homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools
Thread closed  Thread closed


Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Eccles: Liturgy as performance (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Eccles: Liturgy as performance
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152

 - Posted      Profile for Garasu   Email Garasu   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Sorry to post again, but just to add read Janet Baker if you don't believe that performance can be service...

--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.

Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Chorister

Completely Frocked
# 473

 - Posted      Profile for Chorister   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
An 'act' of worship means that the worship is active, not that anyone is falsely putting it on. People don't always like to show their deep feelings to all and sundry. Solemn, the worship may be, but there is likely to be all sorts going on inside human hearts, which cannot be judged by an onlooker.

--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.

Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032

 - Posted      Profile for Anselmina     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
One does not "perform" the liturgy, instead one "serves" the liturgy.

Perform surely means 'to do' or 'to achieve' or 'to accomplish' - in this context. Even worship has to be 'done' in order for it to happen at all, in whichever form we imagine it to take. We seem to be getting all upside-down ourselves over what some words mean, when surely it's pretty obvious, in practical terms, what is really meant.

If I vacuum the room, I am performing an act of service, within the context of a) helping the household and those who live there to be comfortable, and b) the basic task of housework.

It would be unusual to use the word 'perform' for such an action, and arguably for some people the word 'perform' might appear unusual in the context of 'doing' or 'living out' or 'achieving' worship or liturgy, but it's still the same thing, practically speaking, at the end of the day.

Liturgy isn't just a thought process; it's 'done', 'carried out' or 'acted out' - or as some people might quite legitimately say, performed, in other words. The confusion seems to come when some people limit that word to meaning something only involving play-acting, audiences and speeches at Oscar time.

--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!

Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Liturgy isn't just a thought process; it's 'done', 'carried out' or 'acted out' - or as some people might quite legitimately say, performed, in other words. The confusion seems to come when some people limit that word to meaning something only involving play-acting, audiences and speeches at Oscar time.

Personally, I'm fairly happy with the word 'perform' because, yes, it has a wider meaning than 'perform a play' or suchlike. But the OP title is 'Liturgy as performance' and that's the word I'm uncomfortable with.

Anselmina, I'm sure you wouldn't describe doing housework as a 'performance'! You'd perhaps call it a service, but I still don't like that analogy as it leads us along the road of thinking there are some people who attend the church gathering primarily to receive and others who attend primarily to give (or to serve, if you prefer). IMO that's just fundamentally in opposition to how the New Testament describes what the church should be like and how it should gather together...

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Adam.

Like as the
# 4991

 - Posted      Profile for Adam.   Author's homepage   Email Adam.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

Anselmina, I'm sure you wouldn't describe doing housework as a 'performance'!

I don't know about Anselmina, but I would. When I do housework, it's a performance of my fraternal charity for and bonds of affection with the brothers with whom I live, as well as a performance for my gratitude to God for the material goods he has provided me with and charge me with stewardship of. This might be an 'academic-ese' use of the word "performance," but it's at least unaffected with me.

Liturgy is certainly a performance. There is only one spectator: God. He is also the author. Our very desire to praise him is his gift to us.

--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog

Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472

 - Posted      Profile for Fr Weber   Email Fr Weber   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I profoundly disagree with a great deal of has been said on this thread. I have commented on other threads that there is no such thing as an 'act of worship'. Worship is not an act. It is 'for real'. Those who are involved in leadership in some way, clergy, choir etc are not performing something which the congregation watch or listen to. Their role is to enable everybody present to worship (verb). We are all there both to fall down and worship the Lord our Maker and to help one another to do so.

I would also say that both sloppiness and too much perfection, can prevent this happening

Acts aren't real?

--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."

--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM

Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490

 - Posted      Profile for k-mann   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Chocoholic:
I also dislike it when it is thought of as a performance, as it can be like an act, and so lacking in honesty.

What makes a performance necessarily ‘dishonest’? Can’t people distinguish between a performance of liturgy and a play?

quote:
Originally posted by Chocoholic:
I didn't use the word liturgy as it is often used as a word to describe what "those up front" are doing, but the Greek word, (which escapes me for now!) means "the work of the people" but many acts of worship don't seem to reflect this.

Well, actually the Greek word doesn’t necessarily mean ‘the work of the people.’ A translation which is just as likely, and which better describes the work of a ancient ‘liturgist’ (for want of a better word) is ‘the work for the people.’ By performing a liturgy, for instance holding a public office, a person performed it on behalf of the people. He was, of course, part of the people, but he did it on their behalf.

