Thread: Eukaryotes and The Message Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=022696

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
In addition to a Dead Horse, General Convention will consider among other things a Litany for the Planet and a recommendation for authorizing the Message. How are these two related? The Message is a paraphrase not an actual translation. Supposedly, The Message is easier to understand than the good ol NRSV. Fine. However, the Litany for the Planet contains this line:

quote:
On eukaryotes and prokaryotes, archaea and viruses; on microbes of endless variety, the complex and the simple, Creator have mercy.
How many people who have problems understanding the NRSV know a eukaryote from a prokaryote from a 1957 Chevrolet Bel Air? Frederick Schmidt believes this is part of the Dumbing Down of the Church. Dumbing down might not be the best way to describe it. Could the people doing this stuff be doing it to annoy me? Can't be. What do you think?

[ 02. May 2012, 02:52: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
On eukaryotes and prokaryotes, archaea and viruses; on microbes of endless variety, the complex and the simple, Creator have mercy.
Oh for cripe's sake! Why do these things happen to me?! [Waterworks]
 
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :
 
I agree that the wording of the litany would not be dumbing down. If anything, rather the reverse. I'd probably describe it as interestingly weird and not how i would express it. But Creator has created a wonderfully diverse creation -- and, forgive me if i sound "liberal" -- exploitative, greedy and thoughtless human activity is definitely hurting this planet. So i have absolutely no problem with praying for our planet. Our planet needs it.

Re the Message. I find it interesting, sometimes entertaining, and sometimes i have found it helpful in interpreting the meaning of or getting a different perspective on some Bible passages. But as BW notes, it is a paraphrase, not a translation. Thus i believe it should not be used in the liturgy in any part of the liturgy where readings from the Bible are called for.

[ 02. May 2012, 03:53: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
 
Posted by Mockingbird (# 5818) on :
 
"This too will pass." General Convention sometimes acts as if it is in the grip of people a few years older than I am, superannuated hippies whose enthusiasm sometimes outruns their sense. But their day must come to an end eventually.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
To borrow that old clergy house line

"Oh shit - where's the f***ing gin!?"

PD
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
[QB] I agree that the wording of the litany would not be dumbing down. If anything, rather the reverse. I'd probably describe it as interestingly weird and not how i would express it. But Creator has created a wonderfully diverse creation -- and, forgive me if i sound "liberal" -- exploitative, greedy and thoughtless human activity is definitely hurting this planet. So i have absolutely no problem with praying for our planet. Our planet needs it.

I think, rather than praying for microbes, we should pray for our leaders and us in rethinking our policies to reflect ethics of stewardship and care of the planet.

Not only that, but when I'm suffering from a flu, the last thing I want to do is to pray for viruses.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
[QUOTE]]I think, rather than praying for microbes, we should pray for our leaders and us in rethinking our policies to reflect ethics of stewardship and care of the planet.

Our litany still has our praying for Elizabeth our Queen, to which we add Julia our Prime Minister and Barry our Premier, as well as for the ancient peoples of this land, and for ourselves in our stewardship of this part of His creation. Given that the popularity of Julia's party is hovering around the 20% mark at the moment, she could do with prayers to implement good policies rather than those which may gain votes.

Your comment about the microbes is understandable, but in the long. long term wrong. They, too, are part of creation even if we do not yet properly understand their purpose.
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
Personally, I think it's good to see the Archaea getting their day in the liturgical limelight.

(Gosh, there was a sentence I never thought I'd type!)
 
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
I'm used to having to look stuff up around here, but that's a new one. In fact it's a whole new direction for Eccles.
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
I'm used to having to look stuff up around here, but that's a new one. In fact it's a whole new direction for Eccles.

And I suppose pronunciation guides are no more likely to be provided for that collect than they are for many of the names in Holy Women, Holy Men.

[ 02. May 2012, 14:46: Message edited by: Oblatus ]
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted (but not originally written) by Beeswax Altar:
On eukaryotes and prokaryotes, archaea and viruses; on microbes of endless variety, the complex and the simple, Creator have mercy.

[Killing me]

Comedy like this is a gift from a loving and benevolent God.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Archaea are a kind of prokaryote. Why tdo they get mentioned twice? Anyway, its beetles that God is notoriously inordinately fond of, not methanococci.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
For the first time in history, I share Beeswax Altar's concerns - re- The Message.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
This manages simultaneously both to have the outward form of English and to be in a tongue not understanded of the people.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Haven't we all sat in church worrying about the poor microbes? Won't someone think of the viruses?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Haven't we all sat in church worrying about the poor microbes?

