PipeChat Digest #4629 - Sunday, July 18, 2004
RE: Smells n Bells - was "lights, cameras, action..."
  by "Andrew Mead" <mead@eagle.ca>
Re: "Electric action" for warmer sounds?
  by "Andy Lawrence" <andy@ablorgans.com>
Communion anyone?
  by "Jeremy Wance" <jwance@cox.net>
Communion Packets
  by "Rob M" <e1afoxtrot@hotmail.com>
Re: some REAL evangelical service-playing
  by "Harry Grove" <musicman@cottagemusic.co.uk>

(back) Subject: RE: Smells n Bells - was "lights, cameras, action..." From: "Andrew Mead" <mead@eagle.ca> Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 01:30:53 -0400       -----Original Message----- From: pipechat@pipechat.org [mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org]On Behalf Of Charlie Lester Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 10:18 PM To: PipeChat Subject: Smells n Bells - was "lights, cameras, action..."     excerpts, with commentary, from "Andrew Mead"<mead@eagle.ca>'s posting of Sat, 17 Jul 2004 13:35:26 -0400       =3D-> Jesus Christ was a practicing Jew and no one in history has practiced Judaism better than Christ. When he was alive there were no churches in his native land. Just synagogues and one Temple. The church was "born" in the morning hours of the day of Pentecost. Christ ascended earlier than that. How could he have possibly "Had Church"? His standing in boat or sitting under a tree are part of what's been recorded of his life.     Um....... Don't take my point quite so literally. I was making a perhaps offhanded comparison of Jesus teaching (and feeding!) the multitudes as he spoke to them outside, to contemporary liturgical "depictions" of his acts.   The purpose for the perhaps flawed comparison was to bring out the fact that neither "High Church Smells N Bells" nor "High Hollerin N Shoutin' at the Christ-Annointed New Revelation Church of God In Christ are "historically informed" in terms of form and structure, vis a vis the actual teachings of Jesus from which both groups, in general, derive their content.   Perhaps the comparison didn't make any sense, so just forget it I guess if it didn't.   < Charlie, I didn't realize it was you who wrote the two snipped = paragraphs. I have no need to remind or inform you of history. Sorry!> (sincerely)     =3D-> I think you're being presumptuous with some of your statements. <-=3D     Not a-tall. I think you're being presumptuous for presuming that I am being presumptuous.     <I think you're correct, if only I hadn't included the "I think" escape clause.>     =3D-> The smells and bells are not necessary for Christian worship but evidently, for some, they are necessary. Please don't dismiss it as a bunch of superstitious "hocus pocus" as I think you're implying (the terms been used for centuries to describe magic tricks. "hocus pocus" was an easily regurgitated phrase people heard when mass was said in Latin.. just a bit of history). <-=3D     Now, you're really being presumptuous. I neither said, implied nor suggested that there is no validity in high liturgy. I did not even once use the term "Hocus Pocus" --- the term I -did- use, "Smells N Bells," I have heard every practitioner of High Liturgy whom I know use this - as a term of endearment.   <I never claimed you wrote "hocus pocus" and I certainly didn't state that you claimed high liturgy lacked validity. I wrote that I thought you're = were implying it wasn't. I was giving myself room to be corrected as your position (to be fair) wasn't entirely clear. It is now. I think.>     =3D-> Of all religions Christianity demands the most belief in the supernatural. <-=3D   Now, that's a REEEEEEALLY presumptuous statement, and so astonishingly and preposterously flawed that it boggles the mind that anyone would actually utter it!   <Would you be surprised to know that C.S. Lewis uttered and apparently believed it enough to write it down and have it published? I think you'll agree he was no fool but I suppose it's entirely possible his thinking in this area may have been preposterously flawed. He wasn't a theologian = after all, just a well read Christian apologist(among other things)with a remarkable understanding of other religions. I don't think he would have written anything like that to make Christianity more popular or palatable. He was primarily concerned with writing about the truth.>   Never read the writings of, say, L. Ron Hubbard have you? <No> How about Mary Baker Eddy?<Yes> Joseph Smith?<Yes> How about Claude Vorilhon?<No> Shoko Asahara??<No> Sun Myung Moon???<very little, let's say "no">   To say nothing of the ancient mystery religions [Egypt, Sumeria, Atlantis...] --- from which much Christian 'content' may have been appropriated, but other than on a very superficial level have absolutely nothing in common with Christianity PER SE.   < My position here remains unchanged. Most of the religions you referred = to are synthetic religions. Remember, I was referring to the supernatural, = not to superstition. And I'm not implying you didn't know this when you wrote your list of religions and synthetic religions.>     And with that, we probably could not have strayed further from the stated topic of this list.......!   <Agreed. I saw the snippet and couldn't help but comment. I realized later this was pipechat. I thought I was on a different channel. Sorry!" A. Mead>            