I think this accurately describes the work of the celebrant in the liturgy. As a baptised Christian, he is part of the people of God, yet he performs a ‘public office’ – that of priest or pastor on behalf of the people of God, the Church. We can even describe the work of Christ as the ultimate ‘liturgy,’ and Christ as the ultimate ‘liturgist.’ Being a man, as human being, he is our brother, and is thus part of us. And he performed his ‘liturgy’ on our behalf. He gave himself for us, as our representative.

--------------------
"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
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490

 - Posted      Profile for k-mann   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The liturgy is not a performance. Something can be done sincerely and attentively whilst allowing for genuine mistakes. And I don't care is the cantor is out of tune, or if the subdeacon forgets something and has to ask the priest, as long as the liturgy is served in a reverent spirit.

That depends. What do you mean by ‘performance’?

--------------------
"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
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:



We can even describe the work of Christ as the ultimate ‘liturgy,’ and Christ as the ultimate ‘liturgist.’



That's Biblical - Hebrews 8.1-2 - the Greek word used for Jesus is "leitourgos", most English Bibles translated it as "minister".

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Al Eluia

Inquisitor
# 864

 - Posted      Profile for Al Eluia   Email Al Eluia   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
The comments about planning ahead reminded me of an occasion when I was leading Morning Prayer. A couple in the congo were having their 50th anniversary, and after the petitions in the Prayer for All Sorts and Conditions of Men I inserted a thanksgiving for their anniversary and then continued, "that they may have a happy issue out of all their afflictions. . .". It then occurred to me that that wasn't the best place to give thanks for the couple's anniversary! They were amused and forgiving.

Of course there's a performance aspect to liturgy and it should be taken seriously, but we mustn't beat up people who make mistakes. That happened to me a couple times assisting certain clergy. Not literally beaten up, but scowled at in a way that felt belittling.

--------------------
Consider helping out the Anglican Seminary in El Salvador with a book or two! https://www.amazon.es/registry/wishlist/YDAZNSAWWWBT/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_ep_ws_7IRSzbD16R9RQ
https://www.episcopalcafe.com/a-seminary-is-born-in-el-salvador/

Posts: 1157 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338

 - Posted      Profile for L'organist   Author's homepage   Email L'organist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Some years ago I heard a priest giving thanks for a diocesan being moved up to an archbishop, then launching straight into O Almighty God, who along workest great marvels... which caused much hilarity.

--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet

Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061

 - Posted      Profile for Brenda Clough   Author's homepage   Email Brenda Clough   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I have sat in a congregation, in northern Virginia, while the rector prayed, "And Lord, we trust it is Your will that the Redskins win the Super Bowl this afternoon." The congregation responded with a hearty Amen. (They lost.)

--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page

Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged
Gwalchmai
Shipmate
# 17802

 - Posted      Profile for Gwalchmai         Edit/delete post 
If the liturgy is performed well, it can draw those members of the congregation who have had a blazing row with their spouse on the way to church, or are depressed, or whatever, out of themselves to worship God. Conversely, an amateurish performance is likely to irritate someone who already has a head of steam about some personal issue and put them even further away from the right frame of mind for worship. I know - I've been there.

As to the correct verb for doing / performing the liturgy, I note that in the RC church Mass is offered. So perhaps we should offer the liturgy to God.

Posts: 133 | From: England | Registered: Aug 2013  |  IP: Logged
Adam.

Like as the
# 4991

 - Posted      Profile for Adam.   Author's homepage   Email Adam.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I have sat in a congregation, in northern Virginia, while the rector prayed, "And Lord, we trust it is Your will that the Redskins win the Super Bowl this afternoon." The congregation responded with a hearty Amen. (They lost.)

As a Notre Dame fan, I'd have to remind him that Jesus loves all athletes equally. It's his mother who's blessedly biased...

--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog

Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Galilit
Shipmate
# 16470

 - Posted      Profile for Galilit   Email Galilit   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
If the liturgy is performed well, it can draw those members of the congregation who have had a blazing row with their spouse on the way to church, or are depressed, or whatever, out of themselves to worship God. Conversely, an amateurish performance is likely to irritate someone who already has a head of steam about some personal issue and put them even further away from the right frame of mind for worship. I know - I've been there.

I AM there.

