jesus Christ. Amen."
So the sequence would be:
— the prayer for illumination
— announcement of the first reading (possibly with "Hear what the Spirit is saying to the church" or "Listen for the word of God.")
— the reading itself
— response ("The word of the Lord"/"Thanks be to God.")
— announcement of the second reading . . . .
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
I like the idea of saying that before the reading.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think the deckchairs would look better over there, near that big lump of ice.
"Won't somebody think of the CHILDREN?!"
I'm not sure what relevance you think that has to my comment.
This section of SoF is devoted to discussing liturgical matters, which involves a certain amount of talking about things which evidently appear trivial to you. You're entitled to think so, but I wonder why you think we need to be periodically reminded of that.
Because watching the church disappearing up its own arsehole getting excited about things that matter about as much as the colour of the bog pains me. And also my opinion that these issues are trivial is just as relevant as the opinions of those who think they matter. I wouldn't give a monkeys if the church weren't disappearing where the sun don't shine, but it is. FWIW I'd echo L'organist, and a church I used to attend would say "How is this the word of the Lord to us today?" though I expect that would cause conniptions in some circles.
[ 06. October 2016, 09:02: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Two points.
1. While I actually agree with Karl that these are trivial liturgical points (well, you'd expect me to, as a Nonconformist), IMO that might be a better question to raise in a Purg. thread rather than on this one. YMMV.
2. There is surely a balance to be struck about declaring Scripture to be "the Word of the Lord" which "stands written" through all ages whether we hear it or not; and "the Word of the Lord" coming to us today through the illumination of the Holy Spirit. Surely these categories are complementary rather than exclusive: following Karl Barth (I think), we want the "written Word" to become the "living Word". If it doesn't, then it is nothing more a historical or traditional text.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
Why not just say "The OT reading is from...." and conclude"So ends our OT reading".
It obviates any necessity to define as the Word of the Lord a reading which is patently inconsistent with what Jesus might have said, He being God's Word to us.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Because 'First Covennant' or 'Hebrew Scriptures' is better.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Because watching the church disappearing up its own arsehole getting excited about things that matter about as much as the colour of the bog pains me. And also my opinion that these issues are trivial is just as relevant as the opinions of those who think they matter. I wouldn't give a monkeys if the church weren't disappearing where the sun don't shine, but it is.
I don't for a moment imagine that the reason the church is in freefall (if indeed it is) is because of a tiny group of liturgical obsessives here on S o F. Karl's comment that minor liturgical matters are as important as 'the colour of the bog' may well be true. But somebody has to take a decision about the latter otherwise the facilities will never be installed. Just as the liturgy has to be performed in some way or other and therefore decisions have to be taken about how. The precise details are relatively unimportant in themselves but form a part of the whole.
I'm pretty sure that people are more likely to be drawn to a church that takes care over its liturgy than to one that does not, other things being equal. Inclusive welcome, awareness of the world beyond its walls etc. being even more important of course. But as Jesus said, more or less, if you can't take care of the little things how can you manage the greater?
And the sort of delight in liturgical oddities and esoteric customs that is so often demonstrated in these threads isn't incompatible with living the Christian life and having a concern for mission. Any more than collecting stamps or delighting in steam trains does.
Posted by Tobias (# 18613) on
:
There is certainly a danger of that happening, and it is something that those of us who enjoy this sort of thing need to be on our guard against. But I don't think it is inevitable, or that it is necessarily happening whenever people are discussing liturgical minutiae. Leaving aside the larger matter of the importance of liturgy and worship, for some people this sort of discussion is a hobby or a relaxing activity - and by and large, a harmless one.
It has its risks - for instance, we can wrongly assume that, because it's 'to do with God' it is intrinsically Very Important; we can think we are serving God when actually we are enjoying ourselves; we can allow ourselves to be distracted from weightier matters. But I don't think one can tell, simply from the fact that people are discussing a subject of less-than-vital importance, that any of those things is happening.
