Anyone up for a chat thread?

Halfway finished with my Lenten writing. I don't write series very often but the Presbyterians booked me 3 weeks straight through Palm Sunday so it seemed fitting to do so for this season. Then I have 4 Lutheran services to do in Holy Week: Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, Easter Sunrise, Easter principle. And I'm about 90% finished with research for my May lecture at an Anglican conference. When I finish that one, I have a June lecture to work on for an independent Catholic conference (90% of those guys were Anglicans).

Shane R said:

Halfway finished with my Lenten writing. I don't write series very often but the Presbyterians booked me 3 weeks straight through Palm Sunday so it seemed fitting to do so for this season. Then I have 4 Lutheran services to do in Holy Week: Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, Easter Sunrise, Easter principle. And I'm about 90% finished with research for my May lecture at an Anglican conference. When I finish that one, I have a June lecture to work on for an independent Catholic conference (90% of those guys were Anglicans).

Click to expand...

Shane, what topics will you be lecturing on? Sorry if I missed that elsewhere in the thread.

Deegie said:

Shane, what topics will you be lecturing on? Sorry if I missed that elsewhere in the thread.

Click to expand...

May: the essential unity in shape of the major Protestant liturgies and the degree of conformity of those liturgies to the Roman Rite
June: the Shepherd of Hermas

No and yes. In the classic service books, BCP 1662 and the Lutheran Common Service, as well as the Methodist and Presbyterian texts -to the extent in which they were liturgical- have a high degree of correspondence with each other due to mutual influence. The Methodist and Presbyterian texts are largely nothing more than pared down versions of the BCP.

The new service books of the 20th century were intentionally trying to conform to the Roman Rite, in as much as it could be made acceptable to a Protestant church. In turn, the Roman Catholic Church was leading the way in textual revisions and the development of the 3 year lectionary so that, for example, the Creed is identical across all of the major service books published in the 1970s and most incorporate some form of multi-year lectionary cycle. However, this is when the phenomenon of multiple rites took off. There was sufficient push-back from the faithful in the pews that something of the old familiar services had to be retained.

This leads to an interesting conclusion: the Roman Catholic Church really doesn't have much basis to argue against the form of the rite post Vatican II. Their rejection of the Protestant eucharist must be based on deficient intention or matter -in the case of those who adopted the novelty of celebrating the eucharist with grape juice- using the criteria of right form, matter, and intention.

Shane R said:

The new service books of the 20th century were intentionally trying to conform to the Roman Rite, in as much as it could be made acceptable to a Protestant church. In turn, the Roman Catholic Church was leading the way in textual revisions and the development of the 3 year lectionary so that, for example, the Creed is identical across all of the major service books published in the 1970s and most incorporate some form of multi-year lectionary cycle. However, this is when the phenomenon of multiple rites took off. There was sufficient push-back from the faithful in the pews that something of the old familiar services had to be retained.

Click to expand...

Yep. That sounds like a pretty good summary of the liturgical movement. As long as we remind people that the Roman Rite they were seeking to rediscover was not the modern one but the pre-Tridentine one. Because there's this idea still floating around that the mainline simply copied what the RCC was doing liturgically through the mid-20th century and that wasn't the case. It really was an ecumenical effort to take advantage of all the new scholarship. In fact, the ecumenical movement and the liturgical movement coexisted and influenced each other but were separate things. Heck, Massey Shepherd was invited to Vatican II, along with Bernard Pawley who was the ABC's representative. So I like the way you characterized it in having the RCC leading the way in the textual work. Very balanced. (Note to our non-American friends: Massey Shepherd was one of TEC's leading liturgists of the period.)

Fenwick and Spinks put it this way in what's probably still the definitive history: "It remains true that the different branches of the world Church could claim the [liturgical] movement as their own. It can be described as being in genesis and outworking a force within the Roman Catholic Church which has had a knock-on effect in other Churches. Equally Churches of the Reformation can claim it as a further outworking of their own basic principles." They go on to note how some of the outcomes, like weekly communion, public baptism, etc. were exactly the things that the English Reformers had fought for centuries prior. Plus, worship in the vernacular -- in innovation for the Romans -- was also something Cranmer and company had advocated for.

The weird thing is that talking to my parishioners now who remember the '60s and '70s, they have a very different experience from what is found in the history books. Instead of gradual revisions that were made with much public conversation and experimentation, they remember a sudden change that they had no say in. As if one year they were doing monthly communion from the 1928 BCP and then they were just forced into weekly communion from the 1979 book. I'm curious if others have experienced anything like that.

Anyway...what a great topic! I wish you all the best in the presentations.

Interestingly, I went to lunch with some of the church folk yesterday and they broached the subject of having a healing service on 5th Sundays. I told them: let's do it.

Their last full-time pastor had introduced the service. He offered it either at or after the conclusion of the regular eucharist, they were not totally clear on how that worked. But there was some separation and people could leave or stay.

Every time I turn around one of my kids needs shoes.

This was a first for me. I attended a funeral which I was not officiating. The officiant fainted shortly after the portion in the church. After he came to he asked me to do the graveside portion in his stead and handed me the service book. So I did half of a funeral today.