tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29191589.post952320959226595378..comments2023-10-25T04:22:54.910-07:00Comments on An Anglican Priest: The Ruminations of a Canterbury Cap Catholic: Rev. Dr. Hasserthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14350737386756722887noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29191589.post-19118285699969026092007-10-24T18:25:00.000-07:002007-10-24T18:25:00.000-07:00All of which would be true except for the rise of ...All of which would be true except for the rise of Calvinism which destroyed the Orthodox use of the word "Presbyter." The waters are also muddied because it seems to deny the meaning given the office by the "earliest bishps and Catholic fathers." The question it raises is whether we, as Anglicans, believe in a minsterial priesthood or not. And this is the reason that the ordinal chose the word priest over the Greek presbyter. It stressed the connection with just recent past and stood against what Rome would and did say about the abandonment of the Catholic (not Roman) conception of order.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29191589.post-45601634100502309252007-10-03T20:06:00.000-07:002007-10-03T20:06:00.000-07:00Peter's Mouse,Well, if that is the most negative c...Peter's Mouse,<BR/><BR/>Well, if that is the most negative comment you have on the piece I will take it as a compliment. <BR/><BR/>Keep in mind that I have composed this to conform to the 1662 Modern Language liturgy already approved in the Reformed Episcopal Church, which itself conforms to the 1662 traditional language liturgy in our Prayer Book. This prayer book contains both the 1662 English and 1928 American Eucharistic prayers, unaltered (including the prayer for the faithful departed in the 1928) except for the use of the word "presbyter." I do not find this alteration as "un-Anglican" as you, given that the Scottish liturgy upon which the 1928 is based employed this term, and it is the more ancient term used to refer to this Holy Order in the Church: Episcopate, Presbyterate, and Diaconate. You have detected an "anti-Anglican bias" where there was none, and in a near word for word update of the 1928 PECUSA liturgy.<BR/><BR/>Again, my main reason for including this term instead of priest was one of conformity to the body in which I am a priest and the Prayer Book that I am to use as a cleric in said body. No underlying theological machinations were present. Also, given that the 1928 BCP is approved for use in the REC (as the whole book itself in addition to the 1928 Eucharistic canon being approved as an alternate liturgy to the 1662 in our main BCP) and it uses the word priest, if this service is ever approved (I have submitted to our liturgical committee) perhaps the word priest would be substituted in 1928 BCP parishes.Rev. Dr. Hasserthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14350737386756722887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29191589.post-69820805614685758702007-10-03T16:59:00.000-07:002007-10-03T16:59:00.000-07:00xThe use of the word "presbyter" instead of the mo...xThe use of the word "presbyter" instead of the more easily understood "priest" indicates an anti-Anglican bias and a misunderstanding of what the framers did and why in their choice of words in the ordinal. The Latin services ordained to the "presbyterate" but the earliest Anglican ordinal deliberately chose to use the words priest and priesthood to illustrate their understanding of the office and their difference from the thinking, the theology, if you will, of the continental 'deformers.'<BR/><BR/>I am sorry, but it gets my back up and seems an unnecessary break with "classical prayer book Anglicanism."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29191589.post-4011497420425836462007-10-02T15:39:00.000-07:002007-10-02T15:39:00.000-07:00Robert Opala, the Anglican Church gives a great ex...Robert Opala, the Anglican Church gives a great example for all Christians. <BR/>Robert Opala, UKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29191589.post-79174281588244103332007-10-01T18:42:00.000-07:002007-10-01T18:42:00.000-07:00Deaconess,I don't think your comments were off the...Deaconess,<BR/><BR/>I don't think your comments were off the mark; in that the 1662 Modern language was only approved for a "first reading" I think it is quite appropriate to point out where it may clunk a bit. I agree that better choices for certain words may be out there.<BR/><BR/>I am heartened by the words of the Welshmann: ". . .compared to some of the modern "liturgies" I've read--again, I admit I don't come from a liturgical tradition--the modern language of the re-write sounds positively ancient by comparison. Which, I think, is a good thing."<BR/><BR/>Liturgical conservatism has a point; to keep all for which there is no reason to change. 