I asked if we "should suspect the lectern infected" after the last two weeks readers have not read to the end of the reading. Lent readings get long but can't you make an effort? Two weeks ago she stopped fully 15 verses too early. She said "I dunno, my copy paste looked funny and then I could not load my Kindle and anyway I didn't check it".
[Disappointed] I was even more furious to hear that so I dryly suggested that she always had the "dead tree option" but she muttered something about "my glasses".

On an emotional note: this is so true. It just sets you off all over again. We should open a support forum!

I'm simply not going next week - call me delicate but it's just not worth the internal turmoil.

--------------------
She who does Her Son's will in all things can rely on me to do Hers.

Posts: 624 | From: a Galilee far, far away | Registered: Jun 2011  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Another good reason to ban electronics from the sanctuary.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Amanda B. Reckondwythe

Dressed for Church
# 5521

 - Posted      Profile for Amanda B. Reckondwythe     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Another good reason to ban electronics from the sanctuary.

Including electronic "musical instruments"?

--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.

Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
As an Orthodox, of course I'd say all instruments, but especially electronic ones. [Big Grin]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
In our Cathedral in Helsinki they tried to experiment with microphones for the audile parts of the Divine Liturgy. Let's just say it wasn't approved of by the people and the microphones were quickly ditched. People power! I like that. Like when a new lectionary was imposed on the Ambrosian Rite a few years back and the new lectionary mysteriously went missing.

[ 09. April 2014, 14:51: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]

Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Roselyn
Shipmate
# 17859

 - Posted      Profile for Roselyn     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
if you think it's that important that the whole reading (s stated in the lectionary) why not stand up and keep reading OR offer to read the whole story after the service, during coffee?
Posts: 98 | From: gold coast gld australia | Registered: Oct 2013  |  IP: Logged
Galilit
Shipmate
# 16470

 - Posted      Profile for Galilit   Email Galilit   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
It was printed on the Order of Service.
I was stunned for a second when suddenly there was silence. (I am a Prot so I "read along"). I looked up to see the reader walking to her pew. So I said (from my pew) "Was that from the Abridged Version?" in my public speaking voice. She looked blankly at me and the Minister said "The reading was to verse 44". No reaction, not even embarrassment.

In such circs with a person who had no (apparent) reaction to their egregious error there was nothing to do but try to maintain my own (delicate) equilibrium in public.

Tell you what tho' - that's what I'll do next time
I did that once when RevC "blanked" at the beginning of Communion in one of the always said but unwritten bits so I said the next 3 lines (which of course one knows by heart) in my public speaking voice till he got back on track .
Thanks

--------------------
She who does Her Son's will in all things can rely on me to do Hers.

Posts: 624 | From: a Galilee far, far away | Registered: Jun 2011  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
I asked if we "should suspect the lectern infected" after the last two weeks readers have not read to the end of the reading. Lent readings get long but can't you make an effort? Two weeks ago she stopped fully 15 verses too early. She said "I dunno, my copy paste looked funny and then I could not load my Kindle and anyway I didn't check it".
[Disappointed] I was even more furious to hear that so I dryly suggested that she always had the "dead tree option" but she muttered something about "my glasses".

You see, this stuff about being very upset when something like this goes wrong just further convinces me that it's not helpful to see church services in this performance-oriented way.

ISTM someone getting a reading wrong should be a minor issue that is easily overcome with a little good humour and grace, rather than it causing 'emotional turmoil'. I really don't get it, sorry... [Confused]

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Missing or wrong readings are perhaps more significant in congregations which expect sermons based on the readings.

Perhaps the canonical response ought to be what one of our vicars said once. He thanked the reader for reading the Gospel passage from John (or whatever it was), then said that every Christian preacher ought to be prepared for the prompting of the Holy Spirit. And he felt that the Spirit was leading him to preach the sermon he had prepared from Matthew. So he read the other passage himself and preached on it.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169

 - Posted      Profile for Leaf     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Well, actually the Greek word doesn’t necessarily mean ‘the work of the people.’ A translation which is just as likely, and which better describes the work of a ancient ‘liturgist’ (for want of a better word) is ‘the work for the people.’ By performing a liturgy, for instance holding a public office, a person performed it on behalf of the people. He was, of course, part of the people, but he did it on their behalf.

I think this accurately describes the work of the celebrant in the liturgy. As a baptised Christian, he is part of the people of God, yet he performs a ‘public office’ – that of priest or pastor on behalf of the people of God, the Church. We can even describe the work of Christ as the ultimate ‘liturgy,’ and Christ as the ultimate ‘liturgist.’ Being a man, as human being, he is our brother, and is thus part of us. And he performed his ‘liturgy’ on our behalf. He gave himself for us, as our representative.

