|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Extreme tangent on the Kyries (was "the" Doxology)
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
This getting tangential. The kyries are part of the Western mass.
Pursuing the tangent, I see three issues with that:
1) that it's not technically true: the Kyries are not part of the Mozarabic rite (although they tend to get inserted into the vestry prayers there); they are inserted in an unusual location in the Ambrosian rite (after the Gloria, of all places); and we actually have the canon of the local council that introduced them to the Gallican rite;
2) that the whole concept of a Western, as opposed to Roman, mass needs to be made explicit, namely that common features may share two sources, genuine antiquity and later harmonization to the Roman rite;
3) that if the Kyries are part of the Western mass, then the Intercession is not part of the Western mass; and that therefore if the Kyries are used, the Offertory (or Peace) should follow directly after the Creed (or Sermon or Gospel).
Point 3 at least, I should elaborate upon. Bishop Gelasius of Rome (492-496) suppressed the old collect-form intercession at the end of the Synaxis (which only remains in the Good Friday Prayers, being the Synaxis without the Liturgy) and instead inserted a litany (a copy of which, in Latin, is available here) into the opening rite. One can only speculate from present experience what intercessory abuses Gelasius was trying to suppress (and long for similar suppression of our soporific free-form collect-free monstrosity that allows nutty socialists to waffle on endlessly, passive-aggressively parading their latest causes and ensuring that no silence is left to actually pray in). When this was reformed by Bishop Gregory I of Rome (540-604), it is clear that a new abuse of omitting all the petitions and saying only the responses was prevalent, and he seems to have adopted this custom.
One of the things that Cranmer arguably got right was to put the petitions back in, after a fashion — the Ten Commandments. But the result of this is of course that there was no tradition of using the Kyries as part of the service (as opposed to as a hymn or private devotion before it) when 20th-century liturgists came to reinstate their version of the pre-Gelasian Western Intercession (which Cranmer had at least captured the substance of with the Prayer for the Church Militant). Inserting the Kyries now is therefore somewhat questionable; I can see just two plausible reasons to do so:
1) as an ecumenical gesture toward the Bishop of Rome, even though his version of ecumenism doesn't involve allowing his followers to participate in our communion services;
2) because every musical setting of the mass includes it.
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
The collect for purity clogs up the structure - it's a personal devotion much better said privately beforehand.
It's a distinctive part of the Anglican rite, deriving from the Sarum Missal, in which it was said after the Veni Creator (i.e. the entry) and before the "I will go to the altar of God, // to God my exceeding joy" versicle. It's about as authentic a part of our rite as we can get; its lack of Romanitas should commend it.
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
The collect for purity clogs up the structure - it's a personal devotion much better said privately beforehand.
It's a distinctive part of the Anglican rite, deriving from the Sarum Missal, in which it was said after the Veni Creator (i.e. the entry) and before the "I will go to the altar of God, // to God my exceeding joy" versicle. It's about as authentic a part of our rite as we can get; its lack of Romanitas should commend it.
But it was not part of the public liturgy. It would have been said sotto voce by the sacred ministers and servers while the choir were singing the introit
--------------------
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
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
But it was not part of the public liturgy. It would have been said sotto voce by the sacred ministers and servers while the choir were singing the introit
That practice also went on with the Sanctus over the Preface and the Benedictus over the Canon. No-one would commend that now, less still regard the Preface and Canon as not public liturgy.
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen
Shipmate
# 40
|
Posted
I think Leo is correct there,Pererin - AFAICT - but the prayers at the foot of the altar were in the Scottish Liturgy - I think 1974 - can't remember now.You had the Collect for Purity , followed by 'I will go unto the altar of God....' etc followed by the Confession and Kyries ( I think - this is all from memory)
They did it in Inverness Cathedral when I was on holiday there yonks ago, so it has been done in public, but I think Scotland has a modern rite liturgy which is now a lot more common
--------------------
Best Wishes
Stephen
'Be still,then, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the nations and I will be exalted in the earth' Ps46 v10
Posts: 3954 | From: Alto C Clef Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
But it was not part of the public liturgy. It would have been said sotto voce by the sacred ministers and servers while the choir were singing the introit
That practice also went on with the Sanctus over the Preface and the Benedictus over the Canon. No-one would commend that now, less still regard the Preface and Canon as not public liturgy.
