|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Fighting the Liturgical War
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
I just love it when someone tries to explain what is happening in Lutheranism as if they have been to all Lutheran churches. Personally, I find a broad range of liturgical practices in the Lutheran churches I have attended. My congregation takes a balanced approach. We will change our liturgical service about every three months, After Easter we used a special mass that was commissioned by out congregation. Right now we are using the Sorrington Mass which was written by Marty Haugen, (GIA Publishers).
While we do not generally use the Morning Office we will go back to using the Evening Office for Midweek Services at the beginning of the new academic year.
We serve a town/gown population. I think this gives us the ability to vary our services quite frequently.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by Arch Anglo Catholic:
There are strange things afoot in many places!
I am a transitional deacon in the dear old CofE, expecting to be ordained priest in the relatively near future, D.V.
In a booklet recently handed to me by the diocesan training team, on presidency at the Eucharist, the learned writer suggested in so many words that we can 'write our own Eucharistic Prayer' if we like.
*snip*
A wicked and flippant deacon would copy out one of the authorized texts, word for word, and present it as their own creation, based on prayer, diligent study of scripture, and an enthusiastic embrace of the diverse cultures of the country.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arch Anglo Catholic:
There are strange things afoot in many places!
I am a transitional deacon in the dear old CofE, expecting to be ordained priest in the relatively near future, D.V.
In a booklet recently handed to me by the diocesan training team, on presidency at the Eucharist, the learned writer suggested in so many words that we can 'write our own Eucharistic Prayer' if we like.
Now I might well just be a stuffy old coot, but I take the vows of obedience I have taken quite seriously. The Declaration of Assent is very clear and provides
I, A B, do so affirm, and accordingly declare my belief in the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear witness; and in public prayer and administration of the sacraments, I will use only the forms of service which are authorized or allowed by Canon…
Canon B5 of the Canons of the Church of England provides that quote:
1. The minister who is to conduct the service may in his discretion make and use variations which are not of substantial importance in any form of service authorized by Canon B 1 according to particular circumstances.
Among things that are of substantial importance within the meaning of the Canon (an which therefore may not be changed) are Prayers of Confession, Absolution, and most of the Eucharistic Prayers.
Things that are variable include invitations to confession, biddings for Kyrie confessions, introductory words at the Peace, prayers at the Preparation of the Table, Proper Prefaces, Post Communion Prayers and Blessings.
There are many published resources aimed at enriching the provision for these parts of the service. For particular occasions someone good with words might craft a particular local or occasional variation. (Thus it is lawful within Canon Law to write a 'custom' Proper Preface for use with one of the Eucharistic Prayers for which Proper Prefaces may be used.) IMHO it shouldn't be overdone otherwise there ceases to be a standard from which it may be an attractive variation.
It should be noted, however, that quote:
All variations in forms of service and all forms of service used under this Canon shall be reverent and seemly and shall be neither contrary to, nor indicative of any departure from, the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Well that's clear as mud, isn't it? No chance of overly broad interpretation there at all...
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Personally I think every person who presides at communion should write their own Eucharistic prayer when they are training. This should follow on from a careful analysis of all the Eucharistic prayers in the CofE, the theology behind them and how they work in worship. Then should be asked to read it out with supplied copies to a small group of class mates for critique.
I suspect such a practice would be salutary for many, as they get a grip on the complexity and intention of the writers of these prayers, the way words are chosen to convey specific intentions.
Most I suspect will return with relief to the standard texts, having seen what a minefield their composers negotiated in producing them. A very few will relish the challenge and careful committee editing that is required to produce a good standard text. Those may well be your future liturgists.
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
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
I think it is a product of the controversies over "Ritualism" in the C19th.
Being the established Church, meant that the C of E had to use the law of the land to enforce its discipline. There were some fairly unedifying battles in the courts over the introduction of candles on the altar, wafers etc. The move from 1662 BCP and nothing but 1662 BCP has been (and still is) a bumpy ride.
The Canon sets some strict limits around some of the areas that were particularly controversial, and regards the rest as adiaphora provided that right doctrine, decency and good order are preserved.
In theory ministers are trained to know which areas are or aren't variable, and to understand right doctrine. So Canon B5 ought not to be difficult for them to understand. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
[Cross-posted with Jengie. Wise words indeed.]
[ 19. July 2013, 10:54: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Personally I think every person who presides at communion should write their own Eucharistic prayer when they are training. This should follow on from a careful analysis of all the Eucharistic prayers in the CofE, the theology behind them and how they work in worship. Then should be asked to read it out with supplied copies to a small group of class mates for critique.
I suspect such a practice would be salutary for many, as they get a grip on the complexity and intention of the writers of these prayers, the way words are chosen to convey specific intentions.
Most I suspect will return with relief to the standard texts, having seen what a minefield their composers negotiated in producing them. A very few will relish the challenge and careful committee editing that is required to produce a good standard text. Those may well be your future liturgists.
Jengie
With all due respect, I dont understand either the purpose or the value of such an exercise, and I dont see what would warrant and justify it. Paul himself witnesses to the deeply traditional- transmitted from Our Lord himself -character of Eucharistic prayers when he cites the Words of Institutions (note that he only cites the efficacious words - his purpose was not to give an ethnographical account of early christian liturgy) in 1Cor11:23, doesn't he? But, of course, one's whole view of the matter may depend on one's view on the Sacrament, its efficacy, and its relation to the mystery of our Redemption. Personally, I prefer the Roman Canon and the Scottish 1764 one.
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
As part of an educational process aimed at helping people to understand why the prayers are as they are, and to consider the multiplicity of issues which have shaped the canon, I would have thought it was a very useful exercise.
There have been translations into different languages and other adaptations from Paul onwards. There is early evidence that is suggestive of a much freer approach to the eucharistic prayers with limited fixed material in the days of the early Church.
In understanding how our much fuller fixed canon relates to the ancient core which Paul refers to, and as a way into getting into the heart and intention of the prayer I would have thought it was a very useful didactic exercise.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
As far as giving seminarians liturgy-composition classes, I think that they would benefit greatly by three or four months of writing haiku before they got their hands on the canon. Profundity in 17 syllables would help many of our liturgists. I fear that I am often left in a pew wondering: a) when this will ever end, and b) how unfortunate it is that I do not have my editing pencil handy.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ORGANMEISTER
Shipmate
# 6621
|
Posted
Uffda, Thanks for the link. It sounds like the latest ELCA fad. At least I'll be better prepared for that meeting next month.
Posts: 3162 | From: Somerset, PA - USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
The non-Conformist communion used to consist of just reading the 1 Corinthians passage and sharing the bread and wine. We call it the narrative of the institution and quite often in Reformed churches it is read separately from the great thanksgiving prayer of the Eucharist and seen as a warrant/authorisation for holding communion.
Most Eucharist prayers are not simply that but far more extended. For instance they normally include an epiclesis, a prayer for the descent of the Holy Spirit. This is of course an addition to Paul's words. So do you include one? I have heard plenty without them. The presider is normally making a statement of their theological beliefs in so doing.
What is added, what is left out are important. They are talking about what people see as going on. You can not put a full treaties of the nature of the Eucharist within that prayer but you do subtly place it within the experience of faith.
Not an easy task to do, but one you might well under estimate unless you try it.
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
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
As part of an educational process aimed at helping people to understand why the prayers are as they are, and to consider the multiplicity of issues which have shaped the canon, I would have thought it was a very useful exercise.
There have been translations into different languages and other adaptations from Paul onwards. There is early evidence that is suggestive of a much freer approach to the eucharistic prayers with limited fixed material in the days of the early Church.
In understanding how our much fuller fixed canon relates to the ancient core which Paul refers to, and as a way into getting into the heart and intention of the prayer I would have thought it was a very useful didactic exercise.
Agree with the Aleut.
Now, its not as if all the Eucharistic traditions were transmitted in a vacuum - we have the commentaries of the Fathers, Doctors and ancient rubricists. You rightly mention the notion of intention. But the question of intention in liturgy is obviously inseparable from the doctrine of the church. Thus the Non-jurors and the Scottish divines, realising that if anglicanism were to be true to itself, as a witness to the constant custom of the Church Catholick, it had to shed the deficient reformed understanding of salvation, and hence of the sacrament that re-presents it, undertook to revise the BCP Communion Service. And they did so with particular attention to the ancient formularies. And we should not forget under what duress they were and what persecutions they had to endure. - They were not just a bunch of trendy seminarians cooking up trendy, and let's admit it, pietistic eucharistic prayers between lectures on psychological self-fulfilment and Comparative Modern Pastoral Theology 01. Or a set of misguided roman catholic waxworks meddling with apocrypal texts and tampering with the Roman Missal in a backroom of the Vatican.
The fight for the liturgy cannot be better expressed than in the refusal of all attempts at artificial committee-baked liturgies imposed by ruthless and insensitive clerical bureaucracies.
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
@Jengie Jon
I'm sorry. I thought you were speaking of a CofE, or SEC context. Of course, whatever I've written does not apply to Nonconformists.
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
The fight for the liturgy cannot be better expressed than in the refusal of all attempts at artificial committee-baked liturgies imposed by ruthless and insensitive clerical bureaucracies.
OK, this is the best comment I've seen on this messageboard since I've been here. Well said!
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
The fight for the liturgy cannot be better expressed than in the refusal of all attempts at artificial committee-baked liturgies imposed by ruthless and insensitive clerical bureaucracies.
OK, this is the best comment I've seen on this messageboard since I've been here. Well said!
Like Cranmer and his fellows back in 1549-52?
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
The fight for the liturgy cannot be better expressed than in the refusal of all attempts at artificial committee-baked liturgies imposed by ruthless and insensitive clerical bureaucracies.
OK, this is the best comment I've seen on this messageboard since I've been here. Well said!
Like Cranmer and his fellows back in 1549-52?
Aye, of course, Cranmer and his consorts...The Laudian divines (especially Cosin) , the Non-juror, the Scottish bishops - all saw the insufficiencies and deficiencies of the Cranmerian communion service. Regarding the Morning and Evening Services, bar Cranmer's Confession and Lectionary, they're pretty good as they follow and condense Western Hours in a remarkable manner. I find them definitely more traditional than post-V2 Liturgy of Hours - especially with the option of Quicumque Vult at Morning Prayer. I have no scruple saying Morning Prayer according to the Prayer prefaced by Pater and Ave and ending with Marian antiphons. I also have no scruple about praying for HM the Queen.
[ 19. July 2013, 13:42: Message edited by: Gottschalk ]
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
The fight for the liturgy cannot be better expressed than in the refusal of all attempts at artificial committee-baked liturgies imposed by ruthless and insensitive clerical bureaucracies.
OK, this is the best comment I've seen on this messageboard since I've been here. Well said!
Like Cranmer and his fellows back in 1549-52?
Possibly, but then I don't know enough to comment. I certainly think it's relevant in relation to the changes made to the Roman Rite since and including Trent. May God have mercy on their (Roman liturgical reformers) souls because if I was bishop of Rome I'd anathematise the bloody lot of them.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Would that be before or after making your submission to Constantinople? ![[Smile]](smile.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
|
|
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
The fight for the liturgy cannot be better expressed than in the refusal of all attempts at artificial committee-baked liturgies imposed by ruthless and insensitive clerical bureaucracies.
OK, this is the best comment I've seen on this messageboard since I've been here. Well said!
Like Cranmer and his fellows back in 1549-52?
Possibly, but then I don't know enough to comment. I certainly think it's relevant in relation to the changes made to the Roman Rite since and including Trent. May God have mercy on their (Roman liturgical reformers) souls because if I was bishop of Rome I'd anathematise the bloody lot of them.
I think they've got more important issues, like the child molestation cover up, than arguing about the details of the liturgy, to issue anathemas against. This is exactly what pisses me off about this navel gazing - there are much more important fish to fry than exactly what words you use in the Eucharist. Really. There are. Much more important. Did I say Much More? Just in case, I'll say it again. Much More.
[ 19. July 2013, 14:18: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
The fight for the liturgy cannot be better expressed than in the refusal of all attempts at artificial committee-baked liturgies imposed by ruthless and insensitive clerical bureaucracies.
OK, this is the best comment I've seen on this messageboard since I've been here. Well said!
Like Cranmer and his fellows back in 1549-52?
Possibly, but then I don't know enough to comment. I certainly think it's relevant in relation to the changes made to the Roman Rite since and including Trent. May God have mercy on their (Roman liturgical reformers) souls because if I was bishop of Rome I'd anathematise the bloody lot of them.
I think they've got more important issues, like the child molestation cover up, than arguing about the details of the liturgy, to issue anathemas against. This is exactly what pisses me off about this navel gazing - there are much more important fish to fry than exactly what words you use in the Eucharist. Really. There are. Much more important. Did I say Much More? Just in case, I'll say it again. Much More.
I think both sets of problems are important. If you have no regard for Truth, how can you pretend to uphold Morality? And it is clerical bureaucracy seeped as it is in opaque dealings and cover-up culture that need to be addressed. One cannot single out one aspect over the other. Wherein is this navel-gazing at all, I wonder. We seek to be oriented toward the Lord, in our Worship of Him, both in our liturgical and ethical lives which need to be connected.
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
You're really putting kiddy fiddling on the same level as liturgy that you don't particularly care for?
My God we're doomed.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You're really putting kiddy fiddling on the same level as liturgy that you don't particularly care for?
My God we're doomed.
Are you just being dishonest, or what? Is trolling a favourite afternoon occupation of yours by any chance? Or would you like people filing for libel against you for misrepresentation of their ideas?
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You're really putting kiddy fiddling on the same level as liturgy that you don't particularly care for?
My God we're doomed.
Are you just being dishonest, or what? Is trolling a favourite afternoon occupation of yours by any chance? Or would you like people filing for libel against you for misrepresentation of their ideas?
Don't be silly. You appeared to equate them; I'm glad to hear you don't. So can we get rid of the equally silly idea that the church should be anathematising people for liturgical innovations that don't have your favour? And have a rational discussion about the relative importance of liturgical revisions, which to my mind are very much discussions about the orientation of sun-loungers on the White Star Line's top new boat for 1912?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You're really putting kiddy fiddling on the same level as liturgy that you don't particularly care for?
My God we're doomed.
Are you just being dishonest, or what? Is trolling a favourite afternoon occupation of yours by any chance? Or would you like people filing for libel against you for misrepresentation of their ideas?
Don't be silly. You appeared to equate them; I'm glad to hear you don't. So can we get rid of the equally silly idea that the church should be anathematising people for liturgical innovations that don't have your favour? And have a rational discussion about the relative importance of liturgical revisions, which to my mind are very much discussions about the orientation of sun-loungers on the White Star Line's top new boat for 1912?
I think the Church should reinstate the ancient and PUBLIC discipline of penitence for all christians and those impious priests in particular, and also, introduce some canon that automatically deprives them of all clerical privileges. What I was also saying was that it was the same clerical culture of opacity of procedures and cover that enabled both the concoction and imposition of doubtful liturgical standards - for doubtful they are from a doctrinal point of view - and the illegal protection of foul priests.
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Yes, there is certainly a link between the two. If one cannot be faithful in the "little" things then how can they be faithful in the "big" things? Abuse leads to abuse.
Lex orandi lex credendi.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You're really putting kiddy fiddling on the same level as liturgy that you don't particularly care for?
My God we're doomed.
Are you just being dishonest, or what? Is trolling a favourite afternoon occupation of yours by any chance? Or would you like people filing for libel against you for misrepresentation of their ideas?
Don't be silly. You appeared to equate them; I'm glad to hear you don't. So can we get rid of the equally silly idea that the church should be anathematising people for liturgical innovations that don't have your favour? And have a rational discussion about the relative importance of liturgical revisions, which to my mind are very much discussions about the orientation of sun-loungers on the White Star Line's top new boat for 1912?
I think the Church should reinstate the ancient and PUBLIC discipline of penitence for all christians and those impious priests in particular, and also, introduce some canon that automatically deprives them of all clerical privileges. What I was also saying was that it was the same clerical culture of opacity of procedures and cover that enabled both the concoction and imposition of doubtful liturgical standards - for doubtful they are from a doctrinal point of view - and the illegal protection of foul priests.
Are you serious, or merely taking the piss?