Your first paragraph is incorrect and leads to an incorrect analogy in your second.

The origin of the word "liturgy" from the Greek implies a relationship that is more subtle and mutual in nature than either "the work of the people" OR "the work for the people" can capture.

Liturgy meant private sponsorship of a public work, in order that the common people could participate in society. Most people were too poor to fund a gymnasium, religious rites, road works, or military shipbuilding, all of which were liturgies. So rich people might pay for materials and specialist labour to enable the full participation of the people in society.

The usual translations - which tend to come from people at either end of the candle - miss this complex relationship. Yes, it involved paying for specialist labour, such as priests who knew the rites. Yes, this was done for the purpose of people becoming active participants; they were not meant simply to be a passive, appreciative audience.

It seems to me that those who insist on one translation or the other each have one eye covered.

Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
Galilit
Shipmate
# 16470

 - Posted      Profile for Galilit   Email Galilit   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
ISTM someone getting a reading wrong should be a minor issue that is easily overcome with a little good humour and grace, rather than it causing 'emotional turmoil'. I really don't get it, sorry... [Confused]

Firstly, Ken is spot on for our denomination. The sermon examines and then weaves together the readings (combined with "A funny thing happened to me this week..." and a nod to current world events)

Secondly, some people are made like this. I have always been like this (well maybe not at my Christening though I think that went pretty well but who knows if it hadn't I might have screamed!)

I am very aware of my "failing" and really do try to be reasonable, even use it positively (eg the example I gave of filling in when RevC "blanked").

BUT...It is exactly like Gwalchmai said up-thread. I had arrived already steamed up and things spiralled down from there. If things had gone well I am sure I'd have been pulled out of my tail-spin just as Gwalchmai describes.

That said, the reason people should make every effort is because they should make every effort all the time; not because of Galilit's sensitivity to things liturgical and concommitant delicate emotional equilibrium.

--------------------
She who does Her Son's will in all things can rely on me to do Hers.

Posts: 624 | From: a Galilee far, far away | Registered: Jun 2011  |  IP: Logged
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490

 - Posted      Profile for k-mann   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Well, actually the Greek word doesn’t necessarily mean ‘the work of the people.’ A translation which is just as likely, and which better describes the work of a ancient ‘liturgist’ (for want of a better word) is ‘the work for the people.’ By performing a liturgy, for instance holding a public office, a person performed it on behalf of the people. He was, of course, part of the people, but he did it on their behalf.

I think this accurately describes the work of the celebrant in the liturgy. As a baptised Christian, he is part of the people of God, yet he performs a ‘public office’ – that of priest or pastor on behalf of the people of God, the Church. We can even describe the work of Christ as the ultimate ‘liturgy,’ and Christ as the ultimate ‘liturgist.’ Being a man, as human being, he is our brother, and is thus part of us. And he performed his ‘liturgy’ on our behalf. He gave himself for us, as our representative.

Your first paragraph is incorrect and leads to an incorrect analogy in your second.

The origin of the word "liturgy" from the Greek implies a relationship that is more subtle and mutual in nature than either "the work of the people" OR "the work for the people" can capture.

Liturgy meant private sponsorship of a public work, in order that the common people could participate in society. Most people were too poor to fund a gymnasium, religious rites, road works, or military shipbuilding, all of which were liturgies. So rich people might pay for materials and specialist labour to enable the full participation of the people in society.

The usual translations - which tend to come from people at either end of the candle - miss this complex relationship. Yes, it involved paying for specialist labour, such as priests who knew the rites. Yes, this was done for the purpose of people becoming active participants; they were not meant simply to be a passive, appreciative audience.

It seems to me that those who insist on one translation or the other each have one eye covered.

You are right, of course. But I don’t think that essentially changes my basic point. If the priest is the equivalent of someone performing a liturgy (funding a gymnasium, holding a public office, etc.), then by doing the work to which he has been appointed, he facilitates the people’s participation in the great liturgy of God – were they praise God for who he is, thank God for what he has done for them, and receive his gifts.

Active participation in the liturgy is good. But it doesn’t mean that everyone should, or could, have the job of the priest. The priest does indeed do this on behalf of the people. That doesn’t preclude their active involvement. The people of Israel wasn’t precluded from worshipping God in the temple even though the priests offered the sacrifices on their behalf.

