Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

epiclesis [wasRe: [liturgy-l] Re: With One Voice (ELCA)]

Expand Messages
  • James O'Regan
    ... It may also be that English speakers, especially American English, are not cognizant or fond of the subjunctive. One of the earliest epicleses is in the
    Message 1 of 22 , Jun 17, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Scott wrote and I snipped:

      > I think the objection to "weak" epicleses is that we're
      > getting overly poetic or metaphorical or something and not
      > as clearly saying, "Lord, make this bread and wine become
      > for us the Body and Blood of Christ, through the power of
      > your Holy Spirit, Amen, Amen, Amen!" or something strong
      > like that.

      It may also be that English speakers, especially American English, are not
      cognizant or fond of the subjunctive. One of the earliest epicleses is in the
      Apostolic Tradition (Hippolytus - sic) and it is subjunctive (mittas). The
      "make this" above sounds like a demand rather than a petition.

      That one would use the subjunctive linguistically reminds the speaker and
      hearer of the innate creature status that forms our make-up as humans. An
      epiclesis should always reflect that basic creation theology.



      .James O'Regan
    • Bob White
      ... In our older Lutheran liturgies the end of the dialogue ran: Let us give thanks to the Lord our God. R: It is meet and right so to do. and then the
      Message 2 of 22 , Jun 17, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        On 17 Jun 2004 at 10:58, Father Robert Lyons, SST wrote:

        > One of my other beefs with WOV was the change in the last line of the
        > Dialouge to the Preface, "It is right to give *our* thanks and
        > praise." While I have no problem with the meaning of the line, it seems
        > just a very thinly vieled attempt to dispense with calling God "him" in
        > common speech.

        In our older Lutheran liturgies the end of the dialogue ran:

        Let us give thanks to the Lord our God.
        R: It is meet and right so to do.

        and then the prefaces began: It is indeed meet, right, and salutary .
        . .

        The reflecting the Latin usage of both the Tridentine Rite and the
        Novus Ordo.

        The LBW and BCP in the late 1970's used the phrase "It is right to
        give HIM thanks and praise" (I'd be interested to know from someone
        like Frank Senn what the logic was of translating "Dignum et iustum
        est" as It is right to give him thanks and praise. Even my meager
        Latin sees the difference.)

        In Lutheran gatherings of clergy one often hears a cacophany of "him,
        our, God" at the point of determining either the source or recipient
        of praise.

        Bob

        + + + + + + + + + + +
        God creates out of nothing, wonderful, you say:
        yes, to be sure, but he does what is still more wonderful:
        he makes saints out of sinners. ----S°ren Kierkegaard

        Pastor Robert White
        Christ the Redeemer Lutheran Church (ELCA)
        863 Silliman Ave.
        Erie, PA USA 16511-2060
        814-899-3264
        email: rwhite@...
        church: christredeemer@...
      • Ormonde Plater
        ... Other languages (than English) avoid this awkward translation of Dignum et justum est. In French, for example, it s Cela est juste et bon. If we were
        Message 3 of 22 , Jun 17, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          > One of my other beefs with WOV was the change in the last line of the
          > Dialouge to the Preface, "It is right to give *our* thanks and
          > praise." While I have no problem with the meaning of the line, it seems
          > just a very thinly vieled attempt to dispense with calling God "him" in
          > common speech.

          Other languages (than English) avoid this awkward translation of "Dignum et
          justum est." In French, for example, it's "Cela est juste et bon." If we
          were to shorten the response to "It is right and good [or worthy]," that
          would still allow a musical phrase reflecting the traditional chant.

          Ormonde Plater
          oplater@...
        • Eparchy of Nebraska
          The Roman Canon contains already an epiclesis, right before the words of institution in the Hanc igitur and following. It is therefore nonsensical to add a
          Message 4 of 22 , Jun 17, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            The Roman Canon contains already an epiclesis, right before the words
            of institution in the "Hanc igitur" and following. It is therefore
            nonsensical to add a Byzantine Epiclesis into a Western Canon
            especially not when there is already one there! Furthermore, there is
            no Orthodox teaching that the Epiclesis has to be after the words of
            institution; it is only an Eastern tradition or usage to do so. Thus,
            before the split in 1054, the West had the Roman Canon basically as
            it is today, and it was perfectly Orthodox, just a different
            tradition. Furthermore, an epiclesis is not a magic ritual using only
            Byzantine wording. It is the intention of the church, celebrating the
            death and resurrection of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, to call down
            the Holy Spirit (epiclesis) and to change the elements.

            The Liturgy of St. Gregory is with some minor modifications not
            different from the socalled "Tridentine Mass"; such as the deletion
            of the "filioque", and instead of "through the merits of the saints":
            it has been corrected to "through the prayers of the Saints", etc.

            [Source: http://www.geocities.com/helsa.geo/Imprimatur2.html%5d
          • Frank Senn
            You re used to the order in the LBW in which the Apostolic Greeting follows the Entrance Hymn. However, for much longer than the LBW has been around the
            Message 5 of 22 , Jun 17, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              You're used to the order in the LBW in which the Apostolic Greeting follows the Entrance Hymn. However, for much longer than the LBW has been around the greeting (which used to be known as the :salutation") followed the prayers at the foot of the altar (confession of sins), Introit & Gloria Patri, Kyrie, and Gloria in excelsis. It was a medieval praise medley before we got to the greeting and readings.

              As for the epiclesis, Lutherans might do much better with this if we placed it before the Words of Institution rather than following the Verba. But for some reason we seem locked into the West Syrian anaphora structure.

              FCSenn



              scottknitter@... wrote:
              I found a lot of the Renewing Worship materials well done
              and thought-provoking (I like the scripture response "Holy
              Wisdom, Holy Word: Thanks be to God.") - but there are some
              problems, too: the greeting is buried way deep into the
              entrance rite, and there's a weakness in the epicleses, as
              is often the case in recent rites. These problems were
              brought up in a discussion I attended with one of the
              Renewing Worship Holy Communion committee members at
              Valparaiso U.

              ___________________________
              Scott Knitter, Chicago USA
              scottknitter@...


              Visit the liturgy-l homepage at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/To write to the owners/moderators, please send an email to:
              liturgy-l-owner@yahoogroups.comTo write to the owners/moderators, please send an email to:
              liturgy-l-owner@yahoogroups.com
              Yahoo! Groups Links







              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Frank Senn
              I think the Renewing Worship material has It is right to give God thanks and praise. But why did we even get into this problem? The Latin is simply Dignum
              Message 6 of 22 , Jun 17, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                I think the Renewing Worship material has "It is right to give God thanks and praise." But why did we even get into this problem? The Latin is simply "Dignum et justum est." Literally "It is worthy and fitting." Cranmer put it: "It is meet and right so to do." No pronouns were needed.

                FCSenn

                "Father Robert Lyons, SST" <frrob@...> wrote:

                One of my other beefs with WOV was the change in the last line of the
                Dialouge to the Preface, "It is right to give *our* thanks and praise."
                While I have no problem with the meaning of the line, it seems just a very
                thinly vieled attempt to dispense with calling God "him" in common speech.

                Does anyone else share these concerns?

                Rob+

                --
                Father Robert Lyons, SST
                "Purity in doctrine, compassion in application."
                frrob@...
                http://www.stellarcross.org





                Visit the liturgy-l homepage at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/To write to the owners/moderators, please send an email to:
                liturgy-l-owner@yahoogroups.comTo write to the owners/moderators, please send an email to:
                liturgy-l-owner@yahoogroups.com
                Yahoo! Groups Links







                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Frank Senn
                Bob White wrote: ... In our older Lutheran liturgies the end of the dialogue ran: Let us give thanks to the Lord our God. R: It is meet and
                Message 7 of 22 , Jun 17, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Bob White <rwhite@...> wrote:
                  On 17 Jun 2004 at 10:58, Father Robert Lyons, SST wrote:

                  > One of my other beefs with WOV was the change in the last line of the
                  > Dialouge to the Preface, "It is right to give *our* thanks and
                  > praise." While I have no problem with the meaning of the line, it seems
                  > just a very thinly vieled attempt to dispense with calling God "him" in
                  > common speech.

                  In our older Lutheran liturgies the end of the dialogue ran:

                  Let us give thanks to the Lord our God.
                  R: It is meet and right so to do.

                  and then the prefaces began: It is indeed meet, right, and salutary .
                  .. .

                  The reflecting the Latin usage of both the Tridentine Rite and the
                  Novus Ordo.



                  >Actually, the preface dialogue was around for about a thousand years before Trent.<

                  The LBW and BCP in the late 1970's used the phrase "It is right to
                  give HIM thanks and praise" (I'd be interested to know from someone
                  like Frank Senn what the logic was of translating "Dignum et iustum
                  est" as It is right to give him thanks and praise. Even my meager
                  Latin sees the difference.)



                  >Well, this was the ICEL translation so the RCs should 'fess up. My guess is that it was part of the desire for divine intimacy of the times, which is why so many collects were addressed to "Father" when the Latin clearly said "God" ("Deus")/<

                  In Lutheran gatherings of clergy one often hears a cacophany of "him,
                  our, God" at the point of determining either the source or recipient
                  of praise.




