|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Miscellaneous questions of a liturgical nature
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
Is it rather like the weird idea at All Souls that the names of the departed commemorated are read out after communion.
In that case it is presumably trying to avoid the idea that the eucharistic prayer/offering/communion are in any way a prayer on behalf of the departed.
Maybe the idea here is to avoid the idea that the eucharist is an offering on behalf of someone, but it is bonkers. Why bother with a eucharist otherwise? And communion together by the couple is the obvious climax of the church service (and the bit that is appropriate for same sex couples as well).
It would make more sense to have the vows etc before mass begins, and in a registry office as well.
--------------------
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
|
|
Panda
Shipmate
# 2951
|
Posted
Inflecting the last word or two of phrases of a collect, usually by going down by a note or two - how common is this? The last time I took morning prayer and did this, someone said they hadn't heard that done for years. Was he out of date or am I?
FWIW, I like doing it, because it adds interest, or else it would just be a flat monotone throughout, and some collects are quite long. I appreciate that it can be overdone, but you can always strike a balance.
Posts: 1637 | From: North Wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
Inflecting the last word or two of phrases of a collect, usually by going down by a note or two - how common is this?
You refer to accentus ecclesiasticus, of which, according to the Wikipedia entry, there are seven types. Each is used to indicate a specific punctuation in the text being chanted.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
Inflecting the last word or two of phrases of a collect, usually by going down by a note or two - how common is this? The last time I took morning prayer and did this, someone said they hadn't heard that done for years. Was he out of date or am I?
FWIW, I like doing it, because it adds interest, or else it would just be a flat monotone throughout, and some collects are quite long. I appreciate that it can be overdone, but you can always strike a balance.
I always inflect except during Advent and Lent.
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Maybe the idea here is to avoid the idea that the eucharist is an offering on behalf of someone, but it is bonkers. Why bother with a eucharist otherwise? And communion together by the couple is the obvious climax of the church service (and the bit that is appropriate for same sex couples as well).
In the Common Worship liturgy linked to that happens whichever option is chosen. The whole marriage ceremony takes place before Communion in either case.
The only difference in the option that Basilica finds odd is that one short prayer is delayed till immediatly before Communion.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Panda
Shipmate
# 2951
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
Inflecting the last word or two of phrases of a collect, usually by going down by a note or two - how common is this?
You refer to accentus ecclesiasticus, of which, according to the Wikipedia entry, there are seven types. Each is used to indicate a specific punctuation in the text being chanted.
Good gracious. I should have known it would all be very carefully categorised! I didn't see one of the most usual - dropping by a third and then rising a second at a full stop, I think it would be. Perhaps this is a later mutation...
Posts: 1637 | From: North Wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Why do some Roman Catholic priests hold both the paten and the chalice at the same time at the offertory? Instead of saying (silently or out loud) "Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation, for through your goodness we have received this bread we offer you..." with the paten and then "Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation for through your goodness we have received this wine we offer you..." with the chalice after pouring the wine and water into it, they hold up both at the same time, saying (when I have heard it), "Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation, for through your goodness we have received this bread and wine we offer you..."
The only justification I think these priests can be offerring is that it saves time. It is such a small difference in time that I can hardly think that it matters, and it is no reason to not use the (very simple) prescribed liturgical text. Even in the Jewish prayers of blessing that the post-Vatican II offertory prayers are based on, there are separate prayers for the bread and for the wine.
(I know you all know this, but I am talking about the offertory that preceded the Eucharistic Prayer, not the words of consecration.)
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
Because, Stonespring, some priests haven't the faintest idea what they are doing. The quality of their liturgical formation was appalling. Others, however....
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
Which could be a good argument for Eastward facing celebration...
--------------------
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
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Several of the priests I know who do the holding of the paten and chalice at the same time at the offertory are relatively young and, unlike some older priests that are set in their ways and often choose to do whatever seems practical and easy to them, seem deliberate and reflective in their liturgical choices (even when they are wrong). Why then do you think they do this?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Several of the priests I know who do the holding of the paten and chalice at the same time at the offertory are relatively young and, unlike some older priests that are set in their ways and often choose to do whatever seems practical and easy to them, seem deliberate and reflective in their liturgical choices (even when they are wrong). Why then do you think they do this?
There are certain parts of the Mass where choice is permissible, and there are others--such as here--where it is not.
Part of becoming a priest of the Roman Rite is accepting the Roman Rite. Why would somebody intentionally do this, only to become a new priest and already buck the system?
[I say this, and yet at the same time practically every Catholic priest I know is far more likely to go off-script than a Lutheran pastor, and definitely more than an Episcopal priest.]