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Yeah, but this was from the context of AO arguing that the liturgical reformers should be anathematised. My point is that their sins, such as they are (and I've yet to see conclusive reasons for AO's, or anyone else's, condemnation of them other than "I don't like it" and some unsubstantiated waffle about "changing the teaching of the church") are very minor compared with other much, much bigger fish the church has to fry.
And people outside the church can see this, and find this bickering about liturgy, inasmuch as they're aware of it, as rather silly.
As do I.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Yes, there is certainly a link between the two. If one cannot be faithful in the "little" things then how can they be faithful in the "big" things? Abuse leads to abuse.
Lex orandi lex credendi.
And this is bonkers. Catholic priests fuck choirboys because their liturgy isn't up to snuff. Yeah, of course.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Presumably you must think my priest is in serious danger of being a serial killer, given the innovations and variations we use.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Yes, there is certainly a link between the two. If one cannot be faithful in the "little" things then how can they be faithful in the "big" things? Abuse leads to abuse.
Lex orandi lex credendi.
And this is bonkers. Catholic priests fuck choirboys because their liturgy isn't up to snuff. Yeah, of course.
Presumably you must think my priest is in serious danger of being a serial killer, given the innovations and variations we use.
Is this intentional or what? Nowhere have I established a causal relation between the one and the other! My whole point is that abuses, whatever their nature and their degree of are enabled because of certain aspects of clericalism, which I named as opacity of/in procedures and a culture of cover-up. They are correlated insofar as they depend on the same trends of clericalism. In one case the honour of the Creator is abused, while in the other, it is both that of the creature, and of the Creator, in whose image, the creature was made. Of course, there's a correlation for those who understand!
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Given that all of us reflect different disciplines and expectations about how liturgical fidelity is rated amongst our moral/ethical/spiritual obligations, this thread has enough potential for mutual misunderstanding anyway.
So I wonder whether discussions about how far adherence to liturgical order may reflect or have an impact on wider moral and ethical questions really belongs in Ecclesiantics.
Personally I find the term "Liturgical War" somewhat disturbing, as it indicates a disposition, and a state of affairs within the Church which is far from ideal. It is further complicated by the fact that our different traditions bring different criteria to orthodoxy within worship which, if we do not recognise them, are liable to make this discussion much more difficult (and possibly ill-tempered) than it need be.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
Fellow brethren of the Liturgical War, if I may use such an expression, behold how liberals vociferously react when the merest shadow of a relationship is established between liturgical and moral perversion is established. This speaks volumes.
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Fellow brethren of the Liturgical War, if I may use such an expression, behold how liberals vociferously react when the merest shadow of a relationship is established between liturgical and moral perversion is established. This speaks volumes.
Indeed.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Fellow brethren of the Liturgical War, if I may use such an expression, behold how liberals vociferously react when the merest shadow of a relationship is established between liturgical and moral perversion is established. This speaks volumes.
Yes. It demonstrates that we can spot risible bullshit when we see it.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Gallica officinalis
Shipmate
# 3886
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arch Anglo Catholic:
There are strange things afoot in many places!
I am a transitional deacon in the dear old CofE, expecting to be ordained priest in the relatively near future, D.V.
In a booklet recently handed to me by the diocesan training team, on presidency at the Eucharist, the learned writer suggested in so many words that we can 'write our own Eucharistic Prayer' if we like.
Ae you sure that they didn't mean you can write your own extended preface for use with particular Eucharistic prayers which is perfectly legitimate and endorsed by Common Worship ?
--------------------
Come for tea, come for tea, my people.
Posts: 874 | From: The Hemlock Hideout | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Fellow brethren of the Liturgical War, if I may use such an expression, behold how liberals vociferously react when the merest shadow of a relationship is established between liturgical and moral perversion is established. This speaks volumes.
Yes. It demonstrates that we can spot risible bullshit when we see it.
No, Sir, it simply means that liberals don't and won't engage intellectually in debates. They just revel in name-calling, profanity and vulgarity. This is the last time I have anything to do with you on this forum. You have used unbecoming (let alone charitable) language twice, and demonstrated your utter lack of interest in a proper confrontation of ideas. Godspeed.