As long as one isn't falling into one of those traps, spending a few minutes on a discussion like this is, I think, no worse than doing a jigsaw or a crossword or a sudoku puzzle. No one says, "You can't do the crossword; the Church is facing shipwreck!"
And there is always the possibility that out of a such discussions will come something that helps people to worship with clarity and insight and enthusiasm, even something that will bear fruit in their lives. Perhaps it will be a striking phrase in the liturgy that makes someone really listen to - and act upon - "what the Spirit is saying to the Church".
ETA: Cross-posted with Angloid.
[ 06. October 2016, 10:41: Message edited by: Tobias ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Why not just say "The OT reading is from...." and conclude"So ends our OT reading".
To me, that suggests a passivity on the part of those listening, akin to a school lesson. An invitation beforehand, however worded, to listen for God speaking through the reading and an opportunity to respond in some way afterwards invites more active participation by the congregation, or a different kind of participation. That's how it seems to me, at least, YMMV.
Posted by Tobias (# 18613) on
:
Not only did I cross-post with Angloid, but we seem to have been thinking along the same lines at the same time! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[ 06. October 2016, 10:48: Message edited by: Tobias ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tobias:
And there is always the possibility that out of a such discussions will come something that helps people to worship with clarity and insight and enthusiasm, even something that will bear fruit in their lives. Perhaps it will be a striking phrase in the liturgy that makes someone really listen to - and act upon - "what the Spirit is saying to the Church".
Yes.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
If the OT reading is 1 Samuel 15 then what possible additional "spiritual" meaning can be got out of it except that God told Samuel to "go slay the Amalekites". No amount of 'spiritualising' can get round that! Unless, of course, the Spirit says that God said no such thing --- in which case hopefully the sermon would make the point.
There is a wholesale danger that, inviting people to "listen to what the Spirit says" as a prelim to the reading is to open the door to every and any subjective response possible.
But then this may be what advocates of a Readers Response view of Scripture want. Surely a bit of historical objectivity is better than that.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
If the OT reading is 1 Samuel 15 then what possible additional "spiritual" meaning can be got out of it except that God told Samuel to "go slay the Amalekites". No amount of 'spiritualising' can get round that! Unless, of course, the Spirit says that God said no such thing --- in which case hopefully the sermon would make the point.
If the revised common lectionary is being followed, then the only part of I Samuel 15 that will ever be read is the last few verses, where we're told that Samuel was sorry that Saul had been made king. The part about being told to slaughter the Amalekites isn't in the lectionary.
But yes, if it were read I would certainly expect the sermon to unpack, as it were, that God said no such thing. Of course, I think I might expect that anyone reading that non-lectionary passage in worship either does so because they think there is something of value there, which presumably will be explained in the sermon, and/or is of the opinion that God did say it.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
It obviates any necessity to define as the Word of the Lord a reading which is patently inconsistent with what Jesus might have said, He being God's Word to us.
I think that is just the point. Churches that declare this do not agree that this inconsistency exists. Of course they may be wrong about this, but that is why there are different denominations.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
If the OT reading is 1 Samuel 15 then what possible additional "spiritual" meaning can be got out of it except that God told Samuel to "go slay the Amalekites". No amount of 'spiritualising' can get round that!
The "spiritual" meaning would be that God tells us to slay our inner Amalekite, which is some nasty part of ourselves that we would be better off without.
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Unless, of course, the Spirit says that God said no such thing --- in which case hopefully the sermon would make the point.
That's right. The sermon would point out that God would never tell anyone to slay anyone. That in fact the Israelites merely wanted to believe that this was God's will. But that nevertheless God allowed the story to be written the way it was because it can serve as a dramatic way of understanding the issues involved in ridding ourselves of our inner demons.
Saying "Hear the Word of the Lord" emphasizes that these are no ordinary stories, and that they ought to be heard with an ear to their spiritual significance, not their literal injustices.
Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Because 'First Covennant' or 'Hebrew Scriptures' is better.
How is it "better"? Why is it "better"? Who says it's "better"?
If we believe that what we are hearing is the Word of the Lord then it's well to open/close by saying it's the "Word of the Lord" as opposed to anything else. If we don't believe it's the Word of the Lord, why are we reading it during worship?
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
In that sense, "the word of the Lord" refers not so much to the words on the page as it does to what the congregation experiences in reading those words together.
Beautifully put. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
[ 06. October 2016, 14:35: Message edited by: Teekeey Misha ]
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Is there a difference in my mind with saying "This is the word of the Lord", and saying "The word of the Lord"? I am reminded of a communion server saying "This is the body of Christ" instead of "The body of Christ". It hit me wrong. Maybe something about the symbol becoming the The Thing in itself?
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Is there a difference in my mind with saying "This is the word of the Lord", and saying "The word of the Lord"? I am reminded of a communion server saying "This is the body of Christ" instead of "The body of Christ". It hit me wrong. Maybe something about the symbol becoming the The Thing in itself?
"The word of the Lord" is a more accurate translation of the Latin, "Verbum Dominum". (There is no definite article in Latin.)
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
It is certainly literal. Complete sentences are more common in English. (Though there's times when I'm not sure the new RC missal is English, just a crib for the Latin.)
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
It seems to me that responders are attributing to local congregations a degree of sophisticated insight / response way beyond reality.
Wishful thinking?
I suspect that the majority of pew occupiers are very literal-minded. If the Reader says " This is the Word of the Lord" they accept it as such.
And don't ask whether it was the word of the Lord or not.
Which is to say that most people listen uncritically.
Which is the problem.
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Is there a difference in my mind with saying "This is the word of the Lord", and saying "The word of the Lord"? I am reminded of a communion server saying "This is the body of Christ" instead of "The body of Christ". It hit me wrong. Maybe something about the symbol becoming the The Thing in itself?
"The word of the Lord" is a more accurate translation of the Latin, "Verbum Dominum". (There is no definite article in Latin.)
Domini, no?
I've sometimes heard:
V/. For the word of the Lord:
R/. Thanks be to God.
Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
"The word of the Lord" is a more accurate translation of the Latin, "Verbum Dominum". (There is no definite article in Latin.)
If there's no definite article, then we should be saying "Word of Lord" if we want to accurately translate the Latin then!
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
All this discussion makes me think that 'Here ends the first[/second] lesson' is the way to go- simple, factual, straightforward.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Why not just say nothing?
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Why not just say nothing?
This.
I suspect that most people are intelligent enough to realise that the reading has ended when the reader stops and walks away.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I suspect that the majority of pew occupiers are very literal-minded. If the Reader says " This is the Word of the Lord" they accept it as such.
And don't ask whether it was the word of the Lord or not.
Considering that these kinds of things are denominational stances they don't actually depend on the personal opinion of the reader.
It is probably true that the majority of pew occupiers don't spend much time considering whether what was read really is the Word of God. Still, they probably do have at least a vague awareness of the position that the denomination takes vis-à-vis the Bible.
I would expect that people would tend to go to churches that agree with their own views.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I suspect that the majority of pew occupiers are very literal-minded. If the Reader says " This is the Word of the Lord" they accept it as such.
And don't ask whether it was the word of the Lord or not.
Considering that these kinds of things are denominational stances they don't actually depend on the personal opinion of the reader.
It is probably true that the majority of pew occupiers don't spend much time considering whether what was read really is the Word of God. Still, they probably do have at least a vague awareness of the position that the denomination takes vis-à-vis the Bible.
I would expect that people would tend to go to churches that agree with their own views.
