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

Re: [liturgy-l] NLM: Extraordinary Form Requiem Mass at Westminster Abbey

Expand Messages
  • Douglas Cowling
    ... Actually, the body is inside the stone tomb. The wooden feretory was added by Mary Tudor after the Edwardine despoliation and remarkably surivived the
    Message 1 of 29 , Jul 24, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      On 7/24/13 3:07 PM, "Simon Kershaw" <simon@...> wrote:

      >Actually, the body of the saint and king is atop the shrine-tomb, in the
      >wooden feretory.

      Actually, the body is inside the stone tomb. The wooden feretory was added
      by Mary Tudor after the Edwardine despoliation and remarkably surivived
      the Purtian desecrations of the Commonwealth.

      I love the minutiae of summer liturgy discussions. Time to use all that
      trivia we have but can never use.

      Did you know that there was no room for Richard's III wife, Queen Anne
      Neville, in the shrine chapel, so they buried her in front of the sedilia.
      Kind of rude to be stepping on a queen all the time.

      Doug Cowling
      Director of Music
      St. Philip's Church, Etobicoke
      Toronto
    • Simon Kershaw
      I think neither of us is precisely right. Before the dissolution of the Abbey and the spoliation of the shrine, the saint was buried in an ornate golden
      Message 2 of 29 , Jul 25, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        I think neither of us is precisely right.

        Before the dissolution of the Abbey and the spoliation of the shrine,
        the saint was buried in an ornate golden feretory atop the shrine
        stonework. When the shrine was taken down, the saint's remains were
        placed in a specially hollowed out dip in the top of the stonework. The
        plain wooden top was added when the monastery was restored under Mary I,
        to replace the golden canopy that had previously been there and which
        had contained the body of King Edward.

        I had made the assumption that the body was replaced within the woodwork
        during the monastic restoration, but that doesn't appear to be so. Nor,
        however, is the body 'inside' the stonework -- at least, it is not deep
        within it, which one might infer from 'inside'; rather it is at the very
        top.

        And I haven't gone and rechecked this, but surely the destruction of the
        shrine was a Henrician rather than Edwardine?

        Not only did the shrine survive the presbyterian Commonwealth, it also
        survived being destroyed in the 18th century, when plans to open up the
        entire length of the Abbey church as a single space from west door to
        the apse in which King Edward's shrine stands -- sweeping away pulpitum
        and reredos and shrine and moving the choir stalls east of the crossing
        -- were passed by a vote of the collegiate Chapter, and only vetoed at a
        subsequent meeting. What probably helped overturn the decision was the
        need to provide space for the Coronation before the High Altar and
        enthronement in the crossing.

        simon
        thinking that he very probably won't be around to see the coronation of
        King George in 50 or so years' time


        On 24/07/2013 20.27, Douglas Cowling wrote:
        > On 7/24/13 3:07 PM, "Simon Kershaw"<simon@...> wrote:
        >
        >> >Actually, the body of the saint and king is atop the shrine-tomb, in the
        >> >wooden feretory.
        > Actually, the body is inside the stone tomb. The wooden feretory was added
        > by Mary Tudor after the Edwardine despoliation and remarkably surivived
        > the Purtian desecrations of the Commonwealth.
        >



        --
        Simon Kershaw
        simon@...
        Saint Ives, Cambridgeshire
      • Lewis Whitaker
        I think you re still not right.... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1504535/Radar-pinpoints-tomb-of-King-Edward-the-Confessor.html
        Message 3 of 29 , Jul 25, 2013
        • 0 Attachment


          On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Simon Kershaw <simon@...> wrote:
          I think neither of us is precisely right.

          Before the dissolution of the Abbey and the spoliation of the shrine,
          the saint was buried in an ornate golden feretory atop the shrine
          stonework. When the shrine was taken down, the saint's remains were
          placed in a specially hollowed out dip in the top of the stonework. The
          plain wooden top was added when the monastery was restored under Mary I,
          to replace the golden canopy that had previously been there and which
          had contained the body of King Edward.

          I had made the assumption that the body was replaced within the woodwork
          during the monastic restoration, but that doesn't appear to be so. Nor,
          however, is the body 'inside' the stonework -- at least, it is not deep
          within it, which one might infer from 'inside'; rather it is at the very
          top.

