|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Use of set words - authorship vs liturgy
|
drnick
Shipmate
# 16065
|
Posted
On Sunday morning, while away an enjoyably snowy walking weekend, I went to an Anglican church because it was just next to the hostel where we were staying. I'm a non-conformist type (URC) and have only very occasionally attended Church of England services.
The person taking the service told us that he was a last minute stand-in as the vicar was ill and unable to come. As it happens something similar happened in my church recently, when someone agreed with a day's notice to lead a service when the intended visiting speaker was unable to travel due to snow.
Which made me think that, at the services that I am used to, the only set form of words you are guaranteed to hear is the Lord's Prayer. And even then it's not impossible it won't be a different translation to the one normally used. Putting together such a service is in a sense to write it, to be its author (of not just the sermon but also prayers etc.), in a way which isn't true in a more liturgical tradition where set forms of words are used more widely. I'm not saying every word is written freshly every week, but even if, say, a minister uses a prayer from a book they have deliberately chosen it, rather than because it is set in advance.
Now, I can appreciate, I think, the advantage of using set liturgies - yet (and this may just be my non-conformnist prejudices) does this make worship a less creative act? And does this matter anyway?
--------------------
"Christians like you are why God invented lions" Pagan Wanderer Lu.
Posts: 58 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by drnick:
Now, I can appreciate, I think, the advantage of using set liturgies - yet (and this may just be my non-conformnist prejudices) does this make worship a less creative act? And does this matter anyway?
Worship is not meant to be a creative act. It's a way of uniting our offering, of prayer and our whole being, with the offering of Christ: being in union with our Creator if you like.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by drnick:
Now, I can appreciate, I think, the advantage of using set liturgies - yet (and this may just be my non-conformnist prejudices) does this make worship a less creative act? And does this matter anyway?
Worship is not meant to be a creative act. It's a way of uniting our offering, of prayer and our whole being, with the offering of Christ: being in union with our Creator if you like.
I would agree. Worship isn't something to make full of our own personalities - just listen to some intercessionary prayer in some Anglican services! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
From time to time, I've done a filling-in at a URC church (not picking on them at all, but just relating to your experience, drnick) - and it drives me absolutely crazy when I realise they expect me to make stuff up!
The problem for me - YMMV - is that I feel it casts me as "guest star", whereas in my own tradition the President should be fairly anonymous. For me, the liturgy is a proletarian act. It belongs to the people. It's not the property of the minister, to tinker with.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
What's better, an original work of art or a poorly reproduced copy? When we gather together on a Sunday morning, shouldn't we be offering the best we can manage? I would say that originality and creativity are among the gifts that we should be offering to God in worship.
Because I'm only an occasional preacher with a full-time job and young family, I don't have time to produce an entire work of art from scratch when I lead worship - so I compromise and my services adhere fairly much to the usual order of service at our church. I do my own thing for the Communion, usually using the responses that you can find in the URC hymn book - the minister, and the other members of the congregation who lead worship, have their own set of prayers that they use every week. People say that they find the different approaches we all adopt refreshing, and prefer that to always doing things the same way.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
From time to time, I've done a filling-in at a URC church (not picking on them at all, but just relating to your experience, drnick) - and it drives me absolutely crazy when I realise they expect me to make stuff up!
You could always bring a liturgy with you - printed sheets or borrowed service books. You may need to help the congregation through the liturgy, and you may need to explain why some bits are there. But, you may be surprised to find an appreciation for something different.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I was surprised, when reading through a Methodist and a Baptist service book, to find a Communion service almost word for word the same as the Anglican one. I guess that it makes a refreshing change for traditions who normally craft their own individual services to have a set liturgy from time to time. Also in Anglican churches, it makes a change to have a more free-form service - they are usually called 'Services of the Word', which can be very widely interpreted, usually with a few common features, such as the Lord's Prayer, but for the large part creative.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aelred of Riveaux
Shipmate
# 12833
|
Posted
I find that even with a set liturgy, there are as many styles of celebrating the eucharist as there are celebrants. I appreciate different people celebrating the eucharist as they all have emphasis on different things or pace their delivery slightly differently, bringing forth a different aspect.