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Several of the priests I know who do the holding of the paten and chalice at the same time at the offertory are relatively young and, unlike some older priests that are set in their ways and often choose to do whatever seems practical and easy to them, seem deliberate and reflective in their liturgical choices (even when they are wrong). Why then do you think they do this?
I am wondering whether this is really at 'the offertory' if is a mistake and is actually referring to the lesser elevation at the end of the eucharistic prayer, which is a sort of offering of the eucharistic sacrifice.
Older priests sometimes hold the host over the chalice while younger ones in the C of E follow the Roman rite and elevate chalice in one hand and paten in the other.
--------------------
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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Is this a procedural error which causes the offering not to 'work', the bread and wine not to become the body and blood?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
No, it's just cutting corners to try to save time (not that it saves more than a few seconds anyway). Not something I'm likely to do, but not something I could muster enough irritation to lose sleep over either.
stonespring: Can I ask whether this was an actual question you wanted an answer to, or did you just want to complain about priests' liturgical pecadillos that annoy you?
(Leo: read ss's post at the top of page 7. It's clearly talking about the offertory and not the elevation at the end of the EP.)
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Is this a procedural error which causes the offering not to 'work', the bread and wine not to become the body and blood?
Probably illicit, not invalid. It's a simple mistake, perhaps a rookie error. Whenever the bishop is present, he will celebrate. Thus, bishops rarely get to take a firsthand peek at what a priest is doing, and errors such as this remain undetected.
quote:
From Sacrosanctum Concilium:
Therefore no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.
And this from Vatican 2! This sentence makes it clear that priests shouldn't be tinkering with that which is not lawful to be changed. Should this situation keep a faithful Catholic up at night? Undoubtedly not.
[sorry...cross-posted with Hart]
[ 05. May 2013, 19:52: Message edited by: Olaf ]
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
I've just been casting an eye over the Church of England's wedding liturgy, specifically the order for marriage within a celebration of Holy Communion. There is a rather curious alternative provision, which I find somewhat bizarre: the blessing of the marriage can take place either after the proclamation (the obvious place) or after the Lord's Prayer. This seems odd to me: why on earth would you want to break up the Eucharistic liturgy in this way? What theological point is it making?
This is where it is in the Roman Rite. I don't know for sure, but perhaps the placing of the nuptial blessing at the end of the Eucharistic prayer (actually, at the end of the Our Father) reflects the ancient Roman practice fo blessing gifts other than the bread and wine at the end of the Eucharistic prayer. This is where the oil of the sick is blessed at the Chrism Mass (though in my experience the option of blessing all the oils earlier, in the Liturgy of the Word, is usually used). I rather like the practice of "consecrating" the bride and groom after consecrating the Eucharistic gifts. To me, it doesn't seem like an interruption at all.
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
FCB - you are perfectly right. I just answered basilica off the top of my head, mainly irritated at the C of E All Souls provision.
After our civil partnership, we were blessed in church at mass and the blessing of the couple (since there was no bride and it wasn't marriage) came after communion.
--------------------
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
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
I've just been casting an eye over the Church of England's wedding liturgy, specifically the order for marriage within a celebration of Holy Communion. There is a rather curious alternative provision, which I find somewhat bizarre: the blessing of the marriage can take place either after the proclamation (the obvious place) or after the Lord's Prayer. This seems odd to me: why on earth would you want to break up the Eucharistic liturgy in this way? What theological point is it making?
This is where it is in the Roman Rite. I don't know for sure, but perhaps the placing of the nuptial blessing at the end of the Eucharistic prayer (actually, at the end of the Our Father) reflects the ancient Roman practice fo blessing gifts other than the bread and wine at the end of the Eucharistic prayer. This is where the oil of the sick is blessed at the Chrism Mass (though in my experience the option of blessing all the oils earlier, in the Liturgy of the Word, is usually used). I rather like the practice of "consecrating" the bride and groom after consecrating the Eucharistic gifts. To me, it doesn't seem like an interruption at all.
That's really interesting: thank you. My doubt about its continuity with the rest of the service comes from the fact that, presumably, the priest will consecrate the elements, pray the Our Father, and then leave the altar and go to bless the couple. I can't really work out how the choreography would work coherently.
But, as you say in reference to the Chrism mass, there probably is something worthwhile in making the marriage an integral part of the entire mass, not a sort of bolt-on to the Liturgy of the Word.
Thanks again for your insight!
