Liturgy

[TeutonKnight]

Would you say you are a fan of traditional liturgy or contemporary liturgy. I consider myself to be traditional (which I don't think is odd as I know quite a few people of my age who are not keen on the contemporary stuff).

 

[AngCath]

I tend to be more traditional when it comes to liturgy.

 

[MKJ]

I am not a big fan of any of the contemporary liturgies I have seen. I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with a traditional Anglican liturgy in "contemporary language" though it wouldn't be my personal preference. But the contemporary liturgies are starting from a different understanding of Anglicanism, which is a problem for me.

What is your age, Teutonic Knight? I'm 33 - I know a lot of the younger generation who also seem to prefer a more traditional liturgy too. I have noticed the same among Roman Catholics.

 

[Yab Yum]

... the contemporary liturgies are starting from a different understanding of Anglicanism, which is a problem for me.

I'm curious - do you want to elaborate?

 

[MKJ]

I'm curious - do you want to elaborate?

If you don't mind, I'll send you to an article, which is more complete than what I could write - it's also more concise and readable. I can't embed links so I'll have to give you the title - The End of the Liturgical Movement and the Recovery of Biblical Worship. It's found on the site for the Prayer Book Society of Canada, in the articles section, under "Research into Historical Questions." I'm not totally on the same page with the writer in all things, but I think his analysis of the Liturgical Movement is spot-on.

I've noticed recently that the Roman Catholics are starting to weed out a lot of the Liturgical Movement influences from their liturgies. They seem to have decided it reflects a wholesale change in approach to the development of liturgy which has resulted in some of their problems, especially in NA. The most recent Pope has written a bit on the topic.

 

[JasonV]

I'm a traditional liturgist myself. Although I do not believe there is anything wrong with contemporary liturgies, they just don't do it for me.

My church uses a revised Tridentine Mass, and I quite like it.

 

[TomUK]

Would you say you are a fan of traditional liturgy or contemporary liturgy. I consider myself to be traditional (which I don't think is odd as I know quite a few people of my age who are not keen on the contemporary stuff).

That's a very tricky question to answer, namely as to the question of what traditional liturgy really is. For example is the BCP (1662) traditional or is the newly released Common Worship of the Church of England which is obviously more contemporary in its idiom but far more rooted in the liturgies of the early church than the BCP ever was.

 

[AngCath]

I'm a traditional liturgist myself. Although I do not believe there is anything wrong with contemporary liturgies, they just don't do it for me.

My church uses a revised Tridentine Mass, and I quite like it.

Now that sounds interesting. I have been to a Tridentine mass once (only the homily was in English) and the Novus Ordo as well. Is this found online anywhere or is this just one more thing I'll have to look at in the Liturgy book you referred me to in another thread?

--

Also, I feel like I should be more specific when I say I'm a more traditional. I'm an Episcopalian and I like Rite I and Rite II and I consider myself "traditional" in that I prefer liturgies actually found in the BCP and not the contemporary stuff that is around - it just doesn't do anything for me - though I hope nobody here misunderstands me to be denigrating contemporary worship.

 

[Albion]

Traditional--by which I mean 'according to the BCP' [1549 to 1928 USA or Canada 1962, etc.]

 

[TeutonKnight]

I am not a big fan of any of the contemporary liturgies I have seen. I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with a traditional Anglican liturgy in "contemporary language" though it wouldn't be my personal preference. But the contemporary liturgies are starting from a different understanding of Anglicanism, which is a problem for me.

What is your age, Teutonic Knight? I'm 33 - I know a lot of the younger generation who also seem to prefer a more traditional liturgy too. I have noticed the same among Roman Catholics.

I am 23.

 

[ebia]

Would you say you are a fan of traditional liturgy or contemporary liturgy. I consider myself to be traditional (which I don't think is odd as I know quite a few people of my age who are not keen on the contemporary stuff).

