|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Word of the Lord - Hear what the Spirit is saying to the Church
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Why not just say "The OT reading is from...." and conclude"So ends our OT reading".
It obviates any necessity to define as the Word of the Lord a reading which is patently inconsistent with what Jesus might have said, He being God's Word to us.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Because watching the church disappearing up its own arsehole getting excited about things that matter about as much as the colour of the bog pains me. And also my opinion that these issues are trivial is just as relevant as the opinions of those who think they matter. I wouldn't give a monkeys if the church weren't disappearing where the sun don't shine, but it is.
I don't for a moment imagine that the reason the church is in freefall (if indeed it is) is because of a tiny group of liturgical obsessives here on S o F. Karl's comment that minor liturgical matters are as important as 'the colour of the bog' may well be true. But somebody has to take a decision about the latter otherwise the facilities will never be installed. Just as the liturgy has to be performed in some way or other and therefore decisions have to be taken about how. The precise details are relatively unimportant in themselves but form a part of the whole.
I'm pretty sure that people are more likely to be drawn to a church that takes care over its liturgy than to one that does not, other things being equal. Inclusive welcome, awareness of the world beyond its walls etc. being even more important of course. But as Jesus said, more or less, if you can't take care of the little things how can you manage the greater?
And the sort of delight in liturgical oddities and esoteric customs that is so often demonstrated in these threads isn't incompatible with living the Christian life and having a concern for mission. Any more than collecting stamps or delighting in steam trains does.
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tobias
Shipmate
# 18613
|
Posted
There is certainly a danger of that happening, and it is something that those of us who enjoy this sort of thing need to be on our guard against. But I don't think it is inevitable, or that it is necessarily happening whenever people are discussing liturgical minutiae. Leaving aside the larger matter of the importance of liturgy and worship, for some people this sort of discussion is a hobby or a relaxing activity - and by and large, a harmless one.
It has its risks - for instance, we can wrongly assume that, because it's 'to do with God' it is intrinsically Very Important; we can think we are serving God when actually we are enjoying ourselves; we can allow ourselves to be distracted from weightier matters. But I don't think one can tell, simply from the fact that people are discussing a subject of less-than-vital importance, that any of those things is happening.
As long as one isn't falling into one of those traps, spending a few minutes on a discussion like this is, I think, no worse than doing a jigsaw or a crossword or a sudoku puzzle. No one says, "You can't do the crossword; the Church is facing shipwreck!"
And there is always the possibility that out of a such discussions will come something that helps people to worship with clarity and insight and enthusiasm, even something that will bear fruit in their lives. Perhaps it will be a striking phrase in the liturgy that makes someone really listen to - and act upon - "what the Spirit is saying to the Church".
ETA: Cross-posted with Angloid.
[ 06. October 2016, 10:41: Message edited by: Tobias ]
--------------------
Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit.
Posts: 269 | From: Terra Australis Incognita | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Why not just say "The OT reading is from...." and conclude"So ends our OT reading".
To me, that suggests a passivity on the part of those listening, akin to a school lesson. An invitation beforehand, however worded, to listen for God speaking through the reading and an opportunity to respond in some way afterwards invites more active participation by the congregation, or a different kind of participation. That's how it seems to me, at least, YMMV.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tobias
Shipmate
# 18613
|
Posted
Not only did I cross-post with Angloid, but we seem to have been thinking along the same lines at the same time! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[ 06. October 2016, 10:48: Message edited by: Tobias ]
--------------------
Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit.
Posts: 269 | From: Terra Australis Incognita | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tobias:
And there is always the possibility that out of a such discussions will come something that helps people to worship with clarity and insight and enthusiasm, even something that will bear fruit in their lives. Perhaps it will be a striking phrase in the liturgy that makes someone really listen to - and act upon - "what the Spirit is saying to the Church".
Yes.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
If the OT reading is 1 Samuel 15 then what possible additional "spiritual" meaning can be got out of it except that God told Samuel to "go slay the Amalekites". No amount of 'spiritualising' can get round that! Unless, of course, the Spirit says that God said no such thing --- in which case hopefully the sermon would make the point.