          And I haven't gone and rechecked this, but surely the destruction of the
          shrine was a Henrician rather than Edwardine?

          Not only did the shrine survive the presbyterian Commonwealth, it also
          survived being destroyed in the 18th century, when plans to open up the
          entire length of the Abbey church as a single space from west door to
          the apse in which King Edward's shrine stands -- sweeping away pulpitum
          and reredos and shrine and moving the choir stalls east of the crossing
          -- were passed by a vote of the collegiate Chapter, and only vetoed at a
          subsequent meeting. What probably helped overturn the decision was the
          need to provide space for the Coronation before the High Altar and
          enthronement in the crossing.

          simon
          thinking that he very probably won't be around to see the coronation of
          King George in 50 or so years' time


          On 24/07/2013 20.27, Douglas Cowling wrote:
          > On 7/24/13 3:07 PM, "Simon Kershaw"<simon@...>  wrote:
          >
          >> >Actually, the body of the saint and king is atop the shrine-tomb, in the
          >> >wooden feretory.
          > Actually, the body is inside the stone tomb. The wooden feretory was added
          > by Mary Tudor after the Edwardine despoliation and remarkably surivived
          > the Purtian desecrations of the Commonwealth.
          >



          --
          Simon Kershaw
          simon@...
          Saint Ives, Cambridgeshire


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

          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

          <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/

          <*> Your email settings:
              Individual Email | Traditional

          <*> To change settings online go to:
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/join
              (Yahoo! ID required)

          <*> To change settings via email:
              liturgy-l-digest@yahoogroups.com
              liturgy-l-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

          <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              liturgy-l-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

          <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
              http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


        • Lewis Whitaker
          Ooops. Mea culpa. The archaeologists have located the original tomb 10 feet behind the present altar, under the shrine built by Henry III in 1269, which still
          Message 4 of 29 , Jul 25, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Ooops. Mea culpa.

            The archaeologists have located the original tomb 10 feet behind the present altar, under the shrine built by Henry III in 1269, which still contains the remains of the saint.


            On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Lewis Whitaker <lhwhitaker@...> wrote:


            On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Simon Kershaw <simon@...> wrote:
            I think neither of us is precisely right.

            Before the dissolution of the Abbey and the spoliation of the shrine,
            the saint was buried in an ornate golden feretory atop the shrine
            stonework. When the shrine was taken down, the saint's remains were
            placed in a specially hollowed out dip in the top of the stonework. The
            plain wooden top was added when the monastery was restored under Mary I,
            to replace the golden canopy that had previously been there and which
            had contained the body of King Edward.

            I had made the assumption that the body was replaced within the woodwork
            during the monastic restoration, but that doesn't appear to be so. Nor,
            however, is the body 'inside' the stonework -- at least, it is not deep
            within it, which one might infer from 'inside'; rather it is at the very
            top.

            And I haven't gone and rechecked this, but surely the destruction of the
            shrine was a Henrician rather than Edwardine?

            Not only did the shrine survive the presbyterian Commonwealth, it also
            survived being destroyed in the 18th century, when plans to open up the
            entire length of the Abbey church as a single space from west door to
            the apse in which King Edward's shrine stands -- sweeping away pulpitum
            and reredos and shrine and moving the choir stalls east of the crossing
            -- were passed by a vote of the collegiate Chapter, and only vetoed at a
            subsequent meeting. What probably helped overturn the decision was the
            need to provide space for the Coronation before the High Altar and
            enthronement in the crossing.

            simon
            thinking that he very probably won't be around to see the coronation of
            King George in 50 or so years' time


            On 24/07/2013 20.27, Douglas Cowling wrote:
            > On 7/24/13 3:07 PM, "Simon Kershaw"<simon@...>  wrote:
            >
            >> >Actually, the body of the saint and king is atop the shrine-tomb, in the
            >> >wooden feretory.
            > Actually, the body is inside the stone tomb. The wooden feretory was added
            > by Mary Tudor after the Edwardine despoliation and remarkably surivived
            > the Purtian desecrations of the Commonwealth.
            >



            --
            Simon Kershaw
            simon@...
            Saint Ives, Cambridgeshire


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

            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

            <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/

            <*> Your email settings:
                Individual Email | Traditional

            <*> To change settings online go to:
                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/join
                (Yahoo! ID required)

