Tag Archive for 'roman catholic'

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

Published on February 5, 2010 in liturgy. 18 Comments Tags: , , , , , , .

I intend to post reviews, from time to time, of different study bibles. Prior to commencing that series, I think it helpful if I write a little on the translation I would recommend if you do not read Hebrew and Greek. I  recommend the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), with the extra comment that, those not agile in the original biblical languages need to keep one eye on the footnotes provided.

History

William Tyndale’s New Testament translation of 1525 and the King James Bible set a standard of biblical English leading to a “Revised Version” in the late nineteenth century. This led to the “American Standard Version (ASV – 1901)” of which the “Revised Standard Version (RSV)” was the authorised revision. This last work was completely revised by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches as well as Jewish representation to form the NRSV (1989).

The NRSV was able to take advantage of scholarly developments since the RSV including the availablility of  the Dead Sea Scrolls and other manuscript discoveries.

Translation principles

Linguistically the NRSV stands intentionally in the Tyndale-King James tradition. The Hebrew text is primarily the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia with reference to the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint. The Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical texts are from the Septuagint with reference to the Vulgate. The New Testament is a translation of the Novum Testamentum Graece 27th edition. The principle of translation is formal equivalence (as much as possible “word for word” rather than dynamic equivalence – “idea for idea”). Where the original clearly is intended to refer to both genders the translation has attempted to do this as smoothly as possible, clearly noting this in the footnotes. God retains the masculine pronoun. No attempt is made to alter masculine concepts of God such as “Lord” etc. In fact the Divine Tetragrammaton is translated as “LORD”. The archaic second person familiar forms (”thee”, “thou”), often confused as actually being polite forms, have been standardised to “you”, “your” etc. Many translations betray their theological presuppositions in soteriology (theories of salvation) or in hiding apparent biblical inconsistencies. NRSV can be trusted not to do that.

There is an edition following the Protestant canon, another including the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books; there is a Catholic Edition containing the First Testament books in the order of the Vulgate, and an anglicized edition which alters the text slightly to fit to British spelling and grammar. Other translations have been assiduous in marketing their product with a large variety of different presentations (teenage bibles, women’s bibles, men’s bibles, 12 step bibles, etc). NRSV has been notably weak in the variety of options available. Thankfully that is slowly improving.

The Episcopal Church and many Anglican provinces have approved the NRSV for worship. Common Worship (CofE) uses it as a standard. It is approved for Roman Catholic use and is the primary translation used in Catechism of the Catholic Church (the other being the RSV).

Conclusion

If you are looking for one translation and you are not confident in the biblical languages, the New Revised Standard Version is the one I would recommend.

Resources

Please remember this site has a collection of the best free, online resources to enhance your study of the scriptures. Beyond this website there is also:

The NRSV online

The NRSV online (an alternative site)

Search the NRSV online

Concise Concordance to NRSV online

pope urges priests to blog

Published on January 26, 2010 in liturgy. 8 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , .

popeThe pope has issued a proclamation challenging priests “to proclaim the Gospel by employing the latest generation of audiovisual resources (images, videos, animated features, blogs, websites) which, alongside traditional means, can open up broad new vistas for dialogue, evangelization and catechesis.”

Internationally there are some Anglican blogging bishops (I try to keep up with these in the links section). Of the 31 bishops in our province, not one blogs as far as I know (the bishop-elect of Dunedin blogs – we shall see if that continues). Of the more than one and a half thousand Anglican priests in this province I’m aware of a couple that blog, and a few more on twitter. The official website of the province has not been updated in more than a year. Maybe there are Roman Catholic blogging bishops and priests in New Zealand. I am not aware of them. There are still parishes and ministry units without even a website – in spite of web-hosting and production being free and easy now, with advice and help provided on this site. Every parish can have a facebook page (and a twitter). Blogging has never been easier using wordpress or blogger. Such things are not, as those in the church often make them appear to be, things that require great planning and debate. These things take less than 10 minutes to set up. Nothing manifests the yawning gap between average young people and average churchgoers more than the unwillingness of most churchgoers to embrace late 20th century communication technology. The church can be so last millennium!

The pope is on youtube (his videos do not appear to be able to be embedded), and has an iPhone and facebook app, pope2you. Let’s urge him to take his own advice and start blogging. If he is reading this: “I’m very happy to swap links with you”. Some suggestions for the name of the papal blog? “Mass communication”? Maybe not “Papal Bull”. (Definitely not “Red Shoe Diaries”!)

End of Anglican Communion?

Published on October 21, 2009 in liturgy. 43 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , .

Update: I am thrilled with the interest in this post, which is currently running about a reader every 8 seconds. It is also gratifying to see such helpful and positive comments. If there are any developments, rather than altering this post I think I would produce another – I already have some ideas in mind. So if you are interested, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or other ways of seeing what is new here.
Update: part 2 of this reflection is here

A few hours ago there was an absolute internet frenzy as people predicted and then reported, tweet by tweet, the announcement from the Vatican and the joint press conference by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of Westminster.

Let me add my own initial thoughts to this confusing dust-cloud following the announcement that the pope will create “Personal Ordinariates” for Anglicans who wish to come home to Rome. Archbishop Rowan said that it would be a “serious mistake” to view the development as a response to the difficulties within the Anglican Communion. As we in New Zealand say: “Yeah right!”

To anyone who has been watching the direction that Pope Benedict has been moving, and those he has been welcoming into his fold, the commentary that this is “surprising” is itself surprising. Just to mention recent events that have been in the news: the reconciliation with Holocaust-denying Bishop Richard Williamson and his Society of St. Pius X, the Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum” giving wider possibility to celebrate the pre-Vatican II Latin Mass, reconciliation with the traditionalist “Transalpine Redemptorists,” and so forth. I want to highlight some things I have not yet seen mentioned:

  • married priests in Anglican Personal Ordinariates will have to marry prior to ordination to the diaconate

They will not be able to marry after ordination. Should his wife die, or he gets divorced (sorry – his marriage is annulled) he will not be able to marry. Roman Catholic deacons can be married, but in order to do so, must be married prior to ordination. In the tweeting frenzy Scott Richert wrote, “There is no warrant in tradition for marrying AFTER receiving Holy Orders. None.” He may very well be right. I am genuinely interested in this point, and hope that people in the comments box below might provide evidence for or against this. My reply to him for clarification has not yet been responded to.

  • bishops in Anglican Personal Ordinariates are celibate
  • there has been no rescinding of Apostolicae Curae.

Anglican orders are not accepted by the Vatican. Anglican “priests” joining Anglican Personal Ordinariates in order to function as priests will have to be ordained twice (or at least conditionally ordained twice). And they will have to be males. Anglican “bishops” joining Anglican Personal Ordinariates in order to function as bishops will have to be ordained thrice (or at least conditionally ordained thrice). And they will have to be males. And celibate.

From a church (New Zealand Anglican) that leads Christian history in having created a “Tikanga” structure (where there are parallel episcopal jurisdictions according to cultural streams) I am intrigued by the concept of “Personal Ordinariates.” These are described by John Allen as “non-territorial diocese” (which sounds like an oxymoron to me!) My comment to Scott Richert and anyone else is: There is no warrant in tradition for “Personal Ordinariates.” None. But, of course, as usual, I am very very comfortable to be demonstrated wrong on this also. Please… anyone?

The end of the Anglican Communion?

As Mark Twain would say, “The reports of the end of the Anglican Communion are greatly exaggerated.” Andrew Brown, a regular person lining up for the funeral of the Communion, highlights his own weak grasp on the issues by declaring that only homosexuals can be celibate! Clearly heterosexuals, it would appear according to him, are either too weak or too immoral to be able to control their urges (not to mention that Andrew Brown is unable to distinguish doctrine from discipline). Scott Richert may have a slightly better grasp on the consequences for Anglicanism. Whilst no one would want to impugn curate’s-egg motives to the Archbishop of Canterbury, one cannot help wondering if there is just the flicker of a smile under that beard. In one Roman gesture he may be rid of, at one estimate, up to 2,000 of his CofE priests who have been holding out against his strong conviction for women in all three orders. Rowan Williams is well-known for ordaining openly practising homosexuals. Traditionalist Anglicans around the globe have struggled with women and with gays in a committed relationship being ordained. Commentators are repeatedly highlighting that this is an invitation from Rome to misogynists and homophobes.

In North America some Anglicans formed a new denomination The Anglican Church of North America (ACNA). This brings together two extremes of the Anglican spectrum – Rome-facing and Geneva-facing. This marriage of convenience, like the 1977 followers of the Affirmation of St. Louis, cannot last, as, at its heart it is united around being against one thing. Rome’s declaration cannot but affect it. If the Rome-facing ACNA (married) bishops can stomach losing their purple, pectoral crosses, honorary doctoral gowns, and complex titles, they may yet lead their groups home to Rome. This will impact the attempt of some Anglicans to produce a “covenant”. Nigerian “Anglicans” have already formally removed the Archbishop of Canterbury from their constitution. Sydney Anglicans, leaders in GAFON/FOCA/Mainstream, are now not only struggling with theology, church history, and liturgical practice, but have recently realised they haven’t been that good at investments either (their $265 million assets are now worth $105 million). This Geneva-facing, congregationalist end of the Anglican spectrum does not need a Communion in the way that others see it. Rome’s announcement may help towards trimming off the extremes leaving an Anglican Communion that is certainly leaner but hopefully spending far less energy on peripherals and with a stronger focus on the end of the Communion, in the sense of the purpose of the church.