There is a wholesale danger that, inviting people to "listen to what the Spirit says" as a prelim to the reading is to open the door to every and any subjective response possible.
But then this may be what advocates of a Readers Response view of Scripture want. Surely a bit of historical objectivity is better than that.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
If the OT reading is 1 Samuel 15 then what possible additional "spiritual" meaning can be got out of it except that God told Samuel to "go slay the Amalekites". No amount of 'spiritualising' can get round that! Unless, of course, the Spirit says that God said no such thing --- in which case hopefully the sermon would make the point.
If the revised common lectionary is being followed, then the only part of I Samuel 15 that will ever be read is the last few verses, where we're told that Samuel was sorry that Saul had been made king. The part about being told to slaughter the Amalekites isn't in the lectionary.
But yes, if it were read I would certainly expect the sermon to unpack, as it were, that God said no such thing. Of course, I think I might expect that anyone reading that non-lectionary passage in worship either does so because they think there is something of value there, which presumably will be explained in the sermon, and/or is of the opinion that God did say it.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
It obviates any necessity to define as the Word of the Lord a reading which is patently inconsistent with what Jesus might have said, He being God's Word to us.
I think that is just the point. Churches that declare this do not agree that this inconsistency exists. Of course they may be wrong about this, but that is why there are different denominations.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
If the OT reading is 1 Samuel 15 then what possible additional "spiritual" meaning can be got out of it except that God told Samuel to "go slay the Amalekites". No amount of 'spiritualising' can get round that!
The "spiritual" meaning would be that God tells us to slay our inner Amalekite, which is some nasty part of ourselves that we would be better off without.
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Unless, of course, the Spirit says that God said no such thing --- in which case hopefully the sermon would make the point.
That's right. The sermon would point out that God would never tell anyone to slay anyone. That in fact the Israelites merely wanted to believe that this was God's will. But that nevertheless God allowed the story to be written the way it was because it can serve as a dramatic way of understanding the issues involved in ridding ourselves of our inner demons.
Saying "Hear the Word of the Lord" emphasizes that these are no ordinary stories, and that they ought to be heard with an ear to their spiritual significance, not their literal injustices.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teekeey Misha
Shipmate
# 18604
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Because 'First Covennant' or 'Hebrew Scriptures' is better.
How is it "better"? Why is it "better"? Who says it's "better"?
If we believe that what we are hearing is the Word of the Lord then it's well to open/close by saying it's the "Word of the Lord" as opposed to anything else. If we don't believe it's the Word of the Lord, why are we reading it during worship?
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
In that sense, "the word of the Lord" refers not so much to the words on the page as it does to what the congregation experiences in reading those words together.
Beautifully put. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
[ 06. October 2016, 14:35: Message edited by: Teekeey Misha ]
--------------------
Misha
Don't assume I don't care; sometimes I just can't be bothered to put you right.
Posts: 296 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Is there a difference in my mind with saying "This is the word of the Lord", and saying "The word of the Lord"? I am reminded of a communion server saying "This is the body of Christ" instead of "The body of Christ". It hit me wrong. Maybe something about the symbol becoming the The Thing in itself?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Is there a difference in my mind with saying "This is the word of the Lord", and saying "The word of the Lord"? I am reminded of a communion server saying "This is the body of Christ" instead of "The body of Christ". It hit me wrong. Maybe something about the symbol becoming the The Thing in itself?
"The word of the Lord" is a more accurate translation of the Latin, "Verbum Dominum". (There is no definite article in Latin.)
--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ˇFelices Pascuas! Happy Easter!
Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
It is certainly literal. Complete sentences are more common in English. (Though there's times when I'm not sure the new RC missal is English, just a crib for the Latin.)
--------------------
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
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
It seems to me that responders are attributing to local congregations a degree of sophisticated insight / response way beyond reality.
Wishful thinking?
I suspect that the majority of pew occupiers are very literal-minded. If the Reader says " This is the Word of the Lord" they accept it as such.