Personally, I also find the liturgy helpful as it frees me to meditate on the words and be with God without worrying what is coming next. I find the liturgy particularly helpful when life is more difficult as I'm able to be held in God's presence. In my opinion, there can be plenty of creativity within set liturgy. Having said that, I also appreciate a change every now and then.
Posts: 161 | From: Cambridge UK | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
It might mean that liturgy is less creative, but why should everything be creative? It seems to me that 'creative' has become the buzz word of (post)modern society.
The point of liturgy, on the other hand, is that we aren't being 'creative.' We are participating in something other.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
From time to time, I've done a filling-in at a URC church (not picking on them at all, but just relating to your experience, drnick) - and it drives me absolutely crazy when I realise they expect me to make stuff up!
Well and you wonder why your liturgy writers have problems producing good stuff. Simple, no experience.
quote:
The problem for me - YMMV - is that I feel it casts me as "guest star", whereas in my own tradition the President should be fairly anonymous. For me, the liturgy is a proletarian act. It belongs to the people. It's not the property of the minister, to tinker with.
Having just written a thesis on URC worship, congregations are very, very good at influencing the worship believe me, we are not called non-conformists for nothing!
Actually it is quite illuminating to write about worship form from the perspective of a informed congregant.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
To my mind, writing liturgy myself would run the risk of putting too much of me into it - my theology, my concerns, my priorities. If I use the liturgy laid down by the church for the occasion, and if I use the lectionary readings with it, I am participating in the worship of the church as a whole, not simply on my own or with the small group present at that time and place. A liturgy produced by many hands and voices has more chance of being focussed on God than my own meagre attempts.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
[QUOTE]...and you wonder why your liturgy writers have problems producing good stuff...
[QUOTE]
Cranmer didn't. And really, who else is there? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Metapelagius
Shipmate
# 9453
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
[QUOTE]...and you wonder why your liturgy writers have problems producing good stuff...
[QUOTE]
Cranmer didn't. And really, who else is there?
For starters, S. John Chrysostom ...
--------------------
Rec a archaw e nim naccer.
y rof a duv. dagnouet.
Am bo forth. y porth riet.
Crist ny buv e trist yth orsset.
Posts: 1032 | From: Hereabouts | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
What's better, an original work of art or a poorly reproduced copy?
I'd rather hear an orchestra play a classic symphony than something they wrote themselves that week. Particularly if I'm *in* the orchestra.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by drnick:
Now, I can appreciate, I think, the advantage of using set liturgies - yet (and this may just be my non-conformnist prejudices) does this make worship a less creative act? And does this matter anyway?
I find new nuances in the same text, week after week.
As for creativity, there are places within the liturgy for that. The intercessions are an example. When I have encountered 'creativity' in clergy from week to week, I often find that they end up using very similar or the same wording anyway. I also frequently encounter theological inaccuracies and social issue bugbears creeping their way into the prayers, such as "And we pray for a favorable end to the November elections. After four years, our country really needs a change."
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
One of the great advantages of a set liturgy - outside the most formal occasions, that is -is that there is so much more scope for the congregation to participate in the service. It's a bit hard to join in with the presider if you don't know what's going to be said next. To put it another way - despite first impressions, a set liturgy is normally more democratic than a service of ex tempore* prayer.
* Is this OK as an English word now? Otherwise, off the cuff.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
* Is this OK as an English word now? Otherwise, off the cuff.
Extemporary is the English version, I think.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
One of the great advantages of a set liturgy - outside the most formal occasions, that is -is that there is so much more scope for the congregation to participate in the service. It's a bit hard to join in with the presider if you don't know what's going to be said next.
There is an advantage in not knowing what's coming next. Are we on a pilgrimage, forever stepping onto paths where we see another new aspect of the glory of God? Or, are we always on the same road we've always followed? Yes, sometimes you see something new in a liturgy that you know by heart. And, sometimes the less liturgical doesn't open up anything new. But, I don't see any necessary corollary between the style used and the experience of the love and glory and greatness of God. Basically, it's a matter of personal taste - if you get more from liturgical services then you're likely to attend liturgical services, and vice versa.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
What's better, an original work of art or a poorly reproduced copy?
I'd rather hear an orchestra play a classic symphony than something they wrote themselves that week. Particularly if I'm *in* the orchestra.
