Evangelical Congregations ?

Some days ago I was taking part in a virtual ecumenical discussion and prayer group.
The group has met for some 25 years and we rarely discuss our religious differences, concentrating most of the time on what unites us - Jesus Christ.

However this time for some reason or another an Anglican/Episcopalian member of the group suddenly said , 'You know what I don't like about Evangelicals, - they always think that they are right and everyone else is wrong'.

I thought this was somewhat amusing, as the group is hosted by the Catholic Church who are also said to say that they are right and everyone else is wrong. It is also the case that a significant number of members of the group are Evangelicals who are not Anglican but members of the sort of independent stand alone evangelical communities and who might not have understood the word 'Evangelical' in the same way as Anglicans.

However it did make me think about the differences in understanding of the meanings of words which Christian communities use. this surfaced also in discussion on an other thread about 'Evangelicals' and 'worship'

About 50 years ago those who regularly attended worship in a Catholic church would have described themselves as 'parishioners', while those who attended a Church of Scotland charge would have described themselves as the' congregation'.

In Catholicspeak at that time 'congregation' would generally have had a different meaning.
Nowadays I often hear the word 'congregation' used also in a Catholic context for the people who come to a certain religious service in a church.

'Service' itself is another word which can be understood in different ways by different Christians.
There can also be real difficulties in translating words which are current in religious language into another language.

The usual word for a Christian religious service in French is 'la messe' (the Mass) but I used to smile a long time ago when French radio or TV would talk during the troubles in Northern Ireland of 'la messe' in the church of Ian Paisley.

Are there any other words or expressions of this sort which people notice ?
«134

Comments

  • To me the real weasel world is "mission". Not only can that mean "doing something for God is a place far away", but its use can vary between all shades of evangelism, service to the community, social work ... the list is endless.

    By the way I had a Methodist friend from Yorkshire who (c.1975) was invited to tea in Glasgow by some strict Scottish Evangelical Christians. They asked him, "So what church do you go to" and he replied, "Oh, I don't go to church, I go to the chapel". They nearly threw him out as, to them, "chapel" meant "Roman Catholic".
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    About 40 years ago I was in Dieppe,Normandy and met a family from Glasgow who wanted to go to St Valery-en-Caux. - 40 years after the events of which we have just been remembering the 80th anniversary. I said to him 'there is a nice church there, built after the war with lovely stained glass' He said to me, 'Oh, that church 'll be a chapel. I don't know, if I could go there.'

    Indeed that 'church' is a 'chapel' Chapelle de Notre Dame de Bon Port, but I am not sure in which way my Glaswegian understood the word 'chapel'.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    To me the real weasel world is "mission". Not only can that mean "doing something for God is a place far away", but its use can vary between all shades of evangelism, service to the community, social work ... the list is endless.

    By the way I had a Methodist friend from Yorkshire who (c.1975) was invited to tea in Glasgow by some strict Scottish Evangelical Christians. They asked him, "So what church do you go to" and he replied, "Oh, I don't go to church, I go to the chapel". They nearly threw him out as, to them, "chapel" meant "Roman Catholic".

    "Mission" in Orthodox parlance usually refers to a local worshiping body (future parish) that is not yet self-supporting and gets material help from the diocese.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited June 19
    It was also common parlance in the UK in The Good Old Days™ - why, the Tin Tabernacle Of My Yoof was 'St X's Mission', and was always referred to simply as 'the Mission'.

    Cities and towns in England used to be simply awash with 'Missions' - not only from the C of E, but from just about everyone else as well! Some made it to parish (or equivalent) status, but many faded away after a few years.

    St X's was independent, albeit founded by a practising Anglican, even though the local parish church had, some years before, set up its own Mission not a hundred yards up the road! St X's survived until comparatively recently - the 'other Mission' was already closed (and used as a shop) by the time I moved to that street in nineteen-sixty-mumble mumble...
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    On another thread there is mention of the idea of some Evangelicals that they are the only Christians. They are not the only groups to think that or to have thought that. both Catholics and Orthodox have often put forward these ideas.
    In the Philippines and some other parts of the world Christians are divided into 'Catholics' and 'Christians' Neither names are meant to be disparaging of the other. It is simply meant to describe the two groups.
    I think, however, that this would be an unusual way of distinguishing groups of Christians in the UK and the USA, unless one wished to imply that one group was not in fact Christian.