            <*> To change settings via email:
                liturgy-l-digest@yahoogroups.com
                liturgy-l-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

            <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                liturgy-l-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

            <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



          • Douglas Cowling
            ... Yes, of course. Interesting history to the saint s relics: http://www.westminster-abbey.org/visit-us/highlights/edward-the-confessor Doug Cowling Director
            Message 5 of 29 , Jul 25, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              On 7/25/13 6:20 PM, "Simon Kershaw" <simon@...> wrote:

              >And I haven't gone and rechecked this, but surely the destruction of the
              >shrine was a Henrician rather than Edwardine?

              Yes, of course. Interesting history to the saint's relics:

              http://www.westminster-abbey.org/visit-us/highlights/edward-the-confessor

              Doug Cowling
              Director of Music
              St. Philip's Church, Etobicoke
              Toronto
            • Lewis Whitaker
              .... still no definitive answer on the altar stone, though. Inquiring Minds Want To Know! On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Douglas Cowling
              Message 6 of 29 , Jul 25, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                .... still no definitive answer on the altar stone, though.

                Inquiring Minds Want To Know!




                On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Douglas Cowling <cowling.douglas@...> wrote:
                On 7/25/13 6:20 PM, "Simon Kershaw" <simon@...> wrote:

                >And I haven't gone and rechecked this, but surely the destruction of the
                >shrine was a Henrician rather than Edwardine?

                Yes, of course. Interesting history to the saint's relics:

                http://www.westminster-abbey.org/visit-us/highlights/edward-the-confessor

                Doug Cowling
                Director of Music
                St. Philip's Church, Etobicoke
                Toronto








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

                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

                <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/

                <*> Your email settings:
                    Individual Email | Traditional

                <*> To change settings online go to:
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/join
                    (Yahoo! ID required)

                <*> To change settings via email:
                    liturgy-l-digest@yahoogroups.com
                    liturgy-l-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

                <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    liturgy-l-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


              • wx5116
                The relics are there - that should be close enough. David ... David Lewis Arlington VA USA dlewisaao@aol.com In a message dated 7/25/2013 10:46:00 P.M.
                Message 7 of 29 , Jul 26, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  The relics are there - that should be close enough.
                   
                  David
                   
                  ---------------------------
                  David Lewis
                  Arlington VA USA
                  dlewisaao@...
                   
                  In a message dated 7/25/2013 10:46:00 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, lhwhitaker@... writes:


                  .... still no definitive answer on the altar stone, though.

                  Inquiring Minds Want To Know!




                  On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Douglas Cowling <cowling.douglas@...> wrote:
                  On 7/25/13 6:20 PM, "Simon Kershaw" <simon@...> wrote:

                  >And I haven't gone and rechecked this, but surely the destruction of the
                  >shrine was a Henrician rather than Edwardine?

                  Yes, of course. Interesting history to the saint's relics:

                  http://www.westminster-abbey.org/visit-us/highlights/edward-the-confessor

                  Doug Cowling
                  Director of Music
                  St. Philip's Church, Etobicoke
                  Toronto








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

                  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

                  <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/

                  <*> Your email settings:
                      Individual Email | Traditional

                  <*> To change settings online go to:
                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/join
                      (Yahoo! ID required)

                  <*> To change settings via email:
                      liturgy-l-digest@yahoogroups.com
                      liturgy-l-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

                  <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      liturgy-l-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                  <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


                • Lewis Whitaker
                  That s a very Post-Vatican II answer. Close enough isn t in the rubrics.
                  Message 8 of 29 , Jul 26, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    That's a very Post-Vatican II answer. "Close enough" isn't in the rubrics.


                    On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 9:47 AM, <dlewisaao@...> wrote:


                    The relics are there - that should be close enough.
                     
                    David
                     
                    ---------------------------
                    David Lewis
                    Arlington VA USA
                    dlewisaao@...

                     
                    In a message dated 7/25/2013 10:46:00 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, lhwhitaker@... writes:


                    .... still no definitive answer on the altar stone, though.

                    Inquiring Minds Want To Know!