And don't ask whether it was the word of the Lord or not.
Which is to say that most people listen uncritically.
Which is the problem.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Is there a difference in my mind with saying "This is the word of the Lord", and saying "The word of the Lord"? I am reminded of a communion server saying "This is the body of Christ" instead of "The body of Christ". It hit me wrong. Maybe something about the symbol becoming the The Thing in itself?
"The word of the Lord" is a more accurate translation of the Latin, "Verbum Dominum". (There is no definite article in Latin.)
Domini, no?
I've sometimes heard:
V/. For the word of the Lord:
R/. Thanks be to God.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teekeey Misha
Shipmate
# 18604
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
"The word of the Lord" is a more accurate translation of the Latin, "Verbum Dominum". (There is no definite article in Latin.)
If there's no definite article, then we should be saying "Word of Lord" if we want to accurately translate the Latin then!
--------------------
Misha
Don't assume I don't care; sometimes I just can't be bothered to put you right.
Posts: 296 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
All this discussion makes me think that 'Here ends the first[/second] lesson' is the way to go- simple, factual, straightforward.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Why not just say nothing?
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Why not just say nothing?
This.
I suspect that most people are intelligent enough to realise that the reading has ended when the reader stops and walks away.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I suspect that the majority of pew occupiers are very literal-minded. If the Reader says " This is the Word of the Lord" they accept it as such.
And don't ask whether it was the word of the Lord or not.
Considering that these kinds of things are denominational stances they don't actually depend on the personal opinion of the reader.
It is probably true that the majority of pew occupiers don't spend much time considering whether what was read really is the Word of God. Still, they probably do have at least a vague awareness of the position that the denomination takes vis-ŕ-vis the Bible.
I would expect that people would tend to go to churches that agree with their own views.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I suspect that the majority of pew occupiers are very literal-minded. If the Reader says " This is the Word of the Lord" they accept it as such.
And don't ask whether it was the word of the Lord or not.
Considering that these kinds of things are denominational stances they don't actually depend on the personal opinion of the reader.
It is probably true that the majority of pew occupiers don't spend much time considering whether what was read really is the Word of God. Still, they probably do have at least a vague awareness of the position that the denomination takes vis-ŕ-vis the Bible.
I would expect that people would tend to go to churches that agree with their own views.
This. At least around here and in my experience, the churches where these responses are common, either because they are liturgically mandated or liturgically encouraged— Catholic, Episcopal, Lutheran, Presbyterian, and maybe United Methodists and a few other groups—tend not be on the literalist end of the theological spectrum. I suspect most in the pews have at least some sense of what is meant in their tradition when Scripture is referred to as "the word of the Lord." And I suspect other parts of the service, including the sermon, help get across that tradition's perspective.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
All this discussion makes me think that 'Here ends the first[/second] lesson' is the way to go- simple, factual, straightforward.
Though on the other hand in my experience "lesson" denoted something boring and dictatorial, so I have always found it a ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif) word (you know ,... here ends the lesson, thanks be to God' stuff). Reading - ah ... now in lesson days those were breaks in the monotony and I could enter into a world of enlargement and challenge... and it would live on in me ...
[ 07. October 2016, 01:11: Message edited by: Zappa ]
--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/
Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
'Lesson' means 'lection' of course, so = reading. It might or might not be a slice of teaching which is the meaning we usually attach to that word today. So if you are going to say something as pointless as telling people what it is obvious has just happened (i.e. the reader has finished reading) it had at least better make sense. So 'here ends the reading' if you must.
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
"The word of the Lord" is a more accurate translation of the Latin, "Verbum Dominum". (There is no definite article in Latin.)
If there's no definite article, then we should be saying "Word of Lord" if we want to accurately translate the Latin then!
No, because Latin doesn't have a definite article to use. Verbum can equally mean a word, the word, or just word. It's not like Latin has a definite article which was left out in this case.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
"The word of the Lord" is a more accurate translation of the Latin, "Verbum Dominum". (There is no definite article in Latin.)