    The other day I heard an Evangelical (not an Anglican Evangelical this time) say that there were only two Christians ,(mentioning them by name ) in the Scottish Parliament. I don't actually know the religious allegiance of many of the MSPs but I do think that there are more than two who would describe themselves as Christian.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Wy wife and I, both RCs have been called non-Christians by members of other churches - usually by evangelicals. But I know there are Greek orthodox who think we catholics are devil-worshippers.
  • Is Outrage!

    Seriously, though, surely that kind of fruitloopery is dying out (or should be...).

    Maybe one of the side-effects of Covid-19 might be a blurring of the boundaries between Christian groupings?
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Is Outrage!

    Seriously, though, surely that kind of fruitloopery is dying out (or should be...).

    Maybe one of the side-effects of Covid-19 might be a blurring of the boundaries between Christian groupings?

    No. Its water off a ducks back to be honest.
  • O well.
    :disappointed:
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    My interest in this thread is not so much how one can deliberately or inadvertently insult another person by use of a certain term, but rather to see how some people may use a word which seems to have a certain meaning for them but may be understood in a different way by the person who hears it.

    We have seen how the following words can be understood differently by various people, so far : 'evangelical', ' congregation', 'worship', mission' 'Christian'.
    Are there any others ?
  • Jengie JonJengie Jon Shipmate
    I ranted about the lack of term that covers generically

    URC/Methodist/Baptist Ministers, Independent Church Pastors, Anglican Vicars and Roman Catholic Priests but did not also cover URC Elders. I cannot think of one without drawbacks due to different understandings . While I know there are differences our understanding of what role the person is playing I still see enough commonality to want a noun that covers the whole lot of them pretty well.
  • ThunderBunkThunderBunk Shipmate
    The converse in the case of the Roman Catholic Church, for me at least, is the phrase "the Catholic faith". It makes me extremely angry to see that, because we are all Christians. All who "own the faith of Jesus" are Christians, and that is their faith. Without exception. Different kind of Christians, of course, but the idea that there is a distinct faith called Catholic seems to me to be a misunderstanding of history and a rather repugnant exceptionalism.
  • Jengie JonJengie Jon Shipmate
    Sorry, link in my last post should be https://www.jengiejon.info/?p=1102
  • Jengie Jon wrote: »
    I ranted about the lack of term that covers generically

    URC/Methodist/Baptist Ministers, Independent Church Pastors, Anglican Vicars and Roman Catholic Priests but did not also cover URC Elders. I cannot think of one without drawbacks due to different understandings . While I know there are differences our understanding of what role the person is playing I still see enough commonality to want a noun that covers the whole lot of them pretty well.

    In some cases the titles are a mark of denominational affiliation (eg URC). In others they are a mark of core beliefs (Pentecostal). Often they are both (Baptists may or may not be linked to a Baptist denomination but are baptistic in belief). However there are also the breadth and height of theological and liturgical positions (Evangelical, Ritualist) and of polity (Anglican). All these means we get a complex Venn diagram of terms.

    For instance I could describe myself as an ecumenically-minded, fairly liberal and "High Church" Baptist ... YMMV.
  • The converse in the case of the Roman Catholic Church, for me at least, is the phrase "the Catholic faith". It makes me extremely angry to see that, because we are all Christians. All who "own the faith of Jesus" are Christians, and that is their faith. Without exception. Different kind of Christians, of course, but the idea that there is a distinct faith called Catholic seems to me to be a misunderstanding of history and a rather repugnant exceptionalism.

    Along the same lines, I don't like hearing the Roman Catholic Church described as 'The Universal Church', or 'The Church Universal', etc.

