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

RE: [liturgy-l] Psalm Prayers

Expand Messages
  • Pastor Art Hebbeler
    Tom: Forgive me if I sound snarky, but the ELW goes out of its way to avoid Trinitarian language and, heaven forbid, the use of masculine titles and pronouns.
    Message 1 of 71 , May 10, 2010
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Tom:



      Forgive me if I sound snarky, but the ELW goes out of its way to avoid Trinitarian language and, heaven forbid, the use of masculine titles and pronouns.



      Art Hebbeler



      From: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com [mailto:liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tom Poelker
      Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 9:43 AM
      To: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [liturgy-l] Psalm Prayers





      What was behind this suppression of the Gloria Patri and what variety of
      arguments have been used in support of that intention?
      *

      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. --/

      *

      On 5/10/2010 8:18 AM, Frank Senn wrote:
      >
      > When I was a grad student at Notre Dame Bill Storey had us researching
      > and translating psalm prayers from old forms of the office, e.g.
      > Mozarabic. The idea was to use the collects to bring out the
      > christological interpretation of the psalms. I supplied several psalm
      > prayers for the LBW Ministers Edition which were used. Many of the
      > psalm prayers in LBW were based on the Roman Liturgy of the Hours. I
      > have followed the LBW use of the psalms in the office: psalm, silent
      > reflection, collect. However, I'm sorry that LBW didn't provide the
      > option of terminating psalms with the Gloria Patri, especially since
      > the people don't usually have the ministers edition for their own use.
      > Maybe that planted the idea in ELW of eliminating the Gloria Patri
      > also from the canticles as part of a not-so-veiled project of
      > suppressing glory to the Father.
      >
      > Frank C. Senn
      >
      > --- On Mon, 5/10/10, Father Rob <fatherroblyons@... <mailto:fatherroblyons%40gmail.com>
      > <mailto:fatherroblyons%40gmail.com>> wrote:
      >
      > From: Father Rob <fatherroblyons@... <mailto:fatherroblyons%40gmail.com>
      > <mailto:fatherroblyons%40gmail.com>>
      > Subject: [liturgy-l] Psalm Prayers
      > To: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com <mailto:liturgy-l%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:liturgy-l%40yahoogroups.com>
      > Date: Monday, May 10, 2010, 6:45 AM
      >
      >
      >
      > I have noticed, aside from the Psalm Prayers of the Roman LOTH, that
      > the Liturgical Lutheran Prayer Brotherhood provides full Psalm Prayers
      > for all 150 Psalms (including the subsections of Psalm 119). I also
      > believe that the Minister's Edition of the Lutheran Book of Worship
      > does so, and - as I recall - the Canadian Anglican BAS does too.
      >
      > I have also noted the practice of An Australian Prayer Book of
      > providing a brief 'seed' if you will, for prayer.
      >
      > On the flipside, the Rule of the Master seems to contemplate silent
      > prayer between psalms based on the individual discernment of the monks
      > praying in common. In other words, interior prayer (while prostrating)
      > based on what the Psalm means to one's self.
      >
      > Do other list members follow any of the above-referenced practices? If
      > so, what do you feel has worked best and why? What would you recommend
      > to someone compiling a devotional book for his congregation?
      >
      > Rob+
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >

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





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Tom Poelker
      ... Good points. ... I suggest that this is more about the poor proclamation of the word than biblical illiteracy. James O Regan has frequently and eloquently
      Message 71 of 71 , May 12, 2010
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        >
        > --- In liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com <mailto:liturgy-l%40yahoogroups.com>,
        > Douglas Cowling <cowling.douglas@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > I'd rather see families gathering around the Word under the leadership
        > of the head of their household and share a portion of Scripture daily
        > in the context of family prayer. This isn't a fantasy, it is the
        > absolute responsibility of a Christian householder. Faith begins in
        > the home, and Christian families MUST be formed around the Word of
        > God. The fact that we have come to assume that the parish Church alone
        > is responsible for relgious formation is one of the reasons that
        > people are walking away from the Church and/or rejecting the basics of
        > the Christian faith.
        >
        Good points.
        >
        > I am more concerned about the pastoral reality that our people, in
        > spite of the three year lectionary, are far more biblically illiterate
        > than they were in 1968. I don't know about your experience, but in
        > mine, half the folks don't remember what all the readings were about,
        > which makes it doubly depressing when one considers the continual
        > doubting of core Christian doctrines - doctrines which were very well
        > laid out in the historic lectionary of the Western Church.
        >

        I suggest that this is more about the poor proclamation of the word than
        biblical illiteracy.
        James O'Regan has frequently and eloquently made the point that what
        people hear depends a great deal on how it is said.
        I still hear far too many lectors who are just reading, perhaps reading
        as well a a good junior high school student, but just reading, not
        proclaiming or doing an interpretative reading, using monotones and
        little change of emphasis or use of pauses.

        Then there is the preaching that is not homiletic, just hanging the
        preacher's chosen topic on a convenient phrase hook in the readings.
        This sort of thing does not encourage close attention to the readings no
        provide mental links to hang on to them.

        Tom Poelker


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