If there's no definite article, then we should be saying "Word of Lord" if we want to accurately translate the Latin then!
No, because Latin doesn't have a definite article to use. Verbum can equally mean a word, the word, or just word. It's not like Latin has a definite article which was left out in this case.
And before anyone does, given Latin's tendency to leave out the verb 'to be', there is a limit to how one can push that the Latin says 'Word of the Lord' rather than 'This is the Word of the Lord'.
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Unless one is RC, which presumably has prescribed wording anyway, how relevant is what this might be in Latin?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
The discussion is a critique of the current RC translation.
Certainly something needs to be said.
--------------------
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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
"The word of the Lord" is a more accurate translation of the Latin, "Verbum Dominum". (There is no definite article in Latin.)
If there's no definite article, then we should be saying "Word of Lord" if we want to accurately translate the Latin then!
No, because Latin doesn't have a definite article to use. Verbum can equally mean a word, the word, or just word. It's not like Latin has a definite article which was left out in this case.
And before anyone does, given Latin's tendency to leave out the verb 'to be', there is a limit to how one can push that the Latin says 'Word of the Lord' rather than 'This is the Word of the Lord'.
Indeed. My Latin teachers were always at pains to point out how concise and precise Latin was capable of being. Ecce exemplum ("here is an example")
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Unless one is RC, which presumably has prescribed wording anyway, how relevant is what this might be in Latin?
Because the development of every single mainstream published liturgical text in the last (say) 50 years was influenced by the changes and developments to the Roman Catholic liturgy that followed the Second Vatican Council? (Wherein, as you note, the form is indeed prescribed: 'Verbum Dei :: Deo Gratias')
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Unless one is RC, which presumably has prescribed wording anyway, how relevant is what this might be in Latin?
The present English translation of the ICEL was introduced with effect from Advent Sunday 2011, throughout the English-speaking (Roman) Catholic Church world-wide, and is intentionally a direct translation from the Latin.
For this reason, the response to, "The Lord be with you", was changed to, "And with your spirit", replacing, "And also with you". The Nicene Creed now begins, I believe..., rather than, "We Believe...". And so we could go on all the way through the Mass text.
The exact translation of, "Verbum Dominum" is, therefore, "The Word of the Lord""
"Unless one is RC..." as quoted above; in my above post, I was talking RC, leaving aside the texts of other traditions.
--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ˇFelices Pascuas! Happy Easter!
Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
Tangent:
"And also with you" is unfortunate. "And with your spirit is far preferable.
--------------------
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
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
Then why wouldn't we have "The Lord be with your spirit."?
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
It's a translation of a text that appears universally in eucharistic liturgies, in Latin
Dominum vobiscum (The Lord with you plural)
Et cum spirito tuo (And with your singular spirit)
The president and congregation acknowledge one another as joint participants.
--------------------
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
|
|
Al Eluia
Inquisitor
# 864
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Yuck.
At our place, it's "Here endeth the Epistle [or Lesson]."
People taking it upon themselves to alter liturgical texts is a pet peeve of mine.
I'm always amused when the reader says, "Here endeth the Epistle" and the congregation responds "Thanks be to God!"
I don't see what's so yucky about "Hear what the Spirit is saying to the Church" (or "to God's people," as TEC's alternate version renders it). Sometimes it's a bit hard to discern how the reading is "the word of the Lord," but we must be open to what the Lord/Spirit may have to say by means of it.
One other anecdote: A woman in our parish was once heard, after a difficult passage of Scripture being read, responding to "The word of the Lord" with "Thanks be to God, I guess?"
--------------------
Consider helping out the Anglican Seminary in El Salvador with a book or two! https://www.amazon.es/registry/wishlist/YDAZNSAWWWBT/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_ep_ws_7IRSzbD16R9RQ
https://www.episcopalcafe.com/a-seminary-is-born-in-el-salvador/
Posts: 1157 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
I'm always amused when the reader says, "Here endeth the Epistle" and the congregation responds "Thanks be to God!"
