yrieithydd (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
yrieithydd) wrote2006-01-18 09:03 pm
yrieithydd) wrote2006-01-18 09:03 pm
Entry tags:
Modern Liturgy
Yesterday, I read the following exchange on a a thread about bringing back the prayer book Angloid wrote:
to which Callan responded:
and followed the link![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
curig had posted to the Churches together in Britain and Ireland material for the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity and in the evening attended the the Goth Eucharist. As I lay awake trying to sleep these things prompted some thoughts about liturgy and propaganda and why I dislike much modern liturgical stuff.
There is a sense in which liturgy is propaganda; liturgy forms what we believe, lex orandi, lex credendi, and so the aim of liturgists is to set out right doctrine in the liturgy. However, I still felt that Callan's response was unfair and that there was a sense in which the BCP 1662 Communion service was far more propagandist than his other examples.* With the BCP, you have a big change of structure from the tradition and it is that which makes it more like propaganda. It is not a gradual development to that structure and a process of refining but it is a deliberate break with what had gone before and an attempt to inculcate a particular set of Reformation beliefs.
This led me on to reflecting why it was that I dislike many modern services (such as the CTBI material) but found that I did not have a bad reaction to the Goth Eucharist. It comes go to the obviousness of the agenda. So much of the modern stuff has a fluffy modern agenda and it is obvious. I felt that the Goth Eucharist avoided that, well an obvious agenda -- I doubt it would be fluffy! -- although it was aimed at a particular sub-culture. It drew on previous liturgies and on the concerns of the sub-culture and did not feel too forced.
*Oh, and I'm not sure why CW is described as pelagian!
1662 (Communion, I'm not discussing M or EP) is not 'traditional liturgy' but a bit of reformation propaganda masquerading as liturgy.
to which Callan responded:
Presumably the Tridentine Mass is Counter-Reformation propaganda masquerading as liturgy, the liturgy of St John Chysostom is Byzantine propaganda masquerading as liturgy and Common Worship is middle class English pelagian propaganda masquerading as liturgy?
and followed the link
curig had posted to the Churches together in Britain and Ireland material for the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity and in the evening attended the the Goth Eucharist. As I lay awake trying to sleep these things prompted some thoughts about liturgy and propaganda and why I dislike much modern liturgical stuff.There is a sense in which liturgy is propaganda; liturgy forms what we believe, lex orandi, lex credendi, and so the aim of liturgists is to set out right doctrine in the liturgy. However, I still felt that Callan's response was unfair and that there was a sense in which the BCP 1662 Communion service was far more propagandist than his other examples.* With the BCP, you have a big change of structure from the tradition and it is that which makes it more like propaganda. It is not a gradual development to that structure and a process of refining but it is a deliberate break with what had gone before and an attempt to inculcate a particular set of Reformation beliefs.
This led me on to reflecting why it was that I dislike many modern services (such as the CTBI material) but found that I did not have a bad reaction to the Goth Eucharist. It comes go to the obviousness of the agenda. So much of the modern stuff has a fluffy modern agenda and it is obvious. I felt that the Goth Eucharist avoided that, well an obvious agenda -- I doubt it would be fluffy! -- although it was aimed at a particular sub-culture. It drew on previous liturgies and on the concerns of the sub-culture and did not feel too forced.
*Oh, and I'm not sure why CW is described as pelagian!
no subject
I think the biggest change with the BCP (obviously) is the vernacular. 1549 is much closer to being a translation of what went before than either 1662 or 1552.
As to big breaks with what went before, what are we to make of the Liturgical Movement? Liturgies of the Vatican 2 shape* were actually quite a break from what went before for all the churches I think (off the top of my head - Tridentine for RCs, BCP for Anglicans and BCPish or freeform for Methodists, depending how Wesleyan they were). Does that make modern liturgy propaganda? And if so, what for?
I agree with you that a lot of liturgy that is written at the moment is fluffy nonsense (that CTBI service being a prime example).
*for want of a better term
no subject
Propaganda for a church that has no form or substance but is vaguely inclusive and has no idea of what it stands for, because it is so divided.
What do you mean V2-shape? (I'm unsure of the differences here)
no subject
By V2 shape, I mean the modern shape of Communion liturgies - i.e. something like:
Invocation/Greeting
Opening prayer (e.g. Collect for Purity in post-reformation traditions)
Confession
Kyrie
Gloria
Collect
OT
Psalm
Epistle
Gospel
Sermon
Creed
Intercessions
Offertory
Eucharistic Prayer (inc Sanctus and Benedictus)
Lord's Prayer
Agnus Dei
Communion
Post-communion
Blessing/dismissal
Basically speaking, all of the orders in MW are what I would call Vatican II shape. I think it regrettable that there seems to be no consistent approach in MWB to the ordering between the sermon and the offertory and to the position of the Lord's prayer.
no subject
What's the alternative shape (besides BCP?)
fluffy nonsense = Deist heresy?
no subject
The major alternative shape, as discussed a bit below, is the Tridentine Mass.