Actually I have. Does that make me a geek?

But only when the service was very boring.
 
Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
I suppose pronunciation guides are no more likely to be provided for that collect than they are for many of the names in Holy Women, Holy Men.

I always used to enjoy my English speaking training incumbent's efforts on the Feast of Saint Euddogwy. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oferyas:
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
I suppose pronunciation guides are no more likely to be provided for that collect than they are for many of the names in Holy Women, Holy Men.

I always used to enjoy my English speaking training incumbent's efforts on the Feast of Saint Euddogwy. [Big Grin]
you-thog-ooey ?
 
Posted by JeffTL (# 16722) on :
 
The Message is essentially Dr. Peterson's commentary in paraphrase form. Liturgical use uniformly comes across as patronizing, although it may have some use on people's private bookshelves.
 
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JeffTL:
The Message is essentially Dr. Peterson's commentary in paraphrase form. Liturgical use uniformly comes across as patronizing, although it may have some use on people's private bookshelves.

I would agree with this. I think The Message works OK as an addition to a Bible Study or small-group type of thing (*not* as the Bible you study but for the "let's compare this passage with other renderings of the same text" part of the exercise). I'm afraid that Peterson's use of colloquialisms gets a little, well, goofy from time to time, which would just be pretty strange in a liturgy.

Is it possible the proposed approval of The Message is for occasions other than the principal eucharist on a Sunday -- say, for Rite III types of things, retreats, etc.?
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
What were you expecting out of a church whose Presiding Bishop has a PhD in a natural science?

On a serious note, we do pray for creation, and mention the destruction of creation on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, IIRC. The technical language seems to me to be destined to be dated in a few years. What I think the lesson of Eucharistic Prayer C should have been apparently has not stuck.
 
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
What were you expecting out of a church whose Presiding Bishop has a PhD in a natural science?

I know that's not the main thrust of your post, but I'll mention that I have heard her bring examples from marine biology into homilies, and to good effect.
quote:

On a serious note, we do pray for creation, and mention the destruction of creation on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, IIRC. The technical language seems to me to be destined to be dated in a few years. What I think the lesson of Eucharistic Prayer C should have been apparently has not stuck.

The difference between Prayer C and the proposed Litany of Creation is that the latter is not intended to be a regular part of Sunday worship. The way ENS describes it, the Litany is intended for occasional, specialized use.

That article also answers my question above re The Message. At least they include the Common English Bible, which AIUI is a work of some scholarship (not that The Message is devoid of scholarship, but it's a different animal entirely).

[ 02. May 2012, 18:49: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
 
Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Oferyas:
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
I suppose pronunciation guides are no more likely to be provided for that collect than they are for many of the names in Holy Women, Holy Men.

I always used to enjoy my English speaking training incumbent's efforts on the Feast of Saint Euddogwy. [Big Grin]
you-thog-ooey ?
Pretty good, ken!

'eye-thog-ooey' would be nearer, though 'dd' is not quite the same as 'th'.
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
I don't understand why people are getting all pearlclutchy about this (other than the fact it's fun to get pearlclutchy regarding liturgy as long as you don't let it get in the way of, you know, worshipping God and junk), because if I understand correctly GC liturgical motions are of the nature where we just throw everything at the wall and then come back in three years to see what's stuck.

Only time I've sat in church worrying about microbes is when I've recently been host to some and I'm trying to decide if it's safe to share the common cup.

(And I'm the same age as the 1979BCP and I *like* Prayer C, so THERE.)

[ 02. May 2012, 19:06: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Haven't we all sat in church worrying about the poor microbes? Won't someone think of the viruses?

Intincters think about microbes. They come forward to welcome Jesus into their body but refuse to welcome the microbes. Microbes are creatures of God. Jesus never turned anybody away. Churches have hand sanitizers because people worry about microbes. Don't sanitizers do violence to the microbes? How hypocritical of us to pray for the poor microbes and then do such unwelcoming and exclusivist things like intinct and use hand sanitizers. Real Christians practice radical hospitality towards the other (microbes) and always use the common cup. It's what Jesus would do.
 
Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Archaea are a kind of prokaryote. Why tdo they get mentioned twice? Anyway, its beetles that God is notoriously inordinately fond of, not methanococci.

Because anything that is happiest in a jacuzzi full of boiling acid is not only far too cool to get away with only one mention, but also perfectly qualified for the ordinariate?

