|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Of the Eucharistic Prayer
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
And in his Reconstructing Early Christian Worship, he has a whole section on the Last Supper.
In his Eucharistic Origins he suggests that the eucharist was not always linked to the Last Supper - some communities recalled Jesus's table-fellowship with sinners - an agape with no reference to the paschal mystery.
That it was a debatable issue is evident from Paul giving instructions in 1 Corinthians.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
In his Eucharistic Origins he suggests that the eucharist was not always linked to the Last Supper - some communities recalled Jesus's table-fellowship with sinners - an agape with no reference to the paschal mystery.
Which is why I said he was a menace. However, I’ve just been delighted to receive my copy of Father Robert Daly SJ’s Sacrifice Unveiled with a favourable blurb by Bradshaw. I’m sure I’ll be more sympatheitic to Professor Bradshaw (of the prestigious Roman Catholic University of Notre Dame) after I’ve read the book.
Father Daly is Emeritus Professor of Theology, Boston College and comments on page 17:
"What may be most effective in helping Roman Catholicism to break out of its theologically debilitating fixation on the “moment of consecration” and thus move to a more catholic Eucharistic theology, might be the official adaption of a Eucharistic Prayer which has the Epiclesis in the classic Antiochene position the after words of consecration."
--------------------
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
The only A-C church I've known which has used Prayer G regularly moved the epiclesis to before the dominical words (and added "along with Benedict the Pope, Andrew our Bishop, and all the clergy" to the square bracketed bit.
However, were you to use it as written (obviously, one could still add the Pope/Bishop bits thanks to the ellipse), in a Western Rite Catholic sort of place (and I suppose that begs the questions...), would you still elevate after the dominical words? Would you still ring the bells and make the sign of the Cross over the elements during the epiclesis? ('you' here including priest and server, rather than expecting him to have lots of hands!)
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
In his Eucharistic Origins he suggests that the eucharist was not always linked to the Last Supper - some communities recalled Jesus's table-fellowship with sinners - an agape with no reference to the paschal mystery.
Which is why I said he was a menace.
Why would his pointing out a historical fact — that some Christian communities connected the Eucharist to the various table fellowships of Christ, and not to the paschal mystery — make him a menace? There were even some people who, for some reason, used water instead of wine, and who were corrected by St. Cyprian.
--------------------
"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
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
I'll read Daly first before further comment.
However since you ask...
I see him as a menace for undermining the blessed Gregory Dix and in possibly encouraging the view that the eucharist is NOT possibly linked to the paschal mystery, or a communual action in union with Christ's own action.
In any case it sounds like speculation rather than historical fact. And it could derive both from Christ's table fellowship and the last supper.
--------------------
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
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
The Bl. Gregory may have had many fine qualities, but being infallible was not one of them!
This is surely a matter of scholarship and asking difficult questions doesn't necessarily make one a menace, surely?
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
The only A-C church I've known which has used Prayer G regularly moved the epiclesis to before the dominical words (and added "along with Benedict the Pope, Andrew our Bishop, and all the clergy" to the square bracketed bit.
However, were you to use it as written (obviously, one could still add the Pope/Bishop bits thanks to the ellipse), in a Western Rite Catholic sort of place (and I suppose that begs the questions...), would you still elevate after the dominical words? Would you still ring the bells and make the sign of the Cross over the elements during the epiclesis? ('you' here including priest and server, rather than expecting him to have lots of hands!)
I don't see why not. The history of the elevations is interesting, and they are quite unnecessary, but a slight elevation at the dominical words wouldn't see out of place.
Certainly, the laity crossing themselves and such like wouldn't seem out of place either. In Byzantine practice, the clergy and people cross themselves and bow low each time at "for the remission of sins", even though the epiklesis comes later.
--------------------
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
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I see him as a menace for undermining the blessed Gregory Dix and in possibly encouraging the view that the eucharist is NOT possibly linked to the paschal mystery, or a communual action in union with Christ's own action.
This sounds a bit like you're calling any historian who documents an objectionable view a menace. Is someone a menace for noting that not all early (self-proclaimed) Christians accepted the Hebrew Bible (i.e., Marcion), without endorsing that view? How strange.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
All the Methodist EPs bar one have the epiclesis after the dominical words but I still elevate after them.
--------------------
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
|
|
Oxonian Ecclesiastic
Shipmate
# 12722
|
Posted
When presiding in a church where customary Western ceremonial is expected, I elevate after the dominical words, but make no manual acts at the epiclesis: the elements having been consecrated, the epicletic formula thus becomes a prayer for reception, making such manual acts inappropriate.
Posts: 174 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
they are quite unnecessary, but a slight elevation at the dominical words wouldn't see out of place.
Ah, but if you're celebrating eastward, as is the case at our shack, then the priest only elevating slightly (as our former and much loved assistant used to) drives the congregation mad because they still can't see!
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic:
When presiding in a church where customary Western ceremonial is expected, I elevate after the dominical words, but make no manual acts at the epiclesis: the elements having been consecrated, the epicletic formula thus becomes a prayer for reception, making such manual acts inappropriate.
I have come to see it more that the EP is the central prayer of Mass and the epiclesis and Dominical words are central within it, and so manual acts act as a kind of showing of this, as do the elevations.
I don't worry too much now about where the epiclesis is or how the manual acts / elevations are done, but do like them done in some form. I can't really feel comfortable with the no touch approach of some Anglican priests. That's a personal preference I add, not that I am able to justify it in any other way!
I do find the approach that the EP end with the Holy Holy unnecesarily innovative and out of touch with what Christians in the West have done for centuries.
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
they are quite unnecessary, but a slight elevation at the dominical words wouldn't see out of place.
Ah, but if you're celebrating eastward, as is the case at our shack, then the priest only elevating slightly (as our former and much loved assistant used to) drives the congregation mad because they still can't see!
Thurible
It's an eastward celebration that I had in mind.
Prior to the development of the ostensations, that is precisely what was done in places where elevations took place. The purpose wasn't to show anything to anybody. Some of our Western Rite folk do just that today.
--------------------
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
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
Well, we want our Decent Elevetations. So there.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
[They're similar to Elevations but even higher...)
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I appreciate the drama which takes place during the Eucharistic prayer very much, but find it hard to understand that many people would not notice if it didn't happen, or even if the priest was Eastward facing throughout, because they have their heads bowed for the whole thing. For one thing, they must miss a lot, for another, my concentration levels wouldn't last out.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
[They're similar to Elevations but even higher...)
Thank you for the clarification.
Oh, and your earlier post would have been complete with a "ner-ner-ner-ner-ner": something to bear in mind for the future.
--------------------
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
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
I'm grateful to you for your feedback.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