But, most of the time we're in an orchestra with the skills of 6 year olds and an incomplete set of poorly tuned instruments. A classic symphony is simply beyond us, and we produce something more genuine by not trying to play the symphony and sticking with what we've written ourselves to suit our own range of skills and instruments.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
What's better, an original work of art or a poorly reproduced copy?
I'd rather hear an orchestra play a classic symphony than something they wrote themselves that week. Particularly if I'm *in* the orchestra.
But, most of the time we're in an orchestra with the skills of 6 year olds and an incomplete set of poorly tuned instruments. A classic symphony is simply beyond us, and we produce something more genuine by not trying to play the symphony and sticking with what we've written ourselves to suit our own range of skills and instruments.
I wouldn't call BCP an incomplete set of poorly tuned instruments....
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
No, the BCP would be the symphony. The congregation (or, most congregations in my experience) is the poorly tuned instruments.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
No, the BCP would be the symphony. The congregation (or, most congregations in my experience) is the poorly tuned instruments.
In most services, the majority of BCP/CW is said by the priest/other celebrant, and also the choir if it is a sung service.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
But, the claim is that liturgy helps the congregation participate in the worship; so the fact that it's said/sung by an individual or choir shouldn't affect it being a congregational activity. If it isn't a congregational activity, and merely performance art with an audience of pew warmers then the "congregation can engage more easily in a well known liturgy than in something different each week" argument that has been advanced is meaningless.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, the claim is that liturgy helps the congregation participate in the worship; so the fact that it's said/sung by an individual or choir shouldn't affect it being a congregational activity. If it isn't a congregational activity, and merely performance art with an audience of pew warmers then the "congregation can engage more easily in a well known liturgy than in something different each week" argument that has been advanced is meaningless.
It is participatory, but it being lead by a priest (and choir if applicable) stops it from being as dysfunctional as 'poorly tuned instruments'.
--------------------
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
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
What's better, an original work of art or a poorly reproduced copy?
I'd rather hear an orchestra play a classic symphony than something they wrote themselves that week. Particularly if I'm *in* the orchestra.
But, most of the time we're in an orchestra with the skills of 6 year olds and an incomplete set of poorly tuned instruments. A classic symphony is simply beyond us, and we produce something more genuine by not trying to play the symphony and sticking with what we've written ourselves to suit our own range of skills and instruments.
But actually that's just what we don't, on the whole, do. If you have a primary school choir or an amateur orchestra, it's very unusual that that choir or orchestra produces an original piece for itself to play. You may if you are very lucky have a skilled choirmaster or conductor who can do this- just as you may have a minister who is a skilled liturgist and, in fairness, I know that this is seen by people like Jengie Jon as a core skill for a minister- but on the whole you will perform pieces which have been produced by other people, either with the particular skill level of you and people like you in mind, or in simplified versions of more complex work. But whether simple or complex, you bring to it something that is very valuable because it is of yourself, and you receive from it something very valuable because you are part of something much bigger than yourself and those immediately around you.
Just so with liturgy.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
No, the BCP would be the symphony. The congregation (or, most congregations in my experience) is the poorly tuned instruments.
In most services, the majority of BCP/CW is said by the priest/other celebrant, and also the choir if it is a sung service.
Our 10.00 am service Sunday (APBA 2nd Order) always has the Ordinary sung, and on Sundays 1, 3 and 5 the congregation is supported by the choir. Sundays 2 and 4 hears us singing on our own. (We use different settings for the choir supported service and our solo efforts.). There is the occasional service through the year where the Ordinary is sung to a special festival setting by the choir alone, sometimes in Latin.
When you think about it, there's not much the priest says alone - the Sentence, the Collect for the day, the Absolution, the Comfortable Words, the Great Thanksgiving. and of course Blessing and Dismissal. Otherwise, much of what is said by the priest is not alone, but rather part of a conversation with the congregation.
I understand where Alan Cresswell is coming from and he in turn where I am. We have our own preferences which is why he worships where he does, and i do likewise.. I respect his decision and I'd be very surprised if he did not do the same in return.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
A lot of it must surely depend on what the tradition is or the congregation is used to. I know of congos where some members have conniptions if any of the set prayers are omitted or deviated from in any way. Some feel quite cheated if there isn't a recognizably familiar set of words for certain ceremonies. Many listen out for their favourite and most meaningful phrases which have been part of their spiritual nurture for many years.