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I don't know about you, Gottschalk, but Ad Orientem gives every impression that he regards as a dangerous liberal any priest who accepts any tiny variation from the pre-Tridentine liturgy (or maybe even, since his 'conversion', from the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom). Since that would even include such conservatives as JP2 and even Benedict XVI, it is indeed risible bullshit.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I don't know about you, Gottschalk, but Ad Orientem gives every impression that he regards as a dangerous liberal any priest who accepts any tiny variation from the pre-Tridentine liturgy (or maybe even, since his 'conversion', from the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom). Since that would even include such conservatives as JP2 and even Benedict XVI, it is indeed risible bullshit.
Of course, intention is more important than rubric. Intention informs how rubrics and actions are interpreted and enacted.
Being "conservative" does not preclude one from being terribly insensitive to liturgy, et a contrario: JP2 is an example, to whom, B16 is, to some extent, a counter-example.
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I don't know about you, Gottschalk, but Ad Orientem gives every impression that he regards as a dangerous liberal any priest who accepts any tiny variation from the pre-Tridentine liturgy (or maybe even, since his 'conversion', from the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom). Since that would even include such conservatives as JP2 and even Benedict XVI, it is indeed risible bullshit.
Depends what you mean by "tiny variation", dunnit. I mean, adding prayers and feasts locally that have begun as pious devotions among the faithful with the authorisation of the bishop is fine because is how the liturgy has always grown, or the occassional ommission because something is simply unable to be done. What is dangerous and reprehensible is liturgy by committee or by the whim of a superbishop with a total disregard for the tradition, slash and burn. Such change in the prayer of the Church can only mean one thing, that the faith of the Church has changed. The smoke of Satan, and all that.
[ 19. July 2013, 17:12: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Not every change to the liturgy via a committee or a bishop represents a change to the faith. Indeed, surely a minority of such liturgical tinkerings can be shown unequivocally to even suggest a change to the doctrine of the Church. Language isn't so unambiguous as that, nor are manual acts and other gestures. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
@Angloid
Honestly, I situate myself beyond the conservative/liberal divide. I simply dont care about JP2, B16 - what this Pope or that Bishop or this Hierarch has to say about politics and all that. Sometimes a gem may be found in an encyclical or some letter I have no interest in all that. Augustine left us with a nice dichotomy of the two cities. What is important, IMO, is the right worship of God through honest christian living and the Liturgy. I think the Non-Jurors and the Scottish Episcopalians somehow realised this when the Establishment abandoned them and persecuted them - hence, not bound by the civil power to a minimalist interpretation of the liturgy, they dug from the treasury of christian tradition to enhance their praxis.
So for me it is highly ominous that it is the civil power, encouraged by clerics and prelates, that has enabled and will enable such reforms in church discipline and social mores that I cannot in good conscience accept.
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Gottschalk
It sounds to me as if you are reifying the text. This Protestant wants to warn you that the liturgy is not God and never will be.
I value liturgy, the extempore prayer can be reified as much as any set text. However a helpful distance has to be kept between the technology of worship and that which is worshipped.
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
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
Jengie,
That's indeed a real danger: the reification of the text. But the Liturgy is not merely a text: it is where we encounter the Word, and then the Word made Flesh. In it we have at once the Word as Sacrament, Sacrifice and Person. One of the really wonderful aspects of the Roman Rite ( I mean the classical, pre-1970) and which continues in the BCP tradition, is how much the prayer of the Church is addressed to God the Father through the Mediation of Christ. In the Collects, Secrets, in the Canon. See, for example, the secret for this coming Sunday, IXth after Pentecost/Xth after Trinity.
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Well it is only one place you do that. God is not limited to the act of worship. We in the words of C.S. Lewis put wood on one altar only for fire to fall on another.
Getting it right with liturgy can turn us into Pharisees. That is we adopt their belief that salvation will happen only when we fulfil the minutiae of the ritual. This is not a complaint against high church, humans are ritual desiring creatures also there are plenty of low church Pharisees of this ilk around as well who start worrying if you use a formal prayer in worship.
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
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
For crying out loud: how is the Eucharistic liturgy provided by 1662 a fit-for-purpose vehicle of the Eucharistic Sacrifice? 1549 was fine, apart from its longsomeness. 1552 and beyond (speaking strictly of the CofE books here)are all terribly defective theologically and were not meant to convey the Church's historic pre-Reformation understanding of the Mass. I've no doubt that Our Lord graces the Altar with his sacramental presence when one of these theologically defective liturgies is used, but it's certainly in spite of - not because of - what the language and order of these liturgical texts present.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
Now where the hell the did I park the muck spreader. I thik we need to spread this pile of shit before it stinks us out.
Firstly, the liturgical conservatives have a point in that most of the revisions of the 1960s and 70s were done on the basis of half-completed and imperfect scholariship.
Secondly, they have created a tradition of perpetual revision in certain churches, ehough not in the RCC, which is unsettling and creates the impression that core doctrine and traditions are being revised.
Thirdly, it is total bogus to blame the Vatican II liturgy for the child abuse scandal. It is making the wrong causal link.
Fourthly, that said (and this, sadly, is strictly a fruit of experience thing) there does seem to be a link between indiscipline in one area of one's priesthood and indiscipline in others. To take a pessimistic view, the priest who screws around with the liturgy contrary to the rules issued by the competant authority (the caveat is important), may well consider himself as knowing better than the rules in other areas of his life. Usually this personal assumption of exceptionalism usually does not lead to anything serious or criminal. However, it seem that blowing off the liturgical or moral rules of the Church and screwing around with his expenses and/or another man's wife seem to be linked rather more often than one would think. I am not saying that he WILL, but regarding oneself as being above the rules in one area of life seems to make it easier to make exceptions for oneself in others. However, it is only an anecdotal link - so far.
PD
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
My two-happorth ...
No, some revisions and tinkering with liturgy isn't tantamount to a root and branch alteration of the faith. Nor is it any causal effect for priests buggering choir boys. I imagine that there have been liturgically kosher priests who have also buggered choirboys.
By that argument then all liturgical innovators of whatever stripe - including non-conformists, would be putting their willies where they didn't ought to go.
However ...
Whereas I think that it is ludicrous to assume that Karl Liberal Backslider's priest/minister is some kind of serial killer given whatever innovations he's making to the satisfaction of Karl and his other acolytes, my guess would nevertheless be that the man is a twat.
--------------------
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
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
My two-happorth ...
No, some revisions and tinkering with liturgy isn't tantamount to a root and branch alteration of the faith. Nor is it any causal effect for priests buggering choir boys. I imagine that there have been liturgically kosher priests who have also buggered choirboys.
By that argument then all liturgical innovators of whatever stripe - including non-conformists, would be putting their willies where they didn't ought to go.
However ...
Whereas I think that it is ludicrous to assume that Karl Liberal Backslider's priest/minister is some kind of serial killer given whatever innovations he's making to the satisfaction of Karl and his other acolytes, my guess would nevertheless be that the man is a twat.
Right on all points, though I would still say that indiscipline in one area makes indiscipline more likely in others.
It strikes me that in additional to KLB's minister being a twat, there is also the possibility that he is just being innovative within the rules. Every now and again some churchwarden phones me up - always on my day off funnily enough - and complains that 'Farver is doing X.' 9 times out of 10 it is simply the case that there is (a) no rule against it, (b) it is just within the rules provided you squint a bit, or more usually (c) the churchwarden has never seen it before.
The 1 in 10 gets a reminder as to what the guidelines are, and hopefully that clear it up, as I really do not want to have to discipline someone for a minor liturgical irregularity.
PD
[ 19. July 2013, 19:43: Message edited by: PD ]
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
I suspect that God in all honest is looking at the heart of the worshippers more than the ritual. In that ritual prepares the heart and there is that which reminds us of the faith it is good and decent thing.
When its "correct" performance comes before the right relatedness with our fellow Christian (after all the one instruction for coming to worship our Lord left was that we should be at peace with our fellow Christian), I tend to think we may be missing something. It also turns the priest into a magician and God into a slot machine.
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
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
Churches have correct ways of doing things to preserve the basic integrity of a sacrament, and became most folks cannot handle freaking chaos. Most of us need a safe environment to pray something less self-centred and more constructive than 'Dear Lord, get me outta here! Amen.'
PD
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