I once attended a Pentecostal service where the congregation tended to punctuate the prayers with rather unthinking interjections. One evening someone prayed, "And we think of those who cannot be with us this evening ..." which elicited the cry, "Thank you, Lord!" We did have the grace to laugh.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
The exact translation of, "Verbum Dominum" is, therefore, "The Word of the Lord""
You mean Verbum Domini, of course.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
The exact translation of, "Verbum Dominum" is, therefore, "The Word of the Lord""
You mean Verbum Domini, of course.
I quote from memory and I am open to correction if my memory is playing me false.
--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ˇFelices Pascuas! Happy Easter!
Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Yes, Marama, that's, I think, what a lot of people like about it.
We used to have a developmentally disabled individual who attended our church. He obviously spent a lot of time at home listening to Christian radio, and subscribed to a much sterner, more literal version of the faith than the rest of us. He was a monthly reader, and when he read, he would allow the spirit to take hold of him, and deliver the epistle from memory as an oratory from Paul. He would always end by saying, "My brothers and sisters, this ... IS ... the word of the Lord."
There would always be a longish pause before the congregational response, I think because members of the congregation forgot that saying "thanks be to God" could just be a response to keep things moving, and not a voice of ascent to the assertion about scripture implicit in the voicing.
I personally can just say "thanks be to God" as a response without reading too much into the implications, but I can get why someone might want a gentler ending to the reading.
"This is the word of the Lord" is the required statement at the end of a reading in most Sydney Anglican churches. I always preferred the gentler "For the word of the Lord"
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
[Indeed. My Latin teachers were always at pains to point out how concise and precise Latin was capable of being. Ecce exemplum ("here is an example") [/QB]
Your Latin teacher is wrong. Succinctness is not precisions. German theologians strive for utmost precision in the use of language, they are not succinct. Precision in language is lack of ambiguity.
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
|
|
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
[Indeed. My Latin teachers were always at pains to point out how concise and precise Latin was capable of being. Ecce exemplum ("here is an example")
Your Latin teacher is wrong. Succinctness is not precisions. German theologians strive for utmost precision in the use of language, they are not succinct. Precision in language is lack of ambiguity.[/QB]
Of course Latin is less ambiguous than English because of the agreement between words.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
The exact translation of, "Verbum Dominum" is, therefore, "The Word of the Lord""
You mean Verbum Domini, of course.
I quote from memory and I am open to correction if my memory is playing me false.
Your memory is indeed playing you falsely. It is Verbum Domini. web page
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
The exact translation of, "Verbum Dominum" is, therefore, "The Word of the Lord""
You mean Verbum Domini, of course.
I quote from memory and I am open to correction if my memory is playing me false.
Your memory is indeed playing you falsely. It is Verbum Domini. web page
OK, it could happen to anybody - enough said!
--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ˇFelices Pascuas! Happy Easter!
Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Think of 'A.D. Anno Domini 'in the year OF THE LORD'
or indeed of' Corpus CHRISTI ' 'of Christ'
called in some countries 'Corpus DOMINI ' 'the Body OF THE LORD
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
I'm always amused when the reader says, "Here endeth the Epistle" and the congregation responds "Thanks be to God!"
Here endeth the gospel?
No, I did mean epistle (or "the reading" or "the lesson"). Responding "thanks be to God" to that always sounds to me like "Thank God THAT'S over!"
That what I thought years ago when I heard one of the first English-language R.C. Masses -- something like "Go, the Mass is ended." And the response was "Thanks be to God."
(I do think that this would be a great way to end sermons!)
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Think of 'A.D. Anno Domini 'in the year OF THE LORD'
or indeed of' Corpus CHRISTI ' 'of Christ'
called in some countries 'Corpus DOMINI ' 'the Body OF THE LORD
Yep, thanks.
The history of my Latin studies is that at some point, it was dropped from the syllabus and ceased to be taught at school. Although it was a subject I was good at, I did not go on with it. In time, Italian became a good substitute.
End of tangent.
--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ˇFelices Pascuas! Happy Easter!
Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