Funnily enough, I've even come across this with some non-conformists, where omitting the Lord's Prayer or not finishing with The Grace, is considered almost a deprivation of human rights! Ironically, so I'm told, because it is one of the few moments in the service where everyone can 'join in' together (apart from the singing).
The former people would not feel comfortable or worshipful in a 'what's coming next?' kind of service.
Now, there is a danger - and a reality - that for many people it becomes vain repetition. Unthinking. It's easy to mumble through the same words every week. The tongue's muscle memory can end up doing all the work! But, OTOH, there is a kind of faithfulness or obedience to congregations who attend even in this way where at least one knows what is being valued is not tied down to an individualstic performance or specific personal quality of presentation.
But I've belonged to free church congregations where, in effect, the same thing happens. The 'formula' may be different, the words may constantly vary, there might be 'room' for the Spirit to do something new, the worship time, as in the sung praise, may vary in dynamic from week to week. But ultimately it all combines to make the same bill of fare every week, generating the same kind of expectation and experience.
The only difference I can see is in the personality of the punter. Do they feel God's presence in one kind of worship more than another?
With regard to creativity. Nothing wrong with that. But the best kind is where there is room for God to 're-create' himself within the service. Whether this happens in any kind of service, whatever the format, is surely up to the invitation he's given to do that.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas Aus
Shipmate
# 15869
|
Posted
Like GeeD, I come from a parish using APBA @nd Order as our regular form of eucharist. Ours is however a small country parish, wihtout the musical resources of SJKS. On a usual Sunday, members of the congregation will participate in the Ministry of the Word, taking both readings and the psalm, will lead intercessions, and in our small country church assist at the altar without necessarily being robed. And of course join in the corporate prayers and singing throughout the service
We had a visit from a youth group from a non-conformist setting a couple of weeks ago, and their leader commented on how much more participation there was for the congregation in our liturgical services than in the services he was used to which were very much presider-centred.
Posts: 375 | From: Hunter Valley NSW | Registered: Sep 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I know of congos where some members have conniptions if any of the set prayers are omitted or deviated from in any way.
There are equally some Baptist etc. churches which would react in the same way to any prayer - even the Lord's Prayer! - that is not extempore. (What they fail to realise is that even extempore prayers have a certain form of their own).
quote:
Funnily enough, I've even come across this with some non-conformists, where omitting the Lord's Prayer or not finishing with The Grace, is considered almost a deprivation of human rights!
Many years ago, I was in a Pentecostal church where the folk leading the worship decided to end the service with a reflective solo, a final prayer, and silence. One of the Deacons could not handle this and rushed up to the front, flicking through a hymnbook and looking for a rousng congregational song to finish with.
When we'd sung it (and had another "final prayer"), the atmosphere was completely lost.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
But actually that's just what we don't, on the whole, do. If you have a primary school choir or an amateur orchestra, it's very unusual that that choir or orchestra produces an original piece for itself to play.
It's, to be fair, a pretty poor analogy that I was trying to work with.
IMO, the question is one of what is appropriate and genuine worship. It would be appropriate for a great orchestra to perform the classic symphonies, or a very well written piece by one of their own members that may well become a classic. My three year old daughter sits in the back of the car singing nonsense songs of her own composition; that is appropriate for her.
For churches there is a similar question of appropriate and genuine. If your church 'performs' a great classic liturgy, and that is a genuine reflection of the reality of your spiritual experience then that is great. Many other churches find that 'performing' nonsense songs of their own composition is a more genuine reflection of who they are. Being told they are doing it wrong because it doesn't look like the BCP is a form of snobbery similar to those who listen to Bach and say others are tasteless morons for liking Take That.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
In most services, the majority of BCP/CW is said by the priest/other celebrant, and also the choir if it is a sung service.
You are wrong in the case of CW At the Eucharist the president says 'the opening Greeting, the Absolution, the Collect, the Peace and the Blessing.' (CW notes p 159) Plus the Eucharistic Prayer. At a guess, five minutes in total. The Office consists mostly of psalms and canticles (said or sung by all) and readings (usually read by someone other than the officiant). Admittedly 'quires and places where they sing' allow less vocal participation by the congregation but they are exceptional. And I don't think that most cathedral worshippers think that they are not participating because they can't join in the singing.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
I think you've got to the heart of it, Alan. it's about integrity, and doing the best you can with your whole heart.
