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

Re: Serving the Liturgy Re: [liturgy-l] Re: Orthodox Arttendance

Expand Messages
  • Steve Benner
    ... To me the idea of serving implies that the priest is either the host or a waiter serving dinner, so to speak--both have interesting implications. I
    Message 1 of 10 , Sep 1, 2002
      At 8/31/2002 -0500 10:10 PM, Dana Netherton wrote:
      >I can confirm that indeed "to serve" is the customary verb used by
      >the Orthodox for the role of our priest, not only in the Divine
      >Liturgy but in the Offices (such as Orthros) or in other "services".
      >
      >Hmm ... "services" ... "to serve" ... When one "does" a "service" (a
      >la the famous 1960s phrase, "to 'do' the liturgy", what else *is* one
      >doing ... but "serving"? :-)

      To me the idea of "serving" implies that the priest is either the host or a
      waiter serving dinner, so to speak--both have interesting implications.

      I personally use "celebrate", but the old RC usage, still in common use,
      was "say & hear Mass", respectively.


      Steve Benner

      steve@...
      Oremus -- Daily Prayer, Hymnal and Liturgical Resources since 1993
      http://www.oremus.org
    • James O'Regan
      ... There is the Latin correlation between serve and minister (at table so it seems). The observable daily context of waiters is a good point to make. RC
      Message 2 of 10 , Sep 1, 2002
        Steve wrote and I snipped:

        > To me the idea of "serving" implies that the priest is either the host or a
        > waiter serving dinner, so to speak--both have interesting implications.

        There is the Latin correlation between serve and
        "minister" (at table so it seems). The observable
        daily context of waiters is a good point to make.
        RC tradition speaks of serve and service as
        liturgical language.

        There is also a more topographical reason why
        serve is such an accurate word to describe
        liturgical action on behalf of all "ministers"
        including the assembly. At the very least, it
        serves to remind us that liturgical action is
        indeed gracious in all respects of origin of
        communication and even to decorum, i.e. of how
        one interacts or better reacts to stimuli.

        Ministers serve the action of the rite in so far as
        they attempt to display or present the action that
        is not their own but God's and/or the
        community's (tradition).

        The idea and reference to "service" helps
        distance the tendency to mix sender and subject.
        So that a minister that is very effective can still
        be seen to be a vehicle for God and not God.





        James O'Regan
        http://www.jamesoregan.com
        tel 613-824-4706
      • Dana Netherton
        ... It may help to remember who is being served . (Hint: it s not the congregation.) In the days before restaurants, he who serves was called a servant .
        Message 3 of 10 , Sep 1, 2002
          On 1 Sep 2002 at 4:08, Steve Benner wrote:

          > At 8/31/2002 -0500 10:10 PM, Dana Netherton wrote:
          > >I can confirm that indeed "to serve" is the customary verb used by
          > >the Orthodox for the role of our priest, not only in the Divine
          > >Liturgy but in the Offices (such as Orthros) or in other "services".
          > >
          > >Hmm ... "services" ... "to serve" ... When one "does" a "service" (a
          > >la the famous 1960s phrase, "to 'do' the liturgy", what else *is* one
          > >doing ... but "serving"? :-)
          >
          > To me the idea of "serving" implies that the priest is either the host
          > or a waiter serving dinner, so to speak--both have interesting
          > implications.

          It may help to remember who is "being served". (Hint: it's not the
          congregation.)

          In the days before restaurants, "he who serves" was called "a
          servant". And was someone who "gave service" to his master.

          Or his Master. :-)

          (We can then segue into John Burnett's early-morning comments ... )

          > I personally use "celebrate", but the old RC usage, still in common
          > use, was "say & hear Mass", respectively.
          >
          >
          > Steve Benner

          John has already commented on "saying" a Mass (we never developed a
          Low Mass) and on "hearing" Mass.

          I'll add that the Jewish comedian Lenny Bruce had various lists of
          things "yiddische" and "goyische". In one, he contrasted the ways
          Christians and Jews describe how they participate in their major
          holidays. Something like this:

          Colonel and Mrs Winthrop Fortescue celebrated Easter with their
          children, Skip and Bunny (home from Yale and Mt Holyoke,
          respectively).

          Mr. and Mrs. Milton Goldblum observed Passover with their children,
          Sammy and Rose (each home from Cornell).

          Christians, said Bruce, "celebrate" their holidays; Jews "observe"
          theirs.

          Of course, Bruce was an American, and was familiar only with Western
          Christians. And of course he was speaking of lay people, not of
          clergy. So I'm not sure how much use this *really* is ... but I
          thought it was interesting. :-)

          -- (Mr) Dana Netherton, dana@...
          -----
          I'm not a member of any organized religion.
          I'm Eastern Orthodox.
        • Steve Benner
          ... But than it seems a bit odd to say The priest served the Liturgy as if a meal, rather than The priest served God in the Liturgy. In other words, the
          Message 4 of 10 , Sep 1, 2002
            At 9/1/2002 -0500 02:57 PM, Dana Netherton wrote:
            >It may help to remember who is "being served". (Hint: it's not the
            >congregation.)
            >
            >In the days before restaurants, "he who serves" was called "a
            >servant". And was someone who "gave service" to his master.
            >
            >Or his Master. :-)

            But than it seems a bit odd to say "The priest served the Liturgy" as if a
            meal, rather than "The priest served God in the Liturgy." In other words,
            the indirect object seems to be missing from this usage; i.e. if the direct
            object is not a person, then it sort of demands an indirect object, doesn't it?

            (Sorry, the German linguist is showing through, but it does seem a peculiar
            usage.)


            Steve Benner

            steve@...
            Oremus -- Daily Prayer, Hymnal and Liturgical Resources since 1993
            http://www.oremus.org
          • Dana Netherton
            ... Perhaps it depends on whether the indirect object is unclear and needs to be named. :-) In a waiter liturgical tradition, where there might be many
            Message 5 of 10 , Sep 1, 2002
              On 1 Sep 2002 at 16:14, Steve Benner wrote:

              > At 9/1/2002 -0500 02:57 PM, Dana Netherton wrote:
              > >It may help to remember who is "being served". (Hint: it's not the
              > >congregation.)
              > >
              > >In the days before restaurants, "he who serves" was called "a
              > >servant". And was someone who "gave service" to his master.
              > >
              > >Or his Master. :-)
              >
              > But than it seems a bit odd to say "The priest served the Liturgy" as
              > if a meal, rather than "The priest served God in the Liturgy." In
              > other words, the indirect object seems to be missing from this usage;
              > i.e. if the direct object is not a person, then it sort of demands an
              > indirect object, doesn't it?
              >
              > (Sorry, the German linguist is showing through, but it does seem a
              > peculiar usage.)

              Perhaps it depends on whether the indirect object is unclear and
              needs to be named. :-)

              In a "waiter" liturgical tradition, where there might be many
              different customers at a table, maybe it might be unclear. :-) On
              the other hand, in a Master-Servant liturgical tradition where there
              is only one Master, maybe it can go unnamed. :-)

              It might help to know that the verb seems to be used at least as
              frequently without any object, as with one. For example, the parish
              secretary in my parish might say, "I'm sorry, Father can't come to
              the phone ... he's in the church, serving."

              ("Where is the butler?" "He is in the drawing room, serving.")

              Yours,

              -- (Mr) Dana Netherton, dana@...
              -----
              I'm not a member of any organized religion.
              I'm Eastern Orthodox.
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.