普世共识 "的裂痕或礼仪革新的新阶段:个案研究

Q3 Arts and Humanities
Bryan Cones
{"title":"普世共识 \"的裂痕或礼仪革新的新阶段:个案研究","authors":"Bryan Cones","doi":"10.1177/00393207231226167","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Feminist, LGBTQIA+, and postcolonial critiques over the past decades have questioned the so-called “ecumenical consensus” in liturgical matters ranging from language about God to lectionaries to liturgical time. These developments have affected liturgical development across churches, with some (most recently, the Presbyterian Church, USA) revising their resources to address these critiques. Others are pursuing a different approach: This article will provide a case study of ongoing liturgical development in The Episcopal Church, which has chosen not to redraft its 1979 Book of Common Prayer but, instead, encourage the development of supplemental resources housed at an official church website governed by its triennial General Convention and church law. The use of such resources will be regulated primarily by local bishops and pastors; already some bishops have authorized the use of different lectionary patterns and, anecdotally, variances in the baptismal formula. This article seeks to uncover the opportunities and the risks of such an approach to liturgical reform in one church, with a view to the effect it may have on that treasured “ecumenical consensus” among the churches.","PeriodicalId":39597,"journal":{"name":"Studia Liturgica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Fraying of the “Ecumenical Consensus” or a New Stage of Liturgical Renewal: A Case Study\",\"authors\":\"Bryan Cones\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00393207231226167\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Feminist, LGBTQIA+, and postcolonial critiques over the past decades have questioned the so-called “ecumenical consensus” in liturgical matters ranging from language about God to lectionaries to liturgical time. These developments have affected liturgical development across churches, with some (most recently, the Presbyterian Church, USA) revising their resources to address these critiques. Others are pursuing a different approach: This article will provide a case study of ongoing liturgical development in The Episcopal Church, which has chosen not to redraft its 1979 Book of Common Prayer but, instead, encourage the development of supplemental resources housed at an official church website governed by its triennial General Convention and church law. The use of such resources will be regulated primarily by local bishops and pastors; already some bishops have authorized the use of different lectionary patterns and, anecdotally, variances in the baptismal formula. This article seeks to uncover the opportunities and the risks of such an approach to liturgical reform in one church, with a view to the effect it may have on that treasured “ecumenical consensus” among the churches.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39597,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studia Liturgica\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studia Liturgica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00393207231226167\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studia Liturgica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00393207231226167","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

过去几十年来,女性主义、男女同性恋、双性恋、变性者和跨性别者以及后殖民主义的批评对所谓的 "普世共识 "提出了质疑,这些批评涉及从关于上帝的语言、教义书到礼仪时间等礼仪问题。这些发展影响了各教会的礼仪发展,一些教会(最近的是美国长老会)修订了他们的资源以应对这些批评。另一些教会则采取了不同的方法:本文将对圣公会正在进行的礼仪发展进行案例研究,圣公会选择不重新起草其 1979 年的《公祷书》,而是鼓励开发补充资源,并将其存放在受三年一次的教会大会和教会法律管辖的教会官方网站上。这些资源的使用将主要由当地的主教和牧师管理;一些主教已经授权使用不同的教律模式,据说还授权使用不同的洗礼公式。本文试图揭示一个教会采用这种方式进行礼仪改革的机遇和风险,以期对教会间珍贵的 "大公共识 "产生影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Fraying of the “Ecumenical Consensus” or a New Stage of Liturgical Renewal: A Case Study
Feminist, LGBTQIA+, and postcolonial critiques over the past decades have questioned the so-called “ecumenical consensus” in liturgical matters ranging from language about God to lectionaries to liturgical time. These developments have affected liturgical development across churches, with some (most recently, the Presbyterian Church, USA) revising their resources to address these critiques. Others are pursuing a different approach: This article will provide a case study of ongoing liturgical development in The Episcopal Church, which has chosen not to redraft its 1979 Book of Common Prayer but, instead, encourage the development of supplemental resources housed at an official church website governed by its triennial General Convention and church law. The use of such resources will be regulated primarily by local bishops and pastors; already some bishops have authorized the use of different lectionary patterns and, anecdotally, variances in the baptismal formula. This article seeks to uncover the opportunities and the risks of such an approach to liturgical reform in one church, with a view to the effect it may have on that treasured “ecumenical consensus” among the churches.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Studia Liturgica
Studia Liturgica Arts and Humanities-Religious Studies
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信