RE: [liturgy-l] Re: Redemptionis Sacramentum.
- Pastor Art wrote
>My intent was not to judge. Rather, I am curious as to what motivatesI am not sure what motivates it myself, and it does strike me as a bit
>edicts and laws such as these, especially with so many other things
>happening in the church catholic that we could be spending time
>discussing--like what real church unity looks like, why we can't agree on
>Eucharistic fellowship among Roman, Orthodox, Lutheran, and
>Anglican/Episcopal communities (at least as a starting point), and things
odd. Perhaps that is only because I haven't explored the issue thoroughly
though. I suspect it is motivated by a concerrn about right worship and
reverence in the particular context of the Roman Rite. However, internal
liturgical practices are still important, even when so much else is going
on. If we carry the point to its logical conclusion, why does this list
exist when we could all be out doing things "more important". The CDWDS is
a liturgical body, not an ecumenical one, so it probably didn't have
ecumenical affairs in mind.
I bet you spend time in your parish deciding about "petty" liturgical
matters. But aren't they important? To you? To your community? To your
sense of what liturgy "should" be? To what you see as your obligation to
pass on the faith?
I am reminded of an old joke: A man says "my wife and I have an
agreement. I get to make decisions about all the big things: Politics,
international affairs, the state of the economy. She gets to decide about
all the little things: what we eat, where we live, what we buy." Liturgy
is a "little thing", but it is where we live, how we experience Church, how
we worship. That alone makes it a very big thing indeed, which is why, I
suspect, most of us are here.
>To make a very rough analogy, ISTM that something like declaring a flagonTrue, but then neither are intended to, are they? Not that I am
>"bad" when we can't agree who can share in the Eucharist is akin to the
>NHLPA and NHL owners agreeing that wearing snowshoes is prohibited when they
>can't agree on whether or not to have a salary cap. Neither action furthers
>the efforts to overcome the greater dividing issue.
defending the flagon ruling per se, but we don't usually make this sort of
complaint about things which we like do we?
>Of course, without things like this, it would be a very boring summer onIndeed!
>this list, too... :-)
- You are quite correct. Those who helped prepare the 1979 BCP wanted a
single chalice and loaf to make the statement that we are one body.
Shalom B'Yeshua HaMoshiach
Michael Joe Thannisch
The beginning of wisdom is fear of the Lord.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ormonde Plater" <oplater@...>
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 6:18 AM
Subject: Re: [liturgy-l] Re: Redemptionis Sacramentum.
> > My impression is that the quasi-requirement in the Episcopal Church that
> > only one chalice may be on the altar during the consecration is also
> > motivated by "a concern about reverence for the Sacrament" -- that at
> > Last Supper there was only one chalice.
> The governing rubric states: "During the Great Thanksgiving, it is
> appropriate that there be only one chalice on the Altar, and, if need be,
> flagon of wine from which additional chalices may be filled after the
> Breaking of the Bread."
> Rather than a replication of the Last Supper, I think it has to do with
> symbolism of unity--one cup, one loaf. This theme is picked up in some of
> our fraction anthems: e.g., "One body are we, alleluia, for though many we
> share one bread." Of course, one sometimes sees one cup (and one or more
> flagons, depending on the size of the congregation) but multiple wafers.
> Liturgical renewal still has a ways to go.
> Ormonde Plater
> Christos anesti!
> Visit the liturgy-l homepage at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/To
write to the owners/moderators, please send an email to:
> email@example.comTo write to the owners/moderators, please
send an email to:
> Yahoo! Groups Links