AG
(annual post in Eccles)
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of the TEC, so I may well be missing a point, but why on earth is the General Convention (I take it to be the highest authority in the church) spending time looking at purely optional liturgical material?

Can't it just be put out for experiment and then seen if it is popular?

Or are the GC only being asked to rubber stamp it's occasional use?

In which case, its no big issue. (It sounds a bit twee to my mind, but I'm always wary of prayers for animals.)

Forgive me if I've missed the point.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
The Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music is recommending General Convention approve this stuff. Personally, I think The Episcopal Church has too many commissions and committees that waste too much money on stuff like this. Don't even get me started on Holy Women, Holy Men. Parishes send money to the Diocese. Diocese send money to the National Church. This is what get back. I'm all in favor of the plan to keep more money in the diocese.
 
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :
 
Perhaps it is better that the committee works on things like this, that relatively few people will use, rather than the Prayer Book itself.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
True

I should count my blessings.
 
Posted by Wilfried (# 12277) on :
 
The Feast of St. Francis procession at St. John the Divine included a jar of green pond scum, so why shouldn't they get a prayer too?
 
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :
 
May God bless our intestinal fauna, that it assists in the digestion of food and drink. And may God deliver us from that which causes flatulence*.


* it sounds like so much hot air.

Are there no prayers for multicellular organisms? Beetles and ants in particular. We could also pray for the non-extinction of whales and primates*.


* of the animal and ecclesiastical varieties.
 
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
no_prophet, you have inspired a Heaven thread. [Overused]
 
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingbird:
"This too will pass." General Convention sometimes acts as if it is in the grip of people a few years older than I am, superannuated hippies whose enthusiasm sometimes outruns their sense. But their day must come to an end eventually.

For a minute there I thought "this too will pass" was your prediction for these proposals at Convention!

I really, really hope the Message does not get the OK. If your congregation isn't understanding the Scriptures as they're proclaimed, add the passage from the Message into your homily...or better yet, offer some Sunday School or Wednesday night classes. EDUCATE the people!

And something tells me most people in the pews aren't going to be interested in praying for viruses. But the idea of a litany for creation is a good one. Why not just authorize or modify Teilhard de Chardin's Mass on the World? (I've seen it done at CDSP, the Episcopal seminary in Berkeley.)
 
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
In addition to a Dead Horse, General Convention will consider among other things a Litany for the Planet and a recommendation for authorizing the Message. How are these two related? The Message is a paraphrase not an actual translation. Supposedly, The Message is easier to understand than the good ol NRSV. Fine. However, the Litany for the Planet contains this line:

quote:
On eukaryotes and prokaryotes, archaea and viruses; on microbes of endless variety, the complex and the simple, Creator have mercy.
How many people who have problems understanding the NRSV know a eukaryote from a prokaryote from a 1957 Chevrolet Bel Air? Frederick Schmidt believes this is part of the Dumbing Down of the Church. Dumbing down might not be the best way to describe it. Could the people doing this stuff be doing it to annoy me? Can't be. What do you think?
Isn't Eucharistic Prayer C fruitcake-y enough?

/I'm not sure I want the Lord to have mercy on viruses.
 
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
Isn't Eucharistic Prayer C fruitcake-y enough?

Spiffy likes it (see upthread). I like it. It's particularly nice at our Sandy Mass (lakefront) in the summer. I wouldn't like a steady diet of it, and because we have options, it suits me fine.
 
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
Isn't Eucharistic Prayer C fruitcake-y enough?

Spiffy likes it (see upthread). I like it. It's particularly nice at our Sandy Mass (lakefront) in the summer. I wouldn't like a steady diet of it, and because we have options, it suits me fine.
I actually don't mind it, in small doses. When I was a kid we would trot it out fairly frequently at Wednesday Eucharist in school, and little schoolboy me thought it was neat that Jesus had been to outer space. I see what it was trying to do. It was trying to reconcile centuries of new scientific knowledge with the Gospel message. I can appreciate that.

It's still fruitcake-y. However nostalgic it might be, a few bites are enough. Maybe fruitcake is the wrong metaphor. It's like Cadbury Creme Eggs. Especially since my current parish used Prayer C for every Sunday in Lent.

That said, praying for mercy on bacteria and viruses? Come on, it's like we're (or the liturgy commission is) trying to show off how smart and worldly we are that we (some of us) remember 10th grade biology. It smells like marketing more than theology.
 
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :
 
I've avoided this thread because I couldn't pronounce the OP. I thought it had to do with Orthodox vestments for something.