--------------------
"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
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169

 - Posted      Profile for Leaf     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
You are right, of course. But I don’t think that essentially changes my basic point. If the priest is the equivalent of someone performing a liturgy (funding a gymnasium, holding a public office, etc.), then by doing the work to which he has been appointed, he facilitates the people’s participation in the great liturgy of God – were they praise God for who he is, thank God for what he has done for them, and receive his gifts.

Active participation in the liturgy is good. But it doesn’t mean that everyone should, or could, have the job of the priest. The priest does indeed do this on behalf of the people. That doesn’t preclude their active involvement. The people of Israel wasn’t precluded from worshipping God in the temple even though the priests offered the sacrifices on their behalf.

How can you think you agree with me, when this post just goes on to prove how firmly your one ideological eye is shut against seeing my point?

For clarity, then:

  • From its source in Greek culture: a liturgy is sponsorship by a rich person in order to facilitate full public participation. Liturgy is not a rite performed by that person.
  • In this classic cultural sense, the priest doesn't perform rites "on behalf of" anyone but the rich sponsor.
  • The purpose of the liturgy is facilitation of the people's active involvement. To say that they were "not precluded from it" is to be as far from the correct emphasis as possible.

A modern analogy might be a wealthy person endowing a doctor's practice in order to facilitate healing. A doctor is presumed to have specialized knowledge which will help people. To say that patients "are not precluded from" getting better is absolutely the wrong emphasis; it is the entire purpose of the employment of the doctor.

Also, some people get better without the help of a doctor [Razz] (as South Coast Kevin might say, if I may) and perhaps a variety of medical personnel may be as helpful; a doctor is not the only kind of medical professional out there, and you may not always need that level of specialized knowledge. Still, a doctor may be instrumental in the healing of many.

A doctor, priest, architect, ship builder, etc. is a middleman, a conduit for the resources of the rich liturgy-provider to create public participation. The end goal is public participation in whatever activity is sponsored.

Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
How relevant is what a word might have meant in classical Greek culture towards it means either among Christians either in the patristic era or now? If it helps us understand how writers of the patristic era might have been using their own language, then it has a collateral relevance. I don't know whether any of the New Testament writers used the word leitourgia. Nor do I know how early Christians started to use the word. Whenever that was, though, the really important question is what they meant by it when they used the word, within their own context, not how it was used in either classical or late antique secular Greek. That usage is not a clincher that can be used to deliver a knock out blow to settle arguments about Christian doctrine or practice.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490

 - Posted      Profile for k-mann   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
When Christ is described as a leiturgos in Hebrews 8:2, is he only a sponsor? [Paranoid]

--------------------
"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
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
I am very aware of my "failing" and really do try to be reasonable, even use it positively (eg the example I gave of filling in when RevC "blanked").

BUT...It is exactly like Gwalchmai said up-thread. I had arrived already steamed up and things spiralled down from there. If things had gone well I am sure I'd have been pulled out of my tail-spin just as Gwalchmai describes.

That said, the reason people should make every effort is because they should make every effort all the time; not because of Galilit's sensitivity to things liturgical and concommitant delicate emotional equilibrium.

Sorry Galilit, my post came across as more critical than I meant it. [Hot and Hormonal] I don't know how I'd react if I was in a liturgical-type church situation and the minister / priest or a reader missed off some of their lines. Probably far less graciously than you did!

I agree that we should make an effort to prepare our reading, practice the songs, know the steps in the rituals etc. But what I don't understand is the evident dismay when the procedure isn't followed accurately. IMO it really shouldn't matter very much at all.
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
For clarity, then:

  • From its source in Greek culture: a liturgy is sponsorship by a rich person in order to facilitate full public participation. Liturgy is not a rite performed by that person.
  • In this classic cultural sense, the priest doesn't perform rites "on behalf of" anyone but the rich sponsor.
  • The purpose of the liturgy is facilitation of the people's active involvement. To say that they were "not precluded from it" is to be as far from the correct emphasis as possible.

So in Hebrews 8:1-2, when Jesus is described as 'minister [leitourgos] in the sanctuary' is it perhaps saying that Jesus is the one who enables us all to take part in the community of the Trinity? Is there anywhere in the New Testament where a particular person is described as a leitourgos, I wonder.

Sort of on this point, I think it's significant that (as I understand it!) no individual Christian is ever described or titled in the New Testament as a priest - archiereos or hiereos in the Greek. Instead of using the words typically used in Koine Greek for religious officials, they used words drawn from everyday language; overseer, older man, servant, messenger, shepherd etc.