This. At least around here and in my experience, the churches where these responses are common, either because they are liturgically mandated or liturgically encouraged— Catholic, Episcopal, Lutheran, Presbyterian, and maybe United Methodists and a few other groups—tend not be on the literalist end of the theological spectrum. I suspect most in the pews have at least some sense of what is meant in their tradition when Scripture is referred to as "the word of the Lord." And I suspect other parts of the service, including the sermon, help get across that tradition's perspective.
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
All this discussion makes me think that 'Here ends the first[/second] lesson' is the way to go- simple, factual, straightforward.
Though on the other hand in my experience "lesson" denoted something boring and dictatorial, so I have always found it a ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
word (you know ,... here ends the lesson, thanks be to God' stuff). Reading - ah ... now in lesson days those were breaks in the monotony and I could enter into a world of enlargement and challenge... and it would live on in me ...
[ 07. October 2016, 01:11: Message edited by: Zappa ]
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
'Lesson' means 'lection' of course, so = reading. It might or might not be a slice of teaching which is the meaning we usually attach to that word today. So if you are going to say something as pointless as telling people what it is obvious has just happened (i.e. the reader has finished reading) it had at least better make sense. So 'here ends the reading' if you must.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
"The word of the Lord" is a more accurate translation of the Latin, "Verbum Dominum". (There is no definite article in Latin.)
If there's no definite article, then we should be saying "Word of Lord" if we want to accurately translate the Latin then!
No, because Latin doesn't have a definite article to use. Verbum can equally mean a word, the word, or just word. It's not like Latin has a definite article which was left out in this case.
Posted by TomM (# 4618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
"The word of the Lord" is a more accurate translation of the Latin, "Verbum Dominum". (There is no definite article in Latin.)
If there's no definite article, then we should be saying "Word of Lord" if we want to accurately translate the Latin then!
No, because Latin doesn't have a definite article to use. Verbum can equally mean a word, the word, or just word. It's not like Latin has a definite article which was left out in this case.
And before anyone does, given Latin's tendency to leave out the verb 'to be', there is a limit to how one can push that the Latin says 'Word of the Lord' rather than 'This is the Word of the Lord'.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Unless one is RC, which presumably has prescribed wording anyway, how relevant is what this might be in Latin?
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
The discussion is a critique of the current RC translation.
Certainly something needs to be said.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
"The word of the Lord" is a more accurate translation of the Latin, "Verbum Dominum". (There is no definite article in Latin.)
If there's no definite article, then we should be saying "Word of Lord" if we want to accurately translate the Latin then!
No, because Latin doesn't have a definite article to use. Verbum can equally mean a word, the word, or just word. It's not like Latin has a definite article which was left out in this case.
And before anyone does, given Latin's tendency to leave out the verb 'to be', there is a limit to how one can push that the Latin says 'Word of the Lord' rather than 'This is the Word of the Lord'.
Indeed. My Latin teachers were always at pains to point out how concise and precise Latin was capable of being. Ecce exemplum ("here is an example")
Posted by TomM (# 4618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Unless one is RC, which presumably has prescribed wording anyway, how relevant is what this might be in Latin?
Because the development of every single mainstream published liturgical text in the last (say) 50 years was influenced by the changes and developments to the Roman Catholic liturgy that followed the Second Vatican Council? (Wherein, as you note, the form is indeed prescribed: 'Verbum Dei :: Deo Gratias')
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Unless one is RC, which presumably has prescribed wording anyway, how relevant is what this might be in Latin?
The present English translation of the ICEL was introduced with effect from Advent Sunday 2011, throughout the English-speaking (Roman) Catholic Church world-wide, and is intentionally a direct translation from the Latin.
For this reason, the response to, "The Lord be with you", was changed to, "And with your spirit", replacing, "And also with you". The Nicene Creed now begins, I believe..., rather than, "We Believe...". And so we could go on all the way through the Mass text.