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sacerdote
Apprentice
# 11627
|
Posted
The combined offering of chalice & paten may just be yet another fad of a would-be "trendy" celebrant - and God knows we've had enough of those on both sides of the Tiber since Vatican II - or it could be an example of a priest belonging to a religious order trying with or without authorization to restore an element that was proper to his rite or use before the Council. The offering of the Host together with the chalice was mandatory in eg the Carthusian, Carmelite & Dominican rites, as in most(?) of Europe's Romano-Gallican Rites - including, I think, all our medieval British uses. The Carthusians are, I believe still after at least three decades awaiting approval from Rome of their provisionally revised liturgical books, and meanwhile presumably continue to offer the chalice & host together as they did at their foundation, though they do not adapt the modern Roman offertory prayers. I do, however, have a feeling that I may have seen somewhere an authorized adaptation in English of "Blessed are you, Lord God etc" permitting the offering of the chalice & host together. But maybe I'm dreaming...
Posts: 32 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
This is definitely at the offertory (ie, before the Orate Fratres) and not the minor elevation at the doxology at the end of the Eucharistic Prayer.
Since it is not part of the Eucharistic Prayer itself it has nothing to do with the validity of the Sacrament.
The reason I am asking is out of sincere curiosity since it seems like such an odd variation. The priests I have sen do it are diocesan and Jesuit so I doubt it has anything to do with the rites used by religious orders. I find it odd since some of the priests I see do it are relatively nitpicky for a Roman Catholic priest about other liturgical matters. It seems to be an idiosyncrasy shared by more than a few priests in more than one parish so that is why I am asking. It doesn't bother me that much but I am a liturgy freak so I want to know what is going through a priest's mind any time he veers from the liturgy we share and love.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Guessing here but very occasionally in a URC service you can see the bread and wine brought up with the offertory. I remember there is some connection with this being the offering of the people. Might that in part be why this happens?
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
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
In the post-Vatican II ordinary form of the Mass it is common for members of the congregation to bring the bread and wine up to the altar. The priest receives them and says the prayers of blessing that I am talking about as he places the paten on the altar and later when he places the chalice on the altar (or ,more specifically, on the corporal) once wine and water have been poured into it. These prayers of blessing are not part of the Eucharistic Prayer and so they do not have to do with the actual changing of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. They still are important, though!
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Guessing here but very occasionally in a URC service you can see the bread and wine brought up with the offertory.
Cross-tradition room for confusion here: in the Catholic and Anglican traditions the offertory is the preparation of the bread and wine. The collection of money, aka the offerings of the people, are suitably presented at the same time, but the 'offertory' proper is that of the bread and wine.
--------------------
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
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
What Angloid says is correct, but it is worth pointing out again that at least in Roman Catholic understanding the bringing of the bread and wine to the altar in the post Vatican II offertory is different from the consecration that occurs in the Eucharisitic prayer that follows. My concern here is only with what happens at the offertory and not with the Eucharistic Prayer.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
In Anglican understanding too.
--------------------
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
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
Your assistance, please, with a brief history of chancel rails (altar rails).
It's my understanding that they are essentially an abbreviated version of the rood screen, which had been a way of marking off sacred space. I was speaking about various aspects of church architecture and design at my shack. Afterward, I had more than a few parishioners inform me that the original intent of altar rails was to keep out animals who might stray into the chancel.
I cannot find historical evidence to support their assertion. I can, however, find evidence that this was the argument of the Laudians against the Puritans around 1630 or so. It seems to have run something like this:
Laudians: Install altar rails.
Puritans: No way! That's what them Catholics have!
Laudians (thinking fast): They are only practical. Altar rails were originally intended to keep out animals.
Puritans: Oh. Well that's all right, then.
I'm not asking if you love them or hate them; altar rail discussions can be more contentious than the perpetual virginity of Mary. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif) I am asking if I am correctly understanding the historical development of altar rails from the rood screen.
Thanking you in advance, your humble servant, etc.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laud-able
Ship's Ancient
# 9896
|
Posted
This extract from English Church Fittings, Furniture and Accessories, published in 1923, claims that altar rails were adopted in the early Elizabethan period in place of the rood screens.
--------------------
'. . . "Non Angli, sed Angeli" "not Angels, but Anglicans"', Sellar, W C, and Yeatman, R J, 1066 and All That, London, 1930, p. 6.
Posts: 279 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arch Anglo Catholic
Shipmate
# 15181
|
Posted
There are a few parish churches which still possess dog tongs; long, large wooden tongs used for grabbing and removing recalcitrant dogs from the sanctuary.
The use of altar rails seems to be a sensible provision to protect the sacred, although I suspect that the use of dog tongs was much more amusing...
Posts: 144 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Possibly also an answer to some of the questions about wandering kids raised a couple of threads down...
--------------------
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
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
Then again, altar rails making kneeling for communion much easier, don't they?