It is not the numbers inside the church that is ultimately significant IMO. It is the focus on service – in the two senses: our liturgical worship of God, and our service to God by our care of people and God’s world. Anglicanism may yet, through this, become more clearly a 21st century church episcopally led, synodically governed, and adapted for the particular context in which it finds itself, working “together with other Provinces and with our ecumenical and interfaith partners to promote God’s reign on earth.”

comments policy

part 2 of this reflection is here

part 3 of this reflection is here

Reflections August 16

Published on August 11, 2009 in liturgy. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , .

00002119-medium

20th Sunday in Ordinary Time August 16 from the collect/opening prayer (NZPB)
20th Sunday in Ordinary Time August 16 from the collect/opening prayer (Roman Catholic)
Proper 15 August 16 from the collect/opening prayer (BCP TEC)

Image: Mosaic panel on the left (north) wall of the apse of the Church of St. Vitale, Ravenna, depicting Emperor Justinian, clothed in full regalia and standing in the center of a retinue of clergy, officials and soldiers (flanked on the right by Bishop Maximian), bringing the bread of the Eucharist to the altar. From Art in the Christian Tradition, a project of the Vanderbilt Divinity Library, Nashville, TN. http://diglib.library.vanderbilt.edu/act-imagelink.pl?RC=32148 [retrieved August 10, 2009].

Year for Priests – St John Vianney

Published on August 3, 2009 in liturgy. 4 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

st-jean-vianneyAs well as the Roman Catholic Church, many Anglican churches celebrate St John Vianney on August 4. This year it is 150 years since the death of the priest who is known more commonly by his title “Curé d’Ars” (the parish priest of the village of Ars-sur-Formans). He is the patron saint of parish priests, and the Pope has announced this year as a Year for Priests in honour of “the 150th anniversary of the death of the Holy Curé d’Ars, Jean-Marie Vianney, a true example of a pastor at the service of Christ’s flock”.

Some points worth reflecting on:

  • the concept of vocation – so quickly (too quickly in my opinion) the word vocation is applied to priesthood and “religious life”. Should not vocation be primarily applied to our baptismal calling to holiness and after that to discernment of our particular way of living out our baptismal vocation to love?
  • the understanding of God’s will – the impression is too quickly given in my opinion that God has a particular pathway planned out for us and should we deviate from this in any way our present happiness, let alone our eternal salvation, is in jeopardy unless and until we return to where we branched off God’s determined pathway and get back onto the correct path. This would have God intending you to marry Sarah and should you marry Martha instead, then you will be unhappy in this life not to mention the next… God intended you to be a Franciscan, but you misheard the call and became a Dominican – not until you leave the Dominicans and join the Franciscans will you be following God’s will for this life (and the next)… Possibly God’s will is more general than that – possibly it is more about searching out the deepest God-given yearnings of our God-given heart?
  • Priesthood as primarily a call to enable the baptismal life of the Christian community. The NZ Prayer Book ordinal says it well, in my opinion,

By the Holy Spirit all who believe and are baptised
receive a ministry to proclaim Jesus as Saviour and Lord,
and to love and serve the people with whom they live and work.
In Christ they are to bring redemption,
to reconcile and to make whole
They are to be salt for the earth; they are to be light to the world.

After his resurrection and ascension
Christ gave gifts abundantly to the Church
Some he made apostles, some prophets. some evangelists.
some pastors and teachers; to equip God’s people
for their work of ministry and to build up the body of Christ.

We stand within a tradition
in which there are deacons priests and bishops
They are called and empowered to fulfil an ordained ministry
and to enable the whole mission of the Church.

  • This might also be a year in which we can discuss more deeply what priesthood means, what diaconate, and laity, and episcopate means, and whether people should be ordained directly to the order to which God calls them (per saltum)?

John Vianney lived and ministered in the aftermath of the French Revolution. He struggled with the academic formation required for priesthood. He greatly stressed the love and mercy of God and also the value of personal discipline. His popularity grew so that Lyons railway station had a separate booking office for trains to Ars. Close to 100,000 individuals came to hear him preach in the last year of his life.

Once, when he was arguing with a Protestant peasant woman in his village, he asked her, “Where was your Church before the Reformation?” She promptly replied, “In the hearts of people like you.”