ISTM there's a sharp divide between the OT and NT descriptions of worship, gathering and so on; a divide we should acknowledge in the ways we describe and actually do our gathered praise and adoration of God.

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
If it doesn't matter when things go wrong, what's the point of making the effort? I'm wondering if there's misinterpretation going on here - to me, saying 'it doesn't matter' suggests that the thing itself is not a priority or important. Do you mean more along the lines of not making a fuss or a big deal over a mistake?

If so, I would probably react more like you, but don't forget that to many people, the very act of getting it right and 'doing things properly' is a form of worship. Not being bothered essentially equals not being bothered about God.

--------------------
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
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490

 - Posted      Profile for k-mann   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Sort of on this point, I think it's significant that (as I understand it!) no individual Christian is ever described or titled in the New Testament as a priest - archiereos or hiereos in the Greek.

That is demonstrably wrong. In Revelation 1:6 it is said that Christ “made us (Christians) a kingdom, priests (ἱερεῖς) to his God and Father.” Furthermore, in 1. Peter 2:5, it is said that we as Christians should be “a holy priesthood” (gr. ἱεράτευμα ἅγιον).

And on from that, even St. Paul calls himself a priest in his service as an Apostle. In Romans 15:16, he says he is “serving as a priest with the Gospel of God” (ἱερουργοῦντα τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεου). Here he doesn’t use the noun (ἱερεύς), but the participle form of the verb (ἱερουργέω).

--------------------
"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
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
In Revelation 1:6 it is said that Christ “made us (Christians) a kingdom, priests (ἱερεῖς) to his God and Father.” Furthermore, in 1. Peter 2:5, it is said that we as Christians should be “a holy priesthood” (gr. ἱεράτευμα ἅγιον).

This is why I deliberately said 'no individual Christian is ever described or titled in the New Testament as a priest'. Christians in the collective are described as priests or a priesthood, yes, but no specific person within the community of believers is ever (IIRC) identified as a priest.
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
And on from that, even St. Paul calls himself a priest in his service as an Apostle. In Romans 15:16, he says he is “serving as a priest with the Gospel of God” (ἱερουργοῦντα τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεου). Here he doesn’t use the noun (ἱερεύς), but the participle form of the verb (ἱερουργέω).

Again, I think you've gone beyond what the text says (this time, despite yourself making the exact point I'm about to make). The word used is a verb; Paul says he is 'priesting', not that he is 'a priest'. I think it's significant that Paul, even Paul, doesn't explicitly call himself a priest.

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530

 - Posted      Profile for stonespring     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
At the local Episcopal parish this Sunday, different people read different parts for the Passion from the Gospel According to Matthew. Now since there was no deacon present one would think the Rector should have read the part of Christ, but they had someone else read it instead. When the Rector did not see her coming forward to read, he asked the congregation, "Could Jesus please come forward?"
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Why assume the Rector reads the part of Jesus?


Seems an unhealthy identification of ministers with God to me.


We often get the clergy to read the high priest.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Why assume the Rector reads the part of Jesus?

Seems an unhealthy identification of ministers with God to me.

We often get the clergy to read the high priest.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
At our joint service this morning, I was asked to play Jesus, but the Vicar cast himself as Judas!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530

 - Posted      Profile for stonespring     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
This is Ecclesiantics and many of the posters here like me are happy to have large sticks up our butts (figuratively, although if it were literally so it would depend on the stick). I can't impose my theology on every denomination or parish, but I can whine about it to strangers online [Smile] .

My point wasn't to complain about who read what, but to point out that readings of the Passion are often as close as Liturgical Churches get to theatre outside of Children's Masses.

I am totally for seeing Liturgy as a performance and not opposed to having different people read different parts of the Passion for Palm Sunday - but it's a different kind of performance than theatre. Hmmm....anyone want to discuss why?

Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378

 - Posted      Profile for Gramps49   Email Gramps49   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Today I was the liturgist. Had a different form of worship than we usually do. Had only about two minutes to review it - mainly because I also taught an adult learning community. Have to say it went well. Someone commented it was "well choreographed."

The directions said to pause after each petition. I was going for 30 seconds, but after fifteen I noticed a unease in the congregation, so I did 15 seconds for each petition. There were seven petitions.

One thing I have found modern congregations don't seem to take silence very well, yet I was taught to use silence especially during the prayers.

Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011  |  IP: Logged
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643

 - Posted      Profile for dj_ordinaire   Author's homepage   Email dj_ordinaire   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Why assume the Rector reads the part of Jesus?

