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

Re: [liturgy-l] Another shoe drops

Expand Messages
  • Gregory Holmes Singleton
    JMT wrote:
    Message 1 of 157 , Jan 8, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      JMT wrote:

      << The very fact that it exists in both places says to me that there is
      a very healthy acknowledgement of who we are and who God is for us in
      Christ--and that we don't take it for granted at all.>>

      I'm on board with not taking it for granted, but I would suggest that
      the "it" that exists in both places is generically a response, but the
      content of the western and eastern responses are substantively
      different. The "Dominus non sum dignus. . ." draws attention to the
      "ego" (yes, double entendre there) and seems to fraction the assembly
      into a group of individual responders. The eastern response to "Holy
      Things are for the Holy" seems to me more of a communal response that
      suggests that we are bold to take this sacrament only because we are
      now, by the grace of God and the operation of the Spirit, the Body of
      Christ. Again, this is a phenomenological statement, not an axiomatic
      claim.

      Peace,

      Greg


      --
      Gregory Holmes Singleton, Ph.D., CSF
      Community of St. Francis, Chicago
      www.csfcecc.org
      St. Francis Virtual House of Studies
      www.csfcecc.org/sfvhouse/sfvwelcome.html
      Ecumenical Catholic Communion
      www.ecumenical-catholic-communion.org
      Professor of History, Emeritus
      Northeastern Illinois University
      www.neiu.edu/~ghsingle/
      RESIDENT OLD CURMUDGEON
      In All Venues
      www.neiu.edu/~ghsingle/draco.html

      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
      Charles Darwin, DESCENT OF MAN
    • Tom Poelker
      In my experience, a great many people do confuse show and liturgy. Tom has accepted James preaching that liturgy is indeed performance, and thinks he is
      Message 157 of 157 , Jan 18, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        In my experience, a great many people do confuse show and liturgy.
        Tom has accepted James' preaching that liturgy is indeed performance,
        and thinks he is better for that understanding.

        The word "show" was deliberately chosen for my statement because of two
        of its connotations.
        A show is something done for other people to experience, through sight
        and sound usually. A liturgy is is not an experience created by a few
        for the appreciation of an audience. Liturgy is a group action of all
        present. It is not show and tell.

        A show is common name for any entertainment. Liturgy is prayer,
        something entirely different from entertainment.

        Also, please accept the cited statement in the context of this earlier
        statement in this same thread.
        " I had not previously heard the Kierkegaard citation.
        I am amazed that he had his own version of what I have long taught and
        have mentioned previously on this list.
        "In liturgy, the assembly is the star of the show. The various
        liturgical ministers are supporting actors. They should not do anything
        to upstage the star."
        I might add that neither should the set or ushers."

        This is the way liturgy relates to show for me, by analogy.

        In addition, there is this material on a parallel thread.
        "I am back to wondering, as I have on other threads, how much less
        difficult good liturgy would be and how much less MCing would [need to]
        be done [during the service] if
        clergy put even a large fraction of the time and thought and
        memorization into the liturgy, which should be central to their
        ministries, as professional actors do [rehearsing] for even the best
        known scripts.

        It seems to me that much of what I do as an MC, especially during the
        service, would be totally unnecessary if liturgical ministers were well
        trained, then well rehearsed. It is almost as if the only professional
        in the liturgy is the MC, as if the stage manager were the only
        professional ever used in a theater, except for those who install
        equipment."

        In conclusion, I would say that
        Liturgy is always a performance.
        Liturgy is often, but not always drama.
        Liturgy is not entertainment.
        Liturgy is not a show.

        I might even be willing to say that liturgy is theater, but I would
        prefer to avoid saying that because it seems to make theater a higher
        category than liturgy.

        Liturgy has a big element of high culture but the culture ought to be
        subordinate to the liturgy.

        For these reasons, please do not equate liturgy with shows.

        In respectful disagreement,
        *

        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. --/

        *


        James O'Regan wrote:
        >
        >
        > The statement below requires a great deal more explanation to be taken
        > as useful. Shows and liturgy are precisely the same, even identical,
        > on 99.9 (not quite) per cent of the logistics involved in the doing of
        > either.
        >
        > No one gets confused between a play and a liturgy. To make the claim
        > below, one mist unpack what is a show and what is a liturgy. What is
        > the actual difference?
        >
        > Ergo, it is simply not useful to make such a claim as that below. If
        > any liturgical minister were able to take advantage of the vast
        > powerhouse of theatrical approaches to event, liturgy as common prayer
        > would be much richer, more full and capable of building up community.
        >
        > Once again - no one gets confused between liturgy and theatre. Yet,
        > the same logistics of speech apply to both. Liturgical theologians
        > have for almost ever simply presumed that speech works in liturgy.
        > This is not always the case, and most often not the case. When it is
        > not the case, the storehouse of theatrical approaches to speech comes
        > in handy. No theatre lasts without speech that is heard. Lots of
        > liturgies last despite speech that is not heard. The difference is
        > box-office versus will to overcome, on the part of congregations, the
        > collossal ineptitude of those tasked with liturgical speech.
        >
        > So, please, please do confuse show and theatre. Guardini himself uses
        > Schauen (show) not Sehen (see) when he speaks of what it takes to
        > enter the life of liturgy.
        >
        > All the best,
        >
        > James O'Regan
        > oregan@... <mailto:oregan%40jamesoregan.com>
        >
        > On 2010-01-17, at 8:51 PM, Tom Poelker wrote:
        >
        > > Please, please, do not confuse liturgy with a stage presentation.
        > > It requires performance skills from the ministers, yes, but it is not a
        > > show.
        >
        >


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