I would, by the way, never dream of saying that non-liturgical worship was in itself 'wrong'. And of course, in the spirit of your post, that has to cut both ways, doesn't it?
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
In most services, the majority of BCP/CW is said by the priest/other celebrant, and also the choir if it is a sung service.
You are wrong in the case of CW At the Eucharist the president says 'the opening Greeting, the Absolution, the Collect, the Peace and the Blessing.' (CW notes p 159) Plus the Eucharistic Prayer. At a guess, five minutes in total. The Office consists mostly of psalms and canticles (said or sung by all) and readings (usually read by someone other than the officiant). Admittedly 'quires and places where they sing' allow less vocal participation by the congregation but they are exceptional. And I don't think that most cathedral worshippers think that they are not participating because they can't join in the singing.
Really? We use CW and with the Eucharistic Prayer (we use B) it certainly feels like most of it is sung by our priest. But I stand corrected.
--------------------
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
|
|
teddybear
Shipmate
# 7842
|
Posted
Back when I was still in active priestly ministry, I once attended the marriage of a co-worker at a Bapstist Church. The bride's United Church of Christ minister was there as well. The two ministers and I were chatting and one of the things they both asked was if the set rituals used in the Catholic tradition ever got to be rote and meaningless. For once I was a bit quick thinking and came up with this response: When you tell your wife "I love you" you use the same words every time. Does that ever become trite and meaningless? I then explained that in the Catholic tradition, the same words being used over and over were the same idea. Sure, saying "I love you" can come to mean nothing when love grows cold, but that doesn't mean everyone else should stop saying "I love you" to the ones they love. The two ministers said they had never thought of that way and it gave them something to think about.
Posts: 480 | From: Topeka, Kansas USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Really? We use CW and with the Eucharistic Prayer (we use B) it certainly feels like most of it is sung by our priest. But I stand corrected.
If your priest is singing (or saying) most of the liturgy then s/he is usurping the functions of other members of the Body. Sometimes that is inevitable. Certainly the Eucharistic Prayer is the priest's role, as is presiding over/ co-ordinating the roles of others. But few other spoken or sung parts of the liturgy are restricted to the priest. (Incidentally, do you always have prayer B without exception? ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) )
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
What's better, an original work of art or a poorly reproduced copy?
False dichotomy. As well say, What's better, a shitty original work, or a well-done copy of a glorious original?
quote:
There is an advantage in not knowing what's coming next. Are we on a pilgrimage, forever stepping onto paths where we see another new aspect of the glory of God?
I have seen precious few "new aspects of the glory of God" from ad-lib church services. Strike that. Make it none. I see no inherent holiness in surprise.
quote:
No, the BCP would be the symphony. The congregation (or, most congregations in my experience) is the poorly tuned instruments.
So then the choice is, a crappy new "symphony" every week on poorly-tuned instruments, or something well-designed every week on poorly-tuned instruments? You speak as if having an ad-libbed service automatically makes the congregation maestros.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Really? We use CW and with the Eucharistic Prayer (we use B) it certainly feels like most of it is sung by our priest. But I stand corrected.
If your priest is singing (or saying) most of the liturgy then s/he is usurping the functions of other members of the Body. Sometimes that is inevitable. Certainly the Eucharistic Prayer is the priest's role, as is presiding over/ co-ordinating the roles of others. But few other spoken or sung parts of the liturgy are restricted to the priest. (Incidentally, do you always have prayer B without exception? )
Oh no - there are the prayers, canticles etc that everyone says/sings together, it just feels like the priest's parts take up more of the service - but it sounds like that's just my perception of how long it takes. And yes, we always use prayer B - why?
--------------------
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
|
|
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433
|
Posted
One of the great strengths of liturgy is its comparative objectivity. I can have just had a flaming row with the dog, kids, queen whoever and enter into the liturgical narrative, leaving, in a very few moments, my own petty narratives
behind as I enter into the great narrative of the gathered people of God..
This can of course generate a disconnect, because when I return home the dog, kids, queen whoever, who probably didn't enter the liturgical narrative, may still be fuming (well not the dog), while I have emerged from transports of delight. But it's still better, I think, than seething, and, for other participants in the liturgy will have been better than me seething there.
--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/
Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
And yes, we always use prayer B - why?
Why indeed?
