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

Re: [liturgy-l] Re: Whose part?

Expand Messages
  • Lewis Whitaker
    Wow, Bread and wine were offered, elements were distributed. He certainly didn t talk of transubstantiation. Lew ... [Non-text portions of this message have
    Message 1 of 133 , Jun 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Wow,

      Bread and wine were offered, elements were distributed.

      He certainly didn't talk of transubstantiation.

      Lew


      On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 8:33 PM, <skreed1@...> wrote:

      > Wow, Lew did not read carefully.
      >
      > He did not say bread and wine were distributed.
      >
      >
      >
      > SWR
      > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Lewis Whitaker <lhwhitaker@...>
      >
      > Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 19:54:59
      > To: <liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com>
      > Subject: Re: [liturgy-l] Re: Whose part?
      >
      >
      > Wow.... Justin Martyr distributed bread and wine.
      >
      > Lew
      >
      >
      >
      > On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Frank Senn <fcsenn@...> wrote:
      >
      > > - Justin Martyr, First Apology, 67:87. "And on the day called Sunday
      > there
      > > is a meeting in one place of those who live in the cities or the country,
      > > and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read
      > as
      > > long as time permits. When the reader has finished, the president in a
      > > discourse urges and invites us to the imitation of these noble things."
      > The
      > > passage goes on to speak of the prayers, the offerings of bread and a cup
      > of
      > > wine mixed with water, the president's thanksgiving with the
      > congregation's
      > > "Amen", the distribution and reception of the elements, and the extended
      > > distribution to the absent by the deacons---and the common chest from
      > which
      > > the president takes care of the orphans and widows. Rome ca. 150 A.D.
      > Four
      > > liturgical roles: reader, president, people, deacon. "President" is
      > > probably used here because the Roman senators, to whom the Apology is
      > > addressed, would have known about supper clubs. In case the
      > > question is asked: there's no clue as to whether the president is a
      > bishop
      > > or presbyter.
      > >
      > > Frank C. Senn
      > >
      > > --- On Mon, 6/1/09, Paul Goings <paul_goings@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > From: Paul Goings <paul_goings@...>
      > > Subject: [liturgy-l] Re: Whose part?
      > > To: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com
      > > Date: Monday, June 1, 2009, 3:14 PM
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Again, I'm bereft of references, but does anyone recall offhand how
      > > early the evidence is for having readings of some sort during the
      > > eucharistic celebration? And if there is any indication who was doing the
      > > reading?
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > I do recall reading that the chants between the readings are the earliest
      > > know examples of specialist singing during the liturgy, if the readings
      > > themselves aren't counted.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > I confess to not having done my research about the Gloria, but hopefully
      > > that will fall into place organically as this discussion proceeds.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Paul Goings
      > >
      > > Philadelphia, PA
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In liturgy-l@yahoogrou ps.com, Tom Poelker <TomPoelker@ ...> wrote:
      > >
      > > > SUBJECT WAS: How about bells? or not?
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > > An excellent proposal.
      > >
      > > > I suggest that, in origin, only two "speaking parts" existed in the
      > >
      > > > Mass: that of the assembly and that of their leader/presider. One
      > could
      > >
      > > > add that someone from the assembly read aloud the Scripture for the day
      > >
      > > > and the same or another person lead the saying/singing of appropriate
      > >
      > > > Psalms in unison.
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > > I am under the impression that this would have been the pattern
      > >
      > > > throughout the house church period.
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > > I am not conscious of the first dates for monastic communal liturgies.
      > >
      > > > I am not conscious of the first dates for purpose built churches and
      > the
      > >
      > > > elaborations in liturgy to which they might have lent themselves,
      > except
      > >
      > > > I recall someone on this list saying that purpose built churches
      > >
      > > > preceded Constantine.
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > > I suspect that elaboration of ministries and addition of music
      > ministers
      > >
      > > > followed adoption of the basilican format and of the public role of
      > >
      > > > church ministers in the Empire.
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > > All of the above is open to correction by more knowledgeable members of
      > >
      > > > the list.
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > > My first query is to wonder at what point was something added to be
      > sung
      > >
      > > > by a specialist, such as a gradual.
      > >
      > > > *
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > > Tom Poelker
      > >
      > > > St. Louis. Missouri
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > > Paul Goings wrote:
      > >
      > > > > Was the Gloria really a prayer of the assembly in its origins, in the
      > >
      > > > > same way that the responses to the dialogues were? I don't recall
      > this
      > >
      > > > > as being the case, but I also don't have Jungmann or anything like
      > >
      > > > > that to hand, so will have to check later. But as a general
      > statement,
      > >
      > > > > I tend to think that your assertions about which parts of the
      > >
      > > > > eucharistic liturgy properly belong to the assembly are not always so
      > >
      > > > > well supported as you make them out to be. What historical period is
      > >
      > > > > to be taken as normative for the purpose of making such distinctions?
      > >
      > > > > Perhaps we could start there, and then analyze the various elements
      > of
      > >
      > > > > the liturgy, looking at them in terms of their origins, and taking
      > >
      > > > > into account the current liturgical legislation of various Christian
      > >
      > > > > bodies? Even having done that, though, I'm not sure we could agree on
      > >
      > > > > hard-and-fast rules that are applicable to all situations.
      > >
      > > > >
      > >
      > > > > Paul Goings
      > >
      > > > > Philadelphia, PA
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > ------------------------------------
      > >
      > > Visit the liturgy-l homepage at
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/To write to the moderators, please
      > email:
      > > liturgy-l-owner@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Visit the liturgy-l homepage at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/To write to the moderators, please email:
      > liturgy-l-owner@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Thomas R Jackson
      Lumen Gentium, section 32, a discussion of diversity of roles in the church, and the common equality present in that diversity. thomas From:
      Message 133 of 133 , Jun 2, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Lumen Gentium, section 32, a discussion of diversity of roles in the
        church, and the common equality present in that diversity.



