tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2062663241506120266.post7290585623312029259..comments2023-06-19T03:38:00.995-07:00Comments on contemplative vernacular: Rite III AdditionsChristopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17176482447120453890noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2062663241506120266.post-883871486856309162010-01-17T10:10:59.410-08:002010-01-17T10:10:59.410-08:00Fr John-Julian,
It is interesting, and perhaps, w...Fr John-Julian,<br /><br />It is interesting, and perhaps, worthy of changing? I'm going to check in with folks about proposing such a change. I would suggest that by not allowing for Rite I to be used in Rite II language, hints at obsolescence. But the prayer still speaks as you note: It is a beautiful prayer expressing the heart of Anglican Christology-- God Saves. This is cruciform prayer expressing a compassionate and merciful Christ by whom we are upheld always. It takes the propitiatory language of Sarum and wholly reworks that language to participation in God's own life as sheer gift and not something for which we must plead.Closedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04752595488795781895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2062663241506120266.post-56993813418674586432010-01-14T10:31:38.443-08:002010-01-14T10:31:38.443-08:00Isn't it interesting that provision is made fo...Isn't it interesting that provision is made for modern-to-tradtional: "In any of the Proper Liturgies for Rite One service, the contemporary idiom may be conformed to traditional language." (BCP, p 14) but the reverse is not provided for by rubric (as far as I know) -- so you have to take the Rite III short-cut to get the Rite I prayer into modern English. It does sound good, though, doesn't it? Even in the "modern idiom".John Julianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09668893912018639700noreply@blogger.com