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
BulldogSacristan
Shipmate
# 11239
|
Posted
But don't altar rails and rood screens mark off two separate spaces? The rood screen separates the nave from the chancel, which might or might not have a choir. The altar rail separates the sanctuary or immediate altar area from the rest of the chancel.
That being said, there are plenty of churches, especially contemporary ones, where these two demarcations are one and the same.
Posts: 197 | From: Boston, Massachusetts | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laud-able:
This extract from English Church Fittings, Furniture and Accessories, published in 1923, claims that altar rails were adopted in the early Elizabethan period in place of the rood screens.
Probably true, so far as it goes.
But the growing low-church trend led in many places to the total removal of the Table (and presumably of the rails), or to its treatment as nice place for worshippers to put their hats. At any rate, that's what the Laudian reformers claimed. The incident of the dog that came into church, leapt onto the altar an carried off the consecrated loaf was certainly cited.
THing is, whatever happened under Elizabeth or Charles I probabaly doesn't matter. IT was only with the Restoration and Charles II that the CofE was able to insist on altars and altar rails. During the Protectorate, altars, altar rails and any remaining rood screens were (almost?)completely swept away unless they were as solid as those in some of the very largest churches and cathedals.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Guessing here but very occasionally in a URC service you can see the bread and wine brought up with the offertory.
Cross-tradition room for confusion here: in the Catholic and Anglican traditions the offertory is the preparation of the bread and wine. The collection of money, aka the offerings of the people, are suitably presented at the same time, but the 'offertory' proper is that of the bread and wine.
Try telling that to the clergy in our parish who think of "offertory" as liturgical jargon for a collection of money.
There have been times when I've produced a service sheet for a non-Eucharistic service and used a word like "collection" or "offering" and a previous vicar corrected it to "offertory".
And doesn't this Catholic tradition go all the way back to Dix?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oblatus
Shipmate
# 6278
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Then again, altar rails making kneeling for communion much easier, don't they?
Yes. Interesting to hear the feedback from two Wiccan friends who came to see our Solemn High Mass one Sunday out of curiosity and genuine interest. All was positive except the moment when an acolyte closes the Communion gate before the people approach for Communion. To them it looked like a safeguard against riff-raff going too far: "Come no closer!" When really it just increased the available rail space for kneeling and receiving.
Posts: 3823 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
scuffleball
Shipmate
# 16480
|
Posted
Do Roman Catholic churches have PCCs?
--------------------
SPK: I also plan to create ... a Calvinist Ordinariate
ken: I thought it was called Taize?
Posts: 272 | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Guessing here but very occasionally in a URC service you can see the bread and wine brought up with the offertory.
Cross-tradition room for confusion here: in the Catholic and Anglican traditions the offertory is the preparation of the bread and wine. The collection of money, aka the offerings of the people, are suitably presented at the same time, but the 'offertory' proper is that of the bread and wine.
Try telling that to the clergy in our parish who think of "offertory" as liturgical jargon for a collection of money.
There have been times when I've produced a service sheet for a non-Eucharistic service and used a word like "collection" or "offering" and a previous vicar corrected it to "offertory".
And doesn't this Catholic tradition go all the way back to Dix?
If by "Catholic tradition" you mean the procession of representatives from the parish with the elements, then yes, possibly.
If you mean the offering of the elements by the priest, that goes back at least to the Didache.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Guessing here but very occasionally in a URC service you can see the bread and wine brought up with the offertory.
Cross-tradition room for confusion here: in the Catholic and Anglican traditions the offertory is the preparation of the bread and wine. The collection of money, aka the offerings of the people, are suitably presented at the same time, but the 'offertory' proper is that of the bread and wine.
Try telling that to the clergy in our parish who think of "offertory" as liturgical jargon for a collection of money.
There have been times when I've produced a service sheet for a non-Eucharistic service and used a word like "collection" or "offering" and a previous vicar corrected it to "offertory".
And doesn't this Catholic tradition go all the way back to Dix?
Yes - and he is now discredited and there are books like 'The end of the offertory'.
offertory processions are Pelagian.
The ancient tradition of people bringing gifts to the altar wasn't for communion. It was food for distribution to the poor.
--------------------
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
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Ooh this is interesting. So in early Chrisitan Eucharists, if the offertory procession was bringing food for the poor and not for te Eucharist as you claim, where did the bread and wine for the Eucharist come from? Did the priest process with it to the altar at the beginning of the liturgy or did it start on a side table?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
offertory processions are Pelagian.
The ancient tradition of people bringing gifts to the altar wasn't for communion. It was food for distribution to the poor.
