Talk:Gregory Dix
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group. | ||
 |
Gregory Dix is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
WikiProject Anglicanism To-do:
|
|||
[edit] Removed
This part was removed from the main body of the article, since it needs expansion and recasting in encyclopedic and NPOV language: Theologically, he was criticised for the suggestion that one could give God anything. (This is a terrible misrepresentation of Dix, at least from what I've read in The Shape, which shows concern to establish the totality of the liturgical action as anamnesis, as was the case historically, in his view.) Liturgically, the Offertory seemed to some to pre-empt the words of the Eucharistic prayer where, in the Roman rite an intention to 'offer' is found (as also in the English Methodist rite). (This thought is garbled how does it follow from what precedes? There's at least two things being said here?) His thinking, which was supported by the Parish Communion movement, was also criticised as representing a rather woolly social gospel. (Clarify (or wikilink) who this movement was; eliminate rather woolly unless that's an exact quote attributable to someone at the time. Explain how his thinking - remembering that his focus was on liturgy and the history of liturgy - could be associated with the social gospel.)
- I think Edonovan has has read too much into the article he has cut. Dix was certainly criticised by Colin Buchanon as above, misrepresentation or not. Mascall's liturgical criticisms of the Offertory can be found in his book Corpus Christi. Thirdly, Buchanon has criticised Gray on the social gospel aspect of the Offertory. Far from exercising bias, as Edonovan alleges, I have tried to represent Buchanon with whom I disagree. The movement can be identified in the footnote ref. to Gray and Hebert. I am surprised that Edonovan, who is very confident, does not know of the Parish Communion movement. Maybe it is not known in Lancaster county but it and its influence are wellknown in the UK. I may attempt a piece on it. My brief remarks could have been more felicitously worded but they did not warrant a machete. RA