Seems an unhealthy identification of ministers with God to me.

We often get the clergy to read the high priest.

It is common among 'Higher' places to cast the Celebrant of the Mass as Christ

(There was a bit of grumbling about that a few years ago as the female curate was celebrating that day... although those of us in the serving team were more concerned about getting her into the chasuble which was a rather wide fiddleback of unusual design that didn't stay on her shoulders... I seem to recall safety pins coming into play).

--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...

Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530

 - Posted      Profile for stonespring     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
The Catholic tradition is to have a deacon read the Gospel, so now that it is kinda sorta allowed to have people read multiple parts for the Passion narrative on Palm Sunday and Good Friday, you still have to have a deacon read the words spoken by Christ. If your denomination or churchmanship does not value this tradition, then fine. But if you do, I think you should take this into consideration. If a deacon is not present, you can have a priest read the words spoken by Christ, since priests were ordained deacons before they were ordained priests.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
GCabot
Shipmate
# 18074

 - Posted      Profile for GCabot   Email GCabot   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Why assume the Rector reads the part of Jesus?

Seems an unhealthy identification of ministers with God to me.

We often get the clergy to read the high priest.

In many high churches, the celebrant is considered "in loco Christi" for the mass. Therefore, it makes sense for him to read the role of Jesus.

--------------------
The child that is born unto us is more than a prophet; for this is he of whom the Savior saith: "Among them that are born of woman, there hath not risen one greater than John the Baptist."

Posts: 285 | From: The Heav'n Rescued Land | Registered: Apr 2014  |  IP: Logged
GCabot
Shipmate
# 18074

 - Posted      Profile for GCabot   Email GCabot   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
The directions said to pause after each petition. I was going for 30 seconds, but after fifteen I noticed a unease in the congregation, so I did 15 seconds for each petition. There were seven petitions.

One thing I have found modern congregations don't seem to take silence very well, yet I was taught to use silence especially during the prayers.

I have also found this to be a common problem. Churches often tend to rush through the pauses clearly marked by asterisks during prayers. Even worse, they tend to omit all moments of silence during the Stations of the Cross, which half defeats their purpose, in my opinion.

--------------------
The child that is born unto us is more than a prophet; for this is he of whom the Savior saith: "Among them that are born of woman, there hath not risen one greater than John the Baptist."

Posts: 285 | From: The Heav'n Rescued Land | Registered: Apr 2014  |  IP: Logged
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472

 - Posted      Profile for Fr Weber   Email Fr Weber   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
How relevant is what a word might have meant in classical Greek culture towards it means either among Christians either in the patristic era or now? If it helps us understand how writers of the patristic era might have been using their own language, then it has a collateral relevance. I don't know whether any of the New Testament writers used the word leitourgia. Nor do I know how early Christians started to use the word. Whenever that was, though, the really important question is what they meant by it when they used the word, within their own context, not how it was used in either classical or late antique secular Greek. That usage is not a clincher that can be used to deliver a knock out blow to settle arguments about Christian doctrine or practice.

Etymology isn't meaning. Cf. "The Eucharist is a meal!" or "My calling you a crafty counterfeiter is a compliment, because it means you're very clever at imitating people."

The bottom line is that "the work of the people" is only one facet of the meaning of the word "liturgy." It doesn't even represent the full meaning of the word as the Greeks of the Classical era or of late antiquity used it. In my experience many of the people who've boarded that bandwagon use it to support goofiness like the priest handing the stole to the OT reader at the Eucharist.

--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."

--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM

Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
Adam.

Like as the
# 4991

 - Posted      Profile for Adam.   Author's homepage   Email Adam.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
The Catholic tradition is to have a deacon read the Gospel, so now that it is kinda sorta allowed to have people read multiple parts for the Passion narrative on Palm Sunday and Good Friday, you still have to have a deacon read the words spoken by Christ. If your denomination or churchmanship does not value this tradition, then fine. But if you do, I think you should take this into consideration. If a deacon is not present, you can have a priest read the words spoken by Christ, since priests were ordained deacons before they were ordained priests.

That's not accurate. The rubric (paragraph 21 of the rubrics for Palm Sunday) state:

quote:

It [the entire Passion] is read by a Deacon, or if there is nor Deacon, by a Priest. It may also be read by readers, with the part of Christ, if possible, reserved to a Priest.

So, one option is to read it like a normal Gospel, entirely read by the Deacon (or Priest in his absence). The other option is to split it up with different readers taking different parts, but the part of Christ being taken by a Priest. In this case, the deacon has no particular role. The Good Friday rubrics direct you back to Palm Sunday.