I'm not sure they are Pelagian, though they are certainly vulnerable to that interpretation. The idea that the bread and wine are offerings from the people to God is not Dixian: it is plainly present in the Roman Canon of the Mass. They are only justifiable insofar as we recognise that they only have value because they are a participation (though an inadequate and unworthy one) in the one offering of Jesus Christ on the Cross made present in the Eucharist.
If you don't have a theology of Eucharistic sacrifice, then the idea of an offertory is far more Pelagian.
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
There is an offertory antiphon for every mass in the Tridentine missal and graduale.
My (1924?) St Andrew’s missal states after before the offertory antiphon “In some countries the faithful here make their offering of blessed bread. This ceremony recalls the old custom of supplying the Priest with the bread and wine for the Sacrifice.”
--------------------
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
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by scuffleball:
Do Roman Catholic churches have PCCs?
Pastoral councils in each parish are only mandatory if the diocesan bishops says they are (can. 536). In my experience, most do. Finance councils are mandatory (537).
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Then again, altar rails making kneeling for communion much easier, don't they?
Yes. Interesting to hear the feedback from two Wiccan friends who came to see our Solemn High Mass one Sunday out of curiosity and genuine interest. All was positive except the moment when an acolyte closes the Communion gate before the people approach for Communion. To them it looked like a safeguard against riff-raff going too far: "Come no closer!" When really it just increased the available rail space for kneeling and receiving.
That's odd. Wouldn't a real pagan accept it as given that a real god or goddess was dangerous?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Ooh this is interesting. So in early Chrisitan Eucharists, if the offertory procession was bringing food for the poor and not for te Eucharist as you claim, where did the bread and wine for the Eucharist come from? Did the priest process with it to the altar at the beginning of the liturgy or did it start on a side table?
I think I read that the bishop/presider chose the best bread from that which was brought in. Presumably wine too.
--------------------
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
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Then again, altar rails making kneeling for communion much easier, don't they?
Yes. Interesting to hear the feedback from two Wiccan friends who came to see our Solemn High Mass one Sunday out of curiosity and genuine interest. All was positive except the moment when an acolyte closes the Communion gate before the people approach for Communion. To them it looked like a safeguard against riff-raff going too far: "Come no closer!" When really it just increased the available rail space for kneeling and receiving.
Interesting!
Having balance issues myself, the fact that my church does not have a Communion rail means I have to stand for Communion. My priest has no issue with this and makes it clear that standing or kneeling are both acceptable (some others have to stand too), but I wish I could kneel even so. Not that there's much difference between my height when kneeling and my height when standing!
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Well there you are then. All you need to do is to attach a pair of comedy lower leg/foot combos horizontally to your heels just before you step out of your pew, and you can stand quite comfortably while appearing to kneel. Indeed, more than that- because you'll have to walk up with the said leg/foot combos already attached, other members of the congregation will think that you are approaching the altar on your knees and will be immensely edified by what they think is your great devotion to Our Lord in His sacramental presence.
That's the kind of thing that almost makes me wish I wasn't 6'3".
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bran Stark
Shipmate
# 15252
|
Posted
Does anyone know why the Monastic Breviary printed out the Gospel for the day in full at Matins, while the secular Roman Breviary only had the first verse or so there? It this simply because monks presumably had more time to pray? Was it a way to ensure that the Gospel would still be read should no priest be available to say Mass? Or is there some more arcane meaning?
--------------------
IN SOVIET ЯUSSIA, SIGNATUЯE ЯEAD YOU!
Posts: 304 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
The Romans are cheap bastards, saving paper by printing only the incipit?
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oblatus
Shipmate
# 6278
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Does anyone know why the Monastic Breviary printed out the Gospel for the day in full at Matins, while the secular Roman Breviary only had the first verse or so there? It this simply because monks presumably had more time to pray? Was it a way to ensure that the Gospel would still be read should no priest be available to say Mass? Or is there some more arcane meaning?
I think the first verse or so was given just to remind the one(s) praying of the Gospel of the day (read in full at Mass) just before going on to the commentary excerpt. So, "<Opening sentence of Gospel>, and so on, and that which followeth. A reading from a Commentary on John by St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo..." Sort of an incorporation by reference.
The Gospel would be read in full in a third nocturn on Sundays and big feasts.
[ 17. May 2013, 17:01: Message edited by: Oblatus ]
Posts: 3823 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
The Romans are cheap bastards, saving paper by printing only the incipit?
I resemble that remark. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Actually, what Oblatus said.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlav12
Apprentice
# 17148
|
Posted
Can acolytes wear an academic hood with their surplice?
Posts: 34 | From: Albany, New York | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