                    On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Douglas Cowling <cowling.douglas@...> wrote:
                    On 7/25/13 6:20 PM, "Simon Kershaw" <simon@...> wrote:

                    >And I haven't gone and rechecked this, but surely the destruction of the
                    >shrine was a Henrician rather than Edwardine?

                    Yes, of course. Interesting history to the saint's relics:

                    http://www.westminster-abbey.org/visit-us/highlights/edward-the-confessor

                    Doug Cowling
                    Director of Music
                    St. Philip's Church, Etobicoke
                    Toronto








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

                    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

                    <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/

                    <*> Your email settings:
                        Individual Email | Traditional

                    <*> To change settings online go to:
                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/join
                        (Yahoo! ID required)

                    <*> To change settings via email:
                        liturgy-l-digest@yahoogroups.com
                        liturgy-l-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

                    <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        liturgy-l-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                    <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





                  • Douglas Cowling
                    From: Subject: Re: [liturgy-l] Shrine of Edward the Confessor The relics are there - that should be close enough. We need a canonical
                    Message 9 of 29 , Jul 26, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Subject: Re: [liturgy-l] Shrine of Edward the Confessor

                      The relics are there - that should be close enough.

                      We need a canonical decision on this. I would opine that a mass not celebrated on an altar stone would be illicit but not invalid.

                      On another front, Mgr. Marini looked mighty unhappy at the pope's big mass at Aparaceida with that jumbo chalice. Goodness, the music was wretchedly performed.

                      Doug Cowling
                      Director of Music
                      St. Philip's Church, Etobicoke
                      Toronto

                    • Robert White
                      Re: [liturgy-l] Shrine of Edward the Confessor Friday, July 26, 2013, 10:10:55 AM,Douglas Cowling wrote: We need a canonical decision on this. I would opine
                      Message 10 of 29 , Jul 26, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Re: [liturgy-l] Shrine of Edward the Confessor Friday, July 26, 2013, 10:10:55 AM,Douglas Cowling wrote:


                        We need a canonical decision on this. I would opine that a mass not celebrated on an altar stone would be illicit but not invalid.


                        Question 1 (with moderator's hat hovering): Why is this a matter that has occupied the list now for a couple of days? It seems to me that this is the sort of near obsession with minutia that has kept a fair number of members from continuing participation in the list discussions.

                        Question 2: Since I am not aware that any of the altars from which I have celebrate Eucharist in over 26 years of ordained ministry in the Lutheran Church had "altar stones" (there may be in the altar of the Episcopal Church in which I am now serving), does that mean that none of those Eucharists were licit?

                        -- 
                        Best regards,
                         Bob White                        
                        mailto:prrmwhite@...

                        It isn't that they can't see the solution.
                        It is that they can't see the problem.
                        --G.K. Chesterton
                             
                      • Sean W. Reed
                        Answer 1 - because it has been found of interest, and no other topic was presented. Is this a problem, or are only banal general topics preferred? SWR Sent
                        Message 11 of 29 , Jul 26, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Answer 1 - because it has been found of interest, and no other topic was presented.  Is this a problem, or are only banal general topics preferred?


                          SWR

                          Sent from my iPad

                          On Jul 26, 2013, at 9:31 AM, Robert White <whiteslists@...> wrote:

                           

                          Friday, July 26, 2013, 10:10:55 AM,Douglas Cowling wrote:


                          We need a canonical decision on this. I would opine that a mass not celebrated on an altar stone would be illicit but not invalid.


                          Question 1 (with moderator's hat hovering): Why is this a matter that has occupied the list now for a couple of days? It seems to me that this is the sort of near obsession with minutia that has kept a fair number of members from continuing participation in the list discussions.

                          Question 2: Since I am not aware that any of the altars from which I have celebrate Eucharist in over 26 years of ordained ministry in the Lutheran Church had "altar stones" (there may be in the altar of the Episcopal Church in which I am now serving), does that mean that none of those Eucharists were licit?
                        • Sean W. Reed
                          Question 2 deals with the issue of an EF MASS and the rubrics governing that. In a Lutheran Eucharist I suppose you are free to do what ever the Lutheran
                          Message 12 of 29 , Jul 26, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Question 2 deals with the issue of an EF MASS and the rubrics governing that.  In a Lutheran Eucharist I suppose you are free to do what ever the Lutheran books require.



