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

Re: [liturgy-l] Compare Masses

Expand Messages
  • Frank Senn
    David, Those of us who study liturgy don t care what a denominational bureaucracy declares.  Here are actually texts used (or to be used) in actual liturgical
    Message 1 of 7 , Mar 1, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      David,

      Those of us who study liturgy don't care what a denominational bureaucracy declares.  Here are actually texts used (or to be used) in actual liturgical assemblies.  It is meet, right, and our bounden duty to study them.  Comparative study is a good clarifying methodology.  See Baumstark and Taft on comparative liturgics.

      Frank C. Senn 

      --- On Mon, 2/28/11, dlewisaao@... <dlewisaao@...> wrote:

      From: dlewisaao@... <dlewisaao@...>
      Subject: Re: [liturgy-l] Compare Masses
      To: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Monday, February 28, 2011, 8:10 PM







       









      But has not Rome already spoken on this matter?



      David Lewis





      In a message dated 2/28/2011 8:47:44 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,

      TomPoelker@... writes:



      Editorial assistant Chris Ángel has

      prepared the following table, where

      the 1967 commentary is presented

      alongside the full text of the Canon

      in both the 1967 translation and the

      upcoming translation (as provided on

      the USCCB Web site

      <http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/samples-priest-prayer1.shtml>).

      We share it with you to show

      the specific

      reasons for decisions made in the

      1960s, and also to allow you to

      see the 2010 translation against this

      background.



      Translating the Roman Canon: 1967 and

      2010 (part I)

      <http://www.praytellblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Comparison-1967-and-

      2010-I.pdf>



      The second part of this three-part

      series will appear here on Wednesday.



      -----------------------------------

      I have not yet looked at this site,

      but this seems to me to be a fruitful

      and academically reasonable approach.

      If it is set up as described, it will

      offer the opportunity for one to draw

      one's own conclusions in a compare and

      contrast format.



      It could, of course, be improved if

      the Vox Clara committee were to

      publish its reasons for its different

      decisions.



      --

      *



      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. --/



      *



      [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]
    • Lewis H. Whitaker
      Why are Episcopalians deferring to Rome, anyway? Lew
      Message 2 of 7 , Mar 1, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Why are Episcopalians deferring to Rome, anyway?

        Lew


        > --- On Mon, 2/28/11, dlewisaao@... <dlewisaao@...> wrote:
        >
        > From: dlewisaao@... <dlewisaao@...>
        > Subject: Re: [liturgy-l] Compare Masses
        > To: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com
        > Date: Monday, February 28, 2011, 8:10 PM
        >
        > But has not Rome already spoken on this matter?
        >
        >
        >
        > David Lewis
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > In a message dated 2/28/2011 8:47:44 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
        >
        > TomPoelker@... writes:
        >
        >
        >
        > Editorial assistant Chris Ángel has
        >
        > prepared the following table, where
        >
        > the 1967 commentary is presented
        >
        > alongside the full text of the Canon
        >
        > in both the 1967 translation and the
        >
        > upcoming translation (as provided on
        >
        > the USCCB Web site
        >
        > <http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/samples-priest-prayer1.shtml>).
        >
        > We share it with you to show
        >
        > the specific
        >
        > reasons for decisions made in the
        >
        > 1960s, and also to allow you to
        >
        > see the 2010 translation against this
        >
        > background.
        >
        >
        >
        > Translating the Roman Canon: 1967 and
        >
        > 2010 (part I)
        >
        > <http://www.praytellblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Comparison-1967-and-
        >
        > 2010-I.pdf>
        >
        >
        >
        > The second part of this three-part
        >
        > series will appear here on Wednesday.
        >
        >
        >
        > -----------------------------------
        >
        > I have not yet looked at this site,
        >
        > but this seems to me to be a fruitful
        >
        > and academically reasonable approach.
        >
        > If it is set up as described, it will
        >
        > offer the opportunity for one to draw
        >
        > one's own conclusions in a compare and
        >
        > contrast format.
        >
        >
        >
        > It could, of course, be improved if
        >
        > the Vox Clara committee were to
        >
        > publish its reasons for its different
        >
        > decisions.
        >
        >
        >
        > --
        >
        > *
        >
        >
        >
        > 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. --/
        >
        >
        >
        > *
        >
        >
        >
        > [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
        >
        >
        >
      • Douglas Cowling
        On 3/1/11 7:49 AM, Frank Senn wrote: Those of us who study liturgy don t care what a denominational bureaucracy declares.  Aren t the
        Message 3 of 7 , Mar 1, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          On 3/1/11 7:49 AM, "Frank Senn" <fcsenn@...> wrote:

          Those of us who study liturgy don't care what a denominational bureaucracy
          declares. 


          Aren't the historic decisions of ecclesiastical bureaucracies an important
          part of the study of liturgy?

          I'm reminded of the recent interview with Cardinal Arinze who bristled
          visibly when asked about liturgical dance. He responded by saying that dance
          was only permissible in African cultures where communal dancing is a part of
          the culture. In the West it is not a part of the culture and is forbidden.
          And the question is settled so there should be no more discussion.

          There was no consideration of the anthropology of dance, the theology of
          inculturation, or the unbroken history of dance in the Orthodox liturgy. The
          issue was presented solely as an unfortunate "concession" which had to be
          made by the central authority.

          That says a lot about the ecclesiology and the way in which liturgical
          development proceeds. The recent reclericalization of the liturgy by the
          promotion of eucharistic adoration (no lay people needed!) says more about
          the scramble to reestablish clerical identity in the face of the abuse
          scandal.

          Nor are other churches exempt from this kind of analysis.

          Doug Cowling
          Director of Music
          St. Philip's Church, Etobicoke
          Toronto
        • Frank Senn
          I was responding to (what seemed to me) a suggestion that the changes have been made, why continue to make comparisons between the old and the new. Of course,
          Message 4 of 7 , Mar 1, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            I was responding to (what seemed to me) a suggestion that the changes have been made, why continue to make comparisons between the old and the new.

            Of course, pronouncements by popes, bishops, councils, synods are also relevant for liturgical study.  You just have to know how to read them for assessing actual practice.  For example, Cardinal Arinze's categorical statement that liturgical dance is forbidden outside of Africa leads you to suspect that it's being done; otherwise there would be no need for the question or the answer.  Furthermore, just because a pope, bishop, council, or synod says something is forbidden doesn't mean people stop doing it.  Official pronouncements about liturgy are more slippery than actual texts, but even with actual texts you have to wonder if they've been used as presented.  This is the line of cautious liturgical study pursued by Paul Bradshaw and his disciples. 

            Frank C. Senn

            --- On Tue, 3/1/11, Douglas Cowling <cowling.douglas@...> wrote:

            From: Douglas Cowling <cowling.douglas@...>
            Subject: Re: [liturgy-l] Compare Masses
            To: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2011, 9:14 AM







             









            On 3/1/11 7:49 AM, "Frank Senn" <fcsenn@...> wrote:



            Those of us who study liturgy don't care what a denominational bureaucracy

            declares. 



            Aren't the historic decisions of ecclesiastical bureaucracies an important

            part of the study of liturgy?



            I'm reminded of the recent interview with Cardinal Arinze who bristled

            visibly when asked about liturgical dance. He responded by saying that dance

            was only permissible in African cultures where communal dancing is a part of

            the culture. In the West it is not a part of the culture and is forbidden.

            And the question is settled so there should be no more discussion.



            There was no consideration of the anthropology of dance, the theology of

            inculturation, or the unbroken history of dance in the Orthodox liturgy. The

            issue was presented solely as an unfortunate "concession" which had to be

            made by the central authority.



            That says a lot about the ecclesiology and the way in which liturgical

            development proceeds. The recent reclericalization of the liturgy by the

            promotion of eucharistic adoration (no lay people needed!) says more about

            the scramble to reestablish clerical identity in the face of the abuse

            scandal.



            Nor are other churches exempt from this kind of analysis.



            Doug Cowling

            Director of Music

            St. Philip's Church, Etobicoke

            Toronto






















            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • cantor03@aol.com
            In a message dated 3/1/2011 09:29:34 Eastern Standard Time, lhwhitaker@gmail.com writes: Why are Episcopalians deferring to Rome, anyway? What is that old
            Message 5 of 7 , Mar 1, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 3/1/2011 09:29:34 Eastern Standard Time,
              lhwhitaker@... writes:

              Why are Episcopalians deferring to Rome, anyway?>>>>
              What is that old adage? When Rome sneezes Episcopalians
              get pneumonia.



              David Strang.







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