The exact translation of, "Verbum Dominum" is, therefore, "The Word of the Lord""
"Unless one is RC..." as quoted above; in my above post, I was talking RC, leaving aside the texts of other traditions.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
Tangent:
"And also with you" is unfortunate. "And with your spirit is far preferable.
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
Then why wouldn't we have "The Lord be with your spirit."?
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
It's a translation of a text that appears universally in eucharistic liturgies, in Latin
Dominum vobiscum (The Lord with you plural)
Et cum spirito tuo (And with your singular spirit)
The president and congregation acknowledge one another as joint participants.
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Yuck.
At our place, it's "Here endeth the Epistle [or Lesson]."
People taking it upon themselves to alter liturgical texts is a pet peeve of mine.
I'm always amused when the reader says, "Here endeth the Epistle" and the congregation responds "Thanks be to God!"
I don't see what's so yucky about "Hear what the Spirit is saying to the Church" (or "to God's people," as TEC's alternate version renders it). Sometimes it's a bit hard to discern how the reading is "the word of the Lord," but we must be open to what the Lord/Spirit may have to say by means of it.
One other anecdote: A woman in our parish was once heard, after a difficult passage of Scripture being read, responding to "The word of the Lord" with "Thanks be to God, I guess?"
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
I'm always amused when the reader says, "Here endeth the Epistle" and the congregation responds "Thanks be to God!"
I once attended a Pentecostal service where the congregation tended to punctuate the prayers with rather unthinking interjections. One evening someone prayed, "And we think of those who cannot be with us this evening ..." which elicited the cry, "Thank you, Lord!" We did have the grace to laugh.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
The exact translation of, "Verbum Dominum" is, therefore, "The Word of the Lord""
You mean Verbum Domini, of course.
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
The exact translation of, "Verbum Dominum" is, therefore, "The Word of the Lord""
You mean Verbum Domini, of course.
I quote from memory and I am open to correction if my memory is playing me false.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Yes, Marama, that's, I think, what a lot of people like about it.
We used to have a developmentally disabled individual who attended our church. He obviously spent a lot of time at home listening to Christian radio, and subscribed to a much sterner, more literal version of the faith than the rest of us. He was a monthly reader, and when he read, he would allow the spirit to take hold of him, and deliver the epistle from memory as an oratory from Paul. He would always end by saying, "My brothers and sisters, this ... IS ... the word of the Lord."
There would always be a longish pause before the congregational response, I think because members of the congregation forgot that saying "thanks be to God" could just be a response to keep things moving, and not a voice of ascent to the assertion about scripture implicit in the voicing.
I personally can just say "thanks be to God" as a response without reading too much into the implications, but I can get why someone might want a gentler ending to the reading.
"This is the word of the Lord" is the required statement at the end of a reading in most Sydney Anglican churches. I always preferred the gentler "For the word of the Lord"
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
Amen ... because the Word of the Lord is Jesus, revealed in the words of scripture, but not exclusively so.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
[Indeed. My Latin teachers were always at pains to point out how concise and precise Latin was capable of being. Ecce exemplum ("here is an example") [/QB]
Your Latin teacher is wrong. Succinctness is not precisions. German theologians strive for utmost precision in the use of language, they are not succinct. Precision in language is lack of ambiguity.
Jengie
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
I'm always amused when the reader says, "Here endeth the Epistle" and the congregation responds "Thanks be to God!"
Here endeth the gospel?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
[Indeed. My Latin teachers were always at pains to point out how concise and precise Latin was capable of being. Ecce exemplum ("here is an example")
Your Latin teacher is wrong. Succinctness is not precisions. German theologians strive for utmost precision in the use of language, they are not succinct. Precision in language is lack of ambiguity.[/QB]
Of course Latin is less ambiguous than English because of the agreement between words.
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
The exact translation of, "Verbum Dominum" is, therefore, "The Word of the Lord""
You mean Verbum Domini, of course.
I quote from memory and I am open to correction if my memory is playing me false.