                            Sent from my iPad

                            On Jul 26, 2013, at 9:31 AM, Robert White <whiteslists@...> wrote:

                             

                            Friday, July 26, 2013, 10:10:55 AM,Douglas Cowling wrote:


                            We need a canonical decision on this. I would opine that a mass not celebrated on an altar stone would be illicit but not invalid.


                            Question 1 (with moderator's hat hovering): Why is this a matter that has occupied the list now for a couple of days? It seems to me that this is the sort of near obsession with minutia that has kept a fair number of members from continuing participation in the list discussions.

                            Question 2: Since I am not aware that any of the altars from which I have celebrate Eucharist in over 26 years of ordained ministry in the Lutheran Church had "altar stones" (there may be in the altar of the Episcopal Church in which I am now serving), does that mean that none of those Eucharists were licit?

                            -- 
                            Best regards,
                             Bob White                        
                            mailto:prrmwhite@...

                            It isn't that they can't see the solution.
                            It is that they can't see the problem.
                            --G.K. Chesterton
                                 

                          • Simon Kershaw
                            I m not sure who needs a canonical decision on this! Certainly Westminster Abbey doesn t. It does seem clear that the original intention is that the
                            Message 13 of 29 , Jul 26, 2013
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I'm not sure who needs a 'canonical decision' on this! Certainly
                              Westminster Abbey doesn't.

                              It does seem clear that the original intention is that the Eucharist is
                              celebrated at the tomb of the saint, and that led to the practice
                              (rather ridiculous and demeaning IMO) of having minute fragments of the
                              poor old body of some saint being distruibuted around umpteen altar
                              tables. Hardly a good Christian burial for anyone, and the worst kind of
                              trade in relics. But at Westminster the shrine of Edward the Confessor
                              contains his whole body, decently buried (even though it has been
                              descrated and ransacked on various occasions in the past, both during
                              and after the mediaeval period). It's pretty damn close to the original
                              intent that the Eucharist be celebrated at the tomb of the saint, much
                              closer than any petty canon law regulations.

                              Now, whether in general the Eucharist always needs to be celebrated over
                              the tomb of a saint is another matter. I'm not aware of any recorded
                              instance of our Lord, when sharing a meal with his followers -- whether
                              before, at, or after the Last meal before his crucifixion -- ever
                              engaged in this practice or considered it necessary, or even considered
                              it at all.

                              simon

                              On Fri, Jul 26, 2013, at 03:10 PM, Douglas Cowling wrote:
                              > From: <dlewisaao@...>
                              > Subject: Re: [liturgy-l] Shrine of Edward the Confessor
                              >
                              > The relics are there - that should be close enough.
                              >
                              > We need a canonical decision on this. I would opine that a mass not
                              > celebrated on an altar stone would be illicit but not invalid.
                              >
                              > On another front, Mgr. Marini looked mighty unhappy at the pope's big
                              > mass
                              > at Aparaceida with that jumbo chalice. Goodness, the music was wretchedly
                              > performed.



                              --
                              Simon
                              simon@...
                            • Lewis Whitaker
                              Do you have a better topic to discuss, Bob? Why such hand wringing? Doesn t this list, almost by definition, deal with minutia to the point of near obsession?
                              Message 14 of 29 , Jul 26, 2013
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Do you have a better topic to discuss, Bob?

                                Why such hand wringing? Doesn't this list, almost by definition, deal with minutia to the point of near obsession?

                                Who are the "fair number of members" who are not participating because of this one thread?

                                It could not have been clearer that this issue is ONLY one that touches on those who follow the EF. Lutheran and Episcopal Churches have never required (as you style them) "altar stones."

                                Lew







                                On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Robert White <whiteslists@...> wrote:


                                Friday, July 26, 2013, 10:10:55 AM,Douglas Cowling wrote:


                                We need a canonical decision on this. I would opine that a mass not celebrated on an altar stone would be illicit but not invalid.


                                Question 1 (with moderator's hat hovering): Why is this a matter that has occupied the list now for a couple of days? It seems to me that this is the sort of near obsession with minutia that has kept a fair number of members from continuing participation in the list discussions.

                                Question 2: Since I am not aware that any of the altars from which I have celebrate Eucharist in over 26 years of ordained ministry in the Lutheran Church had "altar stones" (there may be in the altar of the Episcopal Church in which I am now serving), does that mean that none of those Eucharists were licit?