Heavenly Father,
Shepherd of your people,
we thank you for your Servant John,
who was faithful in the care and nurture of your flock;
and we pray that,
following his example and the teaching of his holy life,
we may by your grace grow into the stature of the fullness of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ;
who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.

Everliving God,
you gave to your servant John Vianney
 gifts of discernment and wise counsel;
grant to all pastors 
a full measure of your wisdom and your love,
that through their ministry 
your truth may be revealed;
through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.

Good shepherd,
yours was the strength which kept Jean, Curé d’Ars,
praying and reconciling year after year;
protect us too, we pray,
from fatigue which shrivels up compassion;
through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.

The Lectionary (part 2)

Published on July 31, 2009 in liturgy. 9 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

In the last post on the lectionary I gave background to the RCL (Revised Common Lectionary) and highlighted that a community discipline of following the lectionary frees us from the vagaries and some of the eccentricities of allowing pastors total discretion to pick their own favourite Bible passages.

I think there is always a danger from some to turn liturgy into rubrical fundamentalism – always following the instructions of our liturgies to the letter solely because these instructions are there. I am far more interested in understanding the reasoning and principles underneath our rubrics (liturgical instructions). This post, hence, will look at some of the advantages of following the lectionary as well as examining some alternatives.

The Lectionary is part of Common Prayer

  • The lectionary is a whole church or denomination sharing a unified, common pattern of biblical proclamation. For example: the gospel book we are all focusing on together this year is Mark. This is the experience of over half the world’s Christians – a remarkable movement of the Holy Spirit in our own time.
  • The lectionary means that all in a community can prepare ahead: clergy, preachers, those worshipping in the congregation, musicians, Sunday School teachers, and so on.
  • Clergy, worship leaders, and preachers meet, discuss, and pray together, share resources and ideas around the lectionary. Because the lectionary is shared ecumenically, such meetings can happen locally between many churches and denominations, and even virtually online.
  • There are wonderful shared resources around the lectionary, ecumenically, internationally, and including online. These include preaching resources, commentaries, Sunday School material, and devotional resources.
  • Individuals and groups reflect prayerfully on the following Sunday readings in the style of Lectio Divina or systematic Bible study or other methods.
  • The lectionary provides a dynamic direction with a carefully thought out pathway and flow in the church’s seasons as well as in Ordinary Time.

The alternative

In my experience, the strongest criticism of RCL comes from those who claim they want to “preach through the whole Bible systematically.” For some time I have been involved with online and offline discussion and critique of RCL. One ordained minister criticised RCL for skipping gospel passages from one week to the next. I am sympathetic to this critique. But what interests me is that when I check that ordained minister’s community website it is noticeable that when the lectionary is abandoned 2 Peter 1:20-21 is followed the next week by John 14:1-6 then Luke 10:25-28 then Isaiah 53:5 then Matthew 23:1-37 then Hebrews 10:24-25! My point is that those who abandon the lectionary appear to have scripture-reading systems that are inestimably impoverished in comparison to the RCL which they criticise.

Another supposedly “systematic-Bible-preaching” site I examined, in a year apparently dedicated to preaching systematically through the book of Jeremiah, there were actually only 14 sermons and Sundays devoted to the Book of Jeremiah. That is, in fact, about the same number of Sundays that RCL devotes to Jeremiah. With a bit of planning, that community could have used the RCL AND had as good a preaching series on Jeremiah! Another similar style of site I visited had five Sundays devoted to Romans 1, another to Romans 2:1-16, nothing for Romans 2:17-3:8, a Sunday for Romans 3:9-31, and then… no more on Romans!

My challenge to those who abandon the lectionary is: show us how your community is doing something so stunning that the negatives of abandoning common prayer are outweighed by your own system.

The Protestant Bible has 1189 chapters. Read and preached on a chapter a week (the systematic manner that many RCL-criticisers mostly suggest) – this results in…. 23 years of preaching to get through the Bible! I can just visualise the Christian formation being provided to the University student attending your church for the three years of her degree when those years just happen to coincide with the systematic preaching through Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy!

The RCL as a preaching tool

Each Sunday the RCL provides a Gospel reading, another New Testament reading, a psalm, and normally two tracks for the Old Testament. One track of the Old Testament links it with the Gospel reading, the other follows the Old Testament semi-continuously in the same manner that the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament are read. [Consistency demands that once a community starts following one track, that is what is used at least for that liturgical year]. Those so inclined can see that these five biblical readings for three years provide fifteen years of exposition before one even needs to return to examine a text for a second time!

It may very well have been possible to have produced something better than this three year cycle we share with more than half the world’s Christians, but that opportunity has now passed. Whatever we alter in this treasure will lead to greater losses than gains in my opinion.