I've heard the Message in an Episcopal Church back in the 90s. Very few people could understand it. It is already archaic as 80s Val Speak and has some very dodgy interpretations that are more evo than mainline. It is also just about impossible for anyone but a trained actor to read and sound anything other than stilted and phoney. I can't believe the powers that be would even consider authorising it. The 70s, Good News--No, what was it? Oh, yes, The Living Bible was far better if you're into that sort of think, but I suppose it would be dated as well be now. Why not wait 25 years and update the NRSV instead? Just put back the "beholds" and "lovingkindnessess" and it should be find. I dislike the Edgar G. Robinson-sounding "see" instead of the majestic "behold" but thats just me.

That proposed litany sounds just plain silly. Surely they can't be serious. It sounds like something David Virtue's people would make up as a parody to take cheap fun at TEC, like that thing a few years ago that made the rounds of a plant being consecrated bishop.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Good liturgy can't really be contemporary. Think about it. Let's say Joe decides to write a contemporary liturgy. First of all, Joe needs to be a good poet. Not everybody who thinks they can write really have the talent to write a liturgy meaningful to anybody but themselves. Say Joe is a great poet and writes a decent contemporary liturgy. Now the liturgy has to go through the process of being accepted. Local churches try it out. Joe's liturgy gets used at some conferences and maybe summer camp. Unfortunately, by the time the liturgy becomes mainstream and is authorized by General Convention, the contemporary liturgy won't be contemporary anymore. It will sound dated at best and at worse just plain silly.

Good liturgy should be timeless not contemporary.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Intincters think about microbes...

Not enough, they don't-- at least self-intincters. The practice is to be discouraged partly for reasons of sanitation.

quote:

Real Christians practice radical hospitality towards the other (microbes) and always use the common cup. It's what Jesus would do.

I suppose using hand sanitizers while praying for microbes can be justified in the same sense as my grandfather was a beekeeper, but that didn't mean that he wanted bees to get into the house.

Praying "Creator, have mercy" on a microbe raises the theological question of why a microbe needs the Creator's mercy. In another thread, Ken mentioned (without necessarily endorsing) the apparently common view that the Fall affected all of creation, not just the human race, and that it did so retroactively. This thought doesn't strike me as very profound at all, but merely glib and dismissive. It allows us to say, with no danger of falsification, that whatever we like in the world is due to God's goodness, and everything we don't like is due to the Fall. In turn, the world as we experience it becomes "all about us" in a way that I doubt the authors of this litany intended.

But this issue is unfamiliar territory for me, and I will be happy to sit at the feet of anyone better qualified to comment.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wilfried:
The Feast of St. Francis procession at St. John the Divine included a jar of green pond scum, so why shouldn't they get a prayer too?

Oh, so that's why the aquariums looked so ill-maintained the last time I noticed them. They needed to grow the processional scum. Shoulda guessed.
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
quote:

Praying "Creator, have mercy" on a microbe raises the theological question of why a microbe needs the Creator's mercy.

To play Devil's advocate, one could argue that by mentioning creatures in the Prayers of the People, it would raise awareness among the congregation that the creatures involved are affected by what we do. Thus, it could lead to reflection on how current actions by humans may or may not harm or bless the creatures.

Thus changed action on the part of humans could be the inevitable answering of the prayer.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Yeah, like using hand sanitizer before receiving communion.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
Here is the antidote to the fear of bugs at the Holy Mysteries. Repeated application banishes the idiot fixation on hand sanitizer at communion.

Receive the Body of Christ! Taste the fountain of immortality! Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia.

Here are nice three tunes. My fav is the third one, the Moscow Chant arranged by M. Fortounatto. Implant this in your head, sing it over and over, with or without the Alleluias.
 
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
We could also pray for the non-extinction of whales and primates*.


* of the animal and ecclesiastical varieties.

[TANGENT]I reproduced some excellent correspondence on the subject of primates (both kinds) in a recent(ish) blog entry; see my sig for a link. I claim no credit apart from typing. [/TANGENT]
 
Posted by Wilfried (# 12277) on :
 
To tangent on a tangent, I was once charged with entertaining the ten year old daughter of a bishop visiting from South Africa, and I took her to the Museum of Natural History. We passed the Hall of Primates, and she asked me, "What's a primate?" I answered, "They're animals closely related to humans, like monkeys, apes... and archbishops." She laughed. I thought she was much too young to get that joke. And they could use a prayer.

[ 12. May 2012, 05:10: Message edited by: Wilfried ]
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0