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
BarnabasAus, we don't have the musical resources of SJKS either. We do have a paid organist and a good volunteer choir; like you, unrobed lay members will often take the OT and Epistle readings (and the psalm on non-choir days).
[ 30. January 2013, 19:45: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
And yes, we always use prayer B - why?
Why indeed?
I have no idea why my church chose that one, but I have never been to a church that used different Eucharistic prayers at different times - the evangelical Anglican church I used to attend always used prayer H, for example.
--------------------
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
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
Prayer B includes the phrase "we bring before you this bread and cup" with its suggestion of eucharistic sacrifice. Also it is based (as I remeber) on Hippolytus, so is nearer to one of the Roman prayers.
For both of which reasons it tends to be the preferred catholic prayer.
But any of them are valid, although Prayer H (of which I do have experience) is not very practical with all those congregational bits.
(I like Prayer E with "bringing before you the bread of life and cup of salvation.")
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I can see why prayer B is often preferred. But unlike Jade I have never come across a church which doesn't ring the changes from time to time. Some places produce seasonal booklets which might use, for example, E in ordinary time, B at festivals, F in Advent...
I do not like those prayers with integrated responses. Unless congregations learn them off by heart they are going to have their eyes glued to the book instead of participating in the action.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vulpior
Foxier than Thou
# 12744
|
Posted
Just maintaining the Eucharistic Prayer tangent a little longer (though it does go to variability of the words):
I went to a CofE church that, when using the ASB, rotated through the four prayers on the four Sundays of the month, and a church here in Australia where all the prayers except the most prot/memorialist one would get a look in.
Not all Eucharistic prayers are written to work with the proper prefaces; it makes for relevance and variety for those that support prefaces to be used whenever there are prefaces available, and for the prayer to be selected carefully on other occasions.
So in reality use of sets words is not necessarily about using a single option. There are careful choices to be made of which options to include, which variants, and sometimes the order (placing of confession, for example). There may be choices within the lectionary: related or continuous track, psalm options, shorter or longer readings. For those of us already attuned to this style of worship, the selections can have a significant impact on the feel of the service, even before you add musical aspects.
Cross-posted with Angloid. Edited in order to agree about the integrated responses, generally. Keep them for odd occasions.
[ 30. January 2013, 21:38: Message edited by: Vulpior ]
--------------------
I've started blogging. I don't promise you'll find anything to interest you at uncleconrad
Posts: 946 | From: Mount Fairy, NSW | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I can see why prayer B is often preferred. But unlike Jade I have never come across a church which doesn't ring the changes from time to time. Some places produce seasonal booklets which might use, for example, E in ordinary time, B at festivals, F in Advent...
I do not like those prayers with integrated responses. Unless congregations learn them off by heart they are going to have their eyes glued to the book instead of participating in the action.
In the church that use(s) prayer H, Communion is monthly so it's seen as a 'special' service anyway, so people don't mind the extra bumf they're given when entering the service. But I agree that it's not very practical - although most at that church are memorialists, including the vicar, so I don't think most people care about missing the action.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
What's better, an original work of art or a poorly reproduced copy?
False dichotomy. As well say, What's better, a shitty original work, or a well-done copy of a glorious original?
My comment was supposed to be somewhat rhetorical. It was also directly linked to the following sentance ("When we gather together on a Sunday morning, shouldn't we be offering the best we can manage?"). If a church does better using something original, and finds the 'glorious original' unhelpful, then it goes without saying what they should do. And, vice versa, of course. We don't all do well having the same thing every week, some of us do far better getting something new each week. Others work differently.
quote:
quote:
There is an advantage in not knowing what's coming next. Are we on a pilgrimage, forever stepping onto paths where we see another new aspect of the glory of God?
I have seen precious few "new aspects of the glory of God" from ad-lib church services. Strike that. Make it none. I see no inherent holiness in surprise.
Perhaps you need to attend worship at other churches more regularly if you want to see what they experience. Or, at least not make sweeping statements from the limited experience you have of other traditions. Although if you see nothing inherently good about novelty you may not see the value in novelty that others see even if you regularly worship in the same 'ad lib services' (although very few churches are actually ad lib - the vast majority of those who lead worship spend a considerable amount of time in preparation so that it isn't ad lib'd), which probably contributes to your decision to worship in a more liturgical setting.
