Tag Archive for 'last supper'

homodoxy

Published on January 21, 2010 in liturgy. 31 Comments Tags: eucharist, last supper, lectionary, liturgy, orthodox, worship.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” Through the Looking Glass, by Lewis Carroll

I think the word “orthodox” might be in trouble. Let’s try and save it from losing its meaning.

I am seeing a lot of people calling themselves “orthodox” Christians and using the term to put down others as “unorthodox”, “heterodox”. But actually I don’t think these particular people should be allowed to use the term “orthodox” – as they are changing its meaning (and hence emptying its meaning IMO). They are perfectly welcome and free to start a new movement, start a number of new movements, but these particular people are not orthodox – there is a perfectly good word for them: they are homodox.

Orthodox, first of all, means “right worship” (ortho – right; dox – like doxology – worship). If you call yourself orthodox, at the very least it should mean that most Christians for the first 1500 years or so of Christian history should be able to walk into your worship and pretty much feel at home. Augustine, Teresa, Ambrose, Luther, Francis, Hildegard, Basil, Julian, Justin, etc. should be able to walk into your worship and recognise you are following a lectionary inherited from the Synagogue, have the basic shape of worship inherited from the earliest church, a Eucharistic Prayer, and responses that go back to the Last Supper and beyond, to a thousand years or so earlier…

Orthodox, would also mean, right beliefs. At the very least that would surely be affirming the important doctrines and disciplines of the seven ecumenical councils of the united church of the first thousand years or so. Should that not include the church’s structure that along with its liturgy and scriptures evolved fairly quickly in the earliest period of the church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. (Some might call themselves “orthodox” but could probably not name the councils, let alone state anything they teach, or justify why they reduce them to, for example, four, or claim to hold to them but would balk at, for example, calling Mary “Theotokos”)

Homodox means “having the same opinion”. Many people who are misusing, abusing the term “orthodox” are in fact not orthodox at all, they are homodox (let me preempt the comment now: it does not mean worshipping gays ) They want everyone to think exactly like them (yes, often particularly about gays). Orthodox can cope with diversity, do not need everyone to agree about everything, celebrate diversity, honour difference: In necessariis unitas, in non-necessariis libertas, in utrisque caritas. (In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.)

So next time you see someone putting down others, and calling themselves “orthodox”, pause, check whether they really are orthodox or whether that word is being abused and emptied of its meaning. And then, if they pause momentarily from their tirade, and you have even an inkling they might be prepared to listen to someone else, take a deep breath and very politely tell them they aren’t orthodox but homodox. Of course if they listen to you, and are prepared to change their mind,… maybe they aren’t.

For the liturgist who has everything

Published on September 1, 2009 in liturgy. 10 Comments Tags: facebook, humor, humour, last supper, liturgist, twitter, visitors.

bedroom reredos & East window

Nave

A friend of mine sent me information that a house-that-was-a-church is for sale in Hobart, Tasmania. It is only $Aus1,450,000! It seems to me the ideal retirement home for a liturgist! I’ve even worked out a way to finance it. Simple. If each of my appreciative followers on twitter and facebook donates only $Aus60 each (surely you can spare that!) I get the liturgist’s dream home completely paid off

[Of course you'd realised from the start the twitter & facebook pages were just money-making scams LOL!]

Built in 1852, it was formerly known as St John the Baptist Church. Now called “Pendragon Hall” it “effortlessly combines modern luxury with old world charm.”

sitting room - side chapel

“Inside, the former church built in 1852 has been adapted for private living, though still retaining charming ecclesiastical detail. Today, standing in the nave of the former St John the Baptist with its soaring ceiling and colonnade of interior arches you have a feeling of space, light and air. It’s not at all overpowering, despite the spaciousness and traces of ecclesiastical grandeur.

bed detail

The master bed, at one end of the nave, is lit by a four-panel stained glass of historic importance, under which is the Reredos, which was gifted by Richard Patterson to the congregation in 1873 its inspiration was a drawing of the Mosaic picture of the Last Supper that formed part of the Reredos in Westminster Abbey. It has been the scene of elegant dinners, of relaxing days while the warm spring sunshine streams in confetti-like colours through the stained glass windows, and as a peaceful spot for visitors (usually a couple) to come back to, after exploring what southern Tasmania has to offer, in one of its latter-day guises as accommodation for tourists.”

All who contribute to the purchasing fund will, of course, be welcome any time they are visiting Hobart for a coffee or glass of wine. And should I not be home at Pendragon Hall/St John the Baptist Church, expect to find me on holiday in one of the many monasteries now “converted” into luxury hotels.

Parador de Santo Estevo - Spain

Hotel Monasterio - Cusco Peru

Liturgy as language (part 2)

Published on July 8, 2009 in liturgy. 5 Comments Tags: Anglican, anglican communion, anglicanism, anglicans, book of common prayer, catholic, collect, common prayer, Creation, creativity, daily office, eucharist, justice, last supper, lectio, lectionary, liturgy, new zealand, prayer, presider, roman catholic, worship.

1984 25 years on

Liturgy of the Eucharist 1984

This is the second post in a series looking at how we can use fixed liturgical worship to form thriving, vibrant, growing communities. The series began from the contention of a well-informed New Zealand Anglican priest and his assertion that he cannot think of a single congregation that follows our official liturgy that is either growing, or thriving with a good mixture of ages (especially including younger people). Furthermore, this, he sees as originating in decisions made in the 1980s.

This particular post will be part focusing on New Zealand’s Anglican liturgical history essentially over the last two and a half decades as I believe that this period’s history clarifies the situation we now find ourselves in. This will continue in a later post. And then the series will continue by exploring what, in my opinion, is the underlying dynamic that has been lost during these decades. This current post may be of particular interest more to Kiwis. So, if you have no interest in Kiwi Anglican liturgical history go and have a coffee with a friend, or go and watch a sunset, or pray the daily office…

It will become clear that in the last two and a half decades in NZ Anglicanism there has been a movement away from the concept of liturgy as common prayer. The 1984 Liturgy revision began the loss of knowing responses by heart. From this point NZ Anglicans inevitably become more book-bound (pew-sheet bound, or later projector-screen bound).

Kiwis – don’t look it up: what is the response to “The peace of God be always with you.”?

1964 to 1984

New Zealand Anglicans once had had a relatively conservative liturgical life, following the Book of Common Prayer and minor variants of that. In 1964 there began a revision process that resulted in a 1966 eucharistic rite and a further revision of this in 1970. So by 1984 there had been two decades of either the BCP or a well-received, single contemporary revision. In 1984 all that changed. Now, alongside the contemporary revision were new Eucharist rites that, though structurally relatively similar, had significantly innovative texts.

In these innovative eucharistic texts the traditional, ecumenical, internationally agreed English-language texts used throughout the Anglican Communion were replaced. The following are two examples replacing the sanctus/benedictus (”Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of power and might…”) in 1984:

Holy God, holy and merciful, holy and just,
glory and goodness come from you.
Glory to you most high and gracious God.

and

Holy, holy, holy:
God of mercy, giver of life;
earth and sea and sky
and all that lives,
declare your presence and your glory.

One of the new rites intentionally had far more for the congregation to recite, again increasing the tendency to have more time with heads in books.

Every Sunday in the 1984 revision now no longer had a single collect usually drawn out of the great collect heritage shared throughout Anglicanism. Now each Sunday there was a choice of three collects – many of them not following a collect structure or style.

Kiwis – don’t look it up: what is the response to “The peace of God be with you all.”?

A completely new Order for Celebrating the Eucharist was produced and included in the 1984 Liturgy. In this order basically everything for a Eucharist (even responses) could be resourced from anywhere or created locally (excepting the Last Supper story and one paragraph were fixed in any constructed Eucharistic Prayer).

People were not all following the same readings either. As well as the BCP lectionary, New Zealand’s own creation (a two year thematic lectionary), the Australian Anglican revision of the Roman Catholic three-year lectionary was also authorised.

As well as music and singing being central to liturgy in my opinion, singing inevitably aids memorisation. With three completely different texts (for example) for the sanctus/benedictus (not interchangeable between rites) many communities no longer accessed good quality national ecumenical music or international Anglican and/or ecumenical musical settings.

In summary

From 1984 some wonderfully poetic, imaginative, creative, inclusive, and inculturated texts were being presented to regular worshipping Anglicans. It must be remembered, all this is within the context of a very small province of church-going Anglicans. The numbers in church (say about 35,000 in church on Sunday) are probably that of a reasonable size Church of England diocese. Moving from worshipping community to community there was no longer the expectation that the same readings would be followed, that the same collect would be used, that the same responses and texts would be used, that the same musical settings would be found. Even within a single parish, moving from one service time to another one might encounter completely unfamiliar material. Week by week turning up at the same time on Sunday one could be confronted with a different set of responses in rotation.