                                -- 
                                Best regards,
                                 Bob White                        
                                mailto:prrmwhite@...

                                It isn't that they can't see the solution.
                                It is that they can't see the problem.
                                --G.K. Chesterton
                                     


                              • Sean W. Reed
                                Lew - please be careful, he warned you the Moderator s Hat was hovering... SWR Sent from my iPad
                                Message 15 of 29 , Jul 26, 2013
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Lew - please be careful, he warned you the Moderator's Hat was hovering...


                                  SWR

                                  Sent from my iPad

                                  On Jul 26, 2013, at 9:45 AM, Lewis Whitaker <lhwhitaker@...> wrote:

                                   

                                  Do you have a better topic to discuss, Bob?

                                  Why such hand wringing? Doesn't this list, almost by definition, deal with minutia to the point of near obsession?

                                  Who are the "fair number of members" who are not participating because of this one thread?

                                  It could not have been clearer that this issue is ONLY one that touches on those who follow the EF. Lutheran and Episcopal Churches have never required (as you style them) "altar stones."

                                  Lew







                                  On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Robert White <whiteslists@...> wrote:


                                  Friday, July 26, 2013, 10:10:55 AM,Douglas Cowling wrote:


                                  We need a canonical decision on this. I would opine that a mass not celebrated on an altar stone would be illicit but not invalid.


                                  Question 1 (with moderator's hat hovering): Why is this a matter that has occupied the list now for a couple of days? It seems to me that this is the sort of near obsession with minutia that has kept a fair number of members from continuing participation in the list discussions.

                                  Question 2: Since I am not aware that any of the altars from which I have celebrate Eucharist in over 26 years of ordained ministry in the Lutheran Church had "altar stones" (there may be in the altar of the Episcopal Church in which I am now serving), does that mean that none of those Eucharists were licit?

                                  -- 
                                  Best regards,
                                   Bob White                        
                                  mailto:prrmwhite@...

                                  It isn't that they can't see the solution.
                                  It is that they can't see the problem.
                                  --G.K. Chesterton
                                       


                                • Douglas Cowling
                                  From: Robert White Subject: Re: [liturgy-l] Shrine of Edward the Confessor Question 1 (with moderator s hat hovering): Why is this a
                                  Message 16 of 29 , Jul 26, 2013
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    From: Robert White <whiteslists@...>
                                    Subject: Re: [liturgy-l] Shrine of Edward the Confessor

                                    Question 1 (with moderator's hat hovering): Why is this a matter that has occupied the list now for a couple of days? It seems to me that this is the sort of near obsession with minutia that has kept a fair number of members from continuing participation in the list discussions.

                                    It's summertime! 

                                    All lists that I'm on enjoy becoming near-parodies of themselves when we reach the depths of July.

                                    I was going to move on to a discussion of the surviving saints' relics and shrines in England, but I will content myself with the award-winning reconstruction of the shrine of St. Frideswide in Christ Church Cathedral, Oxford. The pieces of the despoiled shrine were recovered from other places in the cathedral and put back together like a giant jig-saw puzzle.


                                    Doug Cowling
                                    Director of Music
                                    St. Philip's Church, Etobicoke
                                    Toronto

                                  • Ian Gomersall
                                    Less contentiously - here is a report of a visit to the shrine! http://stchrysostoms.wordpress.com/2013/09/10/a-kings-shrine/ Ian Lew - please be careful, he
                                    Message 17 of 29 , Oct 22, 2013
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Less contentiously - here is a report of a visit to the shrine!


                                      Ian


                                      Lew - please be careful, he warned you the Moderator's Hat was hovering...


                                      SWR

                                      Sent from my iPad

                                      On Jul 26, 2013, at 9:45 AM, Lewis Whitaker <lhwhitaker@...> wrote:

                                       

                                      Do you have a better topic to discuss, Bob?

                                      Why such hand wringing? Doesn't this list, almost by definition, deal with minutia to the point of near obsession?

                                      Who are the "fair number of members" who are not participating because of this one thread?

                                      It could not have been clearer that this issue is ONLY one that touches on those who follow the EF. Lutheran and Episcopal Churches have never required (as you style them) "altar stones."

                                      Lew



                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.