|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Of the Eucharistic Prayer
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
It seems odd to me that churches which are in Communion with each other do not always allow one another's Eucharistic Prayers to be used.
I think the C of E only allows its own EPs to be used and not those of other churches, not even those of other Anglican Communion churches.
Similarly I personally can't see why greater interchangeability is not allowed within churches. For example, our dear friend Wilipedia says that the Vatican examined the E.P. of Adai and Mari and said actually its not as bad as people were saying and its OK as a Eucharistic prayer. However, although the Vatican allows loads of E.Ps only a small number are permitted in the Roman Missal.
So what's the problem?
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
I am under the impression that EPs from any Church in communion with the CofE can be used but only with episcopal permission - it seems to be related to a desire to maintain some structure and uniformity rather than about whether other such prayers are valid or not...
Has anyone encountered any such interpolations, eg for use with expat congregations from other parts of the world? I think some mention was made of some materials from the Episcopal New Zealand BCP being used in the course of a previous thread on a related topic...
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
The Covenanting Churches in Wales (Cytun) have a shared form of Eucharist though to me it seems overwhelmingly Anglican and bears little resemblance to some of the Baptist communion services I have been in attendance at in the past...
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
It matches the unity proposals that came from that same body... ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
It matches the unity proposals that came from that same body...
Unity which has a very Anglican flavour - not that I'm complaining, just pointing out it seems to me that some of the other denominations seem to be selling out a little on how they do things... but then if they couldn't accept it they wouldn't be doing it...
Anyhow, nice to see non-conformists beginning to conform again!
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
Quite! I'm afraid I wouldn't rate its chances in our Synod...
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
Percy B, I think, at least where Catholicism is concerned, your question arises because you are confusing two things: whether a particular Eucharistic prayer/anaphora is sufficient for sacramental validity, on the one and, and the integrity of the rite on the other.
In the case of the Chaldeans and the Assyrians of the East, what the Holy See was saying in this notification is that the anaphora of Addai and Mari, despite its form, is valid form of Eucharistic Prayer from a Catholic perspective. It is not, however, a prayer of the Roman Rite and therefore cannot be used in that rite, anymore than a Byzantine anaphora might. Each rite is an integral whole. It is not simply a collection of prayers which might be replaced by another prayer from another source simply because the replacement prayer contains the necessary bits.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I dunno Sergius-Melli, some Baptist churches I know would shamelessly pinch elements of Anglican eucharistic practice - even down to the 'Prayer of Humble Access' - although these are used in a more bolt-on kind of way.
I myself have read a passage from the Roman Missal at a Baptist communion service. Nobody noticed. Well, a few former RCs did ... in fact it was given to me to read by a former RC who once accused me of believing in transubstantiation because (as a closet Anglican?) I'd articulated the Anglican position ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Percy B, I think, at least where Catholicism is concerned, your question arises because you are confusing two things: whether a particular Eucharistic prayer/anaphora is sufficient for sacramental validity, on the one and, and the integrity of the rite on the other.
In the case of the Chaldeans and the Assyrians of the East, what the Holy See was saying in this notification is that the anaphora of Addai and Mari, despite its form, is valid form of Eucharistic Prayer from a Catholic perspective. It is not, however, a prayer of the Roman Rite and therefore cannot be used in that rite, anymore than a Byzantine anaphora might. Each rite is an integral whole. It is not simply a collection of prayers which might be replaced by another prayer from another source simply because the replacement prayer contains the necessary bits.
Thanks Trisagion. Would I then be correct in thinking that a (Roman Rite) RC Mass which contrived to incorporate the Canon of Addai and Mari would be illicit but not necessarily invalid, whereas one which used an Anglican or Methodist EP would be of at least doubtful validity?
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sonata3
Shipmate
# 13653
|
Posted
Interesting question. I attended an Episcopal Church in the early 1990s where the rector had a real love of the New Zealand Prayerbook, and used one of its Eucharistic Prayers. The bishop found out, and came down on her pretty hard.
It's worth noting that there are subtle differences in the kinds of EP's different churches in the Anglican Communion have - compare the EP's in the Canadian BAS with those in the American '79 book. Typically the oblation and epiclesis will both be stronger in the American prayers.
This is related to the ELCA-TEC situation. In trial use materials which circulated before the 2006 Evangelical Lutheran Worship was approved, one of the TEC EP's was included, given the full communion relationship between the two denominations. But the presence of an oblation in the TEC prayer was too much - it was left out of ELW. None of the EP's in ELW have an oblation, and the epiclesis is invariably of the "weak" variety (although I have known some Lutheran pastors who rewrite the epiclesis to make it stronger -- since ELW is only "commended for use," and does not have the legal status that a BCP has, they can do this).
--------------------
"I prefer neurotic people; I like to hear rumblings beneath the surface." Stephen Sondheim
Posts: 386 | From: Between two big lakes | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Thanks Trisagion. Would I then be correct in thinking that a (Roman Rite) RC Mass which contrived to incorporate the Canon of Addai and Mari would be illicit but not necessarily invalid, whereas one which used an Anglican or Methodist EP would be of at least doubtful validity?
To the former: it would certainly be illicit. It would be a grave abuse. The relevant canon (846.1) reads:
quote:
The liturgical books, approved by the competent authority, are to be faithfully followed in the celebration of the sacraments. Accordingly, no one may on a personal initiative add to or omit or alter anything in those books.
It is unlikely to be invalid, in view of the CDF declaration.
To the latter, it would be similarly illicit. Validity would depend on the Eucharistic prayer. It too would be a grave abuse.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sonata3:
This is related to the ELCA-TEC situation. ...None of the EP's in ELW have an oblation, and the epiclesis is invariably of the "weak" variety (although I have known some Lutheran pastors who rewrite the epiclesis to make it stronger -- since ELW is only "commended for use," and does not have the legal status that a BCP has, they can do this).
Olaf rocks self gently, chanting: Find a happy place...find a happy place...find a happy place
Yes, I'm afraid the "Thanksgiving at the Table" section in ELW leaves a lot to be desired. Of course, in this region, I rarely encounter a pastor who will use anything but the Verba alone, anyway.
The sad truth is that their reason is simply: "It's shorter."
On the topic of ecumenism, I vaguely recall reading somewhere that the resources of our full communion partners are available to us. The average ELCA Lutheran in the pews wouldn't notice a theological difference, and even if noticed, probably wouldn't mind.
Trinity Church-Wall Street certainly experimented with the ELW prayers last year.
[ 03. January 2013, 22:45: Message edited by: Olaf ]
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Thanks Trisagion. Would I then be correct in thinking that a (Roman Rite) RC Mass which contrived to incorporate the Canon of Addai and Mari would be illicit but not necessarily invalid, whereas one which used an Anglican or Methodist EP would be of at least doubtful validity?
To the former: it would certainly be illicit. It would be a grave abuse. The relevant canon (846.1) reads:
quote:
The liturgical books, approved by the competent authority, are to be faithfully followed in the celebration of the sacraments. Accordingly, no one may on a personal initiative add to or omit or alter anything in those books.
It is unlikely to be invalid, in view of the CDF declaration.
To the latter, it would be similarly illicit. Validity would depend on the Eucharistic prayer. It too would be a grave abuse.
Thank you Trisagion and others.
The Anglican Communion tends not to use such heavy terms as illicit and grave abuse, and I suspect is less botched about interchanging Eucharistic Prayers.
I think the Church of England is open to more variety than officially first appears, in this area.
After all we have had bishops using RC Eucharistic prayers, churches which don't bother to use a Eucharistic prayer ... Also, less contentiously, the C of E herself moved a long way in this area with the introduction of Common Worship which began opening the door to all sorts of EPs that had not been heard before in the C of E and whose structure and theology differed from previous EPs.
As I understand it the C of E allows any prefaces, including home made ones.
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Thanks Trisagion. Would I then be correct in thinking that a (Roman Rite) RC Mass which contrived to incorporate the Canon of Addai and Mari would be illicit but not necessarily invalid, whereas one which used an Anglican or Methodist EP would be of at least doubtful validity?
To the former: it would certainly be illicit. It would be a grave abuse. The relevant canon (846.1) reads:
quote:
The liturgical books, approved by the competent authority, are to be faithfully followed in the celebration of the sacraments. Accordingly, no one may on a personal initiative add to or omit or alter anything in those books.
It is unlikely to be invalid, in view of the CDF declaration.
To the latter, it would be similarly illicit. Validity would depend on the Eucharistic prayer. It too would be a grave abuse.
Depends on how Traddy one is I suppose. Many of the Rad Trads regard the Anaphora of Addai and Mari as totally invalid due to the absence of the Institution Narrative. IIRC scholarship points to the Anaphora originally having an IN which was at some early stage removed. Certainly the Chaldeans have reinserted the IN and I believe that at one point it was tacitly agreed by the Assyrians that should communion be restored they will reinsert it too.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
Am I right in thinking some Anglican EPs have, with small alterations, been declared acceptable to RC authorities.
What is it that had to be altered before being acceptable?
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
The Anglican Communion tends not to use such heavy terms as illicit and grave abuse, and I suspect is less botched about interchanging Eucharistic Prayers.
Didn't you use to arrest clerics for doing benediction?
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
I dislike a couple of the new CW Eucharistic Prayers and a number of my clerical aquaintance describe them as 'virtually un-useable'.
In a church I attend, not particuarly 'High', the presiding priest usually changes the order of a couple of them in order to put the epicleisis before the dominical words. This is only a slight almost unnoticable alteration.
On the rare occasions when the EP has been used that has the congregation continuously butting in, it is her custom to recite it as a complete prayer without the interpolations. I have heard this done in a number of churches, and one Anglican friary.
Some of the Methodist EPs seem better, and in the days of the ASB 1980 described as 'more catholic' by a couple of university chaplains. The Roman Catholic Eucharistic Prayer 3 (Canon of St Hippolytus?) was, I believe, an attempt at something ecumenical - but I can't quote any authority for this. It formed the basis of one of the prayers in the ASB subsequently revised and included in CW.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
The notes from my last liturgical history class say:
EP I: Ambrosian Roman
II: ~Ap. Trad.
III: Gallican-ish
IV: Cappodocian-ish.
Ap. Trad. is Apostolic Tradition, the work once attributed to Hippolytus.
This document from the Archdiocese of New York might be helpful too.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
If it's unusable (and I think I know the one you mean and I agree) don't jolly well use it.
Messing around with the text of the post-Sanctus seems very silly and unnecessary.
--------------------
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
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
Yes, Eucharistic Prayer 2 in the Roman Rite. Eucharistic Prayer 3 seems particuarly beautiful and flowing.
I think the priest's changing a little bit around is because she doesn't object to the prayer completely, but in the order in which it appears - therefore she places the epiclesis before the dominical words, in what one presumes is the 'correct' Western position.
Similarly, she has no objection to the words of responsive EP, apart from the fact that it is responsive. I certainly seems to work quite well as a continuous prayer, the responses merely diminishing what is quite good modern poetry with rather banal interpolations. Perhaps an effective liturgy - or English language - teacher would just red pen them.
Also we have one prayer which seems to omit the Benedictus at the end of the Sanctus. That is restored in the congregational booklets. Its absence charitably described by her as 'a printing error'.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
Am I right in thinking some Anglican EPs have, with small alterations, been declared acceptable to RC authorities.
What is it that had to be altered before being acceptable?
Not to my knowledge. Any approved Anglican Use eucharistic liturgy uses the Coverdale translation of the Roman Canon or other approved EPs from the modern Roman Missal (most of which are uniformly terrible relics of the 60s and 70s).
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
Whatever else Bishop Miles Coverdale translated as well as the psalms, it sure to goodness wasn't the Roman Canon.
--------------------
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
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
I am not entirely sure that is correct.
In William Oddie's book 'The Roman Option', there is an appendix setting out the Vanon of the Mass which is attributed to Miles Coverdale.
I understand it has been used in trhe USA with Roman approval.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
The Anglican Communion tends not to use such heavy terms as illicit and grave abuse, and I suspect is less botched about interchanging Eucharistic Prayers.
Didn't you use to arrest clerics for doing benediction?
Not just benediction, but lighting candles and wearing stoles. But that was then. Now even evangelical bishops are happy to preside at Benediction.
The 19th century Anglican Liturgical Police would use phrases like Popery and Disloyalty. 'Illicit and grave abuse' might well be what they thought but not a phrase they would use.
--------------------
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
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Sorry for double post but I've just thought: Hart raises an interesting and serious point. We like to claim the C of E (and anglicanism generally) is very laid back and 'liberal' (except about sex), and doesn't take the same legalistic attitude to things as the RCC. But 150 years ago things were very different, and in liturgical matters we were as legalistic as anybody up to at least 50 years ago. I'm just reading the biography of Bishop Mervyn Stockwood (outspoken leader of the 'liberal' diocese of Southwark), and he forced a priest to resign over using the Roman Missal. Not only that but he issued a decree to all his clergy, in the early 60s, that they should use only the rite of 1662 without alteration, not even the common practice of the so-called 'interim rite'.
--------------------
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
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Whatever else Bishop Miles Coverdale translated as well as the psalms, it sure to goodness wasn't the Roman Canon.
He did. It was when he was an Augustinian friar.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
The Church of England is very laid back and 'liberal' (except about sex), and doesn't take the same legalistic attitude to things as the RCC.
The Act of Uniformity? Bunyan in prison? Margaret Clitheroe pressed to death by weights?
Anglican tolerance is only a result of its inability to suppress genuine religious impulses. Thank God.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
The Church of England is very laid back and 'liberal' (except about sex), and doesn't take the same legalistic attitude to things as the RCC.
The Act of Uniformity? Bunyan in prison? Margaret Clitheroe pressed to death by weights?
Anglican tolerance is only a result of its inability to suppress genuine religious impulses. Thank God.
My point exactly (well, what I was implying). You quoted me out of context. I was referring to 150 years ago when things were different; as you suggest, they were even more different 400 years ago.
[ 05. January 2013, 21:37: Message edited by: Angloid ]
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Whatever else Bishop Miles Coverdale translated as well as the psalms, it sure to goodness wasn't the Roman Canon.
He did. It was when he was an Augustinian friar.
I didn't know that, thank you. However I seriously doubt whether his translation was ever authorised for liturgical use. Is it the one Father Kendrick used in English Missal?
--------------------
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
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
The Church of England is very laid back and 'liberal' (except about sex), and doesn't take the same legalistic attitude to things as the RCC.
The Act of Uniformity? Bunyan in prison? Margaret Clitheroe pressed to death by weights?
Anglican tolerance is only a result of its inability to suppress genuine religious impulses. Thank God.
I think Angloid refers to the C of E of today rather than of history and in that respect I agree.
I doubt if any priest has got into any serious trouble for using an authorised Eucharistic Prayer. Indeed bishops have been known to use them.
Maybe the time has now come to legalise the irregularities and allow for a free, extempore or very varied EP, rather like TEC has.
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barefoot Friar
Ship's Shoeless Brother
# 13100
|
Posted
No, please don't do that. Please, please, please.
The UMC has that option. You know what the lowest common denominator is? You'd think that most of the clergy follow at least Rite II, which is the minimum, bare-bones Great Thanksgiving. No. Not at all.
Instead you're lucky to get the Words of Institution and Epiclesis. In fact, in a lot of places, it's more or less along the lines of "here it is, come and get it!"
No, don't legalize the irregularities and allow extempore Eucharistic prayers. It won't end well.
--------------------
Do your little bit of good where you are; its those little bits of good put together that overwhelm the world. -- Desmond Tutu
Posts: 1621 | From: Warrior Mountains | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
I am not actually a supporter of extempore prayers but didn't that often quoted liturgical source Hippolytus suggest a Bishop extemporise and if he cannot then use the form Hippolytus wrote.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
It seems odd to me that churches which are in Communion with each other do not always allow one another's Eucharistic Prayers to be used.
I think the C of E only allows its own EPs to be used and not those of other churches, not even those of other Anglican Communion churches.
Similarly I personally can't see why greater interchangeability is not allowed within churches. For example, our dear friend Wilipedia says that the Vatican examined the E.P. of Adai and Mari and said actually its not as bad as people were saying and its OK as a Eucharistic prayer. However, although the Vatican allows loads of E.Ps only a small number are permitted in the Roman Missal.
So what's the problem?
I don't see why this is odd at all, but that might be affected by my location. Twenty miles from here on the other side of the Severn Estuary, related but quite different books are in use. Our clergy can't use theirs. If they can use ours, that is a matter for their bishops. If I go over the water, I expect to attend services using their books and that's how it is. It's what follows from having provinces.
Also, Common Worship provides so much flexibility, so many alternatives to suit seasons or more or less formal occasions, what possible reason is there for anyone to feel they want or need to go outside it. I know people do, but why?
As I've said before, in respect of one particular example of this, I agree with +London.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stranger in a strange land
Shipmate
# 11922
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Whatever else Bishop Miles Coverdale translated as well as the psalms, it sure to goodness wasn't the Roman Canon.
He did. It was when he was an Augustinian friar.
I didn't know that, thank you. However I seriously doubt whether his translation was ever authorised for liturgical use. Is it the one Father Kendrick used in English Missal?
I believe there are some differences but only on the basis of hearsay. As I will - apparently - be using it on Thursday perhaps I ought to do some research.
Posts: 608 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
Similarly I personally can't see why greater interchangeability is not allowed within churches. For example, our dear friend Wilipedia says that the Vatican examined the E.P. of Adai and Mari and said actually its not as bad as people were saying and its OK as a Eucharistic prayer. However, although the Vatican allows loads of E.Ps only a small number are permitted in the Roman Missal.
So what's the problem?
I don't see why this is odd at all, but that might be affected by my location. Twenty miles from here on the other side of the Severn Estuary, related but quite different books are in use. Our clergy can't use theirs. If they can use ours, that is a matter for their bishops. If I go over the water, I expect to attend services using their books and that's how it is. It's what follows from having provinces.
Also, Common Worship provides so much flexibility, so many alternatives to suit seasons or more or less formal occasions, what possible reason is there for anyone to feel they want or need to go outside it. I know people do, but why?
As I've said before, in respect of one particular example of this, I agree with +London.
Part of the problem is That not all would agree with your statements about how good Common Worship is. If you hold the view - common among Western Catholic minded Christians that the epiclesis should precede the Dominical words then you reduce Common Worship's possible offerings greatly, and you may want to look elsewhere for your variety.
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
Why this search for variety, Percy B. Roman Rite Catholicism survived, thrived and expanded for fourteen or fifteen hundred years with only one Eucharistic Prayer. Is it some form of eclecticism or striving for novelty? What is it?
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
There are eight Eucharistic Prayers in Common Worship of which four have the epiclesis before the dominical words. Given that the ASB had three Eucharistic prayers it would seem that, even if you only use those EPs, there is more choice in Common Worship than there has been at any other time in the life of the Church of England, particularly if we remember that for most of its history the 1662 service (which has no epiclesis at all, or at least only an implicit one) was the only option.
[ 12. January 2013, 08:28: Message edited by: seasick ]
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
The Church of England is very laid back and 'liberal' (except about sex), and doesn't take the same legalistic attitude to things as the RCC.
The Act of Uniformity? Bunyan in prison? Margaret Clitheroe pressed to death by weights?
Anglican tolerance is only a result of its inability to suppress genuine religious impulses. Thank God.
My point exactly (well, what I was implying). You quoted me out of context. I was referring to 150 years ago when things were different; as you suggest, they were even more different 400 years ago.
Anglican tolerance? Really? Witness the mardy-baby like reaction when the House of Laity voted a certain way recently.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Tangent, sebby! But I take your point and IIRC in that discussion I was not defending the C of E's 'liberalism' as such but noting the difference between current Anglican attitudes and the RCC. I entirely agree with your implication that liberal intolerance can be as strong as any other sort.
--------------------
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
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
Ahem. This thread is entitled "Of the Eucharistic Prayer."
The recent vote in the House of Laity of the General Synod of the Church of England was on a matter that is a Dead Horse on these boards so I know no one would want to even think of discussing it here in Ecclesiantics.
The more general question of whether tolerance is a (defining) feature of the Anglican tradition would belong on its own thread in Purgatory.
Much obliged.
seasick, Eccles host
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Thanks for the warning, seasick, and I apologise for prolonging the tangent. I have started a new thread in the Styx to ask the best way of dealing with such tangents which call for a quick, if irrelevant to the thread, response.
--------------------
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
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
There are eight Eucharistic Prayers in Common Worship of which four have the epiclesis before the dominical words. Given that the ASB had three Eucharistic prayers it would seem that, even if you only use those EPs, there is more choice in Common Worship than there has been at any other time in the life of the Church of England, particularly if we remember that for most of its history the 1662 service (which has no epiclesis at all, or at least only an implicit one) was the only option.
Indeed, but we have moved into an age which offers more and more variety in liturgy, but seems strangely restrictive, I suggest, when it comes to the Eucharistic prayer.
Some Church of England's obviously find this, and so they choose to use different none CW Eucharistic prayers, or a very simple form over bread and wine.
I can't see why, for myself, using a Eucharistic prayer from elsewhere say in the Anglican communion isn't allowed,say, at a weekday Eucharist.
Of even why, say, in a congregation which may have a significant number of African or Afro Caribbean people a EP from an Anglican Church of their native country can't be used from time to time. Lets not be too imperialist!
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
As a Methodist, I actually think there might be a lot to be said for requiring an authorised Eucharistic prayer given some of the offerings I have seen. Personally, I normally use one of our authorised texts (our authorised texts are exemplars; we are not required to use them) but I have on occasion used EPs from Catholic and Anglican sources as well as ones of my own composition.
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
I agree seasick, its just I think the range of authorised could be extended. I also feel it would be good to allow for ecumenical friends prayers to be used at times - for example in the week of prayer for Christian unity.
I write as an Anglican. It seems your church may have more latitude than I am envisaging.
I also write as one who attends Eucharist each Sunday and during the week and appreciates appropriate variety.
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
I can't say I'm bothered about the text of the Eucharistic prayer, as long as it does what it's meant.
For a long time, the text was recited silently in any case.
What is a bad idea to my mind is using a different EP in the C of E each Sunday. It is less confusing to use one text for a period (eg using the BCP based EP with its penitential character in Lent, although that means not using the seasonal preface.)
--------------------
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
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
I have to say I am bothered about the text. Some to me seem so unintelligible and so distracting. In their case silence would be better!
I agree that seasonal variety rater than first Sunday so Prayer one mentality is preferable.
It seems to me the CW EPs were written with different churchman ships in mind, or at least to cater for different ones.
Is a silent Canon permitted in any rite nowadays? It would seem a strange meeting point of very traditional and very modern, perhaps!
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
Is a silent Canon permitted in any rite nowadays? It would seem a strange meeting point of very traditional and very modern, perhaps!
Yes. It's still permitted - required - in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.
Percy B, can Itrouble you to answer the question I asked you earlier today: why do you want more choice?
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
What is a bad idea to my mind is using a different EP in the C of E each Sunday. It is less confusing to use one text for a period (eg using the BCP based EP with its penitential character in Lent, although that means not using the seasonal preface.)
If you mean Prayer C, you can still use a short preface with it. Strictly you're not supposed to use the extended prefaces except with A, B and E, but I can't see why not.
There are (or were, in ASB days) churches which rigidly stuck to a pattern like, first Sunday in the month, Eucharistic prayer 1; second Sunday, 2, and so on. An irritating and pointless habit IMHO, ignoring the different 'feel' of the different prayers and the appropriateness for particular seasons.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
I'm sure I've come across the extended preface affixed to Prayer C at St Paul's Cathedral. Good on them.
I meant the extended prefaces: "and now we give you thanks" is one of those quintessentially ASB phrases (like "Go in peace to love and serve the Lord" or "we say together the prayer at the bottom of page 5" which raises my hackles.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
