What is in Kelvin's Head?

Liturgy should say what it means, and …

The chiasmus that is so often quoted about liturgy these days is that liturgical writing should say what it means and mean what it says. By and large, I agree with that, though we do have to allow space for the times when we cannot grasp or explain all that God is.

However, I have a wee problem brewing at the moment. The truth is, I don’t understand all the collects that I get presented with for Evensong. Take the one for this Sunday:

ALMIGHTY and merciful God, of whose only gift it cometh that thy faithful people do unto thee true and laudable service: Grant, we beseech thee, that we may so faithfully serve thee in this life, that we fail not finally to attain thy heavenly promises; through the merits of Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Now, what exactly does that mean? And even supposing that we understand what it means, do we believe what it says? I know the members of the Prayer Book Society will be hopping up and down on one leg by this time. Brothers and sisters of the PBS, now is your moment. Tell me, should we really keep saying and singing things that we don’t understand? Was that really what Cranmer would have wanted?

You see, I have to sing this stuff. How can you sing a text you just can’t understand the meaning of? I’m baffled.

I’m baffled and I’m going to sing a different collect on Sunday night.

So bite me.

[Talking of chiasmi, I saw a good one today when I was out shopping in Frasers – “better to be looked over than to be overlooked.” Excellent. The stuff that good preaching is made on. It was Mae West, of course].

Comments

21 responses to “Liturgy should say what it means, and …”

  1. Tim Avatar
    Tim

    Hmmm. Looks like a confusion of grace permitting faith in the first clause[0], followed by a rather too close interplay of salvation and works shortly afterwards. Sounds like the language of 1662 before progressiveness was invented!

    [0] is there a proper term for sections of these things?

    Reply
  2. Kimberly Avatar
    Kimberly

    I think the only hope of sense is in singing it. Or at least in reading it aloud. (tripplet of tripple stresses: on’ly gift’ it com’eth… faith’ful peo’ple do’… true’ & laud’able ser’vice)

    I’m sure Cranmer would not want us to be using it. But a modern collect would not give you nearly so much opportunity to shine.

    as an aside– Do you think we should start a ‘What would Cranmer do?’ campaign to rival WWJD?

    Reply
  3. kelvin Avatar
    kelvin

    Tim – I don’t know whether there is a special term for the first clause. It is from the SPB, but I’m not actually sure whether the same collect is in 1662. I presume so.

    As to Kimberly’s comment, it rather highlights the problem, in that I would have presumed that the second “triplet” actually ends with a stress on thee, not on do.

    But as I said earlier, what would I know.

    I like very much the idea of WWCD?

    As I always say when confronted with the WWJD? question, we know what Jesus did – he went to parties and hung out with all the wrong people.

    Reply
  4. Roddy Avatar
    Roddy

    Hmm. Don’t understand the first sentence of the collect but do understand the second.

    I’ve never really had a problem with Cranmer since I read the book “God’s Secretaries” on the production of the KJB. Albeit Cranmer predated Launcelot Andrewes et al the writing is still English at its purest, beautiful, and most expressive. Maybe we all need to sharpen our knowledge of the nuances of language from the 16th and 17th century.

    I’ve found a whole wealth and layer of meaning in reading the psalms and the prayer book in their early english forms. Subtlety of language is to be celebrated even though it may seem archaic.

    That being said I’m off to don my velvet smoking jacket and take some snuff. However, I leave you with this thought. The language of the Cranmer collects is poetical if difficult to understand. Modern translations of the collects are like the instruction manual for a photocopier. Exactly how many qualifying clauses does belief require..

    Reply
  5. Kimberly Avatar
    Kimberly

    Triple negative, Kelvin. ‘Thee’ never gets stressed in a collect. The whole thing is addressed to God. Stressing ‘thee’ would either be winging or fawning.

    (and surely trippplet should have more p’s)

    Reply
  7. kelvin Avatar
    kelvin

    Kimberly’s rather garrulous spelling goes some way to proving my original point. One p in triplet in this dispensation. You can argue that tripplet is the correct American spelling if you wish.

    You may all be thinking that baiting the Prayer Book Society is just something that priests do because it is good sport. However, I could not possibly comment.

    I disagree with Roddy but only by degree. I’d say that some of Cranmer is still English at its purest, beautiful, and most expressive. But not all. (And don’t get me started on parsing the sentences from the Scottish Communion Rite in the SPB).

    I think that the modern collects that we are currently using at St Mary’s are pretty good in comparison with some sets. The ones we use are not licensed by anything other that the faint nod of acquiescence from the episcopal nose.

    Whilst Roddy is snorting his snuff, I’ll throw in something that I remember Alan Bennett saying when addressing the Prayer Book Society that haunts me.

    “Cranmer was one of the architects of the Prayer Book. He was burnt at the stake; he did not die for English prose.”

    Reply
  8. chris Avatar
    chris

    Despite being a fervent advocate of modern poetic* liturgy, I have to come out and say that I find this collect (a) perfectly clear and (b) very beautiful in its carefully judged balance – even if modern usage would quibble somewhat with the punctuation. (The colon and the semi-colon are a tad heavy-handed, but do assist in unravelling the syntax)
    *I don’t like giving God a 21st century shopping list, nor even a news bulletin.

    Reply
  9. kelvin Avatar
    kelvin

    Well don’t just tease us, Chris, explain the bit before the colon.

    I know what the second part means and don’t like the sentiment at all.

    Reply
  10. kelvin Avatar
    kelvin

    Oh, and whilst we are on the subject, just let me say that liturgy is one of the things that we did get some help with in TISEC.

    And, even more importantly for this discussion, on one glorious occasion, the person doing the teaching did in fact take snuff during the session.

    Roddy, you are in blessed company.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *