Comments on: Liturgy as language (part 3) http://liturgy.co.nz/liturgy-as-language-part-3/1267 Worship that works - spirituality that connects Sat, 26 May 2012 04:02:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Bosco Peters http://liturgy.co.nz/liturgy-as-language-part-3/1267#comment-873 Bosco Peters Sat, 25 Jul 2009 10:44:28 +0000 http://www.liturgy.co.nz/blog/?p=1267#comment-873 Thanks Peter I think both your points helpfully complement the post and provide some good clarification. The list is an (incomplete) collection of some of the liturgical trends in our church in the last twenty-five years (with some trends clearly going back further). Our ordinal is very clear that the purpose of ordination is to enable the ministry of all the baptised - both within the worshipping community and "in the world" - so it is a duty and a joy for lay people to be fully involved in worship - including leadership (and a requirement for the ordained to enable that). Exactly how we do that without "clericalising" lay ministry, diminishing the contribution of others (in the pews), and losing the sense of primary mission and ministry "in the world" is a conversation that I think we have not really put much energy into yet. You are right, I think, that this need not lead to a loss of the sense of common prayer. (Common prayer, I think, includes the understanding that all in the community are equally participating in it - even when we have different functions/roles - how we do that may be a topic for another thread...) I am enthusiastic about the revisions of the eucharistic prayers giving them the standard responses for the very reason you give. What was not anticipated, I think, was my experience of being in a community and finding that some people had other responses, within those prayers as they previously were, by heart and were contributing acclamations no longer there. I think a helpful liturgical principle is that the same (or similar) cue always leads to the same response. With that in mind I think that those Eucharistic prayers should have had some more work in which the old cues were removed and so the old acclamations would not be missed or added. I think you are highlighting that summarising 25 years in a brief post and trying to draw some conclusions inevitably will have some oversimplifications. Your points helpfully clarify some of this. It is also helpful that you agree with the overall point being highlighted. Thanks Peter
I think both your points helpfully complement the post and provide some good clarification.
The list is an (incomplete) collection of some of the liturgical trends in our church in the last twenty-five years (with some trends clearly going back further).

Our ordinal is very clear that the purpose of ordination is to enable the ministry of all the baptised – both within the worshipping community and “in the world” – so it is a duty and a joy for lay people to be fully involved in worship – including leadership (and a requirement for the ordained to enable that). Exactly how we do that without “clericalising” lay ministry, diminishing the contribution of others (in the pews), and losing the sense of primary mission and ministry “in the world” is a conversation that I think we have not really put much energy into yet. You are right, I think, that this need not lead to a loss of the sense of common prayer. (Common prayer, I think, includes the understanding that all in the community are equally participating in it – even when we have different functions/roles – how we do that may be a topic for another thread…)

I am enthusiastic about the revisions of the eucharistic prayers giving them the standard responses for the very reason you give. What was not anticipated, I think, was my experience of being in a community and finding that some people had other responses, within those prayers as they previously were, by heart and were contributing acclamations no longer there. I think a helpful liturgical principle is that the same (or similar) cue always leads to the same response. With that in mind I think that those Eucharistic prayers should have had some more work in which the old cues were removed and so the old acclamations would not be missed or added.

I think you are highlighting that summarising 25 years in a brief post and trying to draw some conclusions inevitably will have some oversimplifications. Your points helpfully clarify some of this. It is also helpful that you agree with the overall point being highlighted.

]]> By: Peter Carrell http://liturgy.co.nz/liturgy-as-language-part-3/1267#comment-872 Peter Carrell Sat, 25 Jul 2009 10:10:43 +0000 http://www.liturgy.co.nz/blog/?p=1267#comment-872 Hi Bosco I have a quibble or two with your description of events! (1) The involvement of lay people in the leading of worship, including the first part of the eucharist: is it necessarily a loss with respect to 'common' prayer? I think such an argument needs more substance than you offer. (2) You describe some recent changes/new alternatives to our eucharistic prayers: "The latest meeting of General Synod (2008) authorised another raft of Eucharistic Prayers. These are mostly not new ones, but reworking of other current Eucharistic Prayers in NZPB so that those who have one of those “by heart” find themselves stumbling over these revisions and in the congregation blurting out responses that are no longer there." This description is unfair in a post on the diminution of common prayer in this respect: some of those changes are precisely intended to restore one element of common prayer, by providing for the possibility that all responses are the same in a sequence of Sunday services, whichever eucharistic prayer is used. These quibbles do not demur from your overall argument, that currently our church is in a place in which we have no common prayer! Hi Bosco
I have a quibble or two with your description of events!
(1) The involvement of lay people in the leading of worship, including the first part of the eucharist: is it necessarily a loss with respect to ‘common’ prayer? I think such an argument needs more substance than you offer.
(2) You describe some recent changes/new alternatives to our eucharistic prayers: “The latest meeting of General Synod (2008) authorised another raft of Eucharistic Prayers. These are mostly not new ones, but reworking of other current Eucharistic Prayers in NZPB so that those who have one of those “by heart” find themselves stumbling over these revisions and in the congregation blurting out responses that are no longer there.” This description is unfair in a post on the diminution of common prayer in this respect: some of those changes are precisely intended to restore one element of common prayer, by providing for the possibility that all responses are the same in a sequence of Sunday services, whichever eucharistic prayer is used.

These quibbles do not demur from your overall argument, that currently our church is in a place in which we have no common prayer!

]]>