(back) Subject: Re: "Electric action" for warmer sounds? From: "Andy Lawrence" <andy@ablorgans.com> Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 00:37:13 -0500   On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 14:08:43 -0700, terry hicks wrote > Andy...you need to get around more :) > It's a silly hypothesis.   I hope you're right. Tell me where the modern, warm-sounding tracker = organs are, and I'll go listen to them!   Sure, I've heard plenty of warm _old_ trackers.   Andy     A.B.Lawrence Pipe Organ Service PO Box 111 Burlington, VT 05402 (802)578-3936 Visit our website at www.ablorgans.com  
(back) Subject: Communion anyone? From: "Jeremy Wance" <jwance@cox.net> Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 23:32:08 -0500   At my church (Episcopal), we have two members who let it be known that = they are in AA and do not receive the cup. Instead, they kiss the = chalice.   I do know of a Roman parish in which the priest is in AA and therefore = only grape juice is used. Also humorous is his dash to get out of the = "glad rags" and out the door for a cigarette. Very peculiar.   Bottoms up! Jeremy jwance@cox.net AIM Screen-name: jeremywance "Bring me my Bow of burning gold:/ Bring me my Arrows of desire:/ Bring = me my Spear: O clouds unfold!/ Bring me my Chariot of fire!" -- Wm. = Blake
(back) Subject: Communion Packets From: "Rob M" <e1afoxtrot@hotmail.com> Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 01:00:29 -0500   While I think the idea of "Christ To-GO" boxes are apalling it IS true = that there are valid health arguments. I'm not concerned with recieving the = host as much as drinking from a communal cup that at my church as many as 500 people may have partaken of in one service alone. For instance there are diseases that are passed through saliva. Herpes Simplex virus happens to = be one of them. IF someone with an active outbreak sometimes unbeknownst to them, goes and drinks out of the cup, each following person that partakes = of the cup has the potential...a good potential of contracting herpes from that. Which is one reason i will not drink the wine if it is distributed = in that fashion. Here again the risk is small...but the fact is, there is a risk.   "Nor is the consecrated Sacrament to rest on or in ANYTHING but silver, gold, or pure linen (in the case of the Host) ... not pottery, not glass, and certainly not in plastic shot-glasses."   I think is absurd and I question the validity of that statement. At one of =   the Catholic churches I was working for the priest had a wooden chalice = that he used, and in several Catholic churches I've seen the wine in chalices = of glass. Truth be known, I honestly think God could care less. Did he give = us these specific instructions...or is this something we've instituted ourselves along the way. MY guess is the latter of those two options is true. Furthermore I think we've gotten way to wrapped up into having the "biggest" cathedrals/churches the "biggest" organs... the biggest = this...and that etc. Did Jesus construct a huge multimillion dollar church for the = last supper? Did he have a gold or silver chalice, and pure linen for the host? =   Do you think it mattered to him at the time? While all of the = aforementioned are nice to have they are NOT required. I think sometimes we get to caught =   up with such things and lose sight of what really matters, our = Christianity, and Jesus Christ.   In closing, while I personally would not opt for the "Christ to-go box" If =   its the same host and wine that are used in the service, and is still consecrated whats the difference? NOTHING it just has a neat little = package. Guess what folks the hosts and wine that are normally used in the service were in packages at some point. This reminds me of those pictures they = use for children, where they have 2 pictures, sometimes of the same thing but portrayed differently ... Picture an illustration of a host and wine, then =   another picture right along side it of a picture of a host and wine except =   its in a neat little package...no difference--same wine---same host.   Lets get off our high horses shall we?   Rob McGregor      