Whilst I rejoice at the liturgical renewal that has put the Eucharist back at the heart of the Christian community, this has not happened without some loss. The Eucharist is the jewel in the crown of Christian worship. For some (many?) that is all they experience – the jewel, no crown. The Eucharist, hence, becomes the sole place for worship, prayer, contemplation, education, fellowship, and so forth. This is a weight too much for the Eucharist to bear.

The Sunday Eucharist ought not to be the only encounter that Christians have with the scriptures. Christians ought regularly to be encouraged to read a book as a whole, for example. Mark’s gospel, our focus this year for example, takes only little more than an hour to read. A Christian community can provide other opportunities for encountering the scriptures in a deeper way – not just individually or in small groups, but online. I am amazed when communities are not providing online resources and discussions to facilitate the deeper, ongoing, systematic, continual working through the scriptures to complement what is provided Sunday by Sunday in their common worship.

RCL, then, is not merely one cool resource alongside others that people might choose from or create their own. Just to take the example of the NZ Anglican Church: the RCL was brought to General Synod where it was passed without amendment, then all the diocesan synods and Hui Amorangi unanimously passed it, then General Synod passed it for a second time, and then a year had to go by allowing for anyone to appeal this new formulary – plenty of opportunities for the sort of discussion and amending by the sort of people who now do not use it. Everything passed unanimously. Clergy promise and sign at their ordination that they will use only authorised material in leading services, and sign again each time they get a new position and licence. Our church’s pledging not to depart from formularies like this is even binding on us as a church by Act of Parliament.

The next post on the lectionary will provide links to some of the best online resources connected to the RCL.

Liturgy as language (part 2)

Published on July 8, 2009 in liturgy. 5 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

1984 25 years on

Liturgy of the Eucharist 1984

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

Virtual Eucharist?

Published on June 28, 2009 in liturgy. 37 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , .

Can sacraments work in the virtual world?

The Revd Professor Paul S. Fiddes, a Baptist minister and Professor of Systematic Theology at the University of Oxford and Director of Research, Regent’s Park College, has just written a short paper arguing in favour of celebrating Eucharist in the virtual world.

Anglican Cathedral in Second Life

Anglican Cathedral in Second Life

Mark Brown, an Anglican priest and CEO of the NZ Bible Society is the founder of the Anglican Cathedral in Second Life. He has just placed Professor Fiddes’ paper on his blog and invited me to respond. Unfortunately Mark himself has to date not entered the discussion. Having just relinquished his position in the Anglican Cathedral in Second Life he may be giving the impression that he is in favour of expanding services in the virtual world to include “sacraments.”

Can bread and wine be consecrated via the internet?

When televised services first became possible, there was discussion whether bread and wine, placed before a television screen, would be consecrated by a priest presiding at a service being televised. Now serious discussions are beginning to take place about sacraments in cyberspace.

Professor Fiddes contends “Theologically we should develop a notion of ‘virtual sacraments’ rather than an ‘extension’ of the consecration of elements over a distance, and their direct reception by the person employing the avatar.” He makes this statement, however, without any substantiation why avatars administering and receiving sacraments within a virtual world is OK but extending this into real life via the internet is not. In general, however, this is in the context of a church that is often struggling to catch up with the potential offered by the internet.

Baptism, immersion into the Christian community, the body of Christ, and hence into the nature of God the Holy Trinity may have some internet equivalents – for example, being welcomed into a moderated group. But my own current position would be to shy away from, for example, having a virtual baptism of a second life avatar. Nor would I celebrate Eucharist and other sacraments in the virtual world. Sacraments are outward and visible signs – the virtual world is still very much at the inner and invisible level. Similarly, in my opinion, placing unconsecrated bread and wine before a computer or television screen and understanding this to result in consecration tends away from the liturgical understanding of the Eucharist (liturgy = work of the people/ something done by a community) towards a magical understanding of the Eucharist (magic = something done to or for an individual or community).

Sacraments 2.0

Professor Fiddes summarises

An avatar can receive the bread and wine of the Eucharist within the logic of the virtual world and it will still be a means of grace, since God is present in a virtual world in a way that is suitable for its inhabitants. We may expect that the grace received by the avatar will be shared in some way by the person behind the avatar, because the person in our everyday world has a complex relationship with his or her persona.

I strongly disagree with this argument. Professor Fiddes contends that God is present in a virtual world providing grace for its inhabitants. In Fiddes’ theology God gives grace to the avatar. This grace, Fiddes’ expects, will then be “shared in some way by the person behind the avatar.” The concept of an avatar being the receiver of God’s grace is astonishing from an Oxford Professor of Systematic Theology, let alone a Baptist minister, who normally would not allow God’s grace to be present in an inanimate object, not to mention a virtual one. Yet, surprisingly, he presents no justification for his startling assertions. In Fiddes’ perspective does all of the grace received by the avatar automatically get transferred to the person behind the avatar in a sort of ex opere operato mechanism? Or in some (many, most) cases is only some of the grace transferred, with the avatar retaining grace that was originally given by God to the avatar? What in Fiddes’ theology is the use of God’s grace to this avatar? What happens to this grace when the computers fail and the virtual world ceases?

Following Fiddes’ approach one would logically hold that God gives grace to a cartoon character like Mickey Mouse with whom an observer (or cartoonist) identifies – and that Mickey Mouse passes this grace on to the observer or cartoonist. Similarly God, according to Fiddes’, would give grace to a character in a computer/video game and that grace is then passed on to the person playing that character.

Mark Brown in Second Life

Mark Brown in Second Life

Although Fiddes claims that grace is not some sort of liquid, some sort of “substance”, there is nothing in his thesis that supports this claim. Putting to one side the comment that celebrating Eucharist in Second Life parodies Real Life church (and so would tend towards sacrilege), and the complexities of who might preside at a Second Life Eucharist (only an ordained person behind an avatar? only an avatar ordained within the virtual world?), I think it is better to examine the sacramental theology underlying Fiddes’ contention.

The majority Christian position (Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican/Episcopalian, Lutheran,…- but, it is to be noted for this response, not Baptist) holds that Christ is truly present in a distinctive way in the Eucharistic species of bread and wine. A sacrament requires particular “matter”. Baptism uses water, Eucharist uses bread and wine. We cannot pour a jar of jelly-beans over someone and say they are baptised. We cannot consecrate a bicycle and say this is the Eucharist. Such sacramental theology is also clear on whom we might confer the sacrament. We cannot baptise a pram. We cannot give communion to a letterbox.

Hence, we cannot baptise an avatar in the virtual world – as there is no water there, nor is an avatar a person on whom we can confer baptism.

There is within Christianity a minority position that regards sacraments as primarily something happening in one’s mind, or metaphorical heart. This position holds that the bread and wine are reminders to the faithful person receiving them. Fiddes, an ordained Baptist minister, is faithful to the Baptist foundations of Regent’s Park College in his sacramental ideas about an individual receiving grace by being mentally involved in a computer simulation. In the Eucharist, bread and wine are the medium by which one makes oneself present to the death of Christ. One wonders why Fiddes would continue this in the virtual world when there one could simulate the death of Christ directly. Communion in his view of the virtual world adds another now-unnecessary layer between Christ’s death and the person on the keyboard.

There is no denying Fiddes’ statement “There is a mysterious and complex interaction between the person and the persona projected (avatar).” This relationship is, in my opinion, akin to identifying with a character in a novel, play, or movie, or with a string puppet one is controlling in a puppet theatre. A baptism, marriage, or celebration of communion in such a novel, movie, or puppet show may deeply move the person identifying with the character. Such a person may very well be graced and transformed by God at such a time. But there is no sense in which the person identifying with the character is thereby baptised, married, or receiving the Eucharist.

The gothic architecture of the Anglican Cathedral in Second Life may mimic the gothic architecture of many cathedrals in Real Life and encourage a sloppy translation into Second Life of everything from Real Life. But, in fact, any architectural construct can be designed in a virtual world in a way that it cannot in Real Life. What we need is not a parodying in the virtual world of that which is particular to Real Life – we need to discern appropriate ways of mission and ministry in and through the virtual world that may very well be significantly different to what we can do in the Real World. It is that which is its blessing and its challenge.

Update: check here for a funny and thought-provoking video on the church’s use of new technology! :-)

Liturgy as language (part 1)

Published on June 22, 2009 in liturgy. 11 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , .

Peter Carrell is an Anglican priest in New Zealand who usually has a very good grasp on what is happening within our province. He writes in an interesting post on Anglican Down Under 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). This, of course, is a dire claim (Peter repeats it on his site Preaching and Worship). What is more, there has only been a single Kiwi disputing his claim in a comment. Whether I can think of a congregation that conflicts with Peter’s claim is not significant. What I want to do is attempt to analyse this situation and what we might be able to learn from this and move forward. I believe that this analysis and my proposals will be just as relevant beyond New Zealand – so please don’t tune out of this thread you non-Kiwis ☺

Peter’s strong assertion comes with little analysis. The conclusion that liturgy cannot sustain a thriving community within our culture he shows to be false through highlighting (in a comment) that Roman Catholics in this country would not dream of departing from liturgy in the way that Kiwi Anglican churches do, yet Roman Catholic communities are not only more than three times as committed in worship attendance, Peter highlights that Roman Catholic communities do not exhibit the problems with lack of flourishing whilst being liturgically faithful.