        thomas



        From: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com [mailto:liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
        Of Tom Poelker
        Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 6:09 PM
        To: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [liturgy-l] Re: How about bells? or not?








        I do not recognize this phrase.
        Can you cite a document and paragraph?
        I'll have to see if I can come up with something specific to answer your
        first part.
        *

        Tom Poelker
        St. Louis. Missouri
        USA

        /-- Do all the easy nice things you can.
        It?s nice to see people smile,
        and it?s good practice. --/

        *

        ignatios2000 wrote:
        >
        >
        >
        > Can you give the citation which you base this claim of conflict with
        > the Council, and can you reconcile the Council's use of the phrase
        > "dispensers of mysteries on behalf of others" with your criticism?
        >
        > thomas
        >
        > From: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com <mailto:liturgy-l%40yahoogroups.com>
        <mailto:liturgy-l%40yahoogroups.com>
        > [mailto:liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com <mailto:liturgy-l%40yahoogroups.com>
        > <mailto:liturgy-l%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Tom Poelker
        > Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 11:01 PM
        > To: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com <mailto:liturgy-l%40yahoogroups.com>
        <mailto:liturgy-l%40yahoogroups.com>
        > Subject: Re: [liturgy-l] How about bells? or not?
        >
        > John,
        > thank you for this very informative and well thought out posting.
        > regarding this portion:
        > "But we do in fact have a theology of the One Priest offering for the
        > people, and the bishop (and by delegation, the presbyter) is the one
        > ordained specifically for the ministry of
        > offering ('anapherein', whence 'anaphora') at the front of, on behalf
        > of, and in the name of the Church"
        >
        > It is the phrase "on behalf of" which seems to me to be in conflict with
        > the teachings of Vatican II. The presider, in my understanding, leads
        > the community which, as a community, is offering/celebrating the
        > Eucharist. "On behalf of" seems to make all others witnesses to a
        > clerical action rather than participants in the action under the
        > leadership of the ordained whom you so well described.
        >
        >

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.