Your memory is indeed playing you falsely. It is Verbum Domini. web page
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
The exact translation of, "Verbum Dominum" is, therefore, "The Word of the Lord""
You mean Verbum Domini, of course.
I quote from memory and I am open to correction if my memory is playing me false.
Your memory is indeed playing you falsely. It is Verbum Domini. web page
OK, it could happen to anybody - enough said!
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Think of 'A.D. Anno Domini 'in the year OF THE LORD'
or indeed of' Corpus CHRISTI ' 'of Christ'
called in some countries 'Corpus DOMINI ' 'the Body OF THE LORD
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
I'm always amused when the reader says, "Here endeth the Epistle" and the congregation responds "Thanks be to God!"
Here endeth the gospel?
No, I did mean epistle (or "the reading" or "the lesson"). Responding "thanks be to God" to that always sounds to me like "Thank God THAT'S over!"
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
I'm always amused when the reader says, "Here endeth the Epistle" and the congregation responds "Thanks be to God!"
Here endeth the gospel?
No, I did mean epistle (or "the reading" or "the lesson"). Responding "thanks be to God" to that always sounds to me like "Thank God THAT'S over!"
That what I thought years ago when I heard one of the first English-language R.C. Masses -- something like "Go, the Mass is ended." And the response was "Thanks be to God."
(I do think that this would be a great way to end sermons!)
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Think of 'A.D. Anno Domini 'in the year OF THE LORD'
or indeed of' Corpus CHRISTI ' 'of Christ'
called in some countries 'Corpus DOMINI ' 'the Body OF THE LORD
Yep, thanks.
The history of my Latin studies is that at some point, it was dropped from the syllabus and ceased to be taught at school. Although it was a subject I was good at, I did not go on with it. In time, Italian became a good substitute.
End of tangent.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
Rather than arguing about what words are used, why not be concerned about the Word you hear?
Then you can go and change the world on the basis of what you've heard.
Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on
:
ooooh, I hate it, hate it, hate it when one has to say 'THIS is the word of the Lord' after horrible Scripture pericopes. It's a facile identification of the Word of God with Scripture. It's one of the worst liturgical innovations of Paul VI in my book, Why did the CofE have to follow suit when even some very Calvinist reformers were content with 'Here ends the Epistle or Gospel or Reading.' The word of God comes in sundry and varied forms in Scripture itself, but never as a printed text. Hate it.
Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
If the OT reading is 1 Samuel 15 then what possible additional "spiritual" meaning can be got out of it except that God told Samuel to "go slay the Amalekites". No amount of 'spiritualising' can get round that!
The "spiritual" meaning would be that God tells us to slay our inner Amalekite, which is some nasty part of ourselves that we would be better off without.
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Unless, of course, the Spirit says that God said no such thing --- in which case hopefully the sermon would make the point.
That's right. The sermon would point out that God would never tell anyone to slay anyone. That in fact the Israelites merely wanted to believe that this was God's will. But that nevertheless God allowed the story to be written the way it was because it can serve as a dramatic way of understanding the issues involved in ridding ourselves of our inner demons.
Saying "Hear the Word of the Lord" emphasizes that these are no ordinary stories, and that they ought to be heard with an ear to their spiritual significance, not their literal injustices.
So the Lord allowed some genuine people to be slaughter so that we could later allegorise their death and apply it to our ridding ourselves of a few vices they too possessed?
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
If the OT reading is 1 Samuel 15 then what possible additional "spiritual" meaning can be got out of it except that God told Samuel to "go slay the Amalekites". No amount of 'spiritualising' can get round that!
The "spiritual" meaning would be that God tells us to slay our inner Amalekite, which is some nasty part of ourselves that we would be better off without.
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Unless, of course, the Spirit says that God said no such thing --- in which case hopefully the sermon would make the point.