Creativity and flexibility became values now embodied in the official rites. Saying and singing things “by heart” (in the deepest sense of that phrase) was being lost. Common prayer – in the sense of celebrating Eucharist as the great shared worship action of Christ and his body, the church – was being lost in individualism and congregationalism. The measure of a “successful” service was shifting. The understanding of liturgy was shifting from community actions and celebration accompanied by words with a significant amount sung and by heart - to reciting beautiful poetic words at each other read from books and ever-changing pew sheets.

Answers:
The Peace of God be always with you.
Praise to Christ who is our peace.
and
The peace of God be with you all.
In God’s justice is our peace.

Next time you hear either of those particular responses check – is the person addressing you/the congregation or addressing the book (pamphlet) s/he is reading from? And are most in the congregation addressing the presider in return – or do they have their eyes fixed on the book/screen/pamphlet? If in your community you are actually addressing each other and there are no books/screens/pamphlets involved at this point give yourself a gold star liturgical WOF. If you got both the above responses correct from memory your application to lecture on liturgy at St John’s College has been accepted. For the rest of us… this series will be continued…

The next post in this series is found here

stand up for your rites

Published on May 29, 2009 in liturgy. 7 Comments Tags: Anglican, benedict xvi, book of common prayer, catholic, common prayer, consecration, Easter, eucharist, eucharistic prayers, faith, last supper, liturgy, Mass, new zealand, Pentecost, prayer, prayer book, roman catholic, vatican, worship.

orans position - Catacombs of Priscilla, 3rd century AD

orans posture - Catacombs of Priscilla, 3rd century AD

“New Zealand’s [Roman Catholic] bishops are no longer seeking approval that kneeling be the posture for the faithful during the Eucharistic Prayer at Masses, reversing an earlier decision,” Michael Otto reports on front-page news of the fortnightly NZ Catholic (#317). Last November the bishops had voted, not unanimously, to kneel from the end of the Sanctus/Benedictus until after the Great Amen. Luckily, now that the bishops have changed their minds, that request was lost in the Vatican’s in-trays. The Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship has apologised for losing it. The article is unclear if kneeling will be required for what it terms the “consecration” (presumably the Last Supper story found in all of New Zealand’s RC Eucharistic Prayers). Or if standing throughout will be an option. Or if people can choose individually when to kneel or stand (I can already visualise the video of of the – how many variations can you think of, Mathematicians? – people bobbing up and down at different points within the same shared prayer…

)

[Aside: Not all Roman Catholic Eucharistic Prayers have a "consecration" (in the sense of Last Supper story). The Roman Catholic Church recognises the Eucharistic Prayer of Addai and Mari as a valid, consecrating eucharistic prayer even though it does not even contain the Last Supper story, nor the words “this is my body”, nor "this is my blood." These last two quotes from the Last Supper at that event were words, not of consecration, but of administration/distribution.]

The article NZ Catholic highlights the Vatican’s General Instruction of the Roman Missal has “they should kneel at the consecration, except when prevented on occasion by reasons of health, lack of space, the large number of people present, or some other good reason.” Even there, however, this appears in the Errata of that document. The article goes on to point to Cardinal Ratzinger’s (aka Pope Benedict XVI) writing on kneeling in The Spirit of the Liturgy.

The bishops at the first ecumenical council of Nicaea (325) were horrified to discover that Christians were kneeling on Sundays and in the Great Easter Season of 50 days (which they termed Pentecost) and ruled in canon 20:

Since there are some who kneel on Sunday and during the season of Pentecost, this holy synod decrees that, so that the same observances may be maintained in every diocese, one should offer one’s prayers to the Lord standing.

Bishop Cullinane in the NZ Catholic article highlights that “the ancient tradition regarded standing as the posture of the Easter people.”

Other denominations may not have a moment-of-consecration theology, and wonder what the rationale for the rest of the Eucharistic Prayer is if its purpose is effected by a small section within it. These may see the whole Eucharistic Prayer as consecrating – or in fact the whole eucharistic action (from taking bread and wine, giving thanks, breaking bread and distributing bread and wine) as consecrating. Anglican eucharistic theology was sent off on a tangent after the discontinuity of the Commonwealth Period when the 1662 Book of Common Prayer added an “Amen” after the Last Supper story, put the fraction (breaking of the bread) as an action into the Last Supper story, and referred to what followed the Sanctus as the “consecration” – implying that the preface was not part of the “consecration”.

As with the NZ Catholic article, in which the new National Liturgy Advisory Group are reported as asking the bishops to review their decision and be stronger for standing, so the NZ Prayer Book commission presented to the Anglican General Synod (1987) a rubric at the start of the Eucharistic Prayer:

It is recommended that the people stand throughout the following prayer.

This not only preserves the unity of the Eucharistic Prayer, but also has the same posture for the presiding priest as well as all others participating. I well remember the debate about this in General Synod as some misunderstood the meaning of the word “recommend” and argued that the “traditional” posture of kneeling be added, so that the rubric now reads “It is recommended that the people stand or kneel throughout the following prayer.” (Note the posture does not change from “The Lord is here…” to the Great Amen). There was much muttering of “what about people in a hospital bed… wheelchair…” I note that the Book of Worship of the United Church of Christ precedes every rubric with “All who are able may…” Each of their Eucharistic Prayers (called there “Communion Prayer”) has the rubric, “All who are able may stand.”

This is my body

Published on May 2, 2009 in liturgy. 7 Comments Tags: catholic, consecration, eucharist, holy communion, Jesus, last supper, liturgy, Mass, roman catholic.

brake-bread I was surprised to open the Easter edition (11 April) of the reputable Tablet to find the first article was a one-and-a-half page, very confused criticism of part of the Eucharist by Stephen Hough. The qualifications for this article as given by the Tablet is that he “is a concert pianist”. Mr. Hough is “perturbed” that the priest does not break the bread at the moment the priest describes Jesus breaking it within the Last Supper story (”Institution Narrative“) in the Eucharistic Prayer.

Mr. Hough quotes all the biblical Last Supper accounts and from liturgical texts and then says:

He “broke the bread”, but we don’t – at least not at the same moment. The priest waits until the Agnus Dei to break the consecrated wafer, which is quite a while after the Consecration. Indeed it is after the Eucharistic Prayer, after the Lord’s Prayer, after the sign of peace – just before Communion. Yet it is quite clear from all the sources, scriptural and liturgical, that the piece of bread at the Last Supper was broken before the words were said.

What Mr. Hough plainly fails to notice is the quite elementary realisation that at the Last Supper, Jesus saying “this is my body” did not function as the “words of consecration” but were Jesus’ words of administration. Even the Roman Catholic Church, which places such emphasis on these words, recognises the Eucharistic Prayer of Addai and Mari as a valid, consecrating eucharistic prayer even though it does not even contain the words “this is my body”.

At the Last Supper “this is my body” functions similarly to the words at the Eucharist when one receives communion: “the Body of Christ”. Jesus took bread, (and later wine) blessed it by giving thanks, broke the bread, and gave the bread with the words of distribution “this is my body”. What we do today in the Eucharist is quite similar: we take bread and wine, bless it by giving thanks (Eucharistic Prayer), break the bread, and distribute it with words such as “the Body of Christ”.

Mr. Hough describes his understanding of the Last Supper:

It is the Feast of Unleavened Bread in the Jewish calendar, the Passover. He [Jesus] is not holding a wafer and speaking words over it, around it, into it…

This, of course, totally contradicts his previous half page where he has repeatedly quoted scripture and liturgy that Jesus did in fact say a prayer of thanksgiving blessing whilst holding the bread!

Mr. Hough continues

And it doesn’t end there. “This[pouring the red wine into the cup] is my blood.” This is what will happen to my blood. It will pour out from my hands and my feet, and especially from my side. I don’t think it is the fermented grape juice in the chalice which is so much the object of his “This”, but rather the action of pouring out blood-like wine, …

Mr. Hough does not even attempt to justify his assertion that there was a pouring of wine at this point in the Last Supper.

I am astonished that such an unwarranted critique of contemporary liturgy was allowed to find print in such a reputable magazine. Mr. Hough has some lovely pious reflections on the fraction (the breaking of the bread) but they do not rely on his lengthy, incorrect analysis and the editor should have helped him write it into a much briefer, devotional article.

For further reading: Celebrating Eucharist especially chapters 2, & 10-13

There was no inn at Bethlehem

Published on December 27, 2008 in liturgy. Closed Tags: christmas, eucharist, last supper, lectio.

We were walking to Christmas Midnight Mass when my son insightfully asks, “We’re celebrating Jesus’ birth – right? So why are we having communion and so thinking about his death?”

The question hung with me throughout the Eucharist. At the blessing of the crib, a mistranslation of Luke’s Gospel was read that may be a way in to an answer. We hear “…and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.” (Luke 2:7) Well the original does not say “inn”.

The original translated as “inn” is καταλυμα. This word is used only three times in the New Testament. In Mark 14:14, and Luke 22:11 (which he copies from Mark) it is translated as “guest room”. It is upstairs. [And we are told it is large - plenty of space this time!] There Jesus celebrates the Last Supper, the Eucharist.