I contend that liturgy is integral to Anglican identity. The danger of Peter’s barely-hidden subtext is that a community can only thrive here by abandoning Anglican identity.

Peter maintains (again in a comment) that his observation has been perceptible for at least fifteen to twenty years. In that, already, I think, is a clue to analysis. In this series I will look at the way we learn and use language and from that develop a model that I believe is pertinent.

Update: part 2 is here

stand up for your rites

Published on May 29, 2009 in liturgy. 7 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .
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.”

Christian Unity

Published on May 21, 2009 in liturgy and spirituality. 1 Comment Tags: , , , , , , , , .

Whilst in the Northern Hemisphere Christians pray during a Week of prayer for Christian Unity from 18 to 25 January, in the Southern Hemisphere that period of prayer extends from Ascension Day to the Day of Pentecost. This year the resources for this period have been provided from Korea.

This divided country points to the words from Ezekiel 37:17 “That they may become one in your hand.” The prophet Ezekiel also lived in a tragically divided nation and longed for the unity of his people.

2008 marked the centenary of this week of prayer, having begun in 1908, by the Rev. Paul Wattson, a North American Anglican priest, who founded the “Octave for unity”. The Faith and Order movement began publishing “Suggestions for an octave of prayer for Christian unity” in 1926 and in 1966, the WCC Commission on Faith and Order and the Roman Catholic Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity (now known as the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity-PCPCU) began official joint preparation of materials for the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity.

You can download here a PDF of this 2009 resources or follow this link to the Vatican website with the same material.

Remember you can also go to the virtual chapel to pray on this site – including the possibility of lighting a candle there for Christian Unity.

Listen to the Word

Published on May 4, 2009 in liturgy. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , .

185193Listen to the Word
Author: Daniel McCathy
Hardback, 154 pages
Available from Redemptorist Publications

The highlight of my weekly reading of the Tablet in 2006-7 was the commentary on the Sunday collect/opening prayer by Daniel McCarthy OSB. Cutting-edge scholarship met healthy spirituality. I am hence delighted that these commentaries have been revised and collected together.

Opening prayers transform individuals in community

Liturgy gathers individuals into a community and transforms them. At the heart of this process, when understood and applied at its best, is the opening prayer/collect in the Introductory Rites/Gathering of the Community.

Too often, in my experience, the collect/opening prayer is another little prayer read by the whole community from the pew-sheet in the still “cluttered vestibule” of the start of our eucharist.

If only communities would attempt the dynamics of the opening prayer as outlined in this book (p. xv):
1) Invitation to pray: Oremus, “Let us pray”,
2) Silent prayer of the community,
3) The opening prayer or collect given by the presider, which the rest of the assembly makes their own in the hearing,
4) And the ratification of the assembly’s “Amen”.

Often, this prayer read together from the pew-sheet has none of the polish nor even the structure of the great Western collects which once were learnt “by heart”, at least by Anglicans, as a wealth of inner spiritual resources. There is much criticism of the ICEL versions of the current Roman Rite, and new translations increasingly are approaching the Anglican style inherited from Thomas Cranmer. It is, hence, excellent to see that the preface to this book is by an Anglican bishop, Bishop John Flack. Not only do Roman Catholics and Anglicans share a common treasure, generally unrecognised, of these Western gems, but I have discovered that a number of them (currently inexplicably) are being prayed on the same days.

If you are interested, there is more on this approach to the use of the collect in Chapter 6 of Celebrating Eucharist.

For those who wish to grow more deeply into the wealth of the collect/opening prayer tradition and its scholarship, I can unreservedly recommend Appreciating the Collect: An Irenic Methodology by James G. Leachman (Editor), and the author of Listen to the Word, Daniel P. McCarthy (Editor)

Listen to the Word takes each prayer, gives its history, analyses its grammar and meaning, and then applies it to our spiritual life.

Listen to the Word is not a book to be read at one sitting, but to be savoured and lived week by week. In fact, if one reads more than one reflection at a time, one could quickly tire of the repeated, boilerplate introduction from one reflection to the next. Alongside the occasional typo, that would be the only criticism of this book, and I unconditionally recommend it to any who follow the Western liturgical tradition.

The websites mentioned in the book have impossible URLs:
http://web.mac.com/danielmccarthyosb/iWeb/DREI/Welcome.html
and
http://www.bsac.ac.uk/DREIseries/DREIindex.htm

As a gift to them, I have reduced these to
http://tinyurl.com/appreciatingliturgy
and
http://tinyurl.com/LiturgiamAestimare

(This website each week also provides a commentary to the week’s collect – current one normally found on the home page, and previous ones can be found by clicking the button top left “prayer reflections“)

This is my body

Published on May 2, 2009 in liturgy. 7 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , .

brake-breadI 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

church and swine flu

Published on May 1, 2009 in liturgy. 6 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , .

Front page news in our local newspaper (which, by the way as far as I know has still not retracted the false, fabricated papal faux pas it wrote about) today is: “The Maori hongi and the traditional Catholic communion are among the centuries-old traditions being put on hold amid fears over a global swine flu pandemic.”

And yes, there is notification on the Roman Catholic diocesan website with a directive from the bishops: The following actions are to cease: Communion on the tongue; Communion from the chalice; shaking hands at the Sign of Peace. I will be particularly interested in the reaction of traditionalist Roman Catholics to the forbidding of communion on the tongue.

Looking at the New Zealand Anglican websites (General Synod, Taonga, diocesan) I cannot find any reaction within Anglicanism.

flying-disk-gun-hq9645My e-friend Rev. Scott Gunn has 10 suggestions for liturgy to be adapted in this context. Some will have my not-so-high-church readers looking up their liturgical glossary for “lavabo” etc. My personal favourite is shooting communion wafers at congregants from great distance, to avoid contamination. I also like the suggestion to use incense — loads and loads of it — to fumigate the building. Add methyl bromide to the mix for good measure. And I appreciate the inclusion of the video clip of the botafumeiro, the huge thurible that swings across the transept of Santiago de Compostela’s cathedral (I am lucky enough to have attended such a mass there).

The Great Emergence – Phyllis Tickle

Published on April 27, 2009 in liturgy. 1 Comment Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

The Great Emergence: How Christianity Is Changing and Why (Hardcover)
by Phyllis Tickle (Author) 176 pages
Publisher: Baker Books (October 1, 2008)

This book is about a very significant development within Christianity – and hence the world. The first point about this book is that it is not large. At around 60,000 words it is a fast read. And fast-paced. Tickle brings together an enormous wealth of facts and concepts spanning the whole of Christian history. She interweaves Albert Einstein and physics, psychology, the automobile, Karl Marx, drugs, feminism, Alcoholics Anonymous, the effects of wars, and so on. She fits her points into simple metaphors and diagrams. One might argue with some of her details, but the overall generalisations certainly are strong.

It is some of the details that did take me by surprise. I was surprised by Tickle’s repeatedly referring, without apology, to the Christian Sunday as “the Sabbath”, particularly within her context, and her recurring attempts to include Judaism within her analysis. Similarly “the Dark Ages” was used repeatedly, again without apology – whereas many scholars would now use “Early Middle Ages”. Or her seeing Mormons as the fourth great Abrahamic faith alongside Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Or (as an Episcopalian herself) her appearing to lump Anglicanism in with continental Protestantism rather than a reformed catholic movement ante-dating and anticipating much in post-Vatican II Roman Catholicism.

The biggest weakness of the book, in my opinion, is that if a reader has no idea at the start of the book what emergent Christianity regularly refers to, what an emergent community might currently look like, they may very well still not have the slightest idea by the end of the book. When she does point to a form of emergent Christianity it is to the “signs and wonders” movement associated with John Wimber, an approach that again might surprise many who see themselves as emergent, but cannot identify with Wimber’s approach.

Tickle rightly highlights the significance of the internet in the changes occurring within Christianity. What she fails to mention is that it is often not “emergent Christianity” but regularly the more conservative to fundamentalist forms of Christianity, from pro-Tridentine Mass Roman Catholics to selectively biblically literalist protestants who have the better websites, higher ranking, and greatest number of hits on the internet.

I am not convinced, as Tickle makes so much of in her book, that of necessity there is a “Great” transforming event within Christianity and Judaism every 500 years. And I do not think that the book would have suffered if that theory was abandoned. I think far more strongly are the phases of pre-Constantinian Christianity, Constantinian “established” Christianity, and our movement now into a post-Constantinian situation. We can still learn from transformative events such as the sixteenth century Reformation, and also compare and contrast with pre-Constantinian Christianity.

She helpfully sees the more conservative parts of her four-sided current Christianity as providing ballast in our movement forward. We all need each other and can learn from each other. There is certainly much of value within this book, and I recommend it as a good read. But I cannot recommend it unreservedly as there is much in it that is open to debate. Hence, it may be a good book to engender such discussion within a group – including of church leaders. Members of such a group could decide how much to prepare from the book before a meeting highlighting what they found helpful, what they disagreed with, what they sought a group discussion on, and how they might apply what they have discussed to enhance their community in our new context.