I'm not fussed, so long as the quality is there, Jesus is there, and lives are changed.

 

[Yardstick]

The more smells and bells the better.

 

[Timothy]

Can work with traditional but can't worship with it. Much MUCH prefer my current church where we use the creed, the confession and for our monthly communion service, an authorised eucharistic prayer (CW gives us lots of choice) Then I'm comfortable.

 

[Albion]

Can work with traditional but can't worship with it. Much MUCH prefer my current church where we use the creed, the confession and for our monthly communion service, an authorised eucharistic prayer (CW gives us lots of choice) Then I'm comfortable.

Throughout this discussion I've had the suspicion that the word "traditional" means something to one person that is quite different from what the next one means by it. That said, I once thought that all the "smells and bells" were simply marvelous and awe-inspiring, but gradually I found myself repelled by priests who were drama queens and spent more time on posturing than on what's important. Gradually, I became more and more favorable to very "low church" worship...but I still want that to be within the format of the BCP as opposed to an unstructured, novel, or constantly changing kind of service.

But that's just my own story. When someone else says that he's either partial to or, on the contrary, unsympathetic to "traditional" worship, I'm not sure just what he means by that.

 

[Timothy]

For me--traditional language. I used the 1662 BCP evening prayer for about six months with one locum minister... and even at the end of it, I'm still praying in a foreign language. If I wanted to do that, I'd attend a greek-speaking church.

 

[Albion]

For me--traditional language. I used the 1662 BCP evening prayer for about six months with one locum minister... and even at the end of it, I'm still praying in a foreign language. If I wanted to do that, I'd attend a greek-speaking church.

Well, I guess all that I can say is that I'm sorry it's worked out that way for you. For me, the language of the BCP is both beautiful and intelligible. I'd feel deprived if I had to worship using some of these Books of Alternative Services that pass for being translations of the BCP or "based upon" the BCP. In fact, I'd read the BCP offices in preference to attending church if it were to come to that.

 

[ebia]

Throughout this discussion I've had the suspicion that the word "traditional" means something to one person that is quite different from what the next one means by it.

Indeed.

 

[MKJ]

Well, I guess all that I can say is that I'm sorry it's worked out that way for you. For me, the language of the BCP is both beautiful and intelligible. I'd feel deprived if I had to worship using some of these Books of Alternative Services that pass for being translations of the BCP or "based upon" the BCP. In fact, I'd read the BCP offices in preference to attending church if it were to come to that.

There are certainly some terrible language constructions in some of them. I have been told that the Canadian BCP was framed by poets - which makes me less confused about the lack of popular Canadian poetry.

The BCP also contains a version called "in the language of the BCP". It does keep the language, but totally buggers the form, with the gloria at the beginning, and the sermon before the creed etc, and all the same allowances of the rest of the book, like leaving out the confession.

 

[scotsdoc54]

Definitely prefer a structured, traditional liturgy. While I definitely feel that people should worship however they feel is the best way to connect with God, I do get a bit irritated sometimes at "low church" Protestant services that I sometimes attend with my friends. Personal opinion, but it seems very human centered when all the focus is on the sermon and not on the Eucharist. But, to each his own I suppose.

 

[Albion]

Definitely prefer a structured, traditional liturgy. While I definitely feel that people should worship however they feel is the best way to connect with God, I do get a bit irritated sometimes at "low church" Protestant services that I sometimes attend with my friends. Personal opinion, but it seems very human centered when all the focus is on the sermon and not on the Eucharist. But, to each his own I suppose.

IMO, that's the beauty of low church ANGLICAN services (as opposed to what you called "low church Protestant" (?) services, by which I am guessing you meant the services of other denominations). With the historic BCP, you still have the liturgy, you have ritual, but you do not have sermon-only or human-centered services as in non-liturgical churches. The optional postures and vestments, that some parishes go in for etc. are de-emphasized so that the service is NOT human centered.