                  >And this is even with books in their hands!<

                  Frank C. Senn
                  + + + + + + + + + + +
                  God creates out of nothing, wonderful, you say:
                  yes, to be sure, but he does what is still more wonderful:
                  he makes saints out of sinners. ----S�ren Kierkegaard

                  Pastor Robert White
                  Christ the Redeemer Lutheran Church (ELCA)
                  863 Silliman Ave.
                  Erie, PA USA 16511-2060
                  814-899-3264
                  email: rwhite@...
                  church: christredeemer@...



                  Visit the liturgy-l homepage at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/To write to the owners/moderators, please send an email to:
                  liturgy-l-owner@yahoogroups.comTo write to the owners/moderators, please send an email to:
                  liturgy-l-owner@yahoogroups.com
                  Yahoo! Groups Links









                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Douglas Cowling
                  ... I think the middle position taken by moderate liturgists would favour avoiding masculine pronouns without reference to awkward circumlocutions. This one is
                  Message 8 of 22 , Jun 17, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    on 6/17/04 7:06 PM, Frank Senn at fcsenn@... wrote:

                    > One of my other beefs with WOV was the change in the last line of the
                    > Dialouge to the Preface, "It is right to give *our* thanks and praise."
                    > While I have no problem with the meaning of the line, it seems just a very
                    > thinly vieled attempt to dispense with calling God "him" in common speech.
                    >
                    > Does anyone else share these concerns?
                    >
                    > Rob+

                    I think the middle position taken by moderate liturgists would favour
                    avoiding masculine pronouns without reference to awkward circumlocutions.
                    This one is ok with me. I heartily dislike replacing "he" every time with
                    "God" -- I see it all the time and it is so clearly done with a REPLACE
                    function. Becomes so awkward and repetitive.


                    Doug Cowling
                    ____________________________________________________________
                    Director of Music & Liturgical Arts
                    Church of the Messiah
                    Toronto
                  • Douglas Cowling
                    ... Careful! Bush is looking for an excuse to attack Syria! Late-breaking news ... President Bush announced Operation Epiclesis today as Lutheran troops
                    Message 9 of 22 , Jun 17, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      on 6/17/04 6:59 PM, Frank Senn at fcsenn@... wrote:

                      > As for the epiclesis, Lutherans might do much better with this if we placed it
                      > before the Words of Institution rather than following the Verba. But for some
                      > reason we seem locked into the West Syrian anaphora structure.
                      >
                      > FCSenn
                      >

                      Careful! Bush is looking for an excuse to attack Syria!

                      Late-breaking news ...

                      "President Bush announced 'Operation Epiclesis' today as Lutheran troops
                      were parachuted into West Syria. "No one is going to tell an American
                      citizen how to pray. The Verba stops here!"



                      Doug Cowling
                      ____________________________________________________________
                      Director of Music & Liturgical Arts
                      Church of the Messiah
                      Toronto
                    • dlewisaao@aol.com
                      In a message dated 6/17/2004 10:02:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, dcowling@sympatico.ca writes: ... I think the middle position taken by moderate liturgists
                      Message 10 of 22 , Jun 17, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        In a message dated 6/17/2004 10:02:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                        dcowling@... writes:

                        on 6/17/04 7:06 PM, Frank Senn at fcsenn@... wrote:

                        > One of my other beefs with WOV was the change in the last line of the
                        > Dialouge to the Preface, "It is right to give *our* thanks and praise."
                        > While I have no problem with the meaning of the line, it seems just a very
                        > thinly vieled attempt to dispense with calling God "him" in common speech.
                        >
                        > Does anyone else share these concerns?
                        >
                        > Rob+

                        I think the middle position taken by moderate liturgists would favour
                        avoiding masculine pronouns without reference to awkward circumlocutions.
                        This one is ok with me. I heartily dislike replacing "he" every time with
                        "God" -- I see it all the time and it is so clearly done with a REPLACE
                        function. Becomes so awkward and repetitive.




                        Then there is the Rite I 1979 BCP (and 1928 BCP) language that avoids this
                        entire problem:

                        "It is meet and right so to do."

                        David Lewis



                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Simon Kershaw
                        ... Because we have all adopted the wording devised by RC liturgists in the 1960s -- ICEL, as revised by ICET and ELLC to some extent. The same ICEL whose
                        Message 11 of 22 , Jun 18, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Frank Senn wrote:

                          > I think the Renewing Worship material has "It is right to give God
                          > thanks and praise." But why did we even get into this problem? The Latin

                          Because we have all adopted the wording devised by RC liturgists in the
                          1960s -- ICEL, as revised by ICET and ELLC to some extent. The same ICEL
                          whose translations have more recently come under criticism from the
                          Vatican. As I have said on a number of occasions before <yawn>, it is a
                          great pity that they did not pay more heed to the tradition of English
                          translation of the liturgy, even if their reasons for doing so were
                          perhaps understandable. If they had then we might have avoided 'The Lord
                          be with you / and also with you' as well as 'It is right to give him
                          thanks and praise'. Oh well, we can't undo the past.