That's right. The sermon would point out that God would never tell anyone to slay anyone. That in fact the Israelites merely wanted to believe that this was God's will. But that nevertheless God allowed the story to be written the way it was because it can serve as a dramatic way of understanding the issues involved in ridding ourselves of our inner demons.
Saying "Hear the Word of the Lord" emphasizes that these are no ordinary stories, and that they ought to be heard with an ear to their spiritual significance, not their literal injustices.
So the Lord allowed some genuine people to be slaughter so that we could later allegorise their death and apply it to our ridding ourselves of a few vices they too possessed?
I think as we allow the Second Person of the Trinity to infiltrate our being and our reading of sacred scripture we slowly glean that the triune God allows humanity the ramifications of its own sinfulness (Romans 1, anybody? Donald Trump, anybody?). Without going too far into a tangent on sclerosis of the spiritual heart, our liturgical pronouncements can reflect that, rumour that.
I and others have mentioned problems with the dull and prosaic "here ends/endeth the first reading /lesson) up-thread. Many have referred to the issues of "and-he-slaughtered-five-thousand-that-day-this-is-the-word-of-the-Lord" but let's emphasize again that if we let our liturgists and worshippers alike (in liturgical traditions, which all traditions are, but that's another thread) grow together in the Spirit then phrases and rites will emerge that express the deep truth that the Word can dwell in us and bear much fruit to God's glory, that the Spirit can speak through words, that our hearts can be quickened with the fires of divinity.
No, that last one hasn't been invented yet, but I'm working on it.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
It’s worth bearing in mind that “The Word of the Lord” was not intended as a comprehensive response to all possible scripture readings.
It was intended as a response to the readings at mass. On Sundays the revised RC lectionary (a thing of beauty and a joy for ever) does not include the RCL continuous readings. The only OT readings it would apprehend would be those OT readings specifically chosen to relate to the gospel.
The daily lectionary is selective of the OT and unlikely to include any passage too oo er (although I haven’t checked).
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Rather than arguing about what words are used, why not be concerned about the Word you hear?
Then you can go and change the world on the basis of what you've heard.
You mean actually hear what the Spirit is saying to God's people? What a concept!
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
There is no reason at all why responding to the Spirit through the readings is inconsistent with a corporate response.
It would be insulting to suggest otherwise.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
In Morning Prayer today, I read the set passage from 2 Timothy.
"Have nothing to do with stupid and senseless controversies; you know that they breed quarrels."
I think the Spirit is hinting to stay away from Ship of Fools.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
In TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada's lectionary, the morning prayer reading is from the Book of Sirach.
I know of one Protestant Anglican who refuses to announce the words "The Word of the Lord" whenever the reading comes from the Apocrypha. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
[ 21. October 2016, 17:56: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
But that's right, isn't it?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
In Morning Prayer today, I read the set passage from 2 Timothy.
"Have nothing to do with stupid and senseless controversies; you know that they breed quarrels."
I think the Spirit is hinting to stay away from Ship of Fools.
Oh, I couldn't possibly agree with that. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
In TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada's lectionary, the morning prayer reading is from the Book of Sirach.
I know of one Protestant Anglican who refuses to announce the words "The Word of the Lord" whenever the reading comes from the Apocrypha.
I'll do you one better. A couple years ago I attended a memorial service at which one of the readings was a poem by Rainer Maria Rilke. Now, including a non-Biblical reading is fine and Rilke was a great poet. But at the end of the poem the reader dutifully said, "The Word of the Lord," and the congregation dutifully responded, "Thanks be to God." Well, except for me. I thought that was a little bizarre.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Probably just habit, the way that I always find myself nearly slipping into the Grace at the end of evening meetings, even if they have nothing to do with the church.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Albertus:
Has the trend for The Grace of looking at everyone come your way? The full drill is standing, holding hands, and looking at everyone - for me furtively like an attention-deprived sparrow, and losing track of the words and otherwise feeling idiot.