I don't think fluffy nonsense is Deism, because Deism (AIUI) says quite specifically that God doesn't interact with the world, and is therefore, IMO, a denial of the Incarnation. Actually now I look in my dictionary of the Christian Church, I find the following definition:
In that light it could be said that fluffy nonsense, in view of its dislike of definite statements about the faith of the Church, denied revelation and so fell into the second class of the early Deists. I will certainly say that I think there is a tendency in parts of the Church today to forget that God is a God of revelation. It's another of those tricky balances of which Christianity is full. On the one hand we have the eternal mystery of God who is unknowable and on the other hand we have the perfect revelation of God through the Incarnation of OLJC. We have to be careful that we don't put God in a box and think that we can tie down all the details about him, but equally, we have to be careful that we don't deny that God is actually a God of revelation, that the HS has been given to us to lead us into all truth etc.
no subject
It was a "peculiarly English Heresy" - written by a US bishop - I remember. And that Deism was a belief in a formless supreme being, that was generally supposed to be benevolent, denying the incarnation in some sense, but allowing for God to interact somewhere.
Tridentine seems more responsory.
The comment about the LP was that it appears in numerous places, and commentaries I've seen on it, suggesting that Cranmer didn't know where to put it, so put it in all the places it was being said in different traditions. (I was in a BCP parish in Ncl, thus read numerous 50s commentaries on it).
no subject
no subject
hmmmm
Reminds me of Orthodox liturgies.
Just finalised the hymns for Sunday: (For future reference, can you think of anything that is vaguely nice about science, besides the dire 'think of a world' - which I'm having)
For the Beauty of the Earth
Confession/Adoration
Think of a world (verses 1-5)
Readings
Love Divine, all loves excelling (Hyfrydol)
Sermon
Teach me my God and King
Intercessions (think of a world verses 6-8)
Closing prayers/peace (Leao wanted something Taize-ish, I tried to nix it)
246 - there's a light upon the mountains
The point is to do a "nicely traditional" Hymn Sandwich - really just to prove that I can plan/execute one - so that it means I have a variety of services.
Long discussion about Eucharist and vocation, and trying to explain why I feel I'm called to be a Deacon. Leao's comments included "well, if you still want to go forward then the Methodist Church would be fools not to accept you".
Which was just what I needed to hear.
no subject
Hyfrydol? Blaenwern!
no subject
no subject
Numerous? I thought that it was in two. Indeed, I've just checked (as there are prayer books in the Fac library!) and it appears twice. Once said by the priest alone at the start (immediately before the collect for purity) and once with the congregation repeating each line after the priest after the distribution. My understanding of the reason for this is not that Cranmer was confused but that the first comes, like the Collect for purity (which follows it), from the priest's prepartion which is moved from the sacristy to the Church, and the second is the `one for the service' as it were. This tallies with the way in which they are supposed to be said.
no subject
The thing about fluffy nonsense is that many (incompatible) things can be described as fluffy nonsense! So maybe Deism can be summarised as "fluffy nonsense", but that does not mean all "fluffy nonsense" is deist. I'm not sure I'd describe Deism as "fluffy" though.
no subject
I think the biggest change with the BCP (obviously) is the vernacular. 1549 is much closer to being a translation of what went before than either 1662 or 1552.
I contemplated making a comment along these lines. Yes, 1549 was basically Mass in the vernacular but then the reformers went further ... .
no subject
As regards the (1662) BCP, I would say that the adjustments to the Eucharistic Prayer and distribution were rather more significant than the moving of the Gloria. In particular the fact that the prayer O Lord and heavenly Father... accept this sacrifice.. occurs after the distribution not during the Eucharistic Prayer.
[It has been pointed out that the Gloria is doubtless an exposition hymn to the Blessed Sacrament, which remains on the Altar at that point due to TAWPing being enjoined by the rubrics of the BCP. :)]
no subject
? Is a 'last gospel' what you get at the end of midnight mass - i.e. a second one at the very end of the service - or is it something different?
(I'm assuming that since Posbury always use one [namely "In the beginning..."] there that it's kosher, but had always assumed it was simply a part of the Christmas liturgy, associated with the hallowing of the crib... Have I got it all wrong?)
I'm getting a bit lost. Was the Tridentine Mass ever used frequently (weekly, for example), or are we talking about a Mass setting which was only ever celebrated (or at least only intended to be celebrated) a couple of times a year?
Sorry to be so ignorant. I've a feeling that one of you once posted a helpful link to an online dictionary of liturgical stuff a while back but can't find it any more...
no subject
The Tridentine Mass was the only Roman rite from the Council of Trent (hence Tridentine) to Vatican II, basically. It would have been used several times a day in large (RC) churches, and probably at least once a day in every (RC) church.
no subject