Comments on: Apologia pro mutatione mea, pt. V.

By: lfn

lfn — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 08:37:25 +0000

Please excuse that if it doesn’t make any sense… I just wrote it on the fly before my morning coffee.

By: lfn

lfn — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 08:36:49 +0000

That’s my basic point. Liturgies can be Creedal and diverse. (Note the difference between the Canadian BCP and the 1662 BCP–I much prefer the Canadian one–whereas in terms of mod liturgy Common Worship wins hands down over the Canadian “Green Book”). I think you would be painting your way into a corner to say that current RC liturgical practice (at it’s best) is Christologically truer than, say, a simpler BCP (or thoughtful mod-lang Anglican liturgy). In saying that you would also be saying something about pre Vat II liturgies wouldn’t you? Glorying in the reforms of Vat II link your allegience to Rome too much on outer form I think. Rome demands a deeper allegience. If you admit that pre Vat II RC church was still authentically “Catholic” (of course you would!) why couldn’t you say the same thing about the Anglican church? I don’t think you can make the distinction on form (or even on differences of universality). The distinction has to be in reference to the authority of the Pope and related bodies that serve it.

By: HanseaticEd

HanseaticEd — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 14:01:55 +0000

Yes, I knew I was stretching the definition of ‘creedal’ when I wrote that. What I mean, of course, is that these things are creedal in that they are Christologically true; not that they appear line by line in the Creed.

By: lfn

lfn — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 07:15:37 +0000

“I would say it is less explicit in every respect: no invocation of saints, the separation of the Intercessions from the eucharistic canon, no effective commemoration of the departed, no sacrificial language in connection with the eucharistic elements”

If you want to make those aspects of an RC eucharist Creedal you will have some explaining to do.

By: lfn

lfn — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 07:07:29 +0000

I know where you live…

By: HanseaticEd

HanseaticEd — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 23:45:18 +0000

When I say what I am about to say, please remember that I have always treated preaching with utmost seriousness. In spite of this, however, I am not at all convinced that clear preaching is ‘far more important’ than manual acts. Clear preaching is a constituent part of an important whole. One could have a service of the word, in which clear preaching is vital. But in the Liturgy of the Eucharist, preaching is just one element among many others that reveal the Body of Christ. I would not say that the PB is less explicit only insofar as it is physically simpler. I would say it is less explicit in every respect: no invocation of saints, the separation of the Intercessions from the eucharistic canon, no effective commemoration of the departed, no sacrificial language in connection with the eucharistic elements, etc., etc. As an anglo-Catholic I had always thought these things to be present; just not explicit. And we both know how vehemently anglo-Catholics could be opposed holding such a position!

By: lfn

lfn — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 21:23:51 +0000

I disagree that “liturgy is all about the Image”. I do believe manual acts are important. There is no reason to be sloppy in what you do. But you convey the assumption that all RC priests are as conscientious as you are. I don’t believe it. (For example the archbishop at Trudeau’s funeral wiping his hands to the side of the altar immediately after the prayer of consecration). The liturgy of the eucharist is an elaboration on what Scripture bears witness to, and so are the manual acts. Why assume that the Prayer Book liturgy is less explicit in manifesting Creedal doctrines simply because it moved toward simpler manual acts? Certainly clear preaching is far more important.

By: HanseaticEd

HanseaticEd — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 13:56:41 +0000

The Liturgy is all about the Image. The colours, sounds, and gestures all work alongside the words to make manifest the glory of Christ present in the Eucharist. This is why I always considered the proper use of ‘manual acts’ to be of such importance; not because I liked being fussy, but because I thought that they were speaking the language of the Incarnation.

For this reason, when I celebrated the Liturgy on a Sunday, for example, I only ever did so in full traditional vestments. I made sure that we always sung the Liturgy; not just hymns (which so often practically contradict the Liturgy anyway), but the propers and fixed parts of the Liturgy as well. I always tried to carry myself in as dignified a manner as possible. I always tried to make sure that my gestures in the Sanctuary, and around the Altar, were consistent with our liturgical purpose. And although I did it in pseudo-defiance of the Prayer Book, I also used all the ’secret prayers’ of the Western Liturgy, in which things like the invocation of Saints is normal. I am still of the belief that much of what I did can be seen as consistent with the Prayer Book – hence my statement ‘…implied in Anglican liturgy’ – but it is by no means the explicit intent!

So that is what I mean when I say, ‘For me, being liturgically precise was also about doing my best to manifest in as explicit a way as possible the Creedal doctrines that were but implied in the Anglican liturgy.’ I hope that answers your question. Thanks for asking.

By: lfn

lfn — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:54:52 +0000

“For me, being liturgically precise was also about doing my best to manifest in as explicit a way as possible the Creedal doctrines that were but implied in Anglican liturgy.”

I wonder what you mean…