    It ain't. There are Others™...

  • The converse in the case of the Roman Catholic Church, for me at least, is the phrase "the Catholic faith". It makes me extremely angry to see that, because we are all Christians. All who "own the faith of Jesus" are Christians, and that is their faith. Without exception. Different kind of Christians, of course, but the idea that there is a distinct faith called Catholic seems to me to be a misunderstanding of history and a rather repugnant exceptionalism.

    This seems like a misunderstanding to me. "The Catholic faith" to me refers to that which is common to all Christians, what others call "Mere Christianity". Now, certainly the RCC go a bit further than I would in defining what is essential, but I think the goal is the same. Catholic, after all, means something like "universal".
  • I think it's the use of capital letters that sets the alarm bells ringing!
    :wink:
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Forthview wrote: »
    My interest in this thread is not so much how one can deliberately or inadvertently insult another person by use of a certain term, but rather to see how some people may use a word which seems to have a certain meaning for them but may be understood in a different way by the person who hears it.

    We have seen how the following words can be understood differently by various people, so far : 'evangelical', ' congregation', 'worship', mission' 'Christian'.
    Are there any others ?
    There was the discussion a few weeks ago in another thread—I think it may have been a brief tangent in the “Oops—your Trump presidency” thread, in conversation about reaction to the St. John’s photo op—about “pastor.” That was perhaps as much a Pond difference as a denominational difference, as the posts noted that it’s a standard term among a variety of Protestants and among Catholics in the US, while perhaps being a much less mainstream term in the UK.

    There’s also “sanctuary,” which can mean either the space immediately around the altar or the entire building/worship space. I sometimes see this described as a Pond difference on the Ship, as in “sanctuary in the American sense.” But it’s really a denominational/tradition difference, as both senses are used in the US (and, I think, in the UK), breaking along church tradition lines.


    The converse in the case of the Roman Catholic Church, for me at least, is the phrase "the Catholic faith". It makes me extremely angry to see that, because we are all Christians. All who "own the faith of Jesus" are Christians, and that is their faith. Without exception. Different kind of Christians, of course, but the idea that there is a distinct faith called Catholic seems to me to be a misunderstanding of history and a rather repugnant exceptionalism.

    This seems like a misunderstanding to me. "The Catholic faith" to me refers to that which is common to all Christians, what others call "Mere Christianity"
    When I hear Catholics speak of “the Catholic Faith,” it inevitably is used to mean “the faith as held and taught by the Catholic Church,” not as “the Christian faith common to all.” YMMV.

  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    There is a problem, of course, in what is understood as 'the Christian faith common to all'
    Thunderbunk nicely defined it 'as all who own the faith of Jesus' but what again is the 'faith of Jesus' ?

    On this thread we can only say that the term 'Catholic' or indeed 'catholic' means, when heard ,different things to different people
  • ThunderBunkThunderBunk Shipmate
    Yes, this is true, and I should probably have said that it takes on a particular edge when adopted (and possibly misused) by some Anglo-Catholics.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth 8th Day Host, Mystery Worship Editor
    Alan29 wrote: »
    Wy wife and I, both RCs have been called non-Christians by members of other churches.
    When I told an acquaintance I'd be reading from the Bible at my brother's wedding, he asked where he was getting married. When I replied with the name of a local Catholic church, he retorted, "But they aren't Christian. Why are you reading from the Bible?"
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    As an RC I understand "The Catholic Faith" as referring to the teachings of my church. Its just a point of reference. I make no mental reference to other churches or their beliefs at all.
    Similarly I wouldn't get all defensive if a Baptist talked about their faith when it came to the teachings of their church, or a Methodist etc.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Alan29 wrote: »
    Wy wife and I, both RCs have been called non-Christians by members of other churches.
    When I told an acquaintance I'd be reading from the Bible at my brother's wedding, he asked where he was getting married. When I replied with the name of a local Catholic church, he retorted, "But they aren't Christian. Why are you reading from the Bible?"