Your argument seems to boil down to "I don't see value in 'ad lib services'", which is fine as long as there's no extension to "and, therefore, such services have no value".
quote:
quote:
No, the BCP would be the symphony. The congregation (or, most congregations in my experience) is the poorly tuned instruments.
So then the choice is, a crappy new "symphony" every week on poorly-tuned instruments, or something well-designed every week on poorly-tuned instruments? You speak as if having an ad-libbed service automatically makes the congregation maestros.
I've already said I'd pressed a poor analogy beyon it's limits. My main point is one of appropriateness to the congregation gathered; for some a formal established liturgy is most appropriate, for others a less formal liturgy prepared by whoever is leading worship for that occasion is most appropriate. Nothing makes any congregation automatically maestros, or unable to carry a tune at all. Within traditions that follow a formal established liturgy there will be congregations for which that works very well, and some where it is a total disaster (and, the majority somewhere in between). Within traditions where the person leading worship prepared a service that is different each time there will be congregations for which that works very well, and some where it is a total disaster (and, the majority somewhere in between).
[ 31. January 2013, 11:50: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I can see why prayer B is often preferred. But unlike Jade I have never come across a church which doesn't ring the changes from time to time. Some places produce seasonal booklets which might use, for example, E in ordinary time, B at festivals, F in Advent...
We always use C (without the "Mystery of Faith" - a post-it covers that bit of the Missal's page).
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I can see why prayer B is often preferred. But unlike Jade I have never come across a church which doesn't ring the changes from time to time. Some places produce seasonal booklets which might use, for example, E in ordinary time, B at festivals, F in Advent...
We always use C (without the "Mystery of Faith" - a post-it covers that bit of the Missal's page).
Why? And is it just those words, or the Acclamations as well? Inexplicable religious foibles are always intriguing.
We're another place that uses different ones in different seasons.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
Why C? Well, cos it’s the closest to the Prayer Book Canon which is what we used to use, obviously, and then the Sandwich Rite, and then Rite B. We don’t like change.
The congregation are a bit rubbish at responding to most things that are said (as opposed to sung, when many let the choir do it for them). I think it was thought easier to just omit the Acclamations all together rather than for them to be a damp squib. It was before my time, though, that the Holy Post It was put there, though. (Ditto the post-its covering the Invitations to Communion that aren’t “Behold ['Jesus is' is crossed out] the Lamb of God…” and at various other points.)
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Perhaps you need to attend worship at other churches more regularly if you want to see what they experience. Or, at least not make sweeping statements from the limited experience you have of other traditions. Although if you see nothing inherently good about novelty you may not see the value in novelty that others see even if you regularly worship in the same 'ad lib services' (although very few churches are actually ad lib - the vast majority of those who lead worship spend a considerable amount of time in preparation so that it isn't ad lib'd), which probably contributes to your decision to worship in a more liturgical setting.
Your argument seems to boil down to "I don't see value in 'ad lib services'", which is fine as long as there's no extension to "and, therefore, such services have no value".
What Alan said.
And, as he said, almost no-one actually does ad lib[/b] or improvised services. Almost everyone has a traditional structure to their service - usually on very much the same lines as the more formal liturgies of a Catholic or Anglican office - and chooses components from a menu of hymns and prayers and other bits of liturgy . Sometimes the menu is written down, sometimes its in the collective memory of the church. But its always there. And almost everyone (even the Catholics) has space for some personalised or improvised prayers, particularly in the intercessions. And almost everybody who says such prayers tends to produce them within certain formulas, whether written or not.
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
What they fail to realise is that even extempore prayers have a certain form of their own.
I'm pretty sure they realise it!
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
But any of them are valid, although Prayer H (of which I do have experience) is not very practical with all those congregational bits.
![[Confused]](confused.gif) Why not practical? We were just saying that the priest doesn't have to say all the service, so how can it be impractical for the rest of us to have bits to say?
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
We [i]always use C (without the "Mystery of Faith" - a post-it covers that bit of the Missal's page).
What's wrong with "Mystery of Faith"?
FWIW the Eucharistic Prayers we use vary, but there doesn;t seem to be any rule to it. Its whichever one the priest who is celebrating that day fancies. Ours tend to prefer H though I suspect that's at least partly because its short and the words fit onto one page of the handout.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