98% of ++Cranmer requires no alteration to "modernize" it in an intelligent way, so I don't think taking out "vouchsafe" or "beseech" is the same thing as say "The Message." It can be done in a way the preserves the cadance, the affect, as well as the meaning.Rev. Dr. Hasserthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14350737386756722887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29191589.post-3648065760876443582007-10-01T18:19:00.000-07:002007-10-01T18:19:00.000-07:00Oh, yes, it would be a bit heavy-handed to drop "v...Oh, yes, it would be a bit heavy-handed to drop "vouchsafes" on the heads of unsuspecting outsiders. That's the surest way to keep them outside, unless they are Shakespeare buffs. In the first parish I served, we tried offering an early service in modern language on Sundays for a while, but I suppose it was too early because the attendance was dismal and we gave it up after a few months. But now that I've now publicly put my blue-shod foot in my mouth by criticizing the wording approved by my fathers in Christ, I must now say something nice in hopes of diverting attention from my faux pas.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, I will truthfully admit that I like the more modern <I>Gloria</I> better, and as long as no one changes those words for which Archbishop Cranmer died ("feed on Him in your hearts by faith") I shall promise to be content with "proclaim" instead of "laud" (though I will at first gently insist under my breath that "praise" is a better substitute.)Dss. Teresahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07071708677367052815noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29191589.post-89637806561557850712007-09-30T13:52:00.000-07:002007-09-30T13:52:00.000-07:00Thank you both for the comments. I share you senti...Thank you both for the comments. <BR/><BR/>I share you sentiments, Deaconess. However, I still think having orthodox modern language services available is a useful tool for outreach (if you are invited to do a service for a Christian group or nursing home, etc). I'm not suggesting replacing our beautiful 1662/1928 BCP, only to provide services that are not cut and paste nor dumbed down. Also, I too think the word choice replacements for beseech, vouchsafe, and laud are a bit week. However, I modeled the choices after the modern language 1662 already approved by the REC General Convention in order to preserve some continuity between the two services. <BR/><BR/>ACRev. Dr. Hasserthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14350737386756722887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29191589.post-54326524937461028442007-09-30T10:08:00.000-07:002007-09-30T10:08:00.000-07:00AC+:As you know, I'm not from a liturgical traditi...AC+:<BR/><BR/>As you know, I'm not from a liturgical tradition, but the same problem comes up in revivalist churches when debating the merits of modern translations of the Bible versus the KJV. I'm not a KJV-onlyist, but I admit I'm always a little leary of the perceived need to have a modern translation for fear that "modern" is a synonym for "watered down". Somewhere between worshipping in Aramaic on the one hand and in American slang on the other, there has to be a middle ground where we worship in a language that the people can understand, but where it is understood that the people will also be taught the language of worship.<BR/><BR/>All that being said, compared to some of the modern "liturgies" I've read--again, I admit I don't come from a liturgical tradition--the modern language of the re-write sounds positively ancient by comparison. Which, I think, is a good thing.<BR/><BR/>Enjoy your Lord's Day.welshmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18021662418461137766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29191589.post-55819036981381058412007-09-30T04:31:00.000-07:002007-09-30T04:31:00.000-07:00I am always torn by attempts to update the magnifi...I am always torn by attempts to update the magnificent BCP language. On the one hand, I realize that many of the words have fallen out of use and that our continuing to use the liturgy in public worship begins to bend the 24th Article's injunction not to "minister the sacraments in a tongue not understanded of the people." Yet the problem is that adequate synonyms do not exist for most of the unfamiliar words. As our culture's view of God has eroded, we have lost the ability to express such concepts as "vouchsafe."<BR/><BR/>With regard to the specific rework posted here, I'm not sure that "implore" is better known to the masses than "beseech," and "proclaim" does not capture the full meaning of "laud." Switching out "thee" and "thou" is probably the easiest thing to do but the least necessary. I suppose the bottom line is that although I applaud the effort to make the language more accessible, I will always prefer the BCP original language, not as inspired but as inspiring.Dss. Teresahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07071708677367052815noreply@blogger.com