Καταλυμα derives from καταλυω – to unharness – hence the translation of “inn” for Luke 2:7. [One could develop a thread about salvation as being unharnessed - for which there was no space at the start of Luke's story - but for which there was large space as he reaches its conclusion]

A poor, small village like Bethlehem at Jesus’ time would not have had an inn. Nor, as Luke tells the story, would the extended family have provided no hospitality to a very pregnant family member. In most Bethlehem homes (as even still occurs today), animals were kept downstairs, whilst the upper part had work areas, sleeping areas, and, for someone wealthy enough, even a guest room. With no space in the upper guest room – the downstairs space for the animals would have given some privacy.

Luke frames his story with an upper room near the start (Bethlehem), and near the end (the Last Supper, the Eucharist). As I knelt at communion in Luke’s upper room (Luke’s καταλυμα), I held God. God now so small that there is space even within me for this God-made-small we celebrate this day. Transcendence and immanence are not opposites mysteriously united in God. Only a transcendent God can be closer than merely touching. Only the God greater than all can become smaller than all – so that there is nowhere now so small that God cannot find a place there.

“In Mary God has grown small to make us great.”St. Ephrem (d. 373)

This post is a republication of a 2007 reflection

Eight new Eucharistic Prayers

Published on October 25, 2008 in liturgy. Closed Tags: Anglican, consecration, eucharistic prayers, great thanksgiving, holy communion, last supper, Mass, new zealand, prayer book.

Eight new Eucharistic Prayers/Great Thanksgiving Prayers have been added to this website:

Alternative Great Thanksgiving A
alternative to Thanksgiving of the People of God
Alternative Great Thanksgiving B
alternative to Celebrating the Grace of God
Alternative Great Thanksgiving C
alternative to Thanksgiving for Creation and Redemption
Alternative Great Thanksgiving D
alternative to Thanksgiving and Praise
Alternative Great Thanksgiving E
alternative to Form for Ordering the Eucharist
Alternative Great Thanksgiving F
alternative to Service of Holy Communion
Alternative Great Thanksgiving for use with Children A
Alternative Great Thanksgiving for use with Children B

Six of these began as revisions by Rev Ken Booth with the following rationale:

To shorten New Zealand Prayer Book Great Thanksgiving prayers which some found too long and were sometimes pruning ill advisedly. This was achieved by omitting any doublets or “expansions” of key events in the narrative, resulting in up to a sixth reduction. In one case, the Great Thanksgiving for use with the sick (NZPB page 732) was expanded to make it more appropriate for use in contexts beyond the sick.
To standardise responses to allow communities to be less book-bound and use regular sung responses – in line with international ecumenically agreed texts.

(The drafting before the revision which was passed at General Synod)

I was asked for my opinion about them as these texts were heading for General Synod. In the brief time I had available prior to their General Synod submission I suggested that

Seasonal and festal variants could be inserted
The people’s acclamation be moved from directly after the Last Supper story to the more natural break between the remembering/proclaiming/anamnetic material of the prayer and the asking/epicletic material. I also suggested a more appropriate, consistent clear cue.
Minor alternations – adding “sing” to “say” where appropriate. Changing “Your [God’s] body” to “Christ’s body”, simplifying the children’s final acclamation to be consistent with all other final acclamations.

All my alterations (in red or blue) were accepted by all involved with these prayers.

Some will notice that some of the original intentions of the Prayer Book versions have been diluted. Celebrating the Grace of God, originating with Bishop Brian Carrel, eschewed the use of “Blessed is he…” (words unpopular for some in the Eucharistic Prayer). Those two lines have now been restored. The intention of Rev. Richard Easton in his work resulting in Thanksgiving and Praise was to not merely have the congregation echo the priest, but have the congregation move the eucharistic prayer forward in ways that more traditionally would have been left to the presider. Those parts have been returned to the priest. Those who have especially strong convictions along these two lines still have the full use of the original prayer book versions.

A weakness in practice is that congregations used to a particular prayer can sometimes start on remembered responses that have either been removed, altered, or moved in these new prayers.

I am not as convinced about the Alternative Great Thanksgiving for use with Children A in which children have to learn a new responses (without a consistent cue) [and hence prefer the Alternative Great Thanksgiving for use with Children B or my own Eucharistic Prayer 2]

On balance, however, I am highly enthusiastic about the opportunities provided by these new resources.

In the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia these only needed a majority of synods of the episcopal units to assent to General Synod’s approval. If you are reading this in another context, you will know your own requirements for eucharistic prayers.