                          > is simply "Dignum et justum est." Literally "It is worthy and fitting."
                          > Cranmer put it: "It is meet and right so to do." No pronouns were needed.

                          simon

                          --
                          Simon Kershaw
                          simon@...
                          St Ives, Cambridgeshire
                        • Brian Bennett
                          ... thanks and praise. But why did we even get into this problem? The Latin is simply Dignum et justum est. Literally It is worthy and fitting.
                          Message 12 of 22 , Jun 21, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com, Frank Senn <fcsenn@s...> wrote:
                            > I think the Renewing Worship material has "It is right to give God
                            thanks and praise." But why did we even get into this problem? The
                            Latin is simply "Dignum et justum est." Literally "It is worthy and
                            fitting." Cranmer put it: "It is meet and right so to do." No
                            pronouns were needed.
                            >
                            > FCSenn

                            Sadly, Renewing Worship has it "It is right to give our thanks and
                            praise."

                            Peace,
                            Brian
                          • john19@unidial.com
                            ... Since Renewing Worship is an ongoing project which solicits response, it is important that these sorts of criticisms be passed along. As often and as
                            Message 13 of 22 , Jun 21, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              >
                              >Sadly, Renewing Worship has it "It is right to give our thanks and
                              >praise."
                              >
                              >Peace,
                              >Brian
                              >
                              Since Renewing Worship is an ongoing project which solicits
                              response, it is important that these sorts of criticisms be passed along.
                              As often and as frequently as possible.

                              John Dornheim
                            • Bill
                              Dear Scott, I agree with you that eicleses should be clear and to the point. Thanks for your comments. Peace, Bill billypiza@yahoo.com
                              Message 14 of 22 , Jun 21, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Dear Scott,

                                I agree with you that eicleses should be clear and to the point.

                                Thanks for your comments.

                                Peace,

                                Bill

                                billypiza@...

                                --- In liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com, scottknitter@r... wrote:
                                > I think the objection to "weak" epicleses is that we're
                                > getting overly poetic or metaphorical or something and not
                                > as clearly saying, "Lord, make this bread and wine become
                                > for us the Body and Blood of Christ, through the power of
                                > your Holy Spirit, Amen, Amen, Amen!" or something strong
                                > like that. Instead, such a statement is spread around, or
                                > only inferred, or it takes a reading of the whole prayer to
                                > get that meaning out of it (which may not be a bad thing).
                                > Or it's not said at all...such as in the new Lutheran rites
                                > that continue to allow for the use of the Words of
                                > Institution (Verba) alone. I'm not one who's horrified by a
                                > missing or weak epiclesis, but I understand the objections
                                > thereto.
                                >
                                >
                                > ---- Original message ----
                                > >Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 14:38:24 -0000
                                > >From: "Bill" <billypiza@y...>
                                > >Subject: [liturgy-l] Re: With One Voice (ELCA)
                                > >To: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com
                                > >
                                > >Dear Scott,
                                > >
                                > >I would be interesting to read what you have to say
                                > >about "weaknesses" in the epicleses of recent rites. I have
                                > opinions
                                > >on some of them that I have seen of late, and wonder what
                                > your
                                > >thoughts are.
                                > >
                                > >Peace,
                                > >
                                > >Bill
                                > >
                                > >billypiza@y...
                                > >
                                > >--- In liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com, scottknitter@r... wrote:
                                > >> I found a lot of the Renewing Worship materials well done
                                > >> and thought-provoking (I like the scripture
                                > response "Holy
                                > >> Wisdom, Holy Word: Thanks be to God.") - but there are
                                > some
                                > >> problems, too: the greeting is buried way deep into the
                                > >> entrance rite, and there's a weakness in the epicleses,
                                > as
                                > >> is often the case in recent rites. These problems were
                                > >> brought up in a discussion I attended with one of the
                                > >> Renewing Worship Holy Communion committee members at
                                > >> Valparaiso U.
                                > >>
                                > >> ___________________________
                                > >> Scott Knitter, Chicago USA
                                > >> scottknitter@r...
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >Visit the liturgy-l homepage at
                                > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/To write to the
                                > owners/moderators, please send an email to:
                                > >liturgy-l-owner@y... write to the
                                > owners/moderators, please send an email to:
                                > >liturgy-l-owner@yahoogroups.com
                                > >Yahoo! Groups Links
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                >
                                > ___________________________
                                > Scott Knitter, Chicago USA
                                > scottknitter@r...
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.