It should be noted that "readers" lacks a capital letter. There is no intention to limit to or even prefer those instituted as Lectors.

I have no idea why the "if possible" is there -- why wouldn't it be? I suppose this might be to prevent people from thinking they can't do the Passion in a SCAP.

At my place, I didn't take any part in the Passion reading on Palm Sunday, having already proclaimed the Entrance Gospel at the one Mass I assisted at. On Good Friday, I will take the part of narrator.

--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog

Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Regarding Lectors, that's only because Vatican II suppressed the minor orders (God knows why!).
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I am totally for seeing Liturgy as a performance and not opposed to having different people read different parts of the Passion for Palm Sunday - but it's a different kind of performance than theatre. Hmmm....anyone want to discuss why?

I'm not sure that it's different to all theatre. Yes, it's very different from looking onto a proscenium-framed stage which is effectively a little world of its own, for everybody present in church becomes part of the action (or should do). However I am sure that this happens in some modern theatrical productions as well, even though they may have no explicitly "spiritual" content. And then of course you have "miracle plays" - definitely not liturgy, yet with an overtly Christian theme.

To look at things from a slightly opposite direction: many years ago I attended a semi-staged version of Bach's "St. John Passion" at a London opera house. The event was in no way a service, nor did it seek to be a "passion play". Music was distributed to the audience and, about 5 times during the evening, the house lights went up and we were invited to join in the chorales. It was a secular event - and the most moving "liturgy" I experienced that Easter.

I feel that the best of liturgy (and that does not have to be "High Church", even nonconformists can have it) and the best of "performance" both end up transcending the simply rational. And this s not surprising as the creativity evident in both is God-given, if not necessarily acknowledged.

When "performance" - in theatre or church - is badly done or is clearly designed solely to draw attention to the performers themselves, then the rational is all too obvious and the congregation/audience remains earthbound!

Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Adam.

Like as the
# 4991

 - Posted      Profile for Adam.   Author's homepage   Email Adam.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Regarding Lectors, that's only because Vatican II suppressed the minor orders (God knows why!).

No, Paul VI suppressed them motu proprio as a "minor order." They still exist as an Instituted Ministry. While God certainly knows why, you can too, as the Holy Father told us what he was doing as he was doing it. Just read Ministeria Quaedam.

--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog

Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Al Eluia

Inquisitor
# 864

 - Posted      Profile for Al Eluia   Email Al Eluia   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Why assume the Rector reads the part of Jesus?

Seems an unhealthy identification of ministers with God to me.

We often get the clergy to read the high priest.

I once attended a performance of Benjamin Britten's Noye's Fludde at an RC parish. The pastor was the voice of God. The parish children played the animals and were quite charming processing up the aisle as they boarded the ark.

--------------------
Consider helping out the Anglican Seminary in El Salvador with a book or two! https://www.amazon.es/registry/wishlist/YDAZNSAWWWBT/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_ep_ws_7IRSzbD16R9RQ
https://www.episcopalcafe.com/a-seminary-is-born-in-el-salvador/

Posts: 1157 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490

 - Posted      Profile for k-mann   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
In Revelation 1:6 it is said that Christ “made us (Christians) a kingdom, priests (ἱερεῖς) to his God and Father.” Furthermore, in 1. Peter 2:5, it is said that we as Christians should be “a holy priesthood” (gr. ἱεράτευμα ἅγιον).

This is why I deliberately said 'no individual Christian is ever described or titled in the New Testament as a priest'. Christians in the collective are described as priests or a priesthood, yes, but no specific person within the community of believers is ever (IIRC) identified as a priest.
That is a bizarre argument. If we are priests as Christians, then Robert the individual Christian is a priest.

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
And on from that, even St. Paul calls himself a priest in his service as an Apostle. In Romans 15:16, he says he is “serving as a priest with the Gospel of God” (ἱερουργοῦντα τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεου). Here he doesn’t use the noun (ἱερεύς), but the participle form of the verb (ἱερουργέω).

Again, I think you've gone beyond what the text says (this time, despite yourself making the exact point I'm about to make). The word used is a verb; Paul says he is 'priesting', not that he is 'a priest'. I think it's significant that Paul, even Paul, doesn't explicitly call himself a priest.
The verb means ‘acting as a priest.’ If he is acting as a priest, he is a priest.

--------------------
"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



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
Open thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools