|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Of the Eucharistic Prayer
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
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.
I feel the same about the latter two. But what would you say instead of 'now we give you thanks'?
--------------------
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
For elegant variation, CW begins the Easter short preface "But chiefly we are bound to praise you".
Why does it always have to be the same formula (Look, folk! There's a special bit coming up! ASB didacticism again) ?
I wish the ASB rang the changes: So we praise you because, Remembering that blah de blah we give thanks, or indeed why bother to point out it's a special day, just get on thanking.
The extended prefaces are great.
--------------------
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
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
Speaking of the use of liturgies of specific Anglican liturgies by other Anglican churches, one suburban Atlanta Episcopal Church used to (and may still) use the South African prayer book at its early Sunday morning eucharist. I can't verify for sure at this moment due to being unable to access the website of the church (for whatever technical reason).
Our parish is usually by the book (i.e. the BCP) on this and, with Rite 2, always uses prayers 1 or 2. I don't think i've ever seen prayers 3 or 4 used ever. However, for the last several years, starting on Epiphany and on all the following Sundays until Lent, our place uses a Epiphany-themed eucharistic prayer that is an original composition. (Where it's from or whether it's a local composition i have no idea. My view of it is that it is "interesting". Sometime i might start a thread about a couple of its "interesting" features) Also, a special and i'm almost positive a locally composed eucharistic prayer is used at our 2 "Mass on the Grass" observances at the beginning and the end of summer.
The bishop may very well have given his official okey-dokey in all of the above-mentioned cases.
<tangent>
A brief tangent. On a Purgatory thread about "incarnational" theology, a couple of us noticed on our computers that the word "incarnational" has red dots under it like it was a misspelling or not a real word. Well, lo and behold, my computer thinks that "eucharist" is not a real wod either. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) </tangent>
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
Well, lo and behold, my computer thinks that "eucharist" is not a real wod either. </tangent>
And 'wod' is? ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
To the point(-ish): the Community of the Resurrection at Mirfield in West Yorkshire for many years used the South African BCP as its normative rite. This was authorised by the Bishop of the diocese, presumably on the grounds that as a religious community it was a liturgical 'peculiar'.
--------------------
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
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
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.
I feel the same about the latter two. But what would you say instead of 'now we give you thanks'?
What about 'this day we give You thanks'? Something of that kind. Though I don't particularly mind any of these and I quite like most of the extended Prefaces. Maybe I'm an oddball there.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I'm sure I've come across the extended preface affixed to Prayer C at St Paul's Cathedral. Good on them.
We (not St Paul's) do it week by week.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
What about 'this day we give You thanks'? Something of that kind. Though I don't particularly mind any of these and I quite like most of the extended Prefaces. Maybe I'm an oddball there.
I don't think that's oddball at all. The reason I liked the Roman Rite many years ago was the long prefaces: I was quite uninterested in the details of the post-Sanctus.
"And now we give you thanks" is just so clunky. Once in a while it would be OK, but to have it every time outside Easter...
The (sparse) proper prefaces in the 1662 BCP all vary the introductory words (and I note CW takes the Easter intro from 1662).
--------------------
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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
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.
Percy B, three thoughts.
First, I'm sure you don't mean it like that. All the same, it does rather read as though if the priest doesn't get the words in what some particular munshi has said he or she thinks is the right order, the 'magic' doesn't work, that some of the authorised Eucharistic prayers are more 'effective' than others.
Second, I'm no expert on these things, but I rather think the Tridentine Mass did not include an epiclesis. If the 'magic' were dependent on getting the words right, wouldn't that mean no CofE or Roman Catholic Eucharist was a true one for four centuries?
Third, forgive my asking but are you a priest or a lay person? If you are a priest, it is your responsibility (and duty to your congregation) to preside in accordance with either the BCP or CW and your canonical oath to your bishop.
If you are a lay person, you are stuck with what the clergy are willing to provide. None of us can go to either our own incumbent or any other clergy person and say, 'When I was in Llandudno recently (or if one has more money, Barbados), I thought the service was really nice. Could we have their rite next Sunday please?'.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
From his other posts, I imagine Enoch and I have very little in common on our views on most things religious.
However I would completely agree with what he says here.
The Roman canon does not have an epiclesis.
--------------------
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
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
The Roman canon does not have an epiclesis.
Well, doesn't have an explicit epiclesis.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oxonian Ecclesiastic
Shipmate
# 12722
|
Posted
The reason an extended preface may not be used with Eucharistic Prayer C in Common Worship is that the doctrinal material post-Sanctus in Prayer C can end up becoming a repetition of what has already been said in the Preface. In the interests of cleanliness, therefore, only a short Preface may be used.
Moreover, practically, the use of an extended preface with Prayer C makes the canon over-long.
Posts: 174 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
The prayer "Quam oblationem" in the Roman Canon is plainly intended to be an epiclesis.
To be fair, this intention has been strengthened in the Paul VI missal, as the rubrics there direct the priest to extend his hands over the gifts during the prayer. In the John XXIII missal and prior, the priest did not extend his hands (or at least was not directed to), and instead made the sign of the cross several times.
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
I get the impression that if the Roman Canon had been devised by the C of E Liturgical Commission, Percy B would have criticized it as inadequately catholic.
--------------------
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
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
Well, Dr Cranmer would have agreed...
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
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.
Percy B, three thoughts.
First, I'm sure you don't mean it like that. All the same, it does rather read as though if the priest doesn't get the words in what some particular munshi has said he or she thinks is the right order, the 'magic' doesn't work, that some of the authorised Eucharistic prayers are more 'effective' than others.
Second, I'm no expert on these things, but I rather think the Tridentine Mass did not include an epiclesis. If the 'magic' were dependent on getting the words right, wouldn't that mean no CofE or Roman Catholic Eucharist was a true one for four centuries?
Third, forgive my asking but are you a priest or a lay person? If you are a priest, it is your responsibility (and duty to your congregation) to preside in accordance with either the BCP or CW and your canonical oath to your bishop.
If you are a lay person, you are stuck with what the clergy are willing to provide. None of us can go to either our own incumbent or any other clergy person and say, 'When I was in Llandudno recently (or if one has more money, Barbados), I thought the service was really nice. Could we have their rite next Sunday please?'.
Wait, do you think the Roman Rite pre-Trent had an explicit epiclesis? It never has at any point since at the very least the reign of Gelasius I, and all scholarship points to there never having been one at all. One of the the primary criticism of Western Rite Orthodoxy is that it has mangled the Roman Canon by inserting an epiclesis into it.
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963
|
Posted
In the Church of England, you are required to use an authorised eucharistic prayer and so no you cannot use the Star Trek one from Canada / USA, something from the Northumbria Community, some exotic continental rite or just make one up. The reaaon is that we regard the EP as doctrinally sensitive so requiring authorisation by Synod. Of course, having variable prefaces, including the option of composing your own, does nuance this a bit except that the eucharistic theology which is sensitive comes elsewhere than in the variable preface.
In any case, you cannot muck about with shuffling the paragraphs like a deck of cards. Nor can you terminate the prayer early after the Imstitution Narrative and go straight to the Communion . (I corrected this last abberation when I was regularly presiding at a church in vacancy where the outgoing priest had produced printed service booklets which did just that - easy to correct by not using the booklets and putting the liturgy on PowerPoint!)
Prayer A has optional congregational responses. The responses in e.g. F and H are integral to the Prayer (esp. in H) - if you don't like them, other prayers are available.
Yes some churches do use unauthorised texts - as condemned by +London recently - but breaking the rules does not mean that there are no rules!
--------------------
"I am a sinful human being - why do you expect me to be consistent?" George Bebawi
"This is just unfocussed wittering." Ian McIntosh
Posts: 701 | From: Norwich | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
The responses in e.g. F and H are integral to the Prayer (esp. in H) - if you don't like them, other prayers are available.
Not in F... in my book at any rate they are printed in square brackets.
--------------------
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 think Charles means Prayer E (This is his/our story), which only really works if the congregation is familiar with the Moody and Sankey hymn which the acclamations quote.
--------------------
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
That's D!
--------------------
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 only listen to them, so I'm don't remember the titles.
D is indeed "this is his/our story" and the acclamations are mandatory.
E is jolly good and really requires the extended preface.
F has acclamations in brackets.
H doesn't so much have acclamations, as the congregation having substantial parts of the EP itself to say. Don't like it myself.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
We sang it at primary school. Are they sure they don't know it?
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
OK, I'm sniping a bit. There can be references to Biblical or patristic material which congregations won't pick up on, but still work, as it were.
--------------------
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
|
|
Oxonian Ecclesiastic
Shipmate
# 12722
|
Posted
quote:
…very few of our people would know the song - and nobody from the under 40s.
I am under 40. I don't think I'm *that* unusual.
It is in 'Common Praise'. And the heinous Mayhew 'Old and New' books. And 'Mission Praise'.
Posts: 174 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
It's the sort of earworm that you only need to hear once never to forget. I have never encountered it in a normal church setting, but once went to hear a Billy Graham rally (broadcast link) and heard it then. Hard to shake off.
--------------------
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
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I think Charles means Prayer E (This is his/our story), which only really works if the congregation is familiar with the Moody and Sankey hymn which the acclamations quote.
Published by Moody and Sankey, but written by Fanny Crosby (Mrs Frances Van Alstyne) and Phoebe Knapp.
Still incredibly widely known and sung, it features in 'Songs of Fellowship' and all my congregations know it (teenagers included).
That being said, the Eucharistic prayer which refers to it was a big, big mistake on the part of the Liturgical Commission. It curls the toes.
[ 17. January 2013, 19:17: Message edited by: Amos ]
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Can someone check source for it please. My recollection of first hearing it is in Methodist Worship which would predate CW, and I suspect that it pre-dates that.
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
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I seem to think that the Bishop of Liverpool had a lot to do with it.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Can someone check source for it please. My recollection of first hearing it is in Methodist Worship which would predate CW, and I suspect that it pre-dates that.
Jengie
The "This is our story" EP? Nothing to do with us...
--------------------
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 have yet to attend Eucharist where the new EP for when children are used, but I have heard one at least is very good.
In a nearby parish the priest likes to use the EPs of the Scottish Episcopals, especially, he says, because they tune in well to some of the liturgical seasons. This is only done by him at weekday Eucharist. At Sunday Eucharist CW is preferred.
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I seem to think that the Bishop of Liverpool had a lot to do with it.
Oh dear, oh dear. Did you have to tell me that?
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
It's the sort of earworm that you only need to hear once never to forget. I have never encountered it in a normal church setting, but once went to hear a Billy Graham rally (broadcast link) and heard it then. Hard to shake off.
I'm quite fond of it, really. When leading services at the old people's home, I'd often choose it. They seemed to enjoy it too.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963
|
Posted
Sorry for the confusuion - I did mean F and I was wrong - acclamations are indeed optional in F.
In D they are not. This prayer works on a narrative structure rather than by rehearsing propositional theological concepts - at least that is the theory! I am not allowed to disclose the details of who wrote what, though most of this is in the public domain as they only told us (the Steering Committee for the CW EPs) after I'd been teaching ordinands about them....
I think I can say though that, as regards D, the Crosby hymn was not deliberately in mind by the author. Indeed, the chair of the Steering Committee had never heard the hymn and the rest of the group of six taught it to him in a small room in Church House where we were meeting!
We then removed the 'this is his story'response and put in something else which did not work and so went back to 'this is his story' etc..
Back on topic here: CW provides a range of EPs in different styles. Why use the Rioman rite of just read a bit from 1 Corinthiansd unless you are making a point?
(We nearly threw out C but decided not to and we were reluctant to add any more, but G and H did get in due to synodical lobbying!)
--------------------
"I am a sinful human being - why do you expect me to be consistent?" George Bebawi
"This is just unfocussed wittering." Ian McIntosh
Posts: 701 | From: Norwich | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
I am not allowed to disclose the details of who wrote what...
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Did the Steering Committee tell you why? It sends a strange break from ancient tradition. Part of what I love about many of the ancient prayers and hymns of the Byzantine Rite is that they often come with a little note of attribution.
These have often led me to look up who these people were, which has given me an idea of their life, history, and their background which is often reflected in their words. Often they saints whose life or writings are well known. Anglicanism is no stranger to this. For centuries, Cranmer's work was normative, and it customary for hymnals to list the source.
Why the change now?
[ 18. January 2013, 12:10: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
I am not allowed to disclose the details of who wrote what...
Did the Steering Committee tell you why? It sends a strange break from ancient tradition. Part of what I love about many of the ancient prayers and hymns of the Byzantine Rite is that they often come with a little note of attribution.
These have often led me to look up who these people were, which has given me an idea of their life, history, and their background which is often reflected in their words. Often they saints whose life or writings are well known. Anglicanism is no stranger to this. For centuries, Cranmer's work was normative, and it customary for hymnals to list the source.
Why the change now?
It might say something about modern Anglicanism that our liturgy is attributed to committees rather than to great individuals... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
It sends a strange break...
"Seems", of course.
Auto-correct.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
I am not allowed to disclose the details of who wrote what...
Did the Steering Committee tell you why? It sends a strange break from ancient tradition. Part of what I love about many of the ancient prayers and hymns of the Byzantine Rite is that they often come with a little note of attribution.
These have often led me to look up who these people were, which has given me an idea of their life, history, and their background which is often reflected in their words. Often they saints whose life or writings are well known. Anglicanism is no stranger to this. For centuries, Cranmer's work was normative, and it customary for hymnals to list the source.
Why the change now?
It might say something about modern Anglicanism that our liturgy is attributed to committees rather than to great individuals...
Yes, indeed.
'The liturgy of St Basil', the 'liturgy of St John Chrysostom' compared with 'the liturgy of the steering committee' ; how embarrassing.
I imagine those individual clergy in the Church of England who omit the irritating congregational interpolations in some of the CW eucharistic prayers, or place the epiclesis before the words of institution (the Western position), do so on the understandable premise that the CW texts as printed must be misprints, or essays in experimental liturgy yet unmarked and red penned by liturgical scholars of repute.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
I know I’ve lived an exceptionally sheltered life, but I thought I knew a thing or two about liturgy, at least until menaces like Paul Bradshaw or Colin Buchannan came along, which is why I spend so much time on this board. However I’ve never ever heard this thing, shibboleth perhaps, that the epiclesis should come before the words of institution.
St John Chrysostom and St Basil thought the proper place for it was after the words of institution. And as I’ve recently learnt here, whether the Roman Canon has an epiclesis is debateable.
Superficially looking at Jasper and Cumings, the nearest the Mozarabic and Gallician examples there have to an epiclesis comes after the words of institution.
--------------------
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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
at least until menaces like Paul Bradshaw or Colin Buchannan came along, ....
St John Chrysostom and St Basil thought the proper place for it was after the words of institution. And as I’ve recently learnt here, whether the Roman Canon has an epiclesis is debateable.
1) Bp. Colin and Paul Bradshaw are a good thing.
2) Can you give a link to Crysostom and Basil where the epiclesis comes after the dominical words?
Please.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
1 Disagree. I got the impression Bradshaw doesn't think the Last Supper happened. Colin B, bless him, is a great enthusiast for all those responses in CW.
2 Just look up Jasper and Cumings or any standard translation. Here's a link to a translation of JC
http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/liturgy/liturgy.html
and for St Basil
http://www.anastasis.org.uk/Basil%20noted%5B3%5D.pdf
I take it the epiclesis is the calling down of the Holy Spirit on the gifts, which Orthodox tradition takes to be the moment of consecration. Orthodox shipmates may well want to correct my imperfect understanding, but the point is the position of the prayer in the structure of the EP. Or have I mistaken what an epiclesis is?
--------------------
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
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I take it the epiclesis is the calling down of the Holy Spirit on the gifts, which Orthodox tradition takes to be the moment of consecration. Orthodox shipmates may well want to correct my imperfect understanding, but the point is the position of the prayer in the structure of the EP. Or have I mistaken what an epiclesis is?
You aren't mistaken at all, venbede. That is precisely what the epiclesis is. The Byzantine ones, and likely others, tend to be twofold: the Holy Spirit is called down first on the people and then on the Gifts. (I would only say that Orthodox are more likely to view this point of the anaphora as the moment when the consecration can be said to have been fully completed. I'm not sure that we entertain a specific idea of a particular moment that is the sole moment of consecration.)
I'm intrigued by what you say of the Mozarabic and Gallican Rites, though. My only experience of the Gallican Rite is the form currently used by Orthodox Christians, which is heavily byzantinised. Therefore, I have never been sure whether the position of the epiclesis in that rite is due to it being the original position or due to the Byzantine influence.
If you have any links to texts of the Mozarabic canon or texts about the Gallican one (which I know was immensely variable), I'd be very grateful if you'd be so good as to share them. Your understanding seems similar to my own. The Roman Canon has no explicit epiclesis but I seem to recall that the points which have been understood as implicit epicleses are post-sanctus. (I shall have to check again to make sure.)
As for links to the anaphoras, your links are perfectly fine, but for ease of reference for leo and others, here are links to the anaphoras directly, apart from the entire eucharistic liturgy:
St John Chrysostom
St Basil the Great.
[ 19. January 2013, 19:26: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
The Western postion is prior to the dominical words, and additionally sometimes afterwards as well, but is implicit rather than explicit in the Mass of St Pius V.
In the West presumably the idea is to pray for the descent of the Holy Spirit on the offerings, as it were, and then the recitation of the domincal words effects the change.
One can't help thinking that Anglicans (being predomiantly Western for obvious historical reasons) look a little silly if they try to be like Turkish Delight - full of Eastern promise.
Buchanan has always had his own (broadly) evangelical agenda. It is worth noting that liturgical studies have only been taken seriously in the Church of England comparatively recently; very few theological colleges and universities see it as an essential part of theology; there are very few Anglican liturgical scholars at all .
Although not a RC or even an AC, I have to acknowledge that Rome has the advantage probably times a hundred, or even more. There are entire faculties in pontifical universities given over to liturgy. These may have been a little dusty at some stages in history, but have been there.
Not that long ago Dean Inge came out with his bon mots when asked if he studied liturgy: 'No, neither do I collect butterflies'
One might assume that such an attitude would be unthinkable today - although I am not sure if there is even a single Chair (as in full Professorship) of Liturgy in any English, Welsh or Scottish university. I would be delighted to be proved wrong.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
One can't help thinking that Anglicans (being predomiantly Western for obvious historical reasons) look a little silly if they try to be like Turkish Delight - full of Eastern promise.
And so they ought to ignore Eastern material like the New Testament, the creeds, the Ecumenical Councils?
Come off it. To suggest authentic Christianity only starts West of the Adriatic is as bad as to suggest it only started in 1517.
The C18 Scottish and American Prayer books both have an epiclesis (ie a prayer for the Spirit) after the dominical words.
--------------------
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
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
And there has long been an interest in Orthodoxy among Anglicans who are pleased to show that catholic practice is not dependent on Rome, Archbishops Laud, Ramsey and Williams among them, not to mention the non-jurors and J W Neale.
--------------------
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
That is to jump to the extreme end of the argument and no-one is advocating ignoring Eastern Christianity. They would be foolish if they did. Similarly, there was indeed an interest in Eastern liturgy - even earlier than you suggest.
However, Anglicanism (to use an unsatisfactory word) is predominantly Western in its heritage; it is still 'Western' in its Christianity. Eastern liturgical use can look somewhat affected when used out of context: the CofE person who is of the Whybrew school, and therefore crosses themselves from right to left, for example.
The western epiclesis is placed before the dominical words and often after as well. As you well know, to western catholic Christians the consecration is the recitation of the dominical words. Once this has happened prayer to the Holy Spirit to come down upon the offerings is superfluous.
I happen to love the Eastern anaphora and respect the Eastern notion of the consecration - which I hold to be correct as well as the western.
Eastern Christianity is extremely hard to understand for a Westerner. Those 'Full of Eastern Promise' are those who often affect to, but don't. Professor Michael Winter when teaching at the Gregorian once remarked that he could see union between Calvinists and Roman Catholics before East and West; he was not referring to politics, but theology and liturgy. It is about vocabulary and emphasis.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
And there has long been an interest in Orthodoxy among Anglicans who are pleased to show that catholic practice is not dependent on Rome, Archbishops Laud, Ramsey and Williams among them, not to mention the non-jurors and J W Neale.
I am no expert on liturgy, but am under the impression that the writers of the modern CofE Eucharistic prayers added an epliclesis, and put it where they have put it, because they concluded the Orthodox tradition was better than the Roman Catholic absence. Better follow the one that you believe is better than choose a less best option just because it is more traditional for the West rather than the East.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
As you well know, to western catholic Christians the consecration is the recitation of the dominical words. Once this has happened prayer to the Holy Spirit to come down upon the offerings is superfluous.
I do indeed and cross myself at that point(and you clarify to me your and Percy's concern). I see what you mean, however...
Paul Bradshaw would disagree and say the whole prayer is consecratory, rather than one formula and indeed you could end up on that basis with the Lutheran and Reformed practice of only reciting the dominical words with no context of a prayer. The dominical words focus what is happening, but only in the context of the whole prayer.
--------------------
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, I see that. The prayer should be a unity.
However Paul Bradshaw (a western scholar) would stand almost (but probably not quite) alone against a whole raft of other liturgical theologians amongst them members of a number of faculties of Pontifical Universities who really do liturgy and make Anglican attempts appear a little amateurish and solitary. But as an Anglican I might argue that that doesn't necessarily make Bradshaw or Anglican attempts wrong! But we are still in the warly days of even regarding it as a valid theological discipline.
I would still be interssted to hear if there is a Chair of Liturgy in any UK university (unlike foreign counterparts).
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I got the impression Bradshaw doesn't think the Last Supper happened.
Paul Bradshaw's major expertise is in ordination rites - I have a book in which he compares Eastern and Western examples.
He also wrote an essay on the daily office throughout history in a compilation leading up to the introduction of Common Worship.
I get the impression that he is quite 'sound'.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