One priest even ensured we had one palm facing up and one facing down, sagely: 'supporting others as we are supported' or similar. Repeated in successive meetings didn't improve the shine on my Jesus or fellow sparrows.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Albertus:
Has the trend for The Grace of looking at everyone come your way? The full drill is standing, holding hands, and looking at everyone - for me furtively like an attention-deprived sparrow, and losing track of the words and otherwise feeling idiot.
I call it the Meerkat Blessing.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Albertus:
Has the trend for The Grace of looking at everyone come your way? The full drill is standing, holding hands, and looking at everyone - for me furtively like an attention-deprived sparrow, and losing track of the words and otherwise feeling idiot.
I call it the Meerkat Blessing.
Don't whether to thank you, or no thank you. This image will stay with me. And also with you.
[ 25. October 2016, 00:09: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
In TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada's lectionary, the morning prayer reading is from the Book of Sirach.
I know of one Protestant Anglican who refuses to announce the words "The Word of the Lord" whenever the reading comes from the Apocrypha.
I'll do you one better. A couple years ago I attended a memorial service at which one of the readings was a poem by Rainer Maria Rilke. Now, including a non-Biblical reading is fine and Rilke was a great poet. But at the end of the poem the reader dutifully said, "The Word of the Lord," and the congregation dutifully responded, "Thanks be to God." Well, except for me. I thought that was a little bizarre.
When I was at seminary and attended a service that featured a poem as one of the readings (It was a special service related to a theme, and not a regular Sunday service), the reader said this after the reading:
"God speaks through prophets and poets. Thanks be to God."
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Albertus:
Has the trend for The Grace of looking at everyone come your way? The full drill is standing, holding hands, and looking at everyone - for me furtively like an attention-deprived sparrow, and losing track of the words and otherwise feeling idiot.
One priest even ensured we had one palm facing up and one facing down, sagely: 'supporting others as we are supported' or similar. Repeated in successive meetings didn't improve the shine on my Jesus or fellow sparrows.
No- thank goodness!
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Albertus:
Has the trend for The Grace of looking at everyone come your way? The full drill is standing, holding hands, and looking at everyone - for me furtively like an attention-deprived sparrow, and losing track of the words and otherwise feeling idiot.
One priest even ensured we had one palm facing up and one facing down, sagely: 'supporting others as we are supported' or similar. Repeated in successive meetings didn't improve the shine on my Jesus or fellow sparrows.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa-rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[edited for scroll lock!]
[ 25. October 2016, 16:21: Message edited by: dj_ordinaire ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
The Methodists go in for the 'Meerkat blessing'. I quite like it, but it fits in with the sociable aspect of Methodist worship. It wouldn't make so much sense in a more reserved CofE setting.
Also, because it refers to God in the 3rd person I don't strictly think of it as a prayer, and therefore there's no theological reason why the individual needs to look especially 'prayerful' when saying it. Just my opinion.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
A friend long gone to his eternal rest referred to the 'Meerkat Blessing' as the 'Windscreen Wiper Blessing'. If Baptist Trainfan wants to be really URC geeky I can provide his name.
Jengie
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
PM me!
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
In TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada's lectionary, the morning prayer reading is from the Book of Sirach.
I know of one Protestant Anglican who refuses to announce the words "The Word of the Lord" whenever the reading comes from the Apocrypha.
I'll do you one better. A couple years ago I attended a memorial service at which one of the readings was a poem by Rainer Maria Rilke. Now, including a non-Biblical reading is fine and Rilke was a great poet. But at the end of the poem the reader dutifully said, "The Word of the Lord," and the congregation dutifully responded, "Thanks be to God." Well, except for me. I thought that was a little bizarre.
Your response should have been "NOT!"
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
WRT the Grace, I find it's difficult to comply with the hand-holding regime when you're making the sign of the Cross. "Oh sorry, did I just ruin the chummy mood?"
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
same here
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0