    I suspect its more common than we would like to think.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Forthview wrote: »
    There is a problem, of course, in what is understood as 'the Christian faith common to all'
    Thunderbunk nicely defined it 'as all who own the faith of Jesus' but what again is the 'faith of Jesus' ?

    On this thread we can only say that the term 'Catholic' or indeed 'catholic' means, when heard ,different things to different people

    Just as "Evangelical" does.
    As someone who reads the bible and tries to live their life according to it I could (if I were feeling all defensive and prickly) take exception to others claiming the term "Evangelical" for themselves.
    But life's too short.
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    I like to think of myself also as 'evangelical' , but I accept that these names are used in certain ways by people and take on for most people a particular meaning.
    Two further words which intrigue me are
    1. sermon and homily
    Before Vatican 2 most Catholics would have talked about a sermon. Since then the word 'homily' has come into fashion. It is an old word in the English language. By the word I usually understand a talk given by a preacher explaining the Readings of the Day, in particular the Gospel. By a sermon I would understand a general talk on some point of
    religious doctrine. I think that most Catholics would generally use the word 'sermon' but do other Christians use the word 'homily' ?
    2. celebrant
    Catholics talk about the celebration of Mass and the priest is the celebrant
    Do other Christians use the word 'celebrant' in this way ?
    I think that Presbyterians use the expression 'celebration of the Lord's Supper but would they describe the presiding minister as the 'celebrant' ?
    At least here in Scotland the word 'celebrant' has fairly recently come into general use as the word for the person who conducts a non-religious wedding or funeral. I suspect that many people in the general population would not know the expression 'celebrant of the Mass.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    I have used "homily" for decades and associate "sermon" with non catholic churches. Yes to an unlocking of the radings of the day.
    Don't some Anglicans refer to "presiders" or "presidents?"
  • Another word for sermon used in some non Anglican settings is Address. It was the usual word in the Brethren where I grew up
  • Another word for sermon used in some non Anglican settings is Address. It was the usual word in the Brethren where I grew up

    Some Anglican settings too. I seem to recall it was the order of service for baptisms at the main service that named it thus when I was little.

    Homily I think of two things - a mini-sermon at a mid-week or evening communion service or the gargantuan treatises published for use in public worship after the English reformation to make up for perceived theological shortcomings among the clergy.
  • angloidangloid Shipmate
    Forthview wrote: »
    1. sermon and homily
    Before Vatican 2 most Catholics would have talked about a sermon. Since then the word 'homily' has come into fashion. It is an old word in the English language. By the word I usually understand a talk given by a preacher explaining the Readings of the Day, in particular the Gospel. By a sermon I would understand a general talk on some point of
    religious doctrine. I think that most Catholics would generally use the word 'sermon' but do other Christians use the word 'homily' ?
    Post-Vatican 2, as I understand, the Catholic Church re-emphasised the importance of scripture and hence the scripture-based homily as an integral part of the liturgy. I'm not sure why that word was chosen in place of 'sermon', unless to make the distinction that you mention between that and a general talk unrelated to the particular liturgical readings.

    I'm even less sure though why so many Anglicans seem to use the word 'homily' to refer to a mini-sermon, not necessarily related to the scriptures, at a midweek service or similar occasion. 'Sermon' is the term used by Common Worship and the implication is that this is the same thing that Catholics call a homily.

    Many less liturgically-inclined Anglicans (especially evangelicals) seem to prefer the word 'talk'. That seems (to me at least) to trivialise what is one of the key ways in which God speaks to us and we meet God.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    edited June 21
    angloid wrote: »
    Forthview wrote: »
    1. sermon and homily
    Before Vatican 2 most Catholics would have talked about a sermon. Since then the word 'homily' has come into fashion. It is an old word in the English language. By the word I usually understand a talk given by a preacher explaining the Readings of the Day, in particular the Gospel. By a sermon I would understand a general talk on some point of
    religious doctrine. I think that most Catholics would generally use the word 'sermon' but do other Christians use the word 'homily' ?
    Post-Vatican 2, as I understand, the Catholic Church re-emphasised the importance of scripture and hence the scripture-based homily as an integral part of the liturgy. I'm not sure why that word was chosen in place of 'sermon', unless to make the distinction that you mention between that and a general talk unrelated to the particular liturgical readings.