But the silent canon was different in that 'nobis peccatoribus' (sp.) and 'per omnia n saecula....' were said/sung out loud.
The Sanctus was NEVER begun until the preface was ended.
The benedictus, if long, was never started until AFTER the dominical words
--------------------
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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
I think Leo is correct there,Pererin - AFAICT - but the prayers at the foot of the altar were in the Scottish Liturgy - I think 1974 - can't remember now.You had the Collect for Purity , followed by 'I will go unto the altar of God....' etc followed by the Confession and Kyries ( I think - this is all from memory)
They did it in Inverness Cathedral when I was on holiday there yonks ago, so it has been done in public, but I think Scotland has a modern rite liturgy which is now a lot more common
Similar to what we did before Sweries 2 in England - I remember it as a server.
BUT the collect for purity came AFTER the 'Preparation:
I will go...
Our help...
Ps. 43
I confess
Turn...
O Lord show...
The Lord be with you...
Our Father...
Then, as the priest ascended the steps, kissed the altar and went to the south side, the collect for purity
[ 06. September 2013, 17:36: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
But it was not part of the public liturgy. It would have been said sotto voce by the sacred ministers and servers while the choir were singing the introit
That practice also went on with the Sanctus over the Preface and the Benedictus over the Canon. No-one would commend that now, less still regard the Preface and Canon as not public liturgy.
Wouldn't they? I don't see why not.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
One can only speculate from present experience what intercessory abuses Gelasius was trying to suppress (and long for similar suppression of our soporific free-form collect-free monstrosity that allows nutty socialists to waffle on endlessly, passive-aggressively parading their latest causes and ensuring that no silence is left to actually pray in).
As a sane, rational person, basically mostly democratic socialist in my political/economic views, that is an insulting (and irrelevant) statement that obviously has no bearing on speculations as to why Bishop Gelasius made the liturgical changes he made. (Although I'd say that when the church can comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable, that generally indicates the church is living out its mission.)
[ 07. September 2013, 03:32: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
georgiaboy
Shipmate
# 11294
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
But it was not part of the public liturgy. It would have been said sotto voce by the sacred ministers and servers while the choir were singing the introit
That practice also went on with the Sanctus over the Preface and the Benedictus over the Canon. No-one would commend that now, less still regard the Preface and Canon as not public liturgy.
Wouldn't they? I don't see why not.
Hail, comrade! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
You can't retire from a calling.
Posts: 1675 | From: saint meinrad, IN | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
One can only speculate from present experience what intercessory abuses Gelasius was trying to suppress (and long for similar suppression of our soporific free-form collect-free monstrosity that allows nutty socialists to waffle on endlessly, passive-aggressively parading their latest causes and ensuring that no silence is left to actually pray in).
As a sane, rational person, basically mostly democratic socialist in my political/economic views, that is an insulting (and irrelevant) statement that obviously has no bearing on speculations as to why Bishop Gelasius made the liturgical changes he made. (Although I'd say that when the church can comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable, that generally indicates the church is living out its mission.)
If you want to go to Hell with this, be my guest. Just if you do not abuse the Intercession yourself, then this was not directed at you. It was merely an observation from personal experience, with the obvious relevance that it's a common parallel abuse from the present day. If that has afflicted your comfort, then maybe you should encourage others of your political persuasion to keep their political beliefs out of public worship, lest they fall into preaching another gospel, as St Paul so rightly condemned.
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Agenda much?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
First, my church, a rather liberal (by the US's right wing standards) ECUSA parish, uses forms of intercession that are pretty much taken verbatim out of one or the other of the 6 prayer book forms.
Politics? At evensong around the world is sung the song our Blessed Mother Mary sang, praising a God who casts down the mighty from their thrones, lifts up the lowly, fills the hungry with good things, and sends the rich away empty. (Not to mention what the prophets have to say about oppression etc.)
If it so happens that some political views are in concord with this, that is secondary. This is Jesus' message of the Kingdom of God. If there are any who feel uncomfortable because they feel that God's message, as may be prayed in the liturgy, is referring to their own greedy, exploitative, or oppressive behavior to their fellow human beings, well, may their discomfort be a blessing for them that will prod them to repent. (I know I fall short and have much to repent)
And once more, on very much a non-liturgical tangent, but you said it first. Since socialism remains a major current in western political thought, are you saying this major current is nutty? I'm not interested in taking it to hell, it's not that important, and it's nothing against you personally anyway -- your posts as a whole have seemed sane to me -- but labeling socialists as a whole as nutty seems like an extreme fringe right-wing statement.
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Let's assume, in charity, that pererin was not accusing all socialists of being 'nutty', but certain people with an agenda who manipulate the intercessions in a party-political direction. As a socialist (nutty or not) myself, I often share this unease. But this manipulation is just as likely to be done in a right-wing direction. The UKIP tendency is alive and well in large swathes of the C of E, unfortunately.
My objection to this sort of intercession is that it is either telling God what to do (as if s/he didn't know), or proclaiming the intercessor's self-righteousness. Moreover (rather like those who insist on importing extraneous 'catholic' elements into an Anglican eucharist, as if without them the BCP/CW would not be properly valid or catholic) it implies that the faith of the Church, Bible and Liturgy does not on its own stand for justice and equality. Simple biddings without special pleading, or either left or right wing mini-sermons, should be the rule.
[Oh, and what Malik3000 said]
[ 09. September 2013, 17:21: Message edited by: Angloid ]
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
The collect for purity clogs up the structure - it's a personal devotion much better said privately beforehand.
It's a distinctive part of the Anglican rite, deriving from the Sarum Missal, in which it was said after the Veni Creator (i.e. the entry) and before the "I will go to the altar of God, // to God my exceeding joy" versicle. [/QB]
According to Paul Bradshaw’s Companion to Common Worship, the prayer was “part of the priest’s private devotions before mass”. It is quite appropriate as part of everybody’s private devotions if they like it, but it is not structurally part of the mass.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
According to Paul Bradshaw’s Companion to Common Worship, the prayer was “part of the priest’s private devotions before mass”. It is quite appropriate as part of everybody’s private devotions if they like it, but it is not structurally part of the mass.
It wasn't, but in the US Books of Common Prayer of the last few editions (and which, in any event, doesn't deal with private devotions by the priest), it is structurally a part of the liturgy of the holy eucharist. The Book of Common Prayer is not the Roman Missal. (with all due respect to both)
[ 09. September 2013, 18:59: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Quam Dilecta
Shipmate
# 12541
|
Posted
According to Massey Hamilton Shephard's American Prayer Book Commentary, the Collect for Purity is taken from the Sarum Missal, where it was said by the priest as he was vesting. In Anglo-Catholic usage, it forms the bridge between the Preparation, said only by the priest and servers (at the foot of the altar steps or in the sacristy), and the more public portion of the Mass, read at the altar.
The Roman Rite had a different prayer at this point, to be said in the low voice at the altar by the priest. In the English Missal it is translated as follows:
Take away from us, we beseech thee, O Lord, our iniquities; that we may be worthy to enter with pure minds into the Holy of holies, Through Christ Our Lord, Amen.
The similarity in content with Cramner's Sarum collect is apparent.
--------------------
Blessd are they that dwell in thy house
Posts: 406 | From: Boston, Massachusetts, USA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
This MW report 2589 shows how the collect for purity can be used, to my mind, appropriately.
A lay person gives notices before the service starts ending with the prayer, and leading into silence before the introit and the mass proper starting with the greeting by the priest.
--------------------
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
Is it still F in F? If I lived in Harrogate it might put me off regularly worshipping there, attractive as it would be in other respects.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
My objection to this sort of intercession is that it is either telling God what to do (as if s/he didn't know), or proclaiming the intercessor's self-righteousness. Moreover (rather like those who insist on importing extraneous 'catholic' elements into an Anglican eucharist, as if without them the BCP/CW would not be properly valid or catholic) it implies that the faith of the Church, Bible and Liturgy does not on its own stand for justice and equality. Simple biddings without special pleading, or either left or right wing mini-sermons, should be the rule.
I totally agree with all parts of this statement, and particularly that intercessions don't become mini-semons, regardless of point of view. If one does have an agenda, it certainly can't be helped by didacticism and coming across as trying to tell God what to do.
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
This MW report 2589 shows how the collect for purity can be used, to my mind, appropriately.
A lay person gives notices before the service starts ending with the prayer, and leading into silence before the introit and the mass proper starting with the greeting by the priest.
That certainly is a plausible way to do it. On the other hand, for those congregations that use the BCP without missal additions, such as mine, i personally am happy with the way the 1979 BCP does it. The thing I would change is that after the opening acclamation "Blessed be God . . ." is that I think the collect for purity should be said by all (analogous to the way the prayer after communion is said by all.) The good thing about this is that it will emphasize the collect of the day -- which by all means should be said by the presider alone -- as the conclusion of the opening rite preparatory to the start of the liturgy of the world.
Definitely no disrespect to those who like to add missal elements to the BCP liturgy. It is only as a matter of personal taste that I tend to find those additions excess verbiage, but the church i most often go to when I don't go to my regular church (usually for big weekday feasts that my own parish doesn't celebrate) does incorporate parts of the missal. It's all good. Variety is the spice of life. "In my Father's house are many mansions."
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
In the C of E, I've never known the collect for purity other than said congregationally. It seems very odd to do otherwise. If using the 1662 BCP, or the TEC BCP presumably, it is mandatory. If you are using the C of E rites since the 70s, it isn't, although many seem to act as if it was.
Of course I agree with you about the collect for the day.
(In Common Worship, it is no longer called "the collect for purity" to emphasize that there is only one collect.)
--------------------
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
PS. Don't get the reference to missal additions and verbiage, when I was suggesting omitting something.
Perein supported the unvarying use of the collect for purity by reference to the Sarum missal. I argued that is not a good precedent.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
In the C of E, I've never known the collect for purity other than said congregationally. It seems very odd to do otherwise. If using the 1662 BCP, or the TEC BCP presumably, it is mandatory.
The rubrics of 1662 direct that the priest shall say the Collect for Purity. It is mandatory, but not expected that it is said congregationally.
--------------------
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
It's interesting how much the Collect for Purity is loved. My 8 am BCP congregation asked that it be made congregational, and I remember a couple of members of the Benedictine Community at Stanbrook Abbey asking me to pray it with them. They called it 'That prayer, you know, that only the priest says with us, but which you Anglicans are allowed to pray.'
Its congregational use is, arguably, part of that Anglican Patrimony that some people used to go on about.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
It is a lovely prayer. It is just intrusive in its CW position between the opening greeting and the introduction to confession.
--------------------
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
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
FWIW I don't find Purity intrusive in its present position. Having welcomed the congregation I ask them to keep silence with me for a few moments, and then we pray the Collect together. To me it is a beautiful way to help us focus our attention on God.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
FWIW I don't find Purity intrusive in its present position. Having welcomed the congregation I ask them to keep silence with me for a few moments, and then we pray the Collect together. To me it is a beautiful way to help us focus our attention on God.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
It is a lovely prayer. It is just intrusive in its CW position between the opening greeting and the introduction to confession.
It is indeed a lovely catholic compostion and quite unlike the protestant Prayer of Humble Access in character. It is also well worthwhile making sure congregations know it by heart, so there is something to say when they have sick communion.
And introducing it by a bit of hush is a good idea. It is usually just reeled off as another thing to get through. (I still stand by my preference for saying it before the service starts.)
--------------------
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
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
(In Common Worship, it is no longer called "the collect for purity" to emphasize that there is only one collect.)
I've never understood that fetish for taking the general term "collect" that describes a certain structure of prayer, and then attempting to specificize it to mean the same as the phrase "Collect of the Day". It strikes me as rather silly and misguided.
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
It's interesting how much the Collect for Purity is loved.
It goes beyond Anglicanism as well. It's in three of the five (!!!) Communion Services in the Church of Scotland's Common Order, one of the four in the URC's Worship Book, and in the Scottish Reformed and Methodist rites given in Soldiers' Worship (and presumably in whatever book the Methodists use when they're not in the Army, which is likely to be more elaborate, rather than less). So far from being a weird addition made by Anglicans, there is a strong ecumenical case for retaining it.
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
It is a lovely prayer. It is just intrusive in its CW position between the opening greeting and the introduction to confession.
It's the confession there that's the more intrusive element. It's easy to spot how it happened as well. The East Syrian Rite (the nice archaic one with the Eucharistic Prayer with no words of institution) preserves the simple order of censing-hymn-lessons. The West Syrian Rite inserts a litany (response: Kyrie Eleison) before the hymn. It's probably worth emphasising that no absolution is inserted in the West Syrian Rite. In any event, translating "eleison" as "miserere nobis" began the slide into an intrusive penitential rite after the greeting. It would be much better placed before the greeting, after the Creed, or after the Offertory.
And on a point of sheer pedantry, even the introduction of "us" is problematic. The litany petitions somewhat militate against this interpretation: there are elements of prayers for other people in it, for instance. It would be far better to translate "Kyrie Eleison" as "Show forth your lovingkindness, O Lord".
Given that vast blob of misplaced mediaeval penitential devotions, the original forms of which would seem rather vulgar to most Anglicans today (anyone want to try out confession "to" Mary and the Saints before a low church congregation? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ), it seems rather petty to point to a single concise prayer immediately after the greeting as an intrustion, especially as it serves in contemporary rites to lessen the intrusiveness of the penitential blob.
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
FWIW I don't find Purity intrusive in its present position. Having welcomed the congregation I ask them to keep silence with me for a few moments, and then we pray the Collect together. To me it is a beautiful way to help us focus our attention on God.
Well yes. But then do you lead straight into the general confession, or add another bidding? That's what adds to the liturgical clutter. I find it natural, after The Lord be with you, to say a brief word about the celebration and invite the people to confess. The CforP gets in the way at that point. On the other hand, it is an excellent way of ending the pre-service chat, or, even in well-behaved congregations, directing the focus before the mass starts.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
It's the confession there that's the more intrusive element.
No doubt. I'm sure your historical analysis is spot on. Some rites (the monastic West Malling rite for example) have no rite of penitence at all. You couldn't get away with that in the generality of the C of E, which seems hung up about 'general confessions' and absolutions. In CW the confession is mandatory while the C for P isn't, so tidying up at this point is bound to remove the latter. Unless the confession is moved to the BCP/Series 3 position in the middle of the service, which IMHO is even more intrusive (and suggests we don't need to prepare for the liturgy of the Word).
--------------------
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
And one way to avoid the wordiness and grovel factor of Anglican inspired confessions, is to use a kyrie confession, although CW states this form should not be the norm on Sundays.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
And one way to avoid the wordiness and grovel factor of Anglican inspired confessions, is to use a kyrie confession, although CW states this form should not be the norm on Sundays.
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif) Typical Anglican fudge! What does that mean? I would certainly use it throughout Eastertide and on any festivals.
--------------------
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
At my last church we did use the kyrie confession during Eastertide and the priest sprinkled us with holy water the while.
We usually had Kyrie and Gloria as alternatives (not a C of E requirement since Series 3). This way we had both.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