(back) Subject: communion packets From: "Raymond H. Clark, Quilisma Publications" <quilisma@cox.net> Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 16:21:57 -0700   There's no excuse whatsoever for this under any circumstance. It cheapens the Sacrament of our salvation beyond measure.   The abandonment of the common cup likewise destroys an ancient and hallowed symbol of the ONE Mystical Body partaking of the ONE Mystic Food and Drink. "This blest Sacrament of UNITY" becomes that typically American "this blest (?) Sacrament of everybody doing his/her own thing."   Communion is not TAKEN; it is GIVEN, at the hands of the priest, who stands in Christ's stead at the Table.   Jesus took REAL bread (unleavened, in the Western tradition) blessed it, BROKE it, and gave it to them, saying "THIS is my Body." He took a SINGLE cup of REAL wine made from grapes, blessed it, and gave it to them, saying, "THIS is my Blood."   Non-alcoholic "wine" may be used for alcoholic priests or communicants; bread other than wheat bread, or wine other than grape wine, may be used in cultures where wheat bread and grape wine are not the cultural norm (rice wine and rice bread may legitimately be used in Oriental cultures), but the Elements must both RESEMBLE and BE real FOOD.   The VALIDITY of the Sacrament rests on form ("The Tradition", which I spoke about in a previous post), matter (the bread and wine, and a validly-ordained priest to consecrate it according to the rites of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church) and intention (intending to do what Jesus did at the Last Supper in communion with the entire One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church throughout the ages).   Nor is the consecrated Sacrament to rest on or in ANYTHING but silver, gold, or pure linen (in the case of the Host) ... not pottery, not glass, and certainly not in plastic shot-glasses.   Anglican sick-call kits (at least) have adequate and safe provisions for carrying the Precious Blood to the sick. It's not customary to reserve in both Kinds for extended periods (other than in some places where the Precious Blood is reserved after the Coena Mass on Maundy Thursday night so that communion can be given in both Kinds on Good Friday in the Mass of the Pre-Sanctified), but it's not unusual in the Anglican Church for the deacons to carry both Kinds to the sick when sick communions are done immediately after the Sunday Mass(es).   Catholic doctrine states that the fullness of Christ's Body and Blood is contained in either Species; those who are ill can and should receive the Host ONLY. I had occasion when I was still in the active ministry to give the Precious Blood to bedridden patients by means of an eye-dropper if they couldn't swallow the Host.   "Christ is whole to all that taste" (St. Thomas Aquinas).   Yes, of COURSE, just about ANYTHING can be substituted in a REAL emergency, including pita bread and grape juice, a paper cup and a paper plate for the chalice and paten, paper napkins for the purificator and corporal, and a kerosene lantern for candles ... I have celebrated Mass on the hood of a Jeep with exactly those items, plus a Bible, from which I recited "The Tradition" from First Corinthians and improvised the rest or said it from memory.   Kneeling for communion is much-despised these days ... I think when I meet my God on the Day of Judgment I will find myself on my knees ... is anything LESS appropriate when I meet Him to RECEIVE Him in the Sacrament of the Altar?   Cheers,   Bud      
(back) Subject: Re: some REAL evangelical service-playing From: "Harry Grove" <musicman@cottagemusic.co.uk> Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 07:47:33 +0100   Thanks, Monty.   I always switch the blowers off during the Rector's walk to the pulpit and leave the organ-bench to sit in one of the new (upholstered) chairs set nearby (under a rather good display of pipes) so that I can give the = sermon my full concentration (and also avoid 'messing-around' silently rehearsing the concluding voluntary - and invariably making some extraneous noises which might annoy the congregation).   Given both the above circumstances, 'punching'-in the odd Tabasco-laden piece of improvised underlining is tantamount to impossible (should the sermon include something with which I agree .... but for heaven's sake, = keep that as our little secret from the Rector).   Harry Grove [a.k.a. a slightly more illuminated musicman]   ________________________________________________________   ----- Original Message ----- From: <RMB10@aol.com> To: <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 1:01 PM Subject: Re: some REAL evangelical service-playing   (Snipped)   Harry asked a legitimate question, not knowing about our B3 stylings = during sermons over here in the States, but Roger missed the point completely.   The music doesn't continue endlessly while the minister talks, it's just = an occasional punch here an there to add some spice--think of it as some Tabasco sauce for a sermon.