    I'm even less sure though why so many Anglicans seem to use the word 'homily' to refer to a mini-sermon, not necessarily related to the scriptures, at a midweek service or similar occasion. 'Sermon' is the term used by Common Worship and the implication is that this is the same thing that Catholics call a homily.

    Many less liturgically-inclined Anglicans (especially evangelicals) seem to prefer the word 'talk'. That seems (to me at least) to trivialise what is one of the key ways in which God speaks to us and we meet God.

    The word change to homily was a deliberate step to make the point that the preacher's job is to explain the readings, not to bang on about whatever is in his head, be it the state of the church roof, or the appaling state of things in general or devotion to Our Lady of the Fire Extinguisher. The homily is seen as an integral part of the Liturgy of the Word. At their ordinations the first duty mentioned each time they are listed is to preach the Word. The change to homily is significant.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited June 21
    Forthview wrote: »
    Two further words which intrigue me are
    1. sermon and homily
    Before Vatican 2 most Catholics would have talked about a sermon. Since then the word 'homily' has come into fashion. It is an old word in the English language. By the word I usually understand a talk given by a preacher explaining the Readings of the Day, in particular the Gospel. By a sermon I would understand a general talk on some point of
    religious doctrine. I think that most Catholics would generally use the word 'sermon' but do other Christians use the word 'homily' ?
    I seem to recall a conversation about this some years ago, and I remember being surprised that a sermon would be considered a general talk on a point of doctrine unrelated to the readings. My expectation of a sermon is that it is very much related to the readings, so it’s interesting to me that the connotation among Catholics is very different.

    As used among my people (American Presbyterians), a homily would generally be a short, less in-depth sermon—a meditation, “sermon-lite,” or “mini-sermon,” as @Arethosemyfeet describes it. To be honest, I think many of us have lower expectations for homilies than for sermons.

    That said, I know a few Presby ministers who favor the term “homily” over “sermon,” though I’m not sure why. And all of our seminarians study homiletics in seminary.

    2. celebrant
    Catholics talk about the celebration of Mass and the priest is the celebrant
    Do other Christians use the word 'celebrant' in this way ?
    I think that Presbyterians use the expression 'celebration of the Lord's Supper but would they describe the presiding minister as the 'celebrant' ?
    At least here in Scotland the word 'celebrant' has fairly recently come into general use as the word for the person who conducts a non-religious wedding or funeral. I suspect that many people in the general population would not know the expression 'celebrant of the Mass.
    We would indeed speak of “celebration” of the Lord’s Supper (or Communion or the Eucharist), but the presiding minister would be called just that, not the celebrant. Or, she might be said to “lead” Communion. Our ecclesiology is that the congregation celebrates, with the minister presiding (or leading) on its behalf.

    I do hear “officiant” or “officiate” from time to time, but mainly with regard to weddings and, maybe, funerals.

  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Forthview wrote: »
    Two further words which intrigue me are
    1. sermon and homily
    Before Vatican 2 most Catholics would have talked about a sermon. Since then the word 'homily' has come into fashion. It is an old word in the English language. By the word I usually understand a talk given by a preacher explaining the Readings of the Day, in particular the Gospel. By a sermon I would understand a general talk on some point of
    religious doctrine. I think that most Catholics would generally use the word 'sermon' but do other Christians use the word 'homily' ?
    I seem to recall a conversation about this some years ago, and I remember being surprised that a sermon would be considered a general talk on a point of doctrine unrelated to the readings. My expectation of a sermon is that it is very much related to the readings, so it’s interesting to me that the connotation among Catholics is very different.

    As used among my people (American Presbyterians), a homily would generally be a short, less in-depth sermon—a meditation, “sermon-lite,” or “mini-sermon,” as @Arethosemyfeet describes it. To be honest, I think many of us have lower expectations for homilies than for sermons.

    That said, I know a few Presby ministers who favor the term “homily” over “sermon,” though I’m not sure why. And all of our seminarians study homiletics in seminary.

    2. celebrant
    Catholics talk about the celebration of Mass and the priest is the celebrant
    Do other Christians use the word 'celebrant' in this way ?
    I think that Presbyterians use the expression 'celebration of the Lord's Supper but would they describe the presiding minister as the 'celebrant' ?
    At least here in Scotland the word 'celebrant' has fairly recently come into general use as the word for the person who conducts a non-religious wedding or funeral. I suspect that many people in the general population would not know the expression 'celebrant of the Mass.
    We would indeed speak of “celebration” of the Lord’s Supper (or Communion or the Eucharist), but the presiding minister would be called just that, not the celebrant. Or, she might be said to “lead” Communion. Our ecclesiology is that the congregation celebrates, with the minister presiding (or leading) on its behalf.

    I do hear “officiant” or “officiate” from time to time, but mainly with regard to weddings and, maybe, funerals.

    Our ecclesiology is the same. The whole assembly representing the Body of Christ celebrates the Eucharist, the priest leads and consecrates. That is his particular role in the celebration, I as a musician also have a role, so do the readers and servers and assistants at communion - many parts, one body.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Alan29 wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Forthview wrote: »
    Two further words which intrigue me are
    1. sermon and homily
    Before Vatican 2 most Catholics would have talked about a sermon. Since then the word 'homily' has come into fashion. It is an old word in the English language. By the word I usually understand a talk given by a preacher explaining the Readings of the Day, in particular the Gospel. By a sermon I would understand a general talk on some point of
    religious doctrine. I think that most Catholics would generally use the word 'sermon' but do other Christians use the word 'homily' ?
    I seem to recall a conversation about this some years ago, and I remember being surprised that a sermon would be considered a general talk on a point of doctrine unrelated to the readings. My expectation of a sermon is that it is very much related to the readings, so it’s interesting to me that the connotation among Catholics is very different.

    As used among my people (American Presbyterians), a homily would generally be a short, less in-depth sermon—a meditation, “sermon-lite,” or “mini-sermon,” as @Arethosemyfeet describes it. To be honest, I think many of us have lower expectations for homilies than for sermons.

    That said, I know a few Presby ministers who favor the term “homily” over “sermon,” though I’m not sure why. And all of our seminarians study homiletics in seminary.

    2. celebrant
    Catholics talk about the celebration of Mass and the priest is the celebrant
    Do other Christians use the word 'celebrant' in this way ?
    I think that Presbyterians use the expression 'celebration of the Lord's Supper but would they describe the presiding minister as the 'celebrant' ?
    At least here in Scotland the word 'celebrant' has fairly recently come into general use as the word for the person who conducts a non-religious wedding or funeral. I suspect that many people in the general population would not know the expression 'celebrant of the Mass.
    We would indeed speak of “celebration” of the Lord’s Supper (or Communion or the Eucharist), but the presiding minister would be called just that, not the celebrant. Or, she might be said to “lead” Communion. Our ecclesiology is that the congregation celebrates, with the minister presiding (or leading) on its behalf.

    I do hear “officiant” or “officiate” from time to time, but mainly with regard to weddings and, maybe, funerals.

    Our ecclesiology is the same. The whole assembly representing the Body of Christ celebrates the Eucharist, the priest leads and consecrates. That is his particular role in the celebration, I as a musician also have a role, so do the readers and servers and assistants at communion - many parts, one body.
    Yes, the assembly/congregation “representing the Body of Christ” is a better, more complete way of putting it than what I said. And agreed as to the roles of others in the assembly.

    Where our ecclesiology is different is that we wouldn’t speak of the minister as being the one who consecrates, which may be what I was getting at by noting we wouldn’t refer to the minister as the celebrant.

  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Despite The Book of Homilies in modern usage I'd regard 'homily' as sufficiently an RC marker that if a non-RC used it, I'd feel they were trying to badge themselves as 'more Catholic than the Pope'.

    A talk that is shorter than how long the congregation in question expects a sermon to be is sometimes called a reflection.

    'President' is normal current CofE usage for the person who actually presides at the eucharist. That's because it's the phrase used in Common Worship. 'Celebrant' is quite a widespread alternative, and I wouldn't regard it as any sort of marker.

  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    IM(CofE)E ‘homily’ is frequently used for a ‘sermon-lite’.

    When I use ‘address’ (usually weddings and funerals) it is because I hope it gives the uninitiated a better idea of what to expect than either ‘sermon’ or ‘homily’ does.
  • ZappaZappa Ecclesiantics Host
    Another word for sermon used in some non Anglican settings is Address. It was the usual word in the Brethren where I grew up

    I always find a dead giveaway (reference to the Vicar of Dibley purely coincidental) is "message." If, when I used to do greet at the door week by week, an enthusiastic stranger pumped my hand in a testosterony way and quoth "nice message, pastor" I was sure I wouldn't see them (despite the testosterone that was slightly gender non-specific) again.
  • ZappaZappa Ecclesiantics Host
    Enoch wrote: »
    'President' is normal current CofE usage for the person who actually presides at the eucharist. That's because it's the phrase used in Common Worship. 'Celebrant' is quite a widespread alternative, and I wouldn't regard it as any sort of marker.

    That was possibly an era of training thing ... I did my theological training in the mid-80s and the backlash against "celebrant" ("we are all ...") was in full swing. "President" however was tainted by memories, even in OZ, of the presidency of Ronald Reagan, and the neologism "presider/presidor" soon grew popular in its place.

  • ZappaZappa Ecclesiantics Host
    (triple post ... :grimace: ) ... oh ... and in those circles "officiant" tended to be used for the liturgical, er, officiant, who was not presiding ... i.e. the presenter of the non- priestly/presbuteral set liturgical bits ...
  • Jengie JonJengie Jon Shipmate
    Sermon-lite needs some explaining because I think that there is a significantly different understanding of what the 'sermon' is. The Separatist term for what is now the sermon was prophecy and though nobody would use that term now there is still a very clear understanding of the sermons as being 'God Breathed'. That is if the preacher's words and the congregation's thoughts on hearing are the different colours of weft that make up the pattern then the warp of the cloth of the sermon is from God. The congregation and preacher are therefore in a state of listening which calls for both meditation and discernment. To use the terminology of T.F Torrance the sermon is Supra-sacramental, over above the sacraments. It is in the tradition the sermon that gives validity to the sacraments, not the sacraments that give validity to the sermon. There is thought to be a real and powerful encounter with God through the sermon.

    If many more sacramentally focused traditions feel English Nonconformity, and similar traditions have a weak understanding of the efficacious nature of the sacraments then please also understand that when they look at you often feel you have a weak understanding of the efficacious nature of the sermon.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Yes. I’m not a fan of either the term or the practice. I merely note the usage.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    'President' is normal current CofE usage for the person who actually presides at the eucharist. That's because it's the phrase used in Common Worship. 'Celebrant' is quite a widespread alternative, and I wouldn't regard it as any sort of marker.
    This got me curious, so I checked. The 1979 American BCP uses “the Celebrant,” while the 1928 American BCP used “the Priest.”

    Which sent me looking at my tribe’s liturgies. All that I looked at up through the liturgies in the 2013 hymnal use “the minister.” But in the 2018 Book of Common Wordhip, it becomes “the presider.”

  • Zappa wrote: »
    (triple post ... :grimace: ) ... oh ... and in those circles "officiant" tended to be used for the liturgical, er, officiant, who was not presiding ... i.e. the presenter of the non- priestly/presbuteral set liturgical bits ...

    I propose "ceremaniac" as a suitable term.
  • I believe there was once an official - to be found at the spikiest of High Masses - known as the 'Ceremonarius'.

    Said official was really a sort of Master of Ceremonies, and usually (but not necessarily) a lay person, AIUI.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    Zappa wrote: »
    (triple post ... :grimace: ) ... oh ... and in those circles "officiant" tended to be used for the liturgical, er, officiant, who was not presiding ... i.e. the presenter of the non- priestly/presbuteral set liturgical bits ...

    I propose "ceremaniac" as a suitable term.

    I thought those were neurotic potters.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Zappa wrote: »
    (triple post ... :grimace: ) ... oh ... and in those circles "officiant" tended to be used for the liturgical, er, officiant, who was not presiding ... i.e. the presenter of the non- priestly/presbuteral set liturgical bits ...

    I propose "ceremaniac" as a suitable term.

    I thought those were neurotic potters.

    That would be a ceramaniac.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    Zappa wrote: »
    (triple post ... :grimace: ) ... oh ... and in those circles "officiant" tended to be used for the liturgical, er, officiant, who was not presiding ... i.e. the presenter of the non- priestly/presbuteral set liturgical bits ...

    I propose "ceremaniac" as a suitable term.

    I thought those were neurotic potters.

    That would be a ceramaniac.

    Ah yes.
  • OblatusOblatus Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    'President' is normal current CofE usage for the person who actually presides at the eucharist. That's because it's the phrase used in Common Worship. 'Celebrant' is quite a widespread alternative, and I wouldn't regard it as any sort of marker.

    'President' makes sense to me: one who presides. I also like the well-established 'Celebrant.'

    But here in the USA, a word can't mean two things, so 'President' sounds too political, and 'Celebrant' is out of favor because aren't we all celebrating?

    So we have to employ the back-formation 'Presider' even though 'President' has always been a perfectly logical word for that.

    I'll not get into what I think about another back-formation, 'proCESS' as the verb form of 'procession', when the existing 'proceed' should work just fine.

  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    @Oblatus i don't agree with you on process. In BrEnglish 'process' as an intransitive verb with the stress on the second syllable doesn't have the same meaning as 'proceed'. I also don't think it's that recent a development.
    viz
    proceed (vb intrans) = go forwards.
    'process (vb trans) (stress on first syllable) = carry out a process on, e.g. food, a person's job application etc.
    pro'cess (vb intrans) (stress on second syllable) = go in a stately manner as in a procession.

    It's the middle of those that's slightly irregular. Where a noun and a verb are otherwise pronounced the same, the more regular pattern is for the stress to shift down the word for the verb, e.g. perfect, project, annex, etc. The same phenomenon produces the difference between calf and calve.

  • OblatusOblatus Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    @Oblatus i don't agree with you on process. In BrEnglish 'process' as an intransitive verb with the stress on the second syllable doesn't have the same meaning as 'proceed'. I also don't think it's that recent a development.

    Reasonable and well argued! Thanks for that.
  • Jengie Jon wrote: »
    Sermon-lite needs some explaining because I think that there is a significantly different understanding of what the 'sermon' is. The Separatist term for what is now the sermon was prophecy and though nobody would use that term now there is still a very clear understanding of the sermons as being 'God Breathed'. That is if the preacher's words and the congregation's thoughts on hearing are the different colours of weft that make up the pattern then the warp of the cloth of the sermon is from God. The congregation and preacher are therefore in a state of listening which calls for both meditation and discernment. To use the terminology of T.F Torrance the sermon is Supra-sacramental, over above the sacraments. It is in the tradition the sermon that gives validity to the sacraments, not the sacraments that give validity to the sermon. There is thought to be a real and powerful encounter with God through the sermon.

    If many more sacramentally focused traditions feel English Nonconformity, and similar traditions have a weak understanding of the efficacious nature of the sacraments then please also understand that when they look at you often feel you have a weak understanding of the efficacious nature of the sermon.

    Well, yes. If there ever an 'ideal' church - and such a thing does not exist - I'd suggest it should combine non-conformist style sermons with some sacramentalist ceremonial.

    Getting the balance right would be the